Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Charles René Billuart

Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Charles René Billuart (1685–1757)


Tractatus I: De fide

Prooemium

Dissertatio I: De objecto fidei

Articulus I: Quodnam sit objectum fidei?

Articulus II: In quid sit ultima resolutio fidei nostrae?

Articulus III: Utrum fides possit subsistere falso?

Articulus IV: De obscuritate in objecto fidei et evidentia in attestante

Articulus V: Utrum mysteria fidei sint evidenter credibilia?

Dissertatio II: De motivis credibilitatis Religionis christianae adversus incredulos, vulgo deistas

Articulus I: Quid sit prophetia? An sit possibilis?

Articulus II: An prophetiae vim habeant probandi veritatem revelationis?

Articulus III: Vaticinia prophetarum de religione christiana et ejus authore

Articulus IV: Miracula Christi et Apostolorum, item promissiones Christi adimpletae in confirmationem religionis christianae

Articulus V: Modus mirabilis et plane divinus quo christiana Religio fuit fundata et propagata

Dissertatio III: De actu interno et externo fidei

Articulus I: Utrum sit de necessitate salutis credere aliquid supra rationem naturalem, et quid?

It has been necessary at all times, by necessity of means for salvation, to believe with supernatural faith, determinately and explicitly, these two things: namely, that God is the author of grace and the remunerator of glory.

Proof. from the Apostle, Heb., XI, 6, who says : Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must believe that he is, and is a remunerator to those who seek him. That the Apostle speaks of God and the remunerator in the supernatural order, namely, that he is the author of grace and the remunerator of glory, is evident : 1° because, when he says : he must believe, he speaks of supernatural faith, which he had defined shortly before, ibid., 1 : the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. For things to be hoped for surpass the grasp of human understanding, and things that appear not cannot be investigated by human reason. 2° Because afterwards, in the same chapter, 14, he says of Abraham that, together with the other holy Fathers, he desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one ; and of Moses, ibid., 26, that, despising the treasures of the Egyptians, he looked to the remunerator, namely the heavenly one.

It is urged by reason. According to the ordinary providence, it is necessary by necessity of means for salvation that man, who is governed by reason, know the ultimate end toward which he tends, and the means by which one arrives at it. The ultimate end toward which man tends is the fellowship of the glory of God ; the means by which one arrives at it are grace and the acts of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love, elicited through grace. But man cannot know this end and these means by natural reason, but only by revelation ; for they are supernatural, nor does natural reason dictate that God wills to admit man into the fellowship of his glory, nor does it explain the means by which one arrives at it. Therefore.

I say 2° : After the Gospel has been sufficiently promulgated, explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity is necessary for all, by necessity of means, unto salvation.

This opinion is more probable and more common. Understand, however, the necessity not from the nature of the thing, otherwise it would have been the same at all times, but from a necessity arising from the institution and will of God for this state of the law of grace.

[It is said, « after the Gospel has been sufficiently promulgated, » because it is supposed that before the said promulgation implicit faith in these mysteries was commonly sufficient, from the Apostle, Gal., III, 23 : But before faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. I said « commonly, » that is, for the lesser and the common people. For it seems that the greater, that is, priests and doctors, who offered the sacrifices prefiguring Christ and expounded the prophecies concerning Christ to come, were bound, at least by necessity of precept, to know in some way the sacred significance of these things.]

Proof of the first part. 1° From Scripture. Christ, John., III, 14 and 15, says : As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Now the looking upon the serpent was a means necessary to bodily health. Therefore also faith in Christ unto spiritual health. But that he speaks of explicit faith is clear from what he subjoins there : He that, he says, believeth in him is not judged ; but he that doth not believe is already judged, because he doth not believe in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God. τὸ ὄνομα designates the person ; τὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος of the Only-begotten Son of God distinguishes him from the other persons. Therefore he speaks of explicit faith, and indeed of faith absolutely necessary ; because he who does not believe is already judged.

