aquinas.cc
Open in
urlscan Pro
172.208.13.28
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://aquinas.cc/
Effective URL: https://aquinas.cc/
Submission: On April 20 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://aquinas.cc/
Submission: On April 20 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 2 forms found in the DOM
<form autocomplete="off">
<div id="swrap" class="cl m_">
<div id="ss" class="c0 eu">
<select id="searchStyle" class="vsel" onchange="searchStyleChanged(this);">
<option value=""></option>
<option value="a">Work {a}</option>
<option value="k">#Work {k}</option>
<option value="b">Subject {b}</option>
<option value="l">#Subject {l}</option>
<option value="c">Book {c}</option>
<option value="m">#Book {m}</option>
<option value="d">Section {d}</option>
<option value="n">#Section {n}</option>
<option value="e">Chapter {e}</option>
<option value="o">#Chapter {o}</option>
<option value="f">Distinction {f}</option>
<option value="p">#Distinction {p}</option>
<option value="g">Lecture {g}</option>
<option value="q">#Lecture {q}</option>
<option value="h">Question {h}</option>
<option value="r">#Question {r}</option>
<option value="i">Article {i}</option>
<option value="s">#Article {s}</option>
<option value="j">Subarticle {j}</option>
<option value="t">#Subarticle {t}</option>
<option value="u">Body Text {u}</option>
<option value="v">Block Text {v}</option>
<option value="w">List Text {w}</option>
<option value="x">Scripture Text {x}</option>
<option value="y">Text A {y}</option>
<option value="z">Text B {z}</option>
</select>
</div>
<div class="c1 tcw">
<button id="searchCombine1" data-column="1" title="OR" type="button" class="btn btn-toggle btn-xs search-combine eu" onclick="toggleCombineButton(this);" style="background-color: #CCFFCC;">or</button>
<input type="search" id="search1" list="search1Datalist" placeholder="Search..." data-column="1" class="form-control input-small search-text" onmouseup="searchTextChanged(this);" onkeyup="searchTextChanged(this, event);"
onblur="searchTextChanged(this);">
<input type="search" id="flags1" data-column="1" value="ig" class="form-control input-small search-flags" onmouseup="searchFlagsChanged(this);" onkeyup="searchFlagsChanged(this, event);" onblur="searchFlagsChanged(this);"
style="display: none;">
<datalist id="search1Datalist">
</datalist>
</div>
<div class="c2 tcw">
<button id="searchCombine2" data-column="2" title="OR" type="button" class="btn btn-toggle btn-xs search-combine" onclick="toggleCombineButton(this);" style="background-color: #CCFFCC;">or</button>
<input type="search" id="search2" list="search2Datalist" placeholder="Search..." data-column="2" class="form-control input-small search-text" onmouseup="searchTextChanged(this);" onkeyup="searchTextChanged(this, event);"
onblur="searchTextChanged(this);">
<input type="search" id="flags2" data-column="2" value="ig" class="form-control input-small search-flags" onmouseup="searchFlagsChanged(this);" onkeyup="searchFlagsChanged(this, event);" onblur="searchFlagsChanged(this);"
style="display: none;">
<datalist id="search2Datalist">
</datalist>
</div>
<div id="sf" class="cs">
<button id="filter" type="button" data-toggle="false" title="Filter View (CTRL+M)" class="btn btn-toggle btn-xs" onclick="toggleButton('filter');" style="padding: 3px 2px;"><span id="filterIcon" class="fa fa-filter"><span
id="currentWorkHits"></span></span></button>
</div>
</div>
</form><form autocomplete="on">
<div class="form-inline">
<div class="form-group">
<input autocomplete="username" type="email" name="username" class="form-control" id="username" placeholder="Enter email">
</div>
<div class="form-group">
<input autocomplete="current-password" type="password" name="password" class="form-control" id="password" placeholder="Password" onkeypress="if (event.key == 'Enter') { login(); event.preventDefault(); }">
</div>
<div class="checkbox">
<label>
<input id="loginRemember" type="checkbox" checked="checked"> Remember me </label>
</div>
</div>
</form>Text Content
* Left Column
* Latina
* English - Shapcote
* Polish
* Right Column
* Latina
* English - Shapcote
* Polish
*
* Options
* Launch Alpheios
* Go to Row(CTRL+G)
*
* Data
* About
*
* User
* Create/Manage Account
* Login
ST.I
Donate
* Exact Match
* Any Words
* All Words
* Regular Expression
Latina English - Shapcote Polish
Latina English - Shapcote Polish
Latina English - Shapcote Polish
Work {a} #Work {k} Subject {b} #Subject {l} Book {c} #Book {m} Section {d}
#Section {n} Chapter {e} #Chapter {o} Distinction {f} #Distinction {p} Lecture
{g} #Lecture {q} Question {h} #Question {r} Article {i} #Article {s} Subarticle
{j} #Subarticle {t} Body Text {u} Block Text {v} List Text {w} Scripture Text
{x} Text A {y} Text B {z}
or
or
* Sentences Commentary
* Sentences I, d. 1-21
* Sentences I, d. 22-48
* Sentences II, d. 1-20
* Sentences II, d. 21-44
* Sentences III, d. 1-22
* Sentences III, d. 23-40
* Sentences IV, d. 1-13
* Sentences IV, d. 14-25
* Sentences IV, d. 26-42
* Sentences IV, d. 43-50
* Summa Contra Gentiles
* Summa Contra Gentiles 1
* Summa Contra Gentiles 2
* Summa Contra Gentiles 3
* Summa Contra Gentiles 4
* Summa Theologiae
* Summa Theologiae I, q. 1-49
* Prologue
* Q. 1 - The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine
* A. 1 - Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
* A. 2 - Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
* A. 3 - Whether sacred doctrine is one science?
* A. 4 - Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?
* A. 5 - Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?
* A. 6 - Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?
* A. 7 - Whether God is the object of this science?
* A. 8 - Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?
* A. 9 - Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?
* A. 10 - Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
* Q. 2 - The Existence of God
* A. 1 - Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
* A. 2 - Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?
* A. 3 - Whether God exists?
* Q. 3 - The Simplicity of God
* A. 1 - Whether God is a body?
* A. 2 - Whether God is composed of matter and form?
* A. 3 - Whether God is the same as his essence or nature?
* A. 4 - Whether essence and existence are the same in God?
* A. 5 - Whether God is contained in a genus?
* A. 6 - Whether in God there are any accidents?
