Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae
Domingo Báñez (1528–1604)
First published 1584
Dominicus Báñez, O.P.'s Scholastica commentaria in primam partem Summae Theologiae is a Salamanca-school commentary on the opening part of Aquinas's Summa. The first printing appeared at Salamanca in 1584, after Báñez's teaching at the Dominican studium and University of Salamanca; later editions and editorial continuations helped make the work a major witness to late sixteenth-century Thomism. Its close exegesis of Aquinas intersects the debates over divine grace, human freedom, predestination, and physical premotion that defined the de auxiliis controversy. Schola presents the Latin text from a 1934 Urbano edition; the catalogue's 1584 year identifies the original work, not the modern reprint.
✦ This work is being completed — add a section.
Prologus auctoris ad lectorem
In D. Thomae prooemium meditatio
Quaestio I: De sacra doctrina, qualis sit et ad quae se extendat
Articulus I: Utrum sit necessarium praeter Physicas disciplinas aliam doctrinam haberi
Commentarium
Dubium 1
Dubium 2
Articulus II: Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia
Commentarium
THE principal doubt is concerning the first conclusion: whether sacred doctrine is truly and properly a science.
First conclusion (Latin text without a Spanish translation)
Dubium 1 (continuatio)
Dubium 2
Dubium 3
Articulus III: Utrum sacra doctrina sit una scientia
Commentarium
Dubium 1 (pars prior)
Dubium 1 (continuatio)
Articulus IV: Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia practica
Commentarium
Dubium 1: Objectiones
Dubium 1: Commentarium
Dubium 1: Responsiones
Articulus V: Utrum sacra doctrina sit dignior aliis scientiis
Commentarium
Dubium 1 (textus Latinus sine versione Hispanica)
Dubium 1
Articulus VI: Utrum haec doctrina sit sapientia
Commentarium
Dubium I
Articulus VII: Utrum Deus sit subiectum huius scientiae
Commentarium
Dubium I
Textus Augustini ante articulum 8
Articulus VIII: Utrum sacra doctrina sit argumentativa
Commentarium
Dubium 1
Dubium 2
Dubium 3
Dubium 4
Dubium 5
Dubium 6
Articulus IX: Utrum Sacra Scriptura debeat uti metaphoris
Commentarium
Commentarium; Dubium I
Articulus X: Utrum Sacra Scriptura sub una littera habeat plures sensus
Commentarium
Dubium 1
Dubium 2
Dubium 3
Dubium 4
Dubium 5
Dubium 6
Dubium 7
Dubium 8
Dubium 9
Quaestio II: De Deo, an Deus sit
Articulus I: Utrum Deum esse sit per se notum
Articulus II: Utrum Deum esse sit demonstrabile
Articulus III: Utrum Deus sit
Quaestio III: De Dei simplicitate
Articulus I: Utrum Deus sit corpus
Articulus II: Utrum in Deo sit compositio formae et materiae
Articulus III: Utrum sit idem Deus quod sua essentia, vel natura
Articulus IV: Utrum in Deo sit idem essentia et esse
Articulus V: Utrum Deus sit in genere aliquo
Articulus VI: Utrum in Deo sint aliqua accidentia
Articulus VII: Utrum Deus sit omnino simplex
Articulus VIII: Utrum Deus in compositionem aliorum veniat
Quaestio IV: De Dei perfectione
Articulus I: Utrum Deus sit perfectus
Articulus II: Utrum in Deo sint perfectiones omnium rerum
Articulus III: Utrum aliqua creatura possit esse similis Deo
Quaestio V: De bono in communi
Articulus I: Utrum bonum differat secundum rem ab ente
Articulus II: Utrum bonum secundum rationem sit prius quam ens
Articulus III: Utrum omne ens sit bonum
SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE.
FIRST conclusion is affirmative.
Second conclusion, in the solution to the second: No being is said to be evil insofar as it is a being, but insofar as it lacks a certain to-be.
Third conclusion, to the third: Prime matter, just as it is not a being except in potency, so neither is it good except in potency.
COMMENTARY.
NOTE the solution to the fourth, where St. Thomas teaches how it is to be understood that Aristotle says, 3 Metaph., text 4, that in Mathematics there is no good. For the sense is that consideration in Mathematics abstracts from the account of good, in that it abstracts from all motion and sensible matter; and consequently it abstracts from the account of end, which has the account of moving the efficient cause; and in this way it is not unfitting (says St. Thomas) that in some being according to account there be no good; as if he were to say, according to consideration there is made a simple negative abstraction from the account of good. Nevertheless with this it stands that in Mathematics, according as they are in reality, the account of good is found just as the account of being. And from this the answer of Cajetan to the fourth is plain. But one thing is to be observed, how this is a sound consequence: Mathematics abstracts from motion and matter, therefore from the account of end: for the Metaphysicals also abstract from all motion and matter, more than Mathematics, and yet they do not abstract from the account of end, as is plain in 12 Metaph., text 37, where the end is posited in immovable things. It is answered that that consequence is sound according to the matter at hand, and it is a material consequence which is verified in this way. For this consequence holds: Mathematics abstracts from matter and motion, therefore also from the end. The reason is, for mathematical things are not born to have an end except [one] of matter and motion, since in reality they are natural beings; if therefore they abstract from matter and motion, it is necessary that they abstract from the end of matter and motion, and consequently wholly from the end, since they are not capable of having an end in another way. Furthermore, when it is said that the end has the account of moving, the sense is that the end causes motion by finalizing, not by effecting; for to move by effecting is proper to the efficient cause, for the end moves metaphorically, as Aristotle says, De Generatione, book 1, text 55.