parm ehiechetor sy apt es ; te % teddies Ealed: t edie 2 lai ed wean pers ee eats Wed gH AT Sirects - r . paint See. Feo perc eet itera eens , ae Spat e ma sae et 4 fe eg ne) an reens Sites pevpimatennte : ae Fees pen i Frys AE 7 ates ewe od 4 % eat separ fea. : s} aga! 5 ‘ ap ah sah agarebs heey se peed t a % oa eEoes Peis) rei reer si eeey a Beriere ences ass Fy se eee Ay VORA ei eieeee Sart pay Sars aan mrt reat A a fb SEP 20 1919: } NG, BSS 7 Oe ~ toe; Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/divinetrinitydogOOpohl_0 DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Il THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG- MATIC TEXT-BOOKS God: His Knowability, Essence and At- tributes. vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net. The Divine Trinity. iv & 297 pp., $1.50 net. God the Author of Nature and the Su- pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net. Soteriology. iv & 169 pp., $1 net. Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1 net. Grace: Actual and Habitual. iv & 443 pp., $2 net. The Sacraments in General. Baptism. Confirmation. iv & 328 pp., $1.50 net. The Holy Eucharist. vi & 408 pp., $1.75 net. The Sacrament of Penance. iv & 270 pp., $1.50 net. Extreme Unction. Holy Orders. Matri- mony. iv & 249 pp., $1.50 net. Eschatology. iv & 164 pp., $1 net. The Whole Set, $18 net. sah) BE PAP eo Kee > SEP 20 1919 e x C4 ys y THE “AX osiear sew DIVINE TRINITY A DOGMATIC TREATISE BY " f we" THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH -POHLE, PH.D.) D.D.; FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. JOSEPH’S SEMINARY, LEEDS, (ENGLAND) AND LATER PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, ADAPTED AND EDITED BY ARTHUR PREUSS THIRD REVISED EDITION B. HERDER BOOK Co. 17 Sour Broapway, Str. Louis, Mo AND 68 GreaT RussELL St., Lonpon, W. C 1919 NIHIL OBSTAT. Sti. Ludovict, die 12 Junii 1915 F. G. HOLWECK, Censor Librorum. IMPRIMATUR. Sti. Ludovict, die 12 Junitt 1915 + JOANNES J. GLENNON, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici. Copyright, 19/1, by JOSEPH GUMMERSBACH All rights reserved Printed in U. S. A. First. edition, 1912 Second edition, 1915 Third edition, 1919 BECKTOLD PRINTING BOOK MrG. Co. ST. LOUIS, U. S.A, TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Part I. THe Hoty TRINITY IN Unity, 0R THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GoD . Cu. I. God’s Threefold Personality Proved ant eid Scripture .. § 1. The Threefold Pabconality es God Foreshadowed in the Old Testament . § 2. The Threefold Personality ue God's as Taught in the New Testament — Texts Treating of the Three Divine Persons Together § 3. New Testament Texts Treating of the pine Persons Severally . . . Be Th Vly Art. 1. Of God the Father . Art. 2. Of God the Son . ‘ A. Christ’s Divine Sonship . B. The Divinity of Christ C. The Logos... anna Art. 3. Of God the poly Ghost Ni A. The Personality of the Holy Ghost ; B. The Hypostatic Difference Between the Holy Ghost and the Father and the Son . C. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost Cu. IL. The Blessed Trinity in Tradition § 1. The Antitrinitarian Heresies and Their Conder) nation by the Church . Art. 1. Crass Monarchianism y Art. 2. The Modalism of Sabellius Art. 3. The Subordinationism of Arius and Mee donius § 2. The Positive ueiion ha the Fits Pour Cad: SETIES INS Mires EAU eBoy ine Pape . lil TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Art. 1. The Holy Trinity in the Official Liturgy of the Early Church and the Private Prayers OF thes Faith Tabs ieee Gil arsnGin sme ys ana ee oes ArT. 2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers . . . Bolt a Art. 3. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Ravers REN GES Ls Cu. III. The Principle of the Blessed Trinity, or the _ Doctrine of the _Immanent Processions in the Godhead ,.. TOT § 1. The Procession of a a hay the Pathe os Generation’ ii «p52 § 2. The Procession of the Holy Ghost fui the Father and the Son . . . 168 ArT. I. The Heresy of the eck Sohiem aed ts Condemnation by the Church . . . . 168 Art. 2, The Positive Teaching of Revelation . . 173 Cu. IV. The Speculative Theological Development of the Dogma of the Trinity . . SAC a Nie aa § 1. The Dogma in its Relation to Reteon Piet 194 § 2. Generation by Mode of Understanding and Bye tion by Mode of Will . . . Mi 202 § 3. The Divine Relations — Divine Bacon Migs § 4. The Trinitarian Properties and Notions . . . 236 § 5. The Divine Appropriations and Missions . . . 244 Part I]. Unity 1n Trinity, oR THE TRIUNITY oF Gop .. 253 Cu. I. Oneness of Nature, or the Consubstantiality of the Dhree divine Persons uy iie 4 serie rae 255 Sole aFitheismi and thesC hurchess witcchias Vals Muneteae § 2. The Teaching of Revelation . . . . 264 Cu. II. Oneness of External Operation of HA Three Divine Persons . . ers Cu. III. The Unity of Mutual fiaenea: or Berihora: SIS. Shah re abe aa ar ani leer ST ellen Ne Sti dW ot ofl -¥), RODD. AMR me abate ETON CW ET ean ese AMIR PP oAibil ied 291 SORE 5 0, Gite Cease wey en Mh int ae: AEM PL YI Un eS IAAI UTE MUP eB 4 293 iv THE DIVINE TRINITY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS I. It belongs to the first treatise of Dogmatic Theology (De Deo Uno) to show that God is one and personal. The pantheistic fiction of an impersonal God is sufficiently exploded by the Almighty’s own solemn declaration (Gen. III, 14) bam, Who am,’ * Whether the infinite personality of God must be con- ceived as simple or multiplex, is a matter which human reason cannot determine unaided. On the strength of the inductive axiom, “ Quot sunt naturae, tot sunt per- sonae,”’ we should rather be tempted to attribute but one personality to the one Divine Nature. Positive Revelation tells us, however, that there are in God three really distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This fundamental dogma, which essentially differentiates the Christian conception of God from that of the Pagans, the Jews, and the Mohammedans, is designated in the technical Latin of the Church as “ Trinitas,’ a term first used, so far as we know, by Theophilus of Antioch? and Tertullian, and which later became cur- 1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss: God: His Autolycum, see Bardenhewer-Shahan, Knowability, Essence, and Attri- Patrology, pp. 66 sq., Freiburg and butes, 2nd ed., St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis 1908. On the word rpids, 2Ad Autolyc., Il, 15: “Tpiddos cfr. Newman, Athanasius, II, 473 Tov Beov Kai Aéyou kai THs copias sa., 9th ed., London 1903.) avrov.” (On the three books Ad 3 De Pudicitia, c. 21: “ Trinitas I 2 THE DIVINE TRINITY rent in ecclesiastical usage and was embodied in the Creeds.* In the private symbolum of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus mention is made of a “perfect Triad” (tps teXeia). Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine have written separate treatises “On the Trinity.” 2. Unity, simplicity, and unicity are as essen- tial to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity as the concept of triunity itself. Hence it is not sur- prising that all these momenta were equally em- phasized by the early Fathers. Thus we read in the Athanasian Creed:5 “Jta ut per ommia...et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit—So that in all things ... the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.” The first canon of the Lateran Council held under Pope Martin the First® reads thus: “Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et veraciter Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, Trinitatem in unitate et unitatem in Trinitate ... con- demnatus sit— If any one does not with the Holy Fathers profess properly and truly the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, let him be anathema.”* If we pay special regard to the note of threeness, the Trinity presents itself mainly as a threefold personality in one Divine Nature. If, on the other hand, we accentuate the note of unity, the Trinity presents itself as Triunity (triuni- anins divinitatis, Pater et Filius et 5 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart, Spiritus Sanctus.” MISE o while Yt 4 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridi- 6 A. D. 649. on Symbolorum, ed. 10, nn. 213, 7 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart, 232, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1908. nN. 254. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 3 tas),® a term which expresses the numeric unity of the Godhead common to all three Divine Hypostases. Both points of view are not only legitimate in themselves, but demanded by the nature of the mystery and the heret- ical distortions to which it has been subjected. As against those Antitrinitarians who (like the Monarchians, the Sabellians, and the Subordinationists) exaggerate the notion of unity so as to deny a true and immanent _ Trinity in the Godhead, Dogmatic Theology has to prove the existence of three really distinct Persons. In re- futing the opposite heresy of Tritheism, which exag- gerates the notion of threeness and postulates three sep- arate divine natures, substances, or essences, it is neces- sary to show that the Divine Trinity is a Triunity. 3. Antitrinitarianism in both of its antithetical forms is by no means a thing of the past, but under various guises still has numerous adher- ents. Whilst the few remaining partisans of Giinther’s the- ological system continue to teach a sort of veiled Trithe- ism, present-day Socinians, Unitarians, and Rationalists move entirely within the circle of the heretical notions ,of Sabellius. Kantian Rationalism debases the mystery | of the Most Holy Trinity by treating it as a mere symbol indicative of the power, wisdom, and love of God. The school of Hegel pantheistically explains the Father as “das Ansichsein des Absoluten,’ the Son as “das Anderssein des Absoluten in der Welt,’ and the Holy Ghost as “die Riickkehr des Absoluten zu sich selber wm menschlichen Selbstbewusstsein”— for the meaning of which obscure phrases we must refer the 8 Cfr, Isidor. Hispal., Etymol., VII, 4. Ce THE DIVINE TRINITY reader to the learned author of The Secret of Hegel. Schleiermacher does not deny the Trinity, but according to him it is such an unessential ‘‘ mode of existence of the Divine Being ” that he has acted wisely in relegating it to the appendix of his Glaubenslehre. The position of liberal Protestant theology at the present day is well stated by Adolph Harnack when he says:® “ Already in the second century Christ’s [natural] birth into this world assumed the rank of a supernatural, and later on that of an eternal generation, and the fact of being begotten, or passive generation itself, became the char- acteristic note of the second Person [in the Blessed Trinity]. Similarly, in the fourth century the promised [temporal] ‘mission’ of the Holy Ghost assumed the character of an ‘eternal mission’ and became the dis- criminating badge of the third Person within the Holy Triad. Nowhere have we a more characteristic example of what the imagination is capable of doing when it undertakes to evolve ideas.” With the exception of the relatively few champions of Lutheran orthodoxy, whose number is, moreover, constantly dwindling, mod- ern Protestantism no longer holds the Christian idea of the Blessed Trinity. Liberal theology is everywhere triumphing over orthodoxy. The demand, which is con- stantly growing louder and more widespread, even in this country, that no specific creed be imposed upon the members of any denomination, ultimately strikes at the dogma of the Holy Trinity and that of the Divinity of Christ. Among German divines Kriiger confesses this quite openly.° Catholic theology, which alone upholds the banner of true Christian belief, in asserting and de- fending the dogma of the Trinity finds it necessary above 9 Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol. 10In his book, Dreifakigkeit und II, p. 281, Freiburg 1894. Gottmenschheit, Leipzig 190s. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS é all to demonstrate by the modern scientific method that this dogma is truly and clearly revealed by God, that it is solidly founded in Christian Tradition, and that it does not, as unbelievers allege, involve a contradiction. 4. Since theistic philosophy is unable to estab- lish this dogma on the basis of unaided human reason, the Catholic theologian is compelled to adhere closely to the teaching of the Church. He must first believe; then he may inquire. The most perfect and complete Trinitarian formula that has come down to us from Patristic times is that composed by the Eleventh Council of Toledo, A. D. 675.12 We prefer to base our exposition on the briefer and more perspicuous formula contained in the Athanasian Creed, which has the additional advantage of being vested with the primary authority due to an ancient Chris- tian symbol. The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is there set forth in the following terms:*? “ Fides ca- tholica haec est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur; neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes; alia est enim persona Patris, alia Fil, alia (et) Spiritus Sancti; sed Patris et Filu et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas. . nec creatus nec genitus. 11 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- dion, nn, 275 sqq. This symbol first treats of the Three Divine Persons in succession; then, in three further sections, it develops and sets forth the general doctrine, viz.: (1) the true unity of substance; (2) the real Trinity of the Persons; (3) the in- separable union of the Three Divine Persons, demanded by their very . Pater a nullo est factus Filius a Patre solo est, non distinction. In later times the dogma received a more distinct for- mulation only in two points, both directed against most subtle forms of separation and division in God, Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, 4 Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Schee- ben’s “ Dogmatik,’” Vol. I, p. 262, London 1899. 12 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. qo, 6 SHE DIVINE TRINTEY factus nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus (a) Patre et Filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed ‘procedens — The Catholic faith is this, that we wor- ship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.... The Father is made of none, neither created, nor be- gotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.” 18 The chief points of our dogma may therefore be sum- marized thus: In essence, substance, and nature there is but one God. However, the Divine Nature does not subsist in one single Person or Hypostasis, but in three distinct Persons, 7. e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Three do not coalesce after the manner of mere logical momenta, but are really distinct from one another, so much so that the one is not the other. They are not distinct in virtue of their nature, which is numerically the same in all three, but solely in virtue of the relative opposition by which the Son is begotten by the Father, while the Holy Ghost proceeds alike from the Father and the Son. The mystery peculiar to this sublime dogma arises from the mutual relations of the two principal concepts —‘ Nature” and “ Per- son.” Within the domain of human experience every 13 The full English text of the Encyclopedia, s. v.—Cfr. Pohle- Athanasian Creed, together with a Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- critical account of its provenance sence, and Attributes, p. 318, note and probable authorship, may be 6; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 18 found in Vol. II of the Catholic sqq., New York rogro. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Hy i complete nature is at the same time a separate hypos- tasis; in other words, every rational nature is eo ipso a distinct person. Hence the axiom, “Tot sunt hy- postases, quot sunt naturae.’ But this axiom has no metaphysical value, and cannot be applied to God, since Revelation expressly teaches that ‘ Nature” and “Person”? do not coincide either in reality or in con- ception. As we acknowledge three Persons in the one Divine Nature, so conversely we believe that there are in Christ two complete natures, the one divine, the other human, both subsisting in one and the same person, 1. @., the Divine Person of the Logos-Son. This revealed truth compels Catholic philosophy to draw a sharp dis- tinction between “ Nature” and “ Person,’ as we shall show more fully further down. Since the essence of the mystery consists in this that “we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,’ we may consider the Blessed Trinity first as Trinity in Unity (Trimtas m Umtate), or threefold personality; and, secondly, as Unity in Trinity (Unitas in Trinitate) or Triunity. We shall accordingly divide the sub- ject-matter of this treatise into two parts. GENERAL READINGS: — Above all St. Aug., De Trinit. ll. XV (translated into English by A. W. Haddan in Dods’s Works of Aurelius Augustine, Vol. VII, Edinburgh 1873); and, by way of commentary, Th. Gangauf, Des hl. Augustinus spekulative Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1883.— The Monologium S. Anselmi and Petr. Lomb., Sent., 1, dist. I sqq.— Rich. a S. Victore, De Trinitate Il. VI, takes a rather independent attitude— Besides St. Bonaventure (Comment. in Libros Sent., 1) cfr. *St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 27-43 (Bon- 8 THE DIVINE TRINITY joannes-Lescher, Compendium, pp. 71 sqq.) and Contr. Gent., IV, 1-26, together with the various commentaries on these great works. — A very good treatise is *Ruiz, De Trinit., Lugd. 1625. — The student will also find it profitable to consult Greg. de Valentia, De Trinit. ll. V; and Ysambert, De Mysterio Trinitatis ; Wilhelm-Scannell, 4 Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben’s “ Dogmatik,’ Vol. I, pp. 257-354, 2nd ed., London 1899; S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 145-215, 2nd ed, London and New York s.a.; F. J. Hall (Anglican), The Trinity, New York 1910. The teaching of the Fathers can be studied in the copious quotations extracted from their works by Petavius, Dogm., t. II, and Thomassin, Dogm., t. III. In addition to the various manuals of special dogmatic the- ology, consult particularly *Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit, Tiib. 1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, ed. 3, Romae 1883; Régnon, Etudes sur la Ste Trinité, 4 vols., Paris 1872-1898; L. Janssens, De Deo Trino, Friburgi 1900; Stentrup, De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, Oeniponte 1898; Lépicier, De SS. Trinitate, Parisiis 1902; Souben, Théologie Dogmatique, II: “Les Personnes Divines,” Paris 1903; Newman, Select Treatises of St, Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 315 sqq.— Further references in the footnotes.— For the history of the dogma, see Newman, ‘Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism” (Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, new ed., London 18095, pp. 139-209) ; Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, Pp. 110, 135 sqq., London 1907; Ip—em, The Greek Fathers, passim, London 1908.— Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 66, 65, 185, 210, 250, 281, 291, 300, 308.—*J. Lebreton, S. J., Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Vol. I, Paris 1910; J. Tixeront, His- tory of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; Vol. II, ibid. 1914. * The asterisk before an author’s never means that we consider his name indicates that his exposition work in any way inferior to that of the subject is especially clear of others. There are vast stretches and thorough. As’ St. Thomas is of dogmatic theology which he invariably the best guide, the omis- scarcely touched. sion of the asterisk before his name PARTI THE HOLY TRINTDY. IN ONTDY:, OR THE THREEFOLD PER- SONALITY OF GOD’ Both the fact that (67 éorw), and the intrinsic reason why (807. éorw) there are Three Persons in God, is positively revealed to us in the doctrine of the inner- divine processions (Filiation and Spiration). They form part of the immediate deposit of the faith, and consti- tute the dogma of the Divine Trinity. We have first to prove the fact of the threefold personality of God from Sacred Scripture (Chapter 1) and Tradition (Chapter II) ; then (Chapter III) we shall enter into a dogmatic consideration of the cause of this fact, vizg.: the mys- terious vital processes immanent in the Godhead which are called “ Filiation ” and ‘ “Spiration.” In a conclud- ing Chapter (IV) we shall discuss the speculative the- ological development of the dogma. 1Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises Holy Trinity in Unity,” pp. 315- of St. Athanasius, Vol. II (Being 325, 9th ed., London 1903. an Appendix of Illustrations), “ The CHARPLER GOD’S THREEFOLD PERSONALITY PROVED FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE There are traces of the dogma in the Old Testament, but they are rather indefinite and obscure unless viewed in the light of the New Testament. It is upon the latter, therefore, that the Scriptural argument is almost exclusively based. After briefly rehearsing the Old Testa- ment intimations (§1), we will marshal the Trinitarian texts contained in the New Testa- ment in a double series, first citing those which treat of all three Divine Persons together (§2), and secondly those which refer to only one of the three Divine Persons without mentioning the other two (§3). The dogma of the Holy Trinity is immutably grounded in the Unity of the Divine Essence. Accordingly, throughout the triple argument upon which we are about to enter for the purpose of tracing out the hy- postatic differences of the Three Divine Persons, it will be important not to lose sight of the mono- theistic foundation on which alone this dogma can be built up. ie) SECTION 1 THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD FORESHAD- OWED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT I. PRIMITIVE INTIMATIONS OF THE DoGMA.— Some theologians take the plural form of several of the names attributed to Jehovah * in the Old Testament as an obscure intimation of the dogma of the Trinity. We are not inclined to press this argument. Neither do we attach much importance to the theory of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, who point to the expression MWNID in Gen. I, 1 as a proof for the ee Logos, explaining “in principio” to mean “in Verbo, 1. e., Filio.’ Upon close scrutiny this more than doubtful interpretation turns out to be of later origin and ex- egetically unsupported. In Gen. I, 26 sq., however, we come upon what appears to be a definite allusion to the mystery of the Divine Trinity: ““ Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. .. . Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam — Let us make man to our image and likeness. ... And God created man to his own image.” ‘The hortatory subjunc- tive plural which heads verse 26, and is followed by an indicative verb in the singular in verse 27, cannot be 2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 8 Cfr. Patrizi, De Interpret. Script. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- Sacrae, 1, II, qu. 2. butes, pp. 134 sqq. It A 12 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS taken as a pluralis maiestaticus, nor yet as addressed to the angels; for man was not created to the image of the angels, but to that of God Himself. There is a similar passage in Gen. XI, 7 sq.: “Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue. . . . And so the Lord scattered them.” 4 Many Tee fie in this connection recall the liturgical bless- ing of the priests, Num. VI, 24 sqq., which they regard as a parallel to the Christian formula, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This Old Testament benediction, dictated by Yahweh Himself to Moses, is as follows: ‘ The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord show his face to thee, and have mercy on thee. The Lord turn his countenance to thee and give thee peace.” The clearest allusion to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity in the Old Testament is probably the so-called Trisagion of Isaias (VI, 3): “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of his glory,” which is rightly made much of by many Fathers and not a few theologians. This triple “ Holy” refers to an ecstatic vision of the Godhead, by which Isaias was solemnly called and consecrated as the Prophet of the Incarnate Word, an office which won for him the title of the “Evangelist” among the four major prophets.® 2. THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH IN THE THE- OPHANIES.—The various apparitions commonly known as theophanies, in which Yahweh figures both as sender and messenger, mark the grad- 4For the pa interpretation of this passage consult Petavius, De Trinitate, II, 5 Cfr. John Xu, 41. THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH 13 ual breaking of the dawn in the history of our dogma. The God who is sent is called mn? Ned, 1. €., mes- senger, Angelus Domini, the word angelus being here employed in its literal sense of éyyedos, from dyyéAAaw, to send. Since the “ Angel of Jehovah” is described as i, 1. e., true God, we have in these theophanies two distinct persons, both of them Yahweh, the one “sending” and the other “sent.” An apparition of this character was the angel who spoke words of com- fort to Hagar shortly before the birth of her son Ismael ¢ in the desert. According to Gen. XVIII, 1 sqq., “the Lord [1] appeared to [Abraham] in the vale of Mambre,” in order to announce to him the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha.’ Probably the most familiar of the Old Testament theophanies is the apparition of the Angel of Jehovah in the Burning Bush. Exod. III, 2: “ Apparuit ei nin Eze) in flamma ignis de medio rubi— And the Lord ap- peared to him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.” It is to be noted that the Lord who appears to Moses is Jehovah Himself. Exod., III, 14: “God said to Moses: I am wHo am.” Viewing this apparition in the light of the New Testament Revela- tion, the appearing God can be none other than the Logos, or Son of God, because the Father cannot be “sent.” True, the Holy Ghost may also be “sent;” but He cannot have appeared in the bush to Moses because the prophets expressly identify the “ Angel of Jehovah” with the future Messias (4. ¢., Christ)... -Cfr. Is. IX, 6 6 Gen. XVI, 7 saq. \ general, H. P. Liddon, The Divin- 7 On this passage, cfr. Newman, ity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Christ, pp. 78 sqq., London 1867. II, 267 sq.; on the theophanies in 14 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS (in the version of the Septuagint): ‘ MeydAns BovAgs dyyedos, Magni consilii angelus;” Mal. III, 1: “ Angelus testamenti.’ The interpretation here adopted is com- mon to all the Fathers. Thus St. Hilary teaches: “Deus igitur est, qui et angelus est, quia qui et angelus Dei est, Deus est ex Deo natus. Dei autem angelus ob id dictus, quia magni consilii est angelus. Deus autem idem postea demonstratus est, ne qui Deus est esse angelus |creatus] crederetur.” § It is quite another question whether in these theoph- anies the Logos directly appeared as God in visible form, or through the intermediate agency of an angel. In the latter case the apparitions might with equal propriety be styled “angelophanies.” St. Augustine took this view, without, however, denying the theophanic character of such angelophanies. He held that a created angel visibly appeared as the representative of God in such a manner that the words he spoke must be understood as coming not from the actual speaker but from Jehovah himself. This opinion was shared by Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Gregory the Great, and others.*° The great majority of the Schoolmen espoused it mainly for the reason that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity had never appeared visibly upon earth prior to His Incarnation.?® The first immediate theophany of the Logos, they argued, coincided with the Incarnation; Hefcran in the Old Testament theophanies He Hats have employed angels as His representatives, 8De Trinit., ‘IV, n. 24.— Ctr. mat., t. II, third ed., p. 262, Fri- Newman, ‘‘ Causes of the Rise and burgi 1906;— Newman, J. c.; Lid- Successes of Arianism,” in Tracts don, of. cit., 85 sq. Theol. and Ecclesiastical, pp.. 212 10 Cfr. Hebr. I, 1 sqq.; II, 1 sqq., sq., new ed., London 1895. et passim. 9 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dog- THE MESSIANIC PSALMS 15 3. THe Future MessiAs As TRUE Gop.—The Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were primarily designed to emphasize the Divinity of the future Messias. Hence Christ Himself and His Apostles justly appealed to them to prove not only the divine mission but likewise the Di- vinity of the Saviour and the fact that He was truly the Son of God. Among the prophets iain speaks most clearly and emphatically. Not only does he refer to the Messias as “the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Prince of Peace,” but also as “ God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come.” 24 He styles Him “ Emmanuel,” 7. e., God with us.2 It is expressly said of Him that “ God himself will come and will save you.” 1% And again: “ Prepare ye the way of the Lord. . . . Behold, the Lord God shall come with strength.”’* “His name shall be called God.” #5 In Zach. XII, ro, God prophesies His own cru- cifixion: “ Et adspicient ad me, quem confixerunt et plangent eum— And they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and they shall grieve over him,” 7° The Messianic Psalms complete the picture outlined by the prophets; nay, they go far beyond the lat- ter both in emphasizing the difference of persons by a contra-position of the pronouns “I” and “thou, ih and also by indicating that the relation existing between the First and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is a relation of Father to Son, based upon Filiation. At the same time they do not omit to accentuate the 11 Is, IX, 6; cfr. Luke I, 32. 14Is. XL, 3, 10; cfr. Mark I, 3. 4210s. VII, 14; cfr. Matth. I,.23 15 Tsaix 6, 13 Is, XX XV, 4; cfr. Matth. XI, 5. 16 Cfr. John XIX, 37. 16 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS undivided nature of both Divine Persons, which they express by the word Ain. Thus especially Ps. II, 7: “Dominus [nin] dixvit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te — The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee.” 17 Similarly Ps. CIX, 1-3: “Dixit Dominus Domino meo [)xixd nin] : sede a dexteris meis;... ex utero ante luciferum genut te— The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand . . . from the womb before the day star I begot thee.”1* If the future Messias is the “Son of God,’ and at the same time Jehovah, it is obvious that there must also be a “Father” who is Jehovah. Consequently, there must be two Divine Persons in one Divine Nature. This notion was so familiar to the Jews that Jesus, in order to prove His Divinity, had merely to advert to the fact that He was the Son of God to pro- voke them to anger and blasphemy.’® They well knew that to admit His Divine Sonship was tantamount to recognizing His Divinity.?° 4. ‘HE TEACHING OF THE SAPIENTIAL Books. —A great step towards the complete unfolding of the mystery is made by the Sapiential Books.”* There we find the notion of Hypostatic Wisdom closely blended with that of Filiation, and are given to understand that the Filiation which takes place within the Godhead is a purely spirit- ual process, and that He Who is “begotten by a7Cfr. Hebr, I, 8. For further information on _ this 18 Cfr. Math. XXII, 42 sqq. point, see infra, § 3. 19 Cfr. John V, 18; X, 33. 21 Prov. VIII; Wisd. VII sqaq.; 20 Cfr. John I, 32 sqq.; I, 49; IX, Ecclus, XXIV. 35 sqq.; Luke I, 35 sqq., et passim. THE SAPIENTAL BOOKS 17 God” must be essentially conceived as “Begotten Wisdom” (Logos). The Sapiential Books speak of Uncreated, Divine Wis- dom in a manner which leaves no doubt that they mean more than a personified attribute. The following texts read like parallel passages to certain verses of St. John’s Gospel. Prov. VIII, 24 sqq. “ Nondum erant abyssi et ego [t. @., Sapientia] iam concepta eram: . ante colles [1. e., ab aeterno] ego parturiebar. . . Cum eo [scil. Deo] eram, cuncta componens et delec- tabar per singulos dies, ludens coram eo omni tempore, ludens in orbe terrarum, et deliciae meae esse cum filiis hominum — The depths were not as yet, and I [Wis- dom] was already conceived . . . before the hills I was brought forth. ... I was with him [God] forming all: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times: and my delights [were] to be with the children of men.” The subject of this passage is obviously not a divine attribute, but a Divine Person, who is called “Conceived Wisdom.” The expression, “I was with him,” ?? has a parallel in John I, 1: ‘The Word was with God” (Verbum erat apud Deum; xpos tov @cdv). The Book of Wisdom,?* in designating Divine Wisdom as “a vapor of the power of God” (vapor virtutis Dei), “a certain pure emanation of glory” (emanatio clari- tatis), “the brightness of eternal light” (candor lucis), “the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty” (speculum matestatis), “the image of his goodness” (imago boni- tatis), reminds one of the manner in which St. Paul char- acterizes Christ’s relationship to God the Father,** 7. e., as 22‘* Cum eo eram”; the Septua- 23 Wisd. VII, 25 sqq. gint has: funy map’ atvr@; the 24 Hebr. I, 3. Hebrew: jbyx 3 18 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS “the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his sub- stance ” (splendor gloriae et figura substantiae ews). The following sentence,” “ And thy wisdom with thee, which knoweth thy works, which then also was present when thou madest the world — Et tecum (pera cov) sapientia tua, quae novit opera tua, quae et affuit tunc, quum orbem terrarum faceres (mdpovoa ore éoies Tov KOopov), iS again distinctly Johannine in style and sentiment. The same impression is conveyed by Ecclus. XXIV, 5: “I came out of the mouth of the most High [as the Word], the firstborn before all creatures.” 7° In view of this striking concordance between the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament and the Gospel of St. John, it is not astonishing that certain learned Jewish rabbis at a later period elaborated an independ- ent theory of the “ Word of God,” called Memrah,7” by which they endeavored to explain the Old Testa- ment teaching regarding Wisdom without any reference to Christ.28 It is easy to see, too, why the Fathers of the Nicene epoch appealed to the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament to prove the Consubstantiality and con- sequent Divinity of Christ. The Arians, on their part, quoted the Sapiential Books in support of their heretical tenet that the Logos was a creature.”® 5. [He Hoty Guost.—The Old Testament references to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity are neither as plain nor as definite as 26 Wisd. IX, 9g. 26 “‘ Ego ex ore altissimi prodivi [ut Verbum], primogentta ante om- nem creaturam,” 27 A Chaldaic word for Wisdom. Cir. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 145 sqq. 28This theory is incorporated chiefly in the writings of the Tar- gumim and Onkelos. Cfr. The Jew- ish Encyclopedia. 29 Cir. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 202 sqq.; Ipem, Select Treatises of St. Athana- sius, II, 337 saqq. Cfr. also Chapter II, § 2, Art. 3, infra. PAERVHOLY GHOST 19 the texts relating to the Son. “It is natural to expect more references to the Son than to the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament, because it prepares and announces the coming and mani- festation of the Son in the Incarnation.” °° The Old Testament references to the Holy Ghost can nearly all of them be explained as per- sonifications. “Spiritus Dei’ may merely mean a breath of the Divine Omnipotence,** or the supernatural effects of the spirit of God, which, according ta..Ps) CIT. 30, renews) the «face of the earth.” The Fathers in their exeget- ical works quote a number of Old Testament texts in which they profess to find references to the Holy Spirit as a Person.*? But their inter- pretation of these and similar passages is in- spired by, and owes its impressiveness to the light derived from, the New Testament. It is in this light, too, that we must regard Wisd. IX, 1 sqq., the only Old Testament passage in which the Three Divine Persons are mentioned together: “Deus patrum meorum, ... qui fecisti omnia Verbo tuo, ... da mil sedium tuarum assistri- cem sapientiam. ... Sensum autem tuum quis sciet, nisi tu dederis sapientiam et miseris Spi- ritum Sanctum tuum de altissimis? — God of my fathers, . . . who hast made all things with thy 30 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, Vol. 32 Joel II, 28; Job XXXITI, 4; Pp s2o3. Wisd. I; 7; Is. .LXI, 1, ete. 81 Cfr. Gen. I, 2. 20 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS word, . . . give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne . . . Who shall know thy thought, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above?” | It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. Aside from cer- tain specially enlightened individuals, such as Abraham, Moses, Isaias, and David, the Jews could not, from the more or less enigmatic hints scattered through their sacred books, have ob- tained a sufficiently distinct knowledge of the Blessed Trinity to make it appear as an article of faith. Nevertheless it remains true that the Trinity was not announced in the New Testament sud- denly and without preparation. On the contrary, the great mystery of the Godhead was fore- shadowed from the very beginning of the Jewish Covenant and assumed more definite and lumi- nous proportions during and after the time of David, until at last it stood fully revealed in the mystery of the Incarnation,** and the mission of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. REApIncs:— Drach, De l’Harmonie entre VEglise et la Syn- agogue, Paris 1844.—P. Scholz, Theologie des A. B., Vol. I, §§ 29 sqq., Ratisbon 1861.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, § 110, Freiburg 1875 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, I, pp. 283 sqq.). 33 Matth. I, 18 sqq.; Luke I, 35,etc. , RHE HOEY GHOST 21 — *Heinrich, Dogmat. Theologie, and ed., Vol. III, §§ 214-218, Mainz 1883.— Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 6 and 7, Romae 188t. On the “Angel of Jehovah,” cfr. A. Rohling in the Tibinger Quartalschrift, 1866, pp. 415 sqq., 527 sqq.; *L. Reinke, Beitrage zur Erklarung des A. T., Vol. IV, pp. 355 sqq.; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 89 sqq., Paris 1910. On the Messias, cfr. *Konig, Theologie der Psalmen, Freiburg 1857; L. Reinke, Messianische Psalmen, 2 vols., Giessen 1857- 1858; H. Zschokke, Theologie der Propheten, Freiburg 1877; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, London 1867; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5. On the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament cfr. *Fr. Klasen, Die alttestamentliche Weisheit und der Logos der quidisch- alexandrinischen Philosophie, 1878; also J. Réville, Le Logos @aprés Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris 1877; Zschokke, Der dog- matisch-ethische Lehrgehalt der alttestamentlichen Weisheits- bicher, Wien 1889; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, 89 sqq., 441 sqq., Paris 1910. SECTION: 2 THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD AS TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT—TEXTS TREATING OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS | TOGETHER Though the exact terms in which the Church has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed Trinity (teds==trinitas, ocbola'—= substantia, iné- gracis — persona, Spoovows — consubstantialis) are not in the Bible, and may, therefore, in a sense be called unscriptural; yet materially, that is in substance, they correctly express the teaching of the New Testament, which, like the Church, ex- plicitly acknowledges three real Persons in one Divine Nature, in which precisely the cose of the “Trinity in Unity’ consists. As we are here dealing with a fundamental dogma of Christianity, the material correspondence of the New Testament doctrine with the formally defined teaching of the Church must be carefully and stringently demon- strated. We therefore proceed to a minute critical in- vestigation of the various texts that are apt to throw light on the subject. Let us begin with those in which 1Cfr. Hebr. I, 3, where Umdaracis is used as synonymous with sub- stantia, 22 THE GOSPELS 23 the threefold personality of God is distinctly and form- ally enunciated. I. THE GospELs.—Four such texts occur in the Gospels. Though their combined effect is sufficiently compelling, they are not all of equal weight. The most convincing is the passage em- bodying the form of Baptism. a) The first brief intimation of the functioning of Three Divine Persons is given in the Annunciation: ' “Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi; ideoque et quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Det — The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” ? Here all three Divine Persons are distinctly mentioned: first, the Son who is to be born, second, the Holy Ghost, and third, the “Most High,” who stands in the relation of a Father to Him of whom it is said a few verses farther up:? “ Hic ertt magnus et Filius Altissimi vocabitur — He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High.” Where there is a Son of God, there must also be a Di- vine Father. The relative opposition between the terms Father and Son forbids the welding of both persons into one. This is sufficient evidence that we have here not merely three different names for one Divine Person, but three really distinct Hypostases, of which one is not the other. Nor can it have been the intention of the sacred writer merely to personify certain absolute at- tributes of the Deity. The Son of God, who is to be made flesh (Christ), manifestly represents a real Person. 2 Luke I, 35. 3 Luke I, 32. 24 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Moreover, the strict monotheism of the Bible necessitates the. assumption that the three Divine Persons mentioned in the text must be consubstantial, 7. e., absolutely iden- tical in essence. b) The most glorious external manifestation of the Blessed Trinity occurred in connection with the Bap- tism of Christ.* Christ, the Son of God, is standing in the Jordan; the Holy Ghost descends upon Him in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father calls from Heaven: “ This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’”’ Here, too, the hypostatic difference be- tween the three Persons, and the impossibility of blending them into one, is quite apparent. The “ beloved Son” and the Father expressing His pleasure are clearly differ- entiated, while the Person of the Holy Ghost is em- blemed by the dove, a symbolic figure which would be unsuited to any absolute attribute of the Godhead.’ Though the identity of Nature of the three Divine Per- sons is not expressly enunciated in the above-quoted pas- sages, it may, as a matter of course, be presumed. c) In His famous farewell discourse delivered after the last Supper,® Christ announced that He was “ going to the Father”? and would ask Him to send the Para- clete. The distinction here made between the three Di- vine Persons is as obvious as it is real. No one can be father and son under the same aspect, nor can any one send himself. When Christ says, for instance: “ Ego rogabo Patrem, et alium Parachtum dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in aeternum, Spiritum veritatis — I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth,” 7 4 Matth. IIT, 13 sqq.; Mark I, 9 5 Cfr. T. J. Gerrard, The Way- sqq.; Luke ITI, 21 sqq.; cfr. Job 1, farer’s Vision, pp. 200 saq. Be. 6 John XIV-XVI, 7 John XIV, 16 sq. THE GOSPELS 25 He distinguishes between His own Person, that of the Father, and that of the “‘other Paraclete” and clearly identifies the latter with the “ Spirit of truth.’ § The threefold personality of the Godhead appears still more distinctly from John XV, 26: “Quum autem veneritt Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spi- ritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium per- hibebit de me — But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who gee See from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.” The absolute consubstantiality of Father and Son is taught in John XVI, 15: : “Omnia, quaecumque “habet Pater, mea sunt — All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine,” and it is no less true of the Holy Ghost. d) The baptismal form, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” enunciates all the essential elements of the Holy Trinity... “Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filia et Spiritus Sancti (Barri€ovres avrovs eis TO dvOLa Tev mTaTpos Kal Tov viod Kal Tov dyiov TVEVMATOS ) , a The hy- postatic difference between Father and Son is brought out by the relative opposition, in virtue of which they exclude each other as begetting and begotten. For no one can be his own father or his own son. To admit such an ab- ' surdity would be to deny the principle of con- tradiction and thereby to subvert right reason. Hence there is a real difference between the S Par getitis aa Shiritus| Sanctus. “'9iCfr. “Matth. XXVIIT, zo. 26 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Father and the Son. As to the Holy Ghost, the co-ordination involved in the use of et—et (xe —xai) forbids us to confound Him with either of the other two Persons. Consequently He must be an independent third Person, coequal and con- substantial with the other two. It should be “noted that the Johannine text does not say: “In the name of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost,” but “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (tot zatpés Kat rob ; viov Kal Tov ayiov mve}patos ) ,”’ The particle kat with the definite article marks off the three Divine Persons very sharply from one another, despite the unity implied between them. For this rea- son “Holy Ghost” can not be taken as an at- tribute determining the concept “Son.” In attempting to answer the question, “What kind of unity is it by which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one?’ we must pay special attention to the words “In the name.’ It makes no difference whether we follow the text of the Latin Vulgate, “In nomine,”’ or the Greek text with its In the light of these texts no one can deny that Christ is the Son of God in a higher sense than any angel or man. But there still remains a doubt as to whether Filius Dei is applied to Him as a proper name, or merely as an appellative; that is to say, whether He is the Son of God in the strict or merely in a figurative sense, i. e., by adoption. 2. CHRIST THE SON OF GoD IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE TERM.—The Socinians and the Rationalists, Hugo Grotius among others, allege that Filius Dei is merely an official title of the Messias, bearing no intrinsic relation to any di- vine filiation; in other words, that Christ, in vir- tue of His supernatural birth from the Blessed Virgin Mary,” is called “Son of God” in a higher, though not in an essentially different sense than other rational creatures. The F rench Abbé Al- 13 Exod. IV, 22: “Filius meus as the obedient son oe the most primogenitus Israel—Israel is my High.” son, my firstborn.” 15 Heb. I, 5. 14Ecclus. IV, 311: “Et eris tu 16 Modern Rationalists notoriously [scil. misericors] velut filius altis- also deny the Virgin Birth, simi obediens — And thou shalt be s2. THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT fred Loisy adopts this Rationalist error when he writes: “The title ‘Son of God’ was accepted by the Jews, by the Disciples, and by the Saviour Himself as a synonym for ‘Messias.’” ** ‘True, “Son of God” was the official title of the Mes- sias; but it was a title based upon a reality, 2. é., Christ’s Divine Sonship in the strict sense of the term. It is a mistake on the part of some Cath- olic theologians to concede the assertion of Ra- tionalist exegetes that, while the true Divine Sonship of Jesus appears clearly enough from the Apostolic Letters and the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be proved from the Synoptics. The conduct of the Jews and our Saviour’s own re- iterated declarations, as recorded in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, clearly prove the contrary. a) Though the Jews knew, and could not help knowing from their own sacred writings, that the future Messias would be God Himself, they were not accustomed to refer to Him of their own accord as “God,” or “Son of God.” They called Him either “son of David,” ** or “King of Israel,” * or “the Prophet,” or “the Messias,”’ that is Christ (2 = xpwrds), Nevertheless 117 L’Evangile et L’Eglise, p. 62, especially pp. 320 sqq. as bearing on Paris 1902. Against Loisy see M. the point here under consideration. Lepin’s scholarly work Christ and 18 Cfr. Matth. IX, 27; XII, 23; the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah XX, 30; XXI, 9; Mark XI, 1o. and Son of God, Authorized Eng- 19 Matth. XXVII, 42. lish edition, Philadelphia 1910. See 20 John I, 21: VI, 14; VII, 40. CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 53 they logically concluded from Christ’s repeated references to Himself as Son of God, that He claimed consubstantiality with the Godhead, in other words, true Divinity.2* Similarly the Synoptics, by weaving into their story sayings that can apply to none other than the Son of God in the strictest sense of the term, or by accom- panying their profession of faith in the “true Son of God’ with a latreutic act of adoration, plainly demonstrate that they mean to apply the name to Jesus in its proper, not in a figurative, sense. When He was baptized in the Jordan,’* “there came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Greek text has: Otrds éorw 6 vids pov 6 dyamnrtds, re- peating the definite article to emphasize the unique role of the Son. Before the institution, or, more correctly, before the promise of the primacy, Peter had first to profess his faith in the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Matth. XVI, 15 sqq.: “Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God (ov ei 6 Xpiotds, 6 vids TOV Oeov ov Cavros),”” Like the other Apostles, Peter had long before believed in the Messianic mission and dignity of his Master; hence his profession of faith as recorded in Matth. XVI, 16, can only 21 John 'V; 18; X;. 33. 22 Matth. III, 13 sqq.; Mark I, 9 sqq.; Luke III, 21 sqq. 54 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT mean: “Thou art not only the Christ, 7. e., the Messias, but likewise the true Son~of God.” This view is confirmed by our Saviour’s reply: “Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et san- guis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui nm coelis est— Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- Jona, because flesh and blood [1. e., human rea- son] hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” That is to say, Peter’s knowledge and his profession of faith in Christ’s Divine Sonship was owing to a direct revelation and the grace of faith.?? When the Disciples “in the midst of the sea” saw Jesus stretching out His hand and saving Peter, who at His Mas- ter’s bidding had ventured upon the angry waves, they were overpowered by the glorious miracle and “adored Him, saying: Indeed thou art the son. of God;?’'3# b) This argument is supported by Christ’s own testimony. The Synoptics tell us as distinctly as do SS. John and Paul, that not only did He always and everywhere assert His Divine Son- ship, but He finally sealed it with His blood. When Caiphas adjured Him by the living God, saying: “Tell us if thou be the Christ the son of God,’’?° Jesus solemnly replied: “Thou hast 23 Cfr. Schanz, Kommentar iiber raverunt eum dicentes: Vere Filius das Evangelium des hl. Matthéus, Dei es (ad\nO&s Oeod vids el)” Pp. 375, Mainz 1879. 25 Ki ot el 6 Xpiorés, 6 vids Tov 24 Matth. XIV, 33: ‘‘ Qui autem cov, in navicula erant, venerunt et ado- CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 55 said it.” ?° And when, in confirmation of His oath, the Saviour significantly assured His ques- tioner that he would yet see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven to judge mankind, “the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed.” 7 In asserting His Divine Son- ship, therefore, Christ asserted His Divinity, and the Sanhedrin, regarding this assertion as blasphemous, acted with perfect consistency when they condemned Him to an ignominious death. According to the Gospel of St, Luke, they “brought him into their council, saying: If thou bee tne @hrist: tell ts S3. fin es Christus, dic nobis,” ®* and when Jesus had assured them that He would sit “on the right hand of the power of God,” they asked Him: “Art thot then the Son of God? (ov oby ei 6 vids Tov cod ) ?”’ and He firmly and definitely answered: “You say that I am (dpeis Aéyere, dru eyd eijw) ”? Whereupon He was led to Pilate, and they accused Him of claiming that He was “Christ the king,” 2° and that “He made Himself the Son of God.” ® It is not too much to say, therefore, that Christ laid down His life for the truth of His solemn affirmation that He was really and truly “the Son of God.’ The 26 Sv elas = Yes. 29 Luke XXIII, “2: “Dixit se 27 Matth. XXVI, 63 sqq. Christum regem esse.” 28 Luke XXII, 66 sq. 30 John XIX, 7: “ Filium Dei se fecit.” 56. THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of St. Paul verify, continue, and complete the story of the Synop- tics.** 3. THE TEACHING OF ST. JOHN AND ST. PAUL ON Curist’s DIVINE Sonsuip.—The Saviour’s favorite disciple, the meek and gentle John, both in character and temperament differed radically from the fiery Paul; yet their teaching in regard to Christ agrees in every essential detail, and it may be truly said that the Johannine Christology is characterized by a Pauline depth of thought, while the teaching of St. Paul has a distinctly Johannean tinge. Both Apostles are at one in affirming that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a true sonship in the strict sense of the term, and therefore essentially different from the sonship predicated of angels and men. a) The epithets applied to Jesus by both SS. John and Paul are with quite evident intent so chosen as to exclude absolutely the “sensus im- proprius.’ Both call Christ His. Heavenly Father’s “own Son” (Filius proprius, iws vids). Rom. VIII, 32: “Qua proprio Filio suo (rov idtov viov) non pepercit — He spared not even his own Son.” John V, 18: “ Patrem suum (narépa tSiov) dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo — Jesus also said God was his Father, making himself 31 Cfr. B. Bartmann, Das Him- 1904; M. Eeping Christ and the melreich und sein Konig nach den Gospel, pp. 394 sqq. Synoptikern, pp. 107 sqq., Paderborn CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 57 equal to God.” He is the Father’s “beloved Son,” into whose kingdom we are translated.3? He is “ the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father — Unigenitus Filius (6 fovoyerns vids), qui est in sinu Pa- tris,’ ** the Son begotten by the eternal Father.** This note of unicity, which is especially accentuated by St. John, plainly implies that the Father has no other son but Christ.** Consequently Christ is truly the Son of God in precisely the same sense in which God is “ true God.” Cir. 1 John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei (6 vids Tov @cod) venit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cogno- scamus verum Deum (rov ddnOwov @cdv) et simus in vero Filo eius — And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son.” b) These texts appear still more significant if collated with certain other Scriptural passages, which expressly declare that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a sonship in the strict and proper sense of the term. If there existed any higher beings who, as “sons of God,” might claim precedence of Christ, they would certainly be the angels of Heaven. Now we have the distinct teaching of St. Paul that the angels are bound to adore Christ as “the Son of God” and “the first- born of the Father.” Hebr. I, 5 sq.: “Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genus te? ... Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum (mpwrd- 82Cfr. Col. I, 13: “Qui nos (“83 John I, 18; cfr. Lepin, op. cit., transtulit in. regnum Filii dilectionis pp" 330 sqq. _ suae’’ (a Hebraism for: “ Filit di- 84 Hebr.. V7 5... Cle” Pe. I> 7%. dectt sui”’;. cfr. 2 Pet. I, 17). 30°Cir. John I, 14; III, 16, 18; 2 John IV, 9, 58 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT toxov) im orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum [se. Christum] omnes angeli Dei — For to which of the an- gels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to- day I have begotten thee. ... And when he again bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.” Among the many favored children of grace, especially the prophets and the Lord’s anointed, whom Sacred Scripture some- times calls “sons of God,” or even “ gods,” because of their exalted dignity, in the opinion of the Jews and of St. Paul none was greater than Jehovah’s favorite servant, Moses.** And yet St. Paul, comparing him with Christ, says that Moses is merely a “ faithful servant in the house of God,” while Jesus is “as the Son in his — own house.” *? It is only in the light of these facts that we are able fully to appreciate the further teach- ing of SS. John and Paul, that, as the heavenly Father- hood of God is the prototype of all created paternity, so the Divine Sonship of Christ is the exemplar of all de- rived or adoptive sonship. Cfr. John I, 12: “ Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fiert, his qui credunt in nomine eius [scil. unigeniti a Patre] —He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name ” (1. é., in the name of the Only-begotten of the Father. John I, 14). Gal. IV, 4sq.: “ Misit Deus Filium suum (tov vidv abrod) ... ut adoptionem filiorum (rv viobe- aiav) reciperemus — God sent his son . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons.” c) The teaching of St. John culminates in the notion of the Divine Logos; that of St. Paul in 36 Cfr. Deut. XXXIV, 10; Heb. [sc. Dei] tamquam famulus (és III, 1 sqq. Oepdmwy), .. . Christus vero tam- 37 Heb. III, 5 sq.: “Et Moyses quam Filius in domo sua (ds vlds quidem fidelis erat in tota domo eius émt roy olkov avrov).” CHRIST'S DIVINE (SONSHIEP alias the cognate conception of Christ as the image of God and splendor of His glory. Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 4: “Imago Dei («xév cod) ;” Col. I, 15: “Tmago Dei invisibilis.” With an unmistakable allusion to St. John’s teaching on the Divine meee: the Apostle of the Gentiles defines this “image of the invisible God” as splendor gloriae son THs 8d&s) and as fi gura substantiae eius (xapaxrinp THS VTOCTAGEWS saan doe “the brightness of the glory of God” and “the heure, of! his’ sub... Stance 7° palverenbeslinahins, Of elds two terms the former expresses the con- substantiality (homoousia), the latter the personal sel f- _ existence of the Son side by side with the Father. Both these truths are also taught in the Fourth Gospel : °° “The Word was God” and “the Word was with God.” That St. Paul *° employs the phrases “ brightness of his glory” and “figure of his substance” not in any crea- tural sense, but absolutely, is made manifest by the second part of the sentence in which they occur.* There he ascribes to Christ none but divine attributes: “Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in ex- celsis — Upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, [Christ] sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.” 42 Therefore Christ is the “image of the Divine Substance” in so far as He is strictly and truly the “Son of God,” which further 38 Tego hs 3. Xapaxrnp, cfr. Lebreton, Les Ori- ‘38 John I, re gines du ‘Dogme de la Trinité, p. 40 Heb. I, 3. 348. 41 On the terms amavyacua and 42 Heb. I, 3: ) 60 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT appears from Heb. I, 2: “ Diebus istis [Deus] locutus est nobis in Filio, . per quem fecit et saecula—In these days [God] hath spoken to us by his Son, .. by whom he also made the world.” 4? While the term dravyacua THs O0éns represents the Father as “ light,” and the Son as the reflection of this light (for this reason He is called Jumen de lumine as well as Deus de Deo),‘* the locution yapaxtnp ras troordcews abtod complements the former by emphasizing the independent subsistence of the Son of God (1. e., Christ) in His relative opposition to God the Gane point which the Fathers of the Church did not fail to insist upon in their early conflicts with Photinus and Sabellius. d) The Scriptural teaching so far developed furnishes us with a key for interpreting those numerous texts which speak of the eM Galt ot Christ. : : The i only begotten Son” (unigenitus, povoyevhs) alone is and always remains the “firstborn” (primogenitus, - mpwrdroxos).*® No creature can claim to be His equal in “birth or dignity. St. Paul’s teaching on this head is most clearly developed in his Epistle to the Colossians. There he distinguishes in Christ a twofold “right of the firstborn ”: the one divine, the other human; the former “based upon the title of creation, edae nab, and final 43 Cfr. John I, 10, 3. 44 Cir. W. Humphrey, “ His Divine Majesty,” London 1897. d 45 “ Ilpwrdroxos is not an exact translation of Primogenitus, though Homer, as Petavius says, may use rixkrw for gigno. It is never used in Scripture for Only-begotten, We Se dieies PP. 433 Sd, _ never read there of the First-born of God, or of the Father; but First- ,born of the creation, whether the original creation or the new.”— Newman, ‘* Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism” in Tracts Theol. and Eccles., p. 204 n., Lon- don 1895. CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 61 end; the latter on Christ’s prerogative as the mystic head and reconciler of His Church, which consists of sinful men. From the first-mentioned viewpoint He is “ primogenitus omnis creaturae (mpwrdroxos dons __ktloews)”; from the point of view mentioned in’ the second place, He is “ primogenitus ex mortuis (mpwrdroKos éx tov vexpov).” *® In both respects Christ is no mere “creature, but very God. For like unto the Hypostatic Wisdom of the Old Testament,*? He possesses, as “ the firstborn of every creature,” an eternal, divine existence, and is equipped with creative power, whereby He has created and upholds the universe together with the realm of angels.** As the “firstborn from the dead,” on the other hand, He is “ the head of the body [of] the church,” absolute “ beginning,” the one “ who holds in all things the primacy,” the possessor of “the fullness of all per- fection,” and lastly “the reconciling mediator through the blood of His cross, of the things that are on the earth and the things that are in heaven,’— all of which can be true only on the supposition that Christ as the Firstborn is at the same time the true and genuine Son of God, and therefore Himself God.® According to St. Paul, therefore, Christ’s human primogeniture is based upon His divine primogeniture, which in turn coincides _with His unigeniture ( primogenitus = unigenitus ) °° 4. THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON OF Gop witH Gop.—In the Scriptural texts we 46 Col. I, 13 saqq. On the term 48 Col. I, 15-17. TpwrToToKos see Lebreton, op. cit., 49 Col. I, 18-20. pp. 302 sqq. 50 Cfr. Heb. I, 5 sqq.; Apoc. I, 5. 47 Cir. Ecclus., XXIV, 5: “* Pri- Cir. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du mogenita ante omnem creaturam — Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 302 saqq., Wisdom, the firstborn before all 397 sqq. creatures.’’ 62) LHESERINITYCIN THE NEW TESTAMENT have cited, the Divinity crit is communicated _ tothe Son by His divine } yévmors from the Father is not founded upon Ditheism, or the existence of two coequal gods, but on the numerical iden- tity of the Divine Nature. This SoneHaon: Ph flows so manifestly from the monotheistic character of both the Old and the New Testament, is expressly confirmed in the Epistle to the iit ppias Peres mot, Urea! draws a neat distinction between the “form of a servant” (forma servi, poppy Sovkov) and the “form of God” (forma Dei, popdy ®cos). By the former he means the truly human, and by the latter the truly divine nature of Jesus” Christ, in the possession of which the Son of God is con- substantial or coequal with God (aequalis Deo, ica @c@). “Qui [scil. Christus] cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens ... et habitu inventus ut homo— Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant . and in habit found as a man.”—“ Forma servi” in this context can mean nothing else than the human na- ture which the Son of God “assumed,” ®? and in virtue of which He was “found as a man.” “ Forma Dei,’ on the other hand, plainly signifies the Divine Nature, which Christ possessed before he “took the form of a servant’ and before He “ emptied Himself,” and which tc claim He did not need to think robbery, 7. ¢., unjust usurpation. It is immaterial whether we take “ rapina” 31 Phil. IT, 5 sqq. was made flesh, and dwelt among 52 John I, 14: ‘* And the Word us.” THE) DININTISY ORGCHRIS T 63 in its active sense as “actus rapiendi,” or objectively as tes rapiics). Bye They Dron on Curse If Christ is truly the Son of God, no special argument is required to show that He is Divine. Yet as Holy Scripture, aside from those pas- sages which prove Christ’s Divine Sonship, also contains a number of texts which expressly as- sert His Divinity, it will be well to study these separately and to show how they confirm our thesis. We shall divide them into three distinct groups. | I. THE Divine ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST.—A being that possesses divine attributes and per- forms divine acts, is truly divine. Christ, ac- cording to the New Testament Revelation, pos- sesses divine attributes and performs divine acts. Consequently He is true God. The major premise of this syllogism, being merely a descrip- tive definition of God, needs no proof. From out of the profusion of Scriptural texts which can be cited in support of the minor, we select the following. an die Philipper, Freiburg 1899.— The dogma of Christ’s Divine Son- 53 Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in Philhp., 7, n. 2: “Hoc, inquam, esse aequalem Deo, non ex rapina habuit, sed a natura, quamobrem seipsum ~ exinanivit.”” For a full elucidation of Phil. II, 5 sqq., see K. J. Miiller, Brief des hl. Paulus ship is ably defended against the attacks. of the Modernists by M. Lepin, Christ. and the Gospel (Eng- lish tr.),; pp. 263 sqq., Philadelphia 1910. ™ 64 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT a) The New Testament predicates self-existence, which is the fundamental attribute of the Godhead, in the same terms of Christ in which the Old Testament predicates it of Jehovah. Jesus said to St. John:** “ Noli timere, ego sum primus et novissimus (6 mporos Kai 6 écxaros) et vivus et fui mortuus — Fear not, I am the first and the last, and alive, and was dead.” **> As causa prima the airovows is per se and by intestine necessity the finis ultimus of all creation. Now Christ says of Him- self:°° “Ego sum a et w, primus et novissimus, prin- cipium et finis—I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Similarly St. Paul: ®* “Ta advra 8’ abtod Kal eis adrov éxricrar — All things were created by him and in him.” Because of His aseity God is incomprehensible to the created intellect. Christ shares in this incomprehensi- bility. On the other hand He possesses a truly compre- hensive knowledge of the Father. Cfr. Matth. XI, 27: “Nemo novit (émywooxe) Filium nisi Pater, .. . neque Patrem quis novit (émvywooxa) nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare—No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” Note that the verb érywooxev is stronger than simple ywooxev; it denotes that comprehensive knowl- edge which is proper to the infinite God.*® b) Chief among God’s transcendental attributes of being is His absolute truth. Now Christ is the abso- lute, living Truth, as He Himself testifies: “Ego sum via et veritas et vita (4 ddAnOea Kai 7 Con) —I am the 54 Apoc. I, 17 saqq. —TI the Lord, I am the first and the 55 Cfr. Apoc. II, 8. For compari- last.’ son also read Is. XLI, 4: ‘* Ego 56 Apoc. XXII, 13. myn) primus et novissimus ego sum 57 Col. I, 16. 58 Cfr. 1 Cor. XIII, 12 THE DIVINIDY OP- CHRIST 65 way, and the truth, and the life.”*® This (truth-) life is communicated to Him in virtue of His eternal generation by the Father; hence it is a divine life, and as such self-existent in character. John V, 26: “Sicut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso (év éavro), sic dedit [1. e., generando communicavit] et Filio habere vitam im semetipso (é éavré) — For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.” This process of communication, there- fore, results in a differentiation, not of nature or es- sence, but of persons only. Cfr. 1 John I, 2: “ An- nuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam (ryv lov TV aidnov), quae erat apud Patrem (mpos rov marépa) et apparuit nobis — We declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us.” As the living truth, the Saviour must also be the author of life,*° especially in the supernatural order of erace Gir, John XI, 25: “Ego sum resurrectio et vita (4) fon) ; qui credit in me, etiam st mortuus fuerit, vivet —I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live.” Again, “ Qui habet Filium, habet vitam (rhv fwhv) — He that hath the Son, hath life.” ¢ God’s attributes of veracity and fidelity are rooted in His absolute truth. In this absolute sense Christ, too, is veracity itself; for He “ testifieth” only “what he hath seen and heard ” of His father in Heaven. Cor. John III, 31 sq.: “Qui de coelo venit, super omnes est. Et quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur —He that cometh from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth.” John VIII, 26: “Qui me 59 John XIV, 6. killed, whom God hath raised from 60 Acts III, 15: ‘‘ But the author the dead.”’ of life (6 adpxnyos THs SwHs) you 611 John V, 12. 66 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT misit, verax (dAnOhs) est; et ego, quae audivit ab eo, ~ haec loquor in mundo — He that sent me is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.’ . For this reason, too, He is absolute fidelity. Cfr. Matth. XXIV, 35: “ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Apoc. XIX, If: “ Fidelis et verax — Faithful and true.” Apoc. III, 14: “ FHaec dicit Amen, testis fidelis et verax, qui est princt- pium creaturae Dei — These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God.” Christ’s substantial sanctity coincides with His eth- ical goodness and is based on His Divine Sonship. Cfr. Luke I, 35: “Quod nascetur ex te Sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei — The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” In virtue of the Hypostatic Union His divine sanctity overflows into the human race. Cfr. Heb. VII, 26: “ Talis enim dece- bat, ut nobis esset pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus et excelsior coelis factus — For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” °° c) Among God’s categorical attributes of being 1s omnipotence, which in the natural order manifests itself in the creation and preservation of the universe, while in the supernatural sphere it works miracles by its own power. In both respects Christ has given irrefragable proofs of His Divinity. He is, in the first place, the creator and preserver of the universe. Col. LiaiGy, sque 62 Cfr. Apoc. III, 7: “ Sanctus 63 This subject will be treated at et verus— The Holy one and the length in Christology. True one.” i THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 67 “In ipso (év aité) condita sunt universa in coelis et in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni sive domina- tiones sive principatus sive potestates: omnia per ipsum (80 abrod) et in ipso (eis abrév) creata sunt, et ipse est ante omnes (xpd mdvrwv) et omnia in ipso constant — For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or domina- tions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him, and he is before all, and by him all things consist.” This text contains three separate and distinct propositions: (1) All things were created im the Son; that is to say, according to the counsels of Christ and in virtue of His omnipotence. (2) All things were made through the Son (per ipsum), 1. é., the Son was not merely the instrument of creation, but its true creative cause.** (3) All things were made in reference to the Son (cis airdy), that is to say, He is the final end of the whole created universe. Consequently He is true God, and as such “ before all ” (ante omnes) 2. e., eternal, and at the same time the preserver of the universe. Heb. I, 3: “Portans omnia verbo virtutis suae — Upholding all things by the word of his power.” Holy Scripture throughout both Testaments regards the working of signs and miracles in one’s own name and by one’s own power as a sure proof of omnipotence. The miracles of Christ proceed from His own omnipotence, not from any derived or communicated power ; — except in this sense that God the Father has communicated this power to Him as His Son by a truly divine yévvnos from everlasting. Cfr. John V, 19: “Non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem; quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similiter factt 64 Cfr. Heb. I, 2: “Per quem made the world.’? Cfr. also Heb. fecit -et saecula — By whom also he Diroy s 68 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — The Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.” In this sense Christ possesses the power of raising the dead. John V, 21: “Sicut Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat — For as the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.’ Therefore He is able to say: “Et ego resuscitabo eum (dvacrnow adrov eyo) im novissimo die — And I will raise him up in the last day.” ®* When the leper adored him, Christ did not object. Matth. VIII, 2 sqq.: “ Et ecce leprosus veniens adorabat eum (mpocexive. ado), dicens: Domine, st vis, potes me mun- dare. Et extendens Iesus manum, tetigit eum dicens: Volo, mundare — And behold a leper came and adored him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus stretching forth his hand, touched him, saying: I will, be thou made clean.’ Christ’s om- nipotence is the source of the universal sovereignty to which He lays claim. As God alone is Lord of life and death, heaven and hell, so Christ holds “the keys of death and of hell.” Apoc. I, 18: “Et habeo claves mortis et inferni.”** He is the zavroxpdétwp * to whom all creatures, including the angels, are subject, and as such is “the Lord of lords, and King of kings.” Apoc. XVII, 14: “ Agnus vincet illos, quoniam dominus dominorum est et rex regum.”’ °° As we have but one God the Father, so we have but one Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. VIII, 6: “Nobis tamen unus est Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in illum, et unus Dominus (eis KUptos ) Tesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum (dv ob 7a 65 John VI, 4o. 681 Pet. III, 22. 66 Cfr. also Apoc. III, 7. 69 Cfr. also Apoc. XIX, 16. 67 Apoc. I, 8. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 69 mavta Kat ypeis 8.’ avrov) — Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” Two other divine attributes not shared by any crea- ture are absolute immutability, and eternity which flows therefrom. Both of these are ascribed by Holy ‘Scripture 1 to Chiist. What the Psalmist says of the im- ; mutability of Jehovah,” “Ipsi peribunt, tu autem per- ~manes — ‘They shall perish, but thou remainest,” St. Paul applies without limitation to Jesus.7* | That Christ is eternal can be deduced from the Scriptural teaching that He existed before time. John the Baptist confessed: ™ “ He was before me (pérds pov jv),” and Christ Himself confirmed this assertion by His solemn declaration: 7? “Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum (mplv *ABpadm yeveoa, éyw eiuc) — Before Abraham was made, I am.” St. Augustine commentates this text as follows: “Non dixit: antequam Abraham esset, ego eram, sed: antequam Abraham fieret, qui nisi per me non fieret, ego sum. Neque hoc dixit: antequam Abraham fierct, ego factus sum. In principio enim fecit Deus coelum et terram; nam in principio erat Verbum. Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Agnoscite creatorem, discernite crea- turam — He said not, Before Abraham was, I was; but, Before Abraham was made (and he could not be made but by Me), Iam. Neither said he this: Before Abraham was made, I was made. For, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth: namely, in the begin- ning was the Word. Before Abraham was made, I am. Acknowledge the Creator, discern the creature.” 74 (fr. | 10Ps. CI, 27 sqq. 73 John VIII, 58 71 Heb, I, 10 saq. 74 Tractatus in TIoa., 43, n. 1% 72 John I, 15. Browne’s translation, I, 586, 76, THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT also the famous passage in Christ’s prayer for His dis- ciples:7° “Et nunc clarifica me tu, Pater, apud te- metipsum claritate, quam habui prius, quam mundus es- set, apud te (rH 8déy, 7) cixov mpd Tov TOV KOopoV cival, mapa ooi)— And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thy- self, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.’ As Cardinal Toletus pertinently observes, this passage has reference to the divine glory which Christ enjoyed as God together with His Father from all eternity. Therefore His Ascension was merely a return to “ where he was before,” 7° or, more correctly, where “He always is.” Cfr. John III, 13: “Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo, Filius hominis, qui est in coelo— And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descendeth from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” 7? Hence for Christ to be “in Heaven” means to be “in the bosom of the Father,” i. ¢., to be the true Son of God from all eters, nity. Eternity for Him is merely the past, present, and future combined in an unchanging life. Heb. XIII, 8: “ Tesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula — Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever, ” In His relation to space, and to the world of pure spirits, Christ is endowed with omnipresence, and partic- ularly with that power of indwelling in the souls of the just which is peculiar to God. St. Paul probably means to emphasize His omnipresence when he says: “ Qut descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes coelos, ut wmpleret omnia (iva mAypoon 74 aévra) — He that de- scendeth is the same also that ascended above all heavens, that he might fill all things;”— unless indeed 75 John XVII, 5. 77 Cfr. also John XVI, 28; I, 18. 76John VI, 63: “Ubi erat 78 Eph. IV, tro. prius.” DEL IWIN UE OR CHRIS? 71 the phrase to “fill all things” is meant to indicate the fulfilment of the prophecies relating’ to Christ’s Ascen- sion. Cfr. John XIV, 23: “Pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum (povyv map’ aito) factemus — My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” No mere creature could, without committing blasphemy, thus put himself on a level with God, and promise to in- dwell with God in the souls of the just; and none but God Himself could solemnly promise: “ Et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi— And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”® Only a believer in the Divinity of Jesus can exclaim with St. Paul: “ Vivit vero m me Christus — But Christ liveth in me.” 8° d) Among the operative attributes of God the most im- portant is probably omniscience. As God alone can ade- _quately comprehend His own Essence, so likewise only a truly divine Son can adequately comprehend the divine Father. Cfr. John X, 15: “Sicut novit (ywécxer) me Pater, et ego agnosco (ywaicxw) Patrem— As the Father knoweth me, I know the Father.” And again: “Ego scio eum (ey oiSa adrév), quia ab ipso sum (zrap’ avtov eivi), et ipse me misit—I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me.” *! This argues an intimate knowledge such as no creature can pos- sess. John VI, 46: “Non quia Patrem vidit quisquam, nisi is qui est a Deo (ei py & dv rapa tod cod), hic vidit Patrem (oitos éépaxe tov marépa) — Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.” This intuitive vision has its source in 79 Matth. XXVIII, 20. Cfr. also 80 Gal. II, 20. John XIV, 16; XV, 5 sqq.; XVI, 13 81 John VII, 20. sqq. 72.) THE PRUNE Y TN SHE ene WS LAM ENS Christ’s divine yévvyows. Cfr. John I, 18: “ Deum nemo vidit unquam; unigenttus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit — No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ Christ’s divine self- comprehension necessarily implies an adequate knowl- edge of all things external to the Godhead. For if, as St. Paul assures us, “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally,” ®* it is evident that “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” ** It is by this standard, therefore, that His knowledge of all things, even the most hidden, must be gauged. Thus He was able to assure Nathanael: “ Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” 8 Whereupon the new Apostle, struck by Christ’s wonderful knowledge, exclaimed: “ Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.” *° If cardiognosis is an exclusive prerogative of the Godhead,®* Christ is true God. For He applied to Himself the words of Jeremiah: ‘‘I am the Lord who search the heart,” 8’ when He said: “ All the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts.” 88 More than once in fact did He demonstrate that He possessed this attribute of Divinity. Cfr. Luke IX, 47: “At Iesus videns cogitationes cordis illorum 82 Col. II, 9: “In ipso inhabitat 86 As we have shown in the first emnis plenitudo divinitatis corporali- volume of this series, God: His. ter (éy a’r@ xatouei wav 1d Knowability, Essence, and Atiri- TAHpwUa THS OedTHTOS TwuaTi- utes, pp. 359 Sd. K@s).” 87 Jer. XVII, 10: “Ego Dome- 83 Col. II, 3: “Im quo [Christo] nus symy scrutans cor et probans sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi.” 84John I, 48: ‘‘ Priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te.” 85 John I, 49: tu es rex Israel.” “ Tu es Filius Det, renes.” “88 Apoc. II, 23: “Et scient om- nes ecclesiae, quia ego sum scrutans renes et corda.” THE DIVINEDY: OF CHRIST 73 (dy tov Sadoyiopov tis Kapdias abréoy)— But Jesus seeing the thoughts of their heart.” With vision wondrous clear He foresees free future events, as, e. g., His be- trayal at the hands of Judas, Peter’s denial, the flight of His disciples, His Passion, Resurrection, and As- cension, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. His “ Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida ” 8° shows that He also possesses the scientia futuribilium.®° 2. Curist’s TiTLE To Divinrt Honors.—No mere creature can claim divine honors without incurring the awful crime of idolatry. But Christ claims and receives divine honors. There- fore, He is true God. This syllogism rests on the supposition—which it is the business of apologetics to prove—that Christ was neither an impostor nor a megalomaniac, but, on the con- trary, a morally altogether superior and phys- ically normal being. We also assume it as a datum furnished by fundamental theology,® that His Apostles and Disciples were neither fools nor knaves, but men who knew the facts of Christ’s career and who were sincere in wor- shipping Him as God. a) Christ laid claim to divine honors. John V, 22 sq.: “Pater... omne iudicium dedit Filo, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honortficant Patrem (iva wdvres tisaor tov vidv, Kabos TYL@OL TOV Tatépa ) 89 Matth. XI, 21 sqq. sence, and Attributes, pp. 361 sqq. 90 On the “ scientia futuribilium,” 91 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp. as a divine attribute, see Pohle- 7 sq. Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- 74 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — The Father... hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.” Here Jesus plainly exacts for Himself, as Son, the same worship which He demands for His Father. The context proves that the adverb xa@ws is meant to ex- press not merely similitude but equality ; for in the same chapter of St. John’s Gospel from which the passage is taken, Christ distinctly asserts and defends His coequality with the Father, and “the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he . . . said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” ®? He never was known to refuse divine worship when offered to Him, but accepted it with- out protest.°* His Apostles, too, particularly St. Paul and St. John, insist that Christ is entitled to divine honors. Rom. XIV, 10 sq.: “Ommnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi; scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu et omnis lingua confitebitur Deo— We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” ®* This can only mean that all men will one day appear before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and be compelled to worship Him as God. The same thought is expressed yet more effec: tively in another Pauline text:°° “ Donavit alli nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium et imfernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris —God hath given him a name which is above all names: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on 92 John V, 18. 94’ Ctr) (Ts) SIGVG) 23 )sG3 93 Cfr. Matth. XIV, 33; VIII, 2 95 Phil. II, 9 sqaq. at al, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 76 earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God ‘the Father.’ °° If Christ is true God, then the prayers directed to Him must be equally efficacious as those addressed to the Father. Holy Scripture plainly teaches that they are. John XIV, 13: “Quodcunque petieritis Patrem nm nomine meo,. hoc faciam [not: faciet], ut glorificetur Pater in Filio— Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” John XIV, 14: “Si quid petieritis me in nomine meo, hoc faciam—If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that will I do.” In the hour of death no man may, without grievous sin, commend his soul to any creature. Christ com- mends His into the hands of His Heavenly Father. Luke XXIII, 46: “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” And the dying protomartyr Stephen un- hesitatingly cries out: “Domine Iesu, suscipe spiritum meum — Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” ° b) The Godhead is the sole formal object of the three theological virtues. But Holy Scrip- ture represents Christ as a Supreme Being, to whom all men owe faith, hope, and charity. Consequently, He is true God. Jesus Himself requires men to believe in Him with the same faith which they have in God. In this connection it is well to remember that there is an important distinction between credere alicui and credere in aliquem. We may 96 On the adoration of the “slain Lamb,” 7. e., Christ in Heaven, cfr. Apoc. V, 11-13. 97 Acts VII, 58. 6 76 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT believe a creature, but we believe in God alone. Cfr. John XIV, 1: “Creditis in Deum, et in me credite ' (morevere cis Tov Ocdv, Kal eis Eue miotevere)— You believe in God, believe also in me.” Faith in Christ is pro- ductive of eternal life. John VI, 47: “ Amen, amen, dico vobis: qui credit in me (eis éué) habet vitam aeter- nam — Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.” For belief in Jesus Christ is nought else than faith in the true Son of God. 1 John IV, 15: “Quisquis confessus fuerit, quoniam Tesus est Filius Dei (6 vids rot Ocov), Deus in eo manet et ipse in Deo — Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.” Christ is also the object of theological hope, as the story of the Atonement clearly shows. If St. Paul calls himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ, ... our hope,” ®§ this is neither an empty phrase nor a hyper- bole. For, as, St. Peter ‘tersely says: “ Non’ est 1m aliquo alio (év dAdw ovdevi) salus; nec enim aliud nomen est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos sal- vos fieri— Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” °° Christ is likewise the object of that theological charity (“amor super omnia”) to which God alone can lay claim. Matth. X, 37: “ He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.’ Whatever inter- feres with the love of Christ is to be treated as an obsta- cle in the way of salvation. Luke XIV, 26: “S1t quis venit ad me et non odit patrem suum et matrem et uxo- rem et filios et fratres et sorores, adhuc autem et am- 981 Tim. I, 1: “ Paulus, apo- formation on this point we must stolus lesu Christi, ... spet no- refer the student to the dogmatic strae.” treatise on Grace. 99 Acts IV, 12. For further in- q Oe a a ee THE DIVINTIY, OR CHRIST 77 mam suam, non potest esse meus discipulus —If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” The Father rewards us with His love if we love Christ. Cfr. John XIV, 23: “Si quis diligit me, ... et Pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus—If any one love me,... my father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him.” 2° St, Paul’s anathema against all those who “love not our Lord Jesus Christ,” *°* would be wantonly criminal if Christ were not true God. And it is only on this same assumption that the love of Christ can be called “a life in Christ.” Phil. I, 21: “Mihi enim vivere Christus est, et mori lucrum— For to me, to live is Christ: and to die is gain.” 2 Cor. V, 14 sq.: “Caritas enim Christi urget mos,... Ut et qui vivunt, iam non sibi vivant, sed él, qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit— For the charity of Christ presseth us, . .. that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again.” St. Paul boldly identifies “caritas Christi” with “caritas Dei,’ and says, nothing should separate us from it. Rom. Aya OE 35 sqq.: “ Quis ergo nos separabit a caritate Christi? Tribulatio, an angustia, an fames, an nuditas, an peri- culum, an persecutio, an gladius? ... Certus sum enim, quia neque mors neque vita neque angeli . neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a caritate Dei, quae est in Christo Iesu Domino nostro— Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall 100 Cfr. also John XIV, 21. Christum, -sit anathema — If any 1011 Cor, XVI, 22: “Si quis man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, non amat Dominum nostrum Iesum let him be anathema.” 78 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or . danger? or persecution? or the sword? ... For I am sure that neither death nor life nor angels . . . nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Con- sequently Christ and God are one. c) Christ’s adorableness, and consequently His Divinity, can be demonstrated also from the fact that Baptism is conferred in His name con- jointly with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. We shall not enter into the Scholastic controversy whether by a special privilege the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only, instead of employing the Trinitarian formula which Jesus Himself gave to them, as recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Mat- thew’s Gospel. This and other similar questions do not concern us here. They belong to the dogmatic treatise on Baptism. The very fact that Baptism used to be called “Baptism in Christ’s name” is proof that the early Christians believed in the Divinity of our Lord. Nor does it make the slightest difference whether the Sacrament was originally administered “ ézi 7® Gvopatt “Inoot’ Xpiotov els apeow dpapriov, 1° or “ ey ro évdpatt tod “Inood Xpiorod,’ *°* for both formulas clearly emphasize the authority and power of Christ to forgive sins; — or “es 7d dvoua Tod Kvpiov “Inco,” *° which par- ticularly accentuates the consecration and devotion of the. 102 A brief account of this con- 103 Acts II, 38. troversy will be found in Fr. Fan- 104 Acts X, 48. ning’s article on ‘‘ Baptism” in the 105 Acts VIII, 16. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Il, p. 263. ee PT a ee et THE) DIVINITY, OF CHRIST. 79 baptized convert to Jesus as man’s final end. In matter of fact no man could without committing idolatry allow himself to be baptized “in the name” of any creature; for no one but God can forgive sins and exact abso- lute subjection and divine worship. Cfr. 1 Cor. I, 13: “Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis? Aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? — Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 3. Hory ScripTuRE ExpressLy CALLS CHRIST “Gop.”—Having demonstrated the Divinity ot Christ, it will serve to confirm our argument to note that Holy Scripture in several places ex- pressly refers to Him as God. a) If the Tetragrammaton mm is God’s in- - communicable proper name, which~ expresses His Divine. Essence,’”® ‘then a Being’ that is identical with the Old Testament Yahweh must be true God. Now Jesus Christ is identical with the Old Testament Yahweh. Therefore He is true God. In his Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul says: “ Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum [sc. Christum] in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angels — And, when he again bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore) him.” #97) ; This text not only proves that Christ is true God; it also proves that He is Yahweh. For, in the passage which St. Paul here quotes,’** the 106 See Pohle-Preuss, God: His 107 Heb. I, 6. Knowability, Essence, and Aittri- 108 Ps. XCVI, 7. butes, pp. 135 sdqq. 80 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Psalmist describes how Yahweh appeared on earth for the purpose of founding a kingdom; how He re- appears as the terrible Judge; how the heavens declare His justice and all the people behold His glory, and how those are confounded who adore graven things and glory in their idols. Then there follows the ex- hortation (verse 7): “ Adore him (i. e., mm), all you angels.” Consequently Christ is the Jehovah of whom David speaks in this Psalm. We read in the Messianic Psalm XLIV, which is ascribed to the sons of Core: “ Sedes tua, Deus ( D728 ) in saeculum saeculi— Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” 7° The Rationalist exegetes, who take the word Deis in this text for a nominative instead of a vocative, disregard both the dignity of God and Scrip- tural usage. If their interpretation were correct, the meaning of the text would be: Thy seat, or throne (1. e., according to the Rationalist conception, the throne of an earthly king), is God Himself for ever and ever. Though Holy Scripture sometimes refers to creatures (e. g., heaven and hell, angels and men) as the seat or throne of God, it nowhere designates God as the seat or throne of man, e. g., of an earthly prince. This interpretation is positively untenable in the light of Heb. I, 8: “Ad Filium [scil. Christum] autem dicit: Thronus tuus, Deus, im saeculum saeculi (6 Opdvos cov, 6 ®cds, eis TOv ai@va Tov aidvos), where the text Ps. XLIV, 7 1s used to show Christ’s superiority over the angels. That St. Paul intends 6 @eés for a vocative is plain from New Testament Greek usage, as the student may see from a comparison of such texts as Matth. XI, 26; 109 Ps. XLIV, 7. On this pas- S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, sage, and the whole Psalm of which Vol. II, pp. 36 saq., New York it forms a part, cfr. A. J. Maas, 1895. a ee ee DHE. DIVINI RY: OF CHRIST 81 Mark, 4t's Luke VT i54ssfohn xix ssp. T, 1; Col. III, 18; Heb. X, 7; Apoc. VI, 10. Consequently Ps SELV, 7, can only mean?) /(\/Thy, throne, (©) ,\God DAK, stands for ever.” Since the sons of Core never employ the term “ Elohim” except when they wish to designate the true God, it follows that Christ bears the Divine Name D°NN, i. ¢., beds = God. The hardness of heart which the Jews manifested in spite of the many wonderful miracles wrought by our Saviour, St. John attributes to the prophecy of Isaias *?° and adds: “Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam eius et locutus est de eo— These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory and spoke of him [Christ].” ** Turning to the sixth chapter of Isaias, we read: “Vidi Dominum (‘Y18) sedentem super solium excelsum. .. . Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum et dicebant: Sanc- tus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus exercituum (Di82¥ TiN), plena est omnis terra gloria eius—I1 saw the Lord sit- ting upon a throne high and elevated. . . . The seraphims . cried to one another: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is, full) of. ‘his! slory/ 4" Hence, according to St. John, Christ is “ God” (Domi- mus, ‘278) and “Lord of hosts” (Dominus exercituum, nixay nin’). It should also be noted that St. Mark, in the beginning of his Gospel,t? refers the well-known exhortation of Isaias:114 “ Parate viam Domini — Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” to John the Baptist, as the precursor of the “Lord,” thereby acknowledging the latter to be > Jehovah.” In? Mark 1,\.2,.:.we shave 'ai citation) from Malachias (attributed to Isaias), in. which Jehovah 110 Is. VI, 9 sqq. 113 Mark I, 3. 111 John XII, 41. ; 114Is. XL, 3. 112Is, VI, 1 sqq. 82:0 THE TRINITY IN THE NEWoTESTAMENT Himself is quoted as prophesying: “Ecce ego mitto an- -gelum meum et praeparabit viam ante faciem meam — Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face.” 1!® Now this angel is none other than ce John the Baptist, who, as ‘a precursor, is to “ prepare the way before the face of Jehovah,” 7. e., Christ.. As Christ 7® also applies this text to the Baptist, resp. to Himself, we have a double warrant for the assertion that the Jehovah of Malachias is identical with Jesus. b) Christ is expressly called “God” in at least four New Testament texts. A fifth occurs in the prologue of St. John’s Gospel, but we defer the discussion of it to the next Section, where we shall treat explicitly of the Logos. a) The first of the four passages just alluded. to is John XX, 28. The Evangelist describes how Christ reproached the incredulous Thomas for his unbelief, whereupon “Thomas answered and said to Him: My Lord and my God—(é Kipios pov xa 6 cds pov) Dominus meus et Deus meus.’ Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius represented this reply as a mere exclamation of surprise; but the text plainly says: “dixit et (~ By “Word of God” (Verbum, Aédyos) we may under- stand either the external word of God (verbum oris s. externum), 1. €., Divine ‘Revelation; or His internal, immanent word “(verbum mentis s. internum).— “The “former, “which™ “is something impersonal, accidental, created, temporal, extra-divine, is not mentioned by St. John in the prologue of his Gospel. The Word of which he speaks is manifestly the internal Word, which, being an intrinsic product of generation, im- manent in the intellect of the begetting Father, forms part of the Divine Essence. Consequently the Logos is coeternal with the Essence of the Godhead. c) Lastly, the Logos is the author of the Super- natural, and as such must be God. In Himself “the true light;?**° and, the life,’ 4 He isin. His.external manifestation “the light [that] shineth in the dark- ness,’ *4? and the principle of our adopted sonship.1# John I, 12: “ Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit ets potestatem filios Dei fiert (€wxev airois éEovotay téxva @eov yevésOar), his qui credunt in nomine eius (eis 76 dvopa avrov)—- But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that be- lieve in his name.” Belief in the Logos is a necessary condition of salvation and eternal beatitude. Con- sequently the Logos is God. From the fulness of His grace we must all draw; it is from Him we receive grace and truth. Cfr. John I, 16 sq.: “Et de plem- tudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia; quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas (4 xdpus 140 John I, 4, 7, 9. 143 Cfr. the article ‘* Adoption, 141 John I, 4. Supernatural,’ in the Catholic En- 142 John I, 5, 9. cyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 148 saa. 2 ee Ce Thr LOGOS: 95 kat 4 éAnOaa) per Iesum Christum facta est — And of his fulness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The Logos is the author both of nature and of the Supernatural, and therefore very God. The Logos appeared corporeally on earth in Jesus Christ, for it is to Him and to Him alone that we can apply such Scriptural passages as: “‘ He came unto Dieviown: .44*" 7) tHe was) in) the pworld) 29 Cl onmy sion gave testimony of [Him],” 14° and, lastly,*47 “ The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” *48 This “ Word made flesh,” which is for the first time called “ Jesus Christ” in John I, 17, is “the only begotten Son of God.” 149 Hence Christ is both the Logos and the Son of God. With John I, 15, therefore, begins the story of the hiteof-Jesus Christ.*° READINGS: —-On the theology of the Son: J. E. Stadler, Uber die Identitit der Idee der Weisheit mit der des Wortes, Minster 1832; E. Bougaud, The Divinity of Christ (translated by Currie) New York 1906; *L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h. Athanasius, Miinchen 1880; M. Beyr, Trinitatis in Unitate Det Salus Mundi per lesum Christum Redempti, Graz 1875; K. Muller, Gottliches Wissen und gottliche Macht des johanneischen Christus, Freiburg 1882; *P. Keppler, Die Komposition des Johannesevan- geliums, Freiburg 1884; G. A. Miller, Christus bei Josephus Flavius, 2nd ed., Innsbruck 1896; Simar, Theologie des h. Paulus, and ed., Freiburg 1883; *Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 2-0, ed. 4, Romae 1893; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theolog., Vol. II, pp. 234 sqq., Parisiis 1895; J. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein Kénig nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904; H. Schell, Jahwe 144 John I, 11. hl. Johannes, Freiburg 1899; Belser, 145 John I, ro. “ Der . Prolog des Johannesevange- 146 John I, 6 sq. liums’”’ in the Theologische Quar- 147 John I, 6 sqq. talschrift of . Tubingen, 1903, pp. 148 John I, 14. 483 sqq.; J. Lebreton, Les Origines 149 John I, 14, 18. du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 382 150 Cfr. K. Weiss, Der Prolog des sqq., Paris 1910. 96 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT und Christus, Paderborn 190s. An older work of special value on this subject is Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini Nostri ’ Tesu Christi Manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione, Parisiis 1764. Cfr. also St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 7 (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 344 sqq., Towa 1905) ; Bellarmine, Controv. de Christo, 1. 1; J. Perrone, De D. N. I. Chr. Divinitate adv. huius Aetatis Taspedulee: Rationalistas et Mysticos, 3 Vols., Taurini 1870; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, London 1867; H. J. Coleridge, S. J., The Preparation of the Incarnation, 2nd ed., London 1894; M. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia 1910; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Proph- ecy, 2 vols, New York 1893-5.—C. C. Martindale, S. Ju The ‘Word’ of God: Pagan and Jewish Background,” in the Month, Nias 70 Sadia! ARTICLE 3 OF GOD THE HOLY GHOST The term “ Holy Ghost,” “ Spirit of God,” does __ not imply opposition so clear Be as * Father” and Son.” In demonstrating this dogma, therefore, we shall have to emphasize the personality of the Holy Ghost and the fact that He is an independent Hypostasis, distinct from both the Father and the Son. His Divinity can be proved with comparative ease. Accordingly, this article will fall into three divisions. In the first division we shall demonstrate that the Holy Ghost is a real Person; in the second, that He is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son; and i in the third, that He is a truly ~ Divine Person, or Coa Himself. Once these three points are established from Holy Scripture, no further proof will be needed to show the existence of a Third Person in the Godhead. _— PER HOLY GOS 1 of A. The Personality of the Holy Ghost 1. THE WorpD GHosT (SPIRIT) IN ITS IMPER- SONAL SENSE.—The Bible not infrequently uses the terms ‘“‘God the Father” and “sons of God” in a figurative sense. Similarly it also employs the word “spirit of God” in a way that does not always suggest the idea of a real personality. When we read, for instance, that “the spirit of God moved over the waters,’ 1*' we understand that the sacred writer personifies the breath of divine omnipo- tence. At least there is no cogent reason for thinking - that Moses here meant the Person of the Holy Ghost. In those texts, too, which tell of supernatural effects wrought by grace, or of the workings of the spirit, it is not always obvious that Holy Scripture means to describe something more than an external divine effect which might be figuratively termed “holy spirit.” In the Fiftieth Psalm the words “ Spirttum rectum imnova in visceribus meis,’? and “ Spiritu principali confirma me,’ **> evidently denote a supernatural spirit of rec- titude and self-control, 7. e., a good disposition. “ Et spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me,’ *** must like- wise be interpreted impersonally. The “holy spirit” here referred to is the spirit of sanctity. There are still other texts in which “ spirit’ does not designate a Per- son, but the absolute Divine Nature, which is essentially spiritual. Cfr. John IV, 24: “ God is a spirit (spiritus, mvetpa), and they that adore him, must adore him in 151 Gen. I, 2. 153 * Strengthen me with a perfect 152 ““ Renew a right spirit within SpITritenu esas nna: my bowels.” Ps. L, 12. 