Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

IT IS DOUBTED seventh, whether it is certain that Sacred Scripture in one letter contains several literal senses, so that the opposite is an error against faith?

It is argued first for the negative side: because scarcely or no such passage can be brought forward in which we understand two literal senses according to the Catholic faith.

Second: because the principles of Theology ought not to be equivocal; but if a passage of Scripture were given having a double literal sense, then a theological principle would be equivocal, and consequently Theology would proceed confusedly.

Third: if any passage can be expounded in two ways in the literal sense, it is rendered useless for convincing heretics; for when the theologian uses that passage in one sense, the heretic will say that the other is the literal sense.

Fourth, from the teaching of St. Thomas in the solution to the first, where he says that the multiplicity of senses does not make equivocation, because those senses are not multiplied by the fact that one word signifies many things, but because the things themselves signified by the words can be signs of other things: but all the senses are founded upon one literal sense. Therefore either no passage has a double literal sense, or St. Thomas is contrary to himself.

Fifth, against the reason of St. Thomas. For if several literal senses can be contained in one letter for the reason that the author of Sacred Scripture is God, who comprehends all things at once by his intellect, we can equally say that the sense of the whole of Sacred Scripture is one, because the whole of Sacred Scripture explains to us the one concept and understanding of God.

For the decision of this difficulty we must presuppose what we understand by the literal sense. And indeed, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas in this place, the literal sense, properly speaking, is that which the Holy Spirit willed to signify immediately through the words or letters themselves, whether the expressions themselves be taken properly without any metaphor or grammatical figure which draws the words or expressions themselves from a proper to an improper signification or acceptance. For as St. Thomas teaches, on Gal 4, lecture 7 (which passage see in a special way for these four senses), it makes no difference whether the words be taken properly or improperly, and in the present article he says that the parabolic sense is contained under the literal. But when the things themselves done and signified by the words are again assumed for the signification of other things, that is called the mystical sense.

THIS presupposed, let this be the first conclusion: rare are the passages in Sacred Scripture which are hitherto understood by the Doctors to have a double literal sense. This conclusion can be proved inductively. For that passage is brought forward, Gen 1: «In the beginning God created heaven and earth», of which passage one sense is «in the beginning», that is, in the beginning of time. The other sense is «in the beginning», that is, before he made anything. From the former sense the error of those is refuted who say that the world has existed from eternity. From the other sense the error of the Greeks is refuted, of those asserting that the angels were created before the corporeal world. The third sense is, «in the beginning», that is, in the Son, as Augustine says, bk. 12 of the Confessions, ch. 20, and more expressly bk. 11 of The City of God, ch. 9; and Ambrose, bk. 1 of the Hexaemeron, ch. 4, because all things were made through the Son. There is another passage in Ps 2: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genuite. «Which passage the Saints interpret now of the eternal generation, now of the temporal, and the Apostle, in Acts 13» seems to explain of the resurrection of Christ, when he says: «Raising up Jesus, as it is written in Ps 2: Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee». A third passage is brought forward from Ps 8: «What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him! Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, etc. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet». Which Psalm seems literally to signify Adam, to whom God from the beginning had subjected all things, sheep and oxen all, etc. And further it seems literally to be explained of Christ the Lord by the Apostle, in Heb 2, when he says: «For we see not yet all things subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death». Further there is another passage, Is 53: «Who shall declare his generation?» Which some interpret of the eternal generation, others of the temporal. To me indeed no other passage now offers itself to be explained in several ways in the proper literal sense. But in the parabolic and metaphorical literal sense perhaps several passages will be found to be explained in several ways. The reason of which will be that words are more determined to signify one thing than things are. Whence the Gospel parables are explained in different ways by the Saints, and this indeed in the literal sense: as for example, the parable of the householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers is explained by some as [meaning] that God from the beginning of the world called men to the faith in the different ages of the human race. By others it seems to be signified that God calls certain men in the early morning, when they come to the use of reason, others in youth, etc. Similarly also that famous parable, «A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, etc.», which was introduced by Christ the Lord to signify that any man of any nation, to whom we can show mercy, is to be reckoned our neighbor.

