Part II Chapter II §1: The Attributes of Christ According to His Divinity

Chapter II: The Effects of the Hypostatic Union

§1: The Attributes of Christ According to His Divinity

SECTION i THE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO HIS DIVINITY

Article 1: The Perichoresis of the Two Natures in Christ

THE PERICHORESIS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST i. Definition of Perichoresis. — The notion of Perichoresis (irqwxw*** or ^tt^ix^pi^w, in Latin circumincessio, later circuminsessio) embraces two essential elements: (a) Duality in unity and (b) Unity in duality. The former is the material, the latter the formal element. In other words: The mutually in-existing substances must be (i) really distinct and (2) substantially one. Without a real distinction there would be no Perichoresis but absolute identity; without substantial unity the two substances would merely co-exist side by side. The specific nature of Perichoresis depends entirely on the manner in which the elements are combined in one unum substantiate. Trinitarian differs essentially from Christological Perichoresis, is its exact counterpart in fact, because the mutual relations of nature and person in the Blessed Trinity and in Christ are precisely con179 i8o UNITY IN DUALITY trary.2 “As in the Trinity, three Persons exist in one nature, so in the Word Incarnate, two natures exist in one Person, and therefore the Fathers applied the term Perichoresis to both mysteries. But as Trinitarian Perichoresis proceeds, so to speak, from the statical possession of a common nature, so in the mystery of the Incarnation Perichoresis is based upon the Hypostatic Union, i. e., that powerful magnet by which the human nature is drawn into substantial communion with the Godhead. This latter Perichoresis reaches its climax in the effective interpenetration of both natures in Christ’s theandric operation.” 8 In Christ, therefore, the bond which unites Godhead and manhood is the Divine Person of the Logos, who possesses at once two natures intimately united, indwelling in each other by virtue of the Hypostatic Union.4 Considered in relation to the Hypostatic Union, Perichoresis is its counterpart rather than an effect flowing therefrom. For, as Oswald truly observes, ” The Symperichoresis of the two natures, effected by personal unity, is merely the reverse side of that personal unity by which it is effected; the two complement each other and together constitute the perfect expression of the hypostatic or physical union.”5 According to our human mode of conception, the Hypostatic Union precedes Perichoresis as a condition precedes that which it conditions, and therefore we conceive the latter as an effect of the former. In Christology, therefore, Perichoresis may be defined as “the mutual in-existence of the two 2 V, supra, pp. 3 sq. ciav rtav vvtlOL$. Vol. I, p. 684, Freiburg 1901. 4Cfr. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bp* 101 ad Cledon.: kclI wepix«p

unmixed natures (the divine and the human) by reason of their hypostatic union with the Person of the Logos/’ 2. The Power of Perichoresis. — In conformity with our previous teaching in regard to the immutability of the Logos,6 we claim that the power which unifies and binds together the two natures in Perichoresis cannot proceed from the humanity of Christ; it must originate in the Divine Logos, who, despite His own impenetrability, in a manner ineffable and mysterious, seizes, penetrates, and immerses Himself in the human nature, and thus becomes * Adyo« €vavOp

Damascus puts it thus : ” The penetration does not proceed from the flesh, but from the Godhead. For it is impossible that the flesh should permeate the Godhead; but by penetrating into the flesh, the Divine Nature has endowed the flesh with an inexplicable penetration of itself, which is called unition.* 8 b) In view of this dissimilarity, there can be no doubt as to what the holy Fathers mean when they speak of a * deificatio humanitatis” and refer to the flesh of Christ as ” vivifica” The term deificatio (Qtfaxns) does not signify apotheosis in the Monophysitic sense. It is rather to be taken as indicating merely the deification of Christ’s manhood through the medium of Perichoresis or the Hypostatic Union. St. John Damascene says: ” From the time that God the Word became flesh, He is as we are in everything except sin, and of our nature without confusion. He has deified our flesh for ever through the mutual interpenetration of His Godhead and His flesh without confusion.”* Consequently the OcloxTis is not based on ovy^o-w, but on the irtpix^p-qai’i of the two natures resulting from their Hypostatic Union. To deification thus defined there corresponds as a practical correlative the ” vivifying power of Christ’s flesh,” because His humanity (which is what is meant by flesh), represents a ” second nature ” hypostatically incorporated with and intimately possessed by the Divine Logos, which (second nature) as instrutnentum coniunctum, produces truly theandric effects.10 * Si quis non confiteBDg Fide Orthodoxa, III, 19: inexplicabilem in se ipsam im* Commeatio non ex came, sed ex meationem, quam unitionem vodivinitate facta est. Impossibile est cant.* 9 Or. de Imagin., I, 21. 10 V. supra, pp. 162 sqq. tur,* says the Council of Ephesus (431), ” carnem Domini vivificatricem esse et propriam ipsius Verbi Dei Patris sed velut alterius praeter ipsum coniuncti eidem per dignitatem aut quasi divinam habentis habitationem, ac non potius vivificatricem esse, quia facta est propria Verbi cuncta vivificare valentis,11 anathema sit.‘f 12 3. The Import of Perichoresis. — The doctrine of Perichoresis contains the most effective and trenchant refutation of all Christological as well as Trinitarian heresies. It categorically excludes Nestorianism and Adoptionism, which assert that the two natures co-exist side by side, and it disproves Monophysitism and Monothelitism, because the mutual in-existence of the two natures necessarily supposes their respective integrity. Thus there can be no exaggeration of the notion of unity, which would result in real confusion. Perichoresis represents the golden mean between heretical extremes and is equally effective against Nestorius and Eutyches. Implying as it does the truth that there are in Christ two natures, a divine and a human, it strikes effectively at all those heresies which deny either the Divinity or the humanity of our Lord and Saviour. Pope Leo the Great gives apt expression to this thought when he says : “Tota enim est in 11 ff&pica ^(aovoidy … 6tl yd- 12 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiriyove I6la tov A6yov tov rh vdpra dion, n. 123. Cfr. Petavius, De In$woyoveiv Iffxtovros. earn., X, 1 sqq. UNITY IN DUALITY maiestate humilitas, tota in humilitate maiestas, nec infert unitas confusionem, nec dirimit proprietas unitatem” 18

