§2 — The Teaching of Revelation on Consubstantiality

§2: The Teaching of Revelation on

THE TEACHING OF REVELATION i. Sacred Scripture. — Though we have repeatedly spoken of the of the Three Divine Persons, it remains for us to prove from Scripture that this is not to be conceived after the manner of the harmony of thought and sentiment that sometimes unites intimate friends, nor yet in a merely generic way, as if there were one Godhead in three Gods, but strictly as identity of nature or ravrov

only. If they subsisted in three separate and distinct natures, there would be three Gods, — a belief which the Bible unmistakably condemns. If they subsist in one Divine Nature, we have the Christian Trinity as unequivocally taught throughout the New Testament. Consequently Tritheism is unscriptural. Let no one object that the term ” unus Deus” admits of being interpreted in a specific or a generic sense. For wherever several individuals of the same species or genus coexist, none of them can truthfully assert: I alone am and there is none other besides me. b) A special argument for our thesis can be derived from Christ’s sermon *in Solomon’s porch/’ which culminates in the words: Ego et Pater ununt sumus — I and the Father are one.” 4 This was a favorite quotation with the Fathers. Thus St. Augustine says in the thirtysixth of his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John: “Quod dixit ‘unutn/ liberat te ab Ario; quod dixit ‘sumus/ liberat te a Sabellio — The word ‘one’ in this passage excludes Arianism; the word ‘are’ excludes Sabellianism. 5 In order to understand what kind of unity Christ means when He says, *I and the Father are one,” we must examine the context. a) The outstanding thought of the preceding verses is that Christ gives life everlasting to His sheep by virtue of His own personal dominion and power, and 4 John X, 30. * Tract, in loa., 36, n. 9. (Mignc, P. L„ XXXV, 1668.)

that “no one shall pluck them out of [His] hand/’ To justify this claim He affirms: ” That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all,” and He proceeds to explain by first stating^ a truth which the Jews were quite ready to admit — viz.: that “no one can snatch” His sheep “out of the hand of [His] Father.* Then, after the manner of a minor premiss in a syllogism, follows the verse: * I and the Father are one,” by which Christ evidently means to say: I and the Father have the same nature, and consequently possess the same power. The conclusion, which figures as a sort of thesis at the head of the argument, is evident, viz.: Therefore, “I give [my sheep] life everlasting; … and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.” It is worth while to con this important text somewhat more minutely. The preceding portion of the context reads: ” Et ego vitam aeternam do eis [scU. ovibus meis], et non peribunt in aeternum, et nan rapiet eas quisquam de manu tnea. Pater tneus quod dedit tnihi, mains omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris mei. Ego et Pater unum sumus — And I give them [t. e., my sheep] life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one.”* ” That which my Father hath given me is greater than all,” is here alleged as the reason why Christ can give life everlasting to His sheep and prevent any one from plucking them out of His hand. Now, we know from numerous parallel passages,7 that the predicate expressed in the phrase “mains omnibus” can mean nothing else 6 John X, 28-30. 7Cfr., e. q., John XVI, 5; XVII, 10, etc

than the Divine Nature (sutntna res infinite perfecta), in so far as it is communicated, immediately and undiminished, by the begetting Father to His begotten Son. ” Dedit mihi” is therefore synonymous with ” gignendo mihi communicavit.” Consequently, the Son, by this communication to Him of the Divine Essence on the part of the Father, has precisely the same power as the Father, with this sole difference, that the Father has the Divine Nature and power of Himself, while the Son derives it from the Father. Taking this truth for the antecedent of an enthymeme, the conclusion: ” I and the Father are one,” can only mean that the Father and the Son, as possessing the same Nature and the same power, are absolutely consubstantial, i. e., identical in essence. St. Athanasius called particular attention to this when he said: ”… ut scilicet eandem amborum divinitatem (ravrorriTa rfc OeorrjTo?) unamque naturam (cvorrjTa rip ovaias) esse doceret — In order to show the identity of Godhead in both, and the unity of Nature.” 8 This argument is not weakened by the circumstance that the textus receptus has: cO irarrjp fiov, os Sc’&dkc poi, iravrm fic^wv con’. For, as the explanation given by St. Chrysostom 9 shows, this variant affects merely the form, and not the substance of the argument based upon John P) The verses which follow (John X, 34 sqq.) positively confirm the argument. The Jews obviously understood Christ’s dictum, ” I and the Father are one,” to mean perfect ; for they “took up stones to stone him for blasphemy.” ” For a good work we stone thee not,” they explained, ” but for blasphemy; 8 Or, Contr. Arian,, 3, 3 (Migne, » Horn, in Ioa., 61, 2 (Migne, P. G., XXVI, 327). P. C, LIX, 338 sqq.). X, 29. 18

