God in Himself: Aquinas' doctrine of God as expounded in the Summa theologiae

201 Pages·1987·45.39 MB·English

by  W. J. Hankey

God In Himself
Aquinas' Doctrine of God
as Expounded in
the Summa Theologiae
W.j. HANKEY
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard spedfication
in order to ensure its continuing availability
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© W.J. Hankey
The moral rights of the auttlor have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
Reprinted 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
And you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
ISBN 0-19-826724-X
TO JAMES ALEXANDER DOULL
, • , TO~ q>MOOOqJ{a; 1COLVWwJOaO£V • OV . , , :n(!or;
Xf!ripafJ' t1 d~ta pET(!EiT:at, Ttp'fj T' lo6ooonor; oV1<.
dv ytvotTo, dll' lowr; txav6v, xafJci.JreQ xai n(!or;
fJeoV; xai n(!or; yoveir;, TO evaexopevov.
(Aristotle, Eth. Nic. ix. 1)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IN the course of writing this book I have incurred many debts. The Governors
ofPusey House, the University of King's College, and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada have all supported me financially. I
am grateful to my colleagues in the Classics Department of Dalhousie Uni
versity and at King's who assumed my work while I was on leave, to St Peter's
College, Oxford, for making me a member of their Society, and to the Govern
ing Body of St Cross College, Oxfo1rd, for giving me a place in their Common
Room. The Bodleian Library, Pusey House Library, and the Library of Black
friars in Oxford, the collections oft he Augustinianum, the Angelicum, and the
Vatican in Rome, of the Bibliotheque du Saulchoir in Paris, of the Universitas
S. Pauli in Ottawa, and of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in
Toronto have been indispensable.
Several organizations have given me the opportunity to present preliminary
versions of my ideas and to benefit from support, advice, and contradiction.
Such benefits have accrued from my paper for the 1977 Bono Congress of the
Societe Internationale pour l'Etude de la Philosophie Medievale which has
now been published in their pro<:eedings (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 13!2,
Berlin/New York, 1981), as also from my communication for the Eighth Inter
national Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford in 1979 which was
published in the issue of Dionysiu~r for that year. The Editors of Dionysius
kindly published further articles in the volumes for 1980, 1982, and 1985. A
paper delivered for me by Professor C. J. Starnes appeared in the Atti del Con
s-8
gresso Internazionale di Studi Boeziani (Pavia, October 11}8o), edited by
L. Obertello and published during 1981 in Rome. The Pontificia Accademia
Romana di S. Tommaso d'Aquino e di Religione Cattolica heard a paper I
delivered in September of 198o ancll it is printed in the Atti dell'Vl/I Congresso
Tomistico Internazionale ne/ centenario dell'Enciclica 'Aeterni Patris' di Leone XIII e
dellafondazionedell'AccademiadiS. T61mmaso edited by A. Piolanti (Vatican City,
1982). Other aspects of my work on Thomas have been presented in lectures
or at colloquia sponsored by the Norman Sykes Society of Ripon College,
Cuddesdon; the Philosophy Department and Queen's College, Memorial
University, Newfoundland; the Philosophy Department of Georgia State
University in Atlanta, Georgia; the Mediaeval Colloquium of the University of
the South, Sewanee, Tennessee; th1e Harvard Divinity School; the Faculty of
Divinity of Trinity College, Toronto, and the Lightfoot Society of Durham
University. One of these papers was published in The Thomist for 1982. Finally
the Sixth International Conference on Patristic, Mediaeval and Renaissance
Studies, meeting at Villanova, Pennsylvania in September 1981, heard my
viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
paper entided 'Theology as System and as Science: Proclus and Thomas
Aquinas'.
My personal debts are enormous. My thesis supervisors, Professor Ian
Macquarrie and Dr Anthony Meredit, SJ, were tolerant and encouraging. My
colleagues in Halifax, Professors A. H. Armstrong, R. D. Crouse, and J. A.
