On Sacred Scripture

Question 6

On the senses of Sacred Scripture

Then there were questions about the senses of Sacred Scripture. And about this there were three questions:

first, whether besides the literal sense there lie hidden in the words of Sacred Scripture other spiritual senses;

second, concerning the number of senses of Sacred Scripture;

third, whether those senses are found in other writings.

Article 1

Whether besides the literal sense there lie hidden in the words of Sacred Scripture other spiritual senses

To the first we proceed thus. It seems that in the same words of Sacred Scripture there do not lie hidden many senses.

Obj. 1: Because sayings employed once must not be used equivocally (Cf. William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, bk. 3, tract. 10, ch. 1, q. 3, 3.1:121; Bonaventure, In IV Sent., d. 11, P. 2, dub. 2, 4:265.) or in manifold ways. But a plurality of senses makes a multiplication of speech. Therefore, in the same speech of Sacred Scripture there cannot lie hidden many senses.

Obj. 2: Sacred Scripture is ordered to illuminating the understanding, as the Psalm says: the declaration of your speeches (Ps 119 [118]:130). But a multiplicity of senses obscures understanding. Therefore, there should not be many senses in Sacred Scripture.

Obj. 3: That which can be an occasion of error should be avoided in Sacred Scripture. But to posit in Scripture other senses besides the literal can be an occasion of error, because someone could expound Scripture according to his wish in order to confirm his opinion. Therefore, there should not be many senses in Sacred Scripture.

Obj. 4: Augustine says, in the second book of On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, that greater is the authority of Sacred Scripture than every perspicacity of human genius. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2.5, para. 9 (CSEL 28:39; PL 34:267).) Therefore, a sense which does not have authority to confirm something is not a fitting sense of Sacred Scripture. But no sense besides the literal has strength to confirm something, as is clear through Dionysius in his epistle to Titus: for he says that symbolic theology, which proceeds from likenesses, is not argumentative. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Letter 9, “To Titus” (PG 3:1106–7); cf. Aquinas, In I Sent., prol., a. 5; 11.1.1, ad 1; In III Sent. 11.1.4, exp. text.) Therefore, Sacred Scripture does not have other senses besides the literal.

Obj. 5: Any sense drawn from the words of some Scripture which the author does not intend is not a proper sense, but a rival. But the author can only understand one thing through one Scripture, because to understand many things simultaneously does not happen, according to the Philosopher. (Aristotle, Topics 2.10, 114b34–35.) Therefore, there cannot be many proper senses of Sacred Scripture.

On the contrary (1): It is said in Daniel 12:4: many shall pass through and knowledge shall be manifold.

Furthermore (2): Jerome says in the prologue of the Bible, speaking about the Apocalypse: in each of the words manifold understandings lie hidden. (Jerome, Epistle 53, Ad Paulinum, para. 8 (PL 22:549).)

I answer that Sacred Scripture has been handed over from heaven so that through it the truth necessary for salvation might be manifested to us. Yet the manifestation or expression of some truth can happen in two ways: by things and by words, namely, inasmuch as words signify things and one thing can be a figure of another. Yet the author of Scripture, namely, the Holy Spirit, is not only the author of words but also of things. Hence not only can he accommodate words to signify something, but also he can arrange things to be the figure of something else. And according to this, truth is manifested in two ways in Sacred Scripture: one way is how things are signified through words, and in this consists the literal sense; another way is how things are figures of other things, and the spiritual sense consists in this. And thus, many senses apply to Sacred Scripture.

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that a variety of senses where one does not proceed from another makes a multiplication of speech. But the spiritual sense is always founded upon the literal and proceeds from it. Hence, since Sacred Scripture is expounded literally and spiritually, there is not any multiplicity in it.

