The Positive Tradition of the First Four Centuries

Section 2: of the First Four Centuries

OF THE The Trinitarian belief of the Christian Church during the first four centuries is manifested partly by her official liturgy and the private prayers of the faithful; partly by the doctrinal discussions of the Fathers, whom, for conven- m ience sake, we may group in two categories, viz., Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene. The Council of Nicaea forms a sort of dividing line between the two, in so far as before its formal definition of the dogma, the Fathers were laboriously groping for accurate terms and not infrequently failed to formulate with sufficient theological precision.1 We cannot reasonably assume that they deviated from this teaching, except in the few cases in which the fact is clearly apparent from their writings. One of these exceptional cases is that of Hippolytus, who is charged with entertaining Ditheistic views; another, that of Origen, whose language on the subject of the Blessed l Cfr. J. Chapman, O. S. B., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 450. 133 THE OFFICIAL LITURGY 133 Trinity lays him open to the suspicion of heterodoxy. General Readings: — *Ruiz, De Trinitate, Lugduni 1625; Werner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der christlichen Theologie, Vol. I, Schaffhausen 1861; Reville, Histoire du Dogme de la DivinitS de Jesus-Christ, 2nd ed., Paris 1876; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2nd ed., 2 vols., Stuttgart 1845 (translated into English under the title History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Edinburgh 1861-3; 5 vols.; to be used with caution); Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., Vols. I and II, Freiburg 1892, 1895; Th. de Regnon, Etudes de Theologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinite, 4 vols., Paris 1892 sqq.; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (Engl, tr.), Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 50 sqq., New York 1910. THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE OFFICIAL LITURGY OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE PRIVATE PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL i. The Apostles’ Creed. — The belief of the early Christians found its natural utterance in the so-called Apostles’ Creed, which is undoubtedly as old as the Church herself. In all of its various recensions this symbol voices simple faith in the Divine Trinity.2, St. Irenaeus,3 Origen,4 and Tertullian 5 testify to its antiquity. The salient passages concerning the Blessed 2 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 4 De Princip., Preface, Migne, P. chiridion, nn. 1-14. G.t XI, 117 sq. 3 Adv. Haer., I, 10, Migne, P. C, 5 De Praescr., 13, Migne, P. L., VII, 550 sq. II, 26.

Article 1: The Holy Trinity in the Official Liturgy of the Early Church and the Private Prayers of the Faithful

Trinity are as follows: Credo in Deum [not: deos, Patrem omnipotentem … et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum … et in Spiritum Sanctum — I believe in God [not: gods], the Father, Almighty, … and in Jesus Christ, His only Son … and in the Holy Ghost.” It is safe to regard the Apostles’ Creed as an expansion of the form of Baptism; in fact it is the baptismal symbolum. The constant practice of the Church in the administration of Baptism is of itself convincing proof that the dogma of the Divine Trinity always formed part and parcel of the original deposit of faith. In the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles? which, according to the late Dr. F. X. Funk, was written towards the end of the first century, when Nerva ruled the Roman Empire, we read: “Baptizate in nomine («k ™ ovoiw.) Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti — Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 7 An interesting counterpart of the baptismal symbolum of the early Church is the private profession of faith 6 Rediscovered by Philotheus Bryennios and edited by him in 1883. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrolo9y> PP. 19 sqq.; Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 135 sqq.; C. Taylor, An Essay on the Doctrine of the Didache, Cambridge 1889. 7 Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum, 7, 1; ed. Funk, pp. 21 sq., Tubingae 1884. For an English translation of the Didache, see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Reprint, Vol. VII, pp. 377 sqq., New York 1907. On the Apostles’ Creed cfr. Baumer, Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, seine Geschichte und sein Inhalt, Mainz 1893, and Herbert Thurston, S. J., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 629632, who also gives copious bibliographical references. THE PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL 135 ascribed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270). This document tersely, clearly, and completely expounds the Catholic teaching on the Blessed Trinity. Defending the faith against Paul of Samosata, the Wonderworker professes: ” Unus Deus Pater Verbi viventis… . Unus Dominus solus ex solo, Deus ex Deo… . Unus Spiritus Sanctus ex Deo subsist entiam (v7rap£iv) habens… . Trinitas perfecta (Tpta? rcXeta), quae gloria et aeternitate et regno non dividitur nec alienatur — There is one God, Father of the Living Word… . One Lord, sole from sole, God from God… . One Holy Ghost having His being from God. … A perfect Triad not separated nor dissociated in glory, eternity, and reign.” 8 Gregory of Nyssa tells us that his grandmother Macrina had received this formula from Thaumaturgus himself and handed it down to her grandchildren in Cappadocia.9 We are able to obtain a glimpse into the popular belief of the early Christians from an ancient evening hymn, which concludes with a doxology to ” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” 10

