Prima Pars
10. Summa I, q.1, a.7–9: Christ as King, Arguing from Authority, and Metaphor in Scripture
Class of 2006-01-12
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/010-summa-i-q-1-a-7-9-christ-as-king-arguing-from-authority-and/

[0:00] Another thing here that struck me, I was thinking about this other day, when Thomas was saying how this science is not strictly speaking to be put in the category of theoretical things like first philosophy is, or in practical things like ethics, right? That it reflects the unity of God's knowledge, right, as opposed to division of philosophy into these two kinds. Remember that. Well, thing that I thought about a lot over the years is thinking about again this this recent feast there, the Magi coming, right?

[0:55] Sometimes, when you divide the Gospels, and the way I first indicated, you divide Matthew, Mark, and Luke against John on the basis of humanity and divinity of Christ. Then they distinguish Matthew, Mark, and Luke,

[1:17] taking the word or taking a suggestion from the word Christ, which means anointed, right? And then Thomas will point out how in the Old Testament you anointed kings and prophets and priests, right? And so Matthew emphasizes the kingship of Christ and

[1:41] Mark the prophetic role of Christ, right? And then Luke the priesthood of Christ, right? That's why Luke is more explicit about the sweat in blood and about his suffering in the cross and so on, and why it's always in the temple so much begins in the temple and references the temple and so on. Why the Magi are only in

[2:10] Matthew and so on, and so you point out these connections here. But sometimes, you know, I've seen texts in Thomas where sometimes he divides Matthew and Luke against Mark. And John. That's kind of interesting. Of course, as you know, Matthew and Luke have a infancy narrative, right? They talk about the the

[2:42] human birth of Christ and so on, right? Okay. Why Mark doesn't he begins with the adult, right? Okay. At least in some of our texts of Mark, it begins by saying the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. So right away, the first sentence he told you's the Son of God. It's almost like the Gospel of John, right? Okay. So sometimes Thomas was puts Mark with John against the other two, right?

[3:13] Okay. Now, if you got just Matthew and what Luke, then you had just the kingship and the what priesthood of Christ, huh? And the prophetic falls out, right? Okay. Now, I've seen it. I was trying to find it the other day. There, I was going through all the encyclicals they had on the internet. there. It might have been Leo the thirteenth, Pius the Eleventh I guess one encyclical is talking about Christian doctrine and so on, and how we sometimes divide according to Christ as King, Christ as Teacher, and Christ as Priest, you see that division.

[3:59] And Christ as Teacher, we teach you the Creed. And Christ as King, you teach you the Commandments. And in Christ as Priest, you teach about prayer and sacraments and so on. Okay. But then a lot of times you find just two things mentioned: just kingship and priesthood. I've always said to be a what an imitation of Christ, a royal priesthood, right? Okay. What happened to the prophetic and the teaching?

[4:29] Right. You have only two now, right? See. Well, then it bothered me a lot from years ago when I was studying the Magi, because there's three gifts they bring, right? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And gold for the recognition of his kingship, right? Frankincense, which is a prayer ascending, right? That would seem to refer to his what? Being a priest. But myrrh refers to what? Death. Yeah, and therefore again to his passion and death, right?

[5:07] And therefore to his supreme priestly act, right? What happened to his prophetic and teaching role? Why didn't they bring a book or something, right? Is it

[5:20] all you got there is the kingship and the priesthood? What happened to the prophetic and teaching role, right? Okay. So that kind of bothered me, you know. You know, it's three or two, right? Okay.

[5:40] You see, in scripture, a lot of times where they refer to are reigning with Christ, right? When we enjoy eternal life, right? And when when Pilate asked Christ, there, you know, are you a king? What was the answer? This was I born for this. I came into the world. that I might give testimony to the truth. It seems that giving testimony to the truth, being a teacher in a sense, right, belongs to Christ as king.

[6:15] Okay. That also belongs to Christ or to God, for that matter, as king to command us, right, to give us commandments, huh? Okay. Well, then I got thinking about this article we read last time. Is this science speculative or practical?

[6:42] Well, they're not two things, right? In philosophy, they're two things: practical philosophy is one thing; theoretical philosophy, another thing, right? When Lady Wisdom comes down, Lady Philosophy comes down to console Boetheus in prison. She's got a big theta on her, and then below it, a pi for the practical philosophy. And the commentator says, "well, the

[7:07] theoreticus I should say the theoretical, I should say, the theoretical is above the practical, right? " But they're two different things, right? Okay, but this is one and the same, right? Well, maybe that's one way of looking at this paradox, right? When you when you distinguish Christ as prophet in a way, and perhaps along with that teacher, right? And Christ as king, you're kind of bringing out the theoretical and the practical aspect of both, and they're both there in his doctrine.

