_The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
			by Heinrich Schmid, D.D.
			Third edition, revised
			Translated from German and Latin
				by
			Charles A. Hay, D.D.
				and
			Henry E. Jacobs, D.D.
			Copyright 1875 and 1889, Charles A. Hay
			and Henry E. Jacobs
			Copyright 1899, Henry E. Jacobs
			and Charles E. Hay
			Reprinted 1961 by
			Augsburg Publishing House_
			Pages 129-159
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
			CHAPTER II.

			OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [1]

PARA. 19. The Doctrine is a Mystery.

The Holy Scriptures declare that God is but one, and yet
they also ascribe Divinity to three, viz., Father, Son, and
Spirit; and thus we learn from them that there is one God, but
that this one God is Father, Son, and Spirit. Here a proposition
is stated which is altogether beyond the grasp of reason; the
doctrine it contains belongs therefore to those we designate as
mysteries. [2] Concerning this mystery the Holy Scriptures
alone can give us any information, therefore upon them alone
this doctrine is based. [3] But the Holy Scriptures do not un-
veil for us this mystery; they rather reveal the doctrine as a
mystery, and it is therefore to so great an extent a mystery,
that we here upon earth can never attain to a perfectly cor-
rect conception or comprehension of it, [4] and at best can
only approximate this by analogies drawn from the spere of
human knowledge. [5] Therefore the Church desists from
any attempt to fathom this mystery, but applies in this case
most rigidly her rule of extracting the substance of her faith
alone from the Holy Scriptures. She simply assigns to herself
the task of most carefully collecting and arranging the subject-
matter of what the Scriptures teach in regard to this mystery,
and is the more urgently impelled to do this, because the mat-
ter in hand is one of no less importance than to learn what
conceptions God wishes us to form concerning Himself. [6]
Therefore she demands of every one, who wishes to belong to
the Church, that he believingly accept this revelation contained
-------------------End of Page 129--------------------------------
in the Holy Scriptures. [7] The Church, when she sets forth
this doctrine, is moreover fully justified in the use of such
terms as do not occur in the Holy Scriptures; for, inasmuch
as the opponents of this doctrine, when it was stated only in
the terms employed in the Holy Scriptures, perverted the
meaning of these and gave them a different interpretation, the
Church was compelled more specifically to explain in what
sense these scriptural expressions, taken in their connection,
are to be understood; and this, of course, had to be done in
terms which were not contained in the Scriptures, for their
very purpose was to explain the sense in which the Church
understands the statement of the Scriptures. [8] And this
explains why it is that the doctrine of the Trinity only grad-
ually assumed the form in which the Church now sets it forth,
and how ungrounded is the inference that the doctrine is not
fully indorsed by the Holy Scriptures, and that it was not
from the first believed by the Church. [9] And, finally, the
Church, in using these terms, neither presumes that she has
unfolded the mystery, nor does she intend that these expres-
sions are to be taken precisly in the sense in which they are
generally used; for, inasmuch as we have here to do with a
doctrine that is entirely beyond the reach of reason, the terms
that are applicable to other things are inadequate, and the
Church therefore still always thus explains the particular
sense in which she wishes these expressions to be under-
stood. [10]

The Church arrives at the doctrine of the Trinity by ob-
serving that in the Holy Scriptures, on the one hand, the unity
of God is taught; and on the other, Divinity is ascribed to
three, Father, Son, and Spirit; that, accordingly, a certain
distinction is recognized in God, and a plurality in Him is in-
dicated. [11] These predicates concerning God, contained in
the Holy Scriptures, of unity, plurality, and diversity, the
Church combines in the formula:

The one divine essence subsists in three persons; or (what is the
same thing),
In the Deity there are three persons and one essence; or,
God is one in essence, but the same God, one in essence, is three-
fold in person.
---------------------End of Page 130----------------------------------
The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, is that in which a
peculaiar and incomprehensible application of the term three
to the divine persons is taught, but in such a manner that not
anything comnposed of three, but three persons of one essence
are postulated. God is triune, therefore, because, in essence
one, He has three modes of subsistence. [11]

The meaning of this formula is further explained by the
Church as follow:

