FRANCISCO SUÁREZ. - Jesuit theologian and philosopher, known as the "Most Eminent Doctor," born in Granada on 5 January 1548, died in Lisbon on 25 September 1617.
I. LIFE
Descended from the noble families of S. and Vasquez de Utiel, at the age of 14 he was sent to Salamanca to study canon law. Moved by the preaching of Fr. Juan Ramírez, he entered the Society of Jesus on 16 June 1564. In the same year he began the course in philosophy under Fr. Andrés Martínez and, after months of intense but fruitless application,He returned to Coimbra, where he wrote *De immunitate ecclesiasticastica*, against the Signoria of Venice, which opposed the rights of the Church; this work earned him from Paul V the brief of 2 October 1607, in which he is described as "most eminent and pious theologian." At that time he published the first two volumes of his great treatise *De virtute religionis*, whose final part is a masterly commentary on the rules of the Society of Jesus. In the last years of his teaching, at the express invitation of the Pope, he intervened in the controversy raised by King James I of England with his *Defensio fidei*. In 1615 he retired to Lisbon, to the novitiate of the Society, but in May 1617 he had to intervene in the dispute (known as the "Lisbon interdiction") between the Collector of the Nunciature and the civil magistrates.
The testimonies to the virtues of S. are numerous and immediate; among others, those of his superiors and of many religious, some of high authority, such as Luis de la Puente and Alonso Rodríguez. In the documents sent to him at the end of his life by Pope Paul V and Cardinal Borghese, his secretary, mention is made of his "excellent virtues and merits"; St. John Eudes, echoing this reputation, called him a most pious theologian. His mystical gifts and extraordinary communications with God seem well attested (sworn testimony of Jerónimo de Silva). His deep piety is reflected throughout his theological work. Clear evidence of this is his volume *De mysteriis vitae Christi*, where the first 23 disputations constitute his parology, and the four ample volumes devoted to the virtue of religion.
II. WORKS
S., in the judgment of Grabmann (*Storia della teologia cattolica*, Italian trans., Milan 1939, p. 241), is the most prolific of modern theologians. The treatises published by him or left almost entirely ready for the press form, in the edition of the *Opera omnia* (Venice 1747 ff.; Paris 1856), a corpus of 23 volumes in folio. Not a few writings remain, prepared for a future critical edition.S.’s production, begun at the age of 42, is the fruit of his teaching. His first works appeared at Alcalá: *Commentariorum ac disputationum in tertiam partem divi Thomae tomus...* *De Verbo Incarnato* (Alcalá 1590); *De mysteriis vitae Christi* (ibid. 1592); *De Sacramentis* (Salamanca 1595); *De paenitentia* (Coimbra 1602), to which he added as a complement *De censuris* (ibid. 1603). Taking up and briefly explaining the text of St. Thomas, these works extend into wide-ranging discussions divided into sections. Among these commentaries there appeared in 1594 the *Quaestio theologica: Utrum opera mortificata per peccata per paenitentiam reviviscant*, a *relectio* reproduced in the *Varia opuscola* and then in Salamanca in 1597 the two celebrated volumes *Disputationum metaphysicarum*, written as a prolegomenon to theology. The volume *Varia opuscola theologica* (Madrid 1599) comprises six treatises: the first three, *De concursu et efficaci auxilio Dei ad actus liberi arbitrii necessario*, *De scientia quam Deus habet de futuris contingentibus*, *Brevis resolutio quaestionis de concursu*, form part of the documentation sent to Rome by the Spanish Jesuits in the controversy *de auxiliis*; they are followed by two treatises: *De libertate voluntatis divinae in actionibus suis*, *De meritis mortificatis* (already cited), and the *Disputatio de iustitia qua Deus reddit praemia meritis et poenas pro peccatis*, a polemical work against Vázquez. In 1606 he published in Lisbon *De Deo Uno et Trino* (Lisbon 1606), written during his journey to Rome, not in the form of a commentary on St. Thomas but as an independent work; *De virtute et statu religionis* (2 vols., Coimbra 1608–1609); *Tractatus de legibus ac de Deo legislatore* (ibid. 1612), which brought him fame as a jurist. His last great work published in his lifetime was *Defensio fidei catholicae et apostolicae adversus anglicanae sectae errores* (ibid. 1613).
