Apologetics [1.0]

Citation preview

TREATISE A APOLOGETICS

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. A l.

NOTION OP APOLOGETICS: A p o lo g e tic s i s th e f i r s t p a r t o f fu n d am en tal Sacred T heology, w hich la y s down th e rem o te and p ro x im ate fo u n d a tio n s o f d iv in e f a i t h and o f th e o lo g ic a l s c ie n c e , by e s ta b lis h in g th e c o n c re te f a c t o f d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i n th e C a th o lic C hurch.

A2 .

NAMES OP THIS TREATISE: nam es:

T h is t r e a t i s e o f te n r e c e iv e s th r e e d iv e rs e

A. GENERAL THEOLOGY: Which name i t r e c e iv e s b e ca u se i t t r e a t s n o t o f s in g le dogmas, b u t o f more g e n e r a l q u e s tio n s , c o n s id e rin g th e re v e a le d a s re v e a le d i n g e n e r a l, and th e means w hereby th e re v e a le d i s i n f a l l i b l y proposed and conserved among men. B. INTRODUCTORY THEOLOGY: Which name i t r e c e iv e s b e ca u se i t de­ fe n d s th e p r i n c i p l e s re g a rd in g th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r w herefrom S acred Theology p ro c e e d s. C. APOLOGETICS: T h is i s th e more commonly used name o f t h i s t r e a t i s e , w hich name i t r e c e iv e s b e ca u se i t i s S acred Theology e x e r c is in g i t s d e fe n s iv e o f f i c e . A3.

DIVISION OP THIS TREATISE: to th e fo llo w in g o r d e r : BOOK ONE:

BOOK TWO:

T h is t r e a t i s e w i l l b e d iv id e d a c c o rd in g

PREAMBLES: C h ap ter 2 :

D e f in itio n o f A p o lo g e tic s .

C h ap ter 3 :

P r o p e r t i e s o f A p o lo g e tic s .

C h ap ter 4 :

Arguments and p re s u p p o s itio n s o f A p o lo g e tic s

REVEALED RELIGION IN GENERAL:

SECTION ONE:

SECTION TWO:

RELIGION IN GENERAL.. C h ap ter 5 :

N a tu re o f r e l i g i o n .

C h ap ter 6 :

N e c e s s ity o f r e l i g i o n .

REVELATION IN GENERAL. C h ap ter 7:

N a tu re o f r e v e l a t i o n .

C h ap ter 8 :

P o s s i b i l i t y and f i t t i n g n e s s o f r e v e l ­ a t io n .

C h a p te r 9 :

N e c e s s ity o f r e v e l a t i o n .

C h ap ter 10i O b lig a tio n o f a c c e p tin g r e v e l a t i o n . C h ap ter 11: -Notes o r c r i t e r i a o f r e v e l a t i o n .

A2. C h ap ter 12:: M ira c le as c h ie f c r i t e r i o n o f r e v e l ­ a tio n . C hapter 13:: C e r titu d e re g a rd in g th e f a c t c f r e v e l ­ a tio n . BOOK TERSE:

REVEALED CHRISTIAN RELIGION OP. CHRIST AS OOP'S LEGATE: C h ap ter 14: P ream b les, C h ap ter 15: D em o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from th e e x c e lle n c e o f C h r is tia n d o c trin e , C h ap ter 16: D e m o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from Old T estam ent p ro p h e c ie s . C h ap ter 17: D em o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from h i s own P e rs o n and te stim o n y . C h ap ter 18: D em o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from h is m ir a c le s and p ro p h e c ie s . C h ap ter 19: D e m o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from M s R e s u r r e c tio n . C h ap ter 2 0 : D em o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from th e p ro p a g a tio n o f p r im itiv e C h ris tia n ity . C h ap ter 21: D e m o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m issio n from th e c o n sta n c y o f th e m a rty rs . C h ap ter 22: D e m o n stratio n o f C h r i s t ’ s d iv in e m is sio n from th e tra n s c e n d e n c e o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . C h ap ter 23: C o n c lu sio n ; C r e d i b i l i t y and c r e d e n tity o f C h ris tia n ity .

BOOK FOUR:

REVEALED CATHOLIC RELIGION OR CHRISTY TRUE CHURCH: SECTION ONE: NOTION AID SLIST'liCE OP CHRIST’S CHURCH. C h ap ter 24: P ream b les re g a rd in g n o n - c a th o lic C h r is tia n a s s o c ia ti o n s . C h ap ter 25; N o tio n o f C h r i s t ’ s C hurch, C h ap ter 26: F i t t i n g n e s s o f some a u th o r ity o r o f an e x te r n a l C h r is tia n s o c ie ty . C h ap ter 27: I n s t i t u t i o n c f C h r i s t 's Church as a s o c ie ty p ro p e rly s o - c a lle d and v i s i b l e . SECTION TWO:

NATURE OP CHRIST’S CHURCH.

C h a p te r 28: C h r i s t ’ s Church a h i e r a r c h i a l s o c ie ty . C h ap ter 29: C h r i s t ’s Church a m onarchic s o c ie ty .

COPYRIGHT

C h ap ter 3 0 ;

C h r i s t ’ s Church an i n f a l l i b l e s o c ie ty .

C h ap ter 31:

A p o lo g e tic C o n clu sio n .

SECTION TEHEE:

BOOK FIV E:

APOLOGETIC NOTES OF TEE ROMAN CaTHOLIC CHURCH:

C h ap ter 32:

N o tes o f th e C hurch i n common.

C h ap ter 33:

C a th o lic u n ity and in v in c ib le s t a b i l i t y o f th e Roman C hurch,

C h ap ter 34;

S a n c tity and f e c u n d ity o f th e C a th o lic Church.

CONCLUSION C h ap ter 3 5 :

N e c e s s ity o f membership o f th e C a th o lic Church.

BOOK ONE. PREAMBLES. CHAPTER TIP. DEFINITION OF APOLOGETICS. A4.

NOMETAL DEFINITION: A p o lo g e tic s (from th e G reek , TA p c lo g e tik e , * *a p o lo g e i s th a i1) s i g n i f i e s d e fe n c e o r v in d i c a t i o n ; w h e refo re t h a t o a r t o f s a c re d th e o lo g y w hich d e fe n d s the p r i n c i p l e s o f s a c re d th e o lo g y (and a c c o rd in g ly th e r e v e l a t i o n o f th e C h r is tia n tr u t h s ) i s c a lle d *a p o lo g e tic s * •

A5.

REAL DEFINITION: may b e had :

I n o rd e r t h a t a r e a l d e f i n i t i o n o f a p o lo g e tic s

A. The fo llo w in g c o n s id e r a tio n s a r e to be n o te d : a. A p o lo g e tic s i s SCIENCE, to w i t , a s y s te m a tis e d body o f c e r t a i n c o n c lu s io n s , i n f e r r e d from c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s , w ith r e s p e c t to th e m o tiv es o f b e l i e f i n th e C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n . b* . -o lo g e tic s e s ta b lis h e s th e CREDIBILITY o f th e r e v e a le d tru th s * b l . I t i s a q u e s tio n h e re o f d iv in e c r e d i b i l i t y , i . e , a p titu d e o f some t r u t h to b e b e lie v e d f o r a s much as i t i s proved by most c e r t a i n s ig n s to have been r e v e a le d by God. b 2 . When th e m ind, c o g n iz a n t o f th e s e s ig n s , ju d g es t h a t some doc­ t r i n e i s t r u l y c r e d ib le a s re v e a le d by God, i t © n its th e judgment o f c r e d i b i l i t y , w hich i s n o t an a c t o f f a i t h , b u t i s p re a m b u lato ry th e re u n to . b 3 . A p o lo g e tic s e s t a b l i s h e s a ls o th e d iv in e c r e d e n t i t y o f re v e a le d t r u t h s , i . e , i t e s t a b l i s h e s n o t o n ly t h a t th e s e t r u t h s a r e c r e d ib le by d iv in e f a i t h , b u t a ls o a re to be b e lie v e d ( 'c r e d e n d a ’ ) - th e re a fte r th e w i l l can f r e e l y move i n t e l l e c t to a s s e n t to th e s e r e v e a le d t r u t h s by t h a t a c t w hich i s th e a c t o f f a i t h ( ’ c re d o 1) . c . R eg ard in g th e m o tiv es o f c r e d i b i l i t y and o f c r e d e n t i t y , i t i s to be o b s e rv e d : c l . t h a t th e c e r t a i n s ig n s whereby i t i s m a n ife ste d t h a t th e C h r is t­ ia n r e l i g i o n has b een re v e a le d by God a re c a ll e d th e s ig n s c r m o tiv es o f c r e d i b i l i t y , - w hereo f th e c h i e f a re m ir a c le s . c 2 . . The m o tiv es v/hich provoke th e judgm ent o f c r e d e n tit y a re c a lle d th e m o tiv e s o f c r e d e n tit y . d . The END o f a p o lo g e tic s i s to d e m o n s tra te t h a t a s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n lias b een made by God,, and t h a t t h i s r e v e l a t i o n h as been preached c h ie f ly by C h r is t as God’ s le g a t e , and t h a t t h i s r e v e l a t i o n i s i n t e g r a l l y p o sse sse d i n th e C a th o lic Church a lo n e . T h e re fo re :

d l . th e m a te r ia l o b je c t o f a p o lo g e tic s i s d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n u n d er th e re a s o n ( o b je c tiv e concept]" o f e v id e n t c r e d i b i l i t y and c r e d e n t i t y . d2. Thus a p o lo g e tic s p re p a re s a s e c u re and m a n ife s t way tow ards sa c re d th e o lo g y . d3. The s c i e n t i f i c e x p o s itio n o f i t y ie ld s to b e l i e v e r s a. g r e a t e r firm n e s s o f f a i t h , and to th e s e who have n o t y e t th e f a i t h , th e pream bles th e r e u n to , as w e ll as to C a th o lic a p o lo g is ts an abundance o f p ro o fs whereby th e y may c o -o p e ra te tow ards le a d in g men to w ard s th e f a i t h . B. A cco rd in g ly a p o lo g e tic s i s r i g h t l y d e fin e d a s THAT PART OF SACRED THEOLOGY WHEREIN I T TREATS OF THE MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY AHD OF CREDENTITY OP THE DIVINE REVELATION GIVEN BY CHRIST AND PROPOSED THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

CHAPTER THREE. PROPERTIES OP APOLOGETICS. A6 .

APOLOGETICS CONSIDERED IN ITSELF: R eg ard in g a p o lo g e tic s c o n sid e re d in i t s e l f , th e fo llo w in g i s to be s a i d : -

A. The l i g h t o f a p o lo g e tic s , o r , i n o th e r w o rd s, th e fo rm al re a so n w hereunder i t p ro c e e d s , i s th e l i g h t o f n a t u r a l re a s o n u n d er th e d i r e c t i o n o f f a i t h , w hereby th e f a i t h i t s e l f i s r a t i o n a l l y d e fe n d ed . a . A p o lo g e tic s u se s th e l i g h t o f re a s o n in d e m o n stra tin g th e r a t i o n a l c r e d i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n ; f o r to prove f a i t h from f a i t h , o r r e v e l a t i o n from r e v e l a t i o n , would b e a v ic io u s c i r c l e . b . N e v e rth e le s s a p o lo g e tic s employs th e l i g h t o f re a s o n u nder th e d i r e c t i o n o f f a i t h , f o r i t s end i s to d efen d th e C a th o lic f a i t h , w h e refo re i t r i g h t l y r e q u ir e s d i r e c t i o n from f a i t h i t s e l f . B. A p o lo g e tic s , a c c o rd in g to i t s e l f , i s im p e rfe c t s c i e n c e : a . I t i s in d eed s c ie n c e , b e c a u se i t y ie ld s c e r t a i n knowledge from th e c au se w hich p ro v es t h a t th e t r u t h s o f f a i t h a re r a t i o n a l l y c r e d ib le , w hich c au se i s n o th in g e ls e th a n th e v e ry f a c t o f th e r e v e l a t i o n o f th e s e t r u t h s by God. b . However, i t i s a cc o rd in g to i t s e l f im p e rfe c t s c ie n c e , b ecau se i t e s t a b l i s h e s th e f a c t o f d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n n o t from th e e f f i c i e n t cause th e r e o f , n o r frcm th e p ro p e r e f f e c t th e r e o f , b u t on ly from d iv in e s ig n s connected w ith t h a t f a c t . C. A ls o , a p o lo g e tic s i s a tr u e a r t , s u c h as to le a d men to f a i t h , s in c e i t accom odates th e means o f a r r i v i n g t h e r e a t t o d iv e rs e m inds ? a c c o rd in g to c irc u m sta n c e s .

A7.

APOLOGETICS RELATIVELY TO FAITH: A p o lo g e tic s seems n e c e s s a ry f o r th e a c t o f f a i t h , w h ich o th e rw is e would n o t be r a t i o n a l .

A. I t le a d s d i r e c t ^ , how ever, to th e c r e d i b i l i t y o n ly o f th e C h r is tia n r e l i g i o n , b u t n o t to th e a s s e n t o f f a i t h , w hich in ev ery c a s e rem ains f r e e , n o t b e in g e l i c i t e d u n d er n e c e s s i t a t i o n from a p o lo g e tic s . B. T h e re fo re a p o lo g e tic s do es n o t p e r t a i n i n t r i n s i c a l l y to th e a c t o f f a i t h , a lth o u g h i t l o g i c a l l y d is p o s e s th e mind f o r i t . A8 ,

APOLOGETICS RELATIVELY TO SACRED THEOLOGY: A p o lo g e tic s b e lo n g s in some fa s h io n to sa c re d th e o lo g y , and y e t i n some fa s h io n i s to be d is tin g u is h e d th e re fro m .

A. U ndoubtedly a p o lo g e tic s c o n s t i t u t e s an in tr o d u c tio n to sa c re d th e o lo g y , s in c e i t e s ta b lis h e s th e p r in c ip le s and fo u n d a tio n s th e r e o f . a . Indeed i t i s i n some fa s h io n m a n ife s tly p a r t o f sacred th e o lo g y , a s th e v e s ti b u le i s p a r t o f th e b u ild in g . b . N e v e rth e le s s i n some f a s h io n i t i s d is tin g u is h e d from sacred th e o lo g y , b e c a u se i t arg u es n o t from rev ealed , p r i n c i p l e s , b u t from n a t u r a l l y known p r i n c i p l e s , f o r th e o b ta in in g o f a n a t u r a l c o n c lu s io n . B. However, i t i s c o n tro v e rte d w h eth er a p o lo g e tic s b e a s c ie n c e sp e c i f i c a l l y d i s t i n c t from sa c re d th e o lo g y . a. A ll unanim ously a g re e t h a t a p o lo g e tic s i s d is tin g u is h e d 1secundum quid* from th e o lo g y p ro p e rly s o - c a lle d ; f o r a p o lo g e tic s p ro ­ ceed s from n a t u r a l re a s o n , "whereas th e o lo g y p ro ceed s from re v e a le d tru th s . b* B ut c o n tro v e rs y to u c h e s th e q u e s tio n w h eth er a p o lo g e tic s be sim ply d i s t i n c t , a cc o rd in g to i t s e s s e n c e , from th e o lo g y . b l* de F oul-piquet and. l e B a c h e lo t te a c h th a t a p o lo g e tic s i s in t h i s sen se a d i s t i n c t s c ie n c e from sacred th e o lo g y , f o r th e re a s o n t h a t a p o lo g e tic s , b e in g ante3:’i o r to f a i t h , p ro ceed s u n d e r th e s o le l i g h t o f r e a s o n , w hereas th e o lo g y su p p o ses f a i t h and a rg u e s from th e b e lie v e d tru th s . b 2 . B ut most m odem T hom ists ( v .g . G a rrig o u -L ag ran g e )m a in ta in th e o p p o s ite o p in io n , a s s e r t i n g t h a t a p o lo g e tic s i s an i n t r i n s i c p a r t o f sac re d th e o lo g y , p ro c e ed in g u n d er p o s itiv e d i r e c t i o n o f f a i t h and d e a lin g w ith d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n . b 2 a. F o r a c c o rd in g to th e s e th e o lo g ia n s i t b e lo n g s to sa c re d th e o lo g y to expose th e p r i n c i p l e s and m o tiv e o f f a i t h ; b 2b . b u t d e fe n c e o f th e m o tiv e o f f a i t h i s th e c h i e f o f f i c e o f a p o lo g e tic s , b 2c . th e r e f o r e a p o lo g e tic s l i e s w ith in sa c re d th e o lo g y i t s e l f . b 3 . On t h i s a c c o u n t, th e g ro a t s c h o l a s t i c d o c to rs alw ays ta u g h t o f th e c r e d i b i l i t y o f th e m y s te rie s o f f a i t h a s th e o lo g ia n s , n e v e r d is tin g u is h in g t h i s t r e a t i s e ftom s a c re d th e o lo g y a s a s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s t i n c t s c ie n c e , c. A c co rd in g ly a p o lo g e tic s i s n o th in g e ls e th a n t h a t p a r t o f sa c re d th e o lo g y w here th e th e o lo g ia n i s e x o rc is in g h is d e fe n s iv e o f f i c e , j u s t a s epistom ology o r c r i t e r i o l o g y i s th e d e fe n s iv e p a r t o f m e ta p h y sic s.

CHAPTER FOUR. ARGUKENTS AND '.PRESUPPOSITIONS OF APOLOGETICS.. A9.

APOLOGETIC A1GUIONTS: W ith r e s p e c t to th e argum ents o f a p o lo ­ g e t i c s , th e fo llo w in g c o n s id e r a tio n s a r e to b e n o te d .

A. A p o lo g e tic s e v o lv e s d e m o n stra tio n s w hich a r e b a se d , n o t i n re v e a le d t r u t h s o r th e d e c re e s o f th e Church ( s in c e th e d iv in e a u th o r ity h as n e t y e t , a t t h i s s ta g e o f th e s c ie n c e , b een e s t a b l i s h e d ) , b u t i n argum ents proposed by r e a s o n , p h ilo so p h y and h i s t o r y . a . N e v e rth e le s s i t o f te n u s e s th e s a c re d b o o k s, w hich i t th e n c o n s id e r s , n o t a s d iv in e ljr i n s p i r e d , b u t a s h i s t o r i c a l docum ents, b . A lso , i t c i t e s th e docum ents o f th e Church as more t r u l y ex­ p re s s in g h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n o r d o c tr in e , b u t a b s tr a c tin g from th e d e te rm in a te o r ig i n o f t h i s , w h eth er d iv in e o r m erely human.

A6. B.

B u t;

a• i f th e OBJECTION he made th a t in a t r e a t i s e o f a p o lo g e tic s , dogm atic argum ents a re n o t in f r q q u e n tly fo u n d , b, th e ANSUER i s t h a t , i n r e a l i t y , much o f what i s proved hy a p o lo ­ g e t i c s i s a ls o th e o b je c t o f dogm atic th e o lo g y ; v .g . G od's e x is te n c e , d i s c e r n i b i l i t y o f m ir a c le s . h i . A cco rd in g ly a p o lo g e tic t r e a t i s e s a re w r i t t e n a s th e y a re b ecau se o f th e in c o n v e n ie n c e o f d e a lin g w ith th e same q u e s tio n , f i r s t a p o lo g e tic ­ a l l y , and th e n a second tim e d o g m a tic a lly . b 2 . T h e re fo re , g iv e n th e o c c a s io n , th e a p o lo g e te exposes w hat th e C hurch te a c h e s re g a rd in g th in g s touched by a p o lo g e t ic s ,f o r th r e e re a s o n s , to w i t : b 2a . i n o rd e r to i n d i c a t e th e so u rc e s o f dogm atic t r u t h re g a rd in g th e s e q u e s tio n s , b 2b . and i n o r d e r t h a t th e v e r d i c t o f a u t h o r i t i e s most com petent to pronounce on th e s e q u e s tio n s b e c o n s id e re d , b 2 c . and so th a t th e a u th e n tic o u tlin e s o f C h r i s t i a n d o c tr in e , w hich th e Church h e r s e l f a p p ro v e s, b e re c o g n is e d . A10.

PRESUPPOSITIONS OP APOLOGETICS: A p o lo g e tic s p re su p p o se s many p h ilo s o p h ic a l t r u t h s and c e r t a i n h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h s and a ls o c e r t a i n th e o lo g ic a l n o tio n s . These w i l l b e exposed i n tu r n : A*

A ll.

The p h ilo s o p h ic a l t r u t h s w i l l b e exposed f i r s t (n . A ll)

B.

The h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h s w i l l be exposed n e x t (n . A12)

C.

The th e o lo g ic a l n o tio n s w i l l be exposed t h i r d l y (n n , A15-A17)

PIIILOSCPHICAL TRUTHS PRESUPPOSED: The p h ilo s o p h ic a l t r u t h s w hich th e a p o lo g e te borrow s from p h ilo so p h y a r e c h i e f l y th e f o llo w in g :

A. Prom m e ta p h y sic s : a , th e o b je c tiv e v a lu e of o u r know ledge, c h ie f ly i n t e l l e c t u a l ; b , th e e x is te n c e o f God and h i s a t t r i b u t e s , c h ie f ly M s know ledge, v e r a c ity and p ro v id e n c e . c , th e p o s s i b i l i t y and d i s c e r r i b i l i t y o f m ir a c le s . B. Prom p sy ch o lo g y , th e e x is te n c e , s p i r i t u a l i t y and im m o rta lity o f th e human s o u l. A12,

HISTORICAL TRUTHS PRESUPPOSED: The h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h s w hich th e a p o lo g e te borrow s from h i s t o r y a r e c h ie f ly th e fo llo w in g :

A. The v a lu e o f human te stim o n y endowed w ith th e r e q u i s i t e q u a litie s . B. The a u t h e n t i c i t y and in t e g r i t y ' o f th e books o f th e Old and New T e sta m e n ts, in w hich i s n a r r a te d th e f a c t o f r e v e l a t i o n . A13,

CATHOLIC NOTION OP THE SUPERNATUliAL: S in c e a p o lo g e tic s must n e c e s s a r i l y d e a l w ith th e s u p e r n a tu r a l, le a d in g to th e a c t o f f a i t h , w hich i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, and m ir a c le s , w hich a re e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, th e d e f i n i t i o n and d iv i s i o n o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l must be b r i e f l y exposed h e r e : ^ A. The SUPERNATURAL. a cc o rd in g to th e C a th o lic C hurch, i s THAT ' T/HICH IS ABOVE EVERY CREATED NATURE: a, a cc o rd in g as i t exceeds th e powers and e x ig e n c ie s o f any c r e a te d o r c r e a ta b le n a tu r e ,

to. y e t does n o t exceed th e p e r f e c t i b l e p a s s iv e c a p a c ity o f o u r n a tu r e and b e f i t t i n g n e s s t c i t , (C f. Denz. 1790, 1795, 1808, 1816; c f . G arrig o u -L ag ran g e , De R e v e la tib n e , V ol, I . pp. 1 9 3 -2 0 2 ). B. M oreover, a c c o rd in g to th e C hurch, s u o e r n a tu r a lit y i s a t l e a s t tw o fo ld , t c w i t ; a. The s u o e r n a tu r a lit y Of m i r a c l e s : a l . w hich exceeds th e e f f i c i e n t powers and e x ig e n c ie s o f any c re a te d n a tu r e , a2 . tout n o t th e c o g n o s c itiv e powers o f human n a tu r e . (C f. Denz, 1790, 1818). to. The s u o e r n a tu r a lit y o f th e m y s te rie s s t r i c t l y s o - c a lle d and o f th e l i f e o f g ra c e and o f g l o r y , w hich ex ceed s: tol. n o t only th e e f f i c i e n t powers and e x ig e n c ie s o f any c r e a te d n a tu r e , to2 . tout a ls o th e c o g n o s c itiv e and a p p e t i t i v e powers/-. ■ ( o r n a tu r a l m e r it) o f any c r e a te d o r c r e a ta b le i n t e l l e c t u a l n a tu r e . C. T h at such i s th e d o c tr in e o f th e Church i s c l e a r : a. From th e condem nations o f n a tu r a lis m , r a tio n a lis m and sem ir a t i o n a l i s m: i n w hich condem nations th e Church a s s e r t s th e e x c e ss c f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o v e r th e POV/ERS o f any c re a te d n a tu r e . to. From th e condem nations o f B a ia n is m : in w hich condem nations th e Church a s s e r t s th e e x ce ss o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o v er th e EXIGENCIES o f any c r e a te d n a tu r e . c. From th e condem nations o f a g n o s tic is m : in w hich condem nations th e Church a s s e r t s th e KNWABILITY OF MIRACLES. (C f. Denz. 1795, 1808; c f . G a rrig o u -L a g ra n g e : De R e v e la tio n e , V o l. I . p . 1 9 3 ). A14.

DIVISION OF THE SUPERNATURAL ACCORDING TO THEOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY: To e x p la in t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n :

A. T h e o lo g ia n s commonly d iv id e th e s u p e r n a tu r a l i n t o th e i n t r i n ­ s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l ( s u p e r n a tu r a le quoad sutostantiam ) and th e e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l ( s u p e r n a tu r a l e quoad modumJT a. The i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l ( s u p e r n a tu r a le QUOAD SUBSTANTIAMjl a l , does n o t d e s ig n a te S u b s t a n t i a l s u p e rn a tu ra l* o r th e s u p e r n a tu r a l e x is t in g a s a s u b s ta n c e ; f o r i t may toe: a l a , e i t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l and in c r e a te d ( a s th e in tim a te l i f e o f th e H oly T r i n i t y ) , alto, o r a c c id e n ta l and c re a te d ( a s c r e a te d g r a c e ) . a.2« B ut r a t h e r i t i s th e same a s *s u p e r n a tu r a l a s re g a rd s essence* o r *s u p e r n a tu r a l on th e sco re o f fo rm al c a u s e ’ , and s i g n i f i e s t h a t w hich i s s u p e r n a tu r a l i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y , to w i t : a 2a . ex ceed in g n o t o n ly as re g a rd s c a u s a l i t y a l l th e e f f i c i e n t powers and e x ig e n c ie s o f any c re a te d n a tu r e , a 2to. tout ex ceed in g toy i t s s u p e r n a tu r a l e sse n c e ev ery c r e a te d o r c re a ta b le n a tu re : fo r i t i s : a2to l, e i t h e r th e d iv in e n a tu r e , t o w i t , th e v ery d iv in e e n t i t y i t s e l f a s ex ceed in g a l l a n a lo g ic a l common-ness w ith c r e a t u r e s ; a2to2 . o r a p a r t i c i p a t i o n c f t h i s d iv in e n a tu r e as i t i s d iv in e , i . e . as i t i s p ro p e r to God and exceeds a l l a n a lo g ic a l community w ith c r e a tu r e s . a3 . I n o th e r w ord s, i t is..WHET NO CREATURE CAN BE, i n t h i s s e n s e : a 3 a, t h a t no c re a te d su b sta n c e can toe i t ; f o r , though a c re a te d su b sta n c e can toe m a t;te r, o r can toe s p i r i t . no c re a te d su b sta n c e can toe i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l r e a l i t y . a3to, t h a t no c re a te d a c c id e n t can toe i t , u n le s s i t toe an a c c id e n t exceeding th e p r o p o r tio n o f th e s u b s t a n t i a l n a tu re w h e rein i t i s r e c e iv e d , and r e c e iv e d o n ly i n th e o b e d ie n t ia l potency o f such s u b s t a n t i a l n a tu r e . a 4 . And, s in c e toeing and tr u e a re c o n v e r tib le , t h i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i s to g e th e r s u p e r n a tu r a l a s r e g a r d s Im o w a b ility a 4 a. ex ceed in g a c c o rd in g ly th e n a t u r a l c o g n o s c itiv e powei s o f any c re a te d o r c r e a ta b le i n t e l l e c t u a l n a tu r e .

8.41b, And a c c o rd in g ly , a 4 b l. j u s t a s i t i s w hat no c r e a tu r e can n a t u r a l l y b e , a4b2. so i t i s w hat no c r e a tu r e can n a t u r a l l y know. b. The m erely e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l ( s u p e r n a tu r a le QUOAD MODUM tantum ) : b l, i s som ething e s s e n t i a l l y o r e n l i t a t i v e l y n a t u r a l , b 2. b u t: b 2a , e i t h e r p ro d u c ib le by th e d iv in e power a lo n e , a c c o rd in g a s i t i s : b 2 a l. e i t h e r in i t s e l f an e f f e c t w hich God alo n e can produce ( i n w hich c a s e i t i s a m ira c le as re g a rd s s u b s ta n c e , su ch a s th e g l o r i f i c a t i o n o f a b o d y ), b 2a2 . o r an e f f e c t w hich God a lo n e c an produce i n t h i s s u b je c t ( i n w hich c a se i t i s a m ir a c le a s r e g a r d s s u b je c t, such a s th e r e s u r r e c t i o n o f th e d e a d ), b2a3. o r an e f f e c t w hich God a lo n e can produce i n th e way ( v .g , so r a p id ly ) i n w hich i t i s produced ( i n w hich c a s e i t i s a m ira c le as re g a rd s m anner, such as th e sudden c u re o f a fe v e r o r th e g i f t o f la n g u a g e s ). b 2b . o r i s o rd e re d tow ards an end w hich i s s u p e r n a tu r a l, and w hich a c c o rd in g ly exceeds th e n a t u r a l end o f any c r e a t u r e , and th e r e f o r e i s an end w hereunto no c r e a tu r e can by i t s n a t u r a l o r d in a tiv e powers o rd e r any­ th in g . As an example o f t h i s nay b e ta k e n a n a t u r a l a c t o f tem perance o rd e re d b>y th e lo v e o f God tow ards a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, such as e te r n a l life . c. T h e re fo re : c l , j u s t as th e i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i s s u p e r­ n a t u r a l BT REASON OP ITS FORMAL OR INTRINSIC CAUSE, o2 . so th e e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i s s u p e r n a tu r a l by re a s o n o f AM INTRINSIC CAUSE, to w it: c 2 a. e i t h e r BY REASON OP ITS EFFICIENT CAUSE ( a s a m ir a c le ) , c 2 b .o r BY REASON OP ITS PINAL CAUSE ( a s a n a t u r a l a c t o rd e re d tow ards a s u p e r n a tu r a l e n d ), c3, I n o th e r w ords : c 3 a . w hereas th e i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i s s u p e r­ n a t u r a l a s A BEING, c3 b . th e e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i s s u p e r n a tu r a l: c 3 b l. e i t h e r AS AN EFFECT, c3b2. o r AS A MEANS. c4. Or in y e t o th e r w ords: c 4 a. w hereas th e i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e L / s u p e r n a tu r a l i s WHAT NO CREATURE 0.11 BE (a s e x p la in e d above) OR KNOYf (by i t s n a t u r a l cognosc i t i v e powers) OR DESIRE (by i t s n a t u r a l a p p e ti tiv e p o w e rs); c4b. th e mere e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i s som ething i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y n a t u r a l , WHICH HOWEVER: c 4 b l. e i t h e r NO CREATURE CAN DO (by i t s n a t u r a l e f f i c i e n t p o w ers), and th e n i t i s a m ir a c le ; c4b2. o r IS ORDERED TOWARDS AN END WHICH NO CREATURE CAN BE (a s ex­ p la in e d above: to w it a s u p e r n a tu r a l e n d ), a s i s th e c a s e w ith a n a t u r a l a c t o rd e re d by th e lo v e o f God tow ards a s u p e r n a tu r a l end. • B. Hence th e d iv is io n o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l may be th u s shewn s c h e m a tic a lly

A9 God u n d er th e in tim a te c h a r a c te r o f D e ity , and o f th e Holy T r i n i t y o f P e rs o n s . E i th e r INCREATED ( t h i s a lo n e i s s u b s ta n t­ ia l) : The In c re a te d P e rso n o f th e Word s u b s is tin g i n th e human n a tu r e o f C h r is t.

E ith e r INTRINSICALLY OR ENTITATIVELY SUPERNATURAL ( s u p e r n a tu r a l by re a s o n o f i t s fo rm al c a u s e ) : w hich may h e

b o th h a b itu a l, Grace and a c t u a l . Or CREATED ( t h i s i s an a c c id e n t)

THE SUPERNAT­ URAL ( t h a t w hich exceeds th e powers and e x ig e n ­ c ie s o f any c re a te d o r c r e a ta b le n a tu re ) may be

The in fu s e d v i r t u e s . The g i f t s o f th e Holy G host. and th e o p e ra tio n s p ro ceed ­ in g from a l l th e s e .

E i th e r ON THE SCORE OP END: such as a n a tu r a l a c t s u p e r n a tu r a lly o rd e re d by th e lo v e o f God to a s u p e r n a tu r a l end. Or EXTRINSICALLY SUPERNATURAL ( s u p e r n a tu r a l b}? re a s o n o f an e x trin s ic c a u se ): ■which may b e

MIRACLE AS REGARDS SUBSTANCE ( v .g . g l o r i f i c a t i o n o f a b o d y ). Or ON THE SCORE OP EFPICIENT CAUSE

MIRACLE AS REGARDS SUBJECT ( v .g . n o n -g lo rio u s r e s u r r e c t ­ io n , knowledge o f th e s e c r e ts of h e a rts ). MIRACLE AS REGARDS MANNER ( v .g . sudden c u rin g o f a f e v e r , g i f t o f la n g u a g e s ).

C. R eg ard in g t h i s d iv i s i o n , NOTE: a, A m ir a c le a s r e g a r d s s u b sta n c e i s n o t to b e confused w ith th e s u p e r n a tu r a l as r e g a r d s su b sta n c e ( i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r­ n a tu r a l) . a l . F o r th e s u p e r n a tu r a l a s re g a rd s su b sta n c e ( s u p e r n a tu r a le quoad sub s t a n t i am) such as s a n c tif y in g g ra c e i s s u p e r n a tu r a l f o r ­ m a lly as re g a rd s s u b s ta n c e ; a2. W hereas a m ir a c le a s re g a r d s su b sta n c e (m iraculum quoad s u b s ta n tiam ) such as a g lo r io u s r e s u r r e c t i o n i s s u p e r n a tu r a l e f f e c t i v e l y as re g a r d s s u b sta n c e . . e b. The f o r e -g e in g d i v is io n o f gr-ace i s expounded by Jo h n o f S t . Thomas, th e S a ln a n tic e n s ia n s , S u a re z . and i n r e c e n t tim e s h as been lu c id ly exposed by G arri/ .re lig io n c o n s is ts e s s e n t i a l l y i n a d u a lis m , f o r a c c o rd in g th e r e e x i s t two u ltim a te p r i n c i p l e s , a p r i n c i p l e o f good and o f

l i g h t , and a p r in c ip le o f e v i l and o f d a rk n e s s , each e t e r n a l and in d e p e n d e n t, v

a . The p r i n c i p l e o f good i s c a lle d Ahura (L ord) o r Mazda ( th e W ise ), o r Qrmazd, e n jo y in g s p i r i t u a l i t y and p e r f e c t know ledge; he p ro d uces good th in g s , and s u s ta in s and p ro v id e s f o r them. He i s adored u n d e r th e symbol of f ir e or lig h t. a t . S u b o rd in a te to him a r e th e seven s p i r i t s , c a ll e d Ameshas S p en tas ( th e im m ortal s a i n t s ) , who p r o te c t men a g a in s t e v i l s p i r i t s ; among th e populace th e s e g r a d u a lly to o k m a te r ia l fo rm s, and re c e iv e d a s p e c ia l w o rsh ip , a2 , I n r e c e n t r e c e n s io n s o f th e A v e sta , to th e S u p e rio r God i s added M itlira , c re a te d by A hura and eq u al to him : He i s th e god o f f i d e l i t y , and s e v e re ly p u n ish es th o s e who v i o l a t e t h e i r o a th , w h ile rew ard in g th o s e who a re f a i t h f u l t h e r e t o , b . The p r i n c i p l e o f e v i l , A hrim an, i s i g n o r a n t, b u t g ra d u a lly d iv e s t s h im s e lf o f h i s ig n o ra n c e by c o n te m p la tin g th e works o f th e good p r i n c i p l e ; he endeavours to i m i t a t e th e s e w orks, b u t does so b a d ly , so t h a t he i s th e a u th o r o f e v i l . H is m in is te r s a re th e s p i r i t s o f d a rk n e ss and d e a th , c . B etw een th e two gods w ar w i l l be waged f o r many th o u san d s o f y e a r s , b u t a t th e end o f tim e , G aoshyand, a d e sc e n d e n t o f Z o r o a s te r , w i l l d e f e a t th e e v i l p r i n c i p l e and by o f f e r i n g s a c r i f i c e w i l l r a i s e th e d ead , and th e kingdom o f Ahrim an w i l l be o v e rtu rn e d . B. a, b, be p u re .

The p re c e p ts o f t h i s r e l i g i o n a r e re d u c e d to th e fo llo w in g : Ormazd, th e p u re and f a i t h f u l god, i s to be w o rsh ip p e d , and t h e r e f o r e n o t o n ly d e e d s, b u t a ls o w ords and th o u g h ts , must

C, Men a r e judged a f t e r d e a th ; w icked a r e punished i n h e l l .

th e good e n t e r p a ra d is e w h ile th e

A46.

RELIGIONS OP THE NEAR EAST: The p e o p le s o f th e N ear E a s t p r a c tic e d c h ie f ly th e r e l i g i o n s o f th e S em ites and o f th e E g y p tia n s , w hich w i l l b e d e a l t w ith now i n t u r n (n n . A47-A48). A47.

SEMITIC RELIGION: By th e S e m itic p e o p le s a r e u n d e rsto o d th e A s s y ria n s and B a b y lo n ia n s , C a n a n ite s , A ram aics, A ra b s, E d o m ites, Ammonites and M o ab ites and a ls o th e I s r a e l i t e s , w ith whom, how ever, we a re n o t d e a lin g h e r e , s in c e t h e i r r e l i g i o n w i l l be d is c u s s e d h e re u n d d r (Book T h re e ) . A. Among th e S e m ite s , th e m ost a n c ie n t name o f God was E l , o r I I o r I l u , from w hich w ere d e riv e d E lo a h and E lo h im ; w h ich name, a c c o rd in g to many, means 1pow erful* o r 'l o r d * , w h ile a c c o rd in g to o th e r s i t means , him to w ard s whom we te n d *• a. W hatever be th e t r u t h i n re g a rd to i t s m eaning, t h i s s in g u la r name m a n ife s ts t h a t th e s e p e o p le s h e ld from a n t i q u i t y th e c o n ce p t o f one S u p e rio r B e in g , d i s t i n c t from o th e r t h i n g s ; so t h a t P o ly th e is m was ex­ c lu d e d . a l . M oreover, E l i s p o rtra y e d n o t a s any l o c a l god, b u t s o le l y a s lo rd . a2 . He i s c a ll e d a ls o E l i o r H i ( my G od), so t h a t th e r e i s s i g n i f i e d th e e x is te n c e o f in tim a te r e l a t i o n s betw een God and man. b. However, l a t e r many o f th e S e m itic p e o p le s f e l l in to P o ly th e is m . B. Thus th e name B a a l, o f t e n used among S e m itic p e o p le s , d e sig n a te d some l o c a l god, v . g . , th e god o f Hermon, and o f L ib a n , e t c . Thus many seco n d ary gods ( B a a lin ) came to be acknow ledged: a. L ik ew ise th e name M elek, M ilk , M olek ( i n th e S e p tu a g in t, M o lo ch ), w hich s i g n i f i e s !k in g s , i s a l o c a l god, to vdiom a t tim e s a re o f f e r e d human s a c r i f i c e s ; by some he i s re g a rd e d a s th e god o f h e l l . b. N e v e r th e le s s God was co n ceiv ed a s th e F a th e r o f Men, a s i s shown by th e v a r io u s names Ab-Baa.1 (B a a l i s P h t h e r ) , B ar-R ekoub. e t c* b u t t h i s can n o t be e x p la in e d by Tctem ism , w hich d id n o t e x i s t among th e S e m ite s , b u t i t shows t h a t God was re g a rd e d a s good and p ro v id e n t.

c» To th e s e gods w ere added g o d d e sse s, c h ie f ly A chera and A s ta r te ( o r I c h t a r ) , goddess o f lo v e , o f whom P la u tu s w ro te : "D iv in e A s t a r t e , th e pow er, l i f e and w e lfa re c f men and gods: a g a in th e same w hich i s d i s a s t e r , d e a th , d e s tr u c tio n ;'* th u s th e gods were compared to men and th e way was p re p a red f o r A nthropom orohi sm, Cc To th e gods w ere o f f e r e d s a c r i f i c e s i n w hich some v ic tim was immo­ l a t e d t o show honour to th e gods and to o b ta in b e n e f i t s from them , t h a t a more in tim a te communion n ig h t be e f f e c te d be tv/eon th e god and men; th e s e s a c r i f i c e s w ere o f th r e e k in d s ; a . I n some, such a s h o lo c a u s t 3, th e v ic tim was c o m p le te ly consumed, b 0 I n o t h e r s , p a r t o f th e v ic tim was consumed, w h ile p a r t was re s e rv e d to th e p r i e s t a lo n e , c. I n o t h e r s , b e s id e s th e d e stro y e d p a r t o f th e v ic tim , one p a r t was re s e rv e d f o r th e p r i e s t , a n o th e r fo r th e one o f f e r i n g , D* A lth o u g h th e r e i s o b s c u r ity among th e S em ites about an a f t e r - l i f e , i t i s c e r t a i n t h a t th e y w ere n o t a l t o g e t h e r unaware o f th e a f t e r - l i f e , a* A f te r d e a th , th e dead a rc called , re p h a im ; th e s o u l, N ephech, s u r ­ v iv e s . b c They descend to th e low er p a r t s o f th e e a r th , C heol o r A r a llo u . w here th e y le a d a somewhat te d io u s l i f e ; b u t , a t l e a s t among th e B abylon­ i a n s , i t was th o u g h t t h a t the}? could r i s e a g a in , c. Sometimes p ra y e rs w ere o f f e r e d f o r th e d ead ; som etim es even th e dead th e m selv e s w ere in v o k e d , and some knowledge o f o c c u lt a n d f u tu r e th in g s was e x p e c te d from them, d» C e r ta in o u ts ta n d in g s o u ls w ere added t o th e number o f g o d s. A48.

EGYPTIAN RELIGION; Among th e E g y p tia n s , who b o re some a f f i n i t y to th e S e m itic p e o p le s , though d i s t i n c t from them , a r e found t r a c e s o f m onotheism, and a ls o o f pantheism , and i d o l a t r y . A„ I n th e ’" th e o lo g ic a l" b o o k i, w r i t t e n by th e p r i e s t s , i s found in d e ed b e l i e f i n one God, i n v i s i b l e , e t e r n a l and n o t d e p ic te d by any im age, a* B ut some c r i t i c s m a in ta in t h a t p o ly th e ism e x is te d among the p e o p le s from th e b e g in n in g , and t h a t m onotheism w as, a s i t w ere, a s y n th e s is o f th e p o p u la r w o rsh ip o f a l l th e gods, b . B ut i t i s more p ro b a b le t h a t th e a n c ie n t E g y p tia n s had a t l e a s t a vague n o tio n o f one supreme Gcd, and th e re fro m d e c lin e d i n t o p o ly th e is m , f o r th e name N o u te r, w hich th e y used to d e s ig n a te th e d i v i n i t y , s i g n i f i e s a s in g le and u n iv e r s a l God, s in c e th e E g y p tian s c o n v e rte d to C h r i s t i a n i t y used t h a t same name (.Nout e , N o u ti) , to d e s ig n a te th e tr u e God. . B. However, b e s id e s t h i s i n v i s i b l e God, many gods w ere re c o g n is e d , b e in g w orshipped i n th e g r e a t te m p les o f Abydos and Memphis. a 3 Among th e s e a re n o ted : a l . H a, o r H c ru s, o r Tfpm ( t h e su n ). a 2 » Ah, o r Tho t ( th e me on) „ ad , N o u it o r H a to r ( th e h e a v e n s ). &4a Bed, ( th e e a r t h ) . a. 5, K api o r O sir i s ( t h e r i v e r N i l e ) , a 6 r. M oreover, l o c a l gods were honoured i n v a r io u s c i t i e s . b . L a t e r , a n im als w ere a d o re d , e s p e c ia ll y th e b u l l H a p is, and th u s i d o l a t r y began to f l o u r i s h . c . M oreover, d iv in e h o n o u rs we^e g iv e n to P h a ro . C. The E g y p tia n s w ere g r e a t ’y co n cern ed ab o u t th e d e ad : a . They h e ld t h a t n o t a ll. o f man d i e s , b u t t h a t th e so u l (b a ) s u r v iv e s , and can e n t e r heaven w here i t e n jo y s h a p p in e s s w ith th e g o d s. b . B ut b e f o r e e n te r in g h eav en , th e so u l u n d erg o es judgm ent b e fo re O s i r i s and fo r ty -tw o ju d g e s ; a l l th o s e who had sin n ed and n o t done penance w ere torm ented by d i r e p e n a l t i e s i n h e l l . A49.

RELIGIONS OH Y/ESTERN PEOPLES: Among W estern p e o p le s a rc to be con­ s id e r e d c h ie f ly th e r e l i g i o n s o f th e G re e k s, Romans, G a u ls . and Ger-

nic^nic p e o p le s , A50,

w hich w i l l be d e a l t w ith i n tu r n (n n . A50-A53)

ANCIENT GREEK RELIGION: Among th e G reeks we f in d a c e r t a i n m onotheism , to w hich p o ly th e ism i s admixed.

A. On th e one hand, Zeus seems to be th e supreme God, th e f a t h e r and k in g o f gods and man ( V i r g i l : Aeneid X ), and so e x e r c is in g a p ro v id e n c e t h a t to him a l l , even th e o th e r g o d s, must have r e c o u r s e . B. B ut on £he o th e r hand, f o r c e s o f n a tu re a re d e i f i e d and a ls o h e r o e s ; a . Thus r i v e r s and fo u n ta in s w ere w o rshipped u n d er th e name o f nymphs: t r e e s u n d er th e name o f dry a d s ; c e r t a i n a n im a ls, su ch as s e r p e n ts l i k e fo ilo u r o u s o p h is 1 a t A th en s, w ere a ls o w o rsh ip p ed . b . H onours w ere g iv e n to th e dead , f o r th e G reeks h e ld s u r v iv a l o f th e human s o u l. Thus i s e x p la in e d th e w o rsh ip o f h e r o e s , i . e . a l l th o s e B|en who e x c e lle d by v i r t u e o r d i g n i t y ; th e s e w ere re g a rd e d , so to sp eak , 4s send.-gods. tp c . A lso v a rio u s gods p r o te c te d d iv e r s e c i t i e s , o r p re s id e d o v e r d iv e r s e f u n c tio n s o f th e w o rld . fe? d . The G reeks re c o g n is e d tw e lv e p r i n c i p a l g o d s, to w i t ; Zeus o r «74ipiter, H e ra , Po s e id o n . D em eter. A p o llo . A rte m is . H e p h e s to s . A th en e, A re s, ^ p h r o d i te , H erm es, H e s tia . sjjw§' C. W orship i n p r im itiv e tim e s was n o t co n d u cted i n te m p le s, b u t in fa c re d g ro v e s , on a l t a r s s e t up i n th e open, n o r w ere th e r e any i d o l s , w hich y p re i n s t i t u t e d l a t e r . %i a . S a c r i f i c e s , som etim es human, w ere o f f e r e d to th e gods, meant t o con­ c i l i a t e th e d iv in e fa v o u r. }| b . To th e s e w ere added p ra y e rs to o b ta in b e n e f i t s , to e x p re ss th a n k s , q|? a ls o to r e n d e r a d o r a tio n to th e supreme God, c . W orship was conducted i n eac h fa m ily to th e p r i n c i p a l g o d s, b u t above a l l , to H e s t i a , who was th e s p e c i a l p r o t e c t r e s s o f th e home; and a ls o Ik each c la n ( p h r a t r i a ) , w hich was a s o r t o f e x te n s io n o f th e fa m ily ; and a ls o i n th e c i t y on b e h a lf o f th e whole p e o p le ; th u s w o rsh ip was n o t o n ly p r i v a t e and d o m e stic , b u t a ls o p u b lic and c i v i l , d. I n th e c o u rse o f tim e , s e c r e t c u l t s w ere i n s t i t u t e d a d m ittin g o n ly th e i n i t i a t e d to t h e i r m y s te r ie s ; th e c h ie f m y s te rie s w ere c e le b r a te d in E l e u s is . D. I t i s to b e n o te d th a t u n d e r th e in f lu e n c e o f Greek p h ilo s o p h e rs , a c e r t a i n m onotheism , a t l e a s t t h e o r e t i c a l , p r e v a ile d among some o f th e p e o p le , A51.

ANCIENT ROMAN RELIGION: o f th e G reeks.

A n c ie n t Roman r e l i g i o n b o re k in s h ip to t h a t

A. Among th e Romans f lo u r is h e d p o ly th e is m , and c e r t a i n t r a c e s o f p an th eism a re a ls o fo u n d . y » a . N e v e r th e le s s , among th e gods o n e, i n th e e a r l i e s t d a y s, w as w or­ shipped above th e o t h e r s , to w it, J a n u s , who w as re g a rd e d a s th e p r in c ip le o f m i l t h i n g s ; b u t a f te r w a r d s , when Greek c u l t u r e pervaded I t a l y , J u p i t e r became th e c h ie f among th e g o d s. b . As E n n iu s n a r r a t e s , th e r e w ere tw elv e p r i n c i p a l d i v i n i t i e s , namely J u n o . V e s ta . M in erv a . C e r e s . D ia n a . V enus. M ars. M ercu ry . J o v e , ( o r J u p i t e r ) , N e b tu n e , V u lc a n . A p o llo . B. The Romans, m oreo v er, w ere v e ry r e l i g i o u s , b o th i n p r i v a t e and p u b lic l i f e . a , V e sta was th e goddess o f th e fa m ily ; b u t th e home was p ro te c te d by gods c a ll e d ^P e n a te s * and b y fL a r e s ’ ( s p i r i t s o f a n c e s to r s ) : to th e s e , s a c r i f i c e s and p ra y e rs w ere o f f e r e d by th e head o f th e fa m ily , and f e a s t s v/ere c e le b r a te d on fix e d days and a t n o ta b le ju n c tu r e s o f l i f e , b. Above th e fa m ily was th e c la n ( g e n s ) , c o n s is tin g o f a l l th e fam­ i l i e s h a v in g a common a n c e s tr a l s to c k ; th e c la n had i t s c la n -w o rsh ip ( c u l t u s - g e n t i l i c i u s ) , w hich was conducted by th e p r i e s t (flam en ) e le c te d by th e c la n .

; o . To p e r p e tu a te w o rsh ip th e more e a s i l y , th e r e w ere c r e a te d *c o l l e g i a * and *s c d a l i t i a t , n o t o n ly among p a t r i c i a n s , h u t a ls o among p le h ia n s , th e p r i e s t s o f th e s e having th e o f f i c e o f c e le b r a tin g th e sac re d r i t e s , ■A d. A lso th e c i t y had i t s own ' l a r e s ’ , namely Romulus and Remus, i t s own g o d d e ss, nam ely, V e s ta , to whom a s p e c ia l tem ple was d e d ic a te d , i n w hich a s a c re d f i r e was k e p t p e r p e tu a lly a l i g h t hy th e V e s ta l v i r g i n s . e . T h ere w ere two k in d s o f s a c r i f i c e s , to w i t : e l . P o p u la r s a c r i f i c e s , o f f e re d to th e l o c a l ' l a r e s ' , i , e . th e l a r e s o f th e v i l l a g e o r tow n, e2, and p u b lic s a c r i f i c e s , w hich w ere o f f e r e d by p r i e s t s (fla m in a ) i n th e name o f th e w hole s t a t e . C. I n t h e i r p r a y e r s and s a c r i f i c e s , te n p o r a l goods, c h i e f l y , w ere re q u e s te d . T h e ir r i t e s we:re re g a rd e d as h a v in g a s o r t o f m a g ic al pow er, on w hich acco u n t th e s l i g h t e s t o m issio n c r change in v a lid a te d them , , a . However, th e gods w ere re g a rd e d a s a v e n g e rs o f w ic k ed n e ss and e sp e c ­ i a l l y p u n is h e d , b o th i n th e p r e s e n t and a f t e r l i f e , v i o l a t i o n o f o a th s and in ju s tic e , b . B u t w h ile c e r t a i n f e a s t s fa v o u re d p i e t y and p u r i t y , o t h e r s , such a s b a .c c h a n a lia n and s a t u m a l i a n f e a s t s , prom oted b a se v i c e s , w hich happen­ ed c h ie f ly a f t e r G reek and O r ie n ta l r e l i g i o n s had b een in tro d u c e d in to Rome. D. A t th e tim e o f th e E m perors, th e v /o rsh ip o f Rome and o f A ugustus was e n jo in e d by th e c i v i l a u t h o r i t y ; b u t th e more r e l i g i o u s s e c tio n s o f th e p eo p le so u g h t s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s i n th e w o rsh ip b e lo n g in g to o r i e n t a l m y s te r ie s . A52j ;

ANCIENT GALLIC RELIGION: The r e l i g i o n o f th e a n c ie n t G a llic p e o p le s i s known to u s only i n c e r t a i n c h ie f l i n e s .

A. A t th e tim e o f C a e s a r 's in v a s io n o f G a u l, p o ly th e ism was a lre a d y f l o u r i s h i n g ; t h e i r c h i e f gods w ere M ercu ry . A tesm ery . M a rs T B e la tu e ra d u s ) A p o llo (Bowo), J u p i t e r (A ram o), and S ilv a n u s . ; a . T here w ere many o th e r l e s s e r d i v i n t i e s ; f o u n ta in s and r i v e r s w ere d e ifie d . \ b . W orship was cond u cted by d r u id s , who enjoyed g r e a t a u t h o r i t y . c • S a c r i f i c e s , sometimes human, w ere o f f e r e d , e s p e c ia ll y i n w a rtim e . B, The G auls f ir m ly h e ld t h a t th e human s o u l i s in m o r ta l, and t h a t t h i s l i f e i s fo llo w e d by a n o th e r i n w hich enjoym ent o f ev ery s o r t o f good can b e e x p e c te d ; f o r w hich re a s o n th e y s e t l i t t l e v a lu e upon m o rta l l i f e and had l i t t l e f e a r o f d e a th . A53,

ANCIENT GERMANIC RELIGIONS: R eg ard in g th e a n c ie n t r e l i g i o n s o f th e Germans and S c a n d a n a v ia n s, a f a i r amount i s known, though w ith some o b s c u r ity .

A. I n SCANDANAVIA. t h r e e p r i n c i p a l gods w ere w o rsh ip p e d , namely T h o r, th e god o f th u n d e r, Odin ( o r W odan), th e god o f wisdom and o f w a r, and F r ig g o . ( o r F r e y r ) , th e god o f peace and abundance, to whom i n l a t e r tim e s an im pure w o rsh ip was g iv e n . • a . To th e s e w ere added g o d d e sse s, c h i e f l y H e rth a . goddess o f th e e a r th . H o Id a, goddess o f h u n tin g , and F r e a . g oddess o f l i f e and f e c u n d ity . b . T here w ere a ls o many seco n d ary g o d s, t c . To a l l th e s e we:re o f f e r e d s a c r i f i c e s , som etim es human, by p r i e s t s who w ere to g e th e r te m p o ra l r u l e r s . d. I n th e s a c re d b o o k s, w r i t t e n by th e p r i e s t s , a r e found t r a c e s o f m onotheism : God i s p o rtra y e d a s p o w e rfu l, a re w a rd e r and ju d g e who w i l l s e v e re ly p u n ish th e w icked and rew ard th e j u s t . B. The a n c ie n t GERMANS had alm o st th e same r e l i g i o n as th e Scandan­ a v ia n s . a . They w o rsh ip p e d , i n th e woods, a c e r t a i n supreme d i v i n i t y ( G o t t ) . who was n o t r e p r e s e n te d e i t h e r by p ic tu r e s o r s t a t u e s .

b . M oreover, th e y a d o re d , a s T a c itu s n a r r a t e s , th r e e c h ie f g o d s, namely Me r c u r y , H e rc u le s , end M ars, ( i . e . Wodan. Thor and Dflnar) . c„ Many l e s s e r gods a ls o w ere w o rsh ip p ed . d . They h e ld th e e x is te n c e o f a f u tu r e l i f e i n w hich th e j u s t w i l l r e ­ c e iv e th e re w ard s o f t h e i r la b o u r s . e . B ut many s u p e r s t i t i o n s and m a g ic al p r a c t i c e s a s w e ll a s im pure and c r u e l r i t e s w ere mixed w ith t h e i r r e l i g i o u s w o rsh ip . A54.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: A c c o rd in g ly , w h erev er men have e x i s t e d , r e l i g i o n h a s f lo u r is h e d , c o n s is tin g o f th r e e e s e e n t i a l e le m e n ts , t o w it, dogmas. p r d e e p ts . and r i t e s .

A. Among th e dogmas i s found b e l i e f i n some d i v i n i t y , c a r in g f o r man, a b le to i n f l i c t harm tt b esto w b e n e f i t s upon him a ls o i n a n o th e r l i f e . a . W herefrom i s drawn an o b l i g a t i o n o f p la c a tin g and a d o rin g t h i s d iv in ity . b . T h is supreme b e in g i s co n ceiv ed a s a ju d g e and rew an d er. B. C o rre sp o n d in g ly a re found d iv e r s e m o ral p r e c e p t s , a g re e in g i n t h i s , t h a t th e y p r o h i b i t im p ie ty and i n j u s t i c e , w h ile commanding p ie ty tow ards geds and p a r e n ts , and j u s t i c e to w ard s a l l , so t h a t th e v i o l a t o r s o f th e law undergo p e n a l t i e s . C. A lso a r e feund s p e c ia l r i t e s m in u te ly d e te rm in e d , w hereby th e gods a r e t o b e w o rsh ip p ed , and whose e f f ic a c y d ep en d s, n o t o n ly on th e d is p o s ­ i t i o n s o f th e w o rs h ip p e rs , b u t a ls o on th e sc ru p u lo u s o b serv an ce c f th e s e rite s . O M

t

aM M M

M

t

9 O M

B I

M

t

I o I•

M

l

» » M

9 » Ml

• M M

•

M

4 I

M•

Mi l

TOPIC TWO. PSYCHOLOGICAL PROOF. A55.

A56.

ORDER OP PROCEMJRE: T h is argum ent from man*s e s s e n t i a l need r e l ­ a t i v e l y to r e l i g i o n w i l l be e la b o r a te d th u s : A.

F i r s t th e argum ent w i l l b e s t a t e d ( n . A 56).

B.

S eco n d ly th e m a jo r p re m iss w i l l b e v in d ic a te d ( n . A57) •

C.

T h ir d ly th e m inor p re m iss w i l l be j u s t i f i e d (n n . A58-A68) ,

THE ARGUMENT STATED:

T h is p ro o f i s fo rm u la te d t h u s :

A. R e lig io n i s a m a n ife s t sp ontaneous f a c t , found u n iv e r s a l l y among a l l p e o p le s and in a l l r e g io n s o f th e w o rld . B. B ut t h i s sp o n tan eo u s u n i v e r s a l i t y c a n n o t b e e x p la in e d sav e from th e e s s e n t i a l re q u ire m e n t o f human n a tu r e r e l a t i v e l y to r e l i g i o n . 0. T h e re fo re man e s s e n t i a l l y n eed s r e l i g i o n , w hich a c c o rd in g ly m ust bo s a id tc' b e n e c e s s a ry to him. A57,

EVIDENCE OF THE MAJOR: T h is sp o n tan e o u s u n i v e r s a l i t y o f r e l i g i o n a p p e a rs s u f f i c i e n t l y from w hat h a s b e en s a id above (n n . A38-A54),

A58,

EVIDENCE OF THE MINOR: EXPLANATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE RELIGIOUS FACT: T h is m inor p re m iss i s proved i n two m an n ers, to w i t : A.

I n d i r e c t l y , by r e f u t a t i o n o f f a l s e h y p o th eses,

P o in t o n e.

B.