Article 2: The Communication of Idioms

THE COMMUNICATION OF IDIOMS i. Definition of the Term. — What is technically known as the Communication of Idioms may be defined as a mutual exchange of divine and human properties in virtue of the Hypostatic Union. Though practically identical with Perichoresis, the Communication of Idioms may more appropriately be regarded as an effect thereof. For if the Divine Person of the Logos is both God and man, it is inevitable that His Godhead and His manhood should interchange their respective properties, and this is precisely what is meant by communicatio proprietatum s. idiOfHUtUfft (avnSoo-is twv ifiuo/jiaiw fj tStOTTyTcov). We thus have a transfer of predicates or attributes from one nature to the other, as, e. g., “God has suffered,” or “The man is God.” Since, however, “interchange” and “predication” are not synonymous terms, it will be better, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish between the (ontological) interchange of idioms and the (logical) predication of the several kinds of attributes. 18 Serm. dt Pass., 3, c. x. a) Communicatio idiomatum means the actual transfer of divine attributes to the man Jesus and of human attributes to the Divine Logos. The extent and mode of this transfer depend on the manner in which Godhead and manhood are united in Christ. After a fashion even Nestorianism and Monophysitism admitted a Communication of Idioms, but their theory, made to conform with the heretical system of which it is a corollary, differs essentially from the approved Catholic doctrine. Communication of Idioms in the Catholic sense is based on this principle : In Christ God is man and man is God; but Godhead and manhood are by no means identical. In the words of the Council of Ephesus: “Una persona composita Christus totus est Deus et totus est homo; totus est Deus etiam cum humanitate, sed non secundum humanitatem Deus, et totus est homo cum divinitate, sed non secundum divinitatem homo — One composite person, Christ, is all God and all man; He is all God even with His manhood, but not according to His manhood ; and He is all man with His Godhead, but not according to His Godhead.” 1 It is wrong to say, therefore, as some theologians do, that the doctrines of Perichoresis and Communication of Idioms represent a mere Scholastic logomachy. They constitute a touchstone of orthodoxy in all questions re1 Cfr. Hardouin, ConciL, I, 1640* r 1 garding the union between the Godhead and human nature. Perichoresis is merely the reverse side of the Hypostatic Union, while the arrt&xn* r«r StM/iarwr represents a necessary and important corollary of that dogma. These two doctrines enable the theologian to conclude a posteriori from the one to the other, and from the effect to the cause, i. e., the Hypostatic Union itself. It is by means of this method that we have demonstrated the Hypostatic Union from Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Creeds, and by this same method Nestorius was convicted of heresy in his teaching on the Communication of Idioms. b) By Predication of Idioms we understand the communicatio idiomatum expressed in terms of thought or speech. Needless to say, a term must correspond to the thing which it is intended to designate. Formulated in logical terms the ontological law underlying the communicatio idiomatum gives us the following rule of predication : “Whatever is predicated of the Divine Person of Christ according to His Divine Nature, can and must be predicated of the same Divine Person also in His human nature, and vice versa; but the predicates proper to the Divine Nature must not be assigned to the human nature, and vice versa.” The first part of this rule is based upon the unity of the one Divine Person in two natures ; the second, upon the fact that the two natures co-exist separately and inconfused in one Person. * Christus est una persona et hypostasis in utraque natura, divina scil. et humana,* says St. Thomas, ” unde potest utriusque naturae nomine designari; et quocunque nomine significetur, potest praedicari de eo id quod est utriusque naturae, quia utrique non supponitur nisi una hypostasis. Et per hunc modum possumus dicere, quod “homo creavit Stellas” et quod * Dominus gloriae est crucifixus * ; et tamen non creavit Stellas secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus: nec crucifixus est secundum quod Deus, sed inquantum homo” 2 This rule is merely an application of the general principles of logic. Of sugar, for instance, we can say in concrete terms : ” The white is sweet ” and “The sweet is white,” because the unity of the underlying suppositum produces an objective identity between its attributes. But we cannot say that “whiteness is sweetness,” because the two qualities thus denoted are separate and distinct entities and their concepts cannot be interchanged. Reduced to its simplest terms, therefore, the Christological law of predication reads: * Mutua idiomatum praedicatio valet tantummodo in concreto, non valet in abstractor We can say of Christ, for instance, * God is man,” or ” Man is God,” but we cannot say, ” Divinity is humanity,” or ” Humanity is Divinity.” For according to a general rule of logic, concrete terms alone demonstrate or ” suppose ” the hypostasis or person, while abstract terms always demonstrate or suppose the nature of a being.8 2. Special Rules for the Predication of Idioms. — The communicatio idiomatum is not always accurately predicated. a) The only correct predicates are those based upon the orthodox doctrine that there is in Christ 2 Led, in i Cor., 2, II. v 8 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 16, art 4. 13 1 but one Person, and that this one (Divine) Person possesses two inconfused natures. a) Human predicates can be applied to the Divine Hypostasis only in concrete. It is only by concrete terms that a subject is designated as the bearer of its predicates, and the rules of logic permit us to affirm the objective identity of subject and predicate. We may, therefore, say : ” God is man,” ” The Logos is the Son of Mary,” ” Christ was weary ” ; for in making these statements we simply assert that one and the same person exercises two distinct natural functions. p) If, however, the Ao’yos

