Freedom and necessity in modern

trinitarian theology 1st Edition Gallaher

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/freedom-and-necessity-in-modern-trinitarian-theology
-1st-edition-gallaher/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Trinitarian Theology in Medieval and Reformation

Thought John T. Slotemaker

https://textbookfull.com/product/trinitarian-theology-in-
medieval-and-reformation-thought-john-t-slotemaker/

Hegel, Marx, and the Necessity and Freedom Dialectic

Russell Rockwell

https://textbookfull.com/product/hegel-marx-and-the-necessity-
and-freedom-dialectic-russell-rockwell/

Free Will and Classical Theism: The Significance of

Freedom in Perfect Being Theology 1st Edition Hugh J.
Mccann

https://textbookfull.com/product/free-will-and-classical-theism-
the-significance-of-freedom-in-perfect-being-theology-1st-
edition-hugh-j-mccann/

Necessity in International Law 1st Edition Jens David

Ohlin

https://textbookfull.com/product/necessity-in-international-
law-1st-edition-jens-david-ohlin/
The Trinitarian christology of St Thomas Aquinas 1st
Edition Legge

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-trinitarian-christology-of-
st-thomas-aquinas-1st-edition-legge/

The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600-1800

1st Edition Ulrich L. Lehner

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-early-
modern-theology-1600-1800-1st-edition-ulrich-l-lehner/

Necessity Lost: Modality And Logic In Early Analytic

Philosophy, Volume 1 Sanford Shieh

https://textbookfull.com/product/necessity-lost-modality-and-
logic-in-early-analytic-philosophy-volume-1-sanford-shieh/

Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a

Modern Royal Family Hardcover 1st Edition Omid Scobie

https://textbookfull.com/product/finding-freedom-harry-and-
meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family-hardcover-1st-
edition-omid-scobie/

Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a

Modern Royal Family Hardcover Omid Scobie

https://textbookfull.com/product/finding-freedom-harry-and-
meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family-hardcover-omid-
scobie/
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

OXFORD THEOLOGY AND RELIGION MONOGRAPHS

Editorial Committee
J. BARTON M. N. A. BOCKMUEHL
M. J. EDWARDS P. S. FIDDES
G. D. FLOOD S. R. I. FOOT
D. N. J. MACCULLOCH G. WARD
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

OXFORD THEOLOGY AND RELIGION MONOGRAPHS

Ethics and Biblical Narrative

A Literary and Discourse-Analytical Approach to the Story of Josiah
S. Min Chun (2014)
Hindu Theology in Early Modern South Asia
The Rise of Devotionalism and the Politics of Genealogy
Kiyokazu Okita (2014)
Ricoeur on Moral Religion
A Hermeneutics of Ethical Life
James Carter (2014)
Canon Law and Episcopal Authority
The Canons of Antioch and Serdica
Christopher W. B. Stephens (2015)
Time in the Book of Ecclesiastes
Mette Bundvad (2015)
Bede’s Temple
An Image and its Interpretation
Conor O’Brien (2015)
C. S. Peirce and the Nested Continua Model of Religious Interpretation
Gary Slater (2015)
Defending the Trinity in the Reformed Palatinate
‘The Elohistae’
Benjamin R. Merkle (2015)
The Vision of Didymus the Blind
A Fourth-Century Virtue-Origenism
Grant D. Bayliss (2015)
George Errington and Roman Catholic Identity in Nineteenth-Century England
Serenhedd James (2016)
Selfless Love and Human Flourishing in Paul Tillich and Iris Murdoch
Julia T. Meszaros (2016)
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Freedom and Necessity

in Modern Trinitarian
Theology

B RA N D O N GA LLA H ER

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Brandon Gallaher 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2016
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016931587
ISBN 978–0–19–874460–3
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

For Michelle
. . . more distant than stars and nearer than the eye
T. S. Eliot, ‘Marina’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Foreword

We have more or less got used to the idea that theology cannot be done as if we
could be spectators of the divine nature and action from a stance that is
nowhere in particular. Not only does theology presuppose a God whose action
has both established and maintained relation with what is not God (i.e. us
among other things), it also works on the assumption that only the contem-
plation of this action can give us access of any kind to any understanding of
‘what’ God is, what it is to be God, the divine essence. About this latter, it is
strictly impossible to speak, except on the grounds of how divine action has
impinged on us as acting and knowing subjects.
So from the start of any theological enterprise, we are stuck with a dual
requirement. What we say of God must be grounded in what God has done in
our regard; in the act of God in relation to the finite order. And what we say of
God must do justice to the completely unconstrained character of God’s action
as something that belongs in no causal chain or interactive pattern but is
eternally and ‘necessarily’ what it is. Forget the first of these points and
theology becomes an exercise in metaphysical arrogance—not to say
nonsense—seeking to analyse the infinite as it is in itself, beyond all related-
ness. Forget the second and theology sinks towards mythology, chronicling
the adventures of a spiritual agent among others, though vastly superior.
Positively, we want to say that what God does in our regard is of a piece
with what God is, not an arbitrary or groundless act; and we want also to say
that, unless that act is an act of utterly unconditioned freedom, it simply is not
really God we are speaking of, and we have no hope of being delivered from
whatever tangles and slaveries are created by the interaction of rival finite
agencies.
Brandon Gallaher, in this magnificently learned and sophisticated study of
three of the greatest theological minds of the last century, shows how thinking
about all this in the context of specifically Trinitarian theology brings us up
against the most fundamental questions of theological method. But he also
suggests ways through—not by resolving problems with tidier and more
satisfying theological schemes, but by making us clarify again and again the
shape and grammar of the basic narrative out of which Christian theology
grows. God’s freedom is a freedom to be God; that must be axiomatic. But it
must also be a freedom to be the God revealed in Jesus Christ. What is freely
shown, embodied, and enacted in the incarnate reality of Jesus is what it is
to be God, not a passing phase of divine life or a mere aspect of it. And this
in turn means that if the reality of Jesus is to be characterized above all as
a reality shaped by dispossession, by the free putting of oneself at the disposal,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

