Aquinas on Boethius on the Trinity: Question 2


PART I QUESTION II: Concerning the manifestation of knowledge of divine truth
Article 1: Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Treated of by the Method of Inquiry
Article 2: Whether There Can Be Any Science of Divine Truths Which Are Matters of Faith
Article 3: Whether in the Science of Faith, Which Is Concerning God, it Is Permissible to Use the Rational Arguments of the Natural Philosophers
Article 4: Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Concealed by New and Obscure Words


LatinEnglish
Sancti Thomae de Aquino Thomas Aquinas
Super Boetium De Trinitate On Boethius on the Trinity
Textum a Bruno Decker Lugduni Batauorum 1959 editum ac automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit Questions 1-4, translated by Rose E. Brennan, S.H.N. (Herder, 1946)
Quaestio 2
Prooemium
Pars 1 q. 2 pr.
Deinde quaeritur de manifestatione divinae cognitionis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quattuor. Concerning the Manifestation of Knowledge of Divine Truth. Here four questions are proposed:
Pars 1 q. 2 pr. 1
Primo. Utrum divina liceat investigando tractare. 1. Whether divine truths ought to be treated of by the method of inquiry.
Pars 1 q. 2 pr. 2
Secundo. Utrum de divinis possit esse aliqua scientia. 2. Whether there can be any science of divine truths which are founded upon faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 pr. 3
Tertio. Utrum in scientia fidei quae est de Deo liceat rationibus philosophicis et auctoritatibus uti. 3. Whether in the science of faith, which is concerning God, it is permissible to employ arguments of the natural philosophers.
Pars 1 q. 2 pr. 4
Quarto. Utrum sint obscuris et novis verbis divina velanda. 4. Whether divine truths ought to be veiled by new and obscure words.
Articulus 1 Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Treated of by the Method of Inquiry.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 1
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divina investigare non liceat argumentando. Eccli. 3: altiora te ne quaesieris, et fortiora te ne scrutatus fueris. Sed divina maxime sunt homine altiora, et praecipue ea quae fidei sunt. Ergo huiusmodi scrutari non licet. 1. It seems that it is not permissible to investigate divine things by the arguments of reason. In Sirach 3:22, it is said: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee"; but divine truths are, in a special way, too high for man, and particularly those truths which are of faith; therefore it is not permissible to inquire into them.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 2
Praeterea, poena non infertur nisi pro culpa. Sed, sicut dicitur Prov. 25, perscrutator maiestatis opprimetur a gloria. Ergo perscrutari ea quae ad divinam maiestatem pertinent est illicitum. 2. Punishment is not inflicted except for some fault; but, as it is said in Prov. 25:27, "He that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory"; therefore, it is not right to search out those things which pertain to divine majesty.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 3
Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit: tolle argumenta, ubi fides quaeritur. Sed in divinis, et maxime circa Trinitatem, praecipue requiritur fides. Ergo in hac materia non licet per argumenta veritatem investigare. 3. Ambrose says: "Abandon arguments where faith is sought." But in regard to divine truths, especially those concerned with the Trinity, faith is required; therefore in this matter it is not permissible to inquire into truth by arguments of reason.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 4
Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit de generatione divina loquens: scrutari non licet mysteria superna; licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit. Ergo eadem ratione nihil eorum quae ad Trinitatem pertinent licet argumentis investigare. 4. Ambrose, in speaking of divine generation, says: "Supernal mysteries are not to be scrutinized: one may know that the Son was begotten; but how He was begotten should not be analyzed." Accordingly, for the same reason it is not permissible to make rational investigation of those truths which pertain to the Trinity.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 5
Praeterea, sicut dicit Gregorius in homilia octavae Paschae, fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio praebet experimentum. Sed malum est meritum fidei evacuare. Ergo non licet rationibus de his quae sunt fidei perscrutari. 5. Gregory in his Homily for Easter (chap. 8) says: "Faith has no merit where human reason affords proof" ; but it is wrong to lose the merit of faith; therefore it is not right to investigate matters of faith according to methods of reason.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 6
Praeterea, omnis honorificentia Deo debetur. Sed secreta per silentium honorificantur; unde dicit Dionysius in fine caelestis hierarchiae: super nos secretum silentio honorificantes. Et huic consonat quod dicitur in Psalmo secundum litteram Hieronymi: tibi silet laus, Deus, id est ipsum silentium est laus tua. Ergo debemus a perscrutatione divinorum silere. 6. All honor ought to be given to God: but divine mysteries are honored by silence; wherefore Dionysius says at the close of Coel. hier.: "Honoring by silence the hidden truth which is above us"; and with this there agrees what is said in Psalm 64, according to the text of Jerome: "Praise grows silent before You, O God," that is, silence itself is Your praise, O God; therefore we ought to refrain ourselves in silence from searching into divine truths.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 arg. 7
Praeterea, nullus movetur ad infinitum, ut philosophus dicit in I caeli et mundi, quia omnis motus est propter consecutionem finis, qui non invenitur in infinito. Sed Deus in infinitum distat a nobis. Cum ergo perscrutatio sit quidam rationis motus in id quod perscrutatur, videtur quod divina perscrutari non debeamus. 7. No one is moved to infinity, as the Philosopher says in I De Coelo et mundo, because all motion is on account of the attaining of an end [terminus], which is not to be found in infinity; but God is infinitely distant from us. Since, therefore, investigation is a kind of motion of reason toward that which is being searched out, it appears that divine truths ought not to be investigated.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 s. c. 1
Sed contra est quod dicitur 1 Petr. 3: parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de ea quae in vobis est fide. Sed hoc non potest esse, nisi ea quae sunt fidei argumentis perscrutentur. Ergo perscrutatio per argumenta de his quae sunt fidei est necessaria. On the other hand, it is said (1 Pet. 3:15): "Being ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that (faith and) hope which is in you"; but this could not be done unless we inquired reasonably into those things which are matters of faith; therefore investigation according to methods of reason into the truths of faith is necessary.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 s. c. 2
Praeterea, ut dicitur Tit. 1, ad episcopum requiritur, ut sit potens exhortari in doctrina sana et contradicentes revincere. Sed contradicentes fidei non possunt repelli nisi argumentis. Ergo in his quae sunt fidei argumentis oportet uti. Again as is said in Titus 1:9, it pertains to a bishop that he be capable of exhorting in sound doctrine and of overcoming those contradicting it: but he cannot do this without use of argumentation; therefore one ought to employ the arguments of reason in matters of faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 s. c. 3
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in I de Trinitate: adiuvante domino Deo nostro suscipiamus et eam quam flagitant rationem quod Trinitas sit unus Deus. Ergo rationibus de Trinitate potest homo perscrutari. Again Augustine says in I De Trinitate: "With the help of God our Lord, we shall begin to discuss according to reason that for which they [our adversaries] seek explanation: that the Trinity is one God." Therefore man can inquire about the Trinity according to methods of reason.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 s. c. 4
Praeterea, Augustinus contra Felicianum: quia non nimis inconvenienter duo ista discernis, cum ratione praemissa etiam testimonia non omittis, fateor secuturum quod ipse probaveris, scilicet quod rationibus et auctoritatibus utar. Et sic idem quod prius. Also Augustine says in his argument against Felician: "Since without too much disagreement you recognize these two things—since you do not disregard the foregoing argument and the word of authority—I present the matter to follow in spch a way that you yourself may accept it as proof"; that is, I shall make use of arguments from reason and authority; and thus the conclusion is like the previous one.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 co. 1
Responsio. Dicendum quod cum perfectio hominis consistat in coniunctione ad Deum, oportet quod homo ex omnibus quae in ipso sunt, quantum possibile est, ad divina annitatur, ut intellectus contemplationi et ratio inquisitioni divinorum vacet, secundum illud Psalmi: mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est. Et ideo philosophus in X Ethicorum excludit dictum quorundam qui dicebant quod homo non debeat se intromittere de rebus divinis, sed solum de humanis, sic dicens: oportet autem non secundum suadentes humana sapere hominem entem neque mortalia mortalem, sed in quantum contingit immortale facere et omnia facere ad vivere secundum optimum eorum quae in ipso. Response. I answer that it must be said that, since the perfection of man consists in his union with God, it is right that man, by all the means which are in his power and in so far as he is able, mount up to and strive to attain to divine truths, so that his intellect may take delight in contemplation and his reason in the investigation of things of God, according to the saying of Ps. 72:28, "It is good for me to adhere to my God." Hence also the Philosopher in X Ethic. opposes the saying of those who maintained that man ought not concern himself about divine things, but only about such as are human, saying: "One ought to be wise in regard to man, however, not according to those treating of human affairs alone, as a mortal knowing only mortal things; but, inasmuch as it is fitting for a mortal man to do so, he ought to do all things according to the best of those powers that are in him."
