[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that idolatry is not rightly reckoned a species of superstition. Just as heretics are unbelievers, so are idolaters. But heresy is a species of unbelief, as stated above (Question 11, Article 1). Therefore idolatry is also a species of unbelief and not of superstition.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod idololatria non ponatur recte species superstitionis. Sicut enim hæretici sunt infideles, ita et idololatrae. Sed hæresis est species infidelitatis, ut supra habitum est. Ergo et idololatria; non autem superstitionis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.2] Further, latria pertains to the virtue of religion to which superstition is opposed. But latria, apparently, is univocally applied to idolatry and to that which belongs to the true religion. For just as we speak univocally of the desire of false happiness, and of the desire of true happiness, so too, seemingly, we speak univocally of the worship of false gods, which is called idolatry, and of the worship of the true God, which is the latria of true religion. Therefore idolatry is not a species of superstition.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, latria pertinet ad virtutem religionis, cui opponitur superstitio. Sed idololatria videtur univoce dici latria cum ea quæ ad veram religionem pertinet: sicut enim appetitus falsæ beatitudinis cum appetitu vere beatitudinis univoce dicitur, ita cultus falsorum deorum, qui dicitur idololatria, univoce videtur dici cultu veri Dei, qui est latria veræ religionis. Ergo idololatria non est species superstitionis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.3] Further, that which is nothing cannot be the species of any genus. But idolatry, apparently, is nothing: for the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 8:4): \"We know that an idol is nothing in the world,\" and further on (1 Corinthians 10:19): \"What then? Do I say that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? Or that the idol is anything?\" implying an answer in the negative. Now offering things to idols belongs properly to idolatry. Therefore since idolatry is like to nothing, it cannot be a species of superstition.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, illud quod nihil est non potest esse alicujus generis species. Sed idololatria nihil esse videtur; dicit enim Apostolus I ad Corinth., vIII, 4: Scimus quia nihil est idolum in mundo; et infra, cap. x, 19: Quid ergo? Dico quod idolis immolatum sit aliquid, aut quod idolum sit aliquid? quasi dicat: Non. Immolare autem idolis proprie ad idololatriam pertinet. Ergo idololatria, quasi nihil existens, non potest esse superstitionis species.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.4] Further, it belongs to superstition to give divine honor to whom that honor is not due. Now divine honor is undue to idols, just as it is undue to other creatures, wherefore certain people are reproached (Romans 1:25) for that they \"worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.\" Therefore this species of superstition is unfittingly called idolatry, and should rather be named \"worship of creatures.\"
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, ad superstitionem pertinet exhibere cultum divinum cui non debetur. Sed cultus divinus sicut non debetur idolis, ita nec aliis creaturis: unde Rom. 1, 25, quidam vituperantur de hoc quod coluerunt et servierunt potius creaturæ quam Creatori. Ergo inconvenienter hujusmodi superstitionis species idololatria nominatur, sed deberet potius nominari latria creaturæ.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.sc] It is related (Acts 17:16) that when Paul awaited Silas and Timothy at Athens, \"his spirit was stirred within him seeing the whole city given to idolatry,\" and further on (Acts 17:22) he says: \"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.\" Therefore idolatry belongs to superstition.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Act., xvii, 16, dicitur quod cum Paulus 4 Athenis expectaret, incitabatur spiritus ejus in ipso, videns idololatriæ deditam civitatem; et postea, 22, dixit: Viri Athenienses, per omnia quasi superstitiosos * vos video. Ergo idololatria ad superstitionem pertinet.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.co] As stated above (Question 92, Article 2), it belongs to superstition to exceed the due mode of divine worship, and this is done chiefly when divine worship is given to whom it should not be given. Now it should be given to the most high uncreated God alone, as stated above (Question 81, Article 1) when we were treating of religion. Therefore it is superstition to give worship to any creature whatsoever.
