Tractatus de Deo Trino secundum personas

« In the special testimonies of the New Testament, in which the divine persons are numbered together, there is taught both their real distinction from one another, inasmuch as formally one is the Father, another the Son, another the Holy Spirit; and unity is preserved, inasmuch as there is one God, and the three are one in Godhead ».

I. As a compendium of the doctrine and of the faith to be professed concerning God, one in nature and triune in persons, Christ the Lord has embraced in the very form of baptism as the sacrament of faith, by which all who had embraced the faith were to be initiated and aggregated to the Church. « All power is given to me in heaven and in earth: going therefore, teach (μαθητεύσατε) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος) Matth. XXVIII. 19. In this solemn formula, prescribed to all Christians in the very sacrament of faith for sanctification and for the profession of faith at the same time, there is enunciated, as the symbol and token of the Christian faith, the distinction of the three from one another according to the formal reason of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and their unity inasmuch as they are one God.

1°. That the distinction of the Father and of the Son is enunciated here — that the Father is one, the Son another, and that it is not merely a twofold appellation of one person according to a diverse manifestation of oneself or operation ad extra, or according to a twofold absolute attribute — is altogether evident a) from the very names Father and Son. For these names are not said in relation to some other term but to each other, so that the Father is the Father of the Son himself, and the Son is the Son of the Father himself. Then indeed the Father is necessarily understood to be a person other than his Son, and conversely. b) Given the signification of the names expressing the origin of the one from the other, that relation of the two to each other is evident from the very connumeration, with the article interposed, τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ¹. Moreover c) setting aside these considerations of the immediate text, in the whole doctrine of Christ and of the Apostles concerning this real distinction — that the Father is one, the Father of the Son, and the Son another, the Son of the Father, and therefore that there are two distinct hypostases — there can be no doubt (th. II. n. 1.). But indeed d) if it is established that the connumeration is of distinct hypostases of the Father and of the Son, then also the third term, to which under the same altogether form the connumeration proceeds, cannot signify anything other than likewise a hypostasis distinct from the first and from the second: τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Concerning this personal distinction of the Holy Spirit, or his per se subsistence, moreover, it is sufficiently established by the arguments indicated in the preceding thesis II. n. II., which are almost the same as those by which the distinction of the two hypostases of the Father and of the Son is made known. There are therefore numbered together in this form of initiation and in this profession of the Christian faith, instituted by Christ the Lord himself, three distinct persons, or three hypostases: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

2°. It remains to be inquired — and this is the principal point — in what unity the three numbered hypostases are exhibited.

a) The unity of the Godhead of the three distinct persons is demonstrated from the initiation, that is, from the sanctification and consecration in the name of the three. It is asked what that "baptizing in the name" properly signifies. In baptism a twofold order can and must be regarded: that of God to men and that of men to God. In the former consideration, God is understood to regenerate us through baptism, to cleanse us from sins, and to sanctify us by his grace. « He saved us through the laver of regeneration and of renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, justified by his grace, we might be heirs according to the hope of eternal life » Tit. III. 5. By this very fact through baptism we are consecrated and devoted to God, and are given over to him as the object of faith, hope, charity, and in general of supernatural divine worship, which is the order of man to God. « That he might sanctify her (the Church), cleansing her by the laver of water in the word of life, that he might present to himself (αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ) a glorious Church » Eph. V. 26. 27; « for we have been buried together with him through baptism into death... so also you, consider yourselves dead indeed to sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus our Lord » Rom. VI. 3. 13; « for you are all children of God through the faith which is in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized in Christ (εἰς Χριστόν) have put on Christ... you are all one in Christ Jesus. But if you are Christ's, then... heirs according to the promise »; « each one of you says: I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo... was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου)?... lest anyone say that you were baptized in my name (εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα)... Who then is Apollo, and what is Paul: ministers of him in whom you believed... Let no one therefore glory in men; for all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollo... all things are yours, but you are Christ's, and Christ is God's » 1. Cor. I. 12 sq.; III. 21 sq. From these things it is evident that, both according to the former and according to the latter consideration, no one can without idolatry be consecrated by the baptism of Christ except in the name or into the name of him who is the true God. For we are sanctified only by God, nor are we devoted and consecrated through the sacrament except to God. From the very reason therefore of the sanctification and consecration in baptism it is concluded that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the three distinct persons, in whose name or into whose name all nations are baptized, are the true God and consequently (th. I.) one in Godhead.

