[Appendix] Twenty Fourth Distinction

Single Question. Whether about Revealed Matters of Belief Someone can have Science and Faith at the same Time, speaking of Science as it is taken for all the Certain Knowledge Received from the Evidence of the Thing

Bonaventure, 3 Sent. d.24 q. 3, a.2
Scotus, 3 Sent. d.24 q.1
Thomas, ST Ia q.1 a.12
Bacconitanus, 3 Sent. d.24 q.1

1. About the twenty fourth distinction the question asked is whether about the same object it is possible to have at the same time faith and science, taking science for all the created science that has from the object the cause of the thing.

2. That it is:

Because as John 20 says, ‘You have seen me, Thomas, and have believed’, therefore about Christ’s resurrection Thomas had faith and intuitive vision at the same time. But intuitive vision is more certain than science. Therefore etc.

3. Again, science and opinion can be had about the same conclusion; therefore much more so faith and science. The consequence is plain, because opinion fails to be science more than faith does, since opinion is adhesion to one side of a contradiction with fear of the other side. The proof of the antecedent is that for the same question it is possible to have a demonstrative middle term, which causes science, and a dialectical middle term, which causes opinion.

4. To the contrary is the Apostle saying to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 12), ‘we walk by faith not by sight’. The gloss says, ‘As wayfarers we do not have science about matters of belief but faith’.

To the Question

5. I reply that a subalternating science, which is knowledge that gets its evidence from the object, does not resolve its principles to the terms of a higher science evident from the nature of the thing. Such science cannot stand together with faith about the same object, since faith is dark and obscure knowledge; and therefore the theology of the saints does not stand along with the faith of the blessed, because the latter have clear knowledge that states the why of things that are matters of belief for us. But our theology, which is subalternated to the science of the blessed, stands in us along with faith about the same things. Because a subalternated science does not resolve its principle to simple terms known to it from the nature of the thing but assumes its principles, for it takes them from the subalternating science above it, where the principles are conclusions. The principles then of a subalternated science do not have the evidence of the thing itself of the subalternating science, but it adheres firmly to them by supposing them to be proved in the subalternating science; and so it can stand along with faith, as is plain.

6. To the contrary, and first again him [Aquinas] who thinks that a subalternated science is a true science because our theology is a true science. But according to him in ST IIa IIae, where he expressly moves the question whether faith and science about the same object can stand together in the same person, they do not stand together, as he there says. Therefore neither the theology of the saints nor our theology will be able to stand together with faith about the same object.

7. Again, and against his statement that our theology is subalternated to the theology of the blessed: the same man who has the subalternated science can have the subalternating science, as is plain about optics [subalternated] and geometry [subalternating], and all the rest, because all are possessed by natural light. Therefore a wayfarer could have the theology of the blessed with the same light of faith by which he has our theoretical science; and then he would be wayfarer and blessed at the same time.

8. Again, and against the conclusion in itself: a subalternating science can exist at the same time as the subalternated science in the same person. Hence the same man can be an optician and a geometer. But according to you [Aquinas] the subalternating science can exist at the same time along with faith about the same thing. Therefore faith and the subalternating science can exist together at the same time. Therefore faith would exist in the blessed at the same time along with their theology. The first proposition is plain, because the conclusions of the one science are the principles of the other, etc.

9. So an alternative statement is that there is a threefold light. Namely, first, the light of glory in which the blessed have intuitive vision about the things that are matters of belief for us, and they see those things in light that provides the reason why. Another light, second, is the light of faith which is in us. Another, third, is an intermediate light below the light of glory and the light of faith, whereby we have abstractive knowledge, namely theology about the same matters of belief; but this intermediate light of faith rests on the light of faith and presupposes it.

10. Then to the matter at issue: although the light of glory does not stand along with the light of faith, and consequently the intuitive vision of the blessed about things that are matters of belief for us does not stand along with faith; however the intermediate light does stand along with the light of faith, on which it rests; indeed it necessarily assumes that light, and so our theology stands along with faith about the same matters of belief. For the middle term and the extremes are less repugnant to each other than the extremes are to themselves. This is confirmed by a gloss of Augustine and by the interlinear gloss on the verse of John 1, ‘he was the true light’, etc. Here both mean that the greater in the church have the light of faith and another light; but the lesser have only the light of faith.

