God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes

General Introduction to Dogmatic Theology

Notion, Rank, and Division of Dogmatic Theology

1. General Definition of Theology. — Dogmatic theology forms an essential part of theology in general, and therefore cannot be correctly defined unless we have an adequate notion of the latter. Theology, then, generally speaking, is the science of faith (scientia fidei).

a) Theology is a science. Every science deduces unknown truths from known and certain principles, by means of correct conclusions. The dogmatician receives, and believingly embraces as his principle, the infallible truths of Revelation, and by means of logical construction, systematic grouping, and correct deductions, erects upon this foundation a logical body of doctrine, as does the historian who works with the facts of history, or the jurist who is occupied with the statutes, or the scientist who employs bodies and their phenomena as materials for scientific construction.

It is true that some Scholastics, e.g., Durandus and Vasquez, have denied theology the dignity of a science, because it affords no intrinsic insight into the How and Why of Catholic dogmas, particularly the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc.¹ But neither do the profane sciences afford us always and everywhere an insight into their highest principles. Euclidian geometry, for instance, stands and falls with the axiom of parallels, which has never yet been satisfactorily proved; — so much so that of late years there has been made an attempt to establish a “non-Euclidian geometry” independent of that axiom. To this should be added the consideration that there are sciences which derive their basic principles as lemmata from some higher science. Such, for example, is metaphysics, which is quite generally admitted to be a true science. Hence it is plain that the notion of a science, while of course it includes certainty, does not necessarily include evidence on the part of its principles. According to the luminous teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas:² “Duplex est scientiarum genus. Quaedam enim sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine naturalis intellectus, sicut arithmetica, geometria et huiusmodi; quaedam vero sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, sicut perspectiva procedit ex principiis notificatis per geometriam et musica ex principiis per arithmeticam notis. Et hoc modo sacra doctrina [i. e., theologia] est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae scil. est scientia Dei et beatorum. Unde sicut musicus credit principia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a Deo.”³

b) Its specific character theology derives from the fact that it is the science of faith, taking faith both in its objective and in its subjective sense. Objectively considered, theology comprises all those truths (and those truths only) which have been supernaturally revealed and are contained in Scripture and Tradition, under the care of the infallible Church (depositum fidei). Hence all branches of sacred theology, including canon law and pastoral theology, are bottomed upon supernatural Revelation. Subjectively considered, theology as a science presupposes faith; for, though reason is the theologian’s principle of knowledge, yet not pure reason, but reason carried as it were beyond itself, borne, ennobled, and transfigured by supernatural faith. It was in this sense that the Fathers⁴ insisted on the proposition: “Gnosis super fidem aedificatur,” just as Scholasticism was founded on St. Anselm’s famous axiom, “Fides quaerit intellectum.”

Hence a sharp distinction between philosophy and theology. Philosophy, too, especially that branch of it known as Theodicy, treats of God, His existence, essence, and attributes; but it treats of them only in the light of unaided human reason; while theology, on the other hand, derives its knowledge of God and divine things entirely from Revelation, as contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and proposed to the faithful by the infallible Church. To elicit the act of faith demanded by this process, requires an interior grace (gratia fidei). While philosophy never transcends the bounds of pure reason, and therefore finds itself unable to prove the mysteries of faith by arguments drawn from its own domain, theology always and everywhere retains the character of a science founded strictly upon authority.

2. The High Rank of Theology. — Theology must be assigned first place among the sciences. This appears:

a) From its immanent dignity. While the secular sciences have no other guide than the flickering lamp of human reason, theology is based upon faith, which, both objectively as Revelation, and subjectively as grace, is an immediate gift of God. St. Paul emphasizes this truth in I Cor. II, 7 sqq.: “Loquimur Dei sapientiam in mysterio, quae abscondita est, … quam nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit … nobis autem Deus revelavit per Spiritum suum — We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery [a wisdom] which is hidden, … which none of the princes of this world knew, … but to us God hath revealed by his spirit.” St. Thomas traces theology to God Himself: “Theologiae principium proximum quidem est fides, sed primum est intellectus divinus, cui nos credimus.”⁵

b) From its ulterior object. The secular sciences, apart from the gratification they afford to man’s natural curiosity and love of knowledge, aim at no other end than that of shaping his earthly life, beautifying it, and perhaps perfecting his natural happiness; while theology, on the other hand, guides man, in all his different modes of activity, including the social and the political, to a supernatural end, whose delights “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard.”⁶

c) From the certitude which it ensures. The certitude of faith, upon which theology bases all its deductions — a certitude that is rooted in the inerrancy of Divine Reason, rather than in the participated infallibility of a finite, and consequently fallible, mind — excels even that highest degree of human certitude which is within the reach of metaphysics and mathematics.

