VASQUEZ
275
VASQUEZ
Vasquez, Gabriel, theologian, b. at Villaescusa
de Haro, near Belmonte, Cucnca, 1549 or 1551; d. at
Alcala, -3 Sept., 1604. He made his primary and
grammar studies at Behnonte, and went to Alcald
for philosophy, where he entered the Society of Jesus
3n 9 April, 1569. Having completed his novitiate he
- ontinupd his theological studies there, closing with a
public defence of his thesis. At the Fifth Provincial ^"ongregation at Toledo he also defended a thesis. Between these events he lectured to the Jesuit ^tudents on the "De Anima", and returned to Alcala
study Hebrew. Following this he taught moral hcology two years at the college of Ocana, two more it Madrid, and for some time at Alcald. From there, ilthough not yet thirty years of age, he was called
- o Rome to fill the same post at the Roman College.
[Jefore his departure he made his profession at Bel- nunte. He remained six j-ears in Rome, then re- urned to Alcahl, where he taught theology until lis death. In him, according to Haringer, virtue ■ompeted with doctrine, obedience with genius, and jiety with learning. Tlie Duke de Lerma, favourite )f Philip HI, frequently consulted him in the most mportant matters, and Benedict XIV called him the uminarv of theology. He was noted for his exact cnowlcdge of the opinions and theories of the different schools and authors, and commendable for clearness of •xpression and a strict philosophical met hod. He made
1 complete study of the writings of St. Augustine, or whom he professed great devotion, as well as those )f the other Fathers of the Church and St. Thomas.
In matters of opinion he sometimes differed from he general view of the Schools, defending private jpinions, among which the following deserve to be nentioned: (1) The natural law consists in rational lature considered in itself and in the recognition that •ertain actions are necessarily in accord with it and ithers are repugnant to it. Nevertheless, he does lot deny that the natural law might also have cog- lizance of what the Divine law enjoins, and that it night, therefore, be the principle of a Divine obhga- ion. In this he is in opposition to Kant, who holds hat all the binding force of the moral law should
- ome from man and from man alone. (2) The Divine
deas are not the essence of God, in so far as that essence or nature is known as imitable or to be imi- ated, but only as they are the knowledge, the word, he species cxpressa of possible and future creatures, rhese ideas thereby concur remotely in the creation )f beings; their proximate principle being the Divine ictive potency by which God actuallj' and effectually Tcates. (3) In the section dedicated to the dis- cussion of the existence of God he cites the ontological )roof of St. Anselm, the legitimateness and demon- itrative value of which he appears to accept abso- utely. Eternity is, according to him, duralio permo- lens, uniformis, sine principio el fine, mensura carens, I definition that differs .somewhat from that adopted )y Boethius and followed in the Schools.
(4) Grace is necessary for performing all good ac- ions and overcoming temptation. By grace he under- tands all good impulses which efficaciously urge to ight action. It may proceed from natural causes, )Ut as these are regulated by Divine Providence, if hey are so regulated as to produce efficacious good mpulses, il is grace, because man does not himself nerit it, and to many it is denied. It is to be con- idered as a gift of (!od, since it is granted through the Qerits of Christ and for a supernatural end. Hence t is called grace. (5) Predestination, he maintains, s posi prirrisa meriln. but chilflren wlio die without fs being in any way whatsoever possible for them to eceivo baptism were not, after original sin was fore- een. included in the salvific will of God. (6) In ^'hristology he held the following opinions: that the Woptionists are not Nestori.'ins: that Christ cannot )e called the servant of God: that Christ was under a
command to die, but that He was free to choose the
circumstances of His death; that the regular or formal
dignity of the priesthood of Christ will last forever,
because Christ is a priest according to His substance,
and this remains immutable. (7) The ratio formalis
of the Sacrifice of the Mass lies in the mystic separa-
tion of the Body and Blood of Christ effected by the
words of consecration. (8) It is probable that in the
new birth of baptism the guilt of sin is not pardoned
ex opere operalo, but only the punishment. Since
the death of Christ, baptism is for children the only
means of salvation; for them martyrdom has the
virtue of justification inslar haptismi; but in adults it
justifies only on account of the act of charity. (9)
Episcopal consecration does not imprint a now char-
acter, nor does it in reality extend or increase the
sacerdotal character; a new and distinct power is
thereby conferred, which is nothing else than the
Divine appointment to a new ministry. (10) In the
Sacrament of Matrimony the bodies of the contracting
parties constitute the matter, and their consent,
expressed verbally or by signs, the form. In treating
the existence of God he notes the number of atheists
who lived in his time, and attributes it to the influence
of Protestantism. He also mentions the political
atheists who consider God and religion only as govern-
mental expedients to hold the people in check.
Vasquez was a rival of Suiirez, whom he sometimes designates as one of the moderns. He established a School, and the disputes between his disciples and those of the Dominican Juan de Santo Tomas con- cerning the difference there is in God between the Divine knowledge and the Divine idea were, according to Mencndcz y Pelayo, curious. Luis de Torres and Diego de Alarcon were the most notable disciples of the School, and, although it was short-lived, all modern theologians hold Vasquez in high esteem and fre- quently quote him. Two principal charges are urged against him: his independent ojiinions and his dis- cussion of useless questions. It cannot be denied that these censures have some foundation. His independence, as Hurter remarks, led him at times to defend less safe and even erroneous opinions. His first volume on the first part of St. Thomas was held back two years by the censors of the Society. Among the questions he discussed such as the following are to be found: "An Deus extra cocluni, vel in vacuo intra ccelum esse possit, aut ante mundi creationem alicubi fuerit". Nicolis Antonio, who thoroughly examined the questions and characteristics of (hose times when all theologians discussed Questions which are to-day considered useless, says that some excuse can be made for this defect if one considers the energy and vigour of his genius, vir fuil acerrimo ingenin.
Works: (1) "De cultu adorationis libri tres et dis- putationes duae contra errores Felicis el Elipandi", AlcaW, 1594; Mainz, 1601, 1604; (2) "Commen- lariorum ac Disputationum in (partes) S. Thoma?", Alcald, 8 vols., 1.598-1615. Later abridged editions were published at Alcahl, Ingolstadt, Vienna, and more complete ones at Lyons in 1020 and .\ntwerp in 1621. (3) "Paraphrases et compendiaria exphcatio ad nonnullas Pauli Epi.stolas", .\lcal;i, 1612; Ingol- stadt, 1613; Lyons, 1630. Vives undertook to print all his works, but only got ius far as the first volume (Paris, 1905). "Metaphysic;rdisputationes" (Madrid, 1617; .Antweri), 1618) coniiiri.-ies the philosophical q\iestions dispersefl throughout his works, and is a rare and excr])ti(inally valuable book. Some of his manu- scripts are preserved in the National Library of Madrid.
NiKnKMiirRn. tVirw.M ,7:,s(r,.,, VII! (•Bill,iu>: 1S'.H), 35.5; V.UU.Hr.KW,-. Mi-nnloge dc In (■- :■ J I <■ , /T ,.,i»nf. Ill (rririfl. 1W12), III: SOUTHWF.M, /; I: i li.7r,l,27I;
GovzM.K?., //pW. rfeia Fi7oso/(a. II I '1 :■ ' ' < "iMen^n- DEZ V I'Ei.AYO, Hint, detns Wct.. /. '. ' . , 1 1 M mI r: 1 1SS4),207; SoMMKHvooEi., BMiotMque, Vlll ilirus^rls, is^isi. ,si:i.
Antonio P6rez Goyena.
Vasto. Sec Chieti, Archdiocese of.