* A. 7 - Whether God is altogether simple?
* A. 8 - Whether God enters into the composition of other things?
* Q. 4 - The Perfection of God
* A. 1 - Whether God is perfect?
* A. 2 - Whether the perfections of all things are in God?
* A. 3 - Whether any creature can be like God?
* Q. 5 - Goodness in General
* A. 1 - Whether goodness differs really from being?
* A. 2 - Whether goodness is prior in idea to being?
* A. 3 - Whether every being is good?
* A. 4 - Whether goodness has the aspect of a final cause, or of the
others?
* A. 5 - Whether the essence of goodness consists in mode, species and
order?
* A. 6 - Whether goodness is rightly divided into the virtuous, the
useful and the pleasant?
* Q. 6 - The Goodness of God
* A. 1 - Whether God is good?
* A. 2 - Whether God is the supreme good?
* A. 3 - Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone?
* A. 4 - Whether all things are good by the divine goodness?
* Q. 7 - The Infinity of God
* A. 1 - Whether God is infinite?
* A. 2 - Whether anything but God can be essentially infinite?
* A. 3 - Whether an actually infinite magnitude can exist?
* A. 4 - Whether an infinite multitude can exist?
* Q. 8 - The Existence of God in Things
* A. 1 - Whether God is in all things?
* A. 2 - Whether God is everywhere?
* A. 3 - Whether God is everywhere by essence, presence and power?
* A. 4 - Whether to be everywhere belongs to God alone?
* Q. 9 - The Immutability of God
* A. 1 - Whether God is altogether immutable?
* A. 2 - Whether to be immutable belongs to God alone?
* Q. 10 - The Eternity of God
* A. 1 - Whether this is a good definition of eternity: "eternity is the
simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life"?
* A. 2 - Whether God is eternal?
* A. 3 - Whether to be eternal belongs to God alone?
* A. 4 - Whether eternity differs from time?
* A. 5 - Whether aeviternity differs from time?
* A. 6 - Whether there is only one aeviternity?
* Q. 11 - The Unity of God
* A. 1 - Whether one adds anything to being?
* A. 2 - Whether one and many are opposed to each other?
* A. 3 - Whether God is one?
* A. 4 - Whether God is supremely one?
* Q. 12 - How God is Known by Us
* A. 1 - Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God?
* A. 2 - Whether the essence of God is seen by the created intellect
through an image?
* A. 3 - Whether the essence of God can be seen with the bodily eye?
* A. 4 - Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the
divine essence?
* A. 5 - Whether the created intellect needs any created light in order
to see the essence of God?
* A. 6 - Whether of those who see the essence of God, one sees more
perfectly than another?
* A. 7 - Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend him?
* A. 8 - Whether those who see the essence of God see all in God?
* A. 9 - Whether what is seen in God by those who see the divine essence,
is seen through any similitude?
* A. 10 - Whether those who see the essence of God see all they see in it
at the same time?
* A. 11 - Whether anyone in this life can see the essence of God?
* A. 12 - Whether God can be known in this life by natural reason?
* A. 13 - Whether by grace a higher knowledge of God can be obtained than
by natural reason?
* Q. 13 - The Names of God
* A. 1 - Whether a name can be given to God?
* A. 2 - Whether any name can be applied to God substantially?
* A. 3 - Whether any name can be applied to God in its literal sense?
* A. 4 - Whether names applied to God are synonymous?
* A. 5 - Whether what is said of God and of creatures is univocally
predicated of them?
* A. 6 - Whether names predicated of God are predicated primarily of
creatures?
* A. 7 - Whether names which imply relation to creatures are predicated
of God temporally?
* A. 8 - Whether this name ‘God’ is a name of the nature?
* A. 9 - Whether this name ‘God’ is communicable?
* A. 10 - Whether this name ‘God’ is applied to God univocally by nature,
by participation, and according to opinion?
* A. 11 - Whether this name, HE WHO IS, is the most proper name of God?
* A. 12 - Whether affirmative propositions can be formed about God?
* Q. 14 - God’s Knowledge
* A. 1 - Whether there is knowledge in God?
* A. 2 - Whether God understands himself?
* A. 3 - Whether God comprehends himself?
* A. 4 - Whether the act of God’s intellect is his substance?
* A. 5 - Whether God knows things other than himself?
* A. 6 - Whether God knows things other than himself by proper knowledge?
* A. 7 - Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?
* A. 8 - Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?
* A. 9 - Whether God has knowledge of things that are not?
* A. 10 - Whether God knows evil things?
* A. 11 - Whether God knows singular things?
* A. 12 - Whether God can know infinite things?
* A. 13 - Whether the knowledge of God is of future contingent things?
* A. 14 - Whether God knows enunciable things?
* A. 15 - Whether the knowledge of God is variable?
* A. 16 - Whether God has a speculative knowledge of things?
* Q. 15 - Ideas
* A. 1 - Whether there are ideas?
* A. 2 - Whether ideas are many?
* A. 3 - Whether there are ideas of all things that God knows?
* Q. 16 - Truth
* A. 1 - Whether truth resides only in the intellect?
* A. 2 - Whether truth resides only in the intellect composing and
dividing?
* A. 3 - Whether the true and being are convertible terms?
* A. 4 - Whether good is logically prior to the true?
* A. 5 - Whether God is truth?
* A. 6 - Whether there is only one truth, according to which all things
are true?
* A. 7 - Whether created truth is eternal?
* A. 8 - Whether truth is immutable?
* Q. 17 - Falsity
* A. 1 - Whether falsity exists in things?
* A. 2 - Whether there is falsity in the senses?
* A. 3 - Whether falsity is in the intellect?
* A. 4 - Whether true and false are contraries?
* Q. 18 - The Life of God
* A. 1 - Whether to live belongs to all natural things?
* A. 2 - Whether life is an operation?
* A. 3 - Whether life is properly attributed to God?
* A. 4 - Whether all things are life in God?
* Q. 19 - The Will of God
* A. 1 - Whether there is will in God?
* A. 2 - Whether God wills things apart from himself?
* A. 3 - Whether whatever God wills, he wills necessarily?
* A. 4 - Whether the will of God is the cause of things?
* A. 5 - Whether any cause can be assigned to the divine will?
* A. 6 - Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?
* A. 7 - Whether the will of God is changeable?
* A. 8 - Whether the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed?
* A. 9 - Whether God wills evils?
* A. 10 - Whether God has free-will?
* A. 11 - Whether the will of expression is to be distinguished in God?
