 Q91 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde, Triatis on the Cardinal Virtues, The Virtue of Justice. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde, Triatis on the Cardinal Virtues, The Virtue of Justice by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Q91 of Taking the Divine Name for the Purpose of Invoking it by Means of Praise, in two articles. We must now consider the taking of the Divine Name for the purpose of invoking it by prayer or praise. Of prayer we have already spoken in Question 83. Therefore we must speak now of praise. Under this head there are two points of inquiry. First, whether God should be praised with the lips. Second, whether God should be praised with song. First article, whether God should be praised with the lips. Objection one, it would seem that God should not be praised with the lips. The philosopher says in Ethics 112, The best of men err accorded not praise but something greater. But God transcends the very best of all things. Therefore God ought to be given not praise but something greater than praise. Wherefore he has said in Ecclesiasticus 43.33 to be above all praises. Objection two further. Divine praise is a part of divine worship, for it is an act of religion. Now God is worshiped with the mind rather than with the lips. Wherefore our Lord quoted against certain ones the words of Isaiah 29.13, This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Therefore the praise of God lies in the heart rather than on the lips. Objection three further. Men are praised with the lips that they may be encouraged to do better. Since just as being praised makes the wicked proud, so does it incite the good to better things. Wherefore it is written in Proverbs 27.21, As silver is tried in the finding pot, so a man is tried by the mouth of him that praises. But God is not incited to better things by man's words, both because he is unchangeable and because he is supremely good and it is not possible for him to grow better. Therefore God should not be praised with the lips. On the contrary it is written in Psalm 62 verse 6, My mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips. I answer that we use words in speaking to God for one reason and in speaking to man for another reason. For when speaking to man we use words in order to tell him our thoughts which are unknown to him. Wherefore we praise a man with our lips in order that he or others may learn that we have a good opinion of him, so that in consequence we may incite him to get better things and that we may induce others who hear him praised to think well of him, to reverence him, and to imitate him. On the other hand we employ words in speaking to God, not indeed to make known our thoughts to him who is the searcher of hearts, but that we may bring ourselves and our hearers to reverence him. Consequently, we need to praise God with our lips, not indeed for his sake, but for our sake. Since by praising him our devotion is aroused towards him, according to Psalm 49 verse 23, the sacrifice of praise shall glorify me and there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God. And for as much as man, by praising God, ascends in his affections to God, by so much is he withdrawn from things opposed to God, according to Isaiah 48 verse 9, for my praise I will bridle thee lest thou shouldest perish. The praise of the lips is also profitable to others by inciting their affections towards God, wherefore it is written in Psalm 33 verse 2, his praise shall always be in my mouth. And further on, let the meek hear and rejoice, or magnify the Lord with me, reply to Objection 1. We may speak of God in two ways. First, with regard to his essence, and thus since he is incomprehensible and ineffable, he is above all praise. In this respect we owe him reverence and the honour of Latria, wherefore Psalm 64 verse 2 is rendered by Jerome in his salter, praise to thee is speechless, O God. As regards the first, and as to the second, a vow shall be paid to thee. Secondly, we may speak of God as to his effects, which are ordained for our good. In this respect we owe him praise. Wherefore it is written in Isaiah 63 verse 7, I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord and praise the Lord for all the things that the Lord hath bestowed upon us. Again, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 1, Thou wilt find that all the sacred hymns, that is, divine praises, of the sacred writers are directed respectively to the blessed processions of the theorarchy, that is, of the Godhead, showing forth and praising the names of God. Reply to Objection 2, it profits one nothing to praise with the lips, if one prays not with the heart. For the heart speaks God's praises, when it fervently recalls, the glorious things of his works confer Ecclesiasticus 177. Yet the outward praise of the lips avails to arouse the inward fervour of those who praise and to incite others to praise God, as stated above. Reply to Objection 3, we praise God not for his benefit, but for ours, as stated. Second article, whether God should be praised with song. Objection 1, it would seem that God should not be praised with a song, for the Apostle says in Colossians 3.16, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles. Now we should employ nothing in the Divine Worship, save what is delivered to us on the authority of Scripture. Therefore, it would seem that in praising God we should employ not corporal, but spiritual canticles. Objection 2 further, Jerome, in his commentary on Ephesians 5.19, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord, says, Listen, young men, whose duty it is to recite the office in the church. God is to be sung not with the voice, but with the heart. Nor should you, like play-actors, ease your throat and jaws with medicaments and make the church resound with theatrical measures and heirs. Therefore, God should not be praised with song. Objection 3 further, the praise of God is competent to little and great, according to Apocalypse 14. Give praise to our God, all ye his servants, and you that fear him little and great. But the great, who are in the church, ought not to