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 co. 2
Tripliciter tamen contingit in hoc peccare. In a threefold manner, however, it is possible for man to err on this point:
Primo ex praesumptione qua scilicet aliquis sic ea scrutatur quasi ea perfecte comprehensurus, et horum praesumptio arguitur Iob 12: forsitan vestigia Dei comprehendes et omnipotentem usque ad perfectum reperies? Et Hilarius dicit: ne te inseras in illud secretum et arcanum inopinabilis nativitatis; ne te immergas, summam intelligentiae comprehendere praesumens, sed intellige incomprehensibilia esse. First, by presumption, since one might enter upon such investigation as if he could attain a perfect comprehension, and it is this kind of presumption that is denounced in Job 11:7: "Do you think you can comprehend the steps of God, and find out the Almighty perfectly?" And Hilary says: "Do not involve yourself in the hiddenness and mystery of this inconceivable nativity; do not overwhelm yourself, presuming to comprehend the loftiest of intelligible things, but understand that it is incomprehensible."
Secundo ex hoc quod in his quae sunt fidei ratio praecedit fidem, non fides rationem, dum scilicet aliquis hoc solum vult credere quod ratione potest invenire, cum debeat esse e converso; unde Hilarius: credendo incipe, scilicet inquire, percurre, persiste. In the second place, error arises if, in matters of faith, reason has precedence of faith and not faith of reason, to the point that one would be willing to believe only what he could know by reason, when the converse ought to be the case: wherefore Hilary says: "While believing [in a spirit of faith], inquire, discuss, carry through your speculation."
Tertio ultra modum suae capacitatis ad divinorum perscrutationem se ingerendo, unde dicitur Rom. 12: non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem, unicuique sicut Deus divisit mensuram fidei. Non enim omnes eandem mensuram sunt consecuti, unde aliquid est ultra modum unius quod non est ultra modum alterius. In a third way error results from undertaking an inquiry into divine things which are beyond one’s capacity. Wherefore it is said in Rom. 12:3, "Not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith." All men, indeed, have not been accorded the same measure; wherefore a thing is beyond the capacity of one which is not beyond that of another.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 1
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa dicuntur homine altiora quae capacitatem eius excedunt, non quae sunt digniora secundum naturam; quia his quae sunt digniora, quanto homo magis servato suo modo intendit, tanto magis perficitur. Sed si etiam in minimis considerandis aliquis modum suae capacitatis excedat, de facili incidit in errorem; unde Glossa ibidem dicit: haeretici duobus modis fiunt, scilicet cum de creatore vel de creaturis ultra modum intendentes in errores incidunt et a veritate recedunt. 1. It may be said: Those things are said to be too high for man which exceed his capacity, no those things which are of greater dignity according to nature: for the more man fixes his gaze upon things loftier by na ture, in accordance with his capacity, the more it is to his advantage; but in the consideration of things which in the least exceed his capacity, he easily falls into error. Therefore the gloss on this same passage says: "Heretics are produced in two ways: namely, when men, beyond their proper capacity entering upon inquiry concerning the Creator or creatures fall into errors and depart from the truth."
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 2
Ad secundum dicendum quod perscrutari est quasi ad finem scrutari. Hoc autem illicitum et praesumptuosum est, ut aliquis sic scrutetur divina quasi ad finem comprehensionis perventurus. 2. Answer may be made: To search out is, as it were, to press one’s investigation to the very end; but this would be unlawful and presumptuous if one should so investigate divine truths as though he could attain to complete comprehension as his goal.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 3
Ad tertium dicendum quod ubi quaeritur fides, argumenta tolluntur quae fidei adversantur et eam praecedere conantur, non illa quae ipsam modo debito sequuntur. 3. It is answered: Where faith is sought for, those arguments which are in opposition to faith and those which seek to have precedence over it are cast aside, but not those which in due manner follow it.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 4
Ad quartum dicendum quod non licet hoc modo scrutari superna mysteria, ut ad eorum comprehensionem intentio habeatur, quod patet ex hoc quod sequitur: licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit. Ille enim modum nativitatis discutit, qui quaerit scire quid sit illa nativitas, cum de divinis possimus scire quia sunt, non quid sunt. 4. It may be said: It is not lawful in this world to inquire into divine mysteries in such a way that one would have the intention of comprehending them, as is evident from the words that follow: "It is lawful to know that He was begotten," etc. For he undertakes an unlawful mode of inquiry who seeks to know what the nature of this nativity is, since in regard to divine things we are able to know what they are not, but not what they are.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 5
Ad quintum dicendum quod duplex est humana ratio. Una demonstrativa cogens intellectum ad consensum, et talis ratio non potest haberi de his quae fidei sunt, sed potest haberi ad evacuandum ea quae fidem esse impossibilem asserunt. Quamvis enim ea quae sunt fidei demonstrari non possint, non tamen possunt demonstrative improbari. Si autem talis ratio ad probanda ea quae sunt fidei induceretur, evacuaretur meritum fidei, quia iam assentire his non esset voluntarium, sed necessarium. 5. It may be answered: Human reasoning may be spoken of in two ways: in one way, it may be regarded as demonstrative, forcing the intellect to believe; and this kind of reasoning cannot be possessed in regard to those truths which are of faith; but it is possible to possess this kind of reasoning in refuting those arguments which would destroy faith or assert the impossible. For, although reason cannot demonstrate those things which are of faith, neither can these same truths be demonstratively disproved. Moreover, if this kind of reason could lead ta a proving of those things which are of faith, it would deprive man of the merit of faith, because then assent would not be voluntary, but necessary.
Ratio autem persuasoria sumpta ex aliquibus similitudinibus ad ea quae sunt fidei inducta non evacuat fidei rationem; quia non facit ea esse apparentia, cum non fiat resolutio in prima principia quae intellectu videntur. Nec iterum meritum fidei evacuat, quia non cogit intellectum ad consensum, unde assensus remanet voluntarius. Persuasive reasoning, however, derived from certain likenesses to those things which are set forth by faith does not void the meaning of faith, since it does not make these truths to be apparent, for there can be no resolution of them to those first principles discernable by the intellect. Nor does it take away the merit of faith, because it does not force the intellect to comprehend truth, but assent remains voluntary.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 6
Ad sextum dicendum quod Deus honoratur silentio, non quod nihil de ipso dicatur vel inquiratur, sed quia quidquid de ipso dicamus vel inquiramus, intelligimus nos ab eius comprehensione defecisse, unde dicitur Eccli. 43: glorificantes dominum quantumcumque potueritis, supervalebit adhuc. 6. It may be said: God is honored by silence, but not in such a way that we may say nothing of Him or make no inquiries about Him, but, inasmuch as we understand that we lack ability to comprehend Him. Wherefore in Sirach 43: 32-34, "Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for He will yet far exceed, and His magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exalt Him as much as you can: for He is above all praise. When you exalt Him put forth all your strength, and be not weary: for you can never go far enough."
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 1 ad 7
Ad septimum dicendum quod cum Deus in infinitum a creatura distet, nulla creatura movetur in Deum, ut ipsi adaequetur vel recipiendo ab ipso vel cognoscendo ipsum. Hoc ergo, quod in infinitum a creatura distat, non est terminus motus creaturae. Sed quaelibet creatura movetur ad hoc quod Deo assimiletur plus et plus quantum potest. Et sic etiam humana mens semper debet moveri ad cognoscendum de Deo plus et plus secundum modum suum. Unde dicit Hilarius: qui pie infinita persequitur, etsi non contingat aliquando, tamen semper proficiet prodeundo. 7. Answer may be made: Since God is infinitely distant from creatures, no creature is so moved unto God as to be made His equal, either in receiving from Him or in knowing Him. Therefore, by reason of the fact that God is infinitely distant from creatures, there is no terminus to the motion of creatures; but every creature is moved to this: that he may be more and more like to God, so far as this is possible, and so also the human mind ought always be moved more and more to a knowledge of God, according to the measure that is proper to it. Therefore Hilary says: "He who in pious spirit undertakes the infinite, even though he can in no wise attain it, nevertheless profits by advancing."