2. The Ancient Christian Doxologies. — The public and private doxologies, which may be looked upon as the common property of the faithful in the early Church,11 distinctly voice belief in the Blessed Trinity. In fact these an8 Migne, P. C, X, 984 sqq. Newman’s translation, Tracts TheoL and EccUs., pp. 155 8Q. 9 Migne, P. C, XLVI, 913. Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of St Gregory Thaumaturgus is, however, ” of little historical value because of its highly legendary character.” Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Petrology, p. 170. 10 ‘E\06vres iwl rov ijXlov Mfftp, I86vres

cient hymns, or psalms of praise, seem to be a development of the Trinitarian forms of benediction contained in the New Testament Epistles, and they doubtless reflect the publicly professed faith of the early Christians, unaffected by extraneous elements of abortive speculation. The coordinative form “Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto (or cum Spiritu Sancto) — Glory be to God the Father, and to the Son, and to (or, together with ),” and the subordinative form, “Gloria Patri per F ilium in Spiritu Sancto — Glory be to the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost” are probably of equal antiquity, and the assertion of the Arian historian Philostorgius,12 that the first-mentioned formula had been introduced into the liturgy by Bishop Flavian of Antioch, must be received with suspicion. It is certain that already Justin Martyr was acquainted with it.18 Because the Arians showed a decided predilection for the formula “Gloria Patri per Filium in Spiritu Sancto/1 (Aw. rov vuw cv t# ayi’w wev/ttm) 9 St. Basil substituted therefor, as equally correct, the formula /CT^ T°v VL°v > which threw into stronger relief the and coequal adorableness of the Son and of with the Father.14 12 Hist. Eccles., Ill, 13, Mignc, l Cfr. Von der Goltz, Das Gebet P. C, LXV, 502. in der alt est en Christenheit, pp. 135 isApol., I, c. 65, Migne, P. G., sqq., Leipzig 1902. VI, 4*7. THE CONFESSIONS OF THE MARTYRS 137 3. The Confessions of the Martyrs. — The confessions of faith that have come down to us from the lips of the early martyrs, furnish another important contribution to of the primitive Church concerning the Blessed Trinity. Being the formal pronouncements of holy men and women, made before pagan magistrates in the face of cruel death, they are rightly held in high esteem. The oldest document of this kind which we possess is the confession of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who laid down his life for his faith A. D. 166. Its salient passages are as follows: “Verax Deus, … te gloriiico per sempiternum et coelestem pontificem Iesum Christum, dilectum Filium, per quern tibi cum ipso et in Spiritu Sancto gloria et nunc et in futura saecula — O truthful God, … I glorify Thee, through the Eternal and Heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, [Thy] beloved Son, through whom be glory to Thee, with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now and for the ages to come.” 15 Some martyrs in their profession of faith laid special stress on the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus St. Epipodius of Lyons (+178): *Christum cum is Acta Martyr. Polyc, XIV, 3. * Here,” says Newman, 44 the Three are mentioned, as in the baptismal form; as many as Three, and no more than Three, with the expression of a still closer association of the Three, one with another, than is signified in that form, vis., as contained in the words, ’ through/ •with/ and ‘in.’” Tracts Thiol, and Eccles., p. 150. Patre et Spiritu Sancto Deutn esse conHteor, dignumque est, ut Mi [scil. Christo] animam meam refundam, qui mihi et creator est et redemptor — I confess Christ to be God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and it is meet that I should give back my soul to Him [i. e., Christ], Who is my Creator and Redeemer.” 16 The holy deacon Vincent, who died a martyr’s death, A. D. 304, is reported to have professed his faith in these words: “Dominum Christum confiteor, Filium altissimi Patris, unici unicum, ipsum cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto unum solum Deum esse proAteor — I confess the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the most high Father, the Only One of the Only One, I confess Him with the Father and to be the one sole God.” 17 To St. Euplus of Catania (+ 304) we owe one of the most beautiful confessions of faith in the Trinity that has come down to us from the early days. It is as follows: c

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 139 self to Christ, [who is] God; … I sacrifice and immolate myself to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” 18 Readings: — On the worship of the Blessed Trinity by the early Christians, see Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritual., t. I, diss. 2, c 5. On the acts of the martyrs, see *Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 816 sqq., Leipzig 1893; Semeria, Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto nella Chiesa Primitiva, Roma 1902; cfr. also James Bridge in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, pp. 742 sqq.; H. Delehaye, S. J., The Legends of the Saints, London 1897.