* A. 12 - Whether five expressions of will are rightly assigned to the
divine will?
* Q. 20 - God’s Love
* A. 1 - Whether love exists in God?
* A. 2 - Whether God loves all things?
* A. 3 - Whether God loves all things equally?
* A. 4 - Whether God always loves more the better things?
* Q. 21 - The Justice and Mercy of God
* A. 1 - Whether there is justice in God?
* A. 2 - Whether the justice of God is truth?
* A. 3 - Whether mercy can be attributed to God?
* A. 4 - Whether in every work of God there are mercy and justice?
* Q. 22 - The Providence of God
* A. 1 - Whether providence can suitably be attributed to God?
* A. 2 - Whether everything is subject to the providence of God?
* A. 3 - Whether God has immediate providence over everything?
* A. 4 - Whether providence imposes any necessity on things foreseen?
* Q. 23 - Predestination
* A. 1 - Whether men are predestined by God?
* A. 2 - Whether predestination places anything in the predestined?
* A. 3 - Whether God reprobates any man?
* A. 4 - Whether the predestined are chosen by God?
* A. 5 - Whether the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of
predestination?
* A. 6 - Whether predestination is certain?
* A. 7 - Whether the number of the predestined is certain?
* A. 8 - Whether predestination can be furthered by the prayers of the
saints?
* Q. 24 - The Book of Life
* A. 1 - Whether the book of life is the same as predestination?
* A. 2 - Whether the book of life regards only the life of glory of the
predestined?
* A. 3 - Whether anyone may be blotted out of the book of life?
* Q. 25 - The Power of God
* A. 1 - Whether there is power in God?
* A. 2 - Whether the power of God is infinite?
* A. 3 - Whether God is omnipotent?
* A. 4 - Whether God can make the past not to have been?
* A. 5 - Whether God can do what he does not?
* A. 6 - Whether God can do better than what he does?
* Q. 26 - Divine Beatitude
* A. 1 - Whether beatitude belongs to God?
* A. 2 - Whether God is called blessed in respect of his intellect?
* A. 3 - Whether God is the beatitude of each of the blessed?
* A. 4 - Whether all other beatitude is included in the beatitude of God?
* Q. 27 - The Procession of the Divine Persons
* A. 1 - Whether there is procession in God?
* A. 2 - Whether any procession in God can be called generation?
* A. 3 - Whether any other procession exists in God besides that of the
Word?
* A. 4 - Whether the procession of love in God is generation?
* A. 5 - Whether there are more than two processions in God?
* Q. 28 - The Divine Relations
* A. 1 - Whether there are real relations in God?
* A. 2 - Whether relation in God is the same as his essence?
* A. 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each
other?
* A. 4 - Whether in God there are only four real relations—paternity,
filiation, spiration, and procession?
* Q. 29 - The Divine Persons
* A. 1 - Whether Boethius' definition of a person is unfitting: "a person
is an individual substance of a rational nature"?
* A. 2 - Whether 'person' is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and
essence?
* A. 3 - Whether the word ‘person’ should be said of God?
* A. 4 - Whether this word ‘person’ signifies relation?
* Q. 30 - The Plurality of Persons in God
* A. 1 - Whether there are several persons in God?
* A. 2 - Whether there are more than three persons in God?
* A. 3 - Whether the numeral terms denote anything real in God?
* A. 4 - Whether this term ‘person’ can be common to the three persons?
* Q. 31 - Unity and Plurality in God
* A. 1 - Whether there is trinity in God?
* A. 2 - Whether the Son is other than the Father?
* A. 3 - Whether the exclusive word ‘alone’ should be added to the
essential term in God?
* A. 4 - Whether an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term,
even if the predicate is common?
* Q. 32 - The Knowledge of the Divine Persons
* A. 1 - Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by
natural reason?
* A. 2 - Whether there are notions in God?
* A. 3 - Whether there are five notions?
* A. 4 - Whether it is lawful to have various contrary opinions of
notions?
* Q. 33 - The Person of the Father
* A. 1 - Whether it belongs to the Father to be the principle of the Son
or of the Holy Spirit?
* A. 2 - Whether this name ‘Father’ is properly the name of a divine
person?
* A. 3 - Whether this name ‘Father’ is applied to God, first as a
personal name?
* A. 4 - Whether it is proper to the Father to be unbegotten?
* Q. 34 - The Person of the Son
* A. 1 - Whether ‘Word’ in God is a personal name?
* A. 2 - Whether ‘Word’ is the Son’s proper name?
* A. 3 - Whether the name ‘Word’ imports relation to creatures?
* Q. 35 - Image
* A. 1 - Whether 'Image' in God is said personally?
* A. 2 - Whether the name of 'Image' is proper to the Son?
* Q. 36 - The Person of the Holy Spirit
* A. 1 - Whether this name 'Holy Spirit' is the proper name of one divine
person?
* A. 2 - Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son?
* A. 3 - Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the
Son?
* A. 4 - Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy
Spirit?
* Q. 37 - The Name ‘Love’
* A. 1 - Whether ‘Love’ is the proper name of the Holy Spirit?
* A. 2 - Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy
Spirit?
* Q. 38 - The Name ‘Gift’
* A. 1 - Whether ‘Gift’ is a personal name?
* A. 2 - Whether ‘Gift’ is the proper name of the Holy Spirit?
* Q. 39 - The Persons in Relation to the Essence
* A. 1 - Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?
* A. 2 - Whether it must be said that the three persons are of one
essence?
* A. 3 - Whether essential names, such as ‘God‘, should be predicated in
the singular of the three persons?
* A. 4 - Whether the concrete essential names can stand for the person?
* A. 5 - Whether abstract essential names can stand for the person?
* A. 6 - Whether the persons can be predicated of the concrete essential
terms?
* A. 7 - Whether the essential names should be appropriated to the
persons?
* A. 8 - Whether the essential attributes are appropriated to the persons
in a fitting manner by the holy doctors?
* Q. 40 - Persons Compared to Relations or Properties
* A. 1 - Whether relation is the same as person?
* A. 2 - Whether the persons are distinguished by the relations?
* A. 3 - Whether the hypostases remain if the relations are mentally
abstracted from the persons?
* A. 4 - Whether the properties presuppose the notional acts?
* Q. 41 - Persons Compared to Notional Acts
* A. 1 - Whether the notional acts are to be attributed to the persons?
* A. 2 - Whether the notional acts are voluntary?
