Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff summa/english/FP_i.html @ 64:11682db9b870
from auto-split
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/summa/english/FP_i.html Sun Jan 03 14:43:02 2010 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,573 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="FP.i" class="div2"> + <a href="summa.FP.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a> + <h2 id="FP.i-p0.1">TREATISE ON SACRED DOCTRINE + <a id="FP.i-p0.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q1.html">(Q[1])</a> + </h2> + <div id="FP_Q1" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.FP.i.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="FP_Q1-p0.1">THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SACRED DOCTRINE (TEN ARTICLES)</h3> + <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. + Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry: + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p2"> (1) Whether it is necessary?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p3"> (2) Whether it is a science?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p4"> (3) Whether it is one or many?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p5"> (4) Whether it is speculative or practical?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p6"> (5) How it is compared with other sciences?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p7"> (6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p8"> (7) Whether God is its subject-matter?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p9"> (8) Whether it is a matter of argument?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p10"> (9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?</p> + <p id="FP_Q1-p11"> (10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?</p> + <div id="FP_Q1_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A1-p0.1">Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p2"> + <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 + is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" ( + <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 + science is superfluous. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p3"> + <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. + But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called + theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is + no need of any further knowledge. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <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, + inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that + besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p5"> + <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 + up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: + "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" ( + <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 + actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be + made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it + was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, + 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, + which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought + about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore + necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p6"> + <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 + they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee + above the understanding of man" ( + <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. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the + physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics + (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which + may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural + reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred + doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p8"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A1-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A2-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a science?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine + proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not + faith" ( + <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. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of + Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected + and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p5"> + <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 + a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which + proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established + by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that + sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the + science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, + so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p6"> + <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; + and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p7"> + <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 + rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those + men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p8"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A2-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A3-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is one science?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p2"> + <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 + treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot + be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical + sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.10.10" target="asv">Wis. 10:10</a>). + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p5"> + <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 + aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise + formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things + precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely + revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine + as under one science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p6"> + <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 + referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or + habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the + "common sense" is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense," + although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, + objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science + under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it + were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p8"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A3-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A4-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p2"> + <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 + Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" ( + <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. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p3"> + <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. + Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture + with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not + a practical but a speculative science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each + the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical + sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same + science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than + practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, + inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss. This is a sufficient + answer to the Objections. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p6"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A4-p7"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A5-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p2"> + <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 + establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine; + for its principles---namely, articles of faith---can be doubted. Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p3"> + <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 + in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in his Epistle to Magnus, that "the ancient doctors so + enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou knowest not what more to admire in them, their + profane erudition or their scriptural learning." Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to + other sciences. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.9.3" target="asv">Prov. 9:3</a>). + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one + speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher + worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater + certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human + reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point + of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend + human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason's grasp. Of the practical sciences, + that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the + 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 + bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every + standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p6"> + <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 + our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun" (Metaph. + 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, + but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that + may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said + in de Animalibus xi. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p7"> + <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 + to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation. + Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens: + even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that supply their + materials, as political of military science. That it thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to + the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from which proceed the other + sciences) to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p8"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A5-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A6-p0.1">Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p2"> + <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 + of wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Metaph. i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore + this science is not wisdom. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p3"> + <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 + clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p4"> + <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 + the gifts of the Holy Spirit ( + <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. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <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." + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p6"> + <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 + a wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in the light of some higher principle, he is + said to be wise in any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus in the order of building, he who + plans the form of the house is called wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers + who trim the wood and make ready the stones: "As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation" ( + <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: + "Wisdom is prudence to a man" ( + <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. + Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as + Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause---not only so + far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him---"That which is known of God is manifest in them" + ( + <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. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p7"> + <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 + the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p8"> + <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 + science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has + no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary + to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels + and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.10.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 10:4,5</a>). + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p9"> + <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 + by inclination, as whoever has the habit of a virtue judges rightly of what concerns that virtue by his very inclination towards + 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 + as a man learned in moral science might be able to judge rightly about virtuous + acts, though he had not the virtue. The first manner of judging divine things belongs to that wisdom which is set down among + the gifts of the Holy Ghost: "The spiritual man judgeth all things" ( + <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 + second manner of judging belongs to this doctrine which is acquired by study, though its principles are obtained by revelation. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A7-p0.1">Whether God is the object of this science?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p2"> + <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 + science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence + of God." Therefore God is not the object of this science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy + Writ we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many other things, such as creatures and human morality. + Therefore God is not the object of this science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p4"> + <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; + for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is the object of this science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p5"> + <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 + and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things + are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence + colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are + treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and + end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this + science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must + be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of + in + this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other + than God---that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all + these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p6"> + <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 + of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even + as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of + a definition of the cause. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p7"> + <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 + but as in some way related to Him. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p8"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A7-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A8-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p2"> + <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." + But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" ( + <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. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p3"> + <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 + seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is + unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings + its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p4"> + <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 + exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.9" target="asv">Titus 1:9</a>). + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p5"> + <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 + in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them + it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection + ( + <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 + sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to + a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the + opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. + Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if + the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts + in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing + of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his + objections---if he has any---against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can + never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties + that can be answered. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p6"> + <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 + from articles of faith to other truths. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus + we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity + of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority + based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use + even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear + other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural + reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into + captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" ( + <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 + also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul + quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" ( + <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 + authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one + that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets + who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says + (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor + 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 + in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness + and learning." + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p8"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A8-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A9-p0.1">Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p2"> + <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 + this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper + to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p3"> + <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 + that explain me shall have life everlasting" ( + <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 + does not befit this science. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to + represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is + often found in Scriptures. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <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 + means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p6"> + <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 + provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths + through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly + taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): + "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting + Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons---"To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" ( + <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 + who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p7"> + <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 + sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p8"> + <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. + 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 + rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom the revelation has been made + others also may receive instruction in these matters. Hence those things that are taught + metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful + for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not + that which is holy to dogs" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q1_A9-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.6" target="asv">Mat. 7:6</a>). + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p9"> + <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 + than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons. Firstly, because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error. + For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt + had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who + could think of nothing nobler than bodies. Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this + life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God + form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him. Thirdly, because thereby divine truths + are the better hidden from the unworthy. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p10"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A9-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="FP_Q1_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP.ii.html"></a> + <h4 id="FP_Q1_A10-p0.1">Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?</h4> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, + and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence + no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state + the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a + word. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy + and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore + it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p5"> + <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 + sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery." + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p6"> + <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 + also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, + that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words + signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification + whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the + literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says ( + <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." + Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the + 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, + 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 + signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, + and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, + as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p7"> + <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 + are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves + types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one---the literal---from + which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as + Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to + faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p8"> + <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 + (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the + reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives---namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy + whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the + truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, + 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only---the historical, the allegorical, + and the tropological. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p9"> + <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 + figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not + that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing + false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ. + </p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p10"></p> + <p id="FP_Q1_A10-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP.ii.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.FP.i.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.FP.html"></a> + <a href="summa.FP_Q1.html"></a> + ` + </div> \ No newline at end of file