<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="bi.xsl"?>
<!DOCTYPE div1
  SYSTEM "../../dtd/ThML10.dtd">
<div1>
<!-- Prooemium and Latin added by HST --> 
<div2 id="Prooemium" title="Introduction">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<div3 id="Prooemium-p0">
<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en">
Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the
proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle:
As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat -- 1
Corinthians 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever
belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the
instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this
doctrine have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written
by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless
questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things
that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the
order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book
might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too,
because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the
minds of readers.
</p>
<p xml:lang="la">
Quia Catholicae veritatis doctor non solum provectos debet instruere,
sed ad eum pertinet etiam incipientes erudire, secundum illud apostoli
I ad Corinth. III, tanquam parvulis in Christo, lac vobis potum dedi,
non escam; propositum nostrae intentionis in hoc opere est, ea quae ad
Christianam religionem pertinent, eo modo tradere, secundum quod
congruit ad eruditionem incipientium. Consideravimus namque huius
doctrinae novitios, in his quae a diversis conscripta sunt, plurimum
impediri, partim quidem propter multiplicationem inutilium
quaestionum, articulorum et argumentorum; partim etiam quia ea quae
sunt necessaria talibus ad sciendum, non traduntur secundum ordinem
disciplinae, sed secundum quod requirebat librorum expositio, vel
secundum quod se praebebat occasio disputandi; partim quidem quia
eorundem frequens repetitio et fastidium et confusionem generabat in
animis auditorum.
</p>
</div>
<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en">
Endeavouring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by
God's help, to set forth whatever is included in this sacred doctrine
as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.
</p>
<p xml:lang="la">
Haec igitur et alia huiusmodi evitare studentes, tentabimus, cum
confidentia divini auxilii, ea quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinent,
breviter ac dilucide prosequi, secundum quod materia patietur.
</p>
</div>
</div3>
</div2>
<div2 id="FP.i" next="FP_Q1" prev="FP" progress="0.01%" n="i" title="Treatise on Sacred Doctrine (Q[1])">
		  <h2 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i-p0.1">TREATISE ON SACRED DOCTRINE <a xml:link="simple" shape="rect" id="FP.i-p0.2" href="#FP.i.FP_Q1">(Q[1])</a></h2>

<div3 id="FP.i.FP_Q1" next="FP_Q1_A1" prev="FP.i" progress="0.01%" n="i" title="Question. 1 - The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine (Ten Articles)">
			 <h3 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p0.1">THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SACRED DOCTRINE (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>

			 <div class="bilingual">
<div xml:lang="en">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.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 xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p2"> (1) Whether it is necessary?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p3"> (2) Whether it is a science?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p4"> (3) Whether it is one or many?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p5"> (4) Whether it is speculative or practical?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p6"> (5) How it is compared with other sciences?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p7"> (6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p8"> (7) Whether God is its subject-matter?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p9"> (8) Whether it is a matter of argument?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p10"> (9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?</p>
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1-p11"> (10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?</p>
</div>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 pr."><a name="28232"><span class="ref">[28232]
I&ordf; q. 1 pr.</span></a> Et ut intentio nostra sub aliquibus
certis limitibus comprehendatur, necessarium est primo investigare
de ipsa sacra doctrina, qualis sit, et ad quae se extendat. Circa
quae quaerenda sunt decem. Primo, de necessitate huius doctrinae.
Secundo, utrum sit scientia. Tertio, utrum sit una vel plures.
Quarto, utrum sit speculativa vel practica. Quinto, de comparatione
eius ad alias scientias. Sexto, utrum sit sapientia. Septimo, quid
sit subiectum eius. Octavo, utrum sit argumentativa. Nono, utrum
uti debeat metaphoricis vel symbolicis locutionibus. Decimo, utrum
Scriptura sacra huius doctrinae sit secundum plures sensus
exponenda.</p>
</div>


<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1" next="FP_Q1_A2" prev="FP_Q1" progress="0.01%" n="i" title="Article. 1 - Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1-p0.1">Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Sir.3.22"
parsed="vul|Sir|3|22|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1-p2.1"
passage="Ecclus. 3:22">Ecclus. 3:22</scripRef>). But whatever is not
above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore
any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="28233"><span class=
"ref">[28233] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod non sit necessarium, praeter philosophicas
disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi. Ad ea enim quae supra rationem
sunt, homo non debet conari, secundum illud Eccli. III, <i>altiora
te ne quaesieris</i>. Sed ea quae rationi subduntur, sufficienter
traduntur in philosophicis disciplinis. Superfluum igitur videtur,
praeter philosophicas disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="28234"><span class=
"ref">[28234] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
doctrina non potest esse nisi de ente, nihil enim scitur nisi
verum, quod cum ente convertitur. Sed de omnibus entibus tractatur
in philosophicis disciplinis, et etiam de Deo, unde quaedam pars
philosophiae dicitur theologia, sive scientia divina, ut patet per
philosophum in VI Metaphys. Non fuit igitur necessarium, praeter
philosophicas disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1-p4"><b>On the
contrary,</b> It is written (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:2Tim.3.16"
parsed="vul|2Tim|3|16|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1-p4.1" passage="2
Tim. 3:16">2 Tim. 3:16</scripRef>): "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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 1 s. c."><a name="28235"><span class=
"ref">[28235] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod dicitur II ad Tim. III, <i>omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata
utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad
erudiendum ad iustitiam</i>. Scriptura autem divinitus inspirata
non pertinet ad philosophicas disciplinas, quae sunt secundum
rationem humanam inventae. Utile igitur est, praeter philosophicas
disciplinas, esse aliam scientiam divinitus inspiratam.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Isa.66.4" parsed="vul|Isa|66|4|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1-p5.1" passage="Is. 66:4">Is. 66:4</scripRef>). 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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 1 co."><a name="28236"><span class=
"ref">[28236] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod necessarium fuit ad humanam salutem, esse doctrinam quandam
secundum revelationem divinam, praeter philosophicas disciplinas,
quae ratione humana investigantur. Primo quidem, quia homo
ordinatur ad Deum sicut ad quendam finem qui comprehensionem
rationis excedit, secundum illud Isaiae LXIV, <i>oculus non vidit
Deus absque te, quae praeparasti diligentibus te</i>. Finem autem
oportet esse praecognitum hominibus, qui suas intentiones et
actiones debent ordinare in finem. Unde necessarium fuit homini ad
salutem, quod ei nota fierent quaedam per revelationem divinam,
quae rationem humanam excedunt. Ad ea etiam quae de Deo ratione
humana investigari possunt, necessarium fuit hominem instrui
revelatione divina. Quia veritas de Deo, per rationem investigata,
a paucis, et per longum tempus, et cum admixtione multorum errorum,
homini proveniret, a cuius tamen veritatis cognitione dependet tota
hominis salus, quae in Deo est. Ut igitur salus hominibus et
convenientius et certius proveniat, necessarium fuit quod de
divinis per divinam revelationem instruantur. Necessarium igitur
fuit, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, quae per rationem
investigantur, sacram doctrinam per revelationem haberi.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Sir.3.25" parsed="vul|Sir|3|25|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A1-p6.1"
passage="Ecclus. 3:25">Ecclus. 3:25</scripRef>). And in this, the
sacred science consists.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="28237"><span class=
"ref">[28237] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod, licet ea quae sunt altiora hominis cognitione, non
sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda, sunt tamen, a Deo revelata,
suscipienda per fidem. Unde et ibidem subditur, <i>plurima supra
sensum hominum ostensa sunt tibi</i>. Et in huiusmodi sacra
doctrina consistit.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="28238"><span class=
"ref">[28238] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod diversa ratio cognoscibilis diversitatem scientiarum
inducit. Eandem enim conclusionem demonstrat astrologus et
naturalis, puta quod terra est rotunda, sed astrologus per medium
mathematicum, idest a materia abstractum; naturalis autem per
medium circa materiam consideratum. Unde nihil prohibet de eisdem
rebus, de quibus philosophicae disciplinae tractant secundum quod
sunt cognoscibilia lumine naturalis rationis, et aliam scientiam
tractare secundum quod cognoscuntur lumine divinae revelationis.
Unde theologia quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinet, differt secundum
genus ab illa theologia quae pars philosophiae ponitur.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A2" next="FP_Q1_A3" prev="FP_Q1_A1" progress="0.04%" n="ii" title="Article. 2 - Whether sacred doctrine is a science?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A2-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a science?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:2Thess.3.2" parsed="vul|2Thess|3|2|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A2-p2.1" passage="2 Thess. 3:2">2
Thess. 3:2</scripRef>). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a
science.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="28239"><span class=
"ref">[28239] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit scientia. Omnis
enim scientia procedit ex principiis per se notis. Sed sacra
doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei, qui non sunt per se noti, cum
non ab omnibus concedantur, <i>non enim omnium est fides</i>, ut
dicitur II Thessalon. III. Non igitur sacra doctrina est
scientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="28240"><span class=
"ref">[28240] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
scientia non est singularium. Sed sacra doctrina tractat de
singularibus, puta de gestis Abrahae, Isaac et Iacob, et similibus.
Ergo sacra doctrina non est scientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 2 s. c."><a name="28241"><span class=
"ref">[28241] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod Augustinus dicit, XIV de Trinitate, <i>huic scientiae
attribuitur illud tantummodo quo fides saluberrima gignitur,
nutritur, defenditur, roboratur</i>. Hoc autem ad nullam scientiam
pertinet nisi ad sacram doctrinam. Ergo sacra doctrina est
scientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 2 co."><a name="28242"><span class=
"ref">[28242] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
sacram doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed sciendum est quod duplex est
scientiarum genus. Quaedam enim sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis
notis lumine naturali intellectus, sicut arithmetica, geometria, et
huiusmodi. Quaedam vero sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis
lumine superioris scientiae, sicut perspectiva procedit ex
principiis notificatis per geometriam, et musica ex principiis per
arithmeticam notis. Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia
procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae
scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum. Unde sicut musica credit
principia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit
principia revelata sibi a Deo.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="28243"><span class=
"ref">[28243] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod principia cuiuslibet scientiae vel sunt nota per se,
vel reducuntur ad notitiam superioris scientiae. Et talia sunt
principia sacrae doctrinae, ut dictum est.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="28244"><span class=
"ref">[28244] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod singularia traduntur in sacra doctrina, non quia de
eis principaliter tractetur, sed introducuntur tum in exemplum
vitae, sicut in scientiis moralibus; tum etiam ad declarandum
auctoritatem virorum per quos ad nos revelatio divina processit,
super quam fundatur sacra Scriptura seu doctrina.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A3" next="FP_Q1_A4" prev="FP_Q1_A2" progress="0.05%" n="iii" title="Article. 3 - Whether sacred doctrine is one science?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A3-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is one science?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="28245"><span class=
"ref">[28245] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit una scientia. Quia
secundum philosophum in I Poster., <i>una scientia est quae est
unius generis subiecti</i>. Creator autem et creatura, de quibus in
sacra doctrina tractatur, non continentur sub uno genere subiecti.