\nNow just as this divine worship was given to sensible creatures by means of sensible signs, such as sacrifices, games, and the like, so too was it given to a creature represented by some sensible form or shape, which is called an \"idol.\" Yet divine worship was given to idols in various ways. For some, by means of a nefarious art, constructed images which produced certain effects by the power of the demons: wherefore they deemed that the images themselves contained something God-like, and consequently that divine worship was due to them. This was the opinion of Hermes Trismegistus [De Natura Deorum, ad Asclep], as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei viii, 23): while others gave divine worship not to the images, but to the creatures represented thereby. The Apostle alludes to both of these (Romans 1:23-25). For, as regards the former, he says: \"They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things,\" and of the latter he says: \"Who worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.\"
\nThese latter were of three ways of thinking. For some deemed certain men to have been gods, whom they worshipped in the images of those men: for instance, Jupiter, Mercury, and so forth. Others again deemed the whole world to be one god, not by reason of its material substance, but by reason of its soul, which they believed to be God, for they held God to be nothing else than a soul governing the world by movement and reason: even as a man is said to be wise in respect not of his body but of his soul. Hence they thought that divine worship ought to be given to the whole world and to all its parts, heaven, air, water, and to all such things: and to these they referred the names of their gods, as Varro asserted, and Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei vii, 5). Lastly, others, namely, the Platonists, said that there is one supreme god, the cause of all things. After him they placed certain spiritual substances created by the supreme god. These they called \"gods,\" on account of their having a share of the godhead; but we call them \"angels.\" After these they placed the souls of the heavenly bodies, and beneath these the demons which they stated to be certain animal denizens of the air, and beneath these again they placed human souls, which they believed to be taken up into the fellowship of the gods or of the demons by reason of the merit of their virtue. To all these they gave divine worship, as Augustine relates (De Civ . . Dei xviii, 14).
\nThe last two opinions were held to belong to \"natural theology\" which the philosophers gathered from their study of the world and taught in the schools: while the other, relating to the worship of men, was said to belong to \"mythical theology\" which was wont to be represented on the stage according to the fancies of poets. The remaining opinion relating to images was held to belong to \"civil theology,\" which was celebrated by the pontiffs in the temples [De Civ. Dei vi, 5.
\nNow all these come under the head of the superstition of idolatry. Wherefore Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 20): \"Anything invented by man for making and worshipping idols, or for giving Divine worship to a creature or any part of a creature, is superstitious.\"
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad superstitionem pertinet excedere debitum modum divini cultus. Quod autem præcipue fit quando divinus cultus exhibetur cui non debet exhiberi. Debet autem exhiberi soli summo Deo increato, sicut supra habitum est, cum de religione ageretur. Et ideo cuicumque creaturæ divinus cultus exhibeatur, superstitiosum est. Hujusmodi autem divinus cultus sicut creaturæ a sensibilibus exhibebatur per aliqua sensibilia signa, puta sacrificia, ludos et alia hujusmodi, ita etiam exhibebatur creaturæ repræsentatæ per aliquam formam sensibilem vel figuram, quæ idolum dicitur. Diversimode tamen cultus divinus idolis exhibebatur. Quidam enim per quamdam nefariam artem imagines quasdam construebant, quæ virtute dæmo num aliquos certos effectus habebant; unde putabant in ipsis imaginibus esse aliquid divinitatis, et per consequens quod divinus cultus eis deberetur. Et hæc fuit opinio Hermetis Trismegisti, ut Augustinus dicit in VIII de Civit. Dei, cap. xxiii, col. 247, t. 7. Alii vero non exhibebant cultum divinitatis ipsis imaginibus, sed IV. creaturis quarum erant imagines. Et utrumque horum tangit Apostolus ad Rom., 1, 23. Nam quantum ad primum, dicit: Mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentium; quantum autem ad secundum subdit, coluerunt et servierunt creaturæ potius quam Creatori. Horum tamen fuit triplex opinio: qui-dam enim æstimabant quosdam homines deos fuisse, quos per eorum imagines cole-bant, sicut Jovem, Mercurium, et alios