Hilary of Poitiers

Dans cette conférence, j'ai proposé un parcours transversal dans l’exégèse des premiers siècles (chez Irénée de Lyon, Origène, Eusèbe de Césarée et Hilaire de Poitiers) à propos des "impies", les "pécheurs" et les "pestiférés" nommés dans le Ps 1,1 : « Heureux l´homme qui n´est pas allé dans une assemblée d´impies, ne s´est ni tenu sur un chemin de pécheurs ni assis sur un siège malsain ! »

This study on the attempt of Hilary of Poitiers to conciliate the western homouseans and the eastern homoeouseans focuses on the doctrinal reflection on the divinity of the Son and his proper ontological relation to the Father, as offered in his work, De synodis. It analyses the doctrinal solution of Hilary in two fronts. In the first, it specifies how Hilary communicates to his western colleagues the conviction that the theology of the eastern homoeouseans was not contrary to their essential faith in the divinity of the Son and the oneness in nature of the unbegotten Father and the Son that He has begotten. Such is demonstrated in three steps, that is, in the discussion of the homoeousean council of Ancyra in 358, in the explanation of the eastern creeds that this same group of bishops held as normative in their belief, and in the demonstration that the term homoiousios, the preferred term of the easterners for the description of the relationship of the Son to the Father, appropriates their teaching on the Son, as encapsulated in their doctrine of the Son as homoousios to the Father. In the second thrust, Hilary turned to the easterners to argue that the several objections they raised on the use of the homousean formula were also upheld by the homouseans as inappropriate to apply to the conception of the Son of God, and that the homousean formula was affirmed for its positive senses and not for the erroneous ideas.

The concern of the book is whether Hilary of Poitiers compromised the Nicene faith, a charge suggested even in Hilary’s own day, when he attempted to bring together the homouseans and the homoeouseans. The author revisits the arguments offered by recent studies on the issue and analyzes the primary sources to assert confidently that Hilary did not compromise the Nicene confession. The book demonstrates that the confession of faith of the homoeousean group with whom Hilary conciliated was not another form of Arianism. Similarly, the author clarifies that the distinction between the numeric unity and specific unity on which modern authors unsympathetic to Hilary base their negative assessment of the Hilarian program of rapprochement was not operative in the fourth century Trinitarian discourse. Hilary merely affirmed the orthodoxy of the homoeousean confession by demonstrating its affinity with the Nicene doctrine through his explication of the significance of the nativitas of the Son from God the Father, a theological concept employed by both ecclesiastical parties to establish their respective beliefs in the divinity of the Son and His substantial relationship with the Father.

The doctrine of divine infinity has been recognized as a primary theological and philosophical category in Hilary of Poitiers’ De Trinitate, but its true significance for Hilary’s own thought has yet to be thoroughly explored. This study seeks to demonstrate the exegetical foundation for Hilary’s understanding of divine infinity, namely his theological reading of John 1:4, which will yield a much fuller appreciation of the doctrine in the context of his work. His intertextual reading of John 1:4 demonstrates a key dynamic in his theology between the eternal birth of the Son and the creation of the world. The Son, as the living Image of the Living, has all life in himself through his eternal birth from the Father, because of which Hilary sees a potential creation of all things in the generation of the Son. Further, in light of this idea of potential creation, he makes an advancement not seen previously in the Christian tradition in his interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by developing a positive reading of the eternal generation from the ‘creation’ language therein. Lastly, we shall examine the theological, and particularly soteriological, significance divine infinity has for Hilary. Only by recognizing the place of John 1:4 as the exegetical foundation for his understanding of divine infinity can one realize the full implications of this doctrine for Hilary.

