Summa Contra Gentiles, 4

Book Four: Salvation

St. Thomas Aquinas, Charles J. O'Neil, Charles J. O'Neil

• Publisher: University of Notre Dame Press
• Year: 1975
• ISBN:
  9780268074821
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Medieval & Renaissance Philosophy

Book Four of the Summa Contra Gentiles examines what God has revealed through scripture, specifically the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the end of the world.

The Summa Contra Gentiles is not merely the only complete summary of Christian doctrine that St. Thomas has written, but also a creative and even revolutionary work of Christian apologetics composed at the precise moment when Christian thought needed to be intellectually creative in order to master and assimilate the intelligence and wisdom of the Greeks and the Arabs. In the Summa Aquinas works to save and purify the thought of the Greeks and the Arabs in the higher light of Christian Revelation, confident that all that had been rational in the ancient philosophers and their followers would become more rational within Christianity.

Book 1 of the Summa deals with God; Book 2, Creation; and Book 3, Providence.

Chapter 1.

FOREWORD

“Lo, these things are said in part of His ways: and seeing we have heard scarce a little drop of His word, who shall be able to behold the thunder of His greatness?”

(Job 26:14).

[1] The human intellect, to which it is connatural to derive its knowledge from sensible things, is not able through itself to reach the vision of the divine substance in itself, which is above all sensible things and, indeed, improportionately above all other things. Yet, because man’s perfect good is that he somehow know God, lest such a noble creature might seem to be created to no purpose, as being unable to reach its own end, there is given to man a certain way through which he can rise to the knowledge of God: so that, since the perfections of things descend in a certain order from the highest summit of things—God—man may progress in the knowledge of God by beginning with lower things and gradually ascending. Now, even in bodily movements, the way of descending is the same as the way of ascending, distinguished by beginning and end.

[2] There is a twofold account of the descent of perfections from God just mentioned. One account looks to the first origin of things: for divine Wisdom, to put perfection in things, produced them in such order that the universe of creatures should embrace the highest of things and the lowest. The other account comes from the things themselves. For, since causes are more noble than their effects, the very first caused things are lower than the First Cause, which is God, and still stand out above their effects. And so it goes until one arrives at the lowest of things. And because in the highest summit of things, God, one finds the most perfect unity—and because everything, the more it is one, is the more powerful and more worthy—it follows that the farther one gets from the first principle, the greater is the diversity and variation one finds in things. The process of emanation from God must, then, be unified in the principle itself, but multiplied in the lower things which are its terms. In this way, according to the diversity of things, there appears the diversity of the ways, as though these ways began in one principle and terminated in various ends.

[3] Through these ways our intellect can rise to the knowledge of God. But because of the weakness of the intellect we are not able to know perfectly even the ways themselves. For the sense, from which our knowledge begins, is occupied with external accidents, which are the proper sensibles—for example, color, odor, and the like. As a result, through such external accidents the intellect can scarcely reach the perfect knowledge of a lower nature, even in the case of those natures whose accidents it comprehends perfectly through the sense. Much less will the intellect arrive at comprehending the natures of those things of which we grasp few accidents by sense; and it will do so even less in the case of those things whose accidents cannot be grasped by the senses, though they may be perceived through certain deficient effects. But, even though the natures of things themselves were known to us, we can have only a little knowledge of their order, according as divine Providence disposes them in relation to one another and directs them to the end, since we do not come to know the plan of divine Providence. If, then, we imperfectly know the ways themselves, how shall we be able to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the source of these ways? And because that source transcends the above-mentioned ways beyond proportion, even if we knew the ways themselves perfectly we would yet not have within our grasp a perfect knowledge of the source.

[4] Therefore, since it was a feeble knowledge of God that man could reach in the ways mentioned—by a kind of intellectual glimpse, so to say—out of a superabundant goodness, therefore, so that man might have a firmer knowledge of Him, God revealed certain things about Himself that transcend the human intellect. In this revelation, in harmony with man, a certain order is preserved, so that little by little he comes from the imperfect to the perfect—just as happens in the rest of changeable things. First, therefore, these things are so revealed to man as, for all that, not to be understood, but only to be believed as heard, for the human intellect in this state in which it is connected with things sensible cannot be elevated entirely to gaze upon things which exceed every proportion of sense. But, when it shall have been freed from the connection with sensibles, then it will be elevated to gaze upon the things which are revealed.

