Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II

Charles René Billuart

Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II

Charles René Billuart (1685–1757)

Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae. Tomus II.

First published 1884

Charles-René Billuart, O.P.'s Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae, Tomus II, treats human acts, passions and virtues, sin, law, and grace in the Thomistic manual tradition. Schola presents the complete Latin Tome II from the Paris Vives edition of 1884.


Tractatus I: De actibus humanis

Dissertatio I: De voluntario et involuntario

Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit voluntarium?

Articulus II: Utrum omissio et effectus ex ea secutus sint voluntaria sine praecepto ponendi actum qui omittitur?

Articulus III: Utrum violentia causet involuntarium?

Articulus IV: Utrum metus causet involuntarium?

Articulus V: Utrum concupiscentia causet involuntarium?

Articulus VI: Utrum ignorantia causet involuntarium?

Dissertatio II: De voluntario libero, sive de libertate creata

Articulus I: Praenotanda

Articulus II: Utrum in homine lapso sit libertas arbitrii seu indifferentiae?

Articulus III: Utrum ad merendum vel demerendum, in hoc statu naturae lapsae, requiratur libertas a necessitate, seu libertas indifferentiae?

Dissertatio III: De actibus humanis speciatim sumptis

Articulus I: Utrum voluntas possit velle malum sub ratione mali?

Articulus II: De motivo voluntatis quoad specificationem

Articulus III: De motivo voluntatis quoad exercitium

Articulus IV: De modo quo movetur voluntas : an libere, an necessario?

Articulus V: De actibus elicitis a voluntate

Articulus VI: De actibus imperatis.** D. Thomas, q. 17

Dissertatio IV: De actibus humanis in esse moris

Articulus I: In quo consistat moralitas in communi actuum humanorum ?

Articulus II: De principiis moralitatis

Articulus III: De concursu multiplicis moralitatis simul in eodem actu

Articulus IV: Utrum dentur actus indifferentes?

Articulus V: Utrum et quomodo voluntas humana, ut sit bona, debeat conformari voluntati divinae?

Articulus VI: Utrum actus exterior addat bonitatem vel malitiam actui interiori?

Articulus VII: Utrum eventus sequens addat ad bonitatem vel malitiam actus exterioris?

Dissertatio V: De conscientia

Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit conscientia?

Articulus II: An et quomodo teneamur conformari conscientiae erranti?

Articulus III: Cujus speciei et gravitatis sit peccatum agere contra conscientiam?

Articulus IV: Quomodo se gerere debeat confessarius cum poenitente quem deprehendit laborare conscientia erronea?

Articulus V: De conscientia scrupulosa, per varias quaestiunculas

Articulus VI: Utrum liceat agere cum conscientia dubia, probabili, aut probabiliori?

Dissertatio VI: De opinionum probabilitate et delectu

Articulus I: Utrum sit licitum sequi opinionem minus probabilem et minus tutam, in concursu probabilioris et tutioris?

Articulus II: Utrum in conflictu duarum opinionum aeque probabilium, de honestate objectiva actus, liceat sequi minus tutam faventem libertati, relicta tutiori favente legi ?

Articulus III: Utrum liceat sequi opinionem probabiliorem minus tutam in concursu minus probabilis tutioris, ubi agitur de sola honestate objectiva actus?

Articulus IV: Varia quaestiunculae circa praesentem materiam breviter resolvuntur

Dissertatio VII: De probabilismo moderato

Articulus I: De natura probabilitatis

Articulus II: Quaenam systemata prodierint circa probabilitatem in practicis?

Articulus III: An liceat sequi opinionem vere et solide probabilem faventem libertati, relicta tutiore aeque probabili, vel etiam probabiliori, ubi de sola liceitate actionis agitur?

Articulus IV: De usu probabilitatis et de regulis specialibus quibus conscientia in dubiis practice formatur

Articulus V: Utrum liceat sequi opinionem probabilem, aut etiam probabiliorem, relicta tutiore, cum adest obligatio certa finem determinatum obtinendi?

Articulus VI: De probabilismo compensativo

Tractatus II: De passionibus et virtutibus

Dissertatio I: De passionibus

Articulus I: De passionibus in particulari

Dissertatio II: De virtutibus

Articulus I: Quid sit virtus, et quotuplicis generis?

