Wayne J. Hankey THE DE TRINITATE OF ST. BOETHIUS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS Recently, St, Thomas Aquinas has been both praised and criticised for intro- ducing a distinction within the theological treatment of God between his unity and the Trinity of Persons and for beginning theology with the unity. His suppor- ters see in this the appropriate rational order through which revelation is made intelligible by means of its proper praeamble in natural reason. His critics oppose this same rationality and think that through it the distinctively Christian revela- tion of the triune God is reduced by an abstract and merely natural reasoning to the unity of an impersonal first principle. They maintain as well that the vitality and concreteness of a proper Christian understanding of the Trinity is thereby lost. We will consider briefly at the end of this paper the justification of aspects of this praise and blame, but before doing so, the statement of facts on which both are based needs examination for it is capable of doubt ‘The Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner ' gives a full statement of the received view in which he is followed by the Protestant Eberhard Jiingel °. Their position accords with that of the Orthodox Vladamir Lossky *, The account has then weighty ecu- menical authority. According to it the distinction between the de deo uno and the de deo trino was first made by Thomas and it « only came into general use since the Sententiae of Peter Lombard were replaced by the Summa »*. The division and order of the two treatises goes back to the Augustinian and western con- ception of the Trinity which is said to start with the one single nature of God as a totality *. This procedure is held to be the inverse of that of the eastern Fathers, who treating the nature of God in general when considering the Person of the Father, may be represented either as commencing with the Persons or with the tunity and triad simultaneously. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite is for Professor Lossky the epitome of the Orthodox tradition. In elevating a negative mystical theo- logy to the highest rank, Dionysius finally celebrates God not only as simultaneously unity and Trinity, but also, as beyond being known in either of these categories. His eastern followers are held to be moving in the direction opposite to that the west is travelling. Despite the authority of this common account the actual history seems to be its contrary. 1K, Rattner, «Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise “De Trinitate” », Theological Investiga- tions, IV, Baltimore-London, 1966, pp. 82-87. 28! Joncer, The Doctrine of the Trinity, God's being is in becoming, Scottish Journal of Theology Supplement, Edinburgh-London, 1976, p. 4 esp. n. 9. 3V. Lossxy, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Cambridge-London, 1957, pp. 23.66; idem, « Apophasis and Trinitarian Theology », In the Image and Likeness of God, St. Vladimir's Seminary, 1974, pp. 13-29; idem, The Vision of God, The Library of Orthodox Theo- logy 2, London-Wisconsin, 1963, pp. 104-5 and 99-110. 4K. RaHNER, op. cit., p. 83. ® Thid., p. 84. * Ibid.368, Wayne J. Hankey First, Thomas is by no means the originator of the distinction between the de deo uno and the de deo trino not does he originate the explicit ordering of the theological system, whether pagan or Christian, beginning with the Divine unity Second, neither Augustine nor those who are faithful to his theological logic make this distinction, Third, Thomas finds the authority for the ordering in Boethius and Dionysius and for the distinction itself actually in Dionysius and he is to some degree correctly interpreting them in doing so. ‘A curious feature of St. Thomas’ commentary * on the de Trinitate of Boethius is that it contains his most extended statement on the relation of the various scien: es and consequently on theological order. These are themselves connected because the order of theology follows from the relation of natural to revealed theology. This feature of the commentary is rightly attributed to the presence in Boethius’ little treatise of an enumeration of the parts of speculative knowledge