Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de superstitione divinativa. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. | We must now consider superstition in divinations, under which head there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum divinatio sit peccatum. | (1) Whether divination is a sin? |
| Secundo, utrum sit species superstitionis. | (2) Whether it is a species of superstition? |
| Tertio, de speciebus divinationis. | (3) Of the species of divination; |
| Quarto, de divinatione quae fit per Daemones. | (4) Of divination by means of demons; |
| Quinto, de divinatione quae fit per astra. | (5) Of divination by the stars; |
| Sexto, de divinatione quae fit per somnia. | (6) Of divination by dreams; |
| Septimo, de divinatione quae fit per auguria et alias huiusmodi observationes. | (7) Of divination by auguries and like observances; |
| Octavo, de divinatione quae fit per sortes. | (8) Of divination by lots. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio non sit peccatum. Divinatio enim ab aliquo divino nominatur. Sed ea quae sunt divina magis ad sanctitatem pertinent quam ad peccatum. Ergo videtur quod divinatio non est peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination is not a sin. Divination is derived from something "divine": and things that are divine pertain to holiness rather than to sin. Therefore it seems that divination is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Lib. Arbit., quis audeat dicere disciplinam esse malum? Et iterum, nullo modo dixerim aliquam intelligentiam malam esse posse. Sed aliquae artes sunt divinativae, ut patet per philosophum, in libro de memoria. Videtur etiam ipsa divinatio ad aliquam intelligentiam veritatis pertinere. Ergo videtur quod divinatio non sit peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 1): "Who dares to say that learning is an evil?" and again: "I could nowise admit that intelligence can be an evil." But some arts are divinatory, as the Philosopher states (De Memor. i): and divination itself would seem to pertain to a certain intelligence of the truth. Therefore it seems that divination is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, naturalis inclinatio non est ad aliquod malum, quia natura non inclinat nisi ad simile sibi. Sed ex naturali inclinatione homines sollicitantur praenoscere futuros eventus, quod pertinet ad divinationem. Ergo divinatio non est peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, there is no natural inclination to evil; because nature inclines only to its like. But men by natural inclination seek to foreknow future events; and this belongs to divination. Therefore divination is not a sin. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, non sit qui Pythones consulat, neque divinos. Et in decretis, XXVI, qu. V, dicitur, qui divinationes expetunt, sub regulis quinquennii iaceant, secundum gradus poenitentiae definitos. | On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10,11): "Neither let there be found among you . . . any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers": and it is stated in the Decretals (26, qu. v, can. Qui divinationes): "Those who seek for divinations shall be liable to a penance of five years' duration, according to the fixed grades of penance." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in nomine divinationis intelligitur quaedam praenuntiatio futurorum. Futura autem dupliciter praenosci possunt, uno quidem modo, in suis causis; alio modo, in seipsis. Causae autem futurorum tripliciter se habent. Quaedam enim producunt ex necessitate et semper suos effectus. Et huiusmodi effectus futuri per certitudinem praenosci possunt et praenuntiari ex consideratione suarum causarum, sicut astrologi praenuntiant eclipses futuras. Quaedam vero causae producunt suos effectus non ex necessitate et semper, sed ut in pluribus, raro tamen deficiunt. Et per huiusmodi causas possunt praenosci futuri effectus, non quidem per certitudinem, sed per quandam coniecturam, sicut astrologi per considerationem stellarum quaedam praenoscere et praenuntiare possunt de pluviis et siccitatibus, et medici de sanitate vel morte. Quaedam vero causae sunt quae, si secundum se considerentur, se habent ad utrumlibet, quod praecipue videtur de potentiis rationalibus, quae se habent ad opposita, secundum philosophum. Et tales effectus, vel etiam si qui effectus ut in paucioribus casu accidunt ex naturalibus causis, per considerationem causarum praenosci non possunt, quia eorum causae non habent inclinationem determinatam ad huiusmodi effectus. Et ideo effectus huiusmodi praenosci non possunt nisi in seipsis considerentur. Homines autem in seipsis huiusmodi effectus considerare possunt solum dum sunt praesentes, sicut cum homo videt Socratem currere vel ambulare. Sed considerare huiusmodi in seipsis antequam fiant, est Dei proprium, qui solus in sua aeternitate videt ea quae futura sunt quasi praesentia, ut in primo habitum est, unde dicitur Isaiae XLI, annuntiate quae futura sunt in futurum, et sciemus quoniam dii estis vos. Si quis ergo huiusmodi futura praenoscere aut praenuntiare quocumque modo praesumpserit, nisi Deo revelante, manifeste usurpat sibi quod Dei est. Et ex hoc aliqui divini dicuntur, unde dicit Isidorus, in libro Etymol., divini dicti quasi Deo pleni, divinitate enim se plenos simulant, et astutia quadam fraudulentiae hominibus futura coniectant. | I answer that, Divination denotes a foretelling of the future. The future may be foreknown in two ways: first in its causes, secondly in itself. Now the causes of the future are threefold: for some produce their effects, of necessity and always; and such like future effects can be foreknown and foretold with certainty, from considering their causes, even as astrologers foretell a coming eclipse. Other causes produce their effects, not of necessity and always, but for the most part, yet they rarely fail: and from such like causes their future effects can be foreknown, not indeed with certainty, but by a kind of conjecture, even as astrologers by considering the stars can foreknow and foretell things concerning rains and droughts, and physicians, concerning health and death. Again, other causes, considered in themselves, are indifferent; and this is chiefly the case in the rational powers, which stand in relation to opposites, according to the Philosopher [*Metaph. viii, 2,5,8]. Such like effects, as also those which ensue from natural causes by chance and in the minority of instances, cannot be foreknown from a consideration of their causes, because these causes have no determinate inclination to produce these effects. Consequently such like effects cannot be foreknown unless they be considered in themselves. Now man cannot consider these effects in themselves except when they are present, as when he sees Socrates running or walking: the consideration of such things in themselves before they occur is proper to God, Who alone in His eternity sees the future as though it were present, as stated in the FP, Question [14], Article [13]; FP, Question [57], Article [3]; FP, Question [86], Article [4]. Hence it is written (Is. 41:23): "Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods." Therefore if anyone presume to foreknow or foretell such like future things by any means whatever, except by divine revelation, he manifestly usurps what belongs to God. It is for this reason that certain men are called divines: wherefore Isidore says (Etym. viii, 9): "They are called divines, as though they were full of God. For they pretend to be filled with the Godhead, and by a deceitful fraud they forecast the future to men." |
| Divinatio ergo non dicitur si quis praenuntiet ea quae ex necessario eveniunt vel ut in pluribus, quae humana ratione praenosci possunt. Neque etiam si quis futura alia contingentia, Deo revelante, cognoscat, tunc enim non ipse divinat, idest, quod divinum est facit, sed magis quod divinum est suscipit. Tunc autem solum dicitur divinare quando sibi indebito modo usurpat praenuntiationem futurorum eventuum. Hoc autem constat esse peccatum. Unde divinatio semper est peccatum. Et propter hoc Hieronymus dicit, super Michaeam, quod divinatio semper in malam partem accipitur. | Accordingly it is not called divination, if a man foretells things that happen of necessity, or in the majority of instances, for the like can be foreknown by human reason: nor again if anyone knows other contingent future things, through divine revelation: for then he does not divine, i.e. cause something divine, but rather receives something divine. Then only is a man said to divine, when he usurps to himself, in an undue manner, the foretelling of future events: and this is manifestly a sin. Consequently divination is always a sin; and for this reason Jerome says in his commentary on Mich. 3:9, seqq. that "divination is always taken in an evil sense." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod divinatio non dicitur ab ordinata participatione alicuius divini, sed ab indebita usurpatione, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Divination takes its name not from a rightly ordered share of something divine, but from an undue usurpation thereof, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod artes quaedam sunt ad praecognoscendum futuros eventus qui ex necessitate vel frequenter proveniunt, quod ad divinationem non pertinet. Sed ad alios futuros eventus cognoscendos non sunt aliquae verae artes seu disciplinae, sed fallaces et vanae, ex deceptione Daemonum introductae; ut dicit Augustinus, in XXI de Civ. Dei. | Reply to Objection 2: There are certain arts for the foreknowledge of future events that occur of necessity or frequently, and these do not pertain to divination. But there are no true arts or sciences for the knowledge of other future events, but only vain inventions of the devil's deceit, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 8). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod homo habet naturalem inclinationem ad cognoscendum futura secundum modum humanum, non autem secundum indebitum divinationis modum. | Reply to Objection 3: Man has a natural inclination to know the future by human means, but not by the undue means of divination. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio non sit species superstitionis. Idem enim non potest esse species diversorum generum. Sed divinatio videtur esse species curiositatis; ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera Relig. Ergo videtur quod non sit species superstitionis. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination is not a species of superstition. The same thing cannot be a species of diverse genera. Now divination is apparently a species of curiosity, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xxxviii) [*Cf. De Doctr. Christ. ii, 23,24; De Divin. Daem. 3]. Therefore it is not, seemingly, a species of superstition. |
