ON DOGMATIC THEOLOGY TYPOGRAPHIE FIRMIN-DIDOT ET C le . PARIS. GOD AND MAN V LECTURES ON DOGMATIC THEOLOGY from the French OF THE REV. L. LABAUCHE S. S // Authorised Translation VOL. I P. J. KENEDY & SONS 1917 ItM- NIHIL OBSTAT Remigius LAFORT, S. T. D. Censor Deputatus. IMPRIMATUR Joannes Card. FARLEY Arcbiepiscopus Neo-Eboracensis. Neo-Eboraci, die 30 Decembris 1915. PREFACE It may be well here to touch upon the master idea that guides our work. Since the beginning of the 19th century, Rationalists have set about attacking Catholic dogma with altogether new tactics. They have striven to show that our most fundamental dogmas, at no matter what period of their history we consider them, whether upon their first appearance in Holy Writ, or at the time of their development in Tradi- tion, or at the time of their conciliar definition, are an altogether human product. Such criticism, confined for a time within certain intellectual circles, has gradually worked its way into the different classes of society and has given rise to that Modernism denounced and condemned by Pope Pius X in the Encyclical Pascendi gregis domiriiei. Now, this is just the objection that we are most desirous of combatting. We have undertaken to show that Catholic dogma, on the contrary, at whatever period of its history we examine it, remains absolutely inexplicable so far as contin- gent causes are concerned, and that it requires always, now under one form, now under another, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. We candidly declare that we have approached this task vm PREFACE in a profoundly Catholic spirit and with respectful submission to the directions of the Church. We can, we must avow, conceive of no other attitude in one who icould devote himself to the study of special dogma. To attempt to restore indi- vidual dogmas in their historical settings icithout the gui- dance of the definitions and directions of the Church, were sheer folly. No exact account could be rendered of them, nor could we discover their harmony and unity. Besides we should be exposed to the frequent shock of apparent contradic- tion. We have, nevertheless, examined most carefully the nu- merous documents upon which -we ground our assertions; we have, too, taken into account not only the opinions of their authors, but also the influence of the environment in which they wrote. Only where faith and the scientific spirit work together, it seems to us, can the true theological spirit be found. Such are the principles that have guided us. If in this way we succeed in enlightening the minds and moving the hearts of our readers to a clearer and fuller realization of the meaning of the true Christian life, we shall have attained our sole object. L. LABAUCHE, S. S. Paris, May 22d, 1910. Feast of the Most Holy Trinity. CONTENTS Pages. PREFACE , vii-viii INTRODUCTION. Description of the three great mysteries : the Trinity, the Incarnation of the Word, and the Redemption of men 1-4 FIRST PART THE MOST HOLY TRINITY CHAPTER I * PRELIMINARY NOTIONS Theological idea of substance, nature, person, and real distinction. Pri- mitive meaning of the words oOaia CTcoiTwrii;, Trpotrwuov, persona. The Fathers of the Western Church were at an early date in possession of an exact Trinitarian terminology. Early evolution of the Greek Fathers' terminology. Circumstances that required greater precision. The nature of the hypostasis. Authors to be consulted 3-21 CHAPTER II THE DIVINE PERSONS ARTICLE I There is one God in three persons Doctrine of the Church. Wisdom, in the canonical books of the Old Testament. The Word of God, in Palestine. Origin of the Palesl- nian doctrine of the Word of God. St. John's Logos. The spirit of x CONTENTS. Pages. God, in Ihe canonical books of the Old Testament. The Spirit of God, in Palestine. The dogma of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Synoptic Gospels. The dogma of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Gospel of St. John. The dogma of the Most Blessed Trinity in the epistles of St. Paul. Doctrine of the Apostolic Fathers. The Apologists. St. Irenaeus. Patripassianism at Rome, at the beginning of the third century. The fight against Patripassianism : St. Hippolytus and Tertullian. Modalism in the Orient. The fight against Moda- lism : Origen and St. Denis of Alexandria. Paul of Samosata and the synod of Antiocb. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Modalism and Aria- nism, at the beginning of the fourth century. The Precursors of St. Thomas. Principles of the Thomistic synthesis. The Thomislic syn- thesis 22-65 ARTICLE II The Son of God Doctrine of the Church. Jesus the Messias. Jesus the Son of man. Jesus the Son of God. Jesus God and man. Character of the Gospel according to St. John. The Word of God. His equality with the Fa- ther. Community of life between the Father and the Son. Impor- tance of St Paul's testimony. Summary of his doctrine on the divi- nity of our Lord. Some particularly significant texts. Doctrine of the Apostolic Fathers. Saint Justin. Saint Irenaeus. Condemna- tion ofThedatus. Tertullian. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Saint Denis of Alexandria. Arianism. - Beginning of the struggle against Arianism. The council of Nicrea 65-106 ARTICLE III The Holy Ghost is God Doctrine of the Church. Direct testimonies wanting in the New Testa- ment. Indirect testimonies numerous. Doctrine of the Fathers : Saint Atlanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Gregory Nazianzus. The council of Constantinople. 381 106-112 ARTICLE IV The three divine persons are consubstantial Doctrine of the Church. Synoptic Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. Gospel according to St. John. Doctrine of the Fathers on the dogma of comubslantiality, from the second century to the beginning of the fourth. The dogma of consubstantiality and the council of Nicoea. Antiricene reaction. Arguments of the Anomeans. St. Athanasius' reply Arguments of the Semi-Arians. St. Athanasius' reply. Conclusion, on the manner of development of this dogma 113-131 CONTENTS. xi CHAPTER III THE DIVINE PROCESSIONS ARTICLE I The Son proceeds from the Father from all eternity by generation Pages. Doctrine of the Church. The synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of St. John. The epistles of St. Paul. Doctrine of the Apostolic Fathers. - The Apologist Fathers. 6rigen. St. Athanasius. Leading prin- ciples of the theology of St. Thomas. The Procession of the Son. This procession is a generation 132-144 ARTICLE II From all eternity the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle Doctrine of the Church. According to the New Testament, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from a single source. The Greek Fathers at the end of the fourth century, and the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost. Greek Fathers of the fifth century. St. Augustine and the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost. The conflict between the Greeks and the Latins over the Filioque. The introduction of the Filioque in the rreed of Nicaea and Constantinople legitimate. Distinctive character of the second procession, according to St. Thomas. The procession of love ab utroque. This procession of love is not a generation. Conclusion on the processions : the cir- cumincession 144-159 CHAPTER IV THE DIVINE MISSIONS ARTICLE I The Divine Missions Description of the missions of the Holy Ghost. Description of the mis- sions of the Son. Idea of the divine missions 160-165 ARTICLE II Some secondary notions regarding the divine Missions Notion of the divine Persons. Attributes of the divine Persons. Names of the divine Persons.. ... 165-166 xn CONTENTS. CHAPTER V AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON IN THE MYSTERY OF THE MOST BLESSED TRINITY Pages. The Blessed Trinity a mystery of the First order. Faith in this mystery rests upon established authority. The mystery of the Trinity is not contrary to the principles of reason. The mystery of the Trinity is not contrary to truths duly acquired. The mystery of the Trinity is not totally obscure 166-176 PART II THE INCARNATE WORD CHAPTER I THE FACT OF THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD ARTICLE I In our savior Jesus-Christ the human nature and the divine nature are united hypostatically to the word of God Doctrine of the Church. The New Testament : Summary of the doc- trine on the Incarnation of the Word. The prologue of the Gospel ac- cording to St. John. Description of the Word. The birth and the mission of John the Baptist. The Incarnation of the Word and his work of salvation. Theological synthesis. Epistle to the Philip- pians, chap, n, 5-11. Christological texts. Theological synthesis. General conclusion. Doctrine of the Apostolic Fathers. Saint Irenaeus. Origen and Tertullian. Apollinarism. Nestorianism. The fight against Nestorianism. The council of Ephesus. The Nes- torian schism. Adoptionism in the eighth century. Scholastic theo- logy : summary. Solution of Duns Scot. Solution of Cajetan and of Suarez. Solution of St. Thomas 177-209 ARTICLE II In our lord Jesus Christ the human nature and the divine nature united in the same divine hypostasis remain without confusion or transformation Doctrine of the Church. The New Testament. Tradition of the Fa- thers, from Apostolic times until the council of Ephesus. After the council of Epbesus. The council of Cbalcedon. The Monophysite schism. Scholastic theology 210-217 CONTENTS. xin ARTICLE III In our Lord Jesus Christ we must admit that there are two wills and two operations Pages. Doctrine of the Church. The dogma of the twofold will and the twofold operation, before the council of Chalcedon. After the council of Chal- cedon. Monothelism. The light against Monot holism. The third council of Constantinople, the sixth ecumenical. Thoughts for ser- mons and apologetics. Authors to be consulted .................. 218-231 CHAPTER II THE HUMANITY OF OUR LORD ARTICLE I Our Savior's Sanctity 1 POSITIVE SANCTITY Obedience of our Savior. His constant prayer. His ardent charity. Christ received the fulness of grace ............................... 232-238 NEGATIVE SANCTITY Sinlessness of Christ. Christ's exemption from concupiscence and from original sin. Impeccability of Christ. How reconcile impeccab- ility with temptation. How reconcile impeccability and liberty. First solution. Second solution. Third solution. Fourth solu- tion. The miraculous conception of our Lord. Traditional views. Rationalistic criticism. First objection : Answer. Second objec- tion : Answer. Third objection : Answer. Conclusion ........ 238-253 ARTICLE II The human knowledge of Christ DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Doctrine of the Greek Fathers. The Latin Fathers. The Agnoetae. 253-261 H SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY Leading principle. The Beatific Vision. Infused knowledge. Acqui- red, or experimental knowledge .................................. 26t-266 xiv CONTENTS. Page*. HI RATIONALISTIC EXPLANATIONS CONDEMNED BY THE C.IIUUCI1 Theology of Hermann Schell. Criticism of his views. Theology of Loisy. Criticism of his views. The condemnation pronounced by the Church 2G6-280 ARTICLE III Sentiments in our Savior's soul The Psychology of the sentiments. Sentiments in the Savior's soul.. 280-284 CHAPTER III CAUSES OF THE INCARNATION The final cause of the Incarnation. The necessity of the Incarnation. The fitness of the Incarnation. The meritorious cause of the Incarna- tion . . 285-295 PART III CHRIST THE REDEEMER CHAPTER I THE FACT OF THE REDEMPTION ARTICLE I Holy Scripture I THE DOCTRINE OF THE REDEMPTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT The prophecy of Isaias. Did the Contemporaries of Christ expect a suf- fering Messias? 297-304 II THE DOCTRINE OF THE REDEMPTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Doctrine of the synoptic Gospels. Doctrine of the Gospel according to St. John. Doctrine of the epistles of St. Paul 304-314 CONTENTS. iv ARTICLE II Tradition of the Fathers Pages. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologist Fathers. The Greek Fathers, from the end of the second century to the middle of the fifth. The Latin Fathers, from the beginning of the third century to the middle of the fifth 314-330 ARTICLE III Scholastic Theology Saint Anselm. The successors of St. Anselm. St. Thomas 330-33G CHAPTER II VICARIOUS SATISFACTION Doctrine of the Church. Protestant controversy. First objection : Answer. Second objection : Answer. Third objection : Answer. Fourth objection : Answer. Fifth objection : Answer. Sixth objection : Answer. Seventh objection : Answer 337-345 CHAPTER III THE -WORK. OF THE REDEMPTION ARTICLE I The work of the Redemption accomplished by our Savior Expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people, according to Leviticus. In dying upon the cross Jesus offered the great sacrifice of expiation for the sins of the people. The sacrifice offered by Christ does away with the sacrifices of the Old Law and is the only sacrifice of the New Law. Christ's sacrifice consists in the bloody death that he accepted out of love for men. All the other sufferings of Christ derive their saving value from their relation to the sacrifice on Calvary. The Priesthood of Christ 346-356 ARTICLE II Ccntinuation of the Work of the Redemption The Euoharistic sacrifice. The ecclesiastical priesthood 35C-3EO CHAPTER IV THE THREE OFFICES OF CHRIST THE REDEEMER Doctrine of the prophets. Doctrine of our Lord's contemporaries. Doctrine of the New Testament.. , 360-3G3 xvi CONTENTS. CHAPTER V THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST THE REDEEMER. Pages. Preliminary notions. The humanity of Christ, united hypostatically to the divine Word, is worthy of the homage of adoration. The Heart of Jesus, considered as hypostatically united to the Word, is worthy of adoration. The proper object of the devotion of the Sacred Heart. The worship of the True Cross, as well as that of Images of the Cross, in also a legitimate devotion 364-371 Conclusion. The Moral picture of our Lord Jesus-Christ 373-376 GOD INTRODUCTION God is Love , says St. John 1 . It is characteristic of the one who loves to give himself, writes St. Thomas; and, continues that great Doctor, it is characteristic of one who loves infinitely to give himself without limit 2 . These two principles explain the whole economy of our salvation. Before man was, God loved him. He was nothing but the object of the love of God. Men discern that which is good, and because it is good, they love it. But infinite love is different; it is creative. God creates us because He loves us. And just as this love creates us, so it preserves us and makes us act. By an act of foolish ingratitude, all mankind, epitomized in the person of its head, despised the love of God and trans- gressed the law that He had imposed. Rather than annihilate us, as He might have done, God chose that the obstacle that severed the relation of His love with man be removed by adequate expiation of the fault. The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. By a life of suffering, which ended 1. I JOHN, iv, 8, i6. 2. Sum. Theol.lll, q. i, a. 1. T. I. 2 GOD. in the death on the Cross, He brought men out of the bondage of sin and effected their reconciliation with God. The Incarnation of the Word was at once a mystery of salvation and a mystery of light: for by it men not only learned the extent of the love of God, but they also received the clear revelation of one God in three Persons. Our three great mysteries the mystery of the Redemption, the mystery of the Incarnation, and the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity considered in the order of their manifestation to man, appear very closely allied. To merit our salvation, the Word was made flesh and thus revealed to us the mystery of the Divine Life. We might follow the order just described and take up first the mystery of the Redemption, then that of the Incarna- tion, and finally that of the Most Holy Trinity. This, no doubt, would be more in accord with the order of the New Testament, but it would be less so with that found in the Tradition of the Fathers. The Holy Spirit permitted heresy to assail first the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, then that of the Incarnation, and finally that of the Redemption ; 1hus theology, whose mission it is to explain, defend, and throw light upon dogmas, was constrained to go whithersoever the adversary carried the fight. While giving up the plan of finality as found in the sacred books, we follow the plan of efficient causality, which is no less harmonious, no less wonderful. These studies will comprise three parts, as follows : Part I. The Most Holy Trinity. Part II. The Incarnate Word. Part III. Christ, the Redeemer. FIRST PART THE MOST HOLY TRINITY There are three persons in God. These three are all equally God, for they have but one and the same substance. The Father begets the Son from all eternity; so, too, from all eternity, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. The Father sends the Son into the world; the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son. These are the three great and distinct views that are given us of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity. In the first, we have the dogma of the Divine Persons ; in the second, that of the Divine Processions; and in the third, that of the Divine Missions. It may be well here to define certain ideas to which we shall have constant recourse throughout the work. Then, after having exposed and justified the different points of the dogma of the Trinity, we shall try to ascertain how this dogma can be reconciled with the legitimate demands of reason. Hence the division into five chapters : Chapter I. Preliminary Notions. Chapter II. The Divine Persons. 4 GOD. Chapter III. The Divine Processions. Chapter IV. The Divine Missions. Chapter V. Agreement between Faith and Reason in the Dogma of the Most Holy Trinity. CHAPTER I SOME PRELIMINARY NOTIONS Among the ideas that must be clearly defined at the out- set of this work, two, viz., those of substance and nature, will serve in explaining the Unity in God; and two, viz., those of person and distinction, the Plurality in God. \Ve shall first see what these terms mean in the theological sense which they have had since the great Christological councils; and after that we shall study with profit the evolution of these ideas. As will be seen, we have been preoccupied chiefly with the theological idea of person. ARTICLE I Substance, nature, person real, distinction. Idea of Substance. That which does not exist in itself, but must have something besides itself in which to exist, (ens in alio,) is called accident. That in which the accident resides and which does not itself exist in something else, but in itself, is called substance. Hence the definition is : Subtantia est res cut compctit habere esse in se et non in alio { . 1. Cf. THOMAS AQUINAS, Quaesl. disp. de Potentia, q. v, a. 3, ad 4 U " : Ens per se non est definitio substantiae, ut Avicenna dicit. Ens enim non polest esse alien jus genus... Sed si substantia possit habere deftnitionem, non obstante (juod est genus yeneralissimum, erit ejus definitio, quod substantia est ret cujus quidditali debelur esse non in aliquo. 6 GOD. Idea of Nature. Substance is not merely an inert principle capable of receiving motion. It is a principle which tends to a determinate end and which brings to bear upon that end all the energy with which it is endowed or which is subject to it. Looked at in this light, it should be called nature, and not substance. We may define nature thus : Natura est substantia quatenus est principium primum sen ftmdamentale passiomtm et operationum^. Hence, the terms substance and nature designate but one and the same thing looked at from different points of view. When a thing is considered as existing in itself, and not in something else, it is called substance; but when considered as a power which tends to some determinate end, it is called nature" 1 . Idea of Person. The power to exist in itself is, then, the distinguishing mark of substance; and consequently this feature is common to all substance. But what is necessary that a substance be a person? The human soul is a substance, yet it is not a person. Whence is this? Without a doubt, the human soul can exist in itself; it can, moreover, elaborate sensible data and get at realities ; and it can will freely. Yet it can get at realities only on con- dition that the senses supply the intelligence with sensible data; and, as for the different sensations, it can experience these only in connection with the body, the body serving as 1. Ibid., Sum. Theol., HI, q. n, a. 1. Sciendum est quod... derivatum est nomen naturae ad significandum quodlibet principium intrinsccum motus t se- cundum quod Philosophus dicit quod natura est principium motus in eo in quo per se est et non secundum accidens. 2. Likewise, between the substance and the essence of a being, taken in the first sense, there is but a difference of point of view. The essence of a being is that being taken with all its constituent elements, that is, those elements with which it does or can exist, and without which it neither does nor can exist. Essence may also be defined as follows : Essentia est id per quod ens consti- tuitur in detenninata specie. Cf. D.MI:RCU:R, Onlologie, n. 146, Paris, 1902. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY . 7 material co-principle. This is owing to the fact that the human soul is not a specifically complete substance. But, that a substance may be a person, it must be primarily complete in its species. Does this specific completeness suffice? It does not. Human substance, made up of body and soul, is specifically complete; but we can see at once that, if this substance be looked at only insofar as it can be predicated, in a judgment, of all men, it is not a person. But we may also look at sub- stance as further endowed with those determining marks that make a substance distinct from all other substances, quid indivisum in se et divisum a quovis alio, an individual sub- stance. Is substance so individualized a person? Let us look into this closely. Individual substance, observes Cardinal Billot 1 , may be clothed with a merely rela- tive individuality. In such a case, it can still be com- municated to another person, that is, in a physical union. Thus, in the mystery of the Incarnation, the humanity of Christ, individual, it is true, but only relatively so, was yet physically communicable, i. e., could be physically united to the Eternal Word of the Father. Individual substance can be clothed, too, with absolute 1. De Deo uno el trino, vol. Ill, pars in, c. 1, 1. DC significations pcr- sonae general i in : Porro individuam secundum quid, illam dicimus, qux licet singularis, itondum tauten est incommunicabilis ea incommunicabilitale quae requiritur ad hoc ut de nullo possit prxdicari. Cum enim individuum sit indivisum inse et divisum a quolibet alio, illud tanlum simpliciter indi- viduum agnoscitur, quodnonpole.it aitribui alicui subjeclo sedpotius ipsutn est supposition quod in prxdicalione supponilur Us omnibus qux de aliquo dicunlur vet diet possunt. Huic autem sU'icle rationi individui triplex com- municabilitat repugnat : conununitas partis, ut in anima separata; com- mutiitas assumptibilis, ut in liumanitale Chrisli; communilas numericae identitatis cum pluribus distinctly subsistcntibus, ut in nalura dirina. Sola njtiur subslantia singularis cui nulla ex his communicabililas manet, did palest simpliciter et sine addito substantia individua. See the same author: !>' \erbolncarnalo, Part I, chap, u, $ 1, De supposilo et persona. A veiy good exposition of this difficult question will be found in the Commentaries of Father BUOHPENSIEKE, In primam Parlem Sum. Theol., q. HI, a. 3, p. 145-161. 8 GOD. individuality its individuality can be developed to perfec- tion. In this case, it can no longer be communicated to another person, neither logically nor physically. It is then incommunicable, it is Self, alteri incommunicabiiis et sui ipsitis, sen sui juris. Now this individual substance alone is a person 1 , on con- dition that it be, moreover, a rational substance, and conse- quently capable of having psychological consciousness and moral conscience, as well as moral and psychological liberty. In fact, it is reason, and consequently consciousness and liberty, that gives to the absolutely individual substance that higher independence that makes of it a being altogether incommunicable, that makes it Self 2 . Hence the traditional definition of person, formulated by Boetius : Naturae rationalis individua substantial. 