viii Foreword
or even at the mercy, of an other, then God’s own eternal freedom (that-
in-virtue-of-which God exerts the activity of being eternally God) is an eternal
movement of dispossession, emptying into the other.
Put more simply, God’s freedom is the freedom to be bound in faithful love.
Only a freedom quite outside the competing forces of rival finite identities can
be free in this way. And this is where the doctrine of the Trinity provides the
essential key, in its absolute denial that there is in the divine life any collision
or competition of identities, any more than there is a competition of identities
between finite and infinite. What we learn to say about God in the Trinitarian
context is that there is in God no ‘selfhood’ to defend as we understand it; so
that the act of being God is sheerly self-bestowing, so much so that it can be
embodied and expressed in contexts that are as far as can be imagined from
freedom or perfect self-presence—in the dereliction on the cross, in the realm
of the forgotten dead.
The three theologians examined here share this general set of assumptions
and give them immensely complex but often exceptionally poignant and
memorable expression. All seek to find a way of acknowledging that all we
say of God is about God in relation to the finite—but that to make sense of
this, we have to see that relatedness as rooted in God’s eternal character.
Relatedness is the ground of what we say because relatedness is what we
cannot avoid speaking of where God is concerned, in eternity or in time, in
God’s self or in God’s action ad extra. This involves some sailing close to the
wind: language which might imply that God’s being God somehow depended
on the history of the finite universe, language which might qualify eternal
freedom in the name of eternal relationality. But all of them clearly want to
affirm both of the requirements we began with. And to make full sense of how
they do this, we need a very resourceful and nuanced discrimination between
different usages of the word ‘freedom’. Brandon Gallaher provides just such a
set of analytic tools, and brilliantly allows us to read his theologians in the light
of what they intend. He helps us resist leaping to negative conclusions on the
grounds of the risks they take for the sake of doing justice to the irreducible
relatedness of God to God—in which the relation of God to what is not God
is rooted.
This is a book which raises issues of the most basic theological interest. It is
very far from being a monograph on a single rather technical point in
dogmatics or philosophy of religion; it points to the deepest questions of
theological method, and to the question of how to express a thoroughgoing
Christian ontology. In discussing thinkers from the Catholic, Orthodox, and
Reformed worlds with equal insight and sympathy, it models an ecumenical
engagement that goes far beyond institutional courtesies and pacific formulae.
It reminds us that to do theology at all, whatever our confessional location, we
have to tackle the issues raised by speaking of divine freedom and divine
relatedness—because these are the questions that the narrative of Jesus Christ
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Foreword ix
ultimately obliges us to think through: not as detached observers or as
enthusiastic mythographers, but as created persons seeking to understand
what it means for them to be made sharers in the divine nature by the divine
liberty. It is a book of signal and unusual importance in its breadth of reference
but also in the fundamental nature of its agenda, and it will repay detailed and
repeated study by all interested in theology’s integrity and creativity.
Rowan Williams
Magdalene College, Cambridge
Feast of Mary Magdalene 2015
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Acknowledgements

This book is a revision of my doctoral thesis for the Faculty of Theology and
Religion, University of Oxford. I would like to say I have simply taken too long
on this project. But perhaps it is better to say: it took as long as it needed.
Certainly, the study had a life of its own.
During its composition I was first a postgraduate student at Regent’s Park
College, Oxford (thanks to Dr Robert Ellis and the Fellows) followed by a
Stipendiary Lecturer of Theology at Keble College, Oxford (thanks to Prof
Markus Bockmuehl) then a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in the
Faculty of Theology and Religion, Oxford (thanks to Prof Johannes Zachhuber)
affiliated with Regent’s Park (thanks to Dr Robert Ellis and Prof Paul Fiddes)
and presently a Lecturer of Systematic and Comparative Theology at the
Department of Theology and Religion, University of Exeter (thanks to Profs
Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Morwenna Ludlow).
As a doctorate the work took its final shape at the Centre for Research on
Religion (CREOR), Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University (thanks to
Prof Torrance Kirby). It came to a conclusion as a book while I was a
Distinguished Guest Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, University
of Notre Dame (NDIAS) (thanks to Profs John Betz, Brad Gregory, Cyril
O’Regan, and Dr Donald Stelluto) and a Visiting Scholar at the Centre
for Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions (CISMOR), School of
Theology, Doshisha University (Kyoto, Japan) (thanks to Profs Katsuhiro
Kohara and Junya Shinohe and Dr Juichiro Tanabe).
I am immensely grateful for financial support from the British Academy.
Thanks are also due to the Overseas Research Students (ORS) Awards
Scheme and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
of Canada.
I am indebted above all to my doctoral supervisor Prof Paul S. Fiddes for his
wisdom, patience, exacting standards, creativity, and compassion. He taught
me that to be a creative theologian is to have a sympathetic communion with
one’s sources and openness to the world.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia has been to me both a friend and
father in Christ and has shown me the vision of the Fathers: an oecumenical
Orthodoxy freed from all provincialism. Dr Rowan Williams, my DPhil
External Examiner, has been ever gracious and inspiring. Remarks in his
Bulgakov book inspired the thesis, which he then examined with compassion
and insight. I am honoured he agreed to write a foreword.
Prof George Pattison, as the Internal Examiner of both my MSt and DPhil,
has always challenged me as a thinker. His refusal to be satisfied with settled
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

