|
Objection 1: It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument.
For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith
is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought:
"But these things are written that you may believe" (Jn.
20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.
Objection 2: Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument
is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it
seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the
weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting
its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has
no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own
experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.
On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace
that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able
to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus
1:9).
I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their
principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths
in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its
principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on
to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of
Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15).
However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical
sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor
dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science;
whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one
who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some
concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with
him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture,
since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies
its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths
obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics
from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of
faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of
divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles
of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he
has any---against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth,
and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is
clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be
demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
Reply to Objection 1: Although arguments from human reason cannot
avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this
doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.
Reply to Objection 2: This doctrine is especially based upon
arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by
revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom
the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity
of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on
human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on
divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even
of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit
of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that
are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not
destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith
as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the
Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the
obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine
makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in
which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul
quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said:
For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless,
sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable
arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures
as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the
Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For
our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets
who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such
there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad
Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are
called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe
their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other
authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true,
merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may
have been their holiness and learning."
|
|