Ergo sacra doctrina non est una scientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="28246"><span class=
"ref">[28246] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea, in
sacra doctrina tractatur de Angelis, de creaturis corporalibus, de
moribus hominum. Huiusmodi autem ad diversas scientias
philosophicas pertinent. Igitur sacra doctrina non est una
scientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Wis.10.10" parsed="vul|Wis|10|10|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A3-p4.1"
passage="Wis. 10:10">Wis. 10:10</scripRef>).</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 3 s. c."><a name="28247"><span class=
"ref">[28247] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod sacra Scriptura de ea loquitur sicut de una scientia, dicitur
enim Sap. X, <i>dedit illi scientiam sanctorum</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 3 co."><a name="28248"><span class=
"ref">[28248] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
sacram doctrinam unam scientiam esse. Est enim unitas potentiae et
habitus consideranda secundum obiectum, non quidem materialiter,
sed secundum rationem formalem obiecti, puta homo, asinus et lapis
conveniunt in una formali ratione colorati, quod est obiectum
visus. Quia igitur sacra Scriptura considerat aliqua secundum quod
sunt divinitus revelata, secundum quod dictum est, omnia quaecumque
sunt divinitus revelabilia, communicant in una ratione formali
obiecti huius scientiae. Et ideo comprehenduntur sub sacra doctrina
sicut sub scientia una.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="28249"><span class=
"ref">[28249] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod sacra doctrina non determinat de Deo et de creaturis
ex aequo, sed de Deo principaliter, et de creaturis secundum quod
referuntur ad Deum, ut ad principium vel finem. Unde unitas
scientiae non impeditur.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="28250"><span class=
"ref">[28250] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod nihil prohibet inferiores potentias vel habitus
diversificari circa illas materias, quae communiter cadunt sub una
potentia vel habitu superiori, quia superior potentia vel habitus
respicit obiectum sub universaliori ratione formali. Sicut obiectum
sensus communis est sensibile, quod comprehendit sub se visibile et
audibile, unde sensus communis, cum sit una potentia, extendit se
ad omnia obiecta quinque sensuum. Et similiter ea quae in diversis
scientiis philosophicis tractantur, potest sacra doctrina, una
existens, considerare sub una ratione, inquantum scilicet sunt
divinitus revelabilia, ut sic sacra doctrina sit velut quaedam
impressio divinae scientiae, quae est una et simplex omnium.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A4" next="FP_Q1_A5" prev="FP_Q1_A3" progress="0.07%" n="iv" title="Article. 4 - Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A4-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Jas.1.22"
parsed="vul|Jas|1|22|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A4-p2.1" passage="James
1:22">James 1:22</scripRef>). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical
science.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="28251"><span class=
"ref">[28251] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina sit scientia practica.
Finis enim practicae est operatio, secundum philosophum in II
Metaphys. Sacra autem doctrina ad operationem ordinatur, secundum
illud Iac. I, <i>estote factores verbi, et non auditores
tantum</i>. Ergo sacra doctrina est practica scientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="28252"><span class=
"ref">[28252] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea, sacra
doctrina dividitur per legem veterem et novam. Lex autem pertinet
ad scientiam moralem, quae est scientia practica. Ergo sacra
doctrina est scientia practica.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 4 s. c."><a name="28253"><span class=
"ref">[28253] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra, omnis
scientia practica est de rebus operabilibus ab homine; ut moralis
de actibus hominum, et aedificativa de aedificiis. Sacra autem
doctrina est principaliter de Deo, cuius magis homines sunt opera.
Non ergo est scientia practica, sed magis speculativa.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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>
<div xml:lang="la">
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 4 co."><a name="28254"><span class=
"ref">[28254] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod sacra doctrina, ut dictum est, una existens, se extendit ad ea
quae pertinent ad diversas scientias philosophicas, propter
rationem formalem quam in diversis attendit, scilicet prout sunt
divino lumine cognoscibilia. Unde licet in scientiis philosophicis
alia sit speculativa et alia practica, sacra tamen doctrina
comprehendit sub se utramque; sicut et Deus eadem scientia se
cognoscit, et ea quae facit. Magis tamen est speculativa quam
practica, quia principalius agit de rebus divinis quam de actibus
humanis; de quibus agit secundum quod per eos ordinatur homo ad
perfectam Dei cognitionem, in qua aeterna beatitudo consistit.</p>
<p title="I q. 1 a. 4 ad arg."><a name="28255"><span class=
"ref">[28255] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 4 ad arg.</span></a> Et per hoc patet
responsio ad obiecta.</p>
</div>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A5" next="FP_Q1_A6" prev="FP_Q1_A4" progress="0.08%" n="v" title="Article. 5 - Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A5-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="28256"><span class=
"ref">[28256] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit dignior aliis
scientiis. Certitudo enim pertinet ad dignitatem scientiae. Sed
aliae scientiae, de quarum principiis dubitari non potest, videntur
esse certiores sacra doctrina, cuius principia, scilicet articuli
fidei, dubitationem recipiunt. Aliae igitur scientiae videntur ista
digniores.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="28257"><span class=
"ref">[28257] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
inferioris scientiae est a superiori accipere, sicut musicus ab
arithmetico. Sed sacra doctrina accipit aliquid a philosophicis
disciplinis, dicit enim Hieronymus in epistola ad magnum oratorem
urbis Romae, quod <i>doctores antiqui intantum philosophorum
doctrinis atque sententiis suos resperserunt libros, ut nescias
quid in illis prius admirari debeas, eruditionem saeculi, an
scientiam Scripturarum</i>. Ergo sacra doctrina est inferior aliis