Articulus II: De subjecto virtutum

Articulus III: De causa virtutum

Articulus IV: De proprietatibus virtutum

Tractatus III: De peccatis

Dissertatio I: De natura peccati

Articulus I: Quid sit peccatum?

Articulus II: Utrum formale constitutivum peccati commissionis consistat in positivo, an in privativo?

Articulus III: De peccato omissionis

Dissertatio II: De distinctione specifica et numerica peccatorum

Articulus I: Varia peccati divisiones

Articulus II: Unde petatur distinctio specifica peccatorum?

Articulus III: Utrum peccata commissionis et omissionis specie distinguantur?

Articulus IV: Unde petatur distinctio numerica peccatorum?

Dissertatio III: De comparatione peccatorum ad invicem

Articulus I: Utrum omnia peccata sint inter se connexa et paria ?

Articulus II: Unde sumatur inaequalitas peccatorum ?

Dissertatio IV: De subjecto peccati

Articulus I: Quodnam sit peccati subjectum ?

Articulus II: Utrum peccatum saltem veniale possit esse in et a solo appetitu sensitivo, absque omni actuali influxu voluntatis; omnesque motus sensualitatis sint peccata?

Dissertatio V: De causis peccatorum

Articulus I: An et quae ignorantia sit causa peccati, eaque ipsa sit peccatum?

Articulus II: Utrum possit dari ignorantia invincibilis juris divini positivi?

Articulus III: Utrum dari possit ignorantia invincibilis juris naturae?

Articulus IV: Utrum ignorantia invincibilis juris naturae excuset a peccato?

Articulus V: De inadvertentia ad peccatum

Articulus VI: Utrum ignorantia excuset a poenis per leges positivas statutis?

Articulus VII: Utrum Deus sit causa peccati?

Dissertatio VI: De peccato originali

Articulus I: Utrum sit peccatum originale ab Adamo ad posteros transmissum?

Articulus II: Variae quaestiones circa traductionem peccati originalis breviter resolvuntur

Articulus III: Utrum beatissima Virgo Maria peccatum originale in sua Conceptione contraxerit ?

Articulus IV: Utrum S. Thomas negaverit beatam Virginem Deiparam fuisse a peccato originali immunem?

Articulus V: In quo sita sit essentia peccati originalis ?

Dissertatio VII: De effectibus peccati

Articulus I: Utrum ex peccato actuali remaneat in anima macula seu peccatum habituale, et quid sit ?

Articulus II: De reatu poenae

Articulus III: Qualis poenae reatum inducit peccatum?

Articulus IV: DE POENA DEBITA PECCATO ORIGINALI

Dissertatio VIII: De peccato mortali et veniali

Articulus I: Utrum detur peccatum veniale ex natura sua distinctum a mortali ?

Articulus II: In quo et quomodo peccatum mortale et veniale inter se differunt ?

Articulus III: Utrum veniale disponat ad mortale, possitque fieri mortale, et e contra mortale fieri veniale ?

Articulus IV: Quis sit finis ultimus tam peccantis mortaliter quam venialiter?

Articulus V: Utrum peccatum mortale in ratione offensae sit gravitatis simpliciter infinitae?

Articulus VI: Utrum homo in primo instanti morali usus rationis teneatur se convertere ad Deum, possitque esse peccatum veniale cum solo originali?

Tractatus IV: De legibus

Dissertatio I: De lege in communi

Articulus I: Quid sit lex?

Articulus II: Utrum promulgatio sit essentia legis?

Articulus III: Quinam possunt ferre leges?

Dissertatio II: De lege aeterna et naturali

Articulus I: De lege aeterna

Articulus II: De lege naturali

Articulus III: Utrum lex naturalis pati possit dispensationem ?

Dissertatio III: De lege humana

Articulus I: De quidditate, necessitate, qualitatibus et divisionibus legis humanae

Articulus II: Qualis legis humanae promulgatio requiratur ut obliget?

Articulus III: Utrum lex pendeat ab acceptatione populi?

Dissertatio IV: De potestate legis humanae

Articulus I: Utrum lex humana possit praecipere aut prohibere actus internos?

