Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV
Francesco Silvestri (1474–1528)
Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles
First published 1918
In Book IV of the Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Francesco Silvestri of Ferrara (Ferrariensis) examines Aquinas's treatment of revealed mysteries: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the sacraments, and the resurrection. The commentary accompanies the Leonine text in volume XV (1930). The present digital edition includes the Latin text and an English translation.
Prooemium
Caput I: Quod sit generatio, paternitas et filiatio in divinis
Caput II: Quod filius Dei sit Deus
Caput III: Quid opinatus sit Photinus de filio Dei, et eius improbatio
Caput IV: Opinio Sabellii de filio Dei, et eius improbatio
Caput V: De opinione Arii circa filium Dei
Caput VI: Improbatio opinionis Arii de filio Dei
Caput VII: Solutio ad auctoritates quas Arius pro se inducebat
Caput VIII: Solutio ad auctoritates Photini et Sabellii
Caput IX: Rationes contra generationem et processionem divinam
Caput X: Quomodo accipienda sit generatio in divinis, et quae de filio Dei dicuntur in Scripturis
Caput XI: Quomodo filius Dei dicatur Dei sapientia
Caput XII: Quod non est nisi unus filius in divinis
Caput XIII: Solutio ad rationes supra inductas contra generationem divinam
Caput XIV: De spiritu sancto, quod sit in divinis
Caput XV: Rationes ex quibus aliqui spiritum sanctum existimaverunt esse creaturam
Caput XVI: Quod spiritus sanctus sit verus Deus
Caput XVII: Quod spiritus sanctus sit subsistens persona
Caput XVIII: Quomodo intelligenda sunt quae de spiritu sancto dicuntur
Caput XIX: De effectibus attributis spiritui sancto in Scripturis respectu totius creaturae
Caput XX: De effectibus attributis spiritui sancto in sacra Scriptura respectu rationalis creaturae, quantum ad ea quae Deus nobis largitur
Caput XXI: De effectibus attributis spiritui sancto secundum quod movet creaturam in Deum
Caput XXII: Solutio rationum supra inductarum contra divinitatem spiritus sancti
Caput XXIII: Quod spiritus sanctus procedat a filio
Caput XXIV: Rationes ostendere volentium quod spiritus sanctus non procedat a filio, et solutio ipsarum
Caput XXV: Quod non sunt nisi tres personae in divinis pater, filius et spiritus sanctus
Caput XXVI: De incarnatione verbi secundum traditionem sacrae Scripturae
Caput XXVII: De errore Photini circa incarnationem
Caput XXVIII: De errore Manichaeorum circa incarnationem
Caput XXIX: De errore Valentini circa incarnationem
Caput XXX: De errore Apollinaris circa corpus Christi
Caput XXXI: De errore Arii et Apollinaris circa animam Christi
Caput XXXII: De errore Apollinaris dicentis animam rationalem non fuisse in Christo, et de errore Origenis dicentis animam Christi ante mundum fuisse creatam
The second error concerning the soul of Christ1 is that of Apollinaris: who, although he had earlier followed Arius, yet having been convicted by the aforesaid testimonies, afterwards confessed that in Christ there was a sensitive soul, without intellect and mind; and he said that the Word of God was in place of intellect and mind to that soul.
I. But that this does not suffice to avoid the aforesaid absurdities is argued as follows. First. If in Christ there was a sensitive soul without reason, it was not of the same species as our soul, which possesses reason: since, according to the Philosopher, Metaphys. VIII, in definitions and species any essential difference added or subtracted changes the species. Therefore neither was Christ himself of the same species with us. — The consequence is proved. Because man obtains the human species from the fact that he has a mind and reason.
Second. It follows that the soul of Christ is contained under one of the species of sensitive soul lacking reason, namely under the species of the soul of a lion or of a horse2 or of some other beast. Because a sensitive soul lacking reason is like a genus containing several species under itself: now, nothing is in a genus that is not in some species of it. But this is completely absurd. Therefore etc.
Third. It would follow that Christ would not have had members such as human members are. — The consequence is proved. Because, since the body is compared to the soul as matter to form, and as an instrument to the principal agent; and matter must be proportioned to form, and the instrument to the principal agent: there must also be a diversity of bodies according to the diversity of souls.
It should be noted that the soul both gives being to the body and uses it for extrinsic operations. Insofar as it gives being to it, it is compared to it as form to matter: for it belongs to form to give being to matter. Insofar, however, as it moves it, not indeed as merely moved, but as moved moving something else extrinsic, it is compared to it as the principal mover to an instrument: for it belongs to the notion of an instrument to be a moved mover. In both ways, however, the body must be proportioned to the soul: for a determinate form is not received in just any matter, but in determinate matter proportioned to itself; nor does every principal agent use just any instrument indifferently, but a determinate agent uses certain and determinate instruments. Therefore St. Thomas very well proves that there is a diversity of bodies according to the diversity of souls, from the fact that the body is compared to the soul both as matter to form and as an instrument to the principal agent.
Fourth. In Christ there was wonder, as is clear from Matt. VIII. Therefore there was also something besides the divinity and the sensitive soul: namely, a human mind. — The consequence is proved. Because wonder, which arises from ignorance of the cause, can belong neither to the Word of God, since he is God; nor to the sensitive soul, since it does not belong to it to be concerned about the knowledge of causes.
II. From the aforesaid St. Thomas infers two corollaries. The first is that, when it is said, The Word was made flesh, it is not understood as if the Word was changed into flesh, or assumed flesh alone, or a sensitive soul alone without a mind; but flesh is taken for the whole man, to express the weakness of the human nature which the Word assumed. For soul is also sometimes used in the Scriptures for the whole man: as when it is said, Exod. I, All the souls were etc. Flesh also is sometimes used for the whole man: as when it is said in Isaiah XL, All flesh shall see etc.
The second corollary is that the dogma of Origen is false, who says that the soul of Christ was created from the beginning, before bodily creatures, and was assumed by the Word, and was at last clothed with flesh. For it is clear from what has been said that Christ had human flesh and a human soul. Now, it was shown above that human souls do not pre-exist their own bodies.