[5] There is, then, in man a threefold knowledge of things divine. Of these, the first is that in which man, by the natural light of reason, ascends to a knowledge of God through creatures. The second is that by which the divine truth—exceeding the human intellect—descends on us in the manner of revelation, not, however, as something made clear to be seen, but as something spoken in words to be believed. The third is that by which the human mind will be elevated to gaze perfectly upon the things revealed.

[6] It is this threefold cognition which Job suggests in the words set down. The words, “Lo, these things are said in part of His ways,” refer to that knowledge by which our intellect ascends to a knowledge of God by the ways of creatures. And because we know these ways imperfectly, he rightly added: “in part.” “For we know in part,” as the Apostle says (I Cor. 13:9).

[7] What is added, however, “and seeing we have heard scarce a little drop of His word,” refers to the second knowledge, in that the divine things we are to believe are revealed to us in speech; “faith then,” as Romans (10:17) says, “cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of God.” Of this John (17:17) also says: “sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.” Thus, then, since the revealed truth is proposed not about divine things to be seen, but to be believed, Job rightly says: “we have heard.” But, since this imperfect knowledge flows down from that perfect knowledge wherein the divine Truth is seen in itself, while God reveals it to us through the ministry of angels who “see the face” of the Father (Matt. 18:10), Job rightly names it “a drop.” Hence, Joel (3:18) also says: “In that day the mountains shall drop down sweetness.” Since not all the mysteries known in the vision of the First Truth by the angels and the other blessed, but a certain few are revealed to us, Job adds significantly: “a little.” For Ecclesiasticus (43:35–36) says: “Who shall magnify Him as He is from the beginning? There are many things hidden from us that are greater than these: for we have seen but a few of His words.” And our Lord says to the disciples in John (16:12): “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot hear them now.” The few things also which are revealed to us are set forth in similitudes and the obscurities of words—as a result, only the studious arrive at any sort of grasp of them at all. Others, however, venerate them as things hidden, and unbelievers cannot attack them; hence, the Apostle says: “We see now through a glass in a dark manner” (I Cor. 13:12). Significantly, then, does Job add “scarce” to bring out the difficulty.1

[8] But this addition, “Who shall be able to behold the thunder of His greatness,” refers to the third kind of knowledge, in which the First Truth will be known, not as believed, but as seen; “We shall see Him as He is,” we read (I John 3:2). So Job adds: “to behold.” Nor will one perceive some measure of the divine mysteries: the divine majesty itself will be seen and all the perfection of goods; hence, the Lord said to Moses: “I will shew thee all good” (Exod. 33:19). Rightly, then, does Job say “greatness.” Nor will the truth be set before man hidden under any veils, but will be entirely manifest; hence, our Lord says to His disciples: “The hour cometh when I will no more speak to you in proverbs; but will shew you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25). Significantly, therefore, does Job speak of “the thunder” to suggest the manifestation.

[9] Now, the words set down fit our purpose. In what has preceded we have dealt with divine things according as the natural reason can arrive at the knowledge of divine things through creatures. This way is imperfect, nevertheless, and in keeping with the reason’s native capacity. That is why we can say with Job (26:14): “These things are said in part of His ways.” We must now deal with those divine things that have been divinely revealed to us to be believed, since they transcend the human intellect.

[10] And the manner of proceeding in such matters the words set down do teach us. For, since we have hardly heard the truth of this kind in sacred Scripture as a little drop descending upon us, and since one cannot in the state of this life behold the thunder of the greatness, this will be the method to follow: What has been passed on to us in the words of sacred Scripture may be taken as principles, so to say; thus, the things in those writings passed on to us in a hidden fashion we may endeavor to grasp mentally in some way or other, defending them from the attacks of the infidels. Nonetheless, that no presumption of knowing perfectly may be present, points of this kind must be proved from sacred Scripture, but not from natural reason. For all that, one must show that such things are not opposed to natural reason, in order to defend them from infidel attack. This was also the method fixed upon in the beginning of this work.2

[11] But, since natural reason ascends to a knowledge of God through creatures and, conversely, the knowledge of faith descends from God to us by a divine revelation—since the way of ascent and descent is still the same—we must proceed in the same way in the things above reason which are believed as we proceeded in the foregoing with the investigation of God by reason.3 First, to be specific, we must treat of the things about God Himself which surpass reason and are proposed for belief: such is the confession of the Trinity; second, of course, the things which surpass reason that have been done by God, such as the work of the Incarnation and what follows thereon; third, however, the things surpassing reason which are looked for in the ultimate end of man, such as the resurrection and glorification of bodies, the everlasting beatitude of souls, and matters related to these.4

