토마스 아퀴나스,OP(/əˈkwaɪnəs/;이탈리아어: 토마소 다키노,직역하면'아키노의 토마스'; 1225년 – 1274년 3월 7일)은 이탈리아인[9][10]도미니카회수사이자사제였으며,스콜라전통에서 대단히 영향력 있는철학자,신학자및법학자였습니다. 그는 학문적 전통에서안젤리쿠스박사,코뮤니스 박사,유니버셜리스 박사로 알려져 있습니다.[ᅡ]Aquinas라는 이름은 현재 이탈리아라치오의Aquino카운티에서 그의 조상 기원을 식별합니다. 무엇보다도 그는 자연 신학의 저명한 지지자이자토미즘으로 알려진 사상 학파(신학과 철학을 모두 포함)의 아버지였습니다. 그는 하나님이 자연 이성의 빛과 믿음의 빛의 근원이라고 주장했다.[11]그는 "중세시대의가장 영향력 있는 사상가"[12]와 "중세 철학자-신학자 중 가장 위대한 사람"으로 묘사되었습니다.[13]서양 사상에 대한 그의 영향은 상당하며현대 철학의 대부분은 특히 윤리,자연법,형이상학및 정치 이론 분야에서 그의 아이디어에서 파생됩니다.
당시가톨릭 교회의많은 흐름과 달리,[14]토마스는 아리스토텔레스가 제시한 몇 가지 사상(그가 "철학자"라고 불렀음)을 수용하고아리스토텔레스 철학을 기독교의 원칙과 종합하려고 시도했습니다.[15]
그의 가장 잘 알려진 작품은진리에 대한 논쟁의 여지가 있는 질문(1256-1259),이방인(1259-1265), 미완성이지만 엄청나게 영향력 있는 숨마 신학 또는숨마신학(1265-1274)입니다.성경과 아리스토텔레스에 대한 그의 주석은 또한 그의 작품에서 중요한 부분을 형성합니다. 또한 토마스는 교회 전례의 일부를 구성하는성찬찬송으로 유명합니다.[16]가톨릭 교회는 토마스 아퀴나스를성인으로 존경하고 그를 사제직을 위해 공부하는 사람들의 모범적인 교사이자 실제로 자연 이성과사변적신학의 가장 높은 표현으로 간주합니다. 현대에는 교황의 지시에 따라 그의 작품에 대한 연구가 사제나 부제로 서품을 받고자 하는 사람들뿐만 아니라 종교 양성에 있는 사람들과 신성한 학문(철학, 가톨릭 신학, 교회사, 전례,교회법)의 다른 학생들을 위한 필수 학습 프로그램의 핵심으로 오랫동안 사용되었습니다.[17]
교회 박사로서 토마스 아퀴나스는 가톨릭 교회의 가장 위대한 신학자이자 철학자 중 한 명으로 간주됩니다.교황 베네딕토 XV는 선언했다 : "이 (도미니카) 명령은... 교회가 토마스의 가르침을 자신의 것으로 선언하고 가톨릭 학교의 주인이자 후원자인 교황의 특별한 칭찬을 받은 그 박사를 선언했을 때 새로운 빛을 얻었습니다." [18][19]
토마스 아퀴나스는 당시시칠리아 왕국(현재의 이탈리아라치오)이 지배했던아키노근처의로카세카성에서 태어났을 가능성이 가장 큽니다.1225,[20]일부 저자에 따르면,[누가?]그는 아버지 인 아 키노의 란둘프의성에서 태어났습니다. 그는 가족의 가장 강력한 지점에서 태어 났으며 아 키노의 란둘프는 수단의 사람이었습니다.황제 프리드리히 2 세를 섬기는 기사로서 아 키노의 란둘프는타이틀 마일을 보유했습니다.[21]토마스의 어머니 테오도라는나폴리카라치올로 가문의 로시 지부에 속해 있었습니다.[22]란둘프의 동생 시니발드는가장 오래된 베네딕토회수도원인몬테 카시노의수도원장이었습니다.나머지 가족의 아들들이 군 경력을 쌓는 동안,[23]가족은 토마스가 삼촌을 따라 수도원에 들어가도록 의도했습니다.[24]이것은 남부 이탈리아 귀족의 어린 아들에게는 정상적인 경력 경로였을 것입니다.[25]
토마스는 다섯 살 때 몬테 카시노에서 조기 교육을 시작했지만 1239년 초 황제 프리드리히 2세와교황 그레고리우스 9세사이의 군사적 충돌이 수도원으로 번진 후 란둘프와 테오도라는 토마스를 프레드릭이나폴리에 설립한최근대학에 등록시켰습니다.[26]그곳에서 산술, 기하학, 천문학 및 음악에 대한 그의 교사는Petrus de Ibernia였습니다.[27]토마스가 아리스토텔레스,아베로에스,마이모니데스를 소개받은 곳이 바로 이곳이었고, 이들 모두는 그의 신학 철학에 영향을 미쳤을 것입니다.[28]또한 나폴리에서 공부하는 동안 토마스는 나폴리의 도미니카 설교자인 성 줄리안의 요한의 영향을 받았는데, 그는 독실한 추종자를 모집하려는도미니카 수도회의적극적인 노력의 일부였습니다.[29]
19세에 토마스는 약 30년 전에 설립된 도미니카 수도회에 가입하기로 결심했습니다. 토마스의 마음의 변화는 그의 가족을 기쁘게 하지 않았습니다.[30]토마스의 선택에 대한 테오도라의 간섭을 막기 위해 도미니크회는 토마스를 로마로, 로마에서 파리로 옮기기로 했습니다.[31]그러나 테오도라의 지시에 따라 로마로 여행하는 동안 그의 형제들은 그가 샘에서 물을 마시고 있을 때 그를 붙잡아몬테 산 조반니 캄파노성에 있는 부모에게 데려갔습니다.[31]
토마스는 몬테 산 조반니와 로카세카에 있는 가족 성에서 거의 1년 동안 포로로 잡혀 있었는데, 이는 그가 도미니카 습관을 받아들이는 것을 막고 새로운 열망을 포기하도록 강요하기 위한 것이었습니다.[28]정치적 우려로 인해 교황은 토마스의 석방을 명령하지 못했고, 이는 토마스의 구금을 연장하는 효과를 가져왔다.[32]토마스는 이 재판의 시간을 누이들에게 가르치고 도미니카 수도회 회원들과 의사 소통을 했습니다.[28]
가족들은 도미니크회에 합류하기로 결심한 토마스를 필사적으로 설득했습니다. 어느 시점에서 그의 형제 중 두 명이 그를 유혹하기 위해 매춘부를 고용하는 조치에 의지했습니다. 그의 시성식에 대한 공식 기록에 포함된 바와 같이, 토마스는 불타는 통나무를 휘두르며 그녀를 몰아내고 벽에 십자가를 새겼고 신비로운 황홀경에 빠졌습니다. 그가 자고 있을 때에 두 천사가 그에게 나타나 이르되, "보라, 우리가 하나님의 명령으로 너를 순결의 띠로 띠를 띠고 있나니, 이제부터는 결코 위태롭게 되지 아니하리라. 인간의 힘으로는 얻을 수 없는 것이 이제 해의 왕국의 은사로 네게 주어졌다." 그 순간부터 도마는 그리스도에 의해 완전한 순결의 은혜를 받았고 그의 삶이 끝날 때까지 허리띠를 착용했습니다. 거들은피에몬테에 있는 고대베르첼리 수도원에 주어졌으며 현재토리노근처의키에리에있습니다. [33][34]
도마는 순결의 증거 후에 신비로운 순결의띠를 가진 천사들에 의해 띠를 띠고 있습니다.디에고 벨라스케스의그림.
