Prima Pars, Question 1 (Articles 1,2, and 8) of the Summa Theologiae

Structure of the Summa Questions:

ARTICLE: is it the case that?

OBJECTION(S): it seems that (usually a negative answer to article question) [videtur]

ON THE CONTRARY: Thomas answers the objections. [sed contra]

I ANSWER THAT: Thomas develops the answer to the objections. [respondeo]

1. The philosophical sciences deal exclusively with what can be known by reason. But we should not seek what is beyond reason. Therefore, there is no need for any doctrine beyond what is contained within the philosophical sciences.

2. Knowledge is concerned with what is (being). All that is (being) is contained within the scope of the philosophical sciences. Therefore, there is no need for anyting beyond the philosophical sciecnes.

General

Humankind is directed toward God. Therefore, the human person has an end (telos) which surpasses the scope of human reason. For the sake of human salvation it was necessary that God reveal by means of a divine revelation (a) truths which are beyond the grasp of human reason and (b) truths which are within the reach of human reason. (a) because otherwise such truths could not be known at all. (b) because man's natural knowledge of divine things is sometimes tainted with error and known only after long time of study and then only to those with intellects keen enough to grasp philosophical arguments.

1. We should not seek by reason what is beyond reason. But we must accept what is beyond reason by faith.

2. We distinguish one science from another by the mode in which they know some truth. So the same divine truth can be an object of knowledge according to the light of natural reason and according to the light of natural reason.

When we consider the contents of divine revelation, we can distinguish between:

principle come to knowledge of without the aid of divine revelation.

God is provident Final Judgment: Heaven and Hell

1. Every science proceeds from self-evident principles. Sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith, but the articles of faith are not self-evident (they are not admitted by all). Therefore, sacred doctrine is not a science.

2. No science is concerned with individuals. But sacred doctrine is concerned with individuals (e.g., Abraham, Moses, and St. Paul). Therefore, sacred doctrine cannot be a science.

All sciences proceeds from principles which are known by light (quae precedunt ex principiis notis lumine). There are two kinds of sciences. Some sciences take as their principles what is known by the light of natural reason (quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine naturali intellectus); other sciences take as their premises principles which are deductions from higher sciences (quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae). The former sciences are called "subalternating sciences." The latter sciences are called "subalternate sciences." So what is a theorem in a science which has self-evident principles as its axioms can become an axiom for some other science. Sacred doctrine proceeds from a higher science - the science of God - in this manner.

1. The principles of any science are either evident in themselves or made evident by the light of another science. The latter is the case with sacred doctrine.

2. The individual facts treated by sacred doctrine are not treated principally as individual facts, but as examples of general truths which we must follow and to establish the authority of the men through whom divine revelation has come to us.

1. Arguments and faith are mutually exclusive. But sacred doctrine is aimed at faith. Therefore, sacred doctrine is not argumentative.

2. Arguments are either from authority or reason. If from authority, then the process would not be appropriate for the character of sacred doctrine, for argument from authority is the weakest kind of argument. If from reason, then the process would not be appropriate for the purpose of sacred doctrine, for faith has no merit where reason has proof from experience.

Sacred doctrine, like every science, does not argue to its premises, but argues from them to other establish other truths. Subordinate sciences do not attempt to prove their first principles nor argue with those who deny them. Although reason cannot prove (the truth of) the articles of faith, it can prove the invalidity of arguments against the articles of faith. The articles of faith are true, and the contrary of truth cannot be logically demonstrated.

1. Sacred doctrine does infer other things from the articles of faith.

2. Argument from authority is strongest when based on God’s word (though weakest when based on human testimony).

If sacred doctrine were logically demonstrated it would destroy the merit of faith, for we have no choice in assenting to what is evident to us. But, grace perfects nature, so there is a place for natural reason vis-a-vis sacred doctrine. So we may use the philosophers where they have perceived the truth by reasoning. But philosophical and ecclesiastical authorities provide only probable arguments, whereas those based on Scripture have convincing force.

© Michael Sudduth 1996