Articulus 2 Whether There Can Be Any Science of Divine Truths Which Are Matters of Faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 1
Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod de divinis quae fidei subsunt scientia esse non possit. Sapientia enim contra scientiam dividitur. Sed sapientia est divinorum. Non ergo scientia. 1. it appears that there can be no science of those divine truths which are matters of faith. For wisdom is distinguished from science; but wisdom treats of divine truths; therefore science cannot do so.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 2
Praeterea, ut dicitur in I posteriorum, in qualibet scientia oportet de subiecto praesupponere quid est. Sed de Deo nullo modo possumus scire quid est, ut dicit Damascenus. Ergo de Deo non potest esse scientia. 2. As is said in I Poster., in every science one must suppose a quidditative knowledge of the subject; but in regard to God, it is impossible for us to know in any way what He is, as Damascene says; therefore it is not possible to possess any science of God.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 3
Praeterea, cuiuslibet scientiae est partes et passiones sui subiecti considerare. Sed Deus, cum sit forma simplex, nec partes habet in quas dividatur nec passionibus aliquibus subici potest. Ergo de Deo non potest esse scientia. 3. It pertains to every science to consider the parts and passive potencies of its subject; but, since God is simple form [absolute act], He has not any parts that can be distinguished, nor in Him can there be any passive potencies; therefore there can be no science about God.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 4
Praeterea, in qualibet scientia ratio praecedit assensum. Demonstratio enim facit in scientiis scibilibus assentire. Sed in his quae fidei sunt oportet esse e converso, scilicet quod assensus fidei praecedat rationem, ut dictum est. Ergo de divinis praecipue quae fide capiuntur non potest esse scientia. 4. In any science, reason precedes assent, for it is demonstration which in the sciences makes one assent to what is knowable; but in regard to those truths which are of faith, the converse ought to prevail, namely, assent on account of faith ought to precede reason, as has been said; therefore, of divine truths, especially of those which are known by faith, there can be no science.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 5
Praeterea, omnis scientia procedit ex principiis per se notis, quae quisque probat audita, aut ex principiis quae ab his fidem habent. Sed articuli fidei, qui sunt prima principia in fide, non sunt huiusmodi, quia neque sunt per se nota neque ad principia per se nota resolvi possunt demonstrative, ut dictum est. Ergo de divinis quae fide tenentur non potest esse scientia. 5. Every science proceeds from self-evident principles which every man accepts upon first hearing, or from principles in which he has faith because of those first principles; but the articles of faith which are first principles in matters of faith, are not principles of this same kind, since they are not per se nota nor can they be resolved by demonstration to those that are, as has been said; therefore, there can be no science of divine truths held by faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 6
Praeterea, fides est de non apparentibus. Sed scientia est de apparentibus, quia per scientiam apparent ea quae in scientia traduntur. Ergo de divinis quae fide tenentur non potest esse scientia. 6. Faith is not of those things that are apparent: but science is of things that are apparent, because through science those things that are treated of come to be clearly seen; therefore, concerning divine truths that are held by faith there can be no science.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 7
Praeterea, cuiuslibet scientiae principium est intellectus, quia ex intellectu principiorum venitur in scientiam conclusionum. Sed in his, quae sunt fidei, intellectus non est principium, sed finis, quia, ut dicitur Is. 7, nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Ergo de divinis quae fidei sunt non potest esse scientia. 7. Understanding is the principle of every science, because from the intellection of principles one comes to scientific knowledge of conclusions: but in those things that are of faith, intellection is not the beginning, but the end, for, as is said in Is. 7:9, "If you will not believe, you shall not understand"; therefore there can be no science of divine truths held by faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 s. c. 1
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit XII de Trinitate: huic scientiae tribuo illud tantum quo fides saluberrima, quae ad veram beatitudinem ducit, gignitur, defenditur, roboratur. Ergo de his quae sunt fidei est scientia. But on the contrary is what Augustine says in XII De Trinitate: "To that science only do I attribute any value by which faith is well served, which leads to, produces, defends, and strengthens happiness"; therefore there is a science of the truths of faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 s. c. 2
Praeterea, hoc idem videtur per hoc quod dicitur Sap. 10: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum, quod de alia intelligi non potest nisi de ea qua sancti ab impiis discernuntur, quae est scientia fidei. Also, Wis. 10:10: "She gave him the science of the saints", that is, of the truths of faith, because no other science can be here meant except that by which saints are distinguished from sinners, which is the science of faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 s. c. 3
Praeterea, apostolus de cognitione fidelium loquens 1 Cor. 8 dicit: sed non omnium est scientia, et sic idem quod prius. Also the Apostle in speaking of the knowledge of the faithfu says in 1 Cor. 8:7: "But there is not knowledge in everyone," and thus we come to the same conclusion as before.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 co. 1
Responsio. Dicendum quod cum ratio scientiae consistat in hoc quod ex aliquibus notis alia necessario concludantur, hoc autem de divinis contingat, constat quod de divinis potest esse scientia. Response. I answer that, since the essence of science consists in this, that from things known a knowledge of things previously unknown is derived, and this may occur in relation to divine truths, evidently there can be a science of divine things.
Sed divinorum notitia dupliciter potest aestimari. Uno modo ex parte nostra, et sic nobis cognoscibilia non sunt nisi per res creatas, quarum cognitionem a sensu accipimus. Alio modo ex natura ipsorum, et sic ipsa sunt ex seipsis maxime cognoscibilia, et quamvis secundum modum suum non cognoscantur a nobis, tamen a Deo cognoscuntur et a beatis secundum modum suum. But knowledge of divine truths can be thought of in two ways. In one way, as on our part, such truths are not knowable except from created things, of which we have a knowledge derived from sense experience. In another way, on the part of the nature of these things themselves, they are, in themselves, most knowable; and although they are not known by us according to their essences, they are known by God and by the blessed according to their proper mode;
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 co. 2
Et secundum hoc de divinis duplex scientia habetur. Una secundum modum nostrum, qui sensibilium principia accipit ad notificandum divina, et sic de divinis philosophi scientiam tradiderunt, philosophiam primam scientiam divinam dicentes. Alia secundum modum ipsorum divinorum, ut ipsa divina secundum se ipsa capiantur, quae quidem perfecte in statu viae nobis est impossibilis, sed fit nobis in statu viae quaedam illius cognitionis participatio et assimilatio ad cognitionem divinam, in quantum per fidem nobis infusam inhaeremus ipsi primae veritati propter se ipsam. and so science of divine things must be considered in a twofold manner. One is according to our mode of knowledge, in which knowledge of sensible things serves as the principle for coming to a knowledge of divine; and it was in this way that the philosophers handed down a traditional science of divine things, calling first philosophy a divine science. The other mode is according to that of divine things themselves as they are understood in themselves. This is, indeed, a mode of knowledge which we cannot possess perfectly in this life; but there is for us, even in this life, a certain participation and assimilation to such a cognition of divine truth, inasmuch as through the faith which is infused into our souls we adhere to the very First Truth on account of Itself.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 co. 3
Et sicut Deus ex hoc, quod cognoscit se, cognoscit alia modo suo, id est simplici intuitu, non discurrendo, ita nos ex his, quae per fidem capimus primae veritati adhaerendo, venimus in cognitionem aliorum secundum modum nostrum discurrendo de principiis ad conclusiones, ut sic ipsa, quae fide tenemus, sint nobis quasi principia in hac scientia et alia sint quasi conclusiones. Ex quo patet quod haec scientia est altior illa scientia divina, quam philosophi tradiderunt, cum ex altioribus procedat principiis. And as God, since He knows Himself, knows in a way that is His own, that is, by simple intuition, not by discursive thought, so we, from those truths that we possess in adhering to First Truth, come to a knowledge of other truths, according to our own mode of cognition, namely, by proceeding from principles to conclusions. Wherefore, those truths that we hold in the first place by faith are for us, as it were, first principles in this science, and the other truths to which we attain are quasi-conclusions. From this it is evident that this science is of a higher order than that which the philosophers traditionally termed divine, since it proceeds from higher principles.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 1
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sapientia non dividitur contra scientiam, sicut oppositum contra suum oppositum, sed quia se habet ex additione ad scientiam. Est enim sapientia, ut dicit philosophus in VI Ethicorum, caput omnium scientiarum, regulans omnes alias in quantum de altissimis principiis est; propter quod etiam dea scientiarum dicitur in principio metaphysicae et multo magis haec quae non solum de altissimis, sed ex altissimis est. Sapientis autem est ordinare, et ideo ista scientia altissima, quae omnes alias regulat et ordinat, sapientia dicitur, sicut in artibus mechanicis sapientes dicimus illos qui alios regulant, ut architectores; scientiae vero nomen aliis inferioribus relinquitur. Et secundum hoc scientia dividitur contra sapientiam sicut proprium contra diffinitionem. 1. It may be said: Wisdom is not distinguished from science as opposed to it, but as related to science by adding to it. For wisdom is, indeed, as the Philosopher says in VI Ethic., the head of all the sciences, regulating all others inasmuch as it treats of highest principles: on this account it is also called "the goddess of sciences" in I Metaph.; and much more is this true of that wisdom which is not only about highest principles, but from highest principles. Moreover, the function of wisdom is to order, and therefore this highest science, which orders and rules all others, is called wisdom; just as in mechanical arts we call those men wise who direct others, as the architects: but the name of "science" is also left to others that are inferior, and accordingly science is distinguished from wisdom as a property from a definition (i.e., as properties flow necessarily from an essence, so do the other sciences from wisdom).
