Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 10

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

Is Sacred Scripture literal in all which it teaches?  Or does it express itself in other senses of the words used?

Objection 1. It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.

If a word can have more than one meaning, then the result is confusion rather than effective communication.  Therefore, Sacred Scripture can't have more than one sense in a word.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.

Even in this series of objections, there is no agreement as to the various senses of Scripture.  Therefore, it does not seem wise that Scripture should be divided into senses of Scripture with which even its adherents can not agree.

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.

And, there is even an other sense which has not been mentioned.  The parabolical (i.e. parable). 

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."

St. Gregory the Great, in his book "Moralia", chapter 20, p 1, says that Sacred Scripture must convey more than one sense because in every sentence, it explains the word of God.

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God,

The primary author of Scripture is God. 

in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves.

God's greatness is such that words do not suffice to convey His meaning as men are thus limited.

So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification.

But Christian doctrine conveys meaning by the express meaning of the words and by things which the words can indirectly signify.

Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.

Therefore, the first meaning is the literal 

That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.

Then, there is a spiritual meaning which is based upon the literal and must not contradict the literal. 

Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division.

The spiritual sense can be divided into three categories. 

For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do.

Because, it is known that the New Law was foreshadowed in the Old.  And the New is itself a figure of that which is to come.  And in the New Law, all which Christ did is an example of that which we should do.  So the three sense of the spiritual sense are as follows. 

Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense;

The allegorical sense.  Because the Old Law is an allegory of the New. 

so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense.

The moral sense.  Because all which Christ did for us, is what we should also do. 

But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense.

The anagogical sense.  Because all which we do in Christ leads to our justification, sanctification and ultimate salvation.

Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

Since Holy Scripture is written by a  human author inspired by the Spirit of God, then it is presupposed that the words written will have more than one sense.  

Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

There is no confusion by the many senses of Scripture.  Because all the senses are based upon and do not contradict the literal sense.

Reply to Objection 2. These three — history, etiology, analogy — are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives — namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only — the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.

Although the various Saints focus on certain senses of Scripture and list what appear to be different categories. They do not, in fact, contradict, when they are examined minutely. For instance, in St. Augustines example, he merely divided the literal sense into three categories. And instead of listing the three spiritual senses, he reduced them to one, allegory. Thus, Hugh of St. Victor doesn't list four but three senses, collapsing the anagogical and allegorical together.

Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

The literal sense can be expressed by the use of figures.  For example, if we speak of God's arm, we don't mean that God has an actual limb.  But that God has power to do the thing being discussed.  So, although the literal sense belongs to the human author, the human author was also not limited to the literal sense of the word for his expressing of God's truths.

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 9

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 9. Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?

Should Christian doctrine ever use figures of speech?

Objection 1. It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors. For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes.

It is not in accordance with the nobility of something revealed by God that it should be necessary to express its ideas indirectly.  Rather, Divine Revelation should be explicit and clear.  Otherwise, it is not an expression of God but an expression of an imperfect creature.

Objection 2. Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: "They that explain me shall have life everlasting" (Sirach 24:31). But by such similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.

 Christian doctrine should be clearly expressed in order to properly represent truth.  But figures of speech tend to make truth hard to understand.  Therefore, to compare heavenly things to common things of this world does not help in making Christian doctrine understandable.

Objection 3. Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is often found in Scriptures.

In addition, God should never be represented by the lower forms of life.  Yet, we often find this in Sacred Scripture.

On the contrary, It is written (Hosea 12:10): "I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets." But to put forward anything by means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors.

It is precisely the opposite, it is in figures and visions that God normally communicates with humans.  Therefore, Christian doctrine may contain metaphors.

I answer that, It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature.

Not only is it permissible, but it is necessary that Scripture communicate divine truths by comparing to things of this world.  Otherwise, mankind would not be able to comprehend that which was being communicated.

Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense.

Man's understanding must begin with that which he can see and feel.

Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things.

Therefore, Scripture begins by comparing invisible truths to things which can be seen and felt.

This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils."

Therefore, Dionysius explains that God's grace is given us by means of material things (i.e. the Sacraments).

It is also befitting Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons — "To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14) — that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.

And Scripture communicates spiritual truths by means of comparisons to common things in order that  these ideas be comprehended by the simplest minds.

Reply to Objection 1. Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.