[7:35] And when Thomas showed that this science was above all the rest, he used both, didn't it? Both is derived from the practical. Remember that. But you also want to keep in mind that it's really one science, and so if you say Christ as king is both the one that what teaches truth, gives witness to the truth, and commands us, then you see the unity of the theoretical and the practical in his being called king, right?

[8:05] And then it's superfluous to say that he's a teacher too. That's included when you say king. Okay. So makes sense, right? Okay. I was kind of set off here at the end of this body of the article in Article Seven, where he said. Vel totum Christum idest caput et membra, right? Okay, because that seems to me not a good way to speak of the subject of this theology, right?

[8:46] But that would make more sense to speak of that as the subject of sacred what? Scripture. Yeah, yeah. And so, if you look at, say, the New Testament,

[9:00] Vatican II is is fairly close in its way of dividing it to the way Thomas divides the New Testament, right? Thomas divides the New Testament on the basis of grace. The Old Testament on the basis of law, the law of the King and the law of the Father. But the New Testament on the basis of grace, and he divides. it Into three parts: the origin of grace, Christ, which is what the Gospels are about; the nature of grace, which is what the Epistles of Paul are about; and then the chief effect of grace, which is the Church, whose origin is treated in the Acts of the Apostles.

[9:40] We see its progress in the canonical epistles and its final state in the Book of Acts. In fact, it's very close to that distinction that Thomas gives. We can see that the New Testament is about what? Copy the number, right? Okay. If you had a chance to look at that premium of Thomas to the the Psalms. Now, one reason why the Psalms are especially what used in the Mass and so on, right, is because of the universality of them.

[10:16] They contain, in a sense, the whole of the sacred doctrine in the form of a prayer. As Thomas says, "form of prayer and praise" and so on. But you could say it in a way: the subject of the Psalms is what? Copy the number. The thing they do.

[10:38] So, I wouldn't say that that's so much the subject of Summa Theologiae The subject of Summa Theologiae is God, God in Himself, and God as the Maker in the end. And a fortiori the Summa contra Gentiles. But that makes some sense to say that about sacred scripture. Can I take the reply? Do you want to finish the objection before we take a little break? Sure. And the first objection was about a science knowing what is right.

[11:14] The first, therefore, ought to be said that although about God we are not able to know what He is, right? We use nevertheless His effect in this teaching, whether it be an effect of nature or grace, in place of a what definition, right?

[11:38] For those things which are considered about God in His teaching, just as in some philosophical sciences, is demonstrated something about the cause through the what effect? Yeah. Taking the effect in place, the definition of the cause. So we know in this science more what God is not, right, and what He is. So we say He's the unmoved mover. He's simple. That is to say, not composed. He's infinite, not limited in His perfection.

[12:23] He's one. Undivided, okay. It's unchanging, and so on. And the second objection, of course, is clearly answered already in the body article. Sure, you do talk about other things, right? To the second, it should be said that all other things which are determined in sacred teaching are comprehended under God, not as parts of God, right, or particular kinds of God, or accidents of God, but as ordered in some way to Him, ordered to Him as their beginning and principium or as their end and finis.

[13:08] Okay. So, that in here, right in the smoke. It's a little break now before we go on to the last, the third part of the second part. Let's go on to the eighth article now, which is the first of the three articles dealing with how, not what this science is about, but how it talks and proceeds. And Thomas, of course, has first the article on being argumentative, because that's the way of proceeding.

[13:43] That's only one of many ways of proceeding, but the way of proceeding followed, especially in these books, right? But most books of sacred scripture do not proceed in that way, though Thomas says this is Job, right? Job is book of Job is ordered to defending faith against the primary objection to the faith, which is the evil in the world and the especially the things that the just and the good suffer, you know.

[14:18] And so, or the epistles of Saint Paul he says, that or argumentative. Okay, to the eighth, he proceeds thus. It seems that this teaching is not argumentative,

[14:36] for Ambrose says in the book about the Catholic faith, "Take away arguments where faith is sought, but in this teaching, especially faith is sought. " Whence it is said in John twenty three one, "These things are written that you might believe."