154 “* Take not thy holy spirit from! ime.j70bs.).2,1 3% 98 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT spirit and in truth.” In the eighth verse of the third -chapter of St. John’s Gospel, Christ Himself employs the word “ spirit” in its original impersonal and material sense of “wind.” For spiritus is derived from spirare, which means to blow, to breathe, as the Greek mvevpa 1S derived from mveiv, which has the same meaning.?°> 2. THE Worp Spirit In 1Ts_ Hyposratic.. SENSE.—Aside from the texts already quoted, there is a considerable number of other Scriptural passages in which the Holy Ghost is clearly de- scribed as a real and individual person. a) There are in the first place certain epithets de- signed to restrict the concept of spirit and to show that it is not a mere impersonal abstraction. Holy Scrip- ture very frequently speaks not merely of the “ spirit — of God,” but of the “Holy Spirit” (73 é&yoy Tvevpa.) , and this personal appellation in some texts is indi- vidualized even more strongly by the reduplication of the definite article 76, as e. g. in John XIV, 26: 76 mveipa To dywov. In some instances the Divine Spirit is spoken of as “the Spirit of the Father,” or “the Spirit of the Son,” or “the Spirit of Christ,” which clearly intimates opposition. to the Father and the Son.1* 1 Cor. II, 12: “Spiritus qui ex Deo est (1d mveipa 1d ék tov @eov)— The Spirit that is of God,” distinctly recalls John I, 1: “Et Verbum erat apud Deum— And the Word was with God.” 155 On the réle of the Holy Ghost Les Origines du Dogme de la in the Old Testament, see supra, p. 18 sq. On the whole subject of this subdivision, Newman, Athana- sius, II, pp. 304 sqq.; Lebreton, Trinité, pp. 74 sqq. T5GHA Cts ROVE 7s) fra) Rom: WITL os Gale TV 30 62 Phil) Eras Te Pet. arEs = ce e < ee et Re an ee DS ec ae are WEE Qo Y GHOST 99 b) The Holy Ghost is also called Paraclete __(Parachius, mapaxhnres His term is as peculiar “toSt. John as the term Logos. Like Logos and Sort of God; Paraclete and Holy Ghost denote one identical Person. Paraclete is not, however, predicated of the Holy | Spirit so exclusively as Logos is applied to the Son. Thus, in the First Epistle of St. John, Christ is called Paraclete.*” The Saviour Himself in the ‘Fourth Gos- “pel repeatedly refers to the Holy Ghost as ‘the’ “Para- “cleté. “What, then, is the meaning of Paraclete? The “word is used in three different senses, all derived from the root-verb Lena The first and original sense is “advocate.” (advocatus, from mapaxadeiv==in au- xilium advocare). But the operations which Jesus as- cribes to the Paraclete manifestly cannot be brought within the limits of this definition. Some exegetes de- rive Paraclete or Geel hala: (1. @., consolari) and take it to mean “comforter” (consolator). But if that derivation were correct, the noun should spell rapaxAfrTwp, not mapdxAntos. Moreover, it is plain from our Lord’s discourse after the Last Supper,1®* that the office of the Paraclete is far superior to that of a mere comforter. He is formally to take the place of the departing Son of God, and to represent Him in His Church in the same manner in which Christ had represented the Father. The Paraclete is to complete the work begun by the Saviour and to assist the newly founded Church unto the con- summation of the world, filling it with His sanctifying 1571 John II, 1: “ Si quis pec- have an advocate with the Father, caverit, advocatum (mrapaxdnrTov) Jesus, Christ the just.” habemus apud Patrem, Iesum Chri- 158 John XIV-XVI. stum iustum—If any man sin, we 1oo THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT power and with the spirit of truth. Paraclete may also - mean “representative,” from apaxadciv—=aliquem in locum alterius accire.1*® From these verbal definitions it is clear that the ‘‘ Para- clete ” or “ Holy Spirit” is not a mere Persone alop but a real person. c) The correctness of this interpretation is borne out by the characteristic description which Christ Himself has given of the Paraclete, His operations, and His relation to the Father any and the Son. He is an ‘ Pother: (alius, Nos ) than the Father who “sends” Him,'*° and He ‘is also distinct from the Son, who sends Him “from the Father.” 1% Between Him who sends (mittens) and Him who is sent (missus) there is “logically the same relative oppo- “sition as “Between Father and Son. This distinction * furnishes “a “Safeguard against the modalistic error which conceives the Holy Spirit as a mere mode of manifestation of the Godhead. It is also useful in re- futing the Rationalist contention that the name Spiritus Sanctus merely shelters a poetical prosopopeeia or per- sonification. An impersonal being could not “teach all truth,” “give testimony,’ “bring all things to [the Apostles’] mind,” remind them of what Christ had told them, and so forth. There are many other texts of Sacred Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is described as possessing all the marks of a real personality. Thus He has a free will, for St. Paul speaks of Him as 159 Cfr. Oswald, Trinitatslehre, 160 John XIV, 16. pp. 73 sqq., Paderborn 1888. 161 John XV, 26. PHENOL Y, GHOSE IOI “Dividens singulis, prout vult —(the Spirit worketh), dividing to every one according as he will.’ 18? He ap- points the bishops: “ Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spwitus sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Det, quam acquisivit sanguine suo — Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” 1% He prays for us “ with unspeakable groanings,’ *** like as Christ “always lives to make intercession for us.” *® Nay, He formally ascribes to Himself subsistent per- sonality by commanding: “ Segregate mihi (po) Saulum et Barnabam in opus, ad quod assumpst (mposkéxdAnpat ) eos —(The Holy Ghost said to them): Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken then. 18° B. The Hypostatic Ditference Between the Holy Ghost and the Father and the Son I. St. PAUL AND THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN THE BAp- TIST AT EPHESUS.— On one occasion, when St. Paul came to Ephesus, he found there about twelve disci- ples of John the Baptist, and thinking that they had already received Baptism, he asked them: “ Have you received the Holy Ghost (amvedya aywv) since ye be- lieved?” They answered: ‘“ We have not so much as heard that there be a Holy Ghost (dAX’ odd, ef avedpa ayiov éotw Hkovoapev).” And when the Apostle queried further: “In what then were you baptized?” they re- plied: “In John’s baptism.” ... “ Having heard these 1621 Cor. XII, 11. 165 “ Semper vivit ad interpellan- 163 Acts XX, 28. dum pro nobis.”” Heb. VII, 25. 164 Rom. VIII, 26. 166 Acts XIII, 2. io2 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ~~ things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” And when St. Paul “had imposed his hands - on them, the Holy Ghost (76 aveipa 76 dy.ov) Came upon them.” 7°" This account makes it certain beyond a per- adventure that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are two dis- tinct Persons. For the initial ignorance of the disci- ples of John the Baptist did not refer to the Godhead as such (concerning which they must have been suffi- ciently instructed), but to that particular Divine Per- son who, in contradistinction to Jesus, the Son of God, is called Holy Ghost. In accordance with this marked difference between the two Divine Persons, John’s dis- ciples at Ephesus received two distinct sacraments, viz., Baptism (i. e., the Baptism of Jesus) and Confirmation. 2. Curist’s Last Discourse—iIn His dis- course to His Disciples after the Last Supper,'® Christ clearly distinguishes between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “Ego rogabo Patrem et alium Paraclitwm (4ddAov mapdxdntov) dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in aeternum — I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” *°° The “alius’’ so distinctly differentiates the Paraclete from both Christ Himself and the Father, that a blending of the Three Persons into one, or into two, is entirely out of question. (The Pather | “eivesi;) the, Paraclete 1s given: -and Christ “asks the Father to give’ the Para- jclete. It is futile to object that God may give 167 Acts XIX, 1-6. 169 John XIV, 16. 168 John XIV-XVI. THE SHOLY GHOST 103 Himself to His creatures; for the Father is asked by the Son to give to the Apostles, not Himself, nor His Son, but the Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. The hypostatic difference between the Three Per- sons of the Divine Trinity is still more clearly marked in John XIV, 26: “Paraclitus autem Spiritus sanctus, quem muttet Pater in nomine meo, ile vos docebit omnia (‘O 8& mapéxAnros, 73° mVeba TO Gylov, O TéEupe 6 TaTHP ev TS GvOpaTi mov, éxeEivos [not: éxetvo] tas dbase mévra) — But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things.” In this pas- sage, too, it is impossible to confound the Para- clete with the Father, because it is the Father who sends Him; or with Christ, because it is in Christ’s name that He is sent. Consequently the Paraclete is a different Person than either the Father or the Son. | 3. THE IMMANENT ORIGIN OF THE Hoty Guost.—The Holy Ghost is “of God,” and; like _ the Logos, Himself a Divine Person, who owes Pris: Personality to His eternal procession from the Father. Sacred Scripture calls the Holy Ghost “the Spirit that is of God,*’ *°. and” dis- tinctly declares that He _‘proceedeth. from the iather.’? 171 Consequently the Holy Ghost is a “different Person from the Father. But is He 170 r Cor. II, 12: +d wvevua 7d 171 John XV, 26: mapa Tov maTpos €k Tov Geo, KTropeveTat, 104 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT likewise personally distinct from the Son? The context plainly shows that that is what St. John means to inculcate. “Cum autem venerit Para- clitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, spiritum veritatis qui a Patre procedit (7° mvevpa Tis dAnbelas, 8 mapa Tod marpds éxropeverar), ille testimonium perhi- bebit de me—But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. 7172 Here the Para- clete, or “Spirit of truth,’ who “proceedeth tr om the Father,” and who cannot therefore be iden- tical with the Father, is sharply distinguished from the Son, who sends Him; for no one can send Himself. Besides, St. John distinctly at- firms that the Paraclete is sent to give testi- mony of Christ. From all of which it is as plain as the light of day that the Bible makes a sharp distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Father and the Son, and that each must therefore be a separate and distinct Hypostasis. C. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost Although the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is logically deducible from the texts already quoted, the Pneumatomachian and Socinian heresies de- mand a special refutation. In formulating the Scriptural argument for the Divinity of the 172 John XV, 26. | THE HOLY GHOST 10s Holy Ghost, we shall follow the same method which we employed in elaborating that for the Divinity of Christ. t., PRE, DIvINE ATTRIBUTES | OF THE) TLOLy Guost.—Sacred Scripture ascribes to the Holy Ghost divine attributes both of being and of} lite.) Therefore the Holy Ghost is "God. a) Of the transcendental attributes of being, truth is frequently ascribed to the Holy Ghost. He is called the substantial “ Spirit of truth,’ who “teaches all truth.” - John XVI, 13: “Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veri- tatis (ro mvebpa THs dAnBelas), docebit vos omnem verita- tem (mracav tyv ddAndeav)— But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.” This sub- stantial Spirit of truth by virtue of Piss. “ procession from the Father ’’ must be increate and divine; else He could not be called the Inspirer of God’s infallible word.178 3 A second characteristic prerogative of the Holy Ghost, which is indicated by His very name, is His substantial holiness or sanctity. The epithet sanctus (ayws) de- scribes the very essence of the Third Person of the Divine Trinity. Not as if the Father and the Son were not also substantially holy,’"* but the Holy Ghost pro- ceeds from Sanctity or Love as His principle, and is therefore Hypostatic Holiness or Personal Love.*’® It is for this reason that He is represented, per ap- propriationem, as “the Sanctifier,’ 7. e., the principle of all created holiness. ‘Cir’ Rom, V, 5:. “ Caritas Det Disia Petal sw2nt. Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- 174 God as such must be holy by sence, and Attributes, pp. 251 sqq. His very nature.—Cfr. Pohle- 175 Infra, Chapters III and IV. 106, THE TRINITY IN THE WEW, TESTAMENT diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum, qui datus est nobis — The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” The omnipotence of the Holy Ghost is more clearly defined in the supernatural sphere than in the domain of nature. St. Paul sublimely demonstrates it in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Holy Ghost is eulogized as the author of the supernatural gifts of grace, such as wisdom, knowledge, the WOE of miracles, prophecy, “interpretation of speeches,” etc.” ‘The Holy Ghost wrought His own theophany (or vile | manifestation) in the form of “ parted tongues of fire” on Pentecost Day, when, as Sacred Scripture tells us, the Apostles “were filled with the Holy Ghost, and . began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.” 177 But the great- est miracle of His omnipotence was the Incarnation, when the Blessed Virgin Mary “conceived [her Divine Son] of the Holy Ghost.” 178 Omnipresence and indwelling are likewise distinctly divine attributes. Now, the Holy Ghost is everywhere in Sacred Scripture represented as the penetrating, trans- forming, purifying, sanctifying, and vivifying principle of supernatural life; so much so that the Nicaeno-Con- stantinopolitan Creed expressly designates Him as the Vivihers ? Chr. Johny Wil Gas iS pirlius! est. gus sere ficat — It is the Spirit that quickeneth.” 2 Cor. III, 6: “To 6€ mvevpa Cworoet— But the Spirit quickeneth.” This vivifying and sanctifying omnipresence implies the divine prerogative of indwelling in the souls of the just. 1761 Cor. XII, 4-11. — That which is conceived in her, 177 Acts II, 4. is of the Holy Ghost.” 178 Cfr. Matth. I, 20: ‘“‘ Quod in 179 Vivificator ({wotroids), % ey ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est He who gives life, THE HOLY GHOST 107 The Saints are temples of the Holy Ghost. John XIV, 17: “You shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.” 1 Cor. III, 16: “Know you not that you are the temples of the Holy Ghost, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Cor. VI, 19: “Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God?” b) Of the attributes of divine life, omniscience be- longs to the Holy Ghost in the same measure as it belongs to the Logos. He is the “searcher of the deep things of God,” which “no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor. I, 10-11: “ Spiritus ommia scrutatur, etiam profunda Det. Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, msi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Ita et ea quae Dei sunt, nemo cognowit nisi Spiritus Dei — For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit of God.” In virtue of this Divine Knowledge He is the revealer of the mysteries of God. “Spiritu loqut- tur mysteria.’ 8° Out of His perfect knowledge of the future free acts of rational creatures, the Holy Ghost inspires the prophets and predicts the future. John XVI, 13: “Quae ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis — The things that are to come, he shall shew you.” *%4 Besides these attributes, there are His external di- vine operations. Continuing the work of the Redemp- tion, the Holy Ghost is perpetually remitting sins in the Church. John XX, 22 sq.: “ Accipite Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur ets L8Oine Gor, oN Ven 2 ChE 2 ete Ls 181 Cir.-also 1. Pet.) 1; ‘10° saq.3..2 21. Peto 21: 8 108 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.’—‘ The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost,” 82 and it is the Holy Ghost through whom the just are adopted as children of God. Rom. VIII, 14: “ Ouicumque enim Spiritu Dei aguntur, i sunt filu Det ‘ — For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” He is, lastly, the seal of super- natural life stamped on our souls. Eph. I, 13: “ Cre- dentes signati estis Spiritu promissioms sancto |. @., Spiritu a Deo promisso]— Believing, you were signed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (that is to say, with the Spirit promised by God). 2. THE Hoty GuHost ENTITLED To DIVINE Worsuip.—The Trinitarian form of benediction puts the Holy Ghost on a par with the Father and the Son. This general argument for His adorability can be fortified by a special proof, drawn from the peculiar malice involved in blas- pheming the Person of the Holy Ghost. Cfr. Matth. XII, 31-32: “ Omne peccatum et blas- phemia remittetur hominibus ; Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur. Et quicunque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis [i. e., Christum] remittetur ei; que autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro — Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blas- phemy of 1%* the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And 182 Rom. V, 5. renders it in The Four Gospels, A 183 Better, against, as Fr. Spencer New Translation, New York 1898. CHE DIVINT TYy-OF SHE HOEY: GHOST 2709 whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Therefore blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a more grievous offence than ordinary blasphemy; which could not be were not the Holy Ghost at least coequal in majesty and adorableness with the Father and the Son. As for Christ’s dictum in the text just quoted, we need hardly say that it is only as man that He subordinates Himself to the Holy Ghost, in the same sense in which He elsewhere says: 184 “ The Father is greater than I.” This argument is confirmed by all those Scriptural texts which contain the phrase “temple of the Holy Ghost,” for a temple is reared for the worship of the Divinity. 3. THE NAME “Gop” APPLIED TO THE HOLY Guost.—Although the Bible nowhere expressly calls the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity “God,” the appellation occurs frequently in con- texts where ‘“‘God” can be legitimately substituted tor, Holy Ghost,” a) To begin with, the Old Testament contains a num- ber of passages which are directly referred to the Holy Ghost in the New. Is. VI, 8-9, we read: “Et audim vocem Domini (YIN) dicentis: ...Vade et dices po- pulo huic: audite audientes et nolite intelligere — And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: . . . Go and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear and understand not.” Now St. Paul teaches:*®° “ Bene Spiritus Sanc- tus locutus est per Isaiam prophetam: Vade et dices, 184 John XIV, 28, 185 Acts XXVIII, 25. 110 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT etc. — Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say to them, etc.” According to St. Paul, therefore, the Holy Ghost is identical with the Old Testament ‘27x, that is to say, with the one true God, to whom alone this name is attributable as a quasi nomen proprium.®® A similar substitution of names takes place whenever a prophecy is alternately ascribed to the Father, to the Son, and to the. Holy Ghost.18* If the Father is God, and the Son is God, the Holy Ghost, too, must be God. b) In many passages of the New Testament the word “God” can be directly substituted for ‘‘ Holy Ghost.” Thus St. Peter addresses Ananias in these words: “Cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum, mentiri te Spiritui Sancto.... Non es mentitus hominibus, sed Deo — Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost. . . . Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.” +88 By substitution we get the proposition: “The Holy Ghost is God.’ St. Paul, when he asks: °° “ Nescitis quia templum Dei estis et Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis? — Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ”— plainly intimates that the Holy Ghost dwelling in “the temple of God” is identical with God Him- self.49° A comparison of John I, 13: “Ex Deo nati sunt — They are born of God,” with John III, 5: “ Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto — Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” shows that “ Holy Ghost ” = “God.” Finally St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Hebrews: “ Multifariam 186 Compare Ps. XCIV, 8-11 with ASO Teo seto. Heb. III, 7-11. 190 Cfr, 1. Cor. VI, 493 a Cor. VI, 187 Vide supra, pp. 29 sa. 16, 188 Acts V, 3-4. TE DI MINIT: OR ACER HOLY GHOST 211 multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis —God .. . at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the proph- ets,’ ®t and St. Peter assures us: “ Non enim volun- tate humana allata est aliquando prophetia, sed Spiritu Sancto inspirati locutt sunt sancti Det homines — For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.i A The synthesis of the Three Divine Persons in the complete concept of the Trinity is most perfectly consummated in the so-called ordo subsistendi,® by virtue of which the Three ob- serve a. constant order and follow one another in an immutable sequence, The members of this formula can not be transposed. The Father must be conceived strictly as the First, the Son as the Second, and the Holy Ghost as the Third Per- son of the Godhead. Yet this i is not to be under- stood as implying a sequence of time or dignity, a before or after, a more or less; for in virtue of their absolute consubstantiality or homoousia all Three Divine Persons are coequal in rank, eternity, and\power.*°* The numerical sequence 191 Heb. I, 1. 1922 Pet. I, 21. For a fuller elucidation of the topic of this para- graph, cfr. Heinrich, Dogmat. The- ologie, IV, § 228; Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 489-509. ~~ 193’AkodNovdla KaTa Thy Taku, 194 Cfr. the Athanasian Creed: “ Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae et coaequales — And in this Trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another, but the whole Three Persons are Co- eternal together, and co-equal.” 112 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT of the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity, therefore, simply implies a succession with re- gard to origin, the Father being the principle of the Son, and the Father and the Son together the principle of the Holy Ghost. In our Lord’s baptismal mandate, in the form of baptism which He Himself dictated, in the Comma Ioanneum, in the Christian doxologies, and wherever else the Bible formally enumerates the Three Divine Persons, this order is unvaried. When Holy Scripture seems to make an exception (as, e. g., for, Xn sdq.), it 1s, easy to isee:thaty no formal enumeration is intended. READINGS : — On the theology of the Holy Ghost cfr. St. Atha- nasius, De Trinit. et Spiritu Sancto Libri III; Didymus Alex., De Spiritu Sancto (in Migne, Patr. Gr., 39, 1031 sqq.); St. Am- brose, De Spiritu. Sancto ad Gratianum August.; S. Thom., Contr. Gent., IV, 16 sqq. (Rickaby, 1. c., pp. 349 sqq.) and the commentators; Petavius, De Trinit., II, 6, 13 sqq., VII, 5; Th. Schermann, Die Gottheit des hl. Geistes nach den griechischen Vatern des vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901; Cardinal Man- ning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Am. reprint, New York 1905; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trimité, pp. 251 sqq., 283 sqq., 325 sqq., 371 sqq., 418 sqq., Paris 1910; E. W. Winstanley, Spirit in the New Testament: An Enquiry into the Use of the word mvevua in all Passages, and a Survey of the Evidence Concerning the Holy Spirit, Cam- bridge 1908; H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testa- ment, London 1909; J. Forget, art. “ Holy Ghost” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 409 sqq. CHAPTER II THE BLESSED TRINITY IN TRADITION The dogma of the Blessed Trinity was de- fined by. the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325. The ensuing Antitrinitarian controversies, which marked the period ending with the year 381, . came to a head at the Second Ecumenical Coun- cil, which safeguarded the doctrine against va- rious heretical incursions. In the precise for- mulation which it received at Nicaea and Con- stantinople, the dogma has come down to our time, and we can consequently, in demonstrating it from Tradition, confine our attention to the first four centuries of the Christian era. Since the condemnation of various heretical perver- sions affords the best insight into the genuine ecclesiastical Tradition, we shall preface our positive exposition by a brief account of the Antitrinitarian heresies up to the beginning of the fifth century. 113 SECTION tf THE ANTITRINITARIAN HERESIES AND THEIR CONDEMNATION BY THE CHURCH There are two logical processes whereby the dogma of the Blessed Trinity can be essentially perverted; per defectum, 1. e., by exaggerating the notion of unity and eliminating that of Trin- ity (Monarchianism) ; or per excessum, 1. e., by exaggerating the concept of the Trinity, making it a Trinity of Divine Natures and thereby denying the unity of Persons (Tritheism). Tritheism will receive due consideration in the second part of this volume, in which we shall expound the doctrine of Unity in the _ Trinity (Unitas in Trinitate). Monarchianism, or the doctrine of the Monarchia, as it is called by an assumption of exclusive orthodoxy like that which has led to the adoption of the term “ Uni- tarianism ” at the present day, denies the distinction of Persons in the Divine Nature. It is threefold: (1) crass Monarchianism, in its present-day form called Uni- tarianism, which denies all distinction of persons in God. (2) Modalism, so-called, which admits a Trinity of Persons, but holds that the difference between them 1Cfr. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. IIZ. 114, MONARCHIANISM 11s is not real, but merely nominal or modal; this heresy is called Sabellianism from its chief oon Sabellius. (3) Subordinationism, which, while it readily grants that the three Divine Persons are really distinct, insists that they are not coequal, but subordinate one to the other (Arianism; Macedonianism). This logical division of Monarchianism “substantially coincides with the suc- cessive phases of its historic development. READINGS : — The various text-books of Church History, espe- cially Alzog (Pabisch-Byrne’s translation), Vol. I, pp. 348 sqq., 5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; Funk-Cappadelta, 4 Manual of Church Fristoe Vol. I, London 1910; *Hefele, A History of the Coun- cils of the Church, Vols. I sqq.; *Oswald, Trinitatslehre, §§ 8-0, Paderborn 1888; H. Couget, La SS. Trinité et les Dogmes An- titrinitaires, Baris 1905; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 63 sqq., New York 1gio. AR DICER CRASS MONARCHIANISM I. [HE Heresy or MoNnarcHIANISM.—This is an ancient heresy, the beginnings of which can be traced to the second century of the Chris- tianera. It is either Dynamistic or Patripassian. Dynamistic Monarchianism asserts that the Father alone is true God, and that the divine ele- ment in Christ was merely a power (Svvams) in- dwelling in Him as an impersonal divine spirit. Patripassian Monarchianism completely identifies the Son with the Father, asserting that the Per- son of the Father was made flesh and suffered on the Cross. The Patripassian is superior to the 116 THE TRINITY IN TRADITION Dynamistic form of Monarchianism in so far as it acknowledges Christ to be a manifestation of the Divine Essence. a) Dynamistic Monarchianism was championed by the Ebionites, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians, who all held that Christ was a mere man, though endowed with divine powers or energies, after the manner of the Old Testament prophets or the pagan soothsayers. The chief representatives of this heresy were Theodotus of Byzantium (about A.D. 192), a tanner by trade, and his pupil Theodotus the Younger. The latter, sur- named the Money-Changer, asserted that a divine power had indeed descended upon the man Jesus at his bap- tism, but that the same Divine Power (Adyos, vids ) had appeared in Melchisedech, who had been media- tor and intercessor for the angels in the same sense in which Christ was for men, and whose followers were therefore called Melchisedechians.2 A somewhat later protagonist of this heresy was the notorious Paul of Samosata, an extremely clever man, who died as Bishop of Antioch, about A.D. 260. He taught that Christ, though supernaturally begotten and born of a virgin, was nevertheless a mere man, and that the Di- vine Logos (i. e., the impersonal wisdom of God) was not united to Him substantially, but simply as a quality or power; whence His deification was foreordained. Thus “the Logos was greater than Christ; the Logos was from above, Christ from below ; Christ suffered in His nature and wrought miracles by grace.” It was 2 Alzog, Universal Church His- the tanner, and his pupil the tory, English tr., Vol. I 350; money-changer, cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Blunt’s Dictionary of Sects, Here- Eccles., V, 28; Theodoretus, Haeret. sies, etc., new impression, London Fab. TL, 5: 1903, pp. 304 sq. On Theodotus MONARCHIANISM 117 only by means of divine grace and His own co-operation therewith, that Christ ultimately became God.* A kindred heresy was that of Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium (d. 366), who “increased the scandal, by ad- vocating, and with greater boldness, an almost Unitarian doctrine.” * He taught that the Logos is the imper- sonal intellect, while the Holy Ghost is the impersonal power of God, in whom there is but one Person, wiz., the Father. Hence @eés=doyordérwp. Christ, according to Photinus, was a simple man, in whom the Logos dwelt as efficient power (évépyea Spactixy), and who earned for himself the name of “ God” by his obedience. The main argument of all these heretics was this. If the Father were other than the Son, and each were nevertheless true God, it would be necessary to assume the existence of two Gods (Ditheism). Consequently Christ, though endowed with divine power (dvvams), is a mere man. Paul of Samosata quoted in support of his heresy John XVII, 3; XIV, 28; Matth. XI, 27; Luke Pes2. b) The Patripassian form of Monarchianism, accord- ing to the Philosophoumena,® seems to have had for its author Noétus of Smyrna, a philosopher of the school of Heraclitus. He denied the distinction of Per- sons in the Godhead and taught that the Father was born, suffered, and died in Christ.6 Another leader of the 3 Cfr. Alzog, I, 350 sq.; Hergen- rother, Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol. I, p. 222. There is some diff- culty in determining what were the opinions of the Samosatene. Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 237 sqq.; Ip—em, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 3 sqq. 4Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 313. 5 1X, 7 saqq., ed. Miller, p. 284, Oxon. 1851. Cfr. Bardenhewer- Shahan, Patrology, pp. 209 sqq. 6 “ Pater passus est.” In a frag- ment of the writings of Hippolytus Noétus’s teaching is stated in these terms: “Tdv Xpwordyv elvar tov marépa Kal avroy Tov matépa yeyevynobar Kat merovOévar Kai amoreOynkévar, (Fragm. contr. Noét., c. 1.) On Noétus and the ‘118 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES Patripassian heretics was Praxeas (about A.D. 192), a contemporary of Tertullian, by whom he was denounced as one of the “ vanissimt Monarchiani’”’ who boasted, “ Monarchiam habemus.’* Regardless of the distinc- tion between Nature and Person, Praxeas taught that the Divine Substance has but one Hypostasis. As Father; God is This clear-cut definition irrevocably established the dogma of Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Divinity, and His Con- substantiality with the Father.” The heretical antitheses of Arius were condemned in a special anathematism appended to the Creed, which reads as follows: “ Eos autem qui dicunt: erat [tempus] quando non erat (iw more, dre otk jv) et 25 Newman’s translation. Cfr. Se- 26 Cfr. St. Athanasius, De Decret. lect Treatises of St. Athanasius in Nicaen. Syn., reproduced in Migne, Controversy with the Arians, Vol. 1, P.G., XXV, 415 sqq. Pp. 57. Ie ‘ A = whe hn Bh. SS Te { t ~ —_ E-Lak SUBORDINATIONISM 127 priusquam gigneretur, non erat, et avunt Filium Dei ex non exstantibus factum (ér é& odk dvtwv éyévero) vel ex alia substantia vel essentia esse (é érépas troordoews 7) odctas evar) vel mutabilem vel vertibilem (dAAowTOv 7) tpentov) esse, hos anathematizat Ecclesia catholica — But those who say, ‘Once he was not,’ and ‘ Before His generation He was not,’ and ‘He came into being from nothing, or those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘of other subsistence or substance,’ or ‘ created,’ or ‘alterable,’ or ‘mutable,’ the Catholic Church anath- - ematizes.” 2? In this passage the Holy Synod reaffirms /, the Consubstantiality of the Son of God (4. 2.,.Christ); , t.i-by rejecting the doctrine of the H eterousia, and asserts “His Divinity by emphasizing that He possesses the attri- ‘butes of eternity, uncreatedness, and immutability. b) Pope Damasus, at a synod held in Rome, A. D. 380,2° so thoroughly repudiated the heresy of Macedonius that the twenty-fourth in his series of anathemas has been justly styled “a summary of the contents of all the others, and the keystone of all previous dogmatic for- mulas.” ®® The Second Ecumenical Council, con- voked by the Emperor Theodosius I at Con- stantinople, A.D. 381, formally defined the Divinity of the Holy Ghost in these words: “Et 27 Newman’s translation. (Select so definitely settled and so familiarly Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. received as afterwards.” (Select Pe pease) Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, 28 The Fathers of Nicaea use Pp. 4538-) trécracis aS synonymous with 29 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- ‘ovcla, The two terms, as Cardinal chiridion, Nos. 58 saqq. Newman points out, at that time 30 Scheeben, Dogmatik, I, p. 748. “had not their respective meanings 128 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES im S puritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem ( regarded as a mere amplification of the Nicene Creed. It seems that the Fathers assembled at Constantinople did not have before them the Creed of Nicaea, but a different symbol which had been adopted by a provincial synod of Jerusalem held about the same time.** The schis- matic Greeks cherish the so-called Creed of Nicaea-Con- stantinople with an almost superstitious reverence as their inviolable and sole norm of faith. They call it TO tepwtatov ovuBodrov, because it embodies all “twelve articles of belief ” ‘ina formula which is as immutable as it is definitive. “The Nicene Creed [in the ampli- 82 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- pp. 46 sqq., Erlangen and Leipzig - Chiridion, nn. 275 sqq. 1896. 33 Cfr. E. F. K. Miller, Symbolik, 130 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES fied form believed to have been given to it by the Coun- cil of Constantinople],” says W. Gass,** “is the jewel _of their faith, a brief but exhaustive précis of their dog- matic teaching, Its letters are woven into the vest- ments of their highest ecclesiastical dignitaries at Mos- cow. Their liturgy culminates in its recitation, and the great bell of the Kremlin is rung during its recital, which also forms part of the ceremony when the Czar is crowned in the presence of his people. It is for this reason that the faithful are so familiar with its text, which is furthermore constantly recalled to their mind by numerous symbolic pictures circulated among them.” - READINGS: — On Arianism, Walch, Ketzergeschichte, Vol. II, pp. 385 sqq., Leipzig 1764; *Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus, Mainz 1844; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 806 sqq., Stuttgart 1845 (English translation, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 5 vols., Edinburgh 1861-63); *Kuhn, Christ- liche Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit, §§ 25 sqq., Tubingen 1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 8, Romae 1881; J. Mar- quardt, Cyrilli Hierosolym. De Contentionibus et Placitis Aria- norum Sententia, Braunsberg 1881; Lauchert, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius, Miinchen 1805; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed., London 1900; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Cen- tury, New Impression, London 1901; IpEM, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, 9th ed. (Vol. II, Being an Appendix of Illustrations), London 1903; IpEM, Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, New Ed., pp. 137 sqq., London 1895. | On modern Antitrinitarianism, or Unitarianism, cfr. Trechsel, Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin, Heidel- berg 1839-44; F. S. Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum, maxime Socinianismi et Socinianorum, 2 vols., Regiomont. 1774-5; Th. Parker, A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion, London 34 Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 119, Berlin 1872. SUBORDINATIONISM 131 1846; *Burnat, Lelio Socin, Vevey 1804; *Ph. Huppert, Der deutsche Protestantismus zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, 3rd ed., Koln 1902; J. H. Allen, Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movement Since the Reformation, New York 1894; R. Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, 3 vols., London 1850; T. R. Slicer, art. “Unitarianism in the United States,” in the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. XV, New York 1904. SEs Nie THE POSITIVE TRADITION OF THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES The Trinitarian belief of the Christian Church during the first four centuries is manifested partly by her official liturgy and the private prayers of the faithful; partly by the doctrinal ; discussions | of the. Eee whom, for ‘conven- jence sake, we may group in two categories, vig., Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene. The Coun- cil of Nicaea forms a sort of dividing line be- tween the two, in so far as before its formal ously groping for Fane: terms. and not infre- ‘quently failed to formulate the teaching e the Church with sufficient theological precision." We cannot reasonably assume that they déviated from this teaching, except in the few cases in which the fact is clearly apparent from their writings. One of these exceptional cases is that of Hippolytus, who is charged with entertain- ing Ditheistic views; another, that of Origen, whose language on the subject of the Blessed ieGire 5). -Chapman,-.O: S, B., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, Dp. 450. 132 THE OFFICIAL LITURGY 133 Trinity lays him open to the suspicion of hetero- doxy. GENERAL READINGS : — *Ruiz, De Trinitate, Lugduni 1625; Wer- ner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der christlichen Theologie, Vol. I, Schaffhausen 1861; Réville, Histoire du Dogme de la Divinité de Jésus-Christ, 2nd ed., Paris 1876; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2nd ed., 2 vols., Stuttgart 1845 (translated into English under the title History of the Development of the Doc- trine of the Person of Christ, Edinburgh 1861-3; 5 vols.; to be used with caution) ; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, and ed., Vols. I and II, Freiburg 1892, 1895; Th. de Régnon, Etudes de Thé- ologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité, 4 vols., Paris 1892 sqq.; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (Engl. tr.), Vol. Tea Stre Louis 1910; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 50 sqq., New York IQIO. ARTICLE 47 THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE OFFICIAL LITURGY OF :-THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE PRIVATE PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL 1. THE ApostLes’ Creep.—The belief of the early Christians found its natural utterance in the so-called Apostles’ Creed, which is un- doubtedly as old as the Church herself. In all of its various recensions this symbol voices sim- ple faith in the Divine Trinity.2 St. Ireneus,? Origen,” and Tertullian” testify to its antiquity. The salient passages concerning the Blessed 2Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 4 De Princip., Preface, Migne, P, chiridion, nn. 1-14, Ga XG ray sat F 3 Adv. Haer., I, 10, Migne, P. G., 5 De Praescr., 13, Migne, P. L., VII, 550 sq. ; LES 26. ‘134 “THE POSELIVE TRADITION Trinity are as follows: “Credo in Deum [not: deos|, Patrem omnipotentem ... et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum ... et in Spi- ritum Sanctum —I believe in God [not: gods], the Father, Almighty, . . . and in Jesus Christ, His only Son . . . and in the Holy Ghost.” It is safe to regard the Apostles’ Creed as an expansion of the form of Baptism; in fact it is the baptismal symbolum. The constant practice “of the Church in the administration of Baptism is of itself convincing proof that the dogma of the Divine Trinity always formed part and parcel of the original deposit of faith. In the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which, according to the late Dr. F. X. Funk, was written towards the end of the first century, when Nerva ruled the Roman Empire, we read: “Baptigate in nomine (cis 76 Bvopa) Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti — Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” * An interesting counterpart of the baptismal symbolum of the early Church is the private profession of faith 6 Rediscovered by Philotheus Bry- of the Didache, see The Ante-Ni- ennios and edited by him in 1883. cene Fathers, American Reprint, Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrolo- Vol. VII, pp. 377 sqq., New York 9g), Pp. 19 sqq.; Tixeront, History 1907. On the Apostles’ Creed cfr. of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 135 saq.; Baumer, Das Apostolische Glaubens- C. Taylor, An Essay on the Doc- bekenninis, seine Geschichte und trine of the Didache, Cambridge sein Inhalt, Mainz 1893, and Her- 1889. bert Thurston, S. J., in the Cath- 7 Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum, olic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 629 7, 1; ed. Funk, pp. 21 sq., Tubingae 632, who also gives copious biblio- 1884. For an English translation graphical references, THE PRAYERS; OF ‘THE: PATPHPUL Y. 135 ascribed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270). This document tersely, clearly, and completely expounds the Catholic teaching on the Blessed Trinity. Defending the faith against Paul of Samosata, the Wonder- worker professes: “ Unus Deus Pater Verbi viventis. . Unus Dominus solus ex solo, Deus ex Deo.... Unus Spiritus Sanctus ex Deo subsistentiam (érapéw) habens. . . . Trinitas perfecta (rps redeia), quae gloria et aeternitate et regno non dividitur nec alienatur — There is one God, Father of the Living Word.... One Lord, sole from sole, God from God... . One Holy Ghost having His being from God....A perfect Triad not separated nor dissociated in glory, eternity, and reign.” ® Gregory of Nyssa tells us that his grandmother Macrina had received this formula from Thaumaturgus himself and handed it down to her grandchildren in Cappadocia. We are able to obtain a glimpse into the popular belief of the early Christians from an ancient evening hymn, which concludes with a doxology to “ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” *° 2. THE ANCIENT CHRISTIAN DoxXOLOGIES.— _.. The public and private doxologies, which may be looked upon as the common property of the faithful in the early Church,** distinctly voice belief in the Blessed Trinity. In fact these an- 8 Migne, P. G., X, 984 saqq. New- 10’EXOdyres ert rov HAlov Siow, man’s translation, Tracts Theol. and (Sdvres paws éorepivdy, tuvoumer Eccles., pp. 155 Sq. TaTépa Kal vioy Kal ay.ov mvevua OeMitenemes Psu Gr, SNISVL wt 107.3% Qcov, Quoted by Routh, Reliqu. Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of St. Sacr., 2nd ed., Vol. III, p. 515, Gregory Thaumaturgus is, how- Oxon. 1846. ever, ‘of little historical value be- 11 For a brief historical account cause of its highly legendary char- of them, see Fortescue’s article acter.”’ Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, “ Doxology ”’ in the Catholic Ency- Patrology, p. 170. clopedia, Vol. V, pp.» 150 sq, 136 THE POSITIVE FRADITION cient hymns, or psalms of praise, seem to be a development of the Trinitarian forms of bene- diction contained in the New Testament Epistles, and they doubtless reflect the publicly professed faith of the early Christians, unaffected by ex- traneous elements of abortive speculation. The coordinative form “Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritut Sancto (or cum Spiritu Sancto) — Glory be to God the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost (or, together with the Holy Ghost), and the subordinative form, “Gloria Patri per Filium im Spirttu Sancto — Glory be to the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost” are probably of equal antiquity, and the asser- tion of the Arian historian Philostorgius,” that the first-mentioned formula had been introduced into the liturgy by Bishop Flavian of Antioch, must be received with suspicion. It is certain that already Justin Martyr was acquainted with it.1* Because the Arians showed a decided pre- dilection for the formula “Gloria Patri per Filium mM Spiritu Sancto,” ( Ava Tov viod &v TO aylw TVEVHATL ) , St. Basil substituted therefor, as equally correct, the formula peta Tod viot civ 76 mrveipatt TO ayiw, which threw into stronger relief the consubstantiality and coequal adorableness of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the Father.” 12 Hist. Eccles., III, 13, Migne, 14 Cfr. Von der Goltz, Das Gebet PP: G., LXV, 502. in der dltesten Christenhett, pp. 135 18 Apol.; .I, c. 68, Migne, FP, Gy, sqq., Leipzig 1902. VI, 427. THE CONFESSIONS OF THE MARTYRS 137 3. THE CONFESSIONS OF THE Martyrs.—The confessions of faith that have come down to us from the lips of the early martyrs, furnish an- other important contribution to the positive Tra- dition of the primitive Church concerning the Blessed Trinity. Being the formal pronounce- ments of holy men and women, made before pagan magistrates in the face of cruel death, they are rightly held in high esteem. The old- est document of this kind which we possess is the confession of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who laid down his life for his faith A. D. 166. Its salient passages are as follows: “Verax Deus, ... te glorifico per sempiternum et coe- lestem pontificem lesum Christum, dilectum F1- lium, per quem tibt cum ipso et in Spiritu Sancto gloria et nunc et in futura saecula — O truthful God, . . . I glorify Thee, through the Eternal and Heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, [Thy] beloved Son, through whom be glory to Thee, with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now and for the ages to come.” ’® Some martyrs in their profession of faith laid special stress on the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus St. Epi- podius of Lyons (+178): “Christum cum 15 Acta Martyr. Polyc., XIV, 3. the Three, one with another, than ** Here,” says Newman, ‘‘ the Three is signified in that form, viz., as are mentioned, as in the baptismal contained in the words, ‘ through,’ form; as many as Three, and no ‘with,’ and ‘in.’” Tracts Theol. more than Three, with the expres- and Eccles., p. 1506. — sion of a still closer association of 138 HE. POs VS TRAD IION Patre et Spiritu Sancto Deum esse confiteor, dignumque est, ut illi [scil. Christo] animam meam refundam, qui mihi et creator est et re- demptor —I confess Christ to be God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and it is meet that I should give back my soul to Him [1. e., Christ], Who is my Creator and Redeemer.” *° The holy deacon Vincent, who died a martyr’s death, A. D. 304, is reported to have professed his faith in these words: “Dominum Christum contiteor, Filium altissima Patris, unicr unicum, ipsum cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto unum solum Deum esse profiteor —I confess the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the most high Father, the Only One of the Only One, I confess Him with the Father and the Holy Ghost to be the one sole God.” ** To St. Euplus of Catania (+ 304) we owe one of the most beautiful confessions of faith in the Trinity that has come down to us from the early days. Itisas follows: “Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum adoro; sanctam Trinitatem adoro, praeter quam non est Deus. . . . Sacri- fico modo Christo Deo meitpsum. ... Ego sa- crifico etimmolo meipsum Patri et Filio et Spiritus Sancto —I adore the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost; I adore the holy Trinity, besides which there is no God. . . . I now sacrifice my- 16 Ruinart, Acta Martyr., p. 65, Veronae 1731. 17 Ruinart, J. c., p. 325. THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 139 Selr to C@lirist, [who 16} Gods . 47. Ta Sacrifice and immolate myself to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” *® READINGS: — On the worship of the Blessed Trinity by the early Christians, see Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritual., t. I, diss. 2, ers, On the acts of the martyrs, see *Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 816 sqq., Leipzig 1893; Semeria, Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto nella Chiesa Primitiva, Roma 1902; cfr. also James Bridge in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX,. pp. 742 sqq.; H. Delehaye, S. J., The Legends of the Saints, London 1897. ARTICLE 2 THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS I. THEIR CLEAR AND DEFINITE PROFESSION OF FAITH IN THE BLESSED TRINITY.—The Ante- Nicene Fathers acknowledged in the One God- head three real Persons of coequal power, that is to say, not essentially subordinated one to the other. Hence it requires no special argument to prove that these Fathers professed the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. Of course any explicit and emphatic assertion, in their writings, of the Divinity of Jesus Christ must be of special weight. We shall have to confine ourselves to a few salient quotations. a) Eminent among the “ Apostolic Fathers” is St. . 18 For further testimonies, see Martyrerakien und andere Urkun- Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 10; den aus der Verfolgungszeit der cfr. also Von Gebhardt, Ausgewahlte christlichen Kirche, Berlin 1902, 10 140 THE :-POSITIVE; TRADITION Ignatius of Antioch, who was exposed to wild beasts at Rome under Trajan, some time between A.D. 98 and 117.19 In his much-discussed Epistles,?? Ignatius frequently avers, his faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, whom he calls “our God.” In combating the absurd heresy of the Docetae,?* he insists particularly on Christ’s twofold nature, the divine and the human. “There is one physician,” writes St. Ignatius, “ fleshly and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God and come in flesh, eternal life in death, from Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible.” ” The truth that there are three Persons in the God- head is clearly professed also by Athenagoras (about 170), who is called ‘“‘the Christian Philosopher of Athens.” 22. He says: ‘“ Who would not be astonished to hear those called atheists, who speak of the Father as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost; showing both their power in unity (rhy év é&doa divapw) and their distinction in. order (rnv év tage Siatpeow) ?”’ 4 St. Irenzeus of Lyons*> deserves special mention, because he not infrequently refers to the Holy Ghost 19 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- trology, pp. 30 sqq.; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 121 sqq.; E. Bruston, Ignace d An- tioche, ses Epitres, sa Vie, sa Thé- ologie, Paris 1897. 20 Cfr. Newman, Tracts and Eccles., pp. 95-135. 21 For an account of Docetism, see the dogmatic treatise on Chris- tology. Properly speaking it is not a Christian heresy at all, but “rather came from without.” Cfr. Arendzen in the Catholic Encyclo- pedia, Vol. V, s. v. “ Docetae.” 22 Epist. ad Eph., VII, 2. New- man’s translation, Tracts Theol. and Theol. Eccles., p. 108 On St. Ignatius’s refutation of Docetism see particu- larly Tixeront, op. cit., p. 124. 23 The manuscript tradition of his Apology can be traced to the year 914. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- trology, pp. 64 sqq., and Peterson in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Il, 42 sq. An English translation of his works in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer- ican Reprint, Vol. II, pp. 129 sqq., New York 1903. 24 Legat. 10, Migne, P. G., VI, 909. Newman’s translation, Tracts Theol. and Eccles., p. 151. 