This threefold excellence of theology supplies us with sufficient motives for studying it diligently and thoroughly. There does not exist a more sublime science. Theology is the queen of all sciences — a queen to whom even philosophy, despite its dignity and independence, must pay homage. Hence the oft-quoted Scholastic axiom: “Philosophia est ancilla theologiae.”⁷ The more directly a science leads up to God, the nobler, the sublimer, and the more useful it necessarily is. But can any science lead more directly to God than theology, which treats solely of God and things divine?

We should, however, beware lest our study of theology degenerate into mere inquisitive prying of the sort against which St. Paul warns us: “Non plus sapere quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem — Not to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety.”⁸ Let us not forget that it is punishable temerity to attempt to fathom the mysteries, strictly and properly so called, of faith. (Cfr. Ecclus. III, 25.) More than any other study that of theology should be accompanied by pious meditation and humble prayer.⁹

3. Definition of Dogmatic Theology. — The notion of dogmatic theology is by no means conterminous with that of theology as the science of faith. Moral theology, exegesis, canon law, etc., and indirectly even the auxiliary theological disciplines, are also subdivisions of theology. Nevertheless, dogmatic theology claims the privilege of throning as a queen in the center of the other branches of theology. From another point of view it may be likened to a trunk from which the others branch out like so many limbs.

We shall arrive more easily at the true notion of dogmatic theology, in the modern sense of the term, by enquiring into the manner in which theology is divided.

a) On the threshold we meet that most popular and most important division of theology into theoretical and practical, according as theology is considered either as a speculative science or as furnishing rules for the guidance of conduct. Theoretical theology is the science of faith in its proper sense, or dogmatics; practical theology is ethical or moral theology.

Although it will not do to tear these disciplines asunder, because they are parts of one organic whole, and for the further reason that the main rules of right conduct are also dogmatic principles; yet there is good ground for treating the two separately, as has been the custom since the seventeenth century. A glance into the Summa of St. Thomas shows that in the Middle Ages dogmatic and moral theology were treated as parts of one organic whole. Upon the subdivisions of either branch, or the manner in which historical theology (either as Biblical science or Church history) is to be subsumed under the general subject, this is not the place to descant.

b) Dogmatic theology naturally falls into two great subdivisions, general and special. General dogmatics, which defends the faith against the attacks of heretics and infidels, is also known by the name of Apologetics, or, more properly, Fundamental Theology, for the reason that, as demonstratio Christiana et catholica, it lays the foundations for special dogmatics, or dogmatic theology proper.¹⁰

Of late it has become customary to assign to fundamental theology a number of topics which might just as well be treated in special dogmatics, such as, e.g., the rule of faith, the Church, the papacy, and the relation between faith and reason. This commendable practice grew out of the necessity of fairly dividing the subject-matter of these two branches of theology, but is chiefly due to the consideration that the topics named really belong to the foundations of dogmatic theology proper, and besides, being doctrines in regard to which the various denominations differ, they require a more detailed and controversial treatment.

We purpose to follow this practice and to exclude from the present work all those subjects which more properly belong to general dogmatics. We define special dogmatics, or dogmatic theology proper, after the example of Scheeben,¹¹ as “the scientific exposition of the entire domain of theoretical knowledge, which can be obtained from divine Revelation, of God Himself and His activity, based upon the dogmas of the Church.” By emphasizing the words theoretical and dogmas, this definition excludes moral theology, which is also based upon divine Revelation and the teaching of the Church, but is practical rather than theoretical. A dogma is a norm of knowledge; the moral law is a standard of conduct; though, of course, both are ultimately rooted in the same ground, viz., divine Revelation as contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition, and expounded by the Church.

c) Another division of dogmatic theology, that into positive and Scholastic, regards method rather than substance. Positive theology, of which our catechisms contain a succinct digest, limits itself to ascertaining and stating the dogmatic teaching contained in the sources of Revelation. Among its most prominent exponents we may mention: Petavius, Thomassin, Liebermann, Perrone, Simar, Hurter¹² and others. Thomassin, and especially Petavius, successfully combined the positive with the speculative method. When positive theology assumes a polemical tone, we have what is called Controversial Theology, a science which Cardinal Bellarmine in the seventeenth century developed against the so-called reformers.