sing, for Gregory says, I hereby ordain that in this sea the ministers of the secret altar must not sing, according to the decretal in Sancta Romana Ecclesia. Therefore, singing is unsuitable to the divine praises. Objection 4 further, in the old law God was praised with musical instruments and human song, according to Psalm 32, verses 2 and 3. Give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to him with the sultry, the instrument of ten strings, sing to him a new canticle. But the church does not make use of musical instruments such as harps and sultries in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews. Therefore, in like manner, neither should be song used in the divine praises. Objection 5 further, the praise of the heart is more important than the praise of the lips. But the praise of the heart is hindered by singing, both because the attention of the singers is distracted from the consideration of what they are singing, so long as they give all their attention to the chant, and because others are less able to understand the things that are sung than if they were recited without chant. Therefore, chants should not be employed in the divine praises. On the contrary, Blessed Ambrose established singing in the Church of Milan as Augustine relates in Confessions 9. I answer that, as stated above in Article 1, the praise of the voice is necessary in order to arouse man's devotion towards God. Wherefore, whatever is useful in conducing to this result is becomingly adopted in the divine praises. Now, it is evident that the human soul is moved in various ways according to various melodies of sound as the philosopher states in Politics 8.5 and also Boethius in De Musica, the prologue. Hence the use of music in the divine praises is a salutary institution that the souls of the faint-hearted may be the more incited to devotion. Wherefore, Augustine says in Confessions 10.33 I am inclined to approve of the usage of singing in the Church so that by the delight of the ears the faint-hearted may rise to the feeling of devotion. And he says of himself in Confessions 9.6 I wept in thy hymns and canticles touched to the quick by the voices of thy sweet attuned church. Reply to Objection 1. The name of spiritual canticle may be given not only to those that are sung inwardly in spirit but also to those that are sung outwardly with the lips in as much as such like canticles arouse spiritual devotion. Reply to Objection 2. Jerome does not absolutely condemn singing but reproves those who sing theatrically in church not in order to arouse devotion but in order to show off or to provoke pleasure. Hence Augustine says in Confessions 10.33 When it befalls me to be more moved by the voice than by the words sung I confess to have sinned penalty and then had rather not hear the singer. Reply to Objection 3. To arouse mentored devotion by teaching and preaching is a more excellent way than by singing wherefore deacons and prelates whom it becomes to incite men's minds towards God by means of preaching and teaching ought not to be instant in singing lest thereby they be withdrawn from greater things. Hence Gregory states it is a most discredible custom for those who have been raised to the diaconate to serve as choresters for it behooves them to give their whole time to the duty of preaching and to taking charge of the alms. Reply to Objection 4. As the philosopher says in Politics 8.6 Teaching should not be accompanied with a flute or any artificial instrument such as the harp or anything else of this kind but only with such things as make good hearers. For such like musical instruments move this all to pleasure rather than create a good disposition within it. In the Old Testament instruments of this description were employed both because the people were more coarse and carnal so that they needed to be aroused by such instruments as also by earthly promises and because these material instruments were figures of something else. Reply to Objection 5. The soul is distracted from that which is sung by a chant that is employed for the purpose of giving pleasure but if the singer chant for the sake of devotion he pays more attention to what he says both because he lingers more there on and because as Augustine remarks in Confessions 1033 each affection of our spirit according to its variety has its own appropriate measure in the voice and singing by some hidden correspondence wherewith it is stirred. The same applies to the hearers for even if some of them understand not what is sung yet they understand why it is sung namely for God's glory and this is enough to arouse their devotion. End of Question 91 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 92 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triates on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Justice This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triates on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Justice by St. Thomas Aquinas translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 92 of Superstition in two articles In due sequence we must consider the vices that are opposed to religion. First we shall consider those which agree with religion in giving worship to God. Secondly we shall treat of those vices which are manifestly contrary to religion through showing contempt of those things that pertain to the worship of God. The former come under the head of superstition. The latter under that of irreligion. Accordingly we must consider in the first place superstition and its parts afterwards irreligion and its parts. Under the first head there are two points of inquiry. First whether superstition is a vice opposed to religion. Second whether it has several parts or species. First article whether superstition is a vice opposed to religion. Objection one it would seem that superstition is not a vice contrary to religion. One contrary is not included in the definition of the other. But religion is included in the definition of superstition. For the latter is defined as being immoderate observance of religion. According to a gloss on Colossians 223 which things have indeed a show of wisdom in