Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae
Charles René Billuart (1685–1757)
First published 1754
Charles René Billuart, O.P.'s Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae (Liège, 1754) is his six-volume abridgment of the larger Summa S. Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata (1746–1751). It condenses Aquinas's order and teaching into a reference manual while retaining the Dominican's characteristic distinctions, scholastic proofs, and historical material. The compendium belongs to the eighteenth-century consolidation of post-Tridentine Thomist education and helped carry Billuart's influential reading of Aquinas into later schools. Schola presents the Latin text with an English translation from its public-domain source.
Proemium I: De natura et dotibus theologiae
Tractatus I: De Deo et Ejus Attributis
Dissertatio I: De Dei existentia
Articulus I: Utrum Deum esse sit per se notum
Articulus II: Utrum sit Deus, et quibus rationibus demonstretur?
Articulus III: De Atheismo
Articulus IV: Utrum possit dari ignorantia invincibilis de existentia Dei?
Articulus V: An existant athei theoretici?
Dissertatio II: De natura seu quidditate Dei et Ejus attributis in communi
Articulus I: Quodnam sit constitutivum divinae naturae?
Articulus II: De attributis divinis in communi
Dissertatio III: De attributis in particulari quae pertinent ad divinum esse
Articulus I: De simplicitate Dei
Articulus II: De perfectione Dei
Articulus III: De bonitate Dei
Tractatus I: De infinitate Dei
Tractatus II: De immensitate Dei
Articulus IV: De immutabilitate Dei
Articulus V: De aeternitate Dei
Articulus VI: An Deus sit unus?
Dissertatio IV: De visione Dei a nobis
Articulus I: Utrum Deus, ut est in se, possit videri oculo corporeo?
Articulus II: Utrum intellectus creatus supernaturaliter adiutus possit videre Deum ut in se est?
Articulus III: Utrum aliquis in hac vita viderit, possitve videre Deum ut est in se?
Articulus IV: Utrum essentia divina videatur aut videri possit per aliquam similitudinem seu speciem?
Dissertatio V: De scientia Dei
Articulus I: Utrum in Deo sit scientia proprie dicta, eaque sit attributum?
Articulus II: De obiecto et divisione scientiae Dei
Articulus III: An et quae scientia in Deo sit causa rerum?
Articulus IV: In quo medio Deus cognoscat alia a se?
Dissertatio VI: De praescientia futurorum
Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit futurum?
Articulus II: Utrum Deus certo et infallibiliter cognoscat omnia futura absoluta, contingentia et libera?
Articulus III: Quomodo futura sint praesentia in aeternitate?
Articulus IV: In quo medio Deus cognoscat futura absoluta, contingentia et libera?
Articulus V: De scientia futurorum conditionatorum
Articulus VI: De scientia media
Dissertatio VII: De voluntate Dei
Articulus I: De voluntate Dei secundum se, et eius obiecto
Articulus II: De libertate Dei
Articulus III: Quotuplex sit voluntas in Deo, et an semper impleatur?
Articulus IV: De voluntate Dei circa salutem omnium
Articulus V: Utrum Christus sit mortuus pro omnibus omnino hominibus?
Articulus VI: Utrum Deus omnibus provideat auxilia sufficientia ad salutem?
Dissertatio VIII: De praedefinitionibus seu decretis divinis circa actus nostros liberos
Articulus I: Unde repetenda sit infallibilis efficacia divinorum decretorum circa actus nostros liberos?
Articulus II: Solvuntur obiectiones
Dissertatio IX: De providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione
Articulus I: De providentia
Articulus II: De praedestinatione
Articulus III: Utrum praedestinatio sit ex praevisis meritis, an mere gratuita
Articulus IV: Solvuntur obiectiones contra utramque conclusionem
Articulus V: De reprobatione
Articulus VI: De motivo reprobationis
Tractatus II: Tractatus de SS. Trinitatis Mysterio
Dissertatio I: De Veritate Mysterii SS. Trinitatis
Articulus I
Caput I: § I: Asseritur veritatis mysterii SS. Trinitatis
Caput II: § II Objectiones a ratione contra integrum mysterium
Articulus II: Utrum sanctissimae Trinitatis mysterium possit lumine naturali cognosci?
Dissertatio II: De processionibus divinarum personarum
Articulus I: Utrum in divinis sint processiones?
Articulus II: Unde processio Verbi habeat quod sit generatio, et non processio Spiritus Sancti?
Dissertatio III: De relationibus divinis
Articulus I: An sint et quot sint in Deo relationes reales?
Articulus II: Utrum relationes divinae habeant existentias relativas realiter inter se et virtualiter ab existentia essentiae distinctas?
Articulus III: Utrum relationes divinae, praeter perfectionem absolutam essentiae, afferant aliam relativam?
Dissertatio IV: De Personis Divinis
Articulus I: Utrum personae divinae constituantur relationibus?
Articulus II: Utrum in Deo secundum se considerato et personis praeintellecto sit aliqua subsistentia absoluta, et praeter illam sint insuper tres subsistentiae relativae
Articulus III: Utrum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Filio?
Articulus IV: De missione divinarum personarum
Tractatus III: Tractatus de Deo Creatore
Dissertatio I: De processione creaturarum a Deo
Articulus I: Utrum omne ens sit effective a Deo?
Articulus II: Utrum Deus sit causa exemplaris et finalis omnium rerum?