D i r e c t l y , by m a n ife s tin g th e t r u e e x p la n a tio n ,

P o in t two

POINT ONE. REPUTATION OF FALSE HYPOTHESES. A59,

DIVERSE FALSE HYPOTHESES: A d v e rs a rie s endeavour to e x p la in and u ltim a te ly to e lu d e th e r e l i g i o u s f a c t , so u n iv e r s a l and o f such g r e a t moment, hy showing t h a t a r e l i g i o u s se n s e lias b een g r a d u a lly evolved and t h e r e f o r e la c k s a l l a b s o lu te v a lu e ,

A. The system s w hich th e y have proposed a r e m u ltitu d in o u s , (C f, P in a rd de l a B o u lla y e ; L* e tu d e Comparee d es R e lig io n s . P.W. Schm idt-Lem onnyer: O rig in e e t E v o lu tio n de l a R e l i g i o n , ) B. a. b. c. d. A60,

H e re , f o r th e sake o f b r e v i t y , we s h a l l d e a l o n ly w ith : P o s itiv is m ( n , A 60), E v o lu tio n ism (a# A 61), M o d e rn is tic immanent ism ( n , A62), S o c io lo g ism ( n.~A65V. POSITIVISM: The p o s i t i v i s t i c h y p o th e s is w i l l b e f i r s t b r i e f l y ex­ posed and th e n s u b je c te d to c r i t i c i s m ,

A. EXPOSITION: P o s i t i v i s t s and M a t e r i a l i s t s te a c h t h a t r e l i g i o n p ro ­ c e e d s from ig n o ra n c e , f e a r and th e e n th u sia sm w hich p rim o rd ia l men, as a ls o u n c u ltu re d p e o p le s a ls o to d a y , e x p e rie n c e d when th e y co n tem p lated th e stu p en d o u s phenomena o f n a tu r e w herefrom t h i s h y p o th e s is i s som etim es c a ll e d n a tu ris m , ; a . The P o s i t i v i s t s d i s t i n g u i s h th r e e s ta g e s i n th e r e l i g i o u s e v o lu tio n o f p e o p le s , to w i t : a l , a th e o lo g ic a l s ta g e , i n w hich men a s s ig n e d th e c a u s a tio n o f n a t u r a l phenomena to s u p e r io r b e in g s , a 2 . a me ta p h y s ic a l s ta g e w hich e x p la in s n a tu r e by m e ta p h y sic a l con­ c e p ts , a 3 . a p o s i t i v e s ta g e w h e re in phenomena a re s c i e n t i f i c a l l y i n v e s t ig a te d and e x p la in e d by n a t u r a l la w s. b. R e lig io n b e lo n g s to th e f i r s t s ta g e , p rim o rd ia l men su p p o sin g t h a t th e r e i s some h id d en power o r some s p i r i t i n th e phenomena o f n a tu r e , g iv ­ in g i t a d o r a tio n and p r a c t i s i n g animism o r f e tic h is m : b l . Wherefrom th e y g r a d u a lly proceeded to p o ly th e ism and l a t e r to m qnothei sm. ; b 2 . B ut t h i s c o n c e p t u t t e r l y v a n is h e s in th e fa c e o f s c ie n c e . B.

CRITICISM:

B ut t h i s h y p o th e s is c a n n o t b e a d m itte d :

a* F i r s t , in d e e d , b e c a u se i t la c k s fo u n d a tio n : a l . f o r th e f i r s t r e l i g i o n o f man rem ain s unknown to u s a p a r t from re v e la tio n ; a 2 . and i t can n o t be shown t h a t u n c u ltiv a te d t r i b e s e x is t in g to d ay have k e p t any p rim o rd ia l form o f r e l i g i o n , f o r t h e i r r e l i g i o n , w ith i t s m u ltitu d e o f m in u tio s e r i t e s , g iv e s ev id en ce o f a lo n g d ev elo p m en t; a3 . m oreover, many w e ll-in fo rm e d c r i t i c s a f f ir m t h a t th e y do n o t p r a c t i s e n a tu ris m o r mere animism, b, S e c o n d ly , t h i s h y p o th e s is i s opposed to in d u b ita b le f a c t s ; b l , f o r th e law o f th e th r e e s ta g e s i s n o t proved by h i s t o r i c a l exp e ri ence; b 2 . m oreover, i t i s e rro n e o u s ly supposed t h a t t r u e s c ie n c e i s incom­ p a t i b l e w ith th e co n cep t o f a supreme b e in g , th e f a l s i t y o f w hich s u p p o s itio n i s a lre a d y a p p a re n t from th e numerous com petent s c i e n t i s t s who a ls o have been r e l i g i o u s men. c. T h i r d l y , t h i s h y p o th e s is does n o t e x p la in th e phenomena req ttijM sg e x p la n a tio n , e s p e c ia ll y th e perm anance and e x c e lle n t f r u i t s o f r e l i g i o n ; c l . f o r i t i s c e r t a i n t h a t r e l i g i o n rem ain s and p ro g re s s e s even w ith ­ o u t ig n o ra n c e and f e a r , w hich, a cc o rd in g to th e p o s i t i v i s t s , c o n s t i t u t e

th e o r i g i n a t i v e p r i n c i p l e o f r e l i g i o n T h e re fo re , s in c e an e f f e c t i s r e ­ moved on th e rem oval o f i t s c a u s e , r e l i g i o n does n o t proceed from th e s e phenomena* o2* M oreover, th e r e i s n e c e s sa ry p r o p o r tio n b etw een e x c e lle n t e f f e c t s and t h e i r c a u s e s ; w h e re fo re i t i s rep u g n an t t h a t th e n o tio n s o f r i g h t and d u ty and th e w hole m o r a lity o f a c tio n s and m oral o b l i g a t i o n , and such e le v a te d f r u i t s o f r e l i g i o n a s d i s i n t e r e s t e d lo v e and c h a r i t y , b e e x p la in ­ ed s o le l y from ig n o ra n c e o r f e a r . A61,

EVOLUTIONISM: The e v o l u t i o n i s t i c h y p o th e s is -w ill be f i r s t b r i e f l y exposed, th e n s u b je c te d to c r i t i c i s m . A. EXPOSITION :

a* EXPOSITION IN GENERAL: To p o s itiv is m more o r l e s s a p p ro ach d iv e r s e h y p o th e se s w hich endeavour to e x p la in th e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n from a n a t u r a l e v o lu tio n , p ro c e e d in g th ro u g h d iv e r s e p h a s e s , t o w i t : ■N al* A f te r n a tu ris m ( c f . A 60,A ), ; a 2 , men a c c e p te d anim ism . a 3 . o r m agic, a 4 , o r ta b o o ism . a 5 . o r to te m ism . a 6 . from w hich th e y g r a d u a lly ro s e f i r s t to p o ly th e is m . : a7 . and u ltim a te ly to m onotheism , w h ereo f th e more p e r f e c t form i s C h ris tia n ity . b.

EXPOSITION IN SPECIAL:

b l* NATUPISM: N a tu rism h as b een b r i e f l y exposed above ( c f , A 60,A ). b 2 . ANIMISM.: A n im is ts th u s e x p la in p rim ae v al r e l i g i o n : Man, m e n ta lly f a s h io n in g th e w orld to h i s own l i k e n e s s , p r o j e c t s th e lik e n e s s o f human l i f e i n t o a l l th i n g s , e s p e c i a l l y a n im a ls and p l a n t s , th u s a t t r i b u t i n g d iv e r s e phenomena to v a rio u s s p i r i t s o r s o u ls o f h i s a n c e s to rs # Among th e s e b e in g s one o r a n o th e r a t t a i n s d iv in e d i g n i t y , and i s e le v a te d t o th e ra n k o f G-od. Thus w r i t e J . B. T y lo r and h i s f o llo w e r s , such as A. Lang* J* L ip o e rt and ¥ . Y/undt. b3» MAGIC: A ccording to o th e r s magic p re c e d e s animism and th e b e g in n in g o f a l l r e l i g i o n i s found i n m ag ic, w h ich , u s in g th e unknown f o r c e s o f n a tu r e , r a i s e s them to the: ra n k o f d iv in e b e in g s . b4# TABOOISM: Tabooism i s th e th e o ry expounded by Solomon R e in a c h : Man, a d d ic te d to f e a r and w ish in g to a v o id d a n g e rs, do es n o t d a re to to u c h c e r t a i n th in g s l e s t p erc h an c e he s u f f e r some damage from them . Which th in g s a c c o rd in g ly he r e g a r d s a s sa c re d o r in te r d ic te d # W herefrom a r i s e many p r e s c r i p t i o n s p r o h ib i tin g th e to u c h in g o f such th in g s o r th e d o in g o f such a c t i o n s ; whence a ro s e th e i d e a l o f m oral law arid o f some God and o f re lig io n # . «' -V ' J b 5 , TOTEMISM: Totemism i s a c e r t a i n i n s t i t u t i o n b e sp e a k in g some s o c i a l p a c t by f o r c e o f w hich th e men o f a c e r t a i n .tr ib e o r c la n a re a s s o c ia te d , f o r exam ple, w ith an im als o f some d e te rm in a te s p e c ie s , o r r a t h e r w ith an i n v i s i b l e s p i r i t w hich i s supposed to l i e h id d e n b e n e a th th d a p p e a ra n c e s o f th e s e a n im a ls. (The to te m i s th e a n im a l, o r p l a n t , to w hich some d e te rm in a te t r i b e o r c la n i s s i m i l a r , to w hich i t i s s p e c i a l l y u n ite d and from w hich i t s members re g a rd th e m selv e s a s ta k in g th e ir o rig in ). On th e one h an d , th e men o f a c e r t a i n to te m n e i t h e r k i l l nor e a t th e anim als o f t h i s s p e c ie s , and on th e o th e r hand th e s e a n im a ls a r e supposed n o t t c h u r t th e s e men. . b 6 , POLYTHEISM: Man m e n ta lly fa s h io n s f o r h im s e lf , f o r h i s fa m ily , o r f o r c i v i l s o c ie ty , many gods o r i d o l s , and o f f e r s them supreme w o rsh ip , b7* MONOTHEISM: M onotheism i s th e u ltim a te phase o f e v o lu tio n , acknow­ le d g in g and a d o rin g on ly one God, and b e in g u t t e r l y opposed to a th e ism and p o ly th e i sm.

B,

CRITICISM:

a. GENERAL: T liis e v o lu t io n is t ic h y p o th esis i s to he r e je c te d : a l . Fir s£ T ~~Because i t f a l s e l y supposes an in t e g r a l e v o lu tio n ism , which i s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly (a s w e ll as th e o lo g ic a lly ) shown to he f a l s e . a t . S econ d ly, i t c o n tr a d ic ts f a c t s h i s t o r i c a l l y c e r t a in , fo r among v ir t u a l ly a l l p eop les among whom p olyth eism i s found, t h i s polyth eism was preceded hy monotheism. h. IN SPECIAL: I t s u f f i c e s h ere to animadvert b r i e f l y upon animism. m agician, and tahooism . h i . ANIMISM: Animism m a n ife sts a g en era l concept o f th e world much more d i f f i c u l t t o th e u n c u ltiv a te d mind than r e li g io n i t s e l f , fo r th e id e a o f a Maker who produced th e world as man makes h i s own products i s a much more con crete and f a c i l e concept than the id e a o f s p i r i t s moving a l l th ir d s . T h erefore animism i s not th e prim aeval r e li g io n . b 2 . MAGICISM: M agicism i s n ot th e b egin n in g o f r e lig io n : h2a. f o r a t th e b egin n in g th er e i s to he a ttr ib u te d to man a p o s it iv e n a tu r a l a p titu d e to know th e supreme b e in g , and n o t a n e g a tiv e s tu p id ity which le a d s t o m agic. b2b. M oreover, according to competent w r it e r s , such as Schnndt-Lemonnyer and B o u v ier. th e th e o r ie s o f magicism have no foundation in h i s t o r i c a l fa c ts. b 2c. Moreover magic and r e li g io n are too d if f e r e n t from each oth er fo r th e one to flo w from th e o th er. b2d. F u rth e r, i t i s h i s t o r i c a l l y m a n ifest th a t magic and r e lig io n have alw ays c o - e x is t e d , each w ith i t s c h a r a c t e r is t ic s q u ite d i s t i n c t from th e se o f th e o th e r . b 3 , TABOOISM: Habooism i s escplained w ith out any r e li g io u s s i g n i f i ­ c a tio n . b3a. M oreover, tahooism supposes th e knowledge o f th e e x is t e n c e o f a su p erior b ein g who e n a c ts such a p r o h ib itio n , and acknowledgment i n man o f the moral law to be observed. b3b.W herefore tahooism i s not th e p r im itiv e germ o f r e l i g i o n , but r a th e r supposes r e l i g i o n a lrea d y e x is t in g . A62.

MODERNISTIC IMMANINTISM: The h y p o th e sis o f m o d ern istic immanentism w i l l f i r s t be b r i e f l y exposed and then su b jected to c r it ic is m .

A. EXPOSITION: A ccording to th e immanentism o f th e m od ern ists, th e o r ig in and developm ent o f r e l i g i o n a re ex p la in ed according to th e laws ar d d o c tr in e o f v i t a l immanenoe. a. A f i r s t r e li g io u s im pulse i s p o site d i n the movement o f th e h e a r t o f man, i . e . i n a c e r ta in in tim a te r e li g io u s sen se y h ic h proceeds from o u r exigen cy w ith r e s p e c t to th e d iv in e , t h is exigen cy ly in g h id d e n in our su b con sciou sn ess. T h is r e li g io u s sen se has th e d iv in e r e a l i t y i t ­ s e l f a s i t s o b j e c t , and th us i n a c e r ta in fa s h io n co n jo in s man w ith God: h e r e in l i e s th e prim ordial o r ig in o f r e li g io n . b. The r e li g io u s sen se surges up by v i t a l immanence from th e h id d en r e c e s s e s o f su b co n scio u sn ess, a t th e b egin n in g b ein g r a th e r crude and a l ­ most fo r m le ss, bu t gra d u a lly and under th e in flu e n c e o f th a t hidden p rin ­ c i p l e wherefrom i t ta k es i t s so u rce, a ch iev in g development to g e th e r w ith a progress o f human l i f e w hereof i t i s a c e r ta in form; so th a t a l l r e li g io u s phenomena are mere developm ents o f t h i s r e li g io u s s e n se . o. I n th a t r e li g io u s sen se or feelin g * w h ich i s not a knowledge, Gcd i s presented to man in a confused manner, so th a t he i s s c a r c e ly , o r not a t a l l , d i s t i n c t from th e b e lie v in g s u b je c t. T h is a c tio n o f God i s ex er­ c ise d a t th e b egin n in g through a n x ie t ie s and a s p ir a tio n s which we p e r ce iv e in our c o n scio u sn ess. N ext th e l i g h t o f i n t e l l e c t f i r s t ex p resses th ese phenomena in id e a s and afterw ard s s i g n i f i e s them by words, so th a t thus th e b e lie v e r e x c o g ita te s h is b e l i e f .

d. The mind a t th e b egin n in g ex p resses r e l i g i o u s phenomena i n a most sim ple and u n cu ltiv a te d form; but afterw ards through r e f le x iv e and more p en etra tin g thought upon th e p r im itiv e form ula, i t deduces from i t derived sta tem en ts, w hich, i f th ey are sanctioned by th e tea ch in g 6hurch, w i l l c o n ­ s t i t u t e dogmas, e . But to dogmas are l o g i c a l l y conjoined moral p recep ts and c e r t airsacred r i t e s . f . A ccordin gly r e li g io u s a c t i v i t y fo llo w s th e p r o g r e ssiv e e v o lu tio n o f human l i f e . B. CRITICISM: r e j e c te d .

T h is h y p o th e sis o f m o d er n istic immanentism i s to be

a . F i r s t , i t i s based upon f a l s e fo u n d a tio n s: a l . fo r i t te a c h e s a g n o sticism , w hich i s demonstrated in philosophy to be f a l s e . a2. Moreover i t d e c la r e s th a t God i s p erceiv ed by th e in t u it i o n o f the h e a r t; b u t a s e n s it iv e in t u it i o n o f God i s im p o ssib le on two heads, to wit: a2a. as s e n s i t i v e , because God b ein g an u t t e r ly s p ir it u a l b ein g cannot b e a tta in e d by se n se ; &2b. as i n t u i t i v e , fo r our n a tu r a l knowledge o f God i n t h i s l i f e i s had on ly through a b s tr a c tio n and r ea so n in g , no in t u it i o n prop erly so c a lle d o f God b e in g p o s s ib le , save through th e b e a t i f i c v is io n . b. S econ d ly, i t does not ex p la in th e r e li g io u s moral law: b l . f o r law i s not conceived w ithout a la w g iv e r, who d i f f e r s from the su b jec t bound by th e law , nor w ithout a judge and v in d ic a to r , fo . oth erw ise i t i s deprived o f a l l sa n c tio n and e f f ic a c y . b 2. T herefore moral law supposes c e r ta in knowledge o f a su p erior law­ g iv e r , judge and recompenser. b 3 . But th e system o f immanentism does not permit a firm knowledge c f God, as supreme la w g iv e r, judge and v in d ic a to r o f th e r e li g io u s and moral life . 0.

T h ir d ly , i t le a d s to dangerous con seq u en ces:

0 1 . I n th e f i r s t p la c e , to a b so lu te in d iffe r e n tis m , fo r as P iu s X argu es, "from th e d o c tr in e o f ex p erien ce o f th e m o d ern ists, conjoined to the o th er regard in g symbolism ( i t fo llo w s th a t) w hatsoever r e l i g i o n , th o se o f th e pagans n o t excep ted , i s to b e reckoned t r u e , .nor do th e m odernists i n r e a l i t y deny t h i s : r a th e r in d eed , some o b sc u r ely , o th er s most o p en ly , contend th a t a l l r e li g io n s are tru e." (p a so en d i, Benz 2 0 82). c 2 . I n th e second p la c e . to d e n ia l o f th e supernatural ord er; fo r the supernatu ral cannot be s c r u tin is e d by n a tu r a l powers. But according to th e m od ern ists, supernatu ral r e li g io n i t s e l f surges up from the n e c e s s i t i e s and a s p ir a tio n s o f l i f e : w hich i s the " n a tu r a lisa tio n " o f r e l i g i o n or d e n ia l o f th e supernatu ral order. o5, I n th e th ir d p la c e , to atheism or pantheism : o3a. to atheism indeed because th e tr u th o f r e li g io n and th e n o tio n o f God a re, according to m o d ern ists, based in th e r e li g io u s ex p erien ce proper to each one; th e r e fo r e men devoid o f t h is ex p erien ce are l o g i c a l l y a t h e i s t s , s in c e they cannot know God; o5b. to pantheism , fo r th a t something d iv in e , p resen t i n man, w h ich i s p erceived by th e r e li g io u s se n se , i s not r e a ll y d i s t i n c t from th e su b jec t i n w hich i t awakens r e li g io u s e x p e r ie n c e s. But to make God in d i s t i n c t from the crea tu re i s pantheism. A63.

SOOIOIOGISM: The h y p o th e sis o f s o c io lo g ism w i l l f i r s t be b r i e f l y exposed and th en su b jected to c r it ic is m .

A35 A. EXPOSITION: According to th e s o c io lo g ic a l sc h o o l, r e li g io n does not proceed from a p sy c h o lo g ic a l f a c t o f th e in d iv id u a l, h u t i s something p u rely s o c i a l , ta k in g i t s o r ig in on ly from s o c ie t y , a. The o r ig in and e v o lu tio n o f r e li g io n i s th u s explain ed hy the s o c io lo g ic a l sc h o o l: al* Man t o t a l l y proceeds from s o c ie t y i t s e l f , above w hich nothing e x i s t s , fo r from i t he r e c e iv e s h is p h y sic a l l i f e , and even h is c o n v ic t­ io n s , moral o b lig a tio n s , and consequently h is w hole r e li g io n . C onscious o f t h i s t o t a l dependence, man produces a c ts o f rev e r en ce , s u b je c tio n , and lo v e towards s o c ie t y , which he w orships a s th e s o le d iv in it y : and th us i s had a w orship o f humanity, a 2 . P r im itiv e man n o t ic e s t h is and a cco rd in g ly i n s t i t u t e s a d is t in c ­ t io n betw een h is s o c ia l em otions and a f f e c t s w hich he regards as sa c r e d . and h is in d iv id u a l em otions and a f f e c t s which he deems profane. But what i s h eld sa cred , l i t t l e by l i t t l e by h is im agin ation i s r a is e d to th e d ig n ity o f a person, and th u s are o r ig in a te d s p i r i t s and g o d s, who, how­ e v er , are noth in g e l s e than a c e r ta in p e r s o n ific a tio n o f s o c ie t y i t s e l f . a 3 . These r e l i g i o u s f e e lin g s are exp ressed and m an ifested i n an ex­ t e r io r and co n crete manner, a 4 . Such i s th e o r ig in o f th e totem , which was r e li g io u s ly worshipped, o f o ld among a n c ie n t p e o p le s, and s t i l l among p r im itiv e s , a s r ep r e se n tin g e it h e r th e fa m ily or s o c ie t y , or s o c ie t y i t s e l f a s d e if ie d : where­ fo r e so c io lo g ism i s sometimes c a lle d t6temism. b.

Totemism has been b r i e f l y o u tlin e d above. (C f,n »A 61,A ,b5).

c. The arguments advanced fo r t h i s s y e ic a are c h ie f ly th r e e , to w it: c l . Moral o b lig a t io n , th e c h ie f part o f r e l i g i o u s l i f e and ccannon to a l l r e l i g i o n s , oan is s u e o n ly from s o c ie t y , which alon e appears g r e a te r than th e in d iv id u a l; to t h i s o b lig a tio n are p erfo rce u n ite d innumerable s o c i a l m a n ife sta tio n s o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and p r a c tic e among f a m ilie s , t r ib e s and p e o p le s . o2. T r a d itio n , which h o ld s a prime p la ce i n every r e lig io n , i s e sse n ­ t i a l l y a s o c ia l i n s t i t u t i o n . ° 3 , Totemism. according to many, i s an in c o n tr a v e r tib le and u n iv er­ s a l f a c t , everywhere c o n s titu tin g th e rudim ents o f r e li g io n s but i t cer­ t a in ly m a n ife sts a s o c i a l a sp e c t. B.

CRITIC ISM:

a. S o c io lo g ism r ig h t ly defend s a s o c ia l farm o f r e l i g i o n . I n r e a l i t y t h i s form proceeds te a m t h i s , th a t th e bond and fou n d ation s o f r e l i g i o n are th e same i n a l l ; m oreover, men l i v e i n s o c ie ty and conseq uently ex­ e r c is e s o c ia l a c t i v i t y in every ord er. N e v e r th e le ss , su c h a s o c ia l form i s n o t ’, a b s o lu te ly n ecessa ry to r e l i g i o n , fo r th e a n c h o r ite l i v i n g in s o litu d e in th e d e s e r t can e x e r c is e r e l i g i o n p e r fe c tly w ith out any s o c ia l form, b.

N e v e r th e le ss th e h y p o th e sis o f so c io lo g ism i s t o be r e .le o te d :

b l . F i r s t . because i t proposes in s u f f i c i e n t arguments: b la . For i t co n fu ses moral o b lig a tio n w ith s o c ia l p r e ssu r e , which comes from an e x t r in s ic source and i s o ft e n t o t a l l y opposed to in t e r n a l o b lig ­ a tio n , whidh appears i n co n scie n c e . b ib . T r a d itio n has valu e i n r e l i g i o n s , not b ecause i t i s a s o c ia l f a c t , bu t because i t i s h eld to be tr u e and a source o f tr u th . bio* The u n iv e r s a lit y o f totemism among p r im itiv e s and i t s a b so lu te p r io r it y i n r e li g io u s f a c t s i s n o t e v id e n t; indeed t h i s i s denied by the h i s t o r i c a l bock o f G en esis and by e th n o lo g ic a l o b se r v a tio n s. Rather t o t emisra i s n oth in g but a c e r ta in s u p e r s titio n w hich i s superadded to r e li g io n alread y e x is t in g , b u t does not c o n s titu te r e l i g i o n i t s e l f : fo r where t h is s u p e r s titio n f lo u r is h e s , th ere i s to g e th er r e li g io u s w orship, acknowledg­ ment o f some God, and o f a fu tu r e l i f e , totemism i t s e l f b ein g something q u ite a c c e sso r y . (Le Roy: La R e lig io n des P r im i t if s , p, 1 3 2 ).

A34, 'bS* so c io lo g ism a ls o ^ a la e X ^ L d e n t ific s ,r e lig io u s f a c t s w ith s o c ia l f a c t s , fo r r e lig io u s f a c t s from them selves and 'p er se* d i f f e r from s o c ia l f a c t s : r e li g io u s f a c t s are e x e r c ise d i n one fa s h io n , s o c ia l f a c t s i n another, fa r : b2a. th e r e li g io u s a c t o f f a i t h and o f lo v e o f God i s one th in g , obedience to c i v i l laws another^ b2b, r e li g io u s p recep ts and s o c ia l p recep ts d i f f e r e s s e n t ia ll y ; b2o* r e li g io u s a c ts are o ft e n abandoned, s o c i a l d u tie s s t i l l b ein g fu lfille d ; b2d. r e li g io n a ls o r e g u la te s in t e r n a l a c t s , but s o c ie ty e x te r n a l a c ts o n ly , b3. Th ir d ly , th e h y p o th e sis o f so c io lo g ism does n ot e x p la in moral o b lig a tio n and th e permanence o f th e r e lig io u s f a c t , b3a. For moral o b lig a tio n i s not id e n t ic a l w ith e x te r n a l s o c ia l p r e ss­ u re, whioh i s escaped by m u ltitu d in o u s in t e r n a l a c t s , and moreover, s o c ia l p ressu re sometimes v i o la t e s tr u e moral o b lig a tio n , as i s m a n ife st from th e c a se o f m artyrs. A gain, f i d e l i t y to moral o b lig a tio n app eals to h ig h er law than th a t o f s o c ia l p ressu re, b3b. The permanence o f th e r e li g io u s f a c t cannot take i t s r i s e from s o c ie t y , fo r i f th e o r ig in o f r e l i g i o n were from s o c ie t y , and in d eed , as th e s o c io lo g ic a l sch ool sa y s, were th e r e fo r e a mere i l l u s i o n , t h is i l l u s i o n b ein g d is p e lle d by s c ie n c e , by th a t very f a c t r e li g io n would p e r ish , w hich, however, by no means occurs* A64,

GENERAL CONCLUSION: A ll th e aforem entioned hyp oth eses f a i l to o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t ex p la n a tio n fo r th e o r ig in o f r e li g io n ,

A. I t i s indeed to be adm itted th a t proponents o f th e s e variou s hypo­ th e s e s have uncovered many f a c t s w hich are o f g r ea t h elp towards a sc ie n c e o f r e l i g i o n , and which show how much th e phenomena o f n a tu re, a id in g th e r e li g io u s in c lin a t io n o f man and human s o c ie t y , co n trib u te to th e m aintcr­ ane e o f r e li g io n , B. A ll th e aforem entioned system s have t h i s common c h a r a c t e r is t ic , th a t they endeavour to e x p la in th e r e li g io u s f a c t s w ith out God: which i s a p reju d ice r a d ic a lly in ju r io u s to tr u th ; but th ey d i f f e r from each oth er both as regard s co n tr a d ic to r y e x p la n a tio n s •which they advance, and as r e ­ gards th e o p in ion w hioh they p r o fe ss concerning th e v a lu e o f relggion * a . For the p o s i t i v i s t i c and e v o lu t io n is t ic hypotheses deem th a t r e li g io n ought to be a b o lish ed , b , w hereas; b l , the h y p o th e sis o f m o d ern istic immanentism s e t s g r e a t v a lu e , (a p a r t, however, from i t s o b j e o t iv ^ v r u t h ) , upon th e r e li g io u s sen se or f e e lin g ; b 2 , w h ile th e h y p o th esis o f the s o c io lo g ic a l sch o o l aims a t conserving r e li g io n , though on lv as a s o c ia l i n s t i t u t i o n , (C f, B r o s : La R e lig io n des N o n - c iv ilis ^ s , p,712)»

POINT TWO. TRUE EXPLANATION. A65,

MAN'S ESSENTIAL NEED RELATIVELY TO RELIGION: The u n iv e r s a lity o f th e r e li g io u s f a c t i s to be exp lain ed th u s:

A. The spontaneous u n iv e r s a lit y o f th e r e li g io u s f a c t proceeds from th e a b so lu te and e s s e n t ia l need o f human nature fo r r e l i g i o n . a . For human nature i s th e same among a l l men; w herefore i t s e sse n ­ t i a l in c lin a t io n s or needs are th e same. b . T herefore th e exigency fo r r e li g io n g iv e s r i s e always and every­ where among mankind to th e r e li g io u s f a c t , c . Wherein i s had th e in t r i n s i c ex p la n a tio n o f t h is f a c t .

B* Man*s e s s e n t ia l need fo r r e li g io n i s PROVED by the fo llo w in g argu­ ment, which w i l l f i r s t be form ulated ( a ) , whereupon th e minor prem iss, which alon e a c q u ir e s proof, w i l l be v in d ic a te d (b ). a . The argument i s form ulated th u s: a l . Man s t r i c t l y needs th at w ith ou t w hich he cannot a t t a in h is end. i*e* b e a t it iu d e : a 2. But w ith ou t r e l i g i o n man cannot a t t a in b e a titu d e * a3* T herefore man s t r i c t l y needs r e l i g i o n * b* The minor o f th e fo r e g o in g argument, namely th a t r e li g io n , and i t a lo n e , conducts man to h is b e a titu d e , w i l l be v in d ic a te d fo r th w ith , (nn. A66-A67). A66,

RELIGION CONDUCTS MAN TO HIS END: I n order to show th a t r e l i g i o n conducts man to h is u ltim a te end, i * e . to b e a titu d e , we must con­ s id e r whioh i s th e u ltim a te end o f man and how r e l i g i o n d ir e c t s man to t h i s end*

A* WHICH IS MANTS ULTIMATE END?: T h is end i s th e most p e r fe c t b e a t­ itu d e a tta in a b le to man, w hich man pursues in h is every human a c t; but t h i s b e a titu d e c o n s is t s i n th e most com plete s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the d e s ir e s which are found i n man1s f a c u l t i e s h ie r a r c h ic a lly d isp o sed , to w it , in h is i n t e l l e c t , i n h is w i l l , and i n h is s e n s it iv e pow ers: fo r b e a titu d e or happiness i s th e good th a t ex clu d es every e v i l and f u l f i l s every d esire* N ote th a t th e s e d e s ir e s or a s p ir a tio n s are: a . F i r s t . in our i n t e l l e c t : fm r man tend s towards knowledge o f tr u th . nor i s he s a t i s f i e d w ith any p a r tic u la r o r lim ite d tr u th , bu t r a th e r the a p p e tite o f h is i n t e l l e c t i s fo r tr u th pure and unlim ited* al* T h is means th a t man has a n a tu ra l d e s ir e to know h is own o r ig in , and h is u ltim a te end, and th e r e fo r e to know whether our end i s to be sought w ith in o u r se lv e s or o u ts id e o u r s e lv e s , and whether our so u l i s immortal or p e r ish e s w ith th e body, and what i s our s t a t e a ft e r d ea th , and by what means we must pursue our end, to w it , whether by our own powers alon e or through th e h elp o f God* a2* T h is a ls o means th a t man remains u n s a t is f ie d u n t il he knows in i t ­ s e l f th e cause o f a l l th in g s , fo r i t i s n a tu ra l t o man th a t knowing an e f f e c t he w ish to know th e cause th e r e o f; which means th a t man i s un­ s a t i s f i e d so fa r fo r t h a s he d o es not know God to th e e x te n t th a t he can know him* b. S econ d ly. i n our w i l l : f o r we tend towards good, and indeed towards good a s we understand i t , fa r th e o b je c t o f w i l l i s good understood; but we understand good pure and u n lim ite d : w herefore th er e i s in our w i l l an a p p e tite fo r i n f i n i t e good, unmixed w ith shortcom ing or e v i l ; w herefore St* A u stin s a y s : "Thou h a st made u s fo r th^yself, 0 God, and our heart i s n ot a t r e st, u n t i l i t r e s t i n th ee ," (C on fess. X II I , 8 ) . b l* But to o b ta in t h i s p e r fe c t good we need a r u le o f m orals whereby to be d ir e c te d i n th e p u rsu it o f good* b2* M oreover, we need h elp and s tim u la tio n so a s to observe t h is r u le o f m orals and to avoid v io la t io n o f i t . c* T h ir d ly * in our s e n s it iv e powers: fo r in our s e n s it iv e powers we exp erien ce in c lin a t io n s or te n d en cie s w hich, r ig h t ly subordinated to our reason ab le w i l l , are q u ite le g it im a t e and capable o f b ein g s a tia te d * B.

RELIGION CONDUCTS MAN TO HIS BEATITUDE OR ULTIMATE END:

a* C e rta in ly i n t h i s l i f e man cannot en.tov p e r fe c t b e a titu d e , a s ex­ p e r ien ce t e s t i f i e s : al* fo r on t h i s ea rth only p a r tic u la r goods can be enjoyed, or a t l e a s t , th e i n f i n i t e good can b e on ly im p er fe c tly enjoyed: a 2, moreover, i n t h i s l i f e , th e enjoyment o f good i s admixed w ith the s u ffe r in g o f e v il*

a 3. fu r th e r , i n t h i s l i f e , goods enjoyed are not in a m issib ly enjoyed, wherefrom a r is e s th e e v i l o f fe a r o f t h e ir l o s s . b. But a c tu a l b e a titu d e r eq u ir es two th in g s , to w it , r ig h t orderin g o f our p resen t l i f e , and s e c u r ity o f a tta in in g a most p e r fe c t p erp etu a l b e a titu d e beyond t h is l i f e : which two elem ents are provided fo r man through r e lig io n . b i.

R e lig io n indeed s u p p lie s th e r ig h t orderin g o f our p resen t l i f e :

b la . f o r b l a l . in fo llo w e d ; b la 2 . in b la 3 . in rea so n and w

t h i s due ord erin g supposes: our i n t e l l e c t . tr u th s c e r ta in ly h eld regard in g th e way to be our w i l l , a p ersev erin g a p p e tite to pursue t h i s way; our s e n s ib le row ers, a moral a c t i v i t y r ig h t l y su b jected to ill.

b ib . But a l l th e s e th in g s are provided through r e lig io n : b l b l . fo r r e li g io n d e liv e r s to our i n t e l l e c t a firm d o c tr in e , tea ch in g : b lb la .t h a t we have our o r ig in from God through c r e a tio n , and are en­ dowed w ith a so u l which i s s p i r i t u a l and im m ortal; b ib ib .t h a t our u ltim a te end i s God h im s e lf, who w i l l c o n fe r p e r fe c tio n and b e a titu d e upon u s; b lb lc .t h a t th e means towards the attainm ent o f t h i s end i s th e f u l f i l ­ ment o f our o b lig a tio n s towards God, our neighbours and o u r s e lv e s , bespeak­ in g p a tie n c e i n tem p tation s and t r ib u la t io n s , so th a t our v ir tu e be p e r fe c t­ ed and our l i f e be m e r ito r io u s. b lb 2 . Moreover, r e l i g i o n ren d ers our w i l l stro n g er by a ffo r d in g to i t w hatever i s n ecessa ry fo r th e lo v e , p u rsu it and attainm ent o f good: b lb 2 a . f o r i t proposes t o us a la w g iv er en joyin g s u f f i c i e n t a u th o r ity : fo r God en jo y s a b so lu te and u n iv e r s a l a u th o rity over men, and th e r e fo r e can co n fer an o b lig a to r y fo r c e upon law s; knowing th e most in tim a te s e c r e t s o f our h e a r t, he can b id a ls o in t e r n a l a c t s , and th u s r u le man i n a l l h is moral l i f e , b lb 2b . R e lig io n a ls o proposes an e f f ic a c io u s sa n c tio n whereby we are in c it e d to pursue good: fo r God, a w ise la w g iv e r, e n t ic e s u s , im p erfeot a s we a r e , t o v ir t u e , by hope o f an e v e r la s tin g reward, and d e te r s u s from v i c e s , by th r e a t o f p e n a lt ie s ; f o r he w ish e s th a t u ltim a te ly th e virtu o u o r e c e iv e a p rop ortion ate reward, sin c e o th erw ise th e order o f j u s t i c e would n ot be f u l f i l l e d . b lb 2 o . R e lig io n a ls o o f f e r s p oten t h e lp ; fo r God, author o f a l l per­ f e c t io n , moves our f a c u l t i e s so th a t under h is m otion a l l impediments to th e attainm ent o f our end can be overcome. b lb 3 . F u rth er, r e l i p on harm onises th e a c tio n s o f our body and sen­ s i b l e powers t o th e r e li g io u s a s p ir a tio n s and d e s ir e s o f our h ig h er f a c ­ u ltie s , c h i e f l y through e x te r n a l w orship e x e r c ise d in prayer and s a c r i f i c e . b 2 . A lso r e l i g i o n p rovid es s e c u r ity fo r th e a tt a in in g o f a most per­ f e c t p erp etu al b e a t it u d e : b2a, f o r th e r ig h t orderin g o f h is l i f e s e c u r e ly d ir e c t s man to a rno.?J p e r fe c t b e a titu d e which c o n s is t s i n the h ig h e s t knowledge o f God, which t o ­ g e th e r s a t ia t e s manf s supreme d e s ir e and r e s u lt s i n man* s supreme jo y , the h ig h e st e x e r c is e o f manf s lo v e b ein g a cco rd in g ly a ch iev ed . But knowledge and lo v e o f God th u s b e a t if y in g us i s obtained s o l e l y through r e li g io n . b2b. Indeed, i f man be deprived o f th ese th in g s , th e fou ndation o f moral r e c t it u d e i s d estro y ed ; w herefore P iu s IX condemned t h i s p r o p o sitio n : "Moral laws do not need d iv in e s a n c tio n , and th e r e i s no need th a t human law s be conformed to n a tu ra l r ig h t or g e t o b lig a to r y fo r c e fr o m God." (Denz, 1 7 5 6 ). Cm

A67.

T h erefo re, r e l i g i o n conducts man t o h i s most p e r fe c t b e a titu d e .

RELIGION ALONE CONDUCTS MAN TO HIS END: I f crea ted goods do not produce th a t b e a titu d e w hich man u ltim a te ly d e s ir e s , and th e r e fo r e th o se system s are in s u f f i c i e n t which a re proposed to s o lv e th e q u estio n

o f our end w ithout God or r e li g io n , then r e li g io n alone can conduct man to h i s u ltim a te end. A#

CHEATED GOODS DO NOT PRODUCE MAN’S BEATITUDE;

a . Eor "the o b je c t o f w i l l i s u n iv e r s a l good, j u s t a s th e o b je c t o f i n t e l l e c t i s u n iv e r sa l tr u e . Whence i t i s c le a r , th a t noth in g can a lla y man1 s a p p e tite save u n iv e r s a l good, which i s found, n ot i n something c re ­ a te d , but o n ly i n God, because every crea tu re has goodness p a r tic ip a te d ." ( i - I I , q .2 , a .8 : Oon. Gent, I I I , 2 -3 -1 6 -1 7 ). b . And in d eed , created goods are d iv id ed in t o e x te r n a l and in te r n a l goods; b o th o f w hich are d e f ic ie n t : b l» E x tern a l goods, in d eed , such as r ic h e s , p h y sic a l q u a l i t i e s , e t c . , are lim it e d , u n sta b le , and f a i l t o f u l f i l a l l man** a s p ir a tio n s or d e s ir e s . b 2 . I n te r n a l goods are knowledge, v ir t u e , e t c . ; b 2 a .b u t human s c ie n c e i s im p erfect and f a l l i b l e ; b2b.and v ir tu e i s acquired on ly w ith d i f f i c u l t y , i s exposed to temp­ t a t io n s , and n ot r a r e ly to r i d ic u le , hatred and p e r se c u tio n . o . W herefore: c l . S t . A u stin says: "Thou d o st s u f f i c i e n t l y d is c lo s e , (L ord), how nob le thou h a st made th e r a t io n a l c re a tu re ; to which nought which i s in ­ f e r io r to th ee w i l l s u f f i c e to y ie ld a happy r ep o se , and so not even i t s e l f t h i s o n ly I know, th a t woe i s me, except in th e e , not on ly w ith o u t, b u t a ls o w ith in , m y se lf; and a l l p le n ty w hich i s n ot my God i s poverty to me." (C o n fe s s ., X U I , 8 ) . And "Thou h a st made us fo r t h y s e l f , and our h ea rt i s r e s t l e s s u n t i l i t r e s t in th ee." (C o n fe s s ., 1 , 1 ) . * 2. And thus t e s t i f i e s a r ec e n t co n v ert: "I did e v i l , but I n e ith e r approved i t nor loved i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Y ou made me f e e l a p a in fu l v o id , a sadness which I never experienced save th en ; • • • • • • • • • i t returned to me each evening when I found m y self alone i n my apartm ent; • • • • . . • • . i t held me dumb and crushed during s o - c a lle d f e s t i v i t i e s : I organised them, but when th e moment came, I endured them in a dumbness, a d i s t a s t e , a boredom which were i n f i n i t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....Y o u gave me t h i s vague in q u ietu d e o f a bad c o n sc ie n c e , -which, q u ite a s le e p a s i t i s , i s not a lto g e th e r dead. I never f e l t t h is sad n ess, t h i s un ease, t h i s in q u ietu d e save th en . My God, i t was th en a g i f t o f you; • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • h o w fa r I was from doubting it J • • • . . . » How good you are! (Ch. de F ou cau ld : E c r it s S p ir it u a ls . P a r is , 1923, p. 7 6 -7 7 ). B. M oreover, INSUFFICIENT ARE THOSE SYSTEMS propounded to s o lv e the q u estio n o f our end w ith o u t God and r e li g io n ; which i s m a n ifest i f we con­ s id e r d ile t t a n t is m , pessim ism , p o s itiv is m , and s p ir itu a lis m (th e o so p h y ), which h old th e c h ie f p la c e among them. a. a ssessed :

DILETTANTISM:

D ile tta n tis m w i l l f i r s t be b r i e f l y exposed and then

a l . EXPOSITION: D ile tta n tis m contends th a t no concern ought to be had about r e li g io u s th in g s , s in c e th ey are f u t i l e , v a r ia b le , or a t l e a s t uncer­ ta in ; indeed we may adhere now to one s o lu tio n , now to another, according a s th e g r e a te r s a t is f a c t io n i s afford ed u s . a 2 . ASSESSMENT: T h is system i s f a l s e : a2a, fo r i t i s in sa n e to have no concern about th e q u estio n s upon which man's w hole hap pin ess in t h i s l i f e and i n th e fu tu r e l i f e depends; in d eed , s u c c e s s iv e ly to embrace one s o lu tio n or an oth er, according t o where th e g r e a te r p leasu re l i e s , i s not devoid o f in s a n it y , s in c e th u s, i n p r a c tic e , i t i s acknowledged th a t c o n tr a d ic to r y system s can be tru e to g e th e r , and the c r it e r io n o f tr u th i s c o n s titu te d i n p le a su r e. a2b. M oreover, d ile t t a n t is m , fa r from s a t is f y in g man's profound a s p ir ­ a tio n s and d e s ir e s , le a v e s man i n a s t a t e o f m isery and p r o je c ts him in to pessim ism .

b. uated :

PESSIMISM: Pessim ism w i l l f i r s t "be b r i e f l y exposed and then e v a l­

b l . EXPOSITION: Pessim ism , propounded by Schopenhauer and Hartmann, contends th a t mankind i s alw ays hoodwinked by th e i l l u s i o n o f a happiness to be a tta in e d , and th a t our le g itim a te a s p ir a tio n s cannot be s a t i s f i e d by p resen t goods, and th a t l i f e i s o f n e c e s s it y d o lo ro u s, and th e r e fo r e the: e i s no s o lu tio n save in s e lf - a n n ih ila t io n and th e d e s tr u c tio n o f th e world through " co sm ic-su icid e 11, b 2. ASSESSMENT: Pessim ism i s to be r e .ie c te d : b2a* F i r s t , because i t i s opposed t o ex p erien ce: b 2 a l. For most men in p o in t o f f a c t enjoy a c e r ta in f e l i c i t y , im p erfect though i t b e . b2a2. We cannot e x tin g u ish our n a tu ra l d e s ir e fo r b e a titu d e , and th e p e s s im is ts th em selves, by endeavouring to g e t r id o f p a in , show th a t th ey i n t h e ir own manner are pursuing h ap p in ess. b2a3. By e x tin g u ish in g more noble a s p ir a tio n s , th ey thereby provoke new p a in s, and th u s, i n p r a c tic e , c o n tr a d ic t th em selv es. b2b« S econ d ly, because i t i s opposed to reason : because from t h i s , th a t we cannot fin d a p e r fe c tly s a t is f y in g b e a titu d e in temporal th in g s, i t i s i l l o g i c a l to in f e r th a t i t i s nowhere to be found: fo r reason can ascend to knowledge o f oth er more sublime goods. 0 . POSITIVISM: The d o c tr in e o f th e p o s i t i v i s t s w i l l be b r i e f l y ex­ posed and then a ssessed * 01. EXPOSITION: P o s i t i v i s t s do not admit su p ra sen sib le and s p ir it u a l r e a l i t i e s , but e x t o llin g th e m arvellous advance o f e m p ir io lo g ie a l s c ie n c e s , they contend th a t th e s e s c ie n c e s can lea d t o the f u lfilm e n t o f a l l m a^ s d e s ir e s , and th us assume the p la ce o f u n iv e r sa l r e li g io n fo r fu tu r e a g es: whence th e d o c tr in e o f " scien tism " . ° 2 . ASSESSMENT: T h is theory i s f a l s e : o2a» For e m p ir io lo g ie a l s c ie n c e in v e s t ig a t e s phenomena b oth e x te r n a l and in t e r n a l, and examines t h e ir c o -o r d in a tio n , e n p ir ic a l la w s, and em­ p ir i c a l cau ses; and indeed has made g r ea t progress i n t h i s work. B ut e m p ir io lo g ie a l s c ie n c e , w ith ou t m etap h ysics, which p o s itiv is m a s s e r t s to be im p o s s ib le , cannot in v e s t ig a t e th e o n to lo g ic a l tr u th regard in g man* s n a tu r e, o r ig in , im m o rta lity , u ltim a te end and th e means th ereu n to. o2b. M oreover, m erely e m p ir io lo g ie a l s c ie n c e Cannot s a t i s f y th e n a t u r a l and most profound a p p e tite s or a s p ir a tio n s o f th e human i n t e l l e c t and w i l l ; fo r man, con scio u s o f h is p sy c h o lo g ic a l freedom, and d is tin g u is h in g m oral good from s e n s ib le good, pursues b o th , and a lso n a tu r a lly d e s ir e s to l i v e w ith ou t end. d. SPIRITUALISM AND THEOSOPHY: S p ir itu a lis m and theosophy, along w ith d iv e r s e kin ds o f s u p e r s titio n s , which have caught th e a lle g ia n c e o f many seek in g s o la c e i n r e c e n t tim e s, d is p la y some outward symbols o f r e li g io n . But exam ination o f t h e ir fou n d ation s uncovers t h e ir em p tin ess. A68.

GENERAL CONCLUSION: The u n iv e r sa l r e li g io u s f& ct, th e r e fo r e , has i t s s u f f i c i e n t rea so n o n ly in r e li g io n . Far th e r e li g io u s f a c t appears everywhere and a t a l l tim es among mankind, because man e s s e n t ia lly r e q u ir e s r e li g io n fo r th e p u r su it o f h is u ltim a te end, namely, b e a titu d e . A. The attainm ent o f man*s u ltim a te end i s m a n ife stly n ecessa ry to a l l men, and th e r e fo r e n ecessa ry a lso i s th e use o f th e means w ith out which t h i s end cannot be a tta in e d . B« But r e l i g i o n , and i t a lo n e , conducts man to h is u ltim a te end, which i s b e a titu d e . C.

T herefore r e li g io n i s n ecessa ry t o man.

A53. TOPIC THREE, METAPHYSICAL PROOF. A69.

ORDER OP PROCEDURE: T h is argument, taken from God’ s s t r i c t r i g h t s . o r from th e r e la t io n s between man and God, en jo y s g r e a te r fo r c e than th e two arguments alread y exposed. A. But t h i s argument i s to be con sid ered : a. on th e p art o f G-od. (n . A 7^); b . on th e part o f th e c o n d itio n o f human n a tu re, (n . A 7 l) ; o . on the part o f th e c h ie f a c ts o f r e l i g i o n . l n . A 72). B. T h erea fter: a* w i l l be considered o e r ta in o b je c tio n s (n . A 73); b . and th e tr u e o r ig in o f r e l i g i o n w i l l be b r i e f l y exposed, (n . A 74).

A70.

NECESSITY OP RELIGION CONSIDERED PROM THE SIDE OF GOD: Prom co n sid ­ e r a tio n o f God i t i s m a n ifest th a t r e li g io n i s n ecessa ry .

A. For th e order o f nature r eq u ires th a t th e low er be su b jected to the h ig h e r , and -when i t i s q u estio n o f i n t e l l i g e n t b e in g s , th a t th e low er reco g ­ n is e h is s u b je c tio n to the higher* B. B u t: a . God i s i n f i n i t e l y p e r f e c t , i n f i n i t e l y su rp assin g man i n e n t it y , in ­ t e l l i g e n c e , knowledge, wisdom, good n ess, power, e t c ; and th e e f f i c i e n t cause o f man, not on ly as regards become, but a lso as regards b e; and sim­ i l a r l y th e supreme lo r d , la w g iv e r, p ro v iso r and governor o f man; and a lso man* s o b je c tiv e u ltim a te end, to w it , th e good which alone can s a t ia t e p e r f e c t ly man’ s a p p e tite ; and a lso th e exemplary cau se o f man and h is every p e r fe c tio n . b . Whereas man i s i n f i n i t e l y in f e r io r to God i n a l l th e se r e s p e c ts , and i s u t t e r ly dependent upon God, and su b ject to him. C. T herefore man i s bound from a n a tu r a l law , i .e * from moral n e c e s s ity o f a c tin g according to th e order o f n a tu re, t o su b ject h im se lf to God, and to r e c o g n ise God’ s supremacy over h im se lf; which o b lig a tio n man f u l f i l s t>y r e lig io n . A71.

NECESSITY OP RELIGION CONSIDERED FROM THE SIDE OP MAN: The n e c e s s ity o f r e l i g i o n i s m a n ifest a ls o from the c o n sid e r a tio n o f man according to h is n atu re; fo r by reason o f h i s o r ig in and end, man ought to worship God.

A. F or: a. Man a r is e s from God by c r e a tio n , and t o t a l l y depends upon him as r e ­ gards h is e ss e n c e , h i s b e , h is p e r fe c tio n s , and the g ood s, both in te r n a l and e x te r n a l, w hich he en jo y s; b . But r ig h t r ea so n , d ic t a t in g th a t man a c t according to h is n a tu re, b id s man to g iv e honour and lo v e t o him upon whoa he thus depends; w hich man docs from th e e x e r c is e o f r e l i g i o n . c . T herefore r ig h t rea so n b id s man t o e x e r c is e r e li g io n . B. Moreover: a. Man ought to tend towards h i s u ltim a te end, which c o n s is t s i n b e a titu d e b . But in God a lo n e , known and lo v e d , i s found man’ s supreme b e a titu d e ; c . T herefore man ought to adhere through h i s a c tio n s to God as h is u ltim ­ a te end; c l . b u t t li is adherence i s e x e r c ise d through r e l i g i o n , c 2 . w herefore Leo X III w e ll w r ite s : "Among a l l men’ s d u t ie s , th a t i s . , . . , , th e g r e a te s t and most sa cred , whereby men are bidden to w orship God d u t if u lly and r e l i g i o u s l y . And th a t n e c e s s a r ily fo llo w s fran t h i s , th a t we are p erp et­ u a lly i n God’ s power and are governed by God’ s d iv in e a u th o r ity and providence and is s u in g fo r th from him, we ought to retu rn to him." (E n c y c ., L ib e r ta s) .

A4%

A72.

NECESSITY OP RELIGION CONSIDERED ON THE PJ\RT OP ITS CHIEF ACTS: The n e c e s s it y o f r e li g io n i s m a n ifest from c o n sid e r a tio n o f th e most p r in c ip a l a c ts th e r e o f: A, Por r e l i g i o n i s e t h ic a lly n ecessary to in d iv id u a l man, i f man s t r i c t l y owes to God a d o r a tio n , th a n k sg iv in g , t o t a l s u b je c tio n and joenance, B. But man s t r i c t l y owes th ese th in g s t o God: a. A doration indeed i s due to God, s in c e hy i t we acknowledge h i s supreme dominion; a l* Por God crea ted men, i . e . produced them as regards t h e ir whole en­ t i t y from n o th in g ; and co n serv es them in h e , and concurs to t h e ir a c tio n ; so th a t men depend u t t e r ly upon God as regards what th ey a r e , t h e ir b e , and t h e ir do. a2. But th e Supreme Lord upon whoip a l l th in g s depend u t t e r ly has a r ig h t , and indeed most s t r i c t , th a t h is dominion be acknowledged by a l l r a tio n a l c r e a tu r e s: w hich i s done through ad oration whereby man acknow­ le d g e s God as h i s prime p r in c ip le and u ltim a te end, and a cco rd in g ly as h is Supreme Lord. a5 . T herefore God has a most s t r i c t r ig h t to be adored by men. b* To God a ls o i s due th a n k sg iv in g : b l . Por God i s th e Supreme B en efa cto r o f a l l : he g r a tu ito u s ly g iv e s to us l i f e , r ea so n , and freedom; g r a tu ito u s ly a ls o he m ain tain s and guards th e s e ; and lik e w is e g r a tu ito u s ly he bestow s d a ily new b e n e f it s upon men, b 2 . But g r a titu d e i s due to a b e n e fa c to r , and in d eed , th e g r e a te r as th e b e n e f it s bestowed are th e g r e a te r . b 3 . T herefore men are o b lig ed to e x e r c is e th e g r e a te s t g r a titu d e t o ­ wards God, so th a t he who n e g le c ts t h is duty i s g u ilt y o f th e b a s e s t in ­ g r a titu d e . c . Tb God i s due a ls o t o t a l s u b j e c tio n : o l. F or a lo rd or m aster has a r ig h t th a t h is serv a n t f a i t h f u l l y obey h is w ill; c 2 . But God p o s s e s s e s a b so lu te dominion over man, who a cco rd in g ly i s h is s e r v a n t: c 3 . T herefore man i s o b lig e d to su b je c t h is l i f e t o t a l l y to God. d . To God i s due a ls o penance: dl# P o r, g iv e n s in , God has a s t r i c t r ig h t th a t th e o ffe n c e o ffe r e d to him be i n some manner compensated by penance or s a t is f a c t io n ; d la . fo r grave s in i s tru e in j u s t ic e towards God, s in c e i t v io la t e s the r ig h t enjoyed by God as supreme lo rd and u ltim a te end o f a l l ; d lb . and moreover, grave s in i s an u n ju st r e b e llio n a g a in st God*s le g itim a te a u th o r ity ; d2. But every i n j u s t i c e , according to s t r i c t r i g h t , must be rep a ired and compensated; and in d ee d , the more s t r i c t l y according a s th e r ig h t v io la t e d i s th e more in v io la b le . d3. T herefore the i n j u s t i c e committed a g a in st God through s in must be compensated by man so f a r a s he can compensate fo r i t : which cannot be done w ith ou t c o n t r it io n or penance. A73.

SOLUTION OP CERTAIN OBJECTIONS: I t w i l l be h e lp f u l to co n sid er c e r t a in o b je c tio n s a g a in st th e c o n c lu sio n as proved by th e fo r e ­ going argument. A.

FIRST OBJECTION:

a . I t i s sometimes OBJECTED th u s: al* F i n it e s e r v ic e s or w orships are n o t b e f i t t i n g to an i n f i n i t e being, a2. But th e s e r v ic e s or w orships o f r e l i g i o n are f i n i t e , whereas God i s in f in it e * a 3. T h erefore, th e s e r v ic e s or w orships o f r e l i g i o n are not b e f i t t i n g to God.

A41 b . ANSWER; b l . The m ajor i s to be d is tin g u is h e d : b ia . . I t i s tim e t h a t r e l i g i o u s w o rsh ip s o r s e r v ic e s tA m in a tiv e lv f i n i t e , i . e , 'd i r e c t e d tow ards some c r e a t u r e , a re u n b e f i t t i n g to th e i n f i n i t e b e in g ; f o r th e s e would b e a c t s o f i d o l a t r y , b ib . B ut r e l i g i o u s w o rsh ip , f i n i t e only en t i t a t i v e l y . i . e , p ro c e ed in g from a c r e a tu r e b u t d ir e c te d to w ard s th e i n f i n i t e b e in g , a re b e f i t t i n g to th e i n f i n i t e b e in g ; f o r th e s e honour God a s th e c r e a tu r e can honour him . b 2 . The m inor i s to be c o rre sp o n d in g ly c o n tr a d is t in g u is h e d : b2a» I t i s tr u e t h a t th e w o rsh ip s o f r e l i g i o n a re e n t i t a t i v e l y f i n i t e ; b2b» B ut th e y a r e n e t te r m in a tiv e ly f i n i t e ; B.

SECOND OBJ ECTION:

a, a l. a2. a5 .

A f u r t h e r OBJECTION i s made th u s : What i s u s e le s s i s n o t o b lig a to r y . B ut r e l i g i o n i s u s e le s s to God. T h e re fo re r e l i g i o n i s n o t o b lig a to r y .

b . ANSWER: b l . R e lig io n i s o b lig a to r y : b l a . n o t b e c a u se i t a f f o r d s an i n t r i n s i c u t i l i t y to God, f o r God i s i n no need o f o u r g o ods; b ib . b u t b e c a u se man, n a t u r a l l y d ep en d en t on God, i s bound t o acknow ledge t h i s d ep en d en ce; w hich i s done th ro u g h r e l i g i o n . C.

THIRD OBJECTION:

a . I t i s a ls o OBJECTED th u s : a l , What v i o l a t e s human n a tu r e o annot b e s a id to b e n e c e s s a ry to man. a2 . B ut r e l i g i o n v i o l a t e s human n a tu r e , f o r man a cc o rd in g to h i s n a tu re i s f r e e o r in d e p e n d e n t; w h ile r e l i g i o n i s opposed to t h i s freedom and in d ependence, a3 . T h e re fo re r e l i g i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a ry to man. b , ANSWER: b l . I t i s t r u e t h a t man i s f r e e : b l a . in th e p h y s ic a l o r p s y c h o lo g ic a l o r d e r , b i b . and a ls o i n th e m o ral o rd e r a s r e g a r d s a c t s n o t e n jo in e d o r p ro ­ h i b i t e d by law s, b l c . B ut man i s n o t f r e e i n th e m oral o rd e r a s re g a rd s ev ery a c t , s in c e some a r e o b lig a to r y ; b2, b u t r e l i g i o n , re g a rd in g m oral th i n g s , o f f e r s to man d i r e c t i o n s and h e lp s w hich a r e m ost u s e f u l t c him a c c o rd in g to h i s n a tu r e ; and th e r e f o r e , f a r from b e in g opposed t c h i s n a tu r e , i s o f th e g r e a t e s t a d v an ta g e t o i t . D.

FOURTH OBJECTION:

a , A f u r t h e r OBJECTION i s urged th u s : a l . V/hat s ta n d s i n t a c t w ith o r w ith o u t r e l i g i o n does n o t r e q u ir e r e l i g i o n . a 2 . B u t; a 2 a, on th e one hand, some men l i v i n g w ith o u t r e l i g i o n a r e endowed w ith a l l th e n a t u r a l v i r t u e s ; a2b, w h ile on th e o th e r hand, some men p r o f e s s in g r e l i g i o n l i v e a w orse l i fe^ : a 3 . T h e re fo re m oral goodness does n o t r e q u ir e r e l i g i o n . b, ANSWER: b l . Men who m a n ife s t th e n o te s o f v i r t u e n o t in f r e q u e n tly have e i t h e r re c e iv e d a r e l i g i o u s u p b rin g in g , o r l i v e among companions p ro f e s s in g r e l i g i o n , so t h a t even u n w ittin g ly th ey undergo th e in f lu e n c e o f r e l i g i o n ; b u t w h atso ­ e v er th e c a s e , th e m o ral goodness w hich th e y have does n o t i s s u e from t h i s , th a t th e y do n o t p ro f e s s o r p r a c t i s e r e l i g i o n . b 2 . I n r e a l i t y some men p ro f e s s in g r e l i g i o n a re m o ra lly b a d ; b u t t h e i r b a d n ess i s tc be a t t r i b u t e d , n o t to r e l i g i o n , b u t to t h e i r d is o b e d ie n c e , f e r a s much a s th e y do n o t o b serv e th e p re c e p ts o f r e l i g i o n .