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 2
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quando causae cognoscuntur per suos effectus, effectus cognitio supplet locum cognitionis quiditatis causae, quae requiritur in illis scientiis quae sunt de rebus quae per se ipsas cognosci possunt; et sic non oportet ad hoc quod de divinis scientiam habeamus, quod praesciatur de eo quid est. Vel potest dici quod hoc ipsum quod scimus de eo quid non est supplet locum in scientia divina cognitionis quid est; quia sicut per quid est distinguitur res ab aliis, ita per hoc quod scitur quid non est. 2. It may be said: As has been previously declared, since causes are known through their effects, the knowledge of an effect substitutes for the quidditative knowledge of the cause; this is necessarily required in those sciences treating of things that cannot be known through themselves: thus, for us to have a science of divine things, it is not necessary that we first have a quidditative knowledge of God. Or, again, it can be said that what we know God is not, takes the place, in divine science, of a cognition of what He is: for as one thing is distinguished from others by what it is, so God is here known by,that which He is not.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 3
Ad tertium dicendum quod partes subiecti in scientia non solum sunt intelligendae partes subiectivae vel integrales, sed partes subiecti dicuntur omnia illa quorum cognitio requiritur ad cognitionem subiecti, cum omnia huiusmodi non tractentur in scientia, nisi in quantum habent ordinem ad subiectum. Passiones etiam dicuntur quaecumque de aliquo probari possunt, sive negationes sive habitudines ad aliquas res. Et talia multa de Deo probari possunt et ex principiis naturaliter notis et ex principiis fidei. 3. It may be answered: In science the parts of a subject are not to be understood only as subjective or integral parts; but the parts of a subject are all those things of which knowledge is required in order to have cognition of the subject, since all things of this sort are not dealt with in a co-science except inasmuch as they are related to the subject. Those also are called passive potencies which can be proved in regard to anything, whether they are negations or relations to other things. And many such things can be proved in regard to God, both from naturally known principles and from principles of faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 4
Ad quartum dicendum quod in qualibet scientia sunt aliqua quasi principia et aliqua quasi conclusiones. Ratio ergo quae inducitur in scientiis praecedit assensum conclusionum, sed sequitur assensum principiorum, cum ex eis procedat. Articuli autem fidei in hac scientia non sunt quasi conclusiones, sed quasi principia quae etiam defenduntur ab impugnantibus, sicut philosophus in IV metaphysicae disputat contra negantes principia, et manifestantur per aliquas similitudines, sicut principia naturaliter nota per inductionem, non autem ratione demonstrativa probantur. 4. It may be answered: In any science whatever there are certain things that serve as principles, and others as conclusions. Hence the reasoning process set forth in the sciences precedes the assent given to a conclusion, but follows upon assent to principles, since it proceeds from them. Now, it is true that the articles of faith are in this science rather principles aian conclusions, but they must be defended against those opposing them, as the Philosopher (IV Metaph.) proves against those denying first principles: for they may be made clearer of understanding by certain similitudes, by inducing results of opposing naturally known principles, but they cannot be proved by demonstrative reasoning.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 5
Ad quintum dicendum quod etiam in scientiis humanitus traditis sunt quaedam principia in quibusdam earum quae non sunt omnibus nota, sed oportet ea supponere a superioribus scientiis, sicut in scientiis subalternatis supponuntur et creduntur aliqua a scientiis superioribus, et illa non sunt per se nota nisi superioribus scientibus. Et hoc modo se habent articuli fidei, qui sunt principia huius scientiae, ad cognitionem divinam, quia ea quae sunt per se nota in scientia, quam Deus habet de se ipso, supponuntur in scientia nostra et creduntur ei nobis haec indicanti per suos nuntios, sicut medicus credit physico quattuor esse elementa. 5. It must be said: Even in those sciences handed down to us by human tradition, there are certain principles in some of them which are not universally known, but which presuppose truths derived from a higher science, just as in subordinate sciences certain things taken from superior sciences are assumed and believed to be true; and truths of this kind are not per se nota except in the higher sciences. This is the case with the articles of faith; for they are principles of that science leading to knowledge of divine things, since those truths which are per se nota in the knowledge which God has of Himself, are presupposed in our science; and He is believed as the one manifesting these truths to us through His messengers, even as the doctor believes from the word of the physicist that there are four elements.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 6
Ad sextum dicendum quod apparentia scientiae procedit ex apparentia principiorum; quoniam scientia non facit apparere principia, sed ex hoc, quod apparent principia, facit apparere conclusiones. Et per hunc modum scientia, de qua loquimur, non facit apparere ea de quibus est fides, sed ex eis facit apparere alia per modum quo de primis certitudo habetur. 6. Answer is made: The evident truths of a science proceed from the evident truth of principles. Wherefore a science does not make clear the truth of its principles, but makes clear that of its conclusions: and in this same way the science of which we now speak does not make evident the things of which we have faith, but on the basis of them, it makes other things evident with the same certitude as that belonging to their first principles.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 2 ad 7
Ad septimum dicendum quod cuiuslibet scientiae principium est intellectus semper quidem primum, sed non semper proximum, immo aliquando est fides proximum principium scientiae. Sicut patet in scientiis subalternatis, quia earum conclusiones sicut ex proximo principio procedunt ex fide eorum quae supponuntur a superiori scientia, sed sicut a principio primo ab intellectu superioris scientis, qui de his creditis certitudinem per intellectum habet. Et similiter huius scientiae principium proximum est fides, sed primum est intellectus divinus, cui nos credimus, sed finis fidei est nobis, ut perveniamus ad intelligendum quae credimus, sicut si inferior sciens addiscat superioris scientis scientiam, et tunc fient et intellecta vel scita, quae prius erant tantummodo credita. 7. It may be said: Understanding is always the first principle of any science, but not always the proximate principle; rather, it is often faith which is the proximate principle of a science, as is evident in the case of the subordinate sciences; since their conclusions proceed from faith in truths accepted on the authority of a superior science as from a proximate principle, but from the understanding of scientists in the superior field who have intellectual certitude of these created truths as from their ultimate principle. So likewise the proximate principle of this divine science is faith, but the first principle is the divine intellect to the revelation of which we give the assent of faith; but faith is in us that we may attain to an understanding of those things we believe; in the same way that a scientist in an inferior field, if he should gain knowledge of a higher, would then possess understanding and science of truths which previously were accepted only on faith.
