Theology is not a science by Aristotle's strict definition, yet it is rightly called science by the evidence of the consequence

So much, then, is clear about the necessity of theology. But now, that we may hold clearly and distinctly what it is, we must first inquire into its genus. The first question, therefore, is whether our theology is a science. On which we say that theology is not a science accurately speaking, and according to the definition of science laid down by Aristotle. For science according to Aristotle is an evident assent: but theological conclusions are not evident. And that is because they are gathered from inevident principles. For faith is the habit of the theological principles. But faith is an inevident habit. For the Apostle opposes faith to sight: (2 Corinthians 5:7) — By faith, he says, we walk, not by sight. And (Hebrews 11:1) teaches that faith is of things that are not seen. Faith, he says, is the substance of things hoped for, and the argument of things that are not seen.

Now those things are said to be evident which of themselves move the intellect to the knowledge of them — that is, which of themselves persuade and commend themselves to the mind, and by their own light so strike and convince the mind that it cannot but assent to them. That this does not suit the mysteries of our faith is plain. For they are not things known of themselves, whose truth of itself lays itself open to our mind. But that we assent to them, we do because of the authority and testimony of God, who revealed and confirmed them by his Word.

But here a distinction must be made between the evidence of the consequent and the evidence of the consequence. For theological conclusions are indeed not evident: yet the consequence by which they are drawn from their principles is evident. From inevident premises, to be sure — but they are gathered evidently. For example: that Christ is true God and true man is a principle of faith, which of itself is not evident, but is believed because of God's testimony alone. Yet from it it evidently follows that in Christ there are two wills, one divine and the other human. And so in this respect theology lacks nothing toward the true character of a science.

Although, however, theology is not a science properly and strictly speaking, and according to all the conditions of science laid down by Aristotle, still there is no habit of the mind to which it more nearly approaches, and to which it ought rather to be referred. For it is a certain knowledge evidently deduced from certain principles, which, though they are inevident, are no less certain than if they were evident. And so it is rightly and fittingly called a science, nor can it be designated by any more apt name.