 To the first objection, St. Thomas says, poetry is a discipline but not a science.  It is an art which does not necessarily seek to convey truth, but primarily seeks to entertain.  Therefore, it is improper to compare poetry to Christian doctrine.

However, Christian doctrine uses figures of speech in order to convey truth in a manner that is understood by the simplest of minds.

Reply to Objection 2. The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths;

The message of God is not destroyed by the common language in which it is conveyed.  The truth is conveyed by common means in order to move the human mind from earthy knowledge to understanding the will of God.

and through those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in these matters.

God's message was given to men in order that these men would then convey the message to others.

Hence those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. 

But God's message is not limited to figures.  In some portions, Scripture makes a point figuratively, but in another place, expressly.

The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).

 In addition, God's truths are not for all.  But only for those who seek God and want to be united to Him.  As the Scripture says, "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6). *

Reply to Objection 3. 

Objection 3 says that divine revelation should never be explained in figures of speech.

As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of less noble than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons.

St. Thomas gives three reasons why this is not so.  These three were first expressed by St. Dionysius.

Firstly, because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error. For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who could think of nothing nobler than bodies.

First, because it is easier for men to comprehend and therefore, less likely for men to misunderstand.

Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him.

2nd, because the essence of God is knowledge which our mind can not comprehend.  Therefore, by giving examples of that which God is not, we come to a better understanding of God's essence.

Thirdly, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy.

And finally, because God's truths are not for everyone but only to those who have faith in God and want to please Him. 

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 8

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 8. Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

Can Christian doctrine be justified and defended logically?  Are there logical parameters by which Christian doctrine can be explained?

Objection 1. It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Matters of faith should not be disputed.  They are simply to be accepted without argument.  Since Christian doctrine is a matter of faith, it is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2. Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrineis not a matter of argument.

On the other hand, if Christian doctrine is not to be accepted without question, then it must have substantial reasons for one to believe.  These reasons, if they are forced upon us by authority, are not true reasons and do not amount to evidence.  

But, if they can be comprehended by man's unaided reason and substantiated with purely human evidence, then they are not truly from God.

But since it is claimed that Christian doctrine is from God, then it is not a matter of argument.

On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).

St. Thomas disagrees.  The Sacred Word says that those in authority, in the Church, should be masters of Christian doctrine in order that they can convince others of the truth which is therein taught. 

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences:

Sciences, in general, do not substantiate their principles.  But their principles are presupposed.  However, from their presupposed principles, they demonstrate other truths. 

so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

It is the same with Christian doctrine.  For example, the resurrection of our Lord is a principle which demonstrates the truth of our own resurrection on the Last Day. 

However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; 

There are certain philosophies which hold presuppositions which can't be proved at all nor can their proponents defend them against those who reject them.  This, they leave to more advanced sciences.   

whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections.

Now, the highest of these philosophies, is metaphysics (i.e. the study of reality or existence) consists of that which studies all being.  This philosophy can defend its principles if the objector accepts at least some metaphysical teachings.  But if he accepts none of them, then, there is nothing to dispute.

Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself,

Christian doctrine is the highest of all sciences. 

can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation;

And can defend its principles against an opponent which admits some of that which God has revealed to man.

thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. 

So, Christian doctrine can be defended and substantiated with anyone who accepts the validity of Scripture. 

If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning,but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith.

But not with those who do not admit the existence of God or the validity, at least in part, of Christian doctrine.  All we can do with those is explain the reasons for our faith. 

Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

God is truth.  Faith in God rests upon His existence.  Denials of the existence of God do not amount to proof that God does not exist.  Therefore, arguments against faith in God are of no substance.  But we can respond to these arguments.

Reply to Objection 1. Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.

The first objection says that articles of faith must be accepted without argument.

St. Thomas does not deny this objection.  Because human reason is not enough to prove that which can not be understood by the unaided human mind.  None the less, Christian doctrine should be taught to all men in order that they might also come to faith.

Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation:

Christian doctrine comes from the very highest authority, God.  And it is passed down by those whom He appointed in authority to do so.

thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made.

Thus, it is true that we ought to accept and believe without disputing. 

Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest.

Although an "I say so" argument is of the weakest kind when it is made by a human.  Yet, God's say so (i.e. God's word) is the highest of arguments because it is based upon the greatest of wisdom. 