1. The term person comes from the Greek word 7cp<5nrov , the primitive sense of which has been changed. Person is also called hypostasis , from the Greek word ujr6(TTa. 32 GOD. trine, we must recall the fact that the time had now come for the hope of Israel, to be realized. While the Pharisees with unabated zeal, were calling upon the Word of Yahweh, were swearing by that Word, and by it still explained the Creation, there was growing up at Nazareth, Jesus, the In- carnate Word, of w r hom it would be said : Omniaper ipsum facta sunt.., dedit potestatem filios Dei fieri [ . To this re- ligious working, which God promotes in the souls of the well disposed, must we look for the last cause in the explan- ation of the development of the doctrine of the Word of God, which sprang up in Palestine in the time of our Lord. St. John's Logos. During the second half of the 19th century, many rationalistic critics insisted that St. John's Logos was only a doctrine borrowed from Alexandrian philosophy 2 . But nowadays this view is hardly maintained. Harnack recognizes in the Johannine Logos a direct descen- dant of the Palestinian doctrine of the Word, and believes that all that was borrowed from the Logos of Alexandrian philosophy was the name 3 . Loisy holds nearly the same opinion and says that the fourth Gospel borrowed from Alex- andria only its allegorical method and the term Logos' 1 . 1. JOHN, I, 3, 12. 2. Cf. E. VACHEROT, ttistoire critique de I'Ecole d'Alexandrie, Le chris- tianisme et ses origines. E. RENAN, Eglise chretienne, p. 74. A. REVILLE, Histoire du dogme de la divinite de Jesus-Christ. J. REVILLE, Le Logos d'a- pres Philon d'Alexandrie, 1877. La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme Evangile ct dans les ceuvres de Philon, 1881. Le quatrieme Evangile, 1902. This last book is less dogmatic in tone. 3. History of Dogma, I, 97-98 : The elements operative in the Johannine theology were not Greek Theologoumena even the Logos has little more in com- mon with that of Philo than the name, and its mention at the beginning of the book is a mystery, not the solution of one but the Apostolic testimony con- cerning Christ has created from the old faith of Psalmists and Prophets, a new faith in a man who lived with the disciples of Jesus among the Greeks . Cf. Harnack, What is Christianity, lecture xi, p. 218-220. 4. Le Quatrieme Evangile, pp. 119-120: The fourth Gospel is not an abstract philosophical work ; it is a book of religion, and a profoundly Christian book. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 33 He ought to add that the name of the Johannine Logos must have come from the Palestinian Word itself, for this Word would have been called by that name, at a quite early date, by the translation of the term Logos into the term Memra, Word. As we have said, Alexandrian influence could not have made itself felt in Palestine except before the time of Philo; for that author was instrumental in bringing about, between the Jews of Palestine and those of Alexandria, a spirit of distrust which put a damper on the intellectual relations between the two. Be that as it may, an unbiased examination of the Philo- nian Logos and the Logos of St. John will show sufficiently how different were the two concepts. It cannot be denied that the Logos of St. John is also represented as the inter- mediary through which God does everything ; but at the same time this Logos is, from the beginning, the Life and the Light, vivifying and enlightening, with Divine life and light, every man that comes into the world. Since men would not par- ticipate in this life and light, the Logos \vas made man, and gave to the humanity which he assumed the fullness of life and light; and he dwelt among men as one of them, com- municating to them of the fullness of his life and light. But this r6le of Sanctifier and Savior, fulfilled by the Logos of St. John, is entirely foreign to Philo's Logos. It has no learned theory under which to subordinate Tradition ; but it throws light upon Tradition by means of the elements and the method supplied to it by the philosophy of the Greeks. If the idea of the Logos and the Johamine principle of symbolism are not Greek and Alexandrian, nothing is ; but the idea of the Incarnation and the symbols employed in the Gospel are the author's own and arc Christian. There is a transposing of doctrine and of me- thod rather than a borrowing in the absolute sense of that word. It is surely not the author's purpose to transform Apostolic Tradition in order to subjugate it and himself to the theories of Philo; and, though he may appear to take great liberty with the data of the Synoplists, he does the same with the mate- rial drawn from other sources, and we may say that Philo would recognize himself in the fourth Gospel far less easily than Matthew or Luke. T. i. 3 34 GOD- And not only in function do the two differ, but in nature as well. We have seen that the Logos of Philo was, to put it briefly, only the divine power regarded in the abstract and personified . But the Logos of St. John is altogether different ; it is really a person; there is an ontological opposition be- tween it and God, such as exists between the Son and the Father, who is Himself a person. The Logos alone is in- carnate ; and during the time that he is working the world's salvation, there exists the most intimate relation between himself and God, his Father. II THE SPIRIT OF GOD. The Spirit of God in the Canonical Books of the Old Tes- tament. In the Old Testament, it is chiefly Wisdom that is revealed as the intermediary between God and the world in its creation and government. However, the Spirit of God is also spoken of in a sufficiently clear manner. It appears first as the power presiding over the formation of the world, as we learn from Genesis, where it is represented as hover- ing over chaos, everywhere stimulating by the warm eman- ation of its breath the colossal powers of nature 1 . The Spi- rit of God is the source of life : Lord, thou shall send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created , cries out the Psalmist 2 . It is the source of the life of man : The Spirit of God created me , says one of Job's friends, . MATT., m, 16. MARK, i, 10. LUKE, m, 22. 7. MATT., m, 17. MARK, i, 11. LUKE, m, 22. 8. MATT., xi, 27. LLKB, i, 22. 40 GOD. I have commanded you : and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world 1 . The Trinity could be no more explicitly stated than in this passage, hence it has been held as the great Trinitarian formula. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are here represented as three individuals really distinct and cons- tituting three hypostases. Not only is this distinction brought out by the three terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by the general tenor of the text, but also by the expression in the name of the Father , a term that in all languages, and especially in the Hebrew and in the Aramaic, always desig- nates a person. True, this phrase is used only before the term Father, but the connective and before Son and Holy Ghost , shows clearly that this phrase is under- stood and is to be repeated before each of the other names 2 . The Dogma of the Trinity in the Gospel of St. John. From the first, the prologue of this Gospel contains, without a doubt, the revelation of the hypostasis of the Father and that of the Son. The Word , it says, was in God (^v 7:pci(;Tbv Osiv), literally towards God, which means in very active relation with God. The preposition xpoq with the 1. MATT., XXVIIT, 18-20. 2. The vast theological importance of this text accounts, no doubt, for the fact that its authenticity has been so much questioned. It has been remarked that the passage baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost , is not found in the quotations of Eusebius of Caesarea, which are of earlier date than the council of Nicea. The text quoted reads as follows : ic Go, teach all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Cf. Demonstralio evangelica, 1. Ill, 6; P. G., XXIF, 233. It has been said on this account that the text of Eusebius is the one which was originally found in (he Gospel. The passage as we have it, would then be a gloss suggested by the wording of the baptismal liturgy. Cf. F. C. CONYBEARE, Zeiischrift fiir N. T. Wissenschaft, 1901, pp. 275-288. But such a conclusion rests upon a foundation entirely too weak, for St. Irenaeus gives this passage of St. Matthew with its Trinitarian formula. Cf. Adv. Haer., 1. Ill, 17; P. G., VII, 929. And so does Tertullian; Cf. De Baptismo, 13; P. L., I, 1215. For a remarkable discussion on this question see J. LEBRBTOK, op. cit., note E, pp. 478- 479. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 41 accusative always has the idea of activity ; whereas, the same preposition with the dative shows passivity and means to be near something 1 . In the expression And the Word was with God , the preposition with , rcpb?, signifies an interchange of thought, sentiment, and life between the two Persons : a relation of activity with God, a communicated life. It has been remarked that, in the text, the Word is said to be only tending towards God (-pb; TOV 6s3v). Now, this expression is evidently taken in the same sense here as it is in the following passage from the first epistle of St. John : We declare unto you the life which was with the Father, and hath appeared unto us 1 . It is question here of the hypostasis of God the Father ; hence, the Word of God is an individual, in constant communication with God the Father, just as one person may be in communication with another. The Word and the Father are two persons. Farther on in the prologue, we read that God made everything by his Word : -^cma Si' ajTcu IY^VSTO . The Greek expression Si* aJToii, with the preposition governing the pronoun, requires that the Word be a subject really distinct from the Father, a person. This furnishes a second argument in favor of the personality of the Word, and at the same time of the Father. After describing the Word and its creative action, the Evangelist goes on to say that the Word came unto his own ; that he gave all who received him the power to become the children of God ; and that the Word that Word who, from his eternal generation, was possessed of the fulness of Divinity was made flesh. All these expressions show that the Word must be a Person other than that of the Father, that it must be one Person, the Father another. Farther on in the Gospel, we find again revealed the 1. I JOHN, i, 2-3. 42 GOD. hypostatic character of the Father and the Son, this time together with that of the Holy Ghost. Jesus says to his Apostles : And I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever : the Spirit of truth 1 ... . This other Paraclete the word means advocate, defender, helper, comforter, and hence consoler is also an individual distinct from the Incarnate Word and from the Father; it is a third hypostasis. The hypostatic character of the Paraclete is again affirmed with equal force in the chapter following, where Jesus says : But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, he shall give testimony of me 2 . In other words, the Holy Spirit, who comes from the Father through the Son, is he that will give testimony in the person of the Incarnate Word. Here the Holy Spirit evidently appears as an hypostasis, just as truly as the Father and the Son 3 . 1. JOHN, xiv, 16. 2. JOHN, xv, 26. 