COPYRIGHT

A74,

NOTE: ORIGIN OP RELIGION: a ro s e among men,

The q u e s tio n a r i s e s a s to how r e l i g i o n

A, FALSE HYPOTHESES a t t r i b u t e th e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n to th e c r e a tu r e a lo n e . A t h e i s t s m a in ta in th a t r e l i g i o n a r i s e s e i t h e r from th e phenomena o f th e in a n im a te c r e a tu r e (whence p o s i t i v i s t i c n a tu ris m ) o r from man a lo n e w hich i s d iv e r s e ly e x p la in e d by p o s itiv is m , e v e lu tio n is m , irnrnanentipi and s o c io lo g is m : w hich h y p o th e se s have b een r e f u te d above, ( nn,A 59-A 64), 3. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE a f f ir m s t h a t tim e r e l i g i o n a r i s e s from th e l i g h t o f re a s o n a id e d by d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n . a . FROM THE LIGHT OF REASON: a l . F o r human re a s o n a r r i v e s th ro u g h th o s e th in g s w hich have b een made, to a c e r t a i n knowledge o f God, prim e cau se o f th e w orld and o f a l l men. : a l a . B ut n a t u r a l law e n jo in s re v e re n c e to a s u p e r io r , g r a t i t u d e to a b e n e f a c to r , lo v e to th e so v e re ig n good w ith whom we a r e i n com m unication, and o b ed ien ce to a u t h o r i t y : a l b . w h ich , b e in g re n d e re d to w ard s God, p ro p e rly c o n s t i t u t e r e l i g i o n , a l e . T h e re fo re n a t u r a l law , known by human r e a s o n , g iv e s r i s e to r e l ­ ig io n . a 2 . Which i s r e a d i l y e x p la in e d t h u s : a 2 a. Man, endowed w ith u n d e rs ta n d in g , r i s e s from th e c o n te m p la tio n o f c r e a te d th in g s to t h e i r prim e c a u s e : w hich prim e c a u se he r ig h t ! } ' c o n c e iv e s a s a s u p e r io r b e in g , l i v i n g , p e r s o n a l, good and p r o v id e n t, to whom w o rsh ip i s due and from whom we r e c e iv e b e n e f i t s : w herefrom i s had dogma, a2b. A t th e same tim e , man*s w i l l , i f r i g h t l y d is p o s e d , d e s i r e s good and see k s h a p p in e s s ; b u t n e i t h e r o f th e s e does he f in d e i t h e r i n h im s e lf o r in o th e r c r e a t u r e s , b u t se e k s them from a h ig h e r s o u rc e , to w i t , i n th e S u p e rio r B e in g , to whose w i l l he s u b je c ts h im s e lf : w herefrom a r e had m oral -'precepts. . a 2 c . B ecause man c o n s is ts n o t on ly o f i n t e l l e c t and w i l l , b u t a ls o o f body and s e n s i b i l i t y , he i s b o rn e by v a rio u s a f f e c t s to t h a t S u p e rio r 'Being and m a n if e s ts them e x t e r n a l l y by w o rs h ip . b . AIDED BY DIVINE REVELATION : b l . I t i s m a n ife s t h i s t o r i c a l l y t h a t a p r im itiv e r e v e l a t i o n was g iv e n to o u r f i r s t p a r e n ts . b l a . T h is i s c l e a r from th e f i r s t c h a p te rs o f G e n e s is . (Gen, 1 -3 ) . b i b . A lso S t . P a u l , sp e a k in g o f th e r e s t o r a t i o n o f f a l l e n man th ro u g h th e m e r its o f C h r i s t , and th e r e f o r e o f th e e le v a tio n o f man to th e s u p e r­ n a t u r a l o r d e r , supposes a p r im itiv e r e v e l a t i o n (Romans, 5,12 sq$ E p h e s ., 4 .2 3 ; C o lo s s ., 3 ,1 0 ; ) , b 2 . The e x is te n c e o f t h i s r e v e l a t i o n i s co nfirm ed by th e t r a d i t i o n s o f p e o p le s , w hich a t t r i b u t e th e r i s e o f r e l i g i o n (e v e n f a l s e ) to a p o s itiv e in t e r c o u r s e betw een man and God.

DISSERTATION TWO. NECESSITY OF RELIGION FOR CIVIL SOCIETY. A75,

PREAMBLES: R eg ard in g th e n e c e s s ity o f r e l i g i o n f o r c i v i l s o c i e t y , th e fo llo w in g o b s e r v a tio n s a r e to be made:

A. C i v i l s o c ie ty i s human s o c ie ty i t s e l f as e x e r c is in g i t s s e l f governm ent a l o f f i c e . a . W herefore i n th e c o n c re te i t i s o f te n c a ll e d th e s t a t e . b . I t i s q u e s tio n h e re o f th e r e l i g i o u s d u ty o f c i v i l s o c ie ty o r s t a t e , B. The p r i n c i p a l ERROR r e g a rd in g t h i s q u e s tio n i s t h a t o f n a tu r a lis m o r l a i c i s m , a cc o rd in g to w hich " th e b e s t o rd e rin g o f p u b lic s o c ie ty and c i v i l

p ro g r e s s r e q u ir e s t h a t human s o c ie ty h e c o n s ti tu te d and governed w ith o u t any re g a rd to r e l i g i o n , a s i f t h i s d id n o t e x i s t . " (P iu s IX , Encyc. Q uanta. C ura. 1864), C. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE te a c h e s t h a t c i v i l s o c ie ty i s s t r i c t l y hound to th e p r o f e s s io n c f r e l i g i o n , (P iu s IX . l o c . c i t ; Leo X I I I , Irnm ortale D e i; P iu s X I, Quas P r im a s ;) , A76.

CONCLUSION: I t m ust he h eld a s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly c e r t a i n t h a t CIVIL SOCIETY IS BOUND TO PROFESS THE TRUE RELIGION. A. T h is w i l l h e proved from c o n s id e r a tio n : a, o f God ( n , A77) : c.

A77?

w h ile i t w i l l h e co n firm ed from th e agreem ent o f laankind ( n , A 79). PROOF FROM THE PART OF GOD, AUTHOR AMD ULTIMATE END: th u s b r i e f l y exposed:

V/hich p ro o f i s

A. F i r s t , s o c ie ty , no l e s s th a n th e in d iv id u a l man, h a s God a s i t s a u th o r , forasm uch a s God c r e a te d man a p t and i n c lin e d to w ard s s o c ie ty and im p ressed upon th e human mind n a t u r a l law w hereby s o c ie ty can he m a in ta in e d . M o reo v er, by h i s p ro v id e n c e he m a in ta in s i t , g u a rd s i t , and c o n f e r s in n u m erab le b e n e f i t s upon i t . : a . T h e re fo re a ls o s o c ie ty , as s o c i e t y , o ught to acknowledge God a s i t s Supreme L o rd , and o f f e r to him th e w o rsh ip o f a d o r a tio n , th a n k s g iv in g and e x p ia tio n ; b . Y/hich i s th u s expounded by Pope Leo X I I I : "N atu re and r e a s o n , w hich b id i n d iv id u a ls to w o rsh ip God i n a h o ly and r e l i g i o u s m a n n e r ,,. . . « « • « • • ,b y th e same law b in d s th e c i v i l community. F o r men, c o n jo in e d i n a common s o c i e t y , a r e no l e s s i n G o d 's power th a n i n d i v i d u a l s , n o r does s o c ie ty owe to God l e s s g r a t i t u d e th a n i n d i v i d u a l s ; f o r by h i s a u th o rs h ip i s i t f o s ­ t e r e d , by h i s good p le a s u r e i s i t m a in ta in e d , by h i s b e n e fic e n c e h a s i t r e c ­ e iv e d th e in n u m e ra b le abundance o f g o o d s, w hereby i t i s e n ric h e d . W h erefo re, j u s t a s i t i s la w fu l t o no-one to n e g le c t h i s d u tie s to w ard s G o d , . , . ............ i n th e same m anner, s t a t e s c a n n o t, s h o r t o f m isc o n d u c t, conduct th e m selv e s a s i f God w ere n o t." ( Irnm ortale D e i) . B. M o re o v er, a lth o u g h th e im m ediate end o f c i v i l s o c ie ty i s th e tem­ p o r a l common good, a . The u ltim a te end th e r e o f i s God h im s e lf , to whom te m p o ra l good ought to be o rd e re d ; b . B ut th e im m ediate end te n d s to w ard s th e u ltim a te end and i s sub­ o rd in a te d t h e r e t o ; c . T h e re fo re , s o c ie ty ought to s u b o rd in a te i t s e l f to God: w hich i s done th ro u g h th e p r o f e s s io n and p r a c t i c e o f r e l i g i o n . A78.

PROOF FROM THE PART OF SOCIETY: e x is te n c e o f s o c ie ty :

R e lig io n i s n e c e s s a ry f o r th e v ery

A. a. b. c.

F o r th e e x is te n c e and p ro g re s s o f s o c i e t y r e q u i r e : acknowledgment o f s o c i a l a u t h o r i t y : o b serv an c e o f la w s : p r a c t i c e o f th e s o c ia l v i r t u e s .

B.

B ut th e s e t h r e e th in g s d e f a u l t w ith o u t r e l i g i o n :

a . W ithout r e l i g i o n acknowledgment o f s o c ia l a u t h o r i t y d e f a u l t s : a l . F o r men, n a t u r a l l y d e s ir o u s o f t h e i r own in d e p en d e n c e, o f te n r e s i s t s u p e r io r s u n le s s th e y a r e re n d e re d in c lin e d by some h ig h e r m o tiv e to obed­ ie n c e . a 2 . B ut t h a t m o tiv e i s o f f e r e d by r e l i g i o n , w hich te a c h e s men t h a t a l l le g i t i m a t e a u th o r ity i s from God, and th e r e f o r e t h a t ev ery s o u l ought to b e s u b je c t to th e h ig h e r powers i n o rd e r to a c h ie v e i t s end.

"b. O bservance o f law s a ls o d e f a u l t s w ith o u t r e l i g i o n , f o r th e so le s u f f i c i e n t s a n c tio n o f law s i s th e o m n isc ie n t and om nipotent God; h i . F o r i f r e l i g i o n he e x c lu d e d , law s a r e observed c h i e f l y from f e a r o f p e n a ltie s , b 2 . B ut t h i s f e a r i s o f te n i n e f f i c a c i o u s , b ecau se many a r e p ersuaded t h a t th e y can v i o l a t e law s w ith o u t u n d erg o in g p u n ish m en t; and th u s th e fo r c e o f law i s g r a d u a lly e n n e rv a te d and p u b lic o rd e r d is tu r b e d , c. M oreover th e p r a c t i c e o f th e s o c i a l v i r t u e s d e f a u l t s , s in c e w ith o u t r e l i g i o n m o ral conduct can n o t lo n g re m a in good, c l . Thus Leo X I I I w r i t e s : " I f f e a r o f God and re v e re n c e f o r d iv in e law s he rem oved, th e a u t h o r i t y o f r u l e r s w i l l he d e s p is e d , d e s i r e f o r • s e d i t i o n s w i l l h e p e rm itte d and approved, th e c u p id ity o f th e m asses w i l l b e h u r r ie d to w a rd s l i c e n t i o u s n e s s , th e r e w i l l h e no b r i d l e save f e a r o f p unishm ent, and r e v o lu tio n and s u b v e rs io n o f e v e ry th in g w i l l n e c e s s a r ily f o llo w ," (Humanum Genus) . c 2 . And in d e e d , i n r e c e n t c e n t u r i e s as r e l i g i o n h as b e e n w eakened, th e m oral conduct o f p a g an s, t o g e t h e r w ith c r u e l t y , l u s t and i n j u s t i c e , h as r a p i d l y invaded ^ c o p ie s more and m ore. C, T h e re fo re i n o r d e r t h a t s o c ie ty h e m a in ta in e d i n s a f e ty and p ro s ­ p e r ity , r e lig io n i s n e ce ssa ry ; a s even th e pagans have a s s e r t e d , a . Thus P l a t o s a y s : "He who d e s tr o y s r e l i g i o n d e s tr o y s th e fo u n d a tio n o f a l l human s o c ie ty ," ( P l a t o , De le g ih u s X). h . S im ila r ly Pl u t a r c h w r i t e s : " I t i s e a s i e r to b u ild a c i t y i n th e a i r th a n to found a commonwealtli w ith o u t r e l i g i o u s w o rs h ip ," ( P l u t a r c h . Adv, C c lo t.) A79,

CONFIRMATION FROM AGREEMENT OF MANKIND^ The agreem ent o f mankind h ereu p o n i s s u f f i c i e n t ^ m a n ife s t from w hat h as b e e n s a id above r e ­ g a rd in g th e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f th e r e l i g i o u s f a c t ( c f . n n . A35-A54), w here­ from i t i s m a n ife s t t h a t a l l men a t e v e ry tim e and everyw here have acknow­ led g ed and w orshipped seme god. A. A c co rd in g ly C ic ero w r i t e s : "To eac h p e o p le th e r e i s i t s own r e l i g ­ io n , F o r n a tu r e lias l e a r n t to v e n e r a te God; n o r i s th e r e any man su ch as to be w ith o u t law commanding t h i s . " (De le g ib u s X).

B. Hence we may co n clu d e w ith Leo X I U : " J u s t i c e a c c o rd in g ly f o r b i d s , re a s o n f o r b i d s , . .................. .............. . . t h e s t a t e to b e a t h e i s t . " (E ncyo, L ib e r ta s ). A80,

COROLLARIES:

From th e fo re g o in g i t f o l l o w s :

A. T h at c i v i l s o c ie ty i s bound to th e p r a c t i c e o f r e l i g i o n , o r to p u b lic e x te r n a l w o rsh ip . B. T h a t c i v i l law s a r e in v a lid and im pious w hich a r e opposed to t r u e r e l i g i o n , o r p ro f e s s a b s o lu te la i c i s m o r i n d i f f e r e n t i s m o f th e s t a t e . C. T h a t c i v i l to le r a n c e o f f a l s e r e l i g i o n s : a . a lth o u g h i n c e r t a i n a d ju n c ts i t c a n , and in d e e d o u g h t, to b e g r a n t­ ed f o r th e sake o f th e tr a n q u ilit} ? o f s o c ie ty , i . e . l e s t s t i l l g r e a t e r e v ils r e s u l t ; b . n e v e r th e le s s i s som ething i n i t s e l f e v i l , and *p e r s e 1 i s to b e r e je c te d :.

ARTICLE TWO. NECESSITY OF CERTAIN RELIC-IOUS ACTS. A81.

CPJDER OP PROCEDURE: H aving d e a l t w ith th e n e c e s s ity o f r e l i g i o n i n g e n e r a l, we come now to e s t a b l i s h i n s p e c i a l , on acco u n t o f c e r ­ t a i n s p e c ia l d e n i a l s , th e s t r i c t o b lig a tio n o f c e r t a i n r e l i g i o u s a c t s , to w i t , o f e x te r n a l w o rsh ip and o f p ra y e r. A cco rd in g ly t h i s a r t i c l e w i l l c o n s i s t o f two d i s s e r t a t i o n s , to w i t : A,

N e c e s s ity o f e x te r n a l w o rsh ip

A r t i c l e one.

3.

N e c e s s ity o f p r a y e r ............. ............

A r t i c l e two.

DISSERTATION ONE, NECESSITY OF EXTERNAL WORSHIP. A82, A.

PREAMBLES: R e lig io u s w o rsh ip i s th e e x e r c is e o r p r a c t i c e o f o b je c ­ tiv e re lig io n . B ut t h i s w o rsh ip i s :

a . E i t h e r i n t e r n a l , w hich c o n s i s t s i n i n t e r i o r a c t s o f r e l i g i o n , v .g . i n t e r i o r a c t s o f f a i t h , lo v e , c o n t r i t i o n , e t c . b . Or e x t e r n a l , w hich i s e x e r c is e d by e x te r n a l a c t s , v .g , v o c a l p ra y e r, s a c r i f i c e s , e t c . B ut e x te r n a l w o rsh ip may b e : b l , e i t h e r p r i v a t e , i f i t i s e x e r c is e d by some man a s a p r i v a t e person^ b 2 , o r p u b l i c , i f i t i s o f f e r e d by s o c ie ty o r i n th e name o f s o c ie ty . B ut p u b lic w o rsh ip may b e : b 2 a , e i t h e r d o m e stic , a c c o rd in g a s i t p ro c e ed s from th e fa m ily ; b 2 b . o r c i v i l o r s o c i a l , a c c o rd in g a s i t p ro ceed s from c i v i l s o c ie ty . : B. The p r i n c i p a l ERRORS r e g a r d in g t h i s q u e s tio n a r e th e fo llo w in g : ■ a. The M anicha e n s ( t h i r d c e n tu ry ) and P a u l i c i a n s ( e ig h th c e n tu ry ) r e j e c t e d e x te r n a l w o rsh ip e i t h e r t o t a l l y o r a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y . b. C e r ta i n r a t i o n a l i s t s and m o d e rn is ts condemn e x te r n a l w o rsh ip a s u s e le s s to G-od, f r e q u e n tly r i d i c u l o u s i n i t s r i t e s , and opposed to th e g o s p e l ( i n w hich C h r is t commends a d o r a tio n i n s p i r i t and t r u t h : J o h n . 4»23) C. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE a f f ir m s t h a t e x te r n a l r e l i g i o u s w o rsh ip i s t r u l y o b lig a to r y . a. Already; i n th e Old T estam ent God s t r i c t l y enjoined, e x te r n a l wor­ s h ip upon th e I s r a e l i t e s (cf* L e v i t i c u s ) . b. C h r i s t , i n th e new l a w , i n s t i t u t e d s a c r i f i c e s and s e n s ib le s a c r a ­ m ents to endure p e r p e tu a ll y . (C f, D enz: 478 , 943 , 954, 956, 1253 s q . , 1 5 7 3 .) . c. A c co rd in g ly th e Church d i r e c t l y r u l e s e x te r n a l w o rsh ip i n th e con­ f e r r i n g o f s a c ra m e n ts, i n t h e o f f e r in g o f M ass, and i n o th e r c erem o n ie s, i n w hich th e f a i t h f u l a r e bound, to p a r t i c i p a t e . AQ3.

CONCLUSION: I t i s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly c e r t a i n ,(a n d th e o l o g i c a l l y o f f a i t h ) t h a t EXTERNAL WORSHIP IS STRICTLY DUE FROM MAN TO GOD. Which i s proved from th e c o n s id e r a tio n o f e x te r n a l w o rsh ip i t s e l f and a ls o o f i n t e r n a l w o rs h ip . A.

E x te r n a l w o rsh ip i s shewn to bo n e c e s sa ry by re a s o n o f ITSELF:

a . F i r s t , from man1s c o m p o sitio n : ai* f o r G-cd i s a u th o r o f man, n o t on ly as re g a rd s h i s s o u l, h u t a ls o a s r e g a r d s h i s body, and b esto w s upon us n o t o n ly s p i r i t u a l , b u t a ls o c o r­ p o ra l, b e n e f its , a2 . B ut th e wholt man, i . e . th e compound o f so u l and body, i s bound to acknow ledge t h i s t d t f 1 dependence; a3, w hich i s don. : a 3 a, on th e p a r t )f th e so u l th ro u g h i n t e r n a l a c t s ; a5b, b u t on th e p e r t o f th e body th ro u g h s e n s ib le s ig n s , i . e . e x te r n a l w o rsh ip , b , Se c o n d ly , from man’ s o f f i c e i n th e u n i v e r s e : b l . f o r man i s th e d ir e c to r ^ r u l e r , spokesman, and th e r e f o r e , as i t w e re, p o n t i f f o f th e i r r a t i o n a l w o rld ; w h e re fo re he i s o b lig e d to e x p re ss a d o r a tio n o f God, alsc on b e h a lf o f i n f e r i o r b e in g s ; b 2 . w hich he cannc b do b e t t e r th a n by o f f e r i n g e x te r n a l w o rsh ip to God: b 2 a , by th e u se of h i s own body, w hich i s , a s i t w e re , a m icrocosm o r compendium o f a l l s e n s ib le n a tu r e ; b 2 b . o r by u sin g c r e a tu r e s f o r th e end o f p u b lic w o rs h ip , v .g . f o r th e making o f r e l i g i o u s b u ild in g s , s a c re d u t e n s i l s , e t c : th u s , a s i t wore , p r e s s in g the w hole o f n a tu r e i n t o w o rsh ip o f God. B. w o rs h ip :

E x te r n a l w o rsh ip i s shown to be n e c e s s a ry a ls o by r e a s o n o f i n t e r n a l

a . F o r e x te r n a l w o rsh ip i s r e q u ir e d to e x p re s s and prom ote i n t e r n a l w o rs h ip : a l . To e x p re s s i t in d e e d : a l a . f o r we a re sc c o n s t i t u t e d by n a tu r e , t h a t th e i n t e r i o r a f f e c t s o f ou r m ind, e s p e c i a l l y th e more vehem ent and v i v i d , b e e x p re ss e d i n a s e n s ib le m anner, th ro u g h o u r e y e s , c o u n te n a n c e , g e s tu r e s and th e b e a r in g o f th e w hole body. a lb . I f a c c o rd in g ly , a man t r u l y and s in c e r e ly r e v e r e s and lo v e s God, o f a c e r t a i n n e c e s s i t y he w i l l m a n ife s t t h i s r e v e r one.: and lo v e by e x te r n a l a c t s and th e w hole m ien o f h i s b o d ily b e a r in g . a 2 . B u t a ls c f o r th e p ro m o tio n , i . e , m a in ten an ce and in c r e a s e th e r e o f : a2 a. f o r s in c e i n t e r n a l a c t s a r c re n d e re d more in te n s e by e x te r n a l a c t s , i n t e r n a l r e l i g i c n i s g r e a t l y in c r e a s e d by e x te r n a l w o rsh ip . a2b. W hereas, on th e o th e r hand, a s e x t e r i o r s ig n s and cerem o n ies f a l l away, g e n e r a lly i n t e r n a l a c t s o f r e l i g i o n a re le s s e n e d ; and i f e x te r n a l s ig n s and cerem onies b e a lto g e th e r i n d e f a u l t , i n t e r n a l w o rsh ip commonly v a n is h e s c o m p le te ly , (C fa I I - I I , q. 8 4 , a , 2 ) . b . T h is i s confirm ed from th e u n iv e r s a l p r a c t i c e o f m ankind: b l . F o r i n d iv id u a l men and n a tio n s everyw here and alw ays have w orshipped th e d i v i n i t y by e x te r n a l cerem o n ie s. b 2 . Thus P l u t a r c h w r i t e s : " I f you t r a v e l th e e a r th , you may f in d c i t i e s w ith o u t w a l l s , l i t e r a t u r e , h o u se s, co m m o d ities, c o in a g e ; b u t A c i t y d e s ­ t i t u t e o f tem p les and g e d s , w hich does n o t employ p r a y e r s , o r a c le s , o a th s , ..................... n o -o n e e v e r saw .'* ( Adv. C c lo t• ) • A84.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED: s e v e r a l o b je c tio n s .

A g a in st th e fo re g o in g d o c tr in e a re urged

A. FIRST OBJECTION: a . I t i s o b je c te d t h a t e x te r n a l r i t e s a re t r i v i a l and r i d i c u l o u s , b . The answ er i s t h a t : b l . i n f a l s e r e l i g i o n s t h i s i s som etim es t r u e ; b 2 • b u t t h i s i s n o t tr u e when i t i s q u e s tio n o f th e t r u e r e l i g i o n , f o r th e preescribed r i t e s have a l o f t y , s p i r i t u a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n , m a n ife s t w h eth er from n a tu r e o r from t h o i r h i s t o r y o r l i t u r g y , c B. SECOND OBJECTION: a . E x te r n a l w o rsh ip i s o f te n condemned by some who arg u e from th e w ords o f C h r is t to th e S a m a rita n woman: "T rue a d o re rs w i l l ad o re th e F a th e r i n s p i r i t and t r u t h . " (J o h n . 4 .2 3 ) .

A47 b. The answ er i s th a t th e s e w o rd s s ig n if y two th in g s , to w its f b l , t h a t w o rsh ip o f G-od ought to b e i n s p i r i t , i . e , p r im a r ily i n t e r n a l ; b u t th e y do n o t mean t h a t i t must b e m erely i n t e r n a l ; w hich i s m a n ife s t from t h i s , t h a t C h r is t h im s e lf i n s t i t u t e d a r e l i g i o n c o n ta in in g sa c ra m e n ts, s a c rif ic e s , e tc ; b 2 . t h a t w o rsh ip ought to be o ff e re d i n t r u t h , i . e . n o t i n f ig u r e o r ty p e , a s was dene u n d er th e M osaic law , b u t i n th e r e a l i t y o f th e s a c r i f i c e o f f e r e d by C h r is t h im s e lf w hich d is p la c e d th e M osaic s a c r i f i c e . g|85,

COROLLARIES :

From w hat h a s b een s a id i t f o ll o w s ;

fV A. T hat e x te r n a l w o rsh ip i s n e c e s s a ry b o th on b e h a lf o f th e in d iv id u a l a$d on b e h a lf o f th e f a m ily . ■ B.

T h a t p u b lic e x te r n a l w o rsh ip i s s t r i c t l y o b lig a to r y f o r c i v i l s o c ie ty .

C. On th e s u p p o s itio n t h a t some d e te rm in a te e x te r n a l w o rsh ip have b een p o s i t i v e l y p r e s c r ib e d by God, a l l men, b o th in d i v i d u a l l y and s o c i a l l y , ought p r a c t i s e i t a c c o rd in g to th e d iv in e command. !‘ . '**5r

I

............

* ................................ * ..................................... ..................................... DISSERTATION TWO. NECESSITY OF PRAYER.

PREAMBLES: R eg a rd in g th e n e c e s s ity o f p ra y e r, c e r t a i n pream bles a re to b e n o te d ( c f . I I - I I , q . 8 3 ). A. a,

t

NOTION OF PRAYER : P r a y e r : ta k e n i n a b ro a d se n se i s " a f f e c t i v e b en d in g o f mind to w ard s God," A u s tin , Scorn. IX , 3 ) , o r " r a i s i n g o f mind tow ards God" ( S t . Jo h n s c e n e , De F id e O rtho d o x a, I I I , 2 4 ); w hich e le v a tio n may e x p re ss

a tio z i, c o n t r i t i o n , e t c . , and may b e found i n a l l human a c t s , st;: u. ta k e n i n t h e s t r i c t s e n s e , p ra y e r i s b eg g in g from God o f th in g s b e ­ f i t t i n g o u r n a t u r a l o r s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e . f

B. DIVISION OF PRAYER: P r a y e r i s d iv id e d ; a. in to m e n ta l o r v o c a l a c c o rd in g as i t i s e x e r c is e d i n th e mind a lo n e or- a l s o i s e x p re ssed e x t e r n a l l y ; b. i n t o in d iv id u a l o r p u b l i c , a c c o rd in g a s i t i s e x e rc is e d i n th e name o f an i n d i v i d u a l o r a s o c ie ty ; • c. in to l i t u r g i c a l o r p r i v a t e , a c c o rd in g as i t i s e x e rc is e d a c c o rd in g td c erem o n ia l r u l o s e n a c te d by th o com petent s o c i a l a u t h o r i t y o r n o t. C. The c h i e f ERROR r e g a r d in g th e n e c e s s ity o f p ra y e r i s t h a t o f c e r ­ t a i n r a t i o n a l i s t s , who, a. a lth o u g h th e y re c o g n is e t h a t r a i s i n g o f th e mind tow ards God i n a 4 o r a tio n and g r a t i t u d e i s la u d a b le , V.; b , n e v e r th e le s s condemn p ra y e r o f p e t i t i o n , a s i n s u l t i n g to God, i n ­ e f f i c a c i o u s i n i t s e l f , and u s e le s s to man, w hich had a lre a d y boon a s s e r te d by E clcard t. (C f. D enz. 5 0 7 .) , 'D. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE te a c h e s , n o t o n ly a s re g a rd s o th e r p ra y e r, b u t a ls o a s r e g a r d s p ra y e r o f p e t i t i o n , i t s p o s s i b i l i t y , b e f i t t i n g n e s s and n e c e s s ity . A87.

FIRST CONCLUSION; I t i s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly c e r t a i n (an d th e o lo g ic a ll y o f f a i t h ) , t h a t PRAYER IS POSSIBLE: w hich i s proved on th e p a r t o f God, o f man, and o f th e o b je c t o f - p r a y e r o f p e t i t i o n . J'AA.

On th e p a r t o f GOD:

a. pow er; "by th e b. to h i s

F o r God can heed and g r a n t human -prayers on account o f h i§ i n f i n i t e and he w i l l s on acco u n t o f h i s s o v e re ig n goodness so to do. F o r e x e r c is e o f h i s b en ev o le n c e tow ards u s , he m a n if e s ts t h i s . M oreover, t h i s h eed in g and g ra n tin g o f o u r p e t i t i o n s i s b e f i t t i n g p e r f e c t io n s .

B. On th e p a r t o f MAN, who, b e in g in d ig e n t u n d er e v ery r e s p e c t , c a n beg and r e c e iv e b e n e f i t s from God, C. On th e p a r t o f i t s OBJECT: F o r p ra y e r o f p e t i t i o n see k s what p e r­ t a i n s to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r n a t u r a l o r d e r . a . God g r a n t s s u p e r n a tu r a l goods to man i n th e same manner a s th e s u p e r n a tu r a l s t a t e w hich ’de fa c to * i s g iv e n , d e te rm in a te c o n d itio n s feeing p o s ite d : w h e re fo re r i g h t l y a re th e s e s u p e r n a tu r a l goods so u g h t from d iv in e l i b e r a l i t y , b . Na t u r a l g o o d s, w hich a r e e i t h e r s p i r i t u a l o r c o r p o r a l, can be b e ­ stow ed by God. w ith o u t change o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f n a t u r a l laws* b l . F o r s p i r i t u a l goods a r e n o t s u b je c te d t o n a 'u r a l law ; b 2 . b u t a s re g a rd s c o r p o r a l g o o d s, th e s e a r e e i t h e r o rd in a ry o r e x tr a ­ o r d in a r y . b 2 a . b u t o rd in a ry c o r p o r a l goods ( v . g . d e s ir a b le r a i n f a l l , abundance o f c ro p s , h e a l t h , e t c . ) , p roceed from th e c o n c u rre n c e o f many n a t u r a l c a u s e s , w h ich God, th ro u g h h is common p ro v id e n c e , can d is p o s e so t h a t from t h e i r o rd in a ry m u tu al r e l a t i o n s i s produced th e n a tu r a l e f f e c t sou g h t i n p ra y e r. - b 2 b . R eg ard in g e x tr a o r d in a r v o r m ira c u lo u s c o r p o r a l g oods, w e s h a l l Speak h e re u n d e r, d e a lin g w ith m ir a c le s (c h a p . 1 2 ), b e ca u se God w is e ly p erfo rm s them beyond th e o r d e r o f n a tu r e , b u t w ith o u t change o r d e s tr u c ­ t i o n o f n a tu r e . £88.

SECOND CONCLUSION: I t i s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly c e r t a i n (and th e o lo g ic a ll y o f f a i t h ) , th a t PRAYER IS IN THE HIGHEST MANNER BEFITTING: Which i s m a n ife s t w h e th e r on th e p a r t o f God o r on th e p a r t o f man. A.

On th e p a r t o f GOD in d e e d :

a . F o r p ra y e r i s an homage shown to th e d iv in e g o o d n e ss, m ercy, omni­ p o te n c e , e t c , , and g r e a t l y in c r e a s e s God*s e x t r i n s i c g lo r y , a c c o rd in g a s " th ro u g h p r a y e r man shews re v e re n c e to God, to w i t , inasm uch a s he sub­ j e c t s h im s e lf to him , and p r o f e s s e s by p ra y in g t h a t he s ta n d s i n n eed o f him a s a u th o r o f h i s g o o d s ." ( i I - I I , q .8 3 , a . 3 ) . b.

A g a in st w hat has j u s t b een s a i d , c e r t a i n o b je c tio n s a re made:

■ b l . FIRST OBJECTION: b l a . " P ra y e r i s opposed to th e d iv in e im m u ta b ility , f o r i t se e k s a change o f th e d iv in e d e c r e e s ." b i b . W hereto th e answ er i s t h a t " n o t on acco u n t o f t h i s do we p ra y , nam ely i n o rd e r to change th e d iv in e d i s p o s i t i o n , b u t i n o rd e r t h a t we £iay o b ta in w hat God h a s d is p o se d to b e f u l f i l l e d th ro u g h p r a y e r s ." ( I I - I I , q .8 3 , a*3 )• b 2 , SECOND Q3JECTIQN: b 2 a . "God does n o t need o u r p r a y e r s , w hich a c c o rd in g ly a re a t l e a s t u se ­ le s s . " b2b, Y /hereto th e answ er i s t h a t God a s s u re d ly d o e s n o t need o u r p ra y e rs a s i f he w ere p e r f e c te d by them. However, i t re m a in s t h a t by our p ra y e rs G-od i s honoured. b2bl« F o r a lth o u g h God lias no need o f o u r s u p p lic a tio n s , n e t on t h i s a cc o u n t a re we f r e e d from o u r o b l i g a t i o n s , w hich a r e b ased i n th e v e ry n a tu r e c f th in g s . M oreover Gcd, a lth o u g h s u f f i c i e n t t c h im s e lf , does n e t a b d ic a te h i s r i g h t s , and in d e e d , c e r t a i n o f them a t l e a s t he c a n n o t a b d ic a te ; f o r , s in c e he i s th e supreme l o r d , he cannot a b s ta in from de­ manding t h a t a l l c r e a t u r e s se rv e him. b2b2. B ut a s re g a r d s p r a y e r , " i t i s n o t n e c e s s a ry th a t we ex ten d p r a y e r s to God to m a n ife s t to him o u r n eed s o r d e s i r e s , b u t i n o rd e r

ifchat we imbue o u rs e lv e s w ith th e c o n s id e r a tio n t h a t i n th e s e th in g s re c o u rs e i s t o b e had to th e d iv in e h e lp ." ( I I - I I , q .8 3 , a . 2 , ad 1 . ) . B. But a ls o on th e p a r t o f MAN: a. F o r i t i s most b e f i t t i n g t h a t an in d ig e n t son seek from h i s a f f l u e n t and b e n e v o le n t f a t h e r th e goods w hich a re n e c e s s a ry to him ; ; b , b u t we a r e a c c o rd in g to o u rs e lv e s in d ig e n t sons o f God, b o th i n th e n a t u r a l and s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r. r c . T h e re fo re i t i s m ost b e f i t t i n g to u s t h a t we beg from G-od th e goods n e c e s s a ry to u s . THIRD CONCLUSION: I t i s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly c e r t a i n (and th e o lo g ic a ll y id. if' o f f a i t h ) t h a t PRAYER IS NECESSARY: w hich n e c e s s ity i s b ased i n $ 6 d r s r i g h t and i n man* s i n f i r m i t y . A. GOD!S RIGHT: a . A ll goods w hich we r e c e iv e come to u s e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t y from God h im s e lf . b . T h e re fo re God h as th e r i g h t th a t we a s k o f him th e th in g s n e c e s s a ry u s e f u l f o r th e a tta in m e n t o f o u r end, ; ' -c

B. HUMAN MFIRMITY: a. F i r s t ; a l . The n e c e s s ity o f p ra y e r i s th e g r e a t e r i n p r o p o r itio n as th e i n d i g ­ ence o f man i s th e g r e a t e r , w hich in d ig e n c e , in d e e d , i s in c re a s e d prom o r i g i n a l s i n . 0 a 2 . B ut man, owing to th e m o ral d e b i l i t y u n d er w hich he la b o u rs i n th e l ^ a t e o f t h i s l i f e , and th e b o b s ta c le s w hich he f in d s , w h eth er w ith in o r p h ts id e h im s e lf , m ost c e r t a i n l y n eed s h e lp w hereby he may b e e n ab le d to ;a in h i s end; in d e e d prudence and wisdom b i d man who ap p reh end s h i s own ’ir m ity to have r e c o u r s e to him who c a n g iv e him h e lp , e s p e c ia ll y when i t .s q u e s tio n o f th e le g itim a te and o b lig a to r y o rd e rin g o f h i s l i f e to h i s S ltim a te end, f b . M oreover. th e e x is te n c e o f o r i g i n a l s i n i s an h i s t o r i c f a c t ( o f , R6m. 5,12 s q , ) , w herefrom fo llo w s a c e r t a i n m oral c o r r u p tio n : g iv e n w hich g ra y e r becomes even more n e c e s s a ry , vV c . I t i s to b e n o te d t h a t on acco u n t o f th e s e c o n s id e r a tio n s , C h r is t p ifte n in c u lc a te d t h e p re c e p t o f p ra y e r upon a l l men, (O f. M a tt, 6 .9 ; 7 .7 ; &uke» 1 1 ,9 ; J o h n ., 2 4 .2 4 ; C o lo s s . 4 .2 : Rom. 1 2 .1 2 : I P e t e r . 4 . 7 ; ) ; C. The agreem ent o f mankind co n firm s th e t h e s i s o f th e n e c e s s ity o f p ra y e r: a. F o r a l l p e o p le s p r a c t i s e p ra y e r o f p e t i t i o n to o b ta in d iv in e h e lp . yf- b . B ut t h i s u n a n im ity s i g n i f i e s t h a t p ra y e r i s n e c e s s a ry ; f o r such % a n im ity i s a c e r t a i n sig n o f t r u t h , e s p e c ia ll y when i t i s q u e s tio n o f t r u t h s e a s i l y p e rc e iv e d and e x p re sse d by men and knowledge o f w hich i s n e c e s s a ry f o r tn e due c o n d u c tin g o f human l i f e .

SECTION TWO. REVELATION IN GENERAL. ORDER OF H10CEDURE: I t has a lre a d y b e en shown t h a t tr u e r e l i g i o n i s n e c e s s a ry Id man. A. But th e C a th o lic C hurch, to g e th e r w ith th e g r e a t e s t r e l i g i o n s o f w o rld , c o n ten d s t h a t God h a s , th ro u g h r e v e l a t i o n , ta u g h t th e r e l i g i o n th ro u g h w hich he w i l l s to be honoured by men. a . A cco rd in g ly th e q u e s tio n o c c u rs ; w h eth er t h i s a f f ir m a ti o n b e w orthy op a c c e p ta n c e . b . Which q u e s tio n i s o f th e h ig h e s t moment; f o r i f God h as re v e a le d

r e l i g i o n a s n e c e s s a ry , th e n t h i s r e l i g i o n alo n e i s tr u e and i s to "be h e ld . 3 . B ut B efo re p ro o f o f th e e x is te n c e o f C h r i s t i a n r e v e l a t i o n , c e r t a i n c o n s id e r a tio n s r e g a rd in g r e v e l a t i o n in g e n e r a l a r e to be exposed, e s p e c ia lly I g a i n s t r a t i o n a l i s t s . A cco rd in g ly t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l t r e a t : a.

The n a tu r e o f r

e

v

e

l

a

t

i

o

n

.

, . Cha pt e r sev en ,

b»

P o s s i b i l i t y and f i t t i n g n e s s o f r e v e l a t i o n . . . . . . .C h a p te r e ig h t.

c.

N e c e s s ity o f r e v e l a t i o n . . C h a p t e r

n in e .

d.

O b lig a tio n o f a c c e p tin g r e v e l a t i o n . C h a p t e r

ten*

e.

N o te s o r c r i t e r i a o f r e v e l a t i o n . . . . ............................ C h ap ter e le v e n .

f.

The m ir a c le , c h i e f o f th e s e c r i t e r i a * . . . . , . . . . . . C h ap ter tw e lv e .

g.

C e r titu d e o f f a c t o f r e v e l a t i o n . ..........................

..C h a p te r t h i r t e e n .

CHAPTER SEVEN. NATURE OP REVELATION. ORDER OP 'PROCEDURE: w i l l c o n s id e r:

T h is c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e n a tu r e o f r e v e l a t i o n

N o tio n o f r e v e l a t i o n . ...............................................................A r t i c l e one. B.

The s p e c ie s o f r e v e l a t i o n . ...................................

. A r t i c l e two.

C-

O rig in and s u p e m a t u r a l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n ,

.A rtic le th re e .

ARTICLE ONE. NOTION OF REVELATION. 40S. '*

ETYMOLOGICAL NOTION OP REVELATION: Prom i t s ety m o lo g y . r e v e l a t i o n i s R em oval o f v e i l . 1 o r 1u n v e i l i n g 1 o r 1d i s c l o s i n g . 1

A. R e v e la tio n i s th e L a t i n c o rre sp o n d e n t o f th e G reek 1a p o k a lu p s is 1 (y p c o v e rin g o r d i s c l o s i n g ) , o r t p h a n e r o s is ! (m aking v i s i b l e o r m a n if e s tin g ) . B. T h e re fo re r e v e l a t i o n i s th e m a n if e s ta tio n o f a th in g p re v io u s ly ob­ s c u re o r h id d e n o r unknown. REVELATION BROADLY TAKEN: A ccording to i t s r e a l d e f i n i t i o n , r e v e l ­ a t i o n b ro a d ly ta k e n i s th e m a n if e s ta tio n o f an unknown t r u t h ; < A. w hich i s e i t h e r human o r d iv in e a c c o rd in g a s th e th in g i s m a n ife ste d b|r man o r by God. B.

B ut God r e v e a ls h i s p e r f e c t io n s i n two m a n n ers:

w hich d i s t i n c t i o n

i s a lre a d y a s s e r te d b o th i n sac re d s c r i p t u r e ( c f . Horn, 2 .1 4 s q ; X C or. 1 1 .1 0 s q ; E p h es. 1 .1 7 ; C o lo ss. 2 .2 s q . ) , and i n s c h o l a s t i c th e o lo g y ( c f . I , q . l , a . l j I X - I I ,

al* “w herefore d iv in e speaking i s to g e th er God’ s t e s t if ic a t io n * a2* T herefore i f God o n ly in f u s e s in t o some man knowledge o f some th in g , h is t e s t i f i c a t i o n n o t b ein g in te r p o se d , th ere i s not had d iv in e speaking or r ev e la tio n * b. But God, s in c e he i s a pure s p i r i t , speaks not by corp oral or sen­ s i b l e v o ic e ; b u t w i l l s to m a n ifest h i s co n cep tio n s t o u s in a s p ir it u a l manner* B. B u t: a , i n a r ev e a le d tr u th are to be d istin g u ish e d two elem en ts, to w i t , a m a ter ia l and a form al elem ent: a l , th e m a te r ia l elem ent c o n s is t s i n th e concep ts or terms (s u b je c t and p r e d ic a te ) w hich a r e proposed i n th e dogma; a2* bu t th e form al elem ent i s th e ty in g o f th e se concepts or terms so as t o c o n s t it u t e such a judgment or p r o p o sitio n , b . Blow: bl* the con cep ts or terms i n th e rev ea led tr u th a re m erely human; b 2. bu t th e un ion o f con cep ts or te r n s i s supernatural* c* God e f f e c t s t h i s union im m ediately or m ed ia tely by a o tin g upon the human i n t e l l e c t , a s sa id above (n , A 96). C* T herefore th e rev e a le d tr u th s s t r i c t l y come fo r th from God, to w it , th ey are d e liv e r e d to us from heaven, though th e concepts em­ ployed are n a tu r a l and human, and th e words which ex p ress them are found i n our language and vocabulary, (C f, Denz. 2 0 2 2 ), A101,

SUPERNATURALITY OP REVELATION:

D iv in e r e v e la tio n i s su p ern atu ral.

A. But i f God had not r a ise d th e r a tio n a l crea tu re to th e i n t r i n s i c ­ a l l y supernatu ral order (bui? r a th e r had l e f t him w ith h is n a tu ra l endow­ ments a lo n e ), y e t n e v e r th e le s s r ev e a le d to him c e r ta in n a tu r a l r e lig io u s tr u th s (v ,g * i n order th a t th e s e n a tu ra l tr u th s might be known by a l l men more e x p e d itio u s ly , more c e r ta in ly and w ith ou t erro r adm ixed), then the d iv in e r e v e la t io n in q u estio n would be SUPERNATURAL ONLY EXTRINSICALLY. (C f. ruA M ). a . And indeed i t was p o s s ib le th a t God e s t a b lis h man w ith h i s n a tu ra l endowments a lo n e and order to h is n a tu ra l end alone ( c f . n.A 15, B ), and y e t r e v e a l to him n a tu r a l r e li g io u s truths* b . Such n a tu r a l r e lig io u s tr u th s would b e , fo r example, th e e x is te n c e o f God, God’ s om nipotence, im m u ta b ility , e t e r n it y , wisdom, e t c , man’ s moral o b lig a t io n s , p sy c h o lo g ic a l freedom, th e e x is t e n c e , s p i r i t u a l i t y and immor­ t a l i t y o f man’ s s o u l, and so on, c# Then th e d iv in e r e v e la t io n in q u estio n would have been only e x tr in s i c a l l y su p ern a tu ra l. a s a m ira cle i s o n ly e x t r in s ic a l ly super­ n a tu r a l, B* But i f God r e v e a ls SUPERNATURAL tr u t h s , as ’ de f a c t o ’ he has done, as w i l l b e shown hereunder, then th e r e v e la t io n in q u estio n i s INTRINSICALLY SUPERNATURAL and p e r ta in s to th e ESSENTIALLY SUPERNATURAL ORDER ( o f . nn, A14-A15). a. Por such r e v e la tio n i s s p e c if ie d by an e s s e n t i a l l y supernatural OBJECT, to w i t , e s s e n t i a l l y supernatural tr u th s (v * g . th e Holy T r in ity , th e In c a rn a tio n , th e E u c h a r ist, th e b e a t i f i c v is io n communicated to a cre a tu re e t c ) , b* W herefore con seq u en tly: b l . th e p rop ortion ate END w hereto i t i s ordered i s an e s s e n t ia ll y super­ n a tu ra l end w hereto the r a tio n a l crea tu re i s ordered, to w it , th e b e a t i f i c v is io n ; b2* i t s p rop ortion ate author or AGENT wherefrom i t proceeds i s God as he i s th e author o f grace or o f th e supernatural order;

b3. and i t i n t r i n s i o a l l y or FORMALLY c o n s is t s i n a supernatural speak­ in g o f God to th e r a tio n a l crea tu re.

CHAPTER EIGHT.

POSSIBILITY AND FITTINGNESS OF REVELATION.

A102.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE: and b e f it t in g n e s s :

T h is chapter w i l l c o n sid e r th e p o s s i b i l i t y

A.

F i r s t . o f iranediate r e v e la tio n .

B.

Secondly r o f

C.

T h ir d ly , o f r e v e la t io n o f m y s t e r i e s .,..

.mediate r e v e l a t i o n .. . . . . .

ARTICLE ONE. POSSIBILITY AND BEFITTINOTESS OF IMMEDIATE REVELATION. A133.

PREAMBLES: B efore v in d ic a tin g th e p o s s i b i l i t y and b e f it t in g n e s s o f immediate r e v e la t io n , th e fo llo w in g co n sid e ra tio n s are t o be

n o te d : A. The c h ie f ERRORS regardin g t h is q u e stio n are th o se o f many r a tio n ­ a l i s t s and d e i s t s who r e j e c t a l l d iv in e r e v e la tio n as repugnant to th e d iv in e p e r fe c tio n s and to human n a tu re. B. But CATHOLIC TEACHING a ffirm s the i n t r i n s i c and e x t r in s ic p o ssib ­ i l i t y o f iranediate r e v e la t io n and a ls o th e b e f it t in g n e s s th e r e o f. a. Thus th e V atican C ouncil d e fin e s : " I f anyone says th a t i t cannot b e brought about or i t i s not ex p e d ie n t, th a t man be taught through d iv in e r e v e la tio n about God and th e w orship to be shown him, l e t him be anathema." (Denz. 1807; c f , 1808). b . A lready P iu s IX in th e S y lla b u s * had condemned t h i s p r o p o sitio n : "Divine r e v e la t io n not o n ly i s o f no advantage, but i s even harmful to man* s p e r fe c tio n ." (Denz. 1 7 0 6 ). C. But i t i s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly c e r ta in (and t h e o lo g ic a lly o f f a i t h ) th a t IMMEDIATE REVELATION IS POSSIBLE AND QUITE BEFITTING. a . Regarding th e meaning o f t h is c o n c lu sio n , i t i s to be n o te d : a t . th a t when i t i s q u estio n o f immediate r e v e la t io n o f n a tu r a l tr u th s , th e p o s s i b i l i t y in q u estio n i s to b e understood p o s i t i v e l y : i . e . t h is p o s s i b i l i t y can be p o s it iv e ly proved from n a tu r a l rea so n ; a2. b u t when i t i s q u estio n o f immediate r e v e la t io n o f supernatural tr u t h s , th e p o s s i b i l i t y in q u e stio n i s t o be understood n e g a t iv e ly ; i . e . i t i s shown from n a tu r a l reason th a t th er e i s n o t ev id en t im p o s s ib ilit y ; o r , i n oth er words, th e p o s s i b i l i t y i n q u estio n i s n a tu r a lly defended (n o t proved). b . T h is c o n c lu sio n th u s understood w i l l fo rth w ith be v in d ic a te d : b l . F i r s t . a s regards p o s s i b i l i t y (n . A104) ; b 2 . S econ d ly, as regards b e f it t in g n e s s (n . A 105),

A104.

IMMEDIATE REVELATION IS POSSIBLE:

which i s v in d ic a te d th u s:

A* a. b, o• d.

Iiunediate r e v e la tio n i s p o s s ib le , i f i t i s not repugnant: on th e part o f God r e v e a lin g : on the part o f man r e c e iv in g th e r e v e la t io n ; on th e part o f th e rev ea led tr u t h ; and on th e part o f th e end o f th e r e v e la t io n .

B.

But immediate r e v e la tio n i s n o t repugnant on any o f th e se heads,,

a. I t i s n o t repugnant indeed on th e part o f GOD REVEALING-: fo r God*s power t o r e v e a l may be considered whether p h y s ic a lly or m orally; and on n e ith e r head i s i t repugnant. a l . For God has th e p h y sic a l power to make r e v e la tio n : a la . f o r God i s : a l a l , o m n isc ie n t, and th e r e fo r e knows a l l tr u th s , even th o se which escape u s; a ia 2 . p resen t to man, and even p resent in tim a te ly t o th e human i n t e l l ­ e c t , through h is power ( c f . I , q .8 , a .3 ) ; a la 5 . and i s om n ipotent: a lb . and th e r e fo r e God can m a n ifest tru th to u s , and indeed much more e a s il y than a man created by him and by him endowed w ith sp eech , ca n te a c h another man, fo r oth erw ise the p e r fe c tio n s o f c rea tu res would be denied to t h e ir prime ca u se. a2. Moreover God has moral power to make r e v e la tio n : fo r r e v e la t io n i s not repugnant to th e d iv in e a t t r ib u t e s : a2a. n e ith e r to th e d iv in e m a je sty ; fo r he who deigned to c r e a te man can w ith ou t l o s s o f d ig n ity speak to man and govern him; a2b. nor to th e d iv in e im m u ta b ility : fo r d iv in e r e v e la tio n does not bespeak any change o f th e d iv in e d e c r e e s, but i s n othing e l s e than th e e x ec u tio n o f an e te r n a l d ecree; a2c, nor to th e d iv in e wisdom: fo r he who gave to man apt means to a t t a in h is end can superadd means more a p t, and th u s r e in fo r c e the order w is e ly i n s t it u t e d by h im s e lf. b . Nor i s d iv in e r e v e la t io n repugnant on th e part o f MAN RECEIVING th e r e v e la tio n : fo r man*s power to r e c e iv e d iv in e r e v e la t io n may be con­ sid ered whether p h y s ic a lly or m orally; b u t under n e ith e r c o n sid e r a tio n i s man unable to r e c e iv e d iv in e r e v e la tio n : b l . For man has p h y s ic a l power to r e c e iv e d iv in e r e v e la tio n : which i s ev id e n t from th e fo llo w in g c o n sid e r a tio n s: b l a . For man i s cap ab le o f h e a r in g , le a r n in g , and understanding a d o c tr in e proposed by a f a l l i b l e human te a c h e r; th e r e fo r e *a f o r t i o r i 1 he can r e c e iv e a tr u th r ev e a le d by God, who can n e ith e r be d eceived nor d e c e iv e . b ib . M oreover, most c e r t a in sig n s ( v .g . m ir a c le s) can be provided so th a t man may know th a t a determ inate tr u th has been r e v e a le d by God. b 2. M oreover, man i s m orally a b le to a ccep t d iv in e r e v e la tio n : fo r d iv in e r e v e la t io n i s not repugnant to manf s nature: b2a. For i t does not in ju r e th e d ig n ity o f human reason: b 2 a l. fo r n oth in g i s more b e f i t t i n g to human d ig n ity than to heed a m aster who en joys knowledge and a u th o rity ; b2a2. nor i s anything more b e f i t t i n g to the freedom and s e c u r ity o f human rea so n than to embrace a tr u th proposed by an i n f a l l i b l e testim ony and corresp ondin gly guaranteed. b2b. Nor does r e v e la t io n v io la t e th e autonomy o f human reason ; b2bl» f o r rea so n in ev ery th in g depends b o th upon the tr u th , to whose acceptance i t i s com pelled, and on God, th e supreme tr u th , who can e n jo in f a it h upon reason ; b2b2* bu t r e v e la tio n te a c h e s whqt i s true and i s announced by God him­ s e lf. c. TRUTH:

Nor i s d iv in e r e v e la t io n repugnant on th e part o f th e REVEALED

0 1 . fo r tr u th as i t i s tr u th i s th e o b je c t o f i n t e l l e c t ; 0 2. M oreover, r ev e a le d tr u th from i t s e l f i s to th e h ig h e s t degree understandable. T herefore th e m a n ife sta tio n o f tr u th , made -whether by man or by God, i s p roportion ate to our i n t e l l e c t , d» END: d l. w hereto d2* C. A li5 .

Furtherm ore, d iv in e r e v e la tio n i s not repugnant on th e part o f i t s For God r e v e a ls r e lig io u s tru th in order th a t man may know the end he i s ordered and th e means whereby t h is end i s to be reached* But i n t h i s th ere i s nothing repugnant to man*s r a tio n a l nature* T herefore immediate d iv in e r e v e la t io n i s p o ssib le * IMMEDIATE DIVINE REVELATION IS QUITE BEFITTING: Inm ediate r e v e l­ a tio n i s b e f i t t i n g b o th on th e part o f God and on th e part o f man^

A* On th e part o f God in d eed : fo r r e v e la tio n commends i n a more ex­ c e l l e n t fa s h io n God*s a t t r ib u t e s ; v,g* : a* Godf s om nipotence, according as r e v e la t io n i t s e l f i s supernatural a t l e a s t e f f e c t i v e l y , as i s a m iracle* b« God*s wisdom, because d iv in e r e v e la tio n le a d s man to h i s end* c. God*s goodn ess, beoause through d iv in e r e v e la t io n man i s more in ­ tim a te ly conjoined w ith God. d* Godf s knowledge, s in c e d iv in e r e v e la tio n m a n ife sts th e o b je c ts c f th e d iv in e knowledge. B. But a ls o on th e part o f man: fo r d iv in e r e v e la t io n o f f e r s many advantages to man, v .g . : a . I t p reserv es h is i n t e l l e c t from innumerable grave e r r o r s , and l i f t s i t to th e contem plation o f h ig h er tr u th s; b . i t proposes to man*s w i l l most p recio u s goods, w hich a ttr a c t man to th e way o f v ir t u e , and p recep ts which d ir e c t man in th a t way.

ARTICLE TWO. POSSIBILITY AND BEFITTINGNESS OF MEDIATE REVELATION* A lt6 .

PREAMBLES: Regarding th e p o s s i b i l i t y and b e f it t in g n e s s o f .m ediate r e v e la t io n , i t i s to be noted a t th e o u ts e t th a t:

A. The c h ie f ERRORS hereupon are th o se o f c e r ta in r a t io n a l is t s and p seu d o -m y stics. according to vhom r e v e la t io n m ed ia tely proposed can not be d iscern ed w ith s u f f i c ie n t c e r tit u d e and would v io la t e th e ^ q u a lity o f men. B. But CATHOLIC DOCTRINE: a. propounds th a t r e v e la tio n made by th e medium o f a d iv in e le g a te i s p o s s ib le and b e f i t t i n g . b» Thus th e V a tica n C ouncil te a c h e s: ”I f anyone says th a t d iv in e r e v e la t io n cannot be made c r e d ib le by e x te rn a l s ig n s , and th e r e fo r e t h a t by th e in t e r n a l exp erien ce alon e o f each or by p r iv a te ex p e rie n c e , men must b e moved to f a i t h , l e t him be anathema.” (Denz* 1812; c f . 1790). C. But i t i s p h ilo s o j h ic a lly c e r ta in (and th e o lo g ic a lly a t le a s t c e r ­ t a in ) th a t MEDIATE REVELATION IS POSSIBLE AND HIGHLY BEFITTING: w hich w i l l b e proved: a . as regard s p o s s i b i l i t y (n . A 107); b . as regards b e f it t in g n e s s (n . A 108).

A l#7.

MEDIATE RE7EEATIQN IS POSSIBLE: The p o s s i b i l i t y o f m ediate r e v e l­ a tio n sta n d s, s in c e i t i s n o t repugnant e ith e r on th e part o f God or on th e pso?t o f man*

A* On th e part o f GOD: T his i s shown by th e fo llo w in g argument which w i l l be proposed f i r s t p o s it iv e ly and secondly n eg a tiv ely * a.

The proof p o s it iv e ly proposed:

a l . D iv in e providence g e n e r a lly governs in f e r io r s through su p e r io r s, and in f e r io r men through su p erio r men, who are God’ s m in is te r s , v.g* God governs p la n ts and bru te anim als through men, and i n s c ie n c e in s t r u c t s more ign oran t or l e s s i n t e l l i g e n t men through men o f g r ea ter knowledge, and in th e c i v i l order s u b je c ts through c i v i l s u p e r io r s; which i s th us explained by St* Thomas: ala* “To providence p e r ta in two th in g s , to w i t , th e c o n c e p tu a lisa tio n o f th e order o f th e th in g s su b jected to providence unto t h e ir end, and th e e x ec u tio n o f t h i s o rd er, which i s c a lle d governance* a la l* "As regards th e f i r s t o f th e s e , God im m ediately provides fo r a l l , sin c e he has in h is i n t e l l e c t the sch em a tiza tio n o f a l l th in g s , even th e l e a s t , and w hatsoever causes he has p r e fix e d to some e f f e c t s , ho has g iv en to them power to produce th e se e f f e c t s * • * . • • * . • • * • • • ala2* "As regard s th e seco n d , th ere are some media o f d iv in e provider? , because he governs low ers through h ig h e r s, n o t owing to d e f e c t o f h is own power, but owing to th e abundance o f h is goodn ess, th a t he may communicate th e d ig n ity o f c a u s a lity a ls o to c r e a tu r e s." ( i , q*22, a * 3 ). alb* And again ; "To have m in is te r s as ex ecu to rs c f h is providence per­ t a in s to th e d ig n ity o f king# But th a t he have not a schema t i z a t io n o f v/hat i s to be done through them i s from h is d efect*" (I* q*22, a*3, ad ! ) • a2* But d iv in e r e v e la tio n i s f i t t i n g l y made according to th e g e n e ra l d is p o s it io n s o f d iv in e providence; fo r " in t h i s does the order c f th in g s c o n s is t , th a t c e r ta in th in g s be led back through o th e r s to God," ( l - I I , q * l i l , a * l) and "that man co-op era te to another, th a t he be le d back to God* But man cannot op erate to t h i s by moving in t e r io r ly ( f o r t h i s i s p o s s ib le to God a lo n e ), but only by e x t e r io r ly tea ch in g or persuading." ( i - I I , q . H l , a . 4 ) . a2a* T h erefore i t i s p o s s ib le (and b e f it t in g ) th a t r e v e la t io n be maoe m e d ia te ly , to w it , by th e mediacy o f m in iste r s o f God, i * e . o f proph ets. (C f. 1X1, q*55, a . l ) * a2b. L ik ew ise, as regards th e e x p o sitio n and e x p lic it a t io n o f rev erled d o ctrin e a f t e r r e v e la t io n , "for a lik e rea so n i t ought t o be th at th e ex­ p lic a t io n o f th e f a i t h rea ch low er men through g r e a te r * • • . * • « • • • « • • • • • • and su p erior men, to whom i t p e r ta in s to tea ch o th ers," (and who) "are bound to have a f u l l e r knowledge o f the tr u th s to be b e lie v e d , and to b e lie v e more e x p lic itly * " ( I I - H , q .2 , a . 6 ) . a2c* And n e v e r th e le s s d iv in e r e v e la tio n tran sm itted through a prophet rem ains God’ s word, fo r the prophet i s only a m in iste r and instrum en t; "but th e o p era tio n o f an instrum ent i s a ttr ib u te d to th e p r in c ip a l a g en t, i n whose power th e instrum ent a c ts ," j u s t as th e w r itin g i s a ttr ib u te d more to th e w r ite r than to th e pen. ( H - I I , q*172, a , 2 , ad 3 ) . b.