25 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- trology, pp. 118 sqq. ' THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS I4I as. “Wisdom.” Take, for instance, this - passage :7° “ Adest et [scil. Deo Patri] semper Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit — There is present to Him [1. e., God the Father] always the Word and the Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in whom He has made all things freely and of His own accord.” 7" Of the many dicta of Clement of Alexandria, which could be quoted in support of our thesis, we select but one. ‘‘ The Lord,” he says, “apparently despised, but in reality adored, the Reconciler, the Saviour, the Meek, the Divine Logos, unquestionably true God, measuring Himself with the Lord of the Universe [1. e., God the Father], because He was His Son, and the Logos was ein God: *?* b) Of occidental witnesses, let us adduce at least a few besides Irenzeus. Tertullian (born about 160) in his usual rugged style writes: “ Custodiatur oeconomtiae sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem dispomit, tres dirigens: Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autem non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed forma; non potestate, sed specie. Unius autem substantiae et unius Status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species, in nomine Patris et Filit et Spiritus Sancts deputantur — Let the mystery of the dispensation be guarded, which distributes the unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the Three, viz., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; Three not_in con- dition, but in degree, not in substance, but in form, not in power, but in aspect; but of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, because God is one, - 26 Adv. Haer., IV, 20, 1. teaching, see Appendix, infra, pp. 27 On a recent controversy apro- 2015 SQ. pos of St. Ireneus’ Trinitarian 28 Cohori. ad Gent., c. to. 142 THE POSITIVE TRADITION from whom these degrees, and forms, and aspects de- rive. 7 The dogmatic encyclical of Pope Dionysius, which we have already mentioned above,*® rejects both extremes, Sabellianism as well as Tritheism. “Sabellu impie- tas,’ says this holy Pope, “im eo consistit, quod dicat Filium esse Patrem et vicissim; hi vero [tritheitae] tres deos aliquomodo praedicant, cum in tres hypostases invicem alienas, omnino separatas, dividunt sanctam unitatem (povdda). Necesse est enim divinum Verbum Deo universorum esse unitum et Spiritum Sanctum im Deo manere ac vivere.... Credendum est in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Iesum Christum Filium ews et in Spiritum Sanctum — The impiety of Sabellius con- sists in this, that he says that the Son is the Father and the Father the Son, but they [the Tritheists] in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the Holy Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly sepa- rate. For it must needs be that with the God of the universe the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and live in God. . We must believe in God the Father Almighty, sade in 1 Jesus: Christ His Son, and i in the Holy Ghost. fh is 2. VAGUE Expresstons.—The very confidence with which the Fathers of the fourth century de- fended the faith against Arius, is sufficient war- rant for the orthodoxy of the Ante- ges period. 29 Contr. Prax., Cc. 2. stolischen Vater, Wien 1880; Nirschl, 30 Supra, p. 122. Cfr. also Bar- Die Theologie des hl. Ignatius, denhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 224. Mainz 1880; Peterson, article 31 Quoted by St. Athanasius, De “‘ Apostolic Fathers’ in the Catholic Decr. Nicaen. Syn., n. 26. Cfr. . Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 637-640. Sprinzl, Die Theologie der apo- 5, VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 143 It has been asserted that Subordinationist, 1. e., Arian- izing views with regard to the relations of the Three Divine Persons were current “ among the apologists and most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.” * Petavius even ventured to affirm that the majority of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were not in full accord with the Nicene Creed.22 But before the first edition of his work on the Trinity (1644-1650) was completed, the great dog- matist found himself constrained to moderate this harsh judgment. In his “ Praefatio ad Libros de Trinitate” he explains the apparent dissent of many of the Ante- ‘Nicene Fathers as a mere “ modus loquendi.” A num- ber of learned theologians ** subsequently undertook the defense of these Fathers against so grievous an accusa- tion, and they may be said to have acquitted themselves on the whole victoriously. It must be admitted, how- ever, that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, composed at a time when dogmatic terminology still lacked that precision which was imparted to it by the Nicene Creed, expressed themselves “with an ~unsuspicious yet reverent explicitness,” °° which is apt to arouse the sus- picion of heresy. But whenever such ambiguous terms _and phrases admit of a Catholic interpretation, the rules ‘of Patristic hermeneutics compel us to prefer the ortho- | dox to the heretical sense, so long as the latter is not _ positively established. It is almost impossible to imagine that such a brilliant phalanx of theologians as Justin, Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc., should have lapsed into material heresy in regard to a fun- damental dogma of the Christian faith. “In such a 32 Cfr. Kuhn, Christl. Lehre von 34 E. g., Thomassin, Bossuet, Ma- der hl. Dreicinigkett, pp. 107 sqq., ranus, Lumper, Méhler, Franzelin, - Tubingen 1857. Schwane, Régnon, etc. 33 Cir. De Trinitate, I, 3-5. (Pe- 35 Newman, The Arians of the tavius died in 1652.) Fourth Century, p. 166. 144 THE POSITIVE TRADITION fundamental dogma, such an error in such quarters would be incompatible with the infallibility of the Church. 3:34 oe a matter of fact, upon closer scrutiny most of the “incorrect and unadvisable terms and statements in some of the early Fathers,” 37 can be offset by parallel texts from the same Fathers which are clearly and unmistakably orthodox. It must be ad- mitted, however, that prior to the Nicene Council the dogmatic formulation of the mystery of the Blessed Trin- ity was still in process of development, and theological speculation on the subject of the Logos, influenced by Platonism and Stoicism, frequently went astray and un- consciously scattered the seeds of future heresies. Cardinal Franzelin reduces the incorrect and unadvisable terms and statements found in the early Fathers on the subject of the Blessed T'rin- ity to four categories, which we will briefly re- view. a) By insisting too strongly on the character of the Father as the source and principle of the two. other ‘Persons, some Ante-Nicene writers created the impres- sion that they held the Son to be God in a less strict sense than the Father,—as it were “God in the second place”; and the Holy Ghost, “ God in the third place.” Cas St Justin writes that the Son is “ in the second 36 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, I, 288. . by the necessities of contro- versies of a later date. ... Those 37 Newman, ‘“‘ Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism,” in Tracts Theological and Ecclesiasti- cal, p. 208.—In The Arians of the Fourth Century (p. 164) Newman says of “‘ the Ante-Nicene language ” that it ‘‘ was spoken from the heart ”’ and must not be ‘‘ measured early teachers have been made to appear technical, when in fact they have only been reduced to a system; just as in literature what is com- posed freely, is afterwards subjected to the rules of grammarians and critics.” (See also op. cit., pp. 179 sqq.) VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 145 place (& Sdevrépa xoeg) ” and the Holy Ghost “in the third order (ev tpity Tage).” 3 Tertullian, on the other hand, upon whom fell the task of coining a Latin ter- minology, which he accomplished with rare ability, calls the Father “ the totality of substance (tota substantia) ,” while he refers to the Son asia derived from the whole substance (derivatio totius et Porto. 8° “Tn connection herewith a few of the Fathers reserve a name “Deus super omnia” (God above all things), _or “Very God”* _to the Father, while they speak of a: Son as @eds é ®@ecov, or simply @eds without the article Novatian (A.D. 250), who in his otherwise excellent work on the Trinity endeavored to harmonize the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son with that of the unity of the Godhead, misconceives the Consubstantiality of Father and Son.*? It is plain that all these utterances, and a number of others which could be cited from Ante-Nicene writings, can be interpreted in an Arian sense; but it is equally certain that they must not be thus Tree rere So long as the general teaching of any writer is such that the true Catholic doctrine may be reasonably presumed to underly an occasional incorrect expression, we have no right to accuse him of favoring heretical tenets. Now, it is an article of faith that the Father, as the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, has“ His Divine Nature from Himself,** whereas the Logos-Son and the Holy Ghost have the same numerical Divine Nature by imma- nent procession from the Father. It is this idea the "38. polit c. aan Oday "glikircuuchen Literatur, II, 56s, 39 Contr. Prax., 9. Freiburg 1903; L. Duchesne, Early 40‘O Oceds = avroéecs. History of the Christian Church, 41 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of (Engl. tr.), Vol. I, pp. 235 sq. the Fourth Ceniury, pp. 163 sqq. ager Avapxos, avrddeos, apxy THs 42 Cfr. Bardenhewer, Geschichte apyijs, 146 THE POSITIVE TRADITION Fathers in their crude language wished to express.‘ b) There are certain other Patristic texts which seem to rieticoetl active ‘generation on the part of the Father as “voluntary,” as if the Father could be conceived without the Son. This might easily suggest the heret- ical conclusion that the Son is a mere creature of the Father, or at most a God of inferior rank. But all ‘such utterances must be read in the light of the thesis which their respective authors were then and there de- fending against their heterodox opponents. When the exigencies of the conflict made it necessary to refute .the error that the process of divine Generation implied external compulsion, or blind necessity, or corporeal division, the Fathers rightly insisted that “ Pater volun- tate seu voluntarie eee Filium.— The Father begot the Son voluntarily.” But they did not employ ‘ “volun- tarie”’ in the sense of “ liberé.’ ~ What a meant was that the Father begot His Divine Son as “ willingly ” as He is the infinite God. Later on, when the Arians and Eunomians began. to_propagate the heretical error that the Son is a creature, the product of a free act of creation on the part of the Father, 45 the Patristic_ 44 On the orthodoxy of Tertul- lian, see Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. 1905 end 5. Vixeront! History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 310 sqq. On I, § x11, n. 835 sqq., and Barden- hewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, II, 387 sq. Bardenhewer’s opinion on this head is thus sum- marized in his Patrology (English edition by Shahan, p. 185): ‘‘In his defence of the personal distinc- tion between the Father and the Son he [Tertullian] does not, ap- parently, avoid a certain Subordi- nationism. Nevertheless in many very clear expressions and turns of thought he almost forestalls the Ni- cene Creed.” Cfr. also A. d’Alés, La Théologie de Tertullien, Paris flaws external to Himself, |_not voluntary, and that, if on the _ other hand it was voluntary, the the Trinitarian teaching of St. Jus- tin Martyr, see A. L. Feder, S. J., Justins des Martyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus dem Messias, Frei- burg 1906. 45 ‘It was one of the first and principal interrogations put to the Catholics by their Arian opponents, whether the Generation of the Son was_ voluntary or not on the part of the Father; their dilemma being, that Almighty God was subject to if it were VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 147 )writers met the new difficulty by the declaration that a rT the Procession of the Son from the Father is as nec- se aperinae essary as the vital process in the bosom of the God- head.” ; fs c) A further source of misunderstanding is the Patristic teaching that the Logos was begotten for a very definite purpose, namely, to serve as the instrument of creation. This seems to place the Son on a plane of undue subordination to the Father. Those who held this view accentuated it by making a distinction be- tween the Adyos évOuderos and the Adyos TpopopiKos. a eee view of the Logos | as Endiathetic and as Prophoric,— as the Word conceived and the Word. uttered, the Word mental and the Word active and effectual... came from tl the Stoics, and is found in Philo.” *® With cer- tain restrictions it admits of an orthodox interpretation, provided that those who employ the words do not dis- pute that the ministerial relation of the Logos, though subordinate with regard to origin, is truly divine, and that the Prophoric Word does not lose His Divine Na- ture and Sonship in consequence of the Creation and the Incarnation, but retains both in unaltered identity ae was in the nehe: of things created.” Newman, The~Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 196. dise Lost,’ which, as far as the very words go, is conformable both to Scripture and the writings of the 46 Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 340. ‘* Philo,” he says in another place, ‘‘ associating it [the doctrine of the Trinity] with Platonic notions as well as words, developed its lineaments with so rude and hasty a hand, as to sep- arate the idea of the Divine Word from that of the Eternal God; and so perhaps to prepare the way for Arianism,’? And in a foot-note he ijlustrates this observation ‘‘ by the theological language of the ‘ Para- early Fathers, but becomes offensive as being dwelt upon as if it were literal, not figurative. It is scrip- tural to say that the Son went forth from the Father to create the worlds; but when this is made the basis of a scene or pageant, it bor- ders on Arianism. Milton has made Allegory, or the Economy, real.” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 93. Cfr. also pp. 199 sq. of the same work.) 148 THE POSITIVE TRADITION with the Endiathetic Word. St. Irenzus, in demon- strating against the Gnostics that God ‘did not need to employ angels in creating the universe, extols nes min- istry of the Son and aT the Holy Ghost” as a divine ministry to which “all angels are subject,” and signifi- cantly adds: “ Hic Pater... fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est per Verbum et Sapientiam suam— The Father made these things by Himself, that is, by His Word and Wisdom.” ** St, Theophilus of Antioch (about 180), was, so far as we know, the first Christian theo- logian who did not hesitate to use the terms Adyos evdidberos and rpodopixds.*® But his use of them, though incautious, is quite orthodox, as appears from the sub- joined passage in the second of his three books Ad Autolycum: “Cum voluit Deus ea facere, quae statuerat, hoc Verbum genuit prolatitium (apodopixdy), primogeni- tum omnis creaturae, non ita tamen, ut Verbo vacuus fieret, sed ut Verbum gigneret et cum suo Verbo semper versaretur — When God purposed to make all that He had deliberated on, He begat this Word _as external to Him, being the First- born antecedent to the whole cre- ation; not, however, Himself losing the Word [that is, the Internal], but begetting it, and yet everlastingly communing with it.”*° Two other representatives of the Ante-Nicene period, Hippolytus and Tertullian, boldly venture a step farther and describe the~intra- divine yévjo.s as a mere conception, and the temporal yémois, which manifests itself ad extra, as the birth of “the Logos, claiming that the full Sonship of the Logos did not begin until He His temporal birth. This is 47 Adv. Haeres., Il, 30. Ireneus (Ch ae Oni NV G mleoG: 48 The use of the word ‘‘ Wis- “ Spiritus veritatis ’’). dom” for ‘ Holy Ghost” is also 49 Ad Autol. II, 22. Newman’s peculiar to Theophilus and to St. translation; cfr. The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 200. INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS | 149 | no doubt speculation gone astray, but it does not trench on dogma, though Hippolytus, as we have already re- Eres did incur a degree of blame for his ditheistic : vagaries. Cea ~ d) The fourth group of incautious Ante-Nicene ex- pressions culminates in the teaching that the Father alone is by His very Nature, i. e., because of His im- ~mensity,— invisible, while the Son (and this is true of the Holy Ghost also) can manifest Himself visibly, and has in matter of fact so manifested Himself in the Old Testament theophanies and in the Incarnation. Peta- vius held that this theory necessarily entails the he- retical inference that the Son is inferior to the Father. But we cannot share this view. It may be that the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers in question ®° did not _ distinguish sharply enough between “ apparition ” (ap- paritio) and “ mission” (imissio). But there can be no doubt that in speaking as they did they had in view _ only “mission.” For while the.First. Person of the ~~ Divine Trinity, who proceeds from none, can be..con- ceived only as “sending,” and never as “sent,” the dis- tinctive personal character of the Logos-Son supplies a congruous reason why He should be “sent” into the world by the Father, from whom He proceeds by eter- nal generation. The writers with whom we are here concerned do not ascribe the attribute of immensity or immeasurableness exclusively to the First Person of the Trinity ; they merely observe that the Logos in His visible manifestation (1. e., according to His humanity), is not immense nor immeasurable. 3. SOME ANTE-NICENE WRITERS WHOSE OR- THODOXY REMAINS DouBstTFuL.—Though, as we 50 Justin, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, et al. 150 THE POSITIVE TRADITION have seen, the evidence at hand does not warrant a summary indictment of the Ante-Nicene Fath- ers and ecclesiastical writers, all of them cannot be successfully cleared of the charge of heresy. Some modern writers hold that even the Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon, must be the work of an Ebionitic or Monarchianistic writer, because it contains no formal profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Atonement.** But Funk has conclusively shown in the “Prolegomena” to his edition of this much-dis- cussed work,®® that the Didache ranks Christ higher than a mere man. . It is somewhat more difficult to disprove the recent charge that Hermas, the author of The Shepherd, “the longest and for form and contents the most remarkable of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers,” °* constantly identifies the Person of the Son with that. of the Holy Ghost.°* Though various attempts have been made to save the orthodoxy of the “ Shepherd,” ** we can hardly escape the conclusion that he “bases the difference between the Son and the Holy Ghost on the fact of thé Incarnation, the Son of God in His pre- “existence being none other than the 51 See id patsy in phe; Theolo- gische Quartalschrift of Tiibingen, 1884, pp. 581 saa. 52P. XXXIX, Tubingae 1887. 53 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p- 38. The Shepherd was composed about A.D. 150. On its dogmatic teaching cfr. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 114 sqq. 54E.g9.: “I [i. e., the Shepherd] will show thee all things which the Holy Ghost (7d mvevua 7d dytov) has shown thee, who spoke to thee in the figure of the Church; for that Spirit is the Son of God (éxeivo yap TO mvevua 6 vids TOU Beod éoriy).” (Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX, I, 1.) 55 Among others by Briill and R, Seeberg. INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS 151 Holy Ghost.” ®* There is some doubt as to whether Hermas is guilty of identifying the Holy Ghost, or the Son of God respectively, with the Archangel Michael, as charged by Funk. True, the “Shepherd” attributes identical functions to the Holy Ghost and the Arch- angel Michael, but he draws a distinction between them in regard to rank.” St. Hippolytus of Rome, the rival of Pope St. Callis- tus (A.D. 217-222), and one of the first antipopes known to history, in his controversies with Noétus and /Sabellius championed Ditheistic views and even went so far as to refer to the Logos as 6eds yevyrés,® which caused Callistus to accuse him and his followers of be- ing Ditheists: “ AiOeot éore.”’ °° Hippolytus retorted with the counter-charge of Modalism, saying that Callis- tus “ falls sometimes into the error of Sabellius, and sometimes into that of Theodotus,’— which, says Bar- denhewer, “can only mean that on the one hand Callis- tus maintained the equality and unity of nature in the Father and the Son, without denying, as did Sabellius, the distinction of Persons; and on the other maintained the perfect humanity of the Redeemer, without denying his divinity, as did Theodotus.” % Origen’s Trinitarian teaching is rather enigmatic. In the mind of this learned writer the Hellene seems to wrestle with the Christian, the pagan philosopher with the 56 Bardenhewer, Geschichte der II, 398 sq. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 577, Frei- His Knowability, Essence, and At- burg 1902. tributes, pp. 114 sq. 57 Cfr. Bardenhewer, op. cit. 59 Philos., IX, 12. Cfr. Duchesne, 68 Contr. Noét., c. 10; Philos., X, Early History of the Christian 33- On the difference between ‘ye- Church, Vol. I, pp. 212 saqq. yntoy and yevynror, cfr. Newman, 60 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pairology, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, p. 210. 152 THE yPOSIFIVE cTRADITION Catholic believer. St. Jerome © accuses him of Arianism, and the brilliant defense of Origen’s orthodoxy by Pam- philus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Eusebius, and among modern writers by Vincenzi, has not fully dispelled this indictment. In his writings, Origen appears in a twofold role. Whenever he speaks as a simple witness to ecclesi- astical Tradition, he voices the Catholic truth; ° but when he speaks as a philosopher endeavoring to clear tp the mysteries of the faith, he does not scruple to represent the Son of God as a xricua ®eod and as a “ second God” (Sevrepos @eds)— a name which Plato had applied to the world as fashioned by the Demiurge. To do full justice to Origen’s position, it will be well to distinguish, as Athanasius does,*? between what he states Oerixas, as a witness to Tradition, and what he writes lols as a philosopher “ inquiring and exercising himself,” Newman renders the term.** The Tractatus Beenie de Libris SS. Scripturarum, consisting of twenty homi- lies which have reached us in an Orleans manuscript of the tenth, and in another of St. Omer belonging to the twelfth century, discovered and edited by Batiffol in 1900, are not the work of Origen nor of Nova- tian. The well-developed Trinitarian terminology of these homilies clearly indicates a Post-Nicene composi- tion. Weyman has shown that the Latin text is orig- inal, but the true author has not yet been ascertained.® 61 Ep. 94 ad Avit. qui Filius est et omnia est, quae 62 Cfr. In Ioa., tr. 2, abud Migne, Pater?” P. G., XIV, 128: “ Didiciumus cre- 63 De Decret. Nicaen. Syn., 27. dere (in Deo) esse tres hypostases: 64 Select Treatises of St. Athana- Patrem et Filium et Spirittum Sanc- sius, I, 48. tum.” In Ep. ad .Rom., NII, 5, 65 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- (apud Migne, 1. c., 1115) he says: trology, p. 222; J. Tixeront, History * Quomodo enim inferior dici potest, of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. 1, pp. 261 sqq., St. Louis 1gr1o. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 153 READINGS: — On the Trinitarian teaching of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, see especially *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 10-11, Romae 1881; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, §§ 231-232, Mainz 1885; Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der hl. Dreteingkeit, §§ 12-18, Tubingen 1857; *Duchesne, Les Témoins Anténicéens du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1882; Petavius, De Trinitate, lib. I, c. 3-5, and the “ Praefatio”; Thomassin, De Trimtate, c. 37-47; *Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, ll. 2-4; B. Jungmann, Dissertationes Selectae in Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Vol. I, pp. 358 sqq., Ratisbonae 1880; B. Heurtier, Le Dogme de la Trinité dans l’Epitre de St. Clément de Rome et le Pasteur d’Hermas, Lyon 1900; J. Tix- eront, History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert. Ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Erlosungslehre, Freiburg 1910; F. Diekamp, Uber den Ursprung des Trinitats- bekenntnisses, Miinster 1910. ARTICLE 3 THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 1. THE Docmatic TEACHING OF THE FATHERS AGAINST ARIUS AND Macreponius.—a) The sensation caused throughout Christendom by the first appearance of the Arian heresy can be ex- plained only on the assumption that the truth had been in quiet possession for three full cen- turies. The Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, at a synod held in his episcopal city about the year 320, excommunicated Arius. He explained the motives for this step in a lengthy letter to Bishop Alexander of Constantinople. “Quis unquam talia audivit?” he said among other things, “aut quis nunc audiens non obstupescat 154 THE .POSITIVE- TRADITION et aures obstruat, ut ne talium verborum sordes auditum contaminent?— Who ever yet heard such language? and who that hears it now, but is shocked and stops his ears, that its foul- ness should not enter into them?’ ** This ut- terance clearly proves that the heresy of Arius, which attacked the very foundations of the dogma of the Divine Trinity, by asserting that the Log- os-Son (Christ) is a mere creature, was at the beginning of the fourth century regarded as an intolerable innovation. St. Athanasius himself took a leading part in the Arian controversies which for many years shook the entire Orient and even made their evil effects felt among the Germanic nations of the Western world, espe- cially among the Vandals in Africa. Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and is deservedly called ‘‘the Great.” He was ready to give up his life in defense of the Catholic truth that the Son is eternally begotten from the substance of the Father, and is consubstantial with Him, as defined by the Council of Nicaea. b) When (about 360) Macedonius began to undermine that other pillar of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, vizg.: the Divinity and Consub- stantiality of the Holy Ghost, Athanasius again appeared in the arena and denounced his teach- 66 Opera Athanas., tom. I, p. 398, tises of St. Athanasius, Vol. I, pe Paris 1689; Newman, Select Trea- 5, 9th ed., London 1903. tecoeaa AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 155 ing as “impious” and “unscriptural.” 7 “It is impious,” he said, “to call the Holy Ghost created or made (xrordv 7} momrdv), seeing that both the Old and the New Testament connumerate and glorify Him with the Father and the Son, be- cause He is of the same Divinity (ovvapOpet xai St. Athanasius found powerful allies in the “three Cappado- cians,” Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and particularly St. Basil, who in his work On the Holy Spirit ** quotes a number of older writers in confirmation of the ecclesiastical Tradition.® Honorable mention must also be accorded to St. Amphilochius, who was consecrated Bishop of Tconium, A, D. 374, and later became metro- politan of Lycaonia, (+ after 3094): In. the name of a synod of his Lycaonian suffragans he published a magnificent letter on the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.” To Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria, “one dogdle, Sidt. tHS abrns OedrnTds éorw ),” : 67 Cfr. St. Athanasius, De Theae natione Det Verbi, reprinted in Migne, P. G., XXVI, 998. 68 “It has always been the stand- ard work on the subject” (Fortes- cue, The Greek Fathers, p. 81, Lon- don 1908), eespite the reproach of “Economy ”? which attaches to it, because St. Basil avoided (as he ~ himself admits) calling the ‘Holy ~ Ghost God: 69 A picturesque account of the lives of St. Gregory of Nazianzus ll po St. Basil will be found in A. Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, Lon- don 1908. For their works and an account of their teaching, as also of that of St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 286 sqq-, pp. 295 sqq., and pp. 274 sqq. Note especially the passage from St. Gregory Nazianzen on the Trinity, ibid., p. 291. 70 Epistola Synod. contr. Pneuma- tomachos. 156 THE POSIT IVI ARADITION of the most notable men of an age that abounded in great personalities,’ (-++ about 395) we owe, besides an important work On the Trinity (rept zpiddos ), a lucid treatise entitled De Spiritu Sancto, which has reached us only in the sixty-three brief chapters of St. Jerome’s Latin translation,”* and which is indeed, as Bardenhewer says, “one of the best of its kind in Christian antiquity.” ™ The most eminent defenders of the dogma in the West were St. Ambrose‘* and St. Augus- tine,"* who was the first to attempt a systematic exposition of the mystery of the Divine Trinity. His famous work On the Trinity became the starting-point of the Trinitarian speculations of medieval Scholasticism. St. Anselm adopted Augustine’s profound considerations in his Monologium, whence they found their way into the Liber Sententiarum of Peter Lombard, and through this channel into the numerous the- ological Suwmmae, among which that of St. Thomas Aquinas has ever held the place of honor.” 2. Patristic PoLtemics.—The method which the Fathers chose to refute the Scriptural objec- tions raised by the Arians and Semi-Arians fur- nishes a valuable argument for the purity and 71 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 73 De Spiritu Sancto ad Gratia- trology, pp. 307 sqq. num Augustum, in three books. 72 Ibid., p. 308. On Didymus the 74 De Trinitate. Blind cfr. Bardy, Didyme lAveugle, 75 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, Paris 1910. qu. 27 sqq. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS = 157 imperishable freshness of the ecclesiastical Tra- dition touching the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. a) Prov. VIII, 22 reads: “Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum — The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways.” The Septuagint has: éxrié pe épyyv 68ev aitov. This text was considered by the Arians as the weak spot in the Catholic armor. Catholics did not deny that the passage referred to the Logos, and the Arian contention that the Septuagint offered sufficient warrant for taking Christ to be xricwa @cov — a creature of God — seemed well founded. It was a Gordian knot, which the Fathers, each in his own way, tried hard to unravel. Some suggested that the Septuagint text had been practiced upon by the Arians. Others referred the difficult passage to our Lord’s sacred Humanity, while others again thought it applied to His Divinity. On one point, however, all were unanimously agreed, viz., in holding that Christ was God and the Second Person of the Divine Trinity. Those among the Fathers who (wrongly) believed that éxrwe was an Arian forgery for éxtyoe = extnoato (from xtdouar—=acquiro, possideo) were guided by the thought that, since Eve said after the birth of Cain: “ Possedi (3?) from 13? = possedit) hominem per Deum—JI have gotten a man through God,” ™ the Hebrew text of Proverbs must have read, as our Latin Vulgate reads: “Dominus possedit me (2p, 2% €., generatione habet me; eéxrynoe Or éxrnoaro pe). This interpretation was favored by Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Jerome. Most of the other Fathers, however, notably Athanasius and Nazian- zen, in view of a parallel passage in Ecclesiasticus,’” J 76 (Gens Viol. tio et ante saecula creata (€xrice) 77 Ecclus, XXIV, 14: “Ab int-' 9 sum.” 158 | THE POSTIVE TRADITION referred Prov. VIII, 22 to the Humanity of Christ and interpreted it thus: ‘The Lord created me in my human nature as the beginning [épy) = principle] of his ways.’’** There was a third group of Fathers who did not hesitate to apply Prov. VIII, 22 to Christ’s Di- vine Nature. They interpreted the verb xrifew gener- ically as producere = gignere,” or looked upon it as a drastic term calculated to throw into relief the hypo- static self-existence of the Logos in contradistinction to the Father.8° The dogma of the Divinity of Christ, and consequently that of the Blessed Trinity, was safe- guarded in any event.*? The New Testament piéce de resistance of the Arian heretics was Christ’s own declaration, recorded in John XIV, 28: “Pater maior me est—The Father is greater than I.” Here, they alleged, Christ Himself attests His subordination to the Father. This objection, too, was met differently by different Fathers. While the Latins were inclined to limit John XIV, 28 to Christ’s Humanity (in which hypothesis the Arian argu- ment simply collapsed), most of the Greek Fathers, notably Athanasius and Nazianzen, preferred the some- what strained assumption that Christ is stibject to the by virtue of His being the see Person. eres dvapxos) , is at the same time the principle of the Son, who must therefore be conceived essentially as “ Deus de Deo.’ According to this theory the expression “maior me” signifies Christ’s immanent succession with 78 For further details, see Peta- 81 On these various interpreta- vius, De Trinitate, II, 1, 3. tions, cfr. especially Ruiz, De Trini- 79 Thus St. Ephrem. tate, disp. 96; also St. Thomas, S. 80 This was the opinion of St. iheolk. ta, (ues ty, ,arte 3. Hilary. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS | 159 | regard to origin in the Godhead, not a difference in /rank or power. The difficulty based on Christ’s primogeniture was tersely and effectively refuted by St. Ambrose: “ Legi- mus primogenitum, legimus unigenitum: primogenitus, quia nemo ante ipsum; unigenitus, quia nemo post ipsum — We read ‘the First-born,’ and we read ‘the Only- begotten’: He is the First-born, because there was no one before Him; He is the Only-begotten, because there is no one after Him.” * b) Besides a large number of philosophical fallacies, the Macedonians marshalled against the dogma of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost a series of Scriptural texts, which were loyally and learnedly restored to their true meaning by the Fathers. From Rom. VIII, 26: “Jpse Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus — The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings,” these heretics concluded: One who prays to God with unspeakable groanings cannot be Himself God; therefore the Holy Ghost is a mere creature. Without pointing to the evident anthropomorphism in this text, St. Augustine refutes the false interpretation of the Macedonians by the simple remark: “ Dictum est ‘interpellat, quia interpellare nos facit nobisque interpellandi et gemendi inspirat affectum— The Bible says, the Spirit intercedes for us, because He makes us intercede and puts it into our hearts to intercede and groan.” §* 1 Cor. VIII, 6, where, strangely enough, the name of the Holy Ghost does not occur at all, was cited by the Pneumatomachians in favor of their 82 Ambros., De Fide, I, 7. Cfr. by Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 458 Newman, Tracts Theological and Ec- sqq., Ratisbonae 1881; cfr. also -clesiastical, pp. 199 sqq., new ed., Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, and London 1895. Other Arian difficul- ed., Vol. II, § 12, Freiburg 1895. ties of less importance are canvassed 83 Aug., Ep., 194 (al. 105), n. 6. 160 THE POSITIVE TRADITION heretical tenet that the Third Person is a creature and therefore cannot be God. But, as St. Athanasius effec- tively retorted: ‘“ The Holy and Blessed Trinity is so indivisibly united with itself, that when the Father is named, His Logos is included, and in the Logos also the Spirit. And when the Son is named, the Father is in the Son, nor is the Spirit outsidé the Logos, inasmuch as there is but one grace, which is perfected out of the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost.” 84 READINGS : — Petavius, De Trinitate, I, 7 sqq.; George Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (against Petavius, I, 3 sqq.), Oxon. 1685 (On Bull’s work and its unmerited reputation, cfr. Hunter. Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. Il, pp. 206 sq.) ; *Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 1-116, Mainz 1844; Hergenrother, Die Lehre von der gittlichen Dreieinigkeit nach Gregor von Nazianzg, Ratisbon 1850; Atzberger, Die Logos- lehre des hl. Athanasius, Freiburg 1880; A. Beck, Die Trinitéts- lehre des hl. Hilarius von Poitiers, Mainz 1903; J. Bilz, Die Trinitatslehre des hl. Johannes von Damaskus, Paderborn 1909. On the apologetical aspects of the subject, see Hettinger, Apologie des Christentums, 9th ed., Vol. III, Freiburg 1907. S24 Ep. ft ad Serap. 14... For fur- mann, Die Gottheit des Hl. Geistes ther information on this aspect of nach den griechischen Vitern des the matter, see Kleutgen, De Ipso vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901. Deo, pp. 490 sqq., and Th. Scher- CHAPTER III THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMANENT PROCES- SIONS IN THE GODHEAD Divine Revelation tells us that there are Three Persons in the Godhead. It also points out the cause of this difference, vig.: the fact of the Di- vine Processions. It is these Processions that properly constitute the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and furnish the basis for the distinction of three real Hy- tion. of. one Sine Person from another.’ There are two such Processions, vig., Gener- ation ( generatio, ee) and SA Enos ee TVEVT ts ye We shall treat them separately. 161 SECIION?4 THE PROCESSION OF THE SON FROM THE FATHER BY GENERATION I. THE ScripruRAL ARGUMENT.—The Ni- cene Council having incorporated the notion of yevmors into the dogmatic definition of the Blessed Trinity, there can be no doubt that Christ's gen- eration by the Father is as much an article of faith as His Divine Sonship. This can be dem- onstrated from Holy Scripture in a twofold man- ner. a) Indirectly, by arguing from the fact of the Di- vine Paternity and Sonship, which we have already proved from Holy Scripture. The relation of Father and Son is conceivable only on the assumption of a real and true yevgors in the proper sense of the term.2 Consequently there is in the bosom of the Godhead a first Procession, which is true Generation. LE sas. St. Paul tells us,? 3 all. paternity in heaven and on earth is fa weak j imitations of the paternity of “the Father-of ‘our Lord “Tess” Christ, ” and if the supernatural adop- tion of the just is but an analogue of Christ’s true Sonship,?. it follows, not indeed that the divine gen- 1 On the term vyevynots, cfr. New- 2 Eph. III, 314 sq. man, Select Treatises of St. Athana- 3 Cfr. John, I, 12; Gal. IV, 4 Sq. sius, II, 352 sq. 162 THE PROCESSION OF THE SON 163 _ nesis must be conceived figuratively after the manner A of creatural generation, but, “contrariwise, that the latter is merely an imperfect representation of the former. The_only_ true generation, in the highest sense, there- fore, is the divine yévvyois, as the Godhead alone is Being in its truest and highest sense. Holy Scripture frequently intimates the™ genuineness of the divine yev- _vqois by applying to Christ such epithets as “ the Only-be- gotten of the Father,”* and © ‘the Only-begotten Son of the Father.”*> b) Holy Scripture, moreover, distinctly teaches that the Son proceeds from the Father by eter- nal generation. Heb. I, 5: “Cut enim dixit aliquando ‘angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te (yeyévyxd oe) ? — For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee?” Most clearly perhaps this divine Procession is taught in Psalm CIX, verse 3. “Lecum prin- cipium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanc- torum: ex utero ante luciferum [= ab aeterno] genut te — With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.” It is true, the Masoretic text, as we have it, renders this passage differently. In- asmuch, however, as (aside from the Itala and the Vulgate) the Septuagint® and the Syriac _ 4John III, 16, et passim. 6 The Septuagint translates: ’Ex 5 John I, 14, et passim. yaorpos mpd éwspdpov éeyévynod ce, 164 THE -POSITIVE -TRADITION Peshitta, which were both made directly from the original Hebrew, give the passage as above quoted, the Masoretic variation can safely be at- tributed to a mistake made by the Jewish writers who some time previous to the tenth century drew up that collection of criticisms and mar- ginal notes which forms the basis of our present Hebrew Old Testament. This theory is all the more plausible in view of the fact that the elimi- nation of two small words, *® and Te., and a change in the punctuation of the remainder of the text, would make the seemingly corrupt passage conform with the Vulgate. Another im- portant consideration in clearing up this diffi- culty is that for several centuries the Fathers employed this particular text to prove the Con- substantiality of the Logos with the Father by virtue of His eternal Generation? Thus St. Basil, or rather the author of the fifth Book against Eunomius found among St. Basil’s works, ‘writes: “Propterea habere se in generando uterum dixtt Deus ad confusionem improrum, ut vel sua ipsorum natura considerata discant, Filium fructum esse Patris genunum, utpote ex elus utero emergentem— God speaks of His womb for the purposevof confounding the im- pious, that they may learn by a consideration of their own nature that the Son is the genuine %Cfr.. Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 4, sect. 1. THE: PROCESSION, OF THEYSON 165 product of the Father, as if He had emerged from | His womb.” ° A parallel passage to Ps. CIX, 3, is John I, 18: “Unigemtus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris (6 povoyevns vios 6 Ov eis TOV KOATOV TOU matpos ) — The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” Taken in connexion with certain preg- nant terms found in the Sapiential Books, such as “parturiebar’ and “concepta eran’ ° and pas- sages like Ecclus. XXIV, 5,*° these texts seem to remove all doubt as to the scripturality of the doctrine of the divine yew ars. 2. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION.—The dogma of the Son’s generation was brought prominently forward by all the Fathers and ecclesiastical synods of the fourth century, be- cause it is the foundation and logical ante- cedent of the dogma of the” Sue yeu esi of Son and Father. a) St. Hilary tersely declares: “Jgnorat Deum Christum, qui ignorat Deum natum; Deum autem nasct non est aliud quam im ea natura esse, qua Deus est — oe knows not the God- Christ, who knows not that. / parsed God is begotten ; but to say that God is begotten, ds. tantamount to saying that He is of the same nature 8 Contr. Eunom., 1. 5; Migne, P. most High, the firstborn before all G.-X XIX, 715. creatures.”” (On “ The Doctrine of 9 Prov. VIII, 24. the Primogenitus,’ see Newman, 10‘‘ Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi, primogenita ante omnem creaturam —I came out of the mouth of the Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastt- cal, pp. 199 sqq.) epee! 166 THE POSITIVE TRADITION as God.” ** And St. Augustine: “Jdeo quippe Filius, quia gemitus, et quia Filius, utique genitus— For He is therefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, therefore certainly begotten.” 12 This unanimous teaching of the Fathers faithfully echoes all the ancient creeds, from the Apostles’ to the Athanasian,— which latter sharply emphasizes the fact that “Pater a nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitus; Filius a patre solo est, non factus nec creatus, sed genitus —The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.” 12 We must als mention in this connection the eleventh of the “Anathematismi” of Popes ot Damasus I (A.D, 380). It reads as follows: “Si quis non dixerit Filium natum de Patre, id est de divina substantia ipsius, anathema sit—If any one will not profess that the Son is begotten by the Father, that is to say, from the Divine _ Substance of the Father, let him be anathema.” ** — b) The Fathers and Catholic theologians generally are one in teaching that the process of divine Generation _is a relation involving only the Father and the Son. Various. attempts: at positing in the Godhead other ‘such relations, as, é. Ju maternity, were indignantly re- the existence - itself ; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is 11 De Trinitate, L 11. Petavius (De Trinit., II, 5, n. 7), quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara: ‘Since the Son’s gen- eration does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him who is properly (kupiws) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. 'In us generation is a way to exist- sence; in the Son of God it denotes itself an end (rédos), and is perfect (ré\eLov)- = Chr Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 353. (On Theodorus Abucara, cfr. Her- der’s Kirchenlexikon, XI, 1508 sq.) 12 De Trinitate, V, 6, 7 (Had- dan’s translation, p. 151). 18 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- dion, n. 39. 14 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- dion, n. 69. THE PROCESSION: OF: THE SON 167 jected by the Fathers as blasphemous. ‘© Since the di- “vine years must be conceived as a purely intellectual /.. i process, there is no need of postulating in the Godhead a specia! principle of conception and parturition. The Father generates His Divine Son by way of under- standing,*® as the adequate likeness of His Essence. When the Patristic Writers speak of the “ conception ” and “birth” of the Son of God, or advert to the “bosom ” of the Father, they merely mean to emphasize ». ~ The Sapiential Books of the Old Tanti some- times refer to Hypostatic Wisdom as the “ First-born ” or as “ Mother of fair love.” But these phrases offer no serious difficulty. The epithet ‘“ Mother of fair love” is merely meant to intimate the maternal ten- derness of God’s affection for us, and the feminine form “ primogenita”’ (instead of “ primogenitus’’) is due to the grammatical accident that in Hebrew NIN (1. e., sapientia), like ocodia in the Greek Seuhaee is of feminine gender.1” Reapincs : — St. Anselm, Monologium, c. 30-43; Ruiz, De Tri- mitate, disp. 4 sqq.; Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dogmat., tom I, thes. 107 (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, II, pp. 176 sqq., 2nd ed.); *Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. Te quien I sqq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 30; Heinrich, Dog- matische Theologie, Vol. IV, § 241; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. II, pp. 293-325, Paris 1895; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 158 sqq., New Impression, London IQOI ; _ Ivem, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 287 sqq.,_ 337 sqq.; 9th ed., London 1903; A Studle; De Processionibus Divinis, Frib. Helv. 1895. _ 15 Cfr, Epiphanius, Haer., 62. Of God and His Creatures, p. 357, 16 “Per modum intélléctus.” The et passim). English rendering of this technical 17 Cfr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., term we adopt from Rickaby (cfr, 3rd _ed., tom. II, pp. 283 sqq., Fri- : burgi- 1906. SEONG 2 THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON © The second Procession in the Godhead_ 1s : ‘qualitatively distinct from Generation. Though often designated by the generic term processio (éxrdpevors) , it is by most theologians and several councils called Spiration (spiratio, mvevors), Reve- lation leaves no room for doubt as to the Proces- sion of the Holy Ghost from the Father. But the Greeks, since the schism of Photius, hereti- cally assert that He proceeds from the Father alone; and not from the Son. To this heretical assertion, which has been expressly rejected by the Church, we oppose the Catholic doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. - ARTICLE. 1 THE HERESY OF THE GREEK SCHISM AND ITS CONDEMNA- TION BY THE CHURCH 1. THE Heresy oF THE SCHISM.—It 1s im- possible to ascertain just when the heresy as- serting the Procession of the Holy Ghost from 168 PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST 169 the Father alone originated. When the Mace- donians declared the Holy Ghost to be a creature of the Logos-Son, the Second Ecumenical Coun- cil (A. D. 381), to safeguard the dogma of His Divinity, thought it sufficient to_affrm His Con- sap sanciauty with the Father in the phrase: “Qui ex Patre procedit— Who proceeds from ‘the Father.” Petavius and Bellarmine assume, but without sufficient warrant, that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret were the original authors of the heresy with which we _are dealing. The more probable theory is that certain Nestorians, whose identity can no longer be ascertained, in course of time somehow came to believe that the Council of Constantinople by “ex Patre” meant “ex solo Patre.’ This view was publicly defended for the first time in Jerusalem, A.D. 808, by some fanatic monks, who protested against the insertion of the word “ Filioque’’ into the Nicene Creed, because, as they alleged, the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. It was, however, reserved for Photius, the ambitious and crafty Patriarch of Constantinople, the most learned scholar of his age,? (+ 891), to accuse the Latins of heresy for adopting the “ Filioque’’ and to raise the denial of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to the rank of a palmary dogma of the Greek Church. At a great council held in Constantinople, A. 2). 879, which was attended by 380 bishops, the 1 On Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Photius, see A. Fortescue, The Or- _Bardenhewer- “Shahan, Patrology, pp. thodox Eastern Church, pp. 138 sqq. 3#8-322; on Theodoret, the same Cfr. also the same brilliant writer’s work, pp. 370-376. C. T. S. brochure, Rome and Con- 2 For a fine character sketch of stantinople, pp. 12 sqq. 170 THE POSITIVE TRADITION Greeks formally pronounced sentence of anathema against all who should add to, or take from, the Symbol ‘of Nicaea. After Photius’s death “ peace was restored temporarily between the churches, although by this time there is already a strong anti-papal party at Constanti- nople. But the great mass of Christians on either side are reconciled, and have no idea of schism for one hundred and fifty more years.”* In the eleventh cen- tury came the final rupture under Michael Cerularius. The Great Schism settled into permanency, and, after a brief reunion in the fifteenth century, still continues.‘ 2. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON THE PROCESSION OF THE Hoty Guost.—The Church jealously guarded the Apostolic teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This appears clearly from the insertion of the word “Filioque”’ into the Con- stantinopolitan Creed. _. Though the-Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) had for- | pidden the reception into the Creed of any other faith® ' than that of Nicaea, there soon came a time when it was found necessary to enforce explicit profession of faith in the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father. The “ Filioque” first came into use in Spain. On the occasion of the con- version of the Arian Goths under King Reccared, the Third Council of Toledo (A. D. 589) decreed the inser- tion of the term into the Creed and ordered that the 8 Fortescue, The Orthodox East- 5 “Erépa mioris (whereby it can ern Church, p. 171. have meant nothing else than _heter- 4 Fortescue, The Orthodox East- odox additions). ern Church, pp. 201 sqq. THE FILIOQUE 171 3) words “ex Patre Filioque”’ should be sung “ with raised voices ” during the celebration of the Divine Mysteries. In course of time the “ Filioque” spread to France and Germany, thence to England and Upper Italy, and finally to Rome, where, however, for disciplinary reasons, the Popes did not encourage its adoption, though from a purely dogmatic point of view the matter had long been ripe for a decision. As early as A.D. 410, a large number of bishops, assembled in synod at Seleucia, had solemnly professed their faith “in Spiritum vivum et sanctum, Paraclitum vivum et sanctum, qui procedit ex Patre et Filo — In the living and holy Ghost, the living and holy Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and the ‘Son. "6 The “Athanasian Creed” contains the clause: “Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio— The Holy Ghost [is] of the Father and the Son;” and long be- fore its composition (5th or 6th century) a synod be- lieved to have been held at Toledo (A.D. 447), had \ defined that “the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.”