1244년까지 토마스를 설득하려는 그녀의 모든 시도가 실패한 것을 보고 테오도라는 가족의 존엄성을 구하기 위해 토마스가 밤에 창문을 통해 탈출하도록 주선했습니다. 그녀의 생각에 구금에서 비밀리에 탈출하는 것이 도미니카 인들에게 공개적으로 항복하는 것보다 덜 해로웠다. 토마스는 먼저 나폴리로 파견된 다음 로마로 파견되어도미니코 수도회의 총장인요하네스 폰 빌데스하우젠을 만났습니다.[35]
1245년, 토마스는 파리 대학교 예술학부로 파견되었는데, 그곳에서 도미니카회 학자알베르투스 마그누스(Albertus Magnus)[36]를 만났을 가능성이 높으며,[36]당시파리세인트 제임스 대학의 신학 석좌관이었다.[37]알베르투스가 1248년 쾰른의 새로운스투디움 제네랄레에서 가르치도록 상사에 의해 파견되었을 때,[36]토마스는 그를 따랐고, 그를 몬테 카시노의 수도원장으로 임명하겠다는교황 인노첸시오 4세의제안을 거절했습니다.[24]알베르투스는 마지못해 토마스마술사 학생을임명했습니다.[25]토마스는 조용하고 말을 많이 하지 않았기 때문에 몇몇 동료 학생들은 그가 느리다고 생각했습니다. 그러나 알베르투스는 예언적으로 외쳤다: "너희는 그를 벙어리 황소라고 부르지만, 그의 가르침 가운데서 그는 언젠가 온 세상에 울부짖을 정도로 울부짖을 것이다."[24]
토마스는 쾰른에서 견습 교수(baccalaureus biblicus)로 가르쳤고, 학생들에게 구약의 책들을 가르치고Expositio super Isaiam ad litteram(이사야에 대한 문자적 주석), Postilla superIeremiam(예레미야에 대한 주석) 및Postilla super Threnos(애가에 대한 주석)를저술했습니다.[38]그런 다음 1252 년에 그는 신학 석사 학위를 공부하기 위해 파리로 돌아 왔습니다. 그는 견습 교수로서 성경을 강의했고,학사학위가 되자 문장 학사[39], 마지막 3년 동안피터 롬바르드의문장에 대한 주석을 달았다. 그의 네 가지 신학적 종합 중 첫 번째에서 Thomas는Scriptum super libros Sententiarium(문장에 대한 주석)이라는 제목의문장에 대한 방대한 주석을 작성했습니다. 그의 주인의 저술 외에도 그는 파리의 동료 도미니카 인들을 위해De ente et essentia(존재와 본질에 관하여)를 썼습니다.[24]
1256년 봄에 토마스는 파리에서 신학의 섭정 석사로 임명되었고, 이 직책을 맡은 그의 첫 번째 작품 중 하나는Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem(신과 종교에 대한 숭배를 공격하는 사람들에 대항하여)으로,Saint-Amour의 William의 공격을받은수사적 질서를 옹호했습니다.[40]1256년부터 1259년까지 재임하는 동안 토마스는 다음과 같은 수많은 작품을 썼습니다.진리에 대한논쟁의 여지가 있는 질문(진리에대한 논쟁의 여지가 있는 질문), 신앙과 인간 조건의 측면에 대한 29개의 논쟁적인 질문 모음[41]사순절과강림절기간 동안 그가 주재한 공립 대학 토론을 위해 준비되었습니다.[42]Quaestiones quodlibetales(Quodlibetal Questions), 학계 청중이 그에게 제기한 질문에 대한 그의 답변 모음;[41]그리고 둘 다 Expositio super librum Boethii De trinitate(보에티우스의 De trinitate에 대한 주석) 및Expositio super librum BoethiiDe hebdomadibus(보에티우스의De hebdomadibus에 대한 주석), 6세기 로마 철학자보에티우스의작품에 대한 주석.[43]섭정이 끝날 무렵, 토마스는 그의 가장 유명한 작품 중 하나 인Summa contra Gentiles를작업하고있었습니다.[44]
1259년에 토마스는스투디움 제네랄에서 첫 번째 섭정을 마치고 파리를 떠나 그의 수도회의 다른 사람들이 이 교육 경험을 얻을 수 있도록 했습니다. 그는 나폴리로 돌아와 1260년 9월 29일 관구 지부에서 일반 설교자로 임명되었습니다. 1261년 9월 그는오르비에토로 부름을 받았고, 그곳에서 수녀원 강사로서스투디움 제네랄에참석할 수 없는 수사들의 사목 형성을 담당했습니다. 오르비에토에서 토마스는 그의Summa contra Gentiles를완성했고,카테나 아우레아(황금 사슬)를 썼으며,[45]새로 만들어진 코퍼스 크리스티 축일을위한 전례와콘트라 오류 그라에코룸(그리스인의 오류에 맞서)과 같은교황 우르바노 4세를 위한 작품을 제작했습니다.[44]토마스가코퍼스 크리스티 축제를 위해 쓴 찬송가 중 일부는Pange lingua(끝에서 두 번째 구절은 유명한Tantum ergo)와Panis angelicus와 같이 오늘날에도 여전히 불립니다. 현대 학문은 도마가 실제로 이 본문의 저자였음을 확인시켜 주었는데, 일부 사람들은 이에 대해 이의를 제기했습니다.[46]
1265년 2월에 새로 선출된 교황클레멘스 4세는 토마스를 로마로 소환하여 교황 신학자로 일하게 하였습니다. 같은 해에 그는 아그나니의 도미니카 지부[47]로부터 몇 년 전인 1222년에 설립된산타 사비나의로마수녀원에 있는스투디움수녀원에서 가르치라는 명령을 받았습니다.[48]산타 사비나의스투디움은 이제 스투디움 콘벤투알레와 스투디움 제네랄레 사이의 중간 학교인 수도회의 첫 번째스투디움 프로빈시알레인 도미니카인의 실험이 되었습니다.이 시기 이전에 로마 속주는 어떤 종류의 전문 교육도, 예술도, 철학도 제공하지 않았습니다. 상주 수사들을 위한 신학의 기본 과정을 갖춘 단순한 수녀원 학교만이 수도회 생애의 처음 수십 년 동안 토스카나와 자오선에서 기능했습니다.산타 사비나에 있는 새로운스투디움 관구는 그 지방을 위한 더 발전된 학교가 될 예정이었습니다.[49]토마스의 동료이자 초기 전기 작가인톨로메오 다 루카(Tolomeo da Lucca)는산타 사비나스투디움에서 토마스가 도덕적, 자연적 철학적 주제의 전체 범위를 가르쳤다고 말합니다.[50]
산타 사비나스투디움 관구에 있는 동안 토마스는 그의 가장 유명한 작품인숨마 신학자(Summa Theologiae)[45]를 시작했는데, 그는 초급 학생들에게 특별히 적합하다고 생각했다: "가톨릭 진리의 박사는 능숙한 사람을 가르칠 뿐만 아니라 초보자를 가르치는 것과도 관련이 있기 때문입니다. 사도가 고린도전서 3:1-2에서 말했듯이, 그리스도 안에 있는 유아들에게 말하노니 내가 너희에게 젖을 주어 마시게 하였으니 고기가 아니었으니 이 사업에서 우리가 제안한 의도는 기독교와 관련된 것들을 초보자의 교훈에 맞는 방식으로 전달하는 것이다."[51]그곳에서 그는 또한 그의 미완성Compendium Theologiae및Responsio ad fr. Ioannem Vercellensem de articulis 108 sumptis ex opere Petri de Tarentasia(Tarentaise의 Peter의 작업에서 가져온 108 개의 기사에 관한 Vercelli의 John 형제에게 답장).[43]스투디움의 수장으로서의 위치에서 토마스는 하나님의 능력에 대한 일련의 중요한 논쟁을 수행했으며, 이를 그의De potentia로 편집했습니다.[52]니콜라스 브루나치 (Nicholas Brunacci, 1240-1322)는 산타 사비나 스투디움 (Santa Sabinastudium provinciale)과 나중에 파리스투디움 제네랄 (Paris studium generale)에서 토마스의 학생들 중 한 명이었습니다. 1268년 11월, 그는 토마스와 그의 동료이자 비서인피페르노의 레지날드와 함께 학년도를 시작하기 위해 파리로 가는 길에 비테르보를 떠났습니다. [53][54]산타 사비나스투디움 관구에 있는 토마스의 또 다른 학생은 복자 토마셀로 다 페루자였습니다.[55]
토마스는 1265년부터 1268년 두 번째 교육 섭정을 위해 파리로 다시 부름을 받을 때까지산타 사비나의스투디움에 머물렀습니다.[52]1268 년 파리로 떠나고 시간이 지남에 따라산타 사비나에있는studium 지방의 교육 활동은 두 캠퍼스로 나뉘어졌습니다.산타 마리아 소프라 미네르바교회에 있는 수도회의 새로운수녀원은 1255년 여성 개종자를 위한 공동체로 겸손하게 시작되었지만 1275년 도미니카회 수사들에게 넘겨진 후 규모와 중요성이 빠르게 커졌습니다.[48]1288년에 수사 교육을 위한 관구 커리큘럼의 신학 구성 요소는 산타사비나스투디움 관구에서산타 마리아 소프라 미네르바의 스투디움 수녀원으로 이전되었으며, 이 수녀원은스투디움 스페셜리스 신학으로 재지정되었습니다.[56]이스투디움은 16세기에 세인트 토마스 대학(라틴어:Collegium Divi Thomæ)으로 변형되었습니다. 20 세기에이 대학은 성도미니크와 식스 투스수녀원으로 이전되어성 토마스 아퀴나스 교황청 대학교,안젤리쿰으로 탈바꿈했습니다.
