We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
This paper explores the claim made by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 3 that ‘sacred doctrine’ is ‘scientific.’ After reviewing some of the key historical commentators on the question, I propose an examination of Thomas' treatment of the gift of prophecy as providing an important clue into discerning more clearly his evolution from an Aristotelian understanding of knowledge or ‘science’ (scientia) to a fuller sense of the term scientia as used by Thomas. Chief among these is a clue into how Thomas resolves the difficulty between necessity and history. His treatment of prophecy in the Summa Theologiae gives one a glimpse into how Thomas is a historical thinker, despite weighty authorities such as Etienne Gilson arguing otherwise. Closer attention to prophecy permits one to rethink Thomas' account of sacred doctrine in Question One and appreciate how pivotal the fact of divine revelation having been made to prophets in history is for its ‘scientific’ character.
1 Summa Theologiae (hereafter = ST), Summa theologiae. Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. 4-12, cura et studio Fratrum Praedicatorum (Rome: Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1888-1906), I, q. 1, a. 2, co. All English translations of Thomas’ texts throughout are my own.
2 Chenu, Marie-Dominique, La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle, 3rd ed. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1969)Google Scholar. See also Chenu's treatment of the earlier developments in the twelfth century in his La théologie au XIIe siècle, preface by E. Gilson (Paris: J. Vrin, 1957).
3 See the summary taken largely from Chenu in Turner, Geoffrey, ‘St Thomas Aquinas on the “Scientific” Nature of Theology,’ New Blackfriars 78 (1997), pp. 464-476CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially pp. 465-66.
4 Chenu, La théologie comme science, pp. 34-37.
5 See Chenu, La théologie comme science, pp. 37-41.
6 Jenkins, John I., Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 66-77Google Scholar.
7 See A. Oliva, Les débuts de l'enseignement de Thomas d'Aquin et sa conception de la ‘Sacra Doctrina’ , avec l’édition du prologue de son ‘Commentaire des Sentences'de Pierre Lombard, Bibliothèque thomiste 58 (Paris: Vrin, 2006) and before that Weisheipl, J.A., ‘The Meaning of Sacred Doctrine in the Summa Theologiae I, q. 1,’ The Thomist 38 (1974), pp. 49-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Weisheipl, p. 54; compare with Boyle, L.E. ‘The Setting of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas—Revisited,’ in Pope, S.J., ed., The Ethics of Aquinas (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001), pp. 1-16, at pp. 6-9Google Scholar. Boyle thinks the ‘beginners’ referred to in the prologue were Thomas’ students at the Santa Sabina studium, who would have been under his sole care and direction; see the cautious agreement with Boyle's thesis of Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Saint Thomas Aquinas. Vol. 1: The Person and His Work, revised edition, translated by Royal, R. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), pp. 142-48Google Scholar.
9 Jenkins, pp. 79-85; Jenkins maintains that ‘the content of the ST is not that of a work gauged for neophytes in a field’ (p.83). Mark Jordan remains somewhat critical of Jenkins’ arguments against Boyle's thesis; see Jordan, Mark D., Rewritten Theology: Aquinas after His Readers (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), p. 117, n. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Jenkins, Jordan thinks, relies ‘too much on contemporary evaluations of the work's scope or difficulty.’ He also thinks Jenkins over-reads the importance of ‘Aristotelian paradigms of scientia’ in the Summa Theologiae. Nevertheless, while disagreeing with Jenkins over his methods and ‘over-reading,’ Jordan draws a conclusion that comes quite close to Jenkins’ own view. Jordan too thinks that the Summa Theologiae is ‘an ideal pedagogy’ designed ‘for middle learners in a vowed community of Christian pastors’; see Jordan, p. 120.
10 Oliva, pp. 274-75; see Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 76a4-31, 89b24f.
11 See Summa contra gentiles, ed. P. Marc et al. (Rome: Marietti, 1961), I, 4: ‘cum fere totius philosophiae consideratio ad Dei cognitionem ordinetur.’
12 See ibid.
13 Expositio libri Posteriorum. Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. 1*/2 (Rome: Commissio Leonina, 1989), I, l. 1.
14 In fact, it occurs most frequently in ST,q.1,a.1: 10 out of the 14 times. It occurs twice in article 5 of Question One, once at ST,I,q. 88,a.2,obj. 2, and once at Super Boetium De Trinitate. Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. 50 (Rome: Commissio Leonina, 1992), q.5,a.1,ad.3. See Thomas’ Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, prologue,q.1,a.1, for the phrasing ‘physicas disciplinas’; for the expanded meaning of physicas, see Oliva, p. 276, n. 88.
15 According to the Index Thomisticus web-site, the phrase sacra disciplina never occurs in Thomas’ work.
16 See Van Ackeren, G.F., Sacra Doctrina: The Subject of the First Question of the Summa theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1952), p. 85Google Scholar.