John., XIV, 1, Christ says : You believe in God ; believe also in me. Where he demands equal faith in himself as in God. Now explicit faith concerning God is necessary by necessity of means. Therefore also concerning Christ. Many other similar passages are read in the Gospel and in the Epistles of Paul.

Proof 2° from the Fathers and the Council of Trent. St. Augustine, book de Corrept. et Gratia, c. 7, n. 11 : « From this damnation, he says, they will not deliver themselves who can say they have not heard the Gospel. » Where he speaks of explicit faith, since he speaks of the faith of the Gospel, and asserts a necessity absolute and inexcusable, even from invincible ignorance, which implies necessity of means.

St. Thomas, here art. 7, c, where at the beginning he speaks of what is necessary by necessity of means, concludes thus at the end : « After the time of revealed grace, both the great and the small are held to have explicit faith concerning the mysteries of Christ. » And still more expressly in III Sentent., dist. 25, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 2 : « After the coming of Christ, he says, all, both great and small, are held to believe explicitly ; and if anyone should lack instruction, God would reveal it to him, unless he remained behind through his own fault. » Therefore he plainly holds that explicit faith is necessary by necessity of means, and not merely of precept ; otherwise, if one lacked instruction, he would be excused from its precept : which the holy Doctor does not admit, but recurs to the extraordinary means of revelation, which then would be owed.

Trent, sess. VI, cap. 6, treating of the disposition to justification and of the things that are to be believed for it, says : « They are disposed unto that justice itself when, roused by divine grace and aided, receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised ; and this above all, that the impious man is justified by God through his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. » Further, if it is necessary « above all » to believe this concerning redemption through Christ, therefore nothing is more necessary. Therefore this explicit faith concerning the redemption of Christ is to be placed among the first things to be believed, and necessary before the others, consequently by necessity of means.

Proof 3° by reason. A more perfect faith of the Incarnation is required in the new law, in which this mystery has been accomplished and revealed, than in the old law, in which it was veiled. Now in the old law implicit faith of the Incarnation was necessary by necessity of means. Therefore in the new law explicit faith is necessary. — Proof of the minor, 1° from the Apostle, Gal., II, 16, who says : A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. 2° Just as the redemption of Christ is necessary, so also is faith in him ; for through faith redemption is applied, according to that, Rom., III, 22 : The justice of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe in him. Now the redemption of Christ is and was necessary to all, at whatever time, by necessity of means unto salvation, as the Apostle teaches, Rom., V, 18 : As by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation ; so by the justice of one, unto all men unto the justification of life. Therefore.

The second part follows from the first. Because explicit faith of the Incarnation, namely that the Son of God was incarnate and conceived by the Holy Spirit, cannot be had without explicit faith of the Trinity. Add that the Incarnation is only a secondary object of our faith, while the Trinity is the primary object. Therefore, if in the new law explicit faith of the secondary object is required, with stronger reason that of the primary object.

Both parts are confirmed by the Symbol of St. Athanasius received by the Church, where, after the holy Doctor expounded the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he concludes : « This is the Catholic faith, which unless each one believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. »

I said : « After the Gospel has been sufficiently promulgated ; » because, from the advent of Christ until the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, the same thing must be judged as concerning the time preceding the Incarnation, namely, that implicit faith concerning Christ sufficed ; since what has not been sufficiently promulgated ought not to be considered a means necessary to salvation. For that repugns the goodness of God and his gentle providence, as Bernard argues, epist. 77. Yet those to whom the Gospel had been promulgated in particular were bound by precept to explicit faith. When, however, the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated for all, it is uncertain. It is probable that this happened around the fortieth year after the ascension of Christ, when the temple of Jerusalem and the republic of the Jews were overthrown by the Romans.

[I say 3° : Explicit faith of each mystery is necessary by necessity of means, not only unto the second salvation, namely glorification, but also unto the first, namely justification.

This is against Cano and Bannez.