성 토마스 아퀴나스의 승리, 의사코뮤니스, 플라톤과 아리스토텔레스 사이,베노초 고졸리, 1471년. 루브르 박물관, 파리.
1268년 도미니카 수도회는 토마스를 파리 대학의 섭정 석사로 두 번째로 임명했으며, 그는 1272년 봄까지 그 직위를 유지했습니다. 이 갑작스러운 재배정의 이유 중 일부는 대학에서 "Averroism"또는 "급진적인 아리스토텔레스주의"의 부상에서 비롯된 것으로 보입니다. 이러한 인식 된 오류에 대한 응답으로 Thomas는 두 가지 작품을 썼는데, 그 중 하나는De unitate intellectus, contra Averroistas(지성의 통일성, Averroists에 반대)에서 그는 Averroism을 기독교 교리와 양립 할 수 없다고 질책합니다.[57]두 번째 섭정 기간 동안 그는Summa의 두 번째 부분을 마치고 Devirtutibus와De aeternitate mundi, contra murmurantes(세상의 영원에 관하여,불평꾼에 대항하여),[52]후자는 논쟁의 여지가 있는 아베로이스트와 아리스토텔레스의세계 시작이 없음을다루었습니다.[58]
일부 중요한프란치스칸들과의 분쟁은 그의 두 번째 섭정을 첫 번째 섭정보다 훨씬 더 어렵고 곤경에 빠뜨리는 데 공모했습니다. 토마스가 1266-67년 파리 논쟁에서 섭정을 다시 맡기 1년 전, 프란체스코 주인 발리오네의 윌리엄은 토마스가 아베로이스트를 격려했다고 비난했으며, 아마도 그를 "맹인의 맹인 지도자" 중 한 명으로 간주했을 것입니다.엘레오노레 스텀프(Eleonore Stump)는 "토마스 아퀴나스의『영원한 문디(De aeternitate mundi)』가 특히 프란체스코 신학 동료인존 페컴(John Pecham)을 겨냥한 것이라고 설득력 있게 주장되어 왔다"고 말한다.[58]
실제로 토마스는 아베로주의의 확산에 깊은 혼란을 겪었고브라반트의 시거가 파리 학생들에게 아리스토텔레스에 대한 아베로주의적 해석을 가르치는 것을 발견했을 때 분노했습니다.[59]1270년 12월 10일, 파리의 주교인 에티엔 템피에(Étienne Tempier)는 13개의 아리스토텔레스와 아베로주의적 명제를 이단으로 비난하고 계속해서 지지하는 사람을 파문하는 칙령을 발표했습니다.[60]소위 아우구스티누스라고 불리는 교회 공동체의 많은 사람들은 아리스토텔레스주의와 더 극단적인 아베로주의의 도입이 기독교 신앙의 순수성을 어떻게든 오염시킬 수 있다고 두려워했습니다. 아리스토텔레스 사상에 대한 증가하는 두려움에 대응하려는 시도로 보이는 것에서 Thomas는 1270년에서 1272년 사이에 일련의 논쟁을 수행했습니다: Devirtutibus in communi(일반적으로 미덕에 관하여), Devirtutibus cardinalibus(추기경의 미덕에 관하여),De spe(희망에 관하여).[61]
1272년 토마스는 그의 고향 지방에서 온 도미니카인들이 그가 원하는 곳에스투디움 제네랄레를 설립하고 그가 원하는 대로 직원을 배치할 것을 요청했을 때 파리 대학을 떠났습니다. 그는 나폴리에 기관을 설립하기로 결정하고 섭정 마스터로 자리를 잡기 위해 그곳으로 이사했습니다.[52]그는 나폴리에서 시간을 내어숨마의 세 번째 부분을 작업하면서 다양한 종교 주제에 대한 강의를 했습니다. 그는 또한 1273년 사순절에 매일 나폴리 사람들에게 설교했습니다. 계명, 신경, 우리 아버지, 성모 마리아에 대한 이러한설교는매우 인기가 있었습니다.[62]
토마스는 전통적으로공중 부양능력으로 여겨져 왔습니다. 예를 들어,G. K. Chesterton은 "그의 경험에는 엑스터시에서 잘 입증 된 공중 부양 사례가 포함되었습니다. 그리고 복되신 동정녀께서 그에게 나타나셔서 그가 결코 주교가 되지 않을 것이라는 반가운 소식으로 그를 위로하셨습니다." [63][더 나은 소스 필요]
전통적으로 1273년 나폴리의 도미니카 수녀원에서성 니콜라스 예배당에서,[64]마틴이후 토마스는 머뭇거리다가 카세르타의제사도메닉이 십자가에 못 박히신 그리스도의 아이콘 앞에서 눈물을 흘리며 기도하며 공중에 떠 있는 것을 보았다고 합니다. 그리스도는 도마에게 말씀하시기를, "도마야, 너는 나에 대하여 좋게 썼다. 당신의 수고에 대해 어떤 보상을 받겠습니까?" 도마는 "주님, 주님 외에는 아무것도 없습니다"라고 대답했습니다. [65][66]
1273 년 12 월 6 일, 또 다른 신비로운 경험이 일어났습니다. 그는 미사를 집전하는 동안 비정상적으로 긴 엑스터시를 경험했습니다.[66]그가 본 것 때문에 그는 일상을 버리고피페르노의 레지날드에게 지시하기를 거부했습니다. 레지날드가 그에게 다시 일하러 가자고 간청했을 때, 토마스는 대답했다: "레지날드, 내가 쓴 모든 것이 나에게 지푸라기처럼 보이기 때문에 나는 할 수 없다"[67](mihi videtur ut palea).[68]그 결과,Summa Theologica는 미완성 상태로 남을 것입니다.[69]토마스의 행동 변화를 정확히 촉발시킨 것은 어떤 사람들은 하나님에 대한 일종의 초자연적 경험이라고 믿습니다.[70]침대에 누운 후 그는 약간의 힘을 회복했습니다.[71]
1054년에 서방의가톨릭교회와동방 정교회사이에대분열이 일어났습니다. 교황그레고리우스 10 세는 두 사람을 재결합 할 방법을 찾기 위해 1274 년 5 월 1 일에 개최 될제 2 차 리옹 공의회를 소집하고 토마스를 소집했습니다.[72]회의에서 그리스인에 관한 교황 우르바노 IV를 위한 토마스의 작업인Contra errores graecorum이 발표될 예정이었습니다.[73]
아피아 가도를따라 당나귀를 타고 의회로 가는 길[72]그는 쓰러진 나무 가지에 머리를 부딪혀 다시 중병에 걸렸다. 그런 다음 그는 회복을 위해몬테 카시노로 재빨리 호송되었습니다.[71]잠시 휴식을 취한 후 그는 다시 출발했지만 다시 병에 걸린 후시토 회포사 노바 수도원에 들렀습니다.[74]수도사들은 며칠 동안 그를 간호했으며,[75]그가마지막 의식을받으면서 기도했다: "나는 이 거룩한 몸과 그리스도의 신앙 안에 있는 다른 성사들, 그리고 내가 쓴 모든 것을 폭로하고 제출하는 신성 로마 교회에 대해 많은 것을 쓰고 가르쳤습니다."[76]그는 1274년 3월 7일[74]에 노래의 노래에 대한 주석을 하던 중 사망했습니다.[77]
1277년에 1270년의 정죄를 내린 파리의 동일한 주교인 에티엔 템피에(Étienne Tempier)는 또 다른 더 광범위한 정죄를 발표했습니다. 이 정죄의 한 가지 목적은 하나님의 절대 능력이아리스토텔레스나아베로에스가부여할 수 있는 논리의 원리를 초월한다는 것을 명확히 하는 것이었습니다.[78]보다 구체적으로, 그것은 주교가 하나님의 전능하심을 위반하기로 결정한 219개의 명제 목록을 포함하고 있으며, 이 목록에는 20개의 토미즘적 명제가 포함되어 있었습니다. 그들의 포함은 수년 동안 토마스의 명성을 심하게 손상시켰습니다.[79]
신곡에서단테는 종교적 지혜의 다른 위대한 모범들과 함께 태양의 천국에서 토마스의 영광스러운 영혼을 봅니다.[80]단테는 토마스가앙주의 샤를의 명령에따라 독살로 사망했다고 주장합니다.[81]빌라니는 이 믿음을 인용하고,[82]아노니모 피오렌티노는 범죄와 그 동기를 설명합니다. 그러나 역사가루도비코 안토니오 무라토리는 토마스의 친구 중 한 명이 한 이야기를 재현하며, 이 버전의 이야기는 반칙의 힌트를 주지 않습니다.[83]
1879 년 8 월 4 일회칙에서교황 레오 XIII는 토마스 아퀴나스의 신학이 가톨릭 교리의 결정적인 설명이라고 말했습니다.따라서 그는 성직자들에게 토마스의 가르침을 신학 적 입장의 기초로 삼도록 지시했습니다. 레오 XIII는 또한 모든 가톨릭 신학교와 대학에서 토마스의 교리를 가르쳐야 한다고 선언했으며, 토마스가 주제에 대해 말하지 않은 경우 교사들은 "그의 생각과 조화될 수 있는 결론을 가르치도록 촉구"했습니다. 1880 년에 성 토마스 아퀴나스는 모든 가톨릭 교육 기관의 후원자로 선언되었습니다.[83]
시성과정에서악마의 옹호자가 기적이 없다고 반대했을 때, 추기경 중 한 명이 "Tot miraculis, quot articulis"- "(그의 삶에는) 기사만큼 많은기적이 있습니다 (그의Summa에)"라고 대답했습니다.[84]토마스가 죽은 지 50 년 후인 1323 년 7 월 18 일,아비뇽에 앉아있는교황 요한 XXII는 토마스를성인으로 선언했습니다.[85]