as maturalis, ma- thematica and tbeologica *. But this is not a complete account. St. Thomas, in his Prologus, makes three observations we must consider. First he contrasts the theo- logian’s starting point with that of the philosopher. Natural knowledge begins from cortuptible bodies and subsequently rises to God, thus inverting in thought the Structure of reality. The theologian, by virtue of faith’s superior light, is able to Start aright; that is to begin from God and proceed subsequently, as God's own knowledge does, to creatures. Theology does not begin where it does because of its dependence on natural knowledge but precisely because it escapes its deficiencies tind is able, as Thomas explains later in the commentary, to proceed from his self- fevelation; it manifests the occulta of God. Second Thomas notices that Boethius Various treatises may be arranged into those treating the procession of Persons, those treating the procession of creatures (depending upon and hence subsequent to the first procession) and those treating the restoration of creatures in Christ. Thus Thomas finds that Boethius’ works have systematic connection through the Neoplatonic logic of procession and return. Thomas is not the first to see a unity in Boethius’ treatises and his understanding of their connection has recently been defended as accurate *, Finally, and most perceptively, Thomas discerns in Boethius ‘theological method different from that used by Augustine. According to Thomas, whereas the argument of Augustine’s de Trinitate is a complex of reason and au thority and others use only authority, Boethius chooses the remaining alternative, reason alone. If Thomas is right, his comments point to something most significant in Boe- thius. For he identifies in Boethius a systematizing spirit very different from that found in Augustine. It is not the spirit of Plotinus, who, although logically begin- hing with the One, leaves behind a series of discursive, often tentative, trentises fon various philosophical subjects. Nor is it that of Porphyry, which, although very Concemed about structure, seems not to feel any need in ordering Plotinus to unite form and content, But the spirit is nearer that of the Tamblichan school best \ ¥ Sancti Thomae de Aquino, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, (Decker), Leiden, 1959. * Boothius, de Trinitate,The Theological Tractates, Loeb, Cambridge-London, 1973, IL, p. 8- “GR. Evans, «Thierry of Chartres and the Unity of Boethius’ Thought »; and R.D. Crouse, «The Doctrine of Creation in Boethius, the De hebdomadibus and the Consolatio >, both in’Proceedings of the VIIIth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, 1979, forthcoming, wePonpnivey, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books, Plotinus I, Loeb, London-Cambridge, 1966, 24, 11.11-17; cf. AH, Armsrronc’s remarks on Plotinus pp. xiv-xv, on Porphyry's editorial methods pp. ix-xiBoethius De Trinitate and St. Thomas Aquinas 369 worked out by Proclus, who produced in his Elements of Theology ** an extremely formalized system in 211 propositions, beginning with the Divine unity and ending with the human soul entirely descended into the temporal world. Thomas’ systema- tizing of his own works and the elaborate formalizing, in his commentaries, of the arguments ofthe works he expounds is clearly in this tradition. But, is he not also sensitive to the change in Boethius, who, although only conscious of his dependence on Augustine ", has on other grounds been found following Proclus? ** ‘What separated the more Plotinian Platonism of Augustine from that of Boe- thius is not just the greater formalism of Boethius but the character of the logic. The formalism shows itself in the division of the content between different treati- ses, their ordering relative to one another and penetration of the logical spirit into the internal argumentation of the treatise itself. The different character of the logics manifests itself, if Thomas is right, in placing three of the five treatises in the two parts devoted to the movement downward from the Divine unity. For the Augu- Sstinian teaching", in common with that of Plotinus, was dominated by an ascending movement: inward and