b) Further, this unity can be understood from the very form of the words. The Father, in whose name we are baptized, is without controversy God. Now the name of God, especially in the solemn formulas of Sacred Scripture, is put for the very reality of the name, for the divine numen itself, both inasmuch as God manifests himself through special efficacies, special help and protection, and inasmuch as on our part it is the object of the supreme worship of faith, hope, and charity, and to it itself « we owe that service by which God alone is to be served, which in Greek is called λατρεία » (Aug. Trin. I. n. 13 and often elsewhere). « May the name of the God of Jacob protect you... in the name of our God we shall be magnified... these in chariots and these in horses, but we shall invoke the name of the Lord our God » Ps. XIX. 2. 6. 8. « In my name his horn shall be exalted » Ps. LXXXVIII. 25. « The place which the Lord your God shall choose, to put his name there and to dwell in it » Deut. XII. 5. 11. « I have built a house to the name of the Lord God of Israel... let your eyes be open upon this house... of which you said: my name shall be there » 3. Reg. VIII. 20. 29. Of the Angel of the Lord sent, it is said by the Lord who sends: « my name is in him » Exod. XX. 21 (cf. Coloss. II. 9). Likewise « unless you fear his glorious and terrible name, that is, the Lord your God (hebr. this glorious and terrible name, the Lord your God) » Deut. XXVIII. 58. « Holy and terrible is his name » Ps. CX. 9; « to your name I shall sing a psalm » ib. XVII. 50. and often. « Who have known your name; in your name we shall confess; if we have forgotten the name of our God »; « to those fearing your name » Ps. IX. 11; XLIII. 9. 21; LX. 6. « In his holy name we have hoped »; « the name of the Lord is his hope » Ps. XXXII. 21; XXXIX. 5. « Who love your name » Ps. V. 12; LXVIII. 37; CXVIII. 132.

These things having been declared, the force of the argument is understood which, by the common opinion of the theologians and also of the holy Fathers, is drawn from the unity of the name in the formula of baptism to demonstrate the unity of the essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For whether that « in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) » is taken directly for the reality of the name, inasmuch as it is the divine authority and divine power, on which the efficacy and the sanctification of baptism depend, with the co-signification of the divine majesty to which we are devoted in baptism; or whether, in the inverse order, it directly signifies the transcription and consecration into the name of God under the invocation and through the power of the same name — both fall back into the same thing. For in the unity of the name, which is common to the three distinct persons, there is contained the one authority of the three, from which is the power and the sanctification of baptism, and the one majesty, to which, as to the true God and the object of faith, hope, charity, and the worship of latria, we are consecrated. « Of whom the divinity is one, the largess one, and the name of the Trinity is one God » s. Hieronym. in Matth. XXVIII. 19 (and in the addition to the commentary of s. Hilarius transcribed from Jerome). « In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He signified indeed three persons, but asserted one name of the Trinity: one God therefore, one name, one majesty » Ambros. de Inst. virg. c. 10. n. 67. 68. « In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is one God, because not in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Where you hear one name, there is one God » Aug. in Io. tract. VI. n. 9. « This Trinity is one Lord God, of whom it is said: hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one; and: you shall adore the Lord your God and serve him alone (Deut. VI. 4). To this Lord also Isaias the prophet says: Lord, we have known no other besides you, we name your name (Is. XXVI. 13. iuxta LXX.). But this name the Savior shows, saying to his disciples: go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matth. XXVIII.). That is the name of the Lord, besides whom we have known no other.... In the Father therefore and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit we receive the unity of substance, we do not dare to confound the persons. For the blessed apostle John testifies saying: there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one (1. Io. V. 7) ». Fulgent. Respons. ad obiectiones Arian. obiect. X. See Athanas. ad Serapion. ep. I. n. 6 and elsewhere; Greg. Naz. or. XXXI. n. 28; Amphiloch. ep. syn. (Gallandi VI. p. 489); Gregor. Nys. ep. II. ad Sebasten (ib. p. 606. 607), Theodoret. haeret. fabul. l. V. § 3; Hilar. Trin. l. II. n. 1; Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto l. II. c. 8. n. 71². c) This unity is excellently confirmed by the fact that, where not the distinct profession of faith and the very form instituted by Christ was to be expressed, but only the matter of authority and divinity was to be designated, from which and into which we are consecrated, only one person, Jesus Christ, is named, in whose name the faithful are said to be baptized. « They were baptized in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Lord Jesus » Act. XIX. 5; « they had been baptized in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Lord Jesus » ib. VIII. 16; « let each one of you be baptized in the name (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι) of Jesus Christ » ib. II. 38; « he commanded them to be baptized in the name (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι) of the Lord Jesus Christ » ib. X. 48. See Tract. de Incarn. th. V.

II. That in the words of Christ the Lord Io. X. 30: « I and the Father are one », considered in themselves, the unity of nature and the real distinction of the Father and of the Son are signified — that the Father is one and the Son another — is demonstrated by the same arguments drawn from the consideration of the subject and of the predicate, which we used in the explanation of the formula of baptism. Moreover, indeed, the context supplies us with special demonstrations of the unity enunciated by the words « we are one », of what sort it is, both from the first discourse, which the Lord concludes with the very words: « I and the Father are one », and from the other discourse, in which he upholds the proper sense of the words understood by the Jews.

1°. In the former discourse a) Christ teaches that he himself is the one who gives eternal life to the sheep, h. e. to his faithful. b) He declares that no one can snatch the sheep from his hand, just as no one can snatch them from the hand of the Father. Where two things are said: in the first place, the sheep, or the faithful, are as proper to and claimed for the Son as for the Father; then the Son keeps the sheep by his power, just as the Father keeps them by his power. c) These three things — that the Son is the giver of eternal life, that the faithful are his people and his possession equally as the Father's, and that they are kept by his power as by the power of the Father — therefore belong to the Son, « because, he says, what my Father has given me is greater than all »³.

This very thing he says elsewhere in other words directed to the Father: « my things are yours, and your things are mine »; « all things whatsoever the Father has (πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατήρ) are mine » Io. XVI. 15; XVII. 10. Therefore the greater than all, which is the Father's, and by which surely the Father is God above all (cf. Eph. IV. 6), that very thing is also the Son's. This greater than all, and these all things whatsoever the Father has, are called by the Apostle the « form of God », by which the Son « did not think it robbery to be equal to God » (Phil. II. 6.); and therefore the Son is proclaimed « God blessed above all forever » (Rom. IX. 5. see on this place and on the predication of God the Tract. de Incarnatione). The distinction therefore between the two (« I and the Father ») is not in this, that the Father is of the divine nature and is God, while the Son is of an inferior nature, but solely in this, that the Father has the divine nature not communicated, the Son has the same communicated from the Father. Whence in this context the conclusion: « I and the Father are one », by which the proper ground of the antecedent propositions is enunciated, cannot be understood except according to the obvious sense of the words, of the unity of nature together with the distinction of the persons of the Father and of the Son.

2°. The accusation of the Jews gave occasion to the second part of the discourse, or rather to the second discourse, distinct from the first. For since they had understood the speech of Christ in the proper and obvious sense of which we spoke, they accused him of blasphemy: « because you, being a man, make yourself God ». Now what does the Savior answer concerning this understanding of the Jews? « If they had opined falsely, says Chrysostom l. c., he ought to have corrected them... Now on the contrary, with them raging, he confirms and approves that sentence ». We see in many places the divine Master correcting the perverse understandings of his words and explaining the true sense; on the contrary, where, the sense being rightly understood, faith is denied on account of the difficulty of the mystery, he is wont with the same or equivalent words to repeat and inculcate that very thing which was attacked (see Tract. de Eucharist. th. III.). When he had said: « I and the Father are one », and the Jews had interpreted this according to the obvious signification as equivalent to the affirmation: I am God, and for that reason had cried out blasphemy; the Lord responds not by softening the saying but by rebuking the unbelief of the Jews, and accordingly demands faith in that which he had said, and in the sense in which they themselves had understood it.

a) To the reproach of unbelief pertains what he says: « whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, you say: you blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God ». But these had not been his words, but others: « I and the Father are one », and the Jews had not accused him because he had said: I am the Son of God, but because he had said: I am God. These three therefore: « I and the Father are one », « I am the Son of God », « I am God »⁴, the Lord accepts as equivalent propositions (cf. Io. V. 18), to which he immediately adds a fourth for declaring the same: « the Father is in me, and I in the Father ». Therefore he calls himself the Son of God in such a way that the Father and the Son are one, that the Son is God equally as the Father, that for that reason the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, and that he who sees the Son sees also the Father (Io. XIV. 9-11).

b) The argument for this unity of nature of the Son with the Father Christ proposes, as often elsewhere, from the unity of the works, which in themselves indeed and in the first place show the truth of his doctrine, but in connection with the doctrine which he had here again most expressly declared, show the unity of nature and consequently also of operation of the Father and of the Son. « If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do..... believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father ». Chrysostom explains l. c. « Do you see how he proves that he is in nothing inferior to the Father but altogether equal? For because his essence could not be seen, from the equality and identity of the works (ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἔργων ἰσότητός τε καὶ ταὐτότητος) he brings the demonstration of equal power. And what, tell us, shall we believe: That I am in the Father, and the Father is in me; for I am nothing else than what the Father is, remaining the Son; he is nothing else than what I am, remaining the Father⁵; and he who knows me knows the Father and has learned the Son ».

From this identity of signification, and the substitution of the one for the other in the four indicated propositions, it is evident that the proper divine filiation must necessarily be understood — through the communication of the nature from the Father to the Son — when Christ says: I and the Father are one — I am God — I am the Son of God — I do the works of the Father, that you may believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father.

c) Hence it further appears what the sense is, or at least what is not and cannot be the sense, in the beginning of the second discourse, vv. 34-36.

α) When Christ in those words: « whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world », seems to give the reason of his divine filiation, in the second clause there is enunciated the pre-existence of the Son before his temporal nativity in the human nature, as he often declares elsewhere: « I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world » Io. XVI. 28; « I had glory, before the world was, with you » ib. XVII. 5; « before Abraham was made, I am » ib. VIII. 58; « the Son of man who descended from heaven, who is in heaven » ib. III. 13. In the first clause, « whom the Father sanctified », nothing can be understood except a sanctification such as befits God the Father in relation to God the Son. Since however the Son, through the assumed nature, is also a true man, the sense can be twofold: the Father sanctifies the Son considered according to divinity, by begetting him holy through the communication of the divine nature; he sanctifies the Son according to humanity by the same generation of the divine person, to whom the humanity has been hypostatically united in time, and by this very union the human nature is sanctified (see Tract. de Incarnat.). β) It is established that between the reason of the filiation enunciated in v. 36. and the antecedents of v. 35., « if he called them gods to whom the word of God was made », there is not a comparison of parity but of opposition. It is namely a refutation of the accusation of blasphemy by the argument from the lesser to the greater: if Scripture calls gods (though improperly) the men to whom the word of God was made, and what Scripture says cannot be refuted as blasphemous; how do you accuse me — who demonstrate in manifold ways that God in the proper sense is my Father — of blasphemy, because I said: I am the Son of God (surely in the proper sense, which Christ himself had declared a little before, and which the Jews had reproached)? They felt very well that Christ in his response had again affirmed that same thing which they themselves had called blasphemy, and demanded faith in this mystery; whence, just as after having heard the sentence of unity with God the Father, so now after this response of Christ they try to lay violent hands on him: « they sought therefore to apprehend him ». From the whole therefore course of the discourse it is certain that by Christ there is taught, of the Father and of the Son, just as the distinction according to the formal reason, by which the Father is one person and the Son another, so the unity according to essence and nature, by which the Father and the Son are one God. In this sense all the Fathers, in the disputation with the Arians, both singly and gathered in the Councils, understood that testimony of Christ, and always used it as the principal refutation of the heresy (see Maldonatum in h. l.).

III. The unity which is expressed in Io. X. 30: the Son and the Father are one, is declared in Io. I. 1 not by the word of unity, but by the very definition of the thing; so that you would not unreasonably say that in that former passage the thing defined is set down, and in this latter one the definition is contained. Hence if any doubt could still remain about the thing defined, namely what unity is to be believed

of the Father and of the Son, one ought to gather the true sense from the other passage, from the definition, I say, of the thing given by John in that very chapter of the book. « In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word ». Leaving aside the demonstration which we gave in the Tract. de Incarnat. th. IX., that by the particle « in the beginning » is enunciated the absolute principle in the order of duration and permanence, not however a principle or beginning of time, and hence the eternity of the Word is enunciated; now for the present purpose we consider only the two following clauses.

1°. In that clause « the Word was with God », that the real distinction of the Word from him with whom he is said to be is enunciated, is evident from this whole first chapter, and from the whole Gospel. For the Word, about whom we wish to be taught who he is and what he is, is « the only-begotten from the Father », « the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father » v. 14. 18. The Word made flesh (man) in time is Jesus Christ, who in the whole Gospel declares himself to be the Son of God the Father, most certainly distinct from his Father. « John knew one and the same Word of God, and that he is the only-begotten, and that he was incarnate for our salvation » Iren. III. c. 16. n. 2. The Word is the same, the Son of God the Father, who, as this one distinct from the Father and distinct from the Spirit, is numbered together with them, so that there are three: « in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ». When therefore it is said: « the Word was with God » πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, no absolute attribute (say of wisdom or omnipotence) of him with whom he is said to be is enunciated. For an attribute is not really distinguished from God, or from the divine person whose it is, so as to be one and another; but « the Word with God » is understood in the same sense as when it is said: « the only-begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father », and when the Son says: « I am in the Father and the Father is in me », « I had glory, before the world was, with thee » παρὰ σοί Io. XIV. 10; XVII. 5. The preposition therefore « with God » retains its significance of distinguishing one from the other. Moreover this Word, distinct from him with whom he was, is not a transient word but a substantial one, as is evident from all that has been said, and even from this alone, that the Word was God. But he who is God is by that very fact a hypostasis and a person; whence since he is one, with whom in the beginning was the Word and who likewise is God, and the Word is another, there are surely two distinct hypostases or divine persons. What therefore regards the Father and the Word of the Father, no mention yet being made of the Holy Spirit, the words of John indicate here the same distinction: « the Word was with God », which those other words of Matth. XXVIII express: « in the name of the Father and of the Son », and likewise Io. X: « I and the Father are one ».

2°. Now let us consider the declaration of unity, from which we shall also understand better what sort the distinction is. « The Word was with God, and God was the Word » καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. In the second clause without doubt the Word (ὁ Λόγος) is the subject and God (Θεός) the predicate. This appears not only from the name Θεός without the article, but also from the flow of the discourse. For logically the subject which John wished to declare, and to teach what it is, is certainly the Word; this same therefore is the grammatical subject. The elegance of the discourse could have suggested the transposition of the words; for in these verses 1. 4. 5. 7. 10. 11 we see almost constantly the subsequent clause begin with that word in which the preceding ended. Nevertheless there was a much weightier reason for such a conjunction: « was with God, and God was », namely that the Father, with whom in the beginning was the Word, and the Word itself should be declared one and the same God.

a) Certainly in such a connection the name God evidently retains one and the same proper signification, nor can it be taken in the former clause in the proper sense and in the following one only in an analogous sense. Whence the meaning is: « The Word was with God, and God (not in another but in the same sense, and hence one true God) was the Word », i.e. the Word in the beginning was with the Father who is one true God, and the Word was also itself the same one true God. The unity of the Father and of the Word is therefore declared here in such a way that the Father and the Word are one true God, beside whom there is no other God. Hence what is said in Io. X. 30: « I and the Father are one », is defined in this sense: I and the Father are one true God. Since moreover God is the divine essence and every absolute perfection, the divine essence with all the absolute perfections, which we distinguish by reason, is said to be numerically one of the Father and of the Son; or more strictly the Father and the Son are said to be one divine Being, one divine essence. Although therefore the distinction, according to which the Word formally is, from him whose Word he is and with whom in the beginning was the Word, is clear both everywhere in other places and in this very text; nevertheless according to that by which both he with whom he was, and the Word itself is God, an absolute identity and unity is declared: « was with God, and God was ». Whence the real distinction is to be understood solely as it is expressed by the names themselves, according to the formal reason of the Father and the formal reason of the Son or Word. These, however, are not absolute but relative to each other. The Father formally as Father of the Son is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father; but this one is the other, the Father of the Son, and that one is the other, the Son of the Father. Insofar, however, as the Father is God and the Son is the same one God, they are not two but altogether one, just as the divine essence and nature is one. But of the relations by which the divine persons are constituted and distinguished, we shall have to speak elsewhere at length.

b) To guard against the difficulties which can arise against the declared one and same signification of the name God in both clauses, the signification and the supposition of the name must be distinguished, and moreover the mode of signifying of names of concrete form must be attended to, when they are placed in the predicate. A name is said to signify that for designating which it is established of itself. When however the signified notion is found in several distinct things, the name can be applied to one determined one of those several, and then the name is said to supposit for that determined one of the several. Thus in the proposition: man lives, the signification of the name man is not different, whether you utter it in common or of Peter; for it always signifies a rational animal, but in the second hypothesis it supposits for one singular person ⁶. Moreover names of concrete form designating a substance, e.g. animal, man, angel, God, signify directly the nature and co-signify the notion of hypostasis, not this or that hypostasis determinately but indeterminately. Therefore by an added predicate they can be determined so as to supposit for one determined hypostasis. Finally let it be noted that names of this kind, of nature in the concrete, when they are predicated of a subject, i.e. when by them in the manner of a predicate it is enunciated of the subject what it is, always stand formally, i.e. signify of what form and nature the subject is. The difference, however, here is between the case in which a nature is one only in species and multiplied in individuals, and the case in which a nature is numerically one and not multipliable. In the former hypothesis, if the nature is predicated of distinct subjects, the predicate also enunciates a nature numerically other of the one and other of the other subject; in the latter hypothesis, however, one numerically single nature is predicated of several distinct things. Caius is a man and Titius is a man, but Caius is one man and Titius another man. But the Father is God and the Son is God, not God one and another, but altogether one.

From these principles it is now clear how the name God in both clauses of which we are treating retains the same signification, although it does not supposit on both sides for the same person. In the former clause « the Word was with God », the name God has its signification of the subsisting divine nature, but is determined to supposit for the Father by the enunciated relation and distinction between him with whom the Word was, and the Word. In the other clause « and God was the Word », the predicate God signifies entirely the same and indeed the numerically same, namely the subsisting divine nature, which is not twofold but numerically one, nor are the Father and the Word one God and another but altogether one; nevertheless just as in the former clause it supposits for the person of the Father, so in this other clause it enunciates of the other person, namely of the Word (according to the mode of signifying proper to predicates), what it is essentially (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) ⁷.

Let it therefore stand firm, what we have said: that the unity of the Father and of the Son or Word, which is enunciated in Io. X. 30, is expressly defined in this beginning of the Gospel: « the Word was with God, and God was the Word », as a unity of Godhead, so that the Father and the Son are one God. Since moreover, both in the baptismal formula Matth. XXVIII. 19 and in other places, the Holy Spirit is evidently numbered together with the Father and the Son in the same way in distinction and unity, it is certain that the same definition of unity, Io. I. 1, just as it pertains to two, so in the same sense must be understood of all three persons of the most holy Trinity.

All that we have said of this divine predication: « the Word was with God, and God was the Word », holds in entirely the same way for the parallel testimony 1. Io. V. 20, where in place of the Word the other name Son is substituted, and the predicate God has the added determination true God: « that we may know the true God and may be in his true Son (the Word was with God): this one (the true Son) is the true God and eternal life » (and God was the Word). Of this testimony we treat in Tract. de Incarn. th. VI.

IV. These declarations of Christ and of the Apostles being presupposed, both the distinction of persons and the unity of nature are easily demonstrated in other testimonies, first of Christ the Lord himself, where the three persons are numbered together. « When he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all truth.... because he will receive of mine.... All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he will receive of mine » Io. XVI. 13-15. In which place, besides the unity of all things whatsoever the Father has in three distinct persons, the origin of the persons of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is also expressly taught, of which we shall speak elsewhere. See Io. XIV. 6-11. 16. 17. 23. 26; XV. 26. cf. Luc. I.

32. 35; Matth. III. 16. 17; Marc. I. 10. 11; Luc. III. 22. There is then the same ground for the most frequent numbering together of the three persons in the preaching and writings of the Apostles, namely in those places in which baptism and initiation in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is presupposed. « But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God » 1. Cor. VI. 11. « Now he who confirms us with you in Christ (εἰς Χριστόν) and who has anointed us is God, who has also sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts » 2. Cor. I. 21. 22. « No one can say, Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit. Now there are divisions of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are divisions of operations, but the same God, who works all things in all » (τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς Κύριος, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Θεός). Then are enumerated the graces, ministrations, operations. « But all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each one as he wills ». The body of the Church Christ makes and holds as one and as his own body out of many members according to these divisions of graces, ministrations, operations; and all these divisions of graces, ministrations, operations « God has placed in the Church » 1. Cor. XII. 3-12. 28. s. Athanasius explains the passage most briefly in ad Serap. ep. III. n. 5. « The Spirit is not outside the Word; but since he is in the Word, through him he is in God, so that gifts are bestowed in the Trinity. For in their division, as (Paul) writes to the Corinthians, the same Spirit is, and the same Lord, and the same God, who works all things in all. For the Father himself through the Son in the Spirit works and gives all things ». Cf. Act. II. 32-35; V. 31. 32; VIII. 37. 39; Rom. XV. 15. 16. 30; 2. Cor. XIII. 13; Gal. IV. 6; 2. Thess. II. 13. 14; Tit. III. 4-6; Heb. II. 3. 4; 1. Pet. I. 2.

Corollary 1. The numbering together or coordination of several must be carefully distinguished from the sub-numbering or subordination of one under another. Numbering together occurs when by force of the words and context two or more are comprehended in the same order under some notion of being, and hence identity or parity in that notion under which they are numbered together is signified. Whence since creatures at least in created being all agree among themselves, they can all be numbered together under some notion, but not under those notions under which they differ. But God, above all created things, excels and differs by the whole notion of being; and therefore just as a creature is ontologically of an entirely different order, so also it cannot be numbered together with God without fallacy. We call it sub-numbering when several are indeed named in some connection in which not the agreement and identity of the things, but only the dependence of one upon another or subordination is indicated. This sub-numbering of a creature under God can therefore rightly be made. In contexts where the propriety of speech must certainly be supposed to be preserved, numbering together is easily discerned from sub-numbering by the internal and external rules of interpretation. Certainly it is numbering together when several persons are joined under one and the same explicit notion of a divine attribute, as in the baptismal formula: « baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ». Hence we see a far different construction of words where the thing of the name is different: « I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God.... and my new name » ⁸ (the name given to him according to his humanity, which is above every name Phil. II. 9). Apoc. III. 12. Likewise numbering together in the same order and in the same dignity is understood to be expressed when several numbered persons, one of whom is certainly divine, are expressly said to be one simply, or are subsumed under a verb in the plural number: « I and the Father are one »; « the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one »; « I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me..... the testimony of two men is true: I am he who bears testimony of myself, and the Father who sent me bears testimony of me » Io. VIII. 16-18; « if anyone loves me... and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him » ib. XIV. 23; « Holy Father, keep them whom you have given me, that they may be one (among themselves) as we also are »; « you, Father, in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us » ib. XVII. 11. 21. 22.

In numberings together of this kind, where the Son evidently places himself with his Father God in the same grade and order, a most efficacious demonstration of unity is contained, when of himself and of God the Father he says: we are, they are in us, our testimony, we will come, we will make our abode. This efficacy of the demonstration is better felt if that conjunction of the two into one, when the Son speaks of himself and of God the Father, is compared with the division which he always preserves when he speaks of himself and of men in relation to God, although he deigned to become the brother of these according to his humanity and to call them his brothers. He taught us to pray: « our Father! » but never in the order to God did he include himself and us men under common pronouns of this kind. He said: « I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God » Io. XX. 12. ⁹ But Augustine excellently warns: « he did not say our Father; therefore differently mine, differently yours; mine by nature, yours by grace.... Nor did he say, our God; therefore here also differently mine, differently yours; my God, under whom I also am a man; your God, between whom and him I am mediator » Aug. in Io. tract. 121. n. 3.

Far different is sub-numbering. When the question is of the workings of God and of the relation of reason to a term outside God, nothing prevents a second ministerial or instrumental cause from being named together with God the first cause; a conjunction of this kind we call sub-numbering. But this will be evident either from the very nature of the thing, especially if what is numbered along is not a person but some thing: « unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit » Io. III. 5; or if the ministerial character is expressed even in express words, e.g.: « they believed the Lord and Moses his servant » Exod. XIV. 31. Hence 1. Io. V. 8: « there are three who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood », since water and blood are not persons but some created things, by the name spirit the Holy Spirit could be understood, if in the last clause (as the Greek edition has it) the term of the testimony were indicated: « these three are in one or unto one ». Then it would be sub-numbering, and God the Holy Spirit would be said to bear testimony both by himself and through the water and the blood as subordinate causes. In this explanation, however, there always remains some impropriety of speech; and indeed the very manner of joining the three witnesses, and much more the last clause, if it is read simply with the Vulgate as « are one », persuades that it is a numbering together of three, and therefore that just as the water and the blood, so also the spirit is something created. Hence not the person of the Holy Spirit, but either his effect (of which sort is the testimony and preaching of the Apostles, or grace in the sacrament of baptism), or the spirit commended on the cross into the hands of the Father, i.e. the soul of Christ, is numbered together with water and blood in the unity of testimony. But of this testimony we shall soon speak at greater length. On numbering together and sub-numbering, s. Basilius cont. Eunom. V. p. 308. 309 is to be read and rightly understood for his purpose against the Arians, cf. de Spirit. S. n. 29. 31.

Corollary 2. What Christ says: « this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ » Io. XVII. 3, has no difficulty against the Trinity of persons, which both singly and all together are the only true God. The particle only is not joined to the pronoun you to exclude a plurality of persons who are one God, but is joined to the name true God to affirm the unity of God, just as elsewhere this foundation of revealed doctrine is frequently inculcated: « I am the Lord and there is no other » etc. (th. I). What we say is manifest a) from the whole demonstrated doctrine, by which three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are taught to be one God. b) The same appears from the very grammatical form of this place. For it is not said, that they may know you, who alone are the true God, but that they may know you, the true God, who as true God is the one and only God, ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν, not however ἵνα γινώσκωσι μόνον σε ἀληθινὸν Θεόν. This is what the Fathers Athanasius, Chrysostom and others say: that the opposition is not between the Father, who alone is the true God, and the Son, who is not the true God; but between the only true God and fictitious gods. c) Nay rather, the very numbering together of the Father and of the Son Jesus Christ under one and the same notion of the object of faith and of life-giving knowledge shows the one divinity of the Father and of the Son. « Although the Father is said to be the only true God, this was not said to repudiate him who says: I am the truth (Io. XIV. 6); but to reject those who are not true by nature, such as the Father and his Word are. For so the Lord himself immediately joined: and him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ. If he were a creature, he would not have joined and numbered himself together with his Creator. For what fellowship has the true with the not true? Now, however, that he joined himself with the Father, he shows that he is of the nature of the Father, and has taught us that he is the true begotten of the true Father. This also John had learned and taught, writing in his epistle (1. Io. V. 20): and we are in the true one, in his Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life » ¹⁰.

Corollary 3. Nor does the comparison instituted by Christ the Lord in Io. XVII. 21 hinder what has been demonstrated in the thesis: « that all may be one:... I in them and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one » (τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν). For a) the unity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is without doubt the supreme exemplar of the holy union of the faithful among themselves, which the Lord asks of the Father. But by comparisons of this kind of an analogous perfection in creatures with the perfection in God, identity or the same notion of divine perfection and created perfection is surely not expressed; unless perhaps you say that we are instructed unto equality with God, when Christ exhorts: « be you therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect » Matth. V. 48. cf. Lev. XXI. 8; Luc. VI. 36; Eph. V. 1. Athanasius disputes at length or. III. contr. Arian. n. 17-25. about this comparison of unity through the particle as, by which, he says, not identity but image and exemplar is declared. b) Although the unity which the Lord asks for the faithful is a unity not of nature but of charity, nevertheless this very unity presupposes a unity of nature, such as is among men, namely specific. « If they did not love one another, they would be one by nature, they would not be one by love; if however they were not one by nature, they could not be said to be one by love... Nor did he say, that they may be one with us, or that they and we may be one, but: that they may be one in us. Since men who are one by nature cannot be supremely and perfectly one according to their mode with the fullness of justice, unless they be perfected in God, so as to be one in the Father and the Son; that is, one in them, not one with them » Aug. contr. Maximin. l. II. c. 22. n. 1. Finally c) sometimes the Fathers turn these very testimonies back against the Arians. For the principle of the unity which the Lord requires for the faithful is in many distinct things numerically one, namely the Holy Spirit who has been given to us, and Christ who through our assumed nature is the head of the Church, « from whom the whole body, compacted and connected by every joint of subministration... makes the growth of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity » (Eph. IV. 16), and who by his body ¹¹ which is numerically one, is in the sacrament of the Eucharist the cause and uniting bond of the charity of the faithful. And so the supernatural unity of the faithful, considered with its principle, is an image of that exemplar, where the numerically one divine nature is the formal reason of the unity of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. « When the Savior said of us: as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us, it is not signified that we shall have identity with him... but it is a petition to the Father, as John writes, that through Christ himself he impart the Spirit to the faithful, through whom we both appear to be in God, and according to this are conjoined in the Spirit himself. For because the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word (ἐκ τοῦ Λόγου δίδοται), he wills that we receive the Spirit, so that, having received this and holding the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we also may appear through the Spirit to be one in the Word and through the Word in the Father... Whence just as we are made sons and gods through the Word dwelling in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and shall be accounted made one in the Son and in the Father, because in us is the Spirit, who is in the Word, and the Word is in the Father » Athanas. l. c. n. 25. « I in them and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one... It is certain that the Word has been made in us; for he assumed our body (our nature). And you in me, Father; for I am your Word: and if you are in me, because I am your Word, and I am in them through my body, and because through you the salvation of men has been perfected in me, I ask that they also may be one... that all, as it were carried by me, may be one body, one spirit, and may attain unto a perfect man (Eph. IV. 13). For all we who partake of his body are made one body, having one Lord in ourselves » Athanas. ib. n. 22. s. Hilarius most excellently turns the argument against the Arians in de Trinit. l. VIII. n. 13-17. « That they may be one, as we are one; I in them and you in me, that they may be perfect in one. Those now who thrust in a unity of will between the Father and the Son, I ask whether Christ is in us today through unity of nature or through concord of will? For if the Word was truly made flesh, and we truly receive the Word made flesh in the Lord's food, how is he not to be considered to remain in us naturally?..... If therefore Christ truly assumed the flesh of our body... and we truly under the mystery receive the flesh of his body, and through this we shall be one, because the Father is in him and he in us, how is a unity of will asserted? » (See Tract. de Eucharist.) ¹².