scientiis.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Prov.9.3" parsed="vul|Prov|9|3|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A5-p4.1"
passage="Prov. 9:3">Prov. 9:3</scripRef>).</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 5 s. c."><a name="28258"><span class=
"ref">[28258] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod aliae scientiae dicuntur ancillae huius, Prov. IX, <i>misit
ancillas suas vocare ad arcem</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 5 co."><a name="28259"><span class=
"ref">[28259] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod, cum ista scientia quantum ad aliquid sit speculativa, et
quantum ad aliquid sit practica, omnes alias transcendit tam
speculativas quam practicas. Speculativarum enim scientiarum una
altera dignior dicitur, tum propter certitudinem, tum propter
dignitatem materiae. Et quantum ad utrumque, haec scientia alias
speculativas scientias excedit. Secundum certitudinem quidem, quia
aliae scientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis
humanae, quae potest errare, haec autem certitudinem habet ex
lumine divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest. Secundum
dignitatem vero materiae, quia ista scientia est principaliter de
his quae sua altitudine rationem transcendunt, aliae vero scientiae
considerant ea tantum quae rationi subduntur. Practicarum vero
scientiarum illa dignior est, quae ad ulteriorem finem ordinatur,
sicut civilis militari, nam bonum exercitus ad bonum civitatis
ordinatur. Finis autem huius doctrinae inquantum est practica, est
beatitudo aeterna, ad quam sicut ad ultimum finem ordinantur omnes
alii fines scientiarum practicarum. Unde manifestum est, secundum
omnem modum, eam digniorem esse aliis.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="28260"><span class=
"ref">[28260] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod nihil prohibet id quod est certius secundum naturam,
esse quoad nos minus certum, propter debilitatem intellectus
nostri, qui se habet ad manifestissima naturae, sicut oculus
noctuae ad lumen solis, sicut dicitur in II Metaphys. Unde
dubitatio quae accidit in aliquibus circa articulos fidei, non est
propter incertitudinem rei, sed propter debilitatem intellectus
humani. Et tamen minimum quod potest haberi de cognitione rerum
altissimarum, desiderabilius est quam certissima cognitio quae
habetur de minimis rebus, ut dicitur in XI de animalibus.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="28261"><span class=
"ref">[28261] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod haec scientia accipere potest aliquid a philosophicis
disciplinis, non quod ex necessitate eis indigeat, sed ad maiorem
manifestationem eorum quae in hac scientia traduntur. Non enim
accipit sua principia ab aliis scientiis, sed immediate a Deo per
revelationem. Et ideo non accipit ab aliis scientiis tanquam a
superioribus, sed utitur eis tanquam inferioribus et ancillis;
sicut architectonicae utuntur subministrantibus, ut civilis
militari. Et hoc ipsum quod sic utitur eis, non est propter
defectum vel insufficientiam eius, sed propter defectum intellectus
nostri; qui ex his quae per naturalem rationem (ex qua procedunt
aliae scientiae) cognoscuntur, facilius manuducitur in ea quae sunt
supra rationem, quae in hac scientia traduntur.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6" next="FP_Q1_A7" prev="FP_Q1_A5" progress="0.10%" n="vi" title="Article. 6 - Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p0.1">Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="28262"><span class=
"ref">[28262] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod haec doctrina non sit sapientia. Nulla
enim doctrina quae supponit sua principia aliunde, digna est nomine
sapientiae, <i>quia sapientis est ordinare, et non ordinari</i> (I
Metaphys.). Sed haec doctrina supponit principia sua aliunde, ut ex
dictis patet. Ergo haec doctrina non est sapientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="28263"><span class=
"ref">[28263] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea, ad
sapientiam pertinet probare principia aliarum scientiarum, unde ut
caput dicitur scientiarum, ut VI Ethic. patet. Sed haec doctrina
non probat principia aliarum scientiarum. Ergo non est
sapientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Isa.11.2" parsed="vul|Isa|11|2|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p4.1"
passage="Is. 11:2">Is. 11:2</scripRef>). Therefore this doctrine is
not the same as wisdom.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="28264"><span class=
"ref">[28264] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea, haec
doctrina per studium acquiritur. Sapientia autem per infusionem
habetur, unde inter septem dona spiritus sancti connumeratur, ut
patet Isaiae XI. Ergo haec doctrina non est sapientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p5"><b>On the
contrary,</b> It is written (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Deut.4.6"
parsed="vul|Deut|4|6|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p5.1"
passage="Dt. 4:6">Dt. 4:6</scripRef>): "This is your wisdom and
understanding in the sight of nations."</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 s. c."><a name="28265"><span class=
"ref">[28265] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod dicitur Deut. IV, in principio legis, <i>haec est nostra
sapientia et intellectus coram populis</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:1Cor.3.10" parsed="vul|1Cor|3|10|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p6.1" passage="1 Cor. 3:10">1 Cor. 3:10</scripRef>). 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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Prov.10.23" parsed="vul|Prov|10|23|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p6.2" passage="Prov. 10: 23">Prov. 10: 23</scripRef>). 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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Rom.1.19" parsed="vul|Rom|1|19|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p6.3"
passage="Rom. 1:19">Rom. 1:19</scripRef>)---but also as far as He is
known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine
is especially called wisdom.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 co."><a name="28266"><span class=
"ref">[28266] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod haec doctrina maxime sapientia est inter omnes sapientias
humanas, non quidem in aliquo genere tantum, sed simpliciter. Cum
enim sapientis sit ordinare et iudicare, iudicium autem per
altiorem causam de inferioribus habeatur; ille sapiens dicitur in
unoquoque genere, qui considerat causam altissimam illius generis.