나폴리 대성당근처의 나폴리에있는 수도원은 그가 살았던 것으로 추정되는 세포를 보여줍니다.[83]그의 유해는 1369년 1월 28일 포사노바에서툴루즈의자코뱅 교회로 옮겨졌습니다. 1789 년에서 1974 년 사이에그들은 툴루즈의 바실리크 드 생 세르 냉에서 열렸습니다. 1974 년에 그들은 자코뱅 교회로 돌아 왔고 그 이후로 계속 남아 있습니다.
토마스 아퀴나스는 신학자이자스콜라철학자였습니다.[89]그러나 그는 결코 자신을 철학자라고 생각하지 않았으며, 그가 이교도로 본 철학자들이 항상 "기독교 계시에서 찾을 수 있는 참되고 적절한 지혜에 미치지 못한다"고 비판했습니다.[90]이를 염두에두고 토마스는 아리스토텔레스를 존경했기 때문에Summa에서 아리스토텔레스를 단순히 "철학자"로 인용하는 경우가 많습니다. 그러나 토마스는 "기독교 교리를 현재의 아리스토텔레스주의와 일치시킴으로써 결코 타협하지 않았습니다. 오히려 그는 기독교 신앙과 충돌할 때마다 후자를 수정하고 수정했습니다."[91]
Thomas의 작품 대부분은 철학적 주제와 관련이 있으며 이러한 의미에서 철학적 인 것으로 특징 지어 질 수 있습니다. 그의 철학적 사상은 이후의 기독교 신학, 특히 가톨릭 교회의 신학에 막대한 영향을 미쳤으며 일반적으로 서양 철학으로 확장되었습니다.
[나는] 분배 정의는 전체에 속하는 것이 부분에 기인하는 한, 그리고 전체에 대한 그 부분의 위치의 중요성에 비례하는 양으로 사적인 개인에게 주어집니다. 결과적으로 분배 정의에서 사람은 공동체에서 더 두드러진 위치를 차지함에 따라 더 많은 공동재를 받습니다. 귀족 공동체에서 이러한 탁월함은 미덕에 따라, 과두 정치에서 부에 따라, 민주주의에서 자유에 따라, 그리고 다양한 형태의 공동체에 따라 다양한 방식으로 측정됩니다. 그러므로 분배적 정의에서 평균은 사물과 사물 사이의 평등에 의해서가 아니라 사물과 사람 사이의 비율에 따라 관찰된다: 한 사람이 다른 사람을 능가하는 것처럼, 한 사람에게 주어진 것이 다른 사람에게 할당된 것을 능가하는 방식으로.
Aquinas asserts that Christians have a duty to distribute with provision to the poorest of society.[93]
"Social justice" is a term that arose in the 19th century in the writings of Luigi Taparelli, SJ,[94]and it was his term for the reality Thomas Aquinas called "legal justice" or "general justice." Legal or social justice is the contribution from the individual to the common good. So for Aquinas, distributive justice goes in the direction from thecommon goodto the individual, and is a proportional distribution of common goods, to individuals based on their contribution to the community. Legal or general justice, or what came to be called social justice, goes in the other direction, from the individuals to the common good.[95]
It is helpful to understand as well other related types of justice: if social justice is from the individual to the community, and distributive justice is from the community to the individual, there is also commutative justice (between two individuals, as in buying and selling, or stealing and returning) as well as retributive justice (rectifications that occur to restore justice, once justice has been violated).[96]
InSumma Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146, which was written by Aquinas prior to writing theSumma Theologica, St. Thomas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty. He stated:[97]
[M]en who are in authority over others do no wrong when they reward the good and punish the evil.
[...] for the preservation of concord among men it is necessary that punishments be inflicted on the wicked. Therefore, to punish the wicked is not in itself evil.
Moreover, the common good is better than the particular good of one person. So, the particular good should be removed in order to preserve the common good. But the life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.
Furthermore, just as a physician looks to health as the end in his work, and health consists in the orderly concord of humors, so, too, the ruler of a state intends peace in his work, and peace consists in "the ordered concord of citizens." Now, the physician quite properly and beneficially cuts off a diseased organ if the corruption of the body is threatened because of it. Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.
Thomas Aquinas believed "that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act."[98]However, he believed that human beings have the natural capacity to know many things without specialdivine revelation, even though such revelation occurs from time to time, "especially in regard to such (truths) as pertain to faith."[99]But this is the light that is given to man by God according to man's nature: "Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a determined act[uality], which it can bring about in proportion to its own proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses."[99]
"Eternal law" redirects here. For 2012 fantasy drama series, seeEternal Law.