| Praeterea, sicut religio est cultus debitus, ita superstitio est cultus indebitus. Sed divinatio non videtur ad aliquem cultum indebitum pertinere. Ergo divinatio non pertinet ad superstitionem. | Objection 2: Further, just as religion is due worship, so is superstition undue worship. But divination does not seem to pertain to undue worship. Therefore it does not pertain to superstition. |
| Praeterea, superstitio religioni opponitur. Sed in vera religione non invenitur aliquid divinationi per contrarium respondens. Ergo divinatio non est species superstitionis. | Objection 3: Further, superstition is opposed to religion. But in true religion nothing is to be found corresponding as a contrary to divination. Therefore divination is not a species of superstition. |
| Sed contra est quod Origenes dicit, in periarchon, est quaedam operatio Daemonum in ministerio praescientiae, quae artibus quibusdam ab his qui se Daemonibus mancipaverunt, nunc per sortes, nunc per auguria, nunc ex contemplatione umbrarum comprehendi videtur. Haec autem omnia operatione Daemonum fieri non dubito. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, in II de Doct. Christ., quidquid procedit ex societate Daemonum et hominum superstitiosum est. Ergo divinatio est species superstitionis. | On the contrary, Origen says in his Peri Archon [*The quotation is from his sixteenth homily on the Book of Numbers]: "There is an operation of the demons in the administering of foreknowledge, comprised, seemingly, under the head of certain arts exercised by those who have enslaved themselves to the demons, by means of lots, omens, or the observance of shadows. I doubt not that all these things are done by the operation of the demons." Now, according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 20,23), "whatever results from fellowship between demons and men is superstitious." Therefore divination is a species of superstition. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, superstitio importat indebitum cultum divinitatis. Ad cultum autem Dei pertinet aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, cum aliquid Deo offertur, vel sacrificium, vel oblatio, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Alio modo, cum aliquid divinum assumitur, sicut dictum est supra de iuramento. Et ideo ad superstitionem pertinet non solum cum sacrificium Daemonibus offertur per idololatriam, sed etiam cum aliquis assumit auxilium Daemonum ad aliquid faciendum vel cognoscendum. Omnis autem divinatio ex operatione Daemonum provenit, vel quia expresse Daemones invocantur ad futura manifestanda; vel quia Daemones se ingerunt vanis inquisitionibus futurorum, ut mentes hominum implicent vanitate; de qua vanitate in Psalm. dicitur, non respexit in vanitates et insanias falsas. Vana autem inquisitio futurorum est quando aliquis futurum praenoscere tentat unde praenosci non potest. Unde manifestum est quod divinatio species superstitionis est. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]; Questions [92],94), superstition denotes undue divine worship. Now a thing pertains to the worship of God in two ways: in one way, it is something offered to God; as a sacrifice, an oblation, or something of the kind: in another way, it is something divine that is assumed, as stated above with regard to an oath (Question [89], Article [4], ad 2). Wherefore superstition includes not only idolatrous sacrifices offered to demons, but also recourse to the help of the demons for the purpose of doing or knowing something. But all divination results from the demons' operation, either because the demons are expressly invoked that the future may be made known, or because the demons thrust themselves into futile searchings of the future, in order to entangle men's minds with vain conceits. Of this kind of vanity it is written (Ps. 39:5): "Who hath not regard to vanities and lying follies." Now it is vain to seek knowledge of the future, when one tries to get it from a source whence it cannot be foreknown. Therefore it is manifest that divination is a species of superstition. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod divinatio pertinet ad curiositatem quantum ad finem intentum, qui est praecognitio futurorum. Sed pertinet ad superstitionem quantum ad modum operationis. | Reply to Objection 1: Divination is a kind of curiosity with regard to the end in view, which is foreknowledge of the future; but it is a kind of superstition as regards the mode of operation. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod huiusmodi divinatio pertinet ad cultum Daemonum, inquantum aliquis utitur quodam pacto tacito vel expresso cum Daemonibus. | Reply to Objection 2: This kind of divination pertains to the worship of the demons, inasmuch as one enters into a compact, tacit or express with the demons. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in nova lege mens hominis arcetur a temporalium sollicitudine, et ideo non est in nova lege aliquid institutum ad praecognitionem eventuum futurorum de temporalibus rebus. In veteri autem lege, quae promittebat terrena, erant consultationes de futuris ad religionem pertinentes, unde dicitur Isaiae VIII, et cum dixerint ad vos, quaerite a Pythonibus et a divinis, qui strident incantationibus suis, subdit, quasi responsionem, numquid non populus a Deo suo requiret visionem pro vivis et mortuis? | Reply to Objection 3: In the New Law man's mind is restrained from solicitude about temporal things: wherefore the New Law contains no institution for the foreknowledge of future events in temporal matters. On the other hand in the Old Law, which contained earthly promises, there were consultations about the future in connection with religious matters. Hence where it is written (Is. 8:19): "And when they shall say to you: Seek of pythons and of diviners, who mutter in their enchantments," it is added by way of answer: "Should not the people seek of their God, a vision for the living and the dead? [*Vulg.: 'seek of their God, for the living of the dead?']" |
| Fuerunt tamen in novo testamento etiam aliqui prophetiae spiritum habentes, qui multa de futuris eventibus praedixerunt. | In the New Testament, however, there were some possessed of the spirit of prophecy, who foretold many things about future events. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit determinare plures divinationis species. Ubi enim est una ratio peccandi, non videntur esse plures peccati species. Sed in omni divinatione est una ratio peccandi, quia scilicet utitur aliquis pacto Daemonum ad cognoscendum futura. Ergo divinationis non sunt diversae species. | Objection 1: It would seem that we should not distinguish several species of divination. Where the formality of sin is the same, there are not seemingly several species of sin. Now there is one formality of sin in all divinations, since they consist in entering into compact with the demons in order to know the future. Therefore there are not several species of divination. |
| Praeterea, actus humanus speciem sortitur ex fine, ut supra habitum est. Sed omnis divinatio ordinatur ad unum finem, scilicet ad praenuntiationem futurorum. Ergo omnis divinatio est unius speciei. | Objection 2: Further, a human act takes it species from its end, as stated above (FS, Question [1], Article [3]; FS, Question [18], Article [6]). But all divination is directed to one end, namely, the foretelling of the future. Therefore all divinations are of one species. |
| Praeterea, signa non diversificant speciem peccati, sive enim aliquis detrahat verbis, vel scripto vel nutu, est eadem peccati species. Sed divinationes non videntur differre nisi secundum diversa signa ex quibus accipitur praecognitio futurorum. Ergo non sunt diversae divinationis species. | Objection 3: Further, signs do not vary the species of a sin, for whether one detracts by word writing or gestures, it is the same species of sin. Now divinations seem to differ merely according to the various signs whence the foreknowledge of the future is derived. Therefore there are not several species of divination. |
| Sed contra est quod Isidorus, in libro Etymol., enumerat diversas species divinationis. | On the contrary, Isidore enumerates various species of divination (Etym. viii, 9). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, omnis divinatio utitur ad praecognitionem futuri eventus aliquo Daemonum consilio et auxilio. Quod quidem vel expresse imploratur, vel praeter petitionem hominis, se occulte Daemon ingerit ad praenuntiandum quaedam futura quae hominibus sunt ignota, eis autem cognita per modos de quibus in primo dictum est. Daemones autem expresse invocati solent futura praenuntiare multipliciter. Quandoque quidem praestigiosis quibusdam apparitionibus se aspectui et auditui hominum ingerentes ad praenuntiandum futura. Et haec species vocatur praestigium, ex eo quod oculi hominum praestringuntur. Quandoque autem per somnia. Et haec vocatur divinatio somniorum. Quandoque vero per mortuorum aliquorum apparitionem vel locutionem. Et haec species vocatur nigromantia, quia, ut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., nigrum Graece mortuus, mantia divinatio nuncupatur, quia quibusdam praecantationibus, adhibito sanguine, videntur resuscitati mortui divinare et ad interrogata respondere. Quandoque vero futura praenuntiant per homines vivos, sicut in arreptitiis patet. Et haec est divinatio per Pythones, et ut Isidorus dicit, Pythones a Python Apolline sunt dicti, qui dicebatur esse auctor divinandi. Quandoque vero futura praenuntiant per aliquas figuras vel signa quae in rebus inanimatis apparent. Quae quidem si appareant in aliquo corpore terrestri, puta in ligno vel ferro aut lapide polito, vocatur geomantia; si autem in aqua, hydromantia; si autem in aere, aeromantia; si autem in igne, pyromantia; si autem in visceribus animalium immolatorum in aris Daemonum, vocatur aruspicium. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [2]), all divinations seek to acquire foreknowledge of future events, by means of some counsel and help of a demon, who is either expressly called upon to give his help, or else thrusts himself in secretly, in order to foretell certain future things unknown to men, but known to him in such manners as have been explained in the FP, Question [57], Article [3]. When demons are expressly invoked, they are wont to foretell the future in many ways. Sometimes they offer themselves to human sight and hearing by mock apparitions in order to foretell the future: and this species is called "prestigiation" because man's eyes are blindfolded [praestringuntur]. Sometimes they make use of dreams, and this is called "divination by dreams": sometimes they employ apparitions or utterances of the dead, and this species is called "necromancy," for as Isidore observes (Etym. viii) in Greek, {nekron} "means dead and {manteia} divination, because after certain incantations and the sprinkling of blood, the dead seem to come to life, to divine and to answer questions." Sometimes they foretell the future through living men, as in the case of those who are possessed: this is divination by "pythons," of whom Isidore says that "pythons are so called from Pythius Apollo, who was said to be the inventor of divination." Sometimes they foretell the future by means of shapes or signs which appear in inanimate beings. If these signs appear in some earthly body such as wood, iron or polished stone, it is called "geomancy," if in water "hydromancy," if in the air "aeromancy," if in fire "pyromancy," if in the entrails of animals sacrificed on the altars of demons, "aruspicy." |
| Divinatio autem quae fit absque expressa Daemonum invocatione, in duo genera dividitur. Quorum primum est cum ad praenoscendum futura aliquid consideramus in dispositionibus aliquarum rerum. Et si quidem aliquis conetur futura praenoscere ex consideratione situs et motus siderum, hoc pertinet ad astrologos; qui et geneatici dicuntur, propter natalium considerationes dierum. Si vero per motus vel voces avium, seu quorumcumque animalium; sive per sternutationes hominum, vel membrorum saltus; hoc pertinet generaliter ad augurium, quod dicitur a garritu avium, sicut auspicium ab inspectione avium, quorum primum pertinet ad aures, secundum ad oculos; in avibus enim huiusmodi praecipue considerari solent. Si vero huiusmodi consideratio fiat circa verba hominum alia intentione dicta, quae quis retorquet ad futurum quod vult praenoscere, hoc vocatur omen. Et sic ut maximus Valerius dicit, ominum observatio aliquo contractu religioni innexa est. Quoniam non fortuito motu, sed divina providentia constare creditur quae fecit, ut, Romanis deliberantibus utrum ad alium locum migrarent, forte eo tempore centurio quidam exclamavit, signifer, statue signum, hic optime manebimus; quam vocem auditam pro omine acceperunt, transeundi consilium omittentes. Si autem considerentur aliquae dispositiones figurarum in aliquibus corporibus visui occurrentes, erit alia divinationis species. Nam ex lineamentis manus consideratis divinatio sumpta chiromantia vocatur, quasi divinatio manus, chiros enim Graece dicitur manus. Divinatio vero ex quibusdam figuris in spatula alicuius animalis apparentibus, spatulimantia vocatur. | The divination which is practiced without express invocation of the demons is of two kinds. The first is when, with a view to obtain knowledge of the future, we take observations in the disposition of certain things. If one endeavor to know the future by observing the position and movements of the stars, this belongs to "astrologers," who are also called "genethliacs," because they take note of the days on which people are born. If one observe the movements and cries of birds or of any animals, or the sneezing of men, or the sudden movements of limbs, this belongs in general to "augury," which is so called from the chattering of birds [avium garritu], just as "auspice" is derived from watching birds [avium inspectione]. These are chiefly wont to be observed in birds, the former by the ear, the latter by the eye. If, however, these observations have for their object men's words uttered unintentionally, which someone twist so as to apply to the future that he wishes to foreknow, then it is called an "omen": and as Valerius Maximus [*De Dict. Fact. Memor. i, 5] remarks, "the observing of omens has a touch of religion mingled with it, for it is believed to be founded not on a chance movement, but on divine providence. It was thus that when the Romans were deliberating whether they would change their position, a centurion happened to exclaim at the time: 'Standard-bearer, fix the banner, we had best stand here': and on hearing these words they took them as an omen, and abandoned their intention of advancing further." If, however, the observation regards the dispositions, that occur to the eye, of figures in certain bodies, there will be another species of divination: for the divination that is taken from observing the lines of the hand is called "chiromancy," i.e. divination of the hand (because {cheir} is the Greek for hand): while the divination which is taken from signs appearing in the shoulder-blades of an animal is called "spatulamancy." |
| Ad secundum autem divinationis genus quae est sine expressa Daemonum invocatione, pertinet divinatio quae fit ex consideratione eorum quae eveniunt ex quibusdam quae ab hominibus serio fiunt ad aliquid occultum inquirendum, sive per protractionem punctorum (quod pertinet ad artem geomantiae); sive per considerationem figurarum quae proveniunt ex plumbo liquefacto in aquam proiecto; sive ex quibusdam cedulis, scriptis vel non scriptis, in occulto repositis, dum consideratur quis quam accipiat; vel etiam ex festucis inaequalibus propositis, quis maiorem vel minorem accipiat; vel etiam ex taxillorum proiectione, quis plura puncta proiiciat; vel etiam dum consideratur quid aperienti librum occurrat. Quae omnia sortium nomen habent. | To this second species of divination, which is without express invocation of the demons, belongs that which is practiced by observing certain things done seriously by men in the research of the occult, whether by drawing lots, which is called "geomancy"; or by observing the shapes resulting from molten lead poured into water; or by observing which of several sheets of paper, with or without writing upon them, a person may happen to draw; or by holding out several unequal sticks and noting who takes the greater or the lesser. or by throwing dice, and observing who throws the highest score; or by observing what catches the eye when one opens a book, all of which are named "sortilege." |
| Sic igitur patet triplex esse divinationis genus. Quorum primum est per manifestam Daemonum invocationem, quod pertinet ad nigromanticos. Secundum autem est per solam considerationem dispositionis vel motus alterius rei, quod pertinet ad augures. Tertium est dum facimus aliquid ut nobis manifestetur aliquid occultum, quod pertinet ad sortes. Sub quolibet autem horum multa continentur, ut patet ex dictis. | Accordingly it is clear that there are three kinds of divination. The first is when the demons are invoked openly, this comes under the head of "necromancy"; the second is merely an observation of the disposition or movement of some other being, and this belongs to "augury"; while the third consists in doing something in order to discover the occult; and this belongs to "sortilege." Under each of these many others are contained, as explained above. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in omnibus praedictis est eadem ratio generalis peccandi, sed non eadem specialis. Multo enim gravius est Daemones invocare quam aliqua facere quibus dignum sit ut se Daemones ingerant. | Reply to Objection 1: In all the aforesaid there is the same general, but not the same special, character of sin: for it is much more grievous to invoke the demons than to do things that deserve the demons' interference. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod cognitio futurorum vel occultorum est ultimus finis, ex quo sumitur generalis ratio divinationis. Distinguuntur autem diversae species secundum propria obiecta sive materias, prout scilicet in diversis rebus occultorum cognitio consideratur. | Reply to Objection 2: Knowledge of the future or of the occult is the ultimate end whence divination takes its general formality. But the various species are distinguished by their proper objects or matters, according as the knowledge of the occult is sought in various things. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod res quas divinantes attendunt considerantur ab eis non sicut signa quibus exprimant quod iam sciunt, sicut accidit in detractione, sed sicut principia cognoscendi. Manifestum est autem quod diversitas principiorum diversificat speciem, etiam in scientiis demonstrativis. | Reply to Objection 3: The things observed by diviners are considered by them, not as signs expressing what they already know, as happens in detraction, but as principles of knowledge. Now it is evident that diversity of principles diversifies the species, even in demonstrative sciences. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio quae fit per invocationes Daemonum non sit illicita. Christus enim nihil illicitum commisit, secundum illud I Pet. II, qui peccatum non fecit. Sed dominus a Daemone interrogavit, quod tibi nomen est? Qui respondit, legio, multi enim sumus, ut habetur Marc. V. Ergo videtur quod liceat a Daemonibus aliquid occultum interrogare. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination practiced by invoking the demons is not unlawful. Christ did nothing unlawful, according to 1 Pt. 2:22, "Who did no sin." Yet our Lord asked the demon: "What is thy name?" and the latter replied: "My name is Legion, for we are many" (Mk. 5:9). Therefore it seems lawful to question the demons about the occult. |
| Praeterea, sanctorum animae non favent illicite interrogantibus. Sed Sauli interroganti de eventu futuri belli a muliere habente spiritum Pythonis, apparuit Samuel, et ei futurum eventum praedixit, ut legitur I Reg. XXVIII. Ergo divinatio quae fit per interrogationem a Daemonibus non est illicita. | Objection 2: Further, the souls of the saints do not encourage those who ask unlawfully. Yet Samuel appeared to Saul when the latter inquired of the woman that had a divining spirit, concerning the issue of the coming war (1 Kgs. 28:8, sqq.). Therefore the divination that consists in questioning demons is not unlawful. |