At the time of his death (1617) he had already prepared several volumes, which were soon published by the Portuguese Jesuit Fr. Baltasar Álvarez: *Tractatus de Gratia Dei seu de Deo Salvatore, iustificatore et liberi arbitrii adiutore per Gratiam suam* (ibid. 1619). The second volume, which dealt with *de auxiliis*, could not be published at that time, but appeared instead in Lyons in 1651, against the wishes of the superiors of the Society; and in Lyons in 1655 there appeared the important *De vera intelligentia auxilii efficaci*, written in Rome toward the end of the controversy, and *De angelis* (Lyons 1620); *De triplici virtute theologica* (Coimbra 1621); *De opere sex dierum* together with *De anima* (Lyons 1621), left by the author at chapter 12 of book I; Fr. Álvarez completed it with notes from the original treatise; in Lyons there appeared volumes III and IV of *De religione* (ibid. 1624–26); *Tractatus quinque in primam secundae divi Thomae* (ibid. 1628), a collection made by the author from notes on topics of general moral theology: *De ultimo fine hominis*, *De voluntario et involuntario*, *De bonitate et malitia humanorum actuum*, *De passionibus et habitibus*, *De vitiis et peccatis*.
To the early editions, almost all published in Spain and Portugal, there soon followed (sometimes in the same year) other editions, especially in Lyons, Mainz, and Venice; numerous works were reprinted repeatedly until the middle of the 17th century. After the *Opera omnia* (23 vols., Venice 1740–51; 28 vols., Paris 1856–61), Msgr. Malou published *R. P. Francisci Suárez, opuscola sex indita* (Brussels 1859): two on confession at a distance, the third containing a letter to Clement VIII against the accusations of Báñez, the fifth the first two books of *De immunitate ecclesiastica* against the Venetians; the other parts of the treatise have not yet been recovered; the last opusculum reports S.’s opinion on the so-called "Jesuitesses." In 1866 the *Summa aurea* of Bourassé included (vol. VIII, pp. 457–82) a treatise by S. on the Immaculate Conception. In 1948, the fourth centenary of S.’s birth, the University of Coimbra printed two volumes *Doctor Eximius Conselhos e pareceres*: these are dissertations on questions of moral theology and law on which S. was consulted.
He also wrote commentaries on Aristotle: on the *Perihermeneias*, on the *Analytica*, on the *Topica*, on *De generatione et corruptione*, etc., some of which may be lost. His correspondence and other occasional writings number (in the bibliographical repertory of Rivière, see op. cit. in bibliography) more than 300 items, a number subsequently increased. The correspondence is ready for publication. A writing on 15 propositions of St. Augustine concerning efficacious grace was published in 1948 (*Estudios eclesiásticos*, pp. 495–505) by Fr. J. A. de Aldama. A new edition of S. is about to gather together all these literary remains.
III. SCIENTIFIC PERSONALITY
A theologian who best represents the doctrinal approach of the Society of Jesus, heir to the tradition of Paris and Salamanca, he participated in the movement of return to the sources. His patristic erudition is impressive, not only for its citations but also for its profound critical sense. Earlier theology is known to him more than to any other writer of his time, and this is one of his recognized characteristics (*in S. tota auditur Schola*).Profound and personal is the reworking of the elements offered by the philosophical and theological tradition. The resumption of all previous thought is not an end in itself, but a means for more constructive work, for the formulation of a valid judgment on individual problems. If in these respects the work of S. proves eminently analytical, it must be added that it is not lacking in synthetic vigor. S. did not claim to elaborate a personal systematic construction. He was rather a great organizer of treatises: parology, as it is conceived today, was his brilliant creation; the same must be said of the treatises *De Gratia*, *De legibus*, and *De religione*; he also organized metaphysics into a broad synthesis around the idea of being.