Thomas was well aware that the Albigensians and the Waldensians challenged basic moral precepts concerning marriage and ownership of private property and that challenges could ultimately be resolved only by logical arguments based on self-evident norms. He accordingly argued, in the Summa Theologiae, that just as the first principle of demonstration is the self-evident principle of noncontradiction ("the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time"), the first principle of action is the self-evidentBonumprecept ("good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided").[100]This natural law precept prescribe doing and pursuing what reason knows is good while avoiding evil. Reason knows what is objectively good because the good is naturally beneficial and evil is the contrary. To explain goods that are naturally self-evident, Aquinas divides them into three categories: substantial goods of self-preservation desired by all; the goods common to both animals and humans, such as procreation and education of offspring; and goods characteristic of rational and intellectual beings, such as living in community and pursuing the truth about God.[101]To will such natural these goods to oneself and to others is to love. Accordingly, Aquinas states that the love precept obligating loving God and neighbor are "the first general principles of the natural law, and are self-evident to human reason, either through nature or through faith. Wherefore all the precepts of the decalogue are referred to these, as conclusions to general principles."[102][103]
To so focus on lovingly willing good is to focus natural law on acting virtuously. In hisSumma Theologiae, Aquinas wrote:
Virtue denotes a certain perfection of a power. Now a thing's perfection is considered chiefly in regard to its end. But the end of power is act. Wherefore power is said to be perfect, according as it is determinate to its act.[104]
Thomas emphasized that "Synderesisis said to be the law of our mind, because it is a habit containing the precepts of the natural law, which are the first principles of human actions."[105][106]
According to Thomas "...all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one's reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e., in their proper species, thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not incline at first; but that, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive to well living." Therefore, we must determine if we are speaking of virtuous acts as under the aspect of virtuous or as an act in its species.[107]
Thomas defined the fourcardinal virtuesasprudence,temperance,justice, andfortitude. The cardinal virtues are natural and revealed in nature, and they are binding on everyone. There are, however, threetheological virtues:faith,hope, andcharity. Thomas also describes the virtues as imperfect (incomplete) and perfect (complete) virtues. A perfect virtue is any virtue with charity, charity completes a cardinal virtue. A non-Christian can display courage, but it would be courage with temperance. A Christian would display courage with charity. These are somewhat supernatural and are distinct from other virtues in their object, namely, God:
Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.[108]
Thomas Aquinas wrote "[Greed] is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."[109]
Furthermore, in hisTreatise on Law, Thomas distinguished four kinds of law: eternal,natural, human, anddivine.Eternal lawis the decree of God that governs all creation: "That Law which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than unchangeable and eternal."[110]Natural lawis the human "participation" in theeternal lawand is discovered byreason.[111]Natural lawis based on "first principles":
. . . this is the first precept of the law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this . . .[112]
Whether the natural law contains several precepts, or one only is explained by Thomas, "All the inclinations of any parts whatsoever of human nature, e.g., of the concupiscible and irascible parts, in so far as they are ruled by reason, belong to the natural law, and are reduced to one first precept, as stated above: so that the precepts of the natural law are many in themselves, but are based on one common foundation."[113]
The desires to live and to procreate are counted by Thomas among those basic (natural) human values on which all human values are based. According to Thomas, all human tendencies are geared towards real human goods. In this case, the human nature in question is marriage, the total gift of oneself to another that ensures a family for children and a future for mankind.[114]He defined the dual inclination of the action of love: "towards the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself or to another) and towards that to which he wishes some good".[115]
Concerning the Human Law, Thomas concludes, "...that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles, we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of reason, so to it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that human reason needs to proceed to the more particular determination of certain matters. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be observed..." Human law ispositive law: the natural law applied by governments to societies.[107]
Natural and human law is not adequate alone. The need for human behavior to be directed made it necessary to have Divine law. Divine law is the specially revealed law in thescriptures. Thomas quotes, "The Apostle says (Hebrews 7.12): The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law. But the priesthood is twofold, as stated in the same passage, viz, the levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ. Therefore the Divine law is twofold, namely, the Old Law and the New Law."[116]
Thomas also greatly influenced Catholic understandings ofmortalandvenial sins.
Thomas Aquinas refers to animals as dumb and that the natural order has declared animals for man's use. Thomas denied that human beings have any duty of charity to animals because they are not persons. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to kill them for food. But humans should still be charitable to them, for "cruel habits might carry over into our treatment of human beings."[117][118]
Thomas contributed toeconomic thoughtas an aspect of ethics and justice. He dealt with the concept of ajust price, normally its market price or a regulated price sufficient to cover sellercosts of production. He argued it was immoral for sellers to raise their prices simply because buyers were in pressing need for a product.[119][120]
Thomas's theory of political order became highly influential. He sees man as a social being that lives in a community and interacts with its other members. That leads, among other things, to thedivision of labour.
Thomas made a distinction between a good man and a good citizen, which was important to the development oflibertariantheory. That indicates, in the eyes of atheist libertarian writerGeorge H. Smith, that the sphere ofindividual autonomywas one which the state could not interfere with.[121]
Thomas thinks thatmonarchyis the best form of government, because a monarch does not have to form compromises with other persons. Aquinas, however, held that monarchy in only a very specific sense was the best form of government––only when the king was virtuous is it the best form; otherwise if the monarch is vicious it is the worst kind (see De Regno I, Ch. 2). Moreover, according to Thomas,oligarchydegenerates more easily intotyrannythan monarchy. To prevent a king from becoming a tyrant, his political powers must be curbed. Unless an agreement of all persons involved can be reached, a tyrant must be tolerated, as otherwise the political situation could deteriorate intoanarchy, which would be even worse than tyranny. In his political workDe Regno, Aquinas subordinated the political power of king to the primate of the divine and human law ofGod the creator. For example, he affirmed:
Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst.
According to Thomas, monarchs are God's representatives in their territories, but the church, represented by the popes, is above the kings in matters of doctrine and ethics. As a consequence, worldly rulers are obliged to adapt their laws to the Catholic Church's doctrines and determinations.
Thomas said slavery was not the natural state of man.[122]He also held that a slave is by nature equal to his master (Summa Theologiae Supplement, Q52, A2, ad 1). He distinguished between 'natural slavery', which is for the benefit of both master and slave, and 'servile slavery', which removes all autonomy from the slave and is, according to Thomas, worse than death.[123]Aquinas' doctrines of the Fair Price,[124]of the right oftyrannicideand of the equality of all the baptized sons of God in theCommunion of saintsestablished a limit to the political power to prevent it from degenerating into tyranny. This system had a concern in the Protestant opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and in "disinterested" replies to Thomism carried out byKantand bySpinoza.
Thomas Aquinas maintains that a human is a single material substance. He understands the soul as the form of the body, which makes a human being the composite of the two. Thus, only living, form-matter composites can truly be called human; dead bodies are "human" only analogously. One actually existing substance comes from body and soul. A human is a single material substance, but still should be understood as having an immaterial soul, which continues after bodily death.
In hisSumma TheologiaeThomas clearly states his position on the nature of the soul; defining it as "the first principle of life".[125]The soul is not corporeal, or a body; it is the act of a body. Because the intellect is incorporeal, it does not use the bodily organs, as "the operation of anything follows the mode of its being."[126]
Saint Thomas Aquinas by Luis Muñoz Lafuente
According to Thomas the soul is not matter, not even incorporeal or spiritual matter. If it were, it would not be able to understand universals, which are immaterial. A receiver receives things according to the receiver's own nature, so for soul (receiver) to understand (receive) universals, it must have the same nature as universals. Yet, any substance that understands universals may not be a matter-form composite. So, humans have rational souls, which are abstract forms independent of the body. But a human being is one existing, single material substance that comes from body and soul: that is what Thomas means when he writes that "something one in nature can be formed from an intellectual substance and a body", and "a thing one in nature does not result from two permanent entities unless one has the character of substantial form and the other of matter."[127]
Thomas Aquinas addressed most economic questions within the framework of justice, which he contended was the highest of the moral virtues.[128]He says that justice is "a habit whereby man renders to each his due by a constant and perpetual will."[129]He argued that this concept of justice has its roots in natural law. Joseph Schumpeter, in hisHistory of Economic Analysis, concluded that "All the economic questions put together matters less to him than did the smallest point of theological or philosophical doctrine, and it is only where economic phenomena raise questions of moral theology that he touches upon them at all."[130]
Thomas Aquinas was careful to distinguish thejust, or natural, price of a good from that price which manipulates another party. He determines the just price from a number of things. First, the just price must be relative to the worth of the good. Thomas held that the price of a good measures its quality: "the quality of a thing that comes into human use is measured by the price given for it."[131]He goes on to say that the price of a good, measured by its worth, is determined by its usefulness to man. This worth is subjective because each good has a different level of usefulness to every man. Thomas argued, then, that the price should reflect the current value of a good according to its usefulness to man. He continues: "Gold and silver are costly not only on account of the usefulness of the vessels and other like things made from them, but also on account of the excellence and purity of their substance."[132]
Thomas Aquinas also wrote extensively onusury, that is, the lending of money with interest. He condemned its practice: "to take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."[133]Money, and other similar goods, are consumed only when they are used. Charging a premium for money lent is a charge formorethan the use of the good. Thus, Thomas Aquinas concluded that the lender is charging for something not his own, in other words, not rendering to each his due.