upward. The result is that the de Trinitate of ‘Augustine begins per auctoritates, with the Word of God addressing man in the external world in order to save him from it. Augustine proceeds only secondarily to the argumentation per rationes, through the psychological analogies, in order that man may know his true unity with God out of the sensible world through mind’s inward and upward turning "*, Augustine, and his medieval followers ‘7, reflect in this teaching the influence of the Plotinian doctrine of the higher and lower parts of soul". But in Proclus there is the philosophical basis of a different Christian spirituality. The soul is altogether descended into the temporal world and, because of the likeness of matter to the Divine", and because it needs the assistance of 14 Proclus, The Elements of Theology, Oxford, 1963; cf. E.R. Dovo's remarks, pp. ix-xii and J. Lowey, The Logical Principles of Proclus’ Zroixewoatg Oschoyurn as Systematic Ground of the Cosmos, Doctoral Thesis, Dept, of Classics, Dalhousie University, 1976 published in Elementa, Scbrijten zur Philosophie und ibrer Problemsgeschichte, Amsterdam, 1980. ; 12 Boethius, op. cit., proem., 1131-33, p. 4 ‘speaks of his work as “ex beati Augustini.. jructus”, 48'P, Counceue, Les Lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe 2 Cassiodore, Paris, 1948, pp. 258312; H. Cuapwicx, « The Christian Platonism of Bocthius », valedictory lecture, Christ Church, Oxford, June, 1979. 1B g. De Magistro, XI, 38 (PL XXXII, 1216). Anselm follows him very faithfully at this point cf. the opening lines of the Proslogion. M.D. Cuenu, Nature, Man, and Society in Tue Centry, Chicago 1968, pp. 3, 64 125 contrasts the Augustinian’ and Dionysian spit tualities. "3 Enneades (Hency et Schwyzer, Paris Brussels, 1951-73) 1,6,8,45 1,6,9,15 T11,8,6,40; IV, 8,12; V8232; V8 11; VI9,7,17; V19,1138. CE.'J. TrourtarD, La procession ‘plotinienne, Paris, 1955, p. 6 and AH. ArMsteone, Christian and Plotinian Studies, Variorum Reprints, London, 1979, VI; also my « The Place of the Psychological Image of the Trinity in the Argu- ments of Augustine’s de Trinitate, Anselm's Monologion, and Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae », Dionysius, II (1979), p. 102, n. 10. 38RD. Crouse, « St. Augustine’s De Trinitate: Philosophical Method », Studia Patristica for the 1975 Conference, in press. 7 For a list of texts from Augustine and an example of a medieval interpretation cf. Bona- venrune, Queestiones Disputatae descents Christ, V, Opera Onna V, Quaracchi, 1891, pp. 171 38 Enneades, 1V,8,8,23; V)110. Cf. CG. Steet, The Changing Self, A Study of the Soul in later Neoplatonism, Brussels, 1978, %® Thomas finds this Platonist doctrine in Dionysius: In librum Beati Dionysii de Divinis Nominibus (Pera), Taurini-Romac, 1950, 1V,2,2968; cf. also Super Librum de Causis Expositio, (Saffrey) Fribourg-Louvain, 1954, 1V,4 where he relates this doctrine to the primacy of the good over being as a divine name; a doctrine he partially embraces: Summa Theologiae, Ottawa, 1953, 152 ad 1. AtS.T. 1,3,8-0bj.3, corp and ad 3, Thomas’ considers the likeness of God and prime matter.i | 370 Wayne J. Hankey the spiritual power given to sensible things by theurgy, it is able to return by moving outward. In Thomas“, Dionysius **, and Proclus * there is a sense of the equal weight of the downward and upward movements in reality so that the eros and activity, which underlie it, have themselves the exitus-reditus structure. Mor over, the One is also able, in such a view, to be given its place at the beginning; it is not just the end to be sought. Eriugena, of course, makes all this systematically explicit in his de Divisione Naturae **. But Thomas finds the same logic in Boethius and in doing so he is in tune with a long tradition of medieval comment. Remi of Auxerre believed Boethius taught that God was unity and all else was its explication and descent from his simplicity. In consequence of this, theo- logy began from this simplicity. Carlo Riccati “* has collected other comments with a similar import. Pierre Hadot ** has traced the history of the medieval interpre- tation of Boethius’ doctrine that essence and existence are united in God and di- vided