abstract terms that express a purely human quality, because the Godhead is not and cannot be identical with manhood. Hence it would be false to say that ” The Logos is the human nature,” or ” Christ is mortality.” b) Predicates which deny the unity of Person or involve a confusion of the two natures in Christ 4 are necessarily false. a) Any predicate which would either formally exclude the Divine Person or include a (non-existing) human person, would give rise to false and heretical inferences ; for example : ” The Son of Mary is not the same as the Son of the Father,” or ” Christ is a mere man.” To this category belongs the Adoptionist thesis : ” The man Jesus is not the natural, but an adopted son of God.” P) Whenever divine and human attributes are expressed by means of abstract terms, these terms may not, under pain of heresy, be interchanged (e. g., ” The Godhead is the manhood,” ” Mortality is omnipotence ”), because abstract terms logically ” suppose ” the nature of a being, and the two natures in Christ are distinct and inconfused. y) Purely human abstract terms must not be predicated of the Godhead,5 because the Divine Person and the human nature of Christ are in no wise identical. Hence it would be wrong to say : ” The Logos is manhood ” (instead of : ” The Logos is man ”). This rule also applies to those concrete human attributes which by their very nature cannot be predicated of the Divine Hypostasis, e. g., body and soul as essential components 4 The first-mentioned error is 5 The case is, of course, different that of Nestorius, the second that with such abstract terms as denote of the Monophysites. divine attributes. igo UNITY IN DUALITY of human nature. Not even during the triduum mortis would it have been correct to say : ” The Son of God is a corpse,” or ” The Logos is a soul,” because, though concrete, the terms body and soul apply solely to the human nature in its essential constituents. t) No human concretum, and a fortiori no human abstractum, can be predicated of a divine abstractum. Hence it would be inaccurate to say : ” The Godhead is the Son of Mary,” or ” Omnipotence was crucified,” or, still worse, ” Divine wisdom is passibility.” There is but one exception to this rule, namely if the abstract term is employed by the speaker or writer — as it was sometimes employed by the Fathers — in lieu of a concrete, e. g., Deitas [=is qui habet deitotem] nata est ex Virgine. In the famous hymn attributed to St. Ambrose a concrete is substituted for an abstract term : * Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem [= naturam humanam s. humanitatem] non horruisti Virginis uterum.* c) Lastly, such attributes as are based on the supposition that the Incarnation has not yet taken place, may be predicated of the Logos, but not of Christ. Hence it is incorrect to say : ” Christ was made man,” instead of : ” The Son of God (or Logos) was made man.” This is a rule which is often violated by catechists and preachers ; fortunately, however, disregard of it does not involve heresy. c) Ambiguous predicates are those which, being couched in indefinite terms, admit of both an orthodox and a heretical interpretation. Predicates of this sort have always been popular with heretics, because they afford a comfortable hiding place to those who covertly attack the Catholic faith. When such ambiguous predicates occur in the writings of the Fathers the presumption is always in favor of orthodoxy. Preachers, catechists, and all who write on theological subjects should, however, bear in mind that they are bound to express the Catholic doctrine in correct, unmistakable, and unequivocal terms. Thus, instead of saying : ” Christ is a creature,” it is preferable to use the phrase : ” Christ according to His manhood is a creature,” thus positively excluding Arianism. In view of Nestorianism certain expressions which were employed by the Fathers before the rise of that heresy have been officially proscribed and must now be avoided; e. g., homo deifer (avOpuiro? 6eo6po

