altitudine totam vitam intuetur, simul videt omnes transeuntes per viam. On the relation between knowledge and foreknowledge, see John of Salisbury, Policrat. ii. 21. (Bibl. Max. xxiii. p. 268.) An instance of subtile reasoning is given by Liebner, 1. c. p. 365, note.

• Abelard, Theol. Christ. v. p. 1354. ...Facit itaque omnia quæ potest Deus, et tantum bene quantum potest......Necesse est, ut omnia quæ vult, ipse velit; sed nec inefficax ejus voluntas esse potest: necesse est ergo, ut quæcunque vult ipse perficiat, cum eam videlicet sumamus voluntatem, quæ ad ipsius pertinet ordinationem. Istis ergo rationibus astruendum videtur, quod plura Deus nullatenus facere possit quam faciat, aut melius facere, aut ab his cessare, sed omnia ita ut facit necessario facere. Sed rursus singulis istis difficillimæ occurrunt objectiones, ut utroque cornu graviter fidem nostram oppugnet complexio. Quis enim negare audeat, quod non possit Deus eum qui damnandus est salvare, aut meliorem illum qui salvandus est facere, quam ipse futurus sit collatione suorum donorum, aut omnino dismisisse, ne eum unquam crearet? Quippe si non potest Deus hunc salvare, utique nec ipse salvari a Deo potest. Necessaria quippe est hæc reciprocationis consecutio, quod si ipse salvatur a Deo, Deus hunc salvat. Unde, si possibile est hunc salvari a Deo, possibile est Deum hunc salvare. Non enim possibile est antecedens, nisi possible sit et consequens: alioquin ex possibili impossi bile sequeretur, quod omnino falsum est...... Comp. the subsequent part of the chapter. And so he comes to the following conclusion: Quicquid itaque facit (Deus), sicut necessario vult, ita et necessario facit.

On the opposition of Hugo of St. Victor to the optimism of Abelard (by which he was compelled to suppose a higher extent of the divine power than of the divine will), comp. Liebner, p. 367, 368.

§ 168.

c. Moral Attributes.

The so-called moral attributes of God, viz., his holiness, wisdom, justice, and benevolence, were treated in connection with other doctrines, and sometimes in such a manner as to give the appearance of contradictions. As the knowledge of God is one with his being, so likewise is his will, whose final object can be only the absolutely good, that is God.' The mystics loved to descend into the depth of divine love, and endeavored to explain this in their own way,' while the scholastics proposed wondrous questions respecting even this attribute of God, which least of all admits of being dialectically discussed.

'This was the case with the justice, omnipotence, and love of God in re ference to the theory of satisfaction. Comp. Anselm, Cur Deus homo 1. c. 6-12, and Proslog. c. 8: see the preceding §, note 1. Hasse ii. 275, sq. [Ritschl. in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1860, pp. 584-595.]

Thomas Aquinas, Summa P. I. Qu. 19, art. 13: Voluntas divina neces sariam habitudinem habet ad bonitatem suam, quæ est proprium ejus objectum, The question was raised, whether God has a liberum arbitrium, since in him everything is necessary. Thomas decided that God is free respecting that which is not an essential determination of his nature, that is, respecting the accidental, finite. But respecting himself he is determined by his own ne. cessity, comp. art. 10, and Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 641.-Duns Scotus, on the contrary, asserted the absolute liberty of God; see Baur.

The language of the author of the Deutsche Theologie is worthy of notice (c. 50): "God does not love himself as such, but as the most perfect being. For if God knew anything better than God, he would love it, and not himself. Egoism and self-hood, i. e., self-love and self-will, are entirely foreign to God; only so much belongs to God as is necessary to constitute his personality, or the distinction between the different persons of the Trinity."

Thus Alexander Hales asked (the passage is quoted by Cramer, vii. p 261), whether the love wherewith God loves his creatures is the same with that which he has towards himself, and which the divine persons have towards each other. He replies in the affirmative in reference to the principal idea (principale signatum), but in the negative respecting the secondary idea (connatum), i. e., that love is the same on the part of him who loves, but not the same with regard to those who are loved. It is also on that account that God does not manifest the same degree of love towards all his creatures, but more of it towards the better portion of them, less towards the less good. He loves all creatures from eternity (in the idea), but he does not love them in reality, until they come into existence.-Another question was: Whom does God love most, the angels or men? The answer is: The former, inasmuch as Christ did not belong to the number of the latter; but the love wherewith God loves Christ, and consequently the human race in Christ, even surpasses the love which he has towards the angels.- We have here a profound Christian truth expressed in a scholastic form.

§ 169.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Procession of the Holy Spirit.

Walch, J. G., Historia Controversiæ, etc., Pfaff, Historia succincta (comp. § 94). Hasse, Anselm, ii 322 [Kahnis, Gesch. d. Lehre vom heil. Geiste.]