Ut in genere aedificii, artifex qui disponit formam domus, dicitur
sapiens et architector, respectu inferiorum artificum, qui dolant
ligna vel parant lapides, unde dicitur I Cor. III, <i>ut sapiens
architector fundamentum posui</i>. Et rursus, in genere totius
humanae vitae, prudens sapiens dicitur, inquantum ordinat humanos
actus ad debitum finem, unde dicitur Prov. X, <i>sapientia est viro
prudentia</i>. Ille igitur qui considerat simpliciter altissimam
causam totius universi, quae Deus est, maxime sapiens dicitur, unde
et sapientia dicitur esse divinorum cognitio, ut patet per
Augustinum, XII de Trinitate. Sacra autem doctrina propriissime
determinat de Deo secundum quod est altissima causa, quia non solum
quantum ad illud quod est per creaturas cognoscibile (quod
philosophi cognoverunt, ut dicitur Rom. I, <i>quod notum est Dei,
manifestum est illis</i>); sed etiam quantum ad id quod notum est
sibi soli de seipso, et aliis per revelationem communicatum. Unde
sacra doctrina maxime dicitur sapientia.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="28267"><span class=
"ref">[28267] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod sacra doctrina non supponit sua principia ab aliqua
scientia humana, sed a scientia divina, a qua, sicut a summa
sapientia, omnis nostra cognitio ordinatur.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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"
(<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:2Cor.10.4-2Cor.10.5"
parsed="vul|2Cor|10|4|10|5" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p8.1" passage="2
Cor. 10:4,5">2 Cor. 10:4,5</scripRef>).</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="28268"><span class=
"ref">[28268] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod aliarum scientiarum principia vel sunt per se nota,
et probari non possunt, vel per aliquam rationem naturalem
probantur in aliqua alia scientia. Propria autem huius scientiae
cognitio est, quae est per revelationem, non autem quae est per
naturalem rationem. Et ideo non pertinet ad eam probare principia
aliarum scientiarum, sed solum iudicare de eis, quidquid enim in
aliis scientiis invenitur veritati huius scientiae repugnans, totum
condemnatur ut falsum, unde dicitur II Cor. X, <i>consilia
destruentes, et omnem altitudinem extollentem se adversus scientiam
Dei</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:1Cor.2.15" parsed="vul|1Cor|2|15|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A6-p9.1" passage="1 Cor. 2:15">1
Cor. 2:15</scripRef>). 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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="28269"><span class=
"ref">[28269] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium dicendum
quod, cum iudicium ad sapientem pertineat, secundum duplicem modum
iudicandi, dupliciter sapientia accipitur. Contingit enim aliquem
iudicare, uno modo per modum inclinationis, sicut qui habet habitum
virtutis, recte iudicat de his quae sunt secundum virtutem agenda,
inquantum ad illa inclinatur, unde et in X Ethic. dicitur quod
virtuosus est mensura et regula actuum humanorum. Alio modo, per
modum cognitionis, sicut aliquis instructus in scientia morali,
posset iudicare de actibus virtutis, etiam si virtutem non haberet.
Primus igitur modus iudicandi de rebus divinis, pertinet ad
sapientiam quae ponitur donum spiritus sancti secundum illud I Cor.
II, <i>spiritualis homo iudicat omnia,</i> etc., et Dionysius
dicit, II cap. de divinis nominibus, <i>Hierotheus doctus est non
solum discens, sed et patiens divina</i>. Secundus autem modus
iudicandi pertinet ad hanc doctrinam, secundum quod per studium
habetur; licet eius principia ex revelatione habeantur.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A7" next="FP_Q1_A8" prev="FP_Q1_A6" progress="0.13%" n="vii" title="Article. 7 - Whether God is the object of this science?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A7-p0.1">Whether God is the object of this science?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 7 arg. 1"><a name="28270"><span class=
"ref">[28270] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 7 arg. 1</span></a> Ad septimum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit subiectum huius scientiae. In
qualibet enim scientia oportet supponere de subiecto quid est,
secundum philosophum in I Poster. Sed haec scientia non supponit de
Deo quid est, dicit enim Damascenus, <i>in Deo quid est, dicere
impossibile est</i>. Ergo Deus non est subiectum huius
scientiae.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 7 arg. 2"><a name="28271"><span class=
"ref">[28271] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 7 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea, omnia
quae determinantur in aliqua scientia, comprehenduntur sub subiecto
illius scientiae. Sed in sacra Scriptura determinatur de multis
aliis quam de Deo, puta de creaturis, et de moribus hominum. Ergo
Deus non est subiectum huius scientiae.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 7 s. c."><a name="28272"><span class=
"ref">[28272] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 7 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra, illud
est subiectum scientiae, de quo est sermo in scientia. Sed in hac
scientia fit sermo de Deo, dicitur enim theologia, quasi sermo de
Deo. Ergo Deus est subiectum huius scientiae.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 7 co."><a name="28273"><span class=
"ref">[28273] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 7 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod Deus est subiectum huius scientiae. Sic enim se habet
subiectum ad scientiam, sicut obiectum ad potentiam vel habitum.
Proprie autem illud assignatur obiectum alicuius potentiae vel
habitus, sub cuius ratione omnia referuntur ad potentiam vel
habitum, sicut homo et lapis referuntur ad visum inquantum sunt
colorata, unde coloratum est proprium obiectum visus. Omnia autem
pertractantur in sacra doctrina sub ratione Dei, vel quia sunt ipse
Deus; vel quia habent ordinem ad Deum, ut ad principium et finem.