xii Acknowledgements
orthodoxies and his fearlessness on the path of dialogue remain an inspiration
in my recent work on comparative theology.
Great thanks especially are due to Prof Aristotle (‘Telly’) Papanikolaou, who
read my manuscript for Oxford University Press, and provided important
insights and critiques. He has become a trusted friend, mentor, and intellectual
co-worker in the current re-envisioning of Orthodox theology.
Thanks to Amber Schley-Iragui for Chapter 3’s diagram and Boris Jakim for
generously sharing his unpublished translations over many years.
I am grateful to Canon A. M. (‘Donald’) Allchin (†), Profs John Behr, John
J. O’Donnell SJ (†), and Michael Plekon for crucial early guidance and
mentorship.
Thanks to Dr Alexey and Prof Lucy Kostyanovsky for proofreading and
checking my Russian translations; Dr Matthew Baker (†), Profs Peter Bouteneff,
Matthew Bruce, Gavin D’Costa, Nicholas Denysenko, Dr David Dunn,
Prof Paul Gavrilyuk, Dr Oliver Herbel, Prof Alexei Klimoff, Drs Romilo
Knežević, Julia Konstantinovsky, Irina Kukota, Profs Paul Ladouceur, Andrew
Louth, Michael Martin, Jennifer Martin, Paul Meyendorff, Dr David Newheiser,
Fr Aidan Nichols OP, Profs Cyrus P. Olsen, Marcus Plested, Fr Andrei Psarev,
Dr John Romanowsky, Prof Joost van Rossum, Fr Nicholas (Sakharov),
Dr Jonathan Seiling, Prof Vera Shevzov, Dr Oliver Smith (†), Prof Jonathan
Sutton, Prof Alexis Torrance, Fr Tikhon (Vasilyev), Drs Daniel Whistler,
Roman Zaviyskyy, and Regula Zwahlen for discussion of drafts and critical
engagement; and Prof Nicholas (Fr. Maximos) Constas and Dr Susan Griffith
for help with Patristic sources. Only the mistakes are mine.
The last year and a half at the University of Exeter’s Department of
Theology and Religion has been a wonderful transition from postdoctoral
research to regular academic life. I am especially grateful to the kindness and
grace shown to me by Profs David Horrell, Morwenna Ludlow, Francesca
Stavrakopoulou, our administrator, Susan Margetts, my close teaching col-
leagues (Dr Susannah Cornwall and Prof Esther Reed), and students.
Special thanks are due to Oxford University Press and the Theological
Monographs Series for their great patience and generosity, especially,
Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tom Perridge, and Karen Raith. I am especially
thankful to Susan Frampton for copy-editing the book, to Donald Watt
for proofreading, to J. Naomi Linzer for creating the index, and to Saraswathi
Ethiraju for managing its production. I am grateful to many friends for
encouragement over the years, especially, Fr Matthew Baker (†), Profs Markus
Bockmuehl, Federico Caprotti, Fr John Chryssavgis, Profs Will Cohen,
Paul Gavrilyuk, Fr Ian Graham, Nick and Helen Graham, Fr Oliver Herbel,
Amber and Charles Iragui, Frances and Simon Jennings, Fr Romilo of Hilandar,
Sr Seraphima of St John the Baptist Monastery, (Essex), Dr Alexey and
Prof Lucy Kostyanovsky, Profs Paul Ladouceur, Morwenna Ludlow, Andrew
Marlborough, Fr Stephen and Anna Platt, Fr Porphyrios (Plant), Fr Richard
and Jaime René, Dr Albert Rossi, Joel and Barbara Schillinger, Fr Peter and Irina
Scorer, Patricia Scott and Gregory and Christopher Sprucker.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Acknowledgements xiii
This book would not have been written without my family’s long-suffering
love and support: Dr Donald and Yolande (†) Gallaher, Tiffany Gallaher,
Massimo Savino, Safia and Ilyas Boutaleb, Howard (†) (and sine qua non)
Anne (‘Arnee’) Holloway, my children (Sophie, Ita, Alban, and Maria) and
especially my wife, Michelle, who is pure gift: Should I tell what a miracle
she was.
University of Exeter
Holy Saturday
30 April 2016
B.D.F.G.
Excerpt from The Paradiso by Dante Alighieri, a verse rendering for the
modern reader by John Ciardi. Copyright © 1961, 1965, 1967, 1970 by John
Ciardi. Reprinted by Permission of W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Copyright © Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark
International UK, 1956–75. Used by Permission of Bloomsbury Publishing
Plc. All Rights Reserved.
Excerpts from ‘Marina’, ‘Burnt Norton’, and ‘Little Gidding’ from THE
COMPLETE POEMS AND PLAYS OF T. S. ELIOT 1909–1962 by T. S. Eliot.
© 1969 by Valerie Eliot, are reprinted by permission of Faber and Faber Ltd.
Also from COLLECTED POEMS 1909–1962 by T. S. Eliot. Copyright 1936 by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Copyright © renewed 1964
by Thomas Stearns Eliot. Reprinted by Permission of Houghton Mifflin Har-
court Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Portions of Chapters 5–8 appeared in an earlier form as ‘“A Supertemporal
Continuum”: Christocentric Trinity and the Dialectical Reenvisioning of
Divine Freedom in Bulgakov and Barth’ in Correlating Sobornost: Conversa-
tions Between Karl Barth and Russian Orthodox Theology, eds John
C. McDowell, Scott A. Kirkland, and Ashley J. Moyse (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2016), 95–133. Copyright © 2016 by Augsburg Fortress Publishers and
reprinted by permission. All Rights Reserved.
‘The Well Dressed Man With a Beard’ from THE COLLECTED POEMS OF
WALLACE STEVENS by Wallace Stevens, copyright © 1954 by Wallace Stevens
and copyright renewed 1982 by Holly Stevens. Used by permission of Alfred
A. Knopf, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of
Penguin Random House LLC. Also from THE COLLECTED POEMS OF
WALLACE STEVENS by Wallace Stevens, copyright © 1955, 1966 by Wallace
Stevens. Reprinted by permission of Faber and Faber Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Excerpts from ‘Crazy Jane on God’ and ‘Crazy Jane Talks with the Bishop’
reprinted with the permission of Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster,
Inc., from THE COLLECTED WORKS OF W. B. YEATS, VOLUME I: THE
POEMS, REVISED by W. B. Yeats, edited by Richard J. Finneran. Copyright ©
1933 by The Macmillan Company, renewed 1961 by Bertha Georgie Yeats. All
Rights Reserved.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Contents