* Pope Hormisdas (-+ 523), in a letter to the Emperor Justin I, employed the phrase: “de Patre et Filio’’ Many provincial synods inculcated the same doctrine (Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D.} 789; Friaul,. A.D. 791; Worms,A. Di 868; etc.) The Emperor Charlemagne was particularly attached to the “ Filioque” and it consequently became very popular among the Franks. But when a few Frankish zealots 6 Cfr. Lamy, Concilium Seleuciae et Ctesiphonti Habitum a. 410, Lo- vanii 1868; Ipem, ‘‘ Le Concile tenu a Seleucie-Ctésiphon,” printed in the Compte rendu du 3e Congrés Scientifique International des Ca- tholiques, Bruxelles 1895, Sect. II, pp. 267 sqq. 7 According to 12 the recent re- searches of Morin and Kiunstle this synod was never held, and what were hitherto thought to be its | decrees are the production of an individual Spanish bishop. Cr. Bilz, Die Trinitdtslehre des hl. Johannes von Damaskus, p. 157, Paderborn 1909. 172 THE POSITIVE TRADITION es to censure as insufficient the Greek formula ‘a Patre per Filium,” Pope Hadrian I defended it and yuoted the Greek Fathers in its support. Long after the outbreak of the Great Schism the Fourth Lateran Council (A. D, 1215) again took up the matter and defined it as an article of faith that “Pater a nullo, Filius a Patre solo, ac Spiritus Sanctus pariter _ab utroque — The Father [is] from no one; the Son [is] from the Father alone; and the Holy Ghost [1s] equally from both the Buther and the Son.” Lastly there is the important definition of the Ecumenical Council of _Lyons, A. D,. 1274, that the Holy Ghost proceeds eter- ' nally from the Father and the Son as from one prin- i ciple and in one Spiration: “ Spiritus Sanctus aeternali-— ter ex Patre et Filio, non tamquam ex duobus principus, sed tamquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationi- bus, sed unica spiratione procedit.’* This teaching was solemnly confirmed in the decree by which the Council of Florence (1439) sealed the restored union:® “ Diffini- mus, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternali- ter est et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tam- quam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit — We define that the Holy Ghost is eternally from the ‘Father and the Son, and has His essence and sub- sistence at once from the Father and the Son; and that He eternally proceeds from both as from one Principle and by one Spiration.” # — In consequence of the machinations of the schismatical Bishop Mark of Ephesus, the re- 8 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 10 Upon this definition is based chiridion, n. 460. the well-known theological axiom: 9 Published on July 6, 1439. Den- “Duo quidem spirantes, sed unus zinger-Bannwart, n. 691. spirator.” THE FILIOQUE 173 union brought about at Florence came to as bad an end as that effected at Lyons two centuries earlier. It must have seemed to many like a manifestation of divine anger when, on Pentecost Sunday, A. D. 1453, the Turks broke down the walls of Constantinople, and its last Emperor, Constantine Dragases, fell in battle at the gate of St. Romanus. READINGS: — On the history of the Greek Schism, see Werner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der christlichen Theologie, Voi. III, Schaffhausen 1864; *Hergen- rother, Photius, Freiburg 1867-60, I, 684 sqq. III, 399 saq.; IDEM, Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 234 sqq., Freiburg 1904; Langen, Die trinitarische Lehrdiffereng zwischen der abendlandi- schen und morgenlindischen Kirche, Bonn 1876; Hefele, Con- ciliengeschichte, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1879; Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 134 sqq., London 1907; Duchesne- Mathew, The Churches Scparated Fron Rome, pp. 109 sqq., London 1907; Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Manual of Universal Church History, Vol. Il, pp. 449 saqq. 5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; S. Vailhé, s. v. “Greek Church,’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 763 sqq. ARTICLE 2 THE POSITIVE TEACHING OF REVELATION I. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT.—Sacred Scripture expressly mentions only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father." But this does not argue that there is no Scriptural warrant for the dogma of His Procession from the Son. oid John XV, 26: “The Paraclete.. . who proceedeth from the <. Father. 7 174 THE POSITIVE TRADITION On the contrary, the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son can be proved by a three- fold argument based on Biblical texts. a) In the New Testament the Holy Ghost is represented not only as “the Spirit of the - Father,” but likewise as “the: Spirit ot othe: Son.” These phrases can have but one mean- ing, viz., that He proceeds from the Son as well "as from the Father. _For “Spiritus Filii,’ ex- pressing as it does a relation (spiritus alicuius ), can only mean “spiramen Filii” or “spiratus a Filio;” that is to say, the Holy Ghost is the spira- tion or breath of the Son. This conclusion can- not consistently be denied by those who, like the Greek schismatics, find themselves constrained to admit that the only reason why the Holy Ghost can be called “Spiritus Patris;’™ is that : He proceeds from the Father. If this be true, it must @ pari be concluded that He can be called “Spiritus Fili’’ only for the reason that He proceeds also from the Son,—a conclusion .which is fortified by the Scriptural phrase Filius Patris (or Filius Dei), which evidently ex- “presses a procession of the one from the other. It was but natural, therefore, for the Greek '4 ‘as well as for the Latin™ Fathers to employ 12 Spiritus Filii’”? (Gal. IV, 6); ae Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, “ Spiritus Christi’ (Rom. VILE, 05 Maximus, Cyril of Alexandria, and Phil. 3,19; + Pet. 1,11): others. 13 Matth. X, 20. 15 EF. g., Augustine, THE FILIOQUE 175 ) this text as an argument for the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The schismatics object that the Scriptural term “Spiritus Filii”” has its justification in. the consub- stantiality of the. Son with the Father, from whom alone, they claim, ‘the Holy Ghost ‘proceeds. But this is a mere evasion. Is-not the Holy Ghost, too, con- substantial with the Father, from whom alone proceeds the Son? Yet we could not without heresy call Christ “ Filius S piritus Sanctus because the Son does not pro- ceed from the Holy Ghost. Hence the inevitable: con- clusion that the Holy Ghost is “Spiritus Fil” only because He proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. b) A still stronger argument can be drawn from what is knownas the “Mission” of the Holy Ghost. Missio, in its abstract sense, sig- nifies “the procession of one from another by virtue of some principle and for the purpose of accomplishing some task.” The three essential notes of any mission, be it divine or human, are: (1) A real distinction between the sender and the person sent, for it is obvious that no being can send itself, (2) A certain dependency of the “sent” in regard to the “ the part of the “ sent ” to some terminus (place or effect). It follows that every “ missus” enters into a twofold re- lation: a relation to the sender (mittens) as his terminus a quo, and a relation to the goal of his mission, which ‘constitutes his terminus ad quem. In applying the con- cept of = mission ” ” to the Divine Persons we must first sender.” (3) A relation ony ~ “176 THE POSITIVE TRADITION. purge it of all human imperfections. In the Divinity any influence of the “Sender” on the “ Sent,” other than the relation of origin, would be repugnant to the Essence of the Triune God. The eternal Procession |» of one Divine Person from another | may be called In-— ternal Mission (missio ad intra). The Temporal Mis- sion is external and merely’ reflects the internal. We know as the result of a complete induction that Holy Scripture Fe represents the Father as dsthalet 2 ever as sett: ; the Son Ghost always as “sent,” ’ but nen as “sending.” Inasmuch as the Father sends the Son as well as the Holy Ghost, it is a patent conclusion, ad- mitted also by the schismatic Greeks, that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father. But the Bible distinctly teaches that the Holy Ghost is sent not only by the Father, _ but also by the Son." Consequently, the Holy Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but ~ also from the Son. This Scriptural argument is so simple and convincing that it was often employed by the Fathers and_ ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin..7 Thus St. Bul- gentius teaches: “Filtus est a Patre missus, 16 John XIV, 16: “And I will “It is expedient to you that I go: ask the Father, and He shall give for if I go not, the Paraclete will ‘you another Paraclete, that he may not come to you; oe biol beregoy I will abide with you for ever.” John send him to you.’ XV, 26: ‘But when the Paraclete 17 Cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino, cometh, whom I will send you from __ thes. 33. the. Father > 2” John XVI, as THE FILIOQUE 177 quia Filius est a Patre natus, non Pater a Filo; similiter etiam Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filto legitur missus, quia a Patre Filioque procedit — The Son is sent by the Father, because the Son is begotten by the Father, not the Father by the Son; similarly we read that the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son, because He a ceeds from the Father and the Son.” ** 40% " ° @) rhe principal Scriptural argument for our present thesis is based on John Dal 13 sqq.: “Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Non enim loquetur a se- metipso, sed, quaecumque audiet, loquetur et, quae ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis. Ille me clarth- cabit, quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobts. Omma quaecumaue habet Pater, mea_ sunt. Propterea dixt: quia. de meo accipiet [Mera other codices have dap Béver] et annuntiabit vobts — But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; be- cause he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore, I said that he 18 Contra Fabianum, fragm. 29. of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, cfr. We possess only thirty-nine frag- Bardenhewer- Shahan, _Patrology, Pp. ments of this precious work. For 616- 618. an account of the life and writings 178 THE POSITIVE TRADITION ‘Shall receive [receives] of mine, and shew it to you.” The bearing of this precious dog- matic text will appear from the following con- siderations. In the first place it is said of the Holy Ghost that he “hears” and “receives” His _, knowledge of “the things that are to come,” (7. @., of the future),/from Christ.) Being in the future tense, “audiet” and “accipiet”’ cannot refer to the intrinsic, eternal essence of the Holy Ghost, but solely to His future temporal mani- festation ad extra. Now, one Divine Person can “hear” and “receive” from another only in so far as He does not, like the Father, pos- sess His knowledge, and consequently His es- sence, from Himself (a semetipso, a¢° éavrod) , but receives it by way of essential communication. “Ab illo audiet,” says St. Augustine, elucidating the passage, “a quo procedit. Audire illi. scire est, scire vero esse... . A quo illi essentia, ab illo scientia — He shall hear of Him from whom He proceedeth. To Him, to hear is to know; but to know is to be... from whom His Being is, from the same is His knowing.” ¥ Christ, too, derives His divine knowledge from the Father and “hears” and “learns” from the Father, by whom He is sent. “He that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. And _ they 19 Tract. in Ioa., 99, 4. Browne’s translation, II, gro. THE FILIOQUE 179 understood not that he called God his Father.” *° And again: “I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I epeaki.*). Hencey just as Christ “hears”. and “learns” from His Father only in so far as His divine nature with all the attributes of omnipo- tence, ommiscience, etc., are communicated to Him by His eternal Generation from the Father ; so, too, the Holy Ghost “hears” and “receives” from the Son only in this sense that all His knowledge and His whole essence are derived through origination from Christ.?? Conse- quently the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. In their anxiety to escape the force of this argu- ment the adherents of Photius have not scrupled to ex- plain the text by interpolation. they read ék rov éuov [rarpds] Aneta, 1. e., the Holy Ghost receives His knowledge, as He receives His es- sence, from the Father, and hence proceeds from Him. But, as Cardinal Bessarion has observed, this con- struction conflicts with the rules of Greek grammar. It is untenable also for this additional reason that the con- text does not mention the Father at all, but speaks For ék tov éuov Anpera 20 John VIII, 26 sq.: “ Qui me misit, verax est; et ego, quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo. Et non cognoverunt, quia Patrem eius dicebat Deum.” 21John VIII, 28: “A _ meipso (am’ éuavrov) facio nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor.”’ 22 De meo accipiet=ex me pro- cedit. See J. E. Belser, Das Evan- gelium des hl. Johannes iibersetzt und erklart, pp. 440 sqq., Freiburg 1905. Cfr, Epiphanius, Ancor., c. 8: “© Out a Patre procedit et de meo accipiet,’ ut ne alienus a Patre et Filio crederetur, sed eiusdem sub- stantiae ac divinitatis,...ex Pa- tre et Filio tertius appellatione.” (Migne, P.G., XLIII, 30.) 180 THE POSITIVE. TRADITION solely of Christ and His relation to the “ Spiritus veri- tatis.” ?* Hence ék tov éuot is the genitive of the neuter noun 76 eudv, 1. e., that which is mine. This interpreta- tion is absolutely irrefutable in the light of John XVI, 15: “Omnia, quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt; ** propterea®® dixi: quia de meo”® accipiet.” The context is so clear that not a single Greek Father can be ad- duced who took ék tov éuot to be other than a neuter phrase, meaning: “He shall receive of [what is] mine. 74 For the rest, Christ Himself tells us the pre- cise reason why and in how far the Holy Ghost “receives” from Him. “All things whatsoever 7° the Pather' hath; “he says,- “are mine; therefore I said that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.” *? Accordingly, the Son has what- soever the Father has, with the sole exception of Paternity, which is incommunicable. If, there- fore, as the schismatics admit, the Father has the power of Spiration, this power, being com- mtnicable, also belongs to the Son. Therefore the Son breathes the Holy Ghost together with the Father. Consequently the latter proceeds fromthe Son’ as: well. asfrom,, the ‘Father. Anselm of Havelsburg has thrown this argument into the form of a pretty sorites: “Unde al 23' John, XV i533 (sd. Trinit., VII, 5; Ruiz, De Trinit., 24 éud éoTt, disp. 67, sect. 2. 25 61d ToUTO, 28 ravTa boa, 26 éx Tov éeuov, 29 Oud ToOUTO, 27 On the Patristic exegesis of 30 John XVI, 15. this passage, consult Petavius, De THE FILIOQUE 181 [scil. Spiritui Sancto] essentia, inde ill au- dientia; et unde illi audientia, inde illi scientia; et unde illi scientia, inde illi processio — Whence ‘He [the Holy Ghost] has His essence, thence _He has His hearing; and whence He has His ‘hearing, thence He has His knowledge; and whence He has His knowledge; thence He has His Procession.” °* This interpretation coin- cides with that of the Greek Fathers, and the schismatics cannot disavow it without stultifying themselves.*? 2. Parristic ARGUMENT.—The Greek schis- matics freely admit that the Latin Fathers unanimously teach the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Note that, in making this admission, they inadvertently con- demn their own attitude; for it is absurd to imag- ine that the Latin Church, which for eight cen- turies together with the Greek formed the one true Church of Christ, should have harbored a disgraceful heresy during all that time. But even if we put this consideration aside, we can convict the Greeks out of the mouths of their own Fathers. We shall confine ourselves to estab- lish this point here. The argument from Tra- dition, so far as it rests on conciliar decisions and the usage of the primitive Church, has al- “31 Dial, 11, 8. On Anselm of ed. alt., Vol. II, 107 sqq., Oenip. Wavciehe: Ord. Praem., and his 1906. 5 Dialogi, consult Hurter, Nomencla- ~ 32 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinitate, tor Literarius Theologiae Catholicae, MITSNG: 182 THE POSITIVE TRADITION ready been developed in a previous Section of this treatise.** a) One of the most authoritative of the Greek F athers i: St. Athanasius (+ 373). He expressly teaches that “the Holy Ghost holds the same relation to the Son »as to the Father,” and that consequently the total sub- pane of the Father is communicated to the Holy Ghost “ through the mediation of the Son.” ** Christ’s breath- ing upon the Apostles he explains as a symbol of the “ Procession” of the Holy Ghost from the Son. “The Son breathed the Holy Ghost into the Apostles’ counte- nance and said: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ in order that we might learn that the Spirit given to the Disciples is from the fulness of the Godhead; for in Christ, says the Apostle, the whole plenitude of the Godhead indwells corporeally.” *° For this reason he designates the Son s “the fountainhead (or source) of the Holy Ghost.” 3 These and many similar phrases are merely equivalent terms signifying the “ Procession” of the Holy Ghost from the Son. b) St. Basil’s attitude on the question of the “ Filio- que’ may be gathered from his constant teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds “ from the Father through the Son.” ** He furthermore affirms that “the divine dig- nity comes to the Holy Ghost from the Father through 33 Supra, pp. 168 sqq. 35 Ad Serap., ep. 3. 34S. cA ane Ad Serap., ep. I, 36 ray rnynv Tov ayiov mvev- n.19: “‘ Qualem scimus proprietatem™ aros. De Incarnatione contra “USstérnta) esse Filii ad Patrem, Arianos, 9. eandem ad Filium habere Spiritum 3% St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, S. comperiemus. Et quemadmodum XVIII, 45: “Ep 6 nal ro dytov Filius dicit: Omnia, quaecunque TvEvLa, «+.» Ov évds viov T@ évl habet Pater, mea sunt,’ ita haec warpl EEE TS omnia per Filium in Spiritu Sancto esse deprehendemus.” THE FILIOQUE 183 [His] Only-begotten Son.’’** In a famous passage, which gave rise to acrid disputes at Florence, in 1439, St. Basil says that the Spirit holds His place after the Son, “because He holds from Him His being, and re- ceives from Him and communicates to us, and depends entirely on that principle (or cause).”®® “ Dignitate [%. @., secundum originem] namque Spiritum secundum esse a Filio [cum habeat esse ab ipso atque ab ipso ac- cipiat et annuntiet nobis, et omnino ab illa causa de- pendeat] tradit pietatis sermo.’* The bracketed clause, which definitely asserts the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son,*t was vigorously impugned by the Greeks, who claimed that it was spurious. But, as Dr. Bardenhewer points out, “that these are the genuine original words of Basil is proved by good arguments, extrinsic and intrinsic. But even were they the words of a forger, their meaning is true: and the entire argu- ment of Basil presupposes it as something logical and indispensable.” #” c) Of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (+ 389) Barden- _hewer observes: “The Filioque is not found in the _ writings of St. Gregory as clearly and openly as in those He takes it, however, for recognized and granted, that the Son also is principle or origin of the Sof Basil. Holy Spirit. When he says ** in his discourse delivered at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), that the Father 38 L. c., n. 47: €x marpds dia Tov fovoryevous él 7d mvevua, «~ 39 The Latin Fathers prefer the : word principle for the Father and Son; the Greeks more frequently use cause (alria), 40 Contra Eunom. III, 1 (apud Migne, P. G., XXIX, 653 sqq.). ‘411t runs as follows in the orig- inal Greek: Ilap’ avrov 7d elvar éxov kal map’ avrov \auBdavory kat avayyéd\Nov Huiy Kal bdws THS aitias éxelyns é&numévor, 42 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrol- ogy, p. 282. For further informa- tion on this point, cfr. A Kranich, Der hl. Basilius in seiner Stellung zum Filioque, Augsburg 1882. 43 O7., 425) Decl5< 184 LE ROS RIV > See PIN Is dvapxos,**.the Son épy7, and the Holy Spirit 76 pera _ THs aépxns, he implicitly affirms that the mutual relation” ’ between the Holy Spirit and the Son is that of one who proceeds to Him from whom He proceeds. Moreover, he expressly says that the Holy Spirit is 76 e€ apdowv_ curnupevor,*® i. e., He proceeds equally from the Father and the Son. The poem entitled Praecepta ad Virgines ends with these words: ‘One God from the Begetter through the Son, to the great Spirit (eis feds ek yevérao 8” vieos és péya mvetua [this 1s the so-called kivnois ths povados eis tpidda]), since the perfect Divinity subsists in perfect Persons.’ ” *¢ Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of Basil the Great (+ after 394), also teaches that “the Holy Ghost is considered a distinct Hypostasis, because He is from God (é rod @eod), and is of Christ (rot Xpiorod), s that He does not share either the property of not pro- ceeding (76 dyévyrov) with the Father, or the property of being the Only-begotten with the Son.” ** There is another passage in the writings of Gregory, which, if its genuineness could be established, would be even more conclusive. Cardinal Bessarion cited it against those of his Greek countrymen who were opposed to the reunion, and at the same time protested against the perversion to which the passage had been subjected in an ancient manu- script codex of the works of St. Gregory at Florence, wherein some Greek forger had clumsily expunged the preposition é&. The passage occurs in the third of Gregory’s Sermones in Orationem Dominicam, and reads 44QOn this term, in connection trology, p. 292. See also Hergen- with apxn, efr. Newman, Select rother, Die Lehre von der géottlichen Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 348 Dreteinigkett nach dem hl. Gregor sq. von Naziang, Ratisbon 1850. £6 OF.) Bit 2: 47 Sermo contr. Macedonianos, n. 46 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- Cae THE FILIOQUE 18 Gh thus: “Spiritus Sanctus et ex Patre (ée rod natpés) dicitur et ex Filio esse (xat [ék] rov viov) perhibetur — The Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father and is shown to be also from the Son.” * d) The “ Filioque’”’ was very clearly taught by St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia Ci 403). In his An- coratus * he employs the formula 76 rveipa éx Tod ratpds kal Tov viov at least three times.®° And in his work “ The Medicine-Chest,” ** usually cited as Haereses, because written against eighty heresies,°? he says: “ Audi, quis- quis es, quod Pater vere est Filii Pater, totus lux, et Filius vere Patris lumen de lumine, ... et Spiritus Sanctus veritatis lumen tertium a Patre et Filio (és TpiTov Tapa matpos Kat viov).” 8 To these authorities we may add Didymus the Blind (+ about 395), who, despite his Origenistic tenden- cies, according to the testimony of St. Jerome was certainly orthodox in his treatise on the Trinity. Didymus paraphrases John XVI, 13 as follows: “Non enim loquetur a semetipso, hoc est non sine me et Patris arbitrio, quia inseparabilis a mea et Patris voluntate ; quia non ex se, sed ex Patre et me est: hoc enim ipsum, quod subsistit, a Patre et me illi est —[St. John XVI, 13, says: But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.] He will not speak of himself, that is to say, not 48 On the Trinitarian doctrine of 51 Tlavdpioy or Tavdpca,, St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. Barden- 52°Migne, Po"Gs "XLT “sq. Cfr. hewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 300- Bardenhewer- Siatwnt Patrology, pp. 302. 310 sqq. 49 Aykupwrds, i. ¢€., the firmly- 53 Haereses, 74, 8. arichored man. 54 Hieron., Contra Rufin., II, 16: 50 Ancor., nn. 8, 9, II. “ Certe in Trinitate catholicus est.” 186 THE POSITIVE TRADITION without Me and the judgment of the Father, because He is inseparable from Mine and the Father’s will; be- cause He is not from Himself, but from the Father and Me; for He has His very subsistence from the Father and Me.’ ® Lastly we will mention St. Cyril of Alexandria (+ 444), whose writings fairly swarm with texts in support of the “ Filioque.’ Not only does he employ the formula “Ex zatpés 80 viot mpoxeduevov mvespa — The Holy Ghost flows forth from the Father through the Son,” °° but he distinctly asserts: “ Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Patre et Filio (mpdeor 8& kat é« ratpds kal viod)— The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.” 5 e) Cardinal Bessarion, in his famous dog-_ matic discourse at the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, summarized the teaching of the entire Patristic period on the dogma of the Blessed Trinity in these words: “Latint Patres claris- sime et dissertissime docent, Spiritum Sanctum procedere ex Filio et Filium, sicut Patrem, esse eius principium. Deinde Orientales quoque, non secus ac Occidentales, hoc ipsum dicere demon- stravimus, cum alu Spiritum ex Patre per Filium procedere, alii ex Patre et Filio atque ex am- bobus esse aunt, sicque aperte docent, esse etiam ex Filio — The Latin Fathers teach most clearly and eloquently that the Holy Ghost proceeds 55 Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto, 2. 56 De Adorat. in Spiritu et Veri- Another, larger extract from the tate, apud Migne, P. G. LXVIII, 147, writings of Didymus on the Trinity 57 Thesaurus Assert., 34. Migne, is quoted by Petavius, De Trinitate, P.G, LXXV, 586. VII, 3,. 6. THE FILIOQUE 187 from the Son, and that the Son, like the Father, is His principle. We have also demonstrated that the Greek Fathers, too, agree in this teach- ing of the Latins; some of them saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, while others declare that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from both, which manifestly means that He proceeds also from the Son.” °* In matter of fact it is only by harmoniously blending the Latin “ex Patre Filio- que’ with the Greek “ex Patre per Filium’’ that we afrive at the whole truth. Nor was the Latin formula limited to the Latins, or the Greek for- mula to the Greeks. The Greek formula, which Scheeben calls “the organic conception,” occurs e. g. in the writings of Tertullian,°® Novatian, and Hilary; °° while, conversely, the Latin con- ception, which has been styled the “personal,” is familiarly employed by several of the Greek Fathers, as we have seen in a previous paragraph. In the “organic” formula the preposition &¢ has a causal meaning, indicating that the Son is not ‘merely the passage or ‘“‘channel,” as it were, of the paternal Spiration of the Holy Ghost, but Himself positively cooperates in the act of Spira- tion; for the Father and the Son together con- stitute one undivided principle of Spiration, and 58 Cfr. Hardouin, Concil., t. IX, 59 Contr. Prax., c. 4. Pp. 367. 60 De Trinit., XII, n. 57. 13 188 LHE POSITIVE -FRADITION ‘Spiration itself is one single (notional) act con- summated by both Divine Persons in consort. The coordinating conception of the Latins brings this out very clearly, but it rather neglects another equally important truth, vez., that, de- spite the identity of the act of Spiration, the Father is its original principle (4vapxes), whereas the Son is the “principiatum’” (ds & cos), who receives the “virtus spirandi” from the Father. This truth is more sharply emphasized in the Greek formula.** It is in the light of considerations such as these that we must interpret certain utterances of St. John of Damas- cus, of which the schismatics make much, and which St. Thomas thought it his duty to censure. In matter of fact the Damascene does not deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. He merely says: mvedpa, ody’ ws e€ adrov, ddr’ ds Ov adrov éx TOU maTpds éxro- pevdpevov* pdvos yap aitios (==dpyy dvapxos) 6 marnp.” ©. This view is-fully shared by the Latin Fathers. St. Augustine, ¢, g., says: “Spiritus Sanctus principaliter procedit de Patre ... qui, quidquid unigenito Verbo dedit, gignendo Hse ie Holy Ghost proceeds prin- 6é ~ Kat viov dé cipally from the Father... . who, whatever He gave to the Only-begotten” Word, He gave by begetting Him.” ®% Similarly St. John Chrysostom: “The phrase through Him (8¢ abrot), is employed for no other rea- 61 Cfr. St. Thomas, §. Theol., 1a, qu. 36, art. 3. 62 De Fide Orthodoxa, I, 12, Migne, P. G., XCIV, 849. On the analogous teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor (+ 662), whom the Greek schismatics cite as an au- thority second only to St. John Damascene, cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 36, n. 2. 63 St. August., De Trinitate, XV, 17. THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 189 ‘; son than to exclude the suspicion that the Son is in- \ generate.” ** The Council of Florence (A.D. 1439), following that of Lyons (A.D. 1274), confirmed this | view in its famous decree of reunion,® and formally de- | fined both the “ex Patre et Filio” and the “ unica spiratio amborum ” as articles of faith. Be A econ Nene ARGUMENT.—In their debates with the anti-unionist Greeks at the Council of Florence, the Latin theologians rightly insisted that, if the Son were excluded from cooperation in the act of Spiration, there would be no ground for distinguishing Him hypostatically from the Holy Ghost; because the Son is hypostatically distinct from the Holy Ghost only by virtue of the relative opposition involved in breathing (spirare) and being breathed (spirart). a) St. Thomas ® and his school adopted and developed this theological argument, whereas Duns Scotus,*? with a few of his followers, denied its cogency,*°— an atti- tude for which they have been more or less severely blamed by the “sententia communis.” © In matter of fact the argument stands unshaken to the present day. It is a theological axiom that “ All is indistinctly one in the Godhead, except where a relative opposition of Per- ‘son to Person furnishes the basis for a real distinction.” If this be true, as we shall demonstrate later on in treat- 64 Hom. in Ioa., V, n. 2. 68 Cfr. De Rada, Controv. Theol. 65 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- inter S. Thomam et Scotum, lib. dion, n. 691. I, controv. 15, Coloniae 1620. COS eheols Tay Gu.. BOs alte, 2: 69 Cfr. Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 68, com 67 Comment, in Quatuor Libros sect. 5. f Sént., 1, Dist... 17, qu; 2. 190 THE POSITIVE TRADITION ing of the divine Relations, no personal distinction can be posited between the Son and the Holy Ghost out- side of that of a relative opposition between two Divine Persons. Now, no such relative opposition is conceivable between them unless. One proceeds. from the Other. Consequently the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son, else both would coincide in an indistinguishable unity and lose their independence as distinct Hypostases. b) Scotus’s objections against this theological argu- ment will not bear scrutiny. If, he says, the Son alone without the Father breathed the Spirit, the personal dis- tinction between the Father and the Holy Ghost would still remain; consequently, Procession as such cannot be a conditio sine qua non of the relative opposition and the hypostatic differences existing in the Godhead. We answer that in the hypothesis of Scotus the Holy Ghost would still proceed from the Father. True, His ' Procession would be a mediate one through the Son; ‘ but even such a mediate Procession would suffice to estab- lish relative opposition, and therefore a hypostatic differ- ence. If, conversely, we assumed with the schismatics that the Father alone breathes, without the Son, the Son would differ hypostatically from the Father by virtue of His Filiation, but He would not differ hypostatically from- the Holy Ghost, nor could any personal differencé arise unless the Son were placed in relative opposition to the Holy Ghost, which is conceivable only on the basis of a processio. All of which proves that it is a postulate of theological consistency that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. Reapincs:— Van der Moeren, De Processione Spiritus Sancti ex Patre Filioque, Lovanii 1864; *Kleutgen, Theologie der Vor- zeit, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Miinster 1867; A. Vincenzi, De Processione Spiritus Sancti, Romae 1878; *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 32- THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 191 41, Romae 1881 (a very exhaustive treatise) ; IbeEM, Examen Doc- trinae Macariu Bulgakow... de Processione Spiritus Sancti, Romae 1876; A. Kranich, Der hl. Basilius und seine Stellung zum Filioque, Braunsberg 1882. Of the Scholastics, cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 24 sqq. (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 356 sqq., London 1905); *St. Anselm, De Processione Spiritus Sancti contra _ Graecos; “Stiarez, Dé Trinit., 1. X; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 67% Petavitis, De Trinit., 1. VII. Cfr. also Petr. Arcudius, Opuscula Aurea Theologica, Romae 1670 and Hugo Laemmer, Scriptor. Graeciae Orthodox. Bibliotheca Selecta, Friburgi 1864 sq. CHAPTER IV THE SPECULATIVE THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY That there are Three Persons in one God is and must ever remain a sacrosanct mystery which human reason cannot fathom. It is only through Divine Revelation that we know of the existence of that immanent process of Generation © and Spiration which underlies the real distinction of three Persons in the Godhead. Enlightened and guided by faith, however, reason is able, by means of syllogistic deductions, analogies, etc., and by skilfully synthesizing the various scattered data furnished by Revelation, to attain to a progressive the- ological understanding of the dogma, nay even to a de- gree of certainty concerning some of its more abstruse features. Speculative discussion, which for safety’s sake must always keep itself solidly planted on the teaching _ of Revelation, as defined by the infallible Church, is con- cerned chiefly with two classes of problems, viz.: (1) the precise character of the two Processions per intel- lectum et voluntatem; and (2) the corollaries which flow therefrom with regard to the divine Relations, Proper- ties, and Notions. To these two categories must be added the theory of the divine Appropriations and Mis- sions. As for the degree of certitude enjoyed by these Py 192 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 193 doctrines, Glossner justly observes that they “ represent merely the immediate consequences of the dogma” and “are, as it were, a hedge surrounding the law, which no theologian may with impunity ignore.” 4 1 Lehrbuch der kath. Dogmatik, nes’s Compendium, Eng. ed. by W. I, 2, pp. 128 sq., Ratisbon 1874. Lescher, O. P., pp. 81-83, London Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., 1a, qu. 1906). 32, art. 4 (summarized in Bonjohan- SECTION I THE DOGMA IN ITS RELATION TO REASON I. THE BLEssED TRINITY A MystEery.—That there are three Persons in one God is a mystery which human reason, left to its own resources, can neither discover nor demonstrate. Even after its actual revelation, theistic philosophy is unable stringently to prove the possibility, much less the existence and intrinsic necessity, of the Divine Trinity, which must therefore be counted among the mysteries called absolute or tran- scendental. St. Thomas Aquinas observes with perfect justice that whosoever ventures to dem- onstrate the Trinity by unaided reason, derogates from the faith.2 This indemonstrability of the mystery of the Divine Trinity is due to the fact that, while here on earth, the human intellect, in spite of its being illumined by the light of Revelation, has no intuitive vision of the Divine Essence, but arrives at its knowledge of it by a contemplation of the physical universe,* which 2S. Theol.,~12,. du.1 32, att. 2: 3Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His “Oui probare nititur trinitatem per- Knowability, Essence, and Attrt- sonarum naturali ratione, fidet dero- butes, pp. 17 sqq. gat.” 194 THE DOGMA AND REASON 195 is the work, not of the Blessed Trinity as such, but of the One God who summoned the world out of nothingness. From the consideration of created things the human mind ascends to a knowledge of the Divine Nature as the creative principle of the cosmos. But it cannot arrive at a knowledge of the Divine Persons, except in so far as it is able to infer that the infinite Creator of spiritual beings must needs possess the simple perfection of personality. How this personality is constituted we have no means of determining. “De mysterio Trinitatis,’ says St. Jerome, “recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae.” * This absolute inscrutability is plainly intimated in Matth. XI, 27: “ Nemo novit Filium msi Pater; neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius et cui voluerit Filius revelare — No one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” Cfr. 1 Cor. II, 11: “Quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei — The things that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.” Though there exists no formal definition on the subject, the absolute incompre- hensibility of this mystery is a certain theological con- clusion, flowing from the declaration of the Vatican Council that there are absolute mysteries of the faith.® - 1816: 4In Is., Prooem. ad I. 18. 5 Sess. III, De Fide et Ratione, can. I. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. ““ Si quis dixerit, in reve- latione divina nulla vera et propria dicta mysteria contineri, sed wnt- versa fidei dogmata posse per ra- tionem rite excultam e naturalibus principiis intelligi et demonstrart: anathema sit —If any one shall say that in divine Revelation there are no mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood and demon- 196 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA Believing Christians have always looked upon the dogma of the Trinity as the most important and fundamental, as well as the highest and most profound of all revealed mysteries, 2. THE INDEMONSTRABILITY OF THE BLESSED. _ Trrnity.—The foregoing truths afford us a safe criterion for properly estimating the manifold philosophical considerations which Scholastic theology employs to clear up the mystery, and especially for judging at their true worth the extremely audacious attempts at demonstration which have from time to time been made by non- Scholastic theologians. a) The Schoolmen employed various analogues from both nature and reason to show forth the vestiges (ves- - tigia) and the likeness (imago) of the Holy Trinity i in the created universe. In doing this they did not mean to ‘construct a cogent argument, but merely to _ supply supernaturally enlightened reason with some auxiliary _ conceptions, whereby it might attain to a deeper under- _ standing of the revealed mystery.* It is in this sense that the Provincial Council of Cologne (A.D. 1860) teaches: “ Argumentis etiam quibusdam, non quidem necessariis et evidentibus demonstrare, sed congruts tantum et quasi similitudinibus illustrare et aliquatenus manifestare mysteria ratio potest, quemadmodum Patres et S. Augustinum prae ceteris circa SS. Trinitatis myste- strated from natural principles, by Sanctum; ... quidquid ultra quae- properly cultivated reason; let him ~ritur, non enuntiatur, non attingi- be anathema.” Cfr. St. Hilary, De tur, non tenetur.”’ Trinit., II, 5: “ Poswit naturae 6 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a. nomina Patrem, Filium, Spiritum qu. 45, art. 7; qu. 93, art. 8, ITS INDEMONSTRABILITY 197 rium versatos esse videmus— Reason cannot indeed demonstrate the mysteries [of faith] by necessary and evident arguments; but it can illustrate, and in a measure manifest them by congruous arguments and, as it were, by similitudes, after the manner in which the Fathers, and especially St. Augustine, treated of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.”’* Following the lead of St. Augustine, Scholastic theology enlisted philosophy in the service of the dogma, not indeed with a view to demonstrating what is in itself incomprehensible, but in order to enable the human mind to perceive the precise nature of the mystery which it is asked to believe. St. Augustine's comparison of the two divine _ Processions with human ~self- “knowledge and self- love stands.as.a. perpetual monument to the speculative genius of the great Bishop of Hippo. “ Et ‘est quaedam wmago Trinitatis, ipsa mens et notitia eius, quod est proles ews ac de se ipsa verbum etus et amor tertius; et haec tria unum atque una substantia. Nec minor proles, dum tantam se novit mens, quanta est; nec minor amor, dum tantum se diligit, quantum novit et quantus est — And so there is a kind of image of the Trinity in the mind itself, and the knowledge of it, which is its offspring and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, and these three are one and one substance. Neither is the offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to the measure of its own being; nor is the love less, since it loves itself according to the measure both of its own knowledge and of its own being.” * Like Augustine, the orthodox Scholastics always subordinated their Trinitarian speculations to the revealed teaching as defined by the Church, never once trenching on the Tilita 1s Capi Oe Collect. Poe 8S. August., De Trinit., IX, 12, sis, t. V, p. 280. 18. (Haddan’s translation, p. 240.) 198 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA mystery embodied in the dogma. From _ this state- ment we need not even except Richard of St. Victor, who plumed himself upon having found “rationés ne- cessarias”” for the Blessed Trinity. His “ necessary fea- sons” are mere congruities, which can claim no value except on the assumption that the mystery is already - revealed.® b) There is, however, a class of divines who left the _ safe path blazed out by the Fathers and the School- men, and presumed to demonstrate the mystery of the Trinity by arguments, more or less bold, drawn from unaided human reason. Beginning with Raymond Lully, down to Anton Giinther, these audacious innova- tors invariably ended by counterfeiting the concept of the Blessed Trinity instead of clearing it up. Of Lully, Ruiz says that his demonstrations are the dreams of a feeble and delirious brain.t° Marcus Mastrofini elabo- rated a “mathematical demonstration,’ which, based as it was upon a wrong conception of the infinite, proved as derogatory to the dogma as the Tritheistic teaching of Gunther, which Joseph Kleutgen, S. J., so effectively refuted in his immortal work Die Theologie der Vor- zeit.” Lost in the mazes of Hegelian Pantheism Giin- ther evolved the Trinity as “thesis, antithesis, and syn- thesis,’ or as “subject, object, and identity,’ from the “elements of self-consciousness,”— a theory which is plainly tritheistic, because it supposes “a triplicated exist- ence of one and the same Divine Substance.” Rosmini pantheistically identified the Three Divine Persons with 9 Cfr. S. Thom., De Potent., qu. capitis.” See also Vasquez, In S. OF fart. 6.27 Rich." va5.S.' Viet, De Theol., 1a, disp. 133. Lrinvee tf a Lek, Sh Lakes Bs 11 Refuted by Franzelin, De Deo 10 De Trinit., disp. 41, sect. 1: Trino, thes. 18. “ Demonstrationes [eius] ridiculae 12 See especially Vol. I, 2nd ed., sunt, deliria somniantis et male sani pp. 399 sqq., Minster 1867. THE DOGMA NOT UNREASONABLE 199 “the highest modes of being, viz.: subjectivity, objec- tivity, and sanctity,” or “ reality, ideality, and morality.” Both systems have been condemned as _ un-Catholic, Giinther’s by Pius IX, Rosmini’s by Leo XIII." c) Certain Rationalists have attempted to explain the Christian dogma of the Trinity as the product of purely natural reflection on the part of pre-Christian philoso- phers and religionists. Having emptied it of its super- natural content, they profess to find its germs and prototypes in the philosophy of Plato and the Neo-Platon- ists, in Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, in the writings of the legendary Mercury Trismegistus, and, lastly, in the day-dreams of Kabbalistic theosophy. But all this is rank sophistry. As a matter of fact the Christian Trinity is diametrically opposed alike to the Platonic triad (God, ideas, and: world), to the Hindoo triad _ (Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva), and to the Chinese Tao trinity of heaven, earth, and man. Indeed, none of the so-called ethnic trinities can be shown to possess more than a purely external resemblance to the revealed Trin- ity of the Christian dispensation.** 3. How Human Reason Can DEFEND THE DoGMA OF THE BLESSED TRINITY AGAINST IN- FIDEL OBJECTIONS.—Though it cannot explain the mystery, human reason is able to refute the objections of those who aver that it is impossible or absurd. To do this effectively it 1s not nec- 18 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- stelodami LOO7 HEE ely lal eine chiridion, nn. 1655, 1915. On Ros- Trinity, pp. 31 sqq., New York 1910; minian Ontologism see Pohle-Preuss, and also E. Krebs, Der Logos als God: His Knowability, Essence, Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, and Attributes, pp. 119 sqq. Freiburg 1910, and J. Lebreton, Les 14 Cfr; G. van Noort, De Deo Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Uno et Trino, pp. 193 sqq., Am- pp. 1-207, Paris 1910. 200 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA | essary to demonstrate that the Trinity is posi- tively conceivable and therefore real. It will suffice to show the hollowness of the various objections that are urged against the dogma. All the objections which heresy and infidelity have excogitated against the mystery of the Blessed Trin- ity, from the days of Celsus down to those of David Friedrich Strauss, Christian philosophy has triumphantly refuted as fallacious. We will mention only a few. Schopenhauer says that “Strictly speaking, a mystery is a dogma that is manifestly absurd.” *° This “ dictum ex cathedra” is meaningless. Faith is not related to reason as absurdity is related to sound sense, but as truth is related to truth, and we know that all truths are derived from the same original source, viz.: God Himself. Strauss declares that “He who has sworn to uphold the ‘ Quicunque,’ has renounced the laws of human thought.” *® But where is the law of right thinking that contradicts the possibility of the Trinity? It would not, we fancy, be a difficult under- taking to show how those who deny the Trinity twist the rules of logic and rely on syllogisms that are one and all affected by the deadly malady of “ quaternio terminorum.” It is equally wrong and absurd to allege that the dogma of the Blessed Trinity is based on an impossible mathematical formula, namely 31. This would indeed be the case if the dogma spelled, “Three Gods are one God.” But the concept of “ Three Divine Persons in one Divine Nature” involves no such intrinsic contradiction. It leaves the fundamental metaphysical principles of identity, contradiction, and excluded mid- 15 Parerga und Paralipomena, II, 16 Glaubenslehre, Vol. I, p. 460, p. 385, Leipzig 1874. Tubingen 1840, THE DOGMA NOT UNREASONABLE © 201 dle in full possession of the field, nay, it postulates them as a necessary logical condition of “ Trinitas in unitate,” because without these fundamental laws the dogma could not stand. These considerations show how utterly groundless is the charge brought by Adolph Harnack when he says: “ Arianism, too, seems to us moderns to bristle with contradictions; but it was reserved to Athanasius to achieve a complete contradictio in ad- Jeet: eat Retaivcaht Benen Comment. in S. Theol., 1; Suarez, De Trinit., I, c. 11-12; *Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 41- 43; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 18-20, Romae 1881; Chr. Pesch, S. J., Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 262 sqq., Fri- burgi 1906; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, §$§ 211-212, Mainz 1885; Riittimann, Das Geheimnis der hl. Dreieinigkeit, Lindau 1887; Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 2nd ed. (by Kipper), pp. 17 sqq., Freiburg 1898; Bayle, Diction- naire, s. v. “Pyrrhonisme”; Faust. Socinus, Christ. Religionis Brevissima Institutio, in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, tom. I, pp. 652 sqq. Irenopoli 1656; Anton Gunther, Janus- képfe, Euristheus und Herakles, Lydia, Vorschule; against him Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 399 sqq., Miinster 1867; J. Doderlein, Philosophia Divina: Gottes Drei- einigkeit bewiesen an Kraft, Raum und Zeit, Erlangen 1889; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1910; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 31 sqq., 156 sqq., New York Ig10; J. H. Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Ch. V¥, 822: 1a, Qty 32, art: 17 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 3rd ed., p. 219, Freiburg 1894. Cfr. H. Schell, Das Problem des Geistes mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des dreieinigen Gottes und der biblischen Schopfungsidee, 2nd ed., Wurzburg 1898; J. Uhlmann, Die Persénlich- keit Gottes und thre modernen Geg- ner, Freiburg 1906. SHOTION 2 GENERATION BY MODE OF UNDERSTANDING AND SPIRATION BY MODE OF WILL I. THE GENERATION OF THE SON By MopE oF UNDERSTANDING.—According to the unanimous teaching of Fathers and theologians the prop- osition that the Father generates His Divine Son by mode of understanding, while not an article of faith, is a sure theological conclusion which is firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture, and cannot be denied without temerity.’ ° x a) The Bible reveals the Second Person of the Divine Trinity not only as “ Filius unigemtus,’ (1. e., the Only- begotten Son), but likewise as “Verbum” or “ Logos” (1. e., the Word of God). The only meaning we can attach to the term “Verbum Dei” is: Immanent ter- minus of the knowledge of the Father. Consequently divine Generation must signify the knowledge of the Father bringing forth His Son by an act of the un- derstanding. The purely intellectual character of the act of divine Generation may also be inferred from those Scriptural texts which represent the Son of God as the “image? of the Father,” or as “begotten Wisdom.” Like “ Logos,” these terms define the mode of generation 1 Prominent among those who denied it were Durandus and Hirscher. 2Imago, elkwy, 202 THE GENERATION OF THE SON 203 as purely spiritual, or, more specifically, as intellectual. It is in this sense that the Fathers, so far as they touch upon the subject at all, interpret the Scriptural teaching - concerning the “ Logos.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazian- zus tersely declares: ‘‘ The Son is called Logos, because _ His relation to the Father is the same as that of the ., [immanent] word to the intellect.”* And St. Basil: ~ “Why Word? In order that it may become manifest .. that it proceedeth from the intellect. Why Word? Be- - cause it is the likeness of the Begetter, which in itself ' reflects the whole Begetter, even as our word [concept] ~ reflects the likeness of our whole thought.”+ St. Augus- ' tine goes into the matter even more deeply. He says: “Tamquam seipsum dicens Pater genuit Verbum sibt aequale per omnia; non enim seipsum integre perfec- teque dixisset, st aliquid minus aut amplius esset in emus Verbo, quam in tpso — Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself ‘in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself \wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word any- thing more or less than in Himself.” > | b) A theological reason may be found in the cir- cumstance that the Processions in the Godhead are only conceivable as purely spiritual and immanent vital processes.° God is a pure Spirit, and there are but two known modes of purely spiritual operation, 2. e., understanding and willing. Our own mind, which is in itself infecund and derives its knowledge of generation altogether from the realm of organic life, can scarcely form an idea of the eminent fecundity of # 30r. 30, apud Migne, P. G., 407. Many additional Patristic XXXVI, 1209. texts in Petavius, De Trinitate, II, 4 Hom., 16, 3. TLS Wolo esa de » 5St. August., De Trinitate, XV, 8:Cirs (Si thom), WSs olneol tay 14, 23. Haddan’s translation, p. Cus 27 artic, ; 14 204. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA the Infinite Intellect, and is consequently inclined to conceive the operation of the divine understanding and will as something exclusively essential and absolute. , But once assured by Revelation of the existence of two Processions within the Godhead (generatio and spiratio), _we cannot but connect the one with the intellect and ‘the other with the will. Now we know that divine Generation depends on the intellect rather than the will, because the Son of God has been revealed to us as “ Logos.” This immanent process in the Godhead naturally points to the most perfect analogue which the Blessed ‘Trinity has in the intellectual life of man. According to the teaching of St. Augustine,” man’s self-knowledge cor- responds to the process of divine Generation, his’ self- love to the process of divine Spiration. The human Ego unfolds itself, as it were, in three directions. First it duplicates itself in its self-consciousness and, without destroying the identity of the Ego-substance, opposes the thinking Ego to the Ego thought. The thinking Ego, as the terminus a quo, represents the begetting Father, while the thought Ego, as the terminus ad quem, illustrates the Son. Out of the reciprocal comprehension and interpenetration of both— despite the opposition existing between them, they are not really distinct — there spontaneously burgeons forth self-love, which, as the fundamental law of the human will, completes the immanent spiritual process and furnishes a faint image of the Holy Ghost. In thus trying to bring the mystery nearer to our understanding, we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that no real trinity is possible in the spiritual life of the creature, for the obvious reason that 7 Supra, p. 197. 7 Ja THEVSPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST (205 the two intrinsic termini of self-knowledge and self-love ret not hypostases but mere accidents.* eanyales go eG OF THE Hoty GHOST BY Mopbe oF WILL.—In arguing that the Spiration of the Holy Ghost takes place by way of volition, some theologians content themselves with the argumentum exclusionis. The Generation of the Son having been assigned to the intellect, they say, there remains only the will to account for the origination of the Holy Ghost. These writers seem to overlook the fact that Revelation furnishes positive as well as negative proofs in — support of this doctrine. a) Under the so-called Law of Appropriations, no external operations can be predicated of any Divine Per- ‘son except such as are intrinsically related to that par- ticular Person’s hypostatic character. This constitutes the Appropriations a sure criterion for determining the personal character of each of the Divine Persons. » The attributes of omnipotence and creation are appro- priated to the Father, for the reason that, in Tegard to t Saleh els ad intra, He is at the same time dpyy avapxos and dpyy tas dpyys. In the same way the works of wis- dom are appropriated to the Son, because He is Hypo- static Wisdom. If, then, the works of love are at- tributed to the Holy Ghost, it must be because He 1s love, because He proceeds. from.love as His principle or source ; — not, it is true, from that essential Love which is common to all three Divine Persons,® but from the 8 Cfr. S. Thom., Contr. Gent., IV, SO Trevis alas 8: “He that Il. loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is charity.” peree . 206 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA reciprocal notional love of Father and Son, of which the immanent product is Hypostatic Charity, «. e., the Per- son of the Holy Ghost. Love being the fundamental affection of the will,° the Holy Ghost must proceed from the Father and the Son roy mode of will (per modum voluntatis ). b) The fact that Holy Scripture attributes the proper name “ Spiritus” and the epithet “Sanctus” to the Holy Ghost, will serve to confirm this conclusion. As a personal appellation the term “Holy Spirit,” like “ Rather’ and “ Son,” must be taken in a relative sense, as “spiratus” or “spiratione productus.” In its abso- lute sense “Spirit” is predicable of the Godhead as such. Cfr. John IV, 24: “God is a spirit.’ But in a nature which, like God’s, is purely spiritual, Spiration, as opposed to intellectual Generation, can signify noth- “ing elge than an act of the will. This becomes still clearer when we consider that Spiration is an analogous term derived from the realm of nature, in which breath or “wind is indtied with motive power, “which in the spiritual Yealm has its counterpart in the operation of the will. If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is called “ breath of God” (halitus Dei), the reason is that Father and Son breathe the Holy Ghost per modum voluntatis. Since “the emission of the breath from the heart, notably in the act of kissing, gives a most real expres- sion to the tendency of love towards intimate and real communion of life and an outpouring of soul into soul,’ 21 we can well understand why St. Ambrose, St. - Jerome, and St. Pesan of Clairvaux ventured to refer to the Holy Ghost as “ osculum Patris et Hie 10 Cfr. S. Thom., Contr. Gent., 12 Cfr. also St, Bonaventure: LNG on9. _ © Spirare in spiritualibus solius est 11 Scheeben. Cfr. Wilhelm-Scan- amoris; et quontam amor potest nell’s Manual, I, 331-332. spirari recte et ordinate, et sic est ee THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST 207 Analyzing the epithet “ Sanctus,” we find that it does not designate the absolute sanctity of the Blessed Trinity as such, but, relatively, the personal character of the Third Person; in other words it is synonymous with “ pbrocedens ex principio sancto.” Now, sanctity is an attribute of the will, as wisdom is an attribute of the intellect. Divine sanctity formally consists in “ God’s love for Himself.” 22 Hence ‘ Holy Ghost” is synony- mous with “ Hypostatic Love.” The Eleventh Synod of Toledo (A.D. 675) formally identifies sanctity with love when it says: “Spiritus Sanctus... sumul ab utrisque processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sancti- tas amborum esse agnoscitur — The Holy Ghost is shown ‘to proceed from both, as He is acknowledged to be the love or sanctity of both.”’** The Fathers express them- selves in a similar manner. Thus St. Augustine says: “Cum Pater sit spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus, proprie tamen tpse vocatur Spiritus Sanctus, tamquam sanctitas substantialis et consubstantialis amborum— Though the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and though the Father is holy and the Son is holy, yet He [the Third Person] is properly called Holy Spirit, because He is the sub- - stantial and consubstantial holiness of both [the Father and the Son].” * ‘The Greek Fathers compare the act of divine Spiration to “a special form of substantial emanation, analogous to purus, ideo persona illa, quae est amor, non tantum dicitur Spiritus, sed Spiritus Sanctus —To breathe in matters spiritual belongs solely to love; and because love can be rightly and properly breathed, and thus is pure; therefore the Person who is Love, is not only called Spirit, but Holy Spirit.” Com- ment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., I, dist.; %0,\.qu.3. 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Knowability, Essence, butes, pp. 256 sqq. 14 Denzinger-Bannwart, dion, n. 277. 15 De Civitate Dei, XI, 24. God: His and Attri- Enchiri- 208 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA the emanation which takes place in plants side by side with generation, and is effected by the plants themselves and their products, viz., the emission of the vital _sap or spirit of life in the form of fluid oily substances in a liquid or ethereal state, such as balsam and incense, wine and oil, and especially the odor or perfume of the plant, which is at the same time an ethereal oil and the biveth of the: plant.”” 26 c) The, epithet, “ gift of God” (aga ae aa @cot), which, following the lead of. Sacred “Scripture, many pects ascribe as. ac personal attribute. nO the cession. Ne gift supposes as its principle love of pure benevolence on the part of the giver, and consequently the Holy Ghost, considered in His personal attribute of “donum Dei,” cannot originate in the Intellect, but must spring from Love, that is, from the Divine Will. St. Thomas explains this luminously as follows: “ Do- num proprie est datio irreddibilis, id est, quod non datur intentione retributionis et sic importat gratuitam donationem. Ratio autem gratuitae donationis est amor; ideo enim damus gratis alicui aliquid, quia volumus ei bonum. ... Unde cum Spiritus Sanctus procedat ut amor, .. . procedit in ratione dom primi—A gift, properly speaking, is something given without expecta- tion of a quid pro quo; but the reason why one gives freely is love; for if we give something to some one without expecting an equivalent, it is because we wish him well. ... Therefore, since the Holy Ghost pro- ceeds by mode of love. . . . He proceeds after the man- 16 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. Serap., 3, n. 3: ‘“ This salve is the 870 =(Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, breath of the Son, the perfume and Vol. I, p. 329). Cfr. Athanas., Ad the figure of the Son.” THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST 209 ner of the first gift.”’7 St. Augustine says: “ Non dicitur Verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec donum Dei nist Spiritus Sanctus — The Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the gift of God.’*® He founds upon this distinction the thesis that the Holy Ghost cannot be identical with the Son: “ Extit non quomodo natus, sed quomodo datus, et ideo non dicitur Filius — For the Spirit came forth not as born, but as given; and so He is not called Ste unt 3. THE EssENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERATION AND SPIRATION.— There is be- tween Generation and Spiration a marked dis- tinction, similar to the one between intellect and will. ! +f) “ a) To enable the human mind to penetrate as deeply as possible into the sublime mystery of the Blessed Trinity, the Schoolmen raised the question: In how far can the notional cognition of the Father be conceived as generation in the strict sense of the term? Can it be said that “ knowing” is synonymous with “ begetting ”? Modern authorities on the philosophy of language have made the interesting discovery that, in the parent lan- guage from which the Indo-Germanic family derives its descent (viz.: Sanskrit), GEN is the root of two dis- tinct word-groups, which denote “knowing” and “ be- getting.” Compare, @. 9. in Greek, ylyvoya and yevvdaw with yyvdoxw; in Latin, gigno with cognosco. “ Con- ceptus” may signify either “concept” (idea) or “ con-' _ ception” in the physiological sense. Our English word 17S. Theol., 1a, qu. 38, art. 2. 19 De Trinit., V, 14, 15. 18 De Trinit., XV, 17, 29- 210 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA “conception,” too, is used to describe both the act or process of forming an idea or notion of a thing, and the impregnation of an ovum. In the Semitic family of languages these two notions are also closely related and expressed by the same verb; cfr., e. g., “ Adam vero cognovit YI" uxorem suam Hevam— And Adam knew Eve his wife.” ?° A still surer way of arriving at the point we are trying to make, is to analyze the concepts underlying these various terms. Generation is defined as “origo viventis a principio vivente coniuncto in simili- tudinem naturae ex vi ipsius productionis,” ? which may be rendered into English as follows: Generation is the production of one living being by another living being, by communication of substance, resulting in a similarity » of nature in progenitor and progeny wi productionis, 1. €., from the very mode of production.2?, The concept of generation, therefore, contains four essential marks: (1) The origin of one living being from another living be- ing. Consequently the inanimate exudation of plants and animals, the growth of hair and nails in corpses, etc., cannot be called “generation.” (2) The vital process _of nature by which that which is generated proceéds from the substance of the generative-principle. Hence such processes as the creation of the universe and the origin of Eve cannot be called. ;*" generation.” (3) Similarity of nature in the being which is begotten and the being which begets. This eliminates spontaneous generation, so-called, or heterogeny. (4) An immanent tendency in the progeny to resemble its progenitor. Hence, e. g., the likeness which a child bears to his 20 Gen,. IV, 1. 22 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual 20 Cir SS!) Thoms Sid neols i ivas of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. GU 27 arlenz, 102 sq. GENERATION AND SPIRATION 211 father is not accidental, but results from the act of generation itself. b) The notional understanding of God the Father pos- sesses all of these distinctive momenta. In the first place, the begetting Father and the begotten Son are both living persons, identical in nature with the absolute divine life. The communication of life takes place in the vital mode of nature, as the Divine Nature itself consti- tutes the “ principium quo” and the Father the “ princi- pium quod” of generation. Thirdly, both Sacred Scrip- ture and Tradition attest that the Son is the most perfect likeness of the Father and His most adequate utteraitte. “And since this absolute essential likeness is rooted in the very mode of origination itself,.vig.: an assimilative tendency in the notional understanding of the Father, the fourth condition, too, is verified. This last-men- tioned note is by far the most important, for it alone ultimately differentiates _ divine. Generation from Spiration:\, \1ts)1s peculiar to the act of understand- ing, and to that act alone, that it tends to assimilate the object of knowledge with the knower, and thereby elevates even the lowest and basest object of cognition, (ec. g. matter), to the spiritual plane of the cognizing principle. Thus the concept “tree,” for example, is as spiritual as the conceiving intellect itself. Hence the well-known Scholastic axiom: “Cognitum est m co- gnoscente non per modum cogniti, sed per modum co- gnoscentis — Whatever is received by the intellect, is re- ceived in the manner, not of the thing known, but of the knowing intellect.” Volition or love, on the other hand, is ecstatic in its effect, that is, it transports the lover as it were beyond himself and transforms him into the object of his affection. It is for this rea- son that the intrinsic value of love increases or di- 212 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA minishes in proportion to the value or dignity of its object; which explains the ennobling influence of the love of God as the supreme good, and the degrading effects of sinful love. St. Thomas describes the differ- ence between understanding and willing with his usual clearness as follows: “‘ There is this difference between the intellect and the will, that the intellect is actuated because the object known is in the intellect according to its likeness. The will, on the other hand, becomes actu- ated, not because it contains within itself any likeness of the object willed, but because it has a certain in- clination towards that object.” ?* c) In respect of the second mode of procession, 1. e., Spiration, it must first of all be observed that the Holy Ghost, too, is a living Person, who derives His origin from a living Spirator; that He has His essence by a vital process from the Divine Substance itself; and, lastly, that by virtue of His consubstantiality (éuoovcia) He is a perfectly adequate likeness of the two Divine Persons by whom He is breathed. The fourth and dis- criminative mark of generation — namely an immanent essential tendency or inclination to produce a being of like nature — does not, however, apply to Spiration. For since Spiration is not. understanding but love, it lacks that assimilative tendency which is the essential note of gen- eration. Consequently Spiration is not Generation.** 23 “‘ Haec est differentia inter in- art. 4,ad 7: “ Cum Filius procedat tellectum et voluntatem, quod intel- lectus sit in actu per hoc, quod res intellecta est in intellectu secundum suam similitudinem. Voluntas au- tem fit in actu, non per hoc quod aliqua similitudo voliti sit in volun- tate, sed ex hoc quod voluntas habet quandam inclinationem in rem voli- Fam. i (SV Dheol., 4a; qu. 27, arte 4, 24 Cfr, S. Thom., De Pot., qu. 2, per modum verbi, ex ipsa ratione suae processionis habet, ut procedat in similem speciem generantis, et sic quod sit Filius et eius processio ge- neratio dicatur. Non autem Spiritus Sanctus hoc habet ratione suae pro- cessionis, sed magis ex proprietate divinae naturae: quia in Deo non potest esse aliquid, quod non sit Deus; et sic ipse amor divinus Deus SPECULATIVE} PROBLEMS 213 d) From all of which it is plain that there can be in the Godhead but one Son and one Holy Ghost. The Logos-Son, as the adequately exhaustive Word of the Father, utters the Father’s infinite substance so per- fectly that the generative power of the Paternal In- tellect completely exhausts itself, and there is no room left for a second, third, etc., Son or Logos.. Similarly, Father and Son mutually love each other in a man- ner so absolutely perfect that the Holy Ghost repre- sents the infinite, and therefore exhaustive, utterance of their mutual love. This cuts the ground from under the feet of the Macedonians, who sophistically charged the Catholic dogma of the Trinity with absurdity by alleging that it implies the existence of a divine grand- father, a divine grandchild, and so forth.*® 4. Two SPECULATIVE PRoBLEMS.—There is a subtle and purely speculative question as to what are the objects of notional, in contradis- tinction to essential, understanding and love. Is the Logos merely the utterance of the divine self-knowledge? or is He also the expression of God’s knowledge of His creatures? And fur- ther: Is the Holy Ghost the personal expression + of God’s love for Himself only? or is He also the expression of God’s love for the created universe? a) The problem involved in the first question must be solved along these lines: If it is true that all essen- tial knowledge, and hence the very nature of God, would cease to be if God had no divine self-comprehension est, inquantum quidem divinus, non 28 Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., 1a, inquantum amor.” Gu. 130; attun2. ‘W214 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA (cognitio comprehensiva sui) embracing His Essence and attributes, or no knowledge of all the possibles (scientia simplicis intelligentiae),2° among which must be reckoned all created things before their realization; then the notional cognition of the Father must have its essential and necessary object chiefly in these two kinds of divine knowledge. For whatever is essential and ab- solutely necessary to the very being of the Godhead, can- not play a purely subordinate and unessential part in the generation of the Logos. Theologians all admit this principle in the abstract; but in explaining and inter- preting it there is no real agreement among the different schools beyond the proposition that the Logos proceeds from the notional cognition of the primary and formal object of the Divine Intellect, vizg.: the Essence and at- tributes of God.” ce ie Extreme views on the subject were held by Scotus and Gregory of Valentia. Scotus limits the notional under- standing’ by which the F ather begets the Logos, ‘strictly to the absolute essence of God. According to Gregory of Valentia it includes as a necessarily co-operating factor the contingent universe with all its creatures, / Both are wrong. Scotus forgets that one of the es- sential factors in the production of the Logos is a knowledge of all possibles as well as of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Gregory of Valentia does not distinguish with sufficient clearness between God’s necessary and His free knowledge. The con- . tingent and accidental world of creatures, which un- doubtedly forms one of the objects of divine omniscience, must assuredly be reflected in the Hypostatic Concep- 26 Cir. Pohle-Preuss, God: Wik) 27 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- © 338 sq. butes, pp. 329 saq. SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS 215 tion or Logos, as object of the “ scientia libera”’; but in such manner that the adequacy and perfection as the Logos would suffer no impairment even if the created universe did not exist. Indeed it is through the eternally pre-existing Logos that all existing things were made.” Scotus, on principle, excludes from the paternal act of Generation all creatural being, even the purely possible. Puteanus_holds_ that Eatery, Vasquez that Paternity and Filiation, and Turrianus that, besides these, passive Spiration is comprised as a supplementary object in that notional act by which the Father utters Himself adequately in His “ Word.” The Thomists extend the scope of God’s notional understanding to the whole realm of His essential knowledge. St. Augustine taught that the essence of the Logos com- prises precisely the same wisdom that is comprehended within the essential knowledge of the Triune God,” and St. Thomas expressly declares: “ The Father, by un- derstanding Himself, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and all other things contained within His knowledge, conceives the Word, and thus the entire Trinity and every created being are uttered in the Word.” ® ~The Angelic Doctor, as Billuart *! points out, in this passage does not refer to the actually existing: creatures, but only to the purely possibles (as objects of the scientia simplicis intelligentiae), in as much as they are re- flected in the world of divine ideas as necessary, not as free objects of divine knowledge. As free objects of divine knowledge they are, de facto, also contained 28. Cir john 1.35010; Trinitas Verbo ‘ dicatur, et etiam 29 Supra, p. 203. omnis creatura.”’ S. Theol., 1a, qu. 0 ‘‘ Pater enim intelligendo se et CIEE REyb In Gane aKa Bizet -Filium et Spiritum Sanctum et om- 31 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, nia alia, quae eius scientia continen- dissy) 5) art. 3. hi tur, concipit Verbum, ut sic tota 216 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA in the “ Word of God,” but only concomitanter et per accidens. “ Quia Pater principaliter dicit se,’ observes St. Thomas, “generando Verbum suum, et ex conse- guenti dicit creaturas [existentes|, ideo principaliter et quasi per se Verbum refertur ad Patrem, sed ex conse- quenti et quasi per accidens refertur ad creaturam; ac- cidit enim Verbo, ut per ipsum creatura dicatur — Since the Father, in begetting His Word, utters Himself prin- cipally, and the [existing] creatures “incidentally, the Word is principally, and as. it were per Se; referred to the Father, and only consequently, and as it were by accident, to the creature; for it is only by accident that the creattiré is uttered through the Word.” * St. Augustine says: ‘‘ The Father spake nothing that He spake not in the Son. For by speaking in the Son what He was about to do through the Son, He begat the Son Himself by whom He should make all things.” ** This passage does not contradict what we have asserted, because the archetype and exemplar of the universe about to be created was eternally present in the Logos as the living concept of creation.** Another difficulty has been formulated thus: The Logos owes His existence to the generative knowledge of the Father; consequently He cannot be conceived as existing prior to the act of paternal Generation. Simi- larly, the Person of the Holy Ghost does not exist log- ically without the Father and the Son, and consequently 32 S. Thom., De Vertiate, qu. 4, art. 4. 33 “‘ Nilil dixit Deus, quod non dixit in Filio. Dicendo enim in Filio, quod facturus erat per Filium, ipsum Filium genutt, per quem faceret omnia.”’ Tract. in Ioa., 21, n. 4. Browne’s translation, Homi- lies on the Gospel according to St. John, Vol. I, p. 327. 34 For a more detailed develop- ment of this thought we must refer the reader to the dogmatic treatise on God the Author of Nature and the Stpernatural, which forms the — “third” volume of the present series of dogmatic text-books, SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS 217 the Holy Ghost cannot contribute to the production of the Logos. This difficulty, which is considered unsolvable by some divines, arises from confusing temporal succession with succession as to origin. The Three Divine Persons are “absolutely coeternal. Hence the Logos ae the Holy Ghost, despite their “ posterioritas originis,’ can form essential ingredients of the Father’s intellectual act of Generation from everlasting. For the rest, as ‘Suarez justly remarks, “ Potest esse prior existentia visionis, quam ret visae; nam si Deus potest intueri futuras creaturas prius duratione, immo aeternitate, quam ipsae existant, cur non poterit Deus ut sic videre personas prius ratione vel origine, quam producantur? — A vision may exist prior to the object seen; for if God is able to envisage future creatures temporally and even eter- nally before they exist, why should He not also be able to see the Persons in [their] relation or origin before they are produced?” 35 OU Ree an naan b) Following out.the analogy, it may be asked: Which are the objects embraced by the love of Father and Son that produces the Holy Ghost? According to Billuart,*® the Holy Ghost proceeds from the notional love of all that is necessario et formaliter lovable in the Godhead ; that is, first of all, from the love which the Spirator bears for His own essence, 1. e., the Supreme Good; secondly, from the love He has a His attributes, ren are really identical with the Divine Essence, and, lastly, from His love for the individual Divine Persons them- selves. Although the real principle of the production of the Holy Ghost is the mutual love of the Father and the Son, we are not free to reject the love of the 85 De Trinitate, TX, 5, 3. z 36 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 5, art. 8, qu. 3. 218 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA Spirator for the Person Spirated (the Holy Ghost), as an essentially co-operative factor on the ground that the Holy Ghost cannot possibly furnish the subject-matter of an act of which He is the result or product. Some the- ologians exaggerate this difficulty, but it is as easily solved as the one we have considered a little farther up. The Spirator’s love for creatures (irrespective of whether _they are already created, or, as mere possibles, remain to , be created in the future), can add its quota in the pro- ' duction of the Holy Ghost only concomutanter et per ac- ' cidens, because the notional love which produces the Holy Ghost is an essential and necessary love, whereas God’s love for His creatures IS eENuilely iTeG, ee as free as His determination to give them being.27 As regards God’s love for merely possible creatures (1. e., such as will never come into being), many divines hold that their essential goodness co-incides with the Divine Essence, which is their exemplary cause; and that, consequently, since they seem to lack a proper, independent goodness and amiability of their own, these possible creatures do not contribute towards the production of the Holy Ghost.28 We can not share this view. Having pre- viously espoused the opinion that the goodness proper to creatures is not identical with God’s own goodness,” consistency compels us to adhere to the view that love for the purely possible also enters into that notional act by which the Father and the Son breathe the Holy Ghost. READINGS: — St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 27 sqq., and the commentators; Ipem, Contr. Gent., IV, 11 (Rickaby in his Eng- 37 Cir. (Ss ‘Thom, S. | Lheol.;)\\71a, 39 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss,; God: His Qt 37, -Atte1 2. ads: Knowability, Essence, and Atiri- 38 Cfr.. Oswald, Goties Dasein, butes, pp. 440 sq. Wesen und Eigenschafien, p. 213. Paderborn 1887. SPECULATIVE) PROBLEMS 219 lish version of the Summa contr. Gent. omits this chapter) ; *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 26-31; Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 4, art. 2-3, Ratisbonae 1881; Oswald, Trinitatslehre, § 12, Paderborn 1888; *Scheeben, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. I, §§ 116-127, Freiburg 1873 (contains a wealth of spec- ulative thoughts). 15 SECTION 3 THE DIVINE RELATIONS——DIVINE PERSONALITY 1. DEFINITION OF THE TERMS “HyPposTasIs”’ AND “Person.”—As the Divine Persons consist in, and are constituted by, “‘subsistent relations,” we shall have to introduce this division of our treatise with a scientific exposition of the terms hypostasis and person, as distinguished from, and opposed to, nature. DAN atta a) Though they differ formally, and, when predicated of creatures, even ee the terms “essence,” “substance,” and “nature’ are ap- plied synonymously to God. “Tres quidem Hae sonae,;’ says the Fourth Lateran Council, “sed una essentia, substantia seu natura simplex om- nino — Three Persons, it is true, but only one absolutely simple Essence, or Substance, or Na- ture.’ ' The physical essence of a thing—its metaphysical essence does not concern us here— is the sum total of all those notes by which the thing is what it is. By substance we understand “ons in se,” ot, in the words of St. Thomas, “Be- ing, inasmuch as this Being is by itself,” in con- 1 ensue rR nEuabe | oleate n. 428. 220 DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS 221 tradistinction to accident, which is “that whose being is to be in something else.” ? “Nature ” is the principle of activity of a substance, or its phys- ical essence. We know from Divine Revelation that there is in the Blessed Trinity only one Nature in three Hypostases, or Persons, while in Christ, on the contrary, there are two complete Thatures in but one Hypostasis, or Person. 1 ay “follows that, commonly speaking, there is both a logical and a real distinction between Nature and Person. Since Person is generally defined as hypostasis rationalis, we have first to examine the notion of Hypostasis. by Un order to) arrive ‘at ai correct idea of Hypostasis, it will be advisable to institute a process of logical differentiation, by proceeding from the universal to the particular, and con- stantly adding new marks, until we attain to a complete definition. An Hypostasis, to begin with, must be an Nets Or being. very) jeis\. ds either an “ens in se’ (substance) or an “ens in alio’” (accident). An Hypostasis is manifestly not an accident; therefore it must be a substance. Now, with Aristotle, we distinguish between substantia _ prima (cbota mpérq) and substantia secunda (ovcta ___ devrépa). Substantia prima is individual, substan- 2De Potentia, art. 7; on the no- His Rvocbaki tes. Laverne and At- tion of “‘ substance ’”’ as opposed to tributes, pp. 276 sq. ** accident ”? cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: a2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA tia secunda abstract substance. Common sense télls tis that an Hypostasis must be an individual substance. But the term substantia prima is applied not only to complete but also to incom- plete substances, such as body and soul, or the human hand or foot, which are individual sub- stances, but clearly not Hypostases. Conse- quently, the concept of Hypostasis, besides 1n- seitas, must have another essential note, viz.: integrity or completeness of substance. “Hypo- stasis est substantia prima et integra.’ Since, however, Christ’s humanity is a substantia prima et integra, that is, a complete human nature, “yet no Hypostasis, it is plain that inseitas and integritas do not suffice to constitute the no- tion of Hypostasis:~There is required a further determinant, namely, that it is not a part, and can- not be regarded as a part of any other thing. Hence the famous definition evolved by Tipha- nus: “Hvypostasis est substantia prima, integra, tota in se.” In plain English: An Hypostasis is an individual substance, separate and distinct from all other substances of the same kind, pos- sessing itself and all the parts, attributes, and energies which are in it.® 3 Tiphanus, De Hypostas: et Per- Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius The- sona, cc. 10. Claudius Tiphanus ologiae Catholicae, Vol. III, ed. 3a, was an illustrious Jesuit theologian col. 951, Oeniponte 1907. of the seventeenth century. Cfr. DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS 223 Of these three momenta the first two form the proxi- mate genus, while the third and last constitutes the specific difference. As the proper essence of Hypostasis lies in its specific difference, Christian philosophers have been at great pains to discuss and circumscribe the notion of totietas in se. They emphasize that it excludes every species of composition or union with other beings, and that it consequently signifies incommunicability and in- dependent being (esse per se seu perseitas).* It is, there- fore, merely a different way of expressing the definition we have given above, when we say that inseitas, imte- gritas, and perseitas are the essential notes of an Hypos- tasis. Any substance that has ceased to be tota in se can no longer perform the functions of an Hypostasis. Con- versely, as soon as a substance acquires independence or perseitas, it becomes an Hypostasis. As a substance which forms part of another substance becomes an Hy- postasis immediately upon being detached from that sub- stance (for example, an amputated limb of the body separated from its soul), so a substance which is tota in se loses its character as an Hypostasis as soon as it becomes a part or quasi-part of something else (as, for instance, the human body in the resurrection of the dead, or the humanity of Christ in the Hypostatic Union). c) If we compare Hypostasis with nature and consider their mutual relations, we find that the Hypostasis possesses the nature, while the nature is possessed by the Hypostasis; in 4Cfr. Alexander Halensis., In ratum esse, ita quod ‘ per se’ sonat Arist. Metaph., V, 18: ‘Per se privationem associations.” esse idem est, quod solum et sepa- i 224 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA other words, “the Hypostasis has the nature.” ® Hence the axiom: “Ey postasis habet, natura habetur.” An Hypostasis operates through the nature of which it is the bearer and controller, and all attributes and operations of that nature are referred back to the Hypostasis as its sub- ject. Hypostasis, therefore, as subiectum at- tributionis, in the language of the Schoolmen, ‘is the principium quod, while nature is the ey cipium quo. Thus we say of man, who is an Hypostasis, that he eats and drinks, sees and hears, thinks and feels, digests and sleeps; that is, he operates by and in his nature and natural faculties, though the principium quo proximum of all these operations are the five senses, the organs of digestion, reason and will. If we take suppositum as synonymous with Hypostasis, we shall also understand that other Scholastic axiom: “ Actiones et passiones sunt suppositorum — Actions be- long to their respective supposita.” ° d) A Person (persona, tpecorov, also trdctaors ) is an Hypostasis plus the note “intellectual” or “rational.” . “Persona est hypostasis rationalis.” ' Person and Hypostasis, therefore, differ mate- rially, but not formally. A crystal is just as truly an Hypostasis as a human being, because it is “substantia tota in se.’ But the possession of reason exalts an Hypostasis in ipsa ratione 5 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, 6Cfr.' John Rickaby, | General L309; Metaphysics, pp. 28¢e sq. DEGENITION OF AYPOS LASTS 225 hypostaseos, in so far as independence is in- creased by self-consciousness and the Ego not only is an individualized and incommunicable sub- stance, but is also conscious of this fact. A per- son, moreover, is sui wris, and hence both the responsible possessor of his natural faculties and the subject of personal rights that are entitled to respect and protection. It is for this reason that the Schoolmen define an angel as _ “hypostasis cum dignitate.” Boéthius’s famous definition: “Persona est rationalis _naturae individua [i. e., prima et completa] substantia — | A person is the faa bal subject, self, or ego of a \rational nature,” 7 can easily be reduced to the shorter one which we gave above, viz.: “ Persona est hypostasis “rationalis — A person is an ‘Hypostasis endowed with reason.” For by individua substantia the ancients un- derstood precisely the same thing that we mean when we speak of substantia prima, integra et tota in se. The Greek Fathers were adverse to the use of the word mpocwrov for persona, because Sabellius had a) it’ to heretical uses. They preferred the generic term trdoracis. Thus St. John Damascene teaches: ‘“ Neither the soul , alone nor the body is an Hypostasis, but they are called évordorara ; that which is perfected and made of both, is the Hypostasis of both. For trdcracs properly is and means that which exists by itself, having its own independent” ‘being (Kae EaVTO iSioovordrws) .” (Dialect., c. 44°) "7 De Duab. Nat., 1. The, Eng- | the’ theological history of the am »lish translation we give is rather ‘see Newman, Arians, ch. ‘9 § i, a paraphrase in modern terms. On _ 226 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA e) If this definition of Person is correct, that invented by Locke and introduced into Catholic theology by Gitinther, must be false. Locke rholds that personality is constituted by con- ' tinued consciousness. But if consciousness were the only essential and formal note of person- | ality, it would follow that where there is but _ one consciousness, there is but one person, where- /as a double consciousness would constitute - ‘two persons, and so forth. Inasmuch as the Triune God has but one (absolute) conscious- ness, while Christ the Godman has two, Locke’s theory would destroy both the Trinity and the .uni-personality of Christ, which latter is based upon the Hypostatic Union. In other words, this theory entails grave Trinitarian and Christolog- ical heresies, and must therefore be false. It is also opposed to experience and the common sense of mankind, which treats a child as yet uncon- scious of self, or an idiot devoid of consciousness, as persons in the true sense of the word.* 8 For a more detailed refutation of Locke’s error, see Rickaby, Gen- eral Metaphysics, pp. 284 sqq. Fr. Rickaby says, after trying to “‘ fol- low some of the meanderings of his [Locke’s] famous twenty-seventh chapter” [of the Essay on the Hu- man Understanding]: ‘‘ The most we can grant to Locke is that con- tinued consciousness is one test of personality; we cannot grant that it is personality. If because of the intimate connexion of thought with personality we permitted Locke to turn thought into personality, how should we resist Cousin, who _ be- cause personality is asserted spe- cially in the will, says: La volonté cest la personne; and _ again, Qwest ce que le moi? L’activité volontaire et libre. A long way the best plan is to keep to the theory that the person of man is the com- posite nature, body and soul, left jn“ its “Cémpleteness and sui iuris; the soul being substantially un- DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS 2a The terminology which we have explained above is definitively fixed by ecclesiastical and theological usage. It is the product of a histor- ical development which involved harsh and weary struggles extending over the first four or five centuries of the Christian era,? and it must not be changed.’. (It, took a lone’ time te-determine which were the best terms to be employed for designating Nature, Hypostasis, and Person. The Greeks said that there were in the Divine Trinity pila, ovola Kal Tpeis vrootaces: the Latins, “una natura (substantia, essentia) et tres’ per- -sonae.” Both formulas mean precisely the same thing. St. Athanasius did much towards intro- ducing a uniform terminology when, at the ipemic council of Alexandria, A, 1D. 362, he irec onciled the contending factions by showing that while one party took t7doras to mean ‘“Sub- stance,” and the other used it in the sense of traction and. isolation of the churches in times of persecution. changeable, though variable in its accidental states, the body being constantly changed as to its con- stituent particles, yet preserving a certain identity, describable only by reciting what are the facts of waste and repair in an organism.” (Cfr. also Uhlmann, Die Personlichkett Gottes, pp. 8 sqq., Freiburg 1906.) 9‘ The difficulties of forming a theological phraseology for the whole of Christendom were ob- viously so great that we need not wonder at the reluctance which the first age of Catholic divines showed in attempting it, even apart from the obstacles caused by the dis- Not only had the words to be ad- . justed and explained which were peculiar to different schools or tra- ditional in different places, but there was the formidable necessity of creating a common measure between two, or rather three languages — Latin, Greek, -and’’Syriac. The in- tellect had to be satisfied, error had to be successfully excluded, parties the most contrary to each other, and the most obstinate, had to be convinced.”— Newman, Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 336, new ed., London 189s. 228 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA “Person,” both were really agreed as to the un- derlying doctrine.” _ 2. THE Four RELaTiIons 1n Gop.—The origin ‘of the Divine’ Persons from one another forms ‘the basis of a double set of Relations: one between active and passive Generation, and an- other between active and passive Spiration. Both classes of Relations are real and mutual. This gives us four real Relations (relationes, oXEoeIs ) in the Godhead: active and passive Generation ' (generare, generari), and active and passive Spiration (spirare, spirari). By passive Gen- eration and Spiration we do not, however, un- derstand passio in the sense of the Aristotelian category of 7écxev. Properly speaking, there can be no 7aexew in God, because He is purest actu- ality (actus purissimus) in being and life, Es- sence and -Persons. Passive Generation means that the Son, by virtue of active Generation on the part of the Father, (not so much comes into being as) exists from all eternity. . Pas- sive Spiration signifies that the Holy Ghost possesses His subsistence and personality solely in virtue of a joint act of Spiration performed by the Father and the Son, of which act He is the 10 For the meaning of tmécracis ed., London 1895. On the conflicts and etcia in the writings of the and misunderstandings regarding early Fathers, see Newman’s Tracts, these terms, cfr. Kuhn, Christliche Theological and Ecclesiastical, ‘* On Lehre von der hl. Dreieinigkeit, St. Cyril’s Formula pla gvois §29, Tibingen 1857; Petavius, De geoapKwyervn,’ PP. 331 saq., new Trinit., IV, 4. Church has not, however, formally defined that these relations are four in number. THE DIVINE RELATIONS 229 immanent terminus. It is an article of faith that these Relations,—i. e., of the Father to the , son (generare), of the Son to the Father (ge- _nerari), of the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost (spirare), and of the Holy Ghost to the ' Father and the Son (spirari), are not purely logical or imaginary. Thus we read in the De- cretum pro Lacobitis, promulgated by the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439: “Huinc damnat ecclesia Sabellium personas confundentem et ipsarum dis- tinctionem realem penitus auferentem — Hence the Church condemns Sabellius, who confounds the [Three Divine] Persons and denies that there is any real distinction between them.’ '! The It is easy to see fet the dogma of the Trinity stands and falls with the reality of the Four Relations just de- scribed.4? Since the Father is a different Person from the Son, and the Son a different Person from the Holy Ghost, the relation of the Father to the Son (and vice versa), and the relation of both to the Holy Ghost (and vice versa), must evidently be quite as real as are the three Divine Persons themselves. If these Relations were merely logical (either rationis ratiocinantis or rationis ratiocinatae), the distinction of Persons in the Godhead would evaporate into a purely logical, or at most a modal trinity, as taught by the Monarchians and 11 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 12 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, dion, n. 705. qui essartakr: 230 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA the Sabellians.* To say that the divine Relations are real, therefore, is but a different way of formulating the Trinitarian dogma itself. 3. [THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE TRINITY. —T'he most important corollary that flows from the doctrine of the divine Relations is the so- called fundamental law of the Trinity. This law was formulated by St. Anselm *™ and sol- emnly approved by the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439. It is as follows: “In Deo omnia sunt » unum, ubt non obviat relationis oppositio —In | God all things are one except where there is \ Opposition of relation.” The Father differs from the Son only because there is a perfect opposition of Relation between active and pas- sive Generation{:; Where no such perfect rela- tive opposition intervenes, everything in God is one and indistinct. Consequently, all the divine attributes in general are really identical with the divine Essence and with one another, and this is true in a special manner of those attributes which, like justice and mercy, are in logical opposition to one another. This opposition is purely logical. How sharply the oppositio re- lationis in the Holy Trinity must be defined, ap- pears from the fact that since generare and | spwrare do not imply a relative but only a dis- 13'\Supra, Ch: Ib, Sect.’ x. 15 Decretum pro TIacobitis, in Den- f 14De Process. Spiritus S., c. 2° zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. ) (Migne, P. L., CLVIII, 288). 705. PUNDAMENTAL, LAW OF THE TRINITY Cr aar | parate opposition, both functions are simulta- neously performed by the same Person (1. e., the Father), without His thereby becoming two ce postases. Though at the same time generator and spirator, He is but one Hypostasis. For € same reason the Son must not be excluded from the act of Spiration, because generart and spirare do not involve a complete relative oppo- sition, such as exists between generare and gen- erari, spirare and spirari. Guided by this im- portant rule, the Latin theologians, with the ex- ception of the Scotists, have always contended against the Greek schismatics, that if the Son were excluded from the function of active Spira- tion, there would remain no basis. for a Hy- postatic distinction between the Second Person and the Holy Ghost. For it is only i in virtue of the relationis oppositio, or relative opposition be- tween spirare and spirari, that the Son is a different Person from the Holy Ghost.** It fol- lows that the Logos differs from the Holy Ghost not because He is begotten by the Father, but because He breathes the Holy Ghost, and the Floly Ghost is breathed By Seana 4 The panos of Lyons and Florence: defined it as an article of faith that active _Spiration must be attributed 16 Cfr. Symbol. Tolet. XI, a. 675: similiter et Spiritus non ad se, sed “ Quando Pater est, non ad se, sed ad Patrem et Filium relative refer- ad Filium est; et quod Filius est, tur.’ Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchi- non ad se, sed ad Patrem est: ridion, n. 278. es DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA to the Father and the Son per modum untus, that is, as one really identical act. This definition is ulti- mately based upon the axiom of the relations op positio. Whatever does not include relative opposition in the Godhead, appertains to the indistinct identity of the Di- vine Being and Essence. Hence active Spiration must be identical with Paternity and Filiation, or, ‘in other words, Father and Son are necessarily one Spirator, even as the product of their Spiration, the Holy Ghost, is one. This unica spiratio was interpreted by the rule of Sh Anselm, which we have called the fundamental law Of the Trinity, in the Decretum pro Iacobitis, which em- phatically declares that the Father and the Son are one principle, of the Holy Ghost in the same sense in which the Blessed Trinity, as the Creator of the ae universe, is the one sole principle of the creature.’ 4. THE THREE “RELATIONES PERSONIFICAE.’’ —If, as we have said, the Divine Nature sub- sists in three Hypostases or Persons, only three of the four real Relations existing in the Godhead can be “relationes personificae,” that is to say, only three constitute Persons. These three are: Paternity ( paternitas, rarpsrys ) Filiation (filiatio, vidas), and Passive Spiration | (processto, ecard pevors ) , _ 17 Decretum pro Iacobitis: ‘“‘ Hae tres personae sunt unus Deus, et non tres dii, quia trium est una sub- stantia, una essentia, una divinitas . . omniaque sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationts oppositio. » «- Spiritus Sanctus, quidquid est aut habet, habet a Paire simul et Filo. “Sed Pater et Filius non duo prin- cipia Spiritus Sancti, sed, unum principium, sicut Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus non tria principio creaturae, sed unum principium.’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 703 sq.) THER RELATIONES: (PERSONIBICAR | (233 a) It is easy to perceive that, concretely, these three Relations are the three Divine Persons themselves: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It follows,—and this is a most important truth,— that the three Divine Persons, as such, are Sub- sistent Relations; and since there are no acci- dents in God, ie must be conceived as Sub- stantial Relations. Hence the Scholastic axiom: “Personae divinae sunt relationes subsistentes et substantiales.’ The concept of Hypostasis or Person is most perfectly realized in Paternity, Filiation, and Passive Spiration, because it is to these “relationes personificae,” in virtue of their exclusive opposition, that the distinctive note of “totietas in se’ appertains. The mystery of the Divine Trinity consists in this, that the one con- crete Nature of the Godhead culminates in three distinct Hypostases, who, as three perfect Per- sons, possess one and the same Nature in com- mon. Some theologians teach that the Divine Persons are _ constituted by their origins rather than by their Rela- _ “tions. This opinion does not differ substantially from the | one set forth above. For as the origin of the Son by Generation and of the Holy Ghost by Spiration forms the fundamental basis of the divine Relations, there is no objective difference between origins and Relations. They differ only to our imperfect mode of thinking, which conceives the Processions as expressing primarily the “fiert” (via ad personas), and the Relations as de- 234. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA noting the complete state (im facto esse, », forma perma- jiens). Since, however, in our human conception of the Divine Persons, the point of prime eens is not separate “Deane Hypostasis. If Paternity, Filia- tion, and passive Spiration are the only “rela- tiones personificae,”’ active Spiration must mani- festly be cancelled from the list of ‘“‘subsistent” relations; because else we should have a quater- “nity instead of a trinity. Consequently, the Spirator, as such, must be impersonal. The objective eeiaeical reason for the impersonal character of the Spirator is the fact that active Spiration ‘is a function common to both Father and Son. iin ‘other words, ‘the “ unus S pirator” presupposes two com- plete. Hypostases, constituted by the relations of Pater- nity and Filiation. Consequently there is no room left for a fourth person. It follows from what we have said that Spiration in its active sense (spiratio activa ) constitutes an essential note of the definition of Paternity and Filiation. In other words, the Father cannot be conceived adequately, 18 On the question whether ana Vol. I; pp. ''363 saa. Cir. also how far we may speak of an ‘‘ ab- Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. II (3rd solute subsistence,” but not of an ed.), pp. 323 Ssd4., Friburgi 1906; “ obsolute personality,” in’ God;’see _—Billuart, De SS. Trinit. Myst., diss. » Kicutsen, Theologie der Vorzeit, ALTaTtsn Ss THE RELATIONES PERSONIFICAE — 235 unless He is conceived as Spirator; and the same holds ‘\ true of the Son. » ihe complete concept of both Father and Son contains spirare as a logical ingredient. “There ‘is this difference, however. With the Father spirare takes the form of giving, while with the Son it takes the form of being received: because the Father has the power , of Spiration from Himself, whereas the Son posse it only in virtue of His Generation by the Father.%?~~In defining as an article of faith the unica spiratio by which the Father and the Son produce the Holy Ghost, ‘the Church has therefore erected a strong rampart around the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, effectively preventing its transformation into a quaternity. It is easy to see how the Greek schism, “the great- est and most enduring of all the schisms that have rent the Church,” affects the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. (a) It denies the immediate and direct union of the Holy Ghost with the Son, which can consist only in a relation of origin. At the same time it deprives the Holy Ghost of His attribute of “own Spirit of the SOs (0) Lt denies «the perfect unity of Father and Son, in virtue of which the Son possesses every- *— thing except Paternity (and therefore also the virtus et actus ‘Spirandt) in common with the Father. (c) It de- nies the indivisible unity of the Father, since the char- acter of Spirator no longer appears as contained in and ’ founded on Paternity, but standing independently along- / (side of it, must, Tike Paternity, constitute a Person, and. so give the Father a double personality.”