Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

Having set forth the truth of faith concerning the Son of God, St. Thomas intends to refute the positions of the heretics, who presumed to measure the truth of this doctrine—namely, of Sacred Scripture—by their own sense, that is, by their own intellect¹.

Regarding this he does three things: first, he adduces and disproves the false opinions themselves, together with their grounds; second, he responds to their grounds, in chapter ᴠɪɪɪ.

Regarding the first he does three things: first, he deals with the opinion of Photinus; second, with the opinion of Sabellius, in the following chapter; third, with the opinion of Arius, in chapter ᴠɪ.

Regarding the first he does three things: first, he recounts the opinion of Photinus, with its grounds; second, he disproves it²; third, he responds to its grounds in general³.

I. As to the first, he says that Photinus, and before him Paul of Samosata, and Cerinthus and Ebion before Paul of Samosata—considering that it is the custom of Scripture to call those who are justified by divine grace sons of God, as is clear from John ɪ, He gave them, etc.; Romans ᴠɪɪɪ, For the Spirit Himself, etc.; 1 John ɪɪɪ, Behold what manner, etc.; and also that it does not keep silent that they are begotten by God, as is clear from James ɪ, For voluntarily, etc.; 1 John ɪɪɪ, Everyone who is born, etc.; likewise that it attributes the name of divinity to the same, as is clear when the Lord said to Moses, I have appointed you the god of Pharaoh; also in the Psalm, I have said, you are gods, and John 10, He called them gods, etc.—thought that Jesus Christ was a mere man, and had taken His beginning from the Virgin Mary, and through the merit of a blessed life had attained the honor of divinity above all others. They also thought that He in like manner was called the Son of God above other men through the spirit of adoption: namely, through grace, according to which a man is made fit to receive the heavenly inheritance, which does not belong to him by nature. Likewise, they thought that He was begotten by Him through grace, and is called God through a certain assimilation to God, not by nature, but through a certain sharing of the divine goodness; just as it is also said of the saints in 2 Peter 1, That you may be made, etc.

Now they strive to confirm this position, first, because it is said in Matt. ult., All power is given to Me, etc. For this would not be so if He were God before all ages. Secondly, because in Rom. 1 He is said to be made and predestined. But what is predestined and is made does not seem to be eternal. Thirdly, because from what is said in Phil. 2, He became obedient, etc., it seems that on account of the merit of obedience and of the passion He was endowed with divine honor, and exalted above all things. Fourthly, because from what is said in Acts 2, Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, etc., it seems that Christ was made God in time, not born before all ages. Fifthly, because many things pertaining to defect are said in the Scriptures concerning Christ, which cannot belong to one who exists as God by nature.

II. In the second place, St. Thomas disproves this position⁴, saying that that sense which the aforesaid heretics conceived in their opinion is not contained in the words of Sacred Scripture.

And he argues first. Solomon says, in Proverbs 8: The depths were not yet, and I was already conceived. Therefore the aforesaid generation existed before all bodily things. Therefore the Son begotten by God did not take the beginning of His being from Mary.

If it should be said that this ought to be understood according to predestination alone, because, namely, before the constitution of the world⁵ it was arranged that the Son of God should be born of the Virgin Mary: it is evident that this is false from the words that follow. For it is subjoined, When He balanced the foundations of the earth, I was with Him forming all things: from which it is clear that He was also really before Mary, for if He had been only in predestination, He could have accomplished nothing. It is also evident that this is false from the words of John the Evangelist. For when he had premised, In the beginning was the Word, lest it should be taken according to predestination, he subjoins, All things were made by Him, etc.: which would not be true unless He had really existed before the world.

2. For the evidence of these things, two points are to be noted. The first is, that here predestination is not taken according to its proper signification, insofar as it is the plan of the ordering of a rational creature to eternal life; but it is taken for the preordination of something to be produced by God, namely, according as God preordained from eternity in His mind to effect something.

3. The second is that, since a thing has being in two ways, namely, in its cause, before it is produced into being; and in itself, when it has already been produced: according as it is in its cause, it is not other than the cause itself, or from its power; but according as it is in itself, it is already other than the cause. Where, therefore, it is implied that something belongs to a thing as it is distinguished from its cause, that must belong to it according as it is in itself, and not according as it is in its cause only.