| Praeterea, licitum esse videtur veritatem ab aliquo sciente inquirere, quam utile est scire. Sed quandoque utile est scire aliqua occulta quae per Daemones sciri possunt, sicut apparet in inventione furtorum. Ergo divinatio quae fit per invocationem Daemonum non est illicita. | Objection 3: Further, it seems lawful to seek the truth from one who knows, if it be useful to know it. But it is sometimes useful to know what is hidden from us, and can be known through the demons, as in the discovery of thefts. Therefore divination by questioning demons is not unlawful. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, non inveniatur in te qui ariolos sciscitetur, neque Pythones consulat. | On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10,11): "Neither let there be found among you . . . anyone that consulteth soothsayers . . . nor . . . that consulteth pythonic spirits." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod omnis divinatio quae fit per invocationes Daemonum est illicita, duplici ratione. Quarum prima sumitur ex parte principii divinationis, quod scilicet est pactum expresse cum Daemone initum per ipsam Daemonis invocationem. Et hoc est omnino illicitum. Unde contra quosdam dicitur Isaiae XXVIII, dixistis, percussimus foedus cum morte, et cum Inferno fecimus pactum. Et adhuc gravius esset si sacrificium vel reverentia Daemoni invocato exhiberetur. Secunda ratio sumitur ex parte futuri eventus. Daemon enim, qui intendit perditionem hominum, ex huiusmodi suis responsis, etiam si aliquando vera dicat, intendit homines assuefacere ad hoc quod ei credatur, et sic intendit perducere in aliquid quod sit saluti humanae nocivum. Unde Athanasius, exponens id quod habetur Luc. IV, increpavit illum, dicens, obmutesce, dicit, quamvis vera fateretur Daemon, compescebat tamen Christus eius sermonem, ne simul cum veritate etiam suam iniquitatem promulget. Ut nos etiam assuefaciat ne curemus de talibus, etsi vera loqui videantur, nefas enim est ut, cum adsit nobis Scriptura divina, a Diabolo instruamur. | I answer that, All divination by invoking demons is unlawful for two reasons. The first is gathered from the principle of divination, which is a compact made expressly with a demon by the very fact of invoking him. This is altogether unlawful; wherefore it is written against certain persons (Is. 28:15): "You have said: We have entered into a league with death, and we have made a covenant with hell." And still more grievous would it be if sacrifice were offered or reverence paid to the demon invoked. The second reason is gathered from the result. For the demon who intends man's perdition endeavors, by his answers, even though he sometimes tells the truth, to accustom men to believe him, and so to lead him on to something prejudicial to the salvation of mankind. Hence Athanasius, commenting on the words of Lk. 4:35, "He rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace," says: "Although the demon confessed the truth, Christ put a stop to his speech, lest together with the truth he should publish his wickedness and accustom us to care little for such things, however much he may seem to speak the truth. For it is wicked, while we have the divine Scriptures, to seek knowledge from the demons." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Beda dicit, Luc. VIII, non velut inscius dominus inquirit, sed ut, confessa peste quam tolerabat, virtus curantis gratior emicaret. Aliud autem est quaerere aliquid a Daemone sponte occurrente, quod quandoque licet propter utilitatem aliorum, maxime quando virtute divina potest compelli ad vera dicendum, et aliud est Daemonem invocare ad cognitionem occultorum acquirendum ab ipso. | Reply to Objection 1: According to Bede's commentary on Lk. 8:30, "Our Lord inquired, not through ignorance, but in order that the disease, which he tolerated, being made public, the power of the Healer might shine forth more graciously." Now it is one thing to question a demon who comes to us of his own accord (and it is lawful to do so at times for the good of others, especially when he can be compelled, by the power of God, to tell the truth) and another to invoke a demon in order to gain from him knowledge of things hidden from us. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, ad Simplicianum, non est absurdum credere aliqua dispensatione permissum fuisse ut, non dominante arte magica vel potentia, sed dispensatione occulta, quae pythonissam et Saulem latebat, se ostenderet spiritus iusti aspectibus regis, divina eum sententia percussurus. Vel, non vere spiritus Samuelis a requie sua excitatus est, sed aliquod phantasma et illusio imaginaria, Diaboli machinationibus facta, quam Scriptura Samuelem appellat, sicut solent imagines rerum suarum nominibus appellari. | Reply to Objection 2: According to Augustine (Ad Simplic. ii, 3), "there is nothing absurd in believing that the spirit of the just man, being about to smite the king with the divine sentence, was permitted to appear to him, not by the sway of magic art or power, but by some occult dispensation of which neither the witch nor Saul was aware. Or else the spirit of Samuel was not in reality aroused from his rest, but some phantom or mock apparition formed by the machinations of the devil, and styled by Scripture under the name of Samuel, just as the images of things are wont to be called by the names of those things." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod nulla utilitas temporalis potest comparari detrimento spiritualis salutis, quod imminet ex inquisitione occultorum per Daemonum invocationem. | Reply to Objection 3: No temporal utility can compare with the harm to spiritual health that results from the research of the unknown by invoking the demon. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio quae fit per astra non sit illicita. Licitum enim est ex consideratione causarum praenuntiare effectus, sicut medici ex dispositione aegritudinis praenuntiant mortem. Sed corpora caelestia sunt causa eorum quae fiunt in hoc mundo, ut etiam Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo divinatio quae fit per astra non est illicita. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination by the stars is not unlawful. It is lawful to foretell effects by observing their causes: thus a physician foretells death from the disposition of the disease. Now the heavenly bodies are the cause of what takes place in the world, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore divination by the stars is not unlawful. |
| Praeterea, scientia humana ex experimentis originem sumit, ut patet per philosophum, in principio Metaphys. Sed per multa experimenta aliqui compererunt ex consideratione siderum aliqua futura posse praenosci. Ergo non videtur esse illicitum tali divinatione uti. | Objection 2: Further, human science originates from experiments, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1). Now it has been discovered through many experiments that the observation of the stars is a means whereby some future events may be known beforehand. Therefore it would seem not unlawful to make use of this kind of divination. |
| Praeterea, divinatio dicitur esse illicita inquantum innititur pacto cum Daemonibus inito. Sed hoc non fit in divinatione quae fit per astra, sed solum consideratur dispositio creaturarum Dei. Ergo videtur quod huiusmodi divinatio non sit illicita. | Objection 3: Further, divination is declared to be unlawful in so far as it is based on a compact made with the demons. But divination by the stars contains nothing of the kind, but merely an observation of God's creatures. Therefore it would seem that this species of divination is not unlawful. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., illos planetarios quos mathematicos vocant, consulere non desistebam, quod quasi nullum esset eis sacrificium, et nullae preces ad aliquem spiritum ob divinationem dirigerentur. Quod tamen Christiana et vera pietas expellit et damnat. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 3): "Those astrologers whom they call mathematicians, I consulted without scruple; because they seemed to use no sacrifice, nor to pray to any spirit for their divinations which art, however, Christian and true piety rejects and condemns." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, divinationi quae ex opinione falsa vel vana procedit, ingerit se operatio Daemonis, ut hominum animos implicet vanitati aut falsitati. Vana autem aut falsa opinione utitur si quis ex consideratione stellarum futura velit praecognoscere quae per ea praecognosci non possunt. Est igitur considerandum quid per caelestium corporum inspectionem de futuris possit praenosci. Et de his quidem quae ex necessitate eveniunt, manifestum est quod per considerationem stellarum possunt praenosci, sicut astrologi praenuntiant eclipses futuras. | I answer that, As stated above (Articles [1],2), the operation of the demon thrusts itself into those divinations which are based on false and vain opinions, in order that man's mind may become entangled in vanity and falsehood. Now one makes use of a vain and false opinion if, by observing the stars, one desires to foreknow the future that cannot be forecast by their means. Wherefore we must consider what things can be foreknown by observing the stars: and it is evident that those things which happen of necessity can be foreknown by this mean,: even so astrologers forecast a future eclipse. |