La carta Sobre los sínodos de Hilario de Poitiers fue escrita desde el exilio, en medio de una severa crisis teológica y eclesial, y está dirigida a los obispos occidentales que se preparaban para participar en el sínodo de Rímini (359). Por medio de ella, Hilario buscaba exponer el contenido de la fe de los obispos orientales, que era objeto de sospechas, no siempre justificadas. El obispo de Poitiers se esfuerza por hacer comprensible algunas posturas teológicas orientales rechazadas en Occidente solo porque no eran bien entendidas. Para ello, transcribe y comenta credos, cánones y otros documentos fundamentales para conocer el desarrollo de la teología en el siglo IV. Esta carta combina una aguda sabiduría teológica con un auténtico espíritu eclesial. En palabras de Manlio Simonetti, se trata de una «obra de inteligencia y penetración poco común, que revela por primera vez en un occidental una plena conciencia de la compleja realidad religiosa de Oriente».

Hilary wrote a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount in his first work, the Commentarium in Matthaeum. Nevertheless, reflections on the various subjects covered in each beatitude are present throughout the entirety of Scripture, be it through the promises of the Word in the Old Testament or through those of the incarnated Son in the New, and they are intended to guide disciples on their path towards the Kingdom of Heaven and, therefore, salvation. Therefore, to understand Hilary of Poitiers’ vision of eschatological ethics that are present not only in the Gospel, but in Scripture as a whole, we must keep his facet as a seasoned biblical exegete in mind, tracing his analysis of each beatitude in the light of the Old and New Testaments, and examining the themes that are the object of each beatitude and how he approaches them throughout his works.

It has been rightly recognized that Martin Luther was influenced by faithful pastors who came before him.  But not much attention has been given to one particular influence on Luther, St. Hilary of Poitiers.  This essay shows the connections between Hilary’s thought (from his treatise, De Trinitate) upon Luther’s sacramentology.  Luther relied upon De Trinitate as he argued against the Sacramentarians in his treatise, “That These Words Still Stand Against the Fanatics”.  As he debated the Sacramentarians, Luther argued that Jesus’ body is omnipresent and therefore capable of being bodily eaten as the Words of Institution literally say.  To help support his argument on omnipresence, Luther used Hilary’s understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation as it relates to the two natures of Jesus.  This essay also notes comparisons between the theological opponents of Hilary to those of Luther.

This article studies the role of theological preunderstanding in interpreting the text of Scripture in the middle of the fourth century CE. It investigates Hilary of Poitier’s use of Scripture in Trinitarian controversies, his hermeneutical approach in his De Trinitate, and his theological exegesis of John 1:1-2. It is contended that Hilary’s pro-Nicene theology determined his particular reading of the opening verses of the Gospel of John. The article demonstrates how this exactly worked. Encountering the exegesis of Arius/‘Arians’/Latin Homoeans, Hilary attempted to show that the Son was eternally born from the Father and therefore, one could not speak about the temporal or even pre-temporal beginning of the Son’s existence. The Son already ‘was’ ‘in the beginning’.

This article investigates the implications of the ancient nomos/physis debate to Trinitarian theology. While the Cappadocians, countering Heteroousians, eventually demonstrated that naturalist understanding of naming did not work for Christian theology, Hilary still assumed that it did. Hilary is usually grouped with naturalists who held that names were not arbitrary and conventional impositions, but that they corresponded to the nature of what they designated. Yet, there are several complications with such a grouping, because not all naturalists (e.g., Cratylus, Stoics, Origen, Eunomius) say the same thing, focus on same issues, have theological interest in names, or agree with Hilary. Accordingly, this paper will argue that Hilary can be called a “naturalist” only in a qualified sense.

This is the written version of the presentation of my doctoral thesis entitled “Hilary of Poitiers on conciliating the homouseans and the homoeouseans: a historico-theological inquiry on the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy”, which I delivered at the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome, on the 18th of March 2013, with, as members of the panel of thesis censors, Prof. Patrick Descourtieux, Prof. Manlio Simonetti, and Prof. Robert Dodaro. I also included at the end of this presentation the outline of the content of the thesis.