Doull, have helped at every stage. The assistance of Fathers L.-J. Bataillon,
OP, of the Leonine Commission, of). G. Bougerol, OFM, of the College ofSt
Bonaventure at Grottaferrata, of H.-D. Saffrey, OP, of the CNRS, and of the
Revd Professors A. Patfoort, OP, and G. Lafont, OSB, of the Angelicum and
Anselmianum respectively, has placed resources at my disposal which I could
never have provided for myself. Their help and much more is owed to Dr
M.-0. Garrigues of the CNRS. Dr M. T. D'Alvemey, Professor J. Trouillard,
PSS, Fr B. de Margerie, SJ, Dr L. Minio-Paluello, Miss jean Petersen, Pro
fessor Bruno Neveu, and Sir Richard Southern have also been generous. The
Revd Professors D.J. M. Bradley of the Oratory of St Philip Neri and
Georgetown University and E. R. Fairweather of Trinity College, Toronto,
have been more than kind in assisting an enterprise of which they remain
suspicious. The sufferings of Miss Joyce Brewis, Mrs Margaret Kirby, Miss
Elizabeth Holder, and Dr Marcia Rodnguez, who, with Miss Anne Ashby, Dr
Leofranc Holford-Strevens, and Mrjohn Was of the Oxford University Press,
cared for its production, have all contributed with these others to whatever
merit it possesses.
CONTENTS
Abbreviatiom X
Introduction I
I Sub ratione dei: the Sentences ofPeter Lombard and
the Structure ofTheology I9
11 Eadem via ascensus et discensus: The Place of the
Proof of God's Existence 36
Ill Rediens ad seipsum: Questions 3 to 1I 57
IV Intellectus sunt rerum similitudines: Questions 12 and
I3 81
V Intelligere est motus: the Divine Operations 96
VI Relatio est idem quod persona: The Trinity of Per-
sons, Questions 26 to 43 us
VII Relatio ad Creatorem: the Procession of Creatures
from God, Questions 44 and 45 136
VIII Upon the Shoulders of Giants: some Philosophi-
cal and Theological Implications 143
Endnotes 162
~.
Bibliography 168
Index I93
ABBREVIATIONS
Arch. hist. doct. lit. du Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littiraire du Moyen Age
MoyenAge
Comp. Theo. Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae
DeDiv.Nat. Eriugena, De Divisione Naturae
DePot. Aquinas, fl!uJestiones Disputatae de Potentia
DeSub.Sep. Aquinas, De Substantiis Separatis
De Veritate Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Ve ritate
Elements Proclus, The Elements of Theology
En. Plotinus, Enneads
IndeAnima Aquinas, Sentencia libri de Anima
IndeCaus. Aquinas, Super librum de Causis Expositio
In de Div. Nom. Aquinas, In librum Beati Dionysii de Divinis Nominibus
Expositio
In de Trin. Aquinas, Expositio super /ibrum Boetii de Trinitate
InEthica Aquinas, Sententia libri Ethicorum
InMeta. Aquinas, In duodecim libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis
Expositio
InPhys. Aquinas, In octo libros Physicorum Aristote/is Expositio
In Post. Anal. Aquinas, In Aristote/is /ibros Posteriorum Ana/yticorum
Expositio
In Sent. Aquinas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri
Lombardi
Nic.Eth. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Plat. Theo. Proclus, The Platonic Theology
Rev. se. ph. th. Revue des sciences philosophiques et thtologiques
SeC Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles
ST Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
INTRODUCTION
WHAT could justify somethinl~ more on the first questions of the
Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas? The delayed official celebra
tions of the centenary ofLeo XIII's encyclical 'Aeterni Patris' are now
five years past.1 This and subs~:quent papal declarations meant that,
for a considerable period only recently ended, more scholarly careers
and more effort were devoted to the teaching of St Thomas than to
any other philosophical and theological doctrine. Yet the quantity and
enthusiasm of the work is just the problem. Such a massive expendi
ture was made only because the scholars, theologians, and philoso
phers had been able to identify the 'mind ofSt Thomas' with their own
urgent concerns and prevailing Ji)erspectives. One fears that the teach
ing ofThomas, who was invoked to bless every enterprise of philoso
phical theology which sought-and some which fled-official
ecclesiastical approbation in the~ Roman Church for nearly a century,
was somewhat manhandled and pushed out of shape in the process.2
1 The encyclical is published in St Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia (Leonine), i
(Rome, r882), pp. iii-xvi. There is an English translation in St Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theo/ogica, 22 vols., i (London, 19n), pp. ix-xxxiii. On the character, background, and
consequences of the encyclical, there are now the eight volumes of the proceedings of
the congress organized by the Pontificia Accademia di S. Tommasso: Atti deli'VIII
Congresso Tomistico lnternazionale, ed. A. Piolanti, Studi tomistici 10-17 (Vatican City,
1981-2), in which my 'Pope Leo's Purposes and St Thomas' Platonism' appears, in vol.