| Circa praecognitionem vero futurorum eventuum ex consideratione stellarum, diversi diversa dixerunt. Fuerunt enim qui dicerent quod stellae significant potius quam faciant ea quae ex earum consideratione praenuntiantur. Sed hoc irrationabiliter dicitur. Omne enim corporale signum vel est effectus eius cuius est signum, sicut fumus significat ignem, a quo causatur, vel procedit ab eadem causa, et sic, dum significat causam, per consequens significat effectum, sicut iris quandoque significat serenitatem, inquantum causa eius est causa serenitatis. Non autem potest dici quod dispositiones caelestium corporum et motus sint effectus futurorum eventuum. Nec iterum possunt reduci in aliquam superiorem causam communem quae sit corporalis. Possunt autem reduci in unam causam communem quae est providentia divina, sed alia ratione disponuntur a divina providentia motus et situs caelestium corporum, et alia ratione eventus contingentium futurorum; quia illa disponuntur secundum rationem necessitatis, ut semper eodem modo proveniant; haec autem secundum rationem contingentiae, ut variabiliter contingant. Unde non potest esse quod ex inspectione siderum accipiatur praecognitio futurorum nisi sicut ex causis praecognoscuntur effectus. | However, with regard to the foreknowledge of future events acquired by observing the stars there have been various opinions. For some have stated that the stars signify rather than cause the things foretold by means of their observation. But this is an unreasonable statement: since every corporeal sign is either the effect of that for which it stands (thus smoke signifies fire whereby it is caused), or it proceeds from the same cause, so that by signifying the cause, in consequence it signifies the effect (thus a rainbow is sometimes a sign of fair weather, in so far as its cause is the cause of fair weather). Now it cannot be said that the dispositions and movements of the heavenly bodies are the effect of future events; nor again can they be ascribed to some common higher cause of a corporeal nature, although they are referable to a common higher cause, which is divine providence. on the contrary the appointment of the movements and positions of the heavenly bodies by divine providence is on a different principle from the appointment of the occurrence of future contingencies, because the former are appointed on a principle of necessity, so that they always occur in the same way, whereas the latter are appointed on a principle of contingency, so that the manner of their occurrence is variable. Consequently it is impossible to acquire foreknowledge of the future from an observation of the stars, except in so far as effects can be foreknown from their causes. |
| Duplices autem effectus subtrahuntur causalitati caelestium corporum. Primo quidem, omnes effectus per accidens contingentes, sive in rebus humanis sive in rebus naturalibus. Quia, ut probatur in VI Metaphys., ens per accidens non habet causam, et praecipue naturalem, cuiusmodi est virtus caelestium corporum. Quia quod per accidens fit neque est ens proprie neque unum, sicut quod, lapide cadente, fiat terraemotus, vel quod, homine fodiente sepulcrum, inveniatur thesaurus; haec enim, et huiusmodi, non sunt unum, sed simpliciter multa. Operatio autem naturae semper terminatur ad aliquid unum, sicut et procedit ab uno principio, quod est forma rei naturalis. | Now two kinds of effects escape the causality of heavenly bodies. In the first place all effects that occur accidentally, whether in human affairs or in the natural order, since, as it is proved in Metaph. vi [*Ed. Did. v, 3], an accidental being has no cause, least of all a natural cause, such as is the power of a heavenly body, because what occurs accidentally, neither is a "being" properly speaking, nor is "one"—for instance, that an earthquake occur when a stone falls, or that a treasure be discovered when a man digs a grave—for these and like occurrences are not one thing, but are simply several things. Whereas the operation of nature has always some one thing for its term, just as it proceeds from some one principle, which is the form of a natural thing. |
| Secundo autem, subtrahuntur causalitati caelestium corporum actus liberi arbitrii, quod est facultas voluntatis et rationis. Intellectus enim, sive ratio, non est corpus nec actus organi corporei; et per consequens nec voluntas, quae est in ratione, ut patet per philosophum, in III de anima. Nullum autem corpus potest imprimere in rem incorpoream. Unde impossibile est quod corpora caelestia directe imprimant in intellectum et voluntatem, hoc enim esset ponere intellectum non differre a sensu; quod Aristoteles, in libro de anima, imponit his qui dicebant quod talis voluntas est in hominibus qualem in die inducit pater virorum deorumque, scilicet sol vel caelum. | In the second place, acts of the free-will, which is the faculty of will and reason, escape the causality of heavenly bodies. For the intellect or reason is not a body, nor the act of a bodily organ, and consequently neither is the will, since it is in the reason, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima iii, 4,9). Now no body can make an impression on an incorporeal body. Wherefore it is impossible for heavenly bodies to make a direct impression on the intellect and will: for this would be to deny the difference between intellect and sense, with which position Aristotle reproaches (De Anima iii, 3) those who held that "such is the will of man, as is the day which the father of men and of gods," i.e. the sun or the heavens, "brings on" [*Odyssey xviii, 135]. |
| Unde corpora caelestia non possunt esse per se causa operum liberi arbitrii. Possunt tamen ad hoc dispositive inclinare, inquantum imprimunt in corpus humanum, et per consequens in vires sensitivas, quae sunt actus corporalium organorum, quae inclinant ad humanos actus. Quia tamen vires sensitivae obediunt rationi, ut patet per philosophum, in III de anima et in I Ethic., nulla necessitas ex hoc libero arbitrio imponitur, sed contra inclinationem caelestium corporum homo potest per rationem operari. | Hence the heavenly bodies cannot be the direct cause of the free-will's operations. Nevertheless they can be a dispositive cause of an inclination to those operations, in so far as they make an impression on the human body, and consequently on the sensitive powers which are acts of bodily organs having an inclination for human acts. Since, however, the sensitive powers obey reason, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima iii, 11; Ethic. i, 13), this does not impose any necessity on the free-will, and man is able, by his reason, to act counter to the inclination of the heavenly bodies. |
| Si quis ergo consideratione astrorum utatur ad praecognoscendos futuros casuales vel fortuitos eventus, aut etiam ad cognoscendum per certitudinem futura opera hominum, procedet hoc ex falsa et vana opinione. Et sic operatio Daemonis se immiscet. Unde erit divinatio superstitiosa et illicita. Si vero aliquis utatur consideratione astrorum ad praecognoscendum futura quae ex caelestibus causantur corporibus, puta siccitates et pluvias et alia huiusmodi, non erit illicita divinatio nec superstitiosa. | Accordingly if anyone take observation of the stars in order to foreknow casual or fortuitous future events, or to know with certitude future human actions, his conduct is based on a false and vain opinion; and so the operation of the demon introduces itself therein, wherefore it will be a superstitious and unlawful divination. On the other hand if one were to apply the observation of the stars in order to foreknow those future things that are caused by heavenly bodies, for instance, drought or rain and so forth, it will be neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination. |
| Et secundum hoc patet responsio ad primum. | Wherefore the Reply to the First Objection is evident. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc quod astrologi ex consideratione astrorum frequenter vera praenuntiant, contingit dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, quia plures hominum passiones corporales sequuntur, et ideo actus eorum disponuntur, ut in pluribus, secundum inclinationem caelestium corporum, pauci autem sunt, idest soli sapientes, qui ratione huiusmodi inclinationes moderentur. Et ideo astrologi in multis vera praenuntiant, et praecipue in communibus eventibus, qui dependent ex multitudine. Alio modo, propter Daemones se immiscentes. Unde Augustinus dicit, in II super Gen. ad Litt., fatendum est, quando a mathematicis vera dicuntur, instinctu quodam occultissimo dici, quem nescientes humanae mentes patiuntur. Quod cum ad decipiendos homines fit, spirituum immundorum et seductorum operatio est, quibus quaedam vera de temporalibus rebus nosse permittitur. Unde concludit, quapropter bono Christiano sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, et maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio Daemoniorum animam deceptam pacto quodam societatis irretiant. | Reply to Objection 2: That astrologers not unfrequently forecast the truth by observing the stars may be explained in two ways. First, because a great number of men follow their bodily passions, so that their actions are for the most part disposed in accordance with the inclination of the heavenly bodies: while there are few, namely, the wise alone, who moderate these inclinations by their reason. The result is that astrologers in many cases foretell the truth, especially in public occurrences which depend on the multitude. Secondly, because of the interference of the demons. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 17): "When astrologers tell the truth, it must be allowed that this is due to an instinct that, unknown to man, lies hidden in his mind. And since this happens through the action of unclean and lying spirits who desire to deceive man for they are permitted to know certain things about temporal affairs." Wherefore he concludes: "Thus a good Christian should beware of astrologers, and of all impious diviners, especially of those who tell the truth, lest his soul become the dupe of the demons and by making a compact of partnership with them enmesh itself in their fellowship." |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad tertium. | This suffices for the Reply to the Third Objection. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio quae fit per somnia non sit illicita. Uti enim instructione divina non est illicitum. Sed in somniis homines instruuntur a Deo, dicitur enim Iob XXXIII, per somnium in visione nocturna, quando irruit sopor super homines et dormiunt in lectulo, tunc aperit, scilicet Deus, aures virorum, et erudiens eos instruit disciplina. Ergo uti divinatione quae est per somnia non est illicitum. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination by dreams is not unlawful. It is not unlawful to make use of divine instruction. Now men are instructed by God in dreams, for it is written (Job 33:15,16): "By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, and they are sleeping in their beds, then He," God to wit, "openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn." Therefore it is not unlawful to make use of divination by dreams. |