Before the doctrine of the Trinity could be more philosophically developed and fully established, it was necessary to settle the controversy which had arisen between the Eastern and the Western church respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son. After the view taken by the Greek church had been received in the East as the orthodox doctrine, through the influence of John Damascenus,' the Emperor Charlemagne summoned a synod

at Aix-la-Chapelle in the year 809, which, being influenced especially by the Frank theologians, Alcuin and Theodulph of Orleans, confirmed the doctrine of the Western church, according to which the Holy Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Pope Leo III. approved of the doctrine itself, but disapproved of the uncritical introduction of the clause "filioque" into the creed adopted by the council of Constantinople. He numbered the doctrine in question among mysteries difficult to be investigated, and which are of greater importance in a speculative point of view, than in the aspect of a living faith. But when in later times the controversy between Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, and Nicolas I. led to the disruption of the two churches, their difference on the said doctrine was again made the subject of discussion. Photius defended the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone, and rejected the additional clause " filioque," which the theologians of the Western Church, such as Eneas, bishop of Paris, and Ratramn, a monk of Corvey, wished to retain,* Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, likewise defended the doctrine of the Latin church at the synod of Bari (in Apulia) in the year 1098, and discussed it more fully in a separate treatise. Anselm, bishop of Havelberg, defended it (1135–1145). The attempt made at the synod of Lyons in the year 1274, to reconcile the two parties, did not lead to any satisfactory result. The controversy was resumed in the year 1277; but the formula proposed at the synod of Florence (A. D. 1439) did not settle the point in question.' Hence, from that time, the two churches have ever differed in this, that according to the Greek church the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, but according to the Latin church, from both the Father and the Son. There were, however, some theologians in the latter who were satisfied with the view taken by the Greek divines."

'De Fide Orth. i. c. 7. He called the Holy Ghost (in distinction from a mere breath, or a mere divine power) δύναμιν οὐσιώδη, αὐτὴν ἑαυτῆς ἐν Ιδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένην, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς προερχομένην; but added: καὶ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἀναπαυομένην καὶ αὐτοῦ οὖσαν ἐκφαντικὴν, οὔτε χωρισθῆναι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι, καὶ τοῦ λόγου, ᾧ συμπαρομαρτεί, δυναμένην, οὔτε πρὸς τὸ ἀνύπαρκτον ἀναχεομένην, ἀλλὰ καθ' ὁμοιότητα τοῦ λόγου καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν οὖσαν, ζῶσαν, προαιρετικὴν, αὐτοκίνη τον, ἐνεργόν, πάντοτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν θέλουσαν, καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν πρόθεσιν σύν δρομον ἔχουσαν τῇ βουλήσει τὴν δύναμιν, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχουσαν, μήτε τέλος οὐ γὰρ ἐνέλειψε ποτε τῷ πατρὶ λόγος, οὔτε τῷ λόγῳ πνεῦμα. Baur, i. p. 177. Alcuinus, de Processione Spir. S. libellus. Opp. T. i. ed. Froben, p. 743. -In support of his views he appealed to Luke vi. 19 (Omnis turba quærebat eum tangere, quia virtus de illo exibat et sanabat omnes); to John xx. 21, 22; 1 John iii. 23, 24, and to the authority of the Fathers. Theodulphi de Spiritu S. liber, in Theodulphi Opp. ed. Sirmond. Par. 1646, 8,

2

and in Sirmondii Opp. T. ii. p 1695, cf. Libr. Carolin. Lib. iii. c. 3; Ex patre et filio-omnis universaliter confitetur ecclesia eum procedere. Concerning the historical part, see the works on ecclesiastical history. [Gieseler, ii. § 12, § 93, § 156.].

'On the occasion of a controversy between the Greek and Latin monks at Jerusalem prior to the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle, the Pope had given it as his opinion: Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et Filio æqualiter procedentem.Respecting the relation in which he stood to the Synod itself, see Callatio cum Papa Romæ a Legatis habita et Epist. Caroli Imperat. ad Leonem P. III. utraque a Smaragdo Abb. edita. (in Mansi, T. xiv. p. 17, ss.).

* See Photii Epist. Encyclica issued A. D. 867 (given by Montacutius, Ep. 2, p. 47); the following, among other charges, is there brought forward against the Roman church: Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μόνον, ἀλλά γε ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι καινολογήσαντες.-The writings of his opponents, Ratramn and Æneas are no longer extant in a complete form, comp. d'Achery, Spicil. Ed. i. T. i. p. 63, ss. Rössler, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, vol. x. p. 663, ss. [They rested their view upon Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19; Acts ii. 33; xvi. 7; John viii. 42; xx. 22.]—The Greeks considered the Father as the πηуǹ Oɛóτητos, and said, that if the Spirit also proceeded from the Son, this would involve a noλvapɣía, which the Latins did not concede, since Father and Son are one. [On Photius, see Abbé Jager, Histoire de Photius (from original documents), 2d ed. Paris, 1853. J. Hergenröther, Photii Constantinopl. Liber de Spiriti Sanct. Mystagogia, Regensb., 1857 Comp. Hergenrother, Die theol. Polemik des Photius gegen dic Lateiner, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1858, pp. 559-629. Hase, Glaubenszeu gnisse d. griechischen Kirche, Anhang zur 5. Aufl. der Dogmatik., Leipz. 1860.]