in creatures, a teaching with such profound influence on St. Thomas, Bernard Hiring’s ® works on later commentators must also be noted. For Abelard, in whose theology the one and the three are not divided ®*, remained faithful to Augustine in reaction against this specific Neoplatonic logic deriving from Boethius which he found in Gilbert of Poitiers ®. If Boethius hints of the fruit for Christian theology of the Proclan Neopla- tonism, fruit actually borne in the systems of Thomas and Eriugena, the nature of the flower is more easily recognizable in Dionysius. Dionysius’ treatises can also 20CE, CG. Srett, op. cit, passim and A, Smumu, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic ‘Tradition, The Hague, 1974, pp. 814. and Chapter 7 Love catties God out of himself 5.7. 1,20,2 ad 1 and is the unifying bond $7. 137.1 ad 3; and 1398. For this structure in activity cf. M. Jonpan, « The Grammar of Esse: Re-reading ‘Thomas on the Transcendentals », The T'homist, 44 (1980), pp. 1-26. For its effect on the struc- ture and predication, ef. my «The Structure of Aristotle's logic and the knowledge of God in the Pars Prima of the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas », / now published/ Miscellanea Mediaevalia, ed. Albert Zimmerman, Band 13/2, Berlin-New York, 1981, pp. 961-968. 22 In de div. nom. WV, T-12, eg. 369, 390, 439, 444, 455, 460, 23 Cf AH. Armstrons, op. cit, IX, p. 117, n. 16 (also the related idea that the sense world is not evil V, p. 50); S. Gest, KINHSIZ "AKINHTOS, Leiden, 1973, pp. 1244. 29 In the identity of the first and fourth divisions of nature - with which respectively his work begins and ends: de Divisione Naturae I, 1 (PL 122, 441) and II, 2 (122, 526). Notice that the passage which follows II, 2 and, contains its doctrine also, was in the Corpus Dionysinm used by Thomas cf. HF. Donpaine, Le Corpus dionysien de Université de Paris au xine siécle, Roma, 1953, p. 137. ’3Cé’¢Un Commentaire anonyme sur le De trinitate de Bote» in JM. Parent, La Doctrine de la Création dans I’Ecole de Chartres, Patis-Ottawa, 1938, p. 183. For the identity of the commentator, ef. M. Cappuyns, «Le plus ancien commentaire des Opuscula sacra et son otigine », Rech. de théo. anc. et méd., TIL (1931), p. 272 28°C, Ruccatt, « Eriugena e Cusano», Memorie della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, IL, Series V, 1, p. 98. 27°, Hapot, « Forma Essendi, Interprétation philologique ct Interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Botce », Les Etudes Classiques, 38, (1970), pp. 143-156. 28One by Clarenbaldus of Arras and another by Gilbert of Poitiers in Nine Mediaeval Thinkers, Toronto, 1955; Gilbert of Poitiers; Commentaries on Boethius, Toronto, 1966; Com mentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres, Toronto, 1971; Life and Works of Clarenbald of ‘Arras, Toronto, 1965. Theologia Christiana, Opera Theologica 11, Corpus Christ. Cont. Med., XII, Brepols, 1964; Theologia “Sunmi Boni”, Beitrige zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, xxxv, 2/3, Miinster, 1939. 30 For his following of Augustine cf, G.R. Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, Oxford, 1980, p. 33, For his opposition to Boethius as applied by’ Gilbert, cf. L. HOL, « Die Dialektische ‘Theologie des 12. Jahthunderts », Arts libéraux et philosopbie au moyen dge, Montreal-Paris, 1969, pp. 137-147.Boethius De Trinitate and St. Thomas Aquinas 371 be given a systematic relation ® and their content as symbolic theology certainly involves the transformation of theurgy into a Christian movement to God through sensible things **. Moreover, the Divine movement in things is clearly a full circle ®, in which the Divine unity and goodness have the right of the Principle to be the beginning, But most importantly for our investigation, there is in his theology an explicit division ®* of the treatises between one on the names belonging to the common unity of the Trinity, ~ names Thomas finds knowable through creatures, — and another on those names belonging to the distinct Persons. Even if this second treatise never existed, as Professor Lossky suggested, Dionysius certainly makes the distinction and provides theological authority for it. Professor