[15:01] Believe what? Christ is the Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So he gets the same profession of faith as Peter, except Peter says you is addressing Christ directly in Matthew chapter sixteen, but John is writing, so he says he was Jesus, the subject of the sentence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

[15:31] But again, you kind of see that the subject of the Gospels there is the what the Word of God made flesh. You kind of ascend from the human nature to the divine nature in those professions of faith. Therefore, sacred teaching is not argumentative.

[15:54] Moreover, if it were argumentative, it would not argue. It would either argue from authority or by some kind of reason. But if from authority, it does not seem to be fitting to its dignity, for the place from authority is the most infirm, the weakest, according to Boethius. If from reason. If this not belong or fit to its end, because according to Gregory in one of his homilies, faith has no merit, For human reason gives what experience.

[16:40] Therefore, sacred doctrine is not argumentative. But against this is what is said in Epistle to Titus, chapter one, verse nine, about the bishop embracing right that which is according to teaching a faithful sermon, or embrace that that you might be able to exhort in healthy teaching right, and to argue against those who refute those who contradict right.

[17:24] Okay, I answer. It ought to be said that as the other sciences do not argue to proving their principles, the geometry doesn't try to prove that the whole is more than the part, or that all right angles are what equal right? Huh.

[17:41] But from their beginnings, they reason to showing other things in these sciences. So also this teaching does not argue to proving its own what beginnings, which are the articles of faith, but from them it proceeds to showing something else. As for example, the Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the fifteenth chapter, the twelfth and the following verses,

[18:15] he argues for the resurrection of what Christ, to proving become resurrection of the faithful. Okay. But nevertheless, it should be considered that in the philosophical sciences, that the lower sciences neither prove their beginnings, nor do they dispute against those denying the beginnings. But they leave this to a higher knowledge. But the supreme one among them, namely metaphysics or first philosophy, disputes against those denying its what beginnings.

[19:03] If only the adversary concedes something right. If he doesn't concede anything, then we turn to the state of a vegetable. Aristotle. If, however, he concedes nothing, one is not able to dispute with them, right? Because in dispute you proceed on what the opponent says, right? But nevertheless, one is able to solve his what? His reasons, yeah. Okay. Whence sacred scripture, since it has no science superior to it, disputes with those negating or denying its beginnings,

[19:50] arguing if the adversary concedes something of those things which are had by divine revelation, as through the authorities of sacred teaching we dispute against heretics, and from one article against those negating another one. But if the adversary believes none of those things which are divine revealed, there does not remain any way further to proving the articles of faith through reasons, but to solving his reasons if he induces them against the what?

[20:30] Faith, huh? You see this very clearly in the Summa Contra Gentiles, you know, where Thomas gets into the fourth book where he's dealing especially with the articles of faith, and then he'll take up, say, the heretics, and he will reason from scripture against the heretics, right? But then he has some arguments just drawn from philosophy, trying to show that things are possible, that there are three persons in God, and so on, and then he'll solve those arguments.

[20:57] So they're different things, really, what he's doing He'll try to show from sacred scripture that there are three persons, that the Son is God too, and the Holy Spirit is God, but then he'll give arguments saying this is impossible, and that'd be a different chapter.

[21:19] And there he's not trying to prove by reason the that there are three persons in God. He's trying to show that the objections that say this is impossible are defective, right? They have a weakness in them. Necessary.

[21:38] For since faith rests upon infallible truth, right? The truth of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived is impossible to demonstrate something contrary to the truth. Right. It is manifest that the proofs which are induced against faith are not demonstrations, but arguments that can be what? Untied. Solubilia, I meant that. Socrates, there in the, Meno, right? He talks about an argument that cannot be untied, and you know when Meno's asking him, "Is knowledge really better than right opinion?".

[22:31] Because Socrates points out in this untying apparent contradiction there that there's two ways to get to the good. One is by knowing the way to the good, and the other is by having the right opinion of how to get there. And you heard my simple example there, right? That going down the road wants to get to Boston. There's a fork in the road, and one road leads to say Boston, and the other to to let's say Providence.

[23:01] If he knows this is the road to Boston, he'll take it, right? But also, if he thinks that's the road to Boston but doesn't know, he'll take it too. And so either case to get to Boston, right? And so Meno says, "Well, then is it any better to know than to just think correctly? And Socrates says, "well, as far as action is concerned,right Socrates says, "Well, so long as you continue to think correctly, fine.