hu-jusmodi. Quidam vero æstimabant totum mundum esse unum Deum, non propter corporalem substantiam, sed propter animam, quam Deum esse credebant, dicentes Deum nihil aliud esse quam animam motu et ratione mundum gubernantem; sicut et homo dicitur sapiens propter animam non propter corpus. Unde putabant toti mundo et omnibus partibus ejus esse cultum Divinitatis exhibendum, cælo, aeri, aquæ et omnibus hujusmodi; et ad hæc referebant nomina et imagines suorum deorum, sicut Varro dicebat, et narrat Augustinus in VII. de Civ. Dei, cap. vi, col. 199, etc. xxiii, col. 241, t. 7. Alii vero, scilicet Platonici, posuerunt unum esse summum Deum causam om-nium; post quem ponebant esse substantias quasdam spirituales a summo Deo creatas, quas deos nominabant, participatione scilicet Divinitatis, nos autem eos angelos dicimus; post quos ponebant animas cœlestium corporum, et sub his dæmones quos dicebant esse aerea quæ-dam animalia; et sub his ponebant animas hominum, quas per virtutis meritum ad deorum vel dæmonum societatem assumi credebant: et his omnibus cultum divinitatis exhibebant, ut Augustinus narrat VIII de Civ. Dei, cap. xiv, col. 238, t. 7. Has autem duas ultimas opiniones dicebant pertinere ad physicam theologiam, quam philosophi considerabant in mundo, et docebant in scholis: aliam vero de cultu hominum dicebant pertinere ad theologiam fabularem, quæ secundum figmenta poetarum repræsentabatur in theatris; aliam vero opinionem de imaginibus dicebant pertinere ad civilem theologiam, quæ per pontifices celebratur in templis. Omnia autem hæc ad superstitionem idololatriæ pertinebant. Unde Augustinus dicit in II de Doct. Christ., cap. xx, col. 50, t. 3: «Superstitiosum est quicquid institutum est ab hominibus ad facienda et colenda idola pertinens, vel ad colendam sicuti Deum creaturam, partemve ullam creaturæ, vel, etc. »
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.1] Just as religion is not faith, but a confession of faith by outward signs, so superstition is a confession of unbelief by external worship. Such a confession is signified by the term idolatry, but not by the term heresy, which only means a false opinion. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, but idolatry is a species of superstition.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod, sicut religio non est fides, sed fidei protestatio per aliqua exteriora signa, ita superstitio est quædam infidelitatis protestatio per exteriorem cultum: quam quidem protestationem nomen idololatriæ significat, non autem nomen hæresis, sed solum falsam opinionem. Et ideo hæresis est species infidelitatis; sed idololatriæ est species superstitionis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.2] The term latria may be taken in two senses. On one sense it may denote a human act pertaining to the worship of God: and then its signification remains the same, to whomsoever it be shown, because, in this sense, the thing to which it is shown is not included in its definition. Taken thus latria is applied univocally, whether to true religion or to idolatry, just as the payment of a tax is univocally the same, whether it is paid to the true or to a false king. On another sense latria denotes the same as religion, and then, since it is a virtue, it is essential thereto that divine worship be given to whom it ought to be given; and in this way latria is applied equivocally to the latria of true religion, and to idolatry: just as prudence is applied equivocally to the prudence that is a virtue, and to that which is carnal.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod nomen latriæ dupliciter potest accipi: uno enim modo potest significare humanum actum ad cultum Dei pertinentem; et secundum hoc non variatur significatio hujus nominis latria, cuicumque exhibatur; quia illud cui exhibetur, non cadit secundum hoc in ejus definitione; et secundum hoc latria univoce dicitur secundum quod pertinet ad veram religionem, et secundum quod pertinet ad idololatriam; sicut solutio tributi univoce dicitur, sive exhibatur vero regi, sive falso. Alio modo accipitur latria prout est idem religioni: et sic, cum sit virtus, de ratione ejus est quod cultus divinus exhibatur ei cui debet exhiberi; et secundum hoc latria æquivoce dicitur de latria veræ religionis et de idololatriia; sicut prudentia æquivoce dicitur de prudentia quæ est virtus, et de prudentia quæ est carnis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.3] The saying of the Apostle that \"an idol is nothing in the world\" means that those images which were called idols, were not animated, or possessed of a divine power, as Hermes maintained, as though they were composed of spirit and body. On the same sense we must understand the saying that \"what is offered in sacrifice to idols is not anything,\" because by being thus sacrificed the sacrificial flesh acquired neither sanctification, as the Gentiles thought, nor uncleanness, as the Jews held.