Articulus II: Quomodo debeat poni opus praeceptum, ut legi satisfat?

Articulus III: Utrum leges humanae obligent in conscientia?

Articulus IV: De lege poenali

Articulus V: Quandonam leges humanae obligant sub peccato mortali?

Articulus VI: Quaedam aliae quaestiunculae circa obligationem legum humanarum breviter resolvuntur

Articulus VII: Quinam subjiciantur legibus humanis?

Dissertatio V: De mutatione legum

Articulus I: De mutatione legum per abrogationem et cessationem finis

Articulus II: De consuetudine

Articulus III: De dispensatione

Articulus IV: De interpretatione legum

Articulus V: (APPENDIX) — De privilegiis

Tractatus V: De gratia

Dissertatio I: Praeambula de variis erroribus circa gratiam

Dissertatio II: Praeambula de variis naturae humanae statibus

Articulus I: Explicantur quinque status naturae humanae

§ I: Status naturae purae

§ II: Status naturae integrae

§ III: Status justitiae originalis, naturae lapsae, et naturae reparatae

Articulus II: Utrum status naturae purae fuerit possibilis ?

Articulus III: Utrum homo in statu naturae lapsae nondum reparatae minores vires habeat ad bonum morale, quam habuisset in statu naturae purae?

Articulus IV: Utrum tam Adamo quam angelis fuerit necessaria gratia per se efficax ad perseverandum?

Dissertatio III: De necessitate gratiae

Articulus I: Quid intelligatur nomine gratiae?

Articulus II: Utrum homo sine gratia possit aliquod verum cognoscere?

Articulus III: Utrum homo lapsus possit facere vel velle aliquod bonum absque gratia?

Articulus IV: De necessitate gratiae ad amorem Dei naturalem super omnia tam affectivum quam effectivum, et ad vitanda peccata

Articulus V: Utrum homo possit se praeparare ad gratiam sine gratia?

Articulus VI: Utrum homini justificato necessaria sit gratia actualis ad singulos pietatis actus?

Articulus VII: Utrum homo in gratia constitutus indigeat speciali auxilio gratiae ad finaliter perseverandum?

Dissertatio IV: De essentia et divisione gratiae

Articulus I: De essentia gratiae

Articulus II: Variae divisiones gratiae

Articulus III: De gratia gratis data speciatim

Articulus IV: Utrum detur in hoc statu naturae lapsae gratia sufficiens?

Articulus V: Quo sensu admittenda sit gratia sufficiens ?

Articulus VI: Quid et quotuplex sit auxilium gratiae sufficientis ?

Articulus VII: DE GRATIA EFFICACI

Articulus VIII: Expenduntur varii modi explicandi efficaciam et causalitatem gratiae per se efficacis

Articulus IX: De causa gratiae

Dissertatio V: De justificatione peccatoris

Articulus I: Utrum in justificatione impii peccata vere deleantur et auferantur, et non solum tegantur ?

Articulus II: Utrum ad remissionem peccati, qua est justificatio impii, requiratur gratiae infusio ?

Articulus III: De actibus ad justificationem peccatoris adulti requisitis

The Council of Trid., sess. VI, cap. 6, assigns six acts by which the adult sinner ought to be disposed for justification, namely the act of faith, of fear, of hope, of the love of God, of penance or contrition, finally the resolution of receiving the sacraments instituted for the remission of sins, of beginning a new life and keeping the divine commandments ; which resolution is included in contrition itself. The principal question concerns faith required for justification, against the heretics.

The Lutherans and Calvinists distinguish a twofold faith.

The first they call historical, by which we believe all things contained in the sacred writings ; we call it Christian and Catholic. The second they call of the promises, by which we believe that God has promised the remission of sins. This second they subdivide into general and particular. General they call that by which we believe God has promised remission of sins and salvation to all believers in common; special they call that by which each one believes or confidently trusts his sins to be forgiven him on account of the merits of Christ. For this faith they badly confound with confidence, which belongs to hope and to the will, not to the intellect; for confidence, according to St. Thomas, is strengthened hope.

This faith or particular confidence therefore they contend is required for justification and that it alone justifies.

