Theological synthesis: organic method The new path was that of creating a comprehensive synthesis of the

content of theology, in other words, a summa, free of the commen-tarial method. The first large-scale effort in this direction was that of the Franciscan ALExANDER Of HALES, the Doctor Irrefragabilis (c. 1170/85-1245) and of his followers, in their Summa Theologica (c.1236-1245...). This work, also the first systematic exposition of Christian doctrine to introduce Aristotle as a prime authority, con-sists of three books. The first, in two parts, deals with the divine Unity and Trinity. The second book, also in two parts, discusses evil (part 1) and sin (part 2). The third book has no unitary theme, and is in three parts. Part 1 is on the Incarnation, Part 2 on Laws and Precepts, and Part 3 on Grace and Virtues. The last two parts do not seem to have a direct bearing on the first. The work also suffers from over-classifica-tion, leaving the reader lost in a maze of divisions and subdivisions.

With all its defects, Alexander’s treatise was based on the organic method, where the author is responsible for the entire content of his work, its overall pattern and its textual elaboration. Alexander was succeeded in the enterprise of creating an organic synthesis by the two titans of medieval theology, Bonaventure and Aquinas. In his Brevilo-quium, composed before 1257, BONAvENTURE, the Doctor Seraphicus, classified the entire material of Catholic theology under a scheme that is at once triple and septuple; triple in principle and septuple in theme.

The triple principle is God, effective, refective and perfective. The sev-en themes are subsumed under this triple principle as follows:

Principium effectivum (creatio): 1) Trinitas, 2) creatura mundi Principium refectivum (redemptio): 3) corruptela peccati, 4) Incar-natio Verbi, 5) gratia Spiritus Sancti, 6) medicina sacramentalis Principium perfectivum (retributio): 7) status finalis judicii

Alas, the Seraphic Doctor did not subject this elegant pattern to any extensive and detailed treatment, as Alexander of Hales had done.

It was left to AqUINAS, the Doctor Angelicus, to work out a system that both contained a detailed treatment of the material of theology, and an architectonic pattern that reduced this material to order. The resultant synthesis was elaborated in two stages, first, in his ample Summa Contra Gentiles (c. 1258-1264) and then in his monumental Summa Theologiae (1267-1273). The scheme of the former work, in four books, is as follows:

1. Deus secundum seipsum (God in Himself )

2. Processus creaturarum a Deo (God as efficient cause) 3. Ordo creaturarum in Deo sicut in finem (God as final cause) 4. Hominis cognitio de divinis (man’s knowledge of divine things) The fourth theme does not seem to follow from the third; indeed, its proper place would appear to have been at the beginning.

More satisfactory, and elaborate in detail is the Summa Theologiae, distributed under 512 questions, in three parts, the second part hav-ing two subdivisions. The first part is about God in Himself and as efficient cause. The remaining two parts deal with God as final cause.

The second part is subdivided into the Prima Secundae and the Se-cunda SeSe-cundae. The former is concerned with man and his moral acts in general; the latter, with man’s moral acts in particular, that is with virtues and vices. The third part has the Incarnation as its unitary idea;

consequent upon it is the Redemption, the salvific means provided by the Redeemer (the sacraments), and the effect brought about by those means, immortal glory.

JOHN Of ST. THOMAS (1589-1644), the outstanding Baroque Thomist, delineates the structure of the Summa in the following scheme:

Pars Prima. Deus secundum se, et ut causa efficiens creaturarum (119 questions)

Proemium: scientia theologiae (q. 1)

1. Deus secundum se: quoad entitatem et attributa absoluta; et quoad relativa, seu mysterium Trinitatis (qq. 2-43)

2. Deus ut causa efficiens: processio creaturarum et gubernatio eorum a Deo (qq. 44-119)

Pars Prima Secundae. Deus ut finis assequibilis a creatura rationali per actus suos (114 questions)

1. Ipse finis hominis (qq. 1-5)

2. Actus morales seu voluntarii, in communi (qq. 6-114)

Pars Secunda Secundae. Actus humani tendentibus vel deviantes a fine, in speciali (119 questions)

1. Virtutes et vitia communiores status (qq. 1-170) 2. Virtutes et vitia specialis status (qq. 171-189)

Pars Tertia. Deus ut reparator humanorum defectuum, hoc est, Ver-bum Incarnatum (incomplete; 90 questions)

1. Mysterium Incarnationis (qq. 1-59)

2. Media quibus ei unimur, et quibus reparationem hanc nobis applicat, scilicet sacramenta (qq. 60-90; incomplete)

3. Effectus finis ad quem pervenimus per hanc reparationem, scilicet gloria immortalis (not worked out)

This masterwork of Aquinas, it was commonly believed, was the very consummation of theology, the climax of its architectonic organiza-tion, and the fulfillment of the yearning for a perfect system by the Fa-thers and Doctors of earlier times. For John, such perfection could not have been realized without supernatural aid. However, this postulated perfection does not lie in the originality of the overall pattern, which is basically that of Lombard, as can be seen from the following table:

God in Himself and as creator. ^LOMBARD, Book 1 (48 distinc-tions)

AQUINAS, Prima Pars (119 questions). God in Himself and as efficient cause (creator and conserver)

The creature, especially man. ^LOMBARD, Book 2 (44 distinc-tions)

AQUINAS, Prima Secundae (114 questions), man’s actions in general

AQUINAS, Secunda Secundae (189 questions), man’s actions in particular

Christ. ^LOMBARD, Book 3 (40 distinctions)

AQUINAS, Tertia Pars (59 questions). The Incarnation The sacraments. ^LOMBARD (50 distinctions)

AQUINAS, Tertia Pars (31 questions, incomplete). The sacraments

In Lombard, each topic has a separate book devoted to it, except Book 1, where two distinct topics, God in Himself and as Creator, are dis-cussed in a single work, a practice repeated by Aquinas. In Lombard, the number of units (“distinctions”) assigned to the topics is fairly equal, ranging from 40 to 50. In Aquinas, on the other hand, an in-ordinate number of questions is allotted to the Secunda Pars (303, as contrasted with the 119 of the Prima Pars; anthropology, the study of man, overwhelms theology, the discourse on God), so that it had to be broken up into two portions, the Prima Secundae and the Secunda Secundae. In addition, the distinct themes that Lombard allocates to different books, 3 and 4, are combined by Aquinas in one (Tertia Pars).

This lack of congruence between theme and literary form discouraged Baroque theologians from attempting to cover the entire spectrum of theology in a single (and unwieldy) work, and encouraged them to work out their syntheses in a sequence of concatenated monographs or tracts.

Be that as it may, the main lines of the works of Lombard and Aqui-nas correspond; the difference lies in the working out of the details:

the elaboration of the subtopics and their coordination with the main categories and with one another. In this Aquinas clearly excels. In the Summa Theologiae question succeeds question, and one topic follows another in a limpid and continuous flow.

After Aquinas, theologians did not at once imitate his example and create theological syntheses of their own, following the organic method. They were overawed by the comprehensiveness and profun-dity of the Angelic Doctor’s thought. They felt that the full depth of meaning of that thought had to be brought out, and that could best be done in commentaries, where too, the Doctor’s positions could be defended against attack. During the Renaissance two commentarial classics were produced on the two Summas of Aquinas, on the Summa Contra Gentiles by SYLvESTER Of FERRARA (c. 1474-1528), and on the Summa Theologiae by CAJETAN (1469-1534). Yet, though using the commentarial method, Cajetan was no mere commentator, con-cerned less with providing an authentic exegesis of Aquinas’s thought than with using that thought as a basis for his own speculation—thus creating his own brand of philosophy. For centuries this philosophy was taken to be the very essence of Thomism, but is reviled by some modern Thomists as a betrayal of the Master’s thought. But Cajetan is

a modern thinker, who deserves to be judged for the distinctiveness of his own ideas, rather than for his fidelity to the thought of another.

Cajetan and Sylvester were both Dominicans, but in the Baroque age the members of the new Jesuit order produced their own commen-taries, the most noteworthy and original of which is that of GABRIEL VÁZqUEZ (1549-1604). Other orders also contributed their com-mentaries, like the Mercedarian FRANCISCO ZUMEL(1540-1607), who was known as “the Prince of the Thomists of these times.”

So much was the pattern of the Summa Theologiae appreciated by theologians of all orders, that it was superimposed on the works of non-Thomists too, especially by the followers of Bonaventure and Scotus. They took the texts of their founders apart, so to speak, and rearranged them according to the Common Doctor’s treatise.

Each Scholastic labored to create the definitive system of theology, but was faced with the inescapable fact of the existence of many sys-tems. So efforts were made to harmonize these different systems, par-ticularly by the followers of Bonaventure, Scotus, Bernard, Aegidius (and in the Baroque age, Suárez). Only the Thomists displayed no in-terest in such harmonization; as far as they were concerned, theirs was the definitive system.

Commentarial amplification of the Thomist synthesis: Dominican CAJETAN (1469-1534), Commentary on entire Summa Theolo-giae (1502-1522), 10 vol.

FRANCISCUS SYLVESTER FERRARIENSIS (c.1474-1528), Commentary on the Summa Contra Gentiles (dedicated 1524, published 1552, posth.)

DOMINGO BAÑEZ (1528-1604), Commentary on the I & II Pars only (1584-1594), 4 vol.

FRANCISCO DE ARAÚJO (1580-1664), Commentary on entire Summa Theologiae (1635-1647)

Commentarial amplification of the Thomist synthesis: Jesuit com-mentaries on the Summa

FRANCISCO DE TOLEDO (1532-1596), written 1559-1563, pub-lished only in 1869

GREGORIO DE VALENCIA (1545-1603), published in 1591-1597, 4 vol.

GABRIEL VÁZQUEZ (1549-1604), Commentary on the I, I-II & III Pars (1598-1615), 8 vol.

Commentarial amplification of the Thomist synthesis: other com-mentators

FRANCISCO ZUMEL, Mercedarian (1540-1607), De Deo Eiusque Operibus: Commentaria in IP S. Thomae Aquinatis (1585), 2 vol.; In I-IIae S.Thomae Commentaria (1584), 2 vol.

FRANCISCUS SYLVIUS, Canon (1581-1649), Commentary on the entire Summa Theologiae (1620-1635), 4 vol.

Application of the Summa Theologiae Format to Bonaventurian works

PETRUS TRIGOSUS, first Jesuit, then Capuchin (1533-1593), Sancti Bonaventurae Summa Theologica (1593)

FRANCESCO CORIOLANO, Summa Theologica ad Instar Summae Sancti Thomae ex Operibus Sancti Bonaventurae (1622), 7 vol.

Application of the Summa Theologiae format to Scotist works ANGELUS VULPES (c.1590-1647), Summa Sacrae Theologiae Joannis Duns Scoti et Commentaria in Eiusdem (1622), 10 vol.

HIERONYMUS DE MONTEFORTINO (1662-1738), Joannis Duns Scoti Summa Theologica ex Operibus Eius Concinnata Juxta Ordinem et Dispositionem Summae Theologicae Divi Thomae (1728-1732), 5 vol.

Harmonization of Doctors: towards a unified theological system Bonaventure and Scotus. FELIX GABRIEL DE ASCUTO (+1684), Theologicae Disputationes...ad Mentem Divi Bonaventurae et Scoti (1653)

Bonaventure, Scotus, Hales & Augustine. MATTHIAS HAUZEUR (1589-1676), Collatio Totius Theologiae inter Maio-res Nostros.... Alexandrum Halensem...Bonaventuram... Scotum... ad Mentem Augustini (1646)

Bonaventure and Aquinas BONAVENTURA LINGONEN-SIS (fl. 1613-1673), Bonaventurae Bonaventura, seu Unica Gemi-naque Theologiae Summa ex Omnibus fere Sanctorum Thomae et Bonaventurae Placitis.... Concinnata (1653)

Bonaventure, Aquinas & Scotus. MARCUS DE BAUDUNIO (1606-1692), Paradisus Philosophicus Unius ac Trium Doctorum, Angelici, Seraphici et Subtilis Horumque Conciliatoris (1654); Para-disus Theologicus Unius ac Trium Doctorum, Angelici, Seraphici et Subtilis Horumque Conciliatoris (1661).

Scotus & Aquinas. FRANCISCO MACEDO (1596-1681), Collationes Doctrinae Sancti Thomae et Scoti (1671), 2 vol.

Aquinas & Bernard. BERNARDUS DE SAYVE, Sapientum...

Doctorum Bernardi Melliflui ac Thomae Angelici Doctrinae Conformi-tas (1675)

Scotus,Aquinas & Aegidius. RAFFAELLE BONERBA (c.

1600-1681, Inter Sanctum Thomam et Scotum Metaphysicalis Aegid-iana Concordia (1642); Aegidianum Propugnaculum Philosophicum Divi Thomae et Scoti (1661)

Aquinas & Suárez. JOAQUÍN NAVARRO, Jesuit (1705-1780), Cursus Theologiae ad Mentem Doctorum Angelici et Eximii (1765-1767), 3 vol.

3. Philosophical synthesis: commentarial method