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Apostolus intelligit idolum nihil esse in mundo, quia imagines illæ quæ idola dicebantur, non erant animatæ, aut aliquam virtutem divinitatis habentes, sicut Hermes ponebat, quasi esset aliquid compositum ex spiritu et corpore. Et similiter intelligendum est quod idolis immolatum non est aliquid, quia per hujusmodi immolationem carnes immolatitiae neque aliquam sanctificationem consequebantur, ut Gentiles putabant, neque aliquam immunditiam, ut putabant Judæi.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.4] It was owing to the general custom among the Gentiles of worshipping any kind of creature under the form of images that the term \"idolatry\" was used to signify any worship of a creature, even without the use of images.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod ex communi consuetudine, qua creaturas quas-cumque colebant Gentiles, sub quibusdam imaginibus, impositum est hoc nomen idololatriæ ad significandum quemcumque cultum creaturæ, etiamsi sine imaginibus fieret.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that idolatry is not the gravest of sins. The worst is opposed to the best (Ethic. viii, 10). But interior worship, which consists of faith, hope and charity, is better than external worship. Therefore unbelief, despair and hatred of God, which are opposed to internal worship, are graver sins than idolatry, which is opposed to external worship.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod idololatria non sit gravissimum peccatorum. Pessimum enim opponitur optimo, ut dicitur in VIII Ethic., cap. x, circa princ. Sed cultus interior, qui consistit in fide, spe et charitate, est melior quam cultus exterior. Ergo infidelitas, desperatio et odium Dei, quæ opponuntur cultui interiori, sunt graviora peccata quam idololatria, quæ opponuntur cultui exteriori.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.2] Further, the more a sin is against God the more grievous it is. Now, seemingly, a man acts more directly against God by blaspheming, or denying the faith, than by giving God's worship to another, which pertains to idolatry. Therefore blasphemy and denial of the faith are more grievous sins than idolatry.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, tanto aliquod peccatum gravius est, quanto magis est contra Deum. Sed directius aliquis videtur contra Deum agere blasphemando, vel fidem impugnando, quam cultum Dei alii exhibendo, quod pertinet ad idololatriam. Ergo blasphemia vel impugnatio fidei est gravius peccatum quam idololatria.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.3] Further, it seems that lesser evils are punished with greater evils. But the sin of idolatry was punished with the sin against nature, as stated in Romans 1:26. Therefore the sin against nature is a graver sin than idolatry.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, minora mala majoribus malis puniri videntur. Sed peccatum idololatriæ punitum est peccato contra naturam, ut dicitur ad Rom., i.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.4] Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xx, 5): \"Neither do we say that you,\" viz. the Manichees, \"are pagans, or a sect of pagans, but that you bear a certain likeness to them since you worship many gods: and yet you are much worse than they are, for they worship things that exist, but should not be worshiped as gods, whereas you worship things that exist not at all.\" Therefore the vice of heretical depravity is more grievous than idolatry.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.4] 4. Præterea, Augustinus dicit XX contra Faust., cap. v, col. 374, t, 8: « Neque vos, » scilicet Manichæos, « dicimus paganos, aut schisma paganorum, sed habere cum eis quamdam similitudinem eo quod multos colatis deos: verum vos eis esse longe deteriores quod illi ea colunt quæ sunt, sed pro diis colenda non sunt; vos autem ea colitis quæ omnino non sunt. » Ergo vitium hæreticæ pravitatis est gravius quam idololatria.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.5] Further, a gloss of Jerome on Galatians 4:9, \"How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?\" says: \"The observance of the Law, to which they were then addicted, was a sin almost equal to the worship of idols, to which they had been given before their conversion.\" Therefore idolatry is not the most grievous sin.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.arg.5] 5. Præterea, super illud ad Galat., iv, 9: Quomodo convertimini iterum ad infirma et egena elementa? dicit Glossa Hieronymi: « Legis observantia, cui dediti tunc erant, erat peccatum pæne par servituti idolorum, cui ante conversionem vacaverant. » Non ergo peccatum idololatriæ est gravissimum.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.sc] A gloss on the saying of Leviticus 15:25, about the uncleanness of a woman suffering from an issue of blood, says: \"Every sin is an uncleanness of the soul, but especially idolatry.\"
