|
64
|
1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="FP.i" class="div2">
|
|
|
2 <a href="summa.FP.html"></a>
|
|
|
3 <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a>
|
|
|
4 <h2 id="FP.i-p0.1">TREATISE ON SACRED DOCTRINE
|
|
|
5 <a id="FP.i-p0.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q1.html">(Q[1])</a>
|
|
|
6 </h2>
|
|
|
7 <div id="FP_Q1" class="div3">
|
|
|
8 <a href="summa.FP.i.html"></a>
|
|
|
9 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a>
|
|
|
10 <h3 id="FP_Q1-p0.1">THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SACRED DOCTRINE (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
|
|
|
11 <p id="FP_Q1-p1"> To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine.
|
|
|
12 Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry:
|
|
|
13 </p>
|
|
|
14 <p id="FP_Q1-p2"> (1) Whether it is necessary?</p>
|
|
|
15 <p id="FP_Q1-p3"> (2) Whether it is a science?</p>
|
|
|
16 <p id="FP_Q1-p4"> (3) Whether it is one or many?</p>
|
|
|
17 <p id="FP_Q1-p5"> (4) Whether it is speculative or practical?</p>
|
|
|
18 <p id="FP_Q1-p6"> (5) How it is compared with other sciences?</p>
|
|
|
19 <p id="FP_Q1-p7"> (6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?</p>
|
|
|
20 <p id="FP_Q1-p8"> (7) Whether God is its subject-matter?</p>
|
|
|
21 <p id="FP_Q1-p9"> (8) Whether it is a matter of argument?</p>
|
|
|
22 <p id="FP_Q1-p10"> (9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?</p>
|
|
|
23 <p id="FP_Q1-p11"> (10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?</p>
|
|
|
24 <div id="FP_Q1_A1" class="div4">
|
|
|
25 <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a>
|
|
|
26 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a>
|
|
|
27 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A1-p0.1">Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?</h4>
|
|
|
28 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p1"></p>
|
|
|
29 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p2">
|
|
|
30 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what
|
|
|
31 is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (
|
|
|
32 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.3.22" target="asv">Ecclus. 3:22</a>). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical
|
|
|
33 science is superfluous.
|
|
|
34 </p>
|
|
|
35 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p3">
|
|
|
36 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true.
|
|
|
37 But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called
|
|
|
38 theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is
|
|
|
39 no need of any further knowledge.
|
|
|
40 </p>
|
|
|
41 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p4">
|
|
|
42 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
|
|
|
43 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.3.16" target="asv">2 Tim. 3:16</a>): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture,
|
|
|
44 inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that
|
|
|
45 besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.
|
|
|
46 </p>
|
|
|
47 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p5">
|
|
|
48 <b>I answer that,</b> It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built
|
|
|
49 up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason:
|
|
|
50 "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (
|
|
|
51 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.66.4" target="asv">Is. 66:4</a>). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and
|
|
|
52 actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be
|
|
|
53 made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it
|
|
|
54 was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover,
|
|
|
55 would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation,
|
|
|
56 which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought
|
|
|
57 about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore
|
|
|
58 necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
|
|
|
59 </p>
|
|
|
60 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p6">
|
|
|
61 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once
|
|
|
62 they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee
|
|
|
63 above the understanding of man" (
|
|
|
64 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.3.25" target="asv">Ecclus. 3:25</a>). And in this, the sacred science consists.
|
|
|
65 </p>
|
|
|
66 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p7">
|
|
|
67 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the
|
|
|
68 physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics
|
|
|
69 (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which
|
|
|
70 may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural
|
|
|
71 reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred
|
|
|
72 doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
|
|
|
73 </p>
|
|
|
74 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p8"></p>
|
|
|
75 <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p9"></p>
|
|
|
76 <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a>
|
|
|
77 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a>
|
|
|
78 </div>
|
|
|
79 <div id="FP_Q1_A2" class="div4">
|
|
|
80 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a>
|
|
|
81 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a>
|
|
|
82 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A2-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a science?</h4>
|
|
|
83 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p1"></p>
|
|
|
84 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p2">
|
|
|
85 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine
|
|
|
86 proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not
|
|
|
87 faith" (
|
|
|
88 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.2" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:2</a>). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
|
|
|
89 </p>
|
|
|
90 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p3">
|
|
|
91 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of
|
|
|
92 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
|
|
|
93 </p>
|
|
|
94 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p4">
|
|
|
95 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected
|
|
|
96 and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.