Articulus III: De modo emanationis rerum a Deo, qui dicitur creatio
Articulus IV: Utrum solius Dei sit creare
Articulus V: Utrum plures mundi sint possibiles, et mundus existens sit perfectus?
Articulus VI: Utrum creaturae indigeant ut a Deo conserventur?
Dissertatio II: De angelis
Articulus I: De existentia et quidditate angelorum
Articulus II: De loco et motu locali angelorum
Articulus III: De pertinentibus ad intellectum et voluntatem angelorum
Articulus IV: De gratia et gloria angelorum
Articulus V: De culpa angelorum
Articulus VI: De poena daemonum
Articulus VII: De locutione et illuminatione angelorum
Articulus VIII: De custodia bonorum angelorum et impugnatione malorum
Dissertatio III: De opere sex dierum
Articulus I: Utrum sex dies creationis sint reales?
Articulus II: Utrum cosmogonia Mosaica everti possit?
Dissertatio IV: De homine
Articulus I: Utrum primi parentes nostri immediate a Deo conditi fuerint?
Articulus II: An et qua ratione homo sit factus ad imaginem Dei?
Articulus III: Quomodo anima humana corpori uniatur?
Articulus IV: Utrum anima rationalis creetur, vel traducatur a parentibus?
Articulus V: Utrum anima rationalis creetur cum corpus humanum primo constituitur, id est in ipsa conceptione?
Articulus VI: Utrum primus homo creatus fuerit in statu gratiae sanctificantis?
Articulus VII: Quarum rerum cognitionem habuerit homo?
Articulus VIII: Utrum Adam innocens inordinatis concupiscentiae motibus fuerit obnoxius?
Articulus IX: Utrum corpus Adae vere fuerit de limo terrae?
Articulus X: Utrum homo in statu innocentiae fuerit immortalis?
Articulus XI: Utrum in statu innocentiae fuisset generatio ad multiplicationem hominum?
Articulus XII: Utrum in statu innocentiae homines nati fuissent iusti?
Articulus XIII: Utrum in statu innocentiae homines nati fuissent perfecti in scientia?
Articulus XIV: Quodnam fuerit primum peccatum protoparentum nostrorum?
Articulus XV: Quaenam fuerit gravitas peccati primorum parentum?
Articulus XVI: Quae fuerint poenae peccati primorum parentum?
Articulus XVII: Utrum primi parentes poenitentiam egerint et salutem consecuti fuerint?
[I say 1°: Adam did penance for his sin, and obtained pardon.
Proof 1° from Holy Scripture. Sap., X, 1 et 2: She (wisdom) preserved him who was first formed by God, the father of the world, when he was created alone, and brought him out of his transgression. But to bring out from transgression is to free from sin, which cannot take place without penance. Therefore.
Proof 2° from the Holy Fathers. Aug., lib. VI Operis imperf. contra Iulian., c. 30: « Thus we read that the things which God had threatened came to pass, so that we may understand that this pardon was of use for this purpose: lest the man who had committed such great evils should be punished with an everlasting penalty for them. There was, then, also for the first man something for which penance would be of profit, that is, that it might punish him with a lasting, but not an eternal, punishment. » Greg. Magn., lib. VI, epist. 31: « Adam afterward returned to life through penance. »
It is urged from the kindness with which God corrected and punished Adam, and it will be confirmed from the following conclusion. Whence
I say 2°: Adam attained eternal salvation.
Proof 1° from Holy Scripture. Sap., IX, 19, it is said: By wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning. And immediately Adam is designated as the first, ibid., X, 1 et 2, in these words: She, him who was first formed by God, the father of the world... brought out of his transgression. But Holy Scripture is not accustomed to say of the damned that they pleased God, nor that they were brought out from their transgression. Therefore.
Proof 2° from the Holy Fathers, especially from Aug., who in the Opere imperfecto cited above, c. 12, says: « There [in eternal life] Adam himself will also be; since he is rightly believed to have already been loosed from the bonds of hell by the Lord's coming and descent into hell; that he, the first handiwork of God, who had no begetter but God alone as creator, and who according to the flesh was the first father of Christ, might no longer remain in those bonds, and might not perish by eternal punishment. « And elsewhere, Epist. 1641, ad Evodium, c. 3, n. 6, he asserts that this pertains to the faith of the Church, saying: « And indeed, concerning that first man, the father of the human race, that [Christ] loosed him from thence, almost the whole Church agrees; and it must be believed that she did not believe this in vain, from whatever source this was handed down, even if an express authority of the canonical Scriptures is not adduced for this. » Furthermore, if almost the whole Church believes this, it would be rash, and at the least erroneous, to deny it.
S. Hilary, in Psal. cxix, says: « Adam was reserved for pardon and has been glorified in Christ. » S. Greg. Naz., Orat. xxxi, c. 19 in Matth., speaking of Adam and Eve: « The serpent deceived both; Christ by his passion granted salvation to both. » S. Anselm, lib. Cur Deus homo, c. 16: « It is not to be doubted that Adam and Eve belonged to that redemption. » But that he himself is speaking of redemption as to efficacy, and not only as to sufficiency, is clear from what he adds: « Although divine authority does not openly declare this. » For divine authority has openly declared, concerning redemption as to sufficiency, Rom., V, 18: As by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification. And I Tim., II, 6: Who gave himself a redemption for all. And so also elsewhere.
What we have said about Adam, the Fathers and theologians commonly hold the same about Eve.]