THEOLOGY
583
THEOLOGY
from the main body of Catholic dogma. Nor did this
division degenerate into a formal separation of two
strictly co-ordinated disciplines. Moral theology has
always been conscious that the revealed laws of
morality are as much articles of faith as the theoreti-
cal dogmas, and that the entire Christian life is based
on the three theological virtues, which are part of the
dogmatic doctrine on justification. Hence the su-
perior rank of dogmatic theology, which is not only
the centre around which the other disciplines are
grouped, but also the main stem from which they
branch out. But the necessity of a further division
of labour as well as the example of non-Catholic
methods led to the independent development of other
disciphnes: apologetics, exegesis, church history.
Therelation existing between apologetics, or funda- mental theology as it has been called of late, and dogmatic theology is not that of a general to a par- ticular science; it is rather the relation of the vestibule to the temple or of the foundation to its super- structure. For both the method and the purpose of demonstration differ totally in the two branches. Whereas apologetics, intent upon laying the founda- tion of the Christian or Cathohc rehgion, uses his- torical and philosophical arguments, dogmatic the- ology on the other hand makes use of Scripture and Tradition to prove the Divine character of the differ- ent dogmas. Doubt could only exist as to whether the discussion of the sources of faith, the rule of faith, the Church, the primacy, faith and reason, belongs to apologetics or to dogmatic theolog}'. While a dog- matic treatment of these important questions has its advantages, yet from the practical standpoint and for reasons peculiar to the subject, they should be sepa- rated from dogmatic theology and referred to apolo- getics. The practical reason is that the existing denominational differences demand a more thorough apologetic treatment of these problems; and again, the subject-matter itself contains nothing else than the preliminary and fundamental questions of dog- matic theology properly so called. A branch of the greatest importance, ever since the Reformation, is exegesis with its allied disciplines, because that sci- ence establishes the meaning of the texts necessary for the Scriptural argument. As the Biblical sciences necessarily suppose the dogma of the inspiration of the Bible and the Divine institution of the Church, which alone, through the assistance of the Holy Ghost, is the rightful owner and authoritative interpreter of the Bible, it is manifest that exegesis, though enjoying full liberty in all other respects, must never lose its connexion with dogmatic theology. Not even church history, though using the same critical methods as profane hi-story, is altogether independent of dog- matic theologj'. As its object is to set forth the his- tory of God's kingdom upon earth, it cannot repu- diate or slight either the Divinity of Christ or the Divine foundation of the Church without forfeiting its claim to be regarded as a theological .science. The same applies to other historic sciences, as the hi.story of dogma, of councils, of heresies, patrologj', sym- bolics, and Christian archa?ologj'. Pa.storal theolog>', which embraces liturgj-, homiletics, ijnd catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to, moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology need.s, therefore, no further proof.
The relation between dogmatic theology and philosophy deserves special attention. To begin with, even when they treat the .same .subject, as God and the soul, there is a fundamental difference between the two sciences. For, as was said above, the formal principles of the two are totally different. But, this fundamental difference must not be ex- aggerated to the point of a.sserting, with the Renais- sance philo.sophers and the Modernists, that .some- thing false in philosophy may be true in theolog)', and vice versa. The theory of the "twofold truth"
in theology and history, which is only a variant of
the same false principle, is therefore expressly ab-
jured in the anti-Modernist oath. But no less fatal
would be the other extreme of identifying theology
with philosophy, as was attempted by the Gnostics,
later by Scotus Eriugena (d. about 877), Raymond
Lullus (d. 1315), Pico della Mirandola (d. 1463), and
by the modern Rationalists. To counteract this
bold scheme, the Vatican Council (Sess. Ill, cap.
iv) solemnly declared that the two sciences differ
essentially not only in their cognitive principle
(faith, reason) and their object (.dogma, rational
truth), but also in their motive (Divine authority,
evidence) and their ultimate end (beatific vision,
natural knowledge of God). But what is the precise
relation between these sciences? The origin and
dignity of revealed theology forbid us to assign to
philosophy a superior or even a co-ordinate rank.
Already Aristotle and Philo of Alexandria, in deter-
mining the relation of philosophy to that part of
metaphysics which is directly concerned with God,
pronounced philosophy to be the "handmaid" of
natural theology. When philosophy came into
contact with revelation, this subordination was stil)
more emphasized and was finally crystallized in the
principle: Philosophia est ancilla Iheologice. But
neither the Church nor the theologians who insisted
on this axiom, ever intended thereby to encroach on
the freedom, independence, and dignity of philoso-
phy, to curtail its rights, or to lower it to the position
of a mere slave of theology. Their mutual relations
are far more honourable. Theology may be con-
ceived as a queen, philosophy as a noble lady of the
court who performs for her mistress the most worthy
and valuable services, and without whose assistance
the queen would be left in a very helpless and em-
barrassing position. That the Church, in examining
the various systems, should select the philosophy
which harmonized with her own revealed doctrine
and proved itself to be the only true philosophy by
acknowledging a personal God, the immortalitj' of
the soul, and the moral law, was so natural and ob-
vious that it required no apology. Such a philosophy,
however, existed among the pagans of old, and was
carried to an eminent degree of perfection by Aristotle.
(5) Division and Content of Dogmatic Theology. — Not only for non-Catholics, but also for Catholic lajTnen it may be of interest to take a brief survey of the questions and problems generally discussed in dogmatic theology.
(a) God {De Deo uno et trino). — As God is the central idea around which aU theology turns, dog- matic theology must begin with the doctrine of God, essentially one. Whose existence, essence, and attri- butes are to be investigated. While the arguments, strictly so called, for the existence of God are given in philosophy or in apologetics, dogmatic theology insists upon the revealed doctrine that God may be known from creation by reason alone, that is, without external revelation or internal illumination by grace. From this it follows at once that Atheism must be branded as heresy and that Agnoslici.sm may not plead mitig.ating circumstances. Nor can Tradi- tionalism and Ontologism be reconciled with the dogma of the natural knowableness of God. For if, as the Traditionalists a.ssert, the consciousness of God's existence, found in all races and ages, is due solely to the oral tradition of our forefathers and ultimately to the revelation granted in Paradise, the knowledge of f!od derived from the visible crea- tion is at once discounted. The same must be said of the Ontologists, who fancy that our mind enjoys an intuitive vision of God's essence, and is thus made certain of His existence. Likewise, to a.ssume with Descartes an inborn idea of God (idea Dei innala) is out of the question; consequently, the knowable- ness of God by mere reason, means in the last analysis
