Summa Theologiae I, Q.1, Art. 2–5: Sacred Doctrine as a Subalternate Science, One Science, More Speculative, and the Highest Science

Orientation #

He picks up mid-Article 2 with Augustine’s definition of theology (sed contra) and works through Articles 3, 4 and 5, then stops “there in the fifth” for next time. He refers back to “the study of the anima” (De Anima III) done earlier in the course. The previous class covered the prologue and Article 1 of Question 1; the next continues with Articles 5–7.

The class, in order #

1. Augustine’s definition and the twofold genus of science (“theology is for the sake of faith”) #

Point: theology is a science, but of the second kind, proceeding from principles known by the light of a higher science.

• Augustine, De Trinitate XIV (his “favorite book of Augustine”, more than the Confessions): to this science he attributes that by which “the most saving faith is engendered, nourished, defended, strengthened.” He stresses the direction: theology is for the sake of faith, not faith for the sake of understanding — contrast the definition given to Anselm, “faith seeking understanding,” which “might give you the impression” of the reverse.
• Parallel: Thomas later in the Summa says natural understanding (intellectus) is higher than scientia because it is beginning and end; we proceed from it and resolve back to it. So in theology: proceed from faith, turn back to faith and Scripture to check we “haven’t gone astray.”
• Body of a.2: twofold genus of science. (A) Sciences from principles known by the natural light of the understanding — arithmetic, geometry (he notes Thomas picks the clearest examples; one who does not know Euclid cannot follow them). (B) Sciences from principles known by the light of a higher science — perspective from geometry (aside: the inverse-square law in physics goes back to Euclid’s theorems), music from arithmetic. Sacred doctrine is of kind B: as music believes the principles handed to it by arithmetic, sacred doctrine believes the principles revealed by God, from “the science of God and of the blessed.”
• He notes without knowing Aristotle had already drawn this distinction one might think Thomas invented it to save theology’s scientific character.
• Student: is this insight common or peculiar to Thomas? Answer: he doesn’t read the others much; the distinction is in the Posterior Analytics, but he doubts they know it the way Thomas does.
• Reply to obj. 1: principles are either self-known or reduced to a higher science; such are those of sacred doctrine.
• Reply to obj. 2 (it treats singulars, like history): singulars are not treated principally; they are introduced (i) as examples of life, as in moral science, and (ii) to declare the authority of the men through whom revelation comes.
• Student objection: but some singulars are treated as such — Mary as Mother of God, God becoming man. His answer: that is “a little more subtle”; you understand these in terms of something universal, so in that sense it is knowledge of the universal, “but that’s an objection one should think about more.” Left there; break.
• Aside: the exposition of St Paul, and “getting it from the horse’s mouth” — the story of the monk finding whom Thomas had been talking to in his cell.

2. Article 3: one science by one formal object (“come together in one formal reason”) #

Point: sacred doctrine is one science because everything it treats falls under one formal reason, the divinely revealable.