References and Abbreviations xvii

INTRODUCTION: THE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM

OF GOD AS MYSTERY AND ‘PROBLEMATIC’
1. Freedom and Necessity as Trinitarian Mystery and ‘Problematic’ 3
2. Divine Freedom—A Dialectical Approach: From Freedom to
Necessity—The Shape of a ‘Problematic’ (A) 12
3. Divine Freedom—A Dialectical Approach: From Necessity to
Freedom—The Shape of a ‘Problematic’ (B) 22

PART I. GOD AS BOTH ABSOLUTE AND

ABSOLUTE-RELATIVE IN SERGII BULGAKOV
4. ‘Sophiological Antinomism’—Sergii Bulgakov’s Debt to and
Critique of Vladimir Solov’ev 45
5. God as Absolute and Absolute-Relative in Bulgakov:
Theological Antinomy in the Doctrine of God 70
6. Divine Freedom and the Need of God for Creation 95

PART II. DIVINE SELF-DETERMINATION

IN J ESUS CHRIST IN KARL BARTH
7. Trinity and the Doctrine of Election in Karl Barth 117
8. Trinity, Freedom, and Necessity in Karl Barth—A Dialectical
Approach 142

PART III. JESUS CHRIST AND THE TRINITARIAN

APPROPRIATION OF THE DIALECTIC OF FREEDOM
AND NECESSITY IN HANS URS VON BALTHASAR
9. The Metaphysics of Love—Four Steps 165
10. The Trinity, Creation, and Freedom—More on the Fourth Step 186
11. Christ, Creation, and Divine Possibilities—‘Sheltered
within’ the Trinity 203
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

xvi Contents

CONCLUSION: THE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF GOD

AND THE MYSTERY OF DIVINE ELECTION
12. Concluding Unsystematic Systematic Postscript 227

Bibliography 251
Index 287
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

References and Abbreviations

The Library of Congress System for Russian transliteration (except for certain
names) is used. For the Bible, the RSV is used, unless otherwise indicated.
Given the bulk of criticism, a hybrid system of citation has been used: a) the
abbreviations listed below for frequently cited works and some series; b) and
the author’s name and date of publication for all other works (except a few
‘classics’). Where the original of a work is simply cited, the translation is my
own. Where two or more separate sentences have the same citation, the
citation will be given in the last sentence. Full titles and information are
provided in the Bibliography.

AA Athanasius’ Against the Arians

AB Sergii Bulgakov’s Agnets Bozhii
AHT Rowan Williams’ Arius: Heresy and Tradition
Amb. Maximus the Confessor’s Ambigua
AW F. W. J. Schelling’s The Ages of the World—Third Version
BB Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush
BC John Zizioulas’ Being as Communion
BL Bulgakov’s The Bride of the Lamb
C Bulgakov’s The Comforter
CCSG Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca
CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
CD I–IV Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, vols. I–IV
Cht. Vladimir Solov’ev’s Chteniia o Bogochelovechestve
CL Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Cosmic Liturgy
CO Zizioulas’ Communion and Otherness
CRDT Bruce L. McCormack’s Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic
Dialectical Theology
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
CSG Paul S. Fiddes’ The Creative Suffering of God
DN Dionysius the Areopagite’s Divine Names
enn. I–VII Plotinus’ Enneads, vols. I–VII
FC The Fathers of the Church
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

xviii References and Abbreviations

Filo. Solov’ev’s Filosofskie nachala tsel’nogo znaniia

FKh Bulgakov’s Filosofiia Khoziaistva
G Bulgakov’s ‘Glavy o Troichnosti’
GCS Die grieschischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte
GL I-VII Balthasar’s The Glory of the Lord, vols. I–VII
GNO Gregorii Nysseni Opera
H I-III Balthasar’s Herrlichkeit, vols. I–III
HH Bulgakov’s ‘Hypostasis and Hypostaticity’
I Bulgakov’s Ikona i Ikonopochitanie
IAP Bulgakov’s ‘Iuda Iskariot—apostol-predatel’’
IiI Bulgakov’s ‘Ipostas’ i Ipostasnost’’
IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology
IIRM Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli
IV Bulgakov’s The Icon and its Veneration
KB Balthasar’s The Theology of Karl Barth
KD I–IV Barth’s Die kirchliche Dogmatik, vols. I–IV
K Bulgakov’s Kupina neopalimaia
Krit. Solov’ev’s Kritika otvlechennykh nachal
LDH Solov’ev’s Lectures on Divine Humanity
LG Bulgakov’s The Lamb of God
NF John Behr’s The Nicene Faith
NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (first and second series)
OF John of Damascus’ The Orthodox Faith
OM Martin Heidegger’s ‘The Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of
Metaphysics’
PE Bulgakov’s Philosophy of Economy
PG Patrologia Graeca
PGT Pavel Florensky’s The Pillar and Ground of the Truth
PIG Fiddes’ Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity
PIK Solov’ev’s The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge
PL Patrologia Latina
PM Schelling’s Philosophie der Mythologie
PO Schelling’s Philosophie der Offenbarung
De Pot. Thomas Aquinas’ De Potentia
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