Lors de la controverse adoptianiste, plusieurs accusations de falsifications sont lancées par Paulin d’Aquilée et Alcuin contre Felix d’Urgel. Dans le contexte de la Renaissance carolingienne, les Francs revendiquent une meilleure connaissance des textes saints que leurs contradicteurs. Cette revendication a pour centre la bibliothèque du palais d’où sont diffusés dans l’empire les textes qui font autorité.
En 856-60, Hincmar de Reims se saisit à nouveau de ces accusations : en 799, Felix aurait falsifié les manuscrits du palais d’Aix-la-Chapelle. Cette légende du « faussaire de la cour »  est lourde de conséquences : les passages soi-disant corrompus par Felix, en particulier dans le De trinitate d’Hilaire, sont traqués tout au long des IXe et Xe siècles, au point que le texte d’origine a été réécrit dans plusieurs manuscrits.
En 1706, le récit d’Hincmar est remployé par le jésuite Barthélémy Germon pour disqualifier les manuscrits utilisés par les éditions mauristes. Le « faussaire de la cour » se trouve à nouveau au centre d’une longue controverse. L’enjeu en est la légitimité de la philologie face à un scepticisme méthodologique subordonnant l’établissement du texte au monopole interprétatif de l’Église.
Cet article se propose de suivre, de manuscrit en manuscrit, les conséquences du récit du « faussaire de la cour » sur la transmission du texte d’Hilaire et sur l'historiographie, de la querelle philologique jusqu'à nos jours.

L’influence du corpus paulinien sur l’œuvre et la pensée d’Hilaire de Poitiers est évidente autant dans l’approche exégétique de l’évêque vis-à-vis des textes bibliques que dans les sujets qu’il traite. Parmi ceux-ci, la justification par la foi fait l’objet d’un développement remarquable dans ses œuvres principales, en particulier dans le Commentarium in Matthaeum, dans laquelle l’évêque de Poitiers souligne la capacité exclusive de la foi pour justifier l’être humain et l’impuissance des œuvres pour l’atteindre. Cette radicalité apparente de son approche dans sa première œuvre connue a donné lieu à une compréhension partiale du traitement que fait Hilaire de la justification par la foi. Dans cet article nous analyserons la véritable nature du rôle que jouent la foi et le mérite dans la salvation dans l’ensemble des écrits de l’évêque de Poitiers tout en mettant sa doctrine en contexte avec celle de l’Apôtre.

Hilario, en su esfuerzo por mostrar a los obispos de Oriente y Occidente que sus respectivas posiciones teológicas estaban mucho más cerca de lo que ellos pensaban, desarrolla ciertos criterios y actitudes que favorecen la comprensión mutua. Algunos son de carácter histórico-literario, otros, en cambio, son estrictamente teológicos.

This book written in Russian is a first historical-theological study of the whole process of the formation of Trinitarian doctrine in Latin Patristics from the 2nd to the 8th century A.D. The author views it as a unified tradition and focuses on the influence of the Greek Fathers and Classical Greek and Roman philosophy on this process. For the first time in the history of Patristic scholarship, the present work provides a conceptual analysis of the Trinitarian doctrines of all eminent Latin Christian thinkers of the Patristic era. The author provides an original reconstruction of the whole process of the formation of Latin Trinitarianism, identifying its characteristic features and demonstrating the influence of Ancient philosophy at all stages of the process. The author scrutinizes the issues of the interconnection and continuity of the Trinitarian doctrines of the Latin Church Fathers and studies the influence of the Greek Fathers on the Latin Christian thinkers. The present work identifies the features of Western, or Latin, Trinitarianism in comparison with the Ancient philosophical tradition as well as Eastern, or Greek, Trinitarian theology. The book could be used both in theoretical and practical study to get a deeper understanding of the history of Late Antique philosophy, as well as Patristic and early Medieval philosophy and theology, of Church dogmatics and Church history. It may be used as a handbook or additional literature for courses in theology, history, philosophy, cultural and religious studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface.

Introduction. History of modern studies in Latin Patristic Trinitarianism and its significance for contemporary Patristic studies.

