Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

IT IS DOUBTED concerning the third place, whether a firm argument is deduced from the authority of the Scholastic Theologians.

And for the negative side it is argued first. In the Church of God, that alone is a firm dogma which is established from the divine Letters, or revelations, or the decrees of the sacred Councils, or from the revelation of holy Church. But the authority of the Scholastics rests upon none of these foundations; therefore it is not firm. The major is certain from the doctrine of faith, and the minor is proved. For nowhere do we read or hear that the spirit of truth was promised to Theologians; therefore they can err like men; «for every man is a liar», as is had in Ps. 115.

Secondly. In the school of Theologians nothing is certain or explored in which all agree, but all things are full of factions and disputations, these asserting, those denying; the Thomists dispute against the Scotists, and on the contrary the Scotists are opposed to the Thomists, asserting in all things various opinions and diverse views; therefore from their authority nothing certain or safe can be had.

Thirdly, even if all Theologians with unanimous consent agree in some opinion, they can err, and have erred in many things; therefore from their authority a firm argument is not elicited. The antecedent could be demonstrated by many examples, but let one suffice. The common opinion of the Scholastics was that matrimony even contracted without the minister of the Church is truly and properly a sacrament of the new law, and confers grace and the remission of sins. But this common opinion induces no certitude; nay, the more recent Theologians deservedly reject it, and clandestine marriages have been entirely abolished by the sacred Council of Trent, and it has been sanctioned that henceforth a marriage be not valid without the parish priest and two witnesses, as is plain in Session 24, ch. 1, On the reformation of marriage; therefore etc. Fourthly.

The study of the Scholastics is very often occupied with those things which are hidden from our grasp, [by] the excessive curiosity of those scrutinizing things which are known to the divine Majesty alone, and the knowledge of which is not necessary for the salvation of men. For they dispute by what the divine Persons are constituted, in what the Father and the Son are distinguished, in what way the procession of the Holy Spirit differs from the nativity of the Word of God, and other such things, the investigation of which seems prohibited in the Sacred Letters, according to that of Prov. 25: «he who is a searcher of majesty shall be oppressed by glory»; and Ecclus. 3: «Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability; but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious, etc.»; therefore from the disputations of the Scholastics are drawn not only not firm documents, but useless and harmful assertions.

Fifthly. Scholastic doctrine proceeds from the articles of faith by deducing conclusions; therefore either such conclusions are inferred by a necessary and evident consequence, or only by a topical and probable one. If by a necessary one, then it is no longer a common opinion, but a theological demonstration, and then the conclusion will also be of faith mediately. If, however, only by a probable one, then the conclusion itself will not have certitude; therefore the proper dogmas of the Theologians do not have firmness.

Sixth and last it is argued. If from the authority of the Scholastic Theologians a firm argument is taken to establish some truth, it follows that also from the opinion of the experts in Canon Law a firm proof in sacred Doctrine is established. But the consequent is false; therefore also the antecedent. The consequence is evident. For Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence rests upon the decrees of the sacred Councils and Pontiffs, just as Theology itself is for the most part founded upon the same foundations. But that the consequent is false is proved. For the jurists use only the authority and testimonies of other doctors, disputing not with reasons but with the words of the texts; therefore their diligence profits theological argumentations little or nothing, nor can firm arguments be drawn from them.

What the Scholastic Theologians are, concerning whose authority we have undertaken the question, it is easy to understand from those things which have been said above about the quiddity, object, and qualities of sacred Doctrine. For we call the professors of this Doctrine Scholastic Theologians, who treat sacred Doctrine succinctly and in the dialectical manner, although among them various grades could be distinguished. For some are ancient, some more recent; some of eminent doctrine, others of lesser note; some of great authority, others of mediocre; all of which are to be weighed for knowing the firmness and value of the arguments which are drawn from their testimonies.

TO the doubt, therefore, in order that we may answer, let there be a first conclusion. The authority of the Scholastic Theologians, even of many, when learned men are on the contrary side, is worth no more than either their own reason or some testimony of Scripture shall have established. This conclusion is manifest. For when there are two opinions fighting against each other, each of which rests upon probable reasons and solves the arguments of the adversaries, and has learned men as defenders, there is no reason why one should pertinaciously adhere to this or that side on account of the authority of some; but the reasons are to be weighed, and according to their force faith is to be given to this or that side. Nor does it matter that more incline to one side, if a few grave and learned men think the opposite. For these things are not to be judged by number, but by weight. Whence those Theologians are deservedly to be reprehended who, adhering too much to their own opinions, or even to those of others, at once condemn contrary dogmas by a certain precipitate judgment without sufficient reasons, and brand with graver censures all things which do not accord with their judgment, and that with so much facility that they are deservedly ridiculed.