and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” 10 How did Jesus meet this accusation? Did He retract what He had said? Did He tell the Jews that they misunderstood Him ? No; He repeated His previous statement and confirmed it by an argumentum a minori ad mains. * Is it not written in your law,* He asks, ” I said ’ you are gods ’ ? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be broken; do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: ‘Thou blasphemest/ because I said, ’ I am the Son of God ’ ? * 11 In corroboration of His claim, Christ points to His miracles: * If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 12 By thus accentuating His immanence in the Father (Perichoresis), He merely repeats in other words what He had said before: ” I and the Father are one.” It is because He clearly asserted His with God the Father, that the Jews became convinced that He blasphemed; and to emphasize His with the Father He repeated His assertion in the words: “I am the Son of God.” This also explains why His adversaries ” sought to take him,” so that He found it advisable to 10 John X, 33: * De bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphetnia: et quia tu, homo cum sis, fads teipsum Deum (rotcif ctavrbv ecoiO.* 11 John X, 34 ” Respondit sis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in lege vestra: Quia ego dixit dii estisf [Ps. LXXXI, 6]. Si illos dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei foetus est, et non potest solvi scrip* tura, quern Pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum, vos dicitis: quia blasphemas, quia dixi: Filius Dei sum? * 12 John X, 37 sqq.: Si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite eredere mihi; si autem facio, et si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis, quia Pater in me est, et ego in Potre.” X TRADITION 269 ” escape out of their hands. 13 This interpretation has ample support in the writings of the Fathers. * Had they [the Father and the Son] been two,” says St. Athanasius, ” He [Christ] would not have said: ’ I and the Father are one/ but ’ 1 am the Father/ or ’ I and the Father am ’; … the word ’ I ’ declares the Person of the Son, and the word ’ Father ’ as evidently expresses him who begat the Son, and the word ’ One ’ the one Godhead and His consubstantiality.” 14

2. Tradition. — Faydit, Cudworth, Placidus Sturmer, O.S.B., and others, have accused the Nicene Fathers of Tritheism, because, as they claimed, these Fathers in their naive ignorance had understood the term o^oouVwv as denoting a merely generic unity. Following the example of Sabinus of Heraclea, who was a Macedonian heretic,15 Adolph Harnack boldly charged the Bishops assembled at Nicaea with intellectual incapacity. He says there were no really able theologians among them, and adds: “The unanimous adoption of the synodal decree can be explained only on the assumption that the question at issue exceeded the mental capacity of most of the Bishops present.* 16 This utterance is not surprising in the mouth of a writer who is IS John X, 39: * Quaercbant ergo (oS? eum apprehendere, et exivit de manibus eorum.” 14 Orat., Contr, Arian., 4, n. 9. (The Orations of S. Athanasius Against the Arians in the Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature, p. 271, London [s. a,]. Cfr. on this topic especially Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 7, ed. 4, Romae 1893. 16 Cfr. Socrat, Hist. Eccl., I, 8. 16 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, p. 222. 270 THE DIVINE PERSONS satisfied that “the Logos-^ovW? formula simply leads to absurdity/’ and that “Athanasius tolerated this absurdity, and the Council of Nicaea formally sanctioned it.” 17 According to the theory of this school it was St. Augustine who invented the strictly monotheistic conception of the unity of the Godhead, and introduced it into what is properly called ecclesiastical Tradition. How unwarranted this theory is will appear from the following considerations. a) The very method which the Nicene Fathers chose to defend the o/wovaiov against the attacks of Arianism, proves that they conceived the of Son and Father as absolute identity of essence (ravrovo-ta). The Arian and Eunomian objections may be summarized thus: “Either God is one, or Father and Son are separate and distinct Persons. If God is one, then Sabellius is right in denying a distinction of Persons. If the Father and the Son are separate and distinct Persons, then the Godhead is— divided by the act of Divine Generation, and we have Ditheism. Consequently the Son is not b/ioovaios with the Father.” Eunomius in particular insisted that Story* yeyovev ek SvdSa. Had the Nicene Fathers been Tritheists, they would manifestly have accepted the Arian conclusion, instead of combating it so energetically. For no one who took bfioovaia to mean mere unity of species or genus, could consistently refuse to accept the logical inference that Generation and Spiration effect in the Divine Nature an intrinsic scission by which the Father 17 Ad. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, p. 221.

is ” God ” other than the Son. The Nicene Fathers endeavor to show, on the contrary, that the act of Generation in no wise involves a multiplication of the Divine Nature, and therefore does not . impair the absolute simplicity of essence proper to the Godhead. As a representative utterance, we may cite the subjoined passage from the writings of St. Athanasius: “The Fathers of the Council … were compelled … to resay and rewrite more distinctly still, what they had said before, that the Son is consubstantial (6fioovv* 18 KfHOTOS ). b) The orthodoxy of the post-Nicene Bishops manifested itself in a manner that might almost be called dramatic at a council held in Alexandria (A. D. 362) for the express purpose of restoring peace. At this council, when the assembled Fathers had got into a wrangle over the use of the terms ovaia and wrooraais, because some of them thought that the formula i-pcts vTToordaeG savored of the heretical teaching embodied in the Latin phrase “ires substantiae” 19 St. Athanasius 18 De Deer, Nic. Syn., n. 20 sqq. II, and ed., pp. 124 sqq., | 14, On the more conciliatory position Freiburg 189s. taken by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, sea l» Supra, p. 227, Schwane, Dogmengeschichtg, Vol.