Chapter I. The Origins of Trinitarian doctrine: Bible, Hellenistic Judaism, and early Christian thought.
1. Biblical doctrine of God in the Old Testament.
2. The doctrine of the Divine Wisdom and Logos in Hellenistic Judaism (3rd cent BC. – 1st cent AD.).
2.1. Alexandrian Jewish religious philosophy.
2.2. Philo of Alexandria and his doctrine of God.
2.3. Philo’s doctrine of the Logos.
3. The doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament.
4. Trinitarian doctrine of the Apostolic Fathers and the Greek Apologists.
4.1. The Apostolic Fathers.
4.2. The Greek Apologists.
4.3. St Irenaeus of Lyons.

Chapter II. The beginning of the formation of Trinitarian doctrine in pre-Nicene Latin Patristics (150–325 AD.).
1. The Trinitarian doctrine of Tertullian.
1.1. Introduction.
1.2. The genetic approach: the origins of the persons of the Trinity and their specific properties.
1.3. The ontological approach: the “one substance and three persons” formula.
1.3.1. The categorical approach.
1.3.2. The doctrine of the divine monarchy.
1.4. Conclusions.
2. Relations between the Trinitarian doctrines of Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome.
3. Roman Trinitarian doctrine in the 3rd century: Roman presbyter Novatian.
3.1. Monarchist trends in the Roman theology of the 3rd century.
3.2. The Trinitarian doctrine of Novatian.
3.2.1. God the Father, the divine substance and its attributes.
3.2.2. The Son of God and His relation to the Father.
3.2.3. The Holy Spirit.
3.2.4. Conclusions.
4. The Trinitarian dispute between Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria.
5. The Trinitarian doctrine of the Latin apologists: Arnobius and Lactantius.
5.1. Arnobius and his hierarchy of divine beings.
5.2. Lactantius and his binitarian doctrine.
5.2.1. The genetic approach: God, Logos, and angels.
5.2.2. The ontological approach: the unity of the Father and the Son.
5.2.3. The question of the Holy Spirit. Binitarianism.
6. General conclusions.

Chapter III. The development of Trinitarian doctrine in the “Golden age” of Latin Patristics: the doctrine of homoousios and the “Greek Trinitarian model” in the West (325–397 AD.).
1. The Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
1.1. Arius and his doctrine of God.
1.2. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and the doctrine of the homoousios.
1.3. The main doctrinal parties of the Arian disputes in 350–360 AD and their Trinitarian doctrines.
1.3.1. The Trinitarian doctrine of St Athanasius of Alexandria.
1.3.2. Marcellus of Ancyra’s doctrine of Logos.
1.3.3. The Symbol of the Council of Serdica in 343 AD.
1.3.4. The doctrine of the “homoiousians”.
1.3.5. The doctrine of the “homoeans” and “anhomoeans”.
2. The Trinitarian doctrine of the Western “Nicenes”.
2.1. General characteristics of the Western “Nicenes”.
2.2. Febadius of Agen and Potamius of Lisbon.
2.3. Gregory of Elvira.
2.4. Damasus of Rome.
2.5. Zeno of Verona.
2.6. Faustinus.
2.7. Jerome.
2.8. Conclusions.
3. The doctrine of the Great Cappadocians on the distinction between ousia and hypostasis.
4. The Trinitarian doctrine of St Hilary of Poitiers.
4.1. Sources of the Trinitarian doctrine of St Hilary and his attitude to the “homoiousians”.
4.2. The Trinitarian formula of St Hilary and his teaching on the difference between three persons of the Trinity.
4.2.1. God the Father and the Divine nature.
4.2.2. The Son.
4.2.3. The Holy Spirit.
4.3. The unity of persons of the Trinity.
5. The Trinitarian doctrine of St Ambrose of Milan.
5.1. St Ambrose and the Greek philosophical and theological tradition.
5.2. God the Father and the divine substance.
5.3. The doctrine of the Logos.
5.4. The generation of the Son, and the doctrine of the homoousios.
5.5. The Holy Spirit.
5.6. The Trinitarian formula and the unity of the Trinity.
6. General conclusions.