I say 1° : The faith required for justification is not confidence by which we believe or trust that sins are forgiven us because of Christ, but that by which we believe all truths revealed by God, on account of his authority and truth. Thus it was defined by Trid., sess. VI, can. 12.

[The tenor of this canon is : « If anyone shall have said that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in the divine mercy remitting sins because of Christ, or that it is this trust alone by which we are justified; let him be anathema. »]

It is proved 1° from most open testimonies of Scripture. Marc. last chapter, 15 and 16 : Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who shall have believed, namely the Gospel and the truths contained in it, shall be saved. Rom. X, 8 and 9 : This is the word which we preach; because if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Therefore Christ and his resurrection, not only the mercy of God remitting sins, are the object of saving faith. Joann., XI, 26 and 27, when the Lord had said to Martha : I am the resurrection and the life. He who believeth in me shall not die forever. She answers : Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, who art come into this world. Therefore the faith required for eternal life is to believe the divinity of the Word incarnate. John concludes thus at the last chapter of his Gospel, 31 : These things are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God, and that believing you may have life in his name. Therefore the same as before. I omit other very many testimonies of Scripture, lest I be too long.

It is proved 2° from tradition. The Church, as from the beginning so now, when she requires faith from those about to be baptized, requires no other than that by which we believe the articles of faith contained in the symbols, not truly that by which we believe or confidently trust our sins to be forgiven us. For who among the Apostles, or bishops, or other ministers ever taught one coming to him for justification thus : « Believe your sins to be forgiven you, and immediately they will be forgiven. » Such doctrine would indeed be absurd and offensive to pious ears.

It is proved 3°. Faith rests upon the authority alone of God revealing, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. But nowhere is it revealed to me or to another particularly that sins are forgiven. Therefore I cannot believe this with certain faith.

It is proved 4°. Justifying faith must precede justification; for it is its cause. But that faith of the heretics does not precede, but follows justification, otherwise it would be false; for false is that faith by which I believe my sins forgiven, if they are not yet truly forgiven. If you say that by this faith it is not believed that sins are forgiven, but are being forgiven here and now, there always remains that that faith is posterior to that remission, because that present remission is the object of this faith; but act neither makes nor specifies its object, but supposes it and is specified by it.

I say 2° : Neither that special faith of recent heretics, which is vain and none, nor true Christian faith alone suffices for justification.

[Thus it was defined by Trid., sess. VI, can. 9 : « If anyone shall have said that the impious is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required which cooperate toward obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will; let him be anathema. »]

This definition is against the Lutherans and Calvinists, whom Simon Magus had gone before, by the testimony of Irenaeus, lib. I de Haeres., c. 20, who relates that Peter, John, James and Jude wrote their epistles against this error.

It is proved from these holy Apostles who wrote expressly against this error. St. James, I, 14 : What shall it profit, my brethren, if anyone say he have faith, but have not works? Shall faith be able to save him?... And 17 : Faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. Which after he had proved with many arguments, he concludes the chapter thus, 24 and 26 : You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only... For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. These things are peremptory, nor do they need glossing.

St. Peter, II Epist., c. 1, 10, after exhorting to various good works, concludes : Wherefore, brethren, labor the more that by good works you make sure your calling and election. Faith therefore does not suffice, if works be wanting.

These things are so open against the present error that the heretics denied these epistles to be canonical, which nevertheless the Church acknowledges as canonical in several councils, lastly in Trident., sess. IV.

But also openly St. Paul, in whom the innovators badly confide, combats this error. I Cor., XII, 2 : If, he says, I should have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. Galat., V, 6 : In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity. Rom., II, 3 : Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Finally Christ everywhere in the Gospel commends good works as necessary for justification and salvation. Matth., V, 16 : So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. And below, 20 : Unless your justice abound more than that of scribes and pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. And cap. VII, 19 : *Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire. Cap. XIX, 16 and 17, to him asking : What good shall I do, that I may have life everlasting? He says not : « Only believe ; » but : If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. And finally cap. XXVIII, 19 and 20, he not only admonishes the Apostles to preach faith and baptize, but also wills that they teach to keep all things whatsoever he commanded.