Second conclusion. When the Scholastics commonly agree in some opinion about a grave matter, they make an argument so probable that to contradict them is very temerarious. This conclusion is proved. For in any art, that the experts are to be believed natural reason shows, so that it is not lawful, without temerity, to dissent from them. For in the art of navigation, the sailors are to be believed, and in agriculture, the farmers; therefore in theological matters and ecclesiastical dogmas, to contradict the masters of Theology and those exercised in sacred Doctrine will be temerarious. Secondly it is proved.

For in the sacred Councils account is always had of those opinions which are more common and more received among the Scholastic Theologians, as is plain from the Clementine Unica on the Summa Trinitate and the Catholic faith, where the fathers of the Council of Vienne propose to the faithful, to be held and chosen, that opinion which teaches that grace and the virtues are infused in Baptism, as more probable and more consonant with modern Theologians. If therefore the more common opinion of the Theologians was of such weight with the sacred Council, how much more is that opinion to be received in which all the Scholastics generally agree; therefore it will be temerarious to dissent from them.

Thirdly it is proved. Among Scholastic Theologians there is very often a variety of opinions, so that they are perhaps sometimes deservedly reprehensible; therefore when all agree in some dogma, with truth compelling and the same Spirit of God moving, that is to be reckoned to be from God; therefore rashly would someone contradict their opinion. Certainly, as it was once wonderful that the Seventy interpreters, enclosed in different cells, came together (as is reported) into one and the same concord of words in interpreting the sacred Books, so also that opinion in which all Theologians, differing among themselves in many other things, unanimously agree, is to be held as certain and worthy of all acceptance; therefore it will be no moderate temerity to think otherwise.

Concerning this conclusion and the following it is to be noted that when almost all Theologians agree, although one or another differs from the opinion of the others, that common opinion nevertheless remains in its strength, unless perhaps that one were of such great authority, or brought proofs so valid, that his judgment were equivalent to many others.

Secondly it is to be known that some dogma can at one time be common to all Theologians, and then in a succeeding time, with the truth more manifested, be commonly refuted without temerity; for example, that opinion which was mentioned in the third argument — that matrimony however contracted is a true sacrament conferring grace — was once common among Theologians; but now it is disapproved by many, not only after the celebration of the Council of Trent, but also before. For Cano, in book 8 On Places, ch. 5, teaches that matrimony contracted without the minister of the Church and the sacred ceremonies is only a civil contract, and not a sacrament of the Church. The same teaches Cajetan concerning marriage which is contracted between absent parties through procurators; and many others follow these authors without any temerity. For what is hidden at one time afterwards becomes known many times through the diligence and study of those who come after. Wherefore the opinion of the more recent is always to be sought out, yet due honor is to be deferred to the ancients; but when both the ancient and the modern agree in some dogma, then most of all our conclusion holds true. Third conclusion. The concordant opinion of all the Theologians concerning the doctrine of faith or morals makes an argument so firm that to think the contrary is an error in faith, or proximate to error.

Before this conclusion is proved, it is to be noted that those things about which Theologians dispute are of a twofold difference. For certain things regard Philosophy, or Metaphysics; but others pertain to the doctrine of faith and necessary morals. To contradict the Theologians, therefore, in those things which are of the first kind will not be erroneous nor heretical; for example, the Theologians teach that the angels, the more perfect they are, the more they know through more universal likenesses. To contradict this dogma would indeed be unreasonable, but not an error against faith, although in that dogma all the Theologians had agreed; because they do not hold this on account of the arguments of faith, but through metaphysical reasons. But to oppose the common opinion of all the Theologians in those things which are of the second kind, we say to be an error. And it is proved first from that of Luke 10: «He who heareth you, heareth me; and he who despiseth you, despiseth me». Which words were spoken by Christ the Lord not only of the Theologians and masters of the Church, whom He Himself instituted at the beginning, but are referred also to the doctors who were to be in the Church, as long as His sheep were to be fed in knowledge and doctrine. Therefore, just as those who opposed the first doctors of the Church wandered from the faith, so those who now contradict the whole school of the Theologians, who are the masters of the Church in matters of faith, are to be reckoned erroneous. Likewise to the Ephesians, 4, the Apostle teaches that Christ gave some indeed apostles in the Church, some prophets, others evangelists, others pastors and doctors for the consummation of the saints, etc. Therefore to the Doctors of the Church, who are men and Theologians, as sent by Christ and illumined and strengthened by His providence in matters of faith, faith is to be given. We do not understand that any of the Theologians so has the Spirit of God that he cannot err in faith. For this is to be believed of the Supreme Pontiff alone, when he defines matters of faith. But that the whole school of Theologians, when it unanimously consents to the same opinion, makes a most firm argument, as concerning a matter which they say to be of faith, so that to dissent from it is erroneous Secondly the same conclusion is proved by a manifest theological reason.

