THE SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES RECONSIDERED:ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DE TRINITATE

OF HILARY OF POITIERS

JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, Indiana

ONE OF THE most difficult and puzzling of Aquinas's works, the Summa contra Gentiles, has occasioned much controversy among scholars.1 Who are the gentiles against whom Thomas is writing? Is the work principally philosophical or theological in character? Why has Thomas delayed discussion of the central Christian truths of Trinity and Incarnation to the fourth and final book of the contra Gentiles? How much credence should be given to the slightly later story (that is, post-Thomas) that Thomas composed the Summa contra Gentiles for missionary purposes "?--these, and other such questions, have exercised the imagination of numerous students of Aquinas.

In the recent literature, Mark Jordan's " The Protreptic Structure of the Summa contra Gentiles" without doubt offers the most

1 Thomas Aquinas, Liber de Veritate Catholicae Fidei contra errores Infidelium seu 'Summa contra Gentiles' Vols. II-III. Edited by C. Pera, P. Marc and P. Caramello (Turin: Marietti, 1961) . References to the ScG list the book, chapter, and section numbers according to the Marietti edition. P. Marc in Volume I of this edition (Turin: Marietti, 1967), provides an indispensable introduction to the principal issues in the scholarship, with a strong emphasis on the problem of dating; see especially chapter I, article 3. For an English translation, see A. Pegis et al., Summa contra Gentiles, Vols. IIV (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975). I would like to express my gratitude to the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame, for a summer stipend that has supported the writing of this article.

617

618 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

innovative and promising approach to this controversial work.2 Jordan has raised the study of the contra Gentiles to a new level by identifying its genre through careful analysis. As his title indicates, for Jordan Thomas's Summa contra Gentiles is a protreptic work, an invitation to wisdom, to be precise, an invitation to Christian wisdom. Issued by one Christian to other Christians, the contra Gentiles in this view is a recommendation of the more serious and sustained pursuit of the Christian form of life, a recommendation that includes in its survey of the different layers of Christian wisdom the depiction of the failings of alternative, non-Christian, versions of truth.3 In the hands of Aquinas, this protreptic, moreover, itself becomes a schooling in wisdom (Jordan, p. 209) in following Thomas in the numerous discrete arguments that constitute the contra Gentiles, the Christian reader will in fact become imbued in Christian wisdom, thus anticipating in the present life the completion of this pursuit of wisdom that will be provided in the beatific vision in the next.

Jordan's is a powerful study and, on the basis of its structural observations about the contra Gentiles, both large and local, would seem in its core insight to be fundamentally correct. His recognition of the protreptic structure permits a balanced assessment of the traditional questions addressed to the contra Gentiles (for details, see the article), while highlighting the positive, Christian-theological intentions of Aquinas in composing this work. Yet, by observing two points at which his analysis flags, it will be possible to add to Jordan's genuine contribution.

The first of these observations concerns Jordan's treatment of

2 Mark D. Jordan, "The Protreptic Structure of the Summa contra Gentiles," The Thomist 50 (1986) : 173-209. I have benefitted greatly from extended conversations with Professor Jordan about his work on the contra Gentiles.

Jordan specifies the term " protreptic" as follows (p. 192) : "A protreptic was originally a persuasion to the study and practice of some art or skill; for philosophic writers, it became an exhortation to the practice of the philosophic art, which required virtues of inquiry and contemplation." Later (p. 194), Jordan indicates the ways in which Thomas has transformed ancient protreptic in offering this Christian protreptic.

HILARY'S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 619

Aquinas's approach to scripture in the fourth book of the Summa contra Gentiles. That the analysis of Thomas's approach here to scripture needs deepening is surprising given the perceptiveness of Jordan's discussion of the scriptural dimension of the first three books of the contra Gentiles. Some earlier writers on Thomas had been eager to view these opening books as Thomas's 'summa of philosophy' or at least as an extended exercise in natural theology: in this view, these three books rehearse the successes of non-Christian philosophy in coming, through reason unaided by revelation, to truths about God, about things as emanating from God, and about God's providential care for creatures. The presence of scripture throughout these three books, then, would be merely ornamental, simply confirming from the side of Christian revelation what reason has discovered. Jordan's own consideration (pp. 204-6) of the locutions by which scriptural authorities are introduced in these books, however, discloses how facile such a view is. He demonstrates that Thomas's introduction of appropriate scriptural texts is meant in the first place to show the continuity between philosophical inquiry and Christian revelation: what is true in the philosophers does find its confirmation and repetition in Christian revelation, and philosophical insight provides in its own way an orientation to Christian truth. And yet, one might add, there is disjunction as well. The philosophers have not and could not have grasped the entire truth about God, creatures, and creatures in dependence on God. Thus, by this introduction of scripture Thomas offers at the same time a commentary on the insufficiency of this philosophical inquiry: what the philosophers say in these matters is true, but not the entire truth. It is partial and fragmentary, calling for the fullness and certainty of scriptural revelation.4 Another way of putting the point may be to speak of scripture as the unexpected culmination of philosophical inquiry, of God freely providing the entire truth about God and creatures and their mutual relations