Now certain heretics answer, oppressed by these testimonies, that the faith which they say suffices for justification is not faith alone, but faith joined with good works, not indeed that these good works cooperate toward justification, but because they accompany justifying faith like its signs, or as properties and fruits following from it. Whence they say that by the foregoing testimonies of Scripture those are condemned who formerly said that dead faith alone, void of good works, suffices for salvation; but not those who attribute this indeed to faith alone, but to living faith, active and attended by good works.

On the contrary 1°. This response, varnished and devised for softening the horror of this monstrous error, openly fights with the principles of the heretics. For they teach : 1° that man, while justified through faith, is not truly made just, but only reputed, nor any of his works good, but all mortal sins, although they are not imputed to him because of Christ. With what face then do they say that not faith alone, but faith joined with good works justifies, since according to them there exist no good works? 2° They teach that man once justified through faith cannot fall from justice by any crime. So Calvin, lib. III Institut., cap. 2, § 11, and Luther in Sermon upon these words : So God loved, etc., excepting only incredulity. And thus once justified through faith, although he become thief, homicide, adulterer, sodomite, he remains just. Therefore faith justifies without good works, nay with evil and most evil ones; which is the ancient heresy condemned in the Scriptures. Whence Luther, on cap. 11 ad Galat., expressly says : « Faith without and before charity justifies. » And tom. I disput. : whether works justify ? proposit. 3, he says : « Faith, unless it be without even the lesser works, does not justify, nay it is not faith. » And therefore the stricter Lutherans ingenuously confess that good works are in no way required for justifying faith.

Against 2°. Scripture attributes no less to good works the office of justifying and saving than to faith, as appears from the places cited and many others. Therefore, if faith cooperates toward justification, so also works.

The heretics argue especially from the Apostle, who, as it seems to them, is wholly intent upon asserting that faith suffices for justification without works. Rom., II, 28, he says : We conclude a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Ibid., IV, 2 : If Abraham were justified by works, he hath glory, but not before God. Galat., II, 16 : Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law. Philipp., III, 9 : That I may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of faith.

I answer 1°. Suppose the Apostle taught that faith without any works suffices for justification, this would by no means profit the heretics ; because the Apostle understands Christian and Catholic faith, by which we believe the divinity of the Word incarnate, his resurrection and other mysteries contained in the Scriptures, not truly that ridiculous faith or confidence by which heretics believe their sins forgiven them.

I answer 2°. The Apostle excludes only works which either precede faith or, after faith is had, are done without the grace of faith, that is, works which proceed from the powers alone of nature and free will, such as were certain honest works of natural justice. So Augustine (?) de Libero arb., c. 7, n. 18 : « Men, he says, not understanding what the Apostle himself says : We conclude a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law, thought him to say that faith suffices for man, even though he live badly and have no good works. Far be it that the vessel of election so thought ! »

You press on. Abraham and the Galatians were already reborn and worked from faith, at that time of which the Apostle speaks. Nevertheless he excludes their works. Therefore.

I answer. Given the major, I deny the minor. That he excludes their works which were done from the grace of faith, I deny; that they were done before faith, or which after faith was had were not done from the grace of faith, I concede. For nothing hinders that he who has faith sometimes fail to work from faith, as while he sins or performs a morally good work without relation to God.

To the other arguments which heretics object, take the following general solutions. The first is : justification is attributed to faith as its beginning and root, yet not excluding other works disposing toward it. So Trid., sess. VI, cap. 8. The second : there must be understood living faith, which worketh through charity, as the Apostle speaks ad Galat., V, 6. Third : by faith are sometimes understood those things which are contained in the Gospel or evangelical doctrine, doing those things which according to this doctrine are to be done. Fourth : when works are excluded, must be understood works done before faith or without the grace of faith, not truly works which are done from the grace of faith itself, as I explained above ; or works of the Mosaic law, or external works, when that power of executing them is wanting.

Articulus IV

Articulus V: Quaedam questiunculae ad complementum questionis D. Thomae breviter resolvuntur

Dissertatio VI: De merito justi

Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit meritum ? quas conditiones requirat ?

Articulus II: Utrum homo possit aliquid mereri a Deo ?

Articulus III: Utrum opera justorum quae fiunt ex gratia, sint meritoria de condigno vitae aeternae ?

Articulus IV: De his quae cadunt sub merito

↑ Top of work