by a clever cross-examination brought out the fact that all really held the same faith. This led St. Gregory Nazianzen to observe: ” It was indeed a ludicrous, or rather a regrettable incident; there appeared to be divergency of faith where there was merely a dispute about words.” 20 The Council finally permitted the use of both locutions {viz.: One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases), on condition that in employing the former phrase there be no imputation of Sabellianism, and in enunciating the latter, the Arian heresy of three separate and distinct Gods be expressly disavowed. But it soon became necessary to define the dogma still more clearly. St. Basil was the first who endeavored formally to justify the phrase “Three Hypostases,” and .to give it universal currency.21 c) It is easy, in addition, to quote express Patristic texts showing that the Fathers understood 6/toovata to mean ravTovaia. St. Basil, for example, in rejecting Ditheism and Tritheism, writes: ” Only one God the Father, only one God the Son, not two Gods, because the Son is identical with the Father (orciS? TavrorqTa «X« o vtos 7rpos tov mripa) . For I do not behold one Deity in the Father, and another in the Son, nor one Nature here, and another there.” 22 St. Gregory of Nazianzus anticipates the scientific terminology of a later age when he says: ” Neque enim Filius est Pater, nam unus Pater: tamen Filius est id, quod Pater. Nec Spiritus est Filius, quia ex Deo est, nam unus unigenitus; tamen Spiritus est id, quod Filius. Tres sunt unum deitate (lv ra rpta rjj flconyn), unum est tres proprietati20 Or. 21, 35 (Migne, P. G., 22 Horn., 24, 3 (Migne, P. G., XXXV, 1 126). XXXI, 604 sq.). 21 Cfr. Jos. Schwane, Dogmengeschicht*, Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 151.

hus (to Sv rpta Tots tSvorrjat = WooraoOTiv) — The Son is not the Father, for there is but one Father: yet the Son is that which the Father is. Nor is the Son, for the reason that He is from God, because there is but one Only-begotten; yet is that which the Son is. The Three are one Godhead, and the One Godhead is threefold with regard to its Properties [i. e., the Hypostases].” 28 The unknown author of the Libri XII de Trinitate (believed by some to be Vigilius of Tapsus, by others St. Athanasius), nomina personarum tres deos confitetur — Cursed be he who, because there are Three Personal Names, professes three Gods.” 24 A conclusive and definitive testimony, which expressly echoes the faith of the preceding ages, is this of St. Augustine: ” O nines, quos legere potui, qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate, quae Deus est … hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere, quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unius eiusdemque substantiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem, ideoque non sint tres dii, sed unus Deus — All those whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God.”26 This declaration of the great Bishop of Hippo embodies one of the most telling arguments against Tritheism. d) There seems to be one weak link in the Patristic chain of evidence, and that is the teaching of St. Gregory 23 Or., 31, 9. 25 Trinit., I, 4, 7. Haddan’t 24 In Migne, P. L., LXII, 278. translation, p. 7. cries out in holy anger: ” Maledictus, qui propter tria

of Nyssa, who puts the essential unity of the Three Divine Persons on a level with the essential unity proper to three human beings. But if we consider that, as a philosopher, Gregory advocated Platonic ultra-realism and conceived the specific unity of human individuals as a genuine ravrovaia, we shall be inclined to consider the remarkable parallel this Saint has drawn between divine and human unity as a confirmation rather than an indictment of his orthodoxy. If it were true, as he held, that human nature is numerically the same in all men,26 and that many men is said by an abuse of the term, not in its strict sense, 7 that, therefore, ” Peter and Paul and Barnabas are but one man,“28 it would be perfectly orthodox to say that ” Igitur unus nobis confitendus est Dens iuxta Scripturae testimonium: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Dominus unus est,2 etiamsi vox deitatis permeat sanctam Trinitatem” zo Readings: — Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vols. Ill and V, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1877 and 1886. — Oswald, Trinitdtslehre, §10, Paderborn 1888. — Albert a Bulsano, Instit. Theologiae Dogtnat. Specialis, ed. Gfr. a Graun, torn. I, pp. 174-200, Oeniponte 1893. — Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 2, cap. 1-5, Ratisbonae 1881. — Hurter, Compendium, t. II, ed. 9a, thes. 114-116, Oeniponte 1896.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §112, Freiburg 1873.— H. PLiddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, pp. 528 sqq., London 1867. 26 eZs de iv iraai 6 dvOpuvos. 27 \4yovTai 8i iroXXol ivOpwvot KaraxpwriKus ko\ 06 Kvplm. 28 These quotations will be found in Migne, P. G„ XLV, 180. 29 Deut. VI, 4. 80 Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium (Migne, P. C, XLV, 119.) Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 300 sqq., Freiburg and St. Louis 1908.