|
|
|
97 </p>
|
|
|
98 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p5">
|
|
|
99 <b>I answer that,</b> Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from
|
|
|
100 a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which
|
|
|
101 proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established
|
|
|
102 by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that
|
|
|
103 sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the
|
|
|
104 science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician,
|
|
|
105 so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
|
|
|
106 </p>
|
|
|
107 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p6">
|
|
|
108 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science;
|
|
|
109 and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.
|
|
|
110 </p>
|
|
|
111 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p7">
|
|
|
112 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced
|
|
|
113 rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those
|
|
|
114 men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
|
|
|
115 </p>
|
|
|
116 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p8"></p>
|
|
|
117 <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p9"></p>
|
|
|
118 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a>
|
|
|
119 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a>
|
|
|
120 </div>
|
|
|
121 <div id="FP_Q1_A3" class="div4">
|
|
|
122 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a>
|
|
|
123 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a>
|
|
|
124 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A3-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is one science?</h4>
|
|
|
125 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p1"></p>
|
|
|
126 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p2">
|
|
|
127 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) "that science is one which
|
|
|
128 treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot
|
|
|
129 be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science.
|
|
|
130 </p>
|
|
|
131 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p3">
|
|
|
132 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical
|
|
|
133 sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science.
|
|
|
134 </p>
|
|
|
135 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p4">
|
|
|
136 <b>On the contrary,</b> Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" (
|
|
|
137 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.10.10" target="asv">Wis. 10:10</a>).
|
|
|
138 </p>
|
|
|
139 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p5">
|
|
|
140 <b>I answer that,</b> Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material
|
|
|
141 aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise
|
|
|
142 formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things
|
|
|
143 precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely
|
|
|
144 revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine
|
|
|
145 as under one science.
|
|
|
146 </p>
|
|
|
147 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p6">
|
|
|
148 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are
|
|
|
149 referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired.
|
|
|
150 </p>
|
|
|
151 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p7">
|
|
|
152 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or
|
|
|
153 habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the
|
|
|
154 "common sense" is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense,"
|
|
|
155 although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly,
|
|
|
156 objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science
|
|
|
157 under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it
|
|
|
158 were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything.
|
|
|
159 </p>
|
|
|
160 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p8"></p>
|
|
|
161 <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p9"></p>
|
|
|
162 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a>
|
|
|
163 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a>
|
|
|
164 </div>
|
|
|
165 <div id="FP_Q1_A4" class="div4">
|
|
|
166 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a>
|
|
|
167 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a>
|
|
|
168 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A4-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?</h4>
|
|
|
169 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p1"></p>
|
|
|
170 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p2">
|
|
|
171 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that which ends in action according to the
|
|
|
172 Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (
|
|
|
173 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.22" target="asv">James 1:22</a>). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
|
|
|
174 </p>
|
|
|
175 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p3">
|
|
|
176 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science.
|
|
|
177 Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
|
|
|
178 </p>
|
|
|
179 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p4">
|
|
|
180 <b>On the contrary,</b> Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture
|
|
|
181 with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not
|
|
|
182 a practical but a speculative science.
|
|
|
183 </p>
|
|
|
184 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p5">
|
|
|
185 <b>I answer that,</b> Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each
|
|
|
186 the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical
|
|
|
187 sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same
|
|
|
188 science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than
|
|
|
189 practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter,
|
|
|
190 inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss. This is a sufficient
|
|
|
191 answer to the Objections.
