to in this paragraph, Richard of St. Victor deserves special mention, as developing the idea that in the very nature of love a demand is founded for a plurality of Divine Persons. Love requires an object other than self; and the only adequate object of a divine love is a second Divine Person, and the proper communion in this love requires a third Divine Person.

As already indicated, different views of the procession of the Holy Spirit formed the principal dogmatic wedge in this period between East and West, the former holding zealously to a procession from the Father alone, and the latter tenaciously maintaining a procession from both Father and Son. The doctrine of the West was authoritatively promulgated by the council of Florence in these terms: "Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio æternaliter est, et essentiam suam, suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque æternaliter tanquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit." Among the rational evidences which the Latin theologians brought to bear upon the case, those urged by Anselm and Aquinas were perhaps the most significant. Anselm argued that the Holy Spirit is from the essence or deity of the Father, and inasmuch as this same essence is in the Son, He is of necessity from the Son also. (De Process. Spir. Sanct., VII., VIII.) Thomas Aquinas maintained that the distinguishing of Son from Spirit is dependent upon the opposing relations (relationes opposita) between them, and that consequently, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well as from the Father, the ground of distinction between them falls away. (Sum. Theol., I. 36. 2.) This argument was regarded by Duns Scotus as far from conclusive.

CHAPTER III.

CREATION AND CREATURES.

SECTION I. CREATION OF THE WORLD.

THE Common scholastic doctrine was that the world had a positive beginning, and was created ex nihilo, though both Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus allowed that reason by itself is not competent to demonstrate that the world has not always existed. Says Aquinas: "Mundum non semper fuisse sola fide tenetur, et demonstrative probari non potest." (Sum. Theol., I. 46. 2.) Some of the scholastics, however, while conceding only a temporal subsistence to the world as sensible, were not far from assuming its real subsistence from eternity. This was the case with the more radical advocates of realism, who regarded the ideas eternally present to the divine mind as the essential basis of all concrete things. To the nominalists, on the other hand, these ideas appeared to be only empty abstractions. The motive for creation was commonly described as simply the goodness or benevolence of God. Erigena held an exceptional position in maintaining that apart from sin there would have been no occasion for a sensible multifold world. (De Divis. Nat., II. 10.) In his representation also of the mode of creation, Erigena deviated from the standard doctrine, and affiliated with the Neo-Platonic theory of emanations. As a stream, he says, flows from its source without intermission, "so the divine goodness, and essence, and life, and wisdom, and all things which are in the Fount of all, flow forth, first into the primordial causes, and impart existence

to these; then, through the primordial causes, they pass into their effects in an ineffable mode, flowing always through the superior to the inferior; and again through the most secret pores of nature by a most hidden course they return to their fountain." (De Divis. Nat., III. 4.) In harmony with this view, and in the same connection, he describes the visible world as the form of the formless, the measure of the immeasurable, the locality of that without place, the temporality of the timeless, the utterance of the unutterable, the circumscription of the uncircumscribed, the essence of the superessential, etc.; and in more undisguised terms he says that God subsists in all things as their essence, cum ergo audimus Deum omne facere, nil aliud debemus intelligere, quam Deum in omnibus esse, hoc est, essentiam omnium subsistere." (De Divis. Nat., I. 72.) The emanational theory was taught also by Eckhart, together with the idea that the goodness of God always required the world. (A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, II. § 284.) In the system of either, therefore, there was undoubtedly a pantheistic element. It does not follow, however, from this that they adopted all the tenets (including the ultimate absorption of all finite being in the Absolute) of a radical pantheism.

66

As respects the time employed in the work of creation, the theory was frequently stated that the essence or material of all things was created at once, while the shaping and arranging of the material was extended over a period of six days. (Hugo, De Sac., I. 5. 4; Lombard, Sent., II. 2, II. 12; Aquinas, Sum. Theol., I. 74. 2.) The literal character of the six days seems not to have been generally disputed; Anselm, however, suggests that it might be necessary to assume that they were different from our present days. (Cur Deus Homo, I. 18.)

SECTION II. - ANGELS.

In

ANGELS were commonly described as incorporeal. individual instances, however, a qualification was added. Thus John of Damascus says that they are incorporeal in comparison with material grossness, but not in an absolute sense, since God alone is absolutely incorporeal. (De Fide Orth., II. 12.) Peter Lombard notices that Augustine seems to have ascribed ethereal bodies to angels, but does not positively commit himself in favor of his view. (Sent., II. 8.) Bernard speaks of angels as corpore æthereos. (De Consid., V. 4.) The majority, however, spoke without qualification of the incorporeal nature of angels, and regarded the bodily form, in which they have appeared from time to time, as simply a means of manifestation assumed for the occasion.

While Hugo of St. Victor taught that it does not pertain to a created spirit, having no body, to be in place, though it is subject to time relations (De Sac., I. 3. 16), Peter Lombard evidently believed that the incorporeal character of an angel, or created spirit, does not exempt altogether either from space or time relations. (Sent., I. 37. 13.) Aquinas adhered to the opinion of Lombard, and taught that angels are in place, though not after the manner of bodies. He decided that two angels cannot be in the same place at the same time (Sum. Theol., I. 52. 3); and from the fact that they are not compounded of material and form, he drew the inference that there must be as many species as there are angels. (Ibid., I. 50. 4.) Duns Scotus rejected the first as well as the second of these conclusions, and maintained that it is conceivable that two angels might be in one place at the same time, or that one angel might be at the same time in two different places. (See Werner's Johannes Duns Scotus.) Bonaventura decided that the order of the universe, rather than a natural impossibility,

prohibits two angels from being in the same place at the same time. (Sent., II. 2. 2. 4.)

The standard classification of angels was that given by the pseudo Dionysius, and already brought to the notice of theologians in the sixth century. As respects the perseverance of unfallen angels, the cause of the fall of Satan and his angels, and the agency of good and of evil angels, the views advocated did not differ materially from those that were current in the preceding period.

1

37

SECTION III.-MAN.

1. MAN'S ORIGINAL NATURE AND CONDITION. While theologians were agreed in applying both of the terms "image " and "likeness," contained in the account of man's creation, to his supersensuous nature, they still manifested a disposition to distinguish between the two. John of Damascus drew the definite Alexandrian distinction, according to which image denotes such essential factors of human nature as the power of knowing and willing, the likeness, the capacity for virtue, or factors whose development or extinction depends upon the individual. (De Fide Orth., II. 12.) Among Latin theologians a less definite distinction was made. Hugo of St. Victor, if we put his statements together, includes in the image wisdom, righteousness, goodness, knowledge, and rationality; in the likeness he places innocence, love, immortality, indissolubility, and spirituality. (Sent., III. 2; De Sac., I. 6. 2.) With this representation Peter Lombard agrees in part, and in part disagrees. He says the image consists in memory, intelligence, and love, the likeness in the innocence and righteousness which are naturally in the rational mind; or the image may be found in the knowledge of truth, the likeness in the love of virtue; or the image is all else pertaining to the soul, the likeness the essence of the soul as