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that, as Augustine says in the book On Christian Doctrine, it is profitably disposed by God for truth in Sacred Scripture to be manifested with some difficulty: (Cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.6, paras. 7–8 (CCSL 32:35–36; PL 34:38–39).) for this is useful for destroying tedium, since to those things which are difficult there rises a greater attention, which destroys tedium. Similarly, the occasion of pride is destroyed (Cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.6, para. 7 (CCSL 32:35; PL 34:38).) when a man can seize the truth of Scripture only with difficulty. Similarly, the truth of the faith is defended in this way from the derision of infidels. Hence the Lord says: do not give what is holy to dogs (Matt 7:6), and Dionysius admonished Timothy that he should preserve holy things uncontaminated from the unclean. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Letter 9, “To Titus” (PG 3:1106–7).) And thus, it is clear that it is expedient that the truth of the faith should be handed over under diverse senses in Sacred Scripture.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that, as Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine, there is nothing which is handed over secretly in some place of Sacred Scripture which elsewhere is not expounded manifestly. (Cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.6, para. 8 (CCSL 32:36; PL 34:39); 2.24, para. 37 (CCSL 32:99; PL 34:53–54).) Hence a spiritual exposition should always have a support from some literal exposition of Sacred Scripture, and thus every occasion of error is avoided.

Reply Obj. 4: It must be said that it is not on account of a defect of authority that an efficacious argument cannot be handed over from the spiritual sense, but it is from the very nature of likeness on which the spiritual sense is founded. For one thing can be like many. Hence from that thing, when it is proposed in Scripture, one cannot proceed to any of those likenesses determinately, but it is the fallacy of the consequent. For example: a lion on account of some likeness signifies both Christ and the devil. Hence just because something is said about a lion in Sacred Scripture, an advance to neither (Christ nor the devil) can be made by argumentation.

Reply Obj. 5: It must be said that the principal author of Sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who has understood in one word of Sacred Scripture many more things than are discerned through the expositors of Sacred Scripture. It is not even unfitting for a man who was an instrumental author of Sacred Scripture to understand many things in one word. For the prophets, as Jerome says in his commentary on Hosea, so spoke concerning present deeds that they intended also to signify future ones. (Jerome, Commentary on Hosea 1.1, verses 3–4 (CCSL 76:10; PL 25:824).) Hence it is not impossible to understand many things simultaneously inasmuch as one is a figure of another.

Article 2

On the number of senses of Sacred Scripture

To the second we proceed thus. It seems that there should not be distinguished four senses of Sacred Scripture, namely, historical or literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.

Obj. 1: For just as in Sacred Scripture some things are said figuratively concerning Christ, so also some things are said figuratively concerning other men, such as when in Daniel 8:5 the king of the Greeks is signified through a he-goat. But figurative sayings of this sort do not constitute some sense beyond the literal in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, neither should an allegorical sense, whereby things which preceded in figure are interpreted to be about Christ, be posited as a sense different from the historical.

Obj. 2: Of the head and members there is one person. But the allegorical sense seems to pertain to the head of the Church, namely, Christ, yet the moral sense seems to pertain to her members, namely, the faithful. Therefore, the moral sense should not be distinguished from the allegorical.

Obj. 3: The moral sense is that which pertains to the instruction of morals. But Sacred Scripture according to the literal sense instructs in morals in many places. Therefore, the moral sense should not be distinguished from the literal.

Obj. 4: Just as Christ is head of the Church militant, so he is head of the Church triumphant; nor are these different Christs. Therefore, neither should the anagogical sense, through which something is expounded concerning the Church triumphant, be other than the allegorical, by which it is expounded concerning Christ and the Church militant.

Obj. 5: If those four senses were to belong to Sacred Scripture necessarily, every part of Sacred Scripture would need to have those four senses. But this is false: for as Augustine says in his commentary on Genesis, in certain things the literal sense alone must be sought. (Cf. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 8.1 (CSEL 28:229; PL 34:371–73); 8.4 (CSEL 28:236; PL 34:375–76).) Therefore, these four senses do not belong to the exposition of Sacred Scripture necessarily.

