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
SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE. THE three errors on this matter having been recounted, St. Thomas answers: It is impossible for God to come in any way into the composition of anything. This conclusion he proves by three reasons.
COMMENTARY. The conclusion of this article is of faith. The first error of those whom St. Thomas here recounts was that of the ancient Philosophers and Poets, who said that God is the soul of the world. On which see Aristotle, 12 Metaphysics, comm. 41, and Augustine, book IV On the City of God, ch. 10, 11, and 12. But the second error, that God, namely, is the formal principle of all things, was that of a certain heretic by name Almeric, who was condemned in the Lateran Council, as is clear from the end of the chapter Firmiter, On the Supreme Trinity, etc. This error was also held by a certain John of Oria in the University of Salamanca, who was compelled to recant publicly. For he affirmed that just as things set on fire participate fire formally, so all creatures participate the Godhead. Yet this opinion is a manifest error, on which see the elegant and most wise man John of Turrecremata in the Summa of the Church, book IV, ch. 55.
Note at the end of this article four conditions, which master Cajetan well notes here to be required for some thing to come into the composition of another thing. First, that the one be really distinguished from the other. Second, that the conjunction be real. Third, that it be a conjunction not only according to position or operation, but according to its own real to-be. Fourth, that the one stand as potency and the other as act, or in an order to some third thing actuated by both, as in composition per accidens: for lack of which Cajetan says Christ is not called composite: yet this, as far as pertains to Christ, whether he is to be called absolutely a composite person, pertains to 3. p., q. 2, art. 4, where quite probably the most wise disciples of St. Thomas of our time defend the affirmative side. And these things on this question.