(1)The unity therein expressed is that of the divine essence. [13]
This unity of essence is, more specifically, a numerical unity,
i.e., it is of such a nature that it can be predicated only of one.
Hence, it follows that when it is said that the Father, Son, and 
Spirit are one, these three are not to be designated as three
Gods, each having a special divine essence (Symb. Athanas.:
Non tres Dii, set unus Deus); and that we are not to associate
with the word being [Wesen, essentia] exactly the same signifi-
cation that it has when applied to man (essentia hominis), for
that is just the difference between the essential nature of God
and that of man, i.e., that God's nature in one numerically,
and that of man is one in kind. [14] Father, Son, and Spirit
are, therefore, God in such a sense, that entire divinity is pre-
dicated of each of the three; the one and undivided essentia is
ascribed to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and
undivided divine essence is entire in each [14] (tota in singulis),
whence it further follows that, as in God there is no objective
distinction between nature and attributes, divinity as well as
all its attributes must be ascribed to each of these three. [16]

(2) A plurality in God, and, therefore, a certain distinction
between Father, Son, and Spirit, is indeed clearly taught in the
Holy Scriptures, but this is (a) no plurality of essence (plural-
itas essentialis), as has already been shown; further, it is (b) no
plurality of accidents (pluralitas accidentalis), i.e., personality is
not something added to the being of God, as a special peculiar-
ity or characteristic, for the principle applies to God In Deum
nulla accidentia cadunt. [17] (PARA. 18, note 2.) Plurality may
perhaps be best described as a pluralitas hypostatica seu per-
sonarum, [18] i.e., as one, according to which each of the
three persons is to be conceived of as a self-subsistent subject;
which statement, however, must be at once qualified by the
-------------------------End of Page 131---------------------------
remark that we are to stop with this, and dare not press the
analogy of the word any further. For there is always this
difference in the word person when used with reference to God
or man, repectively, that in the latter case it signifies a self-
subsistent subject, which has its own essence, while in the
Trinity there is only one undivided essence, of which all the
three persons of the Godhead partake. [19] In this sense,
therefore, we are to distinguish in the one divine essence three
persons, and the distinction between them is to be described as
a true and real one. [20] Hence it follows, however, that to
each of these there belong certain peculiarities distinguishing
it from the others (a hypostatical character or personal pecu-
liarity (nota, notio, relatio), showing a distinction of persons in
a common identity of essence). Such peculiarities we recog-
nize in the various statements made in the Holy Scriptures
concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These state-
ments are of a twofold character; they either indicate the in-
ner differences that exist in the persons themselves, and de-
scribe, in this case, the special mode of subsistence of the
single person (tropos huparxeos, the peculiar method of subsisting,
through which and by reason of which each person is distin-
guuished from the other), or they describe the special relation
which the single persons hold to the world. Hence we have
to distinguish the internal and external peculiarities (propri-
etates, notiones), to which there are also corresponding acts by
which the individual persons are related to themselves or to
the world (opera da intra, internal acts, which God performs
without any creature, within himself--opera ad extra, external
acts, when God effects something in creatures, without his own
essence). [21] Through these declarations of the Holy Scrip-
tures we learn the peculiarities that constitute the distinction
between the several persons. Yet we must not fail to observe
that it is the internal characteristics and the internal acts cor-
responding to them, as described in the divine Word, that re-
veal to us more clearly the distinction of persons; for only the
internal works (opera ad intra) are to be regarded as such acts as
proceed from one particulur person, to the exclusion of the others,
while the outward works (opera ad extra) are those from which,
although predicated directly of one person, the others are still
-------------------End of Page 132--------------------------------
not absolutely excluded. The reason of this, however, lies in
the fact, that the opera ad extra are outward operations, which
must always be considered as proceeding from the essence of
God; hence, also, in every such operation all the three per-
sons must participate, at least in some way, as the essence of
God, which is common to all three, is only one. Whence fol-
low the propositions: "The opera ad intra are divided, [22]
the opera ad extra are undivided." [23] CHEMN. (Loc. Th.,
I, 40).

The personal peculiarities, moreover, according to the Holy
Scriptures, are five: agennesia (the not having been begotten)
and paternity in the Father--active procession (spiratio) in the
Father and the Son--sonship, in the Son--passive procession
in the Holy Spirit. [24]

The personal acts, or inward operations, are two: (of the
Father) generation (of the Father and Son), spiration.