3. In the course of our exposition, we have been led to make a comparison between the Gospel of St. John and his first Epistle. This is because the doc- trine in these two works is, at bottom, the same. No one will contend that no light is thrown on either work by a comparison with the other. Let us observe also lhat the first Epistle of St. John contains a remarkably precise statement of the Trinity. It is found in the verse called the Three Witnesses : Quoniam ires sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo : Pater, lerbum et Spiritus Sanctus ; et hi ires unum sunt , v, 7. The authenticity of this verse has been much questioned, as is well known ; and, while it is not in the province of our work to take side in the matter, it is only proper that we should recall the reasons that militate in favor of its authenticity and those that are usually adduced against it. Tn favor of its authenticity we have first the decree of the council of Trent declaring canonical all 1he books of the Old Testament and of the New... together with all their parts... and in the text of the Vulgate . Cf. DENZ., 783-784. In the second place, there is the decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, of January 13, 1897. To the question : Utrum tuto negari aut saltern in dubium revocari possit esse authenticum textum S. Joannis in epistola prima, cap. v (^7), quod sic se habet : quoniam tres sunt... , the Congregation answered : Negative . Cardinal FRANZELIN brings out the fact lhat the passage in question, or traces of it at any rate, is found in TertuI- THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 43 The Dogma of the Trinity in the Epistles of St. Paul. St. Paul has nowhere given fully the doctrine of the Blessed lian, St. Cyprian, St. Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, and some others. From all these testimonies he concludes that the verse of the Three Witnesses must have existed in the primitive text of the epistle of St. John. If, later on, it is not found in a great many manuscripts, this is due to the fact that the copyist, for some reason or other, or perhaps out of sheer negligence, failed to transcribe it. Cf. De Deo trino, pp. 41-71. Following are the arguments against the authenticity of this passage. Father CORNELY, in his Introduction au Nouveau Testament, pp. 679-682, and the Abbe PAULIN MARTIN, in his Cours professe a I'lnstitut catholique, in 1885- 1886, claim that it is wrong to appeal to the decree of the council of Trent in vindicating the authenticity of the verse of the Three Witnesses , for the words t together with all their parts have reference only to those passages rejected by Protcstanls. As for (he decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, Father PESCH says that this does not prevent us from pursuing the critical study of the verse in question until we arrive at a certain solution on the matter : Hague, nunc sicut ante illud decretum, licet critice in hoc comma inquirere, donee pro rationum criticarum dtgnitate firmum judi- cium formari possit, idque sine ulla in congregationem Sancli Offl.cH vel Summum Pontificem irreverentia. Authentiam vero dogmaticam negate vel in dubium vocare et post decretum et ante decretum semper erat illi- citum. Praelect. dogmat., vol. If, p. 250, note. Besides, it is quite clear that Papal infallibility is in no way implied in the question. The authenticity of the verse of the Three Witnesses is seriously ques- tioned because, excepting a single text of the twelfth century, none of the many Greek manuscripts dating before the Lateran council (1215) have it. It is not found in the principal Latin Fathers, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine ; and none of the texts cited by Franzelin refer indubitably to this verse. M. Kiinstle, professor at the University of Freiburg-in-Brisgau has shown that the first evidence of this verse is found in the Liber apologeticus, written hy Priscillian, about th ( : year 380. We read there : Et asccndens (Christus) in caelos venientibux ad te Her construct totus in Poire et Paler in ipso, ut manifestaretur quod scriptum est : Gloria in excelsis Deo et pax homi- nibus in terra bonae voluntatit, sicut Johannes uit : Tria sunt qui testi- monium dicunt in terra : aqua, caro et sanguis ; et haec Iria in unum sunt. Et tria sunt quae teslimonium dicunt in caelo : Pater, Verbum el Spirilus : et haec tria unum sunt in Chrislo Jcsu. According to H. Kunslle, Priscillian interpolated this last passage in the first epistle of St. John, so as to justify in this way his Unitarian theories. The text was then retouched so as to appear orthodox, and in this shape found its way into several Spanish documents. Cf. Das comma Joanneum auf seine Herkunft untersucht, vni-64, in-8, 1906. In the Revue pratique d'Apologetique, July 15, 1906, Fr. LEBRETON, reviewing this work says. Besides the scientific interest of this publication I cannot 44 GOD. Trinity. In his teachings on the divinity of the preexistent Christ, however, he always represents him as an individual distinct from the Father, that is, as a person 1 . And when he gives us to understand, by the attributes that he discerns in the Holy Spirit, that this Holy Spirit is God, just as are the Father and the Son, St. Paul shows very clearly that the Holy Ghost is distinct from the Father as well as from the Son; he shows that the Holy Ghost is another person 2 . But the Apostle does not only mention the three Persons severally; there are passages in which he represents all three as perfectly distinct and of the same rank, thus showing at one stroke their hypostatic character and their divine equality. For example, in this text from the epistle to the Galatians, where he tells them that if they have become the children of God it is because God has sent them the Spirit of his Son, who (the Spirit) leads them to consider God as Father 3 . So too, in another passage, from the second epistle to the Corinthians : Now he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God : Who aJso hath sealed us, and given us the pledge of the Holy Spirit in our hearts 4 . And in the following form of benediction : The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be refrain from noting here its apologetic interest. Since the appearance of the decree of the Holy Office, January 13, 1897, it has often been thrown up to Catholics that they have been doomed by their Church to maintain an inde- fensible position in the field of criticism. The approbation granted by the Archbishop of Freiburg to M. Kiinstle's book, rids us of this persistent ob- jection. And the secretary of the Biblical Commission, Dom L. Janssens, wrote in a review of the book : While congratulating the author on his very interest- ing work, I cannot but rejoice at the Episcopal approbation under which it appears. See LEBRETON, Les Origines du dogme de la Trinite, note K, pp. 525-531. 1. Cf. Col., I, 15-20; Philipp. n, 6-7. 2. See in particular i Cor., H, 10-11. 3. Gal., iv, 6; cf. Rom., vm, 15. 4. H Cor., i, 21-22. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 45 with you all , the doctrine is even more clearly exposed, and the passage might be taken as the equivalent of a Tri- nitarian formula 1 . HI PATRISTIC TRADITION. General Idea. The dogma of the Blessed Trinity, well foreshadowed in the Old Testament, was clearly revealed in the New. To be sure, all that is taught here is that the Son, who comes from the Father, was made man and that all sanctification comes to us through the Spirit, which proceeds from the Father and the Son. But it is clearly proclaimed that there is but one God, who is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are really distinct from one another. And this constitutes the dogma of the Trinity. The Apostolic Fathers faithfully transmitted the doctrine which they had received. In the third century, the heresy of the Sabellians, or Medalists, compelled the Fathers to defend the doctrine of real distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In the course of this work of transmission and defense, the dogma of one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, found expression in much more forcible language than heretofore. They put it that in God there were three Persons in one substance. The Apostolic Fathers 2 . St. Clement teaches that 1. II Cor., xin, 13. 2. The term Apostolic Fathers is applied strictly to those writers of Chris- tian antiquity who knew or might have known the Apostles or some of them. Such were most probably the author of the Didacfie (end of first cent.), the author of what is known as the Letter of SI. Barnabas (96-97), and, without any doubt, St. Clement of Rome (92-101), St. Ignatius of Antioch (f 107), St. Polycarp of Smyrna (f 155). The term now also includes Hermas (140-155), Papias of Hie- rapolis (f 161 or 163), the author of the Letter to Diognetus (about 150). 46 GOD. there is but one God, but that this God is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. God the Father is more especially the author of the works of power '. The Son was made man to save us 2 . And the Holy Ghost inspired the sacred writers of the Old Testament 3 . In thus ascribing particular work to each, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul did, St. Clement shows clearly that he dis- tinguishes three Persons in God. And furthermore, in two Trinitarian formulas, he sets forth with sufficient clearness that he places these three Persons on the same level. We have , says he, but one God, one Christ, one Spirit of grace bestowed upon us 4 . Just as truly, he solemnly avers, as God liveth, as Christ liveth, as the Holy Ghost liveth, he that keepeth these commandments with humility and courage will be numbered among the elect 5 . St. Clement follows rather the doctrine of St. Paul. St. Ignatius of Antioch, adhering rather to the doctrine of St. John, expresses himself more clearly. The faithful , writes he, should be subject to their bishops, as Christ, according to the flesh, is subject to his Father, and the Apostles to Christ, to the Father, and to the Spirit 6 . And in another epistle, he says that the faithful should be the stones of the temple of the Father, raised aloft by the instru- ment of Christ which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope 7 . 1. Ad Cor., xxvm, 4, 5. 2. Ad Cor., XLIX, 6. 3. Ad Cor., Mil, 1; XLV, 2. 4. Ad Cor., XLVI, 6. 5. Ad Cor., LVIII, 2 : Zrj fa.fi 6 6so<; xai f, 6 xuptoi; 'I^ffou; ^KITO; xai TO diyiov Under the Old Law oaths were taken in the name of Yahuueh, cf. I Kings, xiv, 39; xx, 3; xxvr, 16; xxix, 6. St. Clement swears in the name of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, showing thereby that he regards these three Persons as occupying the same rank. 6. Ad Magn., mi, 2. 7. AdEph., ix, 1. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 47 In the prayer which he offered to God before his mar- tyrdom, St. Polycarp has in mind a doctrine identically the same as that held by St. Ignatius : In all things (0 God the Father), I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, through Jesus Christ, the eternal and heavenly Pontiff, the beloved Son, to whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be glory now and forever 1 . This Trinitarian doxology, destined to become so famous in the Church, makes here its appearance for the first time; further on it is repeated by the narrator, and this time in better form : Fare ye well, brethren ; says he, and walk ye according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost 2 . Thus it was the martyrs died : in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; thus, too, according to the Didache, were the catechumens baptized : in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 3 . This testimony of the Fathers shows us that from the be- ginning there was firm faith in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity*. The Apologetic Fathers 5 . The faith of the Apologists \. Martyr. Sancli Polyc., xin, 3. 2. Martyr. Sancti Polyc., xxn. 3. Didache, VH, 1. 4. It is true that Hernias exposes a different doctrine. He would say that it was the Holy Ghost that was made flesh to constitute the Son of God ; and this he gets from that passage in St. Luke (HI, 21-22) which narrates the baptism of Jesus and says that the Holy Spirit came upon the Savior, while a voice from heaven said : Thou art my beloved Son. Cf. Simil. V", v, 2; vi, 5-7. On this point, see L. DLCHESM:, The early history of the Church, vol. I, pp. 170-171. J. TIXERONT, History of Dogma, I, pp. 114-116. We should not, however, forget that these words of Hennas are rather an attempt to explain the dogma of the Trinity rather than a statement of the dogma itself. Though Hermas, as a philosopher, might indulge in unacceptable speculations on the divine mys- tery, as a Christian, he must confess the mystery with as great precision as the other Apostolic Fathers. 