| Praeterea, illi qui interpretantur somnia, proprie utuntur divinatione somniorum. Sed sancti viri leguntur somnia interpretari, sicut Ioseph interpretatur somnia pincernae Pharaonis et magistri pistorum, ut legitur Gen. XL, et somnium Pharaonis, ut legitur Gen. XLI; et Daniel interpretatus est somnium regis Babylonis, ut habetur Dan. II et IV. Ergo divinatio somniorum non est illicita. | Objection 2: Further, those who interpret dreams, properly speaking, make use of divination by dreams. Now we read of holy men interpreting dreams: thus Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh's butler and of his chief baker (Gn. 40), and Daniel interpreted the dream of the king of Babylon (Dan. 2,4). Therefore divination by dreams is not unlawful. |
| Praeterea, illud quod communiter homines experiuntur, irrationabile est negare. Sed omnes experiuntur somnia habere aliquam significationem futurorum. Ergo vanum est negare somnia habere vim divinationis. Ergo licitum est eis intendere. | Objection 3: Further, it is unreasonable to deny the common experiences of men. Now it is the experience of all that dreams are significative of the future. Therefore it is useless to deny the efficacy of dreams for the purpose of divination, and it is lawful to listen to them. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, non inveniatur in te qui observet somnia. | On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10): "Neither let there be found among you any one that . . . observeth dreams." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, divinatio quae innititur falsae opinioni est superstitiosa et illicita. Ideo considerare oportet quid sit verum circa praecognitionem futurorum de somniis sunt autem somnia futurorum eventuum quandoque quidem causa, puta cum mens alicuius, sollicita ex his quae videt in somniis, inducitur ad aliquid faciendum vel vitandum. Quandoque vero somnia sunt signa aliquorum futurorum eventuum, inquantum reducuntur in aliquam causam communem somniis et futuris eventibus. Secundum hoc plurimum praecognitiones futurorum ex somniis fiunt. Est ergo considerandum quae sit causa somniorum; et an possit esse causa futurorum eventuum; vel ea possit cognoscere. | I answer that, As stated above (Articles [2],6), divination is superstitious and unlawful when it is based on a false opinion. Wherefore we must consider what is true in the matter of foreknowing the future from dreams. Now dreams are sometimes the cause of future occurrences; for instance, when a person's mind becomes anxious through what it has seen in a dream and is thereby led to do something or avoid something: while sometimes dreams are signs of future happenings, in so far as they are referable to some common cause of both dreams and future occurrences, and in this way the future is frequently known from dreams. We must, then, consider what is the cause of dreams, and whether it can be the cause of future occurrences, or be cognizant of them. |
| Sciendum est ergo quod somniorum causa quandoque quidem est interius, quandoque autem exterius. Interior autem somniorum causa est duplex. Una quidem animalis, inquantum scilicet ea occurrunt hominis phantasiae in dormiendo circa quae eius cogitatio et affectio fuit immorata in vigilando. Et talis causa somniorum non est causa futurorum eventuum. Unde huiusmodi somnia per accidens se habent ad futuros eventus, et si quandoque simul concurrant, erit casuale. Quandoque vero causa intrinseca somniorum est corporalis. Nam ex interiori dispositione corporis formatur aliquis motus in phantasia conveniens tali dispositioni, sicut homini in quo abundant frigidi humores, occurrit in somniis quod sit in aqua vel nive. Et propter haec medici dicunt esse intendendum somniis ad cognoscendum interiores dispositiones. | Accordingly it is to be observed that the cause of dreams is sometimes in us and sometimes outside us. The inward cause of dreams is twofold: one regards the soul, in so far as those things which have occupied a man's thoughts and affections while awake recur to his imagination while asleep. A such like cause of dreams is not a cause of future occurrences, so that dreams of this kind are related accidentally to future occurrences, and if at any time they concur it will be by chance. But sometimes the inward cause of dreams regards the body: because the inward disposition of the body leads to the formation of a movement in the imagination consistent with that disposition; thus a man in whom there is abundance of cold humors dreams that he is in the water or snow: and for this reason physicians say that we should take note of dreams in order to discover internal dispositions. |
| Causa autem somniorum exterior similiter est duplex, scilicet corporalis, et spiritualis. Corporalis quidem, inquantum imaginatio dormientis immutatur vel ab aere continenti vel ex impressione caelestis corporis, ut sic dormienti aliquae phantasiae appareant conformes caelestium dispositioni. Spiritualis autem causa est quandoque quidem a Deo, qui ministerio Angelorum aliqua hominibus revelat in somniis, secundum illud Num. XII, si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum. Quandoque vero operatione Daemonum aliquae phantasiae dormientibus apparent, ex quibus quandoque aliqua futura revelant his qui cum eis habent pacta illicita. | In like manner the outward cause of dreams is twofold, corporal and spiritual. It is corporal in so far as the sleeper's imagination is affected either by the surrounding air, or through an impression of a heavenly body, so that certain images appear to the sleeper, in keeping with the disposition of the heavenly bodies. The spiritual cause is sometimes referable to God, Who reveals certain things to men in their dreams by the ministry of the angels, according Num. 12:6, "If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream." Sometimes, however, it is due to the action of the demons that certain images appear to persons in their sleep, and by this means they, at times, reveal certain future things to those who have entered into an unlawful compact with them. |
| Sic ergo dicendum quod si quis utatur somniis ad praecognoscenda futura secundum quod somnia procedunt ex revelatione divina; vel ex causa naturali, intrinseca sive extrinseca, quantum se potest virtus talis causae extendere, non erit illicita divinatio. Si autem huiusmodi divinatio causetur ex revelatione Daemonum cum quibus pacta habentur expressa, quia ad hoc invocantur; vel tacita, quia huiusmodi divinatio extenditur ad quod se non potest extendere, erit divinatio illicita et superstitiosa. | Accordingly we must say that there is no unlawful divination in making use of dreams for the foreknowledge of the future, so long as those dreams are due to divine revelation, or to some natural cause inward or outward, and so far as the efficacy of that cause extends. But it will be an unlawful and superstitious divination if it be caused by a revelation of the demons, with whom a compact has been made, whether explicit, through their being invoked for the purpose, or implicit, through the divination extending beyond its possible limits. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio quae est per auguria et omina et alias huiusmodi observationes exteriorum rerum, non sit illicita. Si enim esset illicita, sancti viri ea non uterentur. Sed de Ioseph legitur quod auguriis intendebat, legitur enim Gen. XLIV quod dispensator Ioseph dixit, scyphus quem furati estis ipse est in quo bibit dominus meus, et in quo augurari solet; et ipse postea dixit fratribus suis, an ignoratis quod non sit similis mei in augurandi scientia? Ergo uti tali divinatione non est illicitum. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination by auguries, omens, and by like observations of external things is not unlawful. If it were unlawful holy men would not make use thereof. Now we read of Joseph that he paid attention to auguries, for it is related (Gn. 44:5) that Joseph's steward said: "The cup which you have stolen is that in which my lord drinketh and in which he is wont to divine [augurari]": and he himself afterwards said to his brethren (Gn. 44:15): "Know you not that there is no one like me in the science of divining?" Therefore it is not unlawful to make use of this kind of divination. |
| Praeterea, aves aliqua circa futuros temporum eventus naturaliter cognoscunt, secundum illud Ierem. VIII, milvus in caelo cognovit tempus suum, turtur et hirundo et ciconia custodierunt tempus adventus sui. Sed naturalis cognitio est infallibilis, et a Deo. Ergo uti cognitione avium ad praenoscendum futura, quod est augurari, non videtur esse illicitum. | Objection 2: Further, birds naturally know certain things regarding future occurrences of the seasons, according to Jer. 8:7, "The kite in the air hath known her time; the turtle, the swallow, and the stork have observed the time of their coming." Now natural knowledge is infallible and comes from God. Therefore it seems not unlawful to make use of the birds' knowledge in order to know the future, and this is divination by augury. |