5

Concerning the synod, see Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, p. 21, quoted by Walch, 1. c. p. 61.-The work of Anselm is entitled: De Processione Spiritus S. contra Græcos. Opp. p. 49 (Edit. Lugd. p. 115). In chapters 1-3 he shows in a clear and concise manner the points of agreement between the two churches (in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of the Holy Spirit in its general aspects), as well as the points of difference. Respecting the doctrine of the Western church itself, Anselm argued from the proposition: Deus est de Deo, as follows (c. 4): Cum est de Patre Spiritus S., non potest non esse de filio, si non est filius de Spiritu Sancto; nulla enim alia ratione potest negari Spiritus S. esse de filio......Quod autem filius non sit de Spir. S., palam est ex catholica fide; non enim est Deus de Deo, nisi aut nascendo ut filius, aut procedendo ut Spir. S. Filius autem non nascitur de Spiritu S. Si enim nascitur de illo, est filius Spir. Sancti, et Spiritus S. pater ejus, sed alter alterius nec pater nec filius. Non ergo nasciter de Spiritu S. filius, nec minus apertum est, quia non procedit de illo. Esset enim Spir, ejusdem Spiritus Sancti, quod aperte negatur, cum Spiritus S. dicitur et creditur Spiritus Filii. Non enim potest esse Spiritus sui Spiritus. Quare non procedit filius de Spir. Sancto. Nullo ergo modo est de Spir. Sancto filius. Sequitur itaque inexpugnabili ratione, Spir. Sanctum esse de filio, sicut est de patre.-C. 7: Nulla relatio est patris sinę relatione filii, sicut nihil est filii relatio, sine patris relatione. Si ergo alia nihil est sine altera, non potest

aliquid de relatione patris esse sine relatione filii. Quare sequitur, Spiritum S. esse de utraque, si est de una. Itaque si est de patre secundum relationem, erit simul et de filio secundum eundem sensum...... Non autem magis est pater Deus quam filius, sed unus solus verus Deus, Pater et Filius. Quapropter si Spiritus S. est de Patre, quia est de Deo qui pater est, negari nequit esse quoque de filio, cum sit de Deo, qui est filius.-(C. 8-12, he gives the scriptural argument.) In the thirteenth chapter he meets the objection, that the doctrine in question would lower the dignity of the Spirit......Qui dicimus Spiritum S. de filio esse sive procedere, nec minorem, nec posteriorem eum filio fatemur, namque quamvis splendor et calor de sole procedant, nec possint esse nisi sit ille, de quo sunt, nihil tamen prius aut posterius in tribus, in sole et splendore et calore, intelligimus: multo itaque minus, cum hæc in rebus temporalibus ita sint, in æternitate, quæ tempore non clauditur, prædictæ tres personæ in existendo susceptibiles intervalli possunt intelligi.-The concession made by the Greek theologians, viz., Spiritum Sanct. de patre esse per filium, did not appear satisfactory to Anselm. As a lake is formed not only by the spring, but also by the river which flows from the spring, so the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.* (C. 15 and 16.) We must not, however, assume the existence of two principles from which the Spirit proceeds, but only one divine principle, common to the Father and the Son (c. 17). In chapters 18-20, he considers those scriptures which apparently teach the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone; c. 21, he defends the introduction of the clause "filioque" as a necessary means of preventing any misunderstanding. In chapters 22-27, he repeats and confirms all he has said before. As Anselm commenced his treatise by invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit himself, so he concluded it by saying: Si autem aliquid protuli quod aliquatenus corrigendum sit, mihi imputetur, non sensui Latinitatis. Comp. Hasse, ubi supra.-Concerning the progress of the controversy, comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 112, 113. On the later definitions of the scholastics, see Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. 705, sq.; especially on Aquinas and Duns Scotus. [Aquinas argues: The Son is from the Father, as the word from the mind, the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, from the will; but love must also proceed from the word, because we can not love what we do not conceive; hence the Spirit proceeds from the Son.... Comp. also Twesten on Trinity, transl. in Bibliotheca Sacra, iv. p. 25, 8q.]

He was in 1135 the ambassador of Lothair II., in Constantinople, where the controversy was in progress. Pope Eugene III. in 1145 bade him put his views in writing. See Spieker, in Illgen's Zeifschrift f. hist. Theol.

1840.

At the Synod of Lyons the Greeks agreed with the council in adopting as Can. I. Quod Spir. S. æternabiliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabas spirationibus, sed unica spiritione procedit.-But new differences arose, respecting which

* A similar illustration is adduced by Abelard, Theol. Chr. iv. p. 1335: Spir. Sanct. ex Patre proprie procedere dicitur, quasi a summa origine, quæ scilicet aliunde non sit, et ab ipso in Filium quasi in rivum......et per Filium ad nos tandem quasi in stagnum hujus ⚫eculi.