The Summa Halensis on Whether Universal and Particular Are Said of God

: This paper examines the Summa Halensis ’ theory of universals. I first try to tease out that theory from the Summa ’ s answer to the question of whether the Persons of the Trinity are related to the divine essence as species is related to genus or particulars to species. I then briefly discuss the philosophical interest of the Summa ’ s position by drawing attention to some significant parallels between it and one version of twentieth-century trope theory. I conclude by comparing the Summa ’ s treatment of universals with that of other early Franciscans discussions. This paper has a rather narrow focus, namely the Summa Halensis ’ treatment of the question of ‘ whether the notions of universal and particular apply to divine matters ’ , which covers six columns of text in the critical edition.² It is a question we find in the commentaries on the Sentences and Quaestiones of many scholastic authors, includ-ing those of many early Franciscans, in no small part because it had been touched upon by Peter Lombard in Distinction 19 of Book 1 of the Sentences. It is a question we expect to find in a systematic treatise on theology such as the Summa , and in particular in the section of it dealing with divine names in general. At issue is whether it is correct to think of the relation of the Persons of the Trinity to the divine essence as the relation of species to genus or of particulars to species. The scholastics tend to agree that the answer is no; and the Summa is no exception. What we will want to know is 1. why the Summa endorses this position, and what this tells us about its conception of universals and particulars in general, 2. what the philosophical interest of their position is, and 3. how their position compares to that of other early Franciscans. no universals, the a distributive