* A. 3 - Whether the notional acts proceed from something?
* A. 4 - Whether in God there is a power in respect of the notional acts?
* A. 5 - Whether the power of begetting signifies a relation, and not the
essence?
* A. 6 - Whether several persons can be the term of one notional act?
* Q. 42 - Equality and Likeness among the Divine Persons
* A. 1 - Whether equality is becoming to the divine persons?
* A. 2 - Whether the person proceeding is co-eternal with his principle,
as the Son with the Father?
* A. 3 - Whether in the divine persons there exists an order of nature?
* A. 4 - Whether the Son is equal to the Father in greatness?
* A. 5 - Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely?
* A. 6 - Whether the Son is equal to the Father in power?
* Q. 43 - The Mission of the Divine Persons
* A. 1 - Whether a divine person can be properly sent?
* A. 2 - Whether mission can be eternal?
* A. 3 - Whether the invisible mission of the divine person is only
according to the gift of sanctifying grace?
* A. 4 - Whether the Father can also be fittingly sent?
* A. 5 - Whether it is fitting for the Son to be sent invisibly?
* A. 6 - Whether the invisible mission is to all who participate in
grace?
* A. 7 - Whether it is fitting for the Holy Spirit to be sent visibly?
* A. 8 - Whether a divine person is sent only by the person whence he
proceeds eternally?
* Q. 44 - The Procession of Creatures from God
* A. 1 - Whether it is necessary that every being be created by God?
* A. 2 - Whether primary matter is created by God?
* A. 3 - Whether the exemplar cause is anything besides God?
* A. 4 - Whether God is the final cause of all things?
* Q. 45 - Creation
* A. 1 - Whether to create is to make something from nothing?
* A. 2 - Whether God can create anything?
* A. 3 - Whether creation is anything in the creature?
* A. 4 - Whether to be created belongs to composite and subsisting
things?
* A. 5 - Whether it belongs to God alone to create?
* A. 6 - Whether to create is proper to any person?
* A. 7 - Whether in creatures is necessarily found a trace of the
Trinity?
* A. 8 - Whether creation is mingled with works of nature and art?
* Q. 46 - The Beginning of the Duration of Creatures
* A. 1 - Whether the universe of creatures always existed?
* A. 2 - Whether it is an article of faith that the world began?
* A. 3 - Whether the creation of things was in the beginning of time?
* Q. 47 - The Distinction of Things in General
* A. 1 - Whether the multitude and distinction of things come from God?
* A. 2 - Whether the inequality of things is from God?
* A. 3 - Whether there is only one world, or many?
* Q. 48 - The Distinction of Good and Evil
* A. 1 - Whether evil is a nature?
* A. 2 - Whether evil is found in things?
* A. 3 - Whether evil is in good as in its subject?
* A. 4 - Whether evil corrupts the whole good?
* A. 5 - Whether evil is adequately divided into pain and fault?
* A. 6 - Whether pain has the nature of evil more than fault has?
* Q. 49 - The Cause of Evil
* A. 1 - Whether good can be the cause of evil?
* A. 2 - Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?
* A. 3 - Whether there be one supreme evil which is the cause of every
evil?
* Summa Theologiae I, q. 50-119
* Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 1-70
* Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 71-114
* Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 1-91
* Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 92-189
* Summa Theologiae III, q. 1-59
* Summa Theologiae III, q. 60-90
* Supplementum, q. 1-68
* Supplementum, q. 69-99
* Disputed Questions
* On Truth
* On the Power of God
* On the Soul
* On Spiritual Creatures
* On the Virtues
* On the Union of the Incarnate Word
* On Evil
* Quodlibet I
* Quodlibet II
* Quodlibet III
* Quodlibet IV
* Quodlibet V
* Quodlibet VI
* Quodlibet VII
* Quodlibet VIII
* Quodlibet IX
* Quodlibet X
* Quodlibet XI
* Quodlibet XII
* Old Testament Commentaries
* Rigans Montes
* Hic est Liber
* Psalms
* Jeremiah
* Lamentations
* Isaiah
* Job
* Gospel Commentaries
* Matthew 1-12
* Matthew 13-28
* John 1-8
* John 9-21
* Pauline Commentaries
* Romans
* 1 Corinthians
* 2 Corinthians
* Galatians
* Ephesians
* Philippians
* Colossians
* 1 Thessalonians
* 2 Thessalonians
* 1 Timothy
* 2 Timothy
* Titus
* Philemon
* Hebrews
* Catena Aurea
* Catena Aurea on Matthew
* Catena Aurea on Mark
* Catena Aurea on Luke
* Catena Aurea on John
* Aristotle Commentaries
* On Interpretation
* Posterior Analytics
* Physics
* On the Heavens
* On Generation and Corruption
* Meteorology
* On the Soul
* On Sense and What is Sensed
* On Memory and Recollection
* Metaphysics
* Ethics
* Table of the Ethics
* Politics
* Other Commentaries
* Boethius's De Trinitate
* Boethius's De Hebdomadibus
* Dionysius's On the Divine Names
* The Book of Causes
* Opuscula I - Treatises
* Compendium Theologiae
* On the Principles of Nature
* On Being and Essence
* On Separate Substances
* On Kingship
* Opuscula II - Polemical Writings
* An Apology for the Religious Orders
* On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life
* Refutation of Teaching that Deters from Religious Life
* On the Unity of the Intellect against the Averroists
* On the Eternity of the World
* Opuscula III - Collations, Letters
* On Reasons for the Faith
* On the First and Second Decretals
* On the Articles of Faith and the Sacraments of the Church
* On the Catholic Faith of the Greek Fathers
* On the Form of Absolution
* Letter to John of Vercelli on the 108 Articles
* Letter to Bassiano of Lodi on the 30 Articles
* Letter to John of Vercelii on the 43 Articles
* Letter to Bassiano of Lodi on the 36 Articles
* Letter to Brother Gerard of Besançon on the 6 Articles
* A Letter on Credit Sales and Usury
* On Secret Faults
* On Lots
* On Astrology
* Letter to Abbot Bernard
* Letter to Margaret of Flanders
* On the Blend of the Elements
* On the Motion of the Heart
* On the Hidden Activities of Nature
* Opuscula IV - Sermons, Liturgical Works
* Devotional Prayers
* Hymns and Songs
* Office of Corpus Christi - Sacerdos in aeternum
* Office of Corpus Christi - Sapientia aedificavit sibi
* Sermon from the Office - The Boundless Favors of Divine Generosity
* Sermon - He Who is Desired
* Sermon - Sing Praise and Be Glad
* Sermon - Let Us Throw Off the Works of Darkness
* Sermon - Hosanna to the Son of David
* Sermon - Behold Your King
* Sermon - Heaven and Earth
* Sermon - Behold I Send My Angel before Your Face
* Sermon - The Boy Jesus
* Sermon - A Sower Went Out
* Sermon - Ask, and You Will Receive
* Sermon - Send Out Your Spirit
* Sermon - Upon It Stood the Seraphim
* Sermon - Someone Made a Great Dinner
* Sermon - Beware of the False Prophets
* Sermon - There Was a Certain Rich Man
* Sermon - I Have Found David
* Sermon - A Light Has Gone Up for the Just
* Sermon - Let the Earth Bring Forth
* Sermon - Happy Those Who Live in Your House
* Sermon - Happy the Nation whose Lord is its God
* Sermon - Happy the Man Whose Help is from You
* Sermon Fragment, “Wisdom will Strengthen the Wise”
* Sermon Fragment, “Arise”
* Sermons on the Apostles' Creed
* Sermons on the Lord's Prayer
* Sermons on the Commandments
* Sermons on the Hail Mary
Summa Theologiae Prima ParsSumma Theologiae First PartDe sacra doctrinaSacred
DoctrineProoemiumPrologueQuia Catholicae veritatis doctor non solum provectos
debet instruere, sed ad eum pertinet etiampertinet etiam.—etiam pertinet ACDEFG.