5. In the second century the Jews assailed the Christians just as they did 48 GOD. is not less firm than that of the Apostolic Fathers. Alongside of the Supreme God, writes St. Justin, there is another not an angel, but God 1 . This is the Son engendered by the Father before all creatures 2 . Being truly the Son of God, he is distinct from God the Father not only in name, as a ray of light is distinct from the sun, but numerically 3 . Yet, the two are always in perfect accord 4 . There is also in God a third One, the Holy Ghost, who is the author of the prophe- cies 5 . Hence, according to this famous apologist, there is only one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And this is the faith of the Church; for, as he tells us, the neophytes are baptized in the name of God, the Father and Master of all things, and of Jesus Christ, our Savior, and of the Holy Ghost 6 . Likewise in the ceremony of the Eucharist, he that presides praises and glorifies the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". And finally he says again : In all the offerings we make, we bless the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Ghost 8 . After St. Justin, his disciple Tatian taught the same doc- trine. First of all, he says, the Father engenders a Son, not by division but distribution ; for that which is divided is de- the Pagans; and the Pagans likewise persecuted the Christians. But usually neither Pagan nor Jew could give a good reason for this attitude. In this atmos- phere of hatred and blood, the apologies were written defensive and offensive arms which did not only protect the breastworks of the Christians, but sallied forth and attacked the enemy on their own grounds. Among the Apologists of the second century, we shall cite SI. Justin (150-155), his disciple Tatian (163-167), Athenagoras (176-180), and St. Theophilus of Anlioch (180). 1. Dial., cxxvi ; cxxvui. 2. Dial., XLVIII; LVI; LXI. 3. Dial., cxxvui. 4. Dial., LVI, 11 : "Etepo; iref. V, xii, 2. IV, xx, 3. I, x, 1. 10. Haer., 1. Ill, xvii, 2; xxiv, i. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 51 Incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Ghost, who, through the prophets, announced the designs of God, the coming, the virginal birth, the passion, the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh, of Christ, our beloved Lord, and his coming from on high in the glory of his Father to restore all things, to bring again to life the flesh of man, in order that, before Jesus Christ, our Lord, our God, our Savior, and our King, according to the decree of the invisible Father, every knee should bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess him, and that he should pronounce upon all a just judgment : that the souls of the wicked, the rebellious angels and those that fell into apostasy, and impious and unjust men, criminals and blasphemers should be sent into ever- lasting fire ; and that the just, the saints, those who keep the commandments and persevere in charity, whether from the beginning or from the time of their repentance, should receive the gift of life, of incorruptibility, and of eternal glory 1 . Patripassianism at Rome, in the Beginning of the Third Century. At the beginning of the third century, a certain number of Christian doctors, imbued with the idea that too great a distinction was being set up between the Father and the Son, and that thus the Divinity of Christ was endangered, taught a doctrine diametrically opposite to that already stated. In Rome, the leader of the party, Sabellius, was ex- tremely radical. He taught that the Word has no separate existence that this is another name for the Father. And it was the Father, consequently, who was born of Mary and who suffered . Hence the name Patripassianism given to this theorv 2 . 1. Haer., 1. I, \, 1. 2. Tertullian claims that it was a certain Praxcas who first taught (his 52 GOD. The Struggle against Patripassianism; St. Hippolytus 1 and Tertullian 2 . Patripassianism was attacked at Rome by St. Hippolytus. God, he maintained, is one; but his essential unity allows of a mysterious economy, or cornmu- cation to three terms really distinct 3 . By virtue of this economy, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father; the Holy Ghost is the third term of this economy 4 . This economy is the very law of divine unity; so much so that divine unity is incomprehensible, unless we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 5 . Despite the active warfare of St. Hippolytus, Sabellia- nism continued to grow and to gain adherents. Pope Callistus therefore intervened and condemned Sabellius for heresy. Meanwhile Tertullian, too, was wielding his powerful arm against the new doctrine. There is in God, he said, but one substance; yet in this one substance, there is room doctrine at the beginning of the third century; and St. Hippolylus ascribes it to a certain Noetus, who, he claims, spread it at Smyrna between 180 and 200. It is enough for us to know that this theory was maintained by Sabellius at Rome about 220-230. Cf. L. DUCHESNE, The early history of the Church, vol. I, pp. 223-229. 1. St. Hippolytus, disciple of St. Irenaeus, died about 235. All his writings are in Greek, a language which ceased to be spoken at Rome shortly after his time. This accounts for the fact that the greater number of his works have fallen into oblivion ; but the learned researches of to-day are bringing them gradually to light. Cf. A. D'ALES, La Thiiologie de saint Hippolyte, Paris, 1906. 2. Tertullian was born at Carthage, about 160. He devoted himself parti- cularly to the study of law and was probably admitted to the bar. About the year 195, he was converted to Christianity and became one of its most ardent advocates. But, about the year 202, he publicly identified himself with the Monlanists. Once with them, he was not long in becoming the leader of a separate party, which lasted until the fifth century. Terlullian died in the middle of the third century. Cf. A. D'ALKS, La Theologie de Tertullien, Paris, 1905. 3. Adv. f(oet. t 8; P. G., X, 816. 4. St. Hippolytus uses the word nrpoa-wTrov to designate the Father and the Son, and he calls the Holy Ghost the third economy, Hpoawrca 8s 5-jo, ol Se TpiTTjv, TT)v x*P' v toy aytou HveO|AaTo;. 5. Adv. Noet., 15. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 53 for a trinity of persons'. Divine unity excludes division, but it does not exclude a distinction of persons 2 . After appealing to these principles and developing them, Ter- tullian makes the following grand profession of faith : We make between God and his Word the distinction of Father and Son, and we hold that they are two... and three with the Holy Ghost. Without the slightest doubt, they are not two Gois, or two Lords, even though the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God though each of them is God. Nor is God only one person, as would be the case had the Father himself come into the world; but he who has appeared to us and whom we confess to be God, is Christ; he is not the same as the Father, and the Holy Ghost is still another and a third person. But the name God, and Lord, is common to each; they are but one God 3 . Modalism in the East. Sabellianism developed also 1. Adv. Prax., 11 : Cuslodiatur (economise sacramenlum, qux unitatem in trinilatem disponit, tres dirigens, Patremet Filium et Spirilum Sanctum. Tres autem non slatu, sed gradu; nee substantial, sed forma; nee potestate, sed specie : unius autem substantix, et unius status, et unius potestalis ; quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formx et species, in nomine Palris et Filii et Spiritus Sancli deputantur. 2. Adv. Prax., ix : Ecce enim dico alium esue Patrem, et alium Filium, et alium Spiritum. Male accipit idioles quisque aut perversus hoc dictum, quasi diversitatem sonet, el ex diversitate separationem prolendat, Patrix et Filii et Spirilus. Necessitate autem hoc dico, cum eumdem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum conlendunl, adversus ccconomiam monarchix adnlantes, non tame n diversifale alium Filium a Patre, sed dislribulione ; nee divisione alium, sed distinctione, quia non sit idem Pater et Filius, vel modulo alius ab alio. Pater enim tola subslantia est : Filius vero derivalio totius el portio... Sic et Pater alius a Filio, dum Filio major; dum alius qui general, alius qui generatur; dum alius qui miltil, alius qui miltilur ; dum alius qui facit, alius per quern fit. Bene quod et Mominus usus hoc verbo in persona Paraclcli, non divisionem signiftcavit, sed disposilionem : Rogabo enim, inquit Joan., xiv, 16, Patrem, et alium advocatum millet vobis, Spi- rilum veritatis. 3. Adv. Prax., im. 54 GOD in the East, the doctrine of Sabellins thus returning to the land of its birth, where no doubt it always had some supporters. But then it took on a more philosophical form, which is properly called modalism. The dogma of three Persons in one God was interpreted as nothing but a series of manifestations, or transitory irradiations, of but one and the same divine substance, in the transitory modes of the same substance. The Modalists held that there is but one God; but that this God, having manifested himself to men chiefly in three ways, took three corresponding names. In the Old Testament, he manifested himself as Lawgiver; hence, God the Father. In the New Testament, he mani- fested himself in human form as our Redeemer; hence, God the Son. And the Holy Ghost designates God in his mani- festation as the Sancfifier of souls. The Struggle against Modalism; Origen 1 and St. Denis of Alexandria 2 . Origen combated Modalism in several of his writings. There are some, said he, who hold that the Father and the Son are but different modalities of one 1. Origen was born of Christian parents in the year 185 or 186, probably at Alexandria. A disciple of Clement of Alexandria, al the age of eighteen, he succeeded his master as director of the catechetical school, where he displayed great activity. While on a journey to Caesarea, he was ordained priest unknown to the bishop of Alexandria. On his return he was declared degraded from his position in the school and from the priesthood. He then took up his residence at Caesarea, where he established a school of theology, which became quite nourishing. One of the most famous disciples of this new school was St. Gre- gory, surnamed Thaumaturgus. Origen died in the year 254 or 255, as a result of the torments he underwent during the persecution of Decius. 2. St. Denis of Alexandria was born, probably at Alexandria, about the year 200. In this city, he followed Oiigen's teaching; and in the year 231 or 232, be succeeded Heracles as director of the catechetical school. Heracles was the successor of Origen in this position, but he held his place but a few months, and St. Denis remained at the head of the Alexandrian school for more than sixteen years. His teaching won for him the name of Great. Though he was made bishop of Alexandria, he still continued his teaching. He died at the time of the first synod of Alexandria, in the year 264 or 265. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 55 and the same substance. But they are mistaken; the Father and the Son have, it is true, the same substance, but they are numerically distinct 1 . He likewise affirms that the Holy Ghost is distinct from both Father and Son 2 . St. Denis of Alexandria went even further in bis attack upon the new doctrine. To many it seemed that in his zeal he exaggerated the distinction between the Father and the Son to such an extent as to subordinate the Son to the Father in a way that was incompatible with the absolute divinity of the Son. When called upon by Pope St. Denis to explain, he did so in a letter in which he showed that the heterodox tendencies imputed to him were to be found only in certain exaggerated formulas which he had used in his refutation of the heretics. In a memoir drawn up in justification of St. Denis of Alexandria, St. Athanasius says that St. Denis spoke economically , -/.aT 7 otxovc;j.