new development in the actual expressions embodied in this Decree, but there is undoubted interest in the adherence to the Filioque on the part of a Council which purported to be Ecumenical! Seeing, however, that the Pope had forced his ecclesiastical supremacy upon the East, and also that, in consequence, the Greek Church was represented at the Council by Latin patriarchs, it is hardly to be wondered at that, in the Oriental view, this Assembly was not warranted in speaking for the whole of Christendom. In short, no conversion of the Greeks to an acceptance of the Filioque ever took place. Yet it is noticeable that the Councils of the West never indulged in charges of heresy on this subject against the Greek opinion, even though such charges were by no means wanting in the works of individual Latin writers.

The second Decree, De errore abbatis Joachim, deals with the charge which had been brought by Joachim of Floris against Petrus Lombardus, accusing the famous Master of teaching a quaternity in the Godhead by establishing the Divine Essence with such distinction from the three Persons as to necessitate a fourth Person. This charge was decisively dismissed by the Council, whose ruling was drawn up as follows:

'We condemn and reject the pamphlet or criticism which the Abbot Joachim published against the Master Petrus Lombardus on the unity or Essence of the Trinity, calling him a heretic and a madman with reference to what he said in his Sentences, seeing that a certain supreme Object (summa res) is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Object is neither begetting, nor begotten, nor proceeding. From this he claims that he was setting up not so much a Trinity as a quaternity in God, namely the three Persons, and that common Essence as the fourth, evidently protesting that what the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is, is no Object (nulla res), nor Essence, nor Substance, nor Nature; although he admits that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Essence, one Substance, and one Nature.

'We, however, with the approval of the Sacred General Council, believe and confess with Petrus that there is one certain Supreme Object, indeed incomprehensible

and ineffable, which is truly Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, at the same time three Persons, and any One of the same singly. And therefore in God there is a Trinity only, not a quaternity; because any One of the three Persons is that Existence (res), to wit, Substance, Essence, or Divine Nature, which alone is the Origin of all things, beside which any other cannot be found. And that Existence is not begetting, nor begotten, nor proceeding, but is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds; so that the distinctions are in the Persons, and the unity is in the Nature. Therefore, though the Father is alius, and the Son alius, and the Holy Spirit alius, yet Each is not aliud; but That which is the Father is the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in every way the same; that They may be believed to be consubstantial in accordance with the orthodox and Catholic Faith. . . . The Father and the Son possess the same Substance, and thus the Father and the Son are the same res; and so too the Holy Spirit who proceeds from Both."

In the opinion of the Council, Joachim's argument meant, ultimately, that the Trinity is no Substance or Essence, though he himself confessed the opposite. The Church hereby upheld the essential reality of the Divine Oneness, guarding against a quaternity by declaring any One of the Persons to be equivalent to the whole and the sole Essence of God. Indeed, the Catholic teaching up to this point is quite against any numerical conjunction of the Essence with the Persons; but,' comments Durandus, 'the decree only denies a quaternity or fourth res being reckoned numerically along with the three Persons, which is obviously clear from the context; for-in replying to the reasoning of Joachim, who wished to conclude against the Master from his own saying that he states that the Essence neither begets, nor is begotten, nor proceeds, therefore It is not the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, but a fourth Object (res)-the Pope rejoins that it does not follow, since that supreme Object (summa res), even if It does not beget as Father, nor is begotten as Son, nor is breathed as Holy Spirit, 'Durandus († 1334), Sent., lib. i. dist. 26, q. i.

1 Cols. 981-6.

is nevertheless Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' This is an indication at once of the final authority of Innocent III in the Council, and of the continued influence of Augustine in the Western Church.

1

1 Trevor, Rome, p. 233: The canons are said to have been all written by himself, no one venturing to oppose or criticize his draft.'

VI

THE SCHOLASTIC MYSTICS

THE Mysticism which originated from Scholastic minds during the twelfth century was a revolt of an essentially orthodox nature against the rigidity of the dialectic-systematic method of the age. The need was felt of a warmer individualization of that theology which was already receiving such exhaustive treatment, and this very reaction from within has given rise to two opposing views of itself. One explains Mysticism at this stage as simply Scholasticism from another standpoint. But it is doubtful whether Harnack is altogether justified in blending the subjective Schoolman with the objective Mystic, and in asserting that ' Mystic theology and Scholastic theology are one and the same phenomenon, which only present themselves in manifold gradations as the subjective or objective interest prevails.' Indeed, his definition of Mysticism has been criticized by Dean Inge as portraying a Ritschlian love of austere moralism whose view of Christianity appears to be one of excessive objectivism far away from the Christian Mysticism of much of the thought of St. John and St. Paul. ' The 'Ritschlian position' would certainly have much to learn from the doctrine of a Holy Spirit, and the question accordingly seems larger than the mere variation of one outlook. Again, the fact that Bonaventura and, in later years, Gerson attempted a reconciliation between Scholasticism and Mysticism hardly warrants any theory of their identical character. Hence the statement which upholds a real oneness of these two appears to be too extreme for fact. The other view explains Mysticism as an entirely different movement, with a decidedly hostile attitude toward Scholasticism, taking for an example Bernard's attack upon Abelard. But, though Mysticism was in its essence antagonistic to Scholastic 'Rationalism,' it does not follow that it was so to Scholasticism as a whole. Scholastic' Rationalism' and Scholastic orthodoxy were by no means one and the same thing. In this case, as 1 Hist. of Dogma, vi., P. 27. Christian Mysticism, p. 346.

in many others, the correct version appears to be the mean between two extremes. The Mysticism of the twelfth century was a reaction against Scholasticism on the part of Scholastics. It was definitely Scholastic in its literary method; in fact, it was as yet no separate movement. True, certain of these Mystics might well have been regarded by the greater part of the Mediaeval Church as theological adventurers, but they were not, on the whole, hampered by charges of heterodoxy. Bernard, for example, possessed, or rather was possessed by, a strong passion for the orthodox faith as handed down by the Fathers and interpreted with the authority of the Church. The writers here considered did in no wise belittle the Word of God or the value of revelation, nor was the place given by them to personal experience to any degree independent of the general experience of Christian believers. With the exception of Joachim, who, nevertheless, was also zealous for orthodoxy (!), they were singularly free from theological eccentricity, and did not go to the extreme of confusing faith with feeling. The Scholastic Mystics, as their name implies, thus looked in the direction more of an alliance than of enmity between Scholasticism and Mysticism; but, while not deserving the name of opponents, these were not affinities enough to be lastingly united. Scholastic Mysticism was, indeed, an unpromising marriage!

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit is primarily that of God in human life, and the genius of Mysticism was the working out of this truth supremely from the standpoint of the individual. Scholastic or Gallo-Romanic Mysticism, as a movement, did not travel so far toward this end as did the later Germanic, but it made considerable progress. Its stress upon the illuminative side of the Divine relationship with man brought into prominence the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit with far more reference to the Spirit's work than is found in the Summists'; while their love of the contemplative produced a passion for the suffering Jesus in such men as Bernard, Francis of Assisi († 1226), and Anthony of Padua († 1231), which led to a selfdenying piety of a most practical order.

That there were, indeed, extravagant offshoots of Scholastic Mysticism is not surprising. Amalric of Bena († 1207) taught

1 The outlook of the Summists was to that of the Mystics much as the Pauline to the Johannine.