And nevertheless by the Theologians it is commonly explained that that Samaritan passing by is Christ the Savior, and the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho is the human race, which from a happy state through the sin of the first parent fell into Jericho, that is, into loss and death. SECOND conclusion. It is not found sufficiently established that it is certain according to faith that some passage of Scripture is necessarily to be understood in a double literal sense. This conclusion seems to be against Abulensis in the place above, who thinks it is certain according to faith that certain passages of Scripture are to be understood in a double literal sense. But he rests on a false foundation. For he thinks that the spiritual sense intended by the Holy Spirit is literal. For in this way we too have shown above that it is certain according to faith that there is a double sense under one letter. But we have already said that the spiritual sense is not properly called literal. The conclusion is therefore proved: because all the passages which have been brought forward by us have a solution, so that he who has opined the opposite is not condemned for an error in faith, although he deserves another censure, as we shall say at once. For the passage of Genesis, «In the beginning God created», perhaps under a single sense signifies those two things, that is, in the beginning of time, and before he made anything. For this is entirely in the beginning. And further, very many and most learned Theologians do not dare to condemn as an error in faith the opinion of the Greeks asserting that the angels were created before the corporeal world, as we shall say below, in q. 61, art. 3. But that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose explain «In the beginning», that is, in the Son, does not make the matter certain according to faith.

Then what is said in Ps 2: «Today have I begotten thee», is said by some not to have been brought forward by Paul to prove the resurrection of Christ from it, but to prove that he is the Son of God, which he had proposed a little before. So the most learned Cano thought. But concerning the temporal generation we do not have a necessary testimony such that according to faith we may establish that it is the literal sense.

Further, the things which are said in Ps 8, if anyone should say that the Apostle adduced them in the spiritual sense, because Adam was the form and figure of the second Adam, who is Christ, he will not have wandered far from the mark. And then indeed we must hold according to faith that that Psalm was written spiritually of Christ the Lord. And finally, the passage of Isaiah, ch. 53, «Who shall declare his generation?», has various explanations, but it is not necessary to confess all of them as certain according to faith. Nevertheless, let this be the third conclusion: it is rash to deny that there is any passage in the Sacred Letters which can be understood in two ways in the literal sense. This conclusion is against Adam on John, at the beginning. But it is proved: because it is the common sense of scholastic Theologians that a double literal sense, or several, can be found under one letter of Sacred Scripture. So St. Thomas teaches in this article, and commonly all our scholastics judge it to be a certain rashness to deny that that passage of Genesis, In the beginning he created, has a double literal sense, because in the chapter Firmiter, On the Supreme Trinity, from the Lateran Council, from those words a double error is insinuated as to be condemned. But on this matter we shall speak more fully below, in q. 61. In the meantime, however, if to anyone our censure shall seem harsher than it ought, I indeed, with faith safe and the soundness of doctrine, [as for] the rigor of censuring the rigor of my judgment concerning the opinion of Theologians, I will easily remit. But now it seems to me that Adam's assertion has something of rashness in it.

AND now we must answer the arguments to the contrary.

To the first argument the answer is clear from what has been said.

To the second argument, many fear to concede that there is equivocation in Sacred Scripture. But nevertheless in truth I do not know how they can answer, if they concede that there are several literal senses. Since equivocation is when a word represents its significates by different concepts. Nor does it avail to answer that those several senses are mutually subordinated and one of them is principal. For if this subordination is univocal under one formal account, there will be a single sense materially distinguished into several; as if you say 'every animal is sensitive', you understand that every man is sensitive and every horse, etc. But if one sense is principal and intended per se, while the others are [intended] on account of some likeness, then it will be a certain analogical equivocation. Further, St. Thomas never denied that there is equivocation in the multiple literal sense, but in the literal and the mystical. It must therefore be said to the argument that, just as the words and names and propositions which are found in the Sacred Letters will not be said by us to be synonyms, although they signify to us the sense of God which is one in itself, because God himself speaks to us through signs imposed by us, which signify to us by various concepts, so neither is it to be denied that there is equivocation, if one utterance signifies several things to us in the manner of several. For God speaks after the manner of men through the concepts and words of the writer. Nevertheless an equivocation of this sort does not beget confusion in the Sacred Letters, because according to either sense a theological argument can be made, more or less certain according to the necessity of understanding the letter.

To the third it is answered that if it were established that some passage of Scripture has a double literal sense, the heretic could be convinced from either: as certain men think, that the Lateran Council condemned a double error from the double sense of that passage, In the beginning he created, etc. But if the literal sense be not necessary but probable, it will be able to profit for the edification of the faithful, although it does not profit for convincing a heretic.

To the fourth it is answered that St. Thomas speaks there of the mystical senses, which are all founded upon some one literal sense, in such a way indeed that each mystical sense is founded upon some one literal sense.

To the fifth it is answered that that reason of St. Thomas does not conclude that God univocally signifies to us a double literal sense, but that, since he is the author of Scripture and of our understandings, he could intend that several literal senses occur to us. And therefore he so spoke through the sacred Writers that in certain passages Scripture would remain indifferent, so that it could be understood by us in several ways. Which is wont to happen among friends, that a friend sending a letter to a friend writes certain deliberately equivocal sentences, which can be understood in several ways according to the laws of friendship, so that the friend may exercise himself in them, held by a sweet equivocation.