ccore/rhetoric-saint-thomas-aquinas · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 80
Reply Objection 2: 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.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 8]

Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Matter of Argument?

Objection 1: 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" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2: 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.

Contrary: 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" (Titus 1:9).

Response: 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 (1 Cor. 15).
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.

Reply Objection 1: 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.

Reply Objection 2: 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" (2 Cor. 10:5). 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" (Acts 17:28). 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."
_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 9]

Whether Holy Scripture Should Use Metaphors?

Objection 1: 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.

Reply Objection 2: 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.

_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 8]

Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Matter of Argument?

Objection 1: 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" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred

doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2: 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.

Contrary: 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" (Titus 1:9).

Response: 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 (1 Cor. 15).

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.

Reply Objection 1: 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.

Reply Objection 2: 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" (2 Cor. 10:5). 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" (Acts 17:28). 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."

_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 9]

Whether Holy Scripture Should Use Metaphors?

Objection 1: 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.