Lossky claimed that the elevation of the mystical negative theology prevents a reduction of the triad to unity, since they are equal at that level. Yet this also opens Dionysius to the criticism ** that his theology is not specifically Christian at all, since three is only @ name of God. But, in any case, it is not Augustine but Dionysius that Thomas is following in dividing the treatise de deo uno from that de deo trino in a long theological tradition. The line Thomas stands in goes back in fact to the first fully explicit and uni- fied western Christian system of theology, the de Divisione Naturae of Eriugena. Father Cappuyns ® in his magisterial work declared already that books one and two divided roughly as a de deo uno and a de deo trino. At least one recent treat- ment ® of the Periphyseon follows him in this judgement. But it has been chal- lenged by Professor Allard" and is generally replaced ** by the view that the work is rather an Hexameron. Yet these opinions are not incompatible unless the second be taken very narrowly and exclusively. For the first book is certainly about the tunity of God preceding creation to which Eriugena, following the Neoplatonic logic to be found in Dionysius, brings back all things in return ‘'. The Trinity is developed only in the second book in explaining creation, for as Thomas ** and 3 Cf. LP. Suetvon-Wu.ttams in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Me- dieval Philosophy, ed. A.H. Armstrong, Cambridge, 1967, p. 460, on Eriugena’s transformation Of it, idem, « Briugena’s Greek Sources », The Mind of Eriugena, Dublin, 1973, pp. 12ff. Also, V. Lossky, « Apophasis...», op. cit., pp. 258. 82 SieLpon- WILLIAMS, Camb. Hist., p. 458. 23 Tn de div. nom., 1V3,307; IV,23,605; XIIL3,986-9 and text of Dionysius cited. % Thid., 112,135: ..cum omnis multitudo rerum a Principio primo efflunt, primum Prin- cipium, secundum quod in se consideratur, unum est», «...inum babet rationem principii », ibid., 143; also XII12,135 and text cited. 88 Tbid., U1,1: 108,109,126 and 11,2,153 and text of Dionysius cited. 38 « Apophasis...», op. cif., p. 26, 21 AH. Anmstnoxe, «Negative Theology, Myth and Incamation », Mélanges Trouillard, forthcoming; B. Brows, « Pronoia und das Verhaltnis von Metaphysik und Geschichte bei Diony: sius Areopagita », Freiburgen Zeitschrift fir Phil. und. Theo., 24 (1977) 1/2, pp. 165-186; J. Petixan, «The Domestication of Dionysius », Proceedings of the VIIIth International Confe: rence on Pattistic Studies, Oxford, 1979, forthcoming, 8ST, 1456. 8° Jean Scot'Erigene, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée, Louvain-Patis, 1933, p. 213. 4, eFeam Potter in John the Scot, Periphyseon, On tbe Division’ of Nature, Indianapol 1976, p. cawviii “VGH, Autano, «La structure littéraire de la composition du De divisione naturae >, The Mind of Eriugena, pp. 147-157. “2E, Guisow, La’ philosophie au moyen dge, Patis, 1952, p. 218; R.D. Crouse, « INTEN- TIO MOYSI: Bede, Augustine, Eriugena and Plato in the Hexameron of Honoritis Augusto- dunensis », Dionysius 1, (1978), p. 137, n. 1 and p. 141, *3Cf, notes 33 and 34 above. “*CE. note 24 above and De Div. Nat., V.20 (PL 122, 8923). +8 « .cognitio divinarum Personarum fuit necessaria nobis dupliciter. Uno modo ad recte sentiendum de creatione rerum ». S.T., 12,1 ad 3. Cf. also 1,398; 1,45,6 and 7.372 Wayne J. Hankey Eriugena “ agree, cteation cannot be properly understood without the Trinity. ‘Again the succeeding tradition confirms our interpretation of Eriugena. Eriugena’s influence has been ignored or played down by many modern histo- tians, Protessor Gilson * and Professor Pieper ® have thought him unwestern_and believed him without influence because the west had turned decisively away from this alternative. M. Landgraf , — even revised, — shows no significant tradition deriving from him. And, despite Fr. Chenu’s® corrective work, Gillian Evans’ ** two books published only this year on the transformation of theology in the twelfth Century, although noting the importance of Boethius’ influence and of Honorius ‘Augustodunensis, do not mention Eriugena. In fact the influence of the de Divi- Sione Naturae on Thomas and his immediate predecessors is, for well known