! 19 For a more detailed statement 20 {Oo med ue, of this subtle argument the reader 81 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. is referred to Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 825; cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell’s Man- 17, sect. 6, ual, Vol. I, p. 306. 1a SECTION 4 THE TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES AND NOTIONS I, [HE TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES.—By a ‘“Property’’ theologians here understand any dis- tinctive peculiarity by which one Divine Person differs from another. a) Properties are divided into two classes: personal properties (proprietates personales, ~Bidpara troorarxd), and properties of persons (proprietates personarum, Swpara rév broordcewv ) , The first class comprises the three subsistent Re- lations, each of which appertains to but one Di- - vine Person, and thus forms a truly distinctive peculiarity of that Person. They are: Pater- nity, Filiation, and passive Spiration. The _ second class, besides these properties of the first class—for every proprietas personalis is eo 1pso ‘also a proprietas personae—comprises two or three others respectively. For besides Paternity there is also peculiar to the Father, as a distinc- tive personal note, innascibility (innascibilitas, ~ dyermoia’) ; and He furthermore shares with the Son the property of active Spiration (spiratio activa, tvv), The different Personal Properties Boa; 236 TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES 237 may consequently be grouped together as fol- lows: Three—paternitas, Spiratio activa, and _mnascibilitas—as peculiar to the Father; two— filiatio and spiratio activa—to the Son; seh one “—spiratio. passiva—to the Holy Chas Hence there are six properties in all. If, as would seem preferable, spiratio activa is dropped,* there re- main only four. The only one of these Properties to require an ex- planation is the innascibility (dyewyoia) of the Father. Is_not the _Holy Ghost, too, unbegotten?? And if He is, how. Can innascibility be said to be a Property peculiar to the Father? Yet the Fathers and theologians insist that the First Person of the Divine Trinity alone is inmascibilis, taking mnascibilitas strictly in the sense b Ofo8 personal Property. ‘By calling Him dyévvyros, they mean to say not only that He is unbegotten, ‘but that He is the First Person, the original source (dpxy avev dpxns, dvapyos), because He alone is persona a se, who springs from none gue aed: in whom the other. Divine nee apyns, myn Kat ee ‘TOV i ne eae ayevnota, as predicated of the Father, is more than a mere nega- tion ‘of g generart. “It is synonymous with Unoriginate- 1S. THetas S. Theol., 1a, qu. 32, creatus nec Rusa (ayévynros), AL Fe Posnalunic Spiratio non sed procedens—The Father is est proprietas, quia convenit duabus made of none, neither created, nor personts.”’ begotten; the Son is of the Father 2“ Pater a nullo est factus nec alone; not made, nor created, but creatus nec genitus (aryévynros),” Hegotten; the Holy Ghost is of the says the Athanasian Creed; “ Filius Father and of the Son: neither a Patre solo est, non factus nec made, nor created, nor begotten, creatus (dyévnros), sed genitus but proceeding. re (Denzinger- Bann- (yevynros), Spiritus Sanctus a wart, Enchiridion, n. 39.) Patre et Filio, non factus nec MO, 238 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA _ hess. The Father had no beginning, Fe'.is the: First Principle. This is the patristic teaching. St. Basil, e. g., says: “ But that which is derived from none other, has no principle; and what has no principle, is ingenerate (ayévyvnrov).” * This teaching is confirmed by sevérat- ~councils.. Thus we read in the creed drawn up by the Eleventh Synod of Toledo, A.D. 675: “ Et Patrem quidem non genitum, non creatum, sed ingenitum profite- mur; ipse enim a nullo originem ducit, ex quo et Filius nativitatem et Spiritus Sanctus processionem accepit: fons ergo ipse et origo est totius divinitatis — We profess that the Father is not begotten, nor created, but _ingen- _erate; for He derives His origin from no one, while from Him the Son receives His pales and the Holy Tuk a a Holy Ghost, as ‘the last Person, refiaiiates the evolution of the Blessed Trinity, He has no claim to a distinctive personal note, since “ inspirability ”’ is not a perfection.’ | Bie b) There is another difficulty. If the Trini- tarian Properties are distinctive prerogatives of the Divine Persons separately, how_can the Three be called co-equal? “In hac Trimtate mhil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae et coaequales,’ says the qu. 32, aft. 3; ad/.4:°°% Cum, per- sona importet dignitatem, non potest accipi notio [= proprietas] Spiritus 8 Contra Eunom., I, 15 (Migne, PiwtG sven er s47)/ Onsthe cterm ayévynrov, cfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, PP. 347 saa. 4 Denzinger-Bannwart, dion, n. 275. 5 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, Enchiri- Sancti ex hoc, quod nulla persona est ab ipso; hoc enim non pertinet ad dignitatem ipsius, sicut pertinet ad auctoritatem Patris, quod sit a nullo,.” TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES 239 Athanasian Creed; that is, “In this Trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another, but the whole Three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal.” ° How can this be, if any one Person enjoys a prerogative which the other two lack? To escape this difficulty, many theologians — among them Scotus, Cajetan, Pilluart, ee deny that the divine Properties are ““perfections”’ in the _ strict sense of the term. Most others, however, agree with St. Thomas, that these Properties, though not abso- lute, are at least relative pertfections, and as such must not be confused. The perfection of Paternity, for in- stance, is not identical with the perfection of Filiation.? But how can the possession of relative perfections by any one Divine Person, exclusive of the other two, be harmonized with the Church’s teaching that the Three Persons are absolutely coequal ? Let us remember, in the first place, that in essence each of the Three Divine Persons is absolutely and really identical with the Divine Nature. This absolute identity cannot but extend to the relative perfections possessed by each. Hence, what- ever of true perfection there is in the Divine Essence, is participated in by all Three Divine Persons severally and in consort. While it is true that no one Person can, without sacrificing His identity, surrender His pe- culiar prerogative to the others, it is also certain that each Person, besides His own, also possesses, equiva- 6 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- Contenson, etc. Cfr. St. Thomas’s dion, n. 39. Opus. contr. Errores Graecorum, c. 7 This is the teaching of the 7: “Patet quod non posset esse Jesuit theologians Suarez, De Lugo, Pater perfectus, nist Filium haberet, Ruiz, Vasquez, Tanner, Franzelin, quia nec Pater sine Filio esset.” and of the Thomists Gotti, Sylvius, 240 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA lently, though not formally, the relative perfections of the other two. Paternity as a perfection is surely not in- ferior in value or dignity to F iliation, and Spiration is of equal importance with either. Hence the Son loses nothing by not being the Father, and so forth. The / Father, per contra, could not be Father if the Son were not the Son, and the Son could not be the Son if the Father were not the Father. To this must be added an- other important consideration. By virtue of their mu- tual immanence or inexistence (zrepixdpyois ) the Three _ Divine “Persons” communicate to™ one another quasi- formaliter even their relative prerogatives or Properties, The Father bears within Himself the Son and the Holy Ghost as the intrinsic terminus of His notional under- standing and love; while, conversely, the Son and the Holy Ghost share in the relative perfection of Paternity by virtue of their immanence in the Father,— that is, so far as the Hypostatic differences between the Divine Persons allow.® 2. THE Divine Notions.—As the term itself indicates, a Notion’ is that by which one Per- son is distinguishable from another. St. Thomas defines it as “td quod est propria ratio cogno- scendi divinam personam.”'' Inasmuch as we distinguish each Divine Person by His Properties, there must be as many Notions as there are Properties. Those theologians, however, who, by eliminating active Spiration, have reduced the 8 Infra, pp. 281 sqq. 10 From nmosco. The Greek tech- ® For a more detailed discussion nical term is yy@pioua, of this question, see Tepe, Instit. 11S. Thedl. Ya"qR™ 32, art. Ge Theol., Nol, 1I,-p. 383-392, Paris 1895. THE DIVINE NOTIONS 241 number of Properties to four, posit five divine Notions, as we shall proceed to explain. ~~ Bot: Thomas, in treating of this matter,’ starts from the axiom: “A quo alus et qu ab alto.” Applying this principle to the Three i’ Persons of the Godhead, he distinguishes the Father (1) by the fact that He is a nullo alo, that is to say, innascibilis, unoriginate; (2) by the further fact that He is the principiwm a quo alius per generationem i paternitas) ; and (3) that He is the principium a quo alius per My? -spirationem (= spiratio activa). Similarly the ', Notions of the Son are Filiation (filiatio) and active Spiration (spiratio activa), whereas the 4 one distinctive Notion of the Holy Ghost is pas- \ sive Spiration (spiratio passiva). The subjoined =» scheme will make our meaning clearer: “YPATER FILIUS SPIRITUS S. a) imnascibilitas a) generatio passiva a) Spiratio passiva b) generatio activa’ b) spiratio activa Cc) spiratio activa Hence there can be no more than six Notions. Since, however, spiratio activa is common to both Father and Son, theologians usually reduce the number to five. In drawing up a list of divine Notions we must ob- serve the same rule which guided us in distinguishing the 12 Ibid. 242 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA divine Properties, viz.: Negative marks of distinction cannot be counted as Notions; else the list of divine No- tions would contain twelve, to-wit: PATER FILIUS SPIRITUS S. a) non generatur a) non generat. a) non generatur b) sed generat b) sed generatur “b) non generat c) non spiratur c) non spiratur c) non spirat d) sed spirat d) sed spirat d) sed sptratur b) Only such negative marks are really and properly Notions as signify a positive prerogative (dignitas, _ dkiwpa), e. g., dyevynoia, OF Non generatur, on the part of the Father. The “ infecundity ” of the Holy Ghost in particular (non generat and non spirat) cannot be reckoned among the Notions that distinguish Him from the two other Divine Persons, because He “ ter- minates and crowns the fecundity of the Divine Na- ture and seals the unity of the other two Persons,” and His infecundity is “therefore no complement of the notio spirationis passivae.”** From the same point of view it is easy to perceive the falsity of the Scotist contention that dmvevoria, inspirabilitas ( from non spira- tur), is a distinctive Notion of the Son. The dignity of the Second Person is sufficiently determined by gene- ratio passiva, while His inspirabilitas is virtually in- cluded in the prerogative, which He shares with the Father, of breathing the Holy Ghost. In the case of the Father dvevoria or inspirabilitas is excluded for this further and special reason, that the First Person of the Divine Trinity is the First Principle, or principium sine principio. A doubt remains as to whether non generatur ‘Should be attributed as a special Notion to the Holy 13 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 837. THE DIVINE NOTIONS 243 Ghost, seeing that He is called ingenitus (ayévynros) in “the Creeds. But the Third Person derives His origin not from Generation but from Spiration, and hence the non generatur is virtually contained in the spiratur, that is, passive Spiration. The case is different with regard to the negative Notion non generatur on the part of the _- Father, for agennesia, as predicated of the Father, and AN of the Father alone, means” precisely that He stands unoriginate at the Héad of the other two Persons, and that these derive their origin from Him, not He from them. Thus, according to the common teaching of theologians, there are in God, “s I, One Nature (or Substance) ; Two Processions ; . Three Hypostases ; . Four Relations; and . Five Properties and Notions. wh w& bd READINGS : — On the subjects treated in §§ 3 and 4, cfr. Not- tebaum, De Personae vel Hypostasis apud Patres Theologosque Notione et Usu, Susati 1852; *C. Braun, Der Begriff Person in seiner Anwendung auf die Lehre von der Trinitit und In- karnation, Mainz 1876; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, §§ 245-249; J. Uhlmann, Die Persénlichkeit Gottes und ihre modernen Gegner, Freiburg 1906; *Billuart, Summa S. Thomae: De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 2-6; St. Thomas, S. Theol., ta, qu. 28 sqq.; Ipem, Contr. Gent., IV, 11 sqq.; Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic eel aow Vol sD cpp 3t2ssda, sks Hall, The Trinity, pp. 221 sqq.— P. Stiegele, Der A gennesiebegriff in der griechischen Theologie des vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1913. SECTION « THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS AND MISSIONS I. THe Divine AppropriaTIONS.—The Di- vine Appropriations differ essentially from the Divine Properties. The latter appertain ex- clusively to this or that Divine Person, while _, the former attribute to one Person something which is common to all Three. Both are closely related, in so far as the appropriata are apt to. lead to a knowledge of the propria. Appropria- tion (appropriatio) may therefore be defined as — a process, based on Scripture and Tradition, by which certain absolute divine attributes and operations, which are essentially common to the entire Trinity, are ascribed to one of the Divine Persons in particular, with the purpose of re- vealing the Hypostatic character of that Person.? From this definition it is manifest: (1) That it would be heretical to make the appropriatum a proprium (1. e., the exclusive property or pre- rogative of one Person), 2 for, in the words of the Angelic Doctor, “appropriare nihil est aliud, 1 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 2 Abélard and Gunther were guilty qu. 39, art, 7. of this error, 244 THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS — 24¢ quam commune trahere ad proprium.”’* (2) That the appropriations are not to be made arbitrarily, but according to a strict law. This law may be formulated thus: Between the Hy- postatic character of the Divine Person to whom an attribute is appropriated, and that attribute itself, there must exist some special intrinsic re- lationship. This law, though strict in itself, admits of a wide latitude in application, because the Personal character of the Divine Hypostases is manifold, and various attributes and operations may be intrinsically appropriated to each. The Appropriations most commonly one may be divided into four categories.* a) The first category comprises the substantive names of God. They are distributed among the Three Divine | Persons, according to the rule laid down above, in this wise: To the Father, as the principle of the Godhead, ‘is appropriated the Ines Ged (Deus, 6 @eds). The Son, because of the dominion He has received from the Father over all creation, is commonly called “ Lord” (Dominus, 6 xvpws).5 The law of appropriations is, however, sometimes set aside in Holy Scripture, as when St. Paul applies to Christ the proper name 4). and expressly ‘calls Him: “ GodJ7*.In-2* Cor, 1, 173“the Apostle appropriates the name “Lord” to the Holy Ghost, to whom the Creed also refers as “ Dominum et | vivificantem.” 8 De Verit., qu. (7, art. 3. Scannell’s Manual, Vol. I, pp. 341 4 We follow Scheeben, Dogmattk, sqq.) Vol. I, pp. 887 sqq. (Cfr. Wilhelm- & Cir Cor eX lisa saq; 6 Supra, pp. 79 sq. 246 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA b) Of the absolute attributes which form the second class, omnipotence is appropriated to the Father, all- wisdom to the Son, and all-goodness and sanctity to the Holy Ghost. This is in perfect keeping with the Per- sonal character of the Three Divine Persons, since the Father is doy ris dpyys, the Son, sapientia gemta, and the Holy Ghost, Personal Love and Hypostatic Sanctity.’ Similarly St. Augustine, SHEE from the fundamental seeeste unity pure and simple; the Seek as the Logos and intellectual image of the Father, equality, the Holy Ghost, as the connecting link between the Father and the Son, the harmony of unity and equality. A kindred though not identical appropriation is found in the writings of St. Hilary ® and quoted by St. Augustine,?° viz.: “ Aeter- nitas in Patre, species in imagine, usus in munere— Eternity is in the Father, form [i. e , beauty] in the Image |i. e., the Logos], use [i. e., franion| in the on [ue., the Holy Ghost].” 1 For the Father is dpyy _ dvapxos, the Son, eixoy cov, and the Holy Ghost Swped ®eov. Many oe also find an Appropriation indicated — “in Rom. XI, 36: “Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia — Of him [t. e. the Father], and by him [1. e., the Son], and in him [i. e., the Holy Ghost] are all things.” The preposition ex, they hold, signifies the | primal power and the source of all things, the preposition per, the exemplary cause, and the preposition in, the conservative force which sustains the universe.t2” 7 Cfr. Richard of St. Victor, De 10 De Trpits AVAL ae, fe Tribus Appropriatis, 2 (Migne, P. 11 St. Augustine explains this L., CXCVI, 993 saq.). mode of appropriation, J. c. 8 De Doctr. Christ., I, 5. 12 Cir St Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 9 De Trinit., II, 1. qu. ‘30, rattan Ss THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS 247 c) With regard to the outward manifestations of the Blessed Trinity, which form the third class of “Appro- priations, Catholic theologians, following St. Paul’s hint in Rom. XI, 36, have laid down the general formula, that “all things have been created by the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.” To the Father they at- tribute the decree or resolution to operate” (imperium, BovdAnpa), to the Son, the exectition (erecutio, Sypoupyia), “and to the Holy Ghost, the perfecting of the work (per- fectio, Tedelwors). This is in line with the popular belief appropriating ‘the Creation to the Father, the Redemption to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Spirit. d) The Appropriations of the fourth and last class are based upon the general relations of the creature to its Creator. The worship and sacrificial cult offered to ‘the Blessed Trinity is divided among the Three Divine Persons in such manner that the Father is the*object of it, while the Son and the Holy Ghost, besides being its object, are “at the same time mediators of the wor- ship offered to the Father, from whom they originate and whose glory they reveal, and with whom they receive the same worship, because they are one with Him.” ** As the Church in her liturgical prayers is wont | to appeal to “God the Father through desis, Christ in the unity of the Holy Ghost,” but never to ‘ ‘ Jesus Christ through the Father,” so Christ Himself, as man,\ 2 weesige to His Heavenly Pather'® even. as He still “maketh intercession for us at the right hand of God, iia and generally acts as the “natural Mediator ” between God and man, though, of course, the proper object oF our 13Cfr. St. Basil, De Spiritu 15 Cfr. John XVII, I sqq. Sancto, 16 (Migne, P. G., XXXII, 16 yRom. RVD en oar eeenEveDs 134). VII, 25. zs 14 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, Vol. I, 343. 248 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA worship is not the Father alone, but the whole Divine Trinity.2" 2. THE Divine Missions.—The Divine Mis- sions, so called, throw into relief the hypostatic differences of the Divine Persons, and also their Properties,** and hence are of no inconsiderable assistance in elucidating the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. They are related to the Divine Appro- ‘priations in so far as an operation common to the whole Trinity is not infrequently appro- priated to that particular Person who is said to be “sent” for a definite purpose by an- other. Cfr. Gal. IV, 6: “Mistt Deus [i. e¢., Pater] Spiritum Filu sui in corda vestra claman- tem: Abba, Pater —God [the Father] hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, cry- ing? Abba; Hather-* a) A divine Mission (missio divina) is defined as “the eternal procession of a Person sent from a Per- son sending, in its relation to a creatural terminus in time.” 2° It is important to emphasize this twofold aspect of divine Mission, vz.: the fundamental relation of one Person to another as its terminus a quo and its effect in the creature as terminus ad quem. The missio 17 It remains for Soletblogy to develop. ‘this point. On the special Appropriations of the Holy Ghcst, cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 20-22 (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 351 sqq., London 1905). 18 Supra, pp. eae sq. 19 On the concept of “ Mission,” vide supra, p. 175. 20 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 43, art. 3, ad 3: “ Missio includit processionem aeternam et aliquid addit, scil. temporalem effec- tum.” THE DIVINE MISSIONS 249 “ad intra (i. é., processio) is eternal, but the missio ad “extra takes “placé in time. It alae (1) that an Eternal Mission must be intrinsically as necessary and unchangeable as Generation and Spiration; while a Temporal Mission, on the other hand (i. e., a proceed- ing to extérior effécts) is subject to the free will of the Tritine God. (2) There can be no Eternal Mission . except from Person to ‘Person, strictly according to the _dxodovdia Kata THV rééw ; ae GAS Temporal Mission, being an outward manifestation, is a function common to the whole Trinity? From this we may deduce a law, which i 1s confirmed by Holy Scripture, viz.: that the Tem- poral Missions are strictly regulated by the divine se- quence of origin. Consequently, the Father alone can ° send, and He can send both the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Son can be sent, but only by the Father; He can also send, but He can send only the Holy ee The Holy CREST, in His turn, cannot send, but can be sent by either the Father or the Son. The Person who proceeds (missus) stands as it were midway between the eternal terminus a quo and the temporal terminus ad quem, be- cause, on the one hand, owing to the sequence of origin, He depends on the Person from whom He proceeds, while, on the other, He produces in the (rational) creature a new effect, which is again, in its on appro- priated to Him.”3 21 Cfr. supra, p. 111. 22 Cir. St. August., De Trinit., IV, 20, 28: “ Mittit, qui genuit; mittitur, “quod genitum est. ~ wed Pater non dicitur missus; ... non enim habet, de quo sit aut ex quo procedat....De Spiritu§ Sancto dicitur: ‘a Patre procedit,’ Pater vero a nullo— He sends who be- got, That is sent which is begotten. . But the Father is not said to be sentr.);. for He has no one of whom to be, or from whom to proceed, _...» It is said of the ‘Holy Ghost: Father,’ one.” 23 No one has explained this more clearly than St. Thomas, when he says: “In ratione missionis duo importantur: quorum unum est habitudo misst ad eum, a quo mit- but the Father is from no g ‘He proceedeth from the® 250 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA b) A Mission is visible or invisible (missio visibilis — invisibilis), according as its temporal effect in the crea- ture is sensible or insensible. A visible Mission can- not be conceived without an invisible one, but an in- visible does not necessarily suppose a visible Mission. We have an example of a visible Mission in the de- scent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. He de- scends invisibly, secundum gratiam, whenever confirma- tion is administered or Holy Orders are conferred. There are two classes of visible Missions, according as the Divine Person who is sent (missus) becomes visible to men by entering into Hypostatic Union with a human nature (the Word made flesh), or merely mani- / fests Himself to men by means of a visible symbol (as “the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove). The Incarnation is unique as a pre-eminent Mission, of which the Old Testament theophanies,?* so far as they can be considered “ Missions” at all, were merely, a preparation and preamble. For this reason Suarez calls the Incarnation a missio visibilis substantialis in opposi- tion to all other missions, which are ‘merely. representa- tivae.?® i Aside from the Mission of the Incarnate Logos, an invisible Mission as such invariably ranks higher than quia prius ibi omnino non erat quo mittitur, vel quia incipit aliquo modo titur; aliud est habitudo missi ad terminum, ad quem mittitur. Per Missio hoc autem, quod aliquis mittitur, ostenditur processio quaedam missi a mittente vel secundum imperium, sicut dominus mittit servum, vel secundum consilium, ut st consili- arius mittere dicatur regem ad bel- landum, vel secundum originem, ut si dicatur quod flos emittitur ab arbore. Ostenditur etiam habitudo ad terminum, ad quem muttitur, ut aliquo modo ibi esse incipiat, vel essé€, quo prius non erat. igitur divinae personae convenire po- test, secundum quod importat ex una parte processionem originis a mittente, et secundum quod impor- tat ex alia parte novum modum existendt in alio.”’ S. Theol., 1a, Que 435 arty 1. 24 Supra, pp. 25 De Trinit., 12 sqq. QU Ge THE DIVINE MISSIONS 251 a visible Mission, because it aims at the supernatural sanctification of the creature. “Nec enim Spiritus Sanctus de Patre procedit in Filium,” says the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A.D. 675), “vel de Filio procedit AD SANCTIFICANDAM CREATURAM, sed simul ab utrisque processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sanctitas am- borum agnoscitur. Hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus missus ab utrisque creditur.”?® The creation and conservation of the cosmos, and God’s co-operation with His crea- tures can no more be attributed to a divine Mission than His omnipresence per essentiam, potentiam et praesen- tiam,”* and hence all divine missions, properly so called, are confined to the production of supernatural effects, cul- minating in the infusion and augmentation of sanctifying hes and in the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost. “Est unus [modus] specialis, qui convenit naturae ra- tionali, in qua Deus dicitur esse sicut cognitum in co- gnoscente et amatum in amante. Et quia cognoscendo et amando creatura rationalis sua operatione attingit ad 1p- sum Deum, secundum istum specialem modum Deus non solum dicitur esse in creatura rationali, sed etiam habitare in ea sicut in templo,’ etc.?8 Consequently, sanctifica- tion is a divine Mission kar’ efoxnv. This also gives us the reason why a person can be sent only to rational creatures. The supernatural communication of the so- called gratiae gratis datae, and of the theological virtues faith and hope, is not to be conceived as a divine Mission in the strict sense of the term, because it does not essen- tially —ex vi notionis — include sanctifying grace nor 26 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- Cir, John ALV;; \s7yn2asaa) Cor. dion, n. 277. III, 16, VI, 19; Gal. IV, 6, and 27 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, so forth. For a more thorough ex- qu.- 43, art. 3. planation, see the dogmatic treatise 28S. Theol:, ta, que 43, art. 3. on Grace, 17 252 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA theological charity and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which are invariably connected with this grace.?* c) Let us remark, in conclusion, that the concept of divine Mission must be carefully distinguished from the cognate notions of Indwelling (inhabitatio) and Appari- tion (apparitio). Though every invisible Mission has for its ultimate object the “indwelling” of God in the soul, and the beginning of that on ame is signalized after the manner of a “ coming” “descent,” '*., yet Mission and Indwelling are not cone for this rea- son, among others, that Mission takes place only in conformity with immanent Procession from Person to Person, while Indwelling, though appropriated in a spe- cial manner to the Holy Ghost, is common to the entire Trinity.*t The concept of “ Apparition” also is more extensive than that of Mission. For though the Father and the Blessed Trinity as such cannot be sent, because they do not procéed, there is no reason why they should not appear visibly. We have a classical example of such a Trinitarian theophany in the account of our Lord’s Pepiiem in the Jordan. EH : Rev niweb ec Beatdes St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 43, and his commentators, cfr. St. Augustine, De Trinitate, 1. II-IV; Peta- vius, De. Trimit.; 1. VIIL; *Suarez,:De Trine, to XI; ‘Reiz,, De Trinit., disp. 82, 108 sq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 42-48; K. v. Schazler, Natur und Ubernatur, pp. 42 sqq., Mainz 1865; Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II (3rd ed.), pp. 340 sqq.; De Régnon, Etudes de Théologie Positive sur la S. Trinité, Etudes XVII and XXV, Paris 1808. 29 Cfr. Card. Manning, The Inter- 80 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His nal Mission of the Holy Ghost, 5th Knowability, Essence, and Attri- ed., New York (s. a.); De Bellevue, butes, pp. 325 sq. L’Guvre du Saint-Esprit ou la 81:Cfr. John XIV, -23. Sanctification des Ames, Paris 1901. 32 Supra, pp. 24 sq. PARAL UNITY IN TRINITY, OR THE TRIUNITY OF GOD Monotheism is the foundation of all true religion, and therefore we must not dismiss the subject of this volume without demonstrating that the dogma of the Divine Trinity neither destroys nor endangers the unity and simplicity of God. The Blessed Trinity must be essentially conceived not only as Trinity in Unity, but likewise as Unity in Trinity. It is impossible to separate the one from the other. We shall begin this second part of our treatise with a consideration of Tritheism, which is the heretical an- tithesis of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. Tritheism is no less destructive of the dogma of the Trinity than Monarchianism (Unitarianism) in its diverse forms.? It is against Tritheism that the Athanasian Creed teaches: “Sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana religione com- pellimur, ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur— For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge évery~ Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords.” 3 na * ; 1Cfir. Symbol. Athanas.: “ Ut is to be worshipped.” (Denzinger- per omnia et unitas in Trinitate et Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 39.) Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit — 2 Supra, pp. 115 saqq. So that in all things the Unity in 38 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity chiridion, n. 39. 253 254 UNITY IN -PRINIDY The unitas in Trinitate or triunitas (= tri- nitas) may be regarded from a threefold point of \view:, (1) As ‘unity of) nature;""(2) as unity of external operation;® and (3) as unity of circumincession or mutual inexistence.® Tri- theism is the heretical contradictory of all three of these, but it is most directly opposed to unity of nature, and for this reason we proceed to con- sider it in the first Section of the following Chap- ter, which is devoted to the Consubstantiality ot the Three Divine Persons. 4 Unitas naturae s. substantiae s. 6 Unitas circumincessionis, mept- essentiae. Xwpnats, 5 Unitas operationis ad extra. ascii a eg ae eee CHAPTER I ONENESS OF NATURE, OR THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS SECTION. 1 TRITHEISM AND THE CHURCH I. THE Heresy or TRITHEISM.—This heresy did not assume definite proportions until after the dogma of the Trinity had been formally de- fined. The Arians and Semi-Arians escaped the formal charge of Tritheism, because they repre- sented the Logos as a creature of the Father, and the Holy Ghost as a creature of the Logos. But as they held these two Persons to be divine at least by grace and merit, they were frequently accused by the Fathers of fostering the Tritheis- tic heresy. a) John Philoponus, a famous expounder of Aristotle and a votary of Monophysitism, 1 is reputed to be the real founder of Tritheism, which he pressed into the service of his Christological heresy. When it was 1 Philoponus flourished about A. Literarius Theologiae Catholicae, D. 550. His chief theological work Vol. I, 3rd ed., coll. 466-7, Oeni- is entitled Avartnris wept évw- ponte 1903. oews, Cir. Hurter, Nomenclator 255 256 THE DIVINE PERSONS urged against his Monophysitic position, that to confuse Nature and Person in Christ would surely lead to a similar confusion in the Divine Trinity, and therefore ultimately to Tritheism, Philoponus answered: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals of the species “ God,” in precisely the same way that Peter, Paul, and John are three different individuals of the pene “man,” and they must therefore be looked upon “ three part-substances in one common, abstract. sub- oe ne b) In the Middle Ages, according to the authentic testimony of the Fourth Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), Abbot Joachim of Flora in Calabria? conceived the oneness of the Three Divine Persons as a mere collective and generic unity.* It is difficult to see under the cir- cumstances how this rather hotblooded and ill-advised monk could dare to accuse Peter Lombard of having heretically represented the Blessed Trinity as a quater- nity. We must add, however, that Joachim de Floris died penitently, professing absolute submission to the authority of the infallible Church a c) About the middle of the nineteenth century a Ger- man theologian, Anton Giinther (+ 1863), gave grievous scandal by teaching that the Three Divine Persons con- stitute a purely formal unity, which is neither specific nor numerical. The Absolute — such in brief was his 2Tpeis pepixal ovciar év ovoia fatetur, quemadmodum dicuntur KOU, multi homines ‘unus populus’ et 3 + 1202. Cfr. Gardner in the mulit fideles ‘una_ ecclesia.’” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, Conc. Lateran. IV, cap. ‘‘ Damna- Pp. 406 sq. mus’? (Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 4“ Quamvis concedat quod. Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt una essentia, una substantia unaque natura: verum unitatem huiusmodt mon veram et propriam, sed quasi collectivam et similitudinariam esse chirtdion, n. 431). 5“ Se illam fidem tenere, quam Romana tenet Ecclesia, quia di- sponente Domino cunctorum fidelium mater est et magistra.” (Conc. Later. IV, cap. “‘ Damnamus,” ibid.) ee og THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM 257, Seon ay Wirtue of a theogonic process Ws self- realization,” posits itself three times in succession, first as thesis, secondly as antithesis, and thirdly as synthesis, whereby the Divine Substance becomes triplicated, that is, develops into three relative substances or Persons, who formally coalesce into an “ Absolute Substance ” or Absolute Personality.® 2. THE CONDEMNATION OF TRITHEISM.—The Church has at all times strenuously rejected Tritheism in every guise. a) As early as A.D. 262, Pope Dionysius, in a dog- matic epistle which Scheeben rightly calls epoch- making,’ sharply censured certain Tritheistic expressions of Bishop Denis of Alexandria. “ Neque igitur ad- mirabilis et divina unitas,’ he declared, “in tres divini- tates est separanda neque factionis [= facturae] vocabulo dignitas ac summa magnitudo Domini [= Christi] est diminuenda — Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor dis- parage with the name of ‘creature’ the dignity and ex- ceeding majesty of the Lord.”’® St. Sophronius of Jerusalem esa £28) wrote a refutation of Monotheletism, in which the “ now Tritheitae” are castigated unmerci- fully. This treatise was declared to be orthodox and was bodily incorporated into the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 680. “ Numeratur igitur SS. Trinitas,’ we read there, “non essentiis aut naturis et 6Cfr. Kleutgen, Theologie der 7 Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 746. Voraeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 379 8 Supra, p. 12r sq. -sqq., Munster 1867. For a good 9 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- account of Gunther and his philo- dion, n. 51. Newman’s translation sophico-theological system see Lau- chert in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 85 sqq. (Select Treatises of St. Rioeicemt ti Vol. I, p. 47). 258 THE DIVINE PERSONS diversis deitatibus vel tribus dominationibus, sicut in- samvunt Ariani et sicut novi Tritheitae furiunt, vanis- sime dicentes, essentias tres et naturas tres et tres domi- nationes et tres deitates.. . . Eum, qui ista recipit aut sapit aut novit, anathematibus percellimus.” 31 b) More important and more definite than these and in fact all other medieval decisions, is the “Caput Damnamus” hurled by the Fourth Council of the Lateran against Abbot Joachim de Floris (A.D. 1215). Oswald calls it “the last solemn, and also the most effective and most defi- nite decision ever uttered by the ecclesiastical magisterium in regard to this mystery.” ?? a) The salient point of this decision is that the “one summa res’*® is at the same time “truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” in such wise that, excluding all semblance of “quater- nity,” the “Three Persons together and each Per- son separately” actually coincide and are numer- ically identical with that “swmma res.’ 4 Inas- much as no distinction attaches to the Divine Na- ture, which is absolute, but only to the Divine 10 The reference is probably to Philoponus and his adherents. 11 Cfr, Hardouin, Concil., t. III, 1263. 12 Trinitatslehre, p. born 1888. 13 Cfr. John X, 29: “ maius om- nibus,”’ 14 Nos autem, sacro appro- bante Concilio, credimus et confite- mur cum Petro Lombardo, quod Pader- 112, una quaedam summa res est,... quae veraciter est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus; tres simul per- sonae, ac singillatim quaelibet earun- dem: et ideo in Deo solummodo Trinitas est, non quaternitas; quia quaelibet trium personarum est illa res, videlicet substantia, essentia seu natura divina.” (Denzinger- Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 432.) THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM 259 Persons, who are relative, the same Council says: “Et illa [summa] res non est generans neque genita nec procedens, sed est Pater qui generat, et Filius qui gigmitur, et Spiritus Sanctus qui pro- cedit, ut distinctiones sint in personis et unitas in natura.’ *° That is to say, it is not the Divine | Nature which generates, or is begotten, or pro- ceeds, but it is the Father who begets, the Son | who is begotten, and the Holy Ghost who pro- ceeds. The Council elucidates this point by continuing, in more popular language: “ Licet igitur alius sit Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus, non tamen aliud; sed id quod est Pater, est Filius et Spiritus Sanctus idem om- nino, ut secundum orthodoxam et catholicam fidem con- substantiales credantur.’1® From these premises flows a conclusion which is of prime HTmoRt ane for the consideration of the Divine Rath Sigh BON Sh or Consubstantiality, viz.: that one and the same “ summa res” simultaneously exercises two separate and distinct functions,— the functions of one Absolute and three Relatives. Under the first-mentioned — aspect of the Blessed Trinity it would be heretical to say: “The Divine Nature (summa res) generates, or is begot- ten, of proceeds ”> while under ee aspect ASE OneG in the second place, this same “summa res” is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Ghost who is breathed. It $s this” twofold functioning of the one “summa res’ that enables 15 Conc. yan IV, cap. “ Damnamus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- dion, nv 432.) 16 Ibid. 260 THE DIVINE PERSONS us to give opposite replies to the queries “ What?” and “Who?” To the query: “ What is the Father?” the answer is: “Jd quod Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, idem omnino,” while if it be asked: “Who is the Father?” the reply will be: “ Alius Pater, alius Filius, ~ calius Spiritus Sanctus.” aaa a aN He is aN ie B ) In order still more accurately to define this identity of nature, which underlies the distinction of Persons, the Council enters upon a somewhat detailed exposition, from which we shall quote a salient passage: “Pater enim ab aeterno Filium generando suam substantiam et dedit, 1uxta quod ipse testatur: ‘Pater quod dedit muiht matus omnibus est. Ac dict non potest, quod partem substantiae suae ill1 dederit et partem tpse sibt retinuerit, cum substantia Patris indivisibilis sit, utpote simplex omnino. Sed nec dict potest, quod Pater in Filium transtulerit suam substantiam generando, quasi sic dederit eam Filio, quod non retinuertt tpsam sibi: alioquin desusset esse sub- stantia. Patet ergo, quod sine ulla diminutione Filius nascendo substantiam Patris accepit: et tta Pater et Filius habent eandem substantiam, et sic eadem res et Pater et Filius necnon Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque procedens.” It would be impossible to give a clearer explanation than this of the Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons in the sense of absolute tavrovoia. THE HERESY (OF TRITHEISM 261 y) On the basis of this pregnant conciliar definition theologians have attempted to answer the difficult ques- tion: Of what kind is the distinction between Na- ture and Person, or between summa res absolute and _ summa res relative? It is evident from the explanation of the Fourth Lateran Council, which we have just quoted, that the distinction in question cannot be a real distinction. For if the Three Divine Persons were really distinct from their common Nature, the God- head would contain four separate entities, viz.: Nature, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the other hand, it is not sufficient to posit a purely logical distinction (dis- tinctio rationis ratiocinantis); else the Three Persons would coalesce with the Divine Substance — they would cease to be realities and sink to the level of mere modes of manifestation, as was alleged by the Sabellians. ‘The truth must lie somewhere between these heretical ex- tremes. Precisely where, is not so easy to determine. “There are three Scholastic distinctions which can be applied here without trenching on revealed dogma. They are: the modal distinction of Durandus, the formal distinction of Duns Scotus, and the virtual distinction of St. Thomas Aquinas. In applying these distinctions, however, we find that the modal and the formal, if pressed to their ultimate logical conclusions, entail a species of composition altogether inadmissible in the Godhead, and also a real composition in each separate Divine Person. According to Durandus, this composi- tion is one of essence and “ mode”; according to Scotus, its elements are essence and “ formange These incon- gruities have led the great majority of Catholic theolo- gians to adopt the virtual distinction of the Thomists.7 17 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 151 sqq. 262 THE DIVINE PERSONS According to this theory, the one “summa res” is both absolute and relative in such wise that, in the simultaneous discharge of an absolute and a relative - function, it is formaliter unum et virtualiter multiplex. Hence the Divine Nature differs from each Divine Person by the so-called distinctio rationis ratiocinatae sive virtualis sive cum fundamento in re, of which Car- dinal Cajetan says: “ Absolutum et relativum ita 1bi sunt, ac si essent distincta, et rursus ita [una summa res] exercet munus utriusque, ac si essent distincta.” * This distinction is based on the same principle as the current one between the “essential” knowledge which ene to the whole Trinity, qua absolute Spirit, and the “notional” understanding which is proper to the Father alone, qua Begettor of His consubstantial ae (Cfr. also the distinction between “ essential” and “ no- tional” volition or love). c) Among the more recent pronouncements of the ec- clesiastical teaching office regarding the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, special mention must be made of the dogmatic Bull “ Auctorem fidei,” issued by Pope Pius VI against the Council of Pistoia, A.D. 1786. This Bull rejects the formula “ Deus in tribus personis dis- tinctus”’ (instead of distinctis) as suspicious. Gtn- ther’s Tritheistic teaching was censured by the S. ‘Con- gregation of the Index on January 8, 1857, and formally condemned by Pope Pius IX in a lengthy letter, ad- dressed June 15, 1857, to Cardinal Geissel, Archbishop of Cologne. A provincial council held with the approval of Pius IX at Cologne, in 1860, cited all the Trinitarian definitions which we have adduced in this volume as an 18 In S. Theol., 1am, qu. 39, art. Trino, thes. 21; more briefly by 1. This subtle problem is treated Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, exhaustively by Franzelin, De Deo 3rd ed., pp. 327 sqq., Friburgi 1906. THE HERESY: OF TRITHEISM 263 inexpugnable._ bulwark of the orthodox faith against the vagaries of Giinther. And the schema which the Com- mission on Dogma had prepared for the Vatican Coun- cil shows that the Holy See intended to brand Gunther’s errors as formally heretical.’ Reapincs:—P. Fournier, Etudes sur Joachim de Flore et ses Doctrines, Paris 1909.— Dom J. Chapman, O. S. B., art. “ Tri- theists,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV. 19 Cfr. Conrad Martin, Collect. I: “ Die numerische Wesenseinheit Documentorum Vatic., pp. 21 sqq., der drei gottlichen Personen,” Ratis- Paderb. 1873; Katschthaler, Zwei bon 1868. Thesen fiir das allgemeine Concil, SECTION 2 THE TEACHING OF REVELATION I, SACRED SCRIPTURE.—Though we have re- peatedly spoken of the Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons, it remains for us to prove from Scripture that this Consubstantiality is not to be conceived after the manner of the harmony of thought and sentiment that sometimes unites intimate friends, nor yet in a merely generic way, as if there were “one Godhead in three Gods,” but strictly as identity of nature or tatrovata. Taken in this sense the unity of the Divine Nature forms a special chapter of the revealed teaching on the Trinity. a) Monotheism is the fundamental dogma of the Old Testament, and it has not been abrogated, but re-affirmed and re-inculcated in the New.* In such passages as 1 Cor, VIII, 6,7 and; Deut. .X XXII, 39,° Holy Scripture denies the possibility of Tritheism or any other species of polytheism. There is but one alternative: Either the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost subsist in three separate and distinct natures, or in one nature 1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His See ye that I alone am, and there Knowability, Essence, and Attri- is no other God besides me.’’ butes, pp. 212 sqq. 3“ Nullus est Deus nisi unus — 2‘ Videte quod ego sim solus et There is but one God.” non sit alius Deus praeter me — 264. * THE TEACHING OF REVELATION 265 only. If they subsisted in three separate and distinct natures, there would be three Gods,—a belief which the Bible unmistakably condemns. If they subsist in one Divine Nature, we have the Christian Trinity as unequivocally taught throughout the New Testament. Consequently Tritheism is unscriptural, Let no one object that the term “unus Deus” admits of being in- terpreted in a specific or a generic sense. For wherever “several individuals of the same species or genus coexist, none of them can truthfully assert: I alone am and there is none other besides me. b) A special argument for our thesis can be derived from Christ’s sermon “in Solomon’s porch,” which culminates in the words: “Ego et Pater unum sumus—I and the Father are one.”* This was a favorite quotation with the Fathers. Thus St. Augustine says in the thirty- sixth of his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John: “Quod dixit ‘unum, liberat te ab Ario; quod dixit ‘sumus, liberat te a Sabellio— The word ‘one’ in this passage excludes Arianism; the word ‘are’ excludes Sabellianism.”° In order to understand what kind of unity Christ means ._ when He says, “I and the Father are one,’ we must examine the context. nh a) The outstanding thought of the preceding verses is that Christ gives life everlasting to His sheep by virtue of His own personal dominion and power, and ~ 4John X, 30. u 5 Tract. in Ioa., 36, n. 9. (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1668.) 266 THE DIVINE PERSONS that “no one shall pluck them out of [His] hand.” To justify this claim He affirms: “That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all,’ and He pro- ceeds to explain by first stating a truth which the Jews were quite ready to admit —viz.: that “no one can snatch ’”’ His sheep “out of the hand of [His] Father.” Then, after the manner of a minor premiss in a syllogism, follows the verse: “I and the Father are one,” by ‘which Christ evidently means to say: I and the Father have the same nature, and consequently possess the same power. The conclusion, which figures as a sort of thesis at the head of the argument, is evident, viz.: Therefore, “I give [my sheep] life everlasting; ... and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.” It is worth while to con this important text somewhat more minutely. The preceding portion of the context reads: “Et ego vitam aeternam do eis [scil. ovibus meis|, et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea. Pater meus quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris met. Ego et Pater unum sumus— And I give them [7. e., my sheep] life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one.’ ® “That which my Father hath given me is greater than all,’ is here alleged as the reason why Christ can give life everlasting to His sheep and prevent any one from plucking them out of His hand. Now, we know from numerous parallel passages,’ that the predicate expressed in the phrase “ maius omnibus” can mean nothing else 6 John X, 28-30. 7 Cfr., e. g., John XVI, 5; XVII, 10, etc. = TRE TRACHINGION REVELATION: (“67 than the Divine Nature (summa res infinite perfecta), in so far as it is communicated, immediately and undi- minished, by the begetting Father to His begotten Son. “ Dedit mihi” is therefore synonymous with “ gignéndo miht communicavit.” Consequently, the Son, by this communication to Him of the Divine Essence on the part of the Father, has precisely the same power as the Father, with this sole difference, that the Father has the Divine..Nature.and power of Himself, while the Son derives it from the Father. Taking this truth for the antecedent of an enthymeme, the conclusion: “JI and the Father are one,” can only mean that the Father and the Son, as possessing the same Nature and the same power, are absolutely consubstantial, 7. ¢., iden- tical in essence. St. Athanasius called particular at- tention to this when he said: “. . . ué scilicet eandem amborum divinitatem (ravrétnta tHs OedtyTos) unamque naturam (évornta THs ovcias) esse doceret —In order to show the identity of Godhead in both, and the unity of Nature.” § This argument is not weakened by the circumstance that the textus Sik lel has: ‘O warnp pov, os d€dwxé por, mévrov peifwv eori. For, as the explanation given by St. Chrysostom ® shows, this variant affects merely the form, and not the substance of the argument based upon John X, ‘20. 8B) The verses which follow (John X, 34 sqq.) posi- tively confirm the argument. The Jews obviously un- ' derstood Christ’s dictum, “I and the Father are one,” to mean perfect consubstantiality; for they “took up — stones to stone him for blasphemy.” ‘“ For a good work we stone thee not,” they explained, “but for blasphemy ; 8 Or. Contr. Arian., 3, 3 (Migne, 9 Hom. in Ioa., 61, 2 (Migne, P. G., XXVI, 327). PBGe, LEX) 338)'saqe). 18 268 THE DIVINE PERSONS and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” 2° How did Jesus meet this accusation? Did He retract what He had said? Did He tell the Jews that they misunderstood Him? No; He repeated His previous statement and confirmed it by an argumentum a minori ad mawus. “Is it not written in your law,” He asks, iL, said!\‘'you *are:.gods’'?’ If ihe called, them. gods;to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be broken; do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: ‘ Thou blas- phemest,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”™ In corroboration of His claim, Christ points to His mira- cles: “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” ** By thus accentuating ‘His immanence in the Father (Perichoresis), He merely -repeats in other words what He had said before: “I and the Father are one.” It is because He clearly as- serted His consubstantiality with God the Father, that the Jews became convinced that He blasphemed; and to emphasize His consubstantiality with the Father He repeated His assertion in the words: “I am the Son of God.” This also explains why His adversaries “sought to take him,” so that He found it advisable to 10 John X, 33:. “De bono opere tura, quem Pater sanctificavit et non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia: misit in mundum, vos dicitis: quia et quia tu, homo cum sis, facts blasphemas, quia dixi: Fihus Det teipsum Deum (roveis oeauvtoy sum?” @cdr).” ‘12John X, 37 sqq.: “St non 11 John X, 34 saqq.: “ Respondit facio opera Patris mei, nolite cre- eis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in dere mihi; si autem facto, ef st lege vestra: Quia ego dixi, dit mihi non vultis credere, operibus estis? [Ps. LXXXI, 6]. St illos credite, ut cognoscatis et credatts, dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei quia Pater in me est, et ego tn factus est, et non potest solvi scrip- Patre.” TRADITION 269 “escape out of their hands.’!% This interpretation has ample support in the writings of the Fathers. “ Had they [the Father and the Son] been two,” says St. Athanasius, “‘ He [Christ] would not have said: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but ‘I am the Father,’ or ‘I andthe ‘Father ams’... ; the -word’ “1? “déclaresthe Person of the Son, and the word ‘ Father’ as evidently expresses him who begat the Son, and the word ‘ One’ the one Godhead and His consubstantiality.” 14 2. TRADITION.—Faydit, Cudworth, Placidus Sttrmer, O.S.B., and others, have accused the Nicene Fathers of uencion because, as they claimed, these Fathers in their naive ignorance had understood the term epoovowy as denoting .a merely generic unity. Following the example aa Sabinus of Heraclea, who was a Macedonian heretic,” Adolph Harnack boldly charged the Bishops assembled at Nicaea with intellectual in- capacity. He says there were no really able theologians among them, and adds: “The unan- imous adoption of the synodal decree can be ex- plained only on the assumption that the question at issue exceeded the mental capacity of most of the Bishops present.” ** This utterance is not surprising in the mouth of a writer who is 13John X, 39: “ Quaerebant Literature, p. 271, London [s. a.]. ergo (ovv mdX\wv) eum apprehendere, Cfr. on this topic especially Franze- et exivit de manibus eorum.” lin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 7, 14 Orat., Contr. Arian., 4, D. 9. ed. 4, Romae 1893. (The @rains of S. Athanasius 15 Cfr. Socrat., Hist. Eccl., yh 8. Against the Arians in the Ancient 16 DOSER NTS. Vol. Th Pp. and Modern Library of Theological 222. 270 THE DIVINE PERSONS satisfied that “the Logos-époovews formula simply leads to absurdity,” and that “Athanasius toler- ated this absurdity, and the Council of Nicaea formally sanctioned it.” *’ According to the theory of this school it was St. Augustine who invented the strictly monotheistic conception of the unity of the Godhead, and introduced it into what is properly called ecclesiastical Tradition. How unwarranted this theory is will appear from the following considerations. a) The very method which the Nicene Fathers chose to defend the éuoovowv against the attacks of Arianism, proves that they conceived the Consubstan- tiality of Son and Father as absolute identity of es- sence (tatroveia). The Arian and Eunomian objections may be summarized thus: “Either God is one, or Father and Son are separate and distinct Persons. If God is one, then Sabellius is right in denying a.distinction of Persons. If the Father and the Son are separate and distinct Persons, then the Godhead is divided by the act of Divine Generation, and we have Ditheism. Consequently the Son is not éuoovows with the Father.” Eunomius in particular insisted that Gedtns yéyovev eis Sud8a. Had the Nicene Fathers been Tritheists, they would manifestly have accepted the Arian conclusion, instead of Com Patiie it so energetically. For no one who took époovela to mean mere unity of species or genus, could consistently refuse to accept the logical inference that Generation and Spiration effect in the Di- “vine Nature an intrinsic scission by which the Father 17 Ad. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Il, p. 221. TRADITION 271 is “God” other than the Son. The Nicene Fathers en- deavor to show, on the contrary, that the act of Gener- ation in no wise involves a multiplication of the Divine Nature, and therefore does not impair the absolute sim- plicity of essence proper to the Godhead. As a repre- sentative utterance, we may cite the subjoined passage from the writings of St. Athanasius: “The Fathers of the Council... were compelled ... to resay and rewrite more distinctly still, what they had said before, that the Son is consubstantial (énoovc.v) with the Father; by way of signifying that the Son is from the Father, and not merely like (dowv), but is the same “by likeness (sabrév 77 dpowoen). . .. For since the Gen- eration of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, but in a manner worthy of God, when we hear the word époovo1ws, we must not follow the human senses, nor invent divisions and scissions, but, as when we conceive what is incorporeal, we will not rend asunder the unity of Nature and the identity of the light (ri évdrnta tis picews Kal thy TabtéTyTa Tod gurtds).”’ 18 b) The orthodoxy of the post-Nicene Bishops mani- fested itself in a manner that might almost be called dramatic at a council held in Alexandria (A.D. 362) for the express purpose of restoring peace. At this council, when the assembled Fathers had got into a wran- gle over the use of the terms otcia and irdcraais, because some of them thought that the formula zpeis _tmoordceas savored of the heretical teaching embodied in the Latin phrase “tres substantiae,’*® St. Athanasius ts De Decr. Nic. Syn., n. 20 sqq. II, 2nd ed., pp. 124 sqq., § 14, On the more conciliatory position Freiburg 1895. taken by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, see 19 Supra, p. 227. Schwane, Dogmengeschichie, Vol. va 272 THE DIVINE, PERSONS by a clever cross-examination brought out the fact that all really held the same faith. This led St: Gregory Nazianzen to observe: “It was indeed a ludicrous, or rather a regrettable incident; there appeared to be diver- gency of faith where there was merely a dispute about words.” 2° The Council finally permitted the use of both ' locutions (viz.: One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases), on condition that in employing the former phrase there be no imputation of Sabellianism, and in enunciating the latter, the Arian heresy of three separate and distinct Gods be expressly disavowed. But it soon became nec- essary to define the dogma still more clearly. St. Basil was the first who endeavored formally to justify the phrase “ Three Hypostases,” and to give it universal currency. = c) It is easy, in addition, to quote express Patristic texts showing that the Fathers understood opoovsia to mean radrovola. St. Basil, for example, in rejecting Ditheism and Tritheism, writes: ‘Only one God the Father, only one God the Son, not two Gods, because the Son is identical with the Father (éedy rairoryra éxer 6 vids mpos tov matépa). For I do not behold one Deity in the Father, and another in the Son, nor one Nature here, and another there.”?? St. Gregory of Nazianzus anticipates the scientific terminology of a later age when he says: “Neque enim Filius est Pater, nam unus Pater: tamen Filius est id, quod Pater. Nec Spiritus est Filius, quia ex Deo est, nam unus unigenitus ; tamen Spiritus est id, quod Filius. Tres sunt unum deitate (& r& tpla TH OedtyT), Unum est tres proprietati- r~ 200r, 21, 35 (Migne, P. G., 22Hom., 24, 3 (Migne, P. G., | XXXV, 13126), XXXI, 604 sq.). 21 Cfr. Jos. Schwane, Dogmenge- schichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 151. TRADITION 273 bus (76 ey tpia rais iSwryo. = imoctdcecw) — The Son is not the Father, for there is but one Father: yet the Son is that which the Father is. Nor is the Holy Ghost the Son, for the reason that He is from God, be- cause there is but one Only-begotten ; yet the Holy Ghost is that which the Son is. The Three are one Godhead, ‘and the One Godhead is threefold with regard to its Properties ‘[1.\.e., the Hypostases].” 28° °The unknown. “author-of the Libri XII de Trinitate (believed by some to be Vigilius of Tapsus, by others St. Athanasius), cries out in holy anger: “ Maledictus, qui propter tria nomina personarum tres deos confitetur — Cursed be he who, because there are Three Personal Names, professes three Gods.” 24 A conclusive and definitive testimony, “which expressly echoes the faith of the preceding ages, is this of St. Augustine: “ Ommnes, quos legere potut, qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate, quae Deus est... hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere, quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unius eiusdemque substan- tiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem, ideoque non sint tres dii, sed unus Deus — All those whom I have been able to read, who have written be- fore me concerning the Trinity, who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same sub- stance in an indivisible equality ; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God.” > This declaration of the great Bishop of Hippo embodies one of the most telling arguments against Tritheism. d) There seems to be one weak link in the Patristic chain of evidence, and that is the teaching of St. Gregory ~<28 Or., 31, 9. 25 De Trinit., I, 4, 7. Haddan’s 24In Migne, P. L., LXII, 278. translation, p. 7. 274 THE DIVINE PERSONS of Nyssa, who puts the essential unity of the Three Di- vine Persons on a level with the essential unity proper to three human beings. But if we consider that, as a phi- losopher, Gregory advocated Platonic ultra-realism and conceived the Noe unity of human individuals as a genuine ratrovoia, we shall be inclined to consider the remarkable parallel this Saint has drawn between divine and human unity as a confirmation rather than an in- dictment of his orthodoxy. If it were true, as he held, that human nature is numerically the same in all men,?° and that “many men is said by an abuse of the term, not in its strict sense,” ?? that, therefore, “ Peter and Paul and Barnabas are but one man,” 28 it would be perfectly orthodox to say that “Jgitur unus nobis confitendus est Deus iuxta Scripturae testimonium: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Dominus unus est,2® etiamst vox deitatis permeat sanctam Trinitatem.” ®° READINGS : — Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vols. III and V, 2nd ed. Freiburg 1877 and 1886— Oswald, Trinitatslehre, §10, Paderborn 1888.— Albert a Bulsano, Instit. Theologiae Dogmat. Specialis, ed. Gfr. a Graun, tom. I, pp. 174-200, Oeniponte 1893. — Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 2, cap. 1-5, Ratisbonae 1881. — Hurter, Compendium, t. II, ed. 9a, thes. 114-116, Oeniponte 1896.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §112, Freiburg 1873 H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chvrist, pp. 528 sqq., London 1867. 26 els O€ év act 6 dvOpwros, 27 héyovrat 5é€ moddol dvOpwrot KGTAXpHoTLKwS Kai ov KUpiws, 28 These quotations will be found in Migne, P. G., XLV, 180, 29 Deut, VI, 4. 30 Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium (Migne, P. G., XLV, 119.) Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 300 sqq., Freiburg and St, Louis 1908, nda CEE TRIE ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS Oneness of external operation in the Blessed Trinity follows as a corollary from the unity of the Divine Nature, and therefore scarcely needs separate proof. For the sake of completeness, however, we shall elaborate (1) a Scriptural, (2) a traditional, and (3) a theological argu- ment in support of this particular dogma. At a Lateran Council held by Pope Martin I, in the year 649, 105 Bishops unanimously condemned Monotheletism. True, this synod lacks the authority of a general council; but by being incorporated into the proceedings of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 680, its canons acquired whatever universal authority they may have originally lacked. This Lateran Council of 649 affirms that in the Blessed Trinity “will, power, operation, and dominion are one.” * This unity is explained by the Fourth General Council of the Lateran (A. D. 1215) to be one by 1 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n, 254. Hardouin, Concil., t, III, pp. 922, 1078 sq. 275 276 ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION which the Three Divine Persons are “unum uni- versorum principium, creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium — The one principle of all things, the Creator of all things visible and invisible.” ? To remove every vestige of doubt in the matter, the Decretum pro Iacobitis (A. D. 1439) places the creative power of the Trinity on a par with the unity of the principle of Spiration that reposes in the Father and the Son, and from which the Holy Ghost proceeds unica spiratione.® I. THE ARGUMENT FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE. —Christ on various occasions formally identified His divine operation with that of His Father. Compare, e. g., John V,17: “Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor — My father work- eth until now, and I work,” with John V, 19: “Non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nist quod viderit Patrem facientem — The Son cannot do any thing of Himself, but what he seeth the Father doing.” These texts, while they clearly ‘show a distinction of Persons and origin, also intimate unity of action. Other texts identify the operation of Father and Son even more positively. Thus John XIV, 10: “A me ipso non loquor, Pater autem in me manens tpse facit omnia — I speak not of my- self, but the Father who abideth in me, he doth 2Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 428. & Supra, pp. 230 sq. PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE 277 the works.” It is in the light of passages such as these that we must interpret the word “simi- ter” (epows) in John V, 19: “Quaecunque “enim ille [Pater] fecerit, haec et Filius similiter facit — For what things soever he [the Father] doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.” “Non ait,” comments St. Augustine, “quaecunque factt Pater, facit et Filius alia similia, sed: Que- cunque Pater facit, haec eadem et Filius facit si- militer. Quae ille, haec et ipse: mundum Pater, mundum Filius, mundum Spiritus Sanctus—[The Catholic faith] does not say that the Father made something, and the Son made some other similar thing; but what the Father made, that also the Son made in like manner. What the One made, that the Other also. The Father [made] the world, the Son [made] the world, the Holy Ghost [made] the world.” * This argument is corroborated by the manner in which Sacred Scripture appropriates one and the same oper- ation now to the Father, now to the Son, now to the Holy Ghost, and then again to the Godhead as such. This procedure is intelligible only on the supposition that the Three Divine Persons are absolutely identical in essence and operation.® St. Augustine convincingly argues: “Si enim alia per Patrem, alia per Filium, iam non omnia per Patrem nec omnia per Filium. Si autem omnia per Patrem et omnia per Filium, [ergo] eadem per Patrem, quae per Filium. Aequalis est ergo Patrt 4 Tract. in Ioan., 20, 3 saq. 5 Supra, pp. 29 sq. 278 ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION Filius et inseparabilis est operatio Patris et Filii — For if some things were made by the Father, and some by the Son, then all things were not made by the Father, nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made by the Father, and all hintes by the Son, then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. The Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the work- ing of the Father and the Son is indivisible.” ® 2. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION.—The procedure of deducing the unity of the Divine Nature from the unity of the divine operations, and vice versa, was well known to the Fathers. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria tersely observes, that “to attribute individual operations to each separate Di- vine Person, is tantamount to saying that there are three separate and distinct Gods." A considerable number of the Fathers condense the dogma into a single brief phrase, which, after the manner of a mathematical formula, ex- presses the whole teaching of the Church in the tersest possible manner, wviz.: “ Pater per Filium in S piritu _Sancto omnia operatur.”* This formula duly stresses every essential point of the dogma: the Trinity of the Di- vine Persons, their succession as to origin, their identity of Nature, and the unity of their operation. The Patristic argument is drawn out in detail by Petavius.? It is so overwhelming that we can brush aside as irrelevant and trivial the objection which some writers base on the custom of certain Fathers of representing the Three 6 St. Augustine, De Trinitate, I, rep., 1, 28. (Migne, P. G;, XXVI, 6, 12. Haddan’s translation, p. 13. 595). me % Contr. Nestor, IV, 2. 9 De Trintt;, IV, 1s. 8 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Ep. ad Se- THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 279 Divine Persons as taking counsel with one another, as agreeing upon some common resolve or decree, or as co-operating in some common cause. St. Cyril of Jeru- salem “makes a distinction between the divine oper- ations ad extra, appropriating them to the Three Divine Persons separately, and thus seems to posit a certain scission in the immanent life of the Godhead. But his utterances must be interpreted in accord with the law of Appropriations, especially since he does not con- sistently carry out the distinction.” 1° 3. THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.—The unity of operation in the Blessed Trinity is really but a simple inference from the dogma that the Three Divine Persons are absolutely identical in essence. Philosophy teaches that “ Operart sequitur esse, 1. @., naturam.”’ If the nature of a. thing is its “‘ principle of operation,” it follows that the number of principles of operation, and their specific manifestations (e. g., in- tellect and freewill in spiritual natures), depend on the number of active essences or natures. “ Tot operationes, quot naturae.’ As we must distinguish in Christ, the Godman, a twofold operation, the one divine, the other human, corresponding to His double nature, so, conversely, if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not three natures, but one, they can have but one common operatio ad extra. To assert that the divine operation is not one, is to teach Trithe- ism. Had they not harbored Tritheistic conceptions of the Godhead, Raymund Lully and Gunther could never have taught that each Divine Person operates separately ad extra. Though from unity of Nature to unity of 10 Jos. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. U1, 2nd ed., p, 126. 280 ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION operation in the Blessed Trinity is just as easy a step as from a duality of nature to Dyotheletism in Christ, (because a multiplication of natures always entails a mul- tiplication of operations), the Church did not content herself with laying down the general principle, but by an express definition condemned in advance Gunther’s error that “When God reveals Himself to His crea- tures, He must reveal Himself hypostatically, 1. é., each Peenarait divine operation must be attributed as opus operatum to a separate Divine Person, to the exclusion of the other two.” Giinther’s lapse into Tritheism convincingly shows how false was the view he took of the relation of the divine operations to the different Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Any attempt to go beyond mere Appropriation is sure to result in a scission of the Di- vine Essence, Reapincs:—*Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 12.— Kleutgen, Devil pson Deo 1 Wi ga! 5. \capa2, art 3 Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dogmat., t. II, thes. 117.— Kleutgen, Theologie der Vor- zeit, Vol. I, and ed., pp. 379 sqq., Miinster 1867.—H. Schell, Das Wirken des dreieinigen Gottes, Mainz 1885.— Petavius, De Mitt LV is! 11 Ginther, Vorschule zur spekulativen Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. Tsp. 369, Wien 1848. CHAR TION: ti THE UNITY OF MUTUAL INEXISTENCE, OR PERICHORESIS I. DEFINITION OF PERICHORESIS.—By the Perichoresis of the Three Divine Persons we mean their mutual Interpenetration and Inexist- ence by virtue of their Consubstantiality, their ‘immanent Processions, and the divine Relations. iin ene the technical term for this mutual Inexist- ence iS mepixepyors, Or, still more emphatically, ovpmepi- _xeopnors. The Latins call it circumincessio, or, as the later Scholastics wrote it, circuminsessio. Both the Greek and the Latin terms designate exactly the same thing, but they reflect somewhat different conceptions thereof. “While the Greeks conceived the [Divine] Processions more after the manner of a temporal succession along a straight line,” says Oswald, “the [later] Latins pic- tured it to themselves after the manner of juxtaposition in space, as extension in a plain. ... This is why the Latins derived their technical term from circuminsidere, i. e., to sit or dwell in one another, while the Greeks got theirs from mepixwpeiy, which means to go or move within one another.” We have already called attention to a similar divergency in the formulas expressing the Procession of the Holy Ghost, with regard to which the 1 Trinitétslehre, p. 191, Paderborn 1888. 281 (282 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE Latins commonly say, er Patre Filioque, while the Greeks prefer ex Patre per Filium. Petavius was probably mis- taken when he preferred the Greek and the early Scholas- tic modes of expression to that of the later Schoolmen. The Greek Fathers, besides zepiywpeivy eis dAAHAOvs, also employed the locution év dAAnAas ai tzooraces cioiv.? Suarez? and Ruiz * preferred to base Perichoresis on the attribute of immensity rather than upon the unity of the Divine Nature. Each of the Three Divine Per- sons, argued these eminent theologians, must be where the other Two are. It is true that the Three Divine Persons together indwell in creatures not only by virtue of Perichoresis, but likewise by omnipresence. But omnipresence is so far from constituting the formal essence of Perichoresis, that even a Tritheist could without inconsistency teach the simultaneous pres- ence and indwelling of three Gods in a creature. Christ clearly affirms the divine Perichoresis when He says: ‘I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.’ *® On the other hand, St. Paul’s famous dictum: “In him we live, and move, and are,’® merely asserts the immensity of God, not the Trinitarian Perichoresis. For, as Petavius rightly observes,’ “though the mind abstract entirely from the notion of place and location in space, and regard solely the Divine Hypostases considered in themselves and absolutely, Perichoresis and the mutual inexistence of Person in Person will still be there; be- 2Cfr. Ioannes Damasc., De Fide soluteque spectentur hypostases di- Orth., I, 8. vinae, nihilominus tamen mepixw- 3De Trinit., IV, 16, sub finem. pnoi et mutua in seipsis existentia 4De Trinit., disp. 107, sect. 7. personarum illic erit; quippe et una 5 John XIV, 11. posita poni necesse erit alteram, nec 6 Acts XVII, 28. a se invicem separari poterunt, et 1 De Trinit.,. IV, n..5: ‘Nam altera intime coniuncta erit altert etsi loci et ‘ubi’ notio omnis ex- in eaque inerit et extstet.” cludatur enimo, ac solae per se ab- PROOF OF PERICHORESIS 283 cause if one be posited it will be necessary to posit the others they cannot be separated from one another, but each will remain intimately united with each and all three will mutually inexist.” Hence the Perichoresjs 'of the Blessed Trinity cannot be adequately explained by the divine attribute of immensity. If we compare Perichoresis with Consubstantiality (époovola, or better Tavrovoia), we find that the two no- tions are related to each other as effect is related to cause. The ontological reason for the mutual Inexist- _ence or Indwelling of the Three Divine Persons is primarily their possession of one and the same Divine Nature or Essence. “ Perichoresis in the Godhead orig- inates in the unity of the Divine Essence,” says Petavius, “ . . and it consists in this, that one Person cannot be divided or separated from another, but they mutually exist in one another without confusion and without detriment to the distinction between them.”® This does not, of course, preclude the existence of other secondary sources Of Perichoresis, such as the Divine Proceésions and Relations. 2. THE PRooF oF PrricHorEstis.—The De- cretum pro lacobitis (A.D. 1439) expressly bases the Perichoresis of the Three Divine Per- sons on identity of Essence. “Ommia [in Deo] “sunt unum, ub non obviat relationis oppositio. Propter hanc unitatem Pater est totus in Fiho, totus in Spiritu Sancto; Filius totus est in Patre, Sf Tlepexwpnocs in divinis ex sed citra confusionem et servato unitate essentiae oritur ... et in discrimine insunt in se invicem.’ €0 consistit, quod dividi et separari De Trinit., li c. persona una non potest ab altera, 19 284 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE totus m Spiritu Sancto; Spiritus Sanctus totus est in Patre, totus in Filio— All things in God are one, except where there is opposition of Re- lation. Because of this unity, the Father is wholly in the Son, and wholly in the Holy Ghost; the Son is wholly in the Father, and wholly in the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is wholly in the Father, and wholly in the Son.’”® This doctrine undoubtedly forms part of the deposit of faith. St. Thomas demonstrates it by three arguments, of which one is based on the divine _ tabrovoia, another on the origins, and a third on the mutual Relations of the Divine Persons. a) The first and main source of the Trinitarian Perichoresis is the Consubstantiality of the Three Persons, or their identity of Essence. Sufficient Scriptural proof for this proposition, at least in so far as it regards the First and Second Per- sons of the Blessed Trinity, was adduced by St. Athanasius, who from a well-known sermon of Jesus *® argues as follows: “For whereas the countenance and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. On this account and reasonably, having said before, ‘I and the Father are one,’ He added, ‘I in the Father and the Father in me,’ by way of show- 9 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 703 sq. 10 Supra, pp. 265 sq. PROOF OF PERICHORESIS 285 ing the identity of Godhead and the unity of substance.” ** “That the Holy Ghost is included in this Divine Company we know from 1 Cor. II, 11: “Qms enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nist spiritus hominis, qui in tpso est? Ita et quae Det sunt, nemo cognovit, mist Spiritus Dei (supply: qui in ipso est )— For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit of God [that is in Him]. St. Athanasius prob- ably found the bracketed clause, “qui in ipso est,” in his Bible, for he treats it like a verbal quo- tation.” The intrinsic connexion between Trinitarian Perichoresis and the Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons is perhaps most effectively brought out by those of the Fathers who em- ployed Perichoresis as a popular and intelligible middle term to demonstrate the essential identity of Father and Son against the Arians.” b) A secondary source of this mutual Immanence, according t to many Fathers, is the origin of the Three Di- vine Persons from one another, 7. e., the divine Proces- sions by mode of Generation and | Spiration. For inasmuch as the Logos is begotten as the “Divine Word” of the 11 Contr. Arian., Or. 3, 3 (Migne, 12 Ep. ad Serap., 3 (Migne, P. G., P. Gx Vis 327). Newman’s trans- OX Wil; 626)s lation, Select Treatises of St. Atha- 13 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinit., IV, nasius, Vol. I, p. 361. 16; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 107, sect. 5. 286 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE Father by the Father’s notional understanding, He is necessarily immanent in the Father, as the internal sade word or concept is immanent in the human intellect. “Ex mente enim et in mentem,”™* says St. Cyril of Alexandria, “verbum est semper, ideoque mens in ‘verbo.® .. . Verbum manet in mente generante et men- tem generantem habet totaliter in se. . . et oportet simul existere cum Patre Filium et vicissim Patrem cum Filio — For the word is always of the mind and in the mind, and therefore the mind is in the word. . . . The word remains in the mind in which it is conceived, and con- tains that mind entirely within itself. . . . So it behooves the Son to exist simultaneously with the Father, and the Father to exist simultaneously with the Son.” St. Hilary expresses this truth more concisely thus: “ Deus in Deo, quia ex Deo Deus est — God is in God, because God is from God.” 17 The Holy Ghost, too, in conse- quence of His Procession by way of mutual love, re- poses deep down in the Principle which produces Him, as love reposes in the heart of a lover. ‘St. Ambrose aptly observes: “ Sicut Pater in Filio et Filius in Patre, ita Det Spiritus et Spiritus Christi et in Patre et in Filho, quia oris [==halitus| est spiritus— As the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, so the Spirit of God _and the Spirit of Christ is both in the Father and the Son, because He is the spirit [a breath] of the mouth.” *8 There is Scriptural warrant for this mode of concéiving the divine Perichoresis. Cfr. John I, 18: “ Unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris— The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.” The Greek original of 14 éx vou Kat els your, » 17 De Trimt., IV, 10 (Migne, P. 15 De Trinii., Dial. 2 (Migne, VELLA ON A P. G., LXXV, 7609). . 18 De Spiritu Sancto, III, 1. 16 kai 6 vous év Oyu, PROOF OF PERICHORESIS : 287 , this passage implies a movement ad intra, which is not fully brought out by either the Vulgate or the vernacular ali version: —‘O bovoyerns viosS 0 Ov (= Tepixywpor ) eis TOV -KOXTOV TOU TaTpds. c) The third and last source of Perichoresis are the Divine Relations, that is, the relative opposition of the ‘Three Divine Persons to one another. The Father can- not be conceived without His Son, nor can the Son be conceived without the Father, and the Holy Ghost is altogether unthinkable without His common Spirators, the Father and the Son. St. Basil, and especially the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A.D. 675), particularly emphasized this logical aspect of the divine Perichoresis. “ Nec enim Pater absque Filio cognoscitur,” we read in its decrees, “nec sine Patre Filius invenitur; relatio quippe ipsa vocabuli personalis personas separari vetat, quas etiam, dum non simul nominat, simul insinuat. Nemo autem audire potest unumquodque istorum nomi- num, im quo non intelligere cogatur et alterum— For neither can the Father be known without the Son, nor the Son be found without the Father; for the relation indicated by the name of a person forbids us to separate the persons who are intimated, though not expressly named. And nobody can hear any one of these names without perceiving therein one of the others.” 1® Per- haps our Lord’s saying: “He that seeth me seeth the Father also. ... Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” 2° — which Sabellius so egregiously misunderstood — must be interpreted in the light of these considerations, though both the context and the construction put upon it by the Fathers make 19 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- qui videt me, videt et Patrem.... dion, n, 281. Non creditis, quia ego in Patre et 20 John XIV, 9 sq.: “Philippe, Pater in me est?” 288 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE it more advisable to base the Perichoresis here expressed by Jesus, upon the notion of Tautousia rather than upon the divine Relations.** 3. Docmatic IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PrRICHORESIS.—The doctrine of the Trinitarian Perichoresis is of considerable dog- matic importance, because it tersely and lumi- nously expresses the two salient aspects of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, viz... Trinitas in Unitate and Unitas in Trinitate, thus equally dis- countenancing the heresy of Monarchianism on the one hand, and that of Tritheism on the other. In matter of fact Perichoresis involves two 1m- portant truths: (1) that there is a real distine- tion between the Three Divine Persons, and (2) that the Divine Nature, or Essence, in spite of the Hypostatic distinctions, is absolutely one. Sabellius, by welding the Three Persons into One, practically denied the dogma of mutual In- existence, while the Tritheists, who imagined the Divine Essence to consist of three Gods, found themselves unable to admit a real indwelling of the One in the Other.” We shall meet with a similar phenomenon in Christology, though the order is there reversed. 21 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Conir. in unigenito; alter ab altero et Arian., Or. 3, 3- uterque unum; non duo unus, sed 22 Cfr. St. Hilary, De Trinit., 111, alius in alio, quia non aliud in utro- 4: “Quod in Patre est, hoc et im que.” Filio est; quod in ingenito, hoc et ied a ' BEARING OF PERICHORESIS 289 The Perichoresis of the two Natures in Christ can be conceived only in virtue of the Hypostatic Union from which it springs. It postulates a perfect and unalloyed duality together with ab- solute oneness of Person and an indivisible unity in spite of the Saviour’s twofold Nature. For this very reason the doctrine of Perichoresis fur- nishes a powerful weapon for the defence of the faith against such extreme Christological heresies as Nestorianism and Adoptianism on the one hand, and Monophysitism and Monotheletism on the other. The doctrine of the Perichoresis fittingly con- cludes the treatise on the Trinity, because it represents the final upshot of the whole dis- cussion and clearly and luminously brings out both aspects of the dogma, viz.: the Trinitas in Unitate and the Unitas in Trinitate. At the same time it forms an invincible bulwark against all Antitrinitarian heresies, guarding as it does the Trinity of the Divine Persons against the Monarchians and Unitarians, and the unity of ‘the Divine Nature against the various T'ritheistic sects. READINGS: — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §123, Freiburg 1873.— Oswald, Trinitaétslehre, §14, Paderborn 1888— *Franze- lin, De Deo Trino, thes. 14, Romae 1881.— Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 694 sqq., Ratisbonae 1881.—*Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, ed. 3a, pp. 330-343, Friburgi 1906.— St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 42, art. 5.— Petavius, De Trinit., IV, 16. 290 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE On the practical and devotional value of the dogma of the Divine Trinity cfr. F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 289 sqq.; Wil- helm-Scannell, 4 Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 351 sqq.; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord, pp. 659 sqq. Ne tee ee eee APPENDIX NOTE ON THE TRINITARIAN TEACHING OF ST. IRENALUS (See page 141) An ancient Armenian translation has lately been dis- covered of a long-lost work of St. Irenzus, mentioned by Eusebius.*. It is a treatise addressed to ‘“‘ Brother Marcian.” The Archimandrite Carapet has published it under the title “ Proof! of the Apostolic’ Preaching,’ * The author’s aim in this treatise is “not to confute heretics, but to confirm the faithful by expounding the Christian doctrine to them, and notably by demonstrating the truth of the Gospel by means of the Old Testament prophecies.” * In this hitherto unknown treatise* St. Irenzus says: ‘‘ Thus is the Lord the Father and Lord the Son, and God the Father and God the Son; for He who is born of God is God. Consequently, according to His being and the power of His essence, there is known one God, but according to the economy of our salvation >” strictly and properly both Son and Father. For since the Father is above all invisible and inapproachable for crea- tures, those who are predestined to approach God must be won and conquered for the Father by the Son... . ROPE SEE COLES. V git 20: 8 A. Poncelet, in the Catholic 2In Texte und Untersuchungen, Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 131. edited by Harnack and Schmidt, 4Ch. 47. Vol. 31, No. 1, Leipzig, 1907. 291 292 APPENDIX And the ointment (Ps. xlv, 8) is the Spirit, with which He is anointed.” Harnack * comments upon this text as follows: ‘ Such a characteristically ‘Nicene passage’ is hardly to be found in the Adversus Haereses ; but we need not assume an interpolation. It is not in accord with the teaching of the Nicene Council that the distinction between Father and Son is based solely on the economy of the Redemp- ~ tion (a kind of Modalism, as in Adv. Haer.). This con- ception is ante-Nicene, ante-Origenist, and Irenzan. Neither is the ‘ anointment by the Spirit’ a Nicene con- ception.” It must be admitted that St. Irenzus in the text under consideration is not as explicit as were the Nicene writers in basing the personal distinction between the Father and the Son upon the eternal generation of the Son from the Father ; but neither is he wrong in basing that distinction upon the “economy of the Redemption.” For the In- carnation and the Redemption are the very best de facto arguments for the existence of the Logos-Son as the sec- ond Person of the Most Holy Trinity. If this be a sort of Modalism, fairness compels us to point out that it is not Modalism in the Sabellian sense, because St. Irenzus in the very same passage plainly traces the distinction be- tween the Father and the Son to the fact of the latter’s “being born of God.” Hence, pace Professor Harnack, the publication of St. Irenzus’ treatise “ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching ” confirms the traditional Catholic teaching on the Trinity. DOG Cl DacOLs INDEX A ABELARD, 244, Abraham, 20, 69. Accident, 221. Adoptive Sonship, 50 sq. ayevynola, 237. dkordovOla Kara rip Tag, III, 249. Alexander, Bishop of Alexan- dria, 153. Alexander of Hales, 223. Alexandria, Council of (A.D. RO2 227,277. Ambrose, St., 2, 156, 159, 206, 283. Amphilochius, St., 155. Analogues to show the like- ness of the Trinity in the created universe, 196 sqq., 204. Anathematisms of Pope St. Damasus I, 166. Angel of Jehovah, 12 sqq. Angels, The, 57. Angelus Domini, 13. _ Annunciation, The, 23. Anselm of Havelsburg, 180. Anselm, St., 156, 230, 232. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Their faith in the Trinity, 139 sqq.; Vague expressions, 142 sqq.; Some of doubtful or- thodoxy, 149 sqq. Antitrinitarianism, 3, 114 sqq. Antitrinitarians, 48, 114 sqq. dmvevoTia, 242. Apostles’ Creed, 119, 134. Apparitio, 252. Appropriatio, 244. Appropriations, The Divine, 205, 244 sqq. quo alius et qui ab alio, 241. Arius and Arianism, 18, 92, 123 $qq.5) 120," 153!'sq:,\), 20%, 266, 270. wissen 184, 188, 205, 237, 246. dpxn ris dpxis, 205, 237, 246. Athanasian Creed, 2, 5, 120, 166, 171, 238 sq. Athanasius, St., 14, 122, 152, 154, 158, 160, 182, 201, 227, 267, 270, 271, 273, 284, 285. Athenagoras, 140. “ Auctorem fidei” Bull, 262. Augustine, St. 2, \11,..14, 27) 35, 69, 156, 150, 166, 178, 188, 196, 197, 203, 204, 207, 209, 215, 216, 246, 265, 270, 273, 277. B BACHIARIUS, 42. Baptism of Christ, 24; In the name of the Trinity, 26; In Christ’s name alone, 78 sq. Baptismal Form, 25 sq., 134. Bardenhewer, O., 151, 156, 183. Basil, St., 14, 155, 164, 182, 183, 203, 238, 272, 287. Batiffol, 152. Bede, St., 36. Bellarmine, Card., 160. Bernard, St., 206. Bessarion, Card., 179; 184, 186. Billuart, 215, 217, 230. 293 204 Blasphemy, 108 sq. Boéthius, 225. Bryennios, Philoteus, 134. C CAIPHAS, 54. Callistus, Pope, St., 151. Caput Damnamus, 258. Cassiodorus, 39. Celsus, 200. . Chalcedon, Council of, 170. Charlemagne, 171. Christ, See Jesus Christ. Christology, 288, 280. Chrysostom, St. John, 14, 188, 267. Circumincessio, 281. Clement of Alexandria, 141, 143. Cologne, Provincial Council of (A. D. 1860), 196, 262. Comma Ioanneum, The, 30 sqq. Consciousness as a note of Personality, 226. Constantine Dragases, 173. Constantinople, Councils of, 169, 183, 257; Conquest of, I 73- Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons, 255 sqq. Cousin, 226. Credere alicui —credere in ali- quem, 75 sq. _ Cudworth, 260. “Cum quorundam,’ Apostolic Constitution, 119. Cyprian, St., 36 sq., 38. Cyril of Alexandria, St., 2, 11, 14, 186, 278, 286. Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 270. D DAMASCENE, See John Damas- cene. Damasus, Pope, 36, 127, 120, 166. David, 20. Decretum pro Tacobitis, 229, 232,276, 283. INDEX Demiurge, 152, 247. Deus de Deo, 158. Didache, 134, 150. Taras the Blind, 2, 155 sq., 185. Dionysius, Pope, 122, 142, 257. Dionysius the Great, of Alex- andria, 121, 122, 257. Ditheism, 117, 122, 151, 272. Divinity of Christ, 63 sqq. Docetism, 140. Donum Dei, 208, 246. Doxologies, The Trinity in the ancient Christian, 135 sq.; Rom. ix, 5, 85. Duns Scotus, 189, 190, 214 sq., 230, 201; Durandus, 261. Dyotheletism, 280. E Eis 70 dvoua, 26, 78, 134. | exmopevois, 168, éxrige, 157, éx Tov warpés, 126, év dvouart, 26, 78. Epiphanius, St., 18s. Epipodius, St., 137. Epistles, The Trinity in the, 28 sqq. Epistula ad Flavianum, 36. ‘Emi r@ évduart, 26, 78. Eunomians, 146, 270. Euplus, St., 138. Eusebius, 14. F Facunpus of Hermiane, 37. Father, God the, 44 sqq. Fatherhood, God’s, 44, 180, 232. Faydit, 269. Fecundity of the Divine In- tellect, 204. Filiatio adoptiva, 50. Filioque, 128, 169, 170 sqq. Filius Dei, 51. Florence, Council of, 172, 183, 184, 186, 189, 229, 230, 231. | Forma servi—forma Det, 62. INDEX Franks, The, 171. Franzelin, Card., 40, 87, 144. Soa ae St. (of Ruspe), 38, 176. Fundamental Law of the Trin- ity, 230 sqq. Funk, F. X., 134, 150. G GALILEI, Galileo, 33. Geissel, Card., 262. VEVNTOS VS, YEVYNTOS, 124, 237. Generation, Of the Son by the Father, 162 sqq.; By mode of understanding, 202; Dif- ference between G. and Spi- ration, 209 sqq.; Definition of term, 210; Active and pas- sive, 228. yévynots, The Divine, 72; Was it “ voluntary ”? 146; yévynous and ‘yévnots, 148; Only true generation in the strict sense, 162 sq.; A purely eae a) process, 167, 202 sq Ghost, Holy, See Holy. Ghost. Gloria Patri, The, 136. Gospels, The Trinity in the, 23 sqq. Goths, The, 170. Greek Schism, Heresy of the, 168 sqq., 235. Gregory of Nazianzus, 155, 158, ES 2045" 272: Gregory of Nyssa, 155, 184, 273 Sq. Gregory of Valentia, 214. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pri- vate symbolum of, 2, 135, 552) Gregory the Great, 14. Grotius, Hugo, 51. Giinther, Anton, 3) 106) (220; 244, 250, 262, 279, 280. H HapriAn I, 172. Halitus Dei, 206. 295 Harnack, Adolph, 4, 201, 2609. Hegel, 3, 108. Hermas, 150 sq. Hilary, St., 2, 14, 165, 187, 286. Hippolytus, St., 117, 121, 148, 151; Holy Ghost, The, In the O. T., 18 sqq.; In the N. T., 96 sqq.; The Paraclete, 99 sqq.; Hy- postatic Difference between Him and the Father and the Son, 101 sqq.; Immanent ori- gin ‘of the, 103; Divinity of the, 104 sq.; Divine Attri- butes ascribed to Him in S. Scripture, 105 sqq.; Entitled to Divine worship, 108 sq.; The Name “ God’ applied to Him, 109 sqq.; Procession of the, from the Father and the Son, 168 sqq.; “ Oscu- lum Patris et Filu,’ 206; Do- num Dei, 208; Infecundity of, 242. Holy Office, Congr. of the, On the Comma lIoanneum, 32 sq.; Binding force of its de- cisions, 33. Hormisdas, Pope, 171. Hunneric, King, 38. Hurters He CS .4 87. Hypostasis, 122, 220 sqq., 227. Hypostatic Love, 207. I "Tdumspara, 236, Ignatius of Antioch, St., 140. Imago SS. Trinitatis, 196. Incarnation, The, 20, 250. Indemonstrability of the mys- tery of the Trinity, 194 sqq. Indwelling, 252. Infecundity of the Holy Ghost, 242. Innascibility, 237. In nomine, 26 sq. Inspirabilitas, 242. Irenzus, St., 140, 143, 148, 201 sq. Isaias, 15, 20. 296 J JEHOVAH, II. Jerome, St., 14, 36, 39, 152, 185, 195, 200, Jesus Christ, Baptism of, 24; Discourse at the last Supper, 24, 102 sq.; The Son of God, 49 saq.,. His Divine’::Son- ship, 49 sqq.; His Primo- geniture, 60 sq.; His Con- substantiality with God, 61 sq.; His Divinity, 63 sqq.; Divine attributes of, 63 sqq.; His title to divine honors, 73 sqq.; Baptism in His name, 78 sq.; Expressly called “God” in §. Scripture, 79 sqq. Joachim of Flora, 39, 256, 258. John Damascene, St., 188, 225. John, St. (the Evangelist), 18, 31, 56 sq.; 88 sqq. John the Baptist, ror sq. Justin I, Emperor, 171. Justin Martyr, St., 143, 144. K KABBALISM, 199. Kleutgen, Jos. (S. J.), 40, 108. Kruger, 4. xrigew, 158. krigua Tov Qeov, 152, 157. Kunstle, Karl, 41. L LATERAN Council (of 649), 2; (of 1215), 41, 172, 256, 258, Bae, Leo the Great, 36. Leo ‘XIIT, 100. Libri XII de Trinitate, 273. Locke, John, 226. Logos, The, In the O. T. the- Ophanies irae Stl) Tongs teaching on 59, 88 sqq.; The Monarchians on the, 116 sq.;' Arian teaching on the, 124; Endiathetic and Prophoric, INDEX 147; Definition of the term, 202. Adyos €vdidberos — mpopopixds, 147. Loisy, Alfred, 34, 52. Lully, Raymond, 198, 270. Lyons, Ecumenical Council of CAN DN 1274) t92, 281. M MACEDONIANS, 123, 159, 160, Ae y Macedonius, 124 sq., 154 sq. Malchion of Antioch, 118 sq. Manifestations of the Trinity, Outward, 247. Mark of Ephesus, 172. Martin I, 2, 275. Martyrs, Their profession of the Trinity, 137 sqq. Mastrofini, Marcus, 108. Maternity, Why there is none in the Godhead, 166 sq. Melchisedechians, 116. Memrah, 18. Mercury Trismegistus, 199. Messianic Psalms, 15 sq. Messias, The future, as true God, 15° sq.) 52. wia ovola Kal rpeis trocrdces, 227,:271 sq. Michael, Archangel, 151. Michael Caerularius, 170. Milton, 147. Missio, 175. Missions, The Divine, 175, 176, 248 sqq. Modalism, Sabellian, 120 sqq., te7) Molina, 230. Monarchianism, 115 sqq.; Dyn- amistic, 116 sq.; Patripassian, TEA $04) 220. Hovoyerys, 60. Monophysitism, 255, 256. Monotheism, 264 sq. Monotheletism, 275. Moppy dovdov, 62, Moses, 20, 58. INDEX Mystery, The Blessed Trinity a, 194 sqq. Names, Substantive, of God, 245. Nature, 221. Nestorians, 169. Niczea, Council of, 132, 260, 270. Nicene Creed, 125 sq., 129, 169, 170. Noétus, II7 sq., 119, I5I. Notions, The Divine, 240 saq. Novatian, 145, 152, 187. O “Ouoovela, 59, III, 212, 270, 272, 283. duoovotos 7@ TmarTpl, 22, 126, 269, 271. Oppositio relationis, 230 sq. Ordo subsistendi, 111. Organic Conception of the Trinity, 187. Origen, II, 132, I5I sq. Osculum Patris et Filii, 206. Coswalds/\}.)b14 (258,281, ovola, 22, 122, 221 sq. 122) Sq; 1a PAN-CurIsTISM, Priscillian’s, 42 mavroxpatwp, Christ the, 68. Paraclete, The, 99 sqq. mapakhyTOos, 99 sq. maoxev, 228. Paternity, See Fatherhood. a as Monarchianism, II7 sq Paul, St, Epilogue to the Sec- ond Epistle to the Corin- thians, 29; His teaching on the spiritual gifts and charis- mata, 29 sq.; On Christ’s Di- vine Sonship, 56 sq.; On the -Primogeniture of Christ, 60 ‘sq.; His distinction between forma servi and forma Dei, 62; Meets the disciples of 297 John the Baptist at Ephesus, IOI sq.; On the outward manifestations of the Trin- ity, 247; On the Trinitarian Perichoresis, 282. Paul of Samosata, 116, 118 sq., 135. Patil Vi: tro, Perichoresis, 240, 208, 281 sqq. Person, Definition of, 224, 226. Personal Conception of the Trinity, 187. Personality, God’s threefold, Proved from S. Scripture, 10 sqq.; Foreshadowed in the O. T.; 11 saq.; Taught in the NN. 0.22) saq.s.,bn the. Gos- pels, 23 sqq.; In the Epistles, 28 sqq. Peshitta, The Syriac, 164. Petavius, 86, 143, 149, 169, 278, 282. Peter, St., Prologue to the First Epistle of, 28; His pro- fession of faith in Christ’s divine Sonship, 53. Peter Lombard, 156, 256. Philo, 147, 190. Philoponus, John, 255, 256. Philosophoumena, II7, 121. Philosophy and the dogma of the Trinity, 199 sqq. Photinus of Sirmium, 117. Photius, 168, 169, 170. Pistoia, Council of, 262. Pius VI, 262. Pius IX, 199, 262. mrevua, TO aytov, O8. Pneumatomachians, 123, 125. mvevots, 168. moinua, 122, 128. Polycarp, St., 13 Possibles, God's Aaks for the, 218, . Praxeas, 118, 119. Primogeniture of Christ, 60 sq. Priscillian, 38, 41. Procession, Defined, 161; Of the Son from the Father, 162 sqq.; St. Augustine’s com- parison of the Divine Pro- 208 cessions with human self- knowledge and self-love, 197, 204; They are purely spir- itual and immanent vital processes, 203 sq. Properties, The Trinitarian, 236 sqq. mpocwrov, 120 sq., 225. Protestantism no longer holds the Christian idea of the Trinity, 2. T™pwTdoToKos, 60, Psalms, Messianic, 15 sq. Puteanus, 215. R RATIONALISTIC Distortions of the dogma of the Trinity, 3, 199. Reason, The dogma of the Trinity in its relation to, 194 sqq. Reccared, King, 170. Relationes Personifice, 232 sqq. Relations, The Divine, 220 sqq., 228 sqq., 287. Rosmini, A., 198 sq. Ruiz, 198, 282. >, SABELLIUS, 120, I2I, I5I, 225, 229, 205,270, 272. Sabinus of Heraclea, 269. St. Victor, Richard of, 108. Sanctification, 251. Sanctity, Divine, 207. Sapiential Books of the O. T., Traces of the Trinity in, 16 sqq. Schafer, Al., 37, 40. oxéces, 228. Scheeben, Jos., 187. Schepps, G., 35. Schleiermacher on the Trinity, 4. Schopenhauer, Arthur, 200. Seleucia,’ Council of . (A, D. AIO) a72: Semi-Arianism, 124. Terminology, INDEX Shepherd of Hermas, 150 sq. Siehis |, V36 Socinians, 3. Son of God, Uses of the term, 49 sqq.; Consubstantial with God, 61 sqq. Son, God the, 49 sqq.. Sonship, Christ’s Divine, 46, 49 saq. 4) Sophronius, St., 257. Speculative Problems, 213 sqq. Spiration, 187, 205 sqq., 209 $0.) /228./ 2394) Spirator, Objective character of the, 234. Spiritus, 97, 174, 206. Spiritus Dei, 19, 97, 174. Spiritus Filit, 174, 175. Strauss, David F., 200. Stiirmer, Pl. (O. S. B.), 269. Suarez, 217, 250, 282. Subordinationism, 123 sqq. Substance, 220. Succession, Temporal, vs. suc- cession as to origin, 217. Summa res, 258. Suppositum, 224 sq. if TavTovola, 2509, 200, ‘270, «272, 274, 283, 284, 288. i Difficulties of forming a theological, 227. Hertullians);1,°'37,. 362.110, Lar, 143, 146, 148, 187. Tetragrammaton, The, 7o. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 169. Theodoret, 169. Theodotus of Byzantium, 116, LES) LSie Theodotus the Younger (the Money-changer), 116. “ Theologie der Vorzeit,’ 108. Theophanies, The O. T., 12 sqq., 250. Theophilus, St., 1, 148. Thomas (the Apostle), 82. Thomas Aquinas, St., 156, 188, 189, 194, 208, 212, 215, 216, INDEX 220, 230, 240,241, 244, 251, 261, 284. Thomists, 215. Toledo, 3rd Council of, 170; Lith, Councilof, 5,. 207, 238, 251, 287; Synod of (A.D. 447), 171. Totietas mM Se, 223. Tpias, 22. Tpias Tedela, 2, Tridentine Decree “De Cano- nicis Scripturis” and the Comma Ioanneum, 40. Trinitas, Term, first used by Theophilus and Tertullian, 1; Adopted by the Church, 22: Trinity, Chief points of the dogma of the Divine, 6; The dogma foreshadowed in the O. T., 11 sqq.; but not clearly revealed, 20; Clearly taught inienes)|N. 1.22 sqq.*' In the Gospels, 23 sqq.; In the Epis- tles, 28 sqq.; New Testament texts treating of the Divine Persons severally, 43 saq.; The Trinity in Tradition, 113 sqq.; Formulation of the dogma, 129; Positive Tradi- tion of the first four centu- Mes, 132 \sqq.;., The. ‘Trinity in the liturgy of the Church, 133 sq.; In the Doxologies, 135 sq.; In the Confessions of the Martyrs, 137 sqq.; In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 139 sqq.; In the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, 153 sqq.; The Principle of the, 161 sqq.; Procession of the Son, 162 sqq.; Procession of the Holy Ghost, 168 sqq.; Spec- ulative theological develop- ment of the dogma of the 209 Trinity, 192 sqq.; The dogma in its relation to reason, 104 sqq.; Christian concept of the Trinity as opposed to the so- called ethnic trinities, 199; Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons, 255 sqq.; Oneness of their ex- ternal operation, 275 sqq. Trisagion of Isaias, 12. Tritheism, 255 sqq., 272. Triunity, 2. Turrianus, 215. U Una natura et tres personae, 227, Unigenitus, 60. Unitarianism, 3, 119. V VASQUEZ, 215. Vaughan, Card., 41. Verbum Dei, See Adyos. Vestigia SS. Trinitatis, 196. Vigilius of Tapsus, 42, 273. Vincent, Deacon, 1238. Vincenzi, 152. Vulgate, The Latin, 31, 36, 40, 41. W Warp, Wilfrid, 41. Weyman, 152. Wisdom, Begotten, 16 sq. Witnesses, The three heavenly, 31 sqq. ora Worship of the Trinity, 247 sq. uz ZEPHYRIN, Pope, 121. NAN) aah eta aty pce ee sat } G a hike ‘ j Mae i ie ha Date Due ATALAEREGEVATOANE BIS , oO? 3 re are = a id | = 3 —— Cf | 1987 @ = i SE2 “8 JUL 9.4 os wy ay 04 I | O N a © — : a acing ke Boe Solel a posed arrears retort tintinths bee eee ie beng a fetta tae te Wiss tats ea nse as porte ree ~ noite Beineg heh g Tales Se Bodlp Fl et