viii (r982), pp. 39-52, and A. Piolanti, 1/tomismofi/osofiacristiananelpemierodiLeoneXI//.
Most of the papers at the Eighth Con1ll'ess, like those at the earlier congresses, had
more to do with the politics of the Romant Church than with St Thomas-or indeed with
an objective appreciation of the encyclkal. A critical piece is J. Hennessey, 'Leo XIII's
Thomistic Revival: A Political and Philosophic Event', The Journal of Religion, 58
Supplement (1978), S185-S197• which stresses Leo's 'fortress mentality'. Also useful
are: G. A. McCool, 'Twentieth-century Scholasticism', ibid., S198-S221; id., Catholic
a
Theology in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1977); F. van Steenberghen, Introduction
l'itude de la philosophie midievale, Philosophes medievaux 18 (Louvain/Paris, 1974),
pp. 54ff.; R. F. Harvanek, 'History and "Aeterni Patris"', Notes et Documents, lnstitut
International 'J. Maritain', v, 16 (July-Sept., 1979), 1-12.
2 To appreciate the massiveness of the neo-Thomist enterprise, one need only con
sult the gigantic bibliography: f!ulletin thomiste, i-xii ( 1924-65), redaction et administra
tion Le Saulchoir; continued as Rassegna di letteratura tomistica, nuova serie del Bulletin
thomiste, ed. Pontificia Universiti s. Tommaso d'Aquino (Rome), which began publica
tion in 1~ (Naples) with the literature for r9M. The latest volume (xviii) treats the
literature for 1982.. The proceedings of the various Thomistic congresses are indicative,
for example: Atti del Congresso lnternazio1rale Tommaso d'Aquino ne/ suo settimo centenario, 9
vols. (Naples, 1975-8). Two articles therein are critical ofhow in carrying out Pope Leo
2 INTRODUCTION
Now that official ardour has cooled, or at least become divided and
less effective, may there not be, as Anthony Kenny has suggested, new
opportunities for looking at Thomas more disinterestedly and with
greater historical accuracy?
The aim of this book, to look at the structure of a section of
Thomas's work in a historical view, may be given reason by other con
siderations. The preoccupation of the Thomist revival since the nine
teenth century has been with ontology. Questions about structure
were largely subordinate to the. quest for a distinct doctrine of being.
Esse, the absolutely simple act of being, was identified as the highest
philosophical notion in Aquinas' system, providing his theology with
its rational intelligibility.
The reaction against Thomism has partly been in order to replace
ontology with henology, to substitute a science of the One for a
science of being as the philosophical logic of theology. It happens
that the same late Hellenistic philosophical and theological tradition
which was most concerned to give absolute priority to the One is
that which was most consumed by the problems of structuring
theology. The study of these thinkers, awakened and immensely for
warded by E. R. Dodds's edition and translation of the Elements of
Theology of Proclus in 1933,3 has been the area of the prehistory of
medieval scholasticism most advanced in the last decades. By
attending to the Neoplatonic background of the structure of the
initial questions of the Summa Theologiae-the ones most distorted by
the abstraction of a philosophical ontology from the rest of his giant
system-it is hoped to occupy territory less trampled than others, to
restore somewhat the shape of a portion of the Summa, and to
exploit current theological and philosophical interests as well as
much present historical enterprise.