incipientes erudire, secundum illud Apostoli I ad Corinth. III: tanquam parvulis
in Christo, lac vobis potum dedi, non escam; propositum nostrae
intentionisnostrae intentionis.—nostrum B. in hoc opere est, ea quae ad
Christianam religionem pertinent, eo modo tradere, secundum quod congruit ad
eruditionem incipientium.Because the Teacher of Catholic truth ought not only to
teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners, according to the Apostle:
As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat (1 Cor 3:1–2),
we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion
in such a way as may befit the instruction of beginners.Consideravimus namque
huius doctrinae novitios, in his quae a diversis conscripta sunt, plurimum
impediri, partim quidem propter
multiplicationemmultiplicationem.—multiplicitatem G. inutilium quaestionum,
articulorum et argumentorum; partim etiam quia ea quae sunt necessaria talibus
ad sciendum, non traduntur secundum ordinem disciplinae, sed secundum quod
requirebat librorum expositio, vel secundum quod se praebebat occasio
disputandi; partim quidem quia eorundem frequens eorundem frequens.—frequens
eorum ACDEG , frequens eorundem F. repetitio et fastidium et confusionem
generabat in animis auditorum.We have considered that novices in this doctrine
have often been hampered by what they have found written by various authors,
partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and
arguments; partly also because the things such novices need to know are not
taught according to the order of the discipline, but according as was needed for
commenting on books, or according as an opportunity for raising a disputed
question presented itself; partly, too, because frequent repetition of the same
things brought weariness and confusion to the minds of the readers.Haec igitur
et alia huiusmodi evitare studentes, tentabimus, cum confidentia divini auxilii,
ea quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinent, breviter ac dilucidedilucide.—lucide
EFab, diluciter D, dulciter pC, dulciter sive dilucide A. prosequi, secundum
quod materia patietur.Endeavoring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall
try, trusting in God’s help, to set forth whatever belongs to Sacred Doctrine as
briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.Quaestio 1Question 1De sacra
doctrina, qualis sit, et ad quae se extendatThe Nature and Extent of Sacred
DoctrineEt ut intentio nostra sub aliquibus certis limitibus comprehendatur,
necessarium est primo investigare de ipsa sacra doctrina, qualis sit, et ad quae
se extendat.To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to
investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine.Circa quaeCirca
quae.—Circa quod FG. quaerenda sunt decem.Concerning this there are ten points
of inquiry:Primo, de necessitate huius doctrinae.(1) Whether it is
necessary?Secundo, utrum sit scientia.(2) Whether it is a science?Tertio, utrum
sit una vel plures.(3) Whether it is one or many?Quarto, utrum sit speculativa
vel practica.(4) Whether it is speculative or practical?Quinto, de comparatione
eius ad alias scientias.(5) How it is compared with other sciences?Sexto, utrum
sit sapientia.(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?Septimo, quid sit subiectum
eius.(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?Octavo, utrum sit argumentativa.(8)
Whether it is a matter of argument?Nono, utrum uti debeat metaphoricis vel
symbolicis locutionibus.(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and
similes?Decimo, utrum Scriptura sacra huius doctrinaehuius doctrinae.—Om. B.—sit
om. pB, post utrum ponunt ACE FGpDa, ante exponenda sBD. sit secundum plures
sensus exponenda.(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be
expounded in different senses?Articulus 1Article 1Utrum sit necessarium, praeter
philosophicas disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberiWhether, besides philosophy,
any further doctrine is required?Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit
necessarium, praeter philosophicasphilosophicas.—phi’cas codices et edd. a b;
infra, G vulgo plene ut P; F semel phy’cas; plene physicas, physicis etc.,
nullus nisi notatur. disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi. Ad ea enim quae supra
rationem sunt, homo non debet conari, secundum illud Eccli. III, altiora te ne
quaesieris. Sed ea quae rationi subduntur, sufficienter traduntur in
philosophicis disciplinis. Superfluum igitur videtur, praeter philosophicas
disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi.Objection 1: It seems that, besides the
philosophical disciplines, we have no need of any further teaching. For man
should not seek to know what is above reason: Seek not the things that are too
high for thee (Eccl 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of
in the philosophical disciplines. Therefore any other teaching besides the
philosophical disciplines seems superfluous.Praeterea, doctrina non potest esse
nisi de ente, nihil enim scitur nisi verum, quod cum ente convertitur. Sed de
omnibus entibusentibus.—partibus entis C.—Pro tractatur, traditur et tractatur
A.—et om. ABCEFGa, etiam om. D. tractatur in philosophicis disciplinis, et etiam
de Deo, unde quaedam pars philosophiaephilosophiae.—phi’ce B.—ut patet per
Philosophum om. C. dicitur theologia, sive scientia divina, ut patet per
Philosophum in VI Metaphys. Non fuit igitur necessarium, praeter philosophicas
disciplinas, aliam doctrinamaliam doctrinam.—aliquam scientiam B.—Pro haberi,
fieri sive (vel BFa) haberi codices et ed. a. haberi.Obj. 2: Further, a teaching
can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true;
and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in the
philosophical disciplines—even God Himself, so that there is a part of
philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved
(Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides the philosophical disciplines, there is no need
of any further teaching.Sed contra est quod dicitur II ad Tim. III, omnis
Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad
corripiendum, ad erudiendum ad iustitiam. Scriptura autem divinitus inspirata
non pertinet ad philosophicas disciplinas, quae sunt secundum rationem humanam
inventae. Utile igitur est, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, esse
aliamaliam.—Om. E.—scientiam om. F. scientiam divinitus inspiratam.On the
contrary, It is written (2 Tim 3:16): All Scripture inspired by God is useful
for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, and for instructing in justice. Now
Scripture, inspired by God, is no part of the philosophical disciplines, which
were discovered by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides the
philosophical disciplines, there should be another science inspired by
God.Respondeo dicendum quod necessarium fuit ad humanam salutem, esse doctrinam
quandam secundum revelationem divinam, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, quae
ratione humana investigantur.I answer that, It was necessary for man’s salvation
that there should be a teaching revealed by God beyond the philosophical
disciplines, which are investigated by human reason.Primo quidem, quia homo
ordinatur ad Deum sicut adad Deum sicut ad.—a Deo ad BCDEFGpA et ed. a, a Deo ut
ad sA. quendam finem qui comprehensionem rationis excedit, secundum illud Isaiae
LXIV, oculus non vidit Deus absque te, quae praeparasti diligentibus te. Finem
autem oportet esse praecognitum hominibus, qui suas intentiones et
actionesintentiones et actiones.—et actiones om. E. debent ordinare in finem.