Proof. 1° from Holy Scripture. John., III, 14 and 15, cited in the proof of the first part of the second conclusion. Mark., XVI, 15 and 16 : Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved ; but he who does not believe shall be condemned. John., III, 36, Christ not only says that he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but adds that the wrath of God abides upon him, that is, that he remains a sinner and unjust.

Proof 2° from the Tridentine passage cited there, where there is question, not only of glorification, but also and especially of justification. To this accords the response of the Congr. of the Holy Office, which, being asked : « Whether an adult who was in the article of death, and who promised that, after recovering his health, he would learn the truths of the faith, could be baptized, » replied on May 10, 1703 : « The promise does not suffice ; but the missionary is bound to explain to the adult, even though moribund, provided he is not altogether incapable, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of faith, such as above all the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. »

Proof 3° by reason. The just man is an adoptive son of God and heir of glory. Therefore, if implicit faith suffices for justification, it suffices also for glory ; which the adversaries do not admit.

Several cases are objected in which implicit faith of the Incarnation and the Trinity seems to suffice for salvation. 1° A boy nourished in the woods, or among barbarous nations, if he follows the guidance of right reason in the flight of evil and the pursuit of good, will be saved, according to St. Thomas. 2° If a boy, when he has attained the age of reason, is not instructed concerning the aforementioned mysteries, provided he converts to God, he will be justified. 3° Some are so rude and stupid that they cannot apprehend these mysteries by concept. The same must be said of the deaf and mute from birth. Yet salvation cannot be said to be impossible to them : otherwise God would not provide sufficiently for them.

I answer. to the 1st, with St. Thomas, de Verit., q. 14, a. 11, ad 1 : « If one so nourished followed the guidance of natural reason in the desire of good and the flight of evil, it is most certainly to be held that God would reveal to him, either by internal inspiration, the things necessary to be believed, or would direct to him some preacher of the faith, as he sent Peter to Cornelius, Acts., x. »

I answer. to the 2nd. The age of reason is moral, having some duration, within which the boy can be instructed, whether by God, or by an angel, or by a man. These extraordinary instructions ought not to be called miraculous, because they follow naturally from the will of God to save men.

I answer. to the 3rd. Intelligence is not required for faith, but assent, nor is anyone so stupid that, helped by the aid of grace, he could not apprehend the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity at least confusedly and as to their substance. But if you deny this, those are to be numbered among infants and the insane who, without actual faith, by habitual faith alone received in baptism, are saved.]

From what has been said you will gather that those who are ignorant of the aforesaid mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity as to their substance, even if invincibly, are incapable of absolution, and that all confessions made in this ignorance are null and to be repeated, nor does it suffice ever to have believed them, if they are now in fact unknown.

(To this tend the following propositions condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679 : « Man is capable of absolution, however greatly he may labor under ignorance of the mysteries of faith, and even if, through negligence, even culpable negligence, he does not know the mystery of the most holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, » n. 64. — « It suffices to have believed those mysteries once, » n. 65.]

Articulus II: Caeterae difficultates circa actum fidei internum expenduntur

Articulus III: De actu fidei externo

Dissertatio IV: De habitu et subjecto fidei

Articulus I: De habitu fidei

Articulus II: De subjecto fidei

Articulus III: Utrum vera religio falsae tolerari possit

Articulus IV: Utrum fides rationem naturalem excludat?

Dissertatio V: De vitiis fidei oppositis

Articulus I: De infidelitate in communi

Articulus II: De haeresi

Articulus III: De apostasia

Articulus IV: De cultuum libertate

Articulus V: De blasphemia

Tractatus II: De regulis fidei

Dissertatio I: De divina revelatione

Articulus I: De natura revelationis divinae

Articulus II: Utrum possibilis sit divina revelatio immediata?

Articulus III: Utrum possibilis sit divina revelatio mediata?

Articulus IV: Utrum veritatum capitibus nostris excedentium, seu mysteriorum, possibilis sit revelatio?