4 Recall in this regard Thomas's comments in ScG I, 4 (especially #25) about the appropriateness of God revealing the truth about God to which the natural reason can also attain. See as well ScG IV, 1 (especially # 3347) .

620 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

to those who have sought, albeit in an inevitably deficient manner, this truth by their own power. At any rate, what Jordan makes clear is that even in these books of the contra Gentiles the use of scripture is not incidental. Thomas's rendering of the subject matter of Books I-III is carried out in the confidence and from the vantage point provided by the reception of the full scriptural revelation.5

The subtlety of these reflections, however, is missing from Jordan's comments about Book IV and its use of scripture. Apart from a simple enumeration of the topics of the fourth book-- Trinity, Incarnation, sacraments, eschatology--Jordan is basically content to make an off-hand remark about the use of scripture in Book IV: while in principle he is aware (obviously) that scripture is the prime source of Christian wisdom, he merely refers in passing to the 'proof-texting' of the fourth book.6 Such a comment has the unfortunate effect of obscuring what is most intriguing about Book IV. Reminiscent less of the parallel treatments of Trinity or Incarnation in the ' systematic ' works, the Scriptum on the Sen tences of Peter Lombard or the Summa theologiae, and more of the extended exposition of the Gospel of John, Book IV represents a remarkable accomplishment in scriptural theology. Far from mere proof-texting, Thomas's intention in his treatments of significant Christian issues in the fourth book

While arguably more pointed, my summary is faithful to the spirit of the original. See as well pp. 199-203, in which Jordan reviews the hortatory structure of Books I-III.

6 Jordan, p. 204: "It seems to me that the use of the locutions [for introducing Scriptural authorities] is more complicated [than suspected by earlier scholars], at least before the fourth Book, where they begin to sound more like rubrics for proof-texts on controverted doctrinal issues." See as well an earlier comment where Jordan distinguishes Thomas's interests in the contra Gentiles from those of the Guide of the Perplexed of Moses Maimonides, one of the possible models for this work. On p. 198 Jordan writes: "the Scriptural hermeneutic of the Guide is lacking in Thomas as a compositional motive. Thomas is not concerned in the Contra Gentiles to gloss the obscurities of Scripture, except incidentally." The inadequacy of this characterization, especially with regard to the fourth book, will become clear from what follows in the text.

HILARYS DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 621

is to show the scriptural warrant for traditional Christian claims for the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and for the incarnational formula of 'one person, two natures.' In this view, then, dogmatic statements do not add to scriptural revelation and certainly are not opposed to scriptural teaching. On the contrary, credal statements arise from scripture, summarizing and crystallizing the scriptural teaching on the matters at the heart of the Christian faith. Thomas's handling of heresy is especially telling. At root, for the Thomas of the fourth book of the contra Gentiles, heresy arises from the faulty, fragmented reading of scripture. Heretics too read scripture, but they fail in their reading because they consider only a part of the scriptural witness on key issues. They fail, as well, by effectively diminishing scripture: rather than being shaped by God's word, the entire word, they seek to measure this word by their own limited capacities. Thomas's response to heresy is precisely what one would expect in this 'protreptic': not only does he undermine the claims of different heretics by submitting their own favorite texts to more careful scrutiny; he, especially, shapes the response to heresy so as to emphasize the more comprehensive, integrated Catholic rendering of God's word.7

Jordan's understanding of the contra Gentiles, otherwise so satisfying, requires supplementing in one additional respect. It

For evidence of Thomas's scriptural method, see his detailed discussion of the incarnation of the Word in ScG IV, 27ff., where in countering various heretical mistakes he shows the identity of the scriptural proclamation on this question with the orthodox teaching about the hypostatic union of the two natures. In ScG IV, 39 (#3771), he neatly summarizes the preceding chapters:

"Ex supra dictis igitur manifestum est quod, secundum Catholicae Fidei traditionem, oportet dicere quod in Christo sit natura divina perfecta et human natura perfecta, ex anima scilicet rationali et humana carne constituta; et quod hae duae naturae unitae sunt in Christo non per solam inhabitationem; neque accidentali modo, ut homo unitur vestimento; neque in sola personali habitudine et proprietate; sed secundum unam hypostasim et suppositum unum. Hoc enim solum modo salvari possunt ea quae in Scripturis circa Incarnationem traduntur. Cum enim Scriptura Sacra indistincte quae sunt Dei homini illi attribuat, et quae sunt illius hominis Deo, ut ex praemissis patet; oportet unum et eundem esse de quo utraque dicantur."