Therefore, because the Son of God being present to God in the creation of things, and forming all things with Him, and likewise all things being made through Him, belongs to Him as He is distinguished from His principle, which is signified by those prepositions; it cannot be said that this belongs to Him as to a creature existing only in the divine preordination, but also as having a real distinction from His principle, and having being in Himself; although the relation between the Father Himself and the Son is not, properly speaking, the relation between cause and caused; and neither do they have distinct acts of being of existence, but are distinguished only personally, as the principle and that which is from the principle. For this reason St. Thomas well says that the aforesaid words cannot be said of the Son of God unless it is posited that He has being before the Virgin Mary and before the world.

III. Secondly. Concerning the Son of God it is said in John 3, No man has ascended into heaven, etc.; likewise in John 6, I came down from heaven, etc. Therefore it is apparent that He was before He came down from heaven.

If it should be said that from these authorities it is not held that the Son of God was before He came down from heaven, but that He came down from heaven through a new creation of Himself by God, whose power is chiefly manifested in heaven: against this it can be urged, first, because to come down from heaven through a new creation is common not only to all men, but also to all creatures. But Christ spoke those words of Himself as expressing a certain particular descent of His from heaven. Secondly, because concerning the very Son who descended, He said that He is in heaven. For in this it is signified, since He was then simultaneously in heaven and on earth, that through His descent He had not left heaven, namely, as to His divine person; and thus that before He had descended, He had being, and did not begin to be through creation in Mary. It is also confirmed that this must be the sense in the aforesaid words from what is said in John 6⁶: If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before, namely, according to His divinity.

IV. Thirdly. According to the aforesaid position, man advances into God through the merit of his life. But on the contrary the Apostle shows, in Phil. 2, that, since the Son of God was God, He was made man, where he says, Who being in the form of God, etc. Therefore, etc.

Fourthly. By the same reason Moses would be called the son of God by which Christ also is, although Christ was endowed with more abundant grace. This is false. Therefore, etc. The consequence is proved: because Moses had the grace of God copiously, as is clear from Exodus 33. But the falsity of the consequent is proved from what is said in Heb. 3, Moses indeed was faithful, etc.

It is confirmed⁷. Because Scripture in a certain singular way names Christ the Son of God above others: sometimes indeed, apart from others, singularly naming Him the Son, as at the baptism, the voice of the Father thundered, etc.; sometimes, however, the Only-begotten, as in John 1, which would not be if He were called Son in a common way as others are; sometimes also the Firstborn, so that a certain derivation of sonship from Him to others might be shown, as in Rom. 8 and Gal. 4.

It is to be observed that, although in Sacred Scripture some are called sons of God in the plural, and the people itself is also called the son of God⁸: nevertheless it is never found in it that any singular person is called the son of God, begotten by God, except when natural sonship, by which God is the Son of God, is treated. Therefore St. Thomas well says that Sacred Scripture in a certain singular way names Christ the Son of God above others. For this is true not only of the New Testament, but also of the Old.

Sixthly. Scripture attributes to Christ the sanctification of souls and the remission of sins: the first indeed in Heb. 2, He that sanctifieth, etc., and ult., Jesus, that He might sanctify, etc.; the second in Matt. 9. But these are so properly attributed to God that they cannot belong to another, as is clear from Lev. 20 and Isa. 43. Therefore Christ is not called God in the way that those are who are sanctified and whose sins are forgiven: but as having the power and nature of divinity.

V. In the third place, a certain general response is given to the authorities by which the aforesaid heretics confirmed their proposition⁹: for below each one will be responded to in particular¹⁰. It is said, therefore, that they do not confirm their proposition: because, since in Christ the Son of God, after the Incarnation, we confess two natures, namely human and divine, there are said of Him both the things that are proper to God, by reason of the divine nature, and the things that seem to pertain to defect, by reason of the human nature.

For the evidence of this, it is to be considered that, since in Christ there is a single supposit subsisting in the divine and in the human nature, therefore the things that are said of the supposit of human nature can also be said of Christ Himself insofar as He subsists in human nature, speaking namely of those things that pertain to human nature. Likewise, it is necessary that there be said of Him the things that are said of the supposit subsisting in the divine nature. On account of this it is well said here that there are said of Christ the things that are proper to God, by reason of the divine nature; and the things that seem to pertain to defect, by reason of the human.