• Obj. 1: per Post. An. I, one science is of one generic subject; Creator and creature are not in one genus (“in fact, that’s not in a genus at all”).
• Obj. 2: it treats angels, bodies, and human morals, which belong to first philosophy, natural philosophy and ethics respectively.
• Sed contra: Wisdom 10:10, “the science of the saints.”
• Body: unity of a power or a habit is taken from its object, formally not materially. Example: man, ass and stone agree in the one formal reason of the coloured, the object of sight. So whatever is divinely revealable agrees in one formal object.
• Reply 1: it does not treat God and creatures ex aequo; chiefly God, creatures as referred to God as beginning or end (Apocalypse: Alpha and Omega, as on tabernacles). This is the basic division of theology: Summa Contra Gentiles book 1, God in himself; book 2, God as principium/maker; book 3, God as end; book 4 the same three as known only by faith (Trinity; Incarnation, “the greatest thing He made”; the supernatural end), whereas books 1–3 treat what natural reason also reaches. Same structure underlies the Summa Theologiae.
• Analogy: philosophical wisdom is about being, but substance, quantity, quality, relation are not one genus; it is chiefly about substance, and about the others as the size, disposition, “towards-another” of substance. Hence in Metaphysics V, taking up names of the whole subject, Aristotle takes one, being, and substance. This returns in Article 7 (God as subject).
• Illustration: it is a more theological definition of man to say he is imago Dei than “rational animal” or “two-footed animal” — the latter consider man by himself, the former in reference to God.
• Reply 2: theology has more unity than philosophy because it proceeds from God’s knowledge, which is altogether one; “what is one in God is many in the philosopher’s mind.” Lower powers can be diversified about what falls under one higher power. Back to De Anima III (seen earlier): what distinguishes the whiteness of sugar from its sweetness? Not the eye (knows only white) nor taste (only sweet) — the common sense; what is divided in the outer senses is unified in the inner. A fortiori reason treats colour, sound, taste, smell. So what diverse philosophical sciences treat, sacred doctrine considers under one reason, as divinely revealed; if not divinely revealed in some way, not considered in theology.
• Sacred doctrine is “a certain impression of the divine science,” which is one and altogether simple; hence our partaking of it. This bears on Article 4: if you split theology into “speculative theology” and “practical theology” you are “thinking like a philosopher”; dogmatic and moral theology are two parts of one science, not two kinds.
• Student: why impressio rather than “partaking”? Answer: “impress” means pressed upon — something of the divine knowledge and its unity bestowed on us; it links to “formal object,” since form gives both the being and the unity of knowledge (Aristotle: being and one go together).
• Aside: Shakespeare’s amphibolous “wisdom of nature” — the philosophy of nature, or the wisdom nature shows in what it does, “something of the divine art impressed upon things” (Aristotle), even in insects and plants; as “the word of God” in one sense is about the word of God in another.

3. Article 4: transcends the division, yet more speculative (“more speculative than practical”) #

Point: sacred doctrine comprehends both speculative and practical, but is chiefly speculative because chiefly about God.

• He notes the proemium’s phrasing “utrum sit speculativa vel practica” becomes more forceful once a.3 has shown it is one science; the objections push the practical side.
• Obj. 1: the end of the practical is doing (Physics II); James 1:22, “be doers of the word.” Aside: the Reverend was telling Thomas “that’s what it is,” quoting James.
• Obj. 2: it is divided by old law and new law; law belongs to moral science (Plato’s last work, Laws). He notes Thomas, dividing the Bible, goes to John — “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” — escaping the view that both books are chiefly about law.
• Sed contra: practical science is of things doable by man; sacred doctrine is chiefly about God, “of which men are more the works.” Aside on the obstacle: “God moves everything, but prayer moves God.”
• Body: (1) as one science with one formal reason (knowable by the divine light) it comprehends both speculative and practical, as God by the same knowledge knows himself and what he makes — the first point, transcending the philosophical dichotomy. (2) Nevertheless more speculative, because more about divine things than human acts; God is not makeable or doable. Mary chose the better part (Martha and Mary). Human acts are treated as through them man is ordered to perfect knowledge of God — seeing him as he is (1 John 3:2, he thinks), face to face (Paul), “speculative means seeing”; John 17, “this is eternal life, to know Thee” — “didn’t say to do this and to do that.”
• Contrast of orders: in philosophy God is known last, in the last part of the last science (Metaphysics XII); in revealed theology we consider God first and other things in reference to him — a “contrary order,” imitating in a distant way God’s knowing other things only by knowing himself; here we imitate the unity of his knowledge.
• Analogy repeated: first philosophy is chiefly about substance, quantity only as size of substance; so sacred doctrine is chiefly about God, hence chiefly speculative.

4. Article 5: worthier than all other sciences (“to see a better thing or to see it better”) #

Point: by both criteria of a speculative science (certitude, dignity of matter) and the criterion of a practical science (further end), sacred doctrine excels.