17 See Torrell on this generally firm dating for the De Veritate. Torrell, pp. 59-67.
18 Quaestiones disputatae De veritate. Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. 22 (Rome: Editori di San Tommaso, 1970-1976), q.11,a.1,co: ‘ita etiam est duplex modus acquirendi scientiam: unus, quando naturalis ratio per seipsam devenit in cognitionem ignotorum; et hic modus dicitur inventio; alius, quando naturali rationi aliquis exterius adminiculatur, et hic modus dicitur disciplina.’
19 ST,I,q.1,a.1,sed: ‘quae sunt secundum rationem humanam inventae.’
20 Ibid,co: ‘quae per rationem investigantur’; see ST,I,q.1,a.1,obj.1: The philosophical disciplines treat ‘things which are subject to reason’ (‘ea quae rationi subduntur’).
21 Ibid,ad.2: ‘secundum quod sunt cognoscibilia lumine naturalis rationis.’
22 ST,I,q.1,a.1,ad.1: ‘diversa ratio cognoscibilis diversitatem scientiarum inducit.’
23 Super Boetium De Trinitate, q.5.
24 ST,q.1,a.1,ad 2.
25 See ST,II-II,q.2,a.3,sed, which cites the authority of Heb 11:6, ‘sine fide impossible est placere Deo.’ See Thomas’ earlier Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, I, q.1,a.1,sed. Here again the authority of Heb 11:6 is cited in the article on the necessity of sacred doctrine. There does seem to be some link between this article in Question One and Aquinas’ later treatment of faith, which Domingo Báñez observed; see Weisheipl, pp. 57-58.
26 ST,I,q.1,a.1,co.
27 ST,III,q.1, De convenientia incarnationis.
28 Ibid,a.3,co.
29 ST,III,q.1,a.3 (my emphasis). See Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Saint Thomas Aquinas. Vol. 2: Spiritual Master, translated by Royal, R. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), pp. 71-72Google Scholar. Torrell also notes that in a parallel passage from his earlier Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, III, d.1,q.1,a.3, Thomas seems even more favourable to this later view: ‘Others say that, granted what is produced by the incarnation of the Son of God is not only liberation from sin, but also the glorification (exaltatio) of human nature and the coronation (consummatio) of the whole universe, the incarnation could have occurred for these reasons, even without sin. And this may be held as probable.’
30 Torrell, Thomas Aquinas. Vol. 2, p. 73.
31 ST,I,q.1,a.1,co.
32 For more on the notion of the subalternate science, see Super Boetium De Trinitate, q.5,a.1,ad.5.
33 ST,q.1,a.2,ad.1.
34 Super Boetium De Trinitate, q.6,a.1,iii,co.
35 See ibid,q.5,a.2,ad.4: singulars are objects of science secondarily and indirectly, ‘as by a sort of reflection.’ See ST,I,q.86,a.1,co: ‘Now what is abstracted from individual matter is the universal. Hence our intellect knows directly the universal only. But indirectly, and as it were by a kind of reflection, it can know the singular, because, as we have said above, even after abstracting the intelligible species, the intellect, in order to understand, needs to turn to the phantasms in which it understands the species, as is said in De Anima iii, 7.’ See Super Boetium De Trinitate, q.2,a.2,ad5: ‘et hoc modo se habent articuli fidei, qui sunt principia huius scientiae, ad cognitionem divinam, quia ea quae sunt per se nota in scientia, quam Deus habet de se ipso, supponuntur in scientia nostra et creduntur ei nobis haec indicanti per suos nuntios, sicut medicus credit physico quattuor esse elementa’ (my emphasis).
36 ST,I,q.1,a.8,ad 2.
37 See Metaphysics, 1003a15, 1026a33-b11, 1027a20-21, 1065a2-7.
38 ST,q.1,a.2,ad.2.
39 ST,III, prologue. The scientific nature of sacred doctrine is the key to understanding the location of Aquinas’ Christology in the Tertia Pars. See Torrell, Thomas Aquinas. Vol. 2, pp. 102-105.
40 ST,II-II,q.171,prologue.
41 See White, V., ‘St. Thomas's Conception of Revelation,’ Dominican Studies 1 (1948), pp. 1-34, at pp. 11-12Google Scholar. This approach acknowledges that God revealed Himself in such and such a way but had the power to have done it differently. There is also an attempt in these sections to show the fittingness of prophecy as recorded in Scripture.
42 ST,I,q.1,a.1,ad.2.
43 ST,I,q.1,a.1,co.
44 See Persson, P.E., Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas, trans. by Mackenzie, R. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), p. 20Google Scholar; White, pp. 4-5.
45 ST,II-II,q.172,a.1 and 3.
46 ST,II-II,q.173,a.1.
47 ST,II-II,q.171, prologue.
48 ST,I-II,q.111,a.1.
49 ST,I-II,q.111,a.5. See I-II,q.111.a.1,co: sanctifying grace ordains humans immediately to their final end, while gratuitous grace ordains them to what is preparatory to that end.