The opera ad extra are three: of the Father, creation; of the
Son, redemption; of the Holy Spirit, sanctification.

From the peculiarities and acts mentioned in Scripture, ac-
cording to which the begetting of the Son is ascribed to the
Father, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Father and
the Son, it follows, finally, that we are to assign the first place
to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy
Ghost. [25]

The Church indicates both, viz., the unity and the distinc-
tion, by the term homoousia, which it predicates of the three per-
sons. [26] From this unity there is just as legitimately de-
rived the perixoresis (immanentia, immeatio, circumincessio,
inexistentia mutua et singularissima) [the mutual and most
peculiar inherence], by which one person in virtue of the unity
of essence is within another (John 14:11; 17:21), through
which term the error is precluded, of regarding the three per-
sons as subsisting separately alongside of one another; as also
the equality (so that no one person is greater or less than an-
other, and that the Father cannot properly be called God, by
way of eminence (kat' exochen), or be said to be greater than the
Son by reason of the mode of subsistence). [27]

The predicates which are to be ascribed to the three persons
may accordingly be thus classified:
-----------------End of Page 133---------------------------------
Holl. (301): "I. God the Father [28] is the First Person of
the Godhead, neither begotten nor proceeding, but from eter-
nity begetting the Son, the substantial image of Himself, and
with the Son from eternity breathing forth the Holy Spirit,
creating, preserving and governing all things, [29] sending
His Son as the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the Sancti-
fier of the human race."

"II. The Son of God [30] is the Second Person of the God-
head, begotten of the Father from eternity, [31] of the same
essence and majesty with the Father, who with the Father
from eternity breathes forth the Holy Spirit, and in the fulness 
of time assumed human nature in His own person, that He
might redeem and save the human race." Id. (305).

"III. The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead,
of the same essence with the Father and the Son, who from
eternity proceeds from the Father and the Son, [32] and in
time is sent forth [33] by both, to sanctify the hearts of those
who are to be saved." [34] Id. (329).

[1] The doctrine concerning the Trinity can properly be treated
of as distinct from that concerning God in general, for we should
first discuss the essence and attributes of God in themselves, and
then the particular mannerr in which this essence subsists and thus
becomes common to three.

QUEN. (I, 284): "The consideration of God is twofold, one
absolute, another relative. The former is occupied with God con-
sidered essentially, without respect to the three persons of the God-
head; the latter, with God considered personally. The former
explains both the essence and the essential attributes of God; the
latter describes the persons of the Holy Trinity, and the personal
attributes of each one."

CAL. (III, 1): "The doctrine of the divine persons follows the
doctrine of the divine attributes. This doctrine explains the
mystery of the Holy Trinity, in order that we may know who is
the one, true, and eternal God, whether, as He is one in essence,
He is so also in person, or not; and who these divine persons are,
who are to be regarded as the one, true God; namely, that accord-
ing to the Catholic faith, they are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

[2] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 33): "The things that are declared
concerning the Trinity of persons in the most holy Godhead are
wonderful and far above all comprehension of creatures."
-----------------End of Page 134----------------------------------
GRH. (III, 220): "The mystery of the Trinity can in no way
be clearly proved a priori from natural reason, nor ought such an
attempt to be made."...(III, 221) : "To learn a doctrine that
has been placed far above all comprehension of human reason,
human reason cannot be led, from its own principles; for other-
wise it would not be above reason. But such is the doctrine of the
Trinity, as is inferred from Matt. 11:27; 16:17; John 1:18, etc."
...(Ibid.): "The question concerning the one and triune God
is, What is God, in Himself? To this man cannot rise by the
strength of His own reason."

KG. (30): "Its sublimity is such that it is huper noun, huper logon, kai
huper pasan katalepsin (above thought, above speech, and above all
comprehension), and therefore, from reason, it neither can nor
ought to be attacked, or refuted, or demonstrated, whether a priori
or a posteriori." QUEN. (I, 318): "Yea, not even the possibility
of this mystery can be obtained from the light of nature, since to
reason, consulting its own principles, it seems absurd and im-
possible."