On the contrary (1): Augustine says in the beginning of On the Literal Meaning of Genesis: in all the sacred books it is necessary to consider what things there are related as eternal, what are narrated as having been done, what are foretold as future, what are commanded as having to be done. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1.1 (CSEL 28:3; PL 34:247).) Yet the first pertains to the anagogical sense, the second to the historical, the third to the allegorical, the fourth to the moral. Therefore, the senses of Sacred Scripture are four.

Furthermore (2): Bede says on the beginning of Genesis: the senses of Sacred Scripture are four: history, which speaks of events accomplished; allegory, in which one thing is understood from another; tropology, that is, moral speech, in which it is treated concerning the ordering of morals; anagoge, through which we who are to treat concerning the highest and celestial things are led to higher things. (Glossa ordinaria, at Prothemata glossa ordinariae, 1:1 (PL 113:63); Bede, On the Tabernacle 1 (CCSL 119 A:25; PL 91:410).)

I answer that the distinction of these four senses should be understood in this way. For as has been said, Sacred Scripture manifests the truth which it hands over in a twofold way: through words and through the figures of things. (Above: q. 6, a. 1, resp.) Yet the manifestation through words makes the historical or literal sense, hence the whole of that pertains to the literal sense which can be understood rightly from the signification itself of the words. But the spiritual sense, as has been said, (Above: q. 6, a. 1, resp.) consists in that certain things are expressed through the figure of other things. And because visible things tend to be figures of invisible, as Dionysius says, (Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial Hierarchy 1.3 (PG 3:122).) hence it is that the sense which is understood from figures is called spiritual.

Yet the truth which Sacred Scripture hands over through the figures of things is ordered to two things, namely, to believing rightly and to working rightly. If to working rightly, thus it is the moral sense, which by another name is called tropological. Yet if it is to believing rightly, it is necessary to distinguish according to the order of things to be believed. For as Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, (Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.1–3 (PG 3:471–78); 5.1–3 (PG 3:499–503).) the state of the Church is a middle between the state of the synagogue and the state of the Church triumphant: for the Old Testament was a figure of the New, and Old and New simultaneously are a figure of heavenly things. Therefore, the spiritual sense ordered to believing rightly can be founded upon that mode of figuring by which the Old Testament figures the New, and thus it is the allegorical or typical sense, according to which those things which occurred in the Old Testament are expounded concerning Christ and the Church. Or it can be founded upon that mode of figuring by which New and Old simultaneously signify the Church triumphant, and thus it is the anagogical sense.

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that the he-goat or other things of this sort through which persons other than Christ are designated in Scripture were not any things, but imaginary likenesses shown only to signify those persons. Hence that signification by which those persons or kingdoms are designated through those likenesses does not pertain to any but the historical sense. But even those which occurred in the truth of the thing are ordered to signifying Christ as shadows to the truth. And for this reason, such a signification by which Christ or his members are signified through things of this sort, makes another sense beyond the historical, namely, the allegorical. Whereas if anywhere it is found that Christ is signified through imaginary likenesses of this sort, such a signification does not exceed the literal sense, just as Christ is signified through the stone which was cut off from the mountain without hands (Dan 2:45).

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that the allegorical sense not only pertains to Christ by the character of head, but also by the character of members, just as that the twelve stones chosen from the Jordan, in Joshua 4:3, signify the twelve Apostles. But the moral sense pertains to the members of Christ as much as to their proper acts and not according as they are considered as members.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that the moral sense is not called every sense through which there is instruction in morals, but through which the instruction of morals is assumed from the likeness of some events accomplished: for thus the moral sense is part of the spiritual sense. Hence it is clear that the moral and the literal sense are never the same.

Reply Obj. 4: It must be said, just as the allegorical sense pertains to Christ according as he is head of the Church militant justifying her and infusing grace, so also the anagogical sense pertains to him according as he is head of the Church triumphant glorifying her.