Article 2: The Ante-Nicene Fathers

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS i. Their Clear and Definite Profession of Faith in the Blessed Trinity. — The AnteNicene Fathers acknowledged in the One Godhead three real Persons of coequal power, that is to say, not essentially subordinated one to the other. Hence it requires no special argument to prove that these Fathers professed the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. Of course any explicit and emphatic assertion, in their writings, of the Divinity of Jesus Christ must be of special weight. We shall have to confine ourselves to a few salient quotations. a) Eminent among the “Apostolic Fathers” is St. 18 For further testimonies, see Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 10; cfr. also Von Gebhardt, Ausgewdhlte 10 Martyrerakten und andere Urkunden aus der Verfolgungsseit der Christ lichen Kirche, Berlin 1902. Ignatius of Antioch, who was exposed to wild beasts at Rome under Trajan, some time between A. D. 98 and 117.19 In his much-discussed Epistles,20 Ignatius frequently avers his faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, whom he calls “our God.” In combating the absurd heresy of the Docetae,21 he insists particularly on Christ’s twofold nature, the divine and the human. ” There is one physician,” writes St. Ignatius, ” fleshly and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God and come in flesh, eternal life in death, from Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible.” 22 The truth that there are three Persons in the Godhead is clearly professed also by Athenagoras (about 170), who is called “the Christian Philosopher of Athens.” 23 He says: ” Who would not be astonished to hear those called atheists, who speak of the Father as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost; showing both their power in unity (tyv cv cvwo-a Bvva/uv) and their distinction in order (t^v iv ra£u Suupeaw) ? ” 24 St. Irenaeus of Lyons25 deserves special mention, because he not infrequently refers to Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 30 sqq.; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 121 sqq.; £. Bruston, lgnace d’Antioche, ses Epitres, sa Vie, sa Th6ologxe, Paris 1897. 20 Cfr. Newman, Tracts TheoL and Eccles., pp. 95-*35» 21 For an account of Docetism, see the dogmatic treatise on Christology. Properly speaking it is not a Christian heresy at all, but ” rather came from without.” Cfr. Arendzen in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, s. v. ” Docetae.” MEpist. ad Eph., VII, 2. Newman’s translation, Tracts Theol, and Eccles., p. 108. On St Ignatius’s refutation of Docetism see particularly Tixeront, op. cit., p. 124. 23 The manuscript tradition of his Apology can be traced to the year 914. Cfr. Bardenhewcr-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 64 sqq., and Peterson in the Catholic Encyclopedia, II, 42 sq. An English translation of his works in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Reprint, Vol. II, pp. 129 sqq., New York 1903. uLegat. 10, Migne, P. G., VI, ‘909. Newman’s translation, Tracts Theol. and Eccles., p. 151. 25 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pairology, pp. xi8 sqq. THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 141 as ” Wisdom.” Take, for instance, this passage: 25 ” Adest ei [scil. Deo Patri] semper Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit — There is present to Him [/. e., God the Father] always the Word and the Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in whom He has made all things freely and of His own accord/’ Of the many dicta of Clement of Alexandria,27 which could be quoted in support of our thesis, we select but one. ” The Lord,” he says, ” apparently despised, but in reality adored, the Reconciler, the Saviour, the Meek, the Divine Logos, unquestionably true God, measuring Himself with the Lord of the Universe [i. e., God the Father], because He was His Son, and the Logos was in God.” 28 b) Of occidental witnesses, let us adduce at least a few besides Irenseus. Tertullian (born about 160) in his usual rugged style writes: ” Custodiatur oeconomiae sacrament urn, quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens: Pattern et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autem non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed forma; non potestate, sed specie. Unius autem substantiae et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputantur — Let the mystery of the dispensation be guarded, which distributes the unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the Three, viz., the Father, the Son, and ; Three not in condition, but in degree, not in substance, but in form, not in power, but in aspect; but of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, because God is one, it Adv. Haer., IV, 20, x. trology, pp. 127 sqq.; The Catholic 27 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- Encyclopedia, IV, 45 sqq. 28 Cohort, ad Cent., c. 10.

from whom these degrees, and forms, and aspects derive.”29 The dogmatic encyclical of Pope Dionysius, which we have already mentioned above,80 rejects both extremes, Sabellianism as well as Tritheism. ” Sabellii impietas,” says this holy Pope, “in eo consistit, quod dicat Filtum esse Patrem et vicissim; hi vero [tritheitae] tres deos aliquomodo praedicant, cum in tres hypostases invicem alienas, omnino separatas, dividunt sanctam unitatem (/uomSa). Necesse est enim divinum Verbum Deo universorum esse unitum et Spiritum Sanctum in Deo manere ac vivere… . Credendum est in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in lesum Christum Filium eius et in Spiritum Sanctum — The impiety of Sabellius consists in this, that he says that the Son is the Father and the Father the Son, but they [the Tritheists] in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the Holy Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the universe the Divine Word is united, and must repose and live in God… . We must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” 81

2. Vague Expressions. — The very confidence with which the Fathers of the fourth century defended the faith against Arius, is sufficient warrant for the orthodoxy of the Ante-Nicene period. 2» Contr. Prax., c. a. 80 Supra, p. 122. Cfr. also Bardcnhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 224. Si Quoted by St Athanasius, De Deer, Nicaen, Syn., n. 26. Cfr. Sprinzl, Die Theologie der apostolischen Voter, Wien 1880; Nirschl, Die Theologie des hi, Ignatius, Mainz 1880; Peterson, article ” Apostolic Fathers in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 637-640. VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 143 It has been asserted that Subordinationist, i. e., Arianizing views with regard to the relations of the Three Divine Persons were current ” among the apologists and most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.” 82 Petavius even ventured to affirm that the majority of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were not in full accord with the Nicene Creed.38 But before the first edition of his work on the Trinity (1644-1650) was completed, the great dogmatist found himself constrained to moderate this harsh judgment. In his * Praefatio ad Libros de Trinitate* he explains the apparent dissent of many of the AnteNicene Fathers as a mere ” modus loquendi.” A number of learned theologians 84 subsequently undertook the defense of these Fathers against so grievous an accusation, and they may be said to have acquitted themselves on the whole victoriously. It must be admitted, however, that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, composed at a time when dogmatic terminology still lacked that precision which was imparted to it by the Nicene Creed, expressed themselves “with an unsuspicious yet reverent explicitness,” 85 which is apt to arouse the suspicion of heresy. But whenever such ambiguous terms and phrases admit of a Catholic interpretation, the rules of Patristic hermeneutics compel us to prefer the orthodox to the heretical sense, so long as the latter is not positively established. It is almost impossible to imagine that such a brilliant phalanx of theologians as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc., should have lapsed into material heresy in regard to a fundamental dogma of the Christian faith. “In such a 82 Cfr. Kuhn, Christl. Lehre von 84 E. g., Thomassin, Bossuet, Ma« der hi. Dreieinigkeit, pp. 107 sqq., ranus, Lumper, Mohler, Franzelin, Tubingen 1857. Schwane, Regnon, etc. 88 Cfr. De Trinitate, I, 3-5. (Pe- 85 Newman, The Avians of the tavius died in 1652.) Fourth Century, p. x66.