The same argument proposed n e g a t iv e ly :

bl* To God cannot be denied th e power and r ig h t which p e r ta in to a l l human superiors* b 2 . But human su p erio rs can command t h e ir s u b je c ts through m in ister? whose words are to be taken form ally as th e very words o f th e superiors* b3. T herefore God can r e v e a l to men th e tru th s o f r e li g io n through p rop h ets, whose words are to be form ally taken as th e word o f God. B.

On th e part o f MAN:

a. T h is i s proved thus ( c f . C a.ietan: in I I - I I , q .1 7 1 , a .5 , n*V) : al* I t i s n a tu r a l to man to le a r n from man in human so cie ty * ala* T h is indeed i s c le a r , and c o n ta in s a profound reason o f th e soc­ i a l i t y o f man, according as s o c i a l i t y i s deduced from r a tio n a lity *

a lb . For human r ea so n , w h ich i s th e l e a s t in th e order o f in t e l l i g e n c e s , a r r iv e s only by advancing s u c c e s s iv e ly and gra d u a lly to knowledge o f th o se th in g s w hereof knowledge i s n ecessa ry fo r human l i f e ; w herefore i t i s n ecessa ry to man to le a r n from man. a l e . Indeed, very few w ith ou t tea ch in g from a m aster would d isc o v er even th e elem entary tr u th s o f the d iv e r se s c ie n c e s , v.g* o f geom etry, o f m etap h ysics, e t c , a2. But g r a ce , or th e su p ern a tu ra l, p e r fe c ts nature by p reserv in g th e in c lin a t io n o f n ature; fo r th e p e r fe c tiv e must be conformed to th e p e r f e c t ib le . a3. T herefore i t i s p o s s ib le (and b e f i t t i n g ) th a t men be in s tr u c te d about d iv in e th in g s through m in is te r s o f God, who propose a g r a tu ito u s r e v e la tio n . b. T h is i s confirmed th u s; b l . I t i s not b e f i t t i n g th at r e v e la tio n be made im m ediately to a l l , "for th ere i s req u ired fo r prophecy th e g r e a te s t e le v a t io n o f mind to con­ tem p lation o f s p ir it u a l th in g s ; which indeed i s impeded by vehemence o f p a ss io n s , and by in o r d in a te occu pation about e x te r io r th in g s , b 2. "Wherefore a ls o we read about th e sons o f th e p rop h ets, th a t •th ey dw elt to g eth er w ith E l i s e u s , 1 (IV K in gs, 4 3 8 ), as i t were le a d in g a s o lit a r y l i f e l e s t they be impeded by mundane occu p ation s from th e • g i f t o f prophecy.” ( I I - I I , q .1 7 2 , a . 4 ) . A l*8.

MEDIATE REVELATION IS HIGHLY BEFITTING; Which indeed a ls o appears from what has ju s t been s a id ; but th e evid en ce i s r e in fo r c e d from th e fo llo w in g c o n s id e r a tio n s , b o th on th e s id e o f God and on th e sid e o f man. A. On th e part o f GOD; M ediate r e v e la tio n i s conformed to d iv in e providence w hich ob serves th e laws o f u n ity and o f s im p lic it y . a. Of u n ity in d ee d ; fo r a l l th in g s which are fY*cm God are w is e ly ordered ( I , q .2 2 , a .3 ; Oon Gent. I l l , 1 5 5 ). a l . Thus in th e n a tu ra l order God has w ille d th a t l i f e , knowledge and v ir tu e be communicated by parents to c h ild r e n , and thus th a t a l l be con­ join ed to g e th er i n s o c ie t y by m anifold bonds. a2. C orrespondingly i n th e supernatural o rd er, which must be i n har -;-y w ith th e n a tu r a l o rd er, i t i s b e f i t t i n g th a t r e v e a le d d o c tr in e be m an ifested im m ediately by God, n ot to each man s in g ly , b u t to a few , who have th e o f f i c o f tr a n sm ittin g i t to th e r e s t ; w hich bond o f d o c tr in a tio n c o n tr ib u te s to the form ation and maintenance o f s o c ie ty i n the s p ir it u a l order. b . And o f s im p li c it y : b l. F ir s t: b la . God does not m u ltip ly m ir a c le s w ith o u t reason; b ib . But i f r e v e la t io n were made im m ediately to each one, th e sig n s o f r e v e la tio n would have to be m u ltip lie d f o r each one; and th e r e fo r e mir­ a c le s would be req u ired c o n sta n tly and everywhere. b 2. S eoon d lv: b2a. God governs in f e r io r men through su p erio rs as h i s m in iste r s, a s sa id above (n . A 107). b2b. Thus he tra n sm its h is r e v e la t io n to th e human ra ce through spokes­ men or le g a t e s , who are h is m in is te r s and to vdiom, fro n u h is goodness, ho communicates th e d ig n ity o f b ein g co -o p era to rs w ith him. B.

On the part o f MAN:

a . M ediate r e v e la tio n corresponds to man according as from h is nature he i s te a c h a b le ; fo r man, b ein g n a tu r a lly s o c ia l and te a c h a b le , i s from h is nature prone to r e c e iv e tr u th from o th er s whem he knows to be o f g r ea ter i n t e l lig e n c e or knowledge or d iv in e ly in s tr u c te d , as i s m an ifest from th e h is to r y o f r e l i g i o n s , which t e s t i f i e s th a t th e Hindus, P e r sia n s, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, e t c , r e a d ily adhered to what th ey deemed to be m ediate d iv in e r e v e la t io n .

A60 b. M oreover, m ediate r ev e la tio n , g u id es us more sec u r e ly according to God*s good p le a su r e, b l , For m ediate r e v e la tio n can be d iscern ed -with c e r titu d e through e x te r n a l s ig n s or m ir a c les which show i t s d iv in e o r ig in , b 2. And th e r e fo r e d iv in e ly r ev e a le d tr u th i s w is e ly d istin g u ish e d from p r iv a te d o c tr in e s which airo not from God. c. F u rth e rm o re , m e d ia te r e v e l a t i o n p r o t e c t s men from h a llu c in a ti o n s and f a n a tic is m . c l . For in th e h y p o th esis o f immediate r e v e la tio n fo r each man, an easy way i s opened up fo r h a llu c in a tio n or s e lf -d e c e p tio n and a c ts o f fa n ­ a tic is m : fo r many, as h is to r y t e s t i f i e s , m istake f a l l a c i e s o f th e ir own im agin ation fo r d iv in e r e v e la t io n s , and a c t according to them; nor would th ey ever be a b le to be rescued from th e ir e r r o r s , s in c e th ey hold th e ir own n o tio n s fo r th e a u th en tic v o ic e o f G-od: (a s happens fr e q u e n tly in d iv e r se s e c t s , v .g , among th e A n a b a p tists, who admit p r iv a te in s p ir a tio n a s th e s o le mode o f d iv in e r e v e la t io n ) , 32, But th e se e v i l s are more e a s il y avoided by m ediate r e v e la tio n . A109,

OBJECTION'S TO BE CONSIDERED: A gainst th e p o s s i b i l i t y and b e f i t t in g n ess o f m ediate r e v e la t io n many o b je c tio n s are urged, w hereof th e c h ie f are th e fo llo w in g : A, a* a l, a2. a5.

FIRST OBJECTION: I t i s ob jected th u s: God im m ediately p rovid es fo r a l l ; But r e v e la t io n depends on providence; Therefore r e v e la tio n ought t o be made im m ediately to a l l ,

b. Whereto the ANSWER i s th a t: b l , as regards th e m ajor: b la , i t i s tr u e th a t God im m ediately p rovid es fo r a l l a s regards th e ordering o f th in g s ; b ib , bu t not as regards th e e x ec u tio n o f t h is o rd er, b 2. As regards th e c o n c lu s io n : b2a. God im m ediately p rovid es fo r a l l , so th a t th e r e v e la tio n reach a ll; b2b, bu t t h i s does not req u ire th a t God im m ediately r e v e a l th e tr u th to a l l , B.

SECOND OBJECTION:

a. The o b je c tio n i s th e fo llo w in g : a l , God i s in tim a te ly present i n a l l s o u ls , and alon e can operate upon th en ; a2, but r e v e la tio n i s properly a d iv in e a c tio n , fo r th e illu m in a tio n o f s o u ls ; a3. T herefore r e v e la tio n ought to be made im m ediately to a l l s o u ls . b. Whereto th e ANSWER i s th a t: b l . as regards th e m ajor: b la , i t i s true th a t God alon e can operate s u b je c tiv e ly upon s o u ls , and make an im p ression im m ediately on t h e ir w i l l ; b ib , bu t i t i s f a l s e to say th a t God alone can o b j e c tiv e ly move man*s i n t e l l e c t and w i l l , b 2. As regards th e m inor, i t i s tru e th at r e v e la tio n i s fo r th e i l l ­ um ination o f s o u ls : b2a. o b j e c t iv e ly . b2b. and s u b j e c t iv e ly : b 2 b l. fo r th e prophet who r e c e iv e s p rop h etic l i g h t ; b2b2, but n ot fo r others, who r e c e iv e o n ly th e lig h t o f f a i t h . (C f. I I - I I , qf 172, a .2 , ad l ) .

C.

THIRD OBJECTION:

a . The fo llo w in g ob j e c t i o n i s made: R e v e la tio n tr a n s m itte d th ro u g h a p ro p h e t i s no lo n g e r th e word o f God, h u t th e word o f man; and th e r e f o r e we can n o t i n f a l l i b l y ad h ere to i t . b . W hereto th e ANSWER i s th a t th e p ro p h e t h o ld s th e o f f i c e o f God*s m in is te r o r in s tru m e n t; b u t th e o p e ra tio n , and e f f e c t o f an in s tru m e n t a re a t t r i b u t e d to th e p r in c ip a l a g e n t, i n v i r t u e w hereof th e in s tru m e n t a c t s , D.

FOURTH OBJECTION:

a . The o b je c tio n i s f u r t h e r made t h a t i t i s p o s s ib le t h a t th e m in is te r , w h eth er w i t t i n g l y o r u n w ittin g ly , change th e w ords o f God. b . W hereto th e ANSWER i s : The d iv in e m otion s p e c ia lly im pedes such change; f o r by v i r t u e o f th e d iv in e m otion th e words o f God a re i n f a l l i b l y tr a n s m itte d , somewhat a s th e w r ite r moves h is pen so th a t th e w r iti n g be a t r u e e x p re s s io n o f th e w r i t e r ’ s th o u g h t. Thus th e p s a lm is t s a y s : "My tongue i s th e pen o f a w r i t e r r a p id ly w r i t i n g ," (P s , 4 4 ). &

FIFTH OBJECTION:

a . I t i s f u r t h e r o b je c te d th u s : I f t h i s b e so , th e n th e p ro p h e t, un d er t h i s m otio n , i s n o t f r e e ; w h e re fo re he i s n o t God’ s m in is te r , b . W hereto th e ANSWER i s : " F r e e c h o ic e i s th e cau se o f i t s own move­ m e n t , . , . . , . , . , , . , , , y e t n o t th e prim e c au se o f i t s e l f . A c co rd in g ly God i s th e prim e cause moving b o th n a t u r a l and. v o lu n ta ry c a u s e s , and th u s by moving n a t u r a l c a u s e s , he does n o t ta k e away from them th e n a tu r a ln e s s o f t h e i r a c t s ; th u s i n moving v o lu n ta ry c a u s e s , he does n o t ta k e away from them th e v o lu n ta r in e s s o f t h e i r a c t i o n s , b u t r a t h e r c a u s e s t h i s i n them; f o r he o p e ra te s i n each th in g a c c o rd in g to i t s p ro p e r c h a r a c te r ." ( I , c[_»83, a * l, ad 3 ) . F.

SIXTH OBJECTION:

a. F u rth erm o re i t i s o b je c t e d : God’ s m in is te r can n o t b e i n f a l l i b l y known as such by o th e r men, and be d is c e rn e d from a f a l s e p ro p h e t, b. W hereto th e ANSWER i s t h a t h i s p ro p h e tic m is sio n must be confirm ed by v i s i b l e d iv in e s ig n s , and " i s proved by th e argument o f th e d iv in e pow er, so t h a t , w h ile someone h as done w o rk s, w hich God a lo n e can do, whsgfc i s s a id bo b e lie v e d to bo from God, j u s t a s when someone b r in g s a l e t t e r s e a le d by th e K in g ’ s s e a l , what i s c o n ta in e d t h e r e i n i s b e lie v e d to have proceeded from th e w i l l o f th e k in g ," ( i l l , q.4-3, a . l ) , G.

SEVENTH OBJECTION:

a. I t i s o b je c te d f u r t h e r : O th e r men cannot i n f a l l i b l y d is c e r n t r u e m ir a c l e s ,f o r re a s o n can e r r ; th e r e f o r e m ed iate r e v e l a t i o n can n o t be ta k en i n f a l l i b l y a s God’ s w ord, b. W hereto th e ANSWER i s th a t from r a t i o n a l knov/ledge o f m ira c le s i s had s u f f i c i e n t r a t i o n a l c r e d i b i l i t y , and from th e in fu s e d l i g h t o f f a i t h i s had th e i n f a l l i b l e c e r t i t u d e o f f a i t h ; so t h a t th u s r e v e l a t i o n , even m e d ia te , can be ta k e n i n f a l l i b l y a s God’s word. H.

EIGHTH OBJECTION:

a. O b je c tio n i s f u r t h e r made th u s : N e v e rth e le s s th e n th e te stim o n y o f God i s b e lie v e d on a cc o u n t o f th e fo rm al te stim o n y o f th e p ro p h e t; and th u s th e fo rm al m otive o f our b e l i e f would no lo n g e r be som ething d iv in e . b. W hereto th e ANSWER i s : The human and s e n s ib le te stim o n y o f th e p ro p h e t i s n o t th e fo rm al m o tiv e o f ouib: b e l i e f , b u t on ly th e c o n d itio n

th e r e o f ; j u s t a s th e s e n s a tio n p re re q u ire d f o r knowledge o f th e term s o f th e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s o f re a s o n i s n o t th e fo rm al m o tiv e o f such a d h e sio n to th e t r u t h o f th e s e p r i n c i p l e s , h u t o n ly a c o n d itio n th e re u n to . H.

NINTH OBJECTION:

a. I t i s o b je c t e d : M ed iate r e v e l a t i o n does n o t re a c h a l l men, f o r many i n rem ote r e g io n s cannot h e a r th e p re a c h in g o f th e g o s p e l; th e r e f o r e m e d iate r e v e l a t i o n i s u n b e f i t t i n g , s in c e f a i t h i s n e c e s s a ry f o r s a lv a tio n . b. Vftiereto th e ANSWER i s : b l . "N othing u n b e f i t t i n g fo llo w s from th e a s s e r t i o n t h a t each i s bound to b e lie v e som ething e x p l i c i t l y , i f he grow up i n th e f o r e s t s o r among b r u te a n im a ls: f o r t h i s p e r ta in s to d iv in e p ro v id e n c e , t h a t he p ro v id e each one w ith w hat i s n e c e s s a ry f o r s a lv a tio n , p ro v id e d th a t on h i s p a r t th e r e i s no h in d ra n c e . F o r i f someone th u s grown up fo llo w e d th e le a d o f n a t u r a l re a s o n i n th e p u r s u i t o f good and th e shunning o f e v i l , i t i s to be h e ld most c e r ­ t a i n l y th a t God would r e v e a l to him e i t h e r th ro u g h i n t e r n a l i n s p i r a t i o n what m ust be b e lie v e d , o r would d i r e c t to him some p re a c h e r o f th e f a i t h , a s he s e n t P e te r to C o rn e liu s , (A c t. 1 0 .2 0 )," (De. V e r i t . q*14, a . 11, ad , l ) . b 2, R eg ard in g t h i s i s t o be n o ted w hat P iu s IX te a c h e s : b 2 a , "The g i f t s o f h e av e n ly g ra c e w i l l n e v er b e w an tin g to th o s e who, from s in c e r e m ind, w ish and beg to b e r e f r e s h e d by t h i s l i g h t . " (Denz. 1643 b2b. " I t i s known to u s and to you, t h a t th o se who la b o u r u n d e r in v in ­ c ib le ig n o ra n c e re g a rd in g o u r most h o ly r e l i g i o n , and who, c a r e f u l l y ob­ s e rv in g th e n a tu r a l law and i t s p re c e p ts im p ressed by God i n th e h e a r ts o f a l l , and re a d y to obey God, l i v e a good and r i g h t l i f e , c a n , by th e o p e r a t­ in g v i r t u e o f d iv in e l i g h t and g r a c e , a t t a i n e t e r n a l l i f e , s in c e God, who p l a in ly b e h o ld s , s c r u t i n i s e s and knows th e m inds, d i s p o s it io n s and th o u g h ts o f a l l , a c c o rd in g to h i s supreme goodness and clem ency, does n o t a llo w any­ one to be p u n ish ed by e v e r la s tin g p u n ish m en ts, who h as n o t th e g u i l t o f w i l f u l f a u l t . " (Denz. 1677). b3. T h e re fo re : b 3 a . I t can happen 1p e r a c c id e n s * t h a t im m ediate r e v e l a t i o n be made to one who does w hat i n him l i e s and i s in v in c ib ly ig n o ra n t o f th e g o s p e l p re a c h in g ; b u t w hat i s *p e r s e * i s n o t to be judged th ro u g h w hat i s *p e r a c c id e n s *• b3b. B ut Tp e r s e 1, a s h as b e en s a id , m e d iate r e v e l a t i o n i s b e f i t t i n g to m ankind, b o th on th e p a r t o f God and on th e p a r t o f man. b4. The S a lm a n tic e n s ia n s n o te re g a rd in g im m ediate r e v e l a t i o n made *p e r a c c id e n s t to th o s e who a re in v in c ib ly ig n o ra n t o f th e g o s p e l, and who u n d er th e in f lu e n c e o f a c tu a l g ra c e do what i n them l i e s : "There i s n o t a s s o rte d a c o n n e c tio n betw een mere n a t u r a l ( a c t s ) and g ra c e ( o f i l l u m i n a t i o n ) , b u t betw een t h i s g ra c e and p re c e d in g s u p e r n a tu r a l h e l p s . . T h a t mode o f i n s t r u c t i o n i n th e f a i t h i s r a r e and e x tr a o r d in a r y , b u t i t i s n o t m ira c u lo u s , b e ca u se th e p re s e n t p ro v id en ce o f God and th e e le v a tio n o f man to a s u p e r n a tu r a l end demands i t , on th e s u p p o s itio n t h a t a l l e x te r n a l p re a c h in g b e w a n tin g ." (S a lm a n tic e n s ia n s : de F id e , d is p . V I, dub, I , n , 8 9 ). b 5 . Indeed S t . Thomas s a y s : v>I t i s im p o s sib le f o r v e n ia l s i n to be in anyone w ith o r i g i n a l s in a lo n e , and w ith o u t m o rta l s in . The re a s o n f o r t h i s i s b e c a u s e , b e fo re a man comes to th e age o f d i s c r e t i o n , th e la c k o f y e a r s h in d e rs th e use o f re a s o n and ex cu ses him from m o rta l s in . H ence, much more does i t excuse him from v e n ia l s i n , i f h e does a n y th in g w hich i s such g e n e r­ i c a l l y , B ut when he b e g in s to have th e u se o f r e a s o n , he i s n o t e n t i r e l y excused from th e g u i l t o f v e n ia l o r m o rta l s in . Now th e f i r s t th in g t h a t o c c u rs to a man to th in k ab o u t th e n i s to d e l i b e r a t e about h im s e lf. And i f he th e n d i r e c t h im s e lf to th e due end, he w i l l , by means o f g r a c e , r e c e iv e th e re m is s io n o f o r i g i n a l s i n ; w hereas i f he does n o t th e n d i r e c t h im s e lf to th e due end, a s f a r a s he i s c ap a b le o f d i s c r e t i o n a t th a t p a r t i c u l a r a g e, he w i l l s in m o r ta lly , th ro u g h n o t doing t h a t w hich i s in h i s power to do. b 5 a . R eg ard in g t h i s , B i l l u a r t . i n a cc o rd w ith some o th e r T h o m ists, s a y s : "T h at f i r s t h e lp " (bestow ed upon a c h ild i n th e f i r s t i n s t a n t o f th e u s e o f re a so n ) " i s n o t ( th e g i f t ) o f e x p l i c i t f a i t h and o f f a i t h s t r i c t l y s o - c a lle d , b u t i s a c e r ta in , illu m in a tio n about th e f i r s t c r e d i b l e s , " ( to w i t , t h a t God i s and i s a re w a rd e r), "w hich does n o t impede, n e g a tiv e i n f i d e l i t y a s re g a rd s o th e r" o b je c ts o f f a i t h . ( B i l l u a r t : I n I - I I ,

),

q .8 9 , a , 6 ) . b5b. And B i l l u a r t had a lre a d y s a id : "A ccording to t h i s . . . . . . . .m anner o f sp ea k in g , man w i l l he j u s t i f i e d e i t h e r a s soon a s he h as co n sen ted to t h i s f i r s t h e lp , to w it, i f th e n God i n s t r u c t him th ro u g h i n t e r n a l r e v e l ­ a tio n e x p l i c i t l y co n ce rn in g th e t r u t h s n e c e s s a r ily to he b e lie v e d , and c o n fe r upon him e f f ic a c io u s g ra c e s o f p e r f e c t c o n v e rsio n , w hich S t . Thomas seems to h i n t ( i - I I , q .8 9 , a . 6 ) ; o r a fte rw a r d s , when and i n w hat manner i t w i l l he God*s good p le a s u r e th a t to t h i s man p r o v is io n he made o f ex­ p l i c i t f a i t h and e f f ic a c io u s g r a c e s , and S t. Thomas i n d i c a t e s t h i s (De. V e r i t , q .1 4 , a . 11, ad. 1 ; and In Ep. ad Rom. X, L e c t. 3 ) ." ( B i l l u a r t : De Deo, D is s . V II, a , 8, ad. o h j, 4 ) .

ARTICLE THREE. POSSIBILITY ARP BEFITTIN'GNESS OF REVELATION OF MYSTERIES. A110.

ORDER OP PROCEDURE: T h is c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e p o s s i b i l i t y and b e f i t t i n g n e s s o f r e v e l a t i o n o f m y s te rie s w i l l t r e a t :

A*

F i r s t . th e n o tio n and d i v i s i o n o f m y s te r y .. . . . . . D i s s e r t a t i o n one.

B.

S e c o n d ly , th e e x is te n c e o f an o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s i n G od,................................

.D i s s e r t a t i o n tw o.

0.

T h i r d ly . th e e l e v a h i l i t y o f human n a tu r e to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r , ...................... ...D i s s e r t a t i o n th r e e .

D.

F o u r th ly . th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n o f m y s t e r i e s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D i s s e r t a t i o n f o u r .

E . • F i f t h l y , th e b e f i t t i n g n e s s o f r e v e l a t i o n o f my s t e r i e s . • • • • • «

. Di s s e r t a t i o n f i v e .

DISSERTATION ONE. NOTION AND DIVISION OF MYSTERY. A lll.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE:

T h is c o n s id e r a tio n w a ll expose:

A.

F i r s t . th e C a th o lic n o tio n o f m y s t e r y . . . . . . . . . . ...........

T opic one.

B.

S e c o n d ly , th e o lo g ic a l e x p lic a tio n o f t h i s n o tio n , to g e th e r w ith th e d i v i s i o n o f m y s te r y .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . •

T o p ic two.

TOPIC ONE. CATHOLIC NOTION OF MYSTERY. A112.

NOMINAL DEFINITION: The name 1m ystery th e G reek rmuof ( c lo s e o r sh u t u p ).

( m u s te rio n *) i s d e riv e d from

A. T h e re fo re M y s te ry ' *p e r s e * s i g n i f i e s som ething en clo sed o r h id d en o r o b scu re, B, Among th e pagans th e name •m ystery* was g iv e n to s a c re d d o c tr in e s and r i t e s w hich w ere hid d en from th e p ro fa n e and made known on ly to th e in itia te d . 0. I n sa c re d S c r i p t u r e ; a . th e name !m y ste ry 1 was g iv e n : a l . to s e c r e t s i n g e n e ra l ( c f . I C or. 1 3 .2 ; 1 4 ,2 ; 1 5 .5 1 ; Luke 8 .1 0 ) , &2, to s e c r e ts conducing to o u r s a lv a tio n ,, o r to sacram en ts ( c f . Rom. 1 6 ,2 5 ; E phes, 3 .4 ; 6 ,1 9 ; I Tim. 3 .9 ; I Cor, 4 . 1 ) . A113.

CATHOLIC NOTION: th e fo llo w in g :

The C a th o lic n o tio n o f m y ste ry i s m a n ife s t from

A.

The C hurch h a s d e c la re d t h a t :

a.

b e s id e s t r u t h s p e rv io u s to human j^eason,

b . C h r is tia n r e v e l a t i o n c o n ta in s m y s te r ie s : b l . b o th b ro a d ly s o - c a l l e d , such a s G o d 's e t e r n a l d e c re e s (D enz, 1 7 8 5 ); b 2 . and s t r i c t l y s o - c a l l e d : b 2 a . w hich a re u t t e r l y im p erv io u s to human re a s o n (D enz. 1616 s q ; 1642 sq 1655; 1662; 1668 s q ; 1682; 1709; 1795; 1816; 1 9 1 5 ;) b2b, and even tra n s c e n d a n g e lic i n t e l l i g e n c e , and a c c o rd in g ly ev ery c r e a te d i n t e l l e c t , ( c f . Denz. 1 6 7 3 ), b 2 b l, namely m y s te rie s w hich can n o t become known u n le s s d iv in e ly r e v e a led , n o r when re v e a le d can be d e m o n stra te d w ith th e p ro g re s s o f s c ie n c e ( c f . Denz* 1642 s q ; 1668 s q ; 1671 s q ; 1704; 1709; 1796; 1816; 1 8 1 8 ;), b2b2. y e t do n o t c o n tr a d ic t re a s o n ( c f . Denz. 1634 s q ; 1649; 1706;) b2b3. b u t a r e above re a s o n ( c f . D ens. 1671; 1 7 9 5 ;) b2b4. and alw ays rem ain o b sc u re w h ile th e b e a t i f i c v i s i o n i s n o t y e t enjoyed ( c f , D enz.~442; 17967) b2b5. and w hich have n o t b een in v e n te d by men. (C f. Denz. 1634; 1 7 0 7 ). B. The p r i n c i p a l d e f i n i t i o n o f th e Church i s found i n th e V a tic a n C o u n c il: a. " I f anyone sa y s t h a t i n d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n a r e c o n ta in e d no t r u e m y s te rie s p ro p e rly s o - c a l l e d , b u t t h a t a l l th e dogmas o f f a i t h can b e u n d e rsto o d and dem onstrated th ro u g h d u ly c u ltiv a te d re a s o n from n a t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s , l e t him be an athem a." (D enz. 1 8 1 6 ;), b. "The p e rp e tu a l co n sen su s o f th e C a th o lic C hurch h a s h e ld and h o ld s t h a t th e r e i s a tw o fo ld o rd e r o f knowledge d i s t i n c t n o t on ly by p r i n c i p l e b u t a ls o by o b j e c t : by p r i n c i p l e in d e e d , b e ca u se i n th e one we know by n a t u r a l r e a s o n , and i n th e o th e r by d iv in e f a i t h ; b u t by o b je c t , b e c a u se b e s id e s th o s e th in g s to w hich n a t u r a l re a s o n can r e a c h , a r e proposed to u s f o r b e l i e f m y s te rie s h id d e n i n God, w hich u n le s s d iv in e ly r e v e a le d , cannot become known. .F o r th e d iv in e m y s te rie s by t h e i r v e ry n a tu r e th u s exceed c r e a te d i n t e l l e c t , t h a t even d e liv e re d by r e v e l a t i o n and a c c e p t­ ed by f a i t h , t h ey rem ain n e v e r th e le s s covered by th e v e i l o f f a i t h i t s e l f and w rapped, as i t w e re, i n a c e r t a i n d a rk n e ss as lo n g a s we, i n t h i s l i f e , ’a r e e x ile d from th e L o r d 's p r e s e n c e '." (D enz. 1795-1796). C. A ccording to th e s e d e c la r a tio n s th e r e a re th r e e re q u ire m e n ts f n r a m ystery p ro p e rly s o - c a l l e d , to w i t : a. F i r s t , t h a t i t be A TRUTH HIDDEN IN GOD, i . e . ex ceed in g by i t s n a tu r e ev ery c re a te d i n t e l l e c t ; b. S e c o n d ly , t h a t i t CANNOT BECOME KNOWN ( t o a c r e a te d i n t e l l e c t ) UNLESS DIVINELY REVEALFID: f o r c e r t a i n t r u t h s h id d e n i n God can be m ani­ f e s te d w ith o u t r e v e l a t i o n , a s th e d iv in e d e c re e o f th e d e s t r u c t i o n o f J e ru s a le m i s n a t u r a l l y known a f t e r th e f a c t ; c.

T h ir d ly , t h a t EVEN AFTER ITS REVELATION IT REMAIN OBSCURE: f o r

th e r e a r e c e r t a i n th in g s w hich can he known o n ly by r e v e l a t i o n , h u t a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n a r e e a s i l y u n d e rs to o d , v .g . t h a t th e Church from th e w i l l o f C h r is t i s alw ays to be ru le d by one supreme p o n t i f f ; .(w h ile on th e con­ t r a r y . tlie T r i n i t y o f P e rso n s in God, even a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n , rem ains ob­ sc u re ). A114.

HETERODOX NOTIONS OP MYSTERYi The h e tero d o x n o tio n s o f r e l i g i o u s m ystery may b e reduced to a n a t u r a l i s t i c n o tio n d iv e r s e ly proposed on th e one hand, by r a t i o n a l i s t s , and on th e o th e r hand by mod­ e r n i s t s and l i b e r a l p r o t e s t a n t s , and a s e m i - n a t u r a l i s t i c n o tio n , proposed by s e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s : w hich w i l l be b r i e f l y exposed i n tu r n (n n . A115, A116, A 117).

A115.

NATIONALISTIC NOTION OP RELIGIOUS MYSTERY: R a t i o n a l i s t s e i t h e r sim ply r e j e c t s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s a s a b su rd o r u n i n t e l l i g i b l e ( c f . Denz, 1807-1808), o r re d u c e them to n a t u r a l m y s te rie s o r to n a tu r a l t r u t h s knowable w ith o u t r e v e l a t i o n ( c f . Denz, 1812). A.

T hus:

a. K a n t, l i k e th e a n c ie n t m e d a lis ts ,re d u c e d th e T hree P e rs o n s o f th e Holy T r i n i t y to th r e e n a t u r a l l y know able a t t r i b u t e s o f God. b. L ik ew ise H egel sa\? n o th in g e ls e i n th e m y stery o f th e H oly T r i n i t y th a n th r e e moments o f u n iv e r s a l e v o lu tio n : t h e s i s , a n t i t h e s i s , and syn­ th e s is . B, W herefore P iu s IX i n h i s *S y lla b u s * condemned t h i s p r o p o s itio n : "The m y s te rie s o f C h r is tia n f a i t h a re th e summit o f p h ilo s o p h ic i n v e s t i g ­ a t io n s ," (Denz. 1707). A116.

NOTION OP MODERNISTS AND OP LIBERAL PROTESTANTS: M o d e rn ists , l i k e l i b e r a l p r o t e s t a n t s , fo llo w th e p a th s o f r a tio n a lis m a s re g a rd s th e n o tio n o f m y ste ry , as i s c l e a r l y s e t f o r t h i n th e e n c y c lic a l ^ a s o e n d i * o f P iu s X ( c f , D enz: 2077 s q ) , A. A ccording to modernism , " th e r e l i g i o u s s e n s e , w hich su rg e s up th ro u g h v i t a l immanence, from th e h id d e n r e c e s s e s o f s u b c o n sc io u sn e ss, i s th e germ o f a l l r e l i g i o n " (e v e n o f th e C h r is tia n r e l i g i o n ) . . " b u t th e r e l i g i o u s man ought to {t h i n k 1 h i s f a i t h " o r h i s r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e , . . , . ........... " b u t i n d o in g t h i s th e mind o p e ra te s i n two f a s h io n s : f i r s t by a n a t u r a l and sp o n tan eo u s a c t , r e s u l t i n g i n a c e r t a i n sim p le and v u lg a r e x p re s s io n o f th e o b je c t o f b e l i e f ; b u t seco n d ly by r e f l e x i v e and more p e n e tr a tin g th o u g h t, o r a s th e y say, by th e e la b o r a tio n o f th o u g h t, r e s u l t i n g i n seco n d ary ex­ p r e s s io n , b p t more r e f in e d and d i s t i n c t . Which seco n d ary e x p re s s io n s , i f , a t le n g th , they a c h ie v e s a n c tio n by th e supreme te a c h in g o f f i c e o f th e C hurch, w i l l c o n s t i t u t e d o g m a . W h e r e f o r e r e l i g i o u s fo rm u la s, ( o r dogm atic fo rm u la s) have "no o th e r end th a n t o su p p ly to th e b e l i e v e r a manner i n w hich he can r e n d e r to h im s e lf an acco u n t o f h i s f a i t h . T h e re ­ f o r e dogm atic fo rm u las sta n d as in te rm e d ia ry b etw een th e b e l i e v e r and h i s b e l i e f ; b u t a s f a r a s f a i t h i s c o n ce rn e d , th e y a re in a d e q u a te n o te s o f i t s o b je c t , c o n s t i t u t i n g what m o d e rn is ts c a l l *symbols * ; w ith r e s p e c t to th e b e l i e v e r , th.oy a r e mere in s tr u m e n ts . B. T h e re fo re , a cc o rd in g to m o d e rn is ts , " in no manner can i t be shewn ; t h a t dogm atic fo rm u las c o n ta in t r u t h a b s o lu te ly : f o r a s sym bols th e y a re im ages o f t r u t h , and th e r e f o r e a re to b e accommodated to th e r e l i g i o u s s e n s e , a s t h i s i s r e l a t e d to man; a s in s tr u m e n ts , th e y a re v e h ic le s c f t r u t h and a re th e r e f o r e to be accommodated to man, as he i s r e l a t e d to th e r e l i g i o u s se n se . B ut th e o b je c t o f th e r e l i g i o u s s e n s e , b e in g c o n ta in e d i n th e *a b - i s o l u t e 1, lias an i n f i n i t y o f a s p e c ts w h ereo f now o n e, now a n o th e r , may a p p ea r. L ikew ise th e man who b e lie v e s may b e i n o th e r c o n d itio n s . T h e re fo re a ls o th e fo rm u la s, w hich we c a l l dogmas, must be s u b je c t to th e same v i c i s s i t u d e s and th e r e f o r e a re l i a b l e to th e same v a r i e t y . But th u s i s opened up an open ro a d to th e in tim a te e v o lu tio n o f dogmas.

C. " M a n ife s tly a n i n f i n i t e h eap in g to g e th e r o f sophism s, w hich w recks and d e s tr o y s a l l r e l i g i o n , " (D enz: 2077-2079), A117,

NOTION OF SMI-RATIONALISTS: S e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s , such a s Hermes, G u n th e r, and Frohsohammer. d i f f e r from r a t i o n a l i s t s a c c o rd in g a s th e y adm it t h a t th e m y s te rie s o f th e C h r is tia n r e l i g i o n have “been s u p e rn a t u r a l l y d e liv e re d to us by e x te r n a l d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n p ro p e rly s o - c a lle d ,

A. B ut th e y a g re e w ith th e r a t i o n a l i s t s i n re d u c in g th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s to n a t u r a l t r u t h s , f o r th e y say t h a t th e m y s te rie s d e liv e r e d by r e v e l a t i o n , a t l e a s t th o s e w hich a r e a cc o rd in g to th em selv es n e c e s s a ry , can b e d em o n strated th ro u g h th e p r i n c i p l e s o f n a t u r a l r e a s o n , B. T h is t h e s i s o f th e d e n o n s t r a b i l i t y o f th e m y s te r ie s : a, was condemned a s h e re sy by th e V a tic a n C o u n cil ( c f . Denz, 1816), b. L ik ew ise was condemned a p r o p o s itio n o f R o sm in i, a c c o rd in g to w hich th e m y stery c f th e T r i n i t y , a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n , can be d e m o n strated a t l e a s t in d ire c tly .

•

(I, , 0 , 0 0 0 , , a , , , , , * , , , - , » « o , « • • * • , , , « • • , , , , , , , ,

TOPIC TWO. THEOLOGICAL EXPLICATION OF THE NOTION OF MYSTERY. A118,

DEFINITION OF MYSTERY IN GENERAL AND ITS DIVISION: T h e o lo g ic a l e x p lic a tio n o f th e C a th o lic n o tio n o f m y stery i s g a th ered from th e d e f i n i t i o n o f M y s te r y * i n g e n e r a l and from i t s d i v i s i o n i n t o n a t u r a l m y stery and s u p e r n a tu r a l m y ste ry ,

A. H ow ever: a. R a t i o n a l i s t s deny t h i s d i v i s i o n , b. w h ile e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s re d u c e i t to a n a c c id e n ta l d iv is io n , ( f o r a c c o rd in g to s e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s , th e m y s te rie s w hich a re c a lle d s u p e r n a tu r a l exceed in d eed th e pow ers o f d is c o v e ry o f human r e a s o n , b u t n o t i t s power o f d e m o n s tra tio n , r e v e l a t i o n b e in g once g iv e n ), B. B ut th e C a th o lic Church c o n s id e rs th e d i v i s i o n o f m y stery i n t o n a t u r a l and s u p e r n a tu r a l a s n e c e s s a ry and e s s e n t i a l , C. F o r m y stery i n g e n e r a l i s d e f in e d : A SECRET HIDDEN REALITY OR TRUTH, EXCEEDING OUR KNOWLEDGE, YET WORTHY OF BEING KNOWN. a, A r e a l i t y w hich does n o t i n some manner exceed our knowledge d oes n o t m e r it th e name ! my s to ry * , b. A ccording th e r e f o r e as some th in g s d iv e r s e ly exceed o u r know­ le d g e , th e y a re d iv e r s e ly c a ll e d m y s te r ie s . D. M ystery i s f p e r s e * and a d e q u a te ly d iv id e d i n t o n a t u r a l m y stery and s u p e r n a tu r a l m y ste ry , a, F o r: a l, a m y stery i s c a l l e d n a t u r a l i f i t can be known, a t l e a s t as r e ­ g a rd s i t s e x is te n c e , w ith o u t s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n ; a2 . b u t a m y stery i s c a ll e d s u p e r n a tu r a l i f n o t even a s re g a rd s i t s e x is te n c e can i t b e known w ith o u t s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e la ti o n , b.

The d i v i s i o n o f m y stery may b e e x h ib ite d s c h e m a tic a lly t h u s : -

A67

*De fa c to * h id d en as re g a rd s i t s e x is t e n c e . i . e , i t i s a m ystery ONLY EXISTENTIALLY. AND THEN ONLY 'PER ACCIDMS1 : NATURAL: w hich, w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , .can b e known a t l e a s t a s re g a rd s i t s e x is t e n c e , b u t rem ain s h id d e n :

mystery:

Of th e p h y s ic a l o r d e r : v .g . what l i e s a t th e c e n tr e o f th e e a r th . Of th e in te lle c tu a l and m oral o r d e r rv .g .

S e c r e ts o f h e a rts . S e c r e ts o f some r e l i g ­ io u s s o c ie ty

T h is i s a r e a l i t y OF THE RELATIVE CREATED ORDER. m y ste ry , i . e , h id d ­ o f d e te rm in a te en from b o d ie s , such as human s ilv e r. in te lle c t: V .g . th e o f s e n s a tio n , in tim a te s p e c ific of in te lle c tio n , n a tu r e o f :£ree c h o io e .

H idden a s re g a rd s i t s in tim a te essen ce, i . e . i t i s a mys­ te r y ONLY ABSOLUTE m y ste ry , ESSENTIALLY: i . e . h id d e n from w h atso ev er c re a te d in te lle c t:

T h is i s a r e a l i t y OF THE RECREATED ORDER. V .g. th e in tim a te c o n c ilia tio n of th e n a t u r a l l y know able a t t r i ­ b u te s o f God.

T h is i s unknowable BY REASON MYSTERY BROADLY TAKEN: OF ITS CONTINPENCE. w hich a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n does n o t rem ain o b s c u re , E i th e r i n t r i n s i c a l l y b u t i s e a s i l y u n d e rsto o d , n a t u r a l : v . g . th e d a te i . e . i t i s a m ystery o f th e end o f th e ONLY EXISTENTIALLY, BUT p h y s ic a l w o rld . fPER SE*: And SUPERNATURAL is Or i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e rw hich, w ith ­ n a t u r a l ( b u t c o n sid e re d o u t d iv in e s o le l y a s a f a c t , re v e la tio n , n o t i n i t s n a t u r e ) : v .g . can n o t b e t h a t th e Church i s known even alw ays to b e ru le d by a s re g a r d s one supreme p o n t i f f . its e x is te n c e : T h is i s unknowable BY REASON MYSTERY STRICTLY TAKEN: OF ITS SUPEMATURALITY. w hich, even a f t e r re v e la tio n , s t i l l rem ain s o b s c u re , f o r r e v e l a t i o n makes known o n ly i t s e x i s ­ te n c e (n o t i t s in tim a te e s s e n c e ), i . e . i t i s a m ystery BOTE EXISTENT­ The Holy T r i n i t y , IALLY ,FER SE« AND ESSENTIALLY: The I n c a r n a tio n . S a n c tify in g g ra c e

o . The d iv e rs e members o f t h i s d i v is io n w i l l f o r th w ith he exposed (n n . A119, A120, A121, A 122). A119,

NATURAL MYSTERIES: N a tu r a l m y s te rie s a re h id d e n th in g s , w h ich , how ever, can he known a t l e a s t as re g a rd s t h e i r e x is te n c e w ith o u t s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n ,

A, N a tu r a l m ystery i s su b -d iv id e d a c c o rd in g a s i t exceeds our knowledge i n e i t h e r o f two m anners, to w i t : a, F i r s t , a s r e g a r d s i t s e x is te n c e , a lth o u g h i t s e x is te n c e i s o f i t ­ s e l f n a t u r a l l y know able. b. S e c o n d ly , n o t a s re g a rd s i t s e x is te n c e , b u t a s r e g a r d s i t s in tim a te e sse n c e o r in tim a te mode. 3, N a tu r a l m y s te rie s ex ceed in g o u r knowledge as re g a rd s t h e i r e x is ­ te n c e may b e : a, e i t h e r o f th e p h y s ic a l o r d e r , and th e n th e y a r e i n a c c e s s ib le on acco u n t o f d is ta n c e o r m a te r ia l im pedim ents; ( v .g . w hat i s c o n ta in e d in th e c e n tr e o f th e e a r t h ) , a lth o u g h t h e i r e x is te n c e h i t h e r t o unknown i s n e v e r th e le s s n a t u r a l l y know able; b. o r o f th e i n t e l l e c t u a l and m oral o r d e r , such as th e s e c r e t s o f h e a r t s , w hich n a t u r a l l y a r e n o t m a n ife ste d sav e th ro u g h human r e v e l a t i o n , and s im ila r ly th e s e c r e t m y s te r ie s o f r i t e s o f some r e l i g i o u s s o c ie ty ( th e E le u s in ia n m y s te r ie s ) , C. N a tu r a l m y s te rie s w hich exceed o u r n a t u r a l know ledge, n o t a s r e ­ g a rd s t h e i r e x is te n c e b u t a s re g a rd s t h e i r in tim a te e sse n c e o r mode may b e e i t h e r r e l a t i v e n a t u r a l m y s te rie s ( t o w i t , m y s te rie s r e l a t i v e l y to th e human i n t e l l e c t as i t i s hum an), o r a b s o lu te n a t u r a l m y s te r ie s , t o w i t , m y s te r ie s w ith r e s p e c t to every c r e a te d i n t e l l e c t a s i t i s created * a, RELATIVE n a t u r a l m y s te rie s exceed human i n t e l l e c t a s re g a rd s in tim a te e sse n c e o r mode, b e ca u se o u r i n t e l l e c t does n o t i n t u i t i v e l y know i n t e l l i g i b l e and s p i r i t u a l th in g s , b u t knows them o n ly a b s t r a c t i v e l y from s e n s ib le s . al* A cco rd in g ly th e s e r e l a t i v e m y s te rie s a r e n o t m y s te rie s f o r th e a n g e ls , b u t a r e m y s te rie s f o r u s , a2 . Examples o f t h i s a r e th e in tim a te n a tu r e o f p h y s ic a l e n erg y , o f n u t r i t i o n , o f s e n s a tio n , o f i n t e l l e c t i o n , o f f r e e c h o ic e , etc* a 3 . These n a t u r a l m y s te rie s : a3 a, a r e m y s te rie s r e l a t i v e l y to o u r i n t e l l e c t , w hich does n o t i n t u i t ­ i v e l y know i n t e l l i g i b l e and s p i r i t u a l th in g s , b u t knows th a n o n ly a b s tr a c ­ t i v e l y from s e n s ib le tilin g s . a3b. B ut a p u re c r e a te d s p i r i t , i .e # and a n g e l, on th e c o n tr a r y , i n ­ t u i t i v e l y knows c r e a te d s p i r i t u a l r e a l i t i e s and th e e s s e n c e s o f c o rp o ra l th in g s , so t h a t s e n s a tio n , c re a te d i n t e l l e c t i o n , e t c , f o r him c o n ta in no m y ste ry . b. ABSOLUTE n a t u r a l m y s te rie s a r e th o s e w hich as re g a rd s t h e i r in tim a te e sse n c e o r t h e i r in tim a te mode tra n s c e n d every c re a te d i n t e l l e c t , a lth o u g h t h e i r e x is te n c e can b e known w ith o u t re v e la tio n * b l . These m y s te rie s b elo n g to th e in c re a te d o r d e r , to w i t , to th e p ro p e r and in tim a te mode o f th e n a t u r a l l y knowable d iv in e a t t r i b u t e s * b 2 . F o r th e s e a t t r i b u t e s can n o t be n a t u r a l l y p o s i t i v e l y known by a c re a te d i n t e l l e c t save from common p r e d ic a te s w h erein th e y a n a lo g ic a lly communicate w ith c re a te d tilin g s , and t h e i r p ro p e r mode i s n o t known n a t u r a l l y save n e g a tiv e ly , ( v .g . n o t f i n i t e good) o r r e l a t i v e l y ( v . g . supreme g o od). b 3 , W herefore th e in tim a te h a rm o n isa tio n o r c o n c i l i a t i o n o f th e s e a t t r i b u t e s i n God, o r th e in tim a te mode o f t h i s c o n c i l i a t i o n , escap es every c re a te d i n t e l l e c t . b 3 a. Wc know in d e ed t h a t th e y a re n a t u r a l l y harm onised ( i . e . t h a t t h e i r c o n c i l i a t i o n e x i s t s ) and a ls o wo can e x p la in n e g a tiv e ly and r e l ­ a t i v e l y hov/ th e y a re harm onised, b u t th e in tim a te mode o f th a t harmon­ i s a t i o n esc a p es u s , re m a in in g a c c o rd in g ly a m y ste ry . b3b. F o r exam ple:

b 3 b l. Hbw i n God a re in tim a te ly c o n c il ia te d a b s o lu te s im p lic ity and th e p l u r a l i t y o f th e sim p ly -sim p le p e r f e c tio n s which are em in en tly f o r ­ m ally in D e ity ? b3b2, How i n God a re in tim a te ly c o n c il ia te d a b s o lu te im m u ta b ility arid th e f r e e a c t w hich co u ld b e not? b3b3, How i n God a re in tim a te ly c o n c ilia te d i n f i n i t e goodness and p e r­ m is s iv e w i l l i n re g a rd to e v il? b3b4, How i n God a re in tim a te ly c o n c il ia te d s o v e re ig n mercy and i n ­ f i n i t e ju s tic e ? b 4 . W h erefo re, owing to t h i s im p e rfe c tio n o f o u r n a t u r a l knowledge o f God, th e r e a r i s e s in u s a c e r t a i n NATURAL d e s ir e to se e th e d iv in e esse n ce as i t i s th e r o o t ( n o t ind eed o f th e T r i n i t y n o r o f th e o rd e r o f g ra c e and g lo r y , b u t) o f th e d iv in e a t t r i b u t e s n a t u r a l l y know able: f o r o n ly th ro u g h such v i s i o n o f God! s e sse n c e would b e p o s itiv e ly known th e in tim a te mode o f c o n c i l i a t i o n o f th e s e a t t r i b u t e s , (C f. I,q.» 1 2 , a . 1 ; Con, G ent, I I I , 51; 54; 5 7 ). A128.

SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES : S u p e rn a tu ra l m y s te rie s a r e th o s e w hich w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n can n o t b e known even as r e g a r d s t h e i r e x is te n c e by any c re a te d i n t e l l e c t .

A. T hese m y s te rie s a re s u b -d iv id e d in to m y s te rie s b ro a d ly s o - c a lle d and m y s te rie s s t r i c t l y s o - c a lle d , B.

Which w i l l be b r i e f l y exposed i n tu r n (n n . A121, A122).

A121.

SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES BROADLY TAKEN: T hese a re m y s te rie s as r e ­ g a rd s EXISTENCE ONLY BUT *PER SE1, i . e . th ey can n o t b e known w ith ­ o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , b u t a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n do n o t reanain o b sc u re , b u t a re e a s i l y u n d e rs to o d , A. a. b.

The re a s o n fo r t h i s i s t h a t th ey exceed c re a te d i n t e l l e c t : n o t by re a s o n o f i n t r i n s i c s u p e r n a t u r a l i t y , b u t by re a s o n o f t h e i r co n tin g en o e o r in d e te rm in a c y .

B. These m y s te rie s b ro a d ly s o - c a lle d a r e th e d iv in e d e c re e s w here­ upon depends t h e e x is t e n c e o f some f u tu r e c o n tin g e n t th in g o r f a c t , w h eth er t h i s f a c t b e lo n g to th e n a t u r a l o rd e r o r to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r (b ecau se th e n i t i s c o n sid e re d as a f a c t , and n o t i n i t s n a t u r e ) . a. F o r exam ple, i t cannot b e known w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n when th e end o f th e p h y s ic a l w orld w i l l b e , w hich i s a f u tu r e c o n tin g e n t f a c t o f th e n a tu r a l o rd e r. b. L ik e w is e ,w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i t can n o t be known t h a t th e C hurch, a cc o rd in g to God*s w i l l , i s alw ays u n t i l th e end o f th e w orld to b e r u le d by one supreme p o n t i f f ; t h i s in d e ed p e r ta in s to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r , b u t i s c o n sid e re d o n ly a s a f a c t , and a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n i s e a s i l y u n d e rsto o d . 0* The V a tic a n C o u n cil i n d ic a te s th e s e m y s te rie s b ro a d ly ta k e n when i t says t h a t God1s "wisdom and goodness were w e ll p le a s e d to r e v e a l h im s e lf and e t e r n a l d e c re e s o f h i s w i l l to mankind i n a n o th e r, and th a t s u p e r n a tu r a l, w ay." (Denz. 1785), A122.

SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES PROPERLY SO-CALLED: These a re m y s te rie s BOTH EXISTENT TALLY 'PER SE* AND ESSENTIALLY, i . e . m y s te rie s w hich even a f t e r d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n rem ain o b sc u re . A. The re a s o n f o r t h i s o b s c u r ity i s : a, b e ca u se th e s e r e a l i t i e s ( v ,g . th e T r i n i t y , I n c a r n a t io n , G race, e t c ) , exceed c re a te d i n t e l l e c t on acco u n t o f t h e i r i n t r i n s i c s u p e rn a tu r­ a l ! t,y (and n o t m erely on acco u n t o f t h e i r c o n tin g e n c y , i f some o f them b e c o n tin g e n t a s i s th e I n c a r n a t i o n ) ;

b. o r i n th e w ords o f th e V a tic a n C o u n cil, "because "by t h e i r very n a tu r e th e y exceed c re a te d i n t e l l e c t , . . . . . . . . . . . .n o r can b e u n d ersto o d and dem o n strated from n a tu r a l p r i n c i p l e s ." (Denz. 1796, 1816). B. These a r e m y s te rie s w hich p e r t a i n to God’s in tim a te l i f e , o r to D e ity , under th e most p ro p e r re a s o n o f D e ity , o r to th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h i s in tim a te l i f e by th e r a t i o n a l c r e a tu r e , i . e . to g race and g lo r y . a. F o r God indeed i s n a t u r a l l y knowable u n d er th e common and a n a lo g ­ i c a l n o tio n s o f b e in g , t r u t h , g oodness, i n t e l l i g e n c e , w i l l , e t c , but n o t u n d er th e m ost p ro p e r and in tim a te re a s o n o f D e ity , b. F o r d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n and f a i t h : b l , in d e ed extend our knowledge to f u r t h e r o b .je c ts , ( v .g . th e T r in ity ) beyond what i s n a t u r a l l y knowable re g a rd in g God, i . e , th e n a t u r a l l y knowable a ttrib u te s ; b 2 . b u t do n o t a f f e c t th e mode o f o u r knowledge re g a rd in g God, i . e . th e y loa.ve o u r know ledge i n i t s th r e e f o ld im p e rfe c tio n acc o rd in g a s i t i s a n a l o g i c a l - n e g a t i v e - r e l a t i v e , (n o t q u id d ita tiv e ) • C. Such m y s te rie s a r e : a. f o r exam ple: a l. th e m ystery o f th e T r i n i t y o r God’ s in tim a te l i f e , a2, th e m ystery of our e le v a tio n to th e o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e ( i . e . th e m y stery o f gra.ee and g lo ry a s a ls o o f p r e d e s t i n a t i o n ) , a3* th e m y stery o f th e I n c a r n a tio n , a4, th o m y stery o f th e red em p tio n ( i . e . o f th e i n f i n i t e v a lu e o f th e th e a n d r ic a l a c t o f C h r is t d y in g on th e C r o s s ) , a 5 . th e m y stery o f th e in d w e llin g o f th e Holy T r i n i t y i n th e so u l o f th e j u s t , a6. th e m y stery o f th e in tim a te l i f e o f th e C hurch, a7. th e m y stery o f th e p ro d u c tio n o f g ra c e th ro u g h th e sa c ra m e n ts; b. Summarily sp e a k in g , w h a tev e r i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, even th e o lo g ic a l f a i t h i t s e l f o r th e i n t e r n a l l i g h t o f f a i t h , as i t i s e s s e n ­ t i a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, rem ain s a m y ste ry . D. Among th e s e m y s te r ie s , some a r e n a t u r a l l y v i s i b l e ’ secundum q u id ’ b u t n o t as re g a rd s w hat i s in tim a te i n them and i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l. a. Thus th e Church h e r s e l f w ith a l l h e r n o te s i s v i s i b l e , b u t n o t th e in tim a te l i f e o f th e C hurch, as she i s C h r i s t ’w m y s tic a l body. b. L ik ew ise th e v i s i b l e f a c t s o f th e l i f e o f C h r i s t , w hich a r e a ls o c a ll e d m y s te r ie s , can b e h i s t o r i c a l l y known as re g a rd s what i s human i n C h r i s t , b u t n o t a s re g a rd s what i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l and d iv in e . c. S im ila r ly th e sacram en ts a r e v i s i b l e , b u t n o t t h e i r s u p e r n a tu r a l power un to th e p ro d u c tio n o f g ra c e . d. I n l i k e m anner, th e f a c t o f r e v e l a t i o n , a s confirm ed by m ir a c le s , i s v i s i b l e , b u t what i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l i n i t re m a in s a m y ste ry . A123.

INTELLIGIBILITY AND INTER-CONNECTION OF THE MYSTERIES: S in c e R a t i o n a l i s t s ‘a p r i o r i ’ deny th e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , and c o n se q u e n tly a re u n w illin g to i n v e s t i g a t e th e f a c t o f d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , i t i s to b e c o n sid e re d what th e C hurch te a c h e s r e g a rd in g th e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s s t r i c t l y s o - c a lle d . A. B ut a l l th e s e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , w h ic h a re th e o b je c t ’ p e r s e ’ o f d iv in e f a i t h : a . a r e proposed by th e Church: a l . in d e ed a s o b s c u re , in c o m p re h e n sib le and in d e m o n s tra b le , a 2 . b u t n o t a s u r d n tc lliF o ib le : b . and fu rth e rm o re she p ro p o ses them; b l . n o t as d is p a ra te tr u th s , b 2 . b u t as in te r - c o n n e c te d and p ro p e rly as a " d e te rm in a te body o f doc­ t r i n e . " (Denz. 1796; 2059), B.

A cco rd in g ly th e V a tic a n C o u n cil s a y s :

a , "We b e lie v e th e re v e a le d th in g s to be t r u e : a l . "n o t on acco u n t o f th e ev id en ce by th e n a t u r a l l i g h t o f re a s o n o f th e i n t r i n s i c t r u t h o f th e tilin g s , a 2 , " b u t on a cc o u n t o f th e a u t h o r i t y o f th e r e v e a lin g God h im s e lf , who can n e i t h e r b e d eceiv ed n o r d e c e iv e ." (Denz. 1789). b. "R eason, e n lig h te n e d by f a i t h , when i t e n q u ire s c a r e f u l l y , d u t i ­ f u l l y and s o b e r ly , a t t a i n s , by G-odf s g i f t , SOME TJNDERSTANDING OF THE MYSTERIES. and t h a t most f r u i t f u l , ( a t t a i n i n g t h i s ) b o th from th e an alo g y o f th o s e th in g s w hich i t n a t u r a l l y knows, and ftam th e c o n n e c tio n o f th e m y s te rie s th e m selv e s w ith each o th e r and w ith man*s u ltim a te en d ." (D enz. 1796). C. a, b.

A c c o rd in g ly , w i l l b e b r i e f l y e x p la in e d f i r s t , th e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f th e m y s te rie s ( n . A124-), s e c o n d ly , t h e i r c o n n e c tio n (n . A125).

A124.

UNDERSTANDABILITY OF THE MYSTERIES : The SITFEHNATURAL MYSTERIES ARE INCQMgR'YmSIBLE AND DEMONSTRABLE, BUT THEY ARE UNDER­ STANDABLE ANALOGICALLY. f o r in c o m p re h e n s ib ility i s n o t u n i n t e l l i g ­ ib ility . A.

THE SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES ARE NOT UNINTELLIGIBLE:

a.