Articulus 3 Whether in the Science of Faith, Which Is Concerning God, it Is Permissible to Use the Rational Arguments of the Natural Philosophers.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 1
Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in his quae sunt fidei non liceat philosophicis rationibus uti. 1 Cor. 1: non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare, non in sapientia verbi, Glossa: in doctrina philosophorum. Et super illud: ubi inquisitor huius saeculi? Dicit Glossa: inquisitor est qui naturae secreta rimatur, tales non recipit Deus inter praedicatores. Et super illud 2 c.: sermo meus et praedicatio mea fuit non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, dicit Glossa: etsi persuasibilia fuerunt verba mea, non tamen per humanam sapientiam, ut verba pseudoapostolorum. 1. It seems that in regard to those truths that are of faith it is not right to employ the rational arguments of the natural philosophers, for, according to 1 Cor. 1:17, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not wisdom of speech"; that is, "in the doctrine of the philosophers," as the gloss says. And concerning the line (1 Cor. 1:20), "Where is the disputer of this world?" the gloss says: "The disputer is he who searches into the secrets of nature; such men God does not accept as preachers." And on the line (1 Cor. 2:4), "And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom," the gloss says: "Although the words were persuasive, they were not so because of human wisdom, as is the word of pseudo-apostles."
Ex quibus omnibus videtur quod in his quae sunt fidei non liceat rationibus philosophicis uti. From all these lines it is evident that in matters of faith it is not lawful to employ philosophical reasoning.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 2
Praeterea, Is. 15 super illud: nocte vastata est Ar, dicit Glossa: Ar, id est adversarius, scilicet scientia saecularis, quae adversaria est Deo. Ergo scientia saeculari in his quae Dei sunt uti non debemus. 2. On that line (Is. 15:1), "Because in the night Ar of Moab is laid waste," the gloss says: "Ar, that is, the adversary, namely, secular science, which is the adversary of God"; therefore, etc.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 3
Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit: sacramentum fidei a philosophicis argumentis est liberum. Ergo ubi de fide agitur, philosophorum rationibus et dictis uti non licet. 3. Ambrose says: "The deepest mysteries of faith are free from the reasonings of the philosophers"; therefore, when a matter of faith is dealt with, the reasonings and words of the philosophers ought not to be used.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 4
Praeterea, Hieronymus refert in epistula ad Eustochium virginem se in visione verberatum divino iudicio fuisse pro eo quod in libris legerat Ciceronis, et qui astabant precabantur ut veniam tribueret adolescentiae, exacturus deinde cruciatum, si gentilium libros aliquando legisset; unde obtestans nomen Dei clamavit: domine, si umquam habuero saeculares codices, si legero, te negavi. Si ergo non licet in eis studere et legere, multo minus licet eis in divinis tractatibus uti. 4. Jerome relates in a letter to Eustochium that in vision he was beaten, according to divine justice, because he had read the books of Cicero, and that those standing by besought that leniency might be granted on account of his youth, and that afterward the extreme penalty should be exacted if he read again the books of the Gentiles; wherefore, calling upon the name of God, he exclaimed: "If ever I shall possess secular books, if ever I read them, I shall have denied You"; therefore it is not lawful to use them in treating of divine things.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 5
Praeterea, saecularis sapientia frequenter in Scriptura per aquam significatur, sapientia vero divina per vinum. Sed Is. 1 vituperabuntur caupones aquam vino miscentes. Ergo vituperandi sunt doctores qui sacrae doctrinae philosophica documenta admiscent. 5. In Scripture, secular wisdom is often represented by water, but divine wisdom by wine. Now, according to Is., chap. 1, the innkeepers are upbraided for mixing water with wine; therefore the doctors are blameworthy for their mingling of philosophical doctrine with sacred Scripture.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 6
Praeterea, sicut dicit Hieronymus in Glossa Osee 2, cum haereticis nec nomina debemus habere communia. Sed haeretici utuntur ad fidei corruptionem philosophicis documentis, ut habetur in Glossa Prov. 7 et Is. 15. Ergo Catholici eis in suis tractatibus uti non debent. 6. Jerome says, in his gloss on Hosea, chap. 2, "With heretics we ought not to have even names in common." But heretics use the arguments of philosophers to destroy faith, as is maintained in the gloss on Prov., chap, 7 and Is., chap. 15; therefore Catholics ought not to use such in their discussions.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 7
Praeterea, sicut quaelibet scientia habet principia propria, ita et sacra doctrina, scilicet articulos fidei. Sed in aliis scientiis non recte proceditur, si assumantur alterius scientiae principia, sed oportet in unaquaque ex propriis principiis procedere, secundum doctrinam philosophi in I posteriorum. Ergo nec in sacra doctrina recte proceditur, si quis ex documentis philosophorum procedit. 7. Every science has its proper principles, and thus also sacred doctrine has those that belong to it, namely, the articles of faith; but in other sciences the process is not valid if principles are saken from a different science, but each ought to proceed from its own principles, according to the teaching of the Philosopher (I Poster.); therefore the method is not permissible in sacred doctrine.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 arg. 8
Praeterea, si alicuius doctrina in aliquo repudiatur, eius auctoritas invalida est ad aliquid confirmandum; unde dicit Augustinus quod si in sacra Scriptura concesserimus aliquid esse falsitatis, peribit eius auctoritas ad fidei confirmationem. Sed sacra doctrina in multis doctrinam philosophorum repudiat, quia in multis errasse inveniuntur. Ergo eorum auctoritas non est efficax ad aliquid confirmandum. 8. If the doctrine of anyone is repudiated in any respect, the authority of his teaching will not be valid in proving anything; wherefore Augustine says that, if in sacred doctrine we discover some falsity, the authority of that teaching is destroyed for confirming anything in regard to faith; but sacred doctrine repudiates the doctrine of the philosophers in many ways, because many errors are found among them; therefore their authority has no efficacy in proving anything (regarding sacred doctrine).
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 s. c. 1
Sed contra est quod apostolus Tit. 1 Epimenidis poetae versiculo usus est dicens: Cretenses semper mendaces, malae bestiae, ventres pigri, et 1 Cor. 15 verbis Menandri: corrumpunt bonos mores colloquia prava, et Athenis usus est verbis Arati: ipsius, scilicet Dei, et genus sumus, ut habetur Act. 17. Ergo et aliis divinae Scripturae doctoribus licet philosophicis argumentis uti. But on the contrary, the Apostle (Titus 1: 12) makes use of a verse from the poet Epimenides, saying, "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts," etc.; and (1 Cor. 15:33) he employs the words of Menander: "Evil communications corrupt good manners"; and in Acts 17:28 are the words of Aratus, "For we are also his (i.e., God’s) offspring." Therefore it is licit for other doctors of divine Scripture also to make use of the arguments of the philosophers.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 s. c. 2
Praeterea, Hieronymus in epistula ad magnum urbis Romae oratorem enumeratis pluribus sacrae Scripturae doctoribus ut Basilio, Gregorio et quibusdam aliis subiungit: qui omnes in tantum philosophorum doctrinis atque sententiis suos referserunt libros, ut nescias, quid in eis primum mirari debeas, utrum eruditionem saeculi vel scientiam Scripturarum. Quod non fecissent, si non licuisset vel inutile fuisset. Again, Jerome, in a letter to Magnus, a famous orator of Rome, having enumerated many doctors of Scripture, such as Basil and Gregory, adds: "All these have so intermingled in their books the teachings and the sayings of the philosophers that one knows not which to admire first in them, their secular erudition or their knowledge of the Scriptures." But this they would not have done had such been illicit or useless.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 s. c. 3
Praeterea, Hieronymus in epistula ad Pammachium de dormitione Paulinae: si adamaveris mulierem captivam, id est sapientiam saecularem, et eius pulchritudine captus fueris, decalva eam, et illecebras crinium atque ornamenta verborum cum tenacibus unguibus seca, lava eam prophetali nitro, et requiescens cum illa dicito: sinistra eius sub capite meo, et dextera illius amplexabitur me, et multos tibi captiva fetus dabit, ac de Moabitide efficietur tibi Israelites. Ergo fructuosum est ut aliquis sapientia saeculari utatur. Also Jerome in a letter to Pammachius about the death of Paula says: you have become enamored of the captive woman, secular wisdom, and captivated by her beauty, cut her hair and her finger nails, cut away the enticement of her tresses and the adornments of her words, bathe her with prophetic niter, and, lying with her, say: ‘His left hand under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me’ (Cant. 8:3), and many children will the captive woman give to you, and from the Moabite, Israelites will be born to you." Therefore with fruitful results some make use of secular wisdom.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 s. c. 4