superstition. Therefore superstition is not a vice contrary to religion. Objection two further. Is it or says in his etymologies 10 Cicero states that the superstitious were so called because they spent the day in praying and offering sacrifices that their children might survive superstitias them. But this may be done even in accordance with true religious worship. Therefore superstition is not a vice opposed to religion. Objection three further. Superstition seems to denote an excess. But religion admits of no excess since as stated above in question 81 article 5 third reply there is no possibility of rendering to God or religion the equal of what we owe to him. Therefore superstition is not a vice contrary to religion. On the contrary Augustine says thou strikeest the first chord in the worship of one God and the beast of superstition hath fallen. Now the worship of one God belongs to religion. Therefore superstition is contrary to religion. I answer that as stated above in question 81 article 5. Religion is a moral virtue. Now every moral virtue observes a mean as stated above in the Pars Prima Secunde question 64 article 1. Therefore a two-fold vice is opposed to a moral virtue. One by way of excess the other by way of deficiency. Again the mean of virtue may be exceeded not only with regard to the circumstance called how much but also with regard to other circumstances so that in certain virtues such as magnanimity and magnificence vice exceeds the mean of virtue not through tending to something greater than the virtue but possibly to something less and yet it goes beyond the mean of virtue through doing something to whom it ought not or when it ought not in a like manner as regards other circumstances as the philosopher shows in Ethics 4, 1, 2 and 3. Accordingly superstition is a vice contrary to religion by excess not that it offers more to the divine worship than true religion but because it offers divine worship either to whom it ought not in a manner it ought not. Reply to Objection 1. Just as we speak metaphorically of good among evil things thus we speak of a good thief so too sometimes the names of the virtues are employed by transposition in an evil sense. This prudence is sometimes used instead of cunning according to Luke 16.8. The children of this world are more prudent in their generation than the children of light. It isn't this way that superstition is described as religion. Reply to Objection 2. The etymology of a word differs from its meaning for its etymology depends on what it is taken from for the purpose of signification whereas its meaning depends on the thing to which it is applied for the purpose of signifying it. Now these things differ sometimes for lapis, a stone, takes its name from hurting the foot later epedim. But this is not its meaning else iron, since it hurts the foot, would be a stone. In like manner it does not follow that superstition means that from which the word is derived. Reply to Objection 3. Religion does not admit of excess in respect of absolute quantity but it does admit of excess in respect of proportionate quantity insofar to wit as something may be done in divine worship that ought not be done. Second Article Whether there are various species of superstition? Objection 1. It would seem that there are not various species of superstition. According to the philosopher in Topics 113 if one contrary includes many kinds so does the other. Now religion to which superstition is contrary does not include various species but all its act belong to the one species. Therefore neither has superstition various species. Objection 2 further Opposites relate to one same thing but religion to which superstition is opposed relates to those things whereby we are directed to God as stated above in Question 81 Article 1. Therefore superstition which is opposed to religion is not specified according to divinations of human occurrences or by the observances of certain human actions. Objection 3 further A glass on Colossians 223 which things have a show of wisdom in superstition adds that is to say in a hypocritical religion. Therefore hypocrisy should be reckoned a species of superstition. On the contrary, Augustine assigns the various species of superstition in On Christian Doctrine 220. I answer that as stated above sins against religion consist in going beyond the mean of virtue in respect of certain circumstances confer Article 1. For as we have stated in the Parse Prima Secunde Question 72 Article 9 not every diversity of corrupt circumstances differentiates the species of a sin but only that which is referred to diverse objects for diverse ends. Since it is in this respect that moral acts are diversified specifically as stated above in the Parse Prima Secunde Question 1 Article 3 and in Question 18 Articles 2 and 6. Accordingly, the species of superstition are differentiated first on the part of the mode secondly on the part of the object. For the divine worship may be given either to whom it ought to be given namely to the true God but in an undue mode and this is the first species of superstition or to whom it ought not to be given namely to any creature whatsoever and this is another genus of superstition divided into many species in respect of the various ends of divine worship. For the end of divine worship is in the first place of reverence to God and in this respect the first species of this genus is idolatry which unduly gives divine honor to a creature. The second end of religion is that man may be taught by God whom he worships and to this must be referred divinatory superstition which consults the demons through compacts made with them whether tacit or explicit. Thirdly, the end of divine worship is a certain direction of human acts according to the precepts of God the object of that worship and to this must be referred the superstition of certain observances. Augustine alludes to these three in on Christian doctrine 220 where he says that anything invented by man for making and worshiping idols is superstitious and this refers to the first species then he goes on to say or any agreement or covenant made with the demons for the purpose of