For if all the Theologians were to err in some dogma pertaining to faith or morals, it follows that the whole Church can err; but the consequent is an error in faith; therefore also the antecedent. The consequence is proved. For the Scholastic Theologians are the masters and doctors of all peoples, who both in hearing confessions and in giving sermons instruct the faithful, in such a way that all can and are bound to believe them. If therefore in some doctrine of faith all the Theologians had an error, the whole Church is exposed to the manifest danger of erring. Thirdly it is proved.

Holy Church has many times defined propositions as of faith which were not expressly had in the Sacred Letters, but were commonly and constantly affirmed by all the Theologians and Doctors of the Church; and they were theological propositions, as was that Christ has a human will, which the Theologians gathered from this, that Christ according to the faith is true man, and every man has a human will; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle; which is proved from this, that in divine things all are one where the opposition of relation does not stand in the way. Since therefore the Father and the Son, in spirating the third Person, do not have a relative opposition between themselves, it follows that they are not two principles, but one. Therefore in like manner those truths in which the whole school of the Theologians agrees could now be defined as of faith; therefore to contradict them is erroneous. For example, all the Theologians firmly teach that Christ the Lord from the instant of His Incarnation saw the divine Essence. This does not expressly appear in the divine Letters, nor has it been defined by the Church of God as to be held of faith; but the Theologians gather it by a good consequence from other places of Scripture and the foundations of faith, and it has been so commonly received that no one can deny it without the note of error, and it could be defined by the Church as of faith. This reason is confirmed. For the Theologians never agree in firmly asserting some dogma except on account of the testimonies of divine Scripture, or the definitions of the Church, from which that dogma is manifestly gathered; therefore the common opinion of the Theologians induces a firm argument in faith. Finally our conclusion is proved. For no dogma can be found which all the Scholastics with one mouth have certainly asserted, which does not contain truth; nay, which is not held by the whole Church in the universe, moved by their authority; therefore he who has contradicted such things is to be held as a heretic or erroneous.

But an argument offers itself against this conclusion. For if error against theological propositions is also error against faith, it follows that faith and Theology are not formally diverse habits; the consequent is false; therefore also the antecedent. That the consequent is false has been said above in art. 2. And I prove the consequence. Because one contrary cannot be opposed to two formally distinct contraries, but to one only; for white is contrary only to black, and cold only to hot; therefore if error against Theology is contrary to faith, Theology and faith will not be formally diverse.

To this argument it is answered that, just as divine revelation is immediately the formal principle of faith, but mediately of theological science, so faith itself immediately and per se inclines only to the articles of faith and to those things which have been expressly revealed; but mediately and consequently it is also concerned with the conclusions which are gathered by evident consequence from the articles of faith. Hence it is necessary that dissent concerning the propositions of Theology mediately and consequently be opposed to faith: just as a physical agent which destroys the accidents necessary for the conservation of a substance consequently destroys the substance itself. Wherefore the Church condemns as an unbeliever him who rejects theological propositions of this kind. For although she understands that they are deduced not from faith alone but also from natural principles, it is presumed nevertheless that a rational man denies not those things which are known according to reason, but those which are had from faith. For example, if someone were to deny that Christ is risible, which is gathered from these two premises, «every man is risible, Christ is a man», he would be condemned as an unbeliever. For he would not be thought to deny that proposition, every man is risible, which is evident by natural light, nor the goodness of the consequence, which is also per se known, but the truth of that minor premise, Christ is a man. But if someone were so rustic or stupid as not to perceive either the goodness of the consequence or the truth of the natural principle, such a one could deny a theological proposition, with the Catholic faith safe, because he would be excused by ignorance.

THESE things being thus constituted, it is answered to the arguments put forward at the beginning.

To the first, it is plain from what has been said that the authority of the school of Theologians is not rashly and without reason asserted, but on account of the testimonies of Sacred Scripture which we have adduced and others which could be adduced. Likewise because in the whole Church, in the sacred Councils, their dogmas have always been held in the highest esteem, especially when all unanimously define something certainly, from which it is not lawful to depart, as has been sufficiently proved.

To the second it is answered that it cannot be denied that there is sometimes excessive contention and zeal of contradicting among some Scholastic Theologians, which indeed is blameworthy; but these are the vices of persons, not of the school or state, which is not to be despised or rejected on account of the excess of a few, or even of many. Just as no one condemns matrimony, even if several married persons do not observe the rights of that state. Nevertheless in those things which are of great moment, and especially which pertain to faith and the honesty of morals, we always see that all Catholic Theologians have agreed and do agree. Nay, this is more wonderful, that amid so many dissensions and disputations of those teaching and writing, so great a concord is found in those things which regard faith. Wherefore when there is such a consonance, their testimony makes a most firm argument, as we said in the second and third conclusions. But when there is a diversity of opinions, the authority of each will avail as much as his reasons have weighed, as was said in the first conclusion.

