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
Caput XXXIII: De errore Theodori Mopsuesteni et Nestorii circa unionem verbi ad hominem
Caput XXXIV: Contra errorem Eutychetis
Caput XXXV: De errore Macarii Antiocheni ponentis unam tantum voluntatem in Christo
Caput XXXVI: Contra eos qui dixerunt ex anima et corpore non esse aliquid unum constitutum in Christo
Caput XXXVII: Contra eos qui ponunt duo supposita vel duas hypostases in una persona Christi
Caput XXXVIII: Quid Catholica fides sentiat de incarnatione Christi
Caput XXXIX: Obiectiones contra fidem incarnationis
Caput XL: Quomodo oporteat intelligere incarnationem filii Dei
Caput XLI: Quod assumptio humanae naturae maxime competebat verbo Dei
The second point which St. Thomas 1 premises is that the assumption of human nature belongs most especially to the Word of God. He adds most especially, because indeed it is not denied that both the Father and the Holy Spirit can assume a nature; but nevertheless it was more fitting that the Son should assume it.
First, this is proved because, since the assumption of human nature is ordered to the salvation of men, and the ultimate salvation of man is that he be perfected according to the intellective part by the contemplation of the First Truth, it was fitting that human nature be assumed by the Word, who proceeds according to an intellectual emanation. — Add: because thus the assuming Person is proportioned to the end of the assumption.
Secondly, because there seems to be a certain greatest affinity of the Word to human nature. This is clear because man obtains his proper species according to the fact that he is rational. But the Word is akin to reason. Of this there is a twofold sign. One is that among the Greeks logos is used for both word and reason. The other is that Sacred Scripture attributes the name of image both to the Word, as is clear in Coloss. 1, and to man, as is clear in 1 Cor. 11.
It must be noted that the same name does not seem to signify multiple natures, or multiple things distinct according to essence, except by reason of some affinity between them. For the imposer of a name imposes the name from some property of the thing. And therefore he would not impose the same name on diverse things unless he found certain similar and related properties in them, so that such a name is taken not according to simple equivocation, but according to a certain analogy. For this reason St. Thomas very well argues from a sign that there is a certain affinity between the Word and reason, from the fact that they are signified by the same name among the Greeks.
Thirdly, because since the Word has a certain character of affinity not only to the rational creature, but also universally to every creature, in that he contains the reasons of all things created by God, he was fittingly united to a creature, namely to human nature.
St. Thomas treats this question thoroughly in the Tertia, q. 3, a. 8; and in III Sent., d. 1, q. 2, a. 2.