UNITY IN DUALITY last is inadmissible because based on the Lutheran error of Ubiquitarianism. a) While it is true that St. Paul speaks only of the ” form of a servant,” 10 and nowhere directly refers to our Saviour as ” servant of God,” 11 the prophet Isaias expressly described the coming Messias as nfrPTig (= servus Dei). The Adoptionists seized upon this phrase to support their false theory that, side by side with the divine vlorrp, there exists in Christ a creatural SovXeia, which ceases only in virtue of a gracious vloOeaia or adoption on the part of God. Against this heretical teaching Pope Hadrian wrote in his decree approving the Council of Frankfort (A. D. 793) : ” Adoptivum eum Filium, quasi purum hominem, calamitati humanae subiectum, et quod pudet dicere, servum eum impii et ingrati tantis beneficiis liberatorem nostrum non pertimescitis venenosd fauce susurrare, … etsi in umbra prophetiae dictus est servus propter servilis formae conditionem, quam sumpsit ex Virgine” 12 This dogmatic definition clearly states under what conditions it is permissible to speak of Christ as a servus Dei.” The word ” servus ” may be taken hypostatically in the sense of * Hypostasis Christi est serva* in contrary opposition to ” Filius naturalis Dei,” who, as such, cannot be a servant of His Father, with whom He is consubstantial. In this sense the use of the term is heretical. If, however, “servus Dei” be taken substantively in the sense of * Christus est servus Dei ratione naturae servae* in so far as, in His human nature, He owes obedience to the Father, of whom He Himself says : 10 ” Forma servi (/top0^ 12 Denzinger-Bannwart, EnchiriXoi/).” don> n’ 310. 11 “Servus Dei (SoOXos Gcov).” SOME FAMOUS AMPHIBOLOGIES 193 “The Father is greater than I,” the term is Scriptural and thoroughly orthodox.18 b) The formula: * Unus de SS. Trinitate crucifixus est is also quite orthodox in itself, but was used in a heretical sense in the fifth century by Peter the Fuller, Bishop of Antioch and leader of the Theopaschitae. Peter held that the Godhead as such was crucified. In this sense the phrase was condemned by Pope Felix III (483-492). A. D. 519 the so-called Scythian monks, headed by John Maxentius, in their intemperate zeal for the purity of the faith against the Nestorians and Monophysites, vehemently demanded that the proposition : * One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh,* be made a shibboleth of orthodoxy and incorporated into the Creed of Chalcedon. Already at Constantinople the papal legates had declared that the Creed of Ephesus and Chalcedon was sufficiently explicit against the two heresies. August 13, 520, Pope Hormisdas wrote to Possessor, an African bishop resident at Constantinople, severely rebuking the quarrelsome spirit of the Scythian monks.14 The hesitating attitude of Pope Hormisdas towards these fanatical monks did not mean that the Church condemned the formula in question, for not long after (A. D. 553) the Fifth General Council of Constantinople declared that ” Whoever does not profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in the flesh, is true God and the Lord of glory, and one of the Blessed Trinity, let him be anathema.” 15 18 Cfr. Suarez, De Incarn., disp. tninum nostrum Iesum Christum, qui 44; Petavius, De Incarn., VII, 7; crucifixus est came, Deum esse veDe Lugo, De Mysterio Incarn,, disp. rum, et Dominum gloriae, et unum 28, sect. 3. de Sancta Trinitate Ual era r^ff 14 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- &ylas rpiddos), talis a. s.’* (Can. 10. trology, p. 548. apud Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri15 “Si quis non confitetur, Do- dion,n. 222). On the affair of Pope 194 UNITY IN DUALITY That the Theopaschitae interpreted the formula in a Monophysitic sense, is evident from the fact that they added * qui crucifixus es pro nobis * to the ancient doxology, thereby insinuating that they believed the thrice holy Trinity, i. e., the Godhead itself, to have been crucified for us. The Church has ever abhorred this Theopaschitic heresy, as appears from the Professio Fidei Orientalibus Praescripta drawn up by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV, which says: “Per quam definitionem [Concilii Chalcedonensis] damnatur impia haeresis illorum, qui Trisagio ab angelis tradito et in praefata Chalcedonensi synodo decantato: € Sanctus Deus, sanctus fortis, sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis 9 addebant: ’ qui crucifixus es pro nobis/ atque adeo divinam naturam trium personarum passibilem asserebant et mortalem.”1* Even thus illegitimately expanded, the doxology could still be interpreted in an orthodox sense, provided it were understood as relating to Christ alone and not to the whole Trinity ; for Christ, being true God, is ” holy, strong, and immortal,” and ” was crucified for us ” in the flesh. But the Church has always regarded this hymn as a profession of faith in the Blessed Trinity.17 c) The Lutheran doctrine of Ubiquitarianism originated in a wrong application of the communicatio idiomaturn. Luther wished to defend his teaching on the Holy Eucharist against Zwingli without having recourse to the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. He was not satisfied with saying, in conformity with the rules governing the Communication of Idioms, that ” Christ is omnipresent/’ but falsified this true proposition by making it Hormisdas and the Scythian monks 16 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchirisee H. Grisar, S. J., History of dion, n. 1463. Romt and the Popes, Vol. II, pp. 17 Cfr. Is. VI, 3; Apoc. IV, 8. 30a sqq., London 1912. See Fratuelin, De Verbo Incarnato, p. 348, Rome 2910. read : ” Christ, as man, i. e., according to His human nature, is omnipresent; ” nay, he went so far as to assert that “the body of Christ is omnipresent.,, The early Lutheran divines treated this ludicrous theory as an article of faith and expounded it with a wealth of subtle distinctions ; but in process of time its absurdity became so glaringly apparent that Ubiquitarianism was gradually dropped.18 Belief in the omnipresence of Christ’s human nature, particularly His material body, is repugnant to common sense and to the teaching of Revelation. Holy Scripture treats the local circumscription (ubicatio localis) of the body of Christ both during His earthly pilgrimage19 and after His glorious Resurrection,20 as a matter of course. The mysteries of our Saviour’s life which are proposed to us as articles of faith in the Apostles’ Creed (such as, e. g., His conception, His birth, His death, His burial, His descent into hell, His resurrection, etc.), would be utterly meaningless in the Ubiquist hypothesis. u Unus idemque homo,’* says St. Fulgentius, * lo calis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Patre.* 21 And the Second Council of Nicaea (A. D. 787) defines: ” Si quis Christum Deutn nostrum circumscriptum 22 non confitetur secundum humanitatem,2* anathema sit’} 24 Readings :— * St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 16, art. 1-12.— Billuart, Sumtna S. Thontae, Tr. de Incarnatione, diss. 16. — L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 570 sqq., Friburgi 1901. — 18 Cfr. G. Esser in the Kitchen- 22 w€piypawT6p. lexikon, 2nd ed. Vol. XII, s. v. 23 #carA to AvSpwiriPov. ” Ubiquitatslehre.” 24 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 30. 18 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, xi; John For a detailed refutation of UbiqXI, 14-21, XVI, 28. uitarianism see Bellarmine, De 20 Cfr. Matth. XXVIII, 5 sq.; Christo, 1. Ill, c. 9-20; L. JansMark XVI, 6; Luke XXIV, 51; sens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. Acts I, 11, III, 21; Heb. VIII, 1. 611 sqq.; Tepe, InsHt. TheoU, Vol. 21 Ad Trosam., II, 17. Ill, pp. 551 sqq. The teaching of the Fathers is fully expounded by Petavius, De Incarnation*, IV, 15-16, and * Stentrup, Christologia, thes. 37 sqq., Oeniponte 1882. — Cfr. also Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol II, pp. 106 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1901.