[23:27] But you might, you know, stop thinking correctly because you're not sure about what you're saying, right? And something might change your mind. But if what you think has been tied down, you know, and tied down by knowledge of the cause and so on, then it's not going to be able to run away. And that's what you might say. Demonstration is an argument that ties something down, right?

[23:48] But Euclid ties down with that when the angles in the triangle are equal, the opposite sides must be equal. It's tied down, right? Won't run away now. But lots of things we used to have opinions about. Maybe talk to somebody else and go read another book or something, and will try to change your opinion.

[24:12] So, what sense is this teaching? And argumentative? And how many ways is it argumentative? Well, can reason from articles of faith, right, to other things, right? That's one way it's argumentative, right? And he gave an example there from St. Paul, right?

[24:44] It's also argumentative in that it may take something that the man who denies something, the man who denies, from the beginning of the science, right?

[24:58] You might find some passage in Scripture or something like that that he accepts. Reason from that, right? Okay, that's another way it's argumentative, right? And then third might be argumentative when you're showing that these objections to the articles of faith have some defect in them, right? Okay, so at least in three ways it's what argumentative, right? But two of them are taken regard to its beginnings, and one you might say to its conclusions.

[25:35] Okay, and it's argumentative in these two ways because, like first philosophy, say, wisdom, even more so. I mentioned before how in the Thomas's commentary there, kind of prologue there, he said, first questions in the sentences, right? He asks, whether this doctrine is what artful. It's beautiful the way he says it, artificialis in Latin, but shouldn't translate artificial, but artful. And the reason why he speaks that way is the same way Aristotle speaks in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics.

[26:22] That an art has to adapt itself to its matter, and so Thomas says is the way the sacred scripture proceeds, artful. And he goes to show that it does proceed artfully. He shows it has many ways of proceeding besides being argumentative. Sometimes it's narrativus. Sometimes it's orativus and laudativus, huh. Right, some books it narrates things, right? Okay. Um,

[26:58] the book of Psalms is prayerful and praising, and so on. Other books is revelatory, right? You have the prophets who give things, and so on. Other ways, it's what commanding, right? Other ones, it's threatening, and so on. Sometimes it's urging us, and so on. So he'll go through all these different ways that sacred scripture proceeds at different times, and one of the ways is argumentative, but only some of the books proceed in that way.

[27:31] So he shouldn't say that this article here is Thomas's whole consideration of how sacred doctrine proceeds. Right, it's all kinds of ways of proceeding, and he'll give the reason for this.

[27:49] I mean, even in terms of the principles being above our reason and being received from God, revelation means that the mode of scripture will be revelatory on the side of God, but on our side is going to be prayerful to receive these things. So, don't think don't get a narrow view of what Thomas thinks, but he's emphasizing this way of proceeding, which is only one of the many ways that scripture proceeds, right?

[28:18] Because this is the way he's going to proceed mainly in this book, right? Is it? Yeah, I wanted to ask you why is he concerned? Yeah. Why? Yeah. Why should he care if somebody doesn't think it's argumentative? Yeah, that's the way he says the book of of Job in the book of and this is Saint Paul very much argumentative, you know. In fact, the example he's taking here from Saint Paul, but other books he won't speak that way, right?

[28:47] If you look at the Psalms, he says or ativus and laudativus, prayerful and praising, right? But that's not proceeding in argumentative mode, right? And Thomas understands that, and he doesn't. So, but he's emphasizing this way. He doesn't mean with his teaching is only argumentative, but whether that's one way that it does proceed, because he's emphasizing he's going to proceed in that way in this book here. It seems to me if you look at.

[29:21] At the works of most famous works, anyway, of Saint John the Cross, right? They resemble not the Book of Job or the Epistles of Saint Paul, but more the Song of Songs, right? Okay, the Song of Songs proceeds in a different way. The Song of Songs, as Thomas explains, actually one of the one of the Psalms is the same subject as the Song of Songs, and it's an Epithalamion.

[29:53] And I don't know if you know Spencer's Epithalamion, an imitation of that, but Epithalamion originally means of the day of marriage, right? So it's praise of the groom, the bride, and the groom, you know. And in a way, the Song of Songs is praise of Christ and the Church, primarily the bride and the groom. So that's that's not argumentative, and and Thomas identified as an Epithalamion, you know.

[30:23] But going back to what it meant originally, the the best man does in kind of a diminutive way, you know, he kind of praises the the

[30:34] groom and the bride on that day, right? And he proposes a toast and so on. Well, in a sense, that's kind of the literary form, by the way, of the Song of Songs. So, the Song of Songs has a form that I think John the Cross is imitating more in his Canticle of the soul and so on But in that form. But this is imitating more the way of proceeding in what Job and the Epistles of Saint Paul, right?