Chapter IV. The development of Trinitarian doctrine in the “Golden age” of Latin Patristics: the “Latin Trinitarian model” (355–430 AD.).
1. The emergence of the Latin Trinitarian model: Trinitarian doctrine of Marius Victorinus.
1.1. The Christian Platonism of Marius Victorinus and the sources of his Trinitarian doctrine.
1.2. The doctrine of the intelligible triad and its philosophical origins.
1.3. “Apophatic theology” and the first and second Trinitarian schemes of Victorinus.
1.4. The doctrine of the intelligible triad and the third Trinitarian scheme of Victorinus.
1.5. The first dyad: the Father and the Son.
1.6. The second dyad: The Son and the Holy Spirit.
1.7. Unity and distinction in the Trinity. Trinitarian terminology.
1.8. Conclusions.
2. The final establishment of the Latin Trinitarian model: the doctrine of St Augustine.
2.1. The Christian Platonism of St Augustine and the sources of his Trinitarian doctrine.
2.2. The early form of the Trinitarian doctrine of St Augustine: Neoplatonism, philosophical anagoge and Trinitarian ontology.
2.3. The mature form of Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine: the Trinitarian cogito and psychological theory of the Trinity.
2.3.1. The Trinitarian cogito and the theory of the intelligible triad.
2.3.2. The Psychological trinitarian model and its various forms.
2.3.2.1. To be – to know – to will (esse – nosse – velle).
2.3.2.2. To be – to know – to love (esse – nosse – amare).
2.3.2.3. Mind – knowledge – love (mens – notitia – amor).
2.3.2.4. Memory – Intelligence – Volition (memoria – intellectus – voluntas).
2.3.2.5. The quasi-psychological Trinitarian models.
2.4. Unity and distinction in the Trinity. Trinitarian terminology.
2.5. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Filioque and its philosophical foundations.
2.6. Conclusions.

Chapter V. Trinitarian doctrine in the post-Augustinian period of Latin Patristics ( 430–735 AD.).
1. The influence of Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine on the Latin theologians of the 5-7th centuries.
1.1. Introduction. Quodvultdeus and Fulgentius as the direct successors of Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine.
1.2. Vincent of Lerins, Faustus of Regium and Gennadius of Marseille.
1.3. Claudianus Mamertus, Arnobius the Junior, St Leo the Great, Caesarius of Arles, and the Symbol Quicunque.
2. The logical formalization of the Latin Trinitarian model: the Trinitarian doctrine of Boethius.
2.1. The Christian Aristotelianism of Boethius and his Opuscula sacra.
2.2. The division of philosophy and the natural theology of Boethius.
2.3. The Trinitarian doctrine of Boethius.
3. The last period of Latin Patristics: Trinitarian doctrine in the West during the second half of the 6th through the first half of the 8th century.
3.1. Cassiodorus as a Christian writer.
3.2. Cassiodorus’ Trinitarian doctrine.
3.3. The Trinitarian doctrine of St Gregory the Great.
3.4. Isidore of Seville, the Councils of Toledo and the doctrine of the Filioque.
3.5. Bede the Venerable and the end of Latin Patristics.
3.6. Conclusion.

General Conclusion.
Appendix. General table of the Trinitarian analogies, models and formulas of St Augustine.
List of abbreviations.
Bibliography.
Summary.

Эта книга посвящена исследованию процесса формирования тринитарной доктрины в латинской патристике II–VIII вв. как единой традиции и влиянию греческой патристики и античной философии на этот процесс. Впервые в мировой науке дается концептуальный анализ тринитарных доктрин основных латинских христианских мыслителей эпохи патристики и проводится оригинальная авторская реконструкция всего процесса формирования латинского тринитаризма; выделяются его характерные особенности и демонстрируется влияние античной философской мысли на всех этапах этого процесса; изучается вопрос о взаимосвязях и преемственности развития тринитарных доктрин основных представителей латинской патристики, а также о влиянии на них со стороны греческой патристики; выясняются характерные особенности западно-христианского (латинского) тринитаризма в сравнении как с античной философской традицией, так и с восточно-христианской (греческой) тринитарной теологией. Книга может быть использована в научно-теоретической и учебно-практической деятельности для углубления знаний по истории позднеантичной, раннехристианской и средневековой философии, патристике и догматическому богословию, а также при подготовке студентов теологических, историко-философских, исторических, культурологических и религиоведческих специальностей.