Article 3: The Divine Sonship of Christ, as Defined Against Adoptionism

THE DIVINE SONSHIP OF CHRIST AS DEFINED AGAINST ADOPTIONISM i. Adoptionism and the Church. — a) Towards the close of the eighth century, Archbishop Elipandus, of Toledo, and his disciple Felix, Bishop of Urgel in Catalonia, taught that there is a twofold filiation in Christ, and that, as man, He is not the natural, but only an adopted Son of God. The Adoptionists appealed to Holy Scripture, to the writings of Isidore of Sevilla, and to certain ambiguous phrases in the Mozarabic liturgy in support of their false teaching. b) Contemporary theologians of the stamp of Beatus of Astorga, Agobard of Lyons, Paulinus of Aquileja, Richbod of Treves, and especially Alcuin, soon perceived that the doctrine of a twofold filiation involved the heresy of a double personality in Christ, and that, consequently, Adoptionism was merely a new form of Nestorianism. Pope Hadrian the First took the same view. In a dogmatic epistle (A. D. 785) he warned the Spanish bishops against the poisonous doctrines of Elipandus and his followers, “who do not blush to affirm that the Son of God is an adopted son, — a blasphemy which no other heretic has dared to enunciate, except the perfidious Nestorius, who claimed that the Son of God is a mere man.” 1 Adoptionism was solemnly condemned at a council held “by Apostolic authority” in Frankfort, A. D. 794.2 2. Adoptionism Refuted from Divine Revelation. — Since Adoptionism is little more than a thinly veiled Nestorianism, it is scarcely necessary to enter into its refutation after what we have said against the latter heresy.3 Felix and Elipandus succeeded in veiling the heretical implications of their teaching by a dialectic device, which logic enables us to expose by means of the so-called supposition of terms. ” Even where we are dealing with one and the same univocal term, there are various ways in which it may be construed. The same term may stand for something different.* 4 Thus, in the proposition : * Christ as man is the true and natural Son of God,” the phrase “as man” may be construed as meaning ” Christ according to His humanity,” 5 or ” Christ regarded as this particular man.6 In the last-mentioned case * this particular man ” is identical with the Divine 1 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- Vol. I. Cfr. also the Kirchenlexichiridion, n. 299. kon, 2nd ed., Vol. I, 242 sqq. 2 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 311 sqq. I Supra, pp. 89 sqq. Cfr. H. K. Mann, The Lives of 4 G. H. Joyce, S. J., Principles the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, of Logic, pp. 37 sq., London 1908. Vol. I, Part II, pp. 439 sqq., Lon- a = secundum humanitatenu This don 1902. On the Neo-Adoptionism is what logicians call the sensus of Abelard and the qualified Adop- formalis re duplicative. tionism of certain later theologians 6j=«f hie homo. This is technisee J. F. Sollier, art. ” Adoption- cally called the sensus specificativus, ism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Hypostasis of the Logos, and thus understood the proposition is unexceptionable. But to assert, as the Adoptionists did, that ” Christ [regarded as this particular man] is the Son of God not by generation, but by adoption, not by nature, but by grace,” 7 is to assert the existence of two persons in Christ and to deny the Hypostatic Union of the two natures. Hence the dogmatic principle : ” Christ, regarded as this particular man, is not an adoptive but the natural Son of God,” 8 is merely an application of the doctrine of the Communication of Idioms. a) Adoptionism is unscriptural. The Bible nowhere refers to Jesus as the adopted Son of God, but consistently calls Him the true, the onlybegotten, and the only Son of God in the strict sense of these terms. When, e. g., St. John speaks of * the only-begotten Son of God who is in the bosom of the Father, 9 he evidently refers to Jesus. St. Paul, too, in teaching: God ” spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,” 10 plainly says that the Person who was delivered up was God’s own (i. e., natural) Son. And when Jesus after His baptism emerged from the Jordan, the voice of the Father spoke from heaven : * This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.