|
|
|
192 </p>
|
|
|
193 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p6"></p>
|
|
|
194 <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p7"></p>
|
|
|
195 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a>
|
|
|
196 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a>
|
|
|
197 </div>
|
|
|
198 <div id="FP_Q1_A5" class="div4">
|
|
|
199 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a>
|
|
|
200 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a>
|
|
|
201 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A5-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?</h4>
|
|
|
202 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p1"></p>
|
|
|
203 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p2">
|
|
|
204 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it
|
|
|
205 establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine;
|
|
|
206 for its principles---namely, articles of faith---can be doubted. Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler.
|
|
|
207 </p>
|
|
|
208 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p3">
|
|
|
209 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is the sign of a lower science to depend upon a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred doctrine does
|
|
|
210 in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in his Epistle to Magnus, that "the ancient doctors so
|
|
|
211 enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou knowest not what more to admire in them, their
|
|
|
212 profane erudition or their scriptural learning." Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to
|
|
|
213 other sciences.
|
|
|
214 </p>
|
|
|
215 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p4">
|
|
|
216 <b>On the contrary,</b> Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower" (
|
|
|
217 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.9.3" target="asv">Prov. 9:3</a>).
|
|
|
218 </p>
|
|
|
219 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p5">
|
|
|
220 <b>I answer that,</b> Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one
|
|
|
221 speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher
|
|
|
222 worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater
|
|
|
223 certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human
|
|
|
224 reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point
|
|
|
225 of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend
|
|
|
226 human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason's grasp. Of the practical sciences,
|
|
|
227 that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the
|
|
|
228 good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal
|
|
|
229 bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every
|
|
|
230 standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.
|
|
|
231 </p>
|
|
|
232 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p6">
|
|
|
233 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of
|
|
|
234 our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun" (Metaph.
|
|
|
235 ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths,
|
|
|
236 but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that
|
|
|
237 may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said
|
|
|
238 in de Animalibus xi.
|
|
|
239 </p>
|
|
|
240 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p7">
|
|
|
241 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order
|
|
|
242 to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation.
|
|
|
243 Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens:
|
|
|
244 even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that supply their
|
|
|
245 materials, as political of military science. That it thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to
|
|
|
246 the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from which proceed the other
|
|
|
247 sciences) to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science.
|
|
|
248 </p>
|
|
|
249 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p8"></p>
|
|
|
250 <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p9"></p>
|
|
|
251 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a>
|
|
|
252 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a>
|
|
|
253 </div>
|
|
|
254 <div id="FP_Q1_A6" class="div4">
|
|
|
255 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a>
|
|
|
256 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a>
|
|
|
257 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A6-p0.1">Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?</h4>
|
|
|
258 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p1"></p>
|
|
|
259 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p2">
|
|
|
260 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this doctrine is not the same as wisdom. For no doctrine which borrows its principles is worthy of the name
|
|
|
261 of wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Metaph. i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore
|
|
|
262 this science is not wisdom.
|
|
|
263 </p>
|
|
|
264 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p3">
|
|
|
265 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is
|
|
|
266 clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom.
|
|
|
267 </p>
|
|
|
268 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p4">
|
|
|
269 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this doctrine is acquired by study, whereas wisdom is acquired by God's inspiration; so that it is numbered among
|
|
|
270 the gifts of the Holy Spirit (
|
|
|
271 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.11.2" target="asv">Is. 11:2</a>). Therefore this doctrine is not the same as wisdom.
|
|
|
272 </p>
|
|
|
273 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p5">
|
|
|
274 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
|
|
|
275 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.6" target="asv">Dt. 4:6</a>): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations."
|
|
|
276 </p>
|
|
|
277 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p6">
|
|
|
278 <b>I answer that,</b> This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of
|
|
|
279 a wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in the light of some higher principle, he is
|
|
|
280 said to be wise in any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus in the order of building, he who
|
|
|
281 plans the form of the house is called wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers
|
|
|
282 who trim the wood and make ready the stones: "As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation" (
|
|
|
283 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:10</a>). Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end:
|
|
|
284 "Wisdom is prudence to a man" (
|
|
|
285 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.23" target="asv">Prov. 10: 23</a>). Therefore he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the whole universe, namely God, is most of all called wise.