Existentialism centres reflection upon the bodily existence of the human person. Generally, however, theological anthropology has struggled to manage developments in biological and psychological sciences that have made clear the pluriformity of human embodiment. The work of the social sciences has also increased the visibility of minority, disadvantaged, or neglected persons. Theological anthropology must begin to conceive of an inclusive, non-static understanding of human nature that fully acknowledges the integrity and the diverse identities of the human subject. To riposte, this article utilises the interplay between phenomenology and theology in the work of the contemporary philosopher-theologian Jean-Luc Marion. Marion undeniably sees the root of the human in the concrete free person; he recognises an ever-receding, indefinable horizon towards which the incomprehensible existence of the subjective phenomenon is universally oriented. In this article I focus on how a combination of the theology of the subject and its existential orientation, realised through the freedom of incomprehensibility à la Marion, may provide a dynamic basis for understanding human nature at a time when subjective diversity is ever more asserted.

Hilary of Poitiers's discussion of Christ's human experience and suffering in De Trinitate has caused immense problems for modern interpreters, who often accuse him of docetic tendencies. The focus on docetism has silenced the true significance of Hilary's argument. His view of Christ's human experience actually serves to enhance, not diminish or deny, the reality of Christ's humanity. Stoic psychological categories allow Hilary to speak of Christ's suffering without pain as legitimately human, and Hilary's christological framework enables his discussion of Christ's experience to have immense implications for all humanity, developing an anthropology based upon the lived experience of Christ.

In this paper we shall examine a few texts by authors who predate Hilary in order to investigate a possible exegetical tradition or interpretative current that could include several gnostic groups cited by Irenaeus of Lyons (II c.), to Origen (III c.) and saint Hilary of Poitiers (IV c.). However, one of the interpretations that Origen presents in his Commentary on saint John is the same interpretation that Hilary gives, but it is more developed. Certainly, Hilary and Origen comment two different Gospels, but both comment homologous scenes; Hilary comments Mt. 8:5-13 and Origen, Io. 4:46-54. In addition, we believe some testimonies in Hilary’s commentary can reveal the influence of Origen’s commentary on Hilary/s. One of these testimonies could be the explanation of the strange reading transmitted by Hilary who calls tribunus to the centurio of the Gospel.

À l'instar de nombre de ses prédécesseurs, Hilaire de Poitiers ne fut pas indifférent à la richesse des motifs christologiques de la figure de David. Roi, prophète et berger, David prend sa place dans l'histoire du salut entre Adam et Christ en tant que représentation de l'humanité qui cherche la réconciliation avec Dieu. En le choisissant parmi ses frères et en le préférant à Saül, en lui donnant l'onction, Dieu lui confère une place centrale dans l'histoire et le charge de la mission d'anticiper le royaume du Christ et d'être un réceptacle du Saint-Esprit qui annonce le mystère pascal et le salut de l'humanité. En transcendant l'image traditionnelle de simple préfiguration du Christ ou de prophète du Messie, le roi d'Israël parvient dans la théologie d'Hilaire à un niveau supérieur de développement et de complexité en devenant également le héraut des chrétiens qui, moyennant l'onction du baptême, sont intégrés dans la mission de Dieu et deviennent cohéritiers de son Royaume.

This paper explored the use of the term persona in the theological discourses of Latin-speaking Homoeans and pro-Nicenes in the decade of the 350s as they were developed from Tertullianic principles by the Pro-Nicene polemicists Hilary of Poitiers, Phoebadius of Agen, and Gregory of Elvira.

