amantis est. . . . Retracto amante nullus est amor, et retracto amore nullus et amans. Ideoque quantum ad invicem referuntur, duo sunt. Quod autem ad se ipsa dicuntur, et singula spiritus, et simul utrumque unus spiritus, et singula mens et simul utrumque una mens. Cf. lib. xv.1 See, further, † Gangauf, Des h. Augustinus speculative Lehre von Gott, dem Dreieinigen, Mainz 1865.

2

(5) (Pseudo-)Boëthius, De Trin. (Ad Symmach.) c. 2: Nulla igitur in eo (Deo) diversitas, nulla ex diversitate pluralitas, nulla ex accidentibus multitudo, atque idcirco nec numerus. Cap. 3: Deus vero a Deo nullo differt, nec vel accidentibus vel substantialibus differentiis in subjecto positis distat; ubi vero nulla est differentia, nulla est omnino pluralitas, quare nec numerus; igitur unitas tantum. Nam quod tertio repetitur, Deus; quum Pater et Filius et Spir. S. nuncupatur, tres unitates non faciunt pluralitatem numeri in eo quod ipsæ sunt. . . . Non igitur si de Patre et Filio et Spir. S. tertio prædicatur Deus, idcirco trina prædicatio numerum facit. . . . Cap. 6: Facta quidem est trinitatis numerositas in eo quod est prædicatio relationis; servata vero unitas in eo quod est indifferentia vel substantiæ vel operationis vel omnino ejus, quæ secundum se dicitur, prædicationis. Ita igitur substantia continet unitatem, relatio multiplicat trinitatem, atque ideo sola sigillatim proferuntur atque separatim quæ relationis sunt; nam idem Pater qui Filius non est, nec idem uterque qui Spir. S. Idem tamen Deus est, Pater et Filius et Spir. S., idem justus, idem bonus, idem magnus, idem omnia, quæ secundum se poterunt prædicari.-Boëthius falls into the most trivial Sabellianism, by drawing an illustration of the Trinity from the cases in which we have three names for the same thing, e.g. gladius, mucro, ensis; see Baur, Trin.-Lehre, ii. s. 34. -The orthodox doctrine of the western Church is already expressed in striking formulas by Leo the Great, e.g. Sermo LXXV. 3: Non alia sunt Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti, sed omnia quæcunque habet Pater, habet et Filius, habet et

1 As to the mode in which Augustine made his doctrine of the Trinity intelligible to the congregation, in his sermons, see Bindemann, ii. 205 ff. On Jerome's doctrine of the Trinity, see Zöckler, 1.c. s. 434.

2 It is doubtful whether the work De Trin. was really by Boëthius; we cite it under the customary name.

Spiritus S.; nec unquam in illa trinitate non fuit ista communio, quia hoc est ibi omnia habere, quod semper existere. LXXV. 1, 2: Sempiternum est Patri, coæterni sibi Filii sui esse genitorem. Sempiternum est Filio, intemporaliter a Patre esse progenitum. Sempiternum quoque est Spiritui Sancto Spiritum esse Patris et Filii. Ut nunquam Pater sine Filio, nunquam Filius sine Patre, nunquam Pater et Filius fuerint sine Spiritu Sancto, et, omnibus existentiæ gradibus exclusis, nulla ibi persona sit anterior, nulla posterior. Hujus enim beatæ trinitatis incommutabilis deitas una est in substantia, indivisa in opere, concors in voluntate, par in potentia, æqualis in gloria. Other passages are quoted by Perthel, Leo der Grosse, s. 138 ff.

$96.

Tritheism, Tetratheism.

In keeping the three persons of the Godhead distinct from each other, much care was needed, lest the idea of ovoía (essence), by which the unity was expressed, should be understood as the mere concept of a species, and the TóσTaois viewed as an individual falling under this species; for this would necessarily call up the idea of three Gods. Another misunderstanding was also to be obviated; for, in assigning to God Himself (the airóleos) a logical superiority above Father, Son, and Spirit, it might appear as though there were four persons, or even four Gods. Both of these results followed. John Ascusnages of Constantinople (1) and John Philoponus (2) of Alexandria were the leaders of the Tritheites; while the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, Damianus (3), was accused of being the head of the Tetratheites (Tetradites), but probably by unfair inference.

(1) John Ascusnages of Constantinople, when examined by the Emperor Justinian concerning his faith, is said to have acknowledged one nature of the incarnate Christ, but asserted three natures, essences, and deities in the Trinity. The

Tritheites, Conon and Eugenius, are said to have made the same statements before the Emperor Justin.

