IV. Whether sacred theology is the same as the habit of faith and piety; science and wisdom
IV. Is sacred theology therefore the same as the habit of faith and piety? Faith is a practical habit, and can rightly be called a doctrine or discipline objectively, according to that word of Christ (John 6:45): Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me. For the object of faith is taught by God and learned by human beings: and without this no one is pleasing to God or is saved (Hebrews 11:6; Mark 16:16).
But sacred theology is another habit, which deduces, explains, confirms the articles of faith from their principles and foundations, and defends them against adversaries. Although this habit is not in all the faithful, yet it is uniquely required by the Apostle in a teacher of the Church (1 Corinthians 12:1 and following). Without this habit many please God and are saved, as unlearned believers: and with this habit, if it is without faith and the struggle of the Spirit, many displease God and are condemned, as unbelieving teachers, hypocrites, seditious wranglers, and tyrants (Matthew 7:21–23; Matthew 23:2, 13, 15; Luke 11:52). Compare the illustration of blessed Augustine (On the Trinity book 14 chapter 1) explaining (1 Corinthians 12:8).
The schools wrongly distinguish science from faith, yet with a praiseworthy intention. For faith is knowledge (Isaiah 53:11). And one must glory in this knowledge as in a gift diverse from worldly knowledge (Jeremiah 9:23). The scholastics meant to teach that Christian faith is not produced by demonstrations that produce human science, because faith is of things not seen and does not rest on philosophical principles or things known by nature. And this is not badly but usefully warned, insofar as theological faith is discerned from philosophical science. Yet this also ought to have been observed: that sacred Scripture takes up philosophical science, as collapsing under its own mass in divine things, and rebuilds what has been made vain, new foundations laid under and new stays added, so that, cultivated from a sacred beginning, it may issue in faith vigorous with the strength of the Word because of God its author.
Experience teaches that whatever philosophers seem somehow to weave about God and divine things, the more curiously and accurately they try to establish it, the less at last they reach its end. And the Apostle rightly wrote (Romans 1:21): They became vain in their reasonings. Therefore the wisdom of the wise is abolished, and the understanding of the understanding is taken out of the midst.
Further, from (1 John 2:3–4; 1 John 3:6; 1 Corinthians 8:1–2) it is easily understood that so great a science of sacred things consists in two things: (1) in the truth of a certain common and universal knowledge about the Word of God and the dogmas of the church; (2) and indeed chiefly in the efficacy of knowledge or in the truth of application, by which our mind rightly accommodates common principles and dogmas to things to be done and to singulars and discerns the things that are excellent (Philippians 1:10; Philemon 1:6; Ephesians 5:10) — that is, so that it may form a practical judgment about the things that occur to be done, which is truly consentaneous to the principles. Otherwise it happens that what we confess with the mouth we deny by deeds (Titus 1:16). That common knowledge, when destitute of efficacy, the Apostle calls puffing-up science: in respect of which whoever would think himself to know God is a liar if we believe John — having indeed a form of truth but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:5).
For this reason he is not sufficiently properly called a theologian, just as he is not properly called prudent in human affairs who, when he has understood common principles, rich in theory, either in no way or badly accommodates the same to singular counsels — as the most exact theologian Doctor Conrad Bergius, my most sincere colleague, truly discusses in the Precognita on Loci Communes Theology, chapter on the internal form of theology, and thence wisely gathers two things: (1) that theology can indeed be true even which an ungodly person possesses, as to the truth of common knowledge; but as to application it will not be true but hypocritical; and Scripture in comparison with the science of the saints judges it unworthy of the name of science and therefore also of theology; (2) that one is a better theologian as to the breadth of science, another as to the efficacy of science — who without doubt is more approved by God.
We say that theology is science and wisdom, not speaking philosophically, but in a mode singularly fitted to this doctrine. For it differs from philosophical science and wisdom by principles not known of themselves; it is confirmed by the authority of God the teacher, to whom they are known of themselves; and it is inspired by a peculiar grace and power, yet through the Word. And that there is a difference of theological wisdom and science is plain from (1 Corinthians 12:8): through the Spirit to one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge. This seems chiefly to be it: that science is taken of the cognition of doctrine, but wisdom of the skilled use of science (Job 28:28; Proverbs 14:8; Proverbs 27:12).