fundamental dogma, such an error in such quarters would be incompatible with the infallibility of the Church.” 8fl As a matter of fact, upon closer scrutiny most of the ” incorrect and unadvisable terms and statements in some of the early Fathers,“87 can be offset by parallel texts from the same Fathers which are clearly and unmistakably orthodox. It must be admitted, however, that prior to the Nicene Council the dogmatic formulation of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity was still in process of development, and theological speculation on the subject of the Logos, influenced by Platonism and Stoicism, frequently went astray and unconsciously scattered the seeds of future heresies. Cardinal Franzelin reduces the incorrect and unadvisable terms and statements found in the early Fathers on the subject of the Blessed Trinity to four categories, which we will briefly review. a) By insisting too strongly on the character of the Father as the source and principle of the two other Persons, some Ante-Nicene writers created the impression that they held the Son to be God in a less strict sense than the Father, — as it were * God in the second place ; and the Holy Ghost, * God in the third place. Thus St. Justin writes that the Son is * in the second 86 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, I, 288. »7 Newman, * Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism,* in Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 208. — In The Arians of the Fourth Century (p. 164) Newman says of * the Ante-Nicene language ’* that it ” was spoken from the heart ” and must not be 44 measured … by the necessities of controversies of a later date… . Those early teachers have been made to appear technical, when in fact they have only been reduced to a system; just as in literature what is composed freely, is afterwards subjected to the rules of grammarians and critics.* (See also op. cit.t pp. 179 sqq.) VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 145 place (cv Scvripq. x»w)* anc* *e Holy Ghost *in the third order («> rpiry tc&i).*88 Tertullian, on the other hand, upon whom fell the task of coining a Latin terminology, which he accomplished with rare ability, calls the Father “the totality of substance (tota substantia)/9 while he refers to the Son as ” derived from the whole substance (derivatio totius et portio)**9 In connection herewith a few of the Fathers reserve the name * Deus super omnia” (God above all things), or “Very God” 40 to the Father, while they speak of the Son as ®cos c#c ®cov, or simply ©cos without the article.41 Novatian (A. D. 250), who in his otherwise excellent work on the Trinity endeavored to harmonize the doctrine of with that of the unity of the Godhead, misconceives the of Father and Son.42 It is plain that all these utterances, and a number of others which could be cited from Ante-Nicene writings, can be interpreted in an Arian sense; but it is equally certain that they must not be thus interpreted. So long as the general teaching of any writer is such that the true Catholic doctrine may be reasonably presumed to underly an occasional incorrect expression, we have no right to accuse him of favoring heretical tenets. Now, it is an article of faith that the Father, as the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, has His Divine Nature from Himself,48 whereas the Logos-Son and have the same numerical Divine Nature by immanent procession from the Father. It is this idea the zsApol., I, c. 13. der altkirchlichen Literatur, II, 565, 80 Contr. Prax,, 9. Freiburg 1903; L. Duchesne, Early 40 *0 Qe6s *=» aCr60€OS» History of the Christian Church, 41 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of (Engl, tr.), Vol. I, pp. 235 sq. the Fourth Century, pp. 163 sqq. 43 “Avapxot, air6$eost dpx^l Trjs 42 Cfr. Bardenhewer, Geschichte &PXW.