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Levit., xv, super illud quod dicitur de immunditia mulieris patientis fluxum sanguinis, dicit Glossa ord., col. 340, t. 4: « Omne peccatum est immunditia animæ, sed idololatria maxime. »
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.co] The gravity of a sin may be considered in two ways. First, on the part of the sin itself, and thus idolatry is the most grievous sin. For just as the most heinous crime in an earthly commonwealth would seem to be for a man to give royal honor to another than the true king, since, so far as he is concerned, he disturbs the whole order of the commonwealth, so, in sins that are committed against God, which indeed are the greater sins, the greatest of all seems to be for a man to give God's honor to a creature, since, so far as he is concerned, he sets up another God in the world, and lessens the divine sovereignty. Secondly, the gravity of a sin may be considered on the part of the sinner. Thus the sin of one that sins knowingly is said to be graver than the sin of one that sins through ignorance: and in this way nothing hinders heretics, if they knowingly corrupt the faith which they have received, from sinning more grievously than idolaters who sin through ignorance. Furthermore other sins may be more grievous on account of greater contempt on the part of the sinner.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod gravitas alicujus peccati potest attendi dupliciter: uno modo ex parte ipsius peccati; et sic peccatum idololatriæ gravissimum est. Sicut enim in terrena republica gravissimum esse videtur quod aliquis honorem regium alteri impendat quam vero regi, quia quantum in se est, totum reipublicæ perturbat ordinem, ita in peccatis quæ contra Deum committuntur, quæ tamen sunt maxima, gravissimum esse videtur quod aliquis honorem divinum creaturæ impendat; quia, quantum est in se, facit alium Deum in mundo, minuens principatum divinum. Alio modo potest attendi 4. Nicolai hæc addit: « Quamvis hoc ipso quod sanctorum excellentiam significant, inferiori quadam adoratione, seu dulia, sicut ipsimet sancti, quos repræsentant, non absoluta qui dem, quæ prototypis ipsis exhibetur, sed respectiva tantum possunt et debent adorari. Sed adorari non dicuntur proprie, nec sic dici consueverunt antiquo usu, quia latria, quæ proprie ac simpliciter adoratio dicitur, illis exhiberi non potest, ut in VII generali synodo, act. vii, et deinceps, at potissimum act. vii, patet; ubi honorariam tantum adorationem imaginius exhiberi debere decernitur. Secus est, etc. » 5. Hucusque S. Thomas. Hæc insuper Nicolai: « Ad argumentum in oppositum dicendum quod in loco Exodi supra dicto non de imaginibus proprie sumptis intelligitur quod adorari non debeant, sed solummodo de similitudinibus vel simulacris, ut ex verbis ipsius textus patet: ubi dicitur: Non facies tibi sculptile (sive græce idolum) neque omnem similitudinem, etc. Differentia enim inter idolum, simulacrum et imaginem proprie dictam hæc est, quod nulam rem repræsentat idolum, sed figmentum duntaxat: simulacrum est quidem alicujus rei physicam entitatem habentis effigies, vel repræsentatio, sed non moralem dignitatem habentis, quæ sit adorationis fundamentum, ut simulacrum solis, etc.; imago autem proprie dicta non entitatem tantum, seu physicam realitatem, sed moralem etiam dignitatem ad adorandum repræsentat, puta imago Christi vel sanctorum. Vel dicendum quod non quælibet similitudo loco prædicto prohibetur, sed similitudo eorum tantum quæ in cælo, in terra, et in aquis Gentiles adorabant, sicut ibidem indicatur. Et præterea non simpliciter ejusmodi similitudo prohibetur fieri, coli vel adorari, sed honore vel cultu qui soli Deo exhibendus est, quasi aliquam in se divinitatem contineret, sicut dictum est in corpore arti-culi. » gravitas peccati ex parte ipsius peccantis; sicut dicitur gravius esse peccatum ejus qui peccat scienter quam ejus qui peccat ignoranter; et secundum hoc nihil prohibet gravius peccare hæreticos qui scienter corrumpunt fidem quam acceperunt, quam idololatras ignoranter peccantes; et similiter etiam aliqua alia peccata possunt esse majora propter majorem contemptum peccantis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.1] Idolatry presupposes internal unbelief, and to this it adds undue worship. But in a case of external idolatry without internal unbelief, there is an additional sin of falsehood, as stated above (Article 2).