1. St. Thomas’ text reads: vix parvam stillam. “Hardly” brings out the difficulty better than the Douay “scarce.” In SCG, IV, the need for such minor deviations and adjustments of Douay is quite extensive. Hereafter, when a slight adjustment of the Douay will make St. Thomas’ exposition more smooth, the adjustment will be made without notation. Where a very minor addition will leave the Douay in its familiarity without interpreting St. Thomas or interfering with his exposition, the addition will be made without notation.

2. SCG, I, ch. 9; and see A. C. Pegis, “General Introduction,” Book One: God (New York, Doubleday & Co., 1955), pp. 39–50.

3. SCG, I, ch. 9, ¶3–5.

4. The threefold discussion is covered in ch. 2–26, 27–78, 79–97.

Chapter 2.

THAT THERE IS GENERATION, PATERNITY, AND SONSHIP IN THE DIVINITY

[1] Let us take the beginning of our study from the secret of the divine generation, and first set down what one must hold about it according to the testimonies of sacred Scripture. Then1 we may set out the arguments against the truth of the faith which unbelief has invented; by achieving the solution of these2 we will be pursuing the purpose of this study.

[2] Sacred Scripture, then, hands on to us the names of “paternity” and “sonship” in the divinity, insisting that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. One finds this most frequently in the books of the New Testament. Thus, Matthew (11:27): “No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the Son.” With this Mark begins his Gospel, saying: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” John the Evangelist also frequently points to this, for he says: “The Father loveth the Son and He hath given all things into His hand” (3:35) and “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom He will” (5:21). Paul the Apostle also frequently inserts these words, for he calls himself in Romans (1:1–3) “separated unto the gospel of God, which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy scriptures concerning His Son”; and says in Hebrews (1:1): “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by His Son.”

[3] This is also given us, although more rarely, in the books of the Old Testament. Thus, Proverbs (30:4) says: “What is His name, and what is the name of His Son, if thou knowest?” One reads it also in the Psalms (2:7; 88:27): “The Lord hath said to me: Thou art My Son”; and again: “He shall cry out to Me: Thou art My Father.”

[4] To be sure, some would like to twist these last two sayings into another sense, so as to refer “The Lord hath said to Me: Thou art My Son” to David; and so as to ascribe “He shall cry out to Me: Thou art My Father” to Solomon. Nevertheless, the additions in each instance show that this cannot be quite the case. For David cannot be fitted into this addition: “This day have I begotten Thee” (PS. 2:7): nor into this one: “I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (2:8); since David’s kingdom was not extended to the utmost parts of the earth, as the history of the Book of Kings shows. No more is the saying: “He shall cry out to Me: Thou art My Father” fitting to Solomon, since there follows: “I will make His rule to endure for evermore: and His throne as the days of heaven” (PS. 88:30). Hence, one is given to understand that because some of the things joined to the texts mentioned are suitable to David and Solomon, some absolutely unsuitable, what is said of David and Solomon in these words is said, as customarily in Scripture, figuratively of that other in whom the whole is fulfilled.