(av, after the manner of the Apostles, insisting emphatically upon the truth which he wished to inculcate 3 . Paul of Samosata and the Synod of Antioch. So far the Sabellians had at heart the defense of the divinity of Christ, and they identified him with the Father in order the better to show that, together with the Father, he was but one God. Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, realized that Christ could not be God unless he was of one and the same personal substance with God, consubstantial (op-oouaio?) with God 4 . As this seemed impossible to him, he held 1. In Joan., t. X, 21 ; P. G., XIV, 376. 2. In Joan., t. II, 6. 3. De Sent. Dion., 6-12; P. G., XXV, 488-497. 4. According to Ihe theology of Paul of Samosata, Christ could not be God unless he be but one and the same person, or substance (he considered these two terms as absolutely synonymous) with God. Now, this cannot be. There- fore, be concluded, Christ is not God. According to the system of the bishop of Anlior.ii. the word 6[Aooyuio; had a modalist meaning. Hence it was that the Fathers of the council of Antioch rejected the term 6|toou which is nothing but a simple attribute without personality (avuTroaTa-rc;). We say that this Logos was engendered by the Father, and that he is the Son of God; but this is just a way we have of speaking. It is the Logos, however, that spoke and acted through the prophets, and above all in Jesus, the Son of Mary. Chosen by God in a very special manner to be the agent of his Logos, Jesus was possessed of an eminently supernatural character. By his sufferings he redeemed the world; and as a recompense God gave him a name which is above all other names, made him judge of the living and the dead, and clothed him with a dignity wholly divine, so in one sense we are justified in calling him God 2 . Firmilian, bishop of Cappadocia, and Gregory of Caesarea, who was soon to be called Gregory Thaumaturgus together with several other bishops, went to Antioch with the intention of putting an end to the heresy. Denis of Alexandria was also asked to come; but owing to his extreme old age, he was unable to attend, so he contented himself with writing a letter to the Church at Antioch. The first synod held at Antioch amounted to nothing. Paul, subtle and dis- tinguished quibbler as he was, succeeded in evading con- demnation. But in another synod, held in 267 or 268, he was convicted of heresy, deposed and excommunicated. Upon his refusing to submit, the emperor Aurelian intervened and enforced the sentence of the council. 1. Paul of Sarnosata's views on God and Christ are very nearly like the views of Unitarian Protestants. 2. EPIPHAN., Haer., LXV, 1-7; P. G., XLII, 13-24. EUSEB., Hist, eccl., 1. VII, XXVH, 2; xxx, 11. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 57 St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Chosen disciple of Origen at Caesarea, adversary of Sabellianism and of the doctrines of Paul of Samosata, and bishop of Neo-Caesarea, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus was always looked upon by the Greeks as the highest authority at the end of the third century. There is extant of his, a remarkable exposition of Trinitarian faith, drawn up about the year 265 : One God, Father of the living Logos, of Wisdom sub- sistent, of Power, of the Impress of the eternal : the Perfect engendering the Perfect ; the Father of the only Son. One Lord, one from a single one, God of God : the Impress and the Image of the Divinity : the efficacious Word, the Wisdom which embraces the disposition of all things, the efficient cause of all Creation : the true Son of the true Father, invisible of the invisible, incorruptible of the incor- ruptible, immortal of the immortal, eternal of the eternal. And one Holy Ghost, receiving his existence from God, and manifested by the Son : perfect Image of the perfect Son, Life which is the cause of life, the source of holiness, holiness producing sanctification : in whom is revealed God the Fa- ther, who is above all things and in all things, and the Son, through whom are all things. A perfect Trinity, divisible or separable neither in glory, nor in eternity, nor in royalty. There is nothing in the Trinity, that is created or servile, nothing adventitious, nothing which did not exist from the first, but came only afterwards. Never, therefore, was the Son wanting to the Father, or the Holy Ghost to the Son : but always the same Trinity, immutable and inalterable 1 . Modalism and Arianism at the Beginning of the Fourth Century. Arius was born at Alexandria about 256. Having I. Quoted in GREG. NYSS., De Vila S. Greg, thaum., P. C., XLVI, 910. 58 GOD. become a priest, he was appointed in 313 by bishop Alexan- der to the church at Baucalis. Alexander was wont to assemble the priests of his church, for the purpose of giving- them doctrinal and disciplinary instructions. In those days of religious ferment, this was a most salutary measure. But one day, after the bishop had exposed the dogma of the Trinity, Arius thought he saw Sabellian tendencies in the bishop's teaching; and accor- dingly he told him of this in public. The bishop explained, but Arius was not convinced. He was obstinate in his views; he held that the Son was so distinct from the Father as to be inferior to him in substance, that the Son was not eternal, but only the first creature of the Father. Whatever did not agree with his teachings, Arius stigmatized as Sabel- lian. This was the origin of the heresy that was to bear the name of Arius. From this time on, the Sabellian and the Modalist con- troversies became of minor importance. All effort was con- centrated upon showing that the Son is God absolutely, as well as the Father. The terms Sabellianism and Modalism were no longer used except by the Arians, who so designated the doctrines of those who opposed them. Let us remark, however, that the Fathers of the council of Nicaeain condemning Arianism, framed their definition of the dogma of the Trinity so as to reach the Sabellians as well. The very foundation of the symbol which they drew up, which we shall examine later, is the existence of one God in three Persons. The term Person was not used, but the Fathers defined very clearly what they meant when they said that in God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are really distinct. IV. THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS. St. Thomas' Precursors. St. Thomas follows directly in the footsteps of St. Augustine, whose views he adopts. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 59 Of these, however, he makes a synthesis, and expresses them with greater precision and greater depth. When St. Augustine came upon the field, the great struggle with Arianism was at an end. The illustrious bishop of Hippo was less concerned about fighting adversaries than searching into the mystery. In his exposition *, he starts with the divine essence, one, simple, and indivisible, and shows how this essence is expanded not by superiority of nature, nor priority of time, but merely in the order of origin into three persons who are really distinct. But what is the nature of these three persons who though really distinct, do not destroy indivisible unity or divine simplicity? They are relations not to be confounded with substance, since they are nothing absolute, yet they cannot be called acci- dents, since they are essential to the divine nature and are eternal and necessary, like this nature. lu expounding the Trinity, St. Augustine looks to the world about him for images and analogies. There is nothing surprising about this ; for, since all things were created by the Trinity, is it not natural that these things should bear the impress of the Trinity upon them? The human soul, the most perfect creation after the angels, bears striking evidence of its divine origin. So, too, the immanent operations of our intellect and of our will, which make up our intellectual life, are pressed into service as symbols of the divine life. The Son is Son by the very fact that he is the Word, which proceeds from the intellect of the Father this is truly generation. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the conjoint love of the Father and the Son. In this doctrine, the principal elements of the synthe- sis of St. Thomas are recognizable. We may add that the Trinitarian theology of St. Augustine, before being studied by St. Thomas, was used by the Master of the Sentences and by 1. De Trinit., I V-XV. 60 GOD. Albert the Great. The latter was the incomparable master of the Angel of the School, who for a long time closely adhered to the teaching of the former. Principles of the Thomistic Synthesis. St. Thomas starts with the revealed truth that there are two processions in God. We learn from the Sacred Books that, from all eternity, God the Father begets a Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. These proces- sions, immanent in God, St. Thomas studies by comparison with the principal operations of our intellectual life, viz., thought and love. The procession of the Son he compares to thought; that of the Holy Ghost, to love l . From the fact of the divine processions, St. Thomas rea- sons to the existence of real relations 2 . In fact, each procession in God constitutes two actual relations. The procession of the Word by the act of thought-generation, establishes an active relation between the Father and the Son, and a passive relation between the Son and the Father. The procession of the Holy Ghost by the joint love of the Father and the Son, sets up an active relation of the Father and Son with the Holy Ghost, and a passive relation of the Holy Ghost with the persons of Father and Son. Hence, the two processions in God are the bases of four real relations : paternity and filiation, and active and passive spiration 3 . 1. Sum. theol., I", q. xxvii, a. 1 and 2; q. xxxvn, a. 1 and 2. We shall farther on return to St. Thomas' doctrine on the nature of the divine proces- sions. 2. Relation in general is defined as the being such and such with regard or respect to some other thing : Respectus alicujus ad aliquid, ut ad lerminum. The relations which we study here are all based on an action emanating from a principle and tending to a term only virtually distinct from the substance of the principle. They consist either in an active relation between the principle and the term, or in a passive relation between the term and the principle. 3. Sum. theol., I*, q. xxvm, a. 4 : Secundum quamlibet autem pro- cessionem oportet duas accipere relationes oppositas, quorum una sit pro- cedentis a principle, et alia ipsius principii. Processio autem Verbi dicitur THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 61 In creatures, real relations, whether considered as to their foundations or as to the related beings themselves, are all accidents. This cannot be with God, for in Him there are no accidents. If we examine these real relations as to their foundations, we find that they are one with the divine substance ; and if we look at their relative being, we find that they are only virtually distinct from the divine sub- stance *. Though the real relations in God, be only virtually distinct from the substance, those relations which are opposed the one to another are really distinct from one another 2 . Viewed concretely, person is a rational substance so individualized as to be distinct from all other substances, and hence incommunicable. Viewed abstractly, person, or personality, is that determination which individualizes ra- tional substance to such an extent as to make it completely generatio secundum propriam rationem qua compelit rebus viventibus. Relatio autem principii generationis in viventibus perfectis dicitur paterni- las ; relatio vero procedentis a prindpio dicitur filiatio. Processio vero amoris non habet nomen proprium, wide neque relationes qux secundum ipsam accipiuntur. Sed vocatur relatio principii hujus prccessionis spiratio [seu spiralio activa]; relatio aulem procedentis processio [sen spiratio passira], \. Sum. theol., 1", q. xxvm, a. 2 : Quicquid autem in rebus creatis habet esse accidenlalc, secundum quod transfertur in Deum, habet esse sub- stantiate : niliil enim est in Deo ut accidens in subjecto ; sed quicquid est in Deo, est ejus essenlia. Sic igilur