• Obj. 1: certitude belongs to the dignity of a science; other sciences’ principles cannot be doubted, but the articles of faith can (people doubt the real presence, miracles).
• Obj. 2: the lower takes from the higher (musician from arithmetician); sacred doctrine takes from philosophy — Jerome’s letter to the Roman orator, the ancient doctors so fill their books with philosophers that one does not know what to admire more, their knowledge of the world or of Scripture.
• Sed contra: other sciences are handmaids (Proverbs 9, she sent her handmaids to the tower).
• Body: in one respect speculative, in another practical, and it transcends both. Speculative criteria (De Anima I: all knowledge is good, but one is better for being more certain or about better things; Parts of Animals proemium: the second is the more fundamental).
  • Example: his teacher Kasurik’s perfected loudspeaker system — one visitor brought technically impressive records, he brought a “not so technically correct” Mozart CD; he would rather hear Mozart on an inferior system than “that junk” perfectly reproduced. Likewise an interesting film on a poor copy vs. a dull one on a crystal-clear new screen: “which is more important, what is being shown or how well?” Yet clarity “is nevertheless an excellence” — two criteria.
  • Certitude: other sciences have it from natural reason, which can err; this from the divine light, which cannot be deceived — we share the certitude of God’s knowledge. Not the greatest criterion, but a criterion.
  • Matter: this science is chiefly about what transcends our reason; the others only about what falls under reason.
• Practical criterion: worthier which is ordered to a further end (Ethics I): pharmacist’s medicine ordered to the doctor’s health, so medicine is higher. His classroom question: economics or medicine — is wealth or health higher? “Give your health for wealth, or use your wealth to restore your health?” Then truth is higher than health, so logic is higher than medicine — they should fund the logic schools too. Civilian art higher than military, since the army’s good is ordered to the city’s. The end of this teaching as practical is eternal beatitude, to which all other practical ends are ordered.
• He stresses how well Thomas has ordered these articles: a.4 gives something of both; a.5 applies the two speculative criteria and the practical one, and “in every way, it’s higher.”
• Reply 1: what is more certain by nature can be less certain to us (Physics I; Metaphysics II, the owl’s eye to the sun; Plato’s cave, “like coming out of a movie theater in a bright summer afternoon”). Doubt about the articles comes from the weakness of our understanding, not from the thing. Then Aristotle in “the eleventh book about the animals” (i.e. the Parts of Animals proemium, counted after the ten books of the History): the least knowledge of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge of lesser things — sign: better to see someone you love briefly or at a distance than the boss all day. Better to attain higher things by belief than lower by evidence; better to know what the soul is imperfectly than the triangle perfectly. Einstein: the public gets an imperfect grasp of a theory yet is impoverished without it; asked “what do you feel about all this?”, he got his violin and played Mozart. Einstein on Mozart vs. Beethoven: “Beethoven made his music, but Mozart found it.”
  • Aside on Aquinas’s Adoro te devote, second quatrain: “Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius” — nothing more certain than what the Word of God says. Even granting the objection something (one cannot deny a whole is more than a part, but could deny three Persons), the chief criterion is what you know; God is infinitely better, so knowledge of God, however imperfect, is infinitely better. Joke: in retirement he will “think about the best thing.”
• Reply 2: it takes from philosophy not from necessity but for greater manifestation; its principles come immediately from God by revelation, so it uses the others as lower, as handmaids, as the architectonic uses the ministering (civil over military — “President Bush is commander-in-chief”). This is due not to its defect but to the failing of our understanding: from what is known by natural reason we are more easily led by the hand (manuductio) to what is above reason.

5. Footnote on manuductio: q.117 a.1 (“led by the hand”) #

Point: the teacher leads from the foreknown to the unknown in two ways, and theology, being elevated, needs the first.