To the third it is answered, first, that that opinion concerning matrimony was not common to all the Theologians, but some taught the opposite, as was said in those things which were noted concerning the second conclusion. Moreover, although it had been the common opinion, nevertheless it was not a firm opinion, as is plain from the Master [of the Sentences], St. Thomas, Scotus, and all the others «in the fourth», who all leave it under doubt, nor define anything certainly. For it is greatly to be noted that the Theologians teach some opinion in two ways. In one way, firmly asserting it as certain and indubitable; and then their unanimous consensus in those things which pertain to religion makes an argument of faith, as has been proved in the third conclusion. In another way, asserting it not firmly but doubting, as if the matter were not plain and defined, using this word, 'it seems', or this word, 'probably it must be said'. And then, even if all agree in some dogma, it will be lawful to think the opposite without the note of infidelity. For example, the Master of the Sentences teaches in 4, d. 3, that the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ Himself before His death, and administered by the Apostles; which opinion the other Scholastic Theologians follow; yet they do not so certainly define it that the opposite could not be held. And the places of Sacred Scripture which say that Christ or the Apostles administered baptism before His death can indeed be explained not of the Sacrament of Baptism, which remits sins, but of a certain baptism preparatory to that which was afterwards to be. For even St. Augustine, speaking of this matter in Epistle 108 to Seleuciana, says thus: «Christ baptized not by Himself, but through His disciples, whom we understand to have been already baptized, either with the baptism of John, as some think, or, what is more credible, with the baptism of Christ». Behold, Augustine teaches as more credible, not as altogether certain, that the Apostles received the baptism of Christ. But if they did not receive it, certainly they would not have administered it before the death of the Lord. And so he who would teach that the sacrament of baptism was not instituted before the passion of Christ would not be to be accused of error.

To the fourth it is answered that the studies and exercises of the Theologians are most useful for preserving and declaring the doctrine of faith, and for refuting adversaries, and for many other things, as has been largely shown above, art. 1.

To the fifth it is answered that Scholastic Theology proceeds from the principles of faith, sometimes inferring conclusions probably, sometimes necessarily. When it gathers probably, its argument induces only probability, nor does it make faith altogether certain. But when it gathers necessarily, the conclusion is so certain that to oppose it is erroneous and contrary to faith, at least mediately, as has been sufficiently explained concerning the third conclusion.

To the last argument it is answered that it cannot be denied that the doctrine of the experts in Canon Law is most useful to Theologians, and necessary for many uses, as for the administration of the Sacraments, for the government of Churches, for the celebration of the divine Offices, and other such things.

But how much their authority contributes to arguing in Theology, I say briefly, that in those things which pertain to faith, the Theologian does not need or is not helped by the testimony of the jurists; nay rather, those things which are decreed in the laws concerning faith ought to receive their exposition from the Theologians.

Secondly I say that even in those things which pertain to morals, insofar as either the Evangelical law or natural reason defines such matters, the authority of the jurists can confer little or certainly nothing upon the Theologian; nay rather, the jurists ought to expect from the Theologians the right understanding of such doctrine. The reason for these things is at hand. For the principles from which the sacred Councils or the Supreme Pontiffs elicit the documents of faith or morals are proper to theological doctrine, whose part it is to know what things have been revealed by God, and what things are consequent upon them or repugnant to them, and what is their true understanding. Therefore if any dogmas concerning faith or morals the Pontifical Law gathers from the Gospel or from moral philosophy, the Theologian must understand and interpret them as accepted from his own principles.

Thirdly I say: In those things which concern the morals of the Church, the rites and institutions of religion, the penalties of crimes and other such things which are decreed by positive law and pontifical laws, the common consensus of the jurists ought to make great faith.

Finally I say: In interpreting the laws, letters, and sanctions of the Pontiffs, faith is to be given to the jurists, and the solution of doubts arising concerning such matters is to be sought from them — as, if it be doubted concerning someone whether he is excommunicated, whether he is irregular, whether a subdelegate can subdelegate, and similar things. Although even in these, where, the knowledge of the law being supposed, a discourse intervenes, the opinion of the Theologians ought to have a place. Concerning all these things, therefore, which are proper to the Canonical Faculty, to refuse belief in the aforesaid matters to the doctors of this Faculty will be most insolent. Wherefore the temerity of certain Theologians is deservedly condemned, who spurn the consultation of the jurists in those things which pertain to their study.