[31:08] Okay, you know, you know, in Christ, you know, in the chapter there in Matthew there, where he says, "What do you think about this Christ? Who son is he?" And he actually refutes them, right? You see, but they're in a sense denying the divinity of Christ and so on, and he's what refuting them, right, from Scripture, which they happen to accept. So that's one of the two ways of arguing, right?

[31:31] So Christ argues from time to time, right? But then he uses other ways of proceeding. Sometimes he prays, sometimes he praises and so on. Sometimes he narrates. So, sometimes he prophesies. Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, do you not

[31:53] use all these ways at the same time? Different books, you know, use more one way than another. But this book is primarily this argumentative. Now,

[32:08] the first objection: he's he's agreeing with Ambrose. He said we don't reason to the articles of faith; we reason what from them. Okay, consider the beginnings. huh? To the first, therefore, it ought to be said. That although arguments of human reason do not have place to proving the things which are faith, nevertheless, from the articles of faith, this teaching argues to other things. Right? It reminds me of what the great Plato said, and Aristotle, and the, and the first book in the Nicomachean Ethics.

[32:45] He says Plato was right. He says to ask as he did, are we on the way to the beginnings or from the beginnings? And of course, you can ask it right here, right? Are we reasoning to the articles of faith or reasoning from them? Well, the answer here, the first, part of the first objection is we're reasoning from them. Okay. Heraclitus had said earlier, you know, beware of that man who doesn't know which way the road goes.

[33:19] You know, in philosophy, Descartes reasons. Tries to reason from the existence of God to the existence of nature. Well, the road goes in the opposite direction.

[33:33] So, second objection. That was an either-or argument, right? Either you argue from authority or you argue from reason. And if you argue from authority, that seems to be although the dignity of the science. Seems to be the infirmissima, most infirm. And if you argue from a reason, this does not fit the end.

[34:13] Faith has no merit, as Gregory says, for human reason is experience. And the second Thomas replies: It should be said that to argue from authority is most proper to this teaching, right?

[34:32] In that the beginnings of this teaching are had by revelation, and thus it is necessary that one believes in the authority of those to whom revelation has been made.

[34:50] That's interesting, Maxime proprium, right? I should sit down sometime with the Enchiridion Symbolorum, right? Some similar thing which has a collection of all the authoritative, the most authoritative, you might say, pronouncements of the Church and the councils down through the centuries, right? About all the things that pertain to the faith and so on. And I remember, you know, Karl Rahner talking about, you know, this Denzinger theology and all that.

[35:26] Well, here it's saying. To argue from authority is most proper to this teaching, right? Denzinger, you know, the editors are I mean the publishers are the Enchiridion Symbolorum That's that's what theology should be. Denzinger theology. You don't do that only, but. okay

[35:53] Nor he says, does it derogate to the authority or to the dignity, the worth of this teaching? For although the place from authority, which is founded upon human reason, is most weak, as the great poethius was saying there. Nevertheless, the place from authority which is founded on divine revelation is most what. Efficacious because he can neither deceive nor be deceived, right?

[36:27] But nevertheless, sacred teaching uses also what human reason, not in order to prove the faith, because by this would be taken away the merit of faith. That's referring back now to what Gregory was saying and the objection to that side of the either-or, but to manifesting some other things which are treated in this what doctrine.

[37:04] So I suppose you could reason from Christ being both God and man to Mary being the Mother of God. I don't see that they're going the reverse way. He denied that she should be called the Mother of God, and there's my back right that seems to be denying another article of the faith. Then

[37:27] there's the stories, so he discovered him. For since grace does not take away nature but perfects it, it is necessary that natural reason, right, be subservient to faith, right.

[37:51] Just as the natural inclination of the will follows what charity, it's why they say charity begins at home. Is that true? So there's an order in charity, right? Okay.

[38:14] Whence the Apostle, meaning of course by antonomasia Saint Paul, says in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the tenth chapter, the fifth verse, putting into captivity, right.

[38:30] I'm reminded of what he said to the, I'll make you fishers of men, right? That's kind of captivity, right? To the fish, catch your fish, huh?

[38:46] Every intellectual service of what Christ, huh? So we've been taken captive, and hence it is that sacred teaching also uses the authorities of philosophers, right?