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod idololatria præsupponit interiorem infidelitatem, et adjicit exterius indebitum cultum. Si vero sit exteriortantum idololatria absque interiori infidelitate, additur culpa falsitatis, ut prius dictum est.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.2] Idolatry includes a grievous blasphemy, inasmuch as it deprives God of the singleness of His dominion and denies the faith by deeds.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod idololatria includit magnam blasphemiam, inquantum Deo subtrahitur dominii singularitas, et fidem opere impugnat idololatria.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.3] Since it is essential to punishment that it be against the will, a sin whereby another sin is punished needs to be more manifest, in order that it may make the man more hateful to himself and to others; but it need not be a more grievous sin: and in this way the sin against nature is less grievous than the sin of idolatry. But since it is more manifest, it is assigned as a fitting punishment of the sin of idolatry, in order that, as by idolatry man abuses the order of the divine honor, so by the sin against nature he may suffer confusion from the abuse of his own nature.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod quia de ratione pœnæ est quod sit contra voluntatem; peccatum per quod aliud punitur oportet esse magis manifestum, ut ex hoc homo sibi ipsi et aliis detestabilis redatur, non autem oportet quod sit gravius; et secundum hoc, peccatum quod est contra naturam minus est quam peccatum idololatria. Sed quia est manifestius, ponitur quasi conveniens pœna peccati idololatria, ut scilicet sicut homo per idololatriam pervertit ordinem divini honoris, ita per peccatum contra naturam propriæ naturæ confusibilem perversitatem patiatur.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.4] Even as to the genus of the sin, the Manichean heresy is more grievous than the sin of other idolaters, because it is more derogatory to the divine honor, since they set up two gods in opposition to one another, and hold many vain and fabulous fancies about God. It is different with other heretics, who confess their belief in one God and worship Him alone.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod hæresis Manichæorum etiam quantum ad genus peccati gravior est quam peccatum aliorum idololatrarum, quia magis derogant divino honori ponentes duos deos contrarios, et multa vana, et fabulosa de Deo fingentes. Secus autem est de aliis hæreticis, qui unum Deum conflitentur et eum solum colunt.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.5] The observance of the Law during the time of grace is not quite equal to idolatry as to the genus of the sin, but almost equal, because both are species of pestiferous superstition.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.3.ad.5] Ad quintum dicendum, quod observatio legis tempore gratiae non est omnino aequalis idololatria secundum genus peccati, sed pæne aequalis, quia utrumque est species pestiferæ superstitionis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that the cause of idolatry was not on the part of man. On man there is nothing but either nature, virtue, or guilt. But the cause of idolatry could not be on the part of man's nature, since rather does man's natural reason dictate that there is one God, and that divine worship should not be paid to the dead or to inanimate beings. Likewise, neither could idolatry have its cause in man on the part of virtue, since \"a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,\" according to Matthew 7:18: nor again could it be on the part of guilt, because, according to Wisdom 14:27, \"the worship of abominable idols is the cause and the beginning and end of all evil.\" Therefore idolatry has no cause on the part of man.