References and Abbreviations xix

PR 1–3 G. W. F. Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, vols. 1–3

PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
REU Solov’ev’s La Russie et l’église universelle
RUC Solov’ev’s Russia and the Universal Church
S Florensky’s Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny
SB Rowan Williams’ (ed., trans., and introd.) Sergii Bulgakov
SC Sources chrétiennes
SEET Studies in East European Thought
SG Aquinas’ Summa contra gentiles
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SN Bulgakov’s Svet Nevechernii
SS Bulgakov’s ‘A Summary of Sophiology’
SSVSS 1–12 Sobranie sochinenii Vladimira Sergeevicha Solov’eva, vols. 1–12
ST Aquinas’ Summa Theologicae
SVTQ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly
SW I–XIV Schelling’s Sämmtliche Werke, vols. I–XIV
SWG Bulgakov’s Sophia, The Wisdom of God
SWKG Fiddes’ Seeing the World and Knowing God: Hebrew and
Christian Doctrine in a Late-Modern Context
SysTh 1–3 Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology, vols. 1–3
ThD I–IV Balthasar’s Theodramatik, vols. I–IV
TD I–V Balthasar’s Theo-Drama, vols. I–V
TF Bulgakov’s Tragediia Filosofii
TH Balthasar’s A Theology of History
TK Jürgen Moltmann’s The Trinity and the Kingdom
ThL I–III Balthasar’s Theologik, vols. I–III
TL I–III Balthasar’s Theo-Logic, vols. I–III
U Bulgakov’s Uteshitel’
UL Bulgakov’s Unfading Light
Urk. Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites 318–328, ed.
H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, 3.1
De Ver. Aquinas’ De veritate
WP Adrienne von Speyr’s The World of Prayer
WSA The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st
Century
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/8/2016, SPi

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
freedom.
(2 Cor. 3:17)
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

Introduction
The Absolute Freedom of God
as Mystery and ‘Problematic’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

Freedom and Necessity as Trinitarian

Mystery and ‘Problematic’

Any Trinitarian theology that is honest must begin with its defeat. It is
impossible—being bound by the flesh—to worthily draw near and serve, let
alone conceptualize, the King of Glory who is without beginning, uncircum-
scribable, and changeless, beyond both affirmations and negations.1 This
‘defeat’ of theology as realized in worship, however, is not merely a negative
posture. On the contrary, defeat or ‘un-mastery’2 for the Christian can flower
forth awe, a wonder at something joyous and inconceivable, which is the basic
contemplative attitude out of which theology should arise. It is through awe
that we come to experience the Trinity and the nexus of this experience is one
of divine-human love, what might be called the ‘mystery of freedom and
necessity’. Here John of the Cross (1542–91) is helpful in unpacking the
theme of our study.
Man has a desire for God implanted in him by God, John claims, and God
in seeing this love—like a ‘hair’ fluttering at the soul’s neck—comes down in
freedom to arouse it, to make man captive to it, but in arousing it, God
Himself becomes ‘wounded’ by a ‘crazy love’ (eros manikos) for creation,3
captive to it Himself since ‘The power and the tenacity of love is great, for love
captures and binds God himself [pues Dios prenda y liga].’4 But how can God
be ‘bound’ if for Him, as Spirit, Freedom itself (2 Cor. 3:17), ‘all things are
possible’ (Mt. 19:26; and of Christ: 28:18, Jn. 17:2) because no one can resist

1
Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite, Mystical Theology, 1.2 and 5 [PTS 36; 1.2, ll.3–7, 143 and
5, 11.5–9, 150], 136 and 141.
2
Coakley 2013, 43ff. and see 255–6, 343–4, 2002, 3–54 and compare Lossky 1976, 23–43,
1974, 13–43, S. Sakharov 1991, 39–42, 208–13, and Adrienne von Speyr, World of Prayer [=WP],
294–8.
3
Cabasilas, Life in Christ, 6.3, 164 [PG 150/SC 361, 2: 6.16, 648A, l.4, 52–3]; compare
Dionysius, Divine Names [=DN], 4.10–18, esp. 13–14 [PTS 33; 154–63, esp. 158–60], 78–83.
See Evdokimov 2001, 191–4.
4
John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, 32.1, 599 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 32.1, 189] and see
31.1–10, 595–8 [ibid., 184–9]. (Unless otherwise indicated, I shall use the English literary
convention of ‘man’ when referring to ‘humanity’, male and female.)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

4 Freedom and Necessity in Modern Trinitarian Theology

His will (Rom. 9:19)? Thus, just as it would be incorrect to conclude that God
cannot call or is unjust in calling the Gentiles to be engrafted into Israel, so too
it would seem that we would be in error (mē genoito (Rom. 9:14)) in saying
that God had to call us, was impelled to bind Himself to us in Christ (Rom.
9:15ff.). God, John continues, freely becomes the ‘prisoner’ of the soul and he
‘is surrendered to all her desires…those who act with love and friendship
toward him will make him do all they desire…by love they bind him with one
hair’.5 Yet no credit is due to the soul in attracting the ecstatic desire of God in
Christ through its love. The soul cannot of its own power ‘capture this divine
bird of heights’. God’s love is free and He was ‘captivated by the flight of the
hair’ because He first gazed at us, loved, and came down to arouse our desire in
taking flesh.6 The love that John speaks of is the desire of the soul for the Son
of God, Jesus Christ, as the ‘Bridegroom’, but this love is divine since the
Son of God ‘is the principal lover’.7 The Word, the Son of God, together with
the Father and Spirit is hidden by His essence, which is love itself, and
therefore is present in the ‘innermost Being of the soul’.8 God out of a free
ecstatic self-giving and self-receiving love, an ordered outward-going desire
(marrying eros and agape=‘love-desire’)9 which is both Trinitarian and Chris-
toform, has become bound by His own desire for creation, allowing His life to
be determined by the creature as a certain freely willed necessity for Him
creating a divine-human joint captivation of love.10
In thinking about such a form of love-desire we are immediately thrown still
deeper into awe when we remember that the same God who is self-captivated
by us is said to have always loved us with an ‘everlasting love’ (Ps. 103:17,
Is. 54:8, Jer. 31:3) in Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:20–6). Divine love freely and ever-
lastingly covenants itself to us (Is. 55:3–5) in Christ (Heb. 7:22), who, being
‘before all things’ (Col. 1:17), is the foundation of creation (Col. 1:16) as the
‘Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev. 13:8 [KJV]). Such a love
will not, indeed, cannot turn back from its commitment to creation in Him
(Ps. 110:4/Heb. 7:21 and see 6:17–18). The author of 1 Peter puts this neatly:
‘He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at
the end of the times for your sake’ (1 Pet. 1:20). This union of Christ + world +
Father/God is quite simply an eternal union of love (Jn. 15:9, 17:20–6 and see 2
Thess. 2:16–17) and it is the eternality of this union of creation with God in

