Encyclopedia of sacred theology - pagina 260

"

'

230

§ 57.

THEOLOGICAL MODALITY

[Div. Ill

knowledge of God, but in the knowledge of an entirely different object of investigation; and thus against those who assigned, not God, but "another subject for this science, for example, either things and signs, or the works of redemption, or else the whole Christ, that is, both head and members"; for, says he, "all these to consist, not in the

are treated in this science, hut according to their order tvith respect

to

jectum^

sc.

Crod'''

("aliter assignaverunt huius scientiae suh-

velres, et signa, vel opera reparationis, vel totum

Christum, id

est,

caput et membra,"

.

.

.

"de omnibus istis ad Deum ").^

tractatur in istascientia, sed secundum ordinem

So far as this protest directs

itself

against the soteriological

or Christological interpretation of the science of Theologj-,

equally pertinent to almost

it is

all definitions

which

in the

course of this century have been given of the conception of

Theology.

What

as a study of

he says, on the other hand, of Theology et Mes, refers in part to Peter

the Signa

Lombard's Sententiae, but principally to Augustine, who, in his Libri IV. de doctrina Christiatia, had followed the a division which Thomas does division into Signa et Ees, not reject, but which in his view does not define the "subject of Theology," or what we would call the object of

—

Theolog}'.

The important test,

interest defended

by Thomas

in this pro-

a protest to which all earlier Reformed theologians have

lent their influence, lies in the requirement that the concepj

.,

Ci. Ctfi'^'^ ^if^iKxfij'^f

^

fc.L '

V'

»^«-

'

^

f

^"

y.

^

Scieutiae suhjectum here stands for

what we would

call Scientiae objec-

This confusion between the grammatical and the logical antithesis of subject and object is to be laid to Aristotle's credit, who took rb vTroKeifj-epov, Compare Prantl, GeJ-P- the subject, also for to wepl ov 6 \6yos ytverai. "An unzahligen srhichte der Locjik im Abendland, Leipzig, 18G7, III. 208 Stellen treffen wir fortan (since Duns Scotus, tloOS, who first placed them over against each other as termini), bis in das 18th Jahrhundert (d. h. bis Alex. Baumgarten) diesen gebrauch der Worte 'subjective' und 'objective,' welcher zu dem jetzigen sich genau umgekehrt verhiilt namlich damals hiess snbjectiviim. dasjenige, was sich auf das Subject der Urtheille, also auf die concreten Gegenstande des Denkens, bezieht hingegen objective jenes, was im blossen objicere, i.e. im Vorstelligmachen, liegt und hiemit auf Ilechnung des Vorstellenden fallt. See also Rudolph Encken, Die Gi'nndhcgriffe der Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1893 Subjectiv-Objectiv, pp. 2.5 ff. and Trendelenburg, Elementa Logices turn.

:

:

;

;

:

ArisiotcUciae, ed. VIII., pp. 54,

.55.

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen