FIRST PART (FP: QQ 1-119)
TREATISE ON SACRED DOCTRINE (Q[1])
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SACRED DOCTRINE (TEN ARTICLES)
To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent
of this sacred doctrine. Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is necessary?
(2) Whether it is a science?
(3) Whether it is one or many?
(4) Whether it is speculative or practical?
(5) How it is compared with other sciences?
(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?
(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?
(8) Whether it is a matter of argument?
(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?
(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?
Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further
knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are
too high for thee" (Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical
science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.
Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known,
save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical
science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine
science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no
need of any further knowledge.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to
teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of
philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides
philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.
I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed
by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is
directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God,
besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Is. 66:4). But the end
must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was
necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made
known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason
could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because
Summa Theologica Saint Thomas Aquinas
the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after
a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in
God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might
be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine
truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up
by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
Reply to Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be
sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be
accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the
understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.
Reply to Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through
which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same
conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e.
abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why
those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by
natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation.
Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of
philosophy.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from
self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident,
since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a science.
Objection 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of
individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a science.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby
saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science
except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of
sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence,
such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known
by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established
by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a
science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely,
the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles
taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
Reply to Objection 1: The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or
reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of
sacred doctrine.
Reply to Objection 2: Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is
concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed
in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom
the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
Whether sacred doctrine is one science?
Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher
(Poster. i) "that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the
creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one
class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science.
Objection 2: Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human
morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be
one science.
On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge
[scientiam] of holy things" (Wis. 10:10).
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged
by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it
is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and
color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely
under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the
one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine
as under one science.
Reply to Objection 1: Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God
primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence
the unity of this science is not impaired.
Reply to Objection 2: Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated
by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit
regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the "common sense" is whatever
affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense,"
although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the
subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred
science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way,
sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet
extends to everything.
Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?
Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that
which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to
action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is
a practical science.
Objection 2: Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies
a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science
is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly
concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a
speculative science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different
philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they
can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is
speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and
the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical
because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of
these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists
eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
TREATISE ON SACRED DOCTRINE (Q[1])
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SACRED DOCTRINE (TEN ARTICLES)
To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent
of this sacred doctrine. Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is necessary?
(2) Whether it is a science?
(3) Whether it is one or many?
(4) Whether it is speculative or practical?
(5) How it is compared with other sciences?
(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?
(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?
(8) Whether it is a matter of argument?
(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?
(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?
Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further
knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are
too high for thee" (Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical
science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.
Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known,
save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical
science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine
science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no
need of any further knowledge.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to
teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of
philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides
philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.
I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed
by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is
directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God,
besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Is. 66:4). But the end
must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was
necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made
known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason
could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because
Summa Theologica Saint Thomas Aquinas
the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after
a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in
God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might
be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine
truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up
by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
Reply to Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be
sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be
accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the
understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.
Reply to Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through
which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same
conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e.
abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why
those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by
natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation.
Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of
philosophy.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from
self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident,
since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a science.
Objection 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of
individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a science.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby
saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science
except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of
sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence,
such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known
by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established
by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a
science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely,
the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles
taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
Reply to Objection 1: The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or
reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of
sacred doctrine.
Reply to Objection 2: Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is
concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed
in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom
the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
Whether sacred doctrine is one science?
Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher
(Poster. i) "that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the
creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one
class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science.
Objection 2: Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human
morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be
one science.
On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge
[scientiam] of holy things" (Wis. 10:10).
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged
by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it
is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and
color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely
under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the
one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine
as under one science.
Reply to Objection 1: Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God
primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence
the unity of this science is not impaired.
Reply to Objection 2: Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated
by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit
regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the "common sense" is whatever
affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense,"
although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the
subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred
science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way,
sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet
extends to everything.
Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?
Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that
which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to
action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is
a practical science.
Objection 2: Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies
a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science
is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly
concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a
speculative science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different
philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they
can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is
speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and
the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical
because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of
these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists
eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
No comments:
Post a Comment