5
John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, 32.1, 599 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 189].
6
John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, 31.8, 598 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 188].
7
John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, 12.2–3, 516 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 73–4] and 31.2,
596 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 185].
8
John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, 1.6, 480 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 24] and see 11.3–4,
511–12 [Cántico espiritual, Vol. 2: 67–8], Living Flame of Love, 1.6–15, 643–6 [Llama de amor
viva, 2: 243–7], 2.34, 670–1 [ibid., 280–1] and 4.14, 713 [ibid., 334].
9
See Paul Fiddes, Seeing the World and Knowing God [=SWKG], 150ff.
10
See Coakley 2013, esp. 2–27, 308–34.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

Freedom and Necessity as Trinitarian Mystery and ‘Problematic’ 5

Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:24) that is so theologically problematic. If God has always
desired to be in union with us in Jesus Christ, has He not then always been
freely captivated by us in the way John of the Cross describes above? More
audaciously yet, do we not need to exist in order that God might be lovingly
(albeit freely) captivated by us in Christ? How can we conceive such a God? In
other words, what we have called the mystery of freedom and necessity is
Trinitarian in character, for if God has always loved us, it would seem
plausible that the free ‘self-captivation’ of God has an eternal basis in God as
Trinity. The tensions here are the bounds of the mystery of freedom and
necessity which defeat us. Herein lies the Trinitarian depths of this mystery,
for if God has an everlasting love for us in Christ and He is eternally Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, then it would seem that God is God as Trinity only as
God for us in Christ.
This mystery of freedom and necessity is firstly an experience of revelation
but it can be conceptualized in terms of a question: ‘How can God as Trinity be
free in creation and redemption if in His everlasting love, His mad desire for
creation, He has eternally bound Himself to the world in Christ?’ By stating
the mystery as a ‘question’, however, we do not mean to imply that a particular
interpretation of the data of revelation leads us to a specific theological
‘problem’ with a determinate doctrinal ‘solution’. Rather, the question here
is, to adapt Martin Heidegger on philosophy, a theological path or way
forward into whose ‘total and original meaning’ we are called to enter. Our
speaking about God will correspond to the mystery of His love for us in Christ
by our remaining in conversation with the question and in being placed in
relationship to it, that is, attuned to it by it in our response.11 This question
need not rule out an intellectual aporia. We are not faced with an impassible
way preventing an illumination of the depths of the mystery, and so we will
speak in this work not of a ‘problem’ of divine freedom and necessity but of
what we will call a ‘problematic’. A problem, as Gabriel Marcel famously
argued, has certain defined dimensions. We lay siege to it and reduce it insofar
as it can be definitely ‘re-solved’ by the application of a specific technique
which we control and which anyone can apply to it and obtain the same
‘result’. A ‘mystery’, in contrast, is something which defies technique and
which involves us personally such that it can be thought only in a sphere
where the distinction between what is ‘in us’ and ‘before us’ no longer is
appropriate and has no ruling claim.12 By ‘problematic’ we understand an
intellectual mystery to which we can respond conceptually but which, in
contrast to a problem, defies the application of technique, for any mystery
makes a personal and spiritual claim on us. Unlike a problem, therefore, a
problematic has no ultimate (re)solution and any response to it, while by no

11
Heidegger 1956, 40–1, 66ff.
12
Marcel 1935, 169–70 [1949, 117–18] and see 1950–1, I, 211ff. [1951, I, 227ff.].
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

6 Freedom and Necessity in Modern Trinitarian Theology

means necessarily ‘private’, simply clarifies for one the dimensions of the
mystery and drives us further into its depths. We shine, as it were, a light on
a forest track creating an opening that spills out at its edges into darkness,
allowing us to go deeper on the path of the question.
This book aims to respond to the problematic in two ways. Firstly, it
critically and constructively discusses the nature of the problematic and the
response it evokes in Sergii Bulgakov (1871–1944) (Part I: chs. 4–6), Karl
Barth (1886–1968) (Part II: chs. 7–8), and Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–88)
(Part III: chs. 9–11). Secondly, throughout our work, we shall constructively
respond to the problematic by drawing on select ideas from these conversation
partners to articulate our own tentative synthetic response in counterpoint
to their exegesis which will culminate in the Conclusion in an ‘unsystematic
systematic’ theology of divine freedom and necessity. As shall be clear in
chapters 2–3 of this Introduction, we frame the problematic and the terms
of any response ‘dialectically’ through a complex interweaving of three differ-
ent senses of ‘freedom’ and ‘necessity’ that exist in a creative tension from
which emerges what we mean by divine freedom.
What are the basic lines of the problematic of freedom and necessity that we
shall explore? On the one hand, Christian theology affirms that God is
absolutely free as an eternal trihypostatic movement of pure self-giving and
self-receiving love, Holy Trinity as a texture of divine desire, ‘who alone has
immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen
or can see’ (1 Tim. 6:16). This God, out of an everlasting love for us in Christ,
set us apart, chose, and called us through His grace (Gal. 1:15, Eph. 2:8–10) but
yet is in no way impelled to create and redeem the world in Him, and, indeed,
as some have claimed, might have been satisfied with His own life of love (cf.
Rom. 9:13ff.). On the other hand, Christian theology also affirms that this
same God, who is uncontainable (1 Kgs 8:27), out of everlasting humble love
becomes subject to the parameters of flesh and temporality through emptying
Himself and taking on the form of a slave (Phil. 2:5ff.). This same everlasting
love of God for His creation in Christ, self-giving, self-emptying, and self-
receiving, has neither beginning nor ending since God has eternally chosen the
eternal Son to be Jesus of Nazareth (1 Pet. 1:20), the ‘Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world’ (Rev. 13:8 [KJV]), leading us to the admittedly hard
conclusion that the created world seems inseparable from the Trinity. Put in
volitional terms, God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit out of His everlasting
love for creation has eternally chosen to be God for us in Christ. Christ,
through this eternal self-determination, has become part of God’s own self-
identity. Yet if there was no world, there could be no Christ, so there is a tension
or dialectic at work in this divine love for creation between God’s absolute
freedom and, in the incarnation, the necessity of the world for Him as God for
us in Jesus Christ. The meaning of ‘dialectic’, as we shall see, changes accord-
ing to the context of the respective thinker’s response to our problematic, so it
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