Unde sequitur quod Deus vere sit subiectum huius scientiae. Quod
etiam manifestum fit ex principiis huius scientiae, quae sunt
articuli fidei, quae est de Deo, idem autem est subiectum
principiorum et totius scientiae, cum tota scientia virtute
contineatur in principiis. Quidam vero, attendentes ad ea quae in
ista scientia tractantur, et non ad rationem secundum quam
considerantur, assignaverunt aliter subiectum huius scientiae, vel
res et signa; vel opera reparationis; vel totum Christum, idest
caput et membra. De omnibus enim istis tractatur in ista scientia,
sed secundum ordinem ad Deum.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 7 ad 1"><a name="28274"><span class=
"ref">[28274] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 7 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod, licet de Deo non possimus scire quid est, utimur
tamen eius effectu, in hac doctrina, vel naturae vel gratiae, loco
definitionis, ad ea quae de Deo in hac doctrina considerantur,
sicut et in aliquibus scientiis philosophicis demonstratur aliquid
de causa per effectum, accipiendo effectum loco definitionis
causae.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 7 ad 2"><a name="28275"><span class=
"ref">[28275] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 7 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod omnia alia quae determinantur in sacra doctrina,
comprehenduntur sub Deo, non ut partes vel species vel accidentia,
sed ut ordinata aliqualiter ad ipsum.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8" next="FP_Q1_A9" prev="FP_Q1_A7" progress="0.15%" n="viii" title="Article. 8 - Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8-p0.1">Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:John.20.31"
parsed="vul|John|20|31|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8-p2.1"
passage="Jn. 20:31">Jn. 20:31</scripRef>). Therefore sacred doctrine
is not a matter of argument.</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 8 arg. 1"><a name="28276"><span class=
"ref">[28276] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 8 arg. 1</span></a> Ad octavum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod haec doctrina non sit argumentativa. Dicit
enim Ambrosius in libro I de fide Catholica, <i>tolle argumenta,
ubi fides quaeritur</i>. Sed in hac doctrina praecipue fides
quaeritur, unde dicitur Ioan. XX, <i>haec scripta sunt ut
credatis</i>. Ergo sacra doctrina non est argumentativa.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 8 arg. 2"><a name="28277"><span class=
"ref">[28277] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 8 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea, si sit
argumentativa, aut argumentatur ex auctoritate, aut ex ratione. Si
ex auctoritate, non videtur hoc congruere eius dignitati, nam locus
ab auctoritate est infirmissimus, secundum Boetium. Si etiam ex
ratione, hoc non congruit eius fini, quia secundum Gregorium in
homilia, <i>fides non habet meritum, ubi humana ratio praebet
experimentum</i>. Ergo sacra doctrina non est argumentativa.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Titus.1.9" parsed="vul|Titus|1|9|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8-p4.1" passage="Titus 1:9">Titus
1:9</scripRef>).</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 8 s. c."><a name="28278"><span class=
"ref">[28278] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 8 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod dicitur ad Titum I, de episcopo, <i>amplectentem eum qui
secundum doctrinam est, fidelem sermonem, ut potens sit exhortari
in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:1Cor.15" parsed="vul|1Cor|15|0|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8-p5.1" passage="1 Cor. 15">1 Cor. 15</scripRef>). 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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 8 co."><a name="28279"><span class=
"ref">[28279] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 8 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod, sicut aliae scientiae non argumentantur ad sua principia
probanda, sed ex principiis argumentantur ad ostendendum alia in
ipsis scientiis; ita haec doctrina non argumentatur ad sua
principia probanda, quae sunt articuli fidei; sed ex eis procedit
ad aliquid aliud ostendendum; sicut apostolus, I ad Cor. XV, ex
resurrectione Christi argumentatur ad resurrectionem communem
probandam. Sed tamen considerandum est in scientiis philosophicis,
quod inferiores scientiae nec probant sua principia, nec contra
negantem principia disputant, sed hoc relinquunt superiori
scientiae, suprema vero inter eas, scilicet metaphysica, disputat
contra negantem sua principia, si adversarius aliquid concedit, si
autem nihil concedit, non potest cum eo disputare, potest tamen
solvere rationes ipsius. Unde sacra Scriptura, cum non habeat
superiorem, disputat cum negante sua principia, argumentando
quidem, si adversarius aliquid concedat eorum quae per divinam
revelationem habentur; sicut per auctoritates sacrae doctrinae
disputamus contra haereticos, et per unum articulum contra negantes
alium. Si vero adversarius nihil credat eorum quae divinitus
revelantur, non remanet amplius via ad probandum articulos fidei
per rationes, sed ad solvendum rationes, si quas inducit, contra
fidem. Cum enim fides infallibili veritati innitatur, impossibile
autem sit de vero demonstrari contrarium, manifestum est
probationes quae contra fidem inducuntur, non esse demonstrationes,
sed solubilia argumenta.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 8 ad 1"><a name="28280"><span class=
"ref">[28280] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 8 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod, licet argumenta rationis humanae non habeant locum
ad probandum quae fidei sunt, tamen ex articulis fidei haec
doctrina ad alia argumentatur, ut dictum est.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:2Cor.10.5" parsed="vul|2Cor|10|5|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8-p7.1" passage="2 Cor. 10:5">2 Cor. 10:5</scripRef>). 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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Acts.17.28" parsed="vul|Acts|17|28|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A8-p7.2" passage="Acts 17:28">Acts 17:28</scripRef>). 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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 8 ad 2"><a name="28281"><span class=
"ref">[28281] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 8 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod argumentari ex auctoritate est maxime proprium huius
doctrinae, eo quod principia huius doctrinae per revelationem
habentur, et sic oportet quod credatur auctoritati eorum quibus
revelatio facta est. Nec hoc derogat dignitati huius doctrinae, nam
licet locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super ratione humana, sit
infirmissimus; locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super
revelatione divina, est efficacissimus. Utitur tamen sacra doctrina
etiam ratione humana, non quidem ad probandum fidem, quia per hoc
tolleretur meritum fidei; sed ad manifestandum aliqua alia quae
traduntur in hac doctrina. Cum enim gratia non tollat naturam, sed
perficiat, oportet quod naturalis ratio subserviat fidei; sicut et
naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur caritati. Unde et
apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. X, <i>in captivitatem redigentes omnem
intellectum in obsequium Christi</i>. Et inde est quod etiam
auctoritatibus philosophorum sacra doctrina utitur, ubi per
rationem naturalem veritatem cognoscere potuerunt; sicut Paulus,
actuum XVII, inducit verbum Arati, dicens, <i>sicut et quidam
poetarum vestrorum dixerunt, genus Dei sumus</i>. Sed tamen sacra
doctrina huiusmodi auctoritatibus utitur quasi extraneis
argumentis, et probabilibus. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae
Scripturae utitur proprie, ex necessitate argumentando.
Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae, quasi arguendo ex
propriis, sed probabiliter. Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi
apostolis et prophetis factae, qui canonicos libros scripserunt,
non autem revelationi, si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta. Unde
dicit Augustinus, in epistola ad Hieronymum, <i>solis eis
Scripturarum libris qui canonici appellantur, didici hunc honorem
deferre, ut nullum auctorem eorum in scribendo errasse aliquid
firmissime credam. Alios autem ita lego, ut, quantalibet sanctitate
doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quod ipsi ita
senserunt vel scripserunt</i>.</p>
</div>

			 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9" next="FP_Q1_A10" prev="FP_Q1_A8" progress="0.19%" n="ix" title="Article. 9 - Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9-p0.1">Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 arg. 1"><a name="28282"><span class=
"ref">[28282] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 arg. 1</span></a> Ad nonum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra Scriptura non debeat uti metaphoris.