[39:15] When, where, through natural reason, they are able to know somewhat truth. So the authority of Thomas kind of rubs off on what Aristotle. But notice, you know, it's important to see, huh? When we say that

[39:42] the the usefulness of Aristotle's philosophy in theology is a is a what sign of the truth of that philosophy, right? Well, we don't say that Aristotle's philosophy is true because it's useful in theology. That's a sign that it's true, right? But it's useful in theology because it is true. Okay.

[40:16] He gives example as Paul in the Acts there induces the words of Aratus saying, and as some of your poets said, huh? We are of the genus of God, made the image and likeness of God,

[40:33] huh? But now he's going to make some more distinctions here. But nevertheless, sacred teaching uses these authorities of the philosophers as extraneous arguments. That's the part where he says that, right? And what probable ones, right? Okay.

[40:56] But it uses the authorities of canonical scripture properly, right? Arguing from necessity, okay. And then in the middle, the authorities of the other doctors of the church, arguing from what is proper to argue, but with what more probability there.

[41:28] Of course, you know when the church says, you know, the mind of Augustine on grace is the mind of the church on grace, that takes on, you know, an extra authority there. For faith rests upon our faith, huh? Rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and to the prophets who wrote the canonical books, not to the revelation if it was made to some other what doctors, huh?

[42:01] And he quotes great Augustine there. Hence Augustine says in Epistle to Jerome, only those what books of Scripture which are called canonical. What does the word canon mean? List Measurable. Measuring. So these are the ones that measure us, huh?

[42:34] I've learned to bear this honor, right, to those books, right? That no author of them, in writing, heard, right? I most firmly believe this, right? Others I read, but no matter how much they what stand out for their holiness and their teaching and so on,

[43:01] not thus do I think true because they what so held and wrote it, okay? Because somebody like you know Augustine or Thomas had a great deal of authority behind them, you know. Now you look at the catechism, of the Catholic Church. the new one, and you know how many quotes are in there of Augustine or even of Thomas.

[43:33] And they bring in that the one there on Augustine there. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, yeah, very, very strong. You know that same issue has because it goes back to eighty six. Same issue has a letter of then Cardinal Ratzinger to Father Curran. telling him last straw.

[43:53] Decision holds. Now Article 9, where the sacred scriptures should use metaphors. Now here he's going kind of to the opposite extreme, it seems, right? And Aristotle says you can't define by metaphors, right? You can't reason for metaphors.

[44:28] You pig. Therefore, you're four footed, right? You can't reason why I pig you. Honey, did you do this? You're sticky. Your honey lips. Let's see what the objection is. to this. That which is proper to the lowest teaching does not seem to belong to this knowledge, which among all other ones holds the highest place, right? This has been said. But to go forward through various likenesses and representations is proper to the what poetic part, which is the lowest among all the teachings, huh?

[45:26] That's putting C. S. Lewis and other guys down and Tolkien down on the. But they are teachers in a sense, right? And and we could say Shakespeare is a teacher and Homer is a teacher, right? And Sophocles is a teacher, right?

[45:43] So why should the highest thing proceed the way the lowest one does? That seems quite unsuitable, right? Moreover, this teaching seems to be ordered, or seemed to be ordered, to the manifestation of truth. That This was I born as I came into the world. I make a testimony to truth, right? Whence to its manifestors, reward is promised, right? Who elucidate me? Will have eternal life, but through these likenesses, truth is hidden.

[46:29] Therefore, it does not belong to this doctrine to treat of divine things under likeness of bodily things. It's obscuring the truth, right? Now, a more particular objection.

[46:50] Moreover, as some creatures, or the more some creatures are sublime, the more they accede to what divine likeness. But is some things are taken from creatures and carried over to God, then we ought to take from things from the more sublime creatures to speak about God, and not for the lowest. But nevertheless, in Scripture, frequently is found the reverse, right? So the Lord is a rock. You know.

[47:26] They say the Lord is a cat. they'll be closer, with it? At least the cat is alive, right? The Stone is not even alive, right? The cat is a much more marvelous, thing, right? So you don't find often said to be a cat God, or a dog, or even a tree, but a stone.

[47:49] Lord is my rock. So this third objection, is a little, more particular, it's saying you know, if you give metaphors, oh, you ought to take them because of likeness, right? And never take something that is more like God than a rock. That's a terrible thing. The Scripture should do that sort of thing.

[48:12] Chuckle. But against this is what is said in the prophet Osee. I have multiplied what visions to them, and in the this is said by God, and in the hands the prophets I am what like unto.