The progress of the studies set in motion by Professor Dodds was
interrupted by the Second World War and it is only now that they have
advanced far enough to yield much fruit for the interpretation of the
history of medieval theology and philosophy. Stephen Gersh has
applied their results to the earliest part in his From lamblichus to
XIII's anti-modern purposes Thomist philosophy assumed the shape of the Cartesian
ism it attacked: see 0. Blanchette, 'Philosophy and Theology in Aquinas: On Being a
Disciple in our Day', ii (1976), pp. 427-31 andJ. Owens, 'Value and Person in Aquinas',
vii (1978), pp. 56-62. Acute on the subject is J. Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas: Three
Essays, trans. D. O'Connor (London, 1957), p. 54· See also my 'Pope Leo's Purposes'
and 'Aquinas' First Principle: Being or Unity?', Dionysius, 4 (198o), 133-72.
3 Oxford, 1933; 2nd edn., Oxford, 1963. All citations are from the second edition.
INTRODUCTION 3
Eriugena,4 but Thomas, whose relation to Neoplatonism is primarily
through these later forms-he read none of the work ofPlotinus-has
hardly begun to be reconsidered in this reworking.
Two results of recent Neoplatonic scholarship are essential to the
correction of the dominant anti··Platonic tendency of the Thomism of
the Leonine revival. 5 First, there is the possibility of locating crucial
features of the content of Thomas's system within the Neoplatonism
which he inherited: Aquinas' doctrine of the soul-its structure, the
relation of the physical world to its knowledge-the significance ofhis
turn towards Aristotle, the relation of religious symbols and practices
to philosophical intellection, and most importantly the origins of his
teaching about being. Secondly,, we are now better able to understand
Thomas's interest in questions of structure and order, and to judge
what genre he is adapting to his theological purposes. For these two
results we are dependent on the scholarship of Pierre Hadot and of
Henri Saffrey.
Professor Hadot has uncovered the character of Porphyry's modifi
cation ofPlotinus and has indic:llted something of how his elevation of
being toward the Neoplatonic One has been transmitted in the Latin
theological and philosophical schools. Father Saffrey has taught us
about another, perhaps more influential Neoplatonic tradition, that
which originated in Iamblichus' reaction against the doctrine of his
teacher Porphyry, and which was systematized by Proclus. Having
4 S. Gersh, From Iamblichus to Eriugena: An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of
the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition, Studien ;mr Problemgeschichte der antiken und mittel
alterlichen Philosophie 8 (Leiden, 1978). His earlier work, KINHI/1: 'AKINHTOI: A
Study of Spiritual Motion in the Philosophy of Proclus (Leiden, 1973), is essential for the
historical background of the principles Aquinas uses to structure his Summa
Theologiae.
5 On the anti-Platonic tendency and the reasons for it, see my 'Pope Leo's
Purposes' and 'Making Theology Practical: Thomas Aquinas and the Nineteenth
Century Religious Revival', Dionysius, 9 (1985), 85-127. Leo XIII wanted a philoso
phical theology which could 'speak to an intellectual world in which science and
philosophy had become independent and even opposed to ecclesiastical theology, and
... it should bring philosophy, and th'e political and social life thought to be based
thereon, back within the control of and into subordination to ecclesiastical theology
and authority .... On the other hand., the systematic and synthetic unity of Neo
platonism, taken together with the incompatibility of Platonic anti-empirical idealism
with the nineteenth-century view of modern science, prevented both dialogue with
natural science and the separation of science and philosophy and of natural and
revealed theology' ('Pope Leo's Purposes', p. 42). Pierre Colin, 'Contexte philoso
a
phique de la restauration du thomisme en France la fin du XIx• siecle', Atti dell'VIII
Congresso Tomistico Internazionale, ed. A. Piolanti, ii, pp. 57-64, shows the similarity
between what motivated the Thomistic revival in France and the neo-Kantianism of
the period.