• He sends them to “question one seventeen, article one,” whether one man can teach another (some confusion over copies: “me too”, “me three”). Last paragraph of the body: (1) by proposing aids — less universal statements the student can judge from what he knows, sensible examples, likenesses, opposites — by which the learner’s understanding “manuducitur,” is led by the hand; (2) by strengthening the learner’s understanding, not by a higher power as angels illuminate (all human understandings are one grade in nature), but by proposing the order of principles to conclusions, since he may lack the power to bring them together himself — hence Post. An. I, “demonstrations are syllogisms making us know.”
• Monsignor Dionne expounded this text and gave courses on the manuductio necessary for wisdom and for logic, both very difficult sciences. Geometry needs almost only the order of principles and conclusions, being proportioned to us; the harder the science, the more the leading by the hand.
• Applied: Augustine on the Trinity goes back to the mind knowing and loving itself, since we are in the image and likeness; Thomas’s commentary on John, “In the beginning was the Word,” from our thought and thinking. Distinction in q.117: manuductio vs. disciplina (proposing principles to conclusions).
• Aristotle at the start of the Physics gives the reason we know the confused before the distinct, then three kinds of examples, then singular examples — “so what I do and I teach that.” Stops “there in the fifth.”

His words #

• sacred doctrine — his rendering of sacra doctrina, also “sacred teaching”
• science engendered, nourished, defended, strengthened — Augustine’s four verbs for what theology does for faith
• natural understanding — intellectus, higher than scientia as beginning and end
• twofold genus of science — self-known principles vs. principles from a higher science [ed.: subalternation, a term he does not use]
• science of God and of the blessed — the higher science whose principles sacred doctrine believes
• formal reason of the object — what gives unity to a power, habit or science
• ex aequo — “equally”; God and creatures are not treated ex aequo
• Alpha and Omega — God as beginning and end, the basic division of theology
• imago Dei — the theological definition of man, in reference to God
• common sense — the central/inner sense that distinguishes white from sweet
• impressio of the divine science — “pressed upon” us; something of God’s knowledge and its unity bestowed
• wisdom of nature — Shakespeare’s amphibolous phrase for natural philosophy
• speculative — “speculative means seeing”; “looking science”
• moribus hominum, creaturis corporalibus — the objects of ethics and natural philosophy
• handmaidens — other sciences as servants of sacred doctrine
• eleventh book about the animals — Thomas’s name for the proemium of Parts of Animals
• manuductio / manuducitur — being led by the hand, from more known things
• disciplina — the teacher proposing the order of principles to conclusions

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I q.1 a.2 (sed contra, body, replies)
• ST I q.1 a.3 (whole article)
• ST I q.1 a.4 (whole article)
• ST I q.1 a.5 (whole article)
• ST I q.117 a.1, last paragraph of the body (per transcript; verified-source list gives q.93)
• Augustine, De Trinitate XIV (the definition quoted in a.2 sed contra)
• Aquinas, Adoro te devote, second quatrain

Mentioned

• Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I; De Anima I and III; Parts of Animals proemium; Metaphysics II, V, XII; Physics I and II; Nicomachean Ethics I
• Plato, Republic (cave); Laws
• Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles I–IV; commentary on John (prologue); later Summa text on intellectus higher than scientia
• Wisdom 10:10; James 1:22; John 1 (law/grace), 17 (this is eternal life); 1 John 3:2; Proverbs 9; Apocalypse (Alpha and Omega); Jerome’s letter to the Roman orator
• Anselm, “faith seeking understanding”; Shakespeare (“wisdom of nature”); Smith’s Wealth of Nations; Euclid; Einstein

His questions #

• Is theology for the sake of faith, or faith for the sake of understanding? Theology is for the sake of faith — engendering, nourishing, defending, strengthening it.
• What is the higher science from whose principles sacred doctrine proceeds? The science of God and of the blessed; it believes the principles God reveals.
• Why does sacred doctrine talk about singulars? For examples of life and to declare the authority of the men through whom revelation came.
• What is it in me that distinguishes the whiteness of sugar from its sweetness? Not eye or taste, but the common sense; so reason, and so sacred doctrine, unify what lower habits divide.
• Why does theology have more unity than philosophy? It proceeds from God’s knowledge, which is altogether one; what is one in God is many in the philosopher’s mind.
• Which is more important, what is being shown or how well it is shown? What is shown; but clarity is nevertheless an excellence — two criteria.
• Which is higher, economics or the medical art; wealth or health? Health; and truth is higher still, so logic is higher than medicine.
• Is God becoming man knowledge of a singular? Understood through something universal, so knowledge of the universal — “an objection one should think about more”; left open.
• What am I going to do in my retirement? Think about the best thing.