GRH. (III, 229): "Such is the nature and character of the
mystery of the Trinity, and of other mysteries properly so called,
that they transcend the comprehension of reason, i.e., that reason,
without the revelation of the Word, cannot attain to the knowledge
of them, and that even when the revelation of the Word has been
given, reason cannot and ought not to affirm, from its own princ-
ciples, anything whatever concerning them. Therefore also, in
these mysteries, it ought not to oppose its own reasonings to the
heavenly truth."

The question, How, then, must the testimonies be judged which have
been produced from heathen writers, for constructing the mystery of the
Trinity? is thus answered (GRH., III, 227): "(1) In some there
are only similar things, but not the same with Christian doctrine.
They agree with us in words; they differ from us in the explana-
tion and meaning of the words. (2) Others teach the same things,
but have derived them (a) partly from the reading of the Holy
Scriptures; (b) partly from conversation with Hebrews; (c) partly
from the revelations of oracles and the Sibyls."

[3] GRH. (III, 217): "From the proper and only source of
theology, viz., from the Word of God, the confirmation of this
mystery must be derived."

KG.: "The source (principium), therefore, through which this
mystery becomes known, and ought to be framed, is divine revela-
tion alone, communicated to us in the Scriptures both of the Old
and of the New Testament."
----------------------End of Page 135-------------------------------
[4] This is implied already in the statement contained in
Note 2, viz., that this doctrine cannot be proved from reason by an
a posteriori argument. GRH. (III, 233): "The mysteries of faith
are above reason, not only in such a sense and respect that reason,
without the revelation of the Word, cannot aspire to their knowl-
edge, but also that even with the revelation of the Word, reason
still cannot, in any manner, comprehend the same; because in
1 Cor. 2:14, not only the knowing, but also the receiving, of spirit-
ual things is denied the natural man, and if reason were to judge
concerning these things, it could judge only that they are folly."

[5] HFRFFR. (44): "Is it possible, nevertheless, for this plu-
rality of unity to be, in any wise, adumbrated by certain analogies
or most rude outlines? In the entire universe, nothing can be
found to express the mystery of the adorable Godhead. For God,
the Creator, surpasses creatures by immense intervals of degrees;
yet, in order that we may be able even to stammer something con-
cerning so great a mystery as this, and to raise up and excite our
thoughts to the adorable sublimity of the same, pious antiquity
has attempted to illustrate so great a matter by analogies derived
from creatures." (47): "Yet, in all these analogies, the points
of unlikeness are greater than those of likeness; for there is noth-
ing in heaven or in earth which can express the nature of the
infinite God, nor is there any voice or reason that can adequately
explain so great a mystery."

GRH. (I, 209): "We must make a distinction between a class
of a posteriori declarations and proofs, by which this mystery, first
revealed in the Scriptures, is in a manner explained and shown to
be not absurd; and, on the other hand, accurate apriori demon-
strations, according to which we absolutely deny that this can be
investigated or proved by us." The Church Fathers sought for
traces of the Trinity in the creature, and found what they regarded
as reflections of it (imagines), in intellectual and rational creatures,
and traces of it (vestigia), in irrational creatures. As to the argu-
ments thence derived, GRH. says (III, 224): "(a) They only illus-
trate, they do not prove; (b) there is in them more unlikeness than
likeneess; (c) they are derived a posteriori, not a priori; they are not
the parents, but the offspring of thought; (d) we must use them
prudently and cautiously; (e) they cannot be presented against an
adversary, they can delight a believer." Accordingly, the question
"Whether Thomas Aquinas was right in saying that what the Christian
faith declares of the Trinity could be proved from natural reason to be not
impossible," is thus answered, "Among Christians, instructed in
the Word of God, and embracing by faith the mystery of the
-----------------End of Page 136---------------------------------------
Trinity, this can be proved by means of natural reasons; but
among the heathen, ignorant of the Trinity, and among heretics,
obstinately denying it, it can scarcely be proved; for the fact that
they pronounce it absurd and impossible, occurs because they pre-
sume to judge of this mystery from the principles of reason, with-
out the light of the heavenly Word."

QUEN. (I, 318): "These natural agreements, and the analogy
of created things to this mystery of faith, do not generate faith, but
only human opinion."

