Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T15:01:23.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientia Media and Free Will

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ælred Whitacre O.P.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When taking up such a work as Father Joyce’s Principles of Natural Theology a Thomist naturally turns to the chapters on ‘The Divine Intelligence’ (Chap, xi), and on ‘Conservation and Concurrence’ (Chap. xvi). These chapters spoil an otherwise most excellent book : a perusal of them will show that Fr. Joyce abandons the doctrine of St. Thomas and chooses to follow a doctrine which had its beginnings in the middle of the sixteenth century. But Fr. Joyce does not embrace this new doctrine entirely,—he is eclectic. He does not adhere to the doctrine as expounded by the Spanish Jesuit, Molina, nor to that as expounded by Suarez. He admits a scientia media but is unwilling to admit the explanation that Molina, who originally published it, gives, and correctly refutes the explanation of Suarez. The position of the author consists in this that scientia media must be admitted, but he frankly confesses his inability to give any explanation of it (pp. 357 and 360). God knows future conditioned free acts antecedently to, and independently of any decree of His will: this knowledge is called scientia media; but, he argues, it is impossible for the human mind to throw any light on the manner in which God, by this knowledge, knows our future conditioned free acts: pre-determination of any free act is destructive of freewill. But pre-determination implies necessarily an act of God’s will, or His decree,—therefore a free act must be independent of God’s decree : God therefore cannot know a future conditioned free act in His decree. His knowledge, therefore, of a future conditioned free act must be antecedent to and independent of His decree :—this knowledge is called scientia media.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Blackfriars , Volume 4 , Issue 45 , December 1923, pp. 1273 - 1288
Copyright
Copyright © 1923 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Principles of Natural Theology, by George Hayward Joyce, S.J. (Longmans, Green and Co.).

2 Fonseca, S.J., first invented this new doctrine, but did not dare publish it since, as he declares, it was against St. Augustine and St. Thomas; he left it to Molina, his pupil, to publish it.

3 Claudius Typhanius, De Ordine, cap. 24, says: ‘Nullum alium Theologum ante Molinam, ne per somnium. quidem, de scientia media cogitasse.’.

4 Père d'Alès, S.J., Recherches de Science Religieuse, Janvier-Mars, 1917.

5 Schneeman, S.J. Controv. divina gratiaæ (edit. 1881, p. 217).

6 Acta Apost. Sedis, 1916, p. 397. The words underlined are the very same Banez uses to show that he has not deviated from St. Thomas's doctrine. Cfr. Banez, IIa, IIaæ, q. 24, a. 6.

7 La Cienca Tomista, Mayo-Junkio, 1917, p. 385. El centenario de Suarez, published by the side of 24 propositions of St. Thomas (which according to the Congregation of Studies expressed his teaching), 24 propositions of Suarez; of these, 23 are directly opposed to St. Thomas.

8 Concordia, in Iam, q. 4, a. 13, disp. 26. (Paris, 1876, P-152–153).

9 Fr. Joyce refutes Molina and Suafez on this point. He establishes excellently the metaphysical truth of this principle; but it is a pity he does not apply the principle rigorously when treating of the Divine concurrence.

10 Gonet in Iam, disp. VIa, X. Also, Joannes a Sto. Thoma in Iam, q. 14, disp. XX, a. 4, n. 31.

11 Concordia, q. 23, a. 4 and 5, disp. I, membr. 77.

12 Ibid. q. 14, a. 13, disp. 23, Paris, p. 196.

13 St. Thomas, Ia, IIæ, q. 79, a. 1 and 2.

14 St. Thomas, Ia, IIæ, q. 110, a. 2.

15 Ibid, q. III, a. 2.

16 Ibid. q. 112, a. 2; q. 109, a. 9.

17 De Veritate, q. 22, a. 8.

18 Ibid. a. 9.

19 Not on account of the foreseen consent.

20 De Malo, q. 6, a. 1, ad 3.

21 Summa, Ia, q. 23, a. 5.

22 De Potentia, q. 3, a. 7, ad 15.

23 Concordia, q. 23, a. 4 and 5, disp. I, Paris, p. 550.

24 Ibid. q. 14, a. 13, disp. 52, p. 325.

25 Summa, Ia, q. 16, a. 7, ad 3.

27 Ibid. q. 14, a. 8.

26 Ibid. q. 19, a. 4.

28 Concordia, q. 14, a. 8, Paris, p. 2.

29 Concordia, q. 14, a. 13, disp. 52, Paris, 318.

30 Idem..

31 Suares, Opusc II, De Scientia futur. conting. II, c. 7, n. 15.

32 Concordia, q. 14, a. 13, disp. 52, Paris, p. 322.

33 Fr. Joyce does not mention that he is refuting Suarez.

34 Concordia, q. 14, a. 13, disp. 52, Paris, p. 319.

35 Suares, Op. II, De S'cientia futur. conting. II, c. 7, n. 3–6.

36 God does not decree to force upon us a determination that does not come from us, but to move us efficaciously to determine ourselves (by deliberation) in one sense rather than in another.

37 Note.—On p. 370, Fr. Joyce writes against the Thomist doctrine thus: ‘To say then that we are premoved by God and, as such, act freely, is to say that our action is at the same time free and not free.’.

38 Fr. Joyce says the same, p. 357 and p. 360.

39 De Regnon, S.J. Banez et Molina, p. 113–115.

40 De Regnon, S.J. Op. cit, p. 118.

41 d'Alès. Recherches de Science Religieuse. Janv-Mars, 1917, p. 23.

42 St. Thomas so clearly and distinctly says, Ia, q. 14, a. 8: ‘Cum enim forma intelligibilis ad opposita se habeat …non produceret determinatum effectum nisi determinaretur ad unum per appetitum… Unde necesse est quod scientia Dei est causa rerum secundum quod habet voluntatem conjunctam.’.