At th e o u t s e t , i t i s to be n o te d t h a t :

a l . The in c o m p re h e n sib le i s t h a t w hich i s n o t t o t a l l y u n d e rsto o d o r p e n e tr a te d by o u r u n d e rs ta n d in g , o r i n o th e r w o rd s, t h a t w h ereo f th e w hole i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i s n o t e x h au sted by o u r i n t e l l e c t ; f o r exam ple, th e n a t u r a l l y known a t t r i b u t e s o f G-od, such as h i s om nipotence, a r e incom pre­ h e n s ib l e , a lth o u g h th e y a re a n a lo g ic a lly i n t e l l i g i b l e , and even d e m o n stra b le . . a2 . The in d e m o n s tra b le : a 2 a. i s t h a t w hich can n o t b e n e c e s s a r ily i n f e r r e d : a 2 a l, w h e th er from e v id e n t p r i n c i p l e s ( a s i n *a p r i o r i f d e m o n s tra tio n ), a2a2. o r from f a c t s o f e x p e rie n c e ( a s in *a p o s t e r i o r i * d e m a ils tr a tio n ). a2 a3. o r th ro u g h r e d u c tio n to th e a b su rd ( a s i n i n d i r e c t d e m o n s tra tio n ). a2b. Thus w hat i s o n ly p ro b a b le i s i n no manner d e m o n stra te d , though i t is in te llig ib le . a3. The u n i n t e l l i g i b l e i s t h a t w hich can n o t be u n d e rs to o d : a3 a, w h eth er b e c a u se i t i s e v id e n tly ab su rd o r s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y , l i k e a sq u a re c i r c l e , a3b, o r b e ca u se i t has no m eaning, l i k e u n r e la te d w ords u tte r e d by chance ( g i b b e r i s h ) . b. The s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , a c c o rd in g to th e C hurch, a r e incom­ p r e h e n s ib le , and even cann o t b e d e m o n stra te d , w h e th er *a p r i o r i * o r *a p o s t e r i o r i * o r th ro u g h th e a b su rd . (C f. Denz. 1915). b l. N e v e rth e le s s th e d iv in e te stim o n y r e g a rd in g them i s n o t u n in ­ t e l l i g i b l e : f o r we u n d e rsta n d w hat th e p r e d ic a te s i g n i f i e s , what th e sub­ j e c t s i g n i f i e s ; and th e word ’ i s ’ , o r e x is te n c e o f th e m y ste ry , i s a ffirm e d by God. b 2. B ut th e c o n n e c tio n o f th e p r e d ic a te and th e s u b je c t rem ain s in e v id e n t, w h e refo re th e d ictu m : "F a i t h i s o f th e u n seen " . ( I l - I l , a . l , a . 5 ) • c• T h u s: c l. n o t in f r e q u e n tly a p u p il, n o t u n d e rs ta n d in g th e d e m o n stra tio n o f some c o n c lu s io n , a ffirm s t h a t c o n c lu s io n on th e a u th o r ity o f h i s te a c h e r , and y e t t h i s p r o p o s itio n i s n o t f o r him u t t e r l y u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . c2. F o r i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , l i k e i n t e l l e c t i o n , i s a n a lo g ic a l, a d m ittin g e s s e n t i a l d e g re e s , to w it: c 2 a. D iv in e i n t e l l e c t i o n ; c2b, a n g e lic i n t e l l e c t i o n ; c 2 c, human i n t e l l e c t i o n ; and i n t h i s :

c 2 c l. c2c2, c2c3. B.

u n d e rs ta n d in g c f p r i n c i p l e s ; u n d e rs ta n d in g o f c o n c lu s io n s ; u n d e rs ta n d in g o f s u f f i c i e n t l y

c r e d ib le te stim o n y .

THE SUPEHNATUj^Ji MYSTERIES ARE MAIOGICALLYINTELLIGIBLE:

a. I n th e d iv in e te stim o n y th e s u b je c t and. p r e d ic a te a re a n a lo g ic a lly i n t e l l i g i b l e to u s , a l . F o r God i n r e v e a lin g , i n o rd e r to e x p re s s h i s te stim o n y , u se s o u r n a t u r a l l y a c q u ire d n o tio n s , w hich d i r e c t l y e x p re s s som ething c re a te d and a n a lo g ic a lly som ething u n c re a te d ; th u s the n o tio n o f fa th e rh o o d a n a lo g ic a lly e x p re s s e s d iv in e fa th e rh o o d , and th e n a t u r a l n o tio n c f so n sh ip a n a lo g ic a lly e x p re ss e s th e d iv in e so n sh ip o f th e Second P e rs o n o f th e Holy T r i n i t y , and s im ila r ly th e n o tio n o f a d o p tiv e s o n sh ip a n a lo g ic a lly e x p re ss e s o u r s u p e r n a tu r a l so n sh ip . a2. I t i s q u e s tio n o f an alo g y o f p r o p o r tio n a l ity n o t o n ly m e ta p h o ric ( a s when G-od i s c a ll e d a consum ing f i r e o r i s s a id to have arms o r eyes) , b u t p ro p e r. b. T h is analo g y s ta n d s a s a due mean betw een u n iv o c ity (w herefrom would fo llo w p a n t h e i s t i c c o n fu s io n o f G-od and th e w o rld , and th e r e f o r e d e n ia l o f a s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r ) , and e q u iv o c ity (w herefrom would, fo llo w a g n o s tic is m , o r th e d o c tr in e th a t God i s unknowable to u s , save i n an a b s o lu te ly im proper m anner, to w i t , m e ta p h o ric a lly o r s y m b o lic a lly ). (C f. I , a . 13, a . 5 ) , c. The c h i e f a n a lo g ie s Eire i n d ic a te d by r e v e l a t i o n i t s e l f , a cc o rd in g a s God, i n r e v e a lin g th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , employs a n a lo g ic a l n o tio n s w hich a lre a d y e x i s t i n o u r m ind. c l . T hus: o l a . th e m y stery o f th e T r i n i t y i s e x p re sse d i n th e a n a lo g ic a l n o tio n s o f n a tu r e , p e rs o n , g e n e r a tio n , w ord, s p i r a t i o n , and lo v e ; la te r sa c re d th e o lo g y e x p lic a te s th e s e a n a lo g ie s and adduces f u r t h e r a n a lo g ie s , as S t. A u s tin and S t. Thomas have m an ifested , th e Holy T r i n i t y i n a c e r t a i n f a s h io n from th e an alo g y c f th e o p e r a tio n s o f th e s o u l, to w i t , o f i n t e l l ­ e c tio n and lo v e , (w here i t i s to be n o te d t h a t a n a lo g ie s proposed, by th e o lo g ia n s a re n o t c e r t a i n sa v e a cc o rd in g a s th e y a re e x p lic a tio n s o f a n a lo g ie s re v e a le d by God h im s e lf ; f o r human re a s o n from i t s e l f a lo n e can n o t f in d r i g h t a n a lo g ie s f o r th e knowing o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , b u t on ly f o r th e knowing o f God a s he i s th e A u th o r o f n a t u r e ) . c lb . L ik ew ise th e m y stery o f th e I n c a r n a t io n i s e x p re ssed by th e ana­ l o g i c a l n o tio n s o f n a tu r e , p e rs o n , and u n io n ; and i s i n a c e r t a i n fa s h io n m a n ife ste d from th e analo g y o f u n io n o f s o u l and body. c l c . The l i f e o f g ra c e i s i l l u s t r a t e d from th e analogy o f a good h a b i t , w hich i s , a s i t w e re , a second n a tu r e i n th e n a t u r a l o r d e r . c ld . S in i s i l l u s t r a t e d from th e an alo g y o f d e a th . c l e . The s u p e r n a tu r a l v i r t u e s , w hich a r e , l i k e g r a c e , i t s e l f , a m ystery p ro p e rly s o - c a l l e d , i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, a r e m a n ife ste d from th e analo g y o f n a t u r a l v i r t u e s , e l f . L ik ew ise th e in tim a te c o n s t i t u t i o n o f th e C hurch i s i l l u s t r a t e d from th e a n alo g y o f a n a t u r a l s o c ie ty , and from t h a t o f a l i v i n g human body, (a c c o rd in g as th e C hurch i s th e m y s tic a l body o f C h r i s t ) . c2. T hese a n a lo g i e s , e s p e c i a l l y th o s e w hich a r e n o t in d ic a te d t y r e v e l a t i o n , m ust b e advanced w ith c a u tio n and w ith o u t e x a g g e ra tio n , b u t , to u se th e w ords o f th e V a tic a n C o u n c il, " c a r e f u l l y , d u t i f u l ^ , s o b e r ly ," and i t i s to b e b o rn e i n mind t h a t , a s th e F o u rth L a te ra n C o u n cil s a y s : "Betw een th e C re a to r and th e c r e a tu r e th e r e can n o t be n o ted so g r e a t a s i m ilitu d e t h a t th e r e i s n o t t o be n o te d betw een them a s t i l l g r e a t e r d i s ­ s i m i l i t u d e ." (D enz. 4 3 2 ). C. THIS INTELLIG33IL3TY OF THE MASTERIES IS NOT APPREHENDED FORMALLY *'WITHOUT ILHjMINATI ON AND INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST". a. a l, d u tifu lly t h a t m ost

F o r th e V a tic a n C o u n cil: s a y s : "R eason e n lig h te n e d by f a i t h , when i t e n q u ire s c a r e f u l l y , and s o b e r ly , a t t a i n s , b y th e g i f t o f God, some u n d e rs ta n d in g , and f r u i t f u l , o f th e m y s te r ie s ." (D enz. 1796),

a2. And i t had a lre a d jr d e c la r e d , c i t i n g th e w ords o f th e Second C o u n cil o f O ran g e; "No-one can. f c o n se n t to th e g o sp e l p re a c h in g , * a s i s n e e d fu l f o r th e a tta in m e n t o f s a lv a tio n , *w ith o u t illu m i n a ti o n and i n s p i r a t i o n o f th e H oly G host who g iv e s to a l l s u a v it3’’ i n c o n se n tin g to and "b eliev in g th e tru th * (Denz, 178 s q ) . W herefore th e v e ry f a i t h i n i t s e l f , even though i t "be n o t o p e r a tiv e th ro u g h C h a r ity , i s a g i f t o f God, ( c f . Gal* 5 ,6 ) ." (D enz. 1791). h. F o r t h i s under s t a n d i b i l i t y o f th e m y s te rie s i s s u p e r n a tu r a l and th e r e f o r e can n o t b e a t t a i n e d FORMALLY save u n d e r th e in fu s e d l i g h t o f f a i t h , whereby o u r i n t e l l e c t i s elevated, and th e n o tio n s and th e v e rb *is* o f th e dogm atic p r o p o s itio n a re c o rre sp o n d in g ly r a i s e d . b l . F o r o th e rw is e th e r e would be la c k in g p ro p o r tio n betw een knowledge and th e o b je c t to be b e lie v e d , n o r would b e l i e f b e m ost c e r t a i n , b u t r a t h e r th e dogm atic fo rm u las would be o n ly m a t e r i a l l y known a s re g a rd s th e l e t t e r . b 2 • Thus an u n p r a c tis e d p u p il, la c k in g th e h a b it o f m e ta p h y sic s , some­ tim e s does n o t u n d e rsta n d some m e ta p h y sic a l p r i n c i p l e i n i t s e l f (a c c o rd in g to i t s a b s o lu te n e c e s s ity and u n i v e r s a l i t y ) , b u t o n ly m a te r ia lly i n examples proposed t o le a d th e m ind. c. T h is n e c e s s ity o f g ra c e f o r s u p e r n a tu r a l f a i t h w i l l b e d e a l t w ith i n th e t r e a t i s e on th e in fu s e d v i r t u e s ( c f . In . I . C or. 2 .1 4 ; I I - I I , q ,7 9 a . 5 ; I I - I I , , q , 1 5 , a . l ; I , q .6 4 , a . l ; I I - I I , q .5 , a , 2 ; De M alo, q .1 6 , a , 6 ) . A125.

INTERCONIIECTION OF THE MYSTERIES: The c o n n e c tio n o f th e m y s te rie s betw een th e m selv e s and w ith man* s u ltim a te end i s p a r t l y re v e a le d b u t p a r t l y deduced by sa c re d th e o lo g y .

A. The supreme m y ste r37 w h ereto a l l th e o th e r s a r e s u b o rd in a te d , a s in m e ta p h y sic s a l l n o tio n s a r e s u b o rd in a te d to th e n o tio n o f b e in g , i s th e m y stery o f th e in tim a te l i f e o f D e ity , w h ic h i s e x p l i c i t l y e x p re ssed in th e dogma o f th e H oly T r i n i t y , a. The s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e o f g ra c e w hereto man has b een e le v a te d from th e b e g in n in g o f h i s c r e a t i o n , i s r e v e a le d as a p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f God*s in tim a te l i f e o r o f th e d iv in e n a tu r e . b. t r i g i n a l g in and m o rta l s i n i n g e n e r a l i s a p r i v a t i o n o f t h i s l i f e o f g r a c e ; w h ile d e a th and th e d iv e r s e p e n a lt ie s su ch as th e p e n a lty o f h e l l a r e consequences o f s i n . c_. B ut th e re d e m p tio n th ro u g h th e I n c a r n a t e Word i s a r e p a i r i n g o f th e e v i l w rought th ro u g h s i n . d. The e f f e c t s o f th e re d e m p tio n a re th e l i f e o f th e C hurch, th e power o f th e s a c ra m e n ts, our j u s t i f i c a t i o n , g ra c e r e s to r e d to u s , and th e s u p e r­ n a t u r a l v i r t u e s w hereby man i s o rd e re d to w ard s e te r n a l l i f e , w h ich c o n s i s t s i n th e v is io n and enjoym ent o f th e d iv in e e sse n c e and o f th e Holy T r i n i t y . B. T hese r e v e a le d c o n n e c tio n s c o n s t i t u t e th e d o c tr in e o f f a i t h p reach ed by C h r is t and th e a p o s t l e s b e f o r e th e s c ie n c e o f s a c re d th e o lo g y was con­ s titu te d . ае. But t h i s s c ie n c e more e x p l i c i t l y exposes th e s e c o n n e c tio n s , and de­ duces th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu s io n s , j u s t a s m e ta p h y sic s more e x p l i c i t l y p ro p o ses th e c o n n e c tio n s o f th e t r u t h s o f n a t u r a l r e a s o n . b. Thus s a c re d th e o lo g y i s " f a i t h seek in g u n d e rs ta n d in g " , and i s p ro ­ p e r ly " s c ie n c e s u b o rd in a te d to th e s c ie n c e o f God and o f th e b le s s e d " , ( i , q . l , a . 2 ) , and " a s i t w ere a c e r t a i n im p re s sio n o f th e d iv in e sc ie n c e " i n us ( l , q . l , a . 3 , a d .2 ) . с. A c c o rd in g ly , o f th e m y s te rie s i s a c q u ire d "a m ost f r u i t f u l u n d e r­ s ta n d in g " and feruly th e b e l i e v e r i s ta u g h t by h i s te a c h e r , God, so as to a r r i v e a t e v id en c e o f th e d iv in e s c ie n c e , i . e . v is io n o f th e d iv in e esse n ce its e lf. C. As r e g a r d s th e s u b o rd in a tio n o f th e m y s te r ie s : a. th e m y stery o f th e T r i n i t y i s th e h ig h e s t and to us th e m ost ob­ s c u r e , b u t when i t w i l l became e v id e n t to u s , u n d er t h e l i g h t o f g lo r y , th e n by t h a t v e ry f a c t th e o th e r s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s w hich e s s e n t i a l l y depend

COPYRIGHT

upon i t w i l l become e v id e n t to u s . b. Now we a r e d i s c i p l e s b e lie v in g on account o f th e a u th o r ity o f th e M a s te r; we undergo a p ro g r e s s iv e i n i t i a t i o n to th e d iv in e s c ie n c e , and a lre a d y i n th e o b s c u r ity o f f a i t h we may c o n te m p la te th e c o n n e c tio n o f th e o th e r m y s te rie s w ith th e supreme m y stery . D.

T h is c o n n e c tio n o f th e m y s te rie s :

a.

may be s c h e m a tic a lly i l l u s t r a t e d t h u s : HOLY TRINITY FATHER SON

HOLY GHOST

C re a tio n and E le v a tio n .

E te rn a l l i f e .

O r ig in a l S in .

Communion o f S a in ts .

In c a rn a tio n .

* C h arity.

R edem ption,

Hope.

Church.

F a ith .

S acram en ts.

G race.

E u c h a ri s t ( C h r is t* s B ody).

M issio n o f th e Holy G h o st.

b. Thus a l l th in g s proceed from God and r e t u r n to God: b l . F i r s t i s m a n ife ste d th e F a th e r , i n c r e a t i o n and th e s u p e r n a tu r a l e le v a tio n whereby we a r e h i s so n s; b 2 . n e x t i s m a n ife ste d th e Son, i n th e I n c a r n a tio n , th e re d e m p tio n , th e C hurch, and th e sac ra m e n ts, e s p e c ia ll y th e E u c h a r is t. b 3 , l a s t l y i s m a n ife ste d th e Holy G host i n th e p ro g r e s s iv e s a n c t i f ­ i c a t i o n o f s c u ls r i g h t t o t h e i r l i f e o f u n io n w ith God and to th e b e a t i f i c v is io n .

DISSERTATION TWO. EXISTENCE OF AN ORDER OF SUPERNATURAL TRUTH IN GOD. A126.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE: I n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l b e shown th e p o ss­ i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s on th e p a r t o f th e OBJECT o f such r e v e l a t i o n , A. T h e re fo re th e CONCLUSION to be h e re e s ta b lis h e d i s t h a t POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION OF SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES IS IROVED ON THE PART OF THE OBJECT THEREOF, FORASMUCH AS IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE EXISTS IN GOD AN ORDER OF SUPERNATURAL TRUTH, i . e. OF SUPERNATURAL MYSTERY.

B. A cco rd in g ly t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l proceed a c c o rd in g to th e fo llo w ­ in g o r d e r : a.

F i r s t . w i l l he exposed c e r t a i n p r e a m b l e s ..................... . . . T opic one,

b,

Seco n d ly , w i l l be proposed th e p r o o f ,

o.

T h i r d ly , w i l l b e drawn c o r o l l a r i e s . . . . . ......................... . . . T o p i c th r e e .

................. .T o p ic two,

TOPIC ONE. PREAMBLES. A127.

HETERODOX DOCTRINES: H eterodox d o c tr in e s c h ie f ly to be c o n sid e re d r e l a t i v e l y to t h i s q u e s tio n a r e th e fo llo w in g :

Am P a n t h e i s t i c R a t i o n a l i s t s and S e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s deny th e e x is te n c e o f any o r d e r ex ceed in g OBJECTIVELY th e powers o f o u r re a s o n . 3 . P e la g ia n s and S e m i-p e la g ia n s deny th e e x is te n c e o f any o rd e r s u p e r­ n a t u r a l in th e se n s e t h a t i t yrould exceed SUBJECTIVELY th e n a t u r a l powers o f o u r n a tu r e , o r a t l e a s t o u r n a t u r a l m e r i t s ; w hich m eans: a , t h a t t h e r e a r e i n God t r u t h s w hereof we co u ld n o t know th e e x is te n c e w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , b . b u t , g iv e n such e x te r n a l r e v e l a t i o n , i n t e r n a l g ra c e would n o t b e n e c e s s a ry f o r f a i t h , o r a t l e a s t f o r th e b e g in n in g o f f a i t h . C. The e a r ly P r o t e s t a n t s , and Du Bay and J a n s e n deny any o rd e r s u p e r­ n a t u r a l i n th e sen se t h a t i t would exceed th e EXIGENCY o f o u r n a tu r e , th u s th e y make g ra c e due to our n a tu r e , (O f. Denz. 1 0 2 1 ). A128.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE: I t i s s u f f i c i e n t h e re to r e c a l l th e condem nations by th e Church o f p a n t h e i s t i c r a tio n a lis m , and o f s e m i-ra tio n a lis m , and th e e r r o r s w hich a r e commonly r e j e c t e d by th e o lo g ia n s to d a y r e g a rd in g th e tra n sc e n d e n c e o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r .

A. A g a in st p a n t h e i s t i c e v o lu tio n is m ( v .g . o f H e g e l) : a. The V a tic a n C o u n cil d e fin e d : " I f anyone say s t h a t man can n o t b e d iv in e ly r a i s e d up to knowledge and p e r f e c t io n w hich s u rp a s s e s n a t u r a l (know ledge and. p e r f e c t i o n ) , b u t can from h im s e lf by c o n s ta n t p ro g re s s a t le n g th a r r i v e a t p o s s e s s io n o f ev ery t r u t h and good, a . s . " (D enz. 18#8). b. W herefrom i t fo llo w s t h a t , a c c o rd in g to th e Church, th e o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h exceeds OBJECTIVELY th e powers and even th e n a t u r a l p e r­ f e c t i b i l i t y o f o u r n a tu r e , how soever g r e a t i t s p ro g r e s s iv e e v o lu tio n be supposed to b e . B. A g a in st S c m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s . e s p e c ia ll y Frohscham m er. th e Church more d e te r m in a te ly p ro p o ses w hat i s th e o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h (Cf* Denz. 1669). a. S e m i-ra tio n a lis ts : a l . a d m itte d in d e ed th e e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n and th e f a c t o f d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , a 2 . b u t th e y m a in ta in e d t h a t a l l th e r e v e a le d p e r t a i n to G-od (s u c h a s th e T r i n i t y ) , c an , a t l e a s t b e d em o n strated from th e p r in c ip le s n a t u r a l l y known th e n a t u r a l powers o f re a s o n . b. b l»

o f God from th e w orld t r u t h s w hich n e c e s s a r ily a f te r th e ir re v e la tio n , by o u r re a s o n and th ro u g h

T h is te a c h in g was condemned: b o th by P iu s IX ( o f . Denz. 1669; 1671; 1682; 1 7 0 9 );

A76 b2, and “by th e V a tic a n C o u n c il: " I f anyone say s th a t i n d iv in e r e v e l ­ a t i o n a r e c o n ta in e d no tru & a n d p ro p e rly so -c a lle d , m y s te r ie s , h u t t h a t a l l th e dogmas o f f a i t h can h e jknderstood and d em onstrated from n a t u r a l p r in c ip le s by d u ly c u ltiv a te d r e a s o n , a . s . " (Denz. 1816; o f . Denz. 1795-1796;o f ,A ll5 ,B ) . C. A g a in st H osm ini was condemned c o n fu s io n o f th e o rd e r o f n a t u r a l t r u t h and th e o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l tr u th ,a c c o r d in g a s R osm ini s a id t h a t " th e m ystery o f th e Most H0I 3/ T r i n i t y h av in g b een r e v e a le d , i t s e x is te n c e can he d em o n strated hy m erely s p e c u la tiv e arg u m en ts, n e g a tiv e in d eed and i n d i r e c t , y e t such t h a t t ro u g h them t h a t t r u t h he red u ced to p h ilo s o p h ic d i s c i p l i n e s , pur e r e a s o n . " (D enz. 1915; c f . D ens. 1926-1928), D. The e r r o r s o f Q n to lo g is ts w ere lik e w is e condemned ( c f . Denz. 16591665), to w i t , t h a t : a . " Im m ediate knovirledge o f God, a t l e a s t h a b i t u a l , i s e s s e n t i a l to human i n t e l l e c t , so t h a t w ith o u t i t " o u r i n t e l l e c t " c a n know n o th in g : f o r i t i s th e v e ry i n t e l l e c t u a l l i g h t i t s e l f , " (D enz, 1659). h . "T hat he w hich we u n d e rstan d i n a l l th in g s and w ith o u t w hich we u n d e rsta n d n o th in g , i s th e d iv in e h e ." (Denz. 1660). c. "U n iv e rs a ls c o n sid e re d on th e p a r t o f th e r e a l , a re n o t r e a l l y d i s ­ tin g u is h e d from God." (Denz. 1661). E.

L a s t l y , C a th o lic th e o lo g ia n s to d ay coirmonl.v t e a c h :

a. two c o n c lu s io n s , to w it: a l . t h a t , even th ro u g h G o d 's a b s o lu te power, th e r e co u ld n o t he c re a te d an i n t e l l e c t , w hich would he a b le th ro u g h its .o w ^ n a t u r a l powers to see God as he i s i n h im s e lf ; a2 . n o r co u ld th e r e he c r e a te d a s u p e r n a tu r a l su b sta n c e to which th e l i g h t of g lo ry would be c o n n a tu r a l. (C f, Salman t i c e n s i a n s : I n I . q . 1 2 , d is p . I l l , dub. I - I I ) , h. These two c o n c lu s io n s a re today conraonly h e ld " a g a in s t P u r and u s , M o lin a , P ip a id a . A r r ia g a , . . . . . . . . .whose o p in io n Vasquez c a l l s i n e p t . N a z a riu s ( c a l l s ) r a s h , Barmez ( c a l l s ) s ig n a l ig n o ra n c e ," (G o n e t: C lypeus T h o m ist., t r . I I , de p o s s i b i l i t a t e v i s i o n i s , d is p . I , a . l ) . c.

A lread y b e fo re M o lin a :

o l. S co tu s and th e m ed iaev al N o m in a lis ts had defended an o p in io n sim­ i l a r to t h a t o f M o lin a , denying a b s o lu te n e c e s s ity o f a s u p e r n a tu r a l l i g h t o f g lo ry f o r v i s i o n o f God. (C f. S c o tu s : In H I , d i s t . XIV, P a u l when he i s showing w hat i s th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o b je c t o f f a i t h and p f th e b o a t i f i o v i s i o n : ' A.

"Wo spook wisdom among th e p e r f e c t ;

COPYRIGHT

y e t n o t th e wisdom o f t h i s >

y^prld, n e i t h e r o f th e p rin c e s o f t h i s w orld t h a t come to n a u g h t. B ut we fp e a k th e wisdom o f God i n a m y ste ry , a wisdom w hich i s h id d e n , w hich G-od o rd a in e d B efo re th e w o rld , unto o u r g lo ry . Which none o f th e p rin c e s o f •this w orld knew ,. . . . . .B u t, as i t i s w r i t t e n : ’T h at eye h a th n o t se e n , n o r isar h o a rd , n e i t h e r h a th i t e n te re d i n t o th e h e a r t o f man, w hat th in g s G-od ff&th p re p a red fchr them t h a t lo v e him, * ( i s . 6 4 .4 ) , But to u s God h a th g fv e a le d them , "by h i s S p i r i t , F o r th e S p i r i t s e a rc h e th a l l th in g s , y e a , |h o deep th in g s o f G-od. F o r w hat man knoweth th e th in g s o f a man, out th e S p i r i t o f a man t h a t i s i n him? So th e th in g s a ls o t h a t a r e o f God, no man khowoth, h u t th e S p i r i t o f God. Now? we have re c e iv e d n o t th e s p i r i t o f t h i s isferld, h u t th e S p i r i t t h a t i s o f God: th a t we may know th e t h i n g s , t h a t a re ||v e n us from G o d ." (I C o r.2 ,6 -1 1 ). B,

H aro S t . P a u l e x p la in s t h a t :

"'■ a . j u s t as we can 3now n a t u r a l l y th e e x t e r i o r l i f e o f o th e r men, h u t n o t o n ly " th e s p i r i t t j i e i r in tim a te l i f e o r th e s e c r e ts o f t h e i r h e a r t s , th e man t h a t i s i n him" knows t h i s , u n le s s th e y th em selv es t e l l i t to u s : I t Tf,

7

b. so a ls o : h i . " th e deep th in g s o f God", o r , a s S t . P a u l o th e rw is e c a l l s them, ’’th e th in g s w hich eye h a th n o t se e n , n o r e a r h e a rd , n o r have e n te re d i n t o t^ e h e a r t c f man", to w i t , th o s e th in g s w hich a r e im m ed iately p ro p e r t© Gcd, o r th e d iv in e m y s te r ie s , a re n o t a tta in e d hy us sav e ■Snrough |i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n : "But t o u s God h a th r e v e a le d them, hy h i s S p i r i t ; " :H h 2 , and th e s e s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h s : h 2 a . w hioh man hy h i s n a t u r a l powers cannot d e t e c t , s in c e "no man know:| t h , h u t th e S p i r i t o f God," f t h2h. a r e : h 2 h l. lcnown hy th e S p i r i t o f God, y - h2h2. and re v e a le d to u s . o. W herefore mail s t r i c t l y needs d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i n o rd e r t o know th e s e t r u t h s n a t u r a l l y unknowable to him. 0. T h e re fo re : a, j u s t as i t c a m o t he d e n ie d th a t God h a s an in tim a te l i f e , h, so i t cannot he d e n ied t h a t i n God th e r e i s an o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y stery . |tl3 7 ,

SUMMARY OF THIS ARGUMENTATION: The w hole fo re g o in g d e m o n stra tio n o f th o e x is te n c e o f an o rd e r o f t r u t h i n God unknowable p o s i t i v e l y Iso w h atso ev er c r e a t u r a l i n t e l l e c t a cc o rd in g to th e n a t u r a l powers th e r e o f f a y he red u ced to t h i s , t h a t INTELLECT AND INTELLIGIBLE ARE ANALOGOUS, AS IS BEING. (O f. Woodbury: N.PhV, n n . 6 5 3 -6 6 1 ). W

S;

------

A. T h e r e f o r e : v a. c re a te d i n t e l l e c t and d iv in e i n t e l l e c t have o n ly a n a lo g ic a l comm­ u n ity a cc o rd in g to analogy o f p ro p e r p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y , a c c o rd in g as each has fe I t s own p ro p e r o b je c t , h. and th e s e d iv e r s e p ro p e r o b je c ts have lik e w is e o n ly a n a lo g ic a l Community i n b e in g , w hich i s th e ad eq u ate o b je c t o f i n t e l l e c t as i t i s » B.

Which may h e th u s i l l u s t r a t e d s c h e m a tic a lly : DIVINE......... th e p ro p e r o b je c t i s . . . .*DIV3NE

Of INTELLECT w hich i s

ANGELIC.. . . HUMAN,

.....A N G ELIC it

CORPOREAL

BEING

0, Y/horefrom i t a p p e a rs: a* t h a t nc c r e a te d i n t e l l e c t can from i t s n a tu r a l o b je c tiv e medium p o s i t i v e l y knew th e p ro p e r o b je c t o f th e d iv in e i n t e l l e c t , to w i t , what p e r ta in s im m ediately ( o r ! p e r se* p rim a rily ) to God under th e in tim a te reason'*;, o f D e ity , b, W herefore th e in tim a te l i f e o f God c o n s t i t u t e s an o rd e r o f su p e r­ n a t u r a l m y ste ry , w hich can n o t even a n a lo g ic a lly be known from c r e a tu r e s ( i . e . from a c re a te d o b je c tiv e medium) w ith o u t r e v e l a t i o n , w h e rein su p e r­ n a t u r a l m ystery p ro p e rly s o - c a lle d d i f f e r s from n a t u r a l m y s te r ie s , whose e x is te n c e can b e known w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n .

» TOPIC THREE. CERTAIN COROLLARIES. A138.

FIRST CCROLLARY: THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER EXCEEDS SUBJECTIVELY THE POWER OF MY CREATED INTELLECT.

A. T h is i s shown by S t. Thomas: a , in g e n e r a l, w here he i s d e a lin g w ith th e n e c e s s ity o f g ra o e f o r th e knowing o f t r u t h ( I - I I , q .1 0 9 , a . l ) ; b . in s p o o la l: b l . whore he shows th e n e c e s s ity o f th e l i g h t o f g lo r y f o r th e see in g o f Grod ( I , q .1 2 , a . 5 ) j b 2. w here he shows th e n e c e s s ity o f th e l i g h t o f f a i t h f o r b e lie v in g th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s a lre a d y re v e a le d and s u f f i c i e n t l y proposed th ro u g h th e p re a o h in g o f th e g o sp e l ( I I - I I , q .6 , a . l ) . B. T h is d o o trin e i s to be m a in ta in e d : a , b o th a g a in s t th e P e la g ia n s and S e m i-p e la g ia n s who sa id t h a t f o r th e b e lie v in g o f th e m y s te rie s o f f a i t h , o r a t l e a s t f o r th e b e g in n in g o f such b e l i e f , e x te r n a l r e v e l a t i o n th ro u g h th e g o sp e l p re a c h in g s u f f i c e s , no i n t e r n a l l i g h t e le v a tin g th e c re a te d i n t e l l e c t b e in g r e q u ir e d : ( o f . Denz, 1 7 8 -1 7 9 ); b . and a g a in s t th e B eguards who s a id t h a t " th e so u l does n o t need th e l i g h t o f g lo ry e le v a tin g i t t o see God and to en jo y him b e a t i f i c a l l y . " (Denz, 4 7 5 ). C. T h is c o ro lla ry " i s in d e ed deduced fro m what h a s J u s t b een proved (n n . A130-A157), to w i t , t h a t th e r e i s an o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h OBJECTIVELY exceeding th e n a t u r a l powers o f any c r e a t u r a l i n t e l l e c t . a. F b r th e n a tu r a l v ig o r o f a c o g n o s o itiv e power i s s p e c if ie d from i t s n a t u r a l o b je c t iv e medium, and i s p ro p o r tio n a te th e r e u n to , fo r power e s s e n t i a l l y i s bespoken tow ards a c t , and a c t i s s p e c if ie d from i t s o b je o t. (C f. I , q .8 9 , a . l ) , b. B u t, a s has J u s t b e en p ro v ed , th e r e e x i s t s i n God an o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m ystery w hich exceeds th e n a t u r a l o b je c tiv e medium o f any c re a tu ra l i n t e l l e c t . c. T h e re fo re such m y stery exceeds a ls o th e n a t u r a l v ig o r o f any o r e a tu r a l i n t e l l e c t . c l . W h erefo re, i n o rd e r t h a t some c r e a te d i n t e l l e c t see God, i t needs: c l a . n o t o n ly o b je c tiv e m a n if e s ta tio n o f th e d iv in e e ss e n c e , i . e . n o t only th a t th e d iv in e e sse n c e be rendered, p re s e n t to i t under th o re a so n o f o b je c t. o lb , b u t a ls o s u b je c tiv e e le v a tio n , to w i t , to th e o rd e r o f im m ater­ i a l i t y o f th e d iv in e i n t e l l e c t , c2 . W ithout w hich s u b je c tiv e e le v a tio n o r in v ig o r a tio n th e o r e a t u r a l i n t e l l e c t would b e b e fo re th e g lo r io u s God " l i k e th e eye o f th e owl b e fo re th e l i g h t o f th e su n ." (M o ta ., l a , I , 993b, 9 ) ,

D. T h e re fo re : a. T ham ists unanim ously m a in ta in a g a in s t S c o tu s and M olina t h a t th e o r e a t u r a l i n t e l l e o t c a n n o t, even Saom G od's a b s o lu te power, s e e God th ro u g h e sse n c e w ith o u t th e l i g h t o f g lo r y j f o r an i n t e l l e c t i n t r i n s i c a l l y im p o ten t n eed s to b e i n t r i n s i c a l l y e le v a te d i n o rd e r to be i n t r i n s i c a l l y p o te n t. b. L ik ew ise Thom iats te a c h th a t an i n t e r n a l l i g h t o f f a i t h i s n e c e s s a ry f o r fo rm al a s s e n t to th e m y s te rie s o f f a i t h . A139.

SECOND COROLLARY: THE SUI?EKNATURAL ORDER EXCEEDS THE EXIGENCY OF ANY ORRATURAJj I NTELLECT.

A, T h is i s to be m a in ta in e d : a. a g a in s t Du B ay, o f whom th e fo llo w in g p r o p o s itio n i s condemned: " S u b lim a tio n and e x a l t a t i o n o f human n a tu re un to c o n s o r t o f th e d iv in e n a tu r e was due to th e i n t e g r i t y o f (Man1s) f i r s t c o n d itio n , and- th e r e f o r e i s to b e pronounced n a t u r a l , n o t s u p e r n a tu r a l." (D enz. 1021; c f . 1#23; 102 6 ); b* and a g a in s t e a r ly P r o t e s t a n t s such as L u th e r and C a lv in : o, and a g a in s t th e J a n s e n i s t s ( o f . Denz. 1385; 1516; 1 5 1 8 ); d. and a g a in s t th e M o d e r n is ts , who p o s i t i n humna n a tu r e n o t o n ly c a p a c ity , b u t a l s o e x ig e n c y , f o r a s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r ( c f . Denz. 2 1 t3 ). B, Which f a l s e d o c tr in e i s c o n fu te d f r e q u e n tly by S t. Thomas ( v .g . I - I I , q* 109, a a . 5—6 ; q .1 1 2 , a . 3 ; q .ll4 r , a . 2 ; q.114:, a . 5 ; I , q .6 2 , a . 2 ; De V e r i t y q, 14, a . l ; q .2 7 , a . 2) C. How t h i s c o r o lla r y fo llo w s from w hat h a s b een j u s t p ro v ed , th u s a p p e a rs : a. What a b s o lu te ly ex ceed s th e n a t u r a l o b je c tiv e medium o f any c r e a t u r a l i n t e l l e c t , t o g e th e r exceeds th e n a tu r a l end o r n a t u r a l p e r f e c t io n o f th e c r e a t u r e : a l, f o r th e c r e a tu r e can n o t a t t a i n i t by i t s n a t u r a l pow ers; a2 , nor can th e c r e a t u r e be n a t u r a l l y o rd e re d to an end whioh i t can n o t n a tu ra lly a tta in . b. B ut w hat exceeds th e n a t u r a l end o r p e r f e c t io n o f som ething exceeds th e ex ig en cy o f i t s n a tu r e ; f o r n a tu r e r e q u ir e d on ly t h a t w hereby i t i s a b le to a t t a i n i t s n a t u r a l end. o. T h e re fo re th e o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h and l i f e , from t h i s t h a t i t exceeds th e n a t u r a l o b je c tiv e medium o f th e o r e a t u r a l i n t e l l e c t , exoeeds th e n a t u r a l ex ig en cy o f th e c r e a tu r e . D. W h erefo re : a. s in c e th e knowledge o f God w hereunto i t s n a tu r a l o b je c tiv e medium can conduct human i n t e l l e c t i s a b s t r a c t i v e knowledge o f God, th e n a t u r a l end o f man c o n s is ts i n such a b s t r a c t i v e knowledge o f God* b. b u t , s in c e i t s n a t u r a l o b je c tiv e medium cannot oonduct human i n t e l l e c t to q u i d d i t a t i v e , o r in d eed tc any p o s i t i v e , knowledge o f G o d 's in tim a te l i f e o r in tim a te c o n s t i t u t i v e , m an 's n a t u r a l end does n o t c o n s is t i n q u i d d i t a t i v e knowledge ( o r im m ediate v is io n ) o f th e d iv in e e ss e n c e , b u t t h i s c an b e , IF GOD SO DISPOSE FROM HIS FREE LOVE OF THE INTELLECTUAL CREATURE, a s u p e r n a tu r a l, and undue, end. A140.

THIRD COROLLARY: BETWEEN NATURAL TRUTHS AND SUPERNATURAL TRUTHS. THERE CAN BE NEITHER DISSENSION ON THE ONE HAND, NOR CONFUSION ON THE OTHER HAND, BUT THERE IS HARMONY. A.

THERE CANNOT BE DISSENSION OR CONTRADICTION:

a. A g a in st S e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s and F i d e i s t s , th e V atio o n C o u n cil a s s ig n s th e re a s o n o f t h i s : a l . "A lthough f a i t h be above r e a s o n , y e t no tr u e d is s e n s io n can e v e r b e betw een f a i t h and re a s o n ; s in c e th e same God, who r e v e a ls th e m y s te rie s and in f u s e s f a i t h , lias im p lan ted th e l i g h t c f re a s o n i n th e human m ind, b u t God can n o t deny h im s e lf , n o r can th e tr u e e v er c o n tr a d ic t th e t r u e . a2. "But th e vacuous ap o earan ce o f t h i s c o n tr a d ic tio n a r i s e s most c h ie f -

l y from t h i s , e i t h e r t h a t th e dogmas o f f a i t h have n o t b e en u n d e rsto o d and exposed a cc o rd in g to th e mind o f th e C hurch, o r t h a t th e f a b r i c a t i o n s o f o p in io n s a r e re g a rd e d a s th e v e r d i c t s o f re a s o n . a3. "A cco rd in g ly !we d e fin e t h a t every a s s e r t i o n c o n tr a r y to th e t r u t h o f e n lig h te n e d f a i t h i s u t t e r l y f a l s e , ,n (Denz, 1797), b. In d e e d : bl» I n o r d e r t h a t th e tr u e could c o n tr a d ic t th e t r u e , a s c e r t a i n modern r e l a t i v i s t s c o n te n d , BEING- If QUID HAVE TO BE EQUIVOCAL. i . e . b e in g would n o t u n iv e r s a ll y have t h i s common, t h a t i t yrould be th e c o n tr a d ic to r y o f n o n -b e in g . b 2 . Then in d e e d ; b2a. th e supreme p r in c ip le ( o f n o n -c o n tra d ic tio n ) would n o t have r e a l v a lu e , a s H egel seems to have ta u g h t, b2b, and t r u e could c o n tr a d ic t t r u e , b 2 c, and th e r e would b e no a b s o lu te t r u t h , n o r would a n y th in g be abso­ lu te ly tru e , b2d, b u t c o n tr a d ic t o r ie s c o u ld b e tr u e to g e th e r . (C f. M eta, IV ). B.

NOR CAN THERE BE PANTHEISTIC CdJFUSIQN BETWEEN THESE TWO ORDERS:

a, F o r b e in g i s s a i d , n o t u n i v o c a lly , b u t a n a lo g ic a lly ., o f b e in g by e sse n c e and o f b e in g by p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a l . T h is c o n fu sio n w ould in d eed fo llo w from u n iv o c ity o f b e in g , f o r th e n th e r e could be no e s s e n t i a l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n i n b e in g , s in c e th e n b e in g would, be a g en u s; b u t a genus i s n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d save th ro u g h e x t r i n s i c d iffe re n c e s , b u t no d if f e r e n c e s a r e e x t r i n s i c to b e in g . a2. W herefore Str. Thomas s a y s : a 2 a ," I t can n o t b e u n d e rsto o d t h a t upon th e re a s o n o f b e in g th e r e su p e r­ vene som ething th ro u g h w hich i t would b e d i v e r s i f i e d ; a 2 a l, " f o r what su p erv en es upon b e in g , must n eed s b e e x tra n e o u s from b e in g , a2a2, "But what i s su ch , i s n o th in g . a2a3, "W herefore i t does n o t seem t h a t i t can d i v e r s i f y b e i n g . . , . . a2b, "But i n t h i s w ere" Parm enides and o th e rs "d eceiv ed , b ecau se th ey used b e in g as one re a s o n and one n a tu r e , as i s th e n a tu r e o f a g e n u s; a 2 b l. "F or t h i s i s im p o s s ib le , a2b2. " f o r b e in g i s n o t a g en u s, b u t i s m a n ifo ld ly " ( i . e , a n a lo g ic a lly ) " s a id o f d iv e rs e " b e in g s , ( i n I M e ta ., l e c t , IX, n n . 13 8 -1 3 9 ), b . W herefore, j u s t as e q u iv o c itv o f b e in g would le a d to c o n tr a d ic tio n betw een th e n a tu r a l o r d e r and th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r , so u n iv o c ity o f b e in g le a d s to p a n th e i s tic c o n fu sio n o f th e s e two o r d e r s , b l . W herefrom i t ap p ears how th e seed o f g r e a t d o c t r i n a l d an g er l i e s in Sc o tu s 1 te a c h in g t h a t b e in g i s u n i v o c a l to God and th e c r e a t u r e , b 2 . The f i r s t c o n se q u e n ts o f t h i s te a c h in g seem to be th e condemned p r o p o s itio n s o f R osm ini. v , g e " In th e b e in g , w hich p re s c in d s from c r e a tu r e s and from G o d ,,. . . . . . . and i n G o d ,.. . . . . t h e same i s th e e s s e n c e ." (G f.D enz. 1801-1896). b 3 . From th e s e p r o p o s itio n s fo llo w s S e m i-ra tio n a lis m ; b4 , and a c c o rd in g ly Rosm ini in te n d e d to d em o n strate p h ilo s o p h ic a lly th e m ystery o f th e T r i n i t y ( c f . Denz, 1915). 0. BUT THERE IS HARMONY OR SUBORDINATION BETWEEN THE ORDER OF NATURAL TRUTH AND THE ORDER OF SUPERNATURAL TRUTH: a. F o r th e o rd e r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h i s th e o rd e r o f t r u t h ( i . e . o f u n d e rs ta n d a b le r e a l i t 'r ) p e r ta in in g to God a c c o rd in g to h is in tim a te and p ro p e r c o n s t i t u t i v e a cc o rd in g as he tra n s c e n d s a l l , even a n a lo g ic a l, comm­ u n ity w ith c r e a t u r e s , w hereas th e o rd e r o f n a t u r a l t r u t h i s th e o rd e r o f t r u t h p e r ta in in g to c re a te d n a tu r e s and to God o n ly a cc o rd in g a s he h as a n a lo g ic a l c o m u n ity w ith c r e a tu r e s . a l . T h e re fo re p h ilo so p h y , a lth o u g h i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d is tin g u is h e d from s a c re d th e o lo g y , ought n o t be s e p a ra te d from i t , b u t ought to be sub­ o rd in a te d to d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n " a s c r e a te d re a s o n i s s u b je c te d r i g h t to i t s v e ry d e p th s to th e in c r e a te d T r u th ." (Denz, 1789);, a2. W herefore a re condemned th e s e p r o p o s itio n s o f th e S e m i - r a t i o n a l i s t s : a2a, "P hilo so p h y i s to bo t r e a t e d , no account b e in g ta k e n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n ." (Denz, 1714),

a2b, "S in ce o th e r i s th e p h ilo s o p h e r, and o th e r p h ilo so p h y , th e fo rm er h a s th e r i g h t and duty to su b m it h im s e lf to a u th o r ity w hich he h as proved g e n u in e; b u t p h ilo so p h y n e i t h e r c a n , n o r o u g h t, subm it i t s e l f to any a u th ­ o r i t y . " (D ens. 1710), b* M oreover, as w i l l b e more m a n ife st from what w i l l be s a id i n th e fo llo w in g D i s s e r t a t i o n on th e e l e v a b i l i t y o f human n a tu r e to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r, b l , s u p e r n a tu r a l g i f t s o r g race does n o t d e s tro y n a tu r e , b u t r a t h e r p e rfe c ts i t , b 2 , and th e com m unication o f th e s e g i f t s to man does no v io le n c e to him , b u t i s i n th e h ig h e s t manner b e f i t t i n g to him.

DISSERTATION THREE. CAPACITY OP MAN FOR ELEVATION TO THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER. A141.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE: I n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l be defended th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s on th e p a r t o f th e AGENT and o f th e SUBJECT o f such r e v e l a t i o n , i . e , on th e p a r t o f God making such r e v e l a t i o n and on th e p a r t o f man r e c e iv in g i t , A, A c c o rd in g ly , th e CONCLUSION to b e h e re e s ta b lis h e d i s t h a t POSSIB­ ILITY OF THE REVELATION OF SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES CANNOT BE DISPROVED ON THE PART OF ITS SUBJECT OR ON THE PART OF ITS AGENT : EVEN FURTHER. THERE IS SUASIVE EVIDENCE OF AN OBEDIENTIAL CAIACITY OR ELEVABILITY IN OUR NATURE IN VIRTUE WHEREOF MAN COULD, IF GOD WERE FREELY SO TO WILL, BE ELEVATED TO THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER. B. A c c o rd in g ly , t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l proceed acc o rd in g to th e fo llo w in g o r d e r : a.

F i r s t , w i l l be exposed c e r t a i n pr e a mbl e s , .

. Topi o one,

b . S e c o n d ly . i t w i l l b e shown t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y o f th e r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s can n o t b e d i s ­ proved e i t h e r on th e p a r t o f i t s ag en t o r o f i t s s u b j e c t , , , , , , , , T opic two. o . T h i r d ly , s u a s iv e ev id en c e o f an o b e d ie n t ia l cap­ a c i t y i n v i r t u e w hereof man could b e e le v a te d to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o ld e r w i l l b e proposed from c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e ad eq u ate o b je c t o f human i n t e l l e c t , . T o p i c

th r e e ,

d. F o u r th ly . s u a s iv e ev id en ce o f th e same w i l l b e proposed from c o n s id e r a tio n o f man’ s n a t u r a l d e s ir e to see God by e s s e n c e , • . Topi c f o u r .

TOPIC ONE. PREAMBLES. A142,

INTENTION OF THIS DISSERTATION: H aving i n th e p re c e d in g d i s s e r t a t i o n v in d ic a te d th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s on th e p a r t o f th e o b je c t o f such r e v e l a t i o n , we come to v in d ic a te i t s p o s s i b i l i t y on th e p a r t o f th e a g en t and s u b je c t.

A* T lqgrefore i t i s n e c e s s a ry to answ er an OBJECTION w hich would seem to show t h a t human i n t e l l e c t can n o t be r a i s e d to knew s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s a, f o r s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s a re beyond th e p r o p o r tio n a te o b je c t o f human i n t e l l e c t ; b, b u t nc c c g n o s c itiv e power seems cap ab le o f b e in g r a i s e d above i t s own s p e c i f i c l e v e l to know som ething beyond i t s own p r o p o r itio n a te o b je c t, B. Prom t h i s o b je c tio n ; a, w hich would seem to show t h a t human i n t e l l e c t can n o t be r a is e d to know s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , and among them a s u p e r n a tu r a l end w hereto man w ould be o rd e re d s u p e m a tu r a lly , b, i t would fo llo w t h a t human w i l l would b e in c a p a b le o f b e in g e l e ­ v a te d to lo v e such s u p e r n a tu r a l end, s in c e th e o b je c t o f w i l l i s good u n d e rs to o d ; w h e re fo re ; b l , b o th would c h a r ity be im p o ssib le to man (e v e n by G o d 's a b s o lu te pow er), b 2 , and c o n se q u e n tly s a n c tif y in g g r a c e , which p r e r e q u ir e s c h a r ity as i t s own u ltim a te d i s p o s i t i o n , would b e im p o ssib le t o man ( i , e , even by h is a b s o lu te power God could n o t endow th e human s o u l w ith s a n c tif y in g g r a c e ) , C, W herefrom i t i s m a n ife s t t h a t th e whole p o s s i b i l i t y o f m an's e le v a tio n to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r i s dependent on th e e l e v a b i l i t y o f human i n t e l l e c t to th e knowing o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s . A143,

OBJECTION PROPOSED BY ST. THOMAS; But S t, Thomas a lre a d y proposed a g a in s t h i s own d o c tr in e t h i s o b je c tio n ;

A. to w i t ; a . "A c o rp o re a l sen se cannot b e e le v a te d to u n d e rstan d an in c o r p o r e a l s u b s ta n c e , b ecau se i t i s above i t s n a t u r e , ” b . B ut " to see God by e sse n c e i s above th e n a tu re o f any c r e a te d i n ­ te lle c t," c . T h e re fo re "no c re a te d i n t e l l e c t can a r r iv e " even s u p e m a tu r a lly " a t s e e in g G o d 's e s s e n c e ," ( i , q .1 2 , a , 4 , o ,3 ) , B. And in d eed S t , Thomas c o n s ta n tly ta u g h t; a , th a t no sen se oan be e le v a te d beyond i t s p ro p o r tio n a te o b je c t to know som ething im m a te ria l o r u n iv e r s a l ( o f . I n I I de Aniraa, l e c t . 14, ed, P i r o t t a , n ,4 1 6 ; C o n ,G e n t,,1 1 1 ,5 4 ), b . B ut th e n : b l , s in c e th e p r o p o r tio n a te o b je c t o f human i n t e l l e c t i s exceeded by s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , b 2 . th e r e f o r e i t would seem th a t human i n t e l l e c t i s p re c lu d ed by i t s v e ry n a tu r e from th e knowing o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s . A144,

SOOTHS' USE OP TEES OBJECTION: S c o tu s u se s th e argum ent o f th e fo re g o in g o b je c tio n to i d e n t i f y th e ad eq u a te o b je c t o f o u r i n t e l l e c t w ith i t s s p e o if ic o b je c t, (C f, W oodbury: N .P h ., n .9 1 6 ). F o r he s a y s t& a t; A, I f knowledge o f th e d iv in e e sse n c e w ere above th e n a tu re o f o u r i n t e l l e c t , th e n t h e b le s s e d would n e v e r see God, a. F o r no power oan be e le v a te d above i t s own s p e c i f i c a t i v e o b je c t , a s s ig h t can n o t be e le v a te d to u n d e rs ta n d . b. F o r o th e rw is e ; b l . th e power would go beyond th e l i m i t s o f i t s own e s s e n c e , b 2 . and th e r e f o r e vrould no lo n g e r be s p e c i f i c a l l y th e same power. (C f. S c o tu s ; I n IV. S e n t ,, d .4 9 , q . l l ; I n I S e n t ., d .3 , q ,3 ; Q u o d lib ., q . l 4 , a , 2 ; c f . O aftetan; i n I , q .1 2 , a , 4 ) , B. W herefore S e p tu s ; a. a s s e r t s t h a t b e in g ( i n a l l i t s am p litu d e) i s th e s p e c i f i c a t i v e o b je c t o f o u r i n t e l l e c t , b. and o u r i n t e l l e c t ‘i s : b l , i n f a o t p re c lu d ed from knowing s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h s , n o t from the n a tu r e o f th in g s , b u t from G o d 's p o s itiv e w i l l ( c f . W oodbury; N .Ph, , n . 9 1 6 ),

b2. so t h a t th e d i s t i n c t i o n betw een th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r and. th e n a tu r a l o rd e r i s n ot from th e n a tu re o f th in g s , b u t i s from Godf s p o s i t i v e w i l l , (O f, n*A 128,E ,c). A145,

REA1TFARANCE OF THIS OBJECTION WITH THE MODERNISTS: o b je c tio n re a p o e a rs w ith th e M o d e rn ists ,

T h is same

A. F o r M o d e rn ists say t h a t i f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r i n f i n i t e l y ex­ ceed ed , b o th o b je c tiv e ly ( c f , ft,A130) and s u b je c tiv e ly ( c f . n .A 1 3 8 ), th e powers and e x ig e n c ie s o f o u r n a tu r e , th e n e le v a tio n to t h i s o rd e r would be a g a in s t th e n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n o f o u r n a tu r e , and so w ould be VIOLENT, a. F o r ou r ad h esio n to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s would have to be e s s e n t i a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, and th e n would n o t is s u e from o u r n a t u r a l v i t a l i t y ; a l , and so ou r f a i t h w ould b e a s o r t o f n o n - v i t a l know ledge, imposed a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y from w ith o u t, a g a in s t th e autonomy o r p e r f e c t v i t a l i t y o f o u r re a s o n , a2. A cco rd in g ly t h i s d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n would b e f o r us r a t h e r a " p r in ­ c ip le o f d eath " th a n a p r in c ip le o f l i f e , b . F o r t h i s re a s o n : b l . M o d e rn ists say t h a t th e n o tio n o f n a tu re ought to be changed, and t h a t n a tu r e ought to b e c o n ce iv e d , n o t as som ething s ta b l e and f ix e d , b u t r a t h e r as som ething f l u i d , alw ays undergoing e v o lu tio n , and c o n ta in in g i n i t s e l f th e germ o f s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e , (C f, Le R ov: Revue B ib liq u e , J a n v . 19t56, p, 2 1 ), b 2 . Thus M o d e rn ists r e t u r n to th e e r r o r o f Du B ay, nam ely, th a t th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r does n o t a b s o lu te ly and i n f i n i t e l y su rp a ss th e n a tu r a l o r d e r , (C f, Denz, 2105), B, M oreover, M o d e rn ists go on to say t h a t t h i s r e v e l a t i o n o f su p e r­ n a t u r a l m y s te rie s would be USELESS^? f o r th e s e m y s te rie s would b e u n i n t e l l ­ i g i b l e t o us and would be m ere empty w ords, a, Which th e y th in k to p rove th u s : The s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s would exoeed i n f i n i t e l y th e n a t u r a l o b je c tiv e medium and n a t u r a l n o tio n s and n a t u r a l l y known p r i n c i p l e s o f o ur i n t e l l e c t , and th e r e f o r e co u ld n e i t h e r b e u n d e rsto o d n o r e x p re ssed w ith t r u t h by th e medium o f th e n a t u r a l n o tio n s o f o u r re a s o n , b. W h erefo re : b l , c o n c e p tu a l o r dogm atic e x p re s s io n o f th e s e m y s te rie s co u ld be o n ly m e ta p h o ric o r sy m b o lic , b 2 . and our n a tu r a l re a s o n must be th e supreme a r b i t e r to judge i n what sen se th e dogm atic fo rm u las a re to be ta k e n , j u s t a s i t ju d g es ab o u t th e m e ta p h o ric v a lu e o f t h i s e x p re s s io n : "God i s a n g ry ,"

TOPIC TWO. REGARDING- AGENT AND SUBJECT. THIS POSSIBILITY CANNOT BE DISPROVED. A146,

CONCLUSION: The CONCLUSION h e re to b e shown i s t h i s , t h a t POSSIB­ ILITY OF REVELATION OF SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES ON THE PART OF AG-ENT AND SUBJECT, CANNOT BE DISPROVED. A, OBSERVE t h a t we do n o t say : " t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s , o r can b e .p ro v e d ," a. F o r to say t h i s , would be to c o n tr a d ic t w hat h as b een proved above ( n . A 150), a l . F o r w h a tso e v e r i s su p ern atu real a s r e g a r d s e n t i t y i s s u p e r n a tu r a l a s re g a rd s k n o w a b ility , s in c e b e in g and tr u e a re c o n v e rte d . a2. B ut r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s o r our e le v a tio n to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r i s one o f th e m y s te rie s w hich i s s u p e r n a tu r a l as r e g a rd s e n tity . a3. T h e re fo re t h i s r e v e l a t i o n and e le v a tio n i s s u p e r n a tu r a l a s re g a rd s

k n o v /a b ility ; a3a. w h e refo re even t h e i r p o s s i b i l i t y can n o t "be n a t u r a l l y d e m o n strated ; a3b, f o r i f t h e i r p o s s i b i l i t y w ere n a t u r a l l y knov/able, than th e f a c t o f them, would b e unlcnowable to us only by re a so n o f c o n tin g e n c y , not by re a s o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a lit y , so t h a t a c c o rd in g to t h e i r e n t i t y th ey would be n a t u r a l , B, In d e e d : a, we have dem onstrated th e e x is te n c e o f a s u p e r n a tu r a l o rd e r c o n s id e r­ ed u t t e r l y in d e te rm in a te ly and n e g a tiv e ly ( o f . n . A130 se q . ) , i . e . we have d em o n strated t h a t th e r e i s an o rd e r o f t r u t h w hich from i t s n a tu re e scap es b e in g known p o s i t i v e l y by o u r i n t e l l e c t a cc o rd in g to th e n a tu r a l pow ers o f th is in te lle c t; b. b u t i n doing t h i s , we have to g e th e r d em o n strated t h a t each d e t e r ­ m in a te m y stery p e r ta in in g to t h i s o rd e r rem ain s n a t u r a l l y unknowable and in d e m o n stra b le to u s, C, B ut h e re we a r e a s s e r t i n g t h a t : ,a, a lth o u g h th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f one o f th e s e m y s te rie s ( to w i t , su p e r­ n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n and o u r e le v a tio n ) can n o t be n a t u r a l l y p ro v ed , b, n e v e r th e le s s i t s p o s s i b i l i t y cannot be d isp ro v ed ( i . e , i t s im poss­ i b i l i t y can n o t b e p ro v e d ), 0.

The ORDER OF PRGQB3URE w i l l be a s f o ll o w s : -

a.

F i r s t , th e ARGUMENT w i l l b e fo rm u la te d ( n . A 147).

b,

S e c o n d ly , th e MAJOR wi l l be proved, (n* A148) •

o.

T h i r d ly . th e MINOR wi l l b e proved (n n . A149-A153).