TheSecond Lateran Councilcalled the practice of loaning money "detestable and shameful... insatiable rapacity of money lenders, forbidden both by divine and human laws throughout the Old and New Testament, we condemn, and separate from the ecclesiastical consolation".[134]TheFifth Lateran Councildefinedusuryas "when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk".[135]
Thomas Aquinas viewedtheology, or thesacreddoctrine, as a science,[70]the raw material data of which consists of writtenscriptureand the tradition of the Catholic Church. These sources of data were produced by the self-revelation of God to individuals and groups of people throughout history. Faith and reason, while distinct but related, are the two primary tools for processing the data of theology. Thomas believed both were necessary—or, rather, that theconfluenceof both was necessary—for one to obtain true knowledge of God. Thomas blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational thinking and the study of nature, like revelation, were valid ways to understand truths pertaining to God. According to Thomas, God reveals himself through nature, so to study nature is to study God. The ultimate goals of theology, in Thomas's mind, are to use reason to grasp the truth about God and to experience salvation through that truth. The central thought is "gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit" ('gracedoes not destroy nature, but perfects it').
Thomas believed that truth is known through reason, rationality (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation).Supernaturalrevelation has its origin in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is made available through the teaching of the prophets, summed up in Holy Scripture, and transmitted by theMagisterium, the sum of which is called "Tradition".Naturalrevelation is the truth available to all people through their human nature and powers of reason. For example, he felt this applied to rational ways to know the existence of God.
Though one may deduce the existence of God and his Attributes (Unity, Truth, Goodness, Power, Knowledge) through reason, certain specifics may be known only through the special revelation of God throughJesus Christ. The major theological components of Christianity, such as theTrinity, theIncarnation, and charity are revealed in the teachings of the church and thescripturesand may not otherwise be deduced.[137]However, Aquinas also makes a distinction between "demonstrations" of sacred doctrines and the "persuasiveness" of those doctrines.[138]The former is akin to something like "certainty", whereas the latter is more probabilistic in nature.[138]In other words, Aquinas thinks Christian doctrines are "fitting" to reason (i.e. reasonable), even though they can't be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.[138]In fact, the Summa Theologica is filled with examples of Aquinas arguing that we would expect certain Christian doctrines to be true, even though these expectations aren't demonstrative (i.e. 'fitting' or reasonable).[139]For example, Aquinas, argues that we would expect God to become incarnate, and we would expect a resurrected Christ tonotstay on Earth.[140][141]
Revealed knowledge does not negate the truth and the completeness of human science as human, it further establishes them. First, it grants that the same things can be treated from two different perspectives without one canceling the other; thus there can be two sciences of God. Second, it provides the basis for the two sciences: one functions through the power of the light of natural reason, the other through the light of divine revelation. Moreover, they can, at least to some extent, keep out of each other's way because they differ "according to genus". Sacred doctrine is a fundamentally different kind of thing from theology, which is part of philosophy (ST I. 1.1 ad 2).
Faith and reason complement rather thancontradict each other, each giving different views of the same truth.
Augustine of Hippo's reflexion on divine essentiality oressentialisttheology would influenceRichard of St. Victor,Alexander of HalesandSt. Bonaventure. By this method, theessenceof God is defined by what God is, and also by describing what God is not (negative theology). St. Thomas took the text ofExodusbeyond the explanation of essential theology. He bridged the gap of understanding between the being of essence and the being of existence. InSumma Theologica, the way is prepared with the proofs for the existence of God. All that remained was to recognize the God ofExodusas having the nature of "Him Who is the supreme act of being". God is simple, there is no composition in God. In this regard, Aquinas relied onBoethiuswho in turn followed the path ofPlatonism, something Aquinas usually avoided. The conclusion was that the meaning of "I Am Who Am" is not an enigma to be answered, but the statement of the essence of God. This is the discovery of Aquinas: the essence of God is not described by negative analogy, but the "essence of God is to exist". This is the basis of "existential theology" and leads to what Gilson calls the first and onlyexistential philosophy. In Latin, this is called "Haec Sublimis Veritas", "the sublime truth". The revealed essence of God is to exist, or in the words of Aquinas, I am the pure Act of Being. This has been described as the key to understandingThomism. Thomism has been described (as a philosophical movement), as either the emptiest, or the fullest of philosophies.[142]
As a Catholic Thomas believed that God is the "maker of heaven and earth, of all that is visible and invisible." Like Aristotle, Thomas posited that life could form from non-living material or plant life, a theory of ongoingabiogenesisknown asspontaneous generation:
Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then.[143]
Super Physicam Aristotelis, 1595
Additionally Thomas consideredEmpedocles's theory that various mutatedspeciesemerged at the dawn of Creation. Thomas reasoned that these species were generated throughmutationsin animalsperm, and argued that they were not unintended bynature; rather, such species were simply not intended for perpetual existence. That discussion is found in his commentary onAristotle's Physics:
The same thing is true of those substances Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the 'ox-progeny', i.e., half ox and half-man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.[144]
While it would be contradictory to speak of a "just schism", a "just brawling" or a "just sedition", the word "war" permits sub-classification into good and bad kinds. Thomas Aquinas, centuries afterAugustine of Hippo, used the authority of Augustine's arguments in an attempt to define the conditions under which a war could be just.[145]He laid these out in his historic work, Summa Theologica:
First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than the pursuit of wealth or power.
Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[146]
Some 200 years later, theSchool of Salamancaexpanded Thomas's understanding ofnatural lawand just war. Given that war is one of the worst evils suffered by mankind, the adherents of the School reasoned that it ought to be resorted to only when it was necessary to prevent an evengreaterevil. A diplomatic agreement is preferable, even for the more powerful party, before a war is started. Examples of "just war" are:[citation needed]
In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success. If failure is a foregone conclusion, then it is just a wasteful spilling of blood.
Preventive war against atyrantwho is about to attack.
War to punish a guilty enemy.
A war is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:[citation needed]
The response must be commensurate with the evil; more violence than is strictly necessary would be unjust.
Governing authoritiesdeclarewar, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If thepeopleoppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.
Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
The belligerents must exhaust all options for dialogue and negotiation before undertaking a war; war is legitimate only as a last resort.
Under this doctrine, expansionist wars, wars of pillage, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.
Thomas believed that theexistence of Godis self-evident in itself, but not to us. "Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."[147]
Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in theSumma Theologiaeand more extensively in theSumma contra Gentiles, he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as thequinque viae(Five Ways).
For the original text of the five proofs, seeQuinque viae
Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be aFirst Movernot moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be aFirst Cause, called God.
Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God.[b]
Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.[c][148]
Aquinas was receptive to and influenced byAvicenna'sProof of the Truthful.[149]Concerning the nature of God, Thomas, like Avicenna felt the best approach, commonly called thevia negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:
God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[150]
God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.[151]Thomas defined God as the 'IpseActus Essendisubsistens,' subsisting act of being.[152]
God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[153]
God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.[154]
God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Thomas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' isnecessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."[155]
FollowingSt. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas definessinas "a word, deed, or desire, contrary to theeternal law."[156]It is important to note the analogous nature of law in Thomas's legal philosophy. Natural law is an instance or instantiation of eternal law. Because natural law is what human beings determine according to their own nature (as rational beings), disobeying reason is disobeying natural law and eternal law. Thus eternal law is logically prior to reception of either "natural law" (that determined by reason) or "divine law" (that found in the Old and New Testaments). In other words, God's will extends to both reason and revelation. Sin is abrogating either one's own reason, on the one hand, or revelation on the other, and is synonymous with "evil" (privationof good, orprivatio boni[157]). Thomas, like all Scholastics, generally argued that the findings of reason and data of revelation cannot conflict, so both are a guide to God's will for human beings.
Thomas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described byThree Interrelated Persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. Thomas wrote that the term "Trinity" "does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another."[158]The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit "who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word."