consultation and of compact by tokens which refers to the second species and a little further on he adds to this kind belong all sorts of amulets and such like and this refers to the third species. Reply to Objection 1 as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4 good results from a cause that is one and entire whereas evil arises from each single defect where for several vices are opposed to one virtue as stated above in article 1 as well as in question 10 article 5 the saying of the philosopher is true of opposites and there is the same reason of multiplicity Reply to Objection 2 divinations and certain observances come under the head of superstition insofar as they depend on certain actions of the demons and thus they pertain to compacts made with them Reply to Objection 3 hypocritical religion is taken here for religion as applied to human observances as the gloss goes on to explain where for this hypocritical religion is nothing else than worship given to God in an undue mode as for instance if a man were in the time of grace to wish to worship God according to the right of the old law it is of religion taken in this sense that the gloss speaks literally End of question 92 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert L.C. Question 93 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triaties on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Justice This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triaties on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Justice by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 93 of Superstition Consisting in Undue Worship of the True God in two articles We must now consider the species of superstition We shall treat one of the superstition which consists in giving undue worship to the True God Two of the superstition of idolatry Three of divinatory superstition Four of the superstition of observances Under the first head there are two points of inquiry First, whether there can be anything pernicious in the worship of the True God Second, whether there can be anything superfluous therein First article Whether there can be anything pernicious in the worship of the True God Objection 1 It would seem that there cannot be anything pernicious in the worship of the True God It is written in Jewel 232 Everyone that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved Now whoever worships God calls upon his name Therefore all worship of God is conducive to salvation and consequently none is pernicious Objection 2 further It is the same God that is worshiped by the just in any age of the world Now before the giving of the law the just worshiped God in whatever manner they pleased without committing mortal sin Wherefore Jacob bound himself by his own vow to a special kind of worship as is related in Genesis 28 Therefore now also no worship of God is pernicious Objection 3 further Nothing pernicious is tolerated in the church Yet the church tolerates various rights of divine worship Wherefore Gregory, replying to Augustine Bishop of the English who stated that there existed in the church's various customs in the celebration of Mass wrote I wish you to choose carefully whatever you find likely to be most pleasing to God whether in the Roman territory or in the land of the Gauls or in any part of the church Therefore no way of worshiping God is pernicious On the contrary Augustine in a letter to Jerome says that after the gospel truth had been preached the legal observances became deadly And yet these observances belonged to the worship of God Therefore there can be something deadly in the divine worship I answer that as Augustine states in Against lying, 14 A most pernicious lie is that which is uttered in matters pertaining to Christian religion Now it is a lie if one signify outwardly that which is contrary to truth But just as a thing is signified by word so it is by deed And it is in this signification by deed that the outward worship of religion consists has shown above in question 81 article 7 Consequently, if anything false is signified by outward worship this worship will be pernicious Now this happens in two ways In the first place it happens on the part of the thing signified through the worship signifying something discordant therefrom And in this way at the time of the new law the mysteries of Christ being already accomplished it is pernicious to make use of the ceremonies of the old law whereby the mysteries of Christ were foreshadowed as things to come Just as it would be pernicious for anyone to declare that Christ has yet to suffer In the same place falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper and especially in common worship which is offered by ministers impersonating the whole church for even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would in the name of another person proffer things that are not committed to him so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who on the part of the church gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the church or divine authority and according to ecclesiastical custom Hence Ambrose says He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it For this reason too a gloss on Colossians 2.23 says that superstition is the use of human observances under the name of religion Reply to Objection 1 Since God is truth to invoke God is to worship him in spirit and truth according to John 4.23 Hence a worship that contains falsehood is inconsistent with a salutary calling upon God Reply to Objection 2 Before the time of the law the just were instructed by an inward instinct as to the way of worshiping God and others followed them but afterwards men were instructed by outward precepts about this matter and it is wicked to disobey them Reply to Objection 3 The various customs of the church in the divine worship are in no way contrary to the truth wherefore we must observe them and to disregard them is unlawful Second Article Whether there can be any excess in the worship of God Objection 1 It would seem that there cannot be excess in the worship of God It is written in ecclesiastic as 43.32 Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can