If S. was not original in the overall doctrine or in method, he was so in certain specific points, especially in the most debated issues among the Scholastics. His teaching seemed to present novelties, perhaps much more than is currently thought, and for this he was accused.
The well-known eclecticism of S. stems from his attitude toward the three systematic approaches, of differing value but still prevalent in 16th-century Scholasticism: Thomism, Scotism, and nominalism. To these, as they historically presented themselves, he gave no preference whatsoever. This is the only basis for the qualification of eclectic applied to his teaching. But S. subjected the arguments and systems of the various authors to vigilant criticism, which he «sine ira et studio» demolished in what, in the light of Revelation or reason, seemed to have no substance; thus it happened that at times his conclusions coincided with one or another system.
S. made extensive use of the works of St. Thomas (898 citations in the *Metaphysics* alone); his adherence to the doctrine of the master was not servile but sincere: he always followed him unless, in his judgment, a contrary reason, preponderant in his eyes, presented itself. Of the more than 6,000 conclusions contained in S.’s works, only about twenty differ from the thought of the Angelic Doctor. His substantial Thomism is recognized by Cardinal Gonzalez and by Grabmann.
IV. DOCTRINE
S.’s contributions are numerous. To him is owed the achieved systematic rigor and precision in the qualification of theological doctrines. Noteworthy is the Suarezian development of the supernatural character of the entire order of grace, of the positive dispositions to grace, and of the doctrine of merit (based on God’s commutative and distributive justice: *Opusculum*, vol. *De merito*, chap. 33); the delimitation of the effects of original sin to the “gratuity” or original justice, strongly emphasized, as well as the universality of God’s salvific will and the defense of the true character of freedom as active indifference. The opinions proper to S. in various treatises: theological (cf. P. Dumont, *S.*, in *DTHC*, XIV, cols. 2652–89) are: the character of divine relations (*De Trinitate*, bk. III), the constitutive element of the hypostatic union (*De Incarnatione*, disp. 8), the motive of the Incarnation (ibid., disp. 5), the essence of beatitude and the intuitive vision of God (*De Deo*, bk. II), the nature of Providence, the supernaturality of the formal object of “salutary acts,” the disposition to justification (*De Gratia habituali*, bk. VII–VIII), the explanation of the axiom “facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam,” the opposition between grace and sin (ibid.), active obediential potency (*De Incarnatione*, disp. 31, sect. 5–6), the causality of the Sacraments (v.), the essence of transubstantiation (v. *EUCARISTIA*) with the mode of Eucharistic presence (cf. R. Masi, *La teoria suareziana della presenza eucaristica*, Rome 1942), the intimate nature of the sacrifice of the Mass (v.), the sufficiency of repentance and the voluntariness of original sin (*De opere sex dierum*, bk. III). In the discussion on efficacious grace, S., who at first did not accept middle knowledge, soon became its most convinced advocate. In the further discussion on predefinition and predestination, he defended, together with Bellarmine, the system improperly called “congruism” (v.), in opposition to pure “molinism” (v.).S.’s philosophy is the fruit of personal reworking; on the one hand, the epistemological, cosmological, anthropological, and metaphysical doctrines (which constitute the common ground of Scholasticism) were deepened and expressed by him in clear formulas; on the other, in further inquiry into philosophical problems, he arrived at partially new solutions: realistic application to being of the act-potency theory, formal distinction *ex natura rei*, conceptualist nominalism; he moreover posited as the basis of the system the idea of being (one, transcendent, and analogous), which demands the fullness of Being by essence, from which every other being derives with full dependence (cf. F. Cayré, *Patrologia e storia della teologia*, Italian trans., II, Rome 1938, pp. 845–49).