rea- sons, indirect ® — although the quantity of it in the Dionysian Corpus, which Tho- thas ‘must have known, is extensive °*, But in the twelfth century this was not the tase, Both the Summa « Quoniam Homines » of Alan of Lille and the de Anima {fede Deo** of Honorius Augustodunensis, themselves two enthusiastic disciples of Etiugena, show its influence in making a clear division between tracts de deo uno Snd de deo trino and ordering them from unity to trinity. But, in fact, the Proclan tradition seems to have this result even where there is no direct knowledge of the Peripbyseon. For even where its influence is quite diffused and other structural considerations are given equal weight, as in the Summa Theologica" of Alexander Of Hales, this distinction and order are present. Karl Rahner explicitly denies that there is a clear distinction here, and certainly the primary division is between the Kinds of confession, yet this logic is at work when a difference is made, within the « Libri Primi Pars Prima», between the inquisition « de substantia divinae Unitatis » and that « de pluralitate divinae Trinitatis », and within the « inguisitio prima » of thee Libri Primi Pars Secunda », between the tract «de nominibus es- Pemtialibus » and that «de nominibus personalibus ». Dionysius seems the moving 3 de Div. Naturae, 19 (PL 122, 553-4); the argument begins at I115 (122, 546 A). 47 E. Gison, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, London, 1955, p .113. 48 J. Pepe, Scbolasticism, London, 1960, p. 50. Also cf. A. Kovné, Lidée de Diew dans la philosopbie de ‘st. Anselme, Batis, 1923, p. 139. “OAM. Lanpona®, Einfiibrung in die Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der Friib- scholastik, Regensburg, 1948 30 Tntroduction & Ubistoire de la littérature théologique de la Scholastique naissante, ed, AM, Lanpny, Montreal-Paris, 1973, See J.L. Bataillon’s criticisms in Rev. sc. phil. théo., 62 (1978), pp. 235-6. 3i'fa théologie du douzidme sitcle, Patis, 1966. 82 R. Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, The Beginning of Theology as an Academic Discipline, and Anselm and a New Generation, Oxford, 1980. 8 Ci. PA. Yares, «Ramon Lull and John Scotus Erigena », Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, 23 (1960), pp. 13 and 35; N.M. Hanae, « John Scottus in Twelfth-Century ‘Angelology », The ‘Mind of Eriugena, pp. 158-69; and on’ Thomas: HLF. Donate, « Saint Thomas et Scot Erigtne », Rev. sc. phil. théo., 35 (1951), p. 3148. 54 ELF. Donpaine, Le Corpus dionysien, pp. 1378, 85 B. Guonieux, « La Somme “Quoniam Homines” d’Alain de Lille », Arch. d. hist. doct. et litt, au moyen age, 20 (1953), pp. 113-364: « Primo ergo de divine essentia unitate... in bis cistre orationts ponamus exordium », p. 121. «Propositis bis que de divine nature unitate et Simplicitate dicenda erant et in parte determinatis his que de nominibus essentialibus exponenda sein consequenter agendum est de personarunt plurdlitate ct de nominibus que ad personalem pertinent distinctionem », p. 167. Ci. M.T. D'Atvenny, Alain de Lille, Textes Inédits, Paris, 1965, p. 61. SMO. Gannicues, «Honorius Augustodunensis, De_Anina et de Deo», Recherches ‘Augustiniennes, XIL (1977), pp. 212-279. On his relation to Eriugena cf, R,D. Crouse, « Hono- ius Augustodunensis: Disciple of Anselm? », Analecta Anselmiana, IV, 2; idem, « Honorius ‘Augustodunensis: The Arts as Via ad Patriam », Arts libéraux... PP. 534, 5389. 37 Quaracchi, 1924, I. 58 Ranner, op. cit., p. 83.Boethius De Trinitate and St. Thomas Aquinas 323 force behind Bonaventure’s use of it in the Itinerarium mentis in Deum, But it could be the influence of the Elements of Theology themselves which move Al- bert the Great in his Summa Theologiae sive de Mirabili Scientia Dei ™; and Ulrich of Strasbourg certainly knows Albert’s teaching, Dionysius, and Proclus when he follows this tradition of order in his Summa de Bono*. On the other hand, theologians who followed Augustine conservatively, like Abelard and Peter Lombard "’, do not make the distinction whose origins we are investigating. This would seem to finally exclude the tracing of these roots to Augu- stine’s de Trinitate. Indeed, while Thomas accords with Augustine