for he will yet far exceed Now the divine worship is directed to the glorification of God therefore there can be no excess in it Objection 2 further Outward worship is a profession of inward worship whereby God is worshiped with faith hope and charity as Augustine says in his Incuritian 3 Now there can be no excess in faith hope and charity Neither therefore can there be in the worship of God Objection 3 further To worship God consists in offering to him what we have received from him But we have received all our goods from God Therefore if we do all that we possibly can for God's honour there will be no excess in the divine worship On the contrary Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 2.18 That the good and true Christian rejects also superstitious fancies from holy writ But holy writ teaches us to worship God Therefore there can be superstition by reason of excess God I answer that a thing is said to be in excess in two ways First with regard to absolute quantity and in this way there cannot be excess in the worship of God because whatever man does is less than he owes God Secondly a thing is in excess with regard to quantity of proportion through not being proportionate to its end Now the end of divine worship is that man may give glory to God and submit to him in mind and body Consequently whatever a man may do conducing to God's glory and subjecting his mind to God and his body too by a moderate curbing of the concupiscences is not excessive in the divine worship provided it be in accordance with the commandments of God and of the church and in keeping with the customs of those among whom he lives On the other hand if that which is done be in itself not conducive to God's glory nor raise man's mind to God nor curb inordinate concupiscence or again if it not be in accordance with the commandments of God and of the church or if it be contrary to the general custom has the force of law All this must be reckoned excessive and superstitious because consisting as it does of mere externals it has no connection with the internal worship of God Hence Augustine in On True Religion 3 quotes the words of Luke 1721 The kingdom of God is within you against the superstitious those to wit who pay more attention to externals Reply to Objection 1 The glorification of God implies that what is done is done for God's glory and this excludes the excess denoted by superstition Reply to Objection 2 Faith, Hope and Charity subject the mind to God so that there can be nothing excessive in them It is different with external acts which sometimes have no connection with these virtues Reply to Objection 3 This argument considers excess by way of absolute quantity For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Question 94 of Idolatry in 4 articles we must now consider Idolatry under which head there are 4 points of inquiry First whether Idolatry is a species of superstition Second whether it is a sin Third whether it is the gravest sin Fourth of the cause of this sin First article whether Idolatry is rightly reckoned a species of superstition Objection 1 it would seem that Idolatry is not rightly reckoned a species of superstition Just as heretics are unbelievers so are idolaters But heresy is a species of unbelief as stated above in Question 11 article 1 Therefore Idolatry is also a species of unbelief out of superstition Objection 2 further Idolatry up pertains to the virtue of religion to which superstition is opposed But Idolatry apparently is univocally applied to Idolatry and to that which belongs to the true religion For just as we speak univocally of the desire of false happiness and of the desire of true happiness So too seemingly we speak univocally of the worship of false gods which is called Idolatry and the worship of the true god which is the latteria of true religion Therefore Idolatry is not a species of superstition Objection 3 further that which is nothing cannot be the species of any jainess But Idolatry apparently is nothing for the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 8 4 we know that an idol is nothing in the world and further on in 1 Corinthians 10 19 What then? Do I say that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything or that the idol is anything? Implying that the answer is in the negative Now offering things to idols belongs properly to Idolatry Therefore since Idolatry is like to nothing you cannot be a species of superstition Objection 4 further it belongs to superstition to give divine honor to whom that honor is not due Now divine honor is undue to idols just as it is undue to other creatures But divine people are reproached in Romans 125 for they that worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator Therefore this species of superstition is unfittingly called Idolatry and should rather be named worship of creatures On the contrary it is related in acts 17 verse 16 that when Paul awaited Silas and Timothy at Athens his spirit was stirred within him seeing the whole city given to Idolatry And further on in acts 17 verse 22 he says Ye men of Athens I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious Therefore Idolatry belongs to superstition I answer that as stated above in question 92 article 2 it belongs to superstition and this is done chiefly when divine worship is given to whom it should not be given Now it should be given to the most high uncreated god alone as stated above in question 81 article 1 when we were treating of religion Therefore it is superstition to give worship to any creature whatsoever Now just as this divine worship was given to sensible creatures by means of sensible signs such as sacrifices, games and the like So too was it given to a creature represented by some sensible form or shape which is called an idol Yet divine worship was given to idols in various ways For some by means of a nefarious art constructed images which produced certain effects by the power of the demons Therefore they deemed that the images themselves contained something godlike and consequently the divine worship was due to them This was the opinion of Hermes Trismagistus as Augustine states in On