Freedom and Necessity as Trinitarian Mystery and ‘Problematic’ 7

can be understood broadly as the interplay of two distinct but mutually
defining realities, roughly similar to Balthasar’s notion of ‘polarity’, or, as a
contradiction between mutually opposed realities, as in Bulgakov’s ‘anti-
nomism’ and Barth’s ‘dialectical theology’. The different senses of ‘freedom’
and ‘necessity’ will be outlined in chapters 2–3 (with a diagram at the end of ch. 3).
Why choose these three theologians? All three of these writers exhibit a
form of what we might call ‘anticipatory Christology’ in which God out of an
everlasting love for creation freely binds Himself to that creation absolutely
and eternally in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, with all that implies, including
sin and death. This form of Christology complicates the issue of divine
freedom, and consequently the doctrine of the Trinity. It gives the world in
relation to God a sort of external necessity by making God dependent on the
existence of the world, for, we seem to be compelled to say, quite simply, if
there was no world, there would be no Christ. Creation must exist if God has
freely determined that He will be God for us in Christ. But how can we say this
if God is free to love and not to love us in Christ? All three theologians, in
attempting to embody the necessary but free nature of the Incarnation,
presenting God’s relationship to creation in Christ as a sort of oxymoronic
‘free necessity’, are not without problems in their respective attempts to re-
imagine the doctrine of God in terms of the primacy of Christology. Our
triumvirate were forced to rethink the meaning of both divine freedom and
necessity, and it is here that we shall see some of their most creative theology.
However, we will argue, drawing on aspects of all three of our theologians and
especially Barth’s notion of eternal divine election, that while Christology
certainly intensifies the problematic of freedom and necessity in Trinitarian
theology, it may just provide a key to its reasonableness—though not a rational
explanation which dispenses with mystery. It is the articulation of a Christo-
logical ‘key’ to unlock a problematic (ironically) created by Christology in the
doctrine of God, which shall increasingly become the focus of our study,
culminating in the Conclusion.
Such a vision of the fabric of the doctrine of God as being, as it were,
intrinsically Christological is by no means ‘new’.13 Indeed, more generally,
some Patristic scholars now argue—albeit within the context of a broad some-
what territorial dismissal of systematic theology—that Patristic ‘Trinitarianism’
is so inseparable from ‘soteriology’ and ‘Christology’ that the categories should
be avoided or even jettisoned.14 What was unprecedented was that our writers

13
e.g. ‘Since he pre-existed as one who saves, it was necessary that what might be saved also
be created so that the one who saves might not be in vain [Cum enim praeexsisteret saluans,
oportebat et quod saluaretur fieri, uti non vacuum sit saluans]’ (Irenaeus, Contre les hérésies,
3.22.3 (SC 211, 438–9) and compare Luther: ‘He created us for this very purpose, to redeem and
sanctify us’ (Large Catechism, 64, 419 [Die Bekenntnisschriften, 36, 660]); see Jenson 1997, 72–3).
14
See Ayres 2004, 3–4, 2007a, 141–2, Behr, The Nicene Faith [=NF], 2ff., 2007 (responding to
Ayres 2004), 150–1 (Ayres’ response: 2007b, 166–71).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/7/2016, SPi

8 Freedom and Necessity in Modern Trinitarian Theology

explored the notion that creation, cross, and Trinity were eternally bound up
together within the relatively recent discipline of systematic theology, where an
account of the Trinity, with Christology as a chapter of Trinitarian teaching,15
becomes foundational for an account of all reality.16 This makes them suspi-
cious of discussing the Trinity outside the relationship to creation God estab-
lishes in redemption in Christ, since God chooses to not be God without the
world He has created and redeemed.17 Moreover, incarnation and creation
always already presuppose man’s fall into sin and God’s reconciliation of
creation with Himself through the cross and resurrection. To speak of God as
Trinity, to see Him and know Him as an eternal movement of love, can only be
done, properly speaking, in light of God’s prior initiative in His self-revelation,
His seeing, knowing and loving of His broken world in Christ crucified. For a
Christian theologian, one cannot be properly ‘theocentric’ unless one is first
‘Christocentric’, for one cannot speak of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
(immanent Trinity) except in light of how He has first spoken of Himself in
Christ (economic Trinity). It is for this reason that they rejected the scholastic
tendency to treat the oneness of God (de Deo Uno) apart from and before God
as Trinity (de Deo Trino).18 All of our theologians, for example, drawing on
nineteenth-century kenoticism,19 adapt the language of ‘self-emptying’ for the
Trinitarian relations, thereby wedding revelation with God Himself. Jürgen
Moltmann puts this approach neatly: ‘The content of the doctrine of the Trinity
is the real cross of Christ Himself. The form of the crucified Christ is the
Trinity.’20 Therefore, to adapt an image from George Pattison, all three theolo-
gians only gaze upon the icon of the Trinity in their work by first casting an eye
to the icon of Christ beholding them. They cannot see God without seeing and
being seen by Christ.21 Such a kenotically reconceived ‘threefold God’, as
Barbara Hallensleben argues for Balthasar and Bulgakov (her words might
also be applied to Barth), is a ‘underivable free dynamism of love which is
able to express a type of self-movement of God’ subject neither to external
compulsion nor mutability.22
In the articulation of such intratrinitarian kenoticism, it is indisputable
that our writers were products of their age and were all drawing on
aspects of German Idealism, not just Hegel, as is often mentioned in