[6] CHMN. (I, 33):..."Because we must think of God as
He has revealed Himself, we believe, acknowledge, confess, and
call upon three persons."...Although the Trinity is a mystery
beyond the reach of reason, yet we learn through it what concep-
tions God wishes us to form concerning Him. MEL. (Loc. Th., I,
19): "The Church acknowledges God as such an eternal and
omnipotent Creator as He has revealed Himself to be, and, although
we cannot thoroughly understand these mysteries, yet in this life,
God wishes this our knowledge and worship of Him to be begun
and to be distinguished from that which is false; and in His Word
He has propounded, by infallible testimonies, a revelation, in
which we, as the unborn infant in the maternal womb, drawing
nutriment from the umbilical vessels, might sit inclosed and draw
the knowledge of God and life from the Word of God, in order to
worship Him as He has made Himself known."

[7] KG. (30): "The necessity of believing this doctrine is such
that it not only cannot be denied, but even cannot be ignored by
anyone without a loss of salvation. John 17:3; John 5:11, 12;
1 John 2:23; John 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:8." More detailed, GRH.
(III, 209): "It is necessary for all who are to be saved, to know
and believe the mystery of the Trinity: (a) we exclude from men
who are to be saved, not only those who deny, but also those who
are ignorant of the Trinity...(b) we do not require of all
members of the Church an equal degree of knowledge, since the
light of spiritual knowledge and faith is brighter in some and more
obscure in others; (c) nor do we require of those who are to be
saved a perfect and full comprehension and an intuitive knowledge
of this mystery, since we cannot attain this in this life...but
we assert only this, that for the catholic faith, necessary to all who
are to be saved, not a confused and implied, but a distinct and
explicit knowledge of the three persons of the Godhead is re-
quired." The reason (III, 210: "Whoever is ignorant of the
mystery of the Trinity does not acknowledge God as He has re-
vealed Himself in His Word, and is ignorant of the definition of
----------------------End of Page 137------------------------------
God given in the Scriptures. The mystery of the Trinity being
ignored or denied, the entire economy of salvation is ignored or
denied." (211.)