* 11 The Adoptionists appealed to Rom. I, 4 : ” Who was predestinated the Son of God (bpiaOevro? vlov ©cov).” He who is predestined to be the Son of God, they ar7 ” Christum [ut hunc hotninem] 8 ” Christ us, ut hie homo, est non genere esse Filium Dei, sed Films Dei naturalis, non adoptivus.* adoptione, non naturd, sed gratia.* 9 John I, 18. Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 10 Rom. VIII, 32. dion, n. 311. 11 Matt h. Ill, 17. gued, cannot be the natural Son of God, but a son by grace only, i. e., by adoption. The majority of the Greek Fathers,12 however, do not interpret bpl&iv in the sense of ” predestine ” (irpoopifcv) , but in the sense of ” show/’ ” prove,” ” demonstrate, ” and they translate the Pauline text as follows : ” The Son of God was shown (demonstrated, proved) to be such by His resurrection.” This interpretation is borne out by the context.18 But even if we accept the word ” praedestinatus,” which is supported by the authority of the Vulgate, the Latin Fathers, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius, as a correct translation of bpurdivTos, Rom. I, 4 furnishes no argument in favor of Adoptionism. The obvious meaning of the text would then be : ” The man Jesus was predestined by the Hypostatic Union to be the natural Son of God.” Or, as St. Augustine puts it: “Jesus was predestined, so that He who was to be the Son of David according to the flesh, should yet be in power the Son of God.” 14 The notion that the only-begotten Son of God was predestined to be an adoptive son of His Father, is positively repugnant to the Christological teaching of St. Paul.15 b) The earlier Fathers had implicitly rejected Adoptionism in their teaching on the Hypostatic Union. a) Many relevant Patristic texts have been collected by Alcuin in his Liber adversus Haeresin Felicis.19 St. 12 E. g., St. Chrysostom, Horn, in nem filius David, esset tatnen in Rom., II, n. 2, virtute Filius Dei.” (De Praedest, 13 Cfr. the commentary of Estius Sanctor., XV, n. 31.) upon this passage; also Suarez, De 15 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Incarn., disp. 50, sect. 2. Trinity, pp. 56 sqq. 14 ” Praedestinatus est ergo Iesus, i« Reprinted in Migne, P. L., CI, ut qui futurus erat secundum car- 87 sqq. Augustine appeals to the Bible. ” Read, therefore, the Scriptures/’ he says, ” nowhere will you find it said that Christ is a Son by adoption.11 St John of Damascus says in a recently discovered treatise against the Nestorians : * We confess, therefore, in regard to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is one of the Holy Trinity [that He has] two natures, each perfect according to its own definition and concept, lest we introduce a change or commixture, but only one hypostasis, lest we allow a duality of persons and a fourth person to slip into the Trinity. For the nature constitutes [not causally, but formally] another [being], while the hypostasis determines another [one and a] person.” Professor Fr. Diekamp of Minister, to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of this treatise, comments on it as follows : ” Damascene’s purpose is to demonstrate the unity of the Divine Hypostasis. He begins by introducing one argument on which all others depend, namely, that the assumption of two hypostases in Christ would necessarily entail the assumption of a twofold sonship and of a fourth person in the Godhead.” 18 P) The only Patristic objection that can be urged against our dogma is drawn from the writings of St. Hilary. ” Potestatis dignitas non amittitur” he 17 Contr. Secund. Manich., 5 : ” Lege itaque Scripturas, nusquam invenies de Christo dictum, quod adoptione sit filius. Cfr. also his Tract, in Ioa., VII, 4: * Oportebat ergo ut ille baptizaret, qui est Filius Dei unicus, non adoptatus. Adoptati Filii ministri sunt unici; unicus habet potestatem, adoptati ministerium,* 18 Here is the passage in the original Greek: * ‘OfioXoyovfiey roiyapovv iwl tov Kvplov ^fidv ‘ItfO-OV XpU7T0Vf TOV Mt T^jf by las rpid&os, dvo pJkv (ftveeis, kK&trrn* reXeiar icorA rbv iavrijs 6por T€ teal \6yop, Ua p$i rpoiriiv 4) vvScraffiPt tva fill Svdda vliav teal riraprow rjj rpiddi irapeureriy K(t>fX€V TTpfouTTOP. if flif ybp