A147,

THE ARGUMENT: The fo re g o in g c o n c lu s io n ( n , A146) i s proved by th e fo llo w in g ARGUMENT:

A, I n o rd e r to d is p ro v e th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s on th e p a r t o f a g e n t and s u b je c t, i t would be n e c e s sa ry to demon­ s t r a t e repugnance ( i . e , m e ta p h y sic a l im p o s s ib ility ) o f a t l e a s t one o f th e fo u r r e q u i s i t e s fo r t h i s r e v e l a t i o n ; th a t i s , i t would be n e c e s sa ry to dem­ o n s tr a te : a. E i t h e r t h a t i t i s rep u g n a n t to God to a c t f r e e l y f ad e x t r a 1a cc o rd in g to h i s in tim a te l i f e ; b. Or t h a t nbnconcept o f o u r mind can e x p re s s a n a lo g ic a lly and p ro p e rly ( i . e . acc o rd in g to analogy o f p ro p e r p r o p o r tio n a l ity ) th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s as b e lie v a b le ; o. Or t h a t an i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l l i g h t , e le v a tin g th e v i t a l i t y o f o u r i n t e l l e c t to a s s e n t s u p e m a tu r a lly to th e s e m y s te r ie s , i s re p u g n an t in i t s e l f ; d. Or t h a t th e r e i s n o t i n our n a tu r e o b e d ie n t ia l c a p a c ity o r potency i n v i r t u e w hereof i t i s e le v a b le to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r . B.

B ut none o f th e s e fo u r can be d e m o n stra te d .

0. T h e re fo re p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rid s can n o t b e d isp ro v e d on th e p a r t o f ag en t o r o f s u b je c t. A148,

EVIDENT. OF THE MAJOR: enum eration.

The m a jo r i s e v id e n t, f o r i t i s a com plete

A.

For re v e la tio n :

a.

i s , as s a id above ( i 0 4 ) , a s u p e r n a tu r a l a c tio n o f God,

b . w hich r e q u ir e s th r e e th in g s on th e p a r t o f man, to w i t : b l , f i r s t . an o rd e rin g o f s p e c ie s ( o r !i d e a s ’ ) f o r th e m a n if e s ta tio n o f th e t r u t h h i t h e r t o h id d e n .

b2, s e c o n d ly , a s u p e r n a tu r a l l i g h t w hich i s n e c e s s a ry f o r a d h e rin g i n f a l l i b l y and s u p e m a tu r a lly to th e t r u t h d iv in e ly p ro p o sed , fo r o th e rw ise th e r e would he g iv e n to th e human i n t e l l e c t only some apprehen­ s io n o f t h i s t r u t h , ( t h a t i s , i t would he proposed o n ly in s i g n i f i ed j& X ), h u t t h i s t r u t h would n o t he to ld n o r h e lie v e d , ( t h a t i s , i t would n o t'h e proposed, i n exer c is e d a c t ) . b3„ t h i r d l y , supposed hy t l h s e le v a tin g l i g h t , an o h e d ie n tia l p o t ency i n us i n v i r t u e w hereof t h i s e le v a tio n could, he re c e iv e d from God, B. B ut i f th e t r u t h d iv in e ly proposed i s i n t r i n s i c a l l } / o r o n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l,th e n th e l i g h t p a r t i c i p a t e d to our i n t e l l e c t must he p ro p o r­ t i o n a t e to t h i s o b je c t (and th e r e f o r e i t s e l f i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l) , s in c e h a h its and a c ts a r e s p e c if ie d from t h e i r o b je c t , a. Thus, to b e lie v e a s u p e r n a tu r a l m y stery t p e r s e * and fo rm a lly ( i , e , a cc o rd in g to i t s s u p e r n a t u r a l ! t y ) , th e r e must he had an i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l in fu s e d l i g h t o r h a b it o f f a i t h . h. F o r n a t u r a l acquired, f a i t h can a t t a i n s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s on ly m a t e r i a l l y . i , e , on ly as having a c e r t a i n n a t u r a l k n o w a b ility ( c r e d i b i l i t y ) a cc o rd in g a s t h e i r e x is te n c e i s knowable from th e m y s te rie s w hereby d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n o f them i s a t t e s t e d , such in d eed i s th e f a i t h whereby th e d e v ils " b e lie v e and tre m b le ," (Jam es 2 ,9 ) , A149,

EVIDENCE OF THE MINOR: I t w i l l now he shown t h a t none o f th o s e fo u r ( c f , n»A147, A) can he d e m o n strated , vrhich w i l l h e shown as re g a rd s each i n turn(nn.A 1 5 0 -A 1 5 3 ).

A150,

IT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS REPUGNANT TO GOD TO ACT FREELY fAD EXTRA* ACCORDING TO HIS INTMATE LIFE: Which means th a t i t can n o t he d em o n strated t h a t God can n o t f r e e l y communicate to u s some p a r t i c ­ i p a t i o n o f th e d iv in e n a tu re a s i t i s d iv in e , o r seme p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f h i s in tim a te l i f e ,

A. Whioh i s th u s p ro v e d : a. S in ce God i s th e m ost p e r f e c t and i n f i n i t e l y p e r f e c t b e in g , n o th in g i s to he d e n ie d to him sav e hy re a s o n o f im p e rfe o tio n in v o lv e d . h. B ut to a c t f r e e l y *ad. e x t r a * a cc o rd in g to h i s in tim a te l i f e does n o t p o s it im p e rfe c tio n i n God: h i . f o r ev ery a g e n t a c ts forasm uch as i t i s a c tu a l, w h e refo re to a c t does n o t p o s it im p e rfe c tio n o r p otency i n God; b 2 , and every a g e n t i s s e l f - d i f f u s i v e acc o rd in g as i t i s good, w h erefo re to communicate some p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f h i s own goodness doe© n o t p o s i t im p e rfe c tio n o r la c k o f goodness i n God; b 3 . h u t an agent i s f r e e l y s e l f - d i f f u s i v e i f i t lias i n f i n i t e goodness i n i t s e l f and n eed s n o t to a c t *ad e x t r a * i n o rd e r to a t t a i n th e good p e rfe c tly s a tia tiv e of i t s a p p e tite , w h e re fo re f r e e l y to communi­ c a te some p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f h i s own goodness does n o t p o s i t im p e rfe c tio n o r la c k o f goodness i n God, c. T h e re fo re i t i s n o t to ho d en ied th a t God can f r e e l y communicate to u s some p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f h i s in tim a te l i f e o r o f h is own n a tu r e as i t i s d iv in e . B. Whioh i s proved a ls o t h u s : a , "How much th e h ig h e r i s some n a tu r e , so much th e more in tim a te i s th a t v/hich en^ana^tes~~i>rom^i~t, }, (Con,~ Gent.~ IV , 1 1 ). Thus : a l . th e v iv e n t (vYg. th e p la n t) can communicate som ething much more in tim a te th a n can th e l i f e l e s s , f o r i t can communicate i t s own n a tu r e (a c c o rd in g to s p e c i f i c i d e n t i t y ) , w hereas th e l i f e l e s s body can communicate on ly i t s p r o p e r tie s and a c c id e n ta l fo rm s; v .g . an atom o f hydrogen can n o t make a n o th e r atom o f hydrog en , h u t o n ly can produce i t s p r o p e r t i e s , and t h a t re m is s ly , i n a n o th e r body su ch as oxygen; a2, a n anim al can communicate som ething more in tim a te th a n oan th e p l a n t , f o r i t oan communioate i t s own n a tu r e w h ich i s more in tim a te ly a u to ­ m o tiv e , a3 , man oan communicate som ething more in tim a te th a n can th e b r u t e , f o r he can communicate u n d e rs ta n d in g s , judgm ents and c o n c lu s io n s , and lo v e s , e t c , w hich proceed from him as he i s a p e rs o n , n o t h aving boon g iv e n to him th ro u g h

/ A91. h i s s p o o ifio n a tu r e , w hereas th e b r u te can canm unicate on ly w hat he has re c e iv e d from h i s g e n e ra n ts th ro u g h th e s p e o if ic n a tu r e ; a4 , and howsomuch th e h ig h e r i s some man i n s c ie n c e o r i h v i r t u e , so much t h e more in tim a te i s t h a t w hich p ro ceed s from him ; v .g . a g r e a t p h ilo ­ so p h er g iv e s f o r t h a d o c tr in e t h a t p ro ceed s from th e d e p th o f h i s p h ilo so p h ­ i c a l c o n te m p la tio n , w hereas a n o th e r m ight g iv e f o r t h a d o c tr in e m erely l e a r n t s u p e r f i c i a l l y ‘.from a n o th e r ; and lik e w is e th e a c t s o f a man o f g re a t v i r t u e prooeed from h i s d e e p e st and most in te n s e lo v e , w hereas th e a c t s o f v i r t u e o f a n o th e r m ight proceed from some more s u p e r f i c i a l and l o s s in te n s e lo v e , b . But God i s o f th e h ig h e s t n a tu r e , s in c e h e i s p u re a c t and, th e so v e re ig n good, o. T h e re fo re i t can n o t b e d em onstrated t h a t i t i s re p u g n an t to God to communicate to us sane p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f h i s in tim a te l i f e , so t h a t : ol» J u s t a s th e h o t can h o a t, , o2, so i t cannot be dem o n strated th a t God cannot ’’d e if y , by c o o n o n ie a tin g some c o n so rtiu m o f th e d iv in e n a tu r e , th ro u g h a c e r t a i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f s i m i l i t u d e , ” ( i - I I , q.,112, a , l ) . A151.

NCR CAM IT BE DROVED THAT NO CONCEPT OP OUR INTELLECT IS CAPABLE OP ANALOGICALLY AND PROPERLY TSCRRE SING SUPERNATURAL MYSTERIES, AS GREDIKjE : Which i s th u s e x p la in e d and shown:

A. I n d e e d : a . I t i s t r u e , a s i s c l e a r from what lias been s a id above (n n , A126A140) a g a in s t ^Sc^ - r a t i o n al i . s t s , t h a t o u r n a tu r a l n o tio n s and th e p r i n c i p l e s o f o u r re a s o n oannot e x p re ss th e m y s te rie s o f G od's in tim a te l i f e a s scion-, t i f i c a l l . y knowable ( * u t s c i b i l i a * ) , i , e . a s d em o n strab le, b . B ut f o r r e v e l a t i o n i t i s enough t h a t th e y b e e x p re ssed a n a lo g ic a lly and p ro p e rly ( 1p r o p e r ly 1 by o p p o s itio n to m e ta p h o ric a lly o r sym boli­ c a ll y ) a s c r e d ib le , acco rd in g to th e te stim o n y o f God r e v e a lin g them o b s c u re ly a s n o t acc o rd in g to i n t r i n s i c e v id en c e ( c f , n n , A122-A124), B, Now, i n c a p a b i l i t y o f th e n o tio n s o f our i n t e l l e c t f o r such e x p re ss io n CANNOT BE PROVED, a . P e r no tilin g i s to be denied to God, th e most p e r f e c t and i n f i n i t e l y p e r f e c t b e in g , save by re a s o n o f im p e rfe c tio n involved* b . B u t: b l , i t cannot be proved t h a t some im p e rfe c tio n would fo llo w i n God from an e x p re ss in g o f D e ity th ro u g h th e n o tio n s o f p ro c e s s io n , fa th e rh o o d , sons h ip , s p i r a t i o n , r e l a t i o n e t c . , w hereby i s o b sc u re ly m a n ife ste d th e supreme s u p e r n a tu r a l m y ste ry , to w i t , t h a t o f th e H oly T r i n i t y ; b 2 . N or can i t bo proved t h a t scone im p e rfe c tio n would fo llo w f o r God from e x p re s s io n o f th e m y s te rie s o f th e I n c a r n a tio n , o r th e R edem ption, o f th e E u c h a r is t, o f s a n c tif y in g g ra c e , o f th e b e a t i f i o v is io n c o n fe rre d upon c re a te d i n t e l l e c t s , etc* C, IT IS INDEED TRUE t h a t b e fo re r e v e l a t i o n we cannot prove th e t r a n s c e n d ^ 4* and a n a lo g ic a l v a lu e o f th e se n o tio n s to e x p re ss w ith t r u t h th e in tim a to l i f e o f God, a . B ut God h a s employed th e s e n o tio n s , and a f t e r r e v e l a t i o n t h e i r tra n s c e n d e n t v a lu e i s defended by sacred th e o lo g y a g a in s t th e o b je c tio n s o f a d v e r s a r ie s , th e o lo g y th u s u iin g p h ilo so p h y ” tc r e s i s t th o s e a s s e r tio n s w hich a r e made a g a in s t th e f a i t h , w h eth er by showing them tc b e f a l s e , o r ■by showing th a n to b e n o t n e c e s s a ry ," ( i n Booth* de T r i n i t a t e , q.,2, a , 3 ) , b . In d e e d , s a c re d th e o lo g y , employing p h ilo so p h y , i n some manner m a n ife s ts th e f i t t i n g n e s s o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s ( o f th e Holy T r i n i t y , o f th e I n c a r n a t i o n , o f o u r e le v a tio n to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r , o f th e E u c h a r is t, e tc ) from th e p r i n c i p l e s : bl,"H ow much th e h ig h e r i s some n a tu r e , so much th e more in tim a te i s t h a t w hich em anates from i t " (Con, G e n t,, IV , c . l l ; c f , I , q .2 2 , a , l ad 2 ) ; b 2 . " I t p e r ta in s to th e re a so n o f t h e good, th a t i t communicate i t s e l f t c o th e r s . W herefore to th e re a so n o f h ig h e s t good dees i t p e r ta in t h a t i t communicate i t s e l f i n th e h ig h e s t m anner." ( i l l , q , l , a . l ) .

A92 D, T h e re fo re repugnance o f r e v e la ti o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s cannot he proved from the p a r t o f o u r c o n ce p ts. a . In d e e d , w hat i s e v id e n tly re p u g n a n t, i s : a l . t h a t some c re a te d even in fu s e d id e a -r e p r e s e n t SUBSISTENT BE^_MD SUBSISTBTT UNDERSTAND a s h e i s i n h im s e lf ( i . e . ex p ress Y/HAT G-OD IS in j ' a2# o r t h a t s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s he d em onstrated from our n o tio n s and p rin c ip le s ; f o r th e s e m y s te rie s a re above (th o u g h n e t a g a in s t) th e v i r t u a l i t y o f th e p r in c ip le s as th ey a re n a t u r a l l y known to u s , b ecau se th e y p e r t a i n p o s itiv e ly to D e ity a s i t i s D e ity , o:o to th e p ro p e r and in tim a te mode o f a h ig h e r a n a lo g a te o f b e in g : w hich mode can n o t b e n a t u r a l l y known save n e g a tiv e ly and r e l a t i v e l y .

im w jJ

b . I n o th e r w ords, any a tta c k upon th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e v e l a t i o n , and b e l i e f , o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , from c o n s id e r a tio n o f o u r id e a s , d e f a u lts from v a l i d i t y b e ca u se such r e v e l a t i o n and b e l i e f : b±, do n o t b esp eak an e le v a tio n o f th e n a t u r a l mode o f o u r u n d e rs ta n d in g , f o r th e y do n o t exempt o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f God from i t s im p e rfe c tio n o f b e in g a n a lo g o u s - n e g a tiv e - r e la tiv e ( th e b e a t i f i c v is io n a lo n e does t h i s ) , b 2 , b u t th e y m erely b esp eak e x te n s io n o f w hat we u n d e rs ta n d , c o n fe rrin g upon ou r i n t e l l e c t a tta in m e n t o f an e x te n s iv e o b je c t. A152.

NOR CAN HE PROVED REPUOTANCE OP AN ENTITATIVELY SUPERNATURAL LION?: Whioh l i g h t , a s s a id above ( n . A158; n,A148, B ), i s n e c e s sa ry th a t o u r i n t e l l e c t may a d h ere i n f a l l i b l y and su p ern al* u rally to th e m y s te rie s o f God*s in tim a te l i f e , A. a, b,

I t i s tru e t h a t : a c r e a te d s u p e r n a tu r a l su b sta n c e i s re p u g n a n t, a s i s a ls o a c re a te d id e a r e p r e s e n tin g G-od a s he i s i n h im s e lf,

B. B ut a s u p e r n a tu r a l l i g h t , e le v a tin g th e c re a te d i n t e l l e c t , i s an a c c id e n t (n o t a s u b s ta n c e ) , and m oreover i t i s an a c c id e n t h o ld in g i t s e l f on th e s id e o f th e s u b je c t o r power to in v ig o r a te th e i n t e l l e c t , and n o t on th e s id e o f th e o b je c t a s i f i t s f u n c tio n w ere to r e p r e s e n t a c t u a l l y G-od a c c o rd in g to h i s p ro p e r c o n s t i t u t i v e , a . B ut an a c c id e n t, j u s t as i t i s b e in g in a n o th e r, can be b e in g to w ard s a n o th e r , a s a r e powers and h a b i t s , w hich a r e s p e c if ie d from th e o b je c t w hereun to th e y a r e e s s e n t i a l l y o rd e re d . a l . T h e re fo re i t i s im p o s sib le to d em o n strate repugnance o f some o re a te d a c c id e n t s p e c if ie d from God, r e d u p lic a t iv e ly as h e i s G-od, i . e . e s s e n t i a l l y o rd e re d tow ards knowing and lo v in g G-odf s in tim a te l i f e . a2. S im ila r ly i n th e n a tu r a l o rd e r, o u r i n t e l l e c t i s a c r e a te d , f i n i t e , pow er, and y e t i s o rd e re d e s s e n t i a l l y tow ards an alo g o u s b e in g , i . e , to th e knowing o f a l l b e in g s a t l e a s t i n th e m irro r o f s e n s ib le th in g s : w h e refo re A r i s t o t l e s a id t h a t " th e s o u l i s i n a c e r t a i n manner a l l th in g s ," b . Such s u p e r n a tu r a l l i g h t : b l* in d eed oannot r e p r e s e n t th e d iv in e e sse n ce as i t i s i n i t s e l f , b 2 , b u t i t i s n o t e v id e n tly rep u g n an t t h a t i t e s s e n t i a l l y te n d tow ards God as he i s G-od, and th u s e le v a te o r d iv in is e o u r i n t e l l e c t , a s Thom ist th e o lo g ia n s commonly e x p la in when i t i s q u e s tio n o f th e l i g h t o f g lo ry . A153.

NOR CAN BE DISPROVED EXISTENCE OP OBEDIENTIAL POTENCY OR CAPACITY ACCORDING TO YfflICH OUR NATURE WOULD BE CAPABLE OP RECEIVING ELEVATION TO THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER. A. "THo sen se o f s i g h t , b ecau se i t i s q u ite m a t e r i a l , can i n no manner b e e le v a te d to som ething im m a te ria l.

B. "But our i n t e l l e c t , o r th e a n g e lic , b ecau se acco rd in g to i t s n a tu re i t i s e le v a te d i n some s o r t from m a tte r , can be r a is e d th ro u g h g ra c e beyond i t s n a tu r e to som ething h ig h e r .

A93 a . "And th e s ig n o f t h i s i s t h a t : a l , " s ig h t can i n no manner know i n a b s tr a c tio n what i t knows i n o o n c re tio n j f o r i n no manner can i t p e rc e iv e a n a tu re * save a s t h i s , a 2 , "But o u r i n t e l l e c t can c o n s id e r i n a b s t r a c t i o n w h at i t knows i n c o n c r e tio n , a 2 a, "F or a lth o u g h i t knows th in g s h aving form in m a tte r , y e t i t r e s o lv e s th e compound in to b o th ( p r i n c i p l e s ) , and c o n sid e rs th e v e ry form 1p e r s o 1, a2 b . "And lik e w is e th e a n g e l1s i n t e l l e c t , though i t be c o n n a tu ra l to i t to know b e c o n c re te i n some n a tu r e , y e t c an d i s t i n g u i s h be th ro u g h under­ s ta n d in g , i n knowing t h a t o th e r i s h im s e lf and o th e r i s h i s b e . a 2 c , "And th e r e f o r e : a 2 o l, "S in ce th e c re a te d i n t e l l e c t i s n a t u r a l l y a p t to apprehend c o n c re te form and conoratoe b e i n a b s t r a c t i o n , th ro u g h th e manner o f a o e r t a i n r e s o l u t i o n , a2a2, " i t can bo e le v a te d th ro u g h g race so t h a t i t know s u b s is te n t s e p a ra te d s u b s ta n c e , and s u b s is te n t s e p a ra te d b e ," ( I , q . 12, a , 4 ad 3 ) . b. At l e a s t th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f such e le v a tio n CANNOT BE DISiY&QVED. A154,

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THIS OBEDIENTIAL POTENCY: However, t h i s o b e d ie n tia l potency o r e l e v a b i l i t y o f o u r n a tu re to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r r e q u ir e s f u r t h e r e x p la n a tio n ,

A. F o r i n t h i s c o n s id e r a tio n i s found th e answer to o b je c tio n s ta k e n from th e v i t a l i t y and autonomy o f o u r re a s o n , ( v .g , when r a t i o n a l i s t s deny t h a t o u r v i t a l i t y can b e e le v a te d to e l i c i t a c ts e s s e n t i a l l y o r e m tita tiv e ly s u p e r n a tu r a l, th e s e a c ts n e v e r th e le s s rem ain in g o u r a c t s , e l i c i t e d by o u r v ita lity ). B. B ut t h i s c a p a c ity i s m a n ife ste d from two s o u rc e s , to w it: a , Ob j e c t i v e l y , from c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e adociuate o b je c t o f our in te lle c t; b . And s u b j e c t i v e l y , from c o n s id e r a tio n o f our n a tu r a l d e s ir e to see God by e ss e n c e .

TOPIC THREE. EVIDENCE FROM ADEQUATE OBJECT OF OUR 3NTHLLE0T. A155.

EXISTENCE OF OBEDIENTIAL POTENCY OP CAPACITY IN VIRTUE THEREOF OUR NATURE IS EY.EVATABLE TO THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER IS COi PENDED BY A SUASIVE ARGUMENT FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE ADEQUATE OBJECT OF OUR INTELLECT: Which argum ent i s found i n S t. Thomas ( I , q .1 2 , a . 4 ad 3 ; I - I I , q .1 1 3 , a . 10; Of. Woodbury. N .ph. n . 9 05 ). A.

Which ARGUMENT may be th u s fo rm u la te d :

a . T here i s i n o u r i n t e l l e c t o b e d ie n tia l p o tency w hereby o u r i n t e l l e c t i s e le v a ta b le to knowledge o f a r e a l i t y w hich exceeds i t s p ro p e r o b je c t , b u t n o t i t s a d eq u a te o b je c t, b . B ut God under th e in tim a te re a s o n o f D e ity ; b l , though he exceeds th e p ro p e r o b je c t o f our i n t e l l e c t , w hich i s th e q u id d ity o f th e s e n s ib le th in g , b 2 . n o v erth clo s-s does n o t exoeed i t s a d eq u a te o b je c t , w hich i s b e in g a cc o rd in g to i t s whole a m p litu d e , o . T h e re fo re th e r e i s i n o u r i n t e l l e c t o b e d ie n tia l potency whereby i t i s e le v a b le to knowledge o f God under th e in tim a te r e a s o n o f D e ity , i . e , o f God! s in tim a te l i f e , o r o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s , B.

F o r ev id en ce o f th e MAJOR i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to e x p la in :

A94, a. b. o.

"What i s o b e d ie n t ia l potency ( o f . n . A 156); Which i s th e p ro p er o b je c t o f o u r i n t e l l e c t ( c f , n . X l5 7 ); Which i s th e ad eq u ate o b je c t o f o u r i n t e l l e c t ( o f . n . A 158).

0.

W hile th e MINOR v d .ll be defended t h e r e a f t e r (n . A159).

A156,

WHAT IS OBEDIENTIAL POTENCY: T h is q u e s tio n i s d e a l t w ith by S t. Thomas ( i l l , ^ .1 1 , a , i j Q .D isp. de V i r t , i n Comm,, a . 10, ad 2 e t ad 13; Com­ pendium T h e c lo g ia e , c .1 0 4 ; c f . Woodbu r y , M e t., nn. 73 3 -7 4 0 ). A. F o r th e u n d e rs ta n d in g o f t h i s n o tio n , 'the d iv is io n o f potency aoo o rd in g t o Thomas i s to be r e c a l l e d ; w hich d i v i s i o n i s a s fo llo w s tOBJECTIVE p o te n cy , o r p o s s i b i l i t y .

Potenoy ACTIVE p o te n c y . ,SUBTECTIVE potenoy

NATUHAL potenoy. PASSIVE, potency To a CREATED a g en t o f h ig h e r o rd e r. OBEDIENTIAL p otency As a u th o r and r u l e r o f NATURE.

As a u th o r o f SUPERNATURAL l i f e . B. OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE POTENCY: a. OBJECTIVE p o te n cy , o r p o s s i b i l i t y , i s non-repugnance to b e . b, .SUBJECTIVE poten cy i s cap.acit y i n a s u b je c t f o r p e r f e c t i o n , o r i n t r i n s i c r eason o f p e r f e c t i b i l i t y . f o r exam ple: c a p a o ity i n w a te r f o r h e a t, o r c a p a c ity i n an im al f o r th e a c t o f s e e in g . C. a,

SUBJECTIVE POTEN'CY IS EITHER ACTIVE OR PASSIVE: ACTIVE POTENCY i s c a p a c ity f o r d o , and a c c o rd in g ly i s fo r o e o r POWER. ~ b. PASSIVE potenoy i s c a p a o ity f o r re c e iv in p ; a c t o r p e r f e c tio n . Thus i n w a te r th e r e i s a c a p a c ity to r e c e iv e h e a t; i n th e human i n t e l l e c t th e r e i s c a p a o ity to r e c e iv e th e im p ressio n o f th e u n d e rs ta n d a b le o b je c t, D. a s i n each com parison a g e n t, who b ro u g h t by poten cy i n

PASSIVE POTENCY IS EITHER NATURAL OR OBEDIENTIAL: “I n human s o u l, c r e a tu r e , i s c o n sid e re d a tw o fo ld p a s s iv e p o ten cy : one in d eed by to a n a tu r a l a g e n t; b u t th e o th e r th ro u g h com parison to th e f i r s t can b rin g any c r e a tu r e to an a c t h ig h e r th a n th e a c t w h ereto i t i s a n a tu r a l a g e n t: and t h i s h a s u s u a lly b een c a lle d o b e d ie n tia l a c r e a tu r e ." ( i l l , q . l l , a . l ; c f . De, P o t . , q .6 , a . l , ad 1 8 ),

a, NATURAL p a s s iv e p o ten cy i s im m ediately o rd e re d to an a c t o r o b je c t p r o p o r tio n a te to th e n a tu r e o f th e p o t e n t i a l s u b je c t; v .g . human i n t e l l e c t i s n a t u r a l l y o rd e re d to re c e iv e an i n t e l l i g i b l e s p e c ie s (id e a ) a b s tr a c te d from s e n s i b l e s , w h e re fo re i t i s s p e c if ie d from th e i n t e l l i g i b l e b o in g o f s e n s ib le th in g s , a s from i t s p ro p e r o b je c t , b. B ut OBEDIENTIAL potency i s n o t im m ediately and n a t u r a l l y o rd e re d to some a c t o r o b je c t , b u t bespoa].cs r e l a t i o n o r ORDER TO AN AGENT OP HIGHER NATURE, TO WHOM IT IS OBEDIENT.

b i . T h e re fo re o b e d ie n tia l p o ten cy i s .Refi n e d : POTENCY 17HEREBY_A CREATlJHEr CAN BE BROUGHT OVER TO AN ACT TOOT EXCEEDS THE NATURAL Ci^ l W ^ Q F T d c a, OR OF EVERY, CREATURE OR I NASMUCH AS THE CREATURE IS SUBJECTO TO THE AC TlW O F X S c 5 S l r>. OR QF'THE F IRST, AGENT. b 2 . T h is i s to be noted, c a r e f u l l y , l e s t th e r e b e p o s ite d i n our n a tu re some ..Qos .itiy e o rd in a t i o n to s u p e r n a tu r a l a c t s , w hich 'would mean th a t obed­ i e n t i a l potency would b e to g e th e r ; b 2 a , .essen t i a l l y n a tu r a l, as a p ro p e rty o f n a tu .re , b2b, and e s s e n t i a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l. as s p e c if ie d from a s u p e r n a tu r a l o b je c t, b 3. Then would b e had c o n fu sio n o f th e n a tu r a l and s u p e r n a tu r a l o r d e r s , and e le v a tin g g ra c e would no lo n g e r be n e c e s s a ry , b 4 . Thus a lre a d y i t i s m a n ife s t t h a t th e A r i s t o t e l i c axiom ; " a c t and p o te n c y a re i n th e same g e n u s." i s v e r i f i e d , n o t o f o b e d ie n tia l p o te n c y , b u t o f n a tu r a l potency a lo n e w hich b esp eak s p o s itiv e o rd e r t o an a c t, E,

B ut ’’o b e d ie n t ia l p o t e n c y , c a n

be c o n sid e re d i n two m an n ers:

a, ’’I n r e s p e c t o f an ag en t r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l: th u s i t i s i n wood th ro u g h r e f e r e n c e to a c a r p e n te r , from whom i t can r e c e iv e th e form o f s to o l or of ta b le ; a l , “f o r wood i s n o t more o rd e re d n a t u r a l l y tow ards t h i s form r a t h e r th a n tow ards t h a t , b u t r e c e iv e s t h i s o r d in a tio n from th e c a r p e n te r ; a2 , " n e v e r th e le s s th e r e a r e p re re q u ire d i n th e wood d e te rm in a te n a tu r a l p o te n c ie s , w hich a re n o t, f o r exam ple, i n w a te r , i n o rd e r t h a t a t a b l e be made. b , " O b e d ie n tia l potency i s ta k e n th ro u g h re fe re n c e to th e a b s o lut e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l a g e n t, to v a t , to God, And th u s * in e v ery c re a tu r e ,* say s S t, Thomas, 1th e r e i s a c e r t a i n o b e d ie n tia l p o te n cy , a cc o rd in g a s ev ery c r e a tu r e obeys God u n to r e c e iv in g i n i t s e l f w h atso ev er God w i l l s ,* (Q .D isp . de V i r t . i n Comm,, q , l , a , 10 ad 1 3 ), b l , " b u t th e d iv in e w i l l and om nipotence a r e n o t lim ite d save by repugnance to b e ; b la . " fo r; b l a l , " i n f i n i t e a c ti v e p otency can make som ething from no presupposed r e a l p a s s iv e p o te n cy , as in c r e a t i o n ; b la 2 , " f o r i n what> m easure a c ti v e potency i s more p e r f e c t , i n th a t m easure can p a s s iv e poten cy b e le s s e n e d ( I , q ,4 5 , a , 5 ad 3 ) , b i b , "And t h e r e f o r e ; b l b l , " o b j e d i e n t i a l p o ten cy i n a c r e a tu r e r e l a t i v e l y to God; •bgbla. " i s n ot a c ti v e f a c u l t y , b l o l b , " b u t p a s s iv e a p t i t u d e ; b lb 2 , "in d eed t h i s a p titu d e i s n o th in g o th e r th a n mere non-repugnance to r e c e iv e from God w h atev er God w i l l s , b2» "But t h i s o b e d ie n t ia l p o ten cy r e l a t i v e l y to God can b e c o n sid e re d i n two manne r s ; b 2 a, " R e la tiv e ly to God as a u th o r and r u l e r o f n a t u r e ; f o r exejmple, i n a c o rp se r e l a t i v e l y to God a s a u th o r and r u l e r o f c o rp o ra l l i f e and of re s u rre c tio n ; b 2 a l, "th u s, every c r e a tu r e i s by n a tu r e a p t to obey God, w ith o u t any v io le n c e , j u s t as th e arm i s a p t to be moved by th e v / i l l , b2a2, "And: b 2 a 2 a ." th is o b e d ie n t ia l p o ten cy i s p re re q u ire d fo r e v e ry m ir a o le : b2a2b, " th u s a m irac u lo u s e f f e c t i s ABOVE, n o t a g a i n s t . n a tu r e , b 2 b , " I n an o th e r manner o b e d ie n tia l p o ten cy i s bespoken r e l a t i v e l y to God a s a u th o r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e ; b 2 b l, " t h i s potency does n o t e x i s t i n ev ery c r e a tu r e , b2b2. " f o r i t i s re p u g n a n t t h a t b r u te an im als be e le v a te d to s u p e r­ n a t u r a l l i f e . " ( G a rrig o u -L a g ra n g e : De R e v e la tio n e , I , pp, 3 7 7 -3 7 8 ), F.

A c co rd in g ly , th e d iv is io n o f o b e d ie n tia l potency may b e th u s (adlibited .s c h e m a tic a lly

A96, a s i n m arble tcw ard s a s c u lp t o r . E i t h e r tow ards a H I M ‘CREATED AGENT, Yfhioh i s fbund i n a low er c re a te d n a tu r e i n r e s p e c t o f a c re a te d ag en t o f h ig h e r order# Which i s found i n reverryf c r e a tu r e . O bedien t i a l p o te n cy i s

E ith e r AS AUTHOR AND RULBR OF NATURE; Or tow ards God; and th e n ;

And w hereof a m ira c u lo u s e f f e c t i s an a c tu a tio n * Which i s found on ly i n i n t e l l e c t i v e c r e a tu r e s . Or AS AUTHOR OF SUHMATURAh LIFE: W hereof w h atev er p e r ta in s to s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e i n c r e a tu r e s i s an a c tu a tio n .

G. DIVERSITY OF ■0BI3)IENTIAL POTENCY ACCORDING- TO ITS RELATION TO NATUlbUj l y TJilTOY: Prom what h as been s a i d , i t a p p e a rs : a, T h at o b e d ie n t ia l potency to a h ig h e r CREATED ag en t o re supposes d e te rm in a te nat u r a l /potency, a s th e o b e d ie n tia l potency whereby m arb le i s r e c e p tiv e o f N ap o leo n ic shape p resu p p o ses th e n a tu r a l p o ten cy whereby m arble i s r e c e p tiv e o f (new) shape, b» That o b e d ie n t ia l potency to GOD does n o t presu p p o se such d e te rm in a te n a t u r a l p o te n cy , b l* ThU3 a c o rp se i s o b e d ic n t ia ll y p o t e n t i a l to r e s u r r e c t i o n , b 2 , b u t t c t h i s o b e d ie n tia l p otency th e r e i s n o t presupposed any n a t u r a l p o te n c y , a s to th e o b e d ie n tia l p o tency o f m arble to N ap o leo n ic shape i s presupposed i t s n a t u r a l p o ten cy to (new) shape, c*

The re a s o n o f t h i s d i v e r s i t y i s ev id en t :

*ol. F o r aii ag en t i s r e q u ir e d fo rm a lly on acco u n t o f th e p o t e n t i a l i t y o f th e p a t i e n t , o l a . T hus, i t i s fo rm a lly on acco u n t o f t h i s , th a t w a te r, in s o f a r as i t oan-»be-hot, i s d i s t a n t , from *d o e s-b e -h o t *, t h a t th e r e i s r e q u ir e d a h e a tin g ag en t i n o rd e r t h a t w a te r be b ro u g h t to t h i s , t h a t i t d o o s -b c -h o t, o lb . I n o th e r w ords, an ag en t i s req u ired , owing to th e d e fic ie n c y o f th e p a t i e n t , i n o rd e r to su p p ly f o r th a t d e fic ie n c y , o2. B ut th a t whereby an agent can su p p ly f o r th e d e f ic ie n c y o f th e p a tie n t i s th e power ( a c t i v e p o ten cy ) o f th e a g e n t, c 3 , T h e re fo re : o3a. a cc o rd in g as th e d e f ic ie n c y i n th e p a tie n t i s g r e a t e r ( i , e , a c c o rd in g as th e d is ta n c e o f th e p a t i e n t from a c t i s g r e a t e r ) , g r e a te r a c ti v e p o ten cy ( power) i s re q u ire d i n th e a g e n t, o3b, Thus, a c c o rd in g a s w a te r i s more d e f i c i e n t from t i l l s , th a t i t *d o e s - b e -b o ilin g * , so much more h e a tin g power i s re q u ire d i n th e h e a tin g ag en t f o r t h i s , t h a t th e w a te r b e b ro u g h t o v er to fd o e s - b e -b o ilin g * , 04, B u t: o4a, a c r e a te d a g e n t i s o f f i n i t e power ( a c t i v e p o te n c y ), o4b, w hereas G-od i s o f i n f i n i t e power, 05. T h e re fo re : o5a, w hereas a c r e a te d agent cannot b r in g a p a tie n t o v e r to a c t, u n le s s th e p a t i e n t i s o n ly f i n i t e l y d i s t a n t th e re fro m .

o5b, God can b rin g a p a tie n t o v er to a c t even i f th e p a t i e n t i s i n f i n i t e l y d i s t a n t th e re fro m , (O f, I , q ,4 5 , a , 5 ad 3 ) . c 6 , But: 06a, to b e only f i n i t e l y d i s t a n t from a c t i s : o 6 a l, to b e p o t e n t i a l by -p o sitiv e p ro p o r tio n to a c t , o6a2, and t h e r e f o r e to b e i n sane n a t u r a l p o te n cy , 06b# w hereas to be i n f i n i t e l y d i s t a n t from a c t i s : o6bl» to b e v /ith o u t p o s i t i v e p ro p o rtio n to a c t , o6b2, end th e r e f o r e to b e n o t in n a tu r a l p o ten cy . o7# T h e r e f o r e : c 7 a, w h ereas: o 7 a l, a c re a te d agen t can b r in g a p a t i e n t o v er to a c t o n ly i f th e p a tie n t i s a lre a d y i n some n a tu r a l p o ten cy , o7a2» so t h a t o b e d ie n t ia l p otency to a c re a te d a g e n t p resu p p o s e s s ome

natural potanov.

*

.................

o7b# God: o 7 b l, can b r in g a p a tie n t o v e r to a o t even i f th e p a tie n t i s n o t i n o7b2# so t h a t o b e d ie n tia l p otency to G-od does n o t presu p p o se any such n a t u r a l p o tency, H. TWOFOLD MODE OF ACTUATION: t i a l potency i s a c tu a te d : a.

T h ere a r e two m anners i n w hich o b ed ien ­

F i r s t , th e r e i s a MODE OF TRANSIENT ACTUATION:

al# Which c o n s is ts i n t h i s , th a t a h ig h e r a g e n t communicates to an o b e d ie n t ia ll y p o t e n t i a l s u b je c t a p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f i t s own h ig h e r power ( a c tiv e p o te n c y ), th u s MDVATING th e low er to a h ig h e r power th a n i t s own p ro p e r pow er, ala* w hich p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s re c e iv e d i n th e o b e d ie n tia l p otency o f th e s u b je c t a f t e r th e manner o f a m otion ( f l u i d e n t i t y ) t r a n s i e n t o r to n d e n tia l tow ards som ething o th e r th a n i t s e l f (to w ard s an e f f e c t ) , alb# Thus does th e s c u lp to r t r a n s i e n t l y a c tu a te th e o b e d ie n tia l p o ten cy o f th e c h i s e l , e le v a tin g i t s power to s p l i t m arble to t h i s , th a t i t s p l i t a r t i s t i c a l l y jo r -scul p t u r a l l y , a2 . T hus, a t l e a s t a c c o rd in g to ThoraLst th e o lo g ia n s , does God t r a n s i e n t l y a o tu a te th e e x te r n a l r i t e of b a p tism to p roduce h a b itu a l g ra c e i n th e b a p tiz e d , b*

S eco n d ly , th e r e i s a MODE OF H R I v M T ACTUATION:

b l* W hich c o n s is ts i n t h i s , th a t th e h ig h e r agent in d u c e s i n t o th e o b e d ie n tia l p o ten cy o f th e s u b je c t a perm anent a o t, w hich h as i t s e l f a f t e r th e manner o f an u ltim a te ( n o t a f t e r th e manner o f m o tio n , # i i c h h a s th e c h a r a c te r o f a medium tow ards an u ltim a te beyond i t s e l f ) , and w hich i s h ig h e r th a n a c t tow ards w hich th e s u b je c t i s i n n a t u r a l p o ten cy , b2. Thus does th e s c u lp to r perm anently a c tu a te th e o b e d ie n tia l potency o f th e m a rb le , in d u c in g i n t o i t , n o t m erely sh ap e, b u t N apoleonic shape# b3# Thus dods God a c tu a te th e o b e d ie n tia l p o ten cy o f th e co rp se when he m ira c u lo u s ly rc -in d u o e s human l i f e i n t o i t# b4. b4a. b4b, g ifts of

Thus does S acred Theology te a c h t h a t God in d u c e s : i n t o i n t e l l e c t i v e so u l h a b itu a l g ra c e , and in to th e r a t i o n a l powers th e r e o f in fu s e d h a b i t s , such as th e th e Holy G h o st, th e in fu s e d v i r t u e s and th e l i g h t o f glor.v#,I

I , B ut OUR QUESTION h e re i s w h eth er th e r e does e x is t i n man such o b e d ie n tia l potency o r non-repugnance to e le v a tio n to i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r e n t i t a t i v e l y s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e , amd e s p e c ia ll y i n our i n t e l l e c t to e le v a tio n u n to knowledge o f God u n d er th e in tim a te re a s o n o f D e ity ,

A98 A157,

WHICH IS I.C3 mOPUR OBJECT OP OUR INTELLECT: THE PROPER OBJECT of human n TTignscT i s the l it h l i g i b l e q u id d ity o r ' nature of the SENSIBLE THING AN. IMAGE. OR RIAG-INATIQN. o r i n o th e r words more " b r i e r y , th e* M H TLICTBII BEING OP SHISIBLE THINGS, (C f, WoodhU£y3 N .F h ,, n n. 910-935*77** A. NOTE t h a t by PRQP5R OBJECT o f o u r i n t e l l e c t i s meant i t s OWN DISTRICTIVE o b je c t , i , e . th e o b je c t w hich, as i t i s an o b je c t o f human i n t e l l e c t i s o b je c t OP IT ALONE, a . And th e r e f o r e i t i s t h a t o f th e m atoth on th e s id e o f God ( o f . n.A 17lY . * and on th e s id e o f man ( c f . n.A 172).

SUASIVE EVIDINCE ON THE SIDE OP GOD: God13 i n f i n i t e g o o d n ess. A.

T h is ev id en c e i s ta k e n J^om

Wherefrom argument i s ta k e n th u s :

a. I t b e f i t s God as he i s th e so v e re ig n good to communicate h im s e lf to c r e a tu r e s a c c o rd in g to t h a t w hich i s most in tim a te to him , aooording as t h i s i s p o s s ib le . a l t F o r " i t p e r ta in s to th e re a so n " ( i . e . o b je c tiv e co n cep t) " o f th e good, t h a t i t communicate i t s e l f to o th e r s . W herefore to th e re a s o n o f s o v e re ig n good does i t p e r ta in th a t he communicate h im s e lf i n th e h ig h e s t m anner." ( I H , q . l , a . l ) , a2. M oreover, "how much th e h ig h e r i s some n a tu r e , so much th e more in tim a te i s t h a t w hich em anates from i t . " (C on.G ent, IV, 1 1 ). b. B ut w hat i s most in tim a te to God i s th e d iv in e n a tu r e a s i t i s d iv in e ( i . e , a cc o rd in g to i t s p ro p e r c o n s t i t u t i v e o r p ro p e r p r e d ic a te ) . o. T h e re fo re i t b e f i t s God t h a t he communicate to us sane p a r t i c ­ i p a t i o n o f h i s d iv in e n a tu r e , even a s i t i s d iv in e . B.

BUT OBSERVE t h a t t h i s argument i s o n ly p ro b a b le :

a. F o r human re a s o n cannot from i t s e l f a lo n e : a l , e i t h e r know p o s i t i v e l y Godf s in tim a te n a tu r e , o r D e ity , a 2 , o r d e m o n strate p o s s i b i l i t y o f com m unication o f t h i s in tim a te l i f e o f God to c r e a tu r e s , a3. o r a c c o rd in g ly d e m o n strate th e f i t t i n g n e s s o f such com m unication. b. M oreover: b l , a lth o u g h "good i s a cc o rd in g to i t s n a tu re s e l f - d i f f u s i v e , " (P so u d q -D en is: De D iv. Norn., c . 4 ) , a lth o u g h i t th e r e f o r e " p e r ta i n s to th e re a s o n o f so v e re ig n good t h a t he communicate h im s e lf i n a so v e re ig n manner" ( in , q . l , a . l ) , b 2 . n e v e r th e le s s , n o t from n e c e s s i t y , b u t f r e e l y does th e so v e re ig n good d i f f u s e h i s go o d n ess, f o ^ G o d ^ goodness i s p e r f e c t and can b e witho$fc o th e r s , sin o e n o th in g o f p e r f e c tio n a c c ru e s to him from o th e r s ." ( I , q .1 9 , a ,3 ) . A172,

SUASIVE EVIDENCE ON THE SIDE OF MAN: T h is ev id en ce i s ta k e n f£om inan^s n a t u r a l d e s ir e to see God a s he i s i n h im s e lf.

A116, A*

W herefrom argum ent i s ta k e n th u s :

a . An e le v a tio n , w ith o u t w hich our n a tu r a l i n e f f ic a c io u s and c o n d itio n ­ a l d e s ir e can n o t b e s a t i s f i e d , i s b e f i t t i n g to u s , though a t th e same tim e g r a tu ito u s , a l . I t i s b e f i t t i ng in d e e d , b ecau se t h a t d e s ir e i s n a t u r a l , a 2 , B ut i t i s to g e th e r g r a t u i t o u s . b e ca u se t h a t d e s ir e i s n o t e f f ic a c io u s n o r b e sp e a k in g ex ig en cy , b . B ut w ith o u t e le v a tio n to a s u p e r n a tu r a l en d , our n a t u r a l c o n d itio n a l a,nd in e f f ic a c io u s d e s ir e to see God as he i s i n h im s e lf cannot b e s a t i s f i e d : f o r G-od seen a s he i s i n h im s e lf i s o u ts id e th e p ro p o r tio n a te o b je c t of our in te lle c t. o, T h e re fo re e le v a tio n o f man to a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, i s b e f i t t i n g to man, though a t th e same tim e g r a tu ito u s o r undue to him, B, BUT OBSERVE th a t t h i s argum ent a ls o i s o n ly p ro b a b le : f o r : a, s in c e t h a t n a tu r a l d e s ir e i s o n ly c o n d itio n a l and i n e f f i c a c i o u s , b, i t does n o t d e m o n strate p o s s i b i l i t y , and a c c o rd in g ly f i t t i n g n e s s , o f i t s f u lf ilm e n t, C,

T h e re fo re :

a, a lth o u g h t h i s e le v a tio n to a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, and a c c o rd in g ly , r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , rem ains GRATUITOUS, a cc o rd in g as i t exceeds th e exigency o f o u r n a tu r e , b, n e v e r th e le s s i t i s to g e th e r h ig h ly BEFITTING, b l , b u t by a b e f i t t i n g n e s s b a s e d : b l a , n o t i n some p o s itiv e i n c l i n a t i o n o r o rd e r o f our n a tu r e tow ards a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, b i b , b u t i n o b e d ie n t ia l p o te n cy , w hich i s th ro u g h r e f e r e n c e to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l e le v a tin g a g e n t, b 2 . And t h e r e f o r e i t i s t h a t o n ly a f t e r e le v a tio n , do we have p o s itiv e o rd e r and i n c l i n a t i o n to a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, t h i s p o s itiv e i n c l i n a t i o n b e in g found i n th e th e o lo g ic a l v i r t u e s , namely i n f a i t h , hope and c h a r ity . And th u s does S t . Thomas s a y : b 2 a . " I n a n a tu r e i t s e l f th e r e i s a c e r t a i n in c h o a tio n o f th e v e ry good w hich i s p r o p o r tio n a te to th e n a t u r e , . b 2 b . ,fW hercfore i t must needs be t h a t , f o r t h i s t h a t man b e o rd e re d to th e good o f e t e r n a l l i f e , th e r e b e e f f e c te d a c e r t a i n in c h o a tio n o f i t i n him to whom i t i s prom ised, .And t h i s in c h o a tio n i s th ro u g h f a i t h , Yifoioh from an in fu s e d l i g h t h o ld s th o s e th in g s which n a t u r a l l y exoeed know ledge," (Be V e r i t , , q.,14, a . 2 ) , D, Thus i n h i s s u p e r n a tu r a l g i f t s , God h as m a rv e llo u s ly o o n jo in ed to g e th e r supreme g r a t u i t y and supreme f i t t i n g n e s s . w hich a t f i r s t s ig h t seem in c o m p a tib le , a. N othing i s more undue o r g r a tu ito u s to us th a n e le v a tio n to th e b e a t i f i c v is io n ( o r th a n th e I n c a r n a tio n o r th e E u c h a r is t) , and y e t n o th in g i s more b e f i t t i n g , a l , E or w hat p e r f e c t s us th e m ore, i s so f a r f o r t h th e more b e f i t t i n g to u s : b u t o u r n a tu r a l h a p p in e ss would c o n s i s t i n an a b s t r a c t i v e knowledge o f God, and i n a n a tu r a l lo v e o f God above a l l t h i n g s ; b u t we a re much more p e rfe c te d by th e b e a t i f i c v i s i o n , w hich i s however a b s o lu te ly g r a tu ito u s o r undue. a2 . L ik ew ise f r ie n d s h ip w ith God ( i , e . c h a r ity ) i s n o t due to u s , b u t i s i n th e h ig h e s t manner in tim a te ly b e f i t t i n g to u s. b. T h is in tim a te c o n c i l i a t i o n o f g r a t u i t y and b e f i t t i n g n e s s i s a p ro ­ found c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t r u e s u p e r n a t u r a l i t y , w hich i s th e more m a n ife st a cc o rd in g a s o u r n a tu re i s re n d e re d th e more r e c t i f i e d th ro u g h m o r t i f i c a t i o n and p u r i f i c a t i o n , as i n th e s a i n t s ; f o r acco rd in g as o ur n a tu r e i s th e more p u r if ie d from s e n s u a lity and p r id e , so much th e more does s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e ap p ear b e f i t t i n g to i t , 0. On th e c o n tr a r y , f a ls e m y sticism e i t h e r s e p a ra te s o r c o n fu ses th e s e tw o, f o r : 0 1, e i t h e r i t e x p re s s e s i t s e l f in h au g h ty r a v in g s o f an im ag in ary p e r f e c tio n

A ir .?

w hich i s i n f a c t a n t i - n a t u r a l , as i n th e case o f M o n ta n is ts , J a n s e n i s t s and Q u i e t i s t s ; o2. o£ i t s l i p s down i n t o n a tu ra lis m th ro u g h c o n fu s io n o f g ra c e and n a tu r e , w ith c o rre sp o n d in g n e g le c t o f m o r t i f i c a t i o n and p u r if ic a tio n *

CHAPTER NINE. NECESSITY ■“•"•'I-OP REVELATION. A173,

ORDER OP PROCEDURE: G iven th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n , w heth er o f n a tu re ! t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n q r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te r ie s , w hereof i t lias been q u e s tio n i n th e fo re g o in g c h a p te r (nn,A 102A 172), th e q u e s tio n o f th e n e c e s s ity o f d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n must now be tre a te d * A* P o r: a, on th e one hand. R a t i o n a l i s t s so deny th e n e c e s s ity o f r e v e l a t i o n as to make i t n o t even b e f i t t i n g * b, Y/hereas on th e o th e r hand. T r a d i t i o n a l i s t s and F i d e i s t s so e x a g g e ra te th e n e c e s s ity o f r e v e l a t i o n a s to make d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n even o f n a t u r a l t r u t h s s t r i c t l y n e c e s sa ry f o r our knowledge o f th e s e t r u t h s , B.

A cco rd in g ly t h i s c h a p te r w i l l expose:

a,

F i r s t , h e tero d o x d o c tr in e s and C a th o lic d o c t r i n e ,

b,

.

A

r

t

i

c

l

e

one*

S eco n d ly * th e r a t i o n a l d e fe n ce o f th e C a th o lic d o c t r i n e . . A r t i c l e

two.

ARTICLE ONE. HETERODOX DOCTRINES AND THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. A174,

HETERODOX DOCTRINES: R egarding t h i s q u e s tio n th e r e a re two h e tero d o x th e s e s m u tu a lly opposed, to w i t : A.

The d o c trin e o f RATIONALISTS ( c f . n,A 175),

B.

The d o c tr in e o f TRADITIONALISTS and FIDEISTS ( o f . n.A 176),

A175,

RATIONALIST DOCTRINE: As s a id above, R a t i o n a l i s t s so deny th e n e c e s s ity o f d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n a s to make i t n o t even b e f i t t i n g to man ( c f . n.A 169),

A I76.

DOCTRINE OP TRADITIONALISTS AND FIDEISTS: T r a d i t i o n a l i s t s and F i d e i s t s , such a s de Lamennais ( c f . Denz, n .1 6 1 3 ), B a u ta in ( c f . Denz, n .a 6 2 2 ), and B o n n etty ( c f . Denz. n»1649), have a c e r t a i n a f f i n i t y w ith th e fid e is m and p se u d o -su p e rn a tu ra lis m o f th e e a r ly P r o t e s t a n t s and o f Du Bay and o f Jansen. A. A ccording xto them , s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n o f th e NATURAL t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n i s s t r i c t l y n e c e s sa ry t o th e end t h a t man may know th e s e

tru th s . a. I n o th e r w ords, a cc o rd in g to them , human re a s o n , w ith o u t divine, f a i t h , i s PHrSICA.f.IiY .INCAPABLE o f re a c h in g c e r t a i n knowledge o f th e s e tr u th s * F o r w hich r e a s o n th e y a re c a lle d FIDEISTS. b, M oreover, b e ca u se th e p r im itiv e r e v e l a t i o n whereby th e s e t r u t h s have b een f i r s t re v e a le d h as b een tr a n s m itte d t o , and co nserved among th e d iv e r s e p e o p le s , by t r a d i t i o n , th e y a re a lso c a lle d TRADITIONALIST3, B. ACCORDI NG TO RIGID TRADITIONALISM; a, YTithout t r a d i t i o n d e riv e d from o u r f i r s t p a r e n ts , man would have no .intellectual n o tio n , b ecau se w ith o u t a p r im itiv e r e v e l a t i o n man would n o t have l e a r n t o r in v e n te d sp eech : such i s th e te a c h in g o f Do B o n ald , who, under th e in f lu e n c e o f C o n d illa c * s nom inalism , th o u g h t th a t speech i s n e c e s s a ry f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l knowledge (in d e e d , a cc o rd in g to nom inalism , th e u n iv e r s a l i s found on ly i n names, and th e co n cep t i s red u ced to an image w hereto i s a d jo in e d a common name), b. A ccording t o de Lamennais th e re a s o n o f th e in d iv id u a l man cannot from i t s e l f a lo n e re a c h any a b s o lu te c e r t i t u d e ; r e c o u rs e must b e had to 'common s e n s e " , w hich i s co n serv ed i n th e t r a d i t i o n s o f p e o p le s , and, l i k e sp eech , i s d e riv e d from th e p r im itiv e r e v e la tio n * C, BUT ACCORDING- TO MITIGATED TRADITIONALISM, man co u ld a t t a i n to nc iq o ral o r r e l i g i o u s t r u t h w ith o u t t r a d i t i o n d e riv e d from a p r im itiv e d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , a. Thus te a c h e s V en tu ra (1 7 9 1 -1 8 6 1 ), who however conceded t h a t th e p r i n c i p a l t r u t h s (su c h a s God*s e x is te n c e , im m o rta lity o f th e human s o u l, th e f i r s t m oral p r e c e p ts ) , p ro v id ed th ey have b een f i r s t re c e iv e d th ro u g h r e v e l a t i o n and t r a d i t i o n , c a n a fte rw a rd s be defended and proved by reason* b* B a u ta in and B o n n etty p ro p o sed , i n a s l i g h t l y o th e r f a s h io n , a m itig a te d tr a d i t i o n a l i s m . D. A ccording to t h e i r i n t e n t i o n , th e t r a d i t i o n a l i s m o f th e F i d o i s t s , i s r a d i c a l l y opposed to ra tio n a lis m * B ut i n r e a l i t y : a. j u s t a s th e p s e u d o -su p e rn a tu ra lis m and fid e is m o f th e e a r ly P r o t e s t a n t s l e d to th e r a tio n a lis m o f th e L ib e r a l P r o t e s t a n t s , as a n a tu r a l r e l i g i o u s sense came to be s u b s tit u te d f o r p r i v a t e in s p ir a tio n # b* so i n de Lam ennais tr a d i t i o n a l i s m le d to i n d if f e r e n ti s m and l i b e r a l ! sm. bl* F o r de Lamennais s a id th a t f o r s a lv a tio n i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to have t h a t "ooiimon sense" knov/ledge o f God, t h a t i s , i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to b e lie v e th e n a tu r a l t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n , w hich w ere m a n ife ste d th ro u g h th e p r im itiv e r e v e l a t i o n and have b e en i n f a l l i b l y tr a n s m itte d th ro u g h t r a d i t i o n to th e d iv e r s e r a c e s o f men, b 2 . Wherefrom fo llo w s th e principle o f LIBERALISM: "By w h atso ev er p r o f e s s io n o f b e l i e f e t e r n a l s a lv a tio n o f th e a o u l can be a t t a i n e d , i f conduct be k e p t to th e n o m o f th e r i g h t and f i t t i n g . " (Denz. n .1 6 1 3 ; o f, Denz. n .1 6 1 7 ; n*1715; n .1 7 7 7 ). A177*

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH: The VATICAN COUNCIL d e f in e s : "The same h o ly m other Church h o ld s and te a o h e s :

A. " t h a t God, th e p r in c ip le and end o f a l l th in g s , can, by th e n a t u r a l l i g h t o f human r e a s o n , b e known w ith c e r t i t u d e from c r e a te d t h i n g s , ; B, " t h a t n e v e r th e le s s i t has p le a s e d h is wisdom and g o o d n ess, to r e v e a l hifeiself and th e e t e r n a l d e c re e s o f h is w i l l to th e human r a c e i n a n o th e r , and t h a t s u p e r n a tu r a l, w a y . . To t h i s d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i t i s in d e ed to b e a t t r i b u t e d th a t th o s e t r u t h s , w hich i n d iv in e th in g s a r e n o t ‘ p e r se* im p erv io u s to human re a so n , can i n th e p r e s e n t c o n d itio n a ls o o f th e human r a c e , b e known by a l l e x p e d itio u s ly , w ith a firm c e r t i t u d e , and w ith no ad m ix tu re o f e r r o r , 0. "Not however on t h i s acco u n t i s r e v e l a t i o n to be pronounced a b s o lu te ly n e c e s s a ry , b u t b e ca u se God from h i s i n f i n i t e goodness h a s o rd e re d man to a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, to w it, to p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f th e d iv in e

A319 goods, w hich u t t e r l y s u rp a ss th e i n t e l l i g e n c e o f th e human m in d ,” IpDenz nn, 1785-1786 ; o f. Denz, n , 1806),

ARTICLE TWO. .RATIONAL g | « A178,

OF THE CHURCH*S DOCTRINE,

ORDER OF EROCEDURE:

T h is a r t i c l e :

A, F i r s t , v / i l l expose th e n a tu re and d iv is io n o f n e o e s s ity and o f power*....................................... B, S econdly , w i l l c o n s id e r th e n e c e s s ity o f th e r e v e l a t i o n o f n a tu r a l t r u t h s

.D i s s e r t a t i o n one, *

• . Di s s e r t a t i on two.

0. T h i r d ly « w i l l c o n s id e r th e n e o e s s ity o f r e v e l a t i o n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s t e r i e s . . D i s s e r t a t i o n

th r e e .

DISSERTATION ORE. NATURE AND DIVISICN OF NEOESSITY. A179.

NOTION AND DIVISION OF NECESSITY: I n o rd e r t h a t th e d o c trin e to "be proposed and defended h e re u n d e r h e r i g h t l y u n d e rs to o d , i t i s r e q u ir e d t h a t th e n o tio n and d i v i s i o n o f n e c e s s ity h e r i g h t l y u n d e rsto o d . A. a. h, p e r f e c t s th e

T h is i s exposed: h y A r i s t o t l e (M eta, V, c . 5; c f . Commentary o f S t, Thomas, l e c t , 6 ) , hy S t . Thomas ( I , q .8 2 , a . l ) , where S t. Thomas summarizes and d o c tr in e o f A r i s t o t l e .