in giving prio- rity to simplicity as what separates God and creatures, E. zum Brunn has pointed out that for Thomas this simplicity is more exclusive of multiplicity than for Augu- stine: «La citation du De Trinitate: de illa simplici multiplicitate vel_multiplici simplicitate est remplacée par le illa sinzplicitate (De pot. q. 7, a. 5, S.C. Cf. De Trin. VI,4,6) » *. In fact, as both Lossky ® and Rahner™* admit, Augustine’s position is not really very different from that of the Cappadocians, especially that of Gregory of Nyssa‘, as they all stress the unity of the three and the plurality of the unity. It is not then to a difference between eastern and western theological traditions we must look but to differences which separate the Neoplatonic philosophical schools together with their Christian followers. The origins of Thomas’ distinction are to be traced back through the twelfth century followers of Eriugena, Dionysius and Boethius to these early Christian Neoplatonists of the Iamblichan-Proclan school. It remains to consider what the meaning of this division is in its initial context. In Proclus’ Elements of Theology, the henads interpose between the One and the intelligences". Professor E.R. Dodds interpreted their presence as deriving «partly in the desire for logical completeness and symmetry... and partly in an attempt to bridge the yawning gulf which Plotinus had left between the One and reality » ", Doubtless he is correct, and this feature of Proclus’ thought agrees with the tendency of his school to multiply entities and logical distinctions. But these distinctions also serve the contrary purpose of separating the One and reality: the henads mediation both separates and unites. Just as in Thomas himself we find a gradual movement outward from the simplicity of the Divine substance, — treated between questions on the Divine unity and simplicity -, through those on the 5 Opera Theologica Selecta, IV, Quaracchi, 1966, pp. 296-313, caput 5 and 6, On the influence of Dionysius cf. E. Cousins, Bonaventure, The Soul’s Journey into God, The Tree of Life, The Life of St. Francis, The Classics of Western Spirituality, London, 1978, pp. 25if 8 Summa Theologiae sive'de Mirabili Scientia Dei, Coloniae, 1978, 1, pp. xviexvii lists the citations © Tbid. ©2 For text of. Utarc de Strasbourg, O.P. La «Summa de Bono», Livre I, Introduction et Edition critique, J. Daguillon, Paris, 1930 and_« Summa de Bono of Ultich of Strasbourg, Liber IIL, Tractatus 2, Cap. 1, I, 11.’ Tractatus 3, Cap. I, I». ed. F. Contiowoon in Nine Medieval Thinkers, pp. 293-308. For his relation to the Elements and Albert cf. E. MAssA, < Presentazione », in Bertoldo di Moosburg, Expositio in Elementationem Theologicam Procli, Temi ¢ Testi, 18, Roma, 1974, pp.vfé. " Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae 1, Spicilegiam Bonaventurianum IV, Grottaferrata, 1971. **E. aum Brunn, «La métaphysique de !Exode » selon ‘Thomas d’Aquin », Diew et Etre, Brudes Augustiniennes, 1978, p. 260 ®° « Apophasis...», pp. 245; Myst. Theo., p. 52. 8° Op. cit, p. 85, n. 12. 8 Ad Ablabium Quod non sint ‘tres dei and Ad Eustathium De sancta trinitate, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, TIT, 1, Leiden, 1958, 8 Elements, Propositions 113-165 © Tbid., pp. 258.9. Cf, also Lowry, op. cit. ST. T, qq. 3 and 11,374 Wayne J. Hankey Divine operations, — enclosed as they are within noetic activity "', and separated from the substance by the questions on the knowing and naming of God "*. The movement continues downward through the real distinction ™ within the unity introduced by the relations of Persons and terminates in the procession from the tunity of creatures “, Beginning from the Divine unity Thomas is able to give theo- logy its proper intelligibility; the ordo disciplinae ® is the order of comprehensible teaching because it is the union of logic and reality. “Returning then to the judgements with which this paper began, the historians who find Thomas using this order for the sake of the intelligibility of theology have Something on their side. But there is no question here of praeambula of faith. Tho- mas finds in Dionysius © that neither the unity nor the trinity of God is adequately Known from