Dogmatic theology is called Scholastic, when, assuming and utilizing the results of the positive method, it undertakes: (a) to unfold the deeper content of dogma; (b) to set forth the relations of the different dogmas to one another; (c) by syllogistic process to deduce from given or certainly established premises so-called “theological conclusions;” and (d) to make plausible, though, of course, not to explain fully, to our weak human reason, by means of philosophical meditation, and especially of proofs from analogy, the dogmas and mysteries of the faith. These four points, since St. Anselm’s day, constituted the specific programme of mediaeval Scholasticism.¹³

In order to do full justice to its specific task, dogmatic theology must combine both methods, the positive and the Scholastic; that is to say, it must not limit itself to ascertaining and expounding the dogmas of the Church, but, after ascertaining them and setting them forth in the most luminous manner possible, must endeavor to adapt them as much as can be to our weak human reason. The great mediaeval Scholastics, notably St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, treated what are called dogmatic truths as generally known data — a safe procedure in those days because collections of Biblical and Patristic proofs for each separate dogma were then in the hands of every student.¹⁴ As the most useful instrument for the speculative treatment of dogma, they seized upon, not the Platonic philosophy, but the system elaborated by the great Stagirite. In preferring Aristotle, Scholasticism did not, however, antagonize the Fathers and early ecclesiastical writers, who, as is well known, had a strong penchant for Plato. Both Plato and Aristotle may be said to lean on their common master, Socrates, who had grasped with rare acumen the fundamentals of natural religion, wherefor Socratic philosophy, despite its incompleteness, has justly been extolled as the “Philosophia perennis.”¹⁵

It cannot be denied, however, that theology in its various branches, not excepting dogma, owes a wholesome impulse to modern philosophy, in so far as modern philosophy, especially since Kant (d. 1804), sharpened the critical spirit in method and argumentation, deepened the treatment of many dogmatic problems, and made “theoretical doubt” the starting-point of every truly scientific inquiry. Since the Protestant Reformation threw doubt upon, nay even denied the principal dogmas of the Church, dogmatic theology has been, and still is compelled to lay stress upon demonstration from positive sources, especially from Holy Writ. A fusion of the positive with the Scholastic method of treatment was begun as early as the seventeenth century by theologians like Gotti and the Wirceburgenses, whose example has found many successful imitators in modern times (Franzelin, Scheeben, Chr. Pesch, Billot, and others). To the works of these authors must be added the commentaries on the writings of Aquinas by Cardinal Satolli, L. Janssens, and Lepicier. For reasons into which it is not necessary to enter here, the series of dogmatic text-books of which this is the first, while it will not entirely discard the speculative method of the Scholastics, which postulates rare proficiency in dialectics and a thorough mastery of Aristotelian metaphysics, as developed by the Schoolmen, will employ chiefly the positive method of the exact sciences.¹⁶

Mystic theology is not an adversary but a sister of Scholastic theology. While the latter appeals exclusively to the intellect, mysticism addresses itself mainly to the heart. Hence its advantages, but also its perils, for when the intellect is relegated to the background, there is danger that unclear heads will drift into pantheism, as the example of many of the exponents of later mysticism shows.¹⁷ It must be remarked, however, in this connection that the greatest mystics, like St. Bonaventure, Richard and Hugh of St. Victor, and St. Bernard, were also thorough-going Scholastics.¹⁸

4. Subdivision of Special Dogmatic Theology. — The principal subject of dogmatic theology as such is not Christ,¹⁹ nor the Church,²⁰ but God. Now, God can be considered from a twofold point of view: either absolutely, in His essence, or relatively, in His outward activity (operatio ad extra). Dogmatic theology is accordingly divided into two well-defined, though quantitatively unequal parts: (1) the doctrine of God per se, and (2) that of His operation ad extra.

The first part may again be subdivided into two sections, one of which treats of God considered in the unity of His Nature (De Deo Uno secundum naturam), the other of the Trinity of Persons (De Deo Trino secundum personas). His operation ad extra God manifests as Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and Consummator. Divine Revelation, so far as it regards the created universe, includes not only the creation of nature, but also the establishment of the supernatural order and the fall from the supernatural order of the rational creatures, i.e., men and angels. The treatise on the Redemption (De Verbo Incarnato) comprises, besides the revealed teaching on the Person of our Saviour (Christology), the doctrine of the atonement (Soteriology), and of the Blessed Mother of our Lord (Mariology). In his role of Sanctifier, God operates partly through His invisible grace (De gratia Christi), partly by means of visible, grace-conferring signs or Sacraments (De Sacramentis, in genere et in specie). The dogmatic teaching of the Church on God the Consummator is developed in Eschatology (De Novissimis). Into this framework the entire body of special dogma can be compressed.

Readings: — S. J. Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, I, 1 sqq. — Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, London, 1899, I, xvii sqq. — Schrader, S.J., De Theologia Generatim, Friburgi 1861. — Kihn, Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Theologie, Freiburg 1892. — C. Krieg, Enzyklopädie der theol. Wissenschaften, nebst Methodenlehre, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1910. — J. Pohle, “Die christliche Religion” in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, I, 4, 2, pp. 37 sqq. — Cfr. also D. Coghlan in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, s.v. “Dogma;” J. H. Newman, The Idea of a University, Disc. 2 sqq., new edition, London 1893. — Hettinger-Stepka, Timothy, or Letters to a Young Theologian, pp. 351 sqq., St. Louis 1902. — T. B. Scannell, The Priest’s Studies, pp. 63 sqq., London 1908. — F. J. Hall (Anglican), Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, New York 1907.