622 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

is here that we come to the heart of the present study. Thomas, of course, is not the inventor of protreptic, and Jordan has sought some generic antecedents for the contra Gentiles. Interestingly enough, neither of the antecedents whose special influence he evaluates in the contra Gentiles is Christian. Apart from some comments in passing about some early Christian examples of this genre which Thomas either did not know or failed to appreciate as 'protreptic' (p. 193), and, mention of some 12th- and 13th-century Latin attempts at protreptic with which Thomas was acquainted (pp. 194-5), Jordan singles out for extended consideration only the Maimonides of the Guide and the opening comments of Aristotle in the Metaphysics, creating the arguably anomalous situation of a Christian protreptic inspired (principally) by non-Christian work.8 The question thus remains open:

might there not be a Christian work whose structure and method has lead Thomas to engage in this massive Christian protreptic?

That a reader of Thomas as adept as Jordan has left the question open indicates its difficulty--a difficulty that is compounded by the vastness of the Christian literary heritage. Where might one turn for identifiably Christian models for the Summa contra Gentiles? A comment by Chenu in his brief chapter on the contra Gentiles in his influential introduction to Thomas Aquinas provides a clue.9 Chenu, too, was intrigued by the contra Gentiles and insisted that, whatever else it may be, it is a sustained 'contemplation of truth.' It is in referring to the ' contemplation of truth'in the contra Gentiles that Chenu recalls a lengthy citation of Hilary's De Trinitate (from book II)10 which comes toward

For Jordan's discussion of Aristotle, see pp. 191ff.; the analysis of Maimonides (pp. 196-9) is especially adept, disclosing how the Guide fails to explain certain key features of the contra Gentiles.

M. D. Chenu, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, trans. A. M. Landry and D. Hughes (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1964), pp. 294-5.

10 Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate. Ed. P. Smulders [Corpus Christianorum Series Latina LXII, LXIIa] (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979-80). References to the De Trinitate list the book and paragraph. There is an English translation of The Trinity by S. McKenna (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1954) . Thomas calls on De Trinitate II, 10 and 11 at ScG I, 8 (#50) : "Cui quidem

HILARY'S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 623

the end of Thomas's opening comments in the first book of the contra Gentiles. Thomas employs the citation to describe the task and responsibilities of the 'wise person '--the saying from Hilary speaks of the need both to investigate and pursue Christian truth, and also to maintain the appropriate humility, inasmuch as this investigation can never in this life exhaust the mystery. Chenu's reminder of Thomas's use of Hilary is salutary; it raises the possibility that in the contra Gentiles, Aquinas is consciously following the lead of the De Trinitate of Hilary of Poitiers. And yet Chenu does no more than raise the possibility, making no attempt to argue the case for (or, for that matter, against) a possible Hilarian contribution to the structure and method of Aquinas's Summa contra Gentiles." Thus, while Chenu points us in the right direction, it remains to establish a positive connection between the contra Gentiles of Thomas Aquinas and the De Trinitate of Hilary of Poitiers.

What, then, speaks for Hilary's contribution to the Summa contra Gentiles? By one standard for measuring 'influence,' Hilary would seem to have had hardly any importance for this work: the De Trinitate is quoted here but a mere handful of times, even less than it is in such other works as the Script um on the Sentences of Peter Lombard the Catena A urea on John, or

sententiae auctoritas Hilarii concordat, qui sic dicit in libro de Trin., loquens de huiusmodi veritate: Haec credendo incipe, procurre, persiste: etsi non perventurum sciam, gratulabor tamen pro fecturum. Qui enim pie infinita prosequitur, etsi non contingat aliquando, semper tamen pro ficiet prodeundo. Sed ne te inferas in illud secretum, et arcano interminabilis nativitatis non te immergas, summam intelligentiae comprehendere praesumens: sed intellige incomprehensibilia esse." The quotation from Hilary reiterates Thomas s warnings against presumption, because of the limitations of human reason and the transcendence of divine truth, in I, 5 (#31) and, I, 8 (#49).

