ccore/rhetoric-saint-thomas-aquinas · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 80
(5) How it is compared with other sciences?

(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?

(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?

(8) Whether it is a matter of argument?

(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?

(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded
in different senses?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 1]

Whether, besides Philosophy, any Further Doctrine Is Required?

Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no
need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is
above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee"
(Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of
in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides
philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for
nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But
everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God
Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the
divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore,
besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further
knowledge.

Contrary: It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture inspired
of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in
justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical
science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is
useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other
knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

Response: It was necessary for man's salvation that there should
be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up
by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as
to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not
seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them
that wait for Thee" (Isa. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men
who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was
necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed
human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as
regards those truths about God which human reason could have
discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine
revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover,
would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the
admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in
God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order
that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more
surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by
divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides
philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred
science learned through revelation.

Reply Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's
knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason,
nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by
faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to
thee above the understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the
sacred science consists.

Reply Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the
various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer
and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth,
for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e.
abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.
Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from
philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason,
may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall
within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs
in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 2]

Whether Sacred Doctrine Is a Science?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every
science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine
proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since
their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2
Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this
sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is
not a science.

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.

(5) How it is compared with other sciences?

(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?

(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?

(8) Whether it is a matter of argument?

(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?

(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded

in different senses?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 1]

Whether, besides Philosophy, any Further Doctrine Is Required?

Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no

need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is

above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee"

(Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of

in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides

philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for

nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But

everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God

Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the

divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore,

besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further

knowledge.

Contrary: It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture inspired

of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in

justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical

science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is

useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other

knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

Response: It was necessary for man's salvation that there should

be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up

by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as

to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not

seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them

that wait for Thee" (Isa. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men

who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was

necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed

human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as

regards those truths about God which human reason could have

discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine

revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover,

would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the

admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in

God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order

that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more

surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by

divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides

philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred

science learned through revelation.

Reply Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's

knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason,

nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by

faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to

thee above the understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the

sacred science consists.

Reply Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the

various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer

and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth,

for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e.

abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.

Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from

philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason,

may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall

within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs

in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 2]

Whether Sacred Doctrine Is a Science?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every

science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine

proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since

their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2

Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this

sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is

not a science.

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.