This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to give grace to human beings. This takes place through theIncarnationof the Word in the person ofJesus Christand through the indwelling of theHoly Spiritwithin those who have experiencedsalvationby God; according to Aidan Nichols.[159]
Thomas's five proofs for the existence of God take some of Aristotle's assertions concerning principles of being. For God asprima causa("first cause") comes from Aristotle's concept of theunmoved moverand asserts that God is the ultimate cause of all things.[160]
In theSumma TheologicaThomas begins his discussion of Jesus Christ by recounting the biblical story ofAdam and Eveand by describing the negative effects oforiginal sin. The purpose of Christ's Incarnation was to restore human nature by removingthe contamination of sin, which humans cannot do by themselves. "Divine Wisdom judged it fitting that God should become man, so that thus one and the same person would be able both to restore man and to offer satisfaction."[161]Thomas argued in favor of thesatisfaction view of atonement; that is, thatJesus Christdied"to satisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin."[162]
Thomas argued against several specific contemporary and historical theologians who held differing views about Christ. In response toPhotinus, Thomas stated that Jesus was truly divine and not simply a human being. AgainstNestorius, who suggested that Son of God was merely conjoined to the man Christ, Thomas argued that the fullness of God was an integral part of Christ's existence. However, counteringApollinaris' views, Thomas held that Christ had a truly human (rational)soul, as well. This produced a duality of natures in Christ. Thomas argued againstEutychesthat this duality persisted after the Incarnation. Thomas stated that these two natures existed simultaneously yet distinguishably in one real human body, unlike the teachings ofManichaeusandValentinus.[163]
With respect toPaul's assertion that Christ, "though he was in the form of God... emptied himself" (Philippians2:6–7) in becoming human, Thomas offered an articulation of divinekenosisthat has informed much subsequent CatholicChristology. Following theCouncil of Nicaea,Augustine of Hippo, as well as the assertions of Scripture, Thomas held the doctrine ofdivine immutability.[164][165][166]Hence, in becoming human, there could be no change in the divine person of Christ. For Thomas, "the mystery of Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself."[167]Similarly, Thomas explained that Christ "emptied Himself, not by putting off His divine nature, but by assuming a human nature."[168]For Thomas, "the divine nature is sufficiently full, because every perfection of goodness is there. But human nature and the soul are not full, but capable of fulness, because it was made as a slate not written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty."[168]Thus, when Paul indicates that Christ "emptied himself" this is to be understood in light of his assumption of a human nature.
In short "Christ had areal bodyof the same nature of ours, atrue rational soul, and, together with these,perfect Deity". Thus, there is both unity (in his onehypostasis) and composition (in his two natures, human and Divine) in Christ.[169]
I answer that, The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one being subsists in two.[170]
EchoingAthanasius of Alexandria, he said that "The only begotten Son of God... assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."[171]
Thomas Aquinas identified the goal of human existence as union and eternal fellowship with God. This goal is achieved through thebeatific vision, in which a person experiences perfect, unending happiness by seeing the essence of God. The vision occurs after death as a gift from God to those who in life experienced salvation and redemption through Christ.
The goal of union with God has implications for the individual's life on earth. Thomas stated that an individual'swillmust be ordered toward right things, such as charity, peace, andholiness. He saw this orientation as also the way to happiness. Indeed, Thomas ordered his treatment of the moral life around the idea of happiness. The relationship between will and goal is antecedent in nature "because rectitude of the will consists in being duly ordered to the last end [that is, the beatific vision]." Those who truly seek to understand and see God will necessarily love what God loves. Such love requires morality and bears fruit in everyday human choices.[172]
Thomas Aquinas belonged to the Dominican Order (formallyOrdo Praedicatorum, the Order of Preachers) who began as an order dedicated to the conversion of theAlbigensiansand other heterodox factions, at first by peaceful means; later the Albigensians were dealt with by means of theAlbigensian Crusade. In theSumma Theologiae, he wrote:
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith that quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy, which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition", asthe Apostledirects: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.[173]
Heresy was a capital offense against the secular law of most European countries of the 13th century. Kings and emperors, even those at war with the papacy, listed heresy first among the crimes against the state. Kings claimed power from God according to the Christian faith. Often enough, especially in that age of papal claims to universal worldly power, the rulers' power was tangibly and visibly legitimated directly through coronation by the pope.
Simple theft, forgery, fraud, and other such crimes were also capital offenses; Thomas's point seems to be that the gravity of this offense, which touches not only the material goods but also the spiritual goods of others, is at least the same as forgery. Thomas's suggestion specifically demands that heretics be handed to a "secular tribunal" rather thanmagisterialauthority. That Thomas specifically says that heretics "deserve... death" is related to his theology, according to which all sinners have no intrinsic right to life ("For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"[Romans 6:23]). Although the life of a heretic who repents should be spared, the former heretic should be executed if he relapses into heresy. Thomas elaborates on his opinion regarding heresy in the next article, when he says:
In God's tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death. For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.[174]
ForJews, Thomas argues for toleration of both their persons and their religious rites.[175]
Aquinas advocated the death penalty for obstinateheretics, writing:
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (ST II:II 11:3corpus)
According toMichael Novak, Aquinas' view in the matter of death penalty for obstinatehereticsis one of the more difficult parts of dealing withThomism.[176]
Forced baptism of children of Jews and heretics[edit]
The position taken by Aquinas is that if children were being reared in error, the Church had no authority to intervene. FromSumma TheologicaII-II Q. 10 Art. 12:
Injustice should be done to no man. Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore these should not be baptized against their parent's will. The custom of the Church has been given very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic Doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than that of anAugustineor aJeromeor any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of Jews against the will of their parents. There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account of the danger to faith. For children baptized before coming into the use of reason, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith. The other reason is that it is against natural justice. For a child is by nature part of its father: at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within the mother's womb and later on after birth, and before it has the use offree will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, like a spiritual womb. So long as a man does not have the use of reason, he is no different from an irrational animal. Hence, it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parent's custody, or anything done against its parent's wish.
The question was again addressed by Aquinas inSumma TheologicaIII Q. 68 Art. 10:
It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xiv), quoting theCouncil of Toledo: In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforth none of them be forced to believe; for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw. Children of non-believers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore, of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract in marriage. Consequently such can be lawfully advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients were saved through the faith of their parents.
The issue was discussed in a papal bull byPope Benedict XIV(1747) where both schools were addressed. The pope noted that the position of Aquinas had been more widely held among theologians andcanon lawyers, than that of John Duns Scotus.[177]
only God can perform miracles, create and transform.[178]
angels and demons ("spiritual substances") may do wonderful things, but they are not miracles and merely use natural things as instruments.[179]
any efficacy of magicians does not come from the power of particular words, or celestial bodies, or special figures, or sympathetic magic, but by bidding (ibid., 105)
"demons" are intellective substances who were created good and have chosen to be bad, it is these who are bid.[180]
if there is some transformation that could not occur in nature it is either the demon working on human imagination or arranging a fake.[181]
A mention of witchcraft appears in theSumma Theologicae[182]and concludes that the church does not treat temporary or permanent impotence attributed to a spell any differently to that of natural causes, as far as an impediment to marriage.
Under thecanon Episcopi, church doctrine held that witchcraft was not possible and any practitioners of sorcery were deluded and their acts an illusion. Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in developing a new doctrine that included the belief in the real power of witches.[disputed–discuss]This was a departure from the teachings of his masterAlbertus Magnuswhose doctrine was based in theEpiscopi.[183]The famous 15th-century witch-hunter's manual, theMalleus Maleficarum, also written by a member of the Dominican Order, begins by quoting Thomas Aquinas ("Commentary on Pronouncements" Sent.4.34.I.Co.) refuting[disputed–discuss]theEpiscopiand goes on to cite Thomas Aquinas over a hundred times.[184]Promoters of the witch hunts that followed often quoted Thomas more than any other source.[183]
A grasp of Thomas's psychology is essential for understanding his beliefs around the afterlife and resurrection. Thomas, following church doctrine, accepts that the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. Because he accepts that the soul is the form of the body, then he also must believe that the human being, like all material things, is form-matter composite. Substantial form (the human soul) configures prime matter (the physical body) and is the form by which a material composite belongs to that species it does; in the case of human beings, that species is rational animal.[185]So, a human being is a matter-form composite that is organized to be a rational animal. Matter cannot exist without being configured by form, but form can exist without matter—which allows for the separation of soul from body. Thomas says that the soul shares in the material and spiritual worlds, and so has some features of matter and other, immaterial, features (such as access to universals). The human soul is different from other material and spiritual things; it is created by God, but also comes into existence only in the material body.