11. To the contrary: no speculative science depends essentially on the will; rather it is of itself naturally prior to every volition. Therefore if the light by which we get our theology, since it is an abstractive and speculative science, is different from the light of faith and is above it, as you say, then it does not depend essentially on the will. Therefore neither does it depend on what does essentially depend on the will. But the light of faith, since it is essentially the evidence of the object, depends on the will in causing assent, for it does not compel the intellect to assent to an article of faith unless the will compels the intellect. Therefore it is not possible to say that the intermediate light rests on the light of faith and necessarily presupposes it; instead I say that if the light were of this sort we could through it have theology without any faith, which however is impossible. Therefore I say differently that if science is taken properly the way the Philosopher takes it in Posterior Analytics 1, namely as it is clear knowledge caused in the intellect by an evident object, it would be impossible for it to stand together with faith about the same object, and especially as far as the act is concerned, whatever be the case about the habit. The reason is that the act of faith attains an object obscurely seen, so that the obscurity in the act is so connected to the act that, if it were removed, the act would not be an act of faith. Just as the past is a relation so connected to memory that, if the relation is removed, there would not be an act of remembering, so sciences properly taken attain their object as something clearly seen, so that, if the clearness is removed from the act, it would in no way be an act of science. But it is impossible that the same power at the same time attains the same object clearly and obscurely, just as neither as present and also as past; therefore etc. And although the relations (obscurity, which is privation of clarity, clarity, the passing of the present, and others of the sort) are not formal objectual ideas, they are yet necessarily connected, as was said. In another way science is taken as it is distinguished from opinion, namely as it asserts a firm adhesion to one side of a contradiction without fear of the other; and thus is it taken by Augustine and by Aristotle in Ethics 6; and taken in this way not only can it stand along with faith but is rather the same as faith, as is plain.

12. But further, this must be noted about our habit of theology, where it must be noted that the habit of theology can be called that which would be caused in someone from frequent reading and meditation of scripture understood only superficially and literally as written; and such a habit would not be one of certain knowledge from the evidence of the thing, but rather something believed on the testimony of the scriptures, in which faith is had. It would however be a different habit from the habit of faith, because it would not be in everyone who has faith, as is plain. But there would be caused in the light of faith another more perfect habit, so that scripture would be known not only literally but rather would be known for exposition and clarification, and how the doubts and contrarieties that appear in it are to be resolved would be known; and that in two ways: by clarifying a more obscure place by another more obscure place, and then too the habit is purely one of belief, as is plain, because the premises are matters of belief just as are the conclusions; or by clarifying scripture through other sciences as the doctors do commonly now do by introducing philosophy; and then too I say it is a habit of belief, because always one of the premises is a matter of belief, though the other be necessary from the evidence. For a conclusion follows the nature of the premise that is less evident, as is plain in mixed arguments. For a syllogism, one of whose parts is necessary and the other contingent, never has a conclusion save a contingent one, so that the conclusion of such syllogism is always contingent. Such a habit is also, then, acquired in the light of faith and stands along with faith, though it is other than the habit of faith.

13. Another more perfect theological habit can be had even by a wayfarer by infusion from God, which is what the Prophets and the Apostles had and other saints; and such a habit is so perfect that, while the intellect so stands, it cannot not assent to the truth as if it had evidence about the thing from the object. That this is possible is plain, because what God can do in the genus of efficient cause through a second cause, he can do immediately. Therefore he can immediately cause in the intellect the habit of science that an evident object would cause; therefore etc. But note that if this habit made the object to be clearly seen, it would then be the habit of glory; therefore God does not so act.

14. Again, if he were to make it know an object in its proper idea in the way that science properly speaking does, then it would not stand along with the act of faith; but if he only compels the intellect to assent to the truth the way that science properly speaking does and does not do more, then it will stand along with faith.

To the Arguments

15. Then to the arguments to the contrary [n.4]. To other opinions it is not necessary to reply, as is plain save to the Gloss adduced for the second opinion; to which Gloss I say that light there is taken for the habit, whether infused or acquired, of theology among the greater, which they have over and above the habit of faith.

16. To the first main argument [n.2], the response is according to Gregory in his homily on the Octave of Easter, where he says that Thomas believed something else, for he saw the man and believed him God.

17. To the second [n.3] I say that even if they saw the man suffer yet only by faith did they see God suffer. But the article in the creed is that the God man suffered, and although the blessed Virgin or another saint had some intuitive vision about another article of the creed, yet they did not then have faith about the same thing, at least as to the act, but they could have it about other articles. To the third point [n.3] I say that the antecedent is false, because if effects are incompossible in the same thing the causes in act are also incompossible, and if a demonstrative and a dialectical middle term is possessed for the same conclusion, it will do nothing; and if first there was generated opinion, it will be corrupted by the coming of the science.