But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine.

Although unaided human reason can not grasp all articles of faith.  Yet, human logic can be used to clarify some of the truths taught in Christian doctrine. 

Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity.

God's love does not destroy man, but makes him more perfect.  Therefore, man should seek to attain faith as much as he seeks to attain love.

Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28).

And, since faith is greater than human reason.  Then, human reason should be subordinate to faith and should obey the principles of faith.  Therefore, Christian doctrine uses all the truths discovered by natural reason and explained by human philosophers to support the truths revealed by God.  Because, as Scripture says, we are all God's children. 

Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable.

But Christian doctrine uses these proofs merely to support God's truths.  Not to prove them.  The only indisputable evidence we have to prove God's truth is from the Sacred Scriptures.  And the evidence presented by the Early Church Fathers can be used further support, but it is not indisputable.

For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

Therefore, it is upon Sacred Scripture that we rely to prove the truth of Christian doctrine.  Not on any other books, no matter how holy the authors may be. 

*  Note:  Don't let this confuse you.  St. Thomas is not teaching Sola Scriptura.  Note that he refers to St. Augustine in the end of his explanation.  St. Thomas relies heavily upon St. Augustine's explanations.  And St. Augustine is famous for saying, "I would not accept even the Gospel, if not for the authority of the Catholic Church" (against manichaeus).

Here's more proof.  If you look at his "I answer that" section, where he speaks of "heretics".  The very word, "heretic" implies an authority which has the power to declare someone a heretic based upon their erroneous understanding of Christian doctrine.

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 7

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 7. Whether God is the object of this science?

Does Christian doctrine teach us about God?

Objection 1. It seems that God is not the object of this science. For in every science, the nature of its object is presupposed. But this science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence of God." Therefore God is not the object of this science.

It is impossible that any body of knowledge could teach us about God, since even the Saints admit that God is unknowable.  St. John of Damascus, in his book, also says, ""It is impossible to define the essence of God."

Therefore, the first objection claims, that Christian doctrine can not teach us about God.

Objection 2. Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy Writ we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many other things, such as creatures and human morality. Therefore God is not the object of this science.

In addition, Christian doctrine teaches about many things.  As an example, Sacred Scripture treats of animals and men and right and wrong.  Therefore, Christian doctrine is not about God.

On the contrary, The object of the science is that of which it principally treats. But in this science, the treatment is mainly about God; for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is the object of this science.

St. Thomas retorts that all sciences have a main object, as well as, subordinate objects.  Christian doctrine is mainly about God.  That is why it is also known as THEOLOGY.  Which, broken down to its etymology, means, "The Logos (Word) of God."

I answer that, God is the object of this science.

Therefore, St. Thomas, stringently reiterates that Christian doctrine is a science whose purpose it is to explain the essence of God.

The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object.

 A faculty is an ability, like sight.  So, the relationship between sight and that which it is observing.  Is the same as that of a science to that which it is studying.

Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things are the proper objects of sight.

 The eye observes color in all things because color is common to all things.

But in sacred science, all things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end.

Christian doctrine observes God in all things.  Either because it is studying God, directly.  Or because it is something which is made by God and will return to God.

Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science.

Therefore, God is the object of Christian doctrine, as color is the object of sight.

This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God.

This is confirmed in the summaries of that which we believe, in the Creeds.  These are summaries of that which is taught in Christian doctrine and every element of the Creeds is about God.

The object of the principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other than God — that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God.

Christian doctrine treats of many things.  But only as they relate to God and His will for mankind.

Reply to Objection 1. Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause.

The first objection says that God can't be known.  Therefore, there can exist no science which tells us about God.

But, St. Thomas says, although God can not be understood completely, there are some things about Him which we can understand know by the effects of that which He has done and by that which He has revealed.

Reply to Objection 2. Whatever other conclusions are reached in this sacred science are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or accidents but as in some way related to Him.

The second objection says that Christian doctrine treats of too many things to be about God.

But St. Thomas says that all those things are treated of, as they relate to God.  In Christian doctrine, nothing is treated of as separate from God. 

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 6

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 6. Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?

Does Christian doctrine teach us all that we need to know?

Objection 1. It seems that this doctrine is not the same as wisdom. For no doctrine which borrows its principles is worthy of the name of wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Aristotle, Metaphysics i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore this science is not wisdom.

