SEVENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 10, Art. 7]

Whether One Ought to Dispute with Unbelievers in Public?

Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to dispute with

unbelievers in public. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:14): "Contend

not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the

hearers." But it is impossible to dispute with unbelievers publicly

without contending in words. Therefore one ought not to dispute

publicly with unbelievers.

Obj. 2: Further, the law of Martianus Augustus confirmed by the

canons [*De Sum. Trin. Cod. lib. i, leg. Nemo] expresses itself thus:

"It is an insult to the judgment of the most religious synod, if

anyone ventures to debate or dispute in public about matters which

have once been judged and disposed of." Now all matters of faith have

been decided by the holy councils. Therefore it is an insult to the

councils, and consequently a grave sin to presume to dispute in public

about matters of faith.

Obj. 3: Further, disputations are conducted by means of arguments.

But an argument is a reason in settlement of a dubious matter:

whereas things that are of faith, being most certain, ought not to be

a matter of doubt. Therefore one ought not to dispute in public about

matters of faith.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Acts 9:22, 29) that "Saul

increased much more in strength, and confounded the Jews," and that

"he spoke . . . to the gentiles and disputed with the Greeks."

_I answer that,_ In disputing about the faith, two things must be

observed: one on the part of the disputant; the other on the part of

his hearers. On the part of the disputant, we must consider his

intention. For if he were to dispute as though he had doubts about

the faith, and did not hold the truth of faith for certain, and as

though he intended to probe it with arguments, without doubt he would

sin, as being doubtful of the faith and an unbeliever. On the other

hand, it is praiseworthy to dispute about the faith in order to

confute errors, or for practice.

On the part of the hearers we must consider whether those who hear

the disputation are instructed and firm in the faith, or simple and

wavering. As to those who are well instructed and firm in the faith,

there can be no danger in disputing about the faith in their

presence. But as to simple-minded people, we must make a distinction;

because either they are provoked and molested by unbelievers, for

instance, Jews or heretics, or pagans who strive to corrupt the faith

in them, or else they are not subject to provocation in this matter,

as in those countries where there are no unbelievers. In the first

case it is necessary to dispute in public about the faith, provided

there be those who are equal and adapted to the task of confuting

errors; since in this way simple people are strengthened in the

faith, and unbelievers are deprived of the opportunity to deceive,

while if those who ought to withstand the perverters of the truth of

faith were silent, this would tend to strengthen error. Hence Gregory

says (Pastor. ii, 4): "Even as a thoughtless speech gives rise to

error, so does an indiscreet silence leave those in error who might

have been instructed." On the other hand, in the second case it is

dangerous to dispute in public about the faith, in the presence of

simple people, whose faith for this very reason is more firm, that

they have never heard anything differing from what they believe.

Hence it is not expedient for them to hear what unbelievers have to

say against the faith.

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle does not entirely forbid disputations, but

such as are inordinate, and consist of contentious words rather than

of sound speeches.

Reply Obj. 2: That law forbade those public disputations about the

faith, which arise from doubting the faith, but not those which are

for the safeguarding thereof.

Reply Obj. 3: One ought to dispute about matters of faith, not as

though one doubted about them, but in order to make the truth known,

and to confute errors. For, in order to confirm the faith, it is

necessary sometimes to dispute with unbelievers, sometimes by

defending the faith, according to 1 Pet. 3:15: "Being ready always

to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope and faith

which is in you [*Vulg.: 'Of that hope which is in you'; St. Thomas'

reading is apparently taken from Bede]." Sometimes again, it is

necessary, in order to convince those who are in error, according to

Titus 1:9: "That he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to

convince the gainsayers."

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 79 / 1128 题