the City of God 823 While others gave divine worship not to the images but to the creatures represented thereby The apostle alludes to both of these in Romans 1 at verses 23 and 25 For as regards the former he says they changed the glory of the incorruptible god into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things and of the latter he says who worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator These latter were of three ways for some deemed certain men to have been gods whom they worshipped in the images of those men for instance Jupiter, Mercury and so forth Others again deemed the whole world to be one god not by reason of its material substance but by reason of its soul which they believed to be god for they held god to be nothing else than a soul governing the world by movement and reason even as a man is said to be wise in respect not of his body but of his soul Hence they thought that divine worship ought to be given to the whole world and to all its parts heaven, air, water and to all such things and to these they referred the names of their gods as pharaoh asserted and Augustine relates in On the City of God 7.5 Lastly others namely the Platonists said that there is one supreme god the cause of all things after him they placed certain spiritual substances created by the supreme god these they called gods on account of their having a share of the god head but we call them angels after these they placed the souls of the heavenly bodies and beneath these the demons which they stated to be certain animal denizens of the air and beneath these again they placed human souls which they believed to be taken up into the fellowship of the gods or of the demons by reason of the merit of their virtue to all these they gave divine worship as Augustine relates in On the City of God 1814 the last two opinions were held to belong to natural theology which the philosophers gathered from their study of the world were taught in the schools while the other relating to the worship of men was said to belong to mythical theology which was want to be represented on the stage according to the fancies of poets the remaining opinion relating to images was held to belong to civil theology which was celebrated by the pontiffs in the temples now all these come under the head of the superstition of idolatry where for Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 220 anything invented by man for making and worshiping idols or for giving divine worship to a creature or any part of a creature is superstitious reply to objection one just as religion is not faith but a confession of faith by outward signs so superstition is a confession of unbelief by external worship such a confession is signified by the term idolatry but not by the term heresy which only means a false opinion therefore heresy is a species of unbelief but idolatry is a species of superstition reply to objection two the term Latria may be taken in two senses in one sense it may denote a human act pertaining to the worship of God and then its signification remains the same to whomesoever it be shown because in this sense the thing to which it is shown is not included in its definition taken thus Latria is applied univically whether to true religion or to idolatry just as the payment of attacks is univically the same whether it is paid to the true in another sense Latria denotes the same as religion and then since it is a virtue it is essential there too that divine worship be given to whom it ought to be given and in this way Latria is applied equivocally to the Latria of true religion and to idolatry just as prudence is applied equivocally to the prudence that is a virtue and to that which is carnal reply to objection 3 the saying of the apostle that an idol is nothing in the world means that those images which were called idols were not animated or possessed of a divine power as Hermes maintained as though they were composed of spirit and body in the same sense we must understand the saying that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is not anything because by being thus sacrificed the sacrificial flesh acquired neither sanctification as the Gentiles thought nor uncleanness as the Jews held reply to objection 4 it was owing to the general custom among the Gentiles of worshiping any kind of creature under the form of images that the term idolatry was used to signify any worship of a creature even without the use of images second article whether idolatry is a sin objection 1 it would seem that idolatry is not a sin nothing is a sin that the true faith employs in worshiping God now the true faith employs images for the divine worship since both in the tabernacle there were images of the cherubim as related in exodus 25 and in the church are images set up which the faithful worship therefore idolatry whereby idols are worshiped is not a sin objection 2 further reverence should be paid to every superior but the angels and the souls of the blessed are our superiors therefore it will be no sin to pay them reverence by worship of sacrifices or the like objection 3 further the most high God should be honored with an inward worship according to John 4 24 God they must adore in spirit and in truth and Augustine says in his incurridian 3 that God is worshiped by faith hope and charity now a man may happen to worship idols outwardly and yet not wander from the true faith inwardly therefore it seems that we may worship idols outwardly without prejudice to the divine worship on the contrary it is written in exodus 20 verse 5 thou shalt not adore them that is outwardly nor serve them that is inwardly as a glass explains it and it is a question of graven things and images therefore it is a sin to worship idols whether outwardly or inwardly I answer that there has been a two-fold error in this matter for some notably the school of Plato have thought that to offer sacrifices and other things pertaining to Latria not only to God but also to others aforesaid is due and good in itself since they held that divine honor should be paid to every superior nature as being nearer to God but this is unreasonable for though we ought to