11 In this regard, the comment in passing of R. Cessario, The Godly Image:

Christ and Salvation in Catholic Thought from St. Anselm to Aquinas (Petersham, MA: St. Bede's Publications, 1990), p. 101, may be somewhat misleading. The literature on Thomas's use of Hilary is meagre. See, however, C. Vansteenkiste, "S. Tommaso e S. Ilario di Poitiers," in A. Piolanti (ed.), Studi Tomistici (Rome: Pontificia Accademia Romana di S. Tommaso d'Aquino, 1974), I: 65-71.

624 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

the Summa theologiae.12 In at least this one case, however, frequency of explicit citation would seem to be misleading. Indeed, while Thomas cites Hilary in his opening, programmatic chapters of the contra Gentiles only twice--the instance noted by Chenu, and another, from the first book of the De Trinitate to be noted below--broader comparisons of the opening chapters (1-9) of Book I of the contra Gentiles and the first book of the De Trinitate make more plausible the notion that in his own work Thomas intends to imitate that of Hilary.

It will be useful here to recall the pertinent facts about the De Trinitate and especially its opening book.13 The De Trinitate is a massive argument in support of the orthodox teaching about the ontological status of the Son of God who becomes incarnate as Jesus Christ. In this argument, Hilary has two basic, complementary goals: to establish the correct reading of the pertinent scriptural material, and to eliminate heretical readings of the biblical witness to Christ. Especially interesting is the first book of the De Trinitate, which serves as the orientation to and justification for this entire enterprise. In the first book, Hilary recounts his own progress in the knowledge of God, moving from deficient pagan depictions of god (which ascribed limitations to

12 Charles H. Lohr, St. Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super sententiis: An index of authorities cited (England: Avebury, 1980), p. 304, notes eighteen references to De Trinitate in the Scriptum. The Leonine editors list over forty citations of De Trinitate in the Summa theologiae, but only three, including the two discussed in the text, in the Summa contra Gentiles; see the Indices to the Summa theologiae and the Summa contra Gentiles in the Leonine edition of the Opera omnia, vol. 16 (Rome, 1948), p. 217. C. G. Conticello, "San Tommaso ed i padri: la Catena aurea super Ioannem," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Mo yen Age 57 (1990), pp. 51-2, identifies eleven references to De Trinitate in Thomas's prologue to the Catena on John.

13 For an introduction to Hilary, with bibliography, see Manlio Simonetti, "Hilary of Poitiers and the Arian Crisis in the West," in Angelo di Berardino (ed.), Patrology vol. 4, tran. P. Solari (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, Inc., 1986), pp. 33-61; Simonetti discusses the De Trinitate on pp. 39-43. J. Doignon, "Du nouveau dans l'exploration de l'oeuvre d'Hilaire de Poitiers (1983-1988)," Revue des Études Augustiniennes 34 (1988) : 93-105, offers an orientation to more recent scholarship.

HILARY'S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 625

god), to more acceptable pagan accounts of god (I, 4), through the revelation of the one God in the Old Testament (I, 5), to finally, with his conversion to Christianity, the acceptance of the full knowledge of God through the Christian revelation provided in the books of the New Testament (I, 10). Hilary sees his own growth in the knowledge of God, in short, as mirroring that of the human race. Moreover, complementing this growth in knowledge is an ever-keener awareness of human limitations. For Hilary, by one's rational powers alone, one is unable to come to know God fully: one would be stuck in the defective knowledge of even the best pagans. In this light, Jewish and then Christian revelation comes as the ultimate relief, God here providing to faith the knowledge of God that would otherwise be inaccessible.14 The appropriate human response to God's initiative in revelation, then, is humility and gratitude.15 But, there are, Hilary continues, those who have misused this revelation granted by God. Rather than submitting themselves to it, allowing this knowledge to shape their beliefs and practice, they have sought to bend it to their own, limited reason.16 Thus, to express his gratitude to God for the Christian revelation, Hilary will take upon himself the articulation and defense of correct Christian faith, preserving the revelation provided in scripture from its heretical deformers (I, 17). As Hilary writes in the rhetorical conclusion to the first

14 Hilary makes the point repeatedly in Book I. See, for example, I, 10:

"Proficit mens ultra naturalis sensus intelligentiam et plus de Deo quam opinabatur docetur "; I, 11 "Hic iam mens trepida et anxia plus spei invenit quam expectabat"; I, 12: ", . . et haec omnia ultra intelligentiae humanae metiens sensum. . "; I 13 "Haec itaque ultra naturae humanae intelligentiam a Deo gesta non succumbunt rursum naturalibus mentium sensibus, quia infinitae aeternitatis operatio infinitam metiendi exigat opinionem, . . .