Reply Obj. 5: It must be said that those four senses are not attributed to Sacred Scripture because every part must be expounded by those four senses, but rather sometimes by those four, sometimes by three, sometimes by two, sometimes by one only. For in Sacred Scripture, later things especially are figured from prior ones. And for this reason, when in Sacred Scripture something is said according to the literal sense that concerns a prior thing, it can be expounded spiritually concerning later things, but not conversely. Yet amongst all those things which are narrated in Sacred Scripture, the first are those which pertain to the Old Testament, and for this reason, those things which according to the literal sense look to the deeds of the Old Testament can be expounded by the four senses. Whereas the second are those which pertain to the state of the present Church, in which those which pertain to the head are prior in respect of those which pertain to the members, because the true body of Christ itself, and those things which are in it, have been borne by figure of the mystical body and of those which are borne in it. From Christ himself we ought also to assume an example of living; in him also future glory is foreshadowed for us.

Hence those things which according to the letter are told concerning Christ the head can be expounded allegorically as referring to his mystical body, and morally as referring to our acts which ought to be informed according to him, and anagogically inasmuch as the path of glory has been demonstrated for us in Christ himself. But when according to the literal sense something is said concerning the Church, it cannot be expounded allegorically, unless perhaps that those things said about the primitive Church should be expounded as much as to the future state of the present Church. Nevertheless, they can be expounded morally and anagogically. Whereas those things which are said morally according to the literal sense are only accustomed to be expounded anagogically. Whereas those which according to the literal sense pertain to the state of glory are accustomed to be expounded by no other sense, since they themselves are not a figure of other things, but are figured by all other things.

Article 3

Whether those senses are found in other writings

To the third we proceed thus. It seems that the abovementioned senses should be distinguished in other writings also.

Obj. 1: For the spiritual senses in Sacred Scripture are taken from certain likenesses. But in other sciences we also proceed from certain likenesses. Therefore, the spiritual senses can be found in the writings of other sciences.

Obj. 2: It belongs to the poetic art to designate the truth of things by any made-up likenesses. (Cf. Aquinas, Commentary on the Posterior Analytics, bk. 1, lect. 1.) Therefore, it seems that also in the sayings of poets the spiritual senses may be found and not only in Sacred Scripture.

Obj. 3: The Philosopher says that he who says one thing, in a certain way says many. (Cf. Albert the Great, Summa de quatuor coequevis, tr. 4, q. 35; Aristotle, Metaphysics 7.12, 1037b8–27.) Therefore, it seems that in other sciences one can designate many things in one sense, and thus not only Sacred Scripture has those spiritual senses.

On the contrary: Gregory in the twentieth book of the Morals on the Book of Job says: Sacred Scripture transcends all sciences and doctrines even by the very custom of its speaking, because by one and the same speech while it narrates of witnesses, it produces a mystery. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 20.1, 1 (CCSL 143A:1003; PL 76:135).)

I answer that the spiritual senses of Sacred Scripture are understood from this: that the things running their course signify something else, which is understood through a spiritual sense. Yet to order things in their course that from them such a signification can be understood belongs to him alone who by his providence governs things, who alone is God. For just as man can present some voices or some made-up likenesses to signify something, so God presents the course itself of things subject to his providence to signify something. Yet to signify something through words or through made-up likenesses ordered only to signifying does not constitute anything but a literal sense, as is clear from what has been said. (Above: q. 6, a. 2, ad 1.) Hence in no human science discovered by human industry, properly speaking, can there be found any sense but the literal, but only in that Scripture of which the Holy Spirit is author, whereas man is only an instrument, according to that line of the Psalmist: my tongue the reed-pen of a scribe (Ps 45:1 [44:2]).

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that in other sciences we proceed from likenesses by argumentation, not that something else also is signified by the words which signify one thing.

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that poetic fictions are not ordered to anything else except to signifying. Hence such signification does not pass beyond the mode of the literal sense.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that he who says one thing says in a certain way many things, namely, in potency, according as conclusions are potencies in principles: for from one principle many conclusions follow. And it is not that in other sciences through the mode of signification what is said concerning one thing simultaneously is understood concerning others as its signification, although granted it can be drawn thence through argumentation.