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

text stringlengths 0 80
Objection 2: 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" (Ecclus. 24:31). But by such
similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths
by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.

Objection 3: 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.

Contrary: It is written (Osee 12:10): "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.

Response: 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" (Rom. 1:14)--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.

Reply Objection 1: 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.

Reply Objection 2: 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" (Matt. 7:6).

Reply Objection 3: 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.
_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 10]

Whether in Holy Scripture a Word may have Several Senses?

Objection 1: 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.

Objection 2: 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.

Objection 3: Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical,
which is not one of these four.

Contrary: 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."

Response: 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

Objection 2: 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" (Ecclus. 24:31). But by such

similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths

by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.

Objection 3: 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.

Contrary: It is written (Osee 12:10): "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.

Response: 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" (Rom. 1:14)--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.

Reply Objection 1: 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.

Reply Objection 2: 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" (Matt. 7:6).

Reply Objection 3: 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.

_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 10]

Whether in Holy Scripture a Word may have Several Senses?

Objection 1: 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.

Objection 2: 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.

Objection 3: Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical,

which is not one of these four.

Contrary: 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."

Response: 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