amore nullus est amans. Ideoque quantam 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.*

5

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 a illustration of the Trinity from the cases in which we have three names for the same thing, e. g., gladius, mucro, ensis; see Baur, Dreienigkeitsl. ii. p. 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 Spiritus S.; nec unquam in illa trinitate non fuit ista communio, quia hoc est ibi omnia habere, quod semper existere. LXXV. 1, 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, p. 138, ss.

§ 96.

TRITHEISM, TETRATHEISM.

2:

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

* As to the mode in which Augustine made his doctrine of the Trinity intelligible to the congregation, in his sermons, see Bindemann, ii 205 sq.

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

of a genus, and the vпóσтaσis viewed as an individual (a species) falling under this generic conception; for this would necessarily call up the representation of three gods. Another misunderstanding was also to be obviated; for, in assigning to God himself (the avτó¤ɛoç) a logical superiority above Father, Son, and Spirit, it might appear as though there were four persons, or even four gods. Both of these opinions were held. John Ascusnages of Constantinople,' and John Philoponus' of Alexandria, were the leaders of the Tritheites; while the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, Damianus,' was accused of being the head of the Tetratheites (Tetradites), but probably by unjust inference.

'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 to the Emperor.

The opinion of Philoponus can be seen from a fragment (AiαitηTŃs) preserved by John Damascenus (De Hæresib. c. 83, p. 101, ss. Phot. Bibl. cod. 75. Niceph. xviii. 45-48, extracts from which are quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. 251). In his view the puois is the genus which comprehends individuals of the same nature. The terms essence and nature are identical; the term vñóσтασiç, or person, denotes the separate real existence of the nature, that which philosophers of the peripatetic school call aroμоν, because there the separation of genus and species ceases. Comp. Scharfenberg, J. G., de Jo. Philopono, Tritheismi defensore, Lips. 1768 (Comm. Th. ed. Velthusen, etc. T. i.), and Trechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken 1835, part 1, p. 95, ss. Meier, 1. c. i. p. 195, ss. [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. See Neander, Dog. Hist. p. 310. Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 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. p 624. Münscher von. Cölln. p. 253. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 364. Meier, Trin. Lehre, p. 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. p. 289.

§ 97.

SYMBOLUM QUICUMQUE,

J. G. Vossius, De tribus Symbolis, Amstel. 1642. Diss. ii. Waterland, Dan. Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge, 1724. 28. 8. [Works, 1843, vol. iii. pp. 97-273.] Dennis, John, the Athanasian Creed, 1815. Comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 249, 50. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. 124, 231, ii. 124. [Wm. Whiston, Three Essays, 1713. J. Redcliff, The Creed of Athanasius illustrated, etc., Lond 1844. The Athanasian Creed, Mercersb. Review, April, 1859. W. W. Harvey, Hist. and Theol. of the Three Creeds, 2 vols. Horne, Hist. Ath. Creed. 1834.]

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.' 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 endeavors of human ingenuity to solve its apparent contradictions in a dialectic way, must break against this bulwark of faith, on which salvation was made to depend, as the waves break upon an inflexible rock.'

1

According to the old story, Athanasius drew up the creed in question at the synod held in Rome in the year 341. This, however, can not be, first, because it exists only in the Latin language; secondly, from the absence of the term consubstantialis (óuoovotos); 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 an Ecumenical 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 Vincens of Lerius, 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). [Comp. Gieseler, Church Hist. ii. p. 75 (§ 12), note 7, in the New York edition; he 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. Eternus 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. 24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus, sed totæ tres persona coæternæ sibi sunt et coæquales. 25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. 26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. (Opp. Athanasii, T. iii. p. 719.-Walch, Bibl. Symb. Vet. p. 136, ss.; it is also contained in the collections of the symbolical books published by Tittman, Hase, and others.*)

*While salvation, at this extreme point in the development of the doctrine, appears to be made dependent on the most refined points of dialectics, it is pleasing to hear other men, such as Gregory of Nazianzum (see Ullmann, p. 159, 170, Neander, Chrysost. ii. 19), raising their voices during this period, who did not attach such unqualified value to the mere orthodoxy of the understanding, and who were fully convinced of the limits of human knowledge and the insufficiency of such dogmatic definitions, Greg. Orat. 31, 33, p 577. Ullmann, p. 336, comp., however, p. 334, 35. Rufinus also says, Expos. p. 18 (in the sense of Irenæus): Quomodo autem Deus pater genuerit filium, nole discutias, nec te curiosius ingeras in profundi hujus arcanum (al. profundo hujus arcani), ne forte, dum inac cessæ lucis fulgorem pertinacius perscrutaris, exiguum ipsum, qui mortalibus divino munere concessus est, perdas aspectum. Aut si putas in hoc omni indagationis genere nitendum, prius tibi propone quæ nostra sunt: quæ si consequenter valueris expedire, tunc a terrestribus ad cœlestia et a visibilibus ad invisibilia properato.-Moreover, in the midst of this dialectic elaboration of the materials of the faith, we can not mistake the presence of a yet higher aim-that, viz., of bringing to distinct consciousness, not only the unity of the divine nature, but also the living longing of divine love to impart itself; in other words, the effort to maintain both the transcendent nature of God and his immanence in his works the former in opposition to polytheism and pantheism, and the latter to an abstract deism. So far such formulas have also their edifying side, as giving witness to the struggle of the Christian mind after a satisfactory expression of what has its full reality only in the depths of the Christian heart.

b. CHRISTOLOGY.

§ 98.

THE TRUE HUMANITY OF CHRIST.

Traces of Docetism.—Arianism.

It was no less difficult to determine the relation of the divine to the human nature of Christ, than to define the relation between the three persons and the one nature of God. For the more decidedly the church asserted the divinity of the Son of God, the more the the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son had to be guarded, so as not to abridge either the true divinity or the true humanity of Christ. In opposition to Docetism, the doctrine of the human nature of Christ had indeed been so firmly established, that no one was likely to deny that he possessed a human body; and when Hilary, orthodox on all other points, seems to border upon Docetism, by maintaining that the body of Jesus could not undergo any real sufferings,' he only means that the sufferings of Christ are to be understood as a free act of his love. But two other questions arose, which were beset with still greater difficulties. In the first place it was asked, whether a human soul formed a necessary part of the humanity of Christ; and if so (as the orthodox maintained in opposition to the Arians), it was still asked whether this soul meant only the animal soul, or also included the rational human spirit (in distinction from the divine).

2

1 Hilary wishes to preserve the most intimate union between the divine and human natures of Christ, so that it may be said: totus hominis Filius est Dei Filius, and vice versa; for the same reason he says concerning the GodMan, De Trin. x. 23: Habens ad patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed non habuit naturam ad dolendum. (He compares it to an arrow which passes through the water without wounding it.)-Comment. in Ps. cxxxviii. 3: Suscepit ergo infirmitates, quia homo nascitur; et putatur dolere, quia patitur caret vero doloribus ipse, quia Deus est (the usage of the Latin word pati allowed such a distinction to be made).-De Trin. xi. 48 : In forma Dei manens servi formam assumsit, non demutatus, sed se ipsum exinaniens et intra se latens et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem; dum se usque ad formam temperat habitus humani, ne potentem immensamque naturam assumptæ humanitatis non ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtus incircumscripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret eam usque ad patientiam connexi sibi corporis obedire. He opposes the purely docetic interpretation of the Impassibilitas, De Synodis 49 (Dorner, ii. 2, 1055): Pati potuit, et passibile esse non potuit, quia passibilitas naturæ infirmis significatio est, passio autem