| Praeterea, Gedeon in numero sanctorum ponitur, ut patet Heb. XI. Sed Gedeon usus fuit omine ex hoc quod audivit recitationem et interpretationem cuiusdam somnii, ut legitur Iudic. VII. Et similiter Eliezer, servus Abrahae, ut legitur Gen. XXIV. Ergo videtur quod talis divinatio non sit illicita. | Objection 3: Further, Gedeon is numbered among the saints (Heb. 11:32). Yet Gedeon made use of an omen, when he listened to the relation and interpreting of a dream (Judges 7:15): and Eliezer, Abraham's servant, acted in like manner (Gn. 24). Therefore it seems that this kind of divination is not unlawful. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, non inveniatur in te qui observet auguria. | On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10): "Neither let there be found among you anyone . . . that observeth omens." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod motus vel garritus avium, vel quaecumque dispositiones huiusmodi in rebus consideratae, manifestum est quod non sunt causa futurorum eventuum, unde ex eis futura cognosci non possunt sicut ex causis. Relinquitur ergo quod si ex eis aliqua futura cognoscantur, hoc erit inquantum sunt effectus aliquarum causarum quae etiam sunt causantes vel praecognoscentes futuros eventus. Causa autem operationum brutorum animalium est instinctus quidam quo moventur in modum naturae, non enim habent dominium sui actus. Hic autem instinctus ex duplici causa potest procedere. Uno quidem modo, ex causa corporali. Cum enim bruta animalia non habeant nisi animam sensitivam, cuius omnes potentiae sunt actus corporalium organorum, subiacet eorum anima dispositioni continentium corporum, et primordialiter caelestium. Et ideo nihil prohibet aliquas eorum operationes esse futurorum signa, inquantum conformantur dispositionibus corporum caelestium et aeris continentis, ex qua proveniunt aliqui futuri eventus. In hoc tamen duo considerari oportet. Primum quidem, ut huiusmodi operationes non extendantur nisi ad praecognoscenda futura quae causantur per motus caelestium corporum, ut supra dictum est. Secundo, ut non extendantur nisi ad ea quae aliqualiter possunt ad huiusmodi animalia pertinere. Consequuntur enim per caelestia corpora cognitionem quandam naturalem et instinctum ad ea quae eorum vitae sunt necessaria, sicut sunt immutationes quae fiunt per pluvias et ventos, et alia huiusmodi. | I answer that, The movements or cries of birds, and whatever dispositions one may consider in such things, are manifestly not the cause of future events: wherefore the future cannot be known therefrom as from its cause. It follows therefore that if anything future can be known from them, it will be because the causes from which they proceed are also the causes of future occurrences or are cognizant of them. Now the cause of dumb animals' actions is a certain instinct whereby they are inclined by a natural movement, for they are not masters of their actions. This instinct may proceed from a twofold cause. In the first place it may be due to a bodily cause. For since dumb animals have naught but a sensitive soul, every power of which is the act of a bodily organ, their soul is subject to the disposition of surrounding bodies, and primarily to that of the heavenly bodies. Hence nothing prevents some of their actions from being signs of the future, in so far as they are conformed to the dispositions of the heavenly bodies and of the surrounding air, to which certain future events are due. Yet in this matter we must observe two things: first, that such observations must not be applied to the foreknowledge of future things other than those which can be foreknown from the movements of heavenly bodies, as stated above (Articles [5],6): secondly, that they be not applied to other matters than those which in some way may have reference to these animals (since they acquire through the heavenly bodies a certain natural knowledge and instinct about things necessary for their life—such as changes resulting from rain and wind and so forth). |
| Alio modo instinctus huiusmodi causantur ex causa spirituali. Scilicet vel ex Deo, ut patet in columba super Christum descendente, et in corvo qui pavit Eliam, et in cete qui absorbuit et eiecit Ionam. Vel etiam ex Daemonibus, qui utuntur huiusmodi operationibus brutorum animalium ad implicandas animas vanis opinionibus. Et eadem ratio videtur esse de omnibus aliis accipiuntur pro omine, non subduntur dispositioni stellarum. Huiusmodi, praeterquam de ominibus. Quia verba humana, quae disponuntur tamen secundum divinam providentiam; et quandoque secundum Daemonum operationem. | In the second place, this instinct is produced by a spiritual cause, namely, either by God, as may be seen in the dove that descended upon Christ, the raven that fed Elias, and the whale that swallowed and vomited Jonas, or by demons, who make use of these actions of dumb animals in order to entangle our minds with vain opinions. This seems to be true of all such like things; except omens, because human words which are taken for an omen are not subject to the disposition of the stars, yet are they ordered according to divine providence and sometimes according to the action of the demons. |
| Sic igitur dicendum quod omnis huiusmodi divinatio, si extendatur ultra id ad quod potest pertingere secundum ordinem naturae vel divinae providentiae, est superstitiosa et illicita. | Accordingly we must say that all such like divinations are superstitious and unlawful, if they be extended beyond the limits set according to the order of nature or of divine providence. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc quod Ioseph dixit, non esse aliquem sibi similem in scientia augurandi, secundum Augustinum, ioco dixit, non serio, referens forte hoc ad id quod vulgus de eo opinabatur. Et sic etiam dispensator eius locutus est. | Reply to Objection 1: According to Augustine [*Questions. in Genes., qu. cxlv], when Joseph said that there was no one like him in the science of divining, he spoke in joke and not seriously, referring perhaps to the common opinion about him: in this sense also spoke his steward. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illa auctoritas loquitur de cognitione avium respectu eorum quae ad eas pertinent. Et ad haec praecognoscenda considerare earum voces et motus non est illicitum, puta si quis ex hoc quod cornicula frequenter crocitat, praedicat pluviam cito esse futuram. | Reply to Objection 2: The passage quoted refers to the knowledge that birds have about things concerning them; and in order to know these things it is not unlawful to observe their cries and movements: thus from the frequent cawing of crows one might say that it will rain soon. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Gedeon observavit recitationem et expositionem somnii accipiens ea pro omine, quasi ordinata ad sui instructionem a divina providentia. Et similiter Eliezer attendit verba puellae, oratione praemissa ad Deum. | Reply to Objection 3: Gedeon listened to the recital and interpretation of a dream, seeing therein an omen, ordered by divine providence for his instruction. In like manner Eliezer listened to the damsel's words, having previously prayed to God. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 95 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio sortium non sit illicita. Quia super illud Psalm., in manibus tuis sortes meae, dicit Glossa Augustini, sors non est aliquid mali, sed res, in humana dubitatione, divinam indicans voluntatem. | Objection 1: It would seem that divination by drawing lots is not unlawful, because a gloss of Augustine on Ps. 30:16, "My lots are in Thy hands," says: "It is not wrong to cast lots, for it is a means of ascertaining the divine will when a man is in doubt." |
| Praeterea, ea quae a sanctis in Scripturis observata leguntur non videntur esse illicita. Sed sancti viri, tam in veteri quam in novo testamento, inveniuntur sortibus usi esse. Legitur enim Iosue VII, quod Iosue, ex praecepto domini, iudicio sortium punivit Achar, qui de anathemate surripuerat. Saul etiam sorte deprehendit filium suum Ionatham mel comedisse, ut habetur I Reg. XIV. Ionas etiam, a facie domini fugiens, sorte deprehensus, est in mare deiectus, ut legitur Ionae I. Zacharias etiam sorte exiit ut incensum poneret, ut legitur Luc. I. Matthias etiam est sorte ab apostolis in apostolatum electus, ut legitur Act. I. Ergo videtur quod divinatio sortium non sit illicita. | Objection 2: There is, seemingly, nothing unlawful in the observances which the Scriptures relate as being practiced by holy men. Now both in the Old and in the New Testament we find holy men practicing the casting of lots. For it is related (Jos. 7:14, sqq.) that Josue, at the Lord's command, pronounced sentence by lot on Achan who had stolen of the anathema. Again Saul, by drawing lots, found that his son Jonathan had eaten honey (1 Kgs. 14:58, sqq.): Jonas, when fleeing from the face of the Lord, was discovered and thrown into the sea (Jonas 1:7, sqq.): Zacharias was chosen by lot to offer incense (Lk. 1:9): and the apostles by drawing lots elected Matthias to the apostleship (Acts 1:26). Therefore it would seem that divination by lots is not unlawful. |
| Praeterea, pugna pugilum quae monomachia dicitur, idest singularis concertatio, et iudicia ignis et aquae, quae dicuntur vulgaria, videntur ad sortes pertinere, cum per huiusmodi aliqua exquirantur occulta. Sed huiusmodi non videntur esse illicita, quia et David legitur cum Philisthaeo singulare iniisse certamen, ut legitur I Reg. XVII. Ergo videtur quod divinatio sortium non sit illicita. | Objection 3: Further, fighting with the fists, or "monomachy," i.e. single combat as it is called, and trial by fire and water, which are called "popular" trials, seem to come under the head of sortilege, because something unknown is sought by their means. Yet these practices seem to be lawful, because David is related to have engaged in single combat with the Philistine (1 Kgs. 17:32, sqq.). Therefore it would seem that divination by lot is not unlawful. |
| Sed contra est quod in decretis, XXVI, qu. V, dicitur, sortes quibus cuncta vos vestris discriminatis provinciis, quas patres damnaverunt, nihil aliud quam divinationes et maleficia decernimus. Quamobrem volumus omnino illas damnari, et ultra inter Christianos nolumus nominari, et ne exerceantur, anathematis interdicto prohibemus. | On the contrary, It is written in the Decretals (XXVI, qu. v, can. Sortes): "We decree that the casting of lots, by which means you make up your mind in all your undertakings, and which the Fathers have condemned, is nothing but divination and witchcraft. For which reason we wish them to be condemned altogether, and henceforth not to be mentioned among Christians, and we forbid the practice thereof under pain of anathema." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sortes proprie dicuntur cum aliquid fit ut, eius eventu considerato, aliquid occultum innotescat. Et si quidem quaeratur iudicio sortium quid cui sit exhibendum, sive illud sit res possessa, sive sit honor seu dignitas, seu poena, aut actio aliqua, vocatur sors divisoria. Si autem inquiratur quid agere oporteat, vocatur sors consultoria. Si vero quaeratur quid sit futurum, vocatur sors divinatoria. Actus autem hominum, qui requiruntur ad sortes, non subduntur dispositioni stellarum, nec etiam eventus ipsorum. Unde si quis ea intentione sortibus utatur quasi huiusmodi actus humani, qui requiruntur ad sortes, secundum dispositionem stellarum sortiantur effectum, vana et falsa est opinio, et per consequens non carens Daemonum ingestione. Ex quo talis divinatio erit superstitiosa et illicita. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]), sortilege consists, properly speaking, in doing something, that by observing the result one may come to the knowledge of something unknown. If by casting lots one seeks to know what is to be given to whom, whether it be a possession, an honor, a dignity, a punishment, or some action or other, it is called "sortilege of allotment"; if one seeks to know what ought to be done, it is called "sortilege of consultation"; if one seeks to know what is going to happen, it is called "sortilege of divination." Now the actions of man that are required for sortilege and their results are not subject to the dispositions of the stars. Wherefore if anyone practicing sortilege is so minded as though the human acts requisite for sortilege depended for their result on the dispositions of the stars, his opinion is vain and false, and consequently is not free from the interference of the demons, so that a divination of this kind is superstitious and unlawful. |