revere all superiors yet the same reverence is not due to them all and something special is due to the most high God who excels all in a singular manner and this is the worship of Latria nor can it be said as some have maintained that these visible sacrifices being with regard to other gods and that to the most high God as being better than those others better sacrifices namely the service of a pure mind should be offered the reason is that as Augustine continues to state further on in the city of God 1019 external sacrifices are signs of internal just as audible words are signs of things wherefore just as by prayer and praise we utter significant words to him and offer to him in our hearts the things they signify so too in our sacrifices we ought to realize that we should offer a visible sacrifice to no other than to him whose invisible sacrifice we ourselves should be in our hearts others held that the outward worship of Latria should be given to idols not as though it were something or fitting in itself but as being in harmony with the general custom thus Augustine again in on the city of God 610 quotes Seneca as saying we shall adore says he in such a way as to remember that our worship is in accordance with custom rather than with the reality and in on true religion 5 Augustine says that we must not seek religion from the philosophers who accepted the same things for sacred as did the people and gave utterance in the schools to various and contrary opinions about the nature of their gods and the sovereign good this error was embraced also by certain heretics for example the who affirmed that it is not wrong for one who is seized in time of persecution to worship idols outwardly so long as he keeps the faith in his heart but this is evidently false for since outward worship is a sign of the inward worship just as it is a wicked lie to affirm the contrary of what one holds inwardly of the true faith so too is it a wicked falsehood to pay outward worship to anything counter to the sentiments of one's heart where for Augustine condemns Seneca in the city of God 610 in that his worship of idols was so much the more infamous for as much as the things he did dishonestly were so done by him that the people believed him to act honestly replied to Objection 1 neither in the tabernacle or temple of the old law nor again now in the church are images set up that the worship of Latria may be paid to them but for the purpose of signification in order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be impressed and confirmed in the mind of man it is different with the image of Christ to which Latria is due on account of his divinity as we shall state in the third part question 25 article 3 the replies to the second and third objections are evident from what has been said above third article whether idolatry is the gravest of sins Objection 1 it would seem that idolatry is not the gravest of sins the worst is opposed to the best as stated in Ethics 810 but interior worship which consists of faith hope and charity is better than external worship therefore on belief, despair and hatred of God which are opposed to internal worship are graver sins than idolatry which is opposed to external worship Objection 2 further the more a sin is against God the more grievous it is now seemingly a man acts more directly against God by blaspheming or denying the faith than by giving God's worship to another which pertains to idolatry therefore blasphemy and denial of the faith are more grievous sins than idolatry Objection 3 further it seems that lesser evils are punished with greater evils but the sin of idolatry was punished with the sin against nature as stated in Romans 126 therefore the sin against nature is a graver sin than idolatry Objection 4 further Augustine says in against Faustus 25 neither do we say that you notably the Manichees are pagans or a sect of pagans but that you bear a certain likeness to them since you worship many Gods and yet you are much worse than they are for they worship things that exist but should not be worshiped as Gods whereas you worship things that exist not at all therefore the vice of heretical debravity is more grievous than idolatry Objection 5 further a gloss of Jerome on Galatians 4.9 how turn you again to the weak and needy elements says the observance of the law to which they were then addicted was a sin almost equal to the worship of idols to which they had been given before their conversion therefore idolatry is not the most grievous sin on the contrary a gloss on the saying of Leviticus 15 25 about the uncleanness of a woman suffering from an issue of blood says every sin is an uncleanness of the soul but especially idolatry I answer that the gravity of a sin may be considered in two ways first on the part of the sin itself and thus idolatry is the most grievous sin for just as the most heinous crime in an earthly commonwealth would seem to be for a man to give royal honor to another thing than the true king since so far as he is concerned he disturbs the whole order of the commonwealth so in sins that are committed against God which indeed are the greater sins the greatest of all seems to be for a man to give God's honor to a creature since so far as he is concerned he sets up another God in the world and lessens the divine sovereignty secondly the gravity of a sin may be considered on the part of the sinner thus the sin of one that sins knowingly is said to be greater than the sin of one that ignorance and in this way nothing hinders heretics if they knowingly corrupt the faith which they have received from sinning more grievously than idolaters who sin through ignorance furthermore other sins may be more grievous on account of greater contempt on the part of the sinner reply to objection one idolatry presupposes internal unbelief and to this it adds undo worship but in a case of external idolatry without internal unbelief there is an additional sin of falsehood as stated above in article two reply to objection two idolatry includes a grievous blasphemy in as much as it deprives God of the singleness of his dominion and denies the faith by deeds reply to