Unde necessarium fuit homini ad salutem, quod ei nota fierent
quaedamquaedam.—Omittit A. per revelationem divinam, quae rationem humanam
excedunt.First, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that
surpasses the grasp of his reason: The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee,
what things Thou hast prepared for them that love Thee (Isa 64:4). But the end
must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the
end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which
exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.Ad ea etiam
quae de Deo ratione humana investigari possunt, necessarium fuit hominem instrui
revelatione divina. Quia veritas de Deo, per rationem investigata, a
paucisinvestigata, a paucis.—investigata paucis E, investigata est a paucis
sBD.—Pro homini proveniret, homini provenit BD, hominibus proveniebat E., et per
longum tempus, et cum admixtione multorum errorum, homini proveniret, a cuius
tamen veritatis cognitione dependet tota hominis salus, quae in Deo est. Ut
igitur salus hominibus et convenientius et certius proveniat, necessarium fuitUt
igitur ... fuit.—Necessarium est igitur, ut salus hominibus et communius et
certius proveniat B; ceteri pro convenientius legunt communius, et pro certius,
securius; communius etiam edd. a b. quod de divinis per divinam revelationem
instruantur.Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have
discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation;
because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known
by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.
Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of
this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about
more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine
truths by divine revelation.Necessarium igitur fuit, praeterpraeter.—etiam
praeter ACDEFG. philosophicas disciplinas, quae per rationem investigantur,
sacram doctrinam per revelationem haberi.It was therefore necessary that besides
philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science
learned through revelation.Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet ea quae sunt
altiora hominis cognitione, non sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda, sunt
tamen, a Deo revelata, suscipienda per fidem. Unde et ibidem subditur, plurima
supra sensum hominum ostensa sunt tibi. Et in huiusmodiin huiusmodi.—ex his C,
in his ceteri et a b. sacra doctrina consistit.Reply Obj. 1: Although those
things which are beyond man’s knowledge may not be sought for by man through his
reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by
faith. Hence the sacred text continues, For many things are shown to thee above
the understanding of man (Eccl 3:25). And in this, the sacred science
consists.Ad secundum dicendum quod diversa ratio cognoscibiliscognoscibilis.—rei
cognoscibilis D. diversitatem scientiarum inducit. Eandem enim conclusionem
demonstratdemonstrat.—demonstrant ACDEFG. astrologus et naturalis, puta quod
terra est rotunda, sed astrologus per medium mathematicum, idest a materia
abstractumidest a materia abstractum.—idest om. B.; naturalis autem per medium
circa materiam consideratum. Unde nihil prohibet de eisdem rebusrebus.—Om. C.,
de quibus philosophicae disciplinae tractant secundum quod sunt cognoscibilia
lumine naturalis rationis, et aliam scientiam tractare secundum quod
cognoscuntur lumine divinae revelationis. Unde theologia quae ad sacram
doctrinamdoctrinam.—scripturam A, om. G.—Pro philosophiae, ph’ice AB. pertinet,
differt secundum genus ab illa theologia quae pars philosophiae ponitur.Reply
Obj. 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the different ways that things
are knowable. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same
conclusion, for instance that the earth is round: the astronomer by means of
mathematics, i.e., abstracting from matter, and the physicist by means of matter
itself. Hence nothing prevents those things which may be learned from the
philosophical disciplines, so far as they can be known by the light of natural
reason, from being considered by another science according as they are known by
the light of divine revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine
differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.Articulus
2Article 2Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientiaWhether sacred doctrine is a
science?Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit
scientia. Omnis enim scientia procedit ex principiis per se notisprincipiis per
se notis. aliquibus principiis quae sunt per se notum E. Idem statim pro sacra
doctrina, theologia.. Sed sacra doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei, qui non
sunt per se noti, cum non ab omnibus concedantur, non enim omnium est fides, ut
dicitur II Thessalon. III. Non igitur sacra doctrina est scientia.Objection 1:
It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from
self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith
which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: For all
men have not faith (2 Thess 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a
science.Praeterea, scientia non est singularium. Sed sacra
doctrinadoctrina.—scientia B. Idem mox om. et similibus. tractat de
singularibus, puta de gestis Abrahae, Isaac et Iacob, et similibus. Ergo sacra
doctrina non est scientia.Obj. 2: Further, no science deals with individual
facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a
science.Sed contra est quodest quod—Omittunt codices et a b.—Pro attribuitur,
tribuitur CDEFG. Augustinus dicit, XIV de Trinitate, huic scientiae attribuitur
illud tantummodo quo fides saluberrima gignitur, nutritur, defenditur,
roboratur. Hoc autem ad nullam scientiam pertinet nisi ad sacram doctrinam. Ergo
sacra doctrina est scientia.On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) to
this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished,
protected and strengthened. But this can be said of no science except sacred
doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.Respondeo dicendum sacram
doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed sciendum est quod duplex est scientiarum genus.