Human beings are material, but the human person can survive the death of the body through continued existence of the soul, which persists. The human soul straddles the spiritual and material worlds, and is both a configured subsistent form as well as a configurer of matter into that of a living, bodily human.[186]Because it is spiritual, the human soul does not depend on matter and may exist separately. Because the human being is a soul-matter composite, the body has a part in what it is to be human. Perfected human nature consists in the human dual nature, embodied and intellecting.
Resurrection appears to require dualism, which Thomas rejects. Yet Thomas believes the soul persists after the death and corruption of the body, and is capable of existence, separated from the body between the time of death and theresurrection of the flesh. Thomas believes in a different sort of dualism, one guided by Christian scripture. Thomas knows that human beings are essentially physical, but physicality has a spirit capable of returning to God after life.[187]For Thomas, the rewards and punishment of the afterlife are notonlyspiritual. Because of this, resurrection is an important part of his philosophy on the soul. The human is fulfilled and complete in the body, so the hereafter must take place with souls enmattered in resurrected bodies. In addition to spiritual reward, humans can expect to enjoy material and physical blessings. Because Thomas's soul requires a body for its actions, during the afterlife, the soul will also be punished or rewarded in corporeal existence.
Thomas states clearly his stance on resurrection, and uses it to back up his philosophy of justice; that is, the promise of resurrection compensates Christians who suffered in this world through a heavenly union with the divine. He says, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that there is no good for human beings other than in this life."[188]Resurrection provides the impetus for people on earth to give up pleasures in this life. Thomas believes the human who prepared for the afterlife both morally and intellectually will be rewarded more greatly; however, all reward is through the grace of God. Thomas insists beatitude will be conferred according to merit, and will render the person better able to conceive the divine. Thomas accordingly believes punishment is directly related to earthly, living preparation and activity as well. Thomas's account of the soul focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, and because of this he believes it gives a clear account of the immaterial nature of the soul. Thomas conservatively guards Christian doctrine, and thus maintains physical and spiritual reward and punishment after death. By accepting the essentiality of both body and soul, he allows for aHeavenandHelldescribed in scripture and churchdogma.
In recent years the cognitive neuroscientistWalter Freemanproposes that Thomism is the philosophical system explaining cognition that is most compatible withneurodynamics, in a 2008 article in the journalMind and Mattertitled "Nonlinear Brain Dynamics and Intention According to Aquinas".[citation needed]
Henry Adams'sMont Saint Michel and Chartresends with a culminating chapter on Thomas, in which Adams calls Thomas an "artist" and constructs an extensive analogy between the design of Thomas's "Church Intellectual" and that of the gothic cathedrals of that period.Erwin Panofskylater would echo these views inGothic Architecture and Scholasticism(1951).[citation needed]
Thomas's aesthetic theories, especially the concept ofclaritas, deeply influenced the literary practice of modernist writerJames Joyce, who used to extol Thomas as being second only to Aristotle among Western philosophers. Joyce refers to Thomas's doctrines inElementa philosophiae ad mentem D. Thomae Aquinatis doctoris angelici(1898) of Girolamo Maria Mancini, professor of theology at theCollegium Divi Thomae de Urbe.[189]For example, Mancini'sElementais referred to in Joyce'sPortrait of the Artist as a Young Man.[190]
The influence of Thomas's aesthetics also can be found in the works of the ItaliansemioticianUmberto Eco, who wrote an essay on aesthetic ideas in Thomas (published in 1956 and republished in 1988 in a revised edition).[citation needed]
He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, butspecial pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.[191]
This criticism is illustrated with the following example: according to Russell, Thomas advocates the indissolubility of marriage "on the ground that the father is useful in the education of the children, (a) because he is more rational than the mother, (b) because, being stronger, he is better able to inflict physical punishment."[192]Even though modern approaches to education do not support these views, "No follower of Saint Thomas would, on that account, cease to believe in lifelong monogamy, because the real grounds of belief are not those which are alleged."[192]
The critical edition of Thomas's works is the ongoing edition commissioned byPope Leo XIII(1882–1903), the so-calledLeonine Edition. Most of his major works have now been edited: theSumma Theologiaein nine volumes during 1888–1906, theSumma contra Gentilesin three volumes during 1918–1930.
Electronic texts of mostly the Leonine Edition are maintained online by the Corpus Thomisticum[194]by Enrique Alarcón,University of Navarra, and at Documenta Catholica Omnia.[195]
^See Pius XI,Studiorum Ducem11 (29 June 1923), AAS, XV ("non-modo Angelicum, sed etiam Communem seu Universalem Ecclesiae Doctorem"). The titleDoctor Communisdates to the fourteenth century; the titleDoctor Angelicusdates to the fifteenth century, see Walz,Xenia Thomistica, III, p. 164 n. 4.Tolomeo da Luccawrites inHistoria Ecclesiastica(1317): "This man is supreme among modern teachers of philosophy and theology, and indeed in every subject. And such is the common view and opinion, so that nowadays in theUniversity of Paristhey call him theDoctor Communisbecause of the outstanding clarity of his teaching."Historia Eccles. xxiii, c. 9.
^Note that Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself.
^Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas's view the source of all our knowledge comes from God as well.
^David, Marian (5 February 2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^McInerny, Ralph; O'Callaghan, John (5 February 2018). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^Summa theologiae, I, 1, prooemium: "Quia Catholicae veritatis doctor non-solum provectos debet instruere, sed ad eum pertinet etiam incipientes erudire, secundum illud apostoli I ad Corinth. III, tanquam parvulis in Christo, lac vobis potum dedi, non-escam; propositum nostrae intentionis in hoc opere est, ea quae ad Christianam religionem pertinent, eo modo tradere, secundum quod congruit ad eruditionem incipientium."
^Jump up to:abMcInerny, Ralph; O'Callaghan, John (2018)."Saint Thomas Aquinas". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall 2008 ed.) – via stanford.edu.
^Grant, Edward (1996).The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 81–82.ISBN0-521-56762-9.
^The History of Philosophy, Medieval Philosophy, from 500 to 1500 CE. 2011., Edited by Brian Duignan, Britanica Educational Publishing, New York,ISBN978-1-61530-244-4; "Age of the Schoolmen"
^Aquinas, Thomas (1920). "Question 75, Article 1".Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Second and Revised ed.).
^Aquinas, Thomas (1920). "Question 75, Article 3".Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Second and Revised ed.).
^Aquinas, Thomas; et al. (1975). "5 volumes.".Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Anton C. Pegis. Notre Dame, Ind.: U. of Notre Dame Press.
^Summa of Theology I, q.2, The Five Ways Philosophers Have Proven God's Existence
^Adamson, Peter (2013). "From the necessary existent to God". In Adamson, Peter (ed.).Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0521190732.
^Thomas Aquinas. "Question 114, Article 4".Summa Theologica. Vol. I.
^"Question 38, Article 2".Summa theologica Supplement.Whether a spell can be in impediment to marriage.Note this Supplement was written or compiled by others after Thomas's death.
^Jump up to:abBurr, G. L. (1943). L. O. Gibbons (ed.).Selected Writings. New York. pp. 173–74.Original essay (1890) available here[1].
^Kramer, Heinrich (2009).Malleus Maleficarum. Translated by Christopher Mackay. Cambridge. pp. 91–92.
Massey, Gerald J. (1995). "Rhetoric and Rationality in William Harvey'sDe Mortu Cordis". In Henry Krips; J. E. McGuire; Trevor Melia (eds.).Science, Reason, and Rhetoric. University of Pittsburgh.ISBN978-0-8229-7041-5.
Thomas Aquinas (2000). Mary T. Clark (ed.).An Aquinas Reader: Selections from the Writings of Thomas Aquinas. Fordham University Press.ISBN0-8232-2029-X.
[De unitate intellectus]McInerny, Ralph M. (1993).Aquinas Against the Averroists: On There Being Only One Intellect. Purdue University Press.ISBN1-55753-029-7.
