(i) Some of these revealed propositions can at least in principle be made evident to us through natural reason via philosophical inquiry. These are called the preambles of the faith and are truths having to do with the existence of God and certain of God's attributes--just the sort of truths that St. Thomas attempts to demonstrate in the rest of Book 1 (check the table of contents). 

(ii) Others among these propositions taught to us by God cannot even in principle be made intellectually evident to us through natural reason via philosophical inquiry. These are called the mysteries of the faith and include doctrines such as the Trinity, Original Sin, the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Resurrection, the Church, Grace, and the Sacraments, which are peculiarly Christian and which emerge from the "history of salvation." These mysteries, to repeat, cannot be made intellectually evident to us via philosophical inquiry.  Instead, they must be accepted on faith--where, in general, to accept something on faith is just to accept it on the word of someone we consider trustworthy, even though we cannot clearly "see" it to be true.

In Chapters 4-5 St. Thomas deals with two questions that are naturally prompted by this distinction between the preambles and the mysteries:
 

1. Why did God bother to reveal the preambles, given that we could in principle have come to evident knowledge of them through philosophical inquiry and without divine revelation? (Chapter 4) 

2. Isn't it unfair or unjust of God to require us to believe the mysteries of the faith, which cannot be proven by means of our natural reasoning abilities and which thus cannot be made evident to us through philosophical inquiry? (Chapter 5)

Drawing on the whole of chapters 1-9, you are charged  (a) with giving a clear, succint, and accurate account of St. Thomas's replies to these two questions, and (b) with including in your discussions of these two questions a brief reflection on the following: 

With respect to question 1: First, what is the role, if any, played by philosophical proofs of God's existence in the life of ordinary Christians? Second, given what St. Thomas says about the necessity of God's revealing even the preambles, why does he go on in Book 1 to give philosophical arguments for God's existence and attributes? 

With respect to question 2: Is it ever fair in non-religious "teaching contexts" to expect someone to accept on faith what he or she cannot see clearly? If so, what are the differences between Christian faith and the sort of faith needed in those contexts.