50 ST,II-II,q.171,prologue.
51 ST,II-II,q.171,a.1.co.
52 Ibid.
53 For more on the disputed question as a genre and the appropriate secondary literature, see Jean-Pierre Torrell, Thomas d'Aquin, Questions disputées sur la vérité, Question XII, La prophétie (De prophetia), French translations by S.-T. Bonino, introduction and commentary by J.-P. Torrell, Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques (Paris: Vrin, 2006), p. 7.
54 For an overview, see Elders, L., ‘Les rapports entre la doctrine de la prophétie de saint Thomas et “le Guide des égarés” de Maïmonide,’ Divus Thomas 78 (1975) pp. 449-456Google Scholar. For an evaluation of this current of research into the judeo-arabic sources of Thomas’ notion of prophecy, see also Torrell, Thomas d'Aquin, Somme théologique, La Prophétie, 2a-2ae, Questions 171-178, second edition, French translation by P. Synave and P. Benoit, revised by J.-P. Torrell with new introduction (Paris: Cerf, 2005), pp. *15-*19 [new introduction].
55 Merx, A., Die Prophetie des Joel und ihre Auslegung von der ältesten Zeit bis zu den Reformatoren (Halle, 1879), pp. 353-368, at p. 366Google Scholar.
56 Mausbach, J., ‘Die Stellung des hl. Thomas von Aquin zu Maimonides in der Lehre von der Prophetie,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 81 (1899), pp. 553-579Google Scholar.
57 See Torrell, La Prophétie, p. *16.
58 Zarb, S.M., ‘Le fonti agostiniane del trattato sulla profezia di S. Tommaso d'Aquino,’ Angelicum 15 (1938), pp. 169-200Google Scholar.
59 On the development of the theory of prophecy in early thirteenth-century scholastic theology, see Decker, B., ‘Die Analyse des Offenbarungsvorganges beim hl. Thomas im Lichte vorthomistischer Prophetietraktate. Ein historischer Kommentar zu S. theol. II-II q. 173 a. 2 (De ver. q. 12 a. 7),’ Angelicum 16 (1939), pp. 195-244Google Scholar.
60 von Balthasar, H.U., Thomas und die Charismatik: Kommentar zu Thomas von Aquin, Summa Theologica Quaestiones II II 171-182, Besondere Gnadengaben und die zwei Wege menschlichen Lebens (Freiburg: Johannes Verlag Einsiedeln, 1996)Google Scholar: a commentary on ST,II-II,q.171-182 with a sustained inquiry into the scholastic background and an appendix with recorded allusions in these questions to the Aristotelian corpus.
61 Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Théorie de la prophétie et philosophie de la connaissance aux environs de 1230: la contribution d'Hugues de Saint-Cher (Ms. Douai 434, Question 481) (Leuven: Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, 1977)Google Scholar and Recherches sur la Théorie de la Prophétie au Moyen Âge. XIIe-XIVe siècles. Études et Textes, Dokimion 13 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Éditions universitaires, 1992)Google Scholar.
62 Schlosser, M., Lucerna in caliginoso loco: Aspekte des Prophetie-Begriffes in der scholastischen Theologie (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2000)Google Scholar.
63 This excluded obviously those works of the organon already known.
64 For an overview of the state of the questions on Thomas and the theology of history, see Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Nouvelles recherches thomasiennes, Bibliothèque thomiste 61 (Paris: Vrin, 2008), pp. 131-175Google Scholar.
65 Dempf, A., Sacrum imperium. Geschicts- und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der politischen Renaissance, fourth edition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), p. 381CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Er [Thomas] sah zunächst nur die Überzeitlichkeit der Wahrhiet…. Er ist förmlich der überzeitliche Mensch, der keine Geschischte braucht.’
66 Gilson, É., ‘Cajetan et l'humanisme théologique,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 30 (1955), pp. 113-136, at p. 133Google Scholar.
67 Pesch, O.H. ‘“Behold, I am Doing a New Thing” [Is 43.19]? History of Salvation and Historic Moments of Transition in Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther,’ Science et Esprit 53 (2001), pp. 123-142, at p. 130Google Scholar.
68 See Fessard, G., De L'actualité historique, 2 vols. (Paris: Desclée, de Brouwer, 1959)Google Scholar, especially vol. 1, pp. 13-20 and vol. 2, pp. 257-393 [cited by Torrell, Nouvelles recherches, p. 133].
69 Benoit, P. and Synave, P., Prophecy and Inspiration: A Commentary on the Summa Theologica II-II Q. 171-178, translated by Dulles, A. and Sheridan, T.L. (New York: Desclée, 1961)Google Scholar; Benoit, P., Inspiration and the Bible, trans. by Murphy-O'Connor, J. London: Sheed, 1965)Google Scholar; Zerafa, P., ‘The Limits of Biblical Inerrancy,’ Angelicum 39 (1962), pp. 92-119Google Scholar.
70 Benoit, Prophecy and Inspiration, pp. 84-168.
71 ST,I,q.1,a.10,co: ‘auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus.’
72 ST,II-II,q.174,a.6.
73 ST,II-II,q.174,a.6,co.
74 ST,I,q.1,a.10,co.