15
Rahner 2004, 120.
16
See R. Williams 2007c, 142, 149-n. 190 and 2004, 50.
17
See R. Williams, Sergii Bulgakov [=SB], 169 and compare 2007b, 80–1.
18
But contrast Sonderegger, 2015, xi–xxv, 7–9 (this volume arrived too late to take into
serious account).
19
See Law 2013, 36ff., Colyer 2007, Gavrilyuk 2005, and Gorodetzky 1938, esp. 156–74.
20
Moltmann 1995, 246 and see 207, 235ff., The Trinity and the Kingdom [=TK], 160 and
compare Jüngel 1983, 343ff., esp. 350, 382–7 and (the famous) 1972.
21
See Pattison 2005, 158–60, 165 (on the Rublev Trinity and Spas icons); see Ouspensky and
Lossky 1983, 198, 200–5 and Bunge 2007.
22
Hallensleben 1999, 35.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Treatment,

338

Cold douche, use of,

338

Electricity, use of,

338

Nitrite of amyl and nitro-glycerin, use of,

338

Music, use of,

338

Purgatives and tonics, use of,

338
Cataleptoid phenomena in the insane,

327

Cathartics in cerebral abscess,

800

in cerebral hemorrhage,

976

in cerebral hyperæmia,

774

Cauterization in vertigo,

427

Cautery, use of, in cerebral hyperæmia,

774
 in spinal sclerosis,

905

Cephalic soufflé, diagnostic significance of,

779

Cerebellum, focal lesions of,

90

tumors of, symptoms,

1062

Cerebral anæmia,

774

786
 from emotional disturbance,

780

from ligature of carotid,

776

Arteries, occlusion of,

946

Congestion, active, insomnia from,

382

Hyperæmia in the insane, treatment,

136

Meningeal hemorrhage,

710

Meningitis, chronic,
721

Neurasthenia,

355

Paralysis,

917

Pia mater, congestion of,

715

inflammation of,

716

Symptoms of thermic fever,

390

Syphilitic insanity,

202
 Tissue, alterations of, in epilepsy,

491

Veins and sinuses, thrombosis of,

982

occlusion of,

918

Cerebro-spinal sclerosis, multiple,

873

Cervical sympathetic, diseases of,

1263

Etiology and pathology,

1263

,
1264

Course and diagnosis,

1265

Symptoms,

1264

Eye and pupil, changes in,

1264

Heart, disorders in,

1265

of irritation of,

1264

of destructive disease of,

1264
 Secretions, changes in,

1265

Treatment,

1265

Cervico-brachial neuralgia,

1234

occipital neuralgia,

1234

Charcot's joint disease in tabes dorsalis,

830

837
Cheyne-Stokes phenomenon,

777

respiration in tubercular meningitis,

728

729

Child-bearing and cerebral anæmia,

778

Childhood, headache in,

405

Insanity of,

171
Children, cerebral hemorrhage in,

928

Hysteria in, treatment,

275

Softening of brain in,

990

Chloral, abuse of (see

Opium Habit

).

use of, in acute simple meningitis,

721

in alcoholism,

641

,
645

646

in cerebral anæmia,

789

hyperæmia,

773

in chorea,

455

in epilepsy,

500

in hysteria,

276

in insanity,
136

in insomnia,

380-382

in migraine,

415

in tetanus,

558

in the opium habit,

673

674

676

in tubercular meningitis,

736
 in vaso-motor neuroses,

1256

Chloroform, habitual addiction to,

667

use of, in hysteria,

286

in neuralgia,

1229

in tetanus,

551

Choked disc, in tumors of brain,

1035
Cholesteotomata, in brain tumors,

1049

HOREA

439

Definition,

440

Diagnosis and prognosis,

453

Duration,

449
 Etiology,

440

Age and sex, influence on causation,

441

Climate, season, and race,

444

Heredity, influence on causation,

440

Rheumatism, influence on causation,

442

Reflex irritation and eczema,

444

Scarlet fever and pregnancy,

443
 Social condition and over-study,

441

History and synonyms,

439

Morbid anatomy and pathology,

450

Symptoms,

445

during sleep,

445

446

Heart, state of, in,

448
 Mental condition in,

445

Movements, characters, and description of,

445

446

Paralysis and post-paralytic stage of,

447

Pulse and temperature in,

449

Sensibility and reflexes in,

448

Speech in,

445
,

448

Treatment,

454

Arsenic, use of,

455

Cimicifuga and conium, use of,

455

Electricity, use of,

455

Iron and zinc salts, use of,

455

Nitrite of amyl, bromides, etc., use,

455
 Strychnia, use of,

455

Chorea, hysterical,

242

in tumors of the brain,

1039

post-paralytic,

447

960

Chronic alcoholism,

598

et seq.
 cerebral anæmia of adults,

782

meningitis,

721

delirium tremens,

630

hydrocephalus,

740

lead-poisoning,

678

myelitis,

886

spinal meningitis,