| Hac autem causa remota, necesse est quod sortialium actuum expectetur eventus vel ex fortuna, vel ex aliqua spirituali causa dirigente. Et si quidem ex fortuna, quod locum habere potest solum in divisoria sorte, non videtur habere nisi forte vitium vanitatis sicut si aliqui non valentes aliquid concorditer dividere, velint sortibus ad divisionem uti, quasi fortunae exponentes quis quam partem accipiat. | Apart from this cause, however, the result of sortilegious acts must needs be ascribed to chance, or to some directing spiritual cause. If we ascribe it to chance, and this can only take place in "sortilege of allotment," it does not seem to imply any vice other than vanity, as in the case of persons who, being unable to agree upon the division of something or other, are willing to draw lots for its division, thus leaving to chance what portion each is to receive. |
| Si vero ex spirituali causa expectetur sortium iudicium, quandoque quidem expectatur ex Daemonibus, sicut legitur Ezech. XXI, quod rex Babylonis stetit in bivio, in capite duarum viarum, commiscens sagittas, interrogavit idola, exta consuluit. Et tales sortes sunt illicitae, et secundum canones prohibentur. | If, on the other hand, the decision by lot be left to a spiritual cause, it is sometimes ascribed to demons. Thus we read (Ezech. 21:21) that "the king of Babylon stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination, shuffling arrows; he inquired of the idols, and consulted entrails": sortilege of this kind is unlawful, and forbidden by the canons. |
| Quandoque vero expectatur a Deo, secundum illud Prov. XVI. Sortes mittuntur in sinum, sed a domino temperantur. Et talis sors secundum se non est malum, ut Augustinus dicit. | Sometimes, however, the decision is left to God, according to Prov. 16:33, "Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord": sortilege of this kind is not wrong in itself, as Augustine declares [*Enarr. ii in Ps. xxx, serm. 2; cf. Objection [1]]. |
| Potest tamen in hoc quadrupliciter peccatum incidere. Primo quidem, si absque ulla necessitate ad sortes recurratur, hoc enim videtur ad Dei tentationem pertinere. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Lucam, qui sorte eligitur, humano iudicio non comprehenditur. Secundo, si quis, etiam in necessitate, absque reverentia sortibus utatur. Unde, super actus Apost., dicit Beda, si qui, necessitate aliqua compulsi, Deum putant sortibus, exemplo apostolorum, esse consulendum, videant hoc ipsos apostolos non nisi collecto fratrum coetu, et precibus ad Deum fusis, egisse. Tertio, si divina oracula ad terrena negotia convertantur. Unde Augustinus dicit, ad inquisitiones Ianuarii, his qui de paginis evangelicis sortes legunt, etsi optandum sit ut id potius faciant quam ad Daemonia consulenda concurrant, tamen ista mihi displicet consuetudo, ad negotia saecularia et ad vitae huius vanitatem divina oracula velle convertere. Quarto, si in electionibus ecclesiasticis, quae ex spiritus sancti inspiratione fieri debent, aliqui sortibus utantur. Unde, sicut Beda dicit, super actus Apost., Matthias, ante Pentecosten ordinatus, sorte quaeritur, quia scilicet nondum erat plenitudo spiritus sancti in Ecclesia effusa, septem autem diaconi postea non sorte, sed electione discipulorum sunt ordinati. Secus autem est in temporalibus dignitatibus, quae ad terrena disponenda ordinantur; in quarum electione plerumque homines sortibus utuntur, sicut et in temporalium rerum divisione. | Yet this may happen to be sinful in four ways. First, if one have recourse to lots without any necessity: for this would seem to amount to tempting God. Hence Ambrose, commenting on the words of Lk. 1:8, says: "He that is chosen by lot is not bound by the judgment of men." Secondly, if even in a case of necessity one were to have recourse to lots without reverence. Hence, on the Acts of the Apostles, Bede says (Super Act. Apost. i): "But if anyone, compelled by necessity, thinks that he ought, after the apostles' example, to consult God by casting lots, let him take note that the apostles themselves did not do so, except after calling together the assembly of the brethren and pouring forth prayer to God." Thirdly, if the Divine oracles be misapplied to earthly business. Hence Augustine says (ad inquisit. Januar. ii; Ep. lv): "Those who tell fortunes from the Gospel pages, though it is to be hoped that they do so rather than have recourse to consulting the demons, yet does this custom also displease me, that anyone should wish to apply the Divine oracles to worldly matters and to the vain things of this life." Fourthly, if anyone resort to the drawing of lots in ecclesiastical elections, which should be carried out by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore, as Bede says (Super Act. Apost. i): "Before Pentecost the ordination of Matthias was decided by lot," because as yet the fulness of the Holy Ghost was not yet poured forth into the Church: "whereas the same deacons were ordained not by lot but by the choice of the disciples." It is different with earthly honors, which are directed to the disposal of earthly things: in elections of this kind men frequently have recourse to lots, even as in the distribution of earthly possessions. |
| Si vero necessitas immineat, licitum est, cum debita reverentia, sortibus divinum iudicium implorare. Unde Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Honoratum, si inter Dei ministros sit disceptatio qui eorum persecutionis tempore maneant, ne fuga omnium, et qui eorum fugiant, ne morte omnium deseratur Ecclesia, si haec disceptatio aliter non potuerit terminari, quantum mihi videtur, qui maneant et qui fugiant sorte legendi sunt. Et in I de Doct. Christ. dicit, si tibi abundaret aliquid, quod oporteret dari ei qui non haberet, nec duobus dari potuisset; si tibi occurrerent duo, quorum neuter alium vel indigentia vel erga te aliqua necessitate superaret; nihil iustius faceres quam ut sorte legeres cui dandum esset quod dari utrique non posset. | If, however, there be urgent necessity it is lawful to seek the divine judgment by casting lots, provided due reverence be observed. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Honor. ccxxviii), "If, at a time of persecution, the ministers of God do not agree as to which of them is to remain at his post lest all should flee, and which of them is to flee, lest all die and the Church be forsaken, should there be no other means of coming to an agreement, so far as I can see, they must be chosen by lot." Again he says (De Doctr. Christ. xxviii): "If thou aboundest in that which it behooves thee to give to him who hath not, and which cannot be given to two; should two come to you, neither of whom surpasses the other either in need or in some claim on thee, thou couldst not act more justly than in choosing by lot to whom thou shalt give that which thou canst not give to both." |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum et secundum. | This suffices for the Reply to the First and Second Objections. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod iudicium ferri candentis vel aquae ferventis ordinatur quidem ad alicuius peccati occulti inquisitionem per aliquid quod ab homine fit, et in hoc convenit cum sortibus, inquantum tamen expectatur aliquis miraculosus effectus a Deo, excedit communem sortium rationem. Unde huiusmodi iudicium illicitum redditur, tum quia ordinatur ad iudicandum occulta, quae divino iudicio reservantur; tum etiam quia huiusmodi iudicium non est auctoritate divina sancitum. Unde II, qu. V, in decreto Stephani Papae, dicitur, ferri candentis vel aquae ferventis examinatione confessionem extorqueri a quolibet, sacri non censent canones, et quod sanctorum patrum documento sancitum non est, superstitiosa adinventione non est praesumendum. Spontanea enim confessione vel testium approbatione publicata delicta, habito prae oculis Dei timore, concessa sunt nostro regimini iudicare. Occulta vero et incognita illi sunt relinquenda qui solus novit corda filiorum hominum. Et eadem ratio videtur esse de lege duellorum, nisi quod plus accedit ad communem rationem sortium, inquantum non expectatur ibi miraculosus effectus; nisi forte quando pugiles sunt valde impares virtute vel arte. | Reply to Objection 3: The trial by hot iron or boiling water is directed to the investigation of someone's hidden sin, by means of something done by a man, and in this it agrees with the drawing of lots. But in so far as a miraculous result is expected from God, it surpasses the common generality of sortilege. Hence this kind of trial is rendered unlawful, both because it is directed to the judgment of the occult, which is reserved to the divine judgment, and because such like trials are not sanctioned by divine authority. Hence we read in a decree of Pope Stephen V [*II, qu. v., can. Consuluist i]: "The sacred canons do not approve of extorting a confession from anyone by means of the trial by hot iron or boiling water, and no one must presume, by a superstitious innovation, to practice what is not sanctioned by the teaching of the holy fathers. For it is allowable that public crimes should be judged by our authority, after the culprit has made spontaneous confession, or when witnesses have been approved, with due regard to the fear of God; but hidden and unknown crimes must be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of the children of men." The same would seem to apply to the law concerning duels, save that it approaches nearer to the common kind of sortilege, since no miraculous effect is expected thereupon, unless the combatants be very unequal in strength or skill. |