15 See, for example, I, 12: "Hanc itaque divini sacramenti doctrinam mens laeta suscepit . . . curam in se parentis sui creatorisque cognoscens non in nihilum redigendam se per eum existimans per quem in hoc ipsum quod est ex nihilo subsistisset I, 14: "In hoc igitur conscio securitatis suae otio mens spebus suis laeta requieverat, intercessionem mortis huius usque eo non metuens, ut etiam reputaret in vitam aeternitatis."

16 Hilary insists on the need to hold fast to the divine truth in scripture at I, 13. For his rejection of those who fail to submit to scripture, instead trying to bend God's word to their limited capacity, see I, 15-16.

626 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

book, in light of what God has done for him and for humanity by fully revealing God in Christ, it is Hilary's duty to offer his every word and experience in the service of God (I 37).17 Hilary in fact discharges this duty in the subsequent books of the De Trinitate in providing the close, orthodox reading of the scriptural texts in dispute.18

There is no question that the De Trinitate remained available in the later Middle ages and that Thomas had access to it.19 Moreover, among his quotations in Book I of the contra Gentiles from the De Trinitate is this reflection by Hilary on the duty of the wise person to offer his entire thought and experience to God. This particular citation is especially illuminating, for as used here it discloses that Thomas has fully grasped Hilary's intention in the first book of the De Trinitate. It also suggests that Thomas wishes to develop the rest of his own work on the Hilarian model. Just as Hilary, so too Thomas introduces his analysis of controverted Christian truths by speaking of humanity's passage to ever more adequate knowledge of God, culminating in the full disclosure of the triune God in revelation.20

17 I, 37: "Ego quidem hoc vel praecipuum vitae meae officium debere me tibi, Pater omnipotens Deus, conscius sum, ut te omnis sermo meus et sensus loquatur."

18 Hilary sketches the structure of the remaining books of De Trinitate at I, 21-35, often indicating the principal scriptural passages to be analyzed in each.

19 See, e.g., C. Kannengiesser, "L'héritage d'Hilaire de Poitiers, I. Dans l'ancienne Église d'Occident et dans les bibliothèques médiévales," Recherches de science religieuse 56 (1968) : 435-456, and P. Smulders, "Remarks on the Manuscript Tradition of the De Trinitate of Saint Hilary of Poitiers," in

F. L. Cross (ed.), Studia Patristica II [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlicher Literatur 78] (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), pp. 129-38. Given Thomas's association with the place at various times in his life, it is interesting to note that Smulders in his 'elenchus codicum' of his critical edition of De Trinitate mentions (Vol. LXII, p. 16 *) a manuscript of De Trinitate from Monte Cassino which he dates to the 13th century.

20 See the reflections in ScG I, 3-7, on the two kinds of truth that will be covered in this work: those truths about God that are knowable by reason and revealed by God, and those knowable only by virtue of the divine revelation, that reason of itself cannot attain. See too the transitional comments in ScG IV, 1.

HILARY'S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 627

Thomas also knows of those who are insufficiently acquainted with Christian revelation or who seek to deface it. Hence, although he is quite aware of his own limitations, he perceives it his duty, as Hilary had recognized his duty before him, to offer his every word and experience to God, a duty he will discharge by articulating correct Catholic doctrine and defending this doctrine from attack.21 The structural similarity and dependence on the first book of the De Trinitate evident in Thomas's opening methodological reflections in the first book of the Summa contra Gentiles thus lends to the entire subsequent discussion a distinctively Hilarian hue, one that is deepened by Thomas's intensely scriptural method in, especially, the fourth book.

Any assessment of the contribution of the De Trinitate to the contra Gentiles must, however, also keep in mind those points at which the two works diverge. Despite the resemblances in orientation and in use of scripture, much would seem to separate the two works and thus put in doubt the Hilarian contribution to the Summa contra Gentiles of Thomas Aquinas. I will mention here only those that appear to be significant points of divergence. For one, the Summa contra Gentiles is a much more comprehensive work, in terms of both subject matter and method. This is obvious in the first three books of the contra Gentiles in which Thomas discusses a whole range of issues that Hilary leaves either wholly or partly untreated--God and the creation, the providence of God--and Thomas does so through the judicious use of philosophy ('philosophy,' of course, as guided by correct Christian faith) . But, it is true as well of the fourth book of the contra Gentiles in which, I have just suggested, the matter and method of Hilary is even more patent. Even in the fourth book, Thomas's analysis is broader and richer: for example, he dis21 ScG I, 2 (#9): "Assumpta igitur ex divina pietate fiducia sapientis

officium prosequendi, quamvis proprias vires excedat, propositum nostrae intentionis est veritatem quam Fides Catholica profitetur, pro nostro modulo manifestare, errores eliminando contrarios: ut enim verbis Hilarii utar, ego hoc vel praecipuum vitae meae officium debere me Deo conscius sum, ut eum omnis sermo meus et sensus loquatur."