ex ea parte qua relatio in rebus creatis habet esse accidentale in subjecto, relatio realiter existens in Deo habet esse cssenlix diviiix, idem omnino ei exislens. In hoc vero quod ad aliquid dici- tur, non siynificalur aliqua habiludo ad essentiam sed magis ad suum oppositum. El sic manifestum est quod relatio realiter exislens in Deo est idem essentix secundum rent, et non differt nisi secundum inlelligentix rationem, proul in relatione importatur respeclus ad suum opposilum, qui non importatur in nomine essentix. Patet ergo quod in Deo non est aliud esse relalionis el essentix, sed unum et idem. 2. Ibid., a. 3 : Exeo quod aliquid alicui atlribuilur, oportet quod allri- buanlur ei omnia qux sunl de ralione illius. Sicut cuicumque attribuilur homo, oportet quod altribuatur et esse rationale. De rations aulem rela- tionis est respeclus unius ad allerum, secundum quern aliquid alteri oppo- nitur relative. Cum igitur in Deo realiter sit relalio, oportet quod realiter sit ibi opposilio. fielativa autem oppositio in sui ratione includit distinc- tionem. Unde oportet quod in Deo sit realis dislinclio, non quidem secun- C2 GOD. distinct from all other substances, and hence incom- municable 1 . Now, in the Godhead, only the relations of origin are really distinguishing : Distinctio in divinis non fit nisi per relationem originis 2 . Hence it must be these relations of origin that constitute persons in the Godhead. But we have admitted four real relations in the God- head. Are there also four persons? No; for, in order to constitute a person, a real relation must be distinct from the other relations; and it cannot be distinct from them unless it be opposed to them. Now. of the four relations, active spiration is indeed opposed to passive spiration, and that is enough to make it a real relation; but it is common to both Father and Son, and honce, the dislinction required to con- stitute a person is not realized. So, in the Godhead, there are only three persons, neither more nor less 3 . dum rem absolufam, qux est essentia, in qua est summa unitas, et simpli- cilaf, sed secundum rem relativam. 1. Cf. supra, pp. 9-10. 2. Sum. theol., I", q. xxix, a 4. 3. Sum. theol., I*, q. ixx, a. 2 : Plures person* sunt plures relationes subsistentes ab invicem realiter distinctae. Realis autem distinctio inter relationes divinas non est nisi ratione oppositionis relativae. Ergo oportet duas relationes opposilas ad duas personas pertinere. Si quae autem re- lationes opposite non sunt, ad eamdem personam necesse est eas perti- nere. Paternitas ergo, et filiatio, cum sint oppositae relaliones, ad duas personas ex necessitate pertinent. Paternilas igitur subsistens est persona Palris, et filiatio subsislens est persona Filii. Alise autem dux relationes ad neutram harum oppositionem habent, sed sibi invicem opponuntur. Impossibile est igitur quod ambx uni personx convenient. Oportet ergo quod vel el una earum conveniat utrique dictarum personarum, out quod una uni, et alia alii. Non autem potest esse quod processio conveniat Pa- tri, et Filio, vel alteri eorum : quia sic sequeretur quod processio intellec- tus prodiret ex processione amoris, secundum quam accipitur spiralio et processio, si persona generans et genita procederent a spirante : quod est impossibile. Relinquitur ergo quod spiratio conveniat et persons Patris et persons Filii, ulpote nullam habens oppositionem relativam nee ad pater- nitatem, nee ad filiationem : et per consequens oporletquod conveniat pro- cessio alteri personx, qux dicitur persona Spiritus Sancti, qua? per modum amoris procedit. Relinquitur ergo tantum Ires personas esse in divinis, scilicet Patrem, el Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 63 Like the relations of origin, the divine persons are really distinct from one another, though they are identical with one and the same substance ; or, to put it more exactly, though they are only virtually distinct from one and the same substance 1 . The Thomistic Synthesis. Personality is that which distinguishes one rational substance from another in such a way that it renders it incommunicable. What, then, con- stitutes personality in God? Owing to its infinite perfection and simplicity, there can be in the Godhead no other prin- ciple of distinction than that constituted by the relations of origin. The divine persons are what constitutes the dis- tinction between these relations. How many relations are there in God? The Father begets the Son from all eter- nity; and from the Father, in as much as he begets the Son, proceeds the Holy Ghost. Hence, there are only three relations of origin distinct from one another, viz., pater- nity, by which the Father begets the Son; filiation, by which the Son is begotten by the Father; and spiration, by which the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through His begetting a Son. These relations are such that none can exist without the other two. Hence, when you say Father, you include Father engendering the Son; and, as a result of that act, producing the Holy Ghost. These relations are eternal and constitute the very life of God. There are, then, three persons in God, and these are really distinct, since they express three really distinct relations of origin. The divine relations, however, are not like human re- lations, which are but accidents inhering in the substance and really distinct from it. Owing to the infinite simplic- ity and perfection of the divine reality, there can be no 1. On the different points that hare been treated of in this lesson, see the remarkable Commentary of BIOM'KNSICRE, In /" Pattern Sum. tficol., q. xxvm pp. 131-195. 64 GOD. such thing as substance and accidents; and of course there can, for a greater reason, be no distinction between sub- stance and accident. God is substance according to his en- tire being. Hence the relations of paternity, filiation, and spiration which, in God, form the constituent elements of person are substantial relations which can be only virtually distinct from the divine substance. Such being the case, we can readily admit that there are three persons in God, without endangering the divine unity; but to see how these three persons, only virtually distinct from the divine substance, can be really distinct from one another, is difficult. St. Thomas here observes that it is their virtual distinction from the divine substance that makes this real distinction between the three persons possible 1 . It were better, perhaps, to fall back, in such a strait, upon the analogical character of our concepts of God and of all the terms we use in speaking of Him. As a matter of fact, that is the last word that can be said on the subject. The dogma of the Blessed Trinity eventually comes to the mere statement of this ineffable mystery. The Father begets a Son, and in this generation communicates to him his whole substance; and the Father and the Son in turn give their entire substance to the Holy Ghost. But, as the Son receives all the substance of the Father, so he renders again to the Father all this substance ; and the Holy Ghost, receiv- ing all the substance of both Father and Son, likewise 1. Sum. theol., I a , q. xxvin, a. 3, ad / um : Quaccumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem, in his qua; sunt idem re et ratione, sicut tunica et indumentum; non autem in his quse differunt ratione. Unde, licet actio sit idem motui, similiter et passio ; non tamen sequitur quod actio et passio sint idem : quia in aclione importatur respectus, ut a quo est molus in mobili, in passione ve.ro, ut qui est ab alio. Et similiter licet paternitas sit idem secundum rem cum essenlia divina, et similiter filiatio; tamen hsec duo in suis propriis rationibus important oppositos respectus. Unde distinguuntur ab invicem. Cf. BUONPENSIKRE, loc. laud., a. 2). THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 65 renders again to them the substance which he receives. It is in this mutual communication of life that we see the trinity of persons in the Godhead. The person of the Father consists in the giving of his divine substance ; that of the Son in receiving this divine substance from his Father ; and the person of the Holy Ghost in receiving this substance from both Father and Son. Thus, the divine substance is possessed equally by all three persons from all eternity 1 . ARTICLE II The Son is God. Doctrine of the Church. We believe that the person of the Son, as well as that of the Holy Ghost, is absolutely God. 1. The Thomislic synthesis starts with the unity of the divine substance and ascends to the Trinity of persons through the processions. The reason for saying that it is the relations of origin that constitute the divine persons, is that otherwise the unity of the divine substance would be at stake, and this must be safeguarded at any cost. Parallel to this synthesis, which, as we have said, proceeds from the prin- ciples of St. Augustine, another system, was elaborated which, instead of start- ing from the unity of the divine substance, first took up the persons. It pro- ceeds rather from the theology of the Greek Fathers. Its principal expounders were Richard of Saint Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure. Richard of Saint Victor established his whole system on these words of St. John : God is Love . Now, love demands a plurality of persons in God. There is, then, in God He that loves, and He whom God judges worthy of His love Condignus, upon whom he has bestowed supreme love and who returns that supreme love. And, besides, there is the common Friend Con- dilectus. In mutual love, such as is manifested among men, especially when this love is ardent, there is nothing rarer, yet nothing more beautiful, than the desire to have another besides ourselves, who is loved like us by the same one that loves us, and loves us supremely. So, the perfection and the consum- mation of the love that exists between the two persons, requires an associate who will share in their mutual love. According to this view, the Holy Ghost is the fruit required by the reciprocal love that reigns between the Father and the Son. See the complete exposition of this system in Th. de RECKON, op. cit., Etude X. T. i. 5 66 GOD. Evidently this doctrine can be proved only from texts having 1 reference to the person of the Son of God and estab- lishing the fact that this person is God. But the texts refer almost exclusively, not to the person of the Son, considered in itself, but to the person of the Son made man, i.e., Christ. The explanation is to be found in the fact that the person of the Son was hardly manifested in any other way than by the revelation of the Son of God made man. Since such is the case, it goes without saying that we shall be obliged to adapt ourselves to the circumstances and to make no distinction between the Son of God, engendered by his Father from all eternity, and the Son of God made man in 1he womb of the Blessed ^ 7 irgin, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Him we believe to be God absolutely. We do not hold that he is God in this sense, that there is between him and God the Father some transcendental and unique relation of origin and holiness; for if this were so, he would be im- properly styled God, and would be only deified to whatever extent a simple creature can be he would be only divine. But we believe and profess that the only Son of God the Father is God, both before and since the Incarnation, just as the Father is, because the Father begot him from all eter- nity by the communication of His entire substance, because he possesses that substance just as the Father possesses it, and because he and the Father live identically the same divine life. Such is the doctrine defined by the council of Nicea 1 , and promulgated again by the great Christological councils of Constantinople 2 , Ephesus 3 , and Chalcedon 4 . It holds the place of paramount importance in the symbols of Nicea and 1. DEKZ., 54. 2. DENZ., 86. 3. DENZ., 113-124. 4. DENZ., 148. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 67 Constantinople 1 , and in that of St. Athanasius 2 ; and is the fundamental dog-ma of the Catholic Church. We shall trace the origin of this dogma in the Holy Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Fathers. 