Table Of ContentKNOWLEDGE AND FAITH IN
THOMAS AQUINAS
esc
JOHN I. JENKINS,
Univers£~ ofN otre Dame
CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP, United Kingdom
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, United Kingdom
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY IOOIl-42U, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia
© Cambridge University Press 1997
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant
collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
To my Mother and Father
First published 1997
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
Typeset in Baskerville IJh2~ pt
A cattJlogue recurd for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data
jenkins,john I.
Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas / John I. jenkins.
p. em.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0 521 581265 (hardback)
I. Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225?-I274.
2. Knowledge, Theory of-History.
3. Theology, Doctrinal-History - Middle Ages, 600-1500.
I. Title.
B765:T54J46 1997 95-43918 CIP
ISBN a 521 581265 hardback
CE
Contents
Inter homines autem maxime aliquis est parentibus debitor.
Acknowledgments page xi
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles III, cap. 128 Note on the text
XIV
List if abbreviations
XV
Introduction
PART ONE: 'SCIENTIA'
Scientia in the Posterior AnaIYtics
II
2 Scientia and sacred doctrine 5'
- 3 Scientia and the Summa theologiae 78
PART TWO: 'INTKLLECTUS PRINCIPORUM'
4 The natural light of the intellect
IOI
5 Grace, theological virtues and gifts
129
,6,
6 The light offaith
CONCLUSION: PEDAGOGY IN THE DIVINE 'SCIENTIA'
7 The scientia of sacred doctrine
213
Notes
227
Bibliography 260
Index 266
ix
Acknowledgments
I have been working on this book on and off for ten years, and have
been thinJ?ng about the issues it treats for an even longer time. The
people who have helped me during this long gestation are too
numerous to list, but I will try to mention some of the most
prominent. Of course, I alone am responsible for the views presented
in this work.
Many of the ideas for this work were first developed in a D.Phil.
dissertation at Oxford University, where I was extremely fortunate to
have studied. I wish to thank Brian Davies, OP, Anthony Kenny and
Richard Swinburne, all of whom supervised the writing of my
dissertation at some stage in its composition. Each of them was
generous with his time and helpful in his criticisms. My thanks also
go to those at my college, Campion Hall, who supported me. And
last but not least, thanks to the friends at Oxford who sustained me
m many ways.
I am fortunate to teach at the institution at which I was an
undergraduate, so many of those who taught me as a student now
teach me as a colleague. Parts of this work were read at departmental
colloquia, and I benefited from comments and criticisms. David
Burrell, CSC, Scott MacDonald, Alfred Freddoso, Ernan McMullin,
David Solomon, Phil Quinn, Paul Weithman, Joseph Wawrykow
and Martha Merritt have all read and commented on parts of this
work at some stage in its composition. Peter Adamson helped me
prepare the final version. Ralph McInerny deserves special thanks,
for he not only read, commented upon and discussed parts of this
work with me, but has consistently supported me in my work.
Michael J. Buckley, S], gave me my first Latin copy of Aquinas's
Summa theologiae when I was a student in theology, and he made room
rvv
in a very busy schedule to read and discuss its contents with me. e
only made it through tlfe first question of the Prima pars of the Summa
xi
xii AcknO/.!iletigmmts Acknowledgments xiii
during that term, and this book is in many ways the fruit of my understood just what those interests were. And I could have asked for
continuing efforts to understand that question.) Mike has continued no better friends and companions in life than my sisters and brothers.
to be a friend and mentor, and I am very grateful to him for his help In writing this work, as in all the significant endeavors of my life, my
and friendship through the years. family has been a constant and indispensable source of strength,
Alasdair MacIntyre has profoundly influenced this work and its encouragement and illumination. Through their example I have
author in several ways. First, his writings have inspired and illumined learned about the Love which made us, and which draws us back to
my study of Aquinas. Secondly, he has been generous in reading and Himself. And to my parents I dedicate this book.
commenting on various parts of various drafts of this work. And
thirdly, by his integrity, his dedication to inquiry and his search for
what is true and good, he has embodied for me much of what it
means to live a philosophical life. I am extremely grateful for his
help, support and example.
Three anonymous readers to whom Cambridge University Press
sent my manuscript provided very helpful comments, and I have
inc6rporated many of their suggestions. I am also indebted to some
excellent editorial staff at Cambridge University Press, particularly
Hilary Gaskin and Rosemary Morris. My friend Dianne Phillips
suggested the image for the cover of this book.