Quaedam enim sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine
naturalinaturali.—naturalis BC.—Pro et huiusmodi, etc. D. intellectus, sicut
arithmetica, geometria, et huiusmodi. Quaedam vero sunt, quae procedunt ex
principiis notisnotis.—notificatis notis B, sed primum expungitur.—Idem post
arithmeticam, notificatis. lumine superioris scientiae, sicut perspectiva
procedit ex principiis notificatis per geometriam, et musica ex principiis per
arithmeticam notis.I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in
mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a
principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and
geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the
light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from
principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by
arithmetic.Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quiaquia.—quae B.—scientia
ante Dei om. codices et a b. procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris
scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum. Unde sicut musica credit
principia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia
revelata sibisibi.—Om. codices. a Deo.So it is that sacred doctrine is a science
because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher
science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician
accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred
science is established on principles revealed by God.Ad primum ergo dicendum
quod principia cuiuslibet scientiae vel sunt nota per se, vel reducuntur ad
notitiamad notitiam.—in notitiam codices. superioris scientiae. Et talia sunt
principia sacrae doctrinae, ut dictum est.Reply Obj. 1: The principles of any
science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions
of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred
doctrine.Ad secundum dicendum quod singularia traduntur in sacra doctrina, non
quia de eis principaliter tractetur, sed introducuntur tum in exemplum vitae,
sicut in scientiis moralibus; tum etiametiam.—Om. codices et a b.—Item pro
super, supra.—In fine,doctrina seu scriptura A. ad declarandum auctoritatem
virorum per quos ad nos revelatio divina processit, super quam fundatur sacra
Scriptura seu doctrina.Reply Obj. 2: Individual facts are treated of in sacred
doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are
introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral
sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the
divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come
down to us.Articulus 3Article 3Utrum sacra doctrina sit una scientiaWhether
sacred doctrine is one science?Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra
doctrinadoctrina.—scriptura D. non sit una scientia. Quia secundum Philosophum
in I Poster., una scientia est quae estest.-Om.PE.-Pro seq. doctrina, scriptura
E, scriptura doctrina A, scriptura seu doctrina B.—Pro doctrina in fine
argumenti, scriptura A. unius generis subiecti. Creator autem et creatura, de
quibus in sacra doctrina tractatur, non continentur sub uno genere subiecti.
Ergo sacra doctrina non est una scientia.Objection 1: It seems that sacred
doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) that
science is one which treats only of one genus of subjects. But the creator and
the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped
together under one genus of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one
science.Praeterea, in sacra doctrina tractatur de angelis, de creaturis
corporalibus, de moribus hominum. Huiusmodi autem ad diversas scientias
philosophicasphilosophicas.—phisicas F.—Pro Igitur sacra, Sacra igitur codices;
pro doctrina, scriptura D. pertinent. Igitur sacra doctrina non est una
scientia.Obj. 2: Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal
creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical
sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science.Sed contra est quod
sacra ScripturaScriptura.—doctrina D.—de ea om. B. de ea loquitur sicut de una
scientia, dicitur enim Sap. X, dedit illi scientiam sanctorum.On the contrary,
Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: Wisdom gave him the knowledge of
holy things (Wis 10:10).Respondeo dicendum sacram doctrinam unam scientiam esse.
Est enim unitas potentiae et habitus considerandaEst enim ... consideranda.—Est
enim unitas scientiae sic consideranda, sicut unitas potentiae et habitus
consideratur, scilicet BGsD; Est enim unitas potentiae et habitus sic (vel sit)
consideranda ACFpD; Cum enim unitas potentiae et habitus sit consideranda E.
secundum obiectum, non quidem materialiter, sed secundum rationem formalem
obiecti, puta homo, asinus et lapis conveniunt in una formali ratione colorati,
quod est obiectum visus. Quia igitur sacra Scripturascriptura.—doctrina
codices.—secundum quod dictum ... revelabilia om. C. considerat aliqua secundum
quod sunt divinitus revelata, secundum quod dictum est, omnia quaecumque sunt
divinitus revelabilia, communicant in unauna.—unica G.—Pro seq. doctrina,
scriptura A. ratione formali obiecti huius scientiae. Et ideo comprehenduntur
sub sacra doctrina sicut sub scientia una.I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one
science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not
indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which
it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality
of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because
Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being
divinely revealable, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one
precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under
sacred doctrine as under one science.Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sacra doctrina
non determinat de Deo et de creaturis ex aequo, sed de Deo principaliter, et de
creaturis secundum quod referuntur ad Deum, ut ad principium vel finem. Unde
unitas scientiae non impeditur.Reply Obj. 1: Sacred doctrine does not treat of
God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as
they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this
science is not impaired.Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil
prohibetprohibet.—impedit B.—Pro illas, aliquas codices, alias ed. a. inferiores
potentias vel habitus diversificari circa illas materias, quae communiter cadunt
sub una potentia vel habitu superiori, quia superior potentia vel habitus
respicit obiectum sub universaliori ratione formaliuniversaliori ratione
formali.—universali ratione formaliter pA; universali legit etiam G.. Sicut
obiectum sensus communis est sensibile, quod comprehendit sub se visibile et
audibile, unde sensus communis, cum sit una potentia, extendit se ad omnia
obiecta quinque sensuum. Et similiter ea quae in diversis scientiis
philosophicisphilosophicis.—phisicis F.—Infra scilicet om. A. tractantur, potest
sacra doctrina, una existens, considerare sub una ratione, inquantum scilicet
sunt divinitus revelabilia, ut sic sacra doctrina situt ... sit.—et ... fit ADE,
et ... sit BpC. velut quaedam impressio divinae scientiae, quae est una et
simplex omnium.Reply Obj. 2: Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from
being differentiated by something which falls under one higher faculty or habit;
because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal
formality, as the object of the common sense is whatever affects the senses,
including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the common sense,
although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly,
objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet
be treated of by this one single sacred science under one aspect precisely so
far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine
is, as it were, the stamp of the divine science, which is one and simple yet
extends to all things.Articulus 4Article 4Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia
practicaWhether sacred doctrine is a practical science?Ad quartum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina sit scientiascientia.—Om. codices.
