Commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologiae

A clear title. - In the body, two conclusions¹. The first answers the question affirmatively: Sacred doctrine under one letter has several senses, namely the literal and the spiritual: and this is threefold, namely allegorical, moral, and anagogical.

It is proved from the difference between this science and the others, derived from the difference between their authors. The author of this doctrine is God, that of the others is man: therefore the accommodation both of words and of things to signify lies within the power of this author, and not within the power of the author of the others. Therefore in the other sciences words alone signify: in this one, however, both words and things. Therefore in this science there is a twofold sense, namely the literal and the spiritual. — All the consequences are evident. And the last is explained: because according to the signification of words, the literal sense is attended to; but according to the signification of things, the mystical sense is attended to.

As to the second part, however, it is explained by distinguishing a threefold configuration, as is clearly evident in the text.

II. Concerning this part, note that, since accommodating things to signify is nothing other than making things be not only things, but signs of other things, things can be understood to become signs in two ways: in one way, in the very generation of the things themselves, namely, that they come to be at once so as to be things, and signs of other things; in another way, adventitiously, so that things already made are taken up as signs. - If the accommodation of things so that they may be signs is taken in the second way, it is not proper to God, nor does it exceed human capacity, to accommodate things to signify: nor is it proper to this science that things signify. For deeds narrated in other histories can be interpreted by man as signs of other things; not only by way of imitation, so that the brave deeds of the ancients are to be imitated by their successors; but by way of signification, namely, that those deeds be held as signs of deeds to be done. - If, however, the accommodation of things to signify is taken in the first way, it can be understood in two ways: namely, universally, and particularly. If particularly, it does not exceed human power: for anyone can perform certain acts, or some artifact, and in performing them, intend by them to signify another thing, as is evident. But that all things narrated as done in all these histories, as things directed toward some doctrine, should be, as such, signs of other things by their very constitution—this exceeds human capacity: this is proper to God: in this this doctrine excels the other sciences.

Therefore, the sense of the letter—that is, that things regarded universally are accommodated to doctrine in such a way as to become signs when they occur—is proper to this doctrine: for this can be done by the Author of this doctrine alone. For not by our invention did the rock from which water flowed for the Jews in the desert become a sign of Christ; rather, water flowed from that rock precisely so that it would truly be a fountain of water and a sign of Christ, who is the fountain of spiritual water, as the Apostle says ²: they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. And so with the others.

III. The second conclusion.³ It is not unfitting that in a single passage of Scripture, according to the literal sense, there be several senses. It is proved in two ways. First, by reason. The Author of Holy Scripture is God, who comprehends all things at once in His intellect: therefore it is not unfitting, etc. The consequence is proved: because the literal sense is that which the Author of Scripture intends. — Second, by the authority of Augustine, Book XII of the Confessions.

IV. Concerning this conclusion a doubt arises. For if the literal sense can be multiplied, there will be no certainty as to which sense is intended by the letter, since anyone may prefer his own exposition to another's interpretation: for since the intention of God cannot be known in any other way, one would have to accept all expositions of the letter as literal, or none.

V. To this it is briefly said that a text having many expositions can stand in relation to them in two ways. First, by admitting them both absolutely and in their order to the rest of what belongs to the faith; and then the multitude of literal expositions contributes to our exercise and attests the dignity of the Author, as Augustine wishes in the same place. Second, by admitting them in themselves, yet without comparing them with other passages of sacred Scripture; and then, through such comparison, all those interpretations that conflict may be excluded, while those that do not conflict are admitted. For just as it is said in the response to the first objection on the text, nothing necessary for salvation is contained in sacred Scripture which is not plainly delivered somewhere according to the literal sense, even though it is contained obscurely in some passage because of the multitude of expositions. — And if the comparison of an obscure passage with a manifest one were lacking, still there would never be lacking a comparison with the authority of holy Church, by which we can be made certain not only of the literal sense of Scripture but have been made certain of Scripture itself: "I would not believe the Gospel," says Augustine in his letter against Fundamentum⁴, unless the authority of the Church moved me to do so.