B. T here S t. Thomas w r i t e s : " N e c e ss ity i3 s a id i n many w ays. n e c e s s a ry i s THAT Y/HIOH CANNOT BE-NQT:

F o r th e

a. "whioh in d eed h e f i t s som ething: a l , " i n one wav, from an i n t r i n s i c p r i n c i p l e , a l a . "w hether m a t e r i a l , a s when we say t h a t i t i s n e c e s sa ry th a t e v e ry th in g composed from c o n tr a r ie s he c o rru p te d ; a lh , " o r fo r m a l, a s when we say t h a t i t i s n e c e s sa ry th a t a t r i a n g l e have th r e e a n g le s e q u al to two r i g h t - a n g l e s , a2 , "Acid t h i s n e c e s s ity i s n a t u r a l and a b s o lu te . h. " In a n o th e r way, i t h e f i t s som ething, i n t h a t i t can n o t h e -n o t from s om ething e x t r i n s i c , e i t h e r en d , o r a g e n t. h i, "From en d , h l a . " in d e e d , h l a l . " a s when someone cannot w ith o u t t h i s : h l a l a . " a t t a i n some end, h l a l h . " o r w e ll a t t a i n i t : h la 2 , " a s : b la 2 a ," fo o d i s n e c e ssa ry f o r l i f e , b la 2 b ." a n d a h o rs e f o r a jo u rn e y . b ib . "and t h i s i s c a ll e d n e c e s s ity o f en d , w hich i s sometimes o a lle d a ls o u t i l i t y .

A120, b 2 . "But from agent t h i s b e f i t s som ething, b 2 a, 11as when someone i s fo rc e d by some a g e n t, so t h a t he can n o t do th e c o n tra ry * b2b, "And t h i s i s c a lle d n e c e s s ity o f c o a c tio n *" ( I , q .8 2 , a , l ) . 0*

T h e re fo re ;

a, .ABSOLUTE n e c e s s ity i s based upon th e i n t r i n s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f a . th in g ; and in d e e d : aA* I f upon th e i n t r i n s i c p rin c i p ie s o f a r e a l e sse n c e known i n i t s o n to lo g io a l p r o p e r t i e s , v .g . ’man1 ; a l a , th e n i t i s MEIAPHYSICAL n e c e s s ity ; a s i t i s m e ta p h y s ic a lly n e o e ssa ry t h a t man be a r a t i o n a l a n im a l; a lb , and th e c o n tr a d ic to r y o f what i s m e ta p h y s ic a lly n e o e ssa ry i s l e ; a s i t i s m e ta p h y s ic a lly im p o s sib le t h a t man h e n o t a r a t i o n a l an im al, a£* B ut i f upon th e i n t r i n s i c p r in c ip le s o f a m ath em atical e ss e n c e , v*g. ’t r i a n g l e 1 : a2 a, th e n i t i s MATHEMATICAL n e c e s s i t y ; a s i t i s m a th e m a tic a lly n e c e s sa ry t h a t a ( e u c lid ia n ) t r i a n g l e have th r e e a n g le s e q u a l to two r i g h t - a n g l e s ; a2b. and th e c o n tr a d ic to r y o f what i s m a th e m a tic a lly n e c e s sa ry i s m a th e riia tic ally i mpos s i b l e ; a s i t i s m a th e m a tic a lly im p o s sib le th a t a T Je u c lid ia n J t r i a n g l e n o t have th r e e a n g le s e q u a l to two r ig h t - a n g l e s . b.

But HYPOTHETIC n e c e s s ity i s b a se d upon e x t r i n s i c c a u s e s : and in d e e d :

b l . I f i t i s b ased upon an e x t r i n s i c a g e n t; b la * th e n i t i s QQACTIONAL o r PHYSICAL n e c e s s ity ; a s i t i s p h y s ic a lly n e c e s s a ry t h a t co ld w a te r be h e a te d by th e f i r e to w hich i t i s b ro u g h t in to oon ca c t * b ib . and th e c o n tr a d ic to r y o f what i s p h y s ic a lly n e c e s sa ry i s p h y s ic a lly im p o s s ib le : a s i t i s p h y s ic a lly im p o s sib le th a t th e w a te r b e n o t h e a te d by th e f i r e , b 2 . B ut i f i t i s b ased upon e n d , th e n i t i s n e c e s s ity OF END o r FINAL1STIC n e c e s s ity ; and in d e e d : b 2 a . I f som ething i s so n e c e s sa ry by f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity th a t w ith o u t i t th e end sim ply cannot be a t t a i n e d : b 2 a l, th e n i s had STRICT f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity ; a s food i s s t r i c t l y n e c e s s a ry f o r human l i f e ; b 2 a la . (w hich s t r i c t f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity i s sometimes b u t q u ite im p ro p erly c a ll e d a b s o lu te n e c e s s ity ; b 2 a lb , b u t i t can p ro p e rly be c a lle d sim p le f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity , o r f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity sim ply ta k e n ) ; b2a2, and t h a t th e end be a tta in e d w ith o u t i t i s sim p ly . and in d eed a t l e a s t p h y s ic a lly , imooss a b le , b2b. But i f som ething i s f i n a i i s t i c a l l y n e c e s s a ry o n ly i n such fa s h io n th a t: b 2 b l. w ith o u t i t , th e end: b 2 b la . can in d e e d , sim ply s p e a k in g , be a t t a i n e d , b 2 b lb , b u t cannot b e a tta in e d w e l l , o r e a s i l y , o r w ith o u t g r e a t d iffic u lty , b2b2, th e n i s had MORAL f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity ; a s , i n th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e tim e and p la c e , a h o rs e may be m o ra lly n e c e s sa ry f o r a jo u rn e y , inasm uch as th e jo u rn e y , though i t c an sim ply sp eak in g b e made w ith o u t a h o r s e , y e t cannot be made w e ll o r w ith o u t g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , u n le s s a h o rs e be h ad ; b2b3, w hioh n e c e s s ity o f end may b e c a ll e d q u a l i f i e d f i n a l i s t i c n e c e s s ity ( n e c e s s ity ’ secundum q u id ’ ) ; b2b4, and t h a t th e end be a tta in e d w ith o u t i t i s m o ra lly im p o s s ib le , inasm uch as th e a tta in m e n t o f th e end w ith o u t i t e n t a i l s g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y such as i n p o in t o f f a c t i s in s u p e r a b le acc o rd in g to th e o rd in a ry c o n d itio n s o f ou r l i f e . D.

Which may be th u s s c h e m a tic a lly sum m arized:-

A121

E i th e r on th e i n t r i n s i c caus e s o f an e ss e n c e : and th e n th e n e c e s s ity i s ABSOLUTE, B ut th e e sse n ce upon whose i n t r i n s i c c a u se s i t i s b ased i s

And th e n th e n e c e s s ity E i th e r a r e a l i s METAPHYSICAL. e sse n c e known in i t s o n to lo g ic a l And to t h i s n e c e s s ity p ro p e rtie s : c o rre sp o n d s METAPHYSICAL ..^POSSIBILITY. And th e n th e n e c e s s ity i s MATHEMATICAL. Or a mathema­ t i c a l essence) — And to t h i s n e c e s s ity c o rre sp o n d s MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

E i th e r t h a t w ith o u t i t th e end sim ply can ­ n o t be a tta in e d ;

N e c e s s ity i s based

Or on an e x t r i n s i c c a u s e : and th e n th e n e c e s s ity i s HYPOTHETIC. B ut t h i s n e c e s s ity from ie x t r i n s i c cau se i s

E ith e r from (and: and th e n th e n ec­ e s s ity is FINALISTIC n e c e s s ity . But some­ th in g may b e th u s n e c e s sa ry from end, so:

And th e n th e r e i s STRICT o r SIMPLE FINALESTIO NECESS­ ITY. And to t h i s n e c e s s ity c o rre sp o n d s SIMPLE o r STRICT o r PHYSICAL IMPOTENCE. And th e n th e r e i s MORAL o r QUALIFIED F3NAUSTIC NECESSITY.

Or t h a t w ith o u t i t th e end, though i t c an sim ply sp ea k in g bo a t t a i n e d , y e t can n o t b e a tta in e d w e ll o r w ith o u t g re a t d iffic u lty : And to t h i s n e c e s s ity c o rre sp o n d s MORAL 3KP0TENCE. And th e n th e r e i s COACTIQNAL NECESSITY, a ls o c a lle d PHYSICAL NECESSITY.

Or from a g e n t : And to t h i s n e c e s s ity c o r r e s ­ ponds PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

A180.

NOTION AND DIVISION- OF POWER: From what h a s b e en s a i d , i s e a s i l y g a th e re d th e n o tio n , and a ls o th e d i v i s i o n , o f pow er, as t h i s c o n ce rn s u s h e re .

A. F o r POWER. a s i t i s h e re ta k e n , i s ABILITY OR APTITUDE TO KNOW OR DO SQMETHEN&, ----a . T h e re fo re th e power o f man i s h i s a b i l i t y o r a p titu d e to know o r do som ething, v, g, to know t r u t h o r do good.

COPyftiGHT

b. And th e power o f man i n any d e te rm in a te s t a t e o r c o n d itio n i s h is a b i l i t y o r a p titu d e i n t h a t s t a t e o r c o n d itio n to know o r do som ething. B.

B ut th e power o f man may be c o n sid e re d i n two w ays, to w i t :

a. E i t h e r M ITSELF o r ACGORDING TO I TS ESSENTIAL PITOICAgES. a l . Then th e power i s reckoned on ly a cc o rd in g to th e e s s e n t i a l p ro p o r tio n w hich i t has w ith th e a tta in m e n t o f i t s c o n n a tu ra l o b je c t. a2« And th e power th u s ta k e n i s o a lle d PHYSICAL P0.7ER. aS* B ut th e la c k o f t h i s power i s o a lle d PHYSICAL BgQTMCE.. a4, T h u s: a4 a, The oye: a 4 a l, h as p h y sic a l power to s e e , a4a2. b u t s u f f e r s phy s i c a l im potenoe to h e a r . a4b. And lik e w is e th e human i n t e l l e c t : a 4 b l, h a s p h y s ic a l power w ith r e s p e c t to any t r u t h o f th e n a tu r a l o r d e r , a4b2, b u t s u f f e r s p h y s ic a l im potence w ith r e s p e c t to s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h s . b, 0£ as i t i s IN SUCH A DETERMINATE CONDI TON w here th e re a re o b s ta c le s to be overcome. b l. Then th e power i s rookoned a c c o rd in g to th e absence o f im pedim ents, w hich m ight p r o h ib i t t h a t a b i l i t y o r a p titu d e from p a s s in g o v e r to i t s a c t , p r o h ib i tin g t h i s th ro u g h th e d i f f i c u l t y t h a t i s e n ta ile d i n o v e r­ coming th o s e o b s ta o le s , inasm uch as t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s so g r e a t as to bo i n p o in t o f f a c t in s u p e r a b le a c c o rd in g to th e o rd in a ry c o n d itio n s o f o u r l i f e . b2. And th e power th u s ta k e n i s o a lle d MORAL FQY/EP,. b3» B ut th e la c k o f t h i s power i s c a lle d MORAL DvIPOTENCE. b 4 . T h u s: b 4 a . M oral pow er: b 4 a l, in c lu d e s p h y s ic a l pow er, b4a2, and superadds to i t th e absence o f such o b s ta c le s ao a r e i n p o in t o f f a o t in s u p e r a b le , as e x p la in e d . b4b* And one may w ith r e s p e c t to th e same th in g : b 4 b l. to g e th e r : b 4 b la , enjoy p h y s ic a l pow er. b 4 b lb , and s u f f e r m oral im p o ten ce. b4b2. Thus one may to g e th e r : b4b2a, have th e p h y s ic a l power to d e v o te o n e s e lf to th e stu d y o f m eta­ p h y sio s th ro u g h o u t f i f t e e n h o u rs each day f o r a y e a r , b4b2b, and la b o u r u n d er m o ral im potence to do t h i s , owing to th o d i f f i c u l t y o f overcom ing th e ap p eal o f p le a s u r e , and o f s p o r t, and o f th e company and c o n v e rs a tio n o f o n e’ s f r i e n d s . b4b3. And s i m i l a r l y , as w i l l b e shown h e re u n d e r, th e whole complex o f r e l i g i o u s t r u t h s o f th e n a t u r a l o r d e r : b4b3a, though n o t beyond a tta in m e n t by th e human i n t e l l e c t (ev en w ith o u t g r a c e ) , inasm uch a s th e human i n t e l l e c t i s e s s e n t i a l l y p r o p o r tio n a te to th e knowing o f them, b4b3b. a r e y e t beyond th e m oral powers o f f a l l e n men (w ith o u t g r a c e ) , so th a t f a l l e n man m o ra lly needs g ra c e in o rd e r to know a l l th e s e n a t u r a l t r u t h s . 0* Henoe th e d i s t i n c t i o n betw een man’ s p h y s ic a l power and man’s m oral power may be s c h e m a tic a lly i l l u s t r a t e d t h u s : -

A123

E i th e r IN?ITSELF.,

I t i s reck o n ed ao o o rd in g to th e e s s e n t i a l p ro p o r tio n w hich i t h as w ith th e a tta in m e n t o f i t s c o n n a tu ra l o b je c t .

jits e s s e n tia l ^ •g re d ic a te s; and th e n

And th u s ta k e n , i t i s c a l l e d m an's PHYSICAL POWER.

Man1s POwlSj as i t i s h e re ta k e n , i s man* s ABILITY OR ATTITUDE TO M m o r do m ffim N c r : and i t can be c o n sid e re d i

And w ith r e s p e c t to th in g s beyond i t , man la b o u rs u n d e r PHYSICAL IMPOTENCE.

Or a s i t i s IN SUCH A DETERMINATE CONDITION« w here th e r e a re o b s ta c ­ l e s to be over­ come: and th e n

I t i s reck o n ed a o o o rd in g to th e absence o f im pedim ents, w hich m ig h t, owing to th e d i f f i c u l t y in v o lv e d i n overcom ing them , d e t e r man from b r in g in g h is p h y s ic a l power i n t o a c t . And th u s ta k e n , i t i s o a lle d man’ s MORAL POWER. And w ith r e s p e c t to th in g s beyond i t , man la b o u rs under MORAL BiPQTPNCE.

DISSERTATION DUO. NECESSITY OP REVELATION OF NATURAL RELIGIOUS TRUTHS. A181,

ORDER OP PROCEDURE:

T h is d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l c o n s id e r

A* F i r s t . w h eth er men have m oral power to know some n a t u r a l r e l i g i o u s t r u t h s w ith o u t r e v e l a t i o n , « » . • • • • • • • • • • • .T o p io one. B, S eco n d ly , w h e th e r men have m oral power w ith o u t r e v e l a t i o n to know th e whole complex o f n a tu r a l r e l i g i o u s t r u t h s . . T o p i

c

two.

TOPIC ONE. MAN'S POY/BR TO KNOW SOME RELIGIOUS TRUTHS. A182,

REVELATION NOT REQUIRED: I t must be s a id th a t DIVINE REVELATIONIS NOT EVEN MORALLY NECESSARY THAT MEN MAY KNOW SOME NATURAL TRUTHS REGARDING- GOD. A. F o r th e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s o f re a s o n a re n a t u r a l l y known w ith o u t th e te a c h in g o f t r a d i t i o n and w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n . a. Fg»r: a l, j u s t a s s ig h t n a t u r a l l y and s tra ig h tw a y knows i t s own fow nal o b je c t , to w i t , c o lo u r,

A124 u2 , so our i n t e l l e c t n a t u r a l l y and s tra ig h tw a y knows i t s own form al o b je c t , to w it,"bei;o£;, and w h a tev e r i s ’ p e r Be* o f b ein g as su ch ; i n w hioh knowledge i s founded knowledge o f th e f i r s t { p rin c ip le s, such as *th e r e i s no a ffirm in g and denying to g e th e r* and o th e r su c h ," (Con* G e n t., I I , c .8 3 , n , 3 1 ), b, A c co rd in g ly , th e s e p r i n c i p l e s a re n o t a c q u ire d th ro u g h human te a o h in g , "but on th S c o n tr a r y , " ev ery te a c h in g and ev ery le a r n in g i s ,e f f e c te d from p r e - e x i s t i ng know le d g e ,11 ( P o s t, A n a l,, I , c , 1 , 71a, 1 ) ; f o r i t Buenos ea n a tu r a l know ledge o f th e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s : i n o th e r w ords, i f we d id n o t n a t u r a l l y know th e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s , we could n e v e r know any o th e r t r u t h , and so co u ld n o t know t h a t a te a c h e r i s te a o h in g , o r i s w orthy o f b e l i e f , o r t h a t h e i s te a c h in g t h i s o r t h a t . ^

•

w f

c

-■» — jm u m iiim * * -*• •

-m m * —

o. And in d e e d , n o t from th e te a c h in g o f some te a c h e r , b u t from th e im pulse o f n a tu r e , " a l l men n a t u r a l l y d e s ir e to know," (M e t,, I , o, 1 , 9 8 0 a , l ) ; and as s c ie n c e i s knowledge th ro u g h c a u s e s , " th e r e i s i n man a n a tu r a l d e s ir e to know th e c au se , when he b e h o ld s an e f f e c t , " ( I , q .1 2 , a , l ) , c l , .And th e r e f o r e c h ild r e n , a n t e r i o r l y to a l l te a o h in g o r le a r n in g , ask such q u e s tio n s ab o u t c a u s e s , such a s "Who made t h is ? What d id you do t h i s fo r? " o2. And from n a t u r a l im pillse q u e s tio n s a re asked u n t i l i n th e answer i s re a ch e d i d e n t i t y o f s u b je c t and p r e d ic a te : f o r a c h ild a s k s : "Why i s sp eak in g u n tr u t h f u lly b a d ? " , b u t n o t "Why i s b ad n ess b ad n ess?" B. S ifejfecm th e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s our n a tu r a l re a s o n i s e a s i l y le d to knowledge o f t h e e x i s t e nce o f th e prim e c au se and supreme la w g iv e r, i . e . o f God. a. T h is i s shown a t le n g th i n p h ilo so p h y , a l . and in d e e d : a l a , from th in g s w hich come to e x is te n c e , by th e a id o f th e p r i n c i p l e o f c a u s a l i t y , to w i t , "w hatever comes to e x is te n c e h as a c a u s e ," common se n se o r n a t u r a l re a s o n e a s i l y re a c h e s knowledge o f some cau se w hich n e v er came in to e x is te n c e , b u t i s s e l f - e x i s t e n t . a lb . L ik ew ise, from c o n s id e r a tio n of th e o rd e r o f th e w o rld , common se n se i s e a s ily le d to knowledge o f a supreme o r d e r e r o r g o v ern o r, a l e . S im ila r ly , from th e p re c e p ts o f c o n sc ie n c e , o r from m oral o b lig a tio n w hereof th e f o r c e i s s u p e r io r to c irc u m sta n c e s o f tim e and p la c e , and to in d iv id u a ls and to s o c ie ty , n a tu r a l o r spontaneous re a s o n e a s ily r i s e s to know­ le d g e o f a supreme la w g iv e r, a c c o rd in g a s m oral o b lig a tio n , w hich h a s i t s proxim ate fo u n d a tio n i n th e p r i n c i p l e s o f our re a s o n ( c f . I - I I , q ,9 4 , a , 2 ) , r e q u ir e s a supreme fo u n d a tio n i n G-od. F o r th e r e i s no law w ith o u t a la w g iv e r, a2. F o r w hich re a so n th e o lo g ia n s : a2a, j u s t as th e y do n o t adm it in v in c ib le ig n o ra n c e o f th e prim ary p re o e p ts o f th e n a t u r a l law , a2b„ so a ls o do n o t adm it in v in c ib le ig n o ra n c e o f G-od’ s e x is te n c e , (O f, I n E p i s t , ad Rom, I , 1 1 ), a3. N e v e rth e le s s some o f God’s a t t r i b u t e s w hich a r e n a t u r a l l y knowable a re f o r g o tte n o r a d u lte r a t e d , j u s t a s seco n d ary p r in c ip le s o f th e n a t u r a l law can be unknown o r d i s t o r t e d " e i t h e r owing to e v i l p e rs u a s io n s o r a ls o owing to c o rru p t p r a c t i c e s ," ( i - I I , q .9 4 , a , 6 ) , b. L ik ew ise n a t u r a l re a s o n i s n a t u r a l l y c e r t a i n o f th e e x is te n c e o f f r e e w i l l , and o f im p u ta b ility , b l . F o r n a t u r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e s tra ig h tw a y i n d e l i b e r a t i n g p e rc e iv e s th e d is p r o p o r tio n betw een th e p a r t i c u l a r good ab o u t w hich i t i s d e lib e r a t in g and u n iv e r s a l good w hich s p e c if ie s " 'th e w i l l : b 2 , w h e re f o re : b 2 a . man n a t u r a l l y knows t h a t he i s m a ste r o f h is own a c t , b e in g c e r t a i n o f h i s d o m inative in d if f e r e n c e re g a rd in g p a r t i c u l a r goods, b2b, even though he may be u n ab le to propose a d e m o n stra tio n o f freedom o f w i l l , o r to s o lv e th e o b je c tio n s o f d e te r m in is ts , 0. S im ila r ly , men have a n a tu r a l c e r t i t u d e about th e i m m o rta lity o f human s o u l, 01. F o r though " se n se does n o t know .be save u nder th e ’h e r e ’ and th e ’now’ i n t e l l e c t apprehends b e a b s o lu te ly and a c c o rd in g to a l l tim e . W herefore everyone h av in g i n t e l l e c t n a t u r a l l y d e s ir e s to be a lw ay s," ( I , q , 75, a , 6 ),

o2» B ut t h i s does n o t mean t h a t everyone h av in g i n t e l l e c t knows u n d e r wh a t s o r t o f ocnd: t i o n s th e so u l l i v e s i t s f u tu r e l i f e . d« , I t i s i ndeed to h e note d th a t : di» P h ilo s o p h ic re a s o n C i.e , re a s o n so p e rfe c te d t h a t i t o p e ra te s p h ilo s o p h ic a lly ) e x p la in s and d efen d s th e s e c e r t i t u d e s o f n a tu r a l r e a s o n and d efen d s them th ro u g h c a c p lic it and d i s t i n c t r e d u c tio n to th e f i r s t p r in ­ c i p l e s , (w hich i s n c th in s e ls e th a n r e d u c tio n 6 f them to b e in g ) , d2. B ut n a tu ra l, r e a s o n o r common se n s e ( i . e . p r e phi 1 o so phi c re a so n ) sp o n ta n e o u sly and c o n fu se d ly re d u c e s (analyses) i t s c e r t i t u d e s back to b e in g , s in c e b e in g i s i t s fo rm al o b je c t , j u s t as coloutf i s th e fo rm al o b je c t o f s ig h t. 0. Th e r e f o r e d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i s n o t even mor a l l y .n ecessary t h a t men may know cer t a i n n a tu r a l t r u th s re g a rd in g God. a. T hat i s , w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n men can know thorn r e a d i l y and e a s ily , b. T h e re fo re was th e P i d e i s t B au ta i n re q u ire d to s u b s c rib e t h i s p r o p o s itio n : "A lthough re a s o n h a s b e en re n d e re d weak and o b scu re th ro u g h o r i g i n a l g in , n e v e r th e le s s th e r e rem ain ed i n i t enough o f c la r ity / and o f power to le a d us w ith c e r t i t u d e ( t o know) th e e x is te n c e o f G-od, th e r e v e l ­ a t i o n made thorough Moses to th e Jew s and to C h r is tia n s th ro u g h o u r ad m irab le Man-God." (Denz, 1627; c f , Benz. 1002; 1391; 1806; 2 1 4 5 ;).

TOPIC WO. MANlS PC?Vm TO KNOW THE WHOLE COMPLEX OF RELIGIOUS TRUTHS. A183,

REVELATION NOT STRICTLY NECESSARY: I t m ust be s a id t h a t DIVINE REVELATION IS NOT STRICTLY CjR SIMPLY NECESSARY FOR THIS. THAT MAN MAY KNOW E-IE hliOIE CCMPIfffl )F NATURAL RELIGIOUS TRUTHS. A. F o r o u r re a s o n fro m i t s e l f a lo n e i s n o t p h y s ic a lly in c a p a b le o f knowing a l l th e n a tu r a l t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n . B. F o r th e s e t r u t h s a r e c o n ta in e d w ith in th e p r o p o r tio n a te o b je c t o f o u r i n t e l l e c t ( c f . n .A l5 8 ); a. t h a t i s , th e y do n o t exceed th e e f f ic a c y o f th e n a tu r a l o b je c ­ t i v e medium o f o u r i n t e l l e c t , b, f o r we can th ro u g h s e n s ib le th in g s a r r i v e a t knowledge o f th a n . A184.

REVELATION MORALLY NECESSARY: B ut i t must b e s a id t h a t DIVINE REVELATION IS MORALLY NECESSARY FOR THIS. THAT ALL MEN MAY KNOW EXEEDITIQUSLY, AND \7 fg j FIRM CERTITUDE, AND WITHOUT ANY ADMIXTURE OF ERROR. THE WHOLE CQHPIEX OF NATURAL RELIGIOUS TRUTHS. BOTH SPECULATIVE AND PRACTICAL.

A. The a s s e r t i o n c o n ta in e d i n t h i s t h e s i s i s OF FAITH forasm uch as i t r e p e a ts w hat th e Va tic a n C ouncil d e f in e d : "To t h i s d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i t i s in d eed to b e a t t r i b u t e d , t h a t th o s e t r u t h s , w hich i n d iv in e tilin g s a re n o t ! p a r s o ’ im p erv io u s to human re a s o n , can i n th e p re s e n t c o n d itio n a ls o o f th e human r a c e , b e known by a l l e x p e d itio u s ly , w ith a firm c e r t i t u d e , and w ith no adi'nixture o f e r r o r ," (Denz, 1786), B.

T h at a s s e r t i o n i s PROVED th u s :

a. T hat w ith o u t w hich a g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y c a m o t i n p o in t o f f a c t i n th e o rd in a ry c o n d itio n s o f o u r l i f e , be overcom e, i s m o ra lly n e c e s s a ry . • ( c f . n.A 179). b.

B ut w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n men c a n n o t, i n p o in t o f f a c t , i n

th e o rd in a ry c o n d itio n s o f our l i f e , overcome th e d i f f i c u l t i e s in v o lv e d i n a c q u irin g c e r t a i n know ledge, d ev o id o f e r r o r , o f th e complex o f th e n a tu r a l tru th s o f re lig io n . 1)1, Which i s th u s proved by S t, Thomas, who w r i t e s : "Even a s re g a rd s th o s e t r u t h s ab o u t God w hich human r o v n c a n in v e s t i g a t e , i t was n e c e s sa ry t h a t man be in s tr u c te d by a d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n . b la» "Because th e t r u t h about God a s in v e s t ig a te d by re a s o n : b l a l , "would bo known o n ly by a /few, b la 2 , "and t h a t a f t e r a l ong tim e , b la 3 , "and w ith ad m ix tu re o f many o r r o r s . b i b , "and y e t upon th e knowledge o f t h i s t r u t h depends th e whole s a lv a tio n o f man, which i s i n God. b io , " I n o rd e r th e r e f o r e t h a t s a lv a tio n m ight come to men b o th more f i t l y and more c e r t a i n l y , i t was n e c e ssa ry th a t th e y be i n s t r u c t e d about d iv in o th in g s th ro u g h d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n . " ( I , q, 1 , a . l ) , b 2, T h is t h r e ef o ld re a s o n i s developed by S t. Thomas as fo llo w s : " I t was n e c e s sa ry to man to r e c e iv e by way of f a i t h n o t on ly th o s e th in g s w hich a re above re a s o n , b u t a ls o th o s e th in g s w hich can be known th ro u g h re a s o n . And t h i s on account o f th r o e t h i n g s : b 2 a , " F i r s t indeed., t h a t man may th e more s p e e d ily re a c h th e knowledge o f div in e t r u t h . F o r th e s c ie n c e to w hich i t b e lo n g s to prove t h a t God i s , and o th e r such th in g s about God, i s proposed l a s t to men to l e a r n , many o th e r s c ie n c e s b e in g presupp o sed . And so o n ly a f t e r a lo n g tim e o f h i s l i f e would man re a c h knowledge o f God. b2b. "S e co n d ly , t h a t knowledge o f God be moro common. F o r many, can n o t make p ro g re s s i n th e study o f s c ie n c e , e i t h e r on acco u n t o f d u lln e s s o f mind o r on acco u n t o f o th e r o c c u p a tio n s and n e c e s s i t i e s o f te m p o ra l l i f e , o r a ls o on account o f la z i n e s s i n le a r n in g ; who w ould be u t t e r l y d e p riv e d o f know­ le d g e o f God, i f d iv in e th in g s w ere n o t proposed to them by way o f f a i t h . b2c» " T h ird ly , on account o f c e r t i t u d e . F o r human r e a s o n i n d iv in e tilin g s i s very d e f i c i e n t . A s ig n o f w hich i s th a t p h ilo s o p h e rs , making r e s e a r c h about human th in g s by n a tu r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , have e rre d i n many th in g s , and d is a g re e d among th e m selv e s. I n o rd e r th e r e f o r e t h a t th e r e m ight be among men a know ledge, fToo o f doubt and u n c e r ta in t y , about God, i t was n e c e s s a ry t h a t d iv in e t r u t h s b e d e liv e r e d to them by way o f f a i t h , as i t w ore t o l d to thorn by God, who cannot l i e ." ( I I - I I , q .2 , a . 4 ) , b 3 , Those th r e e re a s o n s a r e s t i l l f u r t h e r evolved by S t . Thomas when, speaking of th e t r u t h about God "w hich i s open to th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f re a s o n " , he w r i t e s : "B ut th r e e u n f i t t i n g th in g s would fo llo w i f such t r u t h w ere l o f t to b e e n q u ire d in to on ly by re a s o n . b3a» "One i s th a t th e knowledge o f God would be i n few men. F o r frem th e f r u i t o f s tu d io u s e n q u iry , w hich i s th e d is c o v e rin g o f t r u t h , most a ro impeded f o r t h r e e c a u s e s . b 5 a l, "Some in d e e d on account o f i n d i s p o s i t i o n o f p h y s ic a l c o n s t i t u t i o n w h e refo re many a ro n a t u r a l l y u n f i t t e d fo r s c ie n c e : f o r w hich re a s o n by no stu d y could th e y a r r i v e a t t h i s , t h a t they would a t t a i n th e h ig h e s t d eg ree o f human know ledge, which c o n s is ts i n knowing God. b3a2» "But some a r e impeded by th e n e c e s s ity o f b u s in e s s a f f a i r s . F o r i t i s n e c e s s a ry t h a t th e r e be among men some who w i l l d e v o te th em selv es to th o a d m in is tr a tio n o f te m p o ra l th in g s : who could n o t spend so much tim e i n th e l e i s u r e o f c o n te m p la tiv e e n q u iry a s to r e a c h to th e v e ry summit o f human e n q u iry , to w i t , to th e knowledge o f God. b3a3, "But some o re impeded by l a z i n e s s . S in c e f o r th e knowledge o f th o s e th in g s w hich re a s o n c a n i n v e s t i g a t e co n ce rn in g God, i t i s n e e d fu l to know many th in g s p r e v io u s ly : s in c e th e c o n s id e ra tio n o f alm o st th e whole o f p h ilo so p h y i s o rd e re d tow ards knowledge o f God; f o r w hich re a s o n m eta­ p h y s ic s , w hich i s v e rse d about d iv in e th in g s , rem ain s th e l a s t to b e l e a r n t among th o p a r ts o f p h ilo so p h y . So t h e r e f o r e o n ly w ith g r e a t la b o u r o f stu d y oan one re a c h th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f th e a fo r e s a id t r u t h . Which la b o u r few a r e w illin g to undergo f o r th e lo v e o f s c ie n c e , f o r w hich n e v e r th e le s s God in s e r t e d i n t o th o minds o f men a n a t u r a l a p p e t i t e . b3 b . "The .second u n f i t t i n g th in g i s t h a t th o s e who would ro a c h th e d iso o v o ry o f th e a fo re o a id t r u t h , b 3 b l, "would h a rd ly a r r iv e t h e r e a t a f t e r a long tim e .

b 3 b la , " F i r s t owing to th e p ro f u n d ity o f t h i s t r u t h , f o r th e grasping o f whi oh b y th e way o f re a s o n th e human i n t e l l e c t i s found f i t o n ly a f t e r lo n g e x e r o is e . 1031)11), "Seocndly a ls o owing to th e many th in g s w hich a re p r e - r e q u ir e d , as h a s ‘b een s a id , 1)31)10. " T h ird ly a ls o on account o f t h i s , t h a t th e mind i n th e tim e o f y o u th , w h ile i t i s f l u c t u a t i n g w ith th e d iv e r s e movements o f th e p a s s io n s , i s n o t a p t fo r th e knowledge o f so l o f t y a t r u t h ; h u t ’i n q u ie te n in g down i t ■becomes p ru d e n t and p o sse sse d o f s c ie n c e 1 a s i s sa id i n V II P h y s ic , ( c . 5 , 7, 247b), h5h2. " T h e re fo re , i f th e way o f re a s o n a lo n e w ere open f o r knowing G-od, th e human r a c e would s ta y i n th e d e e p e st d a rk n e ss o f ig n o ra n c e : s in c e th e knowledge o f G-od, which, i n th e h ig h e s t way makes men p e r f e c t and good, would come o n ly to a c e r t a i n few , and to th e s e a lso a f t e r g r e a t le n g th o f tim e . h 3 c , "The t h i r d u n f i t t i n g th in g i s th a t m ost o f te n f a l s i t y i s admixed w ith th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n made by human re a s o n , b e ca u se o f th e d e b i l i t y o f o u r i n t e l l e c t i n ju d g in g , and. th e in te rm in g lin g o f im agery. And f o r t h i s re a so n to many, b e in g ig n o ra n t o f th e f o r c e o f th e d e m o n stra tio n , even th o s e th in g s w hich a re m ost t r u l y d e m o n strated , would rem ain i n d o u b t; and e s p e c ia lly when th e y see d iv e r s e th in g s ta u g h t by d iv e rs e ones who a r e s a id to b e w is e . A lso among tr u e th in g s w hich a r e d e m o n strated , som ething f a l s e i s sometimes m ixed, w hich i s n o t d e m o n strated , b u t i s a s s e r te d on some p ro b a b le o r s o p h i s t i c a l re a s o n , whi oh i s som etim es deemed a d e m o n stra tio n . And th e r e f o r e i t was n e o e s s a ry t h a t by th e way o f f a i t h a fix e d c e r t i t u d e and a pure t r u t h re g a rd in g d iv in e th in g s be p re s e n te d to men." (Oon.G-en. I , o ,4 ) . b4» i , l l oth e r r e a s o ns c a n b e r educed to th o s e th r e e g iv e n by S t. Thomas, and summarized by th e V a tic a n O o u n c il(D e iiz , 1786; : f o r th o s e re a so n s a r e ta k e n 1 4 a , from th e o b j e c t , a cc o rd in g as t h i s i s most l o f t y and known o n ly w ith d iffic u lty , b4b. from th e s u b je c t, to w it, man a s la b o u rin g under a l l th e s e f c a i l t i e s , d i f f i c u l t i e s and d i s a b i l i t i e s , b4o» Frcm th e con ju n c tio n o f o b je c t and s u b j e c t , a cc o rd in g a s th e con­ ju n c tio n o f th e s e two would r e s u l t i n a knowledge la c k in g firm c e r t i t u d e and h aving e r r o r admixed w ith i t , 0.

m a t h a s been s a id i s CONFIRMED BY THE HISTORY OF PHUDSOPHI.

a. F o r i n th e te a c h in g s o f alm ost a l l th e p h ilo s o p h e rs , even th e g r e a t e s t , who have n o t acknowledged o r re c e iv e d d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , th e r e a re g rav e e r r o r s : a i , about God’s e x is te n c e and n a tu r e ; a2 . ab o u t th e d i s t i n c t i o n o f God from th e w o rld ; a3, about God’ s know ledge; a4 , about God’ s u n iv e r s a l c a u s a l i t y ; a 5, about God’ s p ro v id e n c e ; a6, about God’ s freedom ; a7, about th e n a tu r e and c a p a b i l i t y o f th e human i n t e l l e c t ; a8, about th e e x is te n c e o f a s p i r i t u a l s o u l i n man; a9. about th e im m o rta lity o f th e human s o u l; alO , about freedom o f th o human w i l l ; a l l , about th e n a tu r e and fo u n d a tio n o f m o r a lity ; a l2 , about th e e x is te n c e o f n a tu r a l law ; a !3 , about human p e r s o n a lit y ; a l4 , about th o s o c i a l c h a r a c te r o f man; a l5 , about th e r i g h t s and o b lig a tio n s o f c i v i l s o c ie ty ; a l6 , about th e r e l a t i o n o f th e human p erso n and th e s ta .te . b. Among th e GREEKS, who dovoted th em slev es much to p h ilo s o p h ic a l c u ltu re : b l . T here was a w id esp read p o ly th e is m . whioh was a tta c k e d by X enophanes. b2« The e a r ly p h ilo s o p h e rs , such as th e Io n ic S c h o o l. H e r a c litu s and D em o critu s, w ere m atc r i a l i s t s .

— tw — i w m -m-.m .

r

■—

—

— »

-ti

r ~r M

b 3 , P otyiero d es and th e P y th a g o re a n s , l i k e A naxagoras, l a i d down, i t i s t r u e , th e p r in c ip le s o f s p ir itu a lis m , b u t v e ry im p e rfe c tly and w ith th e adm ixture o f j prave e rro rs * M , A f te r a long p e rio d , to w i t , two hundred y e a r s o f s p e c u la tio n , th e r e appeared among th e G re ek s, a p eo p le endowed w ith o u ts ta n d in g g i f t s o f s p e c u la tio n , a g e n u in e p h ilo s o p h ic a l method alo n g w ith th e e s s e n t i a l elem en ts o f th e p e re n n ia l p h ilo so p h y : V .a , Y/hich w as begun by Socr a t e s , b u t very im p e r f e c tly , and w ith in n u m erab le and m ost s e r io u s sh o rtc o m in g s, and w ith g rav e e r r o r s , a s when Socr a t e s ta u g h t t h a t s i n i s no tilin g o th e r th a n ig n o ra n c e or e r r o r . M b . And whioh was developed by P l a t o , b u t s til} . w ith v e ry many g rav e o m issio n s and many s e r io u s e r r o r s , v, g, re g a rd in g th e n a tu re o f mail, th e p r e - e x is te n c e o f th e human so u l to i t s u n io n w ith th e body, th e r i g h t s o f th e s t a t e , th e o b lig a tio n s o f p a r e n ts , th e canm unity o f w iv e s, th e exposing to d e a th o f deform ed i n f a n t s , e tc . M e , And whioh was s y n th e s iz e d in to a s c i e n t i f i c system by Ar i s t o t l e : M o l. y e t w ith c e r t a i n e r r o r s , as when: M o la . lie ta u g h t th a t th e w orld i s e t e r n a l ; M o lb , he j u s t i f i e d s la v e r y , n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y u n d e rs ta n d in g th e d ig n ity and i n v i o l a b i l i t y and n a tu r a l r i g h t s o f th e human p e rso n ; b 4 o lo , he excused la s c iv io u s r e p r e s e n ta tio n s o f th e gods i n th e te m p le s; M o 2 , and w ith innum erable sh o rtco m in g s, as when: b4o2a. he f a i l e d to re a c h th e d o c tr in e o f c r e a tio n p ro p e rly s o - c a lle d , and in d eed f r e e c r e a tio n ; b4o2b, ho f a i l e d to show c l e a r l y th a t a l l c re a te d ag en ts a re moved to t h e i r a c t by G-od; b4o2c, he f a i l e d to te a c h c l e a r l y th e in d iv id u a l im m o rta lity o f th e human s o u l; M c 2 d , he f a i l e d to show what i s th e c o n d itio n o f th e human s o u l r a f t e r s e p a r a tio n from th e body; M o 2 e. he f a i l e d to te a c h th e e x is te n c e o f s a n c tio n s i n th e n e x t l i f e f o r m o ra lity i n t h i s , b 5 . At once a f t e r A r i s t o t l e . Greek p h ilo so p h y f o i l a g a in : b o a , in to m a t e r i a l i s m w ith th e E p ic u re a n s and th e S to io s , b5b. o r in to sc e p tie ia rn w ith th e P y rrh o n io s . b 6 , N e o -P la to n is t p h ilo so p h y im ita te s C h r i s t i a n i t y , b u t th e w h ile : b 6 a, denying c r e a tio n ; bGb. te a c h in g a p a n t h e i s t i c em anation o f th in g s from G-od; b 6 c . and e x p la in in g e v i l th ro u g h m a tte r . 0. I n th e MIDDLE AGES: 01. e x cep t f o r c e r t a i n p a n th e is ts and A v e r r o is ts , 02. p h ilo so p h y i n th e sch o o ls was r i g h t l y su b o rd in a te d to th e t r u t h s o f f a i t h , and Y/as th u s p re se rv e d from such g ra v e e r r o r s as have c h a r a c te r iz e d p h ilo s o p h ic a l te a c h in g s w herev er th e s e v/ere n o t s o su b o rd in a te d to r e v e l a t i o n . d. I n MODERN TIMES. when p h ilo so p h y h a s b een n o t on ly d is tin g u is h e d , b u t a ls o s e p a r a te d , from f a i t h : d i . T here ap p ears a t once m a te r ia lis m and se n su a lism among th e E n g lish e m p ir ic is ts , and a p ro g re s s iv e s c e p tic is m c u lm in a tin g i n Hume. d2. And i n D e s c a r te s : d2a, an ex ag g erated id e a lis m , te a c h in g : d 2 a l. t h a t o u r id e a s a r e i n n a t e , d2a2, and th a t th e id e a i s what i s known. d2b, and many o th e r e r r o r s le a d in g t o : d 2 b l, l i b e r t i s m and m oral p o s itiv is m , a s when D e s c a rte s m a in ta in s t h a t th e n e c e s s ity o f th e -p rin cip le o f c o n tr a d ic tio n depends on th e d iv in e w i l l ; d2b2. and s u b je c tiv is m , as when he te a c h e s t h a t th e f i r s t p r in c ip le i s : "O o g ito , ergo sum I th in k , and so I amM, (w h ereo f th e t r u t h does n o t in d e ed re m a in , i f th e a b s o lu te t r u t h o f th e p r in c ip le o f c o n tr a d ic t io n i s re je c te d ), d3» I n L e ib n itz a ls o th e r e a re many g ra v e e r r o r s , more e s p e c ia lly t h a t o f p s y c h o lo g ic a l determ in ism b o th i n G-od and i n man, d4» K ant a r r iv e d a t a g n o stic is m . d5, F i c h t e . S c h o ilin g and H egel e la b o ra te d a system o f p a n t h e i s t i c e v o lu tio n is m and indeed on an i d e a l i s t i c p la n e . d6. More r e c e n t l y , n um b erless p h ilo s o p h e rs have b een p o s i t i v i s t s , and th o ro fo re :

dQa, th ey deny: d 6 a l, th e n e c e s s ity o f th e p r in c ip le s o f re a s o n , d6a2* th e k n o w a b ility o f G-od, d8a3, th e fo u n d a tio n o f m oral o b lig a tio n , d6a4, any o b lig a tio n o th e r th a n an e x te r n a l one imposed by s o c ie ty f a r th e m aintenance o f common u t i l i t y . d6b, And th u s th e r e has grown up a p r a c t i c a l m a te ria lis m , a cc o rd in g to w hich " a u th o r ity i s n o th in g o th e r th a n numbers and th e s u m -to ta l o f m a te r ia l fo rc e s " (S y lla b u s of P iu s I X ; Denz, 1760), d7„ And l a t e l y , many te a c h th e th e o ry o f a th e i s t i c cor/munism: d7a, denying th e e x is te n c e o f G-od, d7b, and p e rv e rtin g th e n o tio n o f human p e r s o n a lit y , and c o n se q u e n tly : d 7 b l. denying p e r s o n a lity to th e in d iv id u a l man, b u t a t t r i b u t i n g i t to th e c o l l e c t i v i t y a lo n e , d7b2, and th e re b y d e p riv in g t h e in d iv id u a l man o f p e rs o n a l d ig n ity and i n v i o l a b i l i t y and n a tu r a l r i g h t s , d7b3, and so re d u c in g men a g a in to s la v e r y . e. Prom t h i s b r i e f s k e tc h o f th e h i s t o r y o f p h ilo so p h y u n su b o rd in a ted to r e v e l a t i o n : e l . a p p e a rs th e m oral n e c e s s ity o f th e r e v e l a t i o n o f th e n a tu r a l t r u t h s o f re lig io n ; g2. and i t a p p ea rs to o how th e C hurch: o2a, w hich g u ard s th e d e p o s it o f r e v e l a t i o n , e2b, i s c a lle d a ls o th e g u a rd ia n o f r e a s o n , a s i s m a n ife st from th e E n c y c lic a l L e t t e r !P a s o e n a i1 o f Pope~Pius X ( o f . Denz, 2071-2109), ■which d efen d s th e powers o f re a s o n a g a in s t a g n o s tic is m and modernism. D. A f u r t h e r OQIlPIEvIATIOM i s drawn from th e HISTORY OP PEOPLES AND OP RELIGIONS. a. P o r: a l . th e r e h as b e en no p e o p le , w h eth er b a r b a r ia n o r c i v i l i z e d w hich h a s , w ith o u t d iv in e r e v e la tio n * a l a , d isc o v e re d th e sum o f n a tu r a l r e l i g i o u s t r u t h s , a ib , and k e p t i t s e l f from f a l l i n g in to b a se e r r o r s re g a rd in g r e l i g i o u s th in g s , a 2 , P o r i t i s m a n ife st from h i s t o r y th a t th e p ag an s, even th e G-reoks and Romans, a2a» though th e s e c u l t i v a t e d th e a r t s , th e s c ie n c e s and p h ilo so p h y , a2b, f e l l i n t o .grave e r r o r s i n th e a f f a i r s o f r e l i g i o n . b. b l, b la . b ib . b io . b2. D iv in ity , b3.

The NOTION OP GOD h a s b e en a d u lte r a te d among many p e o p le s : alm o st th ro u g h o u t th e w hole w o rld th e r e lias f lo u r is h e d : c i t h e r p o ly th e ism , o r d u a lism ( th e d o c tr in e o f two p r i n c i p l e s ) , o r id o la try . Even th o s e p e o p le s who d id acknowledge among th e gods some Supreme u s u a lly s u b je c te d even t h a t to f a t e . Sven f u r t h e r , th e y a t t r i b u t e d to th e gods v ic e s and c u p i d i t i e s .

c. The WORSHIP g iv e n to th e gods; c l , f r e q u e n tly descended to li c e n t i o u s n e s s , a s i n th e S a tu r n a lia n fe a s ts , o2. And in d eed o f i n t e r n a l w o rsh ip few e v e r th o u g h t: o2a„W herefore C o tta oould ask i n one o f C i c e r o ^ w orks: "Did anyone e v er th a n k th e gods t h a t he i s a good man?" (De N a tu ra Deorum, l i b , 3 , c .3 6 ; o f, n .1 9 , B . a l ) , o2b. In d e e d b e f o r e Senec a and M arcus A u re liu s th e r e is . s c a r c e ly found, o u ts id e th e c ir c le s in flu e n c e d by Ju d aism and C h r i s t i a n i t y , an a u th o r to say t h a t G-od ought to b e lo v e d . d. W ith r e s p e c t tc th e SOUL o f man: d l . many e i t h e r d en ied o r c a ll e d i n t o doubt i t s im m o rta lity . d2. Many in d eed who a d m itte d a f u tu r e l i f e , judged i t unhappy enough even f a r th e good.

Gp Ac re g a rd s MORALS. h i s t o r y shews t h a t : e l . enem ies and s la v e s w ere o f te n c r u e lly t r e a t e d ; e2. F o r n ic a tio n was n e t reckoned one o f th e v ic e s ; o3, c o n tr a - n a tu r a l s in s w ere f a i r l y common: eoa, as i s t e s t i f i e d by O ic ero (De N a tu ra Deorum, l i b . l , c » 2 8 ), by P lu ta r c h (De L i b e r i s E d u o an d is, i n f i n e ) , by S a l l us t ( B e ll. C a t i l i n . , c c , 1 2 -1 3 ), and by E p ic te tu s (E n c h irid , c .4 7 ) ; e3b, t h e i r te stim o n y c o n firm in g what ,S t._ P a u l s a y s : "T h e ir women have changed th e n a tu r a l u s e in to t h a t use w hich i s a g a in s t n a tu r e . And i n l i k e manner th e men a l s o , le a v in g th e n a t u r a l u se o f th e women, have bu rn ed in t h e i r l u s t s , one tow ards a n o th e r ; men w ith men, w orking t h a t w hich i s f i l t h y and. r e c e iv in g i n th e m selv e s th e recom pense w hich was due to t h e i r e r r o r ; . * . . . b e in g f i l l e d w ith a l l i n i q u i t y , m a lic e , f o r n i c a t i o n , a v a r ic e , w ic k e d n e s s : f u l l o f envy, m urder, c o n te n tio n , d e c e i t , m a lig n ity , w h is p e r e rs , d e t r a c t o r s , h a t e f u l to God, co n tu m e lio u s, proud, h au g h ty , in v e n to r s o f e v i l th in g s , d is o b e d ie n t to p a r e n ts , f o o l i s h , d i s s o l u t e , w ith o u t a f f e c t i o n , w ith o u t f i d e l i t y , w ith o u t m ercy, n (Rom, 1 ,2 6 s s ) , f. N or w ere th e most i l l u s t r i o u s p h ilo s o p h e rs e q u a l to th e ta s k o f b r in g in g th e p e o p le s back to a tr u e w o rsh ip o f G-od and. to th e p r a c tic e o f th e n a t u r a l v i r t u e s . f 'l . In d e e d , th e y w ere u n a b le to do t h i s : f l a . b e c a u se o f i n s u f f i c i e n t knowledge and a u t h o r i t y ; f a r th e y c o n s ta n tly d is a g re e d among th e m se lv e s; f i b , and b e ca u se g e n e r a lly t h e i r own l i f e was n o t i n acco rd w ith t h e i r m oral p e rs u a s io n s , f 2 , F u r th e r in d e e d : f2 a . Most p h ilo s o p h e rs d e sp ise d th e common crowd ("O di profanum v u lg u s, o t a rc eo " : H orace, Odes, Blc 3 , Ode l ) ; f9 b , and w ere u n w illin g to te a c h th e low er ra n k s o f th e p e o p le , and f o r t h a t re a s o n many o f them, though p r iv a te ly th e y r i d i c u l e d th e gods, n e v e r th e le s s p u b lic ly w orshipped them. g» alm ost i n g l. g2.

And th e th e and.

i n 'TIMES. i n p e o p les who a re w ith d raw in g from th e f a i t h , same f a s h io n a re r e a p p e a r in g : m ost c r a s s and b a s e e r r o r s o f m a te ria lis m , depraved m o ra ls .

h. From a l l th e s e c o n s id e r a tio n s i t i s c le a r t h a t d iv in e r e v e la ti o n o f th e n a tu r a l t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n i s m o ra lly n e c e s s a ry . A186,

REVEIATION NOT NECESSAHT IN THE STATE OF PURE NATURE: The q u e s tio n o c c u r s : I h o th o r i n th e s t a t e o f p u re n a tu r e , r e v e l a t i o n would have b e en .moral ly n e c e s s a ry t h a t men m ight know th e whole complex o f n a tu r a l r e l i g i o u s t r u t h s « and a c c o rd in g ly would have b e en v o u ch safed by G-cd? A. V e n tu ra , alo n g w ith th e T r a d i t i o n a l i s t s : a , answ ers th a .t: a i . t h i s r e v e l a t i o n would have b e en m o ra lly n e c e s sa ry a ls o i n th e s t a t e o f pure n a tu r e ; a2 , and th e r e f o r e i t ought to be c a l l e d n a t u r a l , a s due to n a tu r e , (V e n tu ra : La T r a d it io n , oh. 6 , n .4 4 ) , *b. B ut th e o lo g ia n s commonly re .lo o t t h a t answ er, b ecau se what p ro c e ed s from G-od'beyond th e o rd e r o f n a tu r e , even though i t be harm onious w ith n a tu r e , cannot bo c a ll e d n a t u r a l . (O f. I l l , Sup p i . q . 75, a . 3 ) .

B. F ra n z e l i n . i n c o n fo rm ity w ith th e d o c tr in e o f Suarez and R ip a ld a . te a c h e s t h a t : a . I n th e s t a t e o f p u re n a t u r e : a l . th e r e would have been m an ifo ld h e lp s due t o human n a tu r e ; a2. b u t th e s e h e lp s would n o t have b een a m ira c u lo u s e x te r n a l r e v e l a t i o n , f o r t h i s i s s u p e r n a tu r a l, a t l e a s t e x t r i n s i c a l l y o r as r e g a rd s m anner. a3 . B ut th e y would have b een good n a t u r a l i n s p i r a t i o n s , such a s A r i s t o t l e re c e iv e d t c speak r i g h t l y ab o u t G-od. ( F r a n z e lin : De D iv in a T r a d itio n e , A ppendix, o ,3 , n .4 , p, 588).

b . Arid in d e e d , God c o u ld sup p ly o u r m o ral n e c e s s ity a ls o t o th e p o in t w here we would have a s u f f i c i e n t knowledge o f th e n a t u r a l t r u t h s o f r e lig io n * h i* by such h e lp s , a s th o s e good n a tu r a l i n s p i r a t i o n s : b 2 .i b u t in s te a d o f doing t h a t , a s he was i n p o in t o f f a c t r e v e a lin g to us a ls o s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h s , he i n th e same way re v e a le d th e n a t u r a l t r u t h s o f re lig io n . 0* Z t g l i a r a p e rfe c te d th a t answ er made by F ran z e l i n . by d is tin g u is h in g betw een th e s t a t e o f pure n a tu r e and th e s t a t e o f n a tu r e i n t e g r a l b u t n o t e le v a te d t o th e s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e , (O f. Z i g l i a r a : O euvres F h ilo s o p h iq u e s : trad # Murmie. t . I , E s s a i s u r l e s P r in c ip e s du T r a d itio n a lis m s , n .3 4 , e t n#97)# a* I n th e s t a t e o f p u re n a t u r e : a l . Man w ould l i e u n d e r m o ral im pot cnee to know th e w hole complex o f th e n a tu ra l tr u th s o f r e lig io n ; a2 . B ut h e would have m oral power to know th e c h ie f o f them , a s th e e x is ­ te n c e o f God, and t h i s t h a t God i s th e supreme l e g i s l a t o r and re w a rd e r. a3, B ut n e v e r th e le s s i n t h a t s t a t e : a3a# th e r e would have b een g iv e n : a&al* n e i t h e r a d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n o f th e n a tu r a l t r u t h s , a5a2* n o r an i n t e r n a l g ra c e t o know th e whole complex o f n a tu r a l t r u t h s w ith firm c e r t i t u d e and w ith o u t e r r o r : a3b* F&r b o th o f th e s e , a s T hom ists te a c h : a3bl* a r e s u p e r n a tu r a l a s re g a rd s manner o r e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, a3b2* and th e r e f o r e exceed th e s t a t e o f p u re n a tu r e # (Cf# De V e r i t . q .1 8 , a . 2 , B i l l u a r t . De G r a tia , d iss# I I , p raeam b u la, a * l ; d i s s # I I I , a . 2 , n .1 i n f i n e ; G o n et# De G r a tia , d is p . I , a # l , n . 4 ) , a4* However, i n t h a t s t a t e , men co u ld h a v e , th ro u g h t h e i r knowledge o f th e c h ie f n a tu r a l t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n , a r r iv e d a t t h e i r u ltim a te en d : a 4 a. w hich would have b e en o n ly a n a t u r a l u ltim a te end# ( n .3 5 , B .a 3 ) # a4b. e s p e c ia ll y s in c e t h e i r n a tu r e would n o t have b e e n ’’wounded i n i t s n a tu r a l endowments". (C f. B i l l u a r t # De G r a tia , D is s . H , a . 3 ; G onet. lo c . c i t ) .

b* I n th e s t a t e o f n a tu r e i n t e g r a l b u t n o t e le v a te d to th e s u p e r n a tu r a l l i f e , on th e o th e r hand: b l# T h e re wo u ld have b e en a r e v e l a t i o n e x t r i n s i c a l l y s u p e r n a tu r a l, b2# w hereby men w ould have known e a s i l y , w ith o u t e r r o r and w ith firm c e r t i t ­ u d e , th e w hole complex o f t h e n a tu r a l t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n . D. T h e re fo re i s i t to b e s a id w ith re g a rd to th e r e v e l a t i o n o f th e w hole complex o f th e n a t u r a l t r u t h s o f r e l i g i o n : a . n o t t h a t i t would have b een m o ra lly n e c e s s a ry i n th e s t a t e o f pure n a tu r e , b . b u t t h a t i t i s m o ra lly n e c e s s a ry i n th e p re s e n t s t a t e o f n a tu r e . DISSERTATION THREE. MAN’S POWER TO KNOW SUPERNATURAL TRUTHS. A187,

STRICT HYPOTHETIC NECESSITY: I t m ust b e s a id t h a t IN ORDER THAT MAN MAY KNOW SUPERNATURAL TRUTHS. DIVINE REVELATION IS STRICTLY NECESSARY; w here­ f o r e t h i s r e v e l a t i o n i s HYPOTHETICALLY, b u t s t r i c t l y , n e c e s s a ry .

A* T h is t h e s i s i s OF FAITH, a s a p p e a rs from th e d e f i n i t i o n s o f th e V a tic a n C o u n cil c i t e d below : w hich d e f i n i t i o n s a r e d ir e c te d a g a in s t: a* th e P e la g ia n s ; b* th e R a t i o n a l i s t s ; o« and a l l th o s e who r e j e c t th e s u p e r n a tu r a l. B. T h is d o c tr in e i s th u s ta u g h t i n SACRED SCRIPTURE: a. F o r S t . P a u l w r i t e s : "We speak wisdom amopg th e p e r f e c t : y e t n o t th e wisdom o f t h i s w o rld , n e i t h e r o f th e p r in c e s o f t h i s w orld t h a t come to n a u g h t. B ut we speak th e wisdom o f God i n a m y ste ry , a wisdom 'which i s h id d e n , w hich God o rd a in e d b e f o r e th e w o rld , u n to o u r g lo r y . Which none o f th e p rin c e s

A132 o f t h i s w o rld knew .. . . . . . .B u t, a s i t i s w r i t t e n : "’ T h at eye h a th n o t se e n , n o r e a r h e a rd : n e i t h e r h a th i t e n te re d i n t o th e h e a r t o f man, w hat th in g s God h a th p re p a re d f o r th a n t h a t lo v e him 1 ( i s . 6 4 ,4 ) , B ut to u s G-od h a th re v e a le d them , hy h i s S p i r i t . F o r th e S p i r i t s e a rc h e th a l l th in g s , y e a , th e deep th in g s o f G-od. F o r w hat man knoweth th e th in g s o f a man, h u t th e s p i r i t o f a man t h a t i s i n him? So th e th in g s a ls o t h a t a r e o f G-od, no man knowfeth, h u t th e S p i r i t o f G-od. Now, we have re c e iv e d n o t th e s p i r i t o f t h i s w o rld , h u t th e S p i r i t th a t i s o f G-od: t h a t we may know th e th in g s t h a t a r e g iv e n us from G-od.” ( I C or. 2 .6 - 1 2 ) . b# H ere S t. P a u l te a c h e s : h i . T h at " th e deep th in g s o f G-od", o r , a s he o th e rw ise o a l l s them , " th e th in g s w hich eye h a th n o t se e n , n o r ear* h e a rd , n o r have e n te re d i n t o th e h e a r t o f man", to w i t , th o s e th in g s w hich a re im m ed iately p ro p e r to G-od, o r th e d iv in e m y s te r ie s , a re n o t a tta in e d sav e th ro u g h d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n : "But to us God h a th re v e a le d them , hy h i s S p i r i t . " h 2 . T hat th o s e s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h s : b 2 a . w hich man hy h i s n a t u r a l l y bestow ed powers can n o t d e t e c t , b e ca u se "no man know eth, h u t th e S p i r i t o f God", b2b, a r e : h 2 h l. known hy th e S p i r i t o f God, b2b2, and re v e a le d to u s . c. W herein i t i s ta u g h t th a t man s t r i c t l y needs d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n i n o rd e r to know th e s e n a t u r a l l y unknowable t r u t h s .