[5] However, since the names of “Father” and “Son” follow on a generation, Scripture has not been silent about the very name of “divine generation.” For in the Psalm (2:7), as was said, one reads: “This da...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• Bibliography
• 1. Foreword
• 2. That there is generation, paternity, and sonship in the Divinity
• 3. That the Son of God is God
• 4. The opinion of Photinus on the Son of God, and its refutation
• 5. The opinion of Sabellius on the Son of God, and its refutation
• 6. The opinion of Arius about the Son of God
• 7. Refutation of the opinion of Arius on the Son of God
• 8. Solution of the authorities which Arius proposed for himself
• 9. Solution of the authorities of Photinus and of Sabellius
• 10. Arguments against divine generation and procession
• 11. How generation is to be understood in divinity, and what is said of the Son of God in Scripture
• 12. How the Son of God may be called the wisdom of God
• 13. That there is but one Son in the Divinity
• 14. Solution of the arguments against divine generation previously introduced
• 15. On the Holy Spirit, that He is in divinity
• 16. Arguments which made some think the Holy Spirit a creature
• 17. That the Holy Spirit is true God
• 18. That the Holy Spirit is a subsistent Person
• 19. How one must understand what is said about the Holy Spirit
• 20. On the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in Scripture regarding the whole creation
• 21. On the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in Scripture regarding the rational creature, so far as God’s gifts to us are concerned
• 22. On the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in that He moves the creature to God
• 23. An answer to the arguments given above against the divinity of the Holy Spirit
• 24. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son
• 25. Arguments of those who want to show that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son and the answers
• 26. That there are but three Persons in divinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
• 27. On the Incarnation of the Word according to the tradition of Scripture
• 28. On the error of Photinus about the Incarnation
• 29. On the error of the Manicheans about the Incarnation
• 30. On the error of Valentine about the Incarnation
• 31. On the error of Apollinaris about the body of Christ
• 32. On the error of Arius and Apollinaris about the soul of Christ
• 33. On the error of Apollinaris, who says there was no rational soul in Christ; and the error of Origen, who says the soul of Christ was created before the world
• 34. On the error of Theodore of Mopsueste and Nestorius on the union of the Word to man
• 35. Against the error of Eutyches
• 36. On the error of Macarius of Antioch, who holds there is but one will in Christ
• 37. Against those who said that the soul and body do not constitute a unity in Christ
• 38. Against those who put two supposits or hypostases in the one Person of Christ
• 39. What the Catholic faith holds about the Incarnation of Christ
• 40. Objections against faith in the Incarnation
• 41. How one should understand the Incarnation of the Son of God
• 42. That the assumption of human nature was most suited to the Word of God
• 43. That the human nature assumed by the Word did not pre-exist its assumption, but was assumed in the conception itself
• 44. That the human nature assumed by the Word in the conception itself was perfect in soul and body
• 45. That it became Christ to be born of a virgin
• 46. That Christ was born of the Holy Spirit
• 47. That Christ was not the son of the Holy Spirit in the flesh
• 48. That Christ must not be called a creature
• 49. Solution of the arguments against the Incarnation given above
• 50. That original sin is transmitted from the first parent to his descendants
• 51. Objections against original sin
• 52. Solution of the objections proposed
• 53. Arguments which seem to prove that God’s Incarnation was not suitable
• 54. That it was suitable for God to be made flesh
• 55. Answer to the arguments previously set down against the suitability of the Incarnation
• 56. On the necessity of the sacraments
• 57. The distinction of the sacraments of the Old and the New Law
• 58. On the number of the sacraments of the New Law
• 59. On baptism
• 60. On confirmation
• 61. On the Eucharist
• 62. On the error of the infidels about the sacrament of the Eucharist
• 63. Solution of the difficulties set down: first, about the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ
• 64. Solution of the objections made regarding place
• 65. Solution of the objections regarding accidents
• 66. Solution of the objections regarding action and passion
• 67. Solution of the objections regarding fraction
• 68. Solution of the authority introduced
• 69. On the kind of bread and wine that are to be used in this sacrament
• 70. On the sacrament of penance, and, first, that men after receiving sacramental grace are able to sin
• 71. That a man sinning after the grace of the sacraments can be converted by grace
• 72. On the necessity of penance and of its parts
• 73. On the sacrament of extreme unction
• 74. On the sacrament of orders
• 75. On the distinction of orders
• 76. On the episcopal power and that therein one is the highest
• 77. That the sacraments can be dispensed by evil ministers
• 78. On the sacrament of matrimony
• 79. That through Christ the resurrection of bodies is to come
• 80. Objections against the resurrection
• 81. Solution of the objections mentioned
• 82. That men will rise immortal
• 83. That among the risen there will be no use of food or sexual love
• 84. That the bodies of those who rise will be the same in nature
• 85. That the bodies of the risen will have another disposition
• 86. On the quality of glorified bodies
• 87. On the place of the glorified bodies
• 88. On the sex and age of the risen
• 89. On the quality of the risen bodies among the damned
• 90. How incorporeal substances may suffer from bodily fire
• 91. That immediately after their separation from the body the souls will receive punishment or reward
• 92. That the souls of the saints have after death an unchangeable will in the good
• 93. That after death the souls of the wicked have a will unchangeable in evil
• 94. On the immutability of will in souls detained in purgatory
• 95. On the immutability of wills commonly in all souls after their separation from the body
• 96. On the last judgment
• 97. On the state of the world after the judgment