As I try to teach my students, I continue to be surprised by how
much I learn in the effort. My thanks go to the students at Notre
Dame, whom I have had the very great privilege to teach and to
learn from in so many ways. I hope they have learned as much as I
,.
have. Thanks also to the communities at Dillon HaIl, Old College ,
and Moreau Seminary where I have been living while at Notre
Dame. They have supported me and patiently awaited the publica
tion of this book.
I am grateful to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the
University of Notre Dame, which supported 'me during a sabbatical
year during which I worked on this project.
Finally, two groups deserve my special gratitude. The first is the
Congregation of Holy Cross, of which I am a member. It has been
generous in providing me the financial resources and time needed for
me to pur~ue my studies and research. More importantly, my super
iors and friends in the community have been unwavering in their
encouragement and fraternal understanding. I am profoundly
blessed to have such brothers.
The second group is my family. My parents must have thought it
odd to have a son with such a passionate interest in philosophy, but
their support and encouragement to follow my interests has always
been unhesitating and unqualified, even when they may not have
Note on the text Abbreviations
/
!
The following short titles of Aquinas's works are used throughout the
TRANSLATIONS AND CITATIONS OF THE WORKS OF AQ.UINAS
b·ook. The Latin editions on which my translations are based can be
All translations of passages from Aquinas's works quoted in this book are found in the bibliography. Also listed there are English translations
mine. I have tried to render Aquinas's words as literally and accurately of Aquinas'S works which I have consulted, and by which I have
as I could, sometimes perhaps at the expense of elegant English. often been helped in my translations.
There is no single edition of Aquinas's works which is wholly
adequate. For the most part I have used the Leonine edition of ST Summa theologiae
sec
Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia (1882-). This edition, however, is not Summa contra gentiles
sss
yet complete, and another edition has of course been used when no In quattuor libros Sententiarum
Leonine text is available. Also, some of the early works in the De potentia Qyaestiones disputatae de potentia
Leonine edition have been improved by later editions based on the Dever. Qyaestiones disputatae de veritate
earlier Leonine edition. Most notably, Robert Busa's S. 77lOmae In De anima Sententia libri De anima
Aquinatis opera omnia is based on the Leonine texts which were In Ethica Sententia libri Ethicorum
available by 1971, and in some cases he included corrections of these In Meta. Expositio in libros Metaphysicorum
texts. For some works, then, I have used Busa's texts. In Periherm. Expositio in libros Perihermenias
When citing the Summa theologiae, I follow the convention of giving In Physica Expositio in libros Physicorum
the part, question, article and part of the article. Thus "STn-n.I.6. In Post. anal. Expositio libri posteriorum
ad 2" refers to the second part of the second part of the Summa In De Trin. Super Boethium de T rinitate
theologiae, question one, article 6, response to objection two. If there is
no reference to a part of the article, the reference is to the corpus of
that article. Citations of the Qyaestiones disputatae are similar, though
'of course there is no reference to a part of the work.
When referring to one of Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle, I
give the book (if there is more thari one) in large roman numerals,
the lectio in small roman numerals. I also give the paragraph numbers
which were introduced in the Marietti editions of Aquinas's works.
Although these are not medieval divisions of the texts and although
my translation is generally not based on the Marietti edition, these
paragraph numbers are often included in English editions and can
be helpful in locating a passage.
XlV xv
Introduction
The questions of Thomas Aquinas about knowledge and ifaith are
not ours. Twentieth-century philosophers have tried tl' find in
Aquinas answers to our questions, but with predictable Fesults: his
detractors have found him either confused or simple-minded, while
many of his supporters have tended to assimilate his thought to one
or another modern philosophers. Both, I contend, have misunder
stood his thought. We cannot find our questions in Aquinas's writings
because the interrelated cluster of epistemic concepts denoted by the
terms he uses - such as cognitio, intelligere, notitia, credere, opinio,fides and
especially scientia:'" differ in varying degrees from our concepts of
cognition, understanding, knowledge, belief, opinion, faith and
science. Thus when Aquinas raises broadly epistemic questions, he
does so in a different conceptual framework, and in this framework a
different set of propositions is considered unproblematic, and
another set is open to question. There are undoubtedly affinities
between Aquinas's questions and our own, and many of his concerns
are quite similar to ours. Still, I want to argue, in an important sense
which has not been fully appreciated in the literature, Aquinas asks
different questions and pUrsues different ends in his inquiries. My
particular concern in this work will be with the central notion of
scientia in Aquinas, and how this concept plays a role in the scientia of
sacred doctrine, the scientia of Christian theology which is based upon
faith and presented in Aquinas's magnum opus, the Summa theologiae. '
Our misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Thomas
Aquinas are due at least in part to the peculiar way in which his
works have been received during most of the twentieth century.