C. ECCLESIASTICAL DOCUMENTS, echoing t h i s te a c h in g o f Sacred S c r ip t u r e and w itn e s s in g to th e t r a d i t i o n i n th e C hurch, a r e th e fo llo w in g : a. The l e t t e r o f Pone P iu s IX ’G ra v issim a s in te r * a g a in s t Froschammer. w hich, speaking o f th o s e th in g s w hich su rp a ss th e b o u n d a rie s o f re a s o n , s a y s : "To th o s e dogmas p e r t a i n i n th e h ig h e s t and m ost m a n ife s t way, a l l th o s e th in g s w hich re g a rd th e s u p e r n a tu r a l e le v a tio n o f man and h i s s u p e r n a tu r a l commerce w ith God and, b e in g re v e a le d to t h i s end, a re known. And p l a i n l y , s in c e th e s e dogmas a re above n a tu r e , th e r e f o r e th ey can n o t be a tta in e d by n a tu r a l re a s o n and n a tu r a l p r i n c i p l e s ." (D enz. 1671; c f . Denz, 1669, 1670, 1 6 7 2 ,1 6 7 3 ,1 6 7 4 ). b. The V a tic a n C ouncil d e c l a r e s : b l . "B esid e s th o s e th in g s , to vshich n a tu r a l re a s o n can r e a c h , th e r e a r e proposed to u s f o r b e l i e f m y s te rie s h id d e n i n God, w h ich , u n le s s th e y w ere d iv in e ly r e v e a le d , can n o t become known". (D enz. 1795). b 2 . " I f anyone s a y s , t h a t i n d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n no m y s te rie s t r u l y and p ro p e rly s o - c a lle d a r e c o n ta in e d , b u t t h a t a l l th e dogmas o f th e f a i t h can b e * u n d e rsto o d and dem o n strated from n a t u r a l p r in c ip le s by re a s o n d u ly c u l t i v a t e d : l e t him b e anathem a." (D enz. 1816; c f . Denz, 1 7 8 6 ,1 8 0 8 ). D.

T h is s t r i c t n e c e s s ity i s PROVED BY ST. THOMAS:

a* When he w r i t e s : " I t was n e c e s s a ry fo r human s a lv a tio n t h a t th e r e be a c e r t a i n d o c tr in e a cc o rd in g to d iv in e r e v e la ti o n b e s id e s p h ilo s o p h ic d i s ­ c i p l i n e s , w hich can be i n v e s t ig a te d by human r e a s o n . a l , " F i r s t in d e ed b e ca u se man i s o rd e re d to God a s to a c e r t a i n end, w hich exceeds th e com prehension o f re a s o n , a c c o rd in g to th a t w hich I s a i a s s a y s : ’N e ith e r h a th th e eye seen a God b e s id e s th e e , who w orketh such th in g s a s th o u h a # t p re p a re d f o r them t h a t w a it f o r th e e .* ( i s . 6 4 .4 ). a 2 . "B ut th e end m ust b e fore-know n to men, who ought to o r d e r t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s and a c tio n s to th e end. a3 . "W herefore i t was n e c e s sa ry to man f o r s a lv a tio n t h a t to him be made known th ro u g h d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n c e r t a i n th in g s w hich exceed human r e a s o n ." (l, 1, a. l ) . b.

W hich argument may b e th u s fo rm u la te d :

b l* Sim ply o r s t r i c t l y n e c e s sa ry i s i t t h a t an end b e foreknow n b y men. who a r e o b lig e d to o rd e r t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s and a c tio n s tow ards t h a t en d : f o r n o th in g i s w i lle d u n le s s i t b e foreknow n. b2* B ut a s u p e r n a tu r a l end, w hereunto men a re o b lig e d to o rd e r t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s and a c t i o n s , cannot b e known w ith o u t r e v e l a t i o n . b 2 a . F o r th e o rd d r o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h i n f i n i t e l y exceeds th e o b je c tiv e

A133 medium o f ou r n a tu r a l know ledge: w hich o b je c tiv e medium i s th e q u id d ity o f s e n s ib le th in g s# b2 b . B ut i n d e f a u lt o f a p ro p o r tio n a te medium, knowledge o f s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s i s im p o s s ib le , and in d e e d : b2bl# n o t o n ly p h y s ic a lly im p o s s ib le , b2b2. b u t m e ta p h y s ic a lly im p o s s ib le . b3# T h e re fo re th e r e v e l a t i o n o f t h i s s u p e r n a tu r a l end and o f th e p ro p o r­ t i o n a t e means th e r e u n to , i s sim ply o r s t r i c t l y n e c e s s a ry , th e g r a tu ito u s o rd e rin g o f man to t h i s end being: supposed. A188. -

THIS REVELATION IS FITTINGLY AT FIRST OBSCURE: I t m ust be s a id t h a t t h i s d iv in e s u p e r n a tu r a l r e v e l a t i o n i s . f i t t i n g l y made f i r s t by d iv in e TELLING. n o t b y com m unication o f v is io n o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h ( c f . n.A 167).

A* R a t i o n a l i s t s in d e ed OBJECT t h a t : a# I f t h i s r e v e l a t i o n rem ain s o b s c u re ; b# th e n i t i s n o t b e f i t t i n g , b e ca u se i t p ro p o ses t o u s m y s te rie s w hich a re u n i n t e l l i g i b l e and th e r e f o r e u s e le s s f o r th e r e g u la tio n o f o u r l i f e # B.

W hereto th e ANSWER i s t h a t :

a. O b sc u rity o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l m y s te rie s a f t e r t h e i r r e v e l a t i o n does n o t b esp eak t h a t th e y a r e u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . f o r th e y a re a n a lo g ic a lly i n t e l l i g i b l e ; a s s a id above (n n i A123-A124; n .A 1 6 7 ); w h e refo re n e ith e r do es i t b esp eak t h a t th e y a re u s e le s s f o r th e r e g u l a t i o n o f o u r l i f e i b. M oreover, i t i s b e f i t t i n g t h a t knowledge o f th e s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h s b e communicated to us f i r s t BY WAY OF TELLING. so t h a t th e s e t r u t h s b e & t f i r s t o b so u re , and o n ly a fte rw a rd s BY WAY OF VISION: b l# F o r i t i s f i t t i n g t h a t man EARN ( i . e . te n d by way o f m e rit tow ards) even h i s s u p e r n a tu r a l end; b l a , f o r man i s by h i s n a tu r e r a t i o n a l and f r e e ; bib# b u t g ra c e o r s u p e r n a tu r a l fa v o u rs a re conformed to n a tu r e . b2# B ut i f God w ere t o communicate s tra ig h tw a y to us c l e a r VISION o f th e d iv in e e sse n c e ( i . e . o f s u p e r n a tu r a l t r u t h ) , th e n : b2a# we would b e r e c e iv in g o u r s u p e r n a tu r a l end s o le ly as a g i f t . b2b* b u t n o t a s a REWARD, i . e . we would n o t b e te n d in g tow ards i t by o u r own endeavour n o r EARNING i t . C. Which argum ent i s th u s proposed by S t . Thomas: a. "The u ltim a te b e a ti tu d e o f man c o n s is ts i n a c e r t a i n s u p e r n a tu r a l v is io n o f God; to w hich v i s i o n man can n o t in d e e d a t t a i n , sav e a f t e r th e manner o f one le a r n in g from God a s te a c h e r , a cc o rd in g to th e w ords: ’E v eryone, who h a s h e a rd ftrom th e F a th e r , and l e a r n t , cometh to me* (Jo h n 6 .4 5 ) , b. "But man becomes a p a r tic ip a n t o f such le a r n in g , not straigh tw ay. bu t s u c c e s iv e lv . according to the mode o f h is nature. c . "But i t needs b e th a t every such le a r n e r b e lie v e , f o r t h i s th a t he a r r i v e a t p e r f e c t know ledge; j u s t as a ls o " A r i s t o t l e "sa y s t h a t i t behoves th e l e a r n e r to b e lie v e (De Soph. E len c h , I , c . 2 , 165b, 2 ) ." ( H - I I , q .2 , a.5j19, a . 3 ad 3 ) , b . "A ccording to th e n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n w hich i s betw een t h e s o u l and th e b o d y , from g lo ry o f th e s e a l re d o u n d s g lo ry to th e body. B u t t h i s n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n i n C h r is t was su b .lec t t o th e w i l l o f h i s d i v i n i t y , w herefrom i t was w rought t h a t th e b e a t i t u d e rem ain ed i n th e s o u l, and was n o t d e riv e d to th e b o d y , b u t ( t h a t ) th e f l e s h s u f f e r e d th o s e th in g s w hich a re b e f i t t i n g to a p a s s ib le n a tu r e ." ( i l l , q .1 4 , a . l ad 2 ) . o , "By th e power o f C h r is t* s d i v i n i t y d is p e n s a tiv e ly b e a ti tu d e was so h e ld b ack i n th e s o u l, t h a t i t was n o t d e riv e d to th e b o d y , l o s t i t s p a s s i b i l i t y and m o r t a l i t y b e e x c lu d e d ." ( i l l , q .1 5 , a . 5 ad 3 ) ) . d. "F#om t h i s i t s e l f , t h a t th e s o u l i s g l o r i f i e d , .a c c o rd in g to th e common c o u rse th e body u n ite d t c i t i s made g lo r io u s and im p a s s ib le o f h u r t . . , B ut C h r i s t , o n a cc o u n t o f th e v i r t u e o f h i s d i v i n i t y h av in g h i s s o u l and body i n h i s pow er, fro m a c e r t a i n d i s p o s i t i o n h ad b o th b e a ti tu d e i n h i s s o u l and p a s s i b i l i t y i n h i s b ody, th e Word p e r m ittin g t o th e body t h a t w hich i s 'proper to i t , a s Damascene s a y s . W herdfore i t was s in g u la r i n C h r i s t t h a t from th e f u l l n e s s o f b e a t i t u d e o f th e s o u l th e re d id n o t redound g lo ry to th e b o d y ." (De V e r i t , , q .2 9 , a .8 ad 8 ) . C. T h e re fo re w ith f u l l r i g h t i s i t a ffirm e d t h a t C h r is t was n o t o n ly com prehensor« and t h e r e f o r e b le s s e d a c c o rd in g to h i s s o u l, i f i t i s c o n sid e re d i n i t s e l f , i . e . i n i t s s u p e r io r p a r t , b u t a ls o tru e w a y f a r e r , p a s s i b l e , s u b je c t to s u f f e r i n g s , a c c o rd in g a s h i s s o u l a s i t i s th e form o f h i s b o d y , and h i s body i t s e l f w ith i t s c o n n a tu r a l co w ers, a r e c o n s id e re d . F o r HE LACKED CQMPLtfl'E AND SIMPLY PERFECT BEATITUDE. a . " C h r is t b e fo re h i s p a s s io n a c c o rd in g to h i s mind f u l l y saw God, and th u s he had b e a t i t u d e a s r e g a r d s t h a t w hich i s p ro p e r to th e s o u l. B ut a s

r e g a r d s o th e r th in g s b e a ti tu d e was la c k in g to him , b e c a u se b o th h i s s o u l was p a s s ib le and h i s body was p a s s ib le and m o r ta l." ( i l l , q, 1 5 , a .lO ) . Where­ f o r e he was to g e th e r w a y fa re r and ccm prehensor. b , "The s o u l o f C h r is t was in te rm e d ia ry betw een h i s d i v i n i t y and h i s f l e s h . And b e ca u se b e a t i t u d e was i n t h a t so u l from th e d i v i n i t y , b u t th e body was p a s s i b l e , th e r e f o r e p a s s i b i l i t y was i n th a t s o u l from t h a t c a r t w here i t was oon j u n c t i b l e w ith th e b o d y , b u t b e a ti tu d e from 'th a t s id e ( p a r t ) where i t was c o n jo in e d to th e D iv in ity . B u t i t was co n jo in e d to th e body i n two m anners, to w i t , a cc o rd in g to i t s e s s e n c e , inasm uch a s i t i s form , and a c c o rd in g to i t s pow ers, y e t n o t a l l , b u t c e r t a i n o n es. " ( I n I I I Scn t . , a . 1 5 , q .2 , a . l , q . u l a 3 ) . T h e re fo re i t was o a s s lb le and had th e s t a t e o f w a y fa re r from t h a t p a r t "w here th e s o u l i s n a t u r a l l y o rd e re d to b e c o n jo in e d to th e body. 11 ( i b i d . , ad 3$ c f . De V e r i t . , q ,2 9 , a . 6 ad 3 ) . 9,

SCRIPTURAL DIEPICULTIBS RESOLVED: Thus a ls o a re e a s i l y re s o lv e d th e d i f f i c u l t i e s ta k e n from th e g o s p e ls a g a in s t th e d o c tr in e th a t C h r is t was a com prehenscr th ro u g h o u t h i s w hole l i f e , A. v F o r a l l th o s e t h i n g s , w hich p e r t a i n to tr u e human n a tu r e ; and a l l d e f e c ts accompanying t h a t s p e c i f i c n a tu r e , t h a t i s , a l l th o s e which do n o t in c lu d e i n th o u s e lv e s any m o ral o r i n t e l l e c t u a l im p e rfe c tio n , w ere found i n C h ris t, B.

F o r C h ri s t was a t r u e w a y farin g man.

I I . . HARMONY OF THE WAYFARER AND CQCEREHENSOR IN CHRIST. li,

DIFFICULTY: A g a in st such an e x p la n a tio n o f th e i n t e r n a l and e x te r n a l l i f e o f C h r i s t , seme, such as S c h e ll, p r o t e s t , b e in g u n a b le to un d er­ s ta n d how th e s t a t e o f ccm prehensor and c f w a y fa re r to g e th e r c a n b e co m p atib le w ith th e s im p l i c i t y o f th e human s o u l and w ith th e u n ity o f C h r is t* s psycho­ l o g i c a l l i f e , s in c e from th e tw o fo ld c c n d it io n o f th e s o u l o f C h r is t above a ffirm e d th e r e must n e c e s s a r ily b e a s s a r te d a " tw o fo ld l i f e i n h i s s o u l." ( S c h o l l ; K a th o lis c h c D ogm atik, to m .3 , p a r te 1 , p,106 s e e . ) . S c h e ll in d e e d a s s e r t s th a t such d o c tr in e i s o n ly an a r b i t r a r y s u p p o s itio n , and i s t o b e c o n s id e re d s o le l y a s " s p e c u la tio n " o f s c h o l a s t i c th e o lo g ia n s . 11.

FOUNDATION OF THIS DOCTRINE: However i t must b e s a id t h a t th e o lo g ia n s have q u ite s u f f i c i e n t fo u n d a tio n f o r t h e i r d o c tr in e affirm in g , th e f o r e m entioned tw o fo ld s t a t e i n C h r is t* s s o u l; in d e e d , w ith o u t t h i s tw o fo ld s ta -te o f com prehensor and w a y fa re r th e divino-hum an l i f e o f C h r is t can h a rd ly b e e x p la in e d . F o r i t i s q u e s tio n h e r e , n o t o f th e l i f e c f any w a y fa rin g man ta k e n a t random , b u t o f th e l i f e o f th e Word i n human n a tu r e . T h e re fo re th e c o n d itio n o f man m ust b e so m a in ta in e d t h a t th e r i g h t s o f th e man who i a th e v e ry Word h im s e lf b e i n no manner v i o l a t e d , n o r anything; s u b tr a c te d fra il h i s d ig n ity . T h e re fo re r e c o u r s e m ust n o t b e had to p r i n c i p l e s o th e r th a n th o s e above exposed, f o r th e s o lu tio n o f t h i s d i f f i c u l t y . A. I t •a n n o t b e d en ied t h a t t h e human s c u l , th e s u b s t a n t i a l form o f th e human body, th e v e g e ta tiv e and s e n s i t i v e p r i n c i p l e o f l i f e , i s i n i t s i n t r i n s i c n a,tu re in d e p en d e n t c f th e body. a . T h e re fo re th e r e m ust be a d m itte d i n i t t h a t f o r m a lity o f p e r f e c t independence i n bo and i n do from o th e r f o r m a l i t i e s w hich a ls o e s s e n t i a l l y b e fit i t . b . The s p i r i t u a l powers r e s i d i n g i n th e so u l a lo n e a re d is tin g u is h e d a cc o rd in g to o b je c ts i n t o s u p e r io r and i n f e r i o r , and th u s we l e g i t i m a t e l y sp eak o f s u p e r io r and i n f e r i o r r e anon, and c o n se q u e n tly o f s u p e r io r and i n f e r i o r w i l l , as v i r t u a l l y d i s t i n c t .

B*: B ut as re g a rd s i n t e l l e o t u a l a c ti o n , how soever c o n n a tu r a l b e to us " c o n v e rs io n to p hantasm s", n e v e r th e le s s i t can n o t be d en ied t h a t i n t e l l e c t i o n emerges so much th e more p e r f e c t a c c o rd in g a s i t i s th e mere e le v a te d above phantasms* a . "The p e r f e c tio n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l o p e r a tio n i n man c o n s i s t s i n a c e r t a i n a b s t r a c t i o n from phantasm s o f s e n s ib le th in g s , and th e r e f o r e how much th e more f r e e i s man1s i n t e l l e c t from su ch p h an tasm s, so much th e b e t t e r c an i t c o n s id e r i n t e l l i g i b l e s . " ( I I - I I , q . 15, a . 3 ) , b , "F o r i n t e l l e c t u a l knowledge does n o t c o n s is t i n phantasm s th e m s e lv e s , b u t i n th e n c o n te m p la te s th e p u r it y o f i n t e l l i g i b l e t r u t h ; and t h i s , n o t o n ly i n n a t u r a l know ledge, b u t a ls o i n th o s e th in g s w hich we know th ro u g h r e v e l a t i o n , f o r " c o n te m p la tio n does n o t sto u in " s e n s i b l e s , " b u t r a t h e r i n c o n s id e r a tio n o f i n t e l l i g i b l e t r u t h . " ( I I - X I , q ,1 8 0 , a , 5 , ad 2 ) . 0, B ut t h i s e le v a tio n o f mind from s e n s ib le s a d m its c e r t a i n d e g re e s , a s i s m a n ife s t from a n a ly s is o f th e l i f e o f C h r i s t i a n p e r f e c t i o n : a . " F o r, .a t tim es.a a b s t r a c t i o n from e x t e r i o r th in g s i s ta k e n a s r e g a r d s a t t e n t i o n o n ly , a s when someone makes u se o f th e s e n s e s and o f t h i n g s , b u t h i s w hole a t t e n t i o n i s engaged i n c o n te m p la tin g th in g s d iv in e ; and su ch i s th e s t a t e o f anyone who c o n te m p la te s and lo v e s th in g s d iv in e i n t r a n s p o r t o f m ind, w h e th er i n e c s ta s y o r i n r a p t u r e . b . " I n a n o th e r m anner. . . . . . . . . . . e o s ta 3 y o r r a p t u r e o r t r a n s p o r t o f mind i s b ro u g h t ab o u t when someone i s a c t u a l l y w ithdraw n from th e u s e o f th e s e n s e s and o f s e n s ib le th in g s i n o rd e r t o se e c e r t a i n th in g s s u p e r n a t u r a l l y . ,» . . . . . .And th e r e f o r e A u s tin d is t i n g u i s h e s a tw o fo ld r a p t u r e . b l . "One, w hereby th e mind i s c a r r i e d away from th e se n s e s to an im ag in ary v i s i o n ; and th u s i t happened i n P e t e r and J o h n th e E v a n g e lis t i n th e A pocalypse, a s A u s tin s a y s . b 2 . " A n o th e r, w hereby th e mind i s c a r r i e d away from b o th s e n s e and from im a g in a tio n to g e th e r to an i n t e l l e c t u a l v i s i o n ; and th ± 3 i n two m an n ers: b 2 a , "I n one m anner. a c c o rd in g a s t h e i n t e l l e c t u n d e rs ta n d s God th ro u g h same i n t e l l i g i b l e com m u n icatio n s; and t h i s p ro p e rly p e r t a i n s to a n g e ls . Adam*s e c s ta s y was o f t h i s s o r t , a s th e G‘ o s s on G en esis ( 2 - 2 l) s a y s : ’The e c s ta s y i s r i g h t l y u n d e rsto o d to h av e b eo n s e n t f o r t h i s , t h a t Adam*s m ind, b e in g made a p a r t i c i p a n t o f th e a n g e lic c o u r t , and e n te r in g God’ s s a n c tu a ry , m ig h t u n d e rs ta n d th e l a s t th in g s .* b2b, "I n a n o th e r m anner, a c c o rd in g a s th e i n t e l l e c t s e e s God th ro u g h e s s e n c e ; and i t was f o r t h i s t h a t P a u l was e n ra p tu re d ." (De V o r i t . , q .1 5 , a . 2 ad u l t . )» D. However, i t i s n o t to b e d e n ied t h a t i n su ch s t a t e s o f mind a man re m a in s s t i l l t r u l y a w a y fa re r. a . F o r "someone c a n b e i n t h i s l i f e i n two m a n n ers: a l . " I n one manner , a c c o rd in g to a c t , to w i t , i n s o f a r a s h e a c t u a l l y u s e s th e s e n s e s o f th e b o d y .. . . . . . . a 2 . "X.n a n o th e r m anner, c a n someone b e i n t h i s l i f e p o t e n t i a l l y , and n o t a c c o rd in g to a c t , to w i t , in s o f a r a s h is so u l i s c o n jo in e d t o h i s m o rta l body a s ( i t s ) form , y e t i n suoh f a s h io n t h a t i t does n o t make u s e o f th e s e n s e s o f the b o d y , o r even o f im a g in a tio n ,, a s happens i n r a p t u r e . " ( I I - I I , q .1 8 0 , a . 5 ) . b . T h e re fo re i n t h i s s t a t e : b l . th e s o u l r e t a i n s i t s r e l a t i o n to th e b o d y , b 2 , y e t a c t u a l c o n v e rs io n t o phantasm s and s e n s ib le s i s ta k e n from i t . l e s t i t s e le v a tio n to t h a t w hich ex ceed s a l l phantasm s ( c f . B L - U , q . l 7 5 , a . 5 ) , to th i n g s sim ply s p i r i t u a l and d iv in e , b e im peded. E. B ut th e re a s o n o f a l l th e s e th in g s i s b e c a u s e God, as i n n a tu r e , so a ls o i n g r a c e , can o p e r a te beyond th e o r d e r f r e e l y c o n s t i t u t e d by h im s e lf , s in c e h i s power i s n o t t i e d to t h a t o r d e r . a . T h e re fo re God can e le v a te an i n t e l l e c t i v e s o u l s t i l l in fo rm in g th e body, y e t a c t u a l l y f r e e d from s e n s i b l e s , t o v i s i o n o f h i s e s s e n c e , th e same v i s i o n w hereby th e b le s s e d i n heav en b e h o ld him . F o r i n human i n t e l l e c t th e r e alw ays re m a in s seme s o r t o f p u r i t v o f i n t e l l e c t u a l know ledge, and th e r e f o r e " th e r e i s i n i t th e f a c u l t y f o r b e h o ld in g th o s e th in g s w hi#h a r e p u re ly im m a te r ia l," (De V o r i t . , q .1 3 , a . 3 ) . b . T h e re fo re , a t l e a s t th ro u g h God’ s a b s o lu te power, th e human i n t e l l e c t can b e e le v a te d t o t h a t w h ereto i t h a s o b e d ie n t ia l p o te n c y : to s e e i n t u i t i v e l y God* s e s s e n c e .

7, c. A man whose i n t e l l e c t i s th u s r a i s e d to " b e a tif ic v is i o n : c l . would n o t "be a c t u a l l y em ploying h i s se n se s " th ro u g h whose o p e r a tio n s would "be le s s e n e d th e a t t e n t i o n o f th e s o u l ab o u t i n t e l l e c t i v e k n o w led g e,” ( I I - I I , q .1 7 5 , 3-* 5 ad 5 ) , c 2 . "h u t th e powers o f th e v e g e ta l so u l do n o t o p e r a te from th e i n t e n t i o n o f th e s o u l, as do s e n s i t i v e pow ers, h u t th ro u g h th e manner o f n a tu re , And th e r e f o r e th e r e i s n o t re q u ire d f o r r a p t u r e a b s t r a c t i o n from them, a s from s e n s i t i v e p o w ers." ( I I - I I , q .1 7 5 , a*5 ad 3 ; c f . De V e r i t . , q .1 3 , a*4 ad 2 ) . 12,

HARMON! IN CHRIST: B ut i f God c an o p e r a te su ch g r e a t m ir a c le s i n a p u re c r e a t u r e d u rin g h i s m o rta l l i f e , and th e l i v e s o f th e s a i n t s show m a n if e s tly t h a t he c an do so , i t i s n o t e v id e n t t h a t he can n o t o p e r a te s i m i l a r , and even g r e a t e r , m ir a c le s i n h ie o n ly b e g o tte n Son i n h i s human n a tu r e . A. I f S t, P a u l, a s th e o lo g ia n s te a c h , a l i e n a t e d from th e s e n s e s , was "ca u g h t up to th e t h i r d heaven" ( I I C or. 1 2 .2 ) , i f a p u re man c a n i n t r a n s i e n t f a s h io n se e God f a c e to fa c e i n t h i s l i f e , i t i s n o t e v id e n t t h a t God co u ld n o t e le v a te C h r i s t ’ s i n t e l l e c t th ro u g h o u t h i s whole l i f e to th e b e a t i f i c v i s io n a cc o rd in g t o th e s u p e r io r p a r t c f h i s m ind, i n such f a s h io n how ever, t h a t h i s s o u l would be n o t a t a l l a l i e n a t e d from th e s e n s e s , b u t even r a t h e r a s ferm o f th e body would e x e r c is e a l l th e o p e r a tio n s , i n t e l l e c t u a l , s e n s i t i v e and v e g e ta tiv e , b e f i t t i n g to i t . (C f, I I - I I , q , 175, a , 4 ad 2 ) . a . I t i s t r u e in d e e d t h a t th e o rd e r o f v i r t u a l p a r t s o f th e so u l and th e r e l a t i o n o f th e s o u l to th e b o d y , a s a ls o th e r e l a t i o n o f th e powers to each e t h e r , c a n n o t b e n a t u r a l l y changed, b . B ut no e v id e n c e i s found w hereupon c o u ld b e based: a d e n ia l t h a t God can by h i s power e le v a te th e s o u l and i t s powers to som ething h ig h e r th a n th o s e th in g s w hich a r e n a t u r a l l y b e f i t t i n g to them . ( I I - I I , q .1 7 5 , a , 5 ad 2 ) , B. A c c o rd in g ly i t i s n o t to be doubted t h a t God c o u ld com m unicate, and t h a t i n perm anent f a s h io n , h i s a b s o lu te dom inion o r c o n tr o l o v e r th e law s o f n a tu r e to C h r i s t 1 s hum anity hypo s t a t i c a l l y u n ite d to th e d i v i n i t y a s o rg a n t h e r e o f , F o r th e so u l o f C h r i s t "ca n b e c o n s id e re d a c c o rd in g a s i t i s an in s tru m e n t u n ite d i n /person to t h e W ard, and th u s to i t s power was t© s u b je c te d th e w hole e jisi^ o siti e n o f h i s own bod y ." ( i U , q.,13, a . 3 ) . a . C h r i s t t h e r e f o r e by th e v i r t u e o f th e D iv in ity c o u ld impede th e red u n d an ce o f g lo ry from th e s u p e r io r p a r t c f h i s s o u l in to i t s i n f e r i o r p a r t , b . And, s in c e lie was a b s o lu te mas t o r o f h i s pow ers, h e c o u ld so r e g u l a t e t h e i r a c ti o n s and p a s s io n s , t h a t each one would b e a b le to do m ost f u l l y and in d e p e n d e n tly o f a n o th e r w hat was p ro p e r to i t ; and th e r e ­ f o r e w ith o u t any r e a l and t r u e c o n f l i c t , so t h a t a l l m ig h t s e rv e th e end o f th e in c a r n a ti o n , C. T h e re fo re d u a l i t y , o r t r u e o p p o s itio n , c o u ld n o t b e found i n C h r is t* s in te rn a l l i f e , a . B ut th e r e a s o n o f t h i s n o t o n ly i s ta k e n fro m th e fo rem e n tio n e d a b s o lu te dom inion o f C h r is t o v e r h i s f a c u l t i e s , b u t a ls o i s e x p la in e d from h i s f u l l s u b .je o tio n to h is F a th e r th ro u g h "the h ig h e s t and m ost p e r f e c t a c t o f c h a r i t y r e g u la te d by h i s b e a t i f i c know ledge. a l . B ut th e a p p a re n t c la s h o r c o n t r a r i e t y shows th e g e n u in e n e ss o f h i s human n a tu r e , b u t i t does n o t p ro v e t h a t harmony i n C h r is t* s i n t e r n a l l i f e was d is s o lv e d . a 2 . In d e e d su ch harmony i s m a rv e llo u s ly h ig h lig h te d from C h r i s t ’ s b e a t i f i c v is io n . a 2 a. F o r by t h i s b e a t i f i c knowledge C h r is t was to th e h ig h e s t d e g re e a s s im ila te d to God a s re g a rd s manner o f knowing e v e ry th in g w hich h a s r e f e r ­ ence to God, to th e human r a c e , to th e u n iv e rs e o f c r e a t u r e s , and most e s p e c ia ll y t o h i s cwn p e rs o n , a t l e a s t a s f a r as a human n a tu r e can p a r t i c i p a t e su ch know ledge, a2 b . B ut s in c e a p p e t i t e fo llo w s u n d e rs ta n d in g , a l s o th e w i l l o f C h r is t and h i s lo w er movements w ere conform ed to th e d iv in e w i l l known to C h r is t th ro u g h t h a t b e a t i f i c know ledge and th ro u g h h i s in fu s e d know ledge, b . B ut God w ille d t h a t th e man C h r is t sh o u ld f u l f i l th e work o f o u r re d e m p tio n i n a human m anner.

b l* T h e re fo re eaoh power tended to w ard s th a t w hich was p ro p e r to i t , and in d e ed i n a manner b e f i t t i n g to i t s n a tu re * b 2 , T herefrom fo llo w s n e c e s s a r i l y , i f we lo o k a t th e p ro x im ate « a u se , a o e r t a i n d i v e r s i t y o f movements and a c ti o n s , and ju d g in g a c c o rd in g to a p p ea ra n ce a c e r ta in c o n tra rie ty in C h ris t. o . B u t, s in c e th e d iv in e w i l l and C h r is t* s c h a r i t y r e g u la te d by knowledge d iv in e ly communicated alw ays r e t a i n e d supreme dom inion o r « o n tr o l, no tr u e o p p o s itio n e x is te d t h e r e , b u t , on th e c o n tr a r y , th e r e was found m ost p e r f e c t agreem ent a c c o rd in g to supreme r e a s o n s , a s S t . Thomas c l e a r l y shows ( i l l , q .1 8 , a a . 5 - 6 ) , 13.

RESTRAINT AND PERMISSION OF 0 \/ERFLCW OF GLORIFICATION IN CHRIST: On a cc o u n t o f th e a b s o lu te dom inion o r c o n tr o l w hich C h r is t e x e r c is e d o v e r h i s own human n a tu r e , i t a lre a d y fo llo w s e v id e n t ly , t h a t he could t o t a l l y r e s t r a i n th e in f lu e n c e o f h is b e a t i t u d e upon th e lo w er p a r t s o f h is hum an!ty, a s a c c o rd in g to common agreem ent he d id i n h i s p a s s io n , o r on th e o th e r hand a t a d e t e m i r a t e moment p e rm it such in f lu e n c e i n p a r t , a s b e f i t t e d th e end o f th e in c a r n a ti o n . A. F o r i t does n o t seem p ro b a b le t h a t n e v e r th ro u g h o u t th e w hole c o u rs e o f h i s l i f e on e a r t h d id C h r i s t a c c e p t some red u n d an ce i n th e i n f e r i o r paj|fc o f h i s n a tu r e from h i s b e a t i f i c f r u i t i o n o r jo y . B. I t i s t r u e in d eed t h a t h i s in fu s e d knowledge r e f r e s h e d h i s s o u l , b u t t h i s does n o t r e n d e r s u p e rflu o u s some re fre s h m e n t d escen d in g from h i s b e a t i f i c v i s i o n i t s e l f in to th e i n f e r i o r p a r t s o f h i s human n a t u r e , c o n jo in e d a s t h i s i was t o God by th e h ig h e s t c h a r i t y . C. In d e e d , we know t h a t i n h i s t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n a c e r t a i n s p le n d o u r d id ' descend i n a t r a n s i e n t f a s h io n from th e g l o r i f i e d s t a t e o f h i s mind i n t o h i s body, a sp le n d o u r s im ila r t o th e g lo r y o f th e body o f th e j u s t a f t e r th e r e s u r r e c t i o n , when th e body o f th e j u s t w i l l b e tran sm u ted by th e c l a r i t y o f th e mind i n t o a g l o r i f i e d b ody. 14.

ST. THOMAS* TEACHING: What h a s b e en exposed above i n summary f a s h io n i s confirm ed from many t e x t s o f S t . Thomas.

A. " S in c e th e s o u l o f C h r is t en jo y ed p e r f e c t v i s i o n o f God, so f a r a s th e power o f t h i s v i s i o n i s c o n ce rn e d , i t was co n seq u en t t h a t h i s body sh o u ld b e re n d e re d im p a s s ib le and im m ortal th ro u g h r edundance o f g lo r y from h i s s o u l to h i s body: b u t i t was b ro u g h t ab o u t by d is p e n s a tio n t h a t w h ile h i s so u l enjoyed th e v i s i o n o f God h i s body a t th e same tim e would s u f f e r , no red u n d an ce o f g lo r y o c c u r rin g 'from s o u l to body. F o r , . . . . . . . .w h at was n a t u r a l t o C h r is t a c c o rd in g t c h i s human n a tu r e was s u b je c t to h is w i l l : f o r w hich re a s o n h e co u ld a c c o rd in g t o h i s good p le a s u r e impede th e n a t u r a l redundance from th e s u p e r io r p a r t s to th e i n f e r i o r , so a s to a llo w each p a r t to s u f f e r , o r to d o , w hat was p ro p e r to i t w ith o u t impediment from th e o th e r p a r t : w hich can n o t bo i n o th e r men.......................H ence a l s s i t a p p e a rs t h a t C h r is t a lo n e was w a y fa re r and com prehensor. F o r i n such w ise d id he e n jo y th e d iv in e v i s i o n , WHICH PERTAINS TO CQMHHaHSNSOR. t h a t n o n e th e le s s h i s body rem ain ed s u b je c t t o s u f f e r i n g s , WHICH PERTAINS TO WAYFARER. " (Compend. T h e o l., o . 2 3 l ) . B. " C h r is t from t h i s t h a t he was God and man, had p le n a ry power o v e r a l l th e p a r t s o f h is s o u l and o v e r h i s b o d y . W h erefo re, . . . . . . . . . from th e power o f th e D e ity , he p e rm itte d each o f th e powers o f h i s s o u l to do w hat i s p ro p e r to i t , a c c o rd in g as was b e f i t t i n g to t h e r e p a i r i n g o f u s . And th u s i t was n o t n e c e s s a ry i n him , e i t h e r t h a t th e r e sh o u ld bo red u n d an ce from one power to a n o th e r , o r t h a t one power should be w ith h e ld from i t s own a c t th ro u g h vehemence o f th e a c t o f th e o th e r ." (De V e r i t , , q»13, a . 3 ad 3 ; c f . De V e r i t . , q .l© , a . 11 ad 3 ) . C. "Owing to th e d iv in e power o f th e W ord, th e o rd e r o f n a tu r e was s u b je c te d tc h i s (C h id st* s') w i l l ; w h e refo re t h i s co u ld h ap p en , t h a t th e r e o c c u r n o t th e f e r e s a i d re d u n d a n c e , w h e th er from so u l i n t o body o r

9, c o n v e r s e ly , o r from s u p e r io r powers i n t o i n f e r i o r pow ers o r c o n v e r s e ly , th e power o f th e Word e f f e c t in g t h i s , i n o r d e r t h a t th e g e n u in en e ss o f h i s human n a tu r e a s re g a rd s each p a r t o f i t m ight b e h ig h lig h te d , so t h a t th e m y stery o f o u r r e p a r a t i o n m ight be f i t t i n g l y f u l f i l l e d as r e g a r d s e v e r y th in g ," (De V e r i t . , q ,2 6 , a , 10; I n I I I S e n t , , d ,1 5 , q ,2 , a . 2 a . u l a 1 , c . ) . D. The same i s co n firm ed from th d c l a r i t y o f C h r is t* s body i n h i s t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n : "T hat c l a r i t y w hich C h r is t assumed i n th e t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n was th e c l a r i t y c f g lo r y a s re g a rd s e s s e n c e , y e t n o t as r e g a r d s mode o f b e . F o r th e c l a r i t y o f th e g lo r i o u s body i s d e riv e d from th e c l a r i t y o f th e s o u l, a s A u s tin sa y s ( E p i s t , ad D io scc ru m ). And lik e w is e th e c l a r i t y o f C h ris t* s body i n th e t r a n s i f g u r a t i e n was d e riv e d from h i s d i v i n i t y , a s Damascene sa y s ( O r a tio de T r a n s f ig , D,N, J e s u G h r i s t i ) , and from th e g lo ry o f h i s s o u l. F o r th a t from th e b e g in n in g o f C h rist* s c o n c e p tio n th e g lo r y o f h i s s o u l did n o t redound to M s body, w as b ro u g h t ab o u t from a c e r t a i n d iv in e d is p e n s a tio n , i n o r d e r th a t i n a p a s s i b l e body he m ig h t f u l f i l th e m y s te rie s o f o u r re d e m p tio n , • , Not however th ro u g h t h i s was ta k e n from C h r i s t th e power to d e r iv e th e g lo ry o f h i s s c u l to h i s body, a . And t h i s in d e e d h e d id , as r e g a r d s c l a r i t y « i n h i s t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n : y e t o th e rw is e th a n i n a g l o r i f i e d body. F o r t o a g l o r i f i e d body c l a r i t y red o u n d s from th e s o u l a s a c e r t a i n perm anent q u a l i t y a f f e c t i n g th e body. W h erefo re to gleam c o r p o r a lly i s n o t m ira c u lo u s i n a g l o r i f i e d b ody. B ut to th e body o f C h r is t i n th e t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n c l a r i t y was d e riv e d from h i s d i v i n i t y and s o u l, n o t a f t e r th e manner o f a b id in g i n and a f f e c t i n g h i s body i t s e l f , b u t more a f t e r th e manner o f a t r a n s i e n t p a s s io n , a s when th e a i r i s illu m in a te d by th e sun. W herefore t h a t s h in in g th e n a p p e a rin g i n th e body o f C h r is t was m ira c u lo u s ," ( l H , q .4 5 , a , 2 ) , a s beyond th e o rd e r d iv in e ly c o n s t i t u t e d f o r C h r i s t , w hereas i n o th e r b le s s e d a f t e r t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n c l a r i t y o f body w i l l b e som ething c o n n a tu r a l, b. Though th e c l a r i t y o f C h r i t t was th e c l a r i t y o f g lo r y , n e v e r th e ­ l e s s " i t was n o t th e c l a r i t y o f th e g lo r io u s body, b e c a u se th e body c f C h r is t was n o t y e t im m o rtal. F o r j u s t as i t was b ro u g h t ab o u t by d is p e n s a tio n t h a t i n C h r is t th e g lo r y o f th e s o u l d id n o t red o u n d to th e b o d y , so i t c o u ld b e b ro u g h t ab o u t by d is p e n s a tio n t h a t i t redound as re g a rd s th e endowment o f c l a r i t y , and n o t as r e g a r d s t h e endowment o f i m p a s s i b i l i t y . " ( I I I , q . 4 5 , a , 2 , ad l ) , E, " I f i n o th e r b e a t i f i e d men c l a r i t y i s d e riv e d from noul to body, WHY NOT IN' CHRIST, who was God and man? I t m ust b e s a i d t h a t , b e c a u se he was God, th e o r d e r o f human n a tu r e was i n M s power. a , "But t h i s o r d e r i s t h a t th e p a r t s communicate to each o th e r , t h a t th e body b e in g h u r t th e r e b e co m passion i n th e s o u l , and from th e s o u l th e body b e a f f e c t e d . b . "B ut t h i s o r d e r was s u b je c t t o C h r i s t : b l , " w h e re fo re jo y was so te m n in a te d i n M s s u p e r io r p a r t , t h a t th e r e o c c u rre d no e g re s s o f i t o u ts id e ; b 2 . "w h erefo re he was b o th PERFECTLY WAYFARER and PERFECTLY COMPREHENSOR; b3 • " t h e r e f o r e : b 3 a . "when he w i l l e d th e r e o c c u rre d NO REFLUX; b3 b , "b u t when h e w ille d th e r e was REFLUX, and he ap p ea re d b r i l l i a n t , ” ( i n M a tt, c , 17)"V ’

III.

COEXI^MCE OF SUPRB/iE JOY AND SUPREME SADNESS IN CHRIST.

15.

THE QUESTION: H aving th e fo re g o in g p r i n c i p l e s i n m ind, we may a c h ie v e seme u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e m ystery o f th e c o e x is te n c e o f supreme jo y a r i s i n g from M s b e a t i f i c v i s i o n and o f supreme sa d n e ss and p a in i n C h r is t* s s o u l, e s p e c ia ll y a t th e tim e o f M s p a s s io n . A.

R eg ard in g t M s , th r e e i n s u f f i c i e n t th e o r ie s a r e to b e n o te d :

a , f f i r s t . t h a t C h r is t was sad and s u ffe re d o n ly i n th e s e n s i t i v e p a r t c f h i s s o u l, ( c f , n ,1 6 )» b , Second, t h a t C h r is t i n h i s p a s s io n d id n o t g e t jo y from h i s b e a t i f i c v is io n . (C f. n .1 7 ) . •* T h ir d . t h a t aupreme sad n e ss and supreme jo y a r e p ro p e rly • o n t r a r i e s , and y e t w ere m ira c u lo u s ly u n ite d i n th e s o u l o f C h r is t d u rin g h i s p a s s io n . (C f. n .1 8 ) . B. R a th e r , a s w i l l b e m a n ife s t a s v/e p ro c e ed , i t m ust be s a i d w ith S t . Thomas and m ost th e o lo g ia n s th a t th e supreme jo y and th e supreme sa d n e ss o f C h r is t i n h i s p a s s io n w ere n i t o rc p e rly c o n tr a r y , b u t n e v e r th e le s s t h e i r c o n ju n c tio n i n th e same s o u l o f C h r is t was to g e th e r a m ir a c le and a m y s te ry , and in d e ed th e s e q u e l c f th e m y ste ry t h a t C h r is t was to g e th e r w a y fa re r and cem p reh en scr. C. T h is w hole q u e s tio n i s illu m in a te d from t h i s p r i n c i p l e t h a t C h r is t %*om th e b e g in n in g c f h i s human l i f e had a b s o lu te f u l l n e s s o f g r a c e : a * W hurefrom p ro c e e d e d : a l . on th e one hand, th e l i g h t o f g lo r y , th e BEATIFIC VISION and SUPREME JOY, a2» c n -he e t h e r hand, suprem e c l i a r i t y , supreme z e a l f o r th e g lo ry o f God and th e s a l v a t i o n c f men, w ith a most a r d e n t d e s i r e to f u l f i l most p e r f e c t l y 1' • s re d em otive m is s io n th ro u g h th e m ost p e r f e c t HOLOCAUST, t h a t i s , th ro u g h me? . p e r f e c t BMQLATIOH o f h im s e lf . b . T h e re fo re th e s e two e f f e c t s , tc w i t , supreme jo y and. supreme s u f f e r in g b l . though most d iv e r g e , b 2 , n e v e r th e le s s a r i s e from, th e same r o o t , to w i t , from C h rist* s p l e n i ­ tu d e o f g ra c e . b2a» T h e re fo re th e y must s ta n d to g e th e r , and b e r e c o n c ile d m ost in tim a te ly ; b 2 b , in d e ed C h r i s t 13 h ig h e s t sa d n e ss was ab o u t s i n , and in d e e d was p r o p o r tio n a te t o h i s lo v e f o r God who. i s o ffe n d e d by s i n and f o r men who a r o re n d e re d b ad and drnnned by s in . 16.

FIRST ^SUFFICIENT THEORY: A u reo lu s and o th e r s ta u g h t t h a t CHRISTY ANGUISH WAS ONLY IN THE SENSITIVE FART OF HIS SOUL, t h a t i s , i n h i s s e n s u a l i t y , w h ile i n h i s w i l l t h e r e was p e r f e c t jo y and p e a c e .

A. T h is te a c h in g , a s th e S a lm a n tic e n s ia n s s a y : a , i s a g a in s t th e common agreem ent o f th e F a t h e r s , who te a c h th a t C h r is t ' g rie v e d • m ost b i t t e r l y o v e r th e s in s o f a l l men, w hich g r i e f w ith o u t doubt i s i n h i s w i l l , a s a ls o i s ouzo sorrow o v e r o u r own s i n s i n our c o n tr itio n . b . T h is i s m a n if e s t, sax/ th e S a lm a n tic e n s ia n s , from th e E p i s t l e c f Popo Agatho r e l a t e d i n th e T h ird C o u n cil o f C o n s ta n tin o p le a g a in s t th e M o n o th e lite s . B. A c c o rd in g ly , t h i s th e o ry seems to b e HERETICAL, o r a t l e a s t PROXIMATE TO HERESY, as c o n tr a r y to what i s commonly ta u g h t a c c o rd in g to S acred S c r ip t u r e and T r a d it io n b y th e o rd in a ry m a g is te r i urn o f th e C hurch. 17.

SECOND INSUFFICIENT THEORY: M e lc h io r Cano. V a l e n t i a . Salm eron and M ald c n a tu s su g g este d th a t d u rin g h i s o a s s io n , JOY WAS NOT DERIVED TO CHRIST FROM HIS BEATIFIC VISION. A. T h is te a c h in g i s a g a in s t th e d o c tr in e o f S t . Thomas. (C f. I l l , q ,4 6 , a . 8 ; I n I I I S e n t . , d .1 5 , q . 2 , a . 3 , q . u l a 2 , ad 5 ; De V e r i t . , q .1 0 , a . a . l l ad 3 ; q .2 6 , a .1 0 ; Q u o d lib . V I I , a . 2 ; Compend. T h e o l., c .2 3 2 ) . B. M oreover, t h i s c p in ic n seems to in v o lv e c o n tr a d ic t io n ; f o r i t seems im p o s s ib le t h a t to g e th e r :

a* C h r is t th ro u g h h i s i n t e l l e c t have p e r f e c t p o s s e s s io n o f th e s o v e re ig n good, to w i t , God c l e a r l y se e n , b , and h i s w i l l n e t r e j o i c e and en jo y t h i s good p o s s e s s e d ; b e c a u s e , g iv e n t h i s im m ediate v i s i o n o f th e d iv in e e s s e n c e and go o d n ess, t h e r e can re m a in i n th e w i l l o f th e b le s s e d , a s re g a rd s t h i s good, n e i t h e r freedom o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n n o r freedom o f e x e r c is e , C, F u rth e rm o re , q u i t e a p a r t from c o n tr a d ic t io n i t seems h ig h ly u n f i t t i n g t h a t God sh o u ld w ith d raw t h i s jo y o r f r u i t i o n from h i s Son i n th e v e ry moment v/hen from th e p u re s t and most a rd e n t lo v e f o r th e F a th e r h e i s o f f e r in g h im s e lf as a h o lo c a u s t f o r th e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f u s . a . In d e e d , i f e v e r t i l l s f r u i t i o n o r jo y was duo to C h r is t i n h i s human n a tu r e , i t was c e r t a i n l y so a t th e tim e o f h i s p a s s io n , when h e , f i l l e d w ith supreme sad n e ss and a n g u ish , was to acco m p lish th e work o f our re d e m p tio n . b . Indeed, such d e p r iv a tio n c f th e f r u i t i o n o r jo y a r i s i n g from h is v i s i o n c f th e d iv in e e sse n c e would, seem to b e i n seme f a s h io n a p e n a lty in f l i c t e d , upon C h r is t: b l . And f o r nc re a s o n would such a p e n a lty b e due to him , s in c e p r iv a t i o n o f th e v i s i o n would a s w i l l become e v id e n t as we p ro ceed , augment n e i t h e r h i s m e r it n o r th e v a lu e o f h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . b 2 , And in d e e d , i f one d e lin q u e n t i n a l e s s e r th in g , dees n o t th e re b y m e r it t c s u f f e r i n a g r e a t e r ( c f , I I - I I , q .2 4 , a . 1 0 ) , i t does n o t seem r i g h t f u l t c i n f l i c t th e g r a v e s t d e tr im e n t, to w i t , p r i v a t i o n o f b e a t i f i c f r u i t i o n , upon C h r is t u n d e rg o in g c r u c i f i x i o n from lo v e o f h i s F a th e r , th e r e b e in g nc f a u l t i n him, b u t r a t h e r m ost p e r f e c t j u s t i c e . 18,

THIRD INSUFFICIENT THEORY: T h e o p h ilu s Raynaud s a id t h a t God m ir a c u l­ o u s ly w rought t h a t TWO CONTRARIES, NAMELY, SUPREME JOY AND SUPREME SADNESS, EXIST TOGETHER IN THE SAME SUBJECT, to w i t , i n C h r is t* s v a i l .

A. B ut t h i s th e o ry does n o t seem l e g i t i m a t e , b e c a u se t h i s c o n t r a r i e t y in v o lv e s c o n t r a d i c t i o n , i f i t i s a b o u t th o same o b je c t t h a t th e w i l l i s t o g e th e r r e j o i c i n g and i s sad . a . Alm ost a l l th e o lo g ia n s ad m it t h a t t h i s u n io n o f supreme sa d n e ss and jo y was m ira c u lo u s (fo rasm u ch a s i t was a s e q u e l to th a t m ir a c le w hereby C h r i s t was to g e th e r com prehensor and w a y fa re r, th ro u g h im peding o f re d u n ­ dance o f g lo ry in to th o i n f e r i o r p a r t o f h i s s o u l ) ; b . b u t nc m ir a c le c a n in v o lv e c o n tr a d ic t io n . B. M oreover, t h i s o p in io n i s c o n tr a r y to th e te a c h in g o f S t. Thomas, as w i l l b e m a n ife s t from w hat w i l l b e s a id h e re u n d e r. 19.

WHEN IS THERE CONTRARIETY BETWEEN SADNESS AND JOY: I t i s to bo n o te d t h a t n o t ev ery sa d n e ss i s c o n tr a r y to every jo y ; th u s , f o r exam ple, wp can be g la d c r jo y f u l t h a t we a r e sad o r so rro w fu l o v e r o u r s i n s .

A. B ut CONTRARY a r e jo y and sad n e ss IN THE SAME 3MTOIATE SUBJECT, ABOUT THE SAME OBJECT ACCORDING TO THE SAME FORMAL REASON. (C f. I - I I , q .3 5 ,

■^rrr

B. B ut i n th e human s o u l th o r e a r e d iv e r s e powers and d iv e r s e v i r t u a l ­ i t i e s , i n sane c a s e s r e a l l y d i s t i n c t from each o th e r ( v .g . i n t e l l e c t and s e n s e , w i l l and s e n s u a l i t y ) , b u t i n some c a se s o n ly v i r t u a l l y d i s t i n c t (v , g. s u p e r io r r e a s o n and i n f e r i o r r e a s o n , s u p e r io r w i l l and i n f e r i o r w i l l , w i l l a s n a tu r e and w i l l a s w i l l ) , C. T h e re fo re jc y , a s a ls o s a d n e s s , c an b e d iv e r s e ly i n th e s o u l, and in d e e d b o th i n i t s e sse n c e and i n i t s pow ers. a . B ut s in c e th e s o u l i s n o t im m ed iately o p e r a tiv e , th e e sse n c e c f th e s o u l does n e t d i r e c t l y and im m e d ia te ly s u f f e r o r r e j o i c e , b u t o n ly by n e d ia c y o f a p ro x im ate p r i n c i p l e o f o p e ra tio n , b . B ut w henever th e r e i s s u f f e r in g o r jo y i n one power o r i n th e body, th e s o u l alw ays i s c o rre s p o n d in g ly a f f e c t e d i n i t s e s s e n c e , as th e r a d i c a l p r i n c i p l e o f a l l o p e r a tio n s , and in d e e d th e w hole s o u l i s a f f e c t e d owing tc i t s s im p lic ity .

c . B ut # 1(21 one power s u f f e r s o r i s d e lig h te d , i t i s n o t n e c e s s a ry t h a t a n o th e r power TJQQr s c * s u f f e r o r b e d e lig h te d , sav e by re a s o n o f redundance o r connexion e x i s t i n g be W een them. d. B u t, one power s u f f e r in g or e n jo y in g , a n o th e r may s u f f e r o r en jo y *p e r a c c i d e r s 1. by re a s o n o f u n ity o f s u b je c t, i . e . by re a s o n o f r a d i c a t i o n i n th e same e sse n c e o f th e s o u l. e . M oreover, th e same th in g can b e th e cau se o f sa d n e ss o r o f jo y a c c o rd in g to d iv e r s e mediums w h e re in i t i s p e rc e iv e d , and a ls o in d e ed w ith r e s p e c t to r e a l l y th e same power. 20,

SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR REASON: A ccount i s to b e ta k e n i n t h i s q u e s tio n o f th e d i s t i n c t i o n betw een s u p e r io r re a s o n and i n f e r i o r re a s o n , w hich in d e e d a r e n o t two powers r e a l l y d i s t i n c t , b u t r a t h e r b e sp e a k d iv e r s e a c t s and h a b i t s o f th e same i n t e l l e c t i v e power. A. F o r: a . "SUPERIOR re a s o n i s t h a t w hich i s i n t e n t on c o n te m p la tio n and cons u lt a t lo n o f th in g s e t e r n a l . . . . . . . . b . "B ut I^E R IO R r e a s e n i s s a i d . . . . . to bo t h a t w hich i s i n t e n t on te m p o ra l t i lin g s . 11 ( I , q .7 9 , a , 9 ) . B.

Which S t . Thomas th u s e x p la in s :

a . "T h ere a r e c e r t a i n n a tu r e s s u p e r io r to th e r a t i o n a l s o u l, b u t c e r t a i n n a tu r e s i n f e r i o r t c i t . a l . " B u t, s in c e e v e ry th in g w hich i s u n d e rs to o d , i s u n d e rsto o d a f t e r th e manner o f t h e u n d e rs ta n d e r, a l a . " o f th in g s w hich a r e above th e s o u l, th e u n d e rs ta n d in g i s i n th e r a t i o n a l so u l i n f e r i o r t o t h e th in g s u n d ersto o d th e m s e lv e s ; a lb . ’" b u t c f th in g s w h ich a r e below th e s o u l, th e r e i s i n th e s o u l an u n d e rsta n d in g s u p e r io r to th e th in g s th e m s e lv e s , s in c e i n i t " ( i . e , i n th e s o u l) " th e th in g s have a n o b le r b e th a n i n th e m s e lv e s . a2 , "And th u s to e i t h e r ( c l a s s o f) th in g s i t h a s d iv e r s e r e l a t i o n , and from t h i s i t g e ts d iv e r s e f u n c tio n s . b . " F o r: b l . " a c c o rd in g a s i t has r e s p e c t t c s u p e r io r n a t u r e s , w h eth er as c o n te m p la tin g th e t r u t h o f them and t h e i r n a tu r e a b s o lu t e ly , o r as ta k in g from them a r e a s o n and s o r t o f p a t t e r n o f a c t i n g , i t i s named SUPERIOR REASON. > 2. "B ut a c c o rd in g a s i t i s tu rn e d to w ard s i n f e r i o r th in g s , e i t h e r to view them th ro u g h c o n te m p la tio n , o r to manage them th ro u g h a c ti o n , i t i s named INFERIOR REASON. er s e * s u f f e r any g r i e f b y r e a s o n o f h is in f u s e d know ledge, w hich c o n te m p la te s c r e a t u r e s a s th e y a re know able a cc o rd in g to d iv in e r e v e l a t i o n , ( c f . I l l , q . l l , a . l ) . b . N e v e rth e le s s C h r is t c o u ld u s e t h i s knowledge th ro u g h c o n v e rsio n to phantasm s, and t h e r e f o r e th ro u g h some commerce w ith th e b ody, (C f. I l l , q . l l , a .2 ) , b l . I n such e x e r c is e o f h i s in fu s e d know ledge, th e so u l i s a lre a d y o p e ra tin g a s i t i s form o f th e body ( i . e . a s ’PSYCHE*)« and th e r e f o r e i n th e s t r i c t se n s e as w a y fa re r. b 2 . C o n seq u en tly a ls o he c o u ld s u f f e r even on th e s c o re o f h i s in fu s e d know ledge. D. T h is d i s t i n c t i o n p o s ite d , i t i s u n d e rsto o d how ON THE ONE HAND i t i s a ffirm e d t h a t th e r e v/as no s u f f e r in g i n C h r i s t ’ s s u p e r io r r e a s o n , w h ile ON THE OTHER HIND i t seems e v id e n t t h a t C h r is t was a f f l i c t e d w ith th e m ost s e v e re

15* s p i r i t u a l sa d n e ss a s t h i s was cau sed from, h i s abandonment by God and from th e m a lic e o f sin* w h ic h a s s u r e d ly p e r t a i n s to t h e s u p e r io r p a r t o f th e soul* a . F o r when a l l s u f f e r in g i s ex clu d ed from h i s s u p e r io r r e a s o n a s i t in c lu d e s h i s w i l l , w hat i s meant i s th e p a r t SIMPLY SUPERIOR (o f* n .2 0 ) , to w i t , a s c o n te m p la tin g a l l th in g s i n th e s p e c ie s o f th e d iv in e e sse n c e and e n jo y in g f r u i t i o n th e r e o f .

.0

b , B ut on ^ o th e r h a n d , i t can b e conceded t h a t th e s u p e r io r p a r t o f h i s s o u l was f i l l e o w ith a n g u ish and s a d n e s s , p ro v id e d th e s o u l b e ta k e n as form o f t h e body ( a s ,PSYCHE, ) and o p e ra tin g i n some manner d e p e n d e n tly on th e b o d y , w hich i s so when i t u n d e rs ta n d s th ro u g h c o n v e rs io n to phantasm s. b l . H ow ever, b e c a u se th e o b je c t o f C h r is t* s in f u s e d know ledge i s th e s e th in g s w hich s i g n i f y th e r e l a t i o n o f God to c r e a t u r e s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t such o p e r a tio n o f h i s i n t e l l e c t p e r t a i n s to th e p a r t o n ly RELATIVELY SUPERIOR. b 2 . And t h e r e f o r e ; b 2 a . i n i t s e l f in d e e d i t i s s u p e r io r th ro u g h com p ariso n to p u re ly te m p o ra l c a u se s o r r e a s o n s , b 2 b . y e t r e l a t i v e l y to b e a t i f i c know ledge i t m ust alw ays b e pronounced in fe rio r.

e, And th u s i t seams p o s s ib le t o r e c o n c ile th e d iv e r s e o p in io n s , o r r a t h e th e d iv e r s e m anners c f s p e a k in g , o f th o o lo g ia n s i e l . F o r ^cme. adm it supreme s a d n e ss i n C h r i s t ’ s s u p e r io r r e a s o n , as do Jtaaggz mid De Lupp. 0 2 v ifed-Te o th e r s a s s ig n such sadness to C h r is t’ s in f e r io r r ea so n , as do g a je ta n . th e ffalraantie;jc # ;|s sjs >Je

# # sje jje

A . M. W oodbury. S . M .