1 THE DIVINITY OF THE SOX ACCORDING TO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. Jesus the Messias. During the second half of the last century B. C., and at the beginning of the new era, the Messianic hope fired the enthusiasm of men to the highest pitch 3 . Physical and social upheavals were looked for : the 1. DENZ., 86. 2. DENZ., 39-40. 3. Three books mostly have preserved for us the record of the Messianic hopes during the years preceding the coming of our Lord. These are the Book of Henoch, ch. xc, 37-38; the Psalter of Solomon, xvn-xvm, cf. SWKTE, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. Ill ; the Sibylline Books, 1. Ill, cf. ALEXANDRIA Oracula sibyllina, Paris, 1845-1856. The Book of Henoch is a collection of apocalyptic tracts the dates of which run from the years 170 to 64 B. C. The original texts, which no doubt was in Hebrew, is lost; but we have some very early, and more or less faith- ful, versions of them in Latin, Ethiopic, and Greek. The Psalms of Solomon, originally in Hebrew, have come down to us only in the Greek version. It is thought that they were written by a Pharisee, between the years 70 and 40 B. C. The Sibylline Books contain oracles supposed to have come from the mouth of the Pagan Sibyll, though in reality they were written by a number of authors, some of whom were Pagans, some Jews, and others Christians. The composi- tion is all in Greek hexameters. The third book gives the Jewish portion of the work. The first section, verses 1-92, dates from the second half of the last century B. C.; the second section, verses 97-118, is older and is usually placed about the year 140 B. C. Among the writings of the first century which may be helpful in studying the question of the Messianic Hope, it may be well to mention particularly the Assumption of Moses, composed in Hebrew or Aramaic (4 B. C. 6 or 7 A. D.), of which we have only a Latin version ; the Book of Jubilees, written in He- brew, about the same period, of which we have an Elhiopic and a Latin ver- sion ; the Apocalypse of Baruch, composed in Hebrew (50-90 A. D.), which is preserved in Syriac; The Apocalypse of Esdras, known as the Fourth Book of Ksdras, composed either in Hebrew or in Greek, by a Jewish author (81-96 A. D.), and preserved only in various versions ; the Latin version figures as appen- 68 GOD. pangs, as it were, in bringing forth the new order of things. The Messianic king 1 was to manifest himself of a sudden ; either that having remained hidden for a number of years 2 he would present himself suddenly, or that he w r as to come suddenly on the clouds 3 . Then would he judge between the people of Israel and their oppressors ; and among the people, between the good and the wicked. The wicked were to be set apart and were to un- dergo dire punishment. Then was to be inaugurated the Messianic Kingdom, which w r as called either the Kingdom of God, because it \vas to be a new Theocracy, far superior to the old and governed by the Messias in the name of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven the name Heaven was often used at that time instead of the name of God ; and this king- dom was to come from heaven where its head was to reign, and men were to come into the full realization of this king- dom only after death in this earthly habitation, when they would enter into an ideal place called heaven. The kingdom of God was to extend over the whole earth, and the Gentiles were to form part of it; but the kingdom was to belong in dix in our Vulgate; the Eighteen Benedictions, or the Prayer of the Jews, 70-100 A. D. ; the Targoumim, an Aramean version paraphrased from the orig- inal Hebrew, the origin and importance of which were spoken of above, p. 26. 1. The term Messias, in Hebrew Mashiah, and in Aramean Meshlsha means, strictly speaking, the Anointed, or Sacred (xpurio;, Chrislus, or Unclus). This title was for a long lime given to those who had been consecrated kings of Israel by holy unction. The expected Messias, the Anointed of the Lord par excellence, was looked upon by the Jews as a king, or ralher as the King, the founder and supreme ruler of the new kingdom, the final and incomparably glo- rious king, in a word, as the Messias- King. Cf. M. LI:PIN, Christ and the Gospel. 2. After consulting the Princes of the priests and the Scribes of the people, Herod tells the Magi that the Messias is to be born at Bethlehem. Cf. MATT., 11, 2-6. 3. Cf. HEIVOCH, XLVI, LXII. IV ESDR., xm, 3. These writings evidently use DANIEL, vn, 13. There are, then, two traditions concerning the manner of the Messianic coming. This remark, especially pertinent in the study of the Messianic Kingdom, is otherwise also very important. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 69 a special manner to the children of Abraham. Material prosperity was to be unbounded; but this was to be above all the Kingdom of Holiness, of the Life of God in the hearts of men. For the Mcssias-King was to be at the same time the great Prophet. Himself free from all sin, he was to lead men in the way of justice and of the fear of the Lord 1 . 1. Psalter of Solomon, xvn, 21-34 : a Look down, Lord, and make their King, the Son of David, arise unto them, At the time that thou hast fixed, O God, to rule over thy servant Israel, And gird him with strength, that he may reduce the unjust princes, That he may purify Jerusalem of the peoples that throng and destroy her. Wise and just, let him drive out the sinners from thy inheritance, Let him break the insolence of the sinners as a potter's vase; With a rod of iron let him break to pieces all their confidence ; Let him destroy by a word from his mouth all the nations that are immoral ; Let bis threats put the nations to flight before him, Let him convict the sinners by the thoughts of their (own) hearts. And he will unite again a holy people whom he will guide in justice, And he will judge the tribes of the sanctified people through the Lord his God, And he will not permit injustice to install itself again in their midst. And no man clever in doing evil will dwell amongst them, For he will hold them all as the children of their God. And he will distribute them in tribes over the land; Neither colonist nor stranger will dwell any more among them. He will judge the peoples and the nations in the wisdom of his justice. And he will have the peoples of the nations under his yoke to serve him, And he will give glory to the Lord before the eyes of the whole earth, And he will purify Jerusalem and make it holy again, as in the beginning. The nations will come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, And they will bring with them as presents the weaklings (of Jerusalem), And they will see the glory of the Lord with which God hath glorified him. And he (reigns) over them as a just king, instructed by God, ' And in his day there is no injustice among them, c For all .ire holy, and their king is the Christ of the Lord. For he will not set his hopes in horses, in knights, in bows, Nor will he have treasures of gold and silver heaped up for war, Nor place his hopes in numbers against the day of combat. The Lord himself is his King, the hope of him that is strong in the confidence of God. And he will forgive all nations that are in fear before him. 70 GOD. Moreover, be would surpass all other prophets, both for the extent of his revelations and the glory of his miracles. Not only was the Messias to be holy, but his person was to be truly superhuman. To him was attributed, before his apparition on earth, a preexistence in heaven. Chosen by God from all eternity to become the perfect King of Israel, he lived in communion with God a long time before the beginning of his mission 1 . But, while there was a tendency to regard the preexistent Messias as a person far above humanity, there still persisted the belief that he was a creature of God 2 , which avoided identifying him with God, or even with the Word of God 3 . What attitude will Jesus take amidst beliefs so inter- spersed with human considerations? From the beginning of our Savior's public life, John the Baptist represents him as the Messias entrusted with the fulfilment of the final judgment and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. This serves as a prelude to the manifestations made at the Baptism of Jesus. The Holy Ghost coming 'down upon him publicly consecrates him the Anointed one of God, the Christ, the Messias, as is proclaimed by the voice from heaven which says : This is my beloved Son 4 . And this solemn affirm- ation is followed by a sort of counter proof when Satan, sus- 1. HENOCII, cb. XLVIII, 3 : Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heavens were made, his name was named before the Lord of spirits ; ch. LXII, 7 : For before him is hidden the Son of man, and the Most High keeps hi ;n before his power and reveals him to the elect . The IV book of Esdras (ch. XH, 32; ch. xni, 24, 52), and the Targoumim of Jonathan on Zachary (ch. iv, 7), use terms no less significant. On Ihis subject, see the recent work of LACRANGE, Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, pp. 218-224. 2. It is precisely because the Jews refused to recognize the divinity of Jesus that they failed to see in him the Savior. As late as the time of St. Justin, Tryphon said, when acting as the interpreter of the Jewish people, that the expected Messias was to be only a man descended from man : IlavTe; r t \>.zii; -rbv xpiarbv 4v9pwnov ejj avOpwTtwv rcpo;5oxa>(iev yevTjffecrOat . Dialogue with Tryphon, XLIX. 3. Cfr. J. LEBRETON, La Revelation du Fits de Dleu, Etudes reliyieuses, March 1908. Les Origines du dogme de la Trinite, p. 152. 4. MAT., in, 17. LUKE, in, 21-22. THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. 71 peeling that Jesus is the Messias, asks him to give the charac- teristic signs; and Jesus rebukes him, but without declining the title of Messias 1 . What Jesus refused Satan, he granted the people. The promised Messias was to work wonders. Jesus multiplies his miracles throughout his ministry. In the meantime Jesus makes some important decla- rations. In the Jewish mind the Kingdom was to appear with the Messias. Jesus declares that the Kingdom is come with Him 2 . One day Jesus and his disciples were at Caesarea, and he asks them : Whom do men say that I am? And Peter answers, according to St. Matthew 3 , Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ; and according to St. Mark 4 : Thou art Christ ; and according to St. Luke 5 : Thou art the Christ of God . And Jesus gives Peter his approval. Peter's confession and the approval of Jesus positively raise the veil. From this day on, the allusions of the Savior become more and more frequent. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem reveals his Messianic dignity. And finally, before the High-priest, Jesus affirms that he is the Christ, the Son of God ; and he adds these words : Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven 6 . From all these testimonies we must conclude that Jesus thought himself to be the Messias and that he was willing to be held as such 7 . But if we confine ourselves to the sole title of Messias which Jesus received or attributed to himself, we are not justified in saying that he held himself up as a 1. MAX., iv, 1-12. LUKE, iv, 1-13. 'I. MAT., xi, 3-5; xu, 28; LUKE, vu, 19-21; II, 20; XVII, 20-21. 3. MAT., xvi, 16. 4. MARK, viu, 29. 5. I.IKI, ix, 20. G. MAT., xxvi, 64. MARK, xiv, 62. LUKE, xxii, 68-69. 7. Ilarnack is righlly astounded to find that a scholar such as Wcllhausen could doubt that Jesus designated himself as the Mes&ias. As lor him, he believes that in order to arrive at such a conclusion one would have to disjoin the Gospel narrative. Cf. What is Christianity, Lecture 8, p. 149. 7:> GOD. Messias superior to the one expected by his contemporaries. The name Son of man already had a higher import. Jesus, the Son of Man. The expression Son of Man is often used in the Old Testament to mean simply man 1 . Ezechiel always uses it to designate the prophet who had to make known the designs of God -. It is an humble appellation used to mark the disproportion existing- between God and the instrument of his revelations. Not so, however, in the book of Daniel 3 . There the