Philosophers are especially interested in the question ,of cognition
and knowledge, and until approximately the end of the Second
Vatican Council in 1965 there was a rather sharp dichotomy in
philosophical attitudes toward Aquinas. I As Anthony Kenny put it,
Knowledge and faith in Thomas Aquinas Introduction
2 3
looking back in 1969, as a philosopher Aquinas had been at the same being.9 Gilson and Maritain, then, held that a true Thomism must
time undervalued and overvalued.2 In most circles of at least Anglo reject the 'critical problem' of modern philosophy, but they never
American philosophy, with a few exceptions, Aquinas's works were theless presented their respective versions of Thomism as the true
either entit"ely ignored or treated in a cursory fashion and readily account of knowledge for which contemporary philosophers were
dismissed.~ But among Neo-Scholastic philosophers who described seeking.
I.
themselve~!:,as, Thomists, Aquinas was often regarded as a unique Regardless of how we judge the philosophical adequacy of these
source of CJ;i,firiitive answers to the philosophical problems of the day. various Thomisms, it is clear that they approach the texts With
Although ese Thornists disagreed sharply among themselves about contemporary philosophical problems in mind, they employ the
tIh.
what Aqullnas's views actually were and how they resolved the vocabulary of the modern philosophers and they seek in Aquinas
central qJ~stions of modern philosophy, they argued that, once answers to these contemporary questions. This is most apparent in
understoo¥, Aquinas's writings did provide the answers. Thus, to the the Marechalian and Cartesian versions of Thomism. But it is true
extent Aqbinas's thought was not simply neglected, it was portrayed even for Gilson and Maritain, though perhaps to a lesser extent. The
as constauting one of the competing answers to contemporary 'critical problem', they believe, cannot be found in Aquinas nor
philosop~ical questions. should it be taken seriously as a philosophical problem. But once this
Consiqer, for example, the various treatments in twentieth point is recognized; they contend, we find in Aquinas the correct
century )Thomism of Aquinas's epistemological views. For Joseph account of knowledge, just as their philosophical contemporaries
Marech~l the "fundamental problem" in the theory of knowledge offered different accounts of this concept.
1
was: "Do 'we meet in consciousness . , . an [absolute, objective Much of the work of these Thomists is useful, and some of it
affirmation, surrounded by all the guarantees demanded by the most brilliant, and I do not want to disparage their efforts. The pervading
exacting critique?,,4 Marechal believed that Kant's transcendental spirit of their work, however, is to read Aquinas's works as providing
critique, which was for him the apogee of modern philosophy's an alternative answer, and indeed the most satisfactory answer, to
attempt to respond to this fundamental problem, could be supple contemporary philosophical questions. But this effort to present
mented by Aquinas's account of cognition to render, on grounds Aquinas as a participant in the discussions of modern philosophy has
Kant would accept, a realist, Thomistic metaphysics. Marechal's naturally led to an assimilation of Aquinas's thought to our own, and
Kantian turn in the reading of Aquinas, which became known as to a practice of expressing his thought within our conceptual frame
Transceridental Thomism, was taken up and developed by Bernard work. I want to suggest that this treatment of Aquinas'S thought by
LonergaJ under the influence of C. S. Pierce,s and by Karl Rahner hi. advocates - as well as by his detractors - has distorted it. The
under the\influence of Martin Heidegger.6 Alongside this Marecha contemporary philosophical idiom in which these scholars have tried
lian readi~g a broadly Cartesian reading of Aquinas could be to express Aquinas'S thought has in many respects been a procrus
found.7 In contrast, two very influential Thomists,Jacques Maritain tean bed, one on which commentators have tended to slice away
and Etienne Gilson, rejected the critical program of Descartes and whatever in Aquinas'S inquiries seemed to express different concerns,
Kant as a philosophical dead-end and a distortion of Aquinas. As to ask different questions, and to have different aims from those of
Gilson put it, "you must either begin as a realist With being, in which participants in the contemporary debate.