628 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

cusses more topics related to the Trinity than does Hilary, devoting an entire series of chapters to the third person of the Trinity (ScG IV, 15-25), whereas Hilary pays scant attention to the Holy Spirit.22 And, in his handling of the material held in common with the De Trinitate--the full divinity of the Son, and the recognition of the full humanity as well as divinity of Jesus Christ--Thomas goes beyond a putative Hilarian norm. Both theologians, it is true, focus on the scriptural evidence to display the truth of Catholic positions and to dispel heretical readings; but, Thomas's range of heretics is more expansive, covering not only Sabellius and Anus (Hilary's favorites), but post-Hilarian heretics as well, those whose readings of scripture were, eventually, countered by the third and fourth ecumenical councils.23 Similarly, Thomas's discussion of Catholic truth and heretical dissent is more streamlined and elegant than Hilary's, proceeding through the pertinent scriptural material in a palpably more logical order.24 Finally, a zealous critic of Hilarian influence might observe not only that explicit citation of De Trinitate is rare, but that Thomas also omits in the contra Gentiles at least one of Hilary's more characteristic teachings: Thomas ignores Hilary's rather distinctive handling (in e.g., Bk. IX, 54ff.) of

22 Hilary's references to the Holy Spirit (e.g., De Trinitate I, 36) are exceptional, and he hardly attempts in De Trinitate to show the scriptural warrant for the affirmation of the full divinity of the Spirit.

23 Thus, in discussing the incarnation of the Word in ScG IV 28-36, Thomas rebuts in turn the faulty rcadings of scripture of Photinus, the Manicheans, Valentine, Apollinaris, Anus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Macanus of Antioch. Thomas's discussion of the incarnation culminates with the consideration ScG IV, 37-38) of two of the three opinions on the union of the two natures mentioned by Peter Lombard in his Sententiae (Bk. III, d. VI), seeing in them unwitting repetitions of earlier mistaken renderings of the scriptural evidence.

24 In ScG IV, 28ff., Thomas proceeds in turn against those who would simply deny an incarnation (28), to those who reject some aspect of the human nature assumed (i.e., the human body [29-31], or soul [32-33]), to, finally, those who construe the union of the two natures incorrectly (34-38) . In earlier chapters (4-9) of Book IV, Thomas had rebutted those (Photinus, Sabellius, An us), who had questioned in one way or another the divinity of the Word who assumes,

HILARY' S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 629

John 14:28 ('the Father is greater than I'). Rather than seeing here a comment on trinitarian relations and the special dignity of the Father as the source of the Son, Thomas follows the more common interpretation, reading this text as a reference to the incarnate state of the Word.25

These all are important considerations for evaluating the thesis of Thomas's reliance on Hilary in the construction of the Summa contra Gentiles. Yet, I would contend, none speaks decisively against the claim that Thomas has been inspired by Hilary in the development of this distinctive work. There are a number of ways of responding to these observations that question the notion of Thomas's dependence. One way would be to look in turn at each of these arguments and show how it is over-stated or, ultimately, irrelevant. To consider, for example, the point about the broader subject-matter in the contra Gentiles: it is true that Hilary's work is more restricted in scope. Yet, in his introductory statements in Book I of the De Trinitate, Hilary had recounted pagan (pre-Christian) approximations of truth, which in their incompleteness require the fuller knowledge brought by revelation, thereby opening the door, in the subsequent books of the De Trinitate, to the more complete consideration of pagan truth and error (along with, of course, the heretical debasement of God's revelation) . That Hilary in the subsequent books chose to ignore pagan error and the detailed review of the ways in which Christian revelation judges this error, instead focusing his energies exclusively on the dispute with heretical Christians, might thus be plausibly viewed as a failure of execution on his part. In this light, Thomas's more comprehensive treatment of non-Christian and heretical error in the four books of the contra

25 Thomas offers his interpretation of John 14 :28 at ScG IV, 8 (# 3430). In other works, Thomas cites Hilary's trinitanian interpretation approvingly; see, e.g., Summa theologiae I 42, 4, ad 1, where he quotes De Trinitate IX, 54 about the greater dignity of the Father as 'giver.' For a more complete discussion of Hilary's interpretation of John 14 :28 and Thomas's use of it, see Bertrand de Margenie, Introduction l'histoire de l'exégèse, II (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1983), especially pp. 87-8.

630 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

Gentiles could be termed a more perfect realization of Hilary's own project.