|
|
|
286 Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as
|
|
|
287 Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause---not only so
|
|
|
288 far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him---"That which is known of God is manifest in them"
|
|
|
289 (
|
|
|
290 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.19" target="asv">Rom. 1:19</a>)---but also as far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called wisdom.
|
|
|
291 </p>
|
|
|
292 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p7">
|
|
|
293 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through
|
|
|
294 the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order.
|
|
|
295 </p>
|
|
|
296 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p8">
|
|
|
297 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other
|
|
|
298 science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has
|
|
|
299 no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary
|
|
|
300 to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels
|
|
|
301 and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (
|
|
|
302 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.10.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 10:4,5</a>).
|
|
|
303 </p>
|
|
|
304 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p9">
|
|
|
305 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since judgment appertains to wisdom, the twofold manner of judging produces a twofold wisdom. A man may judge in one way
|
|
|
306 by inclination, as whoever has the habit of a virtue judges rightly of what concerns that virtue by his very inclination towards
|
|
|
307 it. Hence it is the virtuous man, as we read, who is the measure and rule of human acts. In another way, by knowledge, just
|
|
|
308 as a man learned in moral science might be able to judge rightly about virtuous
|
|
|
309 acts, though he had not the virtue. The first manner of judging divine things belongs to that wisdom which is set down among
|
|
|
310 the gifts of the Holy Ghost: "The spiritual man judgeth all things" (
|
|
|
311 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:15</a>). And Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "Hierotheus is taught not by mere learning, but by experience of divine things." The
|
|
|
312 second manner of judging belongs to this doctrine which is acquired by study, though its principles are obtained by revelation.
|
|
|
313 </p>
|
|
|
314 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p10"></p>
|
|
|
315 <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p11"></p>
|
|
|
316 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a>
|
|
|
317 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a>
|
|
|
318 </div>
|
|
|
319 <div id="FP_Q1_A7" class="div4">
|
|
|
320 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a>
|
|
|
321 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a>
|
|
|
322 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A7-p0.1">Whether God is the object of this science?</h4>
|
|
|
323 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p1"></p>
|
|
|
324 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p2">
|
|
|
325 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that God is not the object of this science. For in every science, the nature of its object is presupposed. But this
|
|
|
326 science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence
|
|
|
327 of God." Therefore God is not the object of this science.
|
|
|
328 </p>
|
|
|
329 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p3">
|
|
|
330 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy
|
|
|
331 Writ we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many other things, such as creatures and human morality.
|
|
|
332 Therefore God is not the object of this science.
|
|
|
333 </p>
|
|
|
334 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p4">
|
|
|
335 <b>On the contrary,</b> The object of the science is that of which it principally treats. But in this science, the treatment is mainly about God;
|
|
|
336 for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is the object of this science.
|
|
|
337 </p>
|
|
|
338 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p5">
|
|
|
339 <b>I answer that,</b> God is the object of this science. The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty
|
|
|
340 and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things
|
|
|
341 are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence
|
|
|
342 colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are
|
|
|
343 treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and
|
|
|
344 end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this
|
|
|
345 science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must
|
|
|
346 be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of
|
|
|
347 in
|
|
|
348 this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other
|
|
|
349 than God---that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all
|
|
|
350 these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God.
|
|
|
351 </p>
|
|
|
352 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p6">
|
|
|
353 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His effects, either
|
|
|
354 of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even
|
|
|
355 as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of
|
|
|
356 a definition of the cause.
|
|
|
357 </p>
|
|
|
358 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p7">
|
|
|
359 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Whatever other conclusions are reached in this sacred science are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or accidents
|
|
|
360 but as in some way related to Him.