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in II de Trinitate: non ero segnis ad inquirendam substantiam Dei sive per Scripturam sive per creaturam. Sed cognitio de creaturis in philosophia proponitur. Ergo non est inconveniens quod aliquis in sacra doctrina rationibus philosophicis utatur. Again Augustine (II De Trinitate) says: "I shall not be without zeal in seeking out knowledge of God, whether through Scripture or creatures"; but knowledge of God through creaturegis given in philosophy; therefore it is not unfitting that in sacred doctrine one should make use of philosophical reasoning.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 s. c. 5
Praeterea, Augustinus in II de doctrina Christiana: philosophi autem qui dicuntur si qua forte vera et fidei nostrae accomoda dixerunt, non solum formidanda non sunt, sed ab eis tamquam iniustis possessoribus in usum nostrum vindicanda. Et sic idem quod prius. Again Augustine (Book II, De doctrina Christiana) says: "If the philosophers have by chance uttered truths helpful to our faith, they are not only not to be feared, but rather those truths ought to be taken from them as from unjust possessors and used to our advantage." Thus the conclusion is as before.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 s. c. 6
Praeterea, Daniel 1 super illud: proposuit autem Daniel etc., dicit Glossa: si quis imperitus mathematicae artis contra mathematicos scribat aut expers philosophiae contra philosophos agat, quis etiam ridendus vel ridendo non rideat? Sed oportet quandoque doctorem sacrae Scripturae contra philosophos agere. Ergo oportet eum philosophia uti. Also on the saying in Dan. 1:8, "But Daniel purposed in his heart," the gloss says: "If anyone ignorant of mathematics should write in opposition to the mathematicians, or knowing nothing of philosophy should argue against the philosophers, would he not be derided?" But doctors of sacred Scripture must at times argue with philosophers; therefore it is needful that they make use of philosophy.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 co. 1
Responsio. Dicendum quod dona gratiarum hoc modo naturae adduntur quod eam non tollunt, sed magis perficiunt; unde et lumen fidei, quod nobis gratis infunditur, non destruit lumen naturalis rationis divinitus nobis inditum. Et quamvis lumen naturale mentis humanae sit insufficiens ad manifestationem eorum quae manifestantur per fidem, tamen impossibile est quod ea, quae per fidem traduntur nobis divinitus, sint contraria his quae sunt per naturam nobis indita. Oporteret enim alterum esse falsum; et cum utrumque sit nobis a Deo, Deus nobis esset auctor falsitatis, quod est impossibile. Sed magis cum in imperfectis inveniatur aliqua imitatio perfectorum, in ipsis, quae per naturalem rationem cognoscuntur, sunt quaedam similitudines eorum quae per fidem sunt tradita. Response. I answer that it must be said that gifts of grace are added to those of nature in such a way that they do not destroy the latter, but rather perfect them; wherefore also the light of faith, which is gratuitously infused into our minds, does not destroy the natural light of cognition, which is in us by natuise. For although the natural light of the human mind is insufficient to reveal those truths revealed by faith, yet it is impossible that those things which God has manifested to us by faith should be contrary to those which are evident to us by natural knowledge. In this case one would necessarily be false: and since both kinds of truth are from God, God would be the author of error, a thing which is impossible. Rather, since in imperfect things there is found some imitation of the perfect, though the image is deficient, in those things known by natural reason there are certain similitudes of the truths revealed by faith.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 co. 2
Sicut autem sacra doctrina fundatur supra lumen fidei, ita philosophia fundatur supra lumen naturale rationis; unde impossibile est quod ea, quae sunt philosophiae, sint contraria his quae sunt fidei, sed deficiunt ab eis. Continent tamen aliquas eorum similitudines et quaedam ad ea praeambula, sicut natura praeambula est ad gratiam. Now, as sacred doctrine is founded upon the light of faith, so philosophy depends upon the light of natural reason; wherefore it is impossible that philosophical truths are contrary to those that are of faith; but they are deficient as compared to them. Nevertheless they incorporate some similitudes of those higher truths, and some things that are preparatory for them, just as nature is the preamble to grace.
Si quid autem in dictis philosophorum invenitur contrarium fidei, hoc non est philosophia, sed magis philosophiae abusus ex defectu rationis. Et ideo possibile est ex principiis philosophiae huiusmodi errorem refellere vel ostendendo omnino esse impossibile vel ostendendo non esse necessarium. Sicut enim ea quae sunt fidei non possunt demonstrative probari, ita quaedam contraria eis non possunt demonstrative ostendi esse falsa, sed potest ostendi ea non esse necessaria. If, however, anything is found in the teachings of the philosophers contrary to faith, this error does not properly belong to philosophy, but is due to an abuse of philosophy owing to the insufficiency of reason. Therefore also it is possible from the principles of philosophy to refute an error of this kind, either by showing it to be altogether impossible, or not to be necessary. For just as those things which are of faith cannot be demonstratively proved, so certain things contrary to them cannot be demonstratively shown to be false, but they can be shown not to be necessary.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 co. 3
Sic ergo in sacra doctrina philosophia possumus tripliciter uti. Thus, in sacred doctrine we are able to make a threefold use of philosophy:
Primo ad demonstrandum ea quae sunt praeambula fidei, quae necesse est in fide scire, ut ea quae naturalibus rationibus de Deo probantur, ut Deum esse, Deum esse unum et alia huiusmodi vel de Deo vel de creaturis in philosophia probata, quae fides supponit. 1. First, to demonstrate those truths that are preambles of faith and that have a necessary place in the science of faith. Such are the truths about God that can be proved by natural reason—that God exists, that God is one; such truths about God or about His creatures, subject to philosophical proof, faith presupposes.
Secundo ad notificandum per aliquas similitudines ea quae sunt fidei, sicut Augustinus in libro de Trinitate utitur multis similitudinibus ex doctrinis philosophicis sumptis ad manifestandum Trinitatem. 2. Secondly, to give a clearer notion, by certain similitudes, of the truths of faith, as Augustine in his book, De Trinitate, employed any comparisons taken from the teachings of the philosophers to aid understanding of the Trinity.
Tertio ad resistendum his quae contra fidem dicuntur sive ostendendo ea esse falsa sive ostendendo ea non esse necessaria. 3. In the third place, to resist those who speak against the faith, either by showing that their statements are false, or by showing that they are not necessarily true.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 co. 4
Tamen utentes philosophia in sacra doctrina possunt dupliciter errare. Nevertheless, in the use of philosophy in sacred Scripture, there can be a twofold error:
Uno modo in hoc quod utantur his quae sunt contra fidem, quae non sunt philosophiae, sed corruptio vel abusus eius, sicut Origenes fecit. In one way, by using doctrines contrary to faith, which are not truths of philosophy, but rather error, or abuse of philosophy, as Origen did.
Alio modo, ut ea quae sunt fidei includantur sub metis philosophiae, ut scilicet si aliquis credere nolit nisi quod per philosophiam haberi potest, cum e converso philosophia sit ad metas fidei redigenda, secundum illud apostoli 2 Cor. 10: in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. In another way, by using them in such manner as to include under the measure of philosophy truths of faith, as if one should be willing to believe nothing except what could be held by philosophic reasoning; when, on the contrary, philosophy should be subject to the measure of faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:5), "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ."
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 1
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex omnibus verbis illis ostenditur quod doctrina philosophorum non sit utendum quasi principali, ut scilicet propter eam veritas fidei credatur; non tamen removetur, quin ea possint uti sacri doctores quasi secundaria. Unde ibidem super illud: perdam sapientiam sapientum, dicit Glossa: non ideo hoc dicit ut veritatis intelligentia possit a Deo reprobari, sed quia eorum prudentia reprobatur, qui in sua eruditione confidunt. 1. It may be said: From all these words it is shown that philosophical doctrine ought not to be used as if it had first place, as if on account of it one believed by faith; nevertheless the fact is not disproved that doctors of sacred learning may employ philosophy, as it were, secondarily. Wherefore, on the saying (1 Cor. 1:19), "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise," the gloss adds: "This he does not say because the understanding of truth can be worthy of God’s anger, but because the false prudence of those who trusted in their erudition is worthy of reproof."