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod causa idololatria non fuerit ex parte hominis. In homine enim nihil est nisi vel natura, vel virtus, vel culpa. Sed causa idololatria non potuit esse ex parte naturæ hominis; quia potius naturalis ratio hominis dictat quod sit unus Deus, et quod non sit mortuis cultus divinus exhibendus, neque rebus inanimatis. Similiter etiam nec idololatria habet causam in homine ex parte virtutis, quia non potest arbor bona malos fructus facere, ut dicitur Matth., vii, 18. Neque etiam ex parte culpæ, quia ut dicitur Sap., xiv, 27, infandorum idolorum cultura omnis mali causa est, et initium, et finis. Ergo idololatria non habet causam ex parte hominis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.arg.2] Further, those things which have a cause in man are found among men at all times. Now idolatry was not always, but is stated [Peter Comestor, Hist. Genes. xxxvii, xl] to have been originated either by Nimrod, who is related to have forced men to worship fire, or by Ninus, who caused the statue of his father Bel to be worshiped. Among the Greeks, as related by Isidore (Etym. viii, 11), Prometheus was the first to set up statues of men: and the Jews say that Ismael was the first to make idols of clay. Moreover, idolatry ceased to a great extent in the sixth age. Therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, ea quæ ex parte hominis causantur, omni tempore in hominibus inveniuntur. Non autem semper fuit idololatria, sed in secunda aetate legitur esse adinventa vel a Nembrote, qui, ut dicitur, cogebat homines ignem adorare; vel a Nino, qui imaginem patris sui Beli adorari fecit; apud Græcos autem, ut Isidorus refert, lib. VIII Etymol., cap. xi, § 8, col. 315, t. 3, Prometheus primus simulacra hominum de luto finxit; Judæi vero dicunt quod Ismael primus simulacrum de luto fecit. Cessavit etiam in sexta aetate idololatria ex magna parte. Ergo idololatria non habuit causam ex parte hominis.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.arg.3] Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 6): \"It was not possible to learn, for the first time, except from their\" (i.e. the demons') \"teaching, what each of them desired or disliked, and by what name to invite or compel him: so as to give birth to the magic arts and their professors\": and the same observation seems to apply to idolatry. Therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civit. Dei, c. vi, col. 717, t. 7: «Neque potuit nisi primum ipsis, » scilicet dæmonibus, «docentibus, disci quid quisque illorum appetat, quid exhorreat, quo invitetur nomine, quo cogatur; unde magicæ artes earumque artifices extiterunt. » Eadem autem ratio videtur esse de idololatria. Ergo idololatria causa non est ex parte hominum.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.sc] It is written (Wisdom 14:14): \"By the vanity of men they,\" i.e. idols, \"came into the world.\"
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap., xiv, 14: Supervacuitas hominum hæc, scilicet idola, *adinvenit in orbe terrarum.* *Advenit*1
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.co] Idolatry had a twofold cause. One was a dispositive cause; this was on the part of man, and in three ways. First, on account of his inordinate affections, forasmuch as he gave other men divine honor, through either loving or revering them too much. This cause is assigned (Wisdom 14:15): \"A father being afflicted with bitter grief, made to himself the image of his son, who was quickly taken away: and him who then had died as a man he began to worship as a god.\" The same passage goes on to say (Wisdom 14:21) that \"men serving either their affection, or their kings, gave the incommunicable name [Vulgate: 'names'],\" i.e. of the Godhead, \"to stones and wood.\" Secondly, because man takes a natural pleasure in representations, as the Philosopher observes (Poet. iv), wherefore as soon as the uncultured man saw human images skillfully fashioned by the diligence of the craftsman, he gave them divine worship; hence it is written (Wisdom 13:11-17): \"If an artist, a carpenter, hath cut down a tree, proper for his use, in the wood . . . and by the skill of his art fashioneth it, and maketh it like the image of a man . . . and then maketh prayer to it, inquiring concerning his substance, and his children, or his marriage.\" Thirdly, on account of their ignorance of the true God, inasmuch as through failing to consider His excellence men gave divine worship to certain creatures, on account of their beauty or power, wherefore it is written (Wisdom 13:1-2): \"All men . . . neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman, but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and the moon, to be the gods that rule the world.\"