Fathers in their crude language wished to express.44 b) There are certain other Patristic texts which seem to represent active generation on the part of the Father as ” voluntary/’ as if the Father could be conceived without the Son. This might easily suggest the heretical conclusion that the Son is a mere creature of the Father, or at most a God of inferior rank. But all such utterances must be read in the light of the thesis which their respective authors were then and there defending against their heterodox opponents. When the exigencies of the conflict made it necessary to refute the error that the process of divine Generation implied external compulsion, or blind necessity, or corporeal division, the Fathers rightly insisted that “Pater voluntate sen voluntarie genuit Filium — The Father begot the Son voluntarily.” But they did not employ ” voluntarie ” in the sense of ” libere” What they meant was that the Father begot His Divine Son as “willingly” as He is the infinite God. Later on, when the Arians and Eunomians began to propagate the heretical error that the Son is a creature, the product of a free act of creation on the part of the Father,45 the Patristic 44 On the orthodoxy of Tertullian, see Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, § m, n. 835 sqq., and Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, II, 387 sq. Bardenhewer’s opinion on this head is thus summarized in his Patrology (English edition by Shahan, p. 185): “In his defence of the personal distinction between the Father and the Son he [Tertullian] does not, apparently, avoid a certain Subordinationism. Nevertheless in many very clear expressions and turns of thought he almost forestalls the Nicene Creed.” Cfr. also A. dAles, La Thiologie de Tertullien, Paris 1 90s and J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 310 sqq. On the Trinitarian teaching of St. Justin Martyr, see A. L. Feder, S. J., Justins des Mdrtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus dem Messias, Freiburg 1906. 45 ” It was one of the first and principal interrogations put to the Catholics by their Arian opponents, whether the Generation of the Son was voluntary or not on the part of the Father; their dilemma being, that Almighty God was subject to laws external to Himself, if it were not voluntary, and that, if on the other hand it was voluntary, the VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 147 writers met the new difficulty by the declaration that is as necessary as the vital process in the bosom of the Godhead. c) A further source of misunderstanding is the Patristic teaching that the Logos was begotten for a very definite purpose, namely, to serve as the instrument of creation. This seems to place the Son on a plane of undue subordination to the Father. Those who held this view accentuated it by making a distinction between the Aoyos ivtitaOeros and the Adyos irpoopuc6s. ” The view of the Logos as Endiathetic and as Prophoric, — as the Word conceived and the Word uttered, the Word mental and the Word active and effectual … came from the Stoics, and is found in Philo.” 46 With certain restrictions it admits of an orthodox interpretation, provided that those who employ the words do not dispute that the ministerial relation of the Logos, though subordinate with regard to origin, is truly divine, and that the Prophoric Word does not lose His Divine Nature and Sonship in consequence of the Creation and the Incarnation, but retains both in unaltered identity Son was in the number of things created.” Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 196. 46 Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 340. ” Philo, he says in another place, * associating it [the doctrine of the Trinity] with Platonic notions as well as words, developed its lineaments with so rude and hasty a hand, as to separate the idea of the Divine Word from that of the Eternal God; and so perhaps to prepare the way for Arianism.* And in a foot-note he illustrates this observation *by the theological language of the ‘Paradise Lost,’ which, as far as the very words go, is conformable both to Scripture and the writings of the early Fathers, but becomes offensive as being dwelt upon as if it were literal, not figurative. It is scriptural to say that the Son went forth from the Father to create the worlds; but when this is made the basis of a scene or pageant, it borders on Arianism. Milton has made Allegory, or the Economy, real.” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 93. Cfr. also pp. 199 sq. of the same work.) 148 with the Endiathetic Word. St. Irenseus, in demonstrating against the Gnostics that God did not need to employ angels in creating the universe, extols the ” ministry of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” as a divine ministry to which ” all angels are subject,” and significantly adds: ” Hie Pater … fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est per Verbum et Sapientiam suam — The Father made these things by Himself, that is, by His Word and Wisdom.”47 St. Theophilus of Antioch (about 180), was, so far as we know, the first Christian theologian who did not hesitate to use the terms Ao’yo? ivStaOero? and irpofopuco?.48 But his use of them, though incautious, is quite orthodox, as appears from the subjoined passage in the second of his three books Ad Autolycum: ” Cum voluit Deus ea facer e, quae statuerat, hoc Verbum genuit prolatitium (wpofopucov), primogenitum omnis creaturae, non ita tamen, ut Verbo vacuus fieret, sed ut Verbum gigneret et cum suo Verbo semper versaretur — When God purposed to make all that He had deliberated on, He begat this Word as external to Him, being the First-born antecedent to the whole creation; not, however, Himself losing the Word [that is, the Internal], but begetting it, and yet everlastingly communing with it.” 49 Two other representatives of the Ante-Nicene period, Hippolytus and Tertullian, boldly venture a step farther and describe the intradivine yemyo-w as a mere conception, and the temporal ycvi/o-ts, which manifests itself ad extra, as the birth of the Logos, claiming that the full Sonship of the Logos did not begin until after His temporal birth. This is 47 Adv. Haeres., II, 30. 48 The use of the word “Wisdom ” for ” Holy Ghost ” is also peculiar to Theophilus and to St. Irenaeus (cfr. John XV, 26: ” Spiritus veritatis ”). 49 Ad Autol. II, 22. Newman’s translation; cfr. The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 200. INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS 149 no doubt speculation gone astray, but it does not trench on dogma, though Hippolytus, as we have already remarked, did incur a degree of blame for his ditheistic vagaries. d) The fourth group of incautious Ante-Nicene expressions culminates in the teaching that the Father alone, by His very Nature, — i. e., because of His immensity,— is invisible, while the Son (and this is true of also) can manifest Himself visibly, and has in matter of fact so manifested Himself in the Old Testament theophanies and in the Incarnation. Petavius held that this theory necessarily entails the heretical inference that the Son is inferior to the Father. But we cannot share this view. It may be that the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers in question80 did not distinguish sharply enough between “apparition” (ap~ paritio) and “mission” (missio). But there can be no doubt that in speaking as they did they had in view only “mission.” For while the First Person of the Divine Trinity, who proceeds from none, can be conceived only as ” sending,” and never as ” sent,” the distinctive personal character of the Logos-Son supplies a congruous reason why He should be ” sent ” into the world by the Father, from whom He proceeds by eternal generation. The writers with whom we are here concerned do not ascribe the attribute of immensity or immeasurableness exclusively to the First Person of the Trinity; they merely observe that the Logos in His visible manifestation (i. e., according to His humanity), is not immense nor immeasurable. 3. Some Ante-Nicene Writers Whose Orthodoxy Remains Doubtful. — Though, as we 50 Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, et aU