says, ” dum carnis humilitas adoptatur.” 19 But, as St. Thomas points out, adoptatur in this passage can only refer to the union of Christ’s human nature with the Person of the Divine Logos.20 This interpretation is in perfect accord with another passage from the same work where St. Hilary says: ” Multi nos filii Dei, sed non talis hie Filius; hie enim et verus et proprius est Filius, origine, non adoptione, veritate, non nuncupatione, nativitate, non creatione” 21 It is indeed true that the Mozarabic liturgy contains such expressions as ” adoptio Christi ” and refers to Jesus as ” homo adoptivus ”; but it nowhere employs the term ” filius adoptivus/’ and the context shows that adoptare is used for assumere, homo adoptivus being therefore equivalent to homo assumptus, i. e. incarnatus. 3. Theological Controversies. — The fundamental fallacy of Adoptionism is brought into clearer light by the Scholastic controversies which arose over two cognate questions, namely: (1) Is there room for a second filiation based on grace besides the natural sonship of Christ resulting from the Hypostatic Union? and (2) Is the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ based on more than one title ? a) Durandus22 and numerous Scotist theologians 28 admit that Jesus, as this specific man, was the natural 18 De Trinit., II, 27. Other re- humanae naturae ad personam censions have adoratur instead of Filii* adoptatur. 21 De Trinit., Ill, 11, 20 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 23, art. 4, 22 Comment, in Quatuor Libros ad 4: * I m propria est locutio, et Sent., Ill, dist. 4, qu. 1. accipitur ibi adoptatio pro unione 23 Scotus himself seems to have and not merely an adopted Son of God,24 but contend that there was room for a second filiation, parallel to the first, and resulting from grace. It is the essential function of sanctifying grace, they argued, to elevate him in whom it indwells to the state of adoptive sonship. But sanctifying grace indwelled in the human soul of Christ. Consequently, Christ, as man, is not only the natural Son of the Father, but also an adoptive Son of the Trinity. This view, while not identical with the Adoptionist heresy of Felix and Elipandus,25 is false and dangerous. The same arguments which Pope Hadrian the First and the Council of Frankfort marshalled against Adoptionism can be effectively urged against Durandus* theory of Christ’s adoptive sonship. Adoption is commonly defined with St. Thomas as “an act of grace by which a stranger is constituted or installed as son and heir.” 26 Therefore, ” Christ cannot be called the adopted Son of God, except it be supposed that he is not one Person with the Logos, or that the Logos, by assuming human nature, lost His natural Sonship and became something foreign to God.” 27 He who is by nature the Son of God, cannot become an adopted son by grace, because He already possesses more than the rights and privileges which adoption confers. Hence the Council of Frankfort says : * Adoptivus dici non potest nisi is qui alienus est ab eo, a quo dicitur adoptatus* 28 i. e., Adoption presupposes that the person to be adopted is not been guilty of inconsistency in his traneae in filium et haeredem treatment of this question. gratuita assumption* S. Theol., 3a, 24 They were ignorant of the de- qu. 23, art. 1. cision of the Council of Frankfort, 27 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual but held its doctrine. of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p. 26 As Vasquez asserts in his Com- 128. mentary on the Summa Theologica 28 Cfr. Hardouin, ConciL, IV, of St. Thomas, p. 3, disp. 89. 875* 26 ” Adoptio est personae exSCHOLASTIC CONTROVERSIES 203 a son but a stranger to the adopting Father. It follows that Christ possessed sanctifying grace, which elevates men to the dignity of ” children of God,” merely as an ornament,29 because, in the words of Suarez, He ” was incapable of being adopted.” 80 This idea is emphasized by the Council of Frankfort : ” Unde in Dei F ilium non cadit nomen adoptionis, quia semper verus Filius, semper Dominus, ac per hoc et post assumptum hominem veri Filii vocabulum non amisit, qui numquam verus desiit esse Filius:’ 81 Holy Scripture and the Fathers never predicate adoptive sonship of Christ. On the contrary, they accentuate the fact that, whereas men are children of God by law (i. e., by adoption), Christ is the natural Son of God in the true and strict sense of the term.82 b) Suarez 88 and Vasquez 84 take a different view. They reject the idea of adoptive filiation and contend that as Christ’s eternal ycwipm is inadequate to explain His Divine Sonship, there must be a secondary reason why, as man, He is the natural Son of God. This secondary reason, according to their theory, which they base on Heb. I, 2, is the state of grace proper to Christ, as man, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union. It is this state of grace which entails the “divine heritage.” This supplementary divine filiation does not, however, rest on generation in the strict sense of the term, and hence Suarez and Vasquez are 20 Ornatut, nark plpyo-ip’ jcarA