|
|
|
361 </p>
|
|
|
362 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p8"></p>
|
|
|
363 <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p9"></p>
|
|
|
364 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a>
|
|
|
365 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a>
|
|
|
366 </div>
|
|
|
367 <div id="FP_Q1_A8" class="div4">
|
|
|
368 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a>
|
|
|
369 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a>
|
|
|
370 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A8-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?</h4>
|
|
|
371 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p1"></p>
|
|
|
372 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p2">
|
|
|
373 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought."
|
|
|
374 But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (
|
|
|
375 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.31" target="asv">Jn. 20:31</a>). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.
|
|
|
376 </p>
|
|
|
377 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p3">
|
|
|
378 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it
|
|
|
379 seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is
|
|
|
380 unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings
|
|
|
381 its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.
|
|
|
382 </p>
|
|
|
383 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p4">
|
|
|
384 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to
|
|
|
385 exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (
|
|
|
386 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.9" target="asv">Titus 1:9</a>).
|
|
|
387 </p>
|
|
|
388 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p5">
|
|
|
389 <b>I answer that,</b> As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths
|
|
|
390 in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them
|
|
|
391 it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection
|
|
|
392 (
|
|
|
393 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 15</a>). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical
|
|
|
394 sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to
|
|
|
395 a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the
|
|
|
396 opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections.
|
|
|
397 Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if
|
|
|
398 the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts
|
|
|
399 in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing
|
|
|
400 of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his
|
|
|
401 objections---if he has any---against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can
|
|
|
402 never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties
|
|
|
403 that can be answered.
|
|
|
404 </p>
|
|
|
405 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p6">
|
|
|
406 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues
|
|
|
407 from articles of faith to other truths.
|
|
|
408 </p>
|
|
|
409 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p7">
|
|
|
410 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus
|
|
|
411 we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity
|
|
|
412 of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority
|
|
|
413 based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use
|
|
|
414 even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear
|
|
|
415 other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural
|
|
|
416 reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into
|
|
|
417 captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (
|
|
|
418 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A8-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.10.5" target="asv">2 Cor. 10:5</a>). Hence sacred doctrine makes use
|
|
|
419 also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul
|
|
|
420 quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (
|
|
|
421 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A8-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.17.28" target="asv">Acts 17:28</a>). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the
|
|
|
422 authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one
|
|
|
423 that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets
|
|
|
424 who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says
|
|
|
425 (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor
|
|
|
426 as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything
|
|
|
427 in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness
|
|
|
428 and learning."
|
|
|
429 </p>
|
|
|
430 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p8"></p>
|
|
|
431 <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p9"></p>
|
|
|
432 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a>
|
|
|
433 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a>
|
|
|
434 </div>
|
|
|
435 <div id="FP_Q1_A9" class="div4">
|
|
|
436 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a>
|
|
|
437 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A10.html"></a>
|
|
|
438 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A9-p0.1">Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?</h4>
|
|
|
439 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p1"></p>
|
|
|
440 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p2">
|
|
|
441 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors. For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit
|
|
|
442 this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper
|
|
|
443 to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes.
|
|
|
444 </p>
|
|
|
445 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p3">
|
|
|
446 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: "They
|
|
|
447 that explain me shall have life everlasting" (
|
|
|
448 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A9-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.24.31" target="asv">Ecclus. 24:31</a>). But by such similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths by likening them to corporeal things
|
|
|
449 does not befit this science.
|
|
|
450 </p>
|
|
|
451 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p4">
|
|
|
452 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to
|
|
|
453 represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is
|
|
|
454 often found in Scriptures.
|
|
|
455 </p>
|
|
|
456 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p5">
|
|
|
457 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
|
|
|
458 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.12.10" target="asv">Osee 12:10</a>): "I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets." But to put forward anything by
|
|
|
459 means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors.
|
|
|
460 </p>
|
|
|
461 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p6">
|
|
|
462 <b>I answer that,</b> It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God
|
|
|
463 provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths
|
|
|
464 through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly
|
|
|
465 taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i):
|
|
|
466 "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting
|
|
|
467 Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons---"To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (
|
|
|
468 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A9-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.14" target="asv">Rom. 1:14</a>)---that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple
|
|
|
469 who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.