Nor does the paucity of explicit reference to Hilary necessarily tell against the thesis of Hilarian influence. The Summa theologiae, it is true, does refer much more frequently to Hilary, not only to De Trinitate but to De synodis and other works as well, and no one would dream of describing the Summa theologiae as 'Hilarian ' in inspiration. Yet statistics hardly settle the issue. For one thing, as I have already argued, where he does use Hilary in the Summa contra Gentiles, Thomas uses him astutely and faithfully, replicating in the opening of his own work Hilary's intention as stated in De Trinitate Book I. For another, when he refers to Hilary in the Summa theologiae it is often because individual statements of Hilary pose a problem: Hilary has spoken, or seems to have spoken, in a way out of keeping with Catholic orthodoxy and Thomas's own theological convictions.26 Thus, Hilary is cited as often as he is in the Summa theologiae precisely in order to elucidate him.

That explicit citation is not all that significant in the case of the Summa contra Gentiles can be argued in yet another way. To my mind, an intriguing feature of the thomistic corpus is that Thomas returns to the same topics in work after work. To the extent that they have bothered with the question, many students of Thomas have been content to ascribe the sheer number of these writings to development in Thomas's thought. Thomas wrote as much as he did, and repeatedly covered the same topics, to keep pace with his progress in theological reflection. While there is undoubtedly some truth to this, pedagogical concerns would seem to be of at least equal importance.27 In the pursuit of the most

28 Thus, for example, Thomas must explain in ST III 15, 5, ad 1 statements from De Trinitate X that seem to deny to Christ the experience of sensible pain; in ST III 23, 4, ad 1. he interprets benignly a comment from De Trinitate II that has adoptionist overtones.

27 See, for example, the groundbneaking work of Leonard E. Boyle, "The Setting of the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas" ([The Etienne Gilson Series 5] Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982) .

HILARY'S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 631

efficacious way to teach theology, Thomas experimented in his various works with different ways of organizing and approaching the truths of the Catholic faith.

There is much to recommend this explanation. It puts structure and method into greater prominence. How Thomas has organized a given work surely cannot be a matter of indifference and it is worthwhile asking how his different approaches serve to promote, or to detract from, the execution of the theological enterprise. Viewing the thomistic corpus in this way also places in greater relief the question of Thomas's indebtedness to tradition. In his various experiments in theology, to what extent has Thomas been influenced by earlier theological work, by the example of earlier theologians in their organization of theology? Thomas, in fact, is never wholly enslaved to the strategy of any one of his predecessors; even where he is avowedly following another author in overall structure, he introduces significant modification. Yet, it is possible to perceive a shifting balance between tradition and innovation in different works. In some, he is more obviously indebted to earlier models for organizing theology; in others, he strikes a more independent pose. To take but the most obvious examples: in the Script um on the Sentences (1250s) 28 it is Peter Lombard, the twelfth century author and compiler of the Sentences of patristic authorities, who determines the basic order in which Thomas addresses theological questions. Similarly, in his Expositions of the De Trinitate of Boethius (1258-59) and Pseudo-Dionysius's De divinis nominibus (prepared at some point in the 1260s), the concerns and pedagogical programs of these earlier authors have determined the structure of Thomas's own approach. By the time of the Summa theologiae (1266-73), however, Thomas has explicitly abandoned earlier models: although he retains earlier patterns of organization in discussing discrete sets of questions within the different parts of the Summa,

28 The dating in the text follows James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d'Aquino: His Life, Thought and Work (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1983), "A Brief Catalogue of Authentic Works," pp. 355ff.

632 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

the overall pattern of organization is very much his own, reflecting his mature insight into how best to organize the discussion of the Christian faith.29

On this spectrum, the Summa contra Gentiles (1259-64) would be a 'middle' work in more than a chronological sense. From Hilary, Thomas received the chief inspiration for this exercise in Christian protreptic, as well as the impetus for the preoccupation (especially in Book IV) with scripture as the ground of distinctively Christian truth. But, in other important respects--the expansion of the range of topics, the introduction of post-Hilarian authorities and issues, the greater interest in philosophical inquiry, the different ordering of material common to the two--Thomas shows his independence before this source.