have seen, the evidence at hand does not warrant a summary indictment of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, all of them cannot be successfully cleared of the charge of heresy. Some modern writers hold that even the Didache, or ” Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon, must be the work of an Ebionitic or Monarchianistic writer, because it contains no formal profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Atonement.51 But Funk has conclusively shown in the “Prolegomena” to his edition of this much-discussed work,62 that the Didache ranks Christ higher than a mere man. It is somewhat more difficult to disprove the recent charge that Hermas, the author of The Shepherd, “the longest and for form and contents the most remarkable of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers,” 58 constantly identifies the Person of the Son with that of the Holy Ghost.54 Though various attempts have been made to save the orthodoxy of the ” Shepherd/’ 65 we can hardly escape the conclusion that he ” bases the difference between the Son and on the fact of the Incarnation, the Son of God in His pre-existence being none other than the 61 See Krawutzky in the Theohgische Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1884, pp. 581 SQQ* I2P. XXXIX, Tubingae 1887. 68 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 38. The Shepherd was composed about A. D. 150. On its dogmatic teaching cfr. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 114 sqq. 64 E. g.: ” I [». the Shepherd] will show thee all things which (to mcO/acl to Hyiov) has shown thee, who spoke to thee in the figure of the Church; for that Spirit is the Son of God (i/ceivo yap to wpcvfia 6 vlbs rov Qeov iariy)” {Pastor Hermoe, Sim. IX, I, 1.) 66 Among others by Brull and R. Seeberg. \ INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS 151 Holy Ghost.” 8fl There is some doubt as to whether Hennas is guilty of identifying the Holy Ghost, or the Son of God respectively, with the Archangel Michael, as charged by Funk. True, the ” Shepherd ” attributes identical functions to and the Archangel Michael, but he draws a distinction between them in regard to rank.57 St. Hippolytus of Rome, the rival of Pope St. Callistus (A. D. 217-222), and one of the first antipopes known to history, in his controversies with Noetus and Sabellius championed Ditheistic views and even went so far as to refer to the Logos as Oeb? yo^i-d*,58 which caused Callistus to accuse him and his followers of being Ditheists: ” Atdeoi eW”59 Hippolytus retorted with the counter-charge of Modalism, saying that Callistus ” falls sometimes into the error of Sabellius, and sometimes into that of Theodotus,,, — which, says Bardenhewer, ” can only mean that on the one hand Callistus maintained the equality and unity of nature in the Father and the Son, without denying, as did Sabellius, the distinction of Persons; and on the other maintained the perfect humanity of the Redeemer, without denying his divinity, as did Theodotus.” 60 Origen’s Trinitarian teaching is rather enigmatic In the mind of this learned writer the Hellene seems to wrestle with the Christian, the pagan philosopher with the 66 Bardenhewer, Geschichte der II, 398 sq. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: altkirchlichen Liter atur, I, 577, Frci- His Knowability, Essence, and Atburg 1902. tributes, pp. 114 sq. 57 Cfr. Bardenhewer, op. cit. 60 Philos., IX, 12. Cfr. Duchesne, MContr. No’et., c. 10; Philos., X, Early History of the Christian 33. On the difference between ye- Church, Vol. I, pp. 212 sqq. rnr6v and ye¥mfir6wf cfr. Newman, 60 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, Select Treatises of St, Athanasius, p. 2x0.

i$2 Catholic believer. St. Jerome 61 accuses him of Arianism, and the brilliant defense of Origen’s orthodoxy by Pamphilus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Eusebius, and among modern writers by Vincenzi, has not fully dispelled this indictment. In his writings, Origen appears in a twofold role. Whenever he speaks as a simple witness to ecclesiastical Tradition, he voices the Catholic truth; 62 but when he speaks as a philosopher endeavoring to clear up the mysteries of the faith, he does not scruple to represent the Son of God as a ktut/ul ®eov and as a ” second God” (ScvTcpos ®eos) — a name which Plato had applied to the world as fashioned by the Demiurge. To do full justice to Origen’s position, it will be well to distinguish, as Athanasius does,63 between what he states Oerucm, as a witness to Tradition, and what he writes as a philosopher ” inquiring and exercising himself,” as Newman renders the term.64 The Tractatus Origenis de Libris SS. Scripturarum, consisting of twenty homilies which have reached us in an Orleans manuscript of the tenth, and in another of St. Omer belonging to the twelfth century, discovered and edited by Batiffol in 1900, are not the work of Origen nor of Novatian. The well-developed Trinitarian terminology of these homilies clearly indicates a Post-Nicene composition. Weyman has shown that the Latin text is original, but the true author has not yet been ascertained.66 61 Ep. 94 ad Avit. qui Filius est et omnia est, quae 62 Cfr. In Ioa., tr. 2, apud Mignc, Pater t ” P. G., XIV, 128: ” Didicimus ere- tzDe Decret. Nicaen. Syn., 27. dere (in Deo) esse tres hypostases: 64 Select Treatises of St. AthanaPatrem et Filium et Spiritum Sane- sius, I, 48. turn.” In Ep. ad Rom., VII, 5, 65 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa{apud Migne, /. c., 1115) he says: trology, p. 222; J. Tixeront, History ” Quomodo enim inferior dici potest, of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. I, pp. 261 sqq., St. Louis X910. s NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 153 Readings: — On the Trinitarian teaching of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, see especially *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 10-11, Romae 1881; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, §§ 231-232, Mainz 1885; Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der hi Dreieinigkeit, §§ 12-18, Tubingen 1857; *Duchesne, Les Timoins Antiniceens du Dogme de la Triniti, Paris 1882; Petavius, De Trinitate, lib. I, c. 3-5, and the “Praefatio”; Thomassin, De Trinitate, c. 37-47; *Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, 11. 2-4; B. Jungmann, Dissertationes Selectae in Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Vol. I, pp. 358 sqq., Ratisbonae 1880; B. Heurtier, Le Dogme de la Triniti dans Vtpitre de St. Clement de Rome et le Pasteur d’Hermas, Lyon 1900; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten lahrhundert. Ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Ertosungslehre, Freiburg 1910; F. Diekamp, Uber den Ut sprung des Trinitatsbekenntnisses, Minister 1910. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS i. The Dogmatic Teaching of the Fathers Against Arius and Macedonius. — a) The sensation caused throughout Christendom by the first appearance of the Arian heresy can be explained only on the assumption that the truth had been in quiet possession for three full centuries. The Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, at a synod held in his episcopal city about the year 320, excommunicated Arius. He explained the motives for this step in a lengthy letter to Bishop Alexander of Constantinople. “Quis unquam talia audivit?” he said among other things, “aut quis nunc audiens. non obstupescat

