On the Subject-Matter of Theology in the Summa Halensis and St. Thomas Aquinas

439 The Thomist 79 (2015): 439-66 ON THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THEOLOGY IN THE SUMMA HALENSIS AND ST. THOMAS AQUINAS BOYD TAYLOR COOLMAN Boston College Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts “So now we accord faith to the things done in time for our sakes.” – Augustine, De trinitate 4.24 OMINICAN AND FRANCISCAN views on “the nature of theology” are often pitted against one another. The Franciscan approach is seen as primarily practical rather than speculative, oriented toward the will or affect, Christocentric , attuned to history; the Dominican method is primarily speculative rather than practical, oriented toward the intellect, theocentric, attuned to being. Whatever the merit of such comparisons,1 on the issue of the “subject matter” of theology— what theology is properly about, that is, its proper “object”— the positions adopted by the Summa halensis2 (associated with, 1 See Bruce Marshall’s helpful insight regarding their deeper similarity in “‘Quod scit una vetula’: Aquinas on the Nature of Theology,” in The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, ed. Rik Van Nieuwenhove and Joseph Wawrykow (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 6. 2 Alexander of Hales, Summa theologiae (Summa halensis), 4 vols. (Quaracchi, Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1924-48). As Walter Principe explains, “an important theological work written after 1240, the so-called Summa Fratris Alexandri, was long thought to be Alexander’s own work. In recent decades, however, scholarly opinion has concluded that, however great the influence of Alexander on the composition of this Summa, his own authentic teaching must be sought in the Glossa and in his Quaestiones rather than in the Summa Fratris Alexandri” (Walter H. Principe, Alexander Hales’s Theology of the Hypostatic Union [Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1967], 15). Nevertheless, since it is still assumed that much of it is D 440 BOYD TAYLOR COOLMAN though not exclusively authored by, Alexander of Hales,3 and the earliest theoretical treatment on the Franciscan side)4 and Thomas Aquinas exhibit a remarkable degree of agreement, despite prime facie appearances to the contrary. Specifically, the Halensian definition makes explicit what remains rather more implicit for Thomas, namely, the affirmation that theological science has as its “formal object” (ratio) the Christ-centered, self-revelation of the Trinity in salvation history, as recorded in Scripture.5 I. THE FORMAL OBJECT IN THE SUMMA HALENSIS: TRINITY REVEALED IN CHRIST’S “WORKS OF RESTORATION” The Summa halensis begins its discussion of what theological science is by distinguishing broadly three dimensions or “valences” of theology.6 It “comes forth from God” (ex Deo) Alexander’s actual writing and as a whole it reflects his influence—and thus is thoroughly Halensian—we will refer to this text throughout as the Summa halensis. 3 For background on Alexander see V. Doucet in, Alexander of Hales, Glossa in quattuor libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi XII–XV (Quaracchi, 1951–57), 1.7*-75*. 4 As “founder of the Franciscan school,” Alexander “gave the school its body of teachings and its characteristic spirit” (Jacques Guy Bougerol, Introduction to the Works of Bonaventure [Patterson, N.J.: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1963], 15). “Among the earliest scholastics to engage Aristotle’s newly translated writings, in particular, the Metaphysics,” he had a profound effect on the evolution of Scholastic theology in the second quarter of his century, and certainly ranks among the scholastic luminaries of the entire thirteenth (Christopher M. Cullen, “Alexander of Hales,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone [Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2002], 104). 5 The topic of this investigation falls within a larger question, often dubbed “the nature of theology” and in particular its scientific and sapiential status, much discussed by medieval Scholastics and even more by their subsequent commentators and researchers. On this topic, M.-D. Chenu’s classic La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1957) considers the relationship between the Summa halensis and Thomas on the issue of the scientific character of theology, but does not treat the particular comparison pursued here; the case is similar with A. Oliva’s Les débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin et sa conception de la...