No figure of fourth-century Christianity seems to be at once so well-known and so clouded in mystery as Hilary of Poitiers. His invaluable position historically in the mid-fourth century Christian controversies is unquestioned, but, the coherence and significance of his own thought is less sure. Recent scholars have worked to renew Hilary’s position within his own historical, polemical, and theological context. Much remains to be said, however, concerning Hilary's actual contribution within these revised contextual parameters.
This work provides a new paradigm for understanding Hilary's own thought. My contention is that in all of Hilary's polemical and constructive argumentation in De Trinitate, which is essentially trinitarian, he is inherently and necessarily developing an anthropology. In what he says about the divine, he is saying as much about what it means to be human, and he brings this to bear on his polemical opponents. This work therefore seeks to reinterpret Hilary's overall theological project in terms of the continual, and for him necessary, anthropological corollary of trinitarian theology—to reframe it in terms of a 'trinitarian anthropology'. The coherence of Hilary's thought depends upon his understanding of divine-human relations. I demonstrate this through following Hilary's main lines of trinitarian argument, out of which flows his anthropological vision. These main lines of argument, namely, divine generation, divine infinity, divine unity, the divine image, and divine humanity, each unfold into a progressive picture of humanity from potentiality to perfection.
This not only provides a new paradigm for understanding Hilary's own thought, but invites us to reexamine our approach to fourth-century theology entirely, as it disavows any reading of the trinitarian controversies in conceptual abstraction (deriving or defending trinitarian theology from abstract understandings of the relationship of the Father and the Son, or from particular terminology), and approaches early trinitarian thought as a humane, embodied, lived reality.
Beyond those with a specific interest in Hilary of Poitiers, this work will aid those seeking to gain a more precise and careful picture of the fourth-century polemical controversy through a trenchant examination of the various theologies involved in the debates, and the philosophical and historical influences acting upon them. By doing so, it also contributes to modern scholarship's ongoing historical reconstructions of fourth-century Christian thought, and will therefore be of interest to fourth-century studies more broadly. Another major aim of this study is to place the fourth-century controversy in the context of its theological heritage. Those seeking to better understand previous Christian thought (particularly that of Tertullian and Novatian) will find within these pages a helpful guide. This project will also be of interest to contemporary theology and religious studies. Hilary's approach to trinitarian theology as a lived, embodied reality has immense implications for contemporary constructive trinitarian theology. Further, theological and religious anthropology are widely discussed in current scholarship, and Hilary’s profound exploration of divine-human relations, and what it means to be a human being as a result, has much to offer to both historical and contemporary concerns.

The analysis of Old Testament theophanies was particularly important to Hilary of Poitiers, both in what regards the doctrinal development of his soteriological and Christological thought and in what concerns his struggle against those who denied the equality of the Father and the Son. Throughout this paper I will study the Gallic bishop’s cross-sectional analysis of the main theophanies witnessed by the prophets and patriarchs in the light of their future orientation in his works, mainly in De Trinitate and the Tractatus super Psalmos. Hilary believed that the reason behind divine manifestations was none other than the annunciation of the new economy which was inaugurated with the Incarnation and to arouse the faith and hope required to await this moment and to be able to identify the Son in the carnal habitus he assumed in his coming within mankind. In order to differentiate theophanies from the Incarnation, Hilary of Poitiers establishes a fundamental difference between the species creatae assumed by the Word in the theophanies and the assumption of the flesh in the Incarnation which is essential to understand the mysteries and the purpose of the Son's mission, namely, the salvation of humankind.

In this paper I will study the role played by the exile suffered by Hilary of Poitiers and his relationship with the homeousian bishops in his understanding of the theological reality of the eastern episcopate. His contact with the doctrinal currents with which he became familiar during his stay in the East and the relationship he forged with the bishops in the synods he attended led him to note that they had more points in common than differences. Focusing on the explanation he offered to his Gallic colleagues in De synodis on the fact that the creed of the council of Ancyra of 358 and homoiousios do not differ significantly from the understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son held by the proponents of homoousios, Hilary advocates a joint understanding against a common enemy.