practica. Finis enim practicae est operatio, secundum philosophum in II
Metaphys. Sacra autem doctrina ad operationem ordinatur, secundum illud Iac. I,
estote factores verbi, et non auditores tantum. Ergo sacra doctrina est practica
scientia.Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for
a practical science is that which ends in action according to the Philosopher
(Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: Be ye doers of the
word, and not hearers only (Jas 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical
science.Praeterea, sacra doctrina dividitur perper.—in E. legem veterem et
novam. Lex autem pertinet ad scientiam moralem, quae est scientia practica. Ergo
sacra doctrina est scientia practica.Obj. 2: Further, sacred doctrine is divided
into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a
practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.Sed contra,
omnis scientia practica est de rebus operabilibus ab homine; ut moralis de
actibus hominum, et aedificativa de aedificiis. Sacra autem doctrina est
principaliter de Deo, cuius magis homines sunt opera. Non ergo est scientia
practica, sed magis speculativa.On the contrary, Every practical science is
concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts,
and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with
God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a
speculative science.Respondeo dicendum quod sacra doctrinadoctrina.—scriptura
A.—ut dictum est om. pC.—una om. pB., ut dictum est, una existens, se extendit
ad ea quae pertinent ad diversas scientias philosophicas, propter rationem
formalemformalem.- communem BCDEFGsA et a b, om. pA.—scilicet omcodices. quam in
diversis attendit, scilicet prout sunt divino lumine cognoscibilia. Unde licet
in scientiis philosophicis alia sit speculativa et alia practica, sacra tamen
doctrina comprehendit sub se utramqueutramque.—utrumque codices.—Pro facit,
fecit E.; sicut et Deus eadem scientia se cognoscit, et ea quae facit.I answer
that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different
philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect,
namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although
among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical,
nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science,
knows both Himself and His works.Magis tamen est speculativa quam practica, quia
principalius agit de rebus divinis quam de actibus humanis; de quibus agit
secundum quod per eos ordinatur homo ad perfectam Dei cognitionem, in qua
aeterna beatitudo consistit.Still, it is more speculative than practical because
it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does
treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect
knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss.Et per hoc patet responsio ad
obiecta.This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.Articulus 5Article 5Utrum
sacra doctrina sit dignior aliis scientiisWhether sacred doctrine is nobler than
other sciences?Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit
dignior aliis scientiis. Certitudo enim pertinet ad dignitatem scientiae. Sed
aliae scientiae, de quarum principiis dubitari non potest, videntur esse
certiores sacra doctrina, cuius principia, scilicet articuli fidei, dubitationem
recipiunt. Aliae igitur scientiae videntur ista digniores.Objection 1: It seems
that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a
science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the
principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred
doctrine; for its principles—namely, articles of faith—can be doubted. Therefore
other sciences seem to be nobler.Praeterea, inferioris scientiae est a superiori
accipere, sicut musicusmusicus.—musicus accipit codices. ab arithmetico. Sed
sacra doctrina accipit aliquid a philosophicis disciplinis, dicit enim
Hieronymus in epistola ad magnum oratorem urbis Romae, quod doctores antiqui
intantum philosophorumphilosophorum.—ph’icorum B.—Pro sententiis, scientiis
A.—Pro resperserunt, referserunt F, reserserunt AC, retulerunt BD, reflexerunt
G, refecerunt ed. a.—Pro prius, primum BD, primis AEFGpC.—Pro saeculi,
saecularis scientiae B.- Ante Scripturarum B addit sacrarum, G suarum, doctrinis
atque sententiis suos resperserunt libros, ut nescias quid in illis prius
admirari debeas, eruditionem saeculi, an scientiam Scripturarum. Ergo sacra
doctrina est inferior aliis scientiis.Obj. 2: Further, it is the sign of a lower
science to depend upon a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred
doctrine does in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome
observes, in his Epistle to Magnus the Roman orator, that the ancient doctors so
enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou
knowest not what more to admire in them, their profane erudition or their
scriptural learning. Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences.Sed
contra est quod aliae scientiae dicuntur ancillae huius, Prov. IX, misit
ancillas suas vocare ad arcem.On the contrary, Other sciences are called the
handmaidens of this one: Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower (Prov
9:3).Respondeo dicendum quod, cum ista scientia quantum ad aliquid sitquantum ad
aliquid sit.—Om. codices. speculativa, et quantum ad aliquid sit practica, omnes
alias transcendit tam speculativas quam practicas.I answer that, Since this
science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others
speculative and practical.Speculativarum enim scientiarum una altera dignior
diciturdicitur.—est BD, om. F., tum propter certitudinem, tum propter dignitatem
materiae. Et quantum ad utrumque, haec scientia alias speculativas scientias
excedit. Secundum certitudinem quidem, quia aliae scientiae certitudinem habent
ex naturali lumine rationis humanae, quae potest errare, haec autemautem.—autem
scientia codices et a b. certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae, quae
decipi non potest. Secundum dignitatem vero materiae, quia ista scientia est
principaliter de his quae sua altitudine rationem transcendunt, aliae vero
scientiae considerant ea tantumtantum.—Om. D. quae rationi subduntur.Now one
speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its
greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In
both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences. It
surpasses them as regards greater certitude because other sciences derive their
certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this
derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be
misled. It surpasses them as regards the higher worth of its subject-matter
because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity
transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which
are within reason’s grasp.
1/3746
×
GO TO ROW
Email address
Go Cancel
×
AI TEXT ENGINE
AI Text Engine
© 2020 Aquinas Institute, Inc.
Currently logged in as:
Send questions and bug reports to: admin@aquinasinstitute.org
Global Shortcut Keys:
CTRL+Q Toggle Code View CTRL+F Toggle Search Toolbar CTRL+H Toggle Replace
Dialog CTRL+HOME Move to Beginning CTRL+G Go to Row CTRL+END Move to End CTRL+Z
Undo CTRL+SHIFT+B Bold Smallcaps CTRL+Y Redo CTRL+ALT+B Copy Bookmark CTRL+B
Bold CTRL+UP Previous Row CTRL+I Italic CTRL+DOWN Next Row CTRL+M Toggle Filter
CTRL+ALT+F Insert Footnote
Right-Click on a Row or a Cell for Alignment Options and Shortcuts
Details Close
LOADING...
×
Close
×
Close
×
DATA LOG
Select All Close
×
LOGIN
Remember me
Login Cancel