[8] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 36): "Even in ancient times it offended
many that the Church, in speaking of the article of the Trinity,
was not content with the simple peculiar phraseology which the
Son of God Himself employed when revealing the doctrine con-
cerning God, and which the Holy Ghost followed in the prophets
and apostles; but that it introduced into the Church foreign appel-
lations from the irreligious schools of the heathen...and the
orthodox fathers were oppressed with great hatred by the heretics
on this specious pretext, viz., that the Church ought not to believe
concerning the inaccessible light of the Godhead otherwise than
as the Godhead Himself, coming forth from the hidden abode
of His majesty, has manifested Himself; neither ought it [the
Church] to speak otherwise, but that it should imitate the lan-
guage of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, express also the very
words in just so many syllables and letters. For neither ought the
weakness of the human mind to assume this to itself, viz., in regard
to these mysteries placed above and beyond the sight of human
intelligence, to hope to be able to speak more becomingly and skil-
fully than the Son of God Himself, who alone knows the Father,
and has revealed to us what we know of God, or the Holy Ghost,
who alone knows the things which are of God (1 Cor. 2:10), and
searches also the very depths of God.... Both Arius and Sabel-
lius had a specious pretext: `We speak of divine mysteries in no
other way than God Himself speaks in Scripture. Moreover, we
have been cast out of the Church for no other reason than that we
werre not willing to mingle philosophy with the doctrine of the
Church, i.e., we are not willing to confess one essence and three
persons, because Scripture is ignorant of these heathenish appella-
tions.' We must consider whence, with what purpose, and for
what reasons, these foreign terms were received; and, in order that
we may understand the entire matter better, let us observe two
things: 1. What Cyril says with very great force, that, although
these terms are not found in Scripture, with such a meaning, yet
that the things themselves, which the Church understands and
signifies by these terms, have been expressly laid down and re-
vealed in Scripture. 2. That the Church departed from the simple
usage of Scriptural words, not from any wanton affectation of nov-
elty, but as Augustine elegantly and truly says, that,, by the neces-
sity of speech, these terms were acquired from the Greeks and
Latins, because of the errors and snares of heretics.... The
--------------End of Page 138------------------------------------
Church would have preferred to use such simplicity of speech, so
that, as it believes, so it might also speak, viz., that there is one
God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But contests of heretics arose,
attacking partly the unity of God, and partly the Trinity, yet so artfully
that when they confessed that there is one God, they understood it as though
there were a plurality of gods, nevertheless called one God, just as the heart
of believers is called one, Acts 4:12... Because, therefore, the heretics
spake with the Church, and yet believed differently, and by means of forms
of expression, resembling the truth, as Nazianzen says, spread poison se-
cretly among the inexperienced, who suspected no evil when they heard these
men speak in the very same words which the Church uses; the men of the
Church endeavored to find in Scripture terms by which they might draw
forth from ambush the lurking heretics, so as to prevent them from deceiv-
ing by ambiguous phrases the unwary. And because Scripture thus
speaks, 2 Peter 1:4; Gal. 4: 8, they said that there is one divine
nature. But this term they corrupted by sophistries, and by dis-
tinguishing between God and nature, as when it is said that God
and nature have done nothing in vain. Likewise, in 1 John 5:7,
it is written: `There are three,' etc. And because in the words of 
Baptism it is said: `Baptizing them in the name of the Father,'
etc., they said that there are three names... Sabellius received
this, but understood that one and the same person is trionumos [pos-
sessed of three names], just as one and the same man has a praeno-
men, a nomen, and a cognomen...Afterwards it began to be said
that there were not only three names, but also three peculiar signifi-
cations of the names. Sabellius conceded also this, but in this sense,
viz., just as the soul has three poweres, each one of which has its
own peculiarities, and yet there is only one soul. And thus, the
heretics who certainly did not believe aright concering these arti-
cles of faith, spake in the very same words in which the Church
spake, and, by this deception, instilled their poison into many
unwary ones, who feared no evil, because they heard the same
words that are recorded in Scripture, and are proclaimed in the
Church. What was the Church to do under these circumstances?
It is very certain that it was her plain duty to defend against
heretics that faith concerning the article of the Trinity which
the Holy Ghost revealed in the Scriptures. But this could
not be done in the words of Scripture, because of the petulance of
heretics, who cunningly evaded all the words of Scripture, so that
they could not be convicted and held fast, and who meanwhile led
captive, by this artifice, the minds of the simple. Therefore, it was
necessary to seek for such terms as might expresss, in some other manner,
the facts delivered concerning this article, in Scripture; so that heretics
----------------End of Page 139------------------------------------------
might not be able, by a deceitful interpretation, to elude them...
Because, therefore, in God there is a divine nature, common to
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and entire in each, and nevertheless,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinguished by certain proper-
ties, in such a manner that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son
the Father, and the Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, etc.; the
Church, on the maturest consideration, has transferred these terms
(ousia; hupostasis) from the common usage of speech to the article of
the Trinity, on account of, as Augustine says, the artifices and
errors of heretics, in order that thus even the more simple might
be able to observe the ruls of Athanasius: `Neither confounding
the persons, nor dividing the substance.'"

[9] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 33): "Neither is it something new,
devised by the Council of Nice (as some blasphemously assert that
the doctrine of the Trinity was first framed in the Councils of Nice
and Constantinople), while, before that, the Church piously be-
lieved that there was one God. But we solumnly declare that it is
the most ancient and constant harmonious testimony of the Church
from the very beginning."

[10] GRH. (III, 236): "Do terms derived from the ordinary
usage of language, and adapted to this mystery, retain in this ap-
plication in every respect the same signification? Reply: By no
means, but the Church presents them with the right to its citizen-
ship, and uses them in a peculiar signification."

CHEM. (Loc. Th., I, 38): "As the Church speaks of subjects of
which reason is ignorant, it also employs these terms in a sense
somewhat different from that in which they have commonly been
used."

[11] A general survey of the doctrine is presented by Baier
(208) under the following heads:

"I. That the Father differs really from the Son, the Son from
the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both; so that one is in fact
Father, another Son, and another Holy Ghost. (Christ says that
the Father is other than Himself, John 5:32, 37, and that the
Holy Ghost is other than Himself and the Father, John 14:16.
The same is manifest from the names of the Father and the Son,
and that the former is decribed as begetting, and the latter as be-
gotten, Ps. 2:7; John 1:14, 18; 3:16. The Son was sent from
the Father, John 16:36; Gal. 4:4. The Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father, John 15:26; is sent by the Father, John 14:26,
and by the Son, 15:26.)

"II. That not ony the Father, but also the Son and Holy
Ghost, are true and eternal God."
-------------------End of Page 140-------------------------------------
"III. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three gods,
but one God."

GRH. (I, 194): "The general theory will be comprised under
the following heads: (1) That there is one undivided essence of
these three persons. (2) That these three persons are truly and
really distinct fom each other. (3) That they are distinguished
by their own personal properties."

[12] We must carefully distinguish triune from threefold, which
signifies: composed of three. GRH. (III, 254): "We say that
God is triune, but we are forbidden, by the Christian religion, to
say that He is threefold."

[13] Essence: ousia, also substance, phusis, nature. GRH. (III,
251): "Moreover, they preferred to use the name essence rather
than substance (a) to indicate that God is an ousia huperousios [an
essence superior to essence], not included in the categories among
which substance is first; (b) because God, unlike the essences of
created things, does not exist beneath (substat) accidents, but His
attributes are His very essence; (c) because the name substance is
ambiguous, for it is sometimes put for ousia, and sometimes for
hupostasis."

HOLL. (284): "The word essence, ousia, is not indeed found in
Holy Scripture in just so many letters, but nevertheless is derived
from it by easy inference. For (a) in the Old Testament God is
called XXXX essentiator; therefore he has an essence, and that, too
an independent essence, etc.; (b) in the New Testament God is
nmamed ho on, Rev. 1:8, from which ousia, or essence, is derived; (c) a
synonym of divine essence is phusis theia, divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4."

[14] GRH. (III, 239): "A great, yea an infinite distinction
presents itself in the predicates, when I predicate of three human
individuals, humanity, or human nature, and when I predicate of
the three persons of the Godhead, a divine nature, or essence.
The essence of men is a universal term which does not actually
exist per se, but is only inferred in thought and conceived of by
the intellect. But essence, in that which is divine, is not an imagin-
ary something, as genus or species, but actually exists, although it
is communicable." CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 39): "Therefore the
Church understands by the term essence not a universal term, as
philosophers name human essence, but a divine nature truly ex-
isting, which is communicable and common to three persons, and
is entire in each. But what this is with respect to the definition of the
matter, I say is not known, unless we say that the attributes given in the
definition of God are the very essence of God." "The essence with re-
spect to divine persons (alpha) is not a species, because the persons of the
------------------End of Page 141-----------------------------------------
Trinity do not share essence in the manner that individuals share
a common nature, which diffuses itself in no way beyond that of
which it is a part, as it were; as, man is a species of animal, and
Peter is an individual of the human species. (beta) It is not predi-
cated of many individual differing in numerical essence, as three
men are said to differ in number. (gamma) It is not predicated in the
plural form of individuals, for the first three persons are not three gods
or three divine essences, as Peter, Paul, etc. (delta) Neither does it
belong to either more or less than three persons; while human
essence is not restricted to a determinate number of persons. Of a
man I cannot say that all huumanity is in him, but of a person of
the Godhead I can correctly affirm that all the fulness of the God-
head is in Him. The reason rests upon the infinity of the divine
essence. In three human individuals the essence is one, not in
number, but one only in species; but in the three persons of the 
Godhead, there is an essence one in number and absolutely un-
divided. Human person are distinguished by substance, time,
will, accidents of mind and body, etc. Thus, the substance of
Peter is different from that of Paul;...but in the Trinity per-
sons are not thus distinguished, for the Son is homoousios, homoionias,
sunaidios with the Father.... Of human persons it cannot be said
that the one is in the other; but of Himself and His Father, Christ
says (John 14:10): `I am in the Father,' etc. Of human persons
it cannot be said that, because of their common nature, where the
one persons is, there also is the other; because they are locally dis-
tinct: but of Himself and the Father, Christ declares (John 8:29):
`The Father hath not left me alone.' Of human persons it cannot
be said that, because of their common nature, he who honors the
one honors also the other, nay rather one can be honored while
the other is treated with contempt; but of Himself and the Father,
Christ says (John 5:23): `He that honoreth not the Son, honor-
eth not the Father that hath sent Him.'"

[15] GRH. (I, 194): "The essence of the three persons of the
Godhead is one and undivided.... For, if there are three per-
sons of the Godhead, and, nevertheless, the true God is ony one,
it follows thence that there is one essence of the three persons of
the Godhead. If there were