case you Will have knowledge of being, or begin as a critical idealist, In the present work, then, I Will carefully examine the notion of
in which case you will never have contact With being."s Aquinas, scientia in Aquinas, and will be particularly interested in the differ
Gilson held, had the correct view of the matter, and according to it ences between Aquinas's concept and our epistemic concepts. My
we are immediately aware of the existence of the objects of sense contention Will be that Aquinas's distinctive notion of scientia shaped
perception and intellectual understanding. On Maritain's version of his thought and writing in ways which have not been fully appre
Thomism, we are implicitly aware of being in our apprehension of . ciated in the literature. Since Aquinas was a theological Master or
any idea, and we become fully aware when we abstract the idea of teacher, a Magister Sacrae Paginae, the scientia of sacred doctrine, or
Knowledge and faith in Thomas Aquinas Introduction
4 5
Christian theology, was the heart of his work and interests is meant to bring about the required familiarity with the cause in a
throughout his life. And the Summa theologiae, whose subject was field .. Its purpose is to induce habits of thought, intellectual habits, in
sacred doctrine, was not only his last and greatest composition, but virtue of which a person's knowledge of the cause becomes the cause
in many ways summed up the intellectual work of his life. Thus as we of, the epistemic grounds for, his knowledge of the effect. Its purpose,
examine Aquinas's concept of scientia our special concern will be with that is, is to make one's thinking in a particular field mirror the order
the scientia of sacred doctrine in the Summa theologiae. of causality.
In the first chapter of this book I examine Aquinas's understanding In chapter two I argue that in the Summa theologiae Aquinas adopts
of Aristode's notion of e-rno-Tin"l (in Aristode's text) or scientia (in the the Aristotelian notion of scientia, or at least something quite close to
Latin translation Aquinas used), as this is presented in Aquinas's it. The structure of the scientia of the Summa theologiae, sacred doctrine
commentary on the Posterior Ana!ytics. The Aristotelian view as or Christian theology, differs from other forms of scientia which
presented in this work and in Aquinas's commentary is complex and humans can have, for in it humans participate in God's own scientia.
not easily summarized. A noteworthy feature of this account, The principles of this scientia are the articles offaith which have been
however, is that a condition for perfect scientia of some predication is revealed by God and accepted in faith. Although these principles
that not only must one know the cause of this predication being true cannot be fully understood and must remain mysteries in this life,
(in the Aristotelian sense of formal, material, efficient or final cause), and although this scientia transcends many of the limitations to which
but one must also know the cause better than its effect. The reason other scientiae are subject, sacred doctrine is properly a scientia subject
for this rather stringent requirement is that, for perfect scientia, one's to the fundamental conditions of an Aristotelian scientia.
awareness of the cause must eventually become the cause of one's In chapter three I draw the consequences of the preceding analysis
awareness of the effect. for our understanding of the Summa theologiae and sacred doctrine.
This condition for scientia, which seems strange to modern ears, There I argue that the Summa was not written for neophytes in the
has important implications for the process of acquisition of scientia study of theology, as has been widely thought, but was a pedagogical
within a certain field. To acquire such scientia two stages are work for very advanced students who had come to the second stage
necessary. In a first stage one becomes familiar with the fundamental in the acquisition of this scientia. That is, it was intended as a work for
concepts within the field and discovers the causes, and thus becomes students who were already familiar with Christian theology, its
able to say which causes bring about which effects. In addition to conce~ts and principles, and the philosophy it presupposes, but who
this, however, a second stage is also required which will make the stood III need of the intellectual habituation by which the principles
causes sufficiendy well known that they become the foundation of in the field, the articles of faith, become the foundation and cause of
one's thinking in that field, and one's knowledge of the causes their thinking about matters in this field. Thus the Summa theologiae
becomes the cause of one's knowledge of the effects. To use an offers a synoptic view of the field which, as much as possible, moves
anachronistic example, consider a car mechanic who knows very well from causes to effects so that the proper habits of thought are
that when octane is combined with oxygen and a spark is applied, instilled.
combustion occurs. He may even be able to recite the cause of this; My interpretation of Aquinas on scientia and sacred doctrine raises
he may have learned, through reading it or being told, that octane a question about his view of how we apprehend the principles of the
reacts with oxygen because it has the chemical structure of an alkane various scientiae. If one's knowledge of principles is to be the cause of
hydrocarbon. However, though he in some sense knows the cause of one's knowledge of conclusions, and if scientia is to be a practical
octane's combustibility, he does not have scientia of this fact until he ideal for inquiry and pedagogy, it must be a practical possibility for
becomes so familiar with the respective structures of hydrogen, us to know the principles of the scientia and to know them better than
carbon and alkane hydrocarbons such as octane that his knowledge its conclusions. In chapters four to six I take up this question. In
of octane's combustibility flows from, is caused by, his knowledge of chapter four I give a general sketch of Aquinas'S account of our
these chemical forms. The second stage in the acquisition of a scientia apprehension of the principles of scientiae which are not based upon
6 Knowledge and faith in Thomas Aquinas Introduction 7
divine revelation, but on natural human cognitive powers. Aquinas, I OUf. nature. According to Aquinas's Christian VISIOn, we attain
contend, held views according to which the required apprehension of perfect wisdom in heaven, when we will see God as He is (Mt 5:8),
principles in these scientiae is at least possible. and know all other things in and through our grasp of divine essence.
