A given model and an unfinished painting

On Orthodoxy, CH07.P008

But He has also given us a subject, a model, a fixed vision.

The vision begins as something people choose and ends as something God gives. These are different claims. Knowing what one wants makes purposeful reform intelligible; it does not establish that the desired reform is good. The palette image starts with human initiative but then supplies a model that the painter must answer to. The opening praise of people who pursue their own ends is therefore limited: they understand what progress requires, without necessarily possessing the right ideal.

Aquinas offers a theological distinction between receiving a moral standard and inventing its practical expression. In the thirteenth-century Summa theologiae, I–II, question 91, article 2, rational creatures participate in divine governance by exercising foresight for themselves and others. The standard is given, but its recipients act through understanding. Article 3 adds that general principles do not provide complete knowledge of particular cases: human reason must work out further determinations. Aquinas, I–II, q. 91, aa. 2–3.

His account of legislation makes this distinction concrete through another artistic comparison. A craftsman must give the general form of a house a particular shape; similarly, a legislator must specify general requirements of justice. The obligation to punish wrongdoing does not by itself prescribe this or that penalty. Aquinas consequently allows different positive laws among peoples because their circumstances differ. A received moral measure therefore need not amount to a single completed institutional blueprint. Aquinas, I–II, q. 95, a. 2, answer and reply to objection 3.

This comparison clarifies a question left open by the picture: how much of the painting has already been specified by the model? The paragraph asserts both creative human work and a divine standard without explaining their division of responsibility. Aquinas supplies one way of distinguishing those levels, rather than evidence that Chesterton intended this precise theory. The linked English witness is the Dominican translation's revised edition of 1920, later than Orthodoxy (1908), not a translation Chesterton could have used when writing this passage.

Revision 1 of 1 · 2026-11-07 · Suggest an edit

Permalink #165384JSONMarkdown