|
|
|
470 </p>
|
|
|
471 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p7">
|
|
|
472 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But
|
|
|
473 sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.
|
|
|
474 </p>
|
|
|
475 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p8">
|
|
|
476 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel.
|
|
|
477 Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to
|
|
|
478 rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom the revelation has been made
|
|
|
479 others also may receive instruction in these matters. Hence those things that are taught
|
|
|
480 metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful
|
|
|
481 for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not
|
|
|
482 that which is holy to dogs" (
|
|
|
483 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A9-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.6" target="asv">Mat. 7:6</a>).
|
|
|
484 </p>
|
|
|
485 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p9">
|
|
|
486 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of less noble
|
|
|
487 than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons. Firstly, because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error.
|
|
|
488 For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt
|
|
|
489 had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who
|
|
|
490 could think of nothing nobler than bodies. Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this
|
|
|
491 life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God
|
|
|
492 form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him. Thirdly, because thereby divine truths
|
|
|
493 are the better hidden from the unworthy.
|
|
|
494 </p>
|
|
|
495 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p10"></p>
|
|
|
496 <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p11"></p>
|
|
|
497 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a>
|
|
|
498 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A10.html"></a>
|
|
|
499 </div>
|
|
|
500 <div id="FP_Q1_A10" class="div4">
|
|
|
501 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a>
|
|
|
502 <a href="summa.FP.ii.html"></a>
|
|
|
503 <h4 id="FP_Q1_A10-p0.1">Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?</h4>
|
|
|
504 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p1"></p>
|
|
|
505 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p2">
|
|
|
506 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral,
|
|
|
507 and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence
|
|
|
508 no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state
|
|
|
509 the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a
|
|
|
510 word.
|
|
|
511 </p>
|
|
|
512 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p3">
|
|
|
513 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy
|
|
|
514 and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore
|
|
|
515 it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.
|
|
|
516 </p>
|
|
|
517 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p4">
|
|
|
518 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.
|
|
|
519 </p>
|
|
|
520 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p5">
|
|
|
521 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same
|
|
|
522 sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."
|
|
|
523 </p>
|
|
|
524 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p6">
|
|
|
525 <b>I answer that,</b> The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but
|
|
|
526 also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property,
|
|
|
527 that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words
|
|
|
528 signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification
|
|
|
529 whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the
|
|
|
530 literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (
|
|
|
531 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A10-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.1" target="asv">Heb. 10:1</a>) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory."
|
|
|
532 Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the
|
|
|
533 things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ,
|
|
|
534 or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they
|
|
|
535 signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends,
|
|
|
536 and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting,
|
|
|
537 as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.
|
|
|
538 </p>
|
|
|
539 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p7">
|
|
|
540 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses
|
|
|
541 are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves
|
|
|
542 types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one---the literal---from
|
|
|
543 which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as
|
|
|
544 Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to
|
|
|
545 faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.
|
|
|
546 </p>
|
|
|
547 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p8">
|
|
|
548 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These three---history, etiology, analogy---are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds
|
|
|
549 (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the
|
|
|
550 reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives---namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy
|
|
|
551 whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the
|
|
|
552 truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv,
|
|
|
553 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only---the historical, the allegorical,
|
|
|
554 and the tropological.
|
|
|
555 </p>
|
|
|
556 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p9">
|
|
|
557 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the
|
|
|
558 figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not
|
|
|
559 that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing
|
|
|
560 false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.
|
|
|
561 </p>
|
|
|
562 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p10"></p>
|
|
|
563 <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p11"></p>
|
|
|
564 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a>
|
|
|
565 <a href="summa.FP.ii.html"></a>
|
|
|
566 </div>
|
|
|
567 <a href="summa.FP.i.html"></a>
|
|
|
568 <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a>
|
|
|
569 </div>
|
|
|
570 <a href="summa.FP.html"></a>
|
|
|
571 <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a>
|
|
|
572 `
|
|
|
573 </div> |