In chapter six I consider assent to the principles of sacred doctrine, Then we will know perfectly, even as we are known (I Cor. 13:12).
the articles offaith. Against the standard interpretations, I argue that Indeed, then we will be like God, for we will see God{;as He is (I In
Aquinas did not think that this assent is inferred from any conclu 3:~· •
sions of natural theology, nor that it is due to ,a command of the will My contention, then, is that we distort Aquinas's thought if we
which overrides a lack of evidence. Rather one is able immediately to remove it from this ancient philosophical tradition and try to find
apprehend these propositions as divinely revealed. To prepare for and make central the issues of modern philosophy. A further
this, I consider in chapter five the nature of grace, which elevates our consequence of my study will be that we miss the impetus and tenor
natural powers, and the theological virtues and Gifts which are due of h~s :houg~t if we consider elements of it apart from t~e specifically
to divine grace. Ch:lstIan Wlsdo~ which is its end, its te/os. Aquinas's writings have, I
In the final chapter, I take up two final objections to my reading of beheve, been subject tb both sorts of distortion. II ,
the Summa theologiae as a whole and the sort of intellectual virtue M~ cO.ncern in what follows, then, will be with un<!Frstanding
which it was trying to instill. This will provide an opportunity to certam pivotal aspects of Aquinas's thought, particularly liis concept
review the way we can acquire the scientia of sacred doctrine. The of scientia and the nature of his project in the Summa tlzeologiae. I will
perfection of this scientia, which is the highest wisdom, is only attained not try to argue whether Aquinas -is right or wrong, whether
after one's life on this earth when he enjoys the vision of the divine ul:imately his views can be defended or whether they must be
essence and knows other things through God's essence. In this life, rejected. As was said, scholarship on Aquinas has often been
however, we can attain an inchoate realization of it which will help hampered because scholars were too quick to try to defend his views
us attain the perfect state. I summarize just how the Summa theologiae as viable in the contemporary philosophical debate, and failed to
is meant to instill the imperfect state. understand them fully. We shall find that simply to understand
"Philosophy in the ancient world began in wonder," Henry Aquinas on several key points on which he has been misunderstood
Frankfurt recently observed. "In the modern world, of course, it will be quite enough to occupy us in the following pages. A sustained
began in doubt."IO One might add that the philosophy which began and systematic critique or defense of Aquinas's views must be the
in wonder sought wisdom, while that which began in doubt sought subject of subsequent work.
indubitable, or certain, or reliable information about the world. If Nevertheless, although my concern will be limited to the historical
we take philosophy in its classical sense, as the love of and search for or interpretive question of what Aquinas thought, I hope it will be of
wisdom, the whole of Aquinas's thought, even his Christian theology, some .use t? those interested in the viability of contemporary
can be called philosophical. And, in this wider sense of philosophy, Thomlsm. Smce the end of the Second Vatican Council the influence
the whole of Aquinas's thought stood within the ancient philoso of the ,central figures of twentieth century Neo-Scholasticism - such
phical tradition. Aquinas was, of course, distinguished from earlier as Ma:echal, Maritain and Gilson - has waned. But in their place
pagan thinkers in that he believed the wisdom philosophy sought has ansen some excellent work on both understanding and devel
could not be fully attained by strictly natural human powers, or in oping Aquinas's views.12 My hope is that my efforts will aid this
this world. He learned much from his reading of Aristotle and strand of contemporary Thomism.
Aristotelians, but his fundamental concern was to understand and Am?ng Neo-Scholastic Thomists we find a tendency to define
articulate a Christian wisdom. This wisdom could not be had Thomlsm by some set or core of unalterable doctrines. Difficulties
through natural, human reasoning, but was possible only through arose, however, when someone argued that one or more of these
Christian faith and through living a life informed by love of God and doctrines was not in fact in Aquinas's writings, or was in fact false.
neighbor, a love which is realizable only if God elevates us beyond Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that a better way to think of