Articulus V: Utrum divina revelatio fuerit necessaria?

Dissertatio II: De Scriptura sacra

Articulus I: Quid sit et an sit Scriptura sacra

Articulus II: De Scriptura sacra divisione, apographis et versionibus

Articulus III: De Scriptura sacra sensibus

Dissertatio III: De traditionibus

Articulus I: Quid, quotuplex sit traditio, et quanta auctoritas illis?

Articulus II: Utrum traditiones divinae sint necessario admittendae?

Articulus III: De sanctorum patribus

Articulus IV: De sacra liturgia

Dissertatio IV: De Ecclesia

Articulus I: Quomodo Ecclesia christiana existere potuerit ante adventum Christi?

Articulus II: Ex quibus constabat religio primaeva?

Articulus III: Quomodo constituta fuit religio mosaica?

Articulus IV: Utrum divina fuerit religio mosaica?

Articulus V: Utrum lex seu religio mosaica fuerit abroganda?

Articulus VI: Utrum lex seu religio mosaica fuerit abrogata?

Articulus VII: Quid sit Ecclesia, et qui sint in ea?

Articulus VIII: Utrum Ecclesia sit visibilis?

Articulus IX: De notis verae Ecclesiae

Articulus X: Utrum Ecclesia possit decipere seu errare in fide et moribus?

Articulus XI: Utrum Ecclesia sit suprema iudex controversiarum fidei?

Articulus XII: Utrum iudicium Ecclesiae de sensu librorum, seu, ut vocant, de factis dogmaticis, sit infallibile?

Articulus XIII: Utrum Ecclesia sit infallibilis in canonizatione sanctorum?

Dissertatio V: De summo Pontifice

Articulus I: De primatu S. Petri

Articulus II: De primatu Romanorum Pontificum

Articulus III: De vi et ratione primatus Romanorum Pontificum

Articulus IV: De infallibilitate seu inerrantia summi Pontificis in definiendis quaestionibus fidei et morum

Articulus V: De praeminentia summi Pontificis supra concilium generale

Articulus VI: Solvuntur objectiones

Articulus VII: Utrum Pontifici Romano competat summa potestas temporalis?

Articulus VIII: Quid sit Cleri Gallicani de ecclesiastica potestate Declaratio anni 1682, et quid de ea sentiendum?

Articulus IX: Utrum doctrina Declarationis anni 1682, ipsaque Declaratio, Ecclesiae Gallicanae merito fuerit attributa?

Articulus X: De Romani Pontificis principatu civili

Dissertatio VI: De conciliis generalibus

Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit concilium?

Articulus II: Utrum necessaria sint concilia generalia?

Articulus III: Cujus sit convocare concilium generale?

Articulus IV: De convocatis ad concilium generale et illius praeside

Articulus V: Utrum concilium generale sit infallibile in definiendis quaestionibus fidei et morum?

Articulus VI: Utrum concilium generale debeat necessario confirmari a summo Pontifice?

Tractatus III: De spe

Dissertatio I: De spe

Articulus I: De spe secundum se et de ejus objecto

Articulus II: In quibus sit spes

Articulus III: De necessitate spei

Articulus IV: Quae sint vitia opposita spei theologicae?

Tractatus IV: De charitate

Dissertatio I: De charitate secundum se

Articulus I: Complectens omnia quae spectant charitatem secundum se

Dissertatio II: De subjecto, causa, augmento et amissione charitatis

Articulus I: De subjecto, causa, augmento et amissione charitatis

Dissertatio III: De charitate erga proximum

Articulus I: Utrum homo debeat ex charitate diligere seipsum, corpus suum et peccatores?

Articulus II: Utrum inimici sint ex charitate diligendi, eisque exhibenda signa et opera charitatis?

Dissertatio IV: De ordine et praecipuo actu charitatis, qui est dilectio

Articulus I: Utrum Deus sit magis ex charitate diligendus, quam proximus?

