this passage implies a movement ad intra, which is not fully brought out by either the Vulgate or the vernacular version:—Ὁ μονογενής υἱὸς ὁ ὢν (= περιχωρῶν) εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός.

c) The third and last source of Perichoresis are the Divine Relations, that is, the relative opposition of the Three Divine Persons to one another. The Father cannot be conceived without His Son, nor can the Son be conceived without the Father, and the Holy Ghost is altogether unthinkable without His common Spirators, the Father and the Son. St. Basil, and especially the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675), particularly emphasized this logical aspect of the divine Perichoresis. "Nec enim Pater absque Filio cognoscitur," we read in its decrees, "nec sine Patre Filius invenitur; relatio quippe ipsa vocabuli personalis personas separari vetat, quas etiam, dum non simul nominat, simul insinuat. Nemo autem audire potest unumquodque istorum nominum, in quo non intelligere cogatur et alterum - For neither can the Father be known without the Son, nor the Son be found without the Father; for the relation indicated by the name of a person forbids us to separate the persons who are intimated, though not expressly named. And nobody can hear any one of these names without perceiving therein one of the others." 19 Perhaps our Lord's saying: "He that seeth me seeth the Father also. ... Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" 20 which Sabellius so egregiously misunderstood must be interpreted in the light of these considerations, though both the context and the construction put upon it by the Fathers make

qui videt me, videt et Patrem.
Non creditis, quia ego in Patre et
Pater in me est?"

it more advisable to base the Perichoresis here expressed by Jesus, upon the notion of Tautousia rather than upon the divine Relations.21

3. DOGMATIC IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERICHORESIS.-The doctrine of the Trinitarian Perichoresis is of considerable dogmatic importance, because it tersely and luminously expresses the two salient aspects of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, viz.: Trinitas in Unitate and Unitas in Trinitate, thus equally discountenancing the heresy of Monarchianism on the one hand, and that of Tritheism on the other. In matter of fact Perichoresis involves two important truths: (1) that there is a real distinction between the Three Divine Persons, and (2) that the Divine Nature, or Essence, in spite of the Hypostatic distinctions, is absolutely one. Sabellius, by welding the Three Persons into One, practically denied the dogma of mutual Inexistence, while the Tritheists, who imagined the Divine Essence to consist of three Gods, found themselves unable to admit a real indwelling of the One in the Other.22

We shall meet with a similar phenomenon in Christology, though the order is there reversed.

21 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Contr. Arian., Or. 3, 3.

22 Cfr. St. Hilary, De Trinit., III, 4: "Quod in Patre est, hoc et in

Filio est; quod in ingenito, hoc et

in unigenito; alter ab altero et uterque unum; non duo unus, sed alius in alio, quia non aliud in utroque."

The Perichoresis of the two Natures in Christ can be conceived only in virtue of the Hypostatic Union from which it springs. It postulates a perfect and unalloyed duality together with absolute oneness of Person and an indivisible unity in spite of the Saviour's twofold Nature. For this very reason the doctrine of Perichoresis furnishes a powerful weapon for the defence of the faith against such extreme Christological heresies as Nestorianism and Adoptianism on the one hand, and Monophysitism and Monotheletism on the other.

The doctrine of the Perichoresis fittingly concludes the treatise on the Trinity, because it represents the final upshot of the whole discussion and clearly and luminously brings out both aspects of the dogma, viz.: the Trinitas in Unitate and the Unitas in Trinitate. At the same time it forms an invincible bulwark against all Antitrinitarian heresies, guarding as it does the Trinity of the Divine Persons against the Monarchians and Unitarians, and the unity of the Divine Nature against the various Tritheistic

sects.

READINGS: Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §123, Freiburg 1873.- Oswald, Trinitätslehre, §14, Paderborn 1888.-*Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 14, Romae 1881.- Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 694 sqq., Ratisbonae 1881.-*Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, ed. 3a, pp. 339–343, Friburgi 1906.- St. Thomas, S. Theol., Ia, qu. 42, art. 5.— Petavius, De Trinit., IV, 16.

On the practical and devotional value of the dogma of the Divine Trinity cfr. F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 289 sqq.; Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 351 sqq.; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord, pp. 659 sqq.

INDEX