Latin
IV. An igitur sacra theologia sit idem quod habitus fidei et pietatis? Fides est habitus practicus, et doctrina sive disciplina recte dici potest objective, juxta illud Christi Joh. 6.v.45. Omnis, qui audit a patre et discit, venit ad me. Nam objectum fidei docetur a Deo, et discitur ab hominibus: Et sine hac nemo Deo gratus est, neque servatur Hebr. 11.v.6. Marci 16.v.16. Sacra theologia vero alius quidam habitus est, qui articulos fidei e suis principiis et fundamentis deducit, explicat, confirmat, et contra adversarios defendit. Qui habitus etsi non in omnibus fidelibus, tamen in doctore Ecclesiae ab Apostolo unice requiritur 1. Cor. 12. Sine hoc habitu multi Deo placent et servantur, ut idiotae fideles: Et cum hoc habitu, si sit sine fide et lucta spiritus, multi Deo displicent et condemnantur, ut doctores infideles, hypocritae, seditiosi rixatores, et tyranni, Matt. 7.v.21.22.23. et 23.v.2.13.15. Luc. 11.v.52. Confer illustramentum B. Augustini lib. 14. de Trinitate cap. 1. exponentis 1. Cor. 12.v.8. Scholae scientiam a fide perperam distinguunt, intentione tamen laudabili. Est enim fides notitia Es. 53.11. Estque gloriandum de scientia hac, tanquam de dono diverso a scientia mundana Jer. 9.23. Voluerunt autem hoc docere scholastici, quod fides Christiana non paretur demonstrationibus, quae humanam scientiam pariunt, quoniam fides sit non apparentium, nec principiis philosophicis, seu natura notis innitatur. Et hoc non male, sed utiliter monetur, quatenus fides theologica a scientia philosophica discernitur. Hoc tamen insuper observari oportuit, quod scientiam philosophicam, tanquam sua mole corruentem in divinis, sacra scriptura excipiat, et vanam factam de novo exstruat, novis fundamentis substratis, novisque firmamentis adjectis, ut sic a sacro primordio exculta, evadat in fidem vigentem robore Verbi, propter auctorem Deum. Quod enim philosophi, quicquid de Deo et rebus divinis aliquo usque pertexere videntur, quanto curiosius ac accuratius stabilire conantur, tanto minus tandem ejus finem perveniant, id docet experientia. Et recte Apostolus scripsit Rom. 1.21. Vani facti sunt in ratiocinationibus suis. Aboletur igitur sapientia sapientum, et intelligentia intelligentum tollitur e medio. Porrò ex 1. Joh. 2.3.4. et 3.6. 1. Cor. 8.1.2. facile intelligitur, quod tanto scientiae rerum sacrarum in duobus consistat. 1. In veritate notitiae cujusdam communis et universalis de verbo Dei, dogmatibus ecclesiae. 2. et quidem maxime in efficacia notitiae sive in veritate applicationis, qua mens nostra principia et dogmata communia ad res agendas et singulares rite accommodet ac discernat ea, quae sunt praestantia, Phil. 1.10. Philem. 6. Eph. 5.10. hoc est, ut formet judicium practicum de rebus quae agenda occurrunt; quod sit principiorum revera consentaneum. Alioquin fit, ut, quod ore confitemur, abnegemus factis, Tit. 1.16. Notitiam illam communem, quando efficacia destituitur, scientiam inflantem vocat Apostolus: cujus respectu qui se Deum nosse opinari velit mendax est, si Johanni credimus: habens quidem speciem veritatis, virtutem autem ejus abnegans, 2. Tim. 3.5. Hac propter nec satis proprie Theologus dicitur, sicut nec prudens in rebus humanis appellatur proprie is, qui, ubi communia principia intellexerit, theoria dives, eadem ad consilia singula vel nullo modo vel male accommodet, ut Theologus exquisitissimus D. CONRADUS BERGIUS, collega meus sincerissimus, in praecognitis ad L.C. Theolog. C. de forma interna Theologiae, ex vero disserit, indeque duo sapienter colligit. 1. veram quidem esse posse theologiam etiam quam impius possidet, quod ad veritatem notitiae communis: at quod ad applicationem attinet, non fore veram, sed hypocritam: eaque in comparatione ad scientiam sanctorum scripturam indignam judicare scientiae, ac proinde etiam Theologiae, nomine. 2. Alium esse meliorem theologum quod ad amplitudinem scientiae: alium quod ad efficaciam scientiae: qui sine dubio magis probatur DEO. Dicimus, Theologiam esse scientiam et sapientiam, non philosophice loquendo, sed modo huic doctrinae accommodato singulariter. Differt enim a philosophica scientia et sapientia principiis per se non notis, auctoritate magistri Dei, cui per se nota sunt, firmatur, et peculiari gratia et potestate, per verbum tamen, inspiratur. Esse vero et sapientiae ac scientiae theologicae discrimen, patet ex 1. Cor. 12.8. per spiritum alii datur sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae. Hoc potissimum esse videtur, quod scientia de cognitione doctrinae, sapientia vero de perito usu scientiae accipitur. Job. 28.28. Prov. 14.8. et 27.12.