Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

Because in what precedes ¹ St. Thomas applied to the generation of the Word the things that are said concerning divine Wisdom in the authority from the eighth chapter of Proverbs cited above, using divine Wisdom for the divine Word, he wishes to show from human affairs that the Word of God can fittingly be understood through divine Wisdom. Concerning this, however, he does three things: first, he shows what was proposed; second, he infers one corollary ²; third, he removes a certain doubt ³.

I. As to the first, he first premises that wisdom in man is called a certain habit by which our mind is perfected in the knowledge of divine things. But even the conception or inner word concerning divine things formed through that habit is also accustomed to receive the name of wisdom, just as acts are accustomed to be named by the names of the habits from which they proceed. For just as that which is done justly is sometimes called justice, and so of other things, so also that which is conceived wisely is called wisdom.

He premises secondly that in God wisdom is spoken of from the fact that He knows Himself. But nevertheless this is not a habit, but His essence, since God does not understand through a species, but through His essence; indeed, even His very act of understanding is His essence.

Then he argues thus: The Son of God is the Word and conception of God understanding Himself. Therefore, as conceived wisely by the divine mind, He is properly called conceived or begotten Wisdom. — The consequence is clear from the things that were premised. — The conclusion is confirmed, because the Apostle, in 1 Cor. 1, names Christ the Wisdom of God.

2. As to the second, St. Thomas infers that the Word of divine wisdom is fittingly named the brightness of light by the Apostle. It is proved. The word of wisdom conceived in the mind is a certain manifestation of it, just as in us all habits are manifested through acts. And divine wisdom is called light insofar as it consists in the pure act of cognition. Therefore, etc. — The consequence is proved: because the manifestation of light is its brightness proceeding from it. — The reason is confirmed: because the Son ascribes the manifestation of the Father to Himself, Jn. 17.

3. As to the third, because someone could think from the aforesaid that the name of wisdom belongs to the Son alone, St. Thomas removes this. And he says that, although the Word of God is properly called conceived Wisdom, nevertheless the name of wisdom spoken absolutely must be common to the Father and the Son, since the wisdom that shines forth through the Word is the Father's essence; but the Father's essence is common to Himself and to the Son.

II. For the clarity of what was said, that wisdom in us is a habit, but not in God, it must be considered, from the teaching of St. Thomas, I-II, q. 49, a. 4, and q. 50, a. 6, that, since it is of the nature of that which is disposed through a habit to have something of potentiality, as the intellect is related to potency, so it is related to understanding through a habit. But the intellect is related to potency in a threefold way, just as there is a threefold order of intellects. For the human intellect, since it is pure potency in the genus of intelligible things, as was shown above ⁴, is entirely in potency with respect to all intelligible things. Therefore, with respect to all things that it has to understand, it needs some superadded habit through which it may understand. — But the angelic intellect is not pure potency in the genus of intelligible things, nor is it even pure act. Therefore it is not in potency with respect to all intelligible things, but partly in potency and partly in act; for with respect to itself it is in act, but with respect to other things it is in potency, namely as to the actual consideration of them. Therefore an angel does not need a habit to know himself, but knows himself through his essence; but to know things other than himself, he needs a superadded habit, unless perhaps they are such as have such a connection with his essence that they are known simultaneously with it through the essence itself. — But the divine intellect is in no way potency, but is pure and most simple act. Therefore it is in potency with respect to no intelligible thing, but with respect to all things is always in act. And on that account it understands nothing through a superadded habit, but through its essence. — From which it follows, since wisdom is nothing other than the principle by which the highest things are known, but both the angelic and the human intellect are in potency toward the knowledge of these things, while the divine intellect is in pure act, that wisdom in both angels and in men is a habit, but in God it is not a habit, but is His essence, through which He always actually understands all things.

Concerning the reason assigned in the text why wisdom in God is not a habit—namely, because He does not understand through a species—it should be noted that St. Thomas assumes that a habit of the intellect either is an intellectual species or includes an intelligible species, as was shown above ⁵, when it was explained that intelligible species are related antecedently to the habit of science. And therefore it follows exceedingly well that, if God does not understand through a species, He does not understand through a habit.

III. For the explanation of the corollary ⁶, it must be considered that, since light is a quality visible per se, namely as that by which something is seen, it is properly called light according as it is in some luminous body in actu, by which other things are illuminated; but brightness is called the light caused in another. Therefore, also metaphorically in spiritual things, light is called that from which something is intelligibly manifested, according as it is in an understander in actu, by whom an intellectual manifestation is made to others; but brightness is called that which is caused by light whereby the intellectual cognition itself is manifested to others. On this account St. Thomas says that divine wisdom is called light insofar as it consists in the pure act of cognition, that is, insofar as actual cognition itself is considered per se, as existing in God Himself understanding; but brightness is the very manifestation of the light proceeding from it, that is, something proceeding from the actual divine cognition itself by which the divine cognition is manifested.

IV. Concerning the removal of the doubt ⁷, it must be considered that by the name of wisdom spoken absolutely St. Thomas understands the name itself spoken without any other limiting addition; just as, by contrast, when it is called begotten Wisdom, the name of wisdom is not spoken absolutely, but with the adjunction of this name begotten. He means, therefore, that if the name of wisdom is taken without the adjunction of another limiting name, it is common to the Father and the Son; for just as the Son is wise and wisdom, so the Father is both wise and wisdom, because namely wisdom then expresses nothing other than the divine essence according as through it God knows Himself, but the divine essence is common to all the persons. But if it is taken with the adjunction of this name begotten, or conceived, it is not common, but proper to the Son; for the Son alone is called begotten Wisdom, but not the Father, who proceeds from no one, nor even the Holy Spirit, who does not proceed through an act of the intellect, but of the will. For begotten Wisdom does not express the divine essence alone, but the essence itself with the relation of begotten and conceived, which relation it is agreed belongs to the Son alone.