objection three since it is essential to punishment that it be against the will a sin whereby another sin is punished needs to be more manifest in order that it may make the man more hateful to himself and to others but it need not be a more grievous sin and in this way the sin against nature is less grievous than the sin of idolatry but since it is more manifest it is assigned as a fitting punishment of the sin of idolatry in order that as by idolatry man abuses the order of the divine honor so by the sin against nature he may suffer confusion from the abuse of his own nature reply to objection four even as to the genus of the sin the mannequin heresy is more grievous than the sin of other idolaters because it is more derogatory to the divine honor since they set up two gods in opposition to one another and hold many vain and fabulous fancies about God it is different with other heretics who confess their belief in one God and worship him alone reply to objection five the observance of the law during the time of grace is not quite equal to idolatry as to the genus of the sin but almost equal because both are species of pastiferous superstition fourth article whether the cause of idolatry was on the part of man objection one you would seem that the cause of idolatry was not on the part of man in man there is nothing but either nature virtue or guilt but the cause of idolatry could not be on the part of man's nature since rather does man's natural reason dictate that there is one God and that divine worship should not be paid to the dead or to inanimate beings likewise neither could idolatry have its cause in man on the part of virtue since a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit according to matthew seven eighteen nor again could it be on the part of guilt because according to wisdom 1427 the worship of abominable idols is the cause and the beginning and end of all evil therefore idolatry idolatry has no cause on the part of man objection to further those things which have a cause in man are found among men at all times now idolatry was not always but is stated to have been originated either by nimrod who is related to a forced man to worship fire or by ninous who caused the statue of his father bell to be worshiped among the greeks as related by isidore in his etymologies 811 Prometheus was the first to set up statues of men as the Jews say that ishmael was the first to make idols of clay moreover idolatry ceased to a great extent in the sixth age therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man objection three further Augustine says and on the city of god twenty one six he was not possible to learn for the first time except from there that is the demons teaching what each of them desired or disliked and by what name to invite or compel him so as to give birth to the magic arts and their professors and the same observation seems to apply to idolatry therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man on the contrary it is written in wisdom fourteen fourteen by the vanity of men they that is idols came into the world I answer that idolatry had a two fold cause one was a dispositive cause this was on the part of man and in three ways first on account of his inordinate affections for as much as he gave men divine honor through either loving or revering them too much this cause is assigned in wisdom fourteen fifteen a father being afflicted with bitter grief made to himself the image of his son who was quickly taken away and him who then had died as a man he began to worship as a god the same passage goes on to say at verse twenty one that men serving either their affection to stones gave the incommunicable name that is of the god head to stones and wood secondly because man takes a natural pleasure in representations as the philosopher observes in poetics before where for as soon as the uncultured man saw human images skillfully fashioned by the diligence of the craftsmen he gave them divine worship written in wisdom thirteen verses eleven through seventeen if an artist a carpenter have cut down a tree proper for his use in the wood and by his skill of art fashion a fit and make a fit like the image of a man and then make a prayer to it inquiring concerning his substance and his children or his marriage thirdly on account of their ignorance of the true god in as much as through failing excellence men gave divine worship to certain creatures on account of their beauty or power where for it is written in wisdom thirteen verses one and two all men neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workmen but have imagined either the fire or the wind or the swift air or the circle of the stars or the great water or the sun and the moon to be gods that rule the world the other cause of idolatry was complete of and this was on the part of the demons who offer themselves to be worshiped by men by giving answers in the idols and doing things which to men seemed marvelous hence it is written in psalm ninety five verse five all the gods of the Gentiles are devils reply to objection one the dispositive cause of idolatry was on the part of man a defective nature either through ignorance in his intellect or disorder in his affections as stated above and this pertains to guilt again idolatry is stated to be the cause beginning and end of all sin because there is no kind of sin that idolatry does not produce at some time either through leading expressly to that sin by causing it or through being an occasion thereof either as a beginning or as an end insofar as certain sins were employed in the worship of idols such as homicides, mutilations and so forth nevertheless certain sins may precede idolatry and dispose man there too reply to objection two there is no idolatry in the first age owing to the recent remembrance of the creation of the world so that man still retained in his mind the knowledge of one god in the sixth age idolatry was banished by the doctrine and power of Christ who triumphed over the devil reply to objection three this argument considers the consumative cause of idolatry end of question 94 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC