Question 1: "Is theology a practical or a speculative science?"
Ordinatio prologue, part 5, qq. 1 and 2 (omitting nn. 270–313) "Is theology a practical or a speculative science?"
"Is a science called practical per se because it is ordered to praxis as its end?"
Question 1: "Is theology a practical or a speculative science?"
217 The question is whether theology is a practical science or a speculative science.
Arguments for the claim that it is not a practical science:
John 20:31 says, "These things are written in order that you might believe."
Believing is speculative, for what comes after believing is seeing. Therefore, etc.1
218 Furthermore, we find in De anima III [433a26–30] and Ethics I [1094b7, 21–2] that a practical science is about something contingent,2 whereas the object of this science is not contingent, but necessary. Therefore, etc.
219 Also, in On the Trinity [c. 2] Boethius says that there are three parts of speculative science, and one of them, he says, is theology. And it is clear that he is talking about the theology we are considering in this question, because he goes on to say that the subject of theology is the first substance, and he says concerning the first substance that "the substance of God lacks matter."3
220 Also, any speculative science is nobler than any practical science; no science is nobler than this one; therefore, etc. Proofs of the first premise: (1) speculative science is for its own sake, whereas practical science is for the sake of use; (2) speculative science is more certain, according to Metaphysics I [982a14–16, 25–8].4
1 Cf. Richard Middleton, Sent. prol. q. 4 arg. 3.
2 Cf. Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 36 q. 4 in corp.
3 Cf. Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 8 q. 3 arg. 1 in opp.; a 19 q. 1 arg. in opp.
4 Cf. Ibid. a. 8 q. 3 arg. 2 in opp.; a. 7 q. 2 arg. in opp.; William of Nottingham, Sent. prol. q. 5