[48:32] But to treat some things under likeness is a metaphor. Therefore, to sacred doctrine pertains to use metaphors. In a sense, the parables of our Lord too are kind of like an extended what metaphor, right? An elaborated metaphor. So. Now

[48:59] Dionysius has that book called on the divine names. Then there's another book I guess on called Symbolic Theology, which is about the metaphors. So he sees a distinction between the two, and that you don't reason for metaphors. So you'll find both books in Scripture. I answer: It should be said that it is suitable for sacred Scripture. To consider divine and spiritual things under the likeness of what bodily things, huh?

[49:35] For God provides for all according as it is fitting to their nature. But it is natural to man that he come through sensible things to understandable things. For all our knowledge has its origin

[50:00] from the senses, huh? Now Thomas often points out this right, like he talks about giving grace in the sacraments through a what sensible sign, right? That this is not only conformed to the word made foolish, but it's also conformed to the one you're trying to aid by these sacraments, right, to man, right? That he be led to something spiritual through something sensible.

[50:29] Well, the same way here in scriptures and metaphors, whence suitably in sacred scripture are treated for us spiritual things under the metaphors of bodily things, huh?

[50:45] And this is what Dionysius says in the first chapter of the celestial hierarchy. It is impossible for us otherwise to shine the divine rays, right? Unless it be what circumvelatum huh? Velatum means what? Veil and circum around, huh? So the thing that's being revealed to us, the ray of divine light, is surrounded by veils

[51:15] by variety of sacred veils, right? Okay. That's his first reason, right? Okay. So the kingdom of heaven is like a what pearl, right? Or it's like a treasure in the field, you know. It's very appropriate to man, right? Okay.

[51:43] It is suitable also, huh, to sacred scripture, which is commonly what proposed to everyone, right? According to that of Romans one fourteen, I am in debt to the wise and the foolish, insipientibus, right? To the insipid, huh? And I mentioned before the word sapientia I mean sapida scientia, savory knowledge, right? The insipid, huh? Foolish. Yeah, yeah.

[52:17] No, Shakespeare says there when Romeo's coming in, to do a foolish thing take his life, take the poison, right? Come, come, bitter conduct, huh? Come, unsavoury guy, right? He compares himself to the pirate ship on the rocks, huh? But when he says unsavoury, what does he mean? Foolish. Yeah, yeah. And sapid means foolish, right? Democrats, there. Sipid. Sipid. So, since one is indebted, one is indebted to both the wise and to the what?

[52:59] The foolish, huh? The insipid. It's necessary that spiritual things be proposed under the likeness of bodily things, so that what? Even the rustics, right, might grasp them, right? Who are not suitable to what? Grasping,Understandable things in themselves, right? There's that story told about, wasn't it? Saint Patrick was

[53:33] sermonizing to the Irish, I'm sure. Who does, as you say? And they were having problems with the Trinity, right? Supposed to pick, was it a shamrock or something? Then that's one and three. Yeah, okay, okay. So that's kind of a metaphor, right? You know, very, very distant from the Trinity, obviously, but but

[54:05] it was acceptable to them, right? But you see it in all Christ parables, almost. Comparison. Now in the body of the article here, he mentions two reasons. There, the first reason is in regard to all men, right? We all get tired of it. Yeah, yeah. So it's appropriate to take something sensible, right? To lead us to these things, the metaphor very clearly does that. Metaphors ought to be drawn from things that are clearly sensible, right?

[54:50] And lead us to something. But then he gives a second reason, which is in particular to the what? Those who aren't able to attain these things in themselves, the understandable in itself, very well, right? Okay, something appropriate to them, right?

[55:17] You're in the hands of God. But maybe you know, he can give a reason. Maybe he'll come up later on he'll apply the objections here. Um, it also has a special reason for the wiser, maybe too, though, right? That they can look for what's underneath these things. Okay. So I remember reading when I first was reading the Church Fathers on the the burning bush, right? And the Church Fathers see

[55:53] in the burning bush, which is a remarkable thing, yeah, because the bush is not being consumed, right? But that the fire there represents the divine nature of Christ, and the bush is human nature, and the bush not being consumed by the fire is its human nature not being consumed by divine nature. So these profound minds see underneath this, say what?

[56:20] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Our like when they said, you know, said lawfully give tribute to Caesar and so on. Christ says, well, whose image is that, right? And they said, well, Caesar's. Well, give to Caesar that is Caesar, and to God what is God? And the church fathers say, well, then what has the image of God? That's the soul. Give to God the soul, right?

