--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/english_prep.xsl	Sat Jan 19 22:55:49 2008 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+<?xml version='1.0'?>
+<!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "../../../../lib/xml/xsl.dtd" >
+<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="1.0">
+ 
+ <xsl:output doctype-system="../../dtd/ThML10.dtd"/>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="/">
+  <xsl:text>&#10;</xsl:text>
+  <xsl:processing-instruction name="xml-stylesheet">type="text/xsl" href="bi.xsl"</xsl:processing-instruction>
+  <xsl:apply-templates select="node()"/>
+ </xsl:template>
+ <xsl:template match="p[text()]">
+  <div class="bilingual">
+   <xsl:text>&#10;</xsl:text>
+   <xsl:copy>
+    <xsl:attribute name="xml:lang">en</xsl:attribute>
+    <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
+    </xsl:copy>
+   <xsl:text>&#10;</xsl:text>
+  </div>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="p"/>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="h1|h2|h3|h4|h5">
+  <xsl:copy>
+   <xsl:attribute name="xml:lang">en</xsl:attribute>
+   <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
+  </xsl:copy>  
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="@*|node()">
+  <xsl:copy>
+   <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
+  </xsl:copy>
+ </xsl:template>
+</xsl:stylesheet>

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/summa/bilingual/FP_i.xml	Sat Jan 19 22:55:49 2008 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,1346 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
+<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="bi.xsl"?>
+<!DOCTYPE div2
+  SYSTEM "../../dtd/ThML10.dtd">
+<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>

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/summa/bilingual/bi.xsl	Sat Jan 19 22:55:49 2008 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+<?xml version='1.0'?>
+<!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "../../../../lib/xml/xsl.dtd" >
+<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
+ <xsl:template match="/">
+  <html>
+   <head>
+    <title>
+     <xsl:text>Bilingual Aquinas</xsl:text>
+     <xsl:value-of select="div2/div3/h3"/>
+    </title>
+   </head>
+   <body>
+    <xsl:apply-templates/>
+   </body>
+  </html>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="div2|div3|div4">
+  <div>
+   <xsl:apply-templates select="node()|@*"/>
+  </div>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="div[@class='bilingual']"><div style="clear: both; margin-top: 1em">
+  <div style="width: 48%; float: right"><xsl:apply-templates select="*[2]"/></div>
+  <div style="width: 95%"><xsl:apply-templates select="*[1]"/></div></div>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="*">
+  <xsl:element name="{local-name()}" namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
+   <xsl:apply-templates select="node()|@*"/>
+  </xsl:element>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="text()|comment()|processing-instruction()|@*">
+  <xsl:copy>
+   <xsl:apply-templates select="node()|@*"/>
+  </xsl:copy>
+ </xsl:template>
+</xsl:stylesheet>