Ut tamen totum quod est fidei non humanae potentiae aut sapientiae tribueretur, sed Deo, voluit Deus ut primitiva apostolorum praedicatio esset in infirmitate et simplicitate, cui tamen postea potentia et saecularis sapientia superveniens ostendit per victoriam fidei mundum esse Deo subiectum et quantum ad potentiam et quantum ad sapientiam. Nevertheless, in order that all that is of faith might be attributed not to human power or wisdom but to God, God willed that the primitive preaching of the apostles should be in infirmity and simplicity; though, on the other hand, with the later advent of power and secular wisdom, He manifested by the victory of the faith that the world is subject to God as much by wisdom as by power.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 2
Ad secundum dicendum quod sapientia saecularis dicitur esse contraria Deo quantum ad eius abusum, sicut ea haeretici abutuntur, non quantum ad eius veritatem. 2. It may be said: Secular wisdom is said to be contrary to God in so far as it is an abuse of wisdom (i.e., erroneous) as when heretics abuse it, but not in so far as it is true.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 3
Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramentum fidei pro tanto dicitur liberum a philosophicis argumentis, quia sub metis philosophiae non coartatur, ut dictum est. 3. It may be answered: The sacred deposit of the truth of faith is said to be free from philosophical doctrine inasmuch as it is not confined by the limits of philosophy.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 4
Ad quartum dicendum quod Hieronymus adeo afficiebatur ad gentilium libros quod sacram Scripturam quodammodo contemnebat; unde ipsemet ibidem dicit: si quando in memet reversus prophetas legere coepissem, sermo horrebat incultus. Et hoc esse reprehensibile nullus ambigit. 4. It may be said: Jerome was so influenced by certain books of the Gentiles that he contemned, in a way, sacred Scripture: wherefore he himself says: "If I began to read it while turning over the words of the Prophets in my own mind, their crude expression filled me with distaste." And no one will deny that such was reprehensible.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 5
Ad quintum dicendum quod ex tropicis locutionibus non est sumenda argumentatio, ut dicit Magister 11 distinctione III sententiarum, et Dionysius dicit in epistula ad Titum quod symbolica theologia non est argumentativa, et praecipue cum illa expositio non sit alicuius auctoris. Et tamen potest dici quod quando alterum duorum transit in dominium alterius, non reputatur mixtio, sed quando utrumque a sua natura alteratur. Unde illi, qui utuntur philosophicis documentis in sacra doctrina redigendo in obsequium fidei, non miscent aquam vino, sed aquam convertunt in vinum. 5. It may be said: No conclusive argument can be drawn from figurative speech, as the Master (Peter Lombard) says. Dionysius also says in his letter to Titus that symbolic theology has no weight of proof, especially when such interprets no authority. Nevertheless it can be said that When one of two things passes into the nature of another, the product is not considered a mixture except when the nature of both is altered. Wherefore those who use philosophical doctrines in sacred Scripture in such a way as to subject them to the service of faith, do not mix water with wine, but change water into wine.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 6
Ad sextum dicendum quod Hieronymus loquitur de illis nominibus quae ab haereticis sunt inventa accomoda suis erroribus. Philosophicae autem disciplinae non sunt tales, immo earum abusus solum in errorem ducit, et ideo non sunt propter hoc vitandae. 6. It may be said: Jerome is speaking of those arguments that were invented by heretics to give support to their errors; but such doctrines do not belong to philosophy; rather they lead only to error; and consequently on their account che truths of philosophy ought not be shunned.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 7
Ad septimum dicendum quod scientiae quae habent ordinem ad invicem hoc modo se habent quod una potest uti principiis alterius, sicut scientiae posteriores utuntur principiis scientiarum priorum, sive sint superiores sive inferiores; unde metaphysica, quae est omnibus superior, utitur his quae in aliis scientiis sunt probata. Et similiter theologia, cum omnes aliae scientiae sint huic quasi famulantes et praeambulae in via generationis, quamvis sint dignitate posteriores, potest uti principiis omnium aliarum scientiarum. 7. Answer may be made: Sciences which are ordered to one another are so related that one can use the principles of another, just as posterior sciences can use the principles of prior sciences, whether they are superior or inferior: wherefore metaphysics, which is superior in dignity to all, uses truths that have been proved in other sciences. And in like manner theology—although all other sciences are related to it in the order of generation, as serving it and as preambles to it—can make use of the principles of all the others, even if they are posterior to it in dignity.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 3 ad 8
Ad octavum dicendum quod in quantum sacra doctrina utitur philosophicis documentis propter se, non recipit ea propter auctoritatem dicentium, sed propter rationem dictorum, unde quaedam bene dicta accipit et alia respuit. Sed quando utitur eis propter alios refellendos, utitur eis, in quantum sunt in auctoritatem illis qui refelluntur, quia testimonium ab adversariis est efficacius. 8. It may be said: Inasmuch as sacred doctrine makes use of the teachings of philosophy for their own sake, it does not accept them on account of the authority of those who taught them, but on account of the reasonableness of the doctrine; wherefore it accepts truth well said and rejects other things: but when it uses these doctrines to refute certain errors, it uses them inasmuch as their authority is esteemed by those whose refutation is desired, because the testimony of an adversary has in that case greater weight.
Articulus 4 Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Concealed by New and Obscure Words.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 arg. 1
Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divina in scientia fidei non sunt obscuritate verborum velanda, quia, ut dicitur Prov. 14, doctrina prudentium facilis. Ergo sine obscuritate verborum proponi debet. 1. It seems that in the science of faith divine truths ought not to be veiled over by obscurity of words, for it is said in Prov. 14:6, "The learning of the wise is easy." Therefore these truths ought to be presented without obscurity of words.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 arg. 2
Praeterea, Eccli. 4: ne abscondas sapientiam in decore eius; et Prov. 11: qui abscondit frumenta, Glossa: praedicationis, maledicetur in populis. Ergo verba sacrae doctrinae non sunt velanda. 2. According to Sirach 4:28, "Hide not thy wisdom in her beauty," and Prov. 11:26, "He that hideth up corn (the gloss says that preaching is here meant) shall be cursed among the people." Therefore the words of sacred doctrine ought not to be hidden.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 arg. 3
Praeterea, Matth. 10: quod dico vobis in tenebris, Glossa: in mysterio, dicite in lumine, Glossa: aperte. Ergo obscura fidei sunt magis reseranda quam occultanda difficultate verborum. 3. The text of Matt. 10:27, "That which I tell you in the dark (gloss, in mystery) speak ye in the light (gloss, openly)." Therefore the obscure truths of faith ought to be made more manifest, rather than hidden by the difficulties of words.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 arg. 4
Praeterea, doctores fidei sunt sapientibus et insipientibus debitores, ut patet Rom. 1. Ergo taliter debent loqui, ut a magnis et a parvis intelligantur, id est sine obscuritate verborum. 4. The doctors of truths of faith are debtors to wise and unwise, as is evident from Rom. 1:14: therefore they ought so to speak that they may be understood by great and small, that is, without obscurity of words.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 arg. 5
Praeterea, Sap. 7 dicitur: quam sine fictione didici et sine invidia communico. Sed ille qui eam occultat, non eam communicat. Ergo videtur invidiae reus. 5. Wis. 7:13, "Which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy"; but those who hide do not, communicate; therefore they seem guilty of envy.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 arg. 6
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit IV de doctrina Christiana: expositores sacrae Scripturae non ita loqui debent, tamquam se ipsos exponendos proponant, sed in omnibus sermonibus suis primitus ac maxime ut intelligantur elaborent ea perspicuitate dicendi, ut multum tardus sit qui non intelligit. 6. Augustine in IV De doctrina Christiana says: "Those explaining sacred Scripture ought not to speak in such a way that they themselves need explanation as of the same authority; but in all their sermons they ought to strive primarily and especially to be understood, and to declare these truths with as much clarity as possible so that he would be very dull who would not comprehend them."