constrained to admit two preposterous and indemonstrable corollaries : ( I ) that, side by side with natural filiation in Christ there exists another, which is figurative or analogical ; and (2 ) that the man Jesus is the natural Son not only of the Father, but of the whole Blessed Trinity. Vasquez appeals to Pope Hadrian’s remark that the exclamation ” This is my beloved Son ” proceeded from the whole Trinity, and not from the Father alone, and that it was addressed to Christ as man rather than as God. But Hadrian does not say that the Trinity addressed Christ as its Son; he merely says that it addressed Him as ” Son of the Father,” and was well pleased in Him as such. The idea of a secondary natural filiation based on Christ’s humanity is as foreign to the Fathers as the notion of adoptive sonship which it entails. A secondary natural filiation in the strict sense can have its ontological cause only in generation by the Father ; in a figurative and analogical sense it is equivalent to that adoptive sonship which is based upon human sanctity and divine inheritance, and which Suarez and Vasquez reject. If the concept of Christ’s natural (divine) sonship be founded on something besides the relation of generation between Father and Son, the difficulties become labyrinthine. If the eternal ycwrprv; were not the only source of natural sonship in the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, too, might be called the natural Son of God, and Christ, as man, would be the natural son of the Holy Ghost, nay of the Logos, and consequently His own Son. To escape such absurdities it is necessary to hold that natural divine sonship is based solely on eternal generation and not on the fact that ” Christ as man is sanctified and has a title to the divine inheritance.” 35 St. Thomas says: ” Christus est Filius Dei secundum perfectam rats Suarez, /. c, sect. 2, n. 30. tionetn filiationis; unde quamvis secundum humanam naturam sit creatus et iustificatus, non tamen debet did Filius Dei neque ratione creationis neque ratione iustificationis, sed solum ratione generationis aeternae, secundum quam est Filius solius Patris. Et idea nullo modo debet dici Christus Filius Spiritus S. nec etiam totius Trinitatis.”** The weakest point of the theory is the corollary, expressly admitted by Suarez, that Christ, as man, would have to be called ” the natural Son of the Trinity.” This preposterous idea is opposed to the teaching of St. Augustine,87 and especially to that of St. Fulgentius, who says : ” Proinde non solum lesum Christum Mium Trinitatis omnino non dicimus, sed etiam sic confitemur lesum Christum solius Dei Patris Filium, ut eum nullatenus separemus. Magnae quippe impietatis est, alium putare Christum, alium lesum Christum, quum unus sit utique Dei et hominis Filius Iesus Christus, Filius scil. solius Patris, non totius utique Trinitatis” 88 In vain do Suarez and Vasquez urge that if the Father or the Holy Ghost would become incarnate, either would thereby become Son of God, i. e., Son of the entire Trinity. ” Such a man,” retorts De Lugo, ” would not be an adoptive son, because he would not be a stranger, nor a natural son, because not produced by natural generation.” In virtue of the Communication of Idioms the incarnate Father would yet be none other than the Father, and the Holy Ghost none other than the Holy Ghost, though in His human nature each would appear as ” Son of Man.” 80 86 5”. Theol., 3a, qu. 32, art. 3. 80 De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., 87 Enchir., c. 38 sqq. disp. 31, sect. 3. 88 Fragm. c, Fabian., c. 32. r ao6 UNITY IX DUALITY RzAM%Gi * — De Lmeo. De Mysteri* Imcmrmmiuis, , JL, CI>>— J. Badi, Do^mengesehichte des Misteiahers, VoL I, pp. Ktt fqq^ Wiea — * Hefdc KcmxHiengeschickU, 2nd edL, Vol lit pp. 630 «o/^ Frdbarj 1S77.— J. A. Krttrrer, #T«r/ der Groue und die Kir eke, Masdxn iSgfi. — K. Giumoai, Pmmlmms 11,, Patriarch von Aquiltja, Wien 1896. — E. H- Uniborgh, Alcuimus sis Bfstnjder van het Adoptiamisute, Groamgcn 1901. — Alzog-Pabtscb-Bjrrne, Mammal of Universal Church History, VoL II, pp. 174 eqq^ Cincinnati 1899. — T. Gilmartm, Mammal of Church History, VoL I, 3rd c*L Dublin 1909. — Wflbdm-Scannell, ^ Manual of Catholic Theology, VoL IL 2nd e