Article 3: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

et aures obstruct, ut ne talium verborum sordes auditum contaminent? — Who ever yet heard such language? and who that hears it now, but is shocked and stops his ears, that its foulness should not enter into them?” 66 This utterance clearly proves that the heresy of Arius, which attacked the very foundations of the dogma of the Divine Trinity, by asserting that the Logos-Son (Christ) is a mere creature, was at the beginning of the fourth century regarded as an intolerable innovation. St. Athanasius himself took a leading part in the Arian controversies which for many years shook the entire Orient and even made their evil effects felt among the Germanic nations of the Western world, especially among the Vandals in Africa. Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and is deservedly called “the Great.” He was ready to give up his life in defense of the Catholic truth that the Son is eternally begotten from the substance of the Father, and is consubstantial with Him, as defined by the Council of Nicaea. b) When (about 360) Macedonius began to undermine that other pillar of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, viz.: the Divinity and of the Holy Ghost, Athanasius again appeared in the arena and denounced his teach66 Opera Athanas., torn. I, p. 398, tises of St. Athanasius, Vol. I* p* Paris 1689; Newman, Select Trea- 5, 9th ed., London 1903. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 155 ing as “impious” and “unscriptural.” 67 “It is impious,” he said, “to call created or made (*™rrov tj ttomjtoV), seeing that both the Old and the New Testament connumerate and glorify Him with the Father and the Son, because He is of the same Divinity (wvapiOfui ko.1 &>£af«, 8ton ri/s au-rijs Ocor-qTOs eoTO’). St. Athanasius found powerful allies in the *three Cappadocians,” Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and particularly St. Basil, who in his work On the Holy Spirit 68 quotes a number of older writers in confirmation of the ecclesiastical Tradition.69 Honorable mention must also be accorded to St. Amphilochius, who was consecrated Bishop of Iconium, A. D. 374, and later became metropolitan of Lycaonia, (+ after 394). In the name of a synod of his Lycaonian suffragans he published a magnificent letter on the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.70 To Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria, *one 07 Cfr. St Athanasius, De lncarnatione Dei Verbi, reprinted in Migne, P. G.t XXVI, 998. 68 * It has always been the standard work on the subject ” (Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, p. 81, London 1908), despite the reproach of ” Economy ” which attaches to it, because St. Basil avoided (as he himself admits) calling God. 69 A picturesque account of the lives of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil will be found in A. Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, London 1908. For their works and an account of their teaching, as also of that of St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 286 sqq., pp. 295 sqq., and pp. 274 sqq. Note especially the passage from St. Gregory Nazianzen on the Trinity, ibid., p. 291. 70 Epistola Synod, contr. Pneumato machos. of the most notable men of an age that abounded in great personalities/’ (+ about 395) we owe, besides an important work On the Trinity TpiaSos), a lucid treatise entitled De Spiritu Sancto, which has reached us only in the sixty-three brief chapters of St. Jerome’s Latin translation,71 and which is indeed, as Bardenhewer says, “one of the best of its kind in Christian antiquity/’ 72 The most eminent defenders of the dogma in the West were St. Ambrose73 and St. Augustine,74 who was the first to attempt a systematic exposition of the mystery of the Divine Trinity. His famous work On the Trinity became the starting-point of the Trinitarian speculations of medieval Scholasticism. St. Anselm adopted Augustine’s profound considerations in his Monologium, whence they found their way into the Liber Sententiarum of Peter Lombard, and through this channel into the numerous theological Summae, among which that of St. Thomas Aquinas has ever held the place of honor.75

2. Patristic Polemics. — The method which the Fathers chose to refute the Scriptural objections raised by the Arians and Semi-Arians furnishes a valuable argument for the purity and 71 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 307 sqq. 72 Ibid., p. 308. On Didymus the Blind cfr. Bardy, Didyme I’Aveugle, Paris 1910. 78 De Spiritu Sancto ad Gratia* num Augustum, in three books. 74 De Trinitate. 75 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol, ia, qu. 27 sqq. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 157 imperishable freshness of the ecclesiastical Tradition touching the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. a) Prov. VIII, 22 reads: * Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum — The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways.* The Septuagint has: Iktutc /u cLptflv 68«5v avrov. This text was considered by the Arians as the weak spot in the Catholic armor. Catholics did not deny that the passage referred to the Logos, and the Arian contention that the Septuagint offered sufficient warrant for taking Christ to be KTtVfta ©eov — a creature of God — seemed well founded. It was a Gordian knot, which the Fathers, each in his own way, tried hard to unravel. Some suggested that the Septuagint text had been practiced upon by the Arians. Others referred the difficult passage to our Lord’s sacred Humanity, while others again thought it applied to His Divinity. On one point, however, all were unanimously agreed, viz., in holding that Christ was God and the Second Person of the Divine Trinity. Those among the Fathers who (wrongly) believed that Iktmtc was an Arian forgery for lKrqa€ = iKTrjaaTo (from Kraofiai = ac quiro, possideo) were guided by the thought that, since Eve said after the birth of Cain: * Possedi (W^ from fUjJ = possedit) hominem per Deum — I have gotten a man through God,* 76 the Hebrew text of Proverbs must have read, as our Latin Vulgate reads: “Dominus possedit me 0??P» *. *v generatione habet me; Ix^ac or IcrfjaaTo ftc). This interpretation was favored by Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Jerome. Most of the other Fathers, however, notably Athanasius and Nazianzen, in view of a parallel passage in Ecclesiasticus,71 70 Gen. IV, 1. tio et ante saecula ere at a (Ijcrure) 77Ecclus. XXIV, 14: ” Ab ini- sum.”