creatures and he teaches this in his own works '’. He also learns from the pseudo Areopagite that unity is by nature principle“ and he imitates Dionysius and Eriugena in making the Divine simplicity and perfection the starting point of sacred doctrine: a science which imitates logically God’s own thinking “*, and which thus procedes sub ratione Dei"®. Theology cettainly needs philosophical reason "'. Yndeed human theology is constituted in the meeting of the philosophical move- ment up from creatures with the movement of revelation down from God. The ascending and descending orders are united in one circle, But theology as sacred doctrine has an origin proper to itself. The beginning from God, from the self-reve- Iation of the separate substances ", to which philosophical reason has been reaching, is its special privilege. But here again we meet with the influence of the Proclan tlevation of the One to be an object beyond science “*. For this revelation is a movement from the occulta, from the unknown God, — whose substance in Thomas remains unknown ", — who is manifesting himself. Sacred doctrine is not beginning in philosophical reasonings. They are neces- sary to it but they do not provide its basis or origins. Sacred doctrine is the unknown one as principle disclosing itself. A reduction of the full concrete life of NST. 1, 14 is de scientia Dei. S.T., 1, 26 is de divina beatitudine and « Beatitudo. significat bonum perfectun intellectualis natwrae » (1,262); compare Comp. Theo. 1, 107. Summa contra Gentiles Book 1 concludes with beatitude by'a similar reasoning. wT. I, qq. 12 and 13. 7987. 1 28, passim; 1294 ad 1; 1323 ad 3. +4 Both the movements within the essence and from the essence are called processions (1,27, prologus; 1,44, prologus) and emanations (1,34,2; 1,27,1; 145, prologus; 45,2 ad 1). SST, 1, prologus 8 «Caius unitatis et distinctionis sujficiens similitudo in rebus creatis non invenitur.» In de div. nom., proem. Cf. also 11,2, 143. 77 Simplicity in creatures has the opposite significance of God's; S.T., I, 3, prol: « simpli- cia in rebus corporalibus sunt imperfecta et partes ». Creatures cannot represent God's simplicity sidequately: «efectus Dei intitontur ipsum non perfecte...id quod est simplex et unum, mon representari nisi per multa », ibid., 13,3 ad 2. Cf. also 1,88,2. On distinction ef. 1,32,1. TCE, note 34 above. WSCC, UA; ST, 117; 12, prologus; In de div. nom. VII, 4, 729. For secondary materials cf. my article in’ Dionysius UIT, p. 100, n. 3. *ST., DLT. as 118. 2 The three parts of the fourth book of the Summa Contra Gentiles are ordered relative to the first three books because « est autem eadem via ascensus et descensus ». Summa Contra Gentiles, Opera Omnia XV, Roma, 1930, IV.1 "Super de Trin. VAL Union with God ‘is certainly not achieved by énlotjuy and it seems to be both for ved and beyond it, ef. In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria, (Diehl) Lipsiac, 1903, B92D-93A, I, pp. 301-303. #2 @ non possums considerare de Deo quomodo sit, sed potius quomodo non sit » S.T., 13, prologus.Bocthius De Trinitate and St. Thomas Aquinas 375 God to an abstract category known to natural reason is not thereby implied. The opposition set up here is false, for neither" Plotinus nor Proclus thought the One to be a nature in itself knowable but hid only to eyes like ours". Indeed it is distinguished from ¥09¢ itself. These, with Boethius, Dionysius and Thomas, begin from a deep mystery, the occulta. The common aim of their works is that which Thomas ascribes to the de Trinitate of Boethius: « finis vero buius operis est, ut oc- culta fidei manifestentur, quantum in via possible est »™. ** CE AH. Anmstnone, «Negative Theology...» and J. Troviiiakn, « Théologie negative ‘et autoconstitution psychique’ chez les neoplatoniciennes >, Savoir, faire, espérer: les limites de {a raison, Brussels, 1976, pp. 312-3. Armstrong, speaks of the One as an « inexhaustive starting point » * This opposition is set up by Professor Lossky in The Mystical Theo..., chapter 2: « The God of Plotinus is not incomprehensible by nature... it is because the soul, when it grasps an object by reason, falls away from unity », p. 30. ** Super de Trinitate, prologus.