Indeed, in the final analysis, probably the best way to allay such qualms is to clarify what is, and what is not, involved in asserting a Hilarian contribution to the contra Gentiles. I would recall here another of Chenu's remarks about the contra Gentiles to the effect that this is the most historical' of Thomas's writings.30 Chenu meant that in addition to the 'contemplation of truth,' Thomas was concerned to meet the intellectual and religious challenge of Islam which had become especially acute both within and outside of Christendom. But Chenu's comment is true, it would seem, in an extended sense and helps us to get a feel for the distance, as well as the continuity, between Hilary and Thomas. One of the things that is most striking in the opening chapters of the contra Gentiles is Thomas's keen awareness of the immensity and the difficulty of the tasks before him to proclaim and to defend the truth. In this regard, immediately after quoting the first book of De Trinitate on the duty of the wise person, Thomas notes the advantage enjoyed by the ancient doctors in dealing with the 'gentiles': unlike Thomas, these fathers had themselves been gentiles and so understood better

29 Recall in this vein the Prologus to the entire Summa theologiae where Thomas distinguishes that work from earlier attempts at teaching Catholic truth.

30 M. D. Chenu, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, p. 289.

HILARY'S DE TRINITATE AND AQUINAS 633

than he the arguments which he hoped to refute.31 Given the placement of this comment, it is of course tempting to think Thomas had Hilary especially in mind. But, in other respects, Thomas outstrips his patristic predecessors, including Hilary, in historical knowledge. Much had happened between Hilary's time and that of Thomas, both in Christian and in non-Christian circles, and Thomas was sensitive to these developments. Indeed, given his customary thoughtfulness and commitment to not only speculative but historical research, Thomas, among 13th century authors, is especially alert to these developments. Thus, in the construction of his own protreptic, Thomas had greater resources at his disposal and was better placed to accomplish the goal that he shared with Hilary, the proclamation and safeguarding of the full revelation of God.

The point, then, is this: arguing for a Hilarian contribution to the Summa contra Gentiles does not entail claiming the De Trinit ate as Thomas's exclusive model or single source. He clearly used other sources in the preparation of this distinctive work,32 and he exhibits considerable initiative and freedom in its

31 ScG I, 2 (# 10) : "Hoc enim modo usi sunt antiqui doctores in destructionem errorum gentilium quorum positiones scire poterant quia et ipsi gentiles fuerant, vel saltem inter gentiles conversati et in eorum doctninis eruditi." Thomas continues (# 11) by outlining the different bases on which one can respond to the errors of Mohammedans and pagans, of Jews, and of Christian heretics.

32 Indeed, I am convinced that it would be profitable to investigate more thoroughly the contribution of Augustine's De Trinitate to the Summa contra Gentiles. Thomas's lengthy discussion of the generation of the Word (in IV, 11) is of an Augustinian, not Hilarian, cast. For Augustine's reflections in De Trinitate on the reading of scripture, see, e.g., the methodological comments in the opening chapter of his first book. As for another Augustinian work which is often viewed as fundamental for the fourth book of the contra Gentiles, the De heresibus is only partly explanatory of Thomas's procedure here. Thomas does borrow descriptions of various early Christian heresies from Augustine, but this work of Augustine is hardly interested in detailing the heretical misunderstandings of scripture or grounding discrete Christian doctrinal formulations in the pertinent scriptural texts. In the latter regard, another group of early Christian sources should also be explored. It is now a commonplace of thomistic research that in the 1260s Thomas rediscovered the acts and proceedings in Latin translation of the early ecumenical councils.

634 JOSEPH WAWRYKOW

composition; there is no denying this. Nor is there a need to deny this. That would be to ignore the thirteenth century origin of Thomas's work. On the other hand, there is a genuine continuity between Hilary and Thomas, one that comes to clear expression in the opening comments of the contra Gentiles and in the commitment to scripture, especially in Book IV. Thomas undoubtedly supplemented and even modified Hilary in the light of his other sources and his own special theological acumen. But the debt remains real, and in the modern enthusiasm for the 'recovered Aristotle' and Maimonides and the response to Islam as formative in Thomas's work, we should not lose sight of the resources available to him from within the Christian tradition. Indeed, given the primacy of this inspiration, one might with considerable justification more truly call the Summa contra Gentiles an exercise in ' Hilarian theology,' one performed, however, in a distinctly 13th century key.

See, for example, Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d'Aquino, p. 163-68, where he summarizes the research of Backes and Geenen. Was Thomas also guided in the Summa contra Gentiles by this newly-recovered material? This is yet another case where reliance on explicit citation and statistics may be somewhat misleading. The lessons of the conciliar material on method may be much more profound. Thomas does quote from the early councils in the Summa contra Gentiles (e.g., IV, 25 [# 3624]) but hardly to the extent that he does in the later Summa theologiae. Yet much of the material in this dossier--for example, the correspondence of Nestorius and Cyril and the letter to Epictetus of Athanasius--displays the same 'scriptural bent,' framing the pertinent debates in terms of the correct interpretation and reception of scripture.