Illud enim quod est proprium infimae doctrinae, non videtur
competere huic scientiae, quae inter alias tenet locum supremum, ut
iam dictum est. Procedere autem per similitudines varias et
repraesentationes, est proprium poeticae, quae est infima inter
omnes doctrinas. Ergo huiusmodi similitudinibus uti, non est
conveniens huic scientiae.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Sir.24.31"
parsed="vul|Sir|24|31|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9-p3.1"
passage="Ecclus. 24:31">Ecclus. 24:31</scripRef>). 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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 arg. 2"><a name="28283"><span class=
"ref">[28283] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea, haec
doctrina videtur esse ordinata ad veritatis manifestationem, unde
et manifestatoribus eius praemium promittitur, Eccli. XXIV, <i>qui
elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt</i>. Sed per huiusmodi
similitudines veritas occultatur. Non ergo competit huic doctrinae
divina tradere sub similitudine corporalium rerum.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 arg. 3"><a name="28284"><span class=
"ref">[28284] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea, quanto
aliquae creaturae sunt sublimiores, tanto magis ad divinam
similitudinem accedunt. Si igitur aliquae ex creaturis
transumerentur ad Deum, tunc oporteret talem transumptionem maxime
fieri ex sublimioribus creaturis, et non ex infimis. Quod tamen in
Scripturis frequenter invenitur.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9-p5"><b>On the
contrary,</b> It is written (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Hos.12.10"
parsed="vul|Hos|12|10|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9-p5.1" passage="Osee
12:10">Osee 12:10</scripRef>): "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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 s. c."><a name="28285"><span class=
"ref">[28285] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod dicitur Osee XII, <i>ego visionem multiplicavi eis, et in
manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum</i>. Tradere autem aliquid sub
similitudine, est metaphoricum. Ergo ad sacram doctrinam pertinet
uti metaphoris.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef
osisRef="Bible.vul:Rom.1.14" parsed="vul|Rom|1|14|0|0"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9-p6.1"
passage="Rom. 1:14">Rom. 1:14</scripRef>)---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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 co."><a name="28286"><span class=
"ref">[28286] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod conveniens est sacrae Scripturae divina et spiritualia sub
similitudine corporalium tradere. Deus enim omnibus providet
secundum quod competit eorum naturae. Est autem naturale homini ut
per sensibilia ad intelligibilia veniat, quia omnis nostra cognitio
a sensu initium habet. Unde convenienter in sacra Scriptura
traduntur nobis spiritualia sub metaphoris corporalium. Et hoc est
quod dicit Dionysius, I cap. caelestis hierarchiae, <i>impossibile
est nobis aliter lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum
velaminum circumvelatum</i>. Convenit etiam sacrae Scripturae, quae
communiter omnibus proponitur (secundum illud ad Rom. I,
<i>sapientibus et insipientibus debitor sum</i>), ut spiritualia
sub similitudinibus corporalium proponantur; ut saltem vel sic
rudes eam capiant, qui ad intelligibilia secundum se capienda non
sunt idonei.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 ad 1"><a name="28287"><span class=
"ref">[28287] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod poeta utitur metaphoris propter repraesentationem,
repraesentatio enim naturaliter homini delectabilis est. Sed sacra
doctrina utitur metaphoris propter necessitatem et utilitatem, ut
dictum est.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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" (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Matt.7.6"
parsed="vul|Matt|7|6|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A9-p8.1"
passage="Mat. 7:6">Mat. 7:6</scripRef>).</p>
<p xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 ad 2"><a name="28288"><span class=
"ref">[28288] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod radius divinae revelationis non destruitur propter
figuras sensibiles quibus circumvelatur, ut dicit Dionysius, sed
remanet in sua veritate; ut mentes quibus fit revelatio, non
permittat in similitudinibus permanere, sed elevet eas ad
cognitionem intelligibilium; et per eos quibus revelatio facta est,
alii etiam circa haec instruantur. Unde ea quae in uno loco
Scripturae traduntur sub metaphoris, in aliis locis expressius
exponuntur. Et ipsa etiam occultatio figurarum utilis est, ad
exercitium studiosorum, et contra irrisiones infidelium, de quibus
dicitur, Matth. VII, <i>nolite sanctum dare canibus</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 9 ad 3"><a name="28289"><span class=
"ref">[28289] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 9 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium dicendum
quod, sicut docet Dionysius, cap. II Cael. Hier., magis est
conveniens quod divina in Scripturis tradantur sub figuris vilium
corporum, quam corporum nobilium. Et hoc propter tria. Primo, quia
per hoc magis liberatur humanus animus ab errore. Manifestum enim
apparet quod haec secundum proprietatem non dicuntur de divinis,
quod posset esse dubium, si sub figuris nobilium corporum
describerentur divina; maxime apud illos qui nihil aliud a
corporibus nobilius excogitare noverunt. Secundo, quia hic modus
convenientior est cognitioni quam de Deo habemus in hac vita. Magis
enim manifestatur nobis de ipso quid non est, quam quid est, et
ideo similitudines illarum rerum quae magis elongantur a Deo,
veriorem nobis faciunt aestimationem quod sit supra illud quod de
Deo dicimus vel cogitamus. Tertio, quia per huiusmodi, divina magis
occultantur indignis.</p>
</div>
 </div4>

<div4 id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A10" next="FP.ii" prev="FP_Q1_A9" progress="0.21%" n="x" title="Article. 10 - Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?">
<h4 xml:lang="en" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A10-p0.1">Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?</h4>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 arg. 1"><a name="28290"><span class=