 Hm?  The first objection seems to confuse "wisdom" or "knowledge" with its source.  As I understand the objection, if something is taught by someone other than the originator of the doctrine, then neither the thing taught nor the secondary teacher deserve to be called "wisdom" because it is not their own knowledge they pass along.

Therefore, the objector concludes, that neither the Church which passes along Christian doctrine, nor the Christian doctrine which is passed down, may be classified as "wisdom".

Objection 2. Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is clear in Ethic. vi (another book by Aristotle). But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom.

The second objection says that wisdom confirms the truth of other bodies of knowledge.  Therefore, wisdom is called the most important science.  But Christian doctrine does not substantiate other sciences.  Therefore, it should not be classified as "wisdom".

Objection 3. Further, this doctrine is acquired by study, whereas wisdom is acquired by God's inspiration; so that it is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). Therefore this doctrine is not the same as wisdom.

And, finally, Christian doctrine is obtained by investigation and inquiry.  Whereas, wisdom is given us by divine influence.  According to Scripture (Isaiah 11:2), wisdom is a gift of God. Therefore, since men must study to acquire the knowledge taught in Christian doctrine, then Christian doctrine is not wisdom.

On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 4:6): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations."

St. Thomas counters with another verse from Scripture, wherein it says that the content of Scripture is our wisdom and understanding which the world can see.

I answer that, This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of a wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in the light of some higher principle, he is said to be wise in any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus in the order of building, he who plans the form of the house is called wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers who trim the wood and make ready the stones: "As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation" (1 Corinthians 3:10). Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end: "Wisdom is prudence to a man" (Proverbs 10:23).

Then St. Thomas invokes many Scriptures to prove the point that wisdom, in the human order, is found in all the disciplines.   All the disciplines have their masters and those masters are called "wise" because they have understood their craft to an excellent degree.

Therefore he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the whole universe, namely God, is most of all called wise.

But, he says, Christian doctrine is of a higher and more excellent order.  It is the knowledge of the architect of the world.  Therefore, the person who masters this knowledge is most deserving of the classification of "wise".

Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14).

This is why St. Augustine designates true wisdom as the knowledge of those things revealed by God.

But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause — not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him — "That which is known of Godis manifest in them" (Romans 1:19) — but also as far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called wisdom.

And Christian doctrine treats of the knowledge of all things revealed by God, as well as those qualities of God which are revealed by studying the natural world. Therefore, Christian doctrine is most deserving of the title, "wisdom".

Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order.

Sacred doctrine is from God and not from men.  Therefore, since even the masters of human knowledge are called wise, then Christian doctrine is wisdom of the highest order.

Reply to Objection 2. The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason.

Other sciences can be proved or understood by unaided reason.  But the principles of Christian doctrine can not be understood by unaided reason and must be revealed by God.

Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them.

That is why Christian doctrine does not prove other sciences.  It only judges them.

Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

Anything which contradicts Christian doctrine, is false.

Reply to Objection 3. Since judgment appertains to wisdom, the twofold manner of judging produces a twofold wisdom. A man may judge in one way by inclination, as whoever has the habit of a virtue judges rightly of what concerns that virtue by his very inclination towards it. Hence it is the virtuous man, as we read, who is the measure and rule of human acts.

The third objection said that wisdom is not taught, but men are born with wisdom since it is a gift of God.

St. Thomas says that it is wisdom is both given by God and acquired by studying the things of God.

St. Thomas begins by explaining that judgment is an expression of wisdom.  But good judgment is also a quality of virtue.

In another way, by knowledge, just as a man learned in moral science might be able to judge rightly about virtuous acts, though he had not the virtue.

Although a man need not be virtuous to judge that which is virtuous.

The first manner of judging divine things belongs to that wisdom which is set down among the gifts of the Holy Ghost: "The spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15).

Now, the first manner of judging, which is the judgement of the virtuous person, is a result of the git of the Holy Spirit.

And Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "Hierotheus is taught not by mere learning, but by experience of divine things."

Therefore, Dionysius the aeropagite, a very wise, early christian, in his book, De divinis nominibus, 2nd chapter, says the wise are taught not simply by studying, but by participating in that which is holy.

The second manner of judging belongs to this doctrine which is acquired by study, though its principles are obtained by revelation.

The second type of wise judgement  requires that one study that which God has made known.