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 s. c. 1
Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. 7: nolite sanctum dare canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ubi dicit Glossa: res absconsa avidius quaeritur, celata venerabilius conspicitur, diu quaesita carius tenetur. Cum ergo sacra documenta expediat summa veneratione intueri, videtur quod non debeant publicari, sed obscure tradi. But on the contrary is that which is said in Matt, 7:6, "Give not that which is holy to dogs," on which the gloss comments: "A hidden thing is more eagerly sought for, a thing concealed appears more worthy of veneration, that which is a long time sought for is held more dear." Since, therefore, sacred writings ought to be regarded with the greatest veneration, it seems that it is expedient they be discussed with obscurity of speech.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 s. c. 2
Praeterea, Dionysius dicit 1 c. ecclesiasticae hierarchiae: omnem sanctam laudem non tradas alteri praeter aeque ordinatos tibi deiformes, id est divinas laudes, quibus omnia sacra documenta complectitur, non tradas nisi tibi similibus. Sed si verbis conspicuis scriberentur, omnibus paterent. Ergo secreta fidei sunt verborum obscuritate velanda. Again, Dionysius (I Eccles. hier.) says: "Do not reveal to another every holy thing in praise of God, except those forms of praise generally ordained; that is, those divine rites by which all the sacraments are surrounded should not be revealed except to those like yourself"; but if they were written in conspicuous words, they would be apparent to all; therefore the secrets of faith are to be concealed by obscuring words.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 s. c. 3
Praeterea, ad hoc est quod dicitur Luc. 8: vobis, id est perfectis, datum est nosse mysterium regni Dei, id est intelligentiam Scripturarum, ut patet per Glossam, ceteris autem in parabolis. Ergo oportet aliqua verborum obscuritate a multitudine occultari. Also it is said in Luke 8:10, "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God" (that is, to have understanding of the Scriptures, as is evident from the gloss); "but to the rest in parables." Therefore one ought by obscurity in speech conceal"We sacred truths from the multitude.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 co. 1
Responsio. Dicendum quod verba docentis ita debent esse moderata ut proficiant, non noceant audienti. Quaedam autem sunt quae audita nemini nocent, sicut ea quae omnes scire tenentur; et talia non sunt occultanda, sed manifeste omnibus proponenda. Quaedam vero sunt quae proposita manifeste auditoribus nocent; quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, si arcana fidei infidelibus fidem abhorrentibus denudentur. Eis enim venirent in derisum; et propter hoc dominus dicit Matth. 7: nolite sanctum dare canibus; et Dionysius dicit c. 2 caelestis hierarchiae: quae sancta sunt circumtegens ex immunda multitudine tamquam uniformia custodi. Response. I answer that the words of a teacher ought to be so moderated that they result to the profit and not to the detriment of the one hearing him. Now, there are certain things which on being heard harm no one, as are the truths which all are held responsible to know: and such ought not to be hidden but openly proposed to all. But there are others which, if openly presented, cause harm in those hearing them; and this can occur for two reasons: in one way, if the secret truths of faith are revealed to infidels who oppose the faith and so come to be derided by them. On this account it is said in Matt. 7:6, "Give not that which is holy to dogs." And Dionysius (II Coel. hierar.) says, "Listen reverently to these words, to this doctrine given for our instruction by the divinity of divinities, and hide these holy teachings in your minds, shielding them from the unclean multitude so that you may keep them as uniform as possible."
Secundo, quando aliqua subtilia rudibus proponuntur, ex quibus perfecte non comprehensis materiam sumunt errandi; unde apostolus dicit 1 Cor. 3: ego, fratres, non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus, sed tamquam parvulis in Christo lac potum vobis dedi, non escam. Unde Exodi 22 super illud: si quis aperuerit cisternam etc., dicit Glossa Gregorii: qui in sacro eloquio iam alta intelligit, sublimes sensus coram non capientibus per silentium tegat, ne per scandalum interius aut fidelem parvulum aut infidelem, qui credere potuisset, interimat. Haec ergo ab his, quibus nocent, occultanda sunt. Secondly, if any subtleties are proposed to uncultivated people, these folk may find in the imperfect comprehension of them matter for error; wherefore, in 1 Cor. 3:1 it is said: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little,ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat." And therefore also, on Exod. 21:33, "If a man open a pit," the gloss of Gregory says: "He who in sacred eloquence now understands lofty things should cover over these sublime truths by silence when in the presence of those who do not comprehend them, lest through some scandal of mind he cause the loss of some little one among the faithful or of an infidel who otherwise might have come to believe. Those truths, therefore, ought to be hidden from those to whom they might do harm;
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 co. 2
Sed in collocutione potest fieri distinctio, ut eadem seorsum sapientibus manifestentur et in publico taceantur. but a distinction can be made as regards speaking, since these same truths may be privately revealed to the wise, though publicly silence is kept regarding them."
Unde dicit Augustinus in IV l. de doctrina Christiana: sunt quaedam quae vi sua non intelliguntur aut vix intelliguntur, quantolibet et quantumlibet quamvis plenissime dicentis versentur eloquio, quae in populi audientiam vel raro, si aliquid urget, vel numquam omnino mittenda sunt. Sed in scribendo non potest talis distinctio adhiberi, quia liber conscriptus ad manus quorumlibet venire potest, et ideo sunt occultanda verborum obscuritatibus, ut per hoc prosint sapientibus qui ea intelligunt et occultentur a simplicibus qui ea capere non possunt. Thus, Augustine (IV De doctrina Christiana) says: "Where certain truths are, by reason of their own character, not comprehensible, or scarcely so, even when explained with every effort on the part of the speaker to make them clear, these one rarely dwells upon with a general audience, or never mentions, at all: but in writing, the same distinction cannot be adhered to, because a book, once published, can fall into the hands of any one at all, and therefore some truths should be shielded by obscuring words so that they may profit those who will understand them and be hidden from the simple who will not comprehend them."
Et in hoc nullus gravatur, quia qui intelligunt, lectione detinentur, qui vero non intelligunt, non coguntur ad legendum. Unde Augustinus dicit in eodem libro: in libris qui ita scribuntur, ut ipsi sibi quodammodo lectorem teneant, cum intelliguntur, cum autem non intelliguntur, molesti non sunt volentibus legere, non est hoc officium disserendi, ut vera, quamvis ad intelligendum difficillima, ad aliorum intelligentiam perducamus. And by this procedure no harm is done to anyone, because those who understand are held by that which they read, but those who do not understand are not compelled to continue reading. And therefore Augustine says in the same place: "In books which are, so written that they somehow keep a hold on the attention of the reader who understands them, but cause no harm to the one who does not understand them and so is unwilling to read further, there is no failure in duty on the part of the author as long as we bring these truths, even though they are so difficult of comprehension, to the understanding of some."
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 ad 1
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa non est ad propositum. Non enim est sensus auctoritatis quod doctrina prudentium sit facilis active, id est quod faciliter doceant, sed passive, quia faciliter docentur, ut patet per Glossam. 1. It is answered: The authority quoted is not relevant to the proposition. For it is not to be understood that the teaching of prudent men be "easy" in the active sense; that is, that they easily teach everything; but in the passive sense: that such men are easily taught, as is evident from the gloss.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 ad 2
Ad secundum dicendum quod auctoritates illae loquuntur de illo qui abscondit ea quae manifestanda sunt, unde Eccli. 4 praemittitur: non retineas verbum in tempore salutis. Per hoc autem non removetur, quin ea, quae sunt occultanda, debeant obscuritate verborum celari. 2. It may be answered: These authorities speak of hiding truths which ought to be made manifest; wherefore it is previously said in Sirach 4:28, "Refrain not to speak in the time of salvation." By this, however, there is no denial of the fact that gore are mysteries which ought to be concealed by obscuring words.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 ad 3
Ad tertium dicendum quod doctrina Christi est publice et plane praedicanda, ita quod unicuique sit planum illud quod expedit ei scire, non autem ut publicentur ea quae scire non expedit. 3. It may be said: The doctrine of Christ ought to be taught publicly and openly to this extent: that the truths expedie nt for each one to know be made clear. Things that are not expedient, however, need not be publicly taught.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 ad 4
Ad quartum dicendum quod doctores sacrae Scripturae non sunt ita sapientibus et insipientibus debitores, ut eadem utrisque proponant, sed ita quod utrisque proponant ea quae eis competunt. 4. It may be answered: The doctors of sacred Scripture are not debtors to the wise and to the foolish in such a way that they must propose the same truths to both, but that they propose to each what is to the advantage of each.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 ad 5
Ad quintum dicendum quod non est ex invidia quod subtilia multitudini occultantur, sed magis ex debita discretione, ut dictum est. 5. It may be said: Subtle truths are not concealed from the multitude on account of envy, but rather out of due discretion.
Pars 1 q. 2 a. 4 ad 6
Ad sextum dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur de expositoribus qui ad populum loquuntur, non de his qui scripto aliquid tradunt, ut ex consequentibus patet. 6. It may be answered: Augustine is here speaking of explanations made orally to the people, not of those transmitted in writing, as is evident from what follows.







THE LOGIC MUSEUM Copyright (html and introduction only) (C) E.D.Buckner 2010.