\nThe other cause of idolatry was completive, and this was on the part of the demons, who offered themselves to be worshipped by men, by giving answers in the idols, and doing things which to men seemed marvelous. Hence it is written (Psalm 95:5): \"All the gods of the Gentiles are devils.\"
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod idololatria est duplex causa: una quidem dispositiva; et hæc fuit ex parte hominum, et hoc tri- 1 Sed et Hugo a S Charo, et Nicolaus de Lyra, et insignis Libri sapientiæ commentator Robertus pliciter; primo quidem ex inordinatione affectus, prout scilicet homines aliquem hominem vel nimis amantes, vel nimis venerantes, honorem divinum ei impenderunt. Et hæc causa assignatur Sap., xiv, 15: Acerbo luctu dolens pater cito sibi rapti filii fecit imaginem, et illum qui tunc quasi homo mortuus fuerat, nunc tamquam deum colere cæpit: et ibidem etiam subditur quod homines, aut affectui, aut regibus deservientes, incommutabile* nomen, scilicet Divinitatis, lignis et lapidibus imposuerunt. Secundo propter hoc quod homo naturaliter de repræsentatione delectatur, ut Philosophus dicit in Poetica sua, cap. 11, in princ., et ideo homines rudes a principio videntes per diligentiam artificum imagines hominum expressive factas, Divinitatis cultum eis impenderunt: unde dicitur Sap., xiii, 14: Si quis artifex faber de silva lignum rectum secuerit, et per scientiam suæ artis figuret illud, et assimilet imagini hominis, de substantia sua, et filiis, et nuptiis votum faciens inquirit. Tertio propter ignorantiam veri Dei, cujus excellentiam homines non considerantes, quibusdam creaturis, propter pulchritudinem, seu virtutem, Divinitatis cultum exhibuerunt; unde dicitur Sap., xiii, 1: Neque operibus attendentes, agnoverunt quis esset artifex, sed aut ignem, aut spiritum, aut citatum aerem aut gyrum stellarum, aut nimiam aquam, aut solem aut lunam, rectores orbis terrarum, deos putaverunt. Alia autem causa idololatriæ consummativa fuit ex parte dæmonum, qui se colendos hominibus errantibus exhibuerunt, in idolis dando responsa, et aliqua quæ videbantur hominibus mirabilia, faciendo; unde et in psal. xcv, 5, dicitur: Omnes diii gentium dæmonia.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.ad.1] The dispositive cause of idolatry was, on the part of man, a defect of nature, either through ignorance in his intellect, or disorder in his affections, as stated above; and this pertains to guilt. Again, idolatry is stated to be the cause, beginning and end of all sin, because there is no kind of sin that idolatry does not produce at some time, either through leading expressly to that sin by causing it, or through being an occasion thereof, either as a beginning or as an end, in so far as certain sins were employed in the worship of idols; such as homicides, mutilations, and so forth. Nevertheless certain sins may precede idolatry and dispose man thereto.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod causa dispositiva idololatriæ fuit ex parte ho-minis, naturæ defectus, vel per ignorantiam intellectus, vel per de ordinationem affectus, ut dictum est, et hoc etiam ad culpam pertinet. Dicitur autem idololatria esse causa, initium et finis omnis peccati, quia non est aliquod genus peccati quod interdum idololatria non producat, vel expresse inducendo per modum causa, vel occasionem praæbendo per modum initii, vel per modum finis, in quantum peccata aliqua assumebantur in cultum idolorum; sicut occisiones hominum, et mutilationes membrorum, et alia hujumodi; et tamen aliqua peccata possunt idololatriam praæcedere, quæ ad ipsam hominem disponunt.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.ad.2] There was no idolatry in the first age, owing to the recent remembrance of the creation of the world, so that man still retained in his mind the knowledge of one God. On the sixth age idolatry was banished by the doctrine and power of Christ, who triumphed over the devil.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod in prima aetate non fuit idololatria propter recentem memoriam creationis mundi, ex qua adhuc vigebat cognitio unius Dei in mente hominum; in sexta autem aetate idololatria est exclusa per virtutem et doctrinam Christi, qui de diabolo triumphavit.
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.ad.3] This argument considers the consummative cause of idolatry.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n[II-II.q.94.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de causa consummativa idololatriæ.
\n