(2) The opinion of Philoponus can be seen from a fragment (AiaiTnTns) preserved by John Damascene (De Hæresib. c. 83, p. 101 ss. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 75. Niceph. xviii. 45-48, extracts from which are quoted by Münscher, von Cölln, i. 251). In his view, the puois is the species which comprehends individuals of the same nature. The terms essence and nature are identical; the term imóσraois, or person, denotes the separate real existence of the nature, that which philosophers of the peripatetic school call aтоμov, because there the separation of genus and species ceases. Comp. J. G. Scharfenberg, de Jo. Philopono, Tritheismi defensore, Lips. 1768 (Comm. Theol., ed. Velthusen, etc., t. i.), and Trechsel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1835, i. s. 95 ff. Meier, Trin.-Lehre, i. s. 195 ff. [Philoponus applied the ideas of Aristotle to the Trinity; he connected the two notions púσis and eidos-confounding the common divine essence with the notion of species. Cf. Baur, Dogmengesch. s. 170: Philoponus maintained that nature in the Church usage signified the special as well as the general, and that we might as well speak of three natures as of three hypostases; but yet he did not say there were three Gods.]

(3) In his controversy with Peter of Callinico, patriarch of Antioch, Damianus maintained that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another, but that no one of them is God as such; they only possess the subsisting divine nature in common, and each is God, in so far as he inseparably participates in it. The Damianites were also called Angelites (from the city of Angelium). Comp. Niceph. xiii. 49. Schröckh, xviii. s. 624. Münscher, von Cölln, s. 253. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. s. 364. Meier, Trin.-Lehre, s. 198: "Such systems of dissolution are the signs of the life of these times; they exercised themselves upon dead forms, seeking help in them instead of first trying to fill out the stiff definitions of the dogma with the living contents of the Christian ideas, which sustain the dogma."-Tritheism may be viewed as the extreme of Arianism, and Tetratheism as the extreme of Sabellianism; comp. Hasse, Anselm, 2 Thl. s. 289.

§ 97.

Symbolum Quicumque.

J. G. Vossius, De tribus Symbolis, Amst. 1642, Diss. ii. Dan. Waterland, Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge 1724, 1728. [Works, 1843, vol. iii. p. 97-273.] John Dennis, The Athanasian Creed, 1815. Comp. Münscher, von Cölln, i. s. 249, 250. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. 124, 231, ii. 124. [Wm. Whiston, Three Essays, 1713. J. Redcliff, The Creed of Athanasius illustrated, etc., Lond. 1844. W. W. Harvey, Hist. and Theol. of the Three Creeds, 2 vols. E. S. Ffoulkes, The Athan. Creed, Lond. (n. d. 187?). C. A. Swainson, Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, Lond. ̧ 1875.]

The doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity appears most fully developed and defined in a perfect symbolical form in what is called the Symbolum quicumque (commonly, but erroneously, called the Creed of St. Athanasius). It originated in the school of Augustine, and is ascribed by some to Vigilius Tapsensis, by others to Vincentius Lerinensis, and by some again to others (1). By its repetition of positive and negative propositions, its perpetual assertion, and then again, denial of its positions, the mystery of the doctrine is presented, as it were, in hieroglyphs, as if to confound the understanding. The consequence was, that all further endeavours of human ingenuity to solve its apparent contradictions in a dialectic way, must break against this bulwark of the faith, on which salvation was made to depend, as the waves break upon an inflexible rock (2).1

(1) According to the old legend, Athanasius drew up the creed in question at the synod held in Rome in the year 341. This, however, cannot be-first, because it exists only in the Latin language; secondly, from the absence of the term consubstantialis (ópooúσios); and, thirdly, from the more fully developed doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit (the procession from the Son). It was generally adopted in the seventh century under the name of Athanasius, when it was classed as

1 [Hagenbach's statements are, of course, strongly contested. The last books on the list above will give the present state of the controversy.]

an æcumenical symbol with the Apostles' and the Nicene Creed. Paschasius Quesnel (Dissert. xiv. in Leonis M. Opp. p. 386 ss.) first pronounced it as his opinion that it was composed by Vigilius, Bishop of Tapsus in Africa, who lived towards the close of the fifth century. Others attribute it to Vincent of Lérins, in the middle of the fifth century, Muratori (Anecd. Lat. t. ii. p. 212–217) conjectured that its author was Venantius Fortunatus (a Gallican bishop of the sixth century); and Waterland ascribes it to Hilary of Arles (who lived about the middle of the fifth century). [Gieseler supposes that it originated in Spain in the seventh century.] (2) Symbolum Athanasianum:

1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus habet, ut teneat catholicam fidem. 2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in æternum peribit. 3. Fides autem catholica hæc est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. 4. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. 5. Alia enim est persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. 6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, æqualis gloria, æqualis majestas. 7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spir. S. 8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spir. S. 9. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus S. 10. Æternus Pater, æternus Filius, æternus et Spir. S. 11. Et tamen non tres æterni, sed unus æternus. 12. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus et unus immensus. 13. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens et Spiritus S. 14. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. 15. Ita deus Pater, deus Filius, deus et Spir. S. 16. Et tamen non tres dii sunt, sed unus est Deus. 17. Ita dominus Pater, dominus Filius, dominus et Spir. S. 18. Et tamen non tres domini, sed unus Dominus. 19. Quia sicut sigillatim unamquamque personam et Deum et dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur, ita tres Deos aut dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. 20. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus. 21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, non creatus, sed genitus. 22. Spir. S. a Patre et Filio non creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. 23. Unus ergo Pater, nec tres patres; unus Filius, non tres filii; unus Spiritus S., non tres spiritus sancti.