ABSTRACT
Alonso de la Veracruz 179
practically everything that is to be found in de Soto's works, and, like him, attempted to bridge the gap between the two schools,s although Veracruz also criticised the nominalists for wasting so much time and energy in fruitless efforts. For himself, Veracruz generally followed Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome, a realist in his teaching. For instance, in the Physica speculatio, book 1, speculatio 2 he enquired whether the changeable body (corpus mobile) was the subject of natural science (4-6). In response he pointed out that some authors held that the subject of natural science was the natural body itself (corpus naturale), others that it was the finite substance (substantia finita ), and still others that it was the changeable being (ens mobile) (4). Veracruz followed those who believed the subject of natural science to be .the changeable being, also the position of Thomas. He did, however, also acknowledge the opinion of Giles of Rome, who proposed that the subject was the changeable body, while, as Veracruz pointed out, considering the opinion that the subject was the changeable being also to be credible. The remainder of this speculatio explained Thomas' arguments and countered possible objections (5-6).
