14. A cursory remark has yet to be made. Without faith there could no more be a moral philosophy adequately considered than there could be a theology. For unless the faith can thus be presupposed as a condition, the moral philosopher would not be justified in accepting as principles the findings of the "science of faith"; and a vital and real subalternation of moral philosophy adequately considered to theology would no longer be possible.

And yet, if it is highly desirable, it is not strictly necessary for the moral philosopher himself to possess the science of the theologian. If he accepts the theologian's conclusions without a comprehension of them, his own science will be in an imperfect state, but it will be able to exist nonetheless as a science. Still it is only when it is continuous with theology that it will be sub statu perfecto scientiae; just as it is only when theology itself will be continuous with the beatific^{51} vision that it will enjoy the perfect state of science, even though already here below it is properly a science.^{52}

On the other hand, it is clear that when we state that moral philosophy adequately considered is subalternate to theology, the word theology should not be restricted in meaning. This philosophy ought not only to be permitted to use theological conclusions concerning the last end, or this or that particular theological conclusion: as the occasion arises, it ought to be able to avail itself of the whole gamut of theological conclusions concerning the practical order, grace, the spiritual organism of the virtues and gifts, the existential conditions of man, as well as his relations with good and evil spirits.

{51} Cf. JOHN OF SAINT THOMAS, loc. cit., a. 5, n. 12 ff.

{52} Ibid., a. 3, n. 12, Solesmes, I, p. 356a.