Articulus II: Utrum homo debeat ex charitate magis se diligere quam proximum?

Articulus III: Quis ordo servandus sit in dilectione proximorum?

Articulus IV: An et quo sensu liceat diligere Deum et illi servire propter retributionem?

Articulus V: De praecipto charitatis

Dissertatio V: De eleemosyna

Articulus I: Utrum dare eleemosynam sit in praecipto, et quando?

Articulus II: Variae quaestiones circa eleemosynam breviter solvuntur

Dissertatio VI: De correptione fraterna

Articulus I: Utrum correptio fraterna sit in praecipto, et quae conditiones requirantur ut obliget?

Articulus II: De ordine correptionis fraternae

Dissertatio VII: De vitiis charitati oppositis

Articulus I: De odio Dei et proximi, de accidia, invidia, discordia, contentione et schismate

Articulus II: De bello

Articulus III: De duello

Tractatus V: De iure et iustitia

Dissertatio I: De iure et dominio

Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit ius?

Articulus II: Quid et quotuplex sit dominium? Quid ususfructus et usus?

Articulus III: Utrum usus in rebus unico actu consumptibilibus distinguatur a dominio?

Articulus IV: De possessione

Dissertatio II: De subjecto et objecto dominii

Articulus I: De subjecto et objecto dominii in genere

Articulus II: De dominio uxorum et filiorumfamilias

Articulus III: De dominio clericorum

Dissertatio III: De modis acquirendi dominium

Articulus I: De modis acquirendi dominia rerum quae nullius sunt

Articulus II: De primo modo acquirendi dominium rerum quae sunt alicujus, scilicet de accessione

Articulus III: De altero modo acquirendi dominia rerum quae sunt alienus, nimirum de praescriptione

Dissertatio IV: De iustitia

Articulus I: De definitione, objecto et subjecto iustitiae

Articulus II: De divisione iustitiae

Dissertatio V: De actu iustitiae ut sic, nempe de iudicio

Articulus I: Utrum iudicium sit licitum?

Articulus II: De suspicione et iudicio temerario

Articulus III: Utrum dubia de male proximi sint in meliorem partem interpretanda?

Dissertatio VI: De actu iustitiae commutativae, nempe de restitutione

Articulus I: De qualitate et necessitate restitutionis

Articulus II: Ex quotuplex titulo obligetur restitutio, sit affirmativa vel negativa?

Articulus III: Utrum incurratur obligatio restitutionis ratione damni illati absque culpa theologica?

Articulus IV: Utrum culpa theologica vehemens inducat obligationem restituendi, et qualem?

Articulus V: Utrum et quanto culpa iuridica inducat obligationem restituendi ratione contractus et quasi-contractus, seu officii?

Articulus VI: Quomodo sit restituendum a possessore bonae fidei

Articulus VII: Utrum qui bona fide emit rem furtivam, ubi novit esse furtivam, teneatur eam reddere vero domino?

Articulus VIII: De restitutione facienda a possessore mala fidei

Articulus IX: Utrum illi qui impediunt aliquem a consecutione alicujus boni, teneantur ad restitutionem?

Articulus X: De restitutione facienda ab his qui injuriae damnificationi cooperantur

Articulus XI: Quando sit facienda restitutio?

Articulus XII: Quomodo sit facienda restitutio?

Articulus XIII: Quo loco, cujus expensis et periculo restituenda sit?

Articulus XIV: Cui ex pluribus creditoribus prius sit restituendum?

Articulus XV: Quomodo sit restituenda?

Articulus XVI: De causis quae obligationem restitutionis suspendunt

Articulus XVII: De causis quae tollunt obligationem restitutionis

Dissertatio VII: De vitio opposito iustitiae distributivae, quod est acceptio personarum

Articulus I: Quid sit acceptio personarum?

Articulus II: De acceptione personarum in distributione spiritualium

Articulus III: De tributis

↑ Top of work