[56:47] Now the first objection was, how can this teaching, which is the highest of all, proceed in the way that the lowest one proceeds, right?

[56:57] When he says to the first, therefore it should be said that the poet uses metaphors on account of what representation, imitation. Representation is naturally what delightful to man. Aristotle, of course, in the book on the poetic art, says that imitation man is by nature the most imitator of the animals. I have a very good meow. I want to hear something. But you know, I'll imitate all different sounds, all different animals for the grandchildren, right?

[57:28] So I used to pretend I had a dinner, you know, a meow and so. And so, man is more imitated than the animals. But Aristotle says that first we learn by imitation, and it is all naturally delightful. So he's following his teacher, Aristotle. But sacred doctrine uses metaphors on account of necessity, right? And perhaps referring back to the first reason, right? In usefulness, as has been said, right.

[58:11] Now sometimes you could be more explicit about this. That the poet is trying to help us understand something that falls below our mind, and the theologian is trying to bring something above our mind down to our mind. And so there is something common to the two, which is that something is not what proportionate to our mind. But in another way, it's just the reverse, right? Because in one case it's above our mind, in another case, what below our mind.

[58:59] So we tend to express these things metaphorically because they don't quite, not quite accessible to our reason, right? In one case, it's because the thing itself; in the other case, it's because the weakness of our mind. So that's why I kind of put Dante aside. Is not. Being what is typical of a poet, right? Because he's in a sense trying to do more what Scripture's doing—to bring these things down to our our level here.

[59:30] But the poet is really trying to raise things up. So they say, if there was original the Trojan War, right? It was probably some kind of a pirate raid, you know. But when Homer gets through with it, right, it's a what? It's like the Book of Job, right? You know, man's life on earth is a warfare. You know, it's like the whole human life is there and struggle of it.

[59:56] So he's given much more meaning to some battle than he really had, and you know, this runs through throughout the fine arts, huh? So the the great portrait painter tries to capture the whole man's character in one expression on his face, and so he's trying to give a facial expression more meaning than he really has. He's trying to capture more of the man in his face than any expression in real life that has.

[1:00:29] I get the face of Church Leader there. All these these terrible questioners and so on. Kaji says this is some amusement, you know, and he has a chance to laugh and so on. He gets a little bit different, but

[1:00:50] okay. Now the second objection was that you're hiding this truth here, right? But the second should be said that the ray of divine revelation is not destroyed on account of the sensible figures by which it is what veiled around, as Dionysius says. But it remains in its what truth, so that the minds to which revelation is made does not permit to remain in the likenesses, but it elevates them to a what knowledge of the understandables.

[1:01:33] And to them to which the revelation has been made, others are also what instructed about these things. Whence those things which in one place of Scripture are treated in metaphors, in other places are more what expressly expounded, right?

[1:01:55] And then he gives two other reasons here, right? And the hiding of the figures, the hiding of the figures, or that they are responsible for, is useful to the what exercise the studios, okay? I mean, people like the church fathers and so on, and against the what making fun of them of the

[1:02:21] those without faith, right? About whom it is said in Matthew seven six, do not give what is holy to the dogs. Okay. So exercitium studiosorum is another reason you could add to the two reasons given in the what body of the article, and then contra irrisionem infidelium, right? To a what? Kind of a fourth reason, right? And what was it? Was it Augustine who says when he first picked up Scripture, he found it unworthy to be compared with Cicero?

[1:03:07] Jerome maybe. I think Jerome said that, yeah. And then later on, you realize that Scripture. you know It's kind of high. There's something heightened about it right? So you say God is fire, right? This is interesting metaphor, right? But fire can be a metaphor both for the divine nature and a metaphor for the what? Trinity, right? Now, as a metaphor for the divine nature, the light of the fire, right, represents the divine what?

[1:03:50] Understanding, and the warmth of the fire represents his what? His love, right, and his ability to transform things, right? But also, we can say that from fire proceeds what? Light and warmth, right? And from the Father proceeds the Son, who is light, and the Holy Spirit proceeds his love, and therefore his warmth, right? So it's a metaphor both for for the divine substance and for the Trinity, right?

[1:04:27] So it exercises our mind to see that likeness under this metaphor, right? But in other places, you will be taught opening these things. We have to stop here, and we'll come back to the Trinity. See if you were things about metaphors, and we may get into the next question. I don't think you're going to be.