"ref">[28290] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 arg. 1</span></a> Ad decimum sic
proceditur. Videtur quod sacra Scriptura sub una littera non habeat
plures sensus, qui sunt historicus vel litteralis, allegoricus,
tropologicus sive moralis, et anagogicus. Multiplicitas enim
sensuum in una Scriptura parit confusionem et deceptionem, et
tollit arguendi firmitatem, unde ex multiplicibus propositionibus
non procedit argumentatio, sed secundum hoc aliquae fallaciae
assignantur. Sacra autem Scriptura debet esse efficax ad
ostendendam veritatem absque omni fallacia. Ergo non debent in ea
sub una littera plures sensus tradi.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 arg. 2"><a name="28291"><span class=
"ref">[28291] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
Augustinus dicit in libro de utilitate credendi, quod <i>Scriptura
quae testamentum vetus vocatur, quadrifariam traditur, scilicet,
secundum historiam, secundum aetiologiam, secundum analogiam,
secundum allegoriam</i>. Quae quidem quatuor a quatuor praedictis
videntur esse aliena omnino. Non igitur conveniens videtur quod
eadem littera sacrae Scripturae secundum quatuor sensus praedictos
exponatur.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no"
id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 arg. 3"><a name="28292"><span class=
"ref">[28292] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
praeter praedictos sensus, invenitur sensus parabolicus, qui inter
illos sensus quatuor non continetur.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 s. c."><a name="28293"><span class=
"ref">[28293] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra est
quod dicit Gregorius, XX Moralium, <i>sacra Scriptura omnes
scientias ipso locutionis suae more transcendit, quia uno eodemque
sermone, dum narrat gestum, prodit mysterium</i>.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 (<scripRef osisRef="Bible.vul:Heb.10.1" parsed="vul|Heb|10|1|0|0" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A10-p6.1" passage="Heb. 10:1">Heb. 10:1</scripRef>) 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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 co."><a name="28294"><span class=
"ref">[28294] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 co.</span></a> Respondeo dicendum
quod auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus, in cuius potestate est ut
non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod etiam homo facere
potest), sed etiam res ipsas. Et ideo, cum in omnibus scientiis
voces significent, hoc habet proprium ista scientia, quod ipsae res
significatae per voces, etiam significant aliquid. Illa ergo prima
significatio, qua voces significant res, pertinet ad primum sensum,
qui est sensus historicus vel litteralis. Illa vero significatio
qua res significatae per voces, iterum res alias significant,
dicitur sensus spiritualis; qui super litteralem fundatur, et eum
supponit. Hic autem sensus spiritualis trifariam dividitur. Sicut
enim dicit apostolus, ad Hebr. VII, lex vetus figura est novae
legis, et ipsa nova lex, ut dicit Dionysius in ecclesiastica
hierarchia, est figura futurae gloriae, in nova etiam lege, ea quae
in capite sunt gesta, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus.
Secundum ergo quod ea quae sunt veteris legis, significant ea quae
sunt novae legis, est sensus allegoricus, secundum vero quod ea
quae in Christo sunt facta, vel in his quae Christum significant,
sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus, est sensus moralis, prout
vero significant ea quae sunt in aeterna gloria, est sensus
anagogicus. Quia vero sensus litteralis est, quem auctor intendit,
auctor autem sacrae Scripturae Deus est, qui omnia simul suo
intellectu comprehendit, non est inconveniens, ut dicit Augustinus
XII confessionum, si etiam secundum litteralem sensum in una
littera Scripturae plures sint sensus.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 ad 1"><a name="28295"><span class=
"ref">[28295] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum ergo
dicendum quod multiplicitas horum sensuum non facit
aequivocationem, aut aliam speciem multiplicitatis, quia, sicut iam
dictum est, sensus isti non multiplicantur propter hoc quod una vox
multa significet; sed quia ipsae res significatae per voces,
aliarum rerum possunt esse signa. Et ita etiam nulla confusio
sequitur in sacra Scriptura, cum omnes sensus fundentur super unum,
scilicet litteralem; ex quo solo potest trahi argumentum, non autem
ex his quae secundum allegoriam dicuntur, ut dicit Augustinus in
epistola contra Vincentium Donatistam. Non tamen ex hoc aliquid
deperit sacrae Scripturae, quia nihil sub spirituali sensu
continetur fidei necessarium, quod Scriptura per litteralem sensum
alicubi manifeste non tradat.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 ad 2"><a name="28296"><span class=
"ref">[28296] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
dicendum quod illa tria, historia, aetiologia, analogia, ad unum
litteralem sensum pertinent. Nam historia est, ut ipse Augustinus
exponit, cum simpliciter aliquid proponitur, aetiologia vero, cum
causa dicti assignatur, sicut cum dominus assignavit causam quare
Moyses permisit licentiam repudiandi uxores, scilicet propter
duritiam cordis ipsorum, Matt. XIX, analogia vero est, cum veritas
unius Scripturae ostenditur veritati alterius non repugnare. Sola
autem allegoria, inter illa quatuor, pro tribus spiritualibus
sensibus ponitur. Sicut et Hugo de sancto Victore sub sensu
allegorico etiam anagogicum comprehendit, ponens in tertio suarum
sententiarum solum tres sensus, scilicet historicum, allegoricum et
tropologicum.</p>
</div>

<div class="bilingual">
<p xml:lang="en" shownumber="no" id="FP.i.FP_Q1.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 xml:lang="la" title="I q. 1 a. 10 ad 3"><a name="28297"><span class=
"ref">[28297] I&ordf; q. 1 a. 10 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
dicendum quod sensus parabolicus sub litterali continetur, nam per
voces significatur aliquid proprie, et aliquid figurative; nec est
litteralis sensus ipsa figura, sed id quod est figuratum. Non enim
cum Scriptura nominat Dei brachium, est litteralis sensus quod in
Deo sit membrum huiusmodi corporale, sed id quod per hoc membrum
significatur, scilicet virtus operativa. In quo patet quod sensui
litterali sacrae Scripturae nunquam potest subesse falsum.</p>
</div>

	 </div4>
		  </div3>
		</div2>
</div1>