referred Prov. VIII, 22 to the Humanity of Christ and interpreted it thus: The Lord created me in my human nature as the beginning [apxn = principle] of his ways. 78 There was a third group of Fathers who did not hesitate to apply Prov. VIII, 22 to Christ’s Divine Nature. They interpreted the verb ktl^lv generically as producere = gignere,19 or looked upon it as a drastic term calculated to throw into relief the hypostatic self-existence of the Logos in contradistinction to the Father.80 The dogma of the Divinity of Christ, and consequently that of the Blessed Trinity, was safeguarded in any event.81 The New Testament piece de resistance of the Arian heretics was Christ’s own declaration, recorded in John XIV, 28: Pater maior me est — The Father is greater than I. Here, they alleged, Christ Himself attests His subordination to the Father. This objection, too, was met differently by different Fathers. While the Latins were inclined to limit John XIV, 28 to Christ’s Humanity (in which hypothesis the Arian argument simply collapsed), most of the Greek Fathers, notably Athanasius and Nazianzen, preferred the somewhat strained assumption that Christ is subject to the Father even in His Divine Nature, t. e., that the Father, by virtue of His being the First Person (avroOeo? = ava/ox©?), is at the same time the principle of the Son, who must therefore be conceived essentially as * Deus de Deo.* According to this theory the expression ” maior me ” signifies Christ’s immanent succession with 78 For further details, see Peta- 81 On these various interpretavius, De Trinitate, II, I, 3. tions, cfr. especially Ruiz, De Trini79 Thus St. Ephrem. tate, disp. 96; also St. Thomas, S, 80 This was the opinion of St. TheoL, 1a, qu. 41, art. 3. Hilary.

NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 159 regard to origin in the Godhead, not a difference in rank or power. The difficulty based on Christ’s primogeniture was tersely and effectively refuted by St. Ambrose: (t Legimus primogenititm, legimus unigenitum: primogenitus, quia nemo ante ipsum; unigenitus, quia nemo post ipsum — We read ‘the First-born/ and we read ‘the Onlybegotten’: He is the First-born, because there was no one before Him; He is the Only-begotten, because there is no one after Him.” 82 b) Besides a large number of philosophical fallacies, the Macedonians marshalled against the dogma of a series of Scriptural texts, which were loyally and learnedly restored to their true meaning by the Fathers. From Rom. VIII, 26: ” Ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus — The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings,” these heretics concluded: One who prays to God with unspeakable groanings cannot be Himself God; therefore is a mere creature. Without pointing to the evident anthropomorphism in this text, St. Augustine refutes the false interpretation of the Macedonians by the simple remark: “Dictum est ‘interpellate quia interpellate nos facit nobisque inter pellandi et gemendi inspirat affectum — The Bible says, the Spirit intercedes for us, because He makes us intercede and puts it into our hearts to intercede and groan.” 83 1 Cor. VIII, 6, where, strangely enough, the name of does not occur at all, was cited by the Pneumatomachians in favor of their 82 Ambros., De Fide, I, 7. Cfr. by Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 458 Newman, Tracts Theological and Ec- sqq., Ratisbonae 1881; cfr. also clesiastical, pp. 199 sqq., new ed., Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd London 1895. Other Arian difficul- ed., Vol. II, f 12, Freiburg 1895. ties of less importance are canvassed 83 Aug., £/>., 194 (al. 105), n. 6.

heretical tenet that the Third Person is a creature and therefore cannot be God. But, as St. Athanasius effectively retorted: ” The Holy and Blessed Trinity is so indivisibly united with itself, that when the Father is named, His Logos is included, and in the Logos also the Spirit. And when the Son is named, the Father is in the Son, nor is the Spirit outside the Logos, inasmuch as there is but one grace, which is perfected out of the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost.” 84 Readings: — Petavius, De Trinitate, I, 7 sqq.; George Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (against Petavius, I, 3 sqq.), Oxon. 1685 (On Bull’s work and its unmerited reputation, cfr. Hunter. Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 206 sq.); *M6hler, Athanasius der Grosse, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 1-116, Mainz 1844; Hergenrother, Die Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit nach Gregor von Nazianz, Ratisbon 1850; Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des hi Athanasius, Freiburg 1880; A. Beck, Die Trinitatslehre des hi. Hilarius von Poitiers, Mainz 1903; J. Bilz, Die Trinitdtslehre des hi. Johannes von Damaskus, Paderborn 1909. On the apologetical aspects of the subject, see Hettinger, Apologie des Christ entums, 9th ed., Vol. Ill, Freiburg 1907. BiEp. 1 ad Serap. 14. For fur- mann, Die Gottheit des HI. Geistes ther information on this aspect of nach den griechischen Vatern des the matter, see Kleutgen, De Ipso vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901. Deo, pp. 490 sqq., and Th. Scher