S.’s moral theology, though not exhaustive (he did not treat particular problems of justice and contracts, nor of marriage), brought clarifications to common doctrine; St. Alphonsus considered S. one of the most reliable authors; the specific points on which he pronounced himself are: the constitutive element of morality, the notion of penal law, positive imperfection as distinct from venial sin, probabilism. S. is recognized as one of the most eminent jurists, the theorist of law in general and of political law in particular. He deepened the philosophy of society and the concept of law, with his customary breadth, and together with Bellarmine is regarded as the qualified representative of traditional doctrine on the immediate origin of civil society and authority through the free consent of citizens, presupposing their natural necessity and hence its special foundation in God. Important is S.’s contribution to the formulation of the theory of the Church’s indirect power over the state; as a canonist he excels in *De censuris* and *De immunitate ecclesiastica* as well as in many passages of *Defensio fidei* and other treatises. International law found in S. (after Francisco de Vitoria [v.]) one of its most distinguished exponents. Substantial are S.’s contributions to the concept of delimiting the law of nations, as a middle way between natural law and particular civil law, to the idea of the natural community of nations (which replaced Vitoria’s more abstract notion of the world). The problem of the just war was considered by S., with the ancient theologians, more in relation to charity than to justice, which must indeed be presupposed with certainty, without the possibility of applying probabilism properly speaking to the determination of the cause of war. In the systematic exposition of moral-legal doctrines, S. emphasized the volitional element without, however, dissociating it from the intellect (cf. R. Bouillard, *S.*, in *D’Itch*, XIV, cols. 2691–2728).
V. INFLUENCE OF S
As a fruit of his immense labor, S. gained great authority in sacred science. From his own time, S.’s lectures were eagerly sought by students from other centers, and his works enjoyed editorial success that is difficult to assess today; almost all had, within less than half a century, seven and even ten editions, and the *Metaphysics*, outside Spain, up to seventeen editions. S.’s authority was recognized by Vatican Council I, through the laudatory phrases with which his thought was cited by the Fathers and through the frequent references to his thought in the schemas and notes of the theologians.From the qualification “eminent theologian and pious” given to S. by Paul V (brief of 2 Oct 1607) derives the title of Doctor “Eminent,” by which posterity soon designated him; this was endorsed by Alexander VII, who called him the “prince of modern theologians,” recorded by Benedict XIV in the work De Synodis and confirmed by Pius XII, who cited S. in the Apostolic Constitution defining the Assumption of Mary.
SUBIACO
Plan of the monastery of S. Scolastica.
(v.) according to which it must be admitted that our mind is endowed from the beginning with all future forms and thoughts in such a way “that it already thinks confusedly about everything it will later think distinctly” (Discours de métaph., § 26, ed. H. Lestienne, Paris 1929, p. 72: Lestienne’s italics). Herbart (v.) introduced the Leibnizian principle of s. into modern psychology as the foundation of the association, dissociation and structural synthesis of the contents of consciousness. The “theory of the unconscious” of E. von Hartmann (v.) derives from the Schopenhauerian panvitalism that reappears in the doctrine of L. Klages. In modernism (v.) s. denotes the source of the “religious sense” that brings to the believer’s consciousness the experience of the so-called “indigence of the divine,” according to which, under suitable circumstances, the subject lives his religious emotion and expresses his own interpretation of dogmas (cf. enc. Pascendi: Denz-U, 2074).
A notable—often principal—functional role can be recognized for s. in the foundation of the “intentionality” (v.) of conscious processes (Brentano, Husserl) and hence in the constitution of the very sense of reality (Wirklichkeits-sinn) and in the conduct of the person as such. In this way the dynamism of s. directly concerns the problem of the “presence” of being to consciousness, so that it belongs to the temporal structure of the human spirit and to its mystery.