|
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.
On the 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.
I answer that, 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" (Is. 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 to 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 to 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.
|
|