|
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.
Objection 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, 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.
On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this
one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower" (Prov.
9:3).
I answer that, Since this science is partly speculative and partly
practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. 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; in point of 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: in point of 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. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is
ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than
military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of
the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is
practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the
purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear
that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.
Reply to Objection 1: It may well happen that what is in itself the
more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness
of our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest objects of
nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun" (Metaph.
ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about
articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but
to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge
that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the
most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said in de
Animalibus xi.
Reply to Objection 2: This science can in a sense depend upon the
philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but
only in order to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its
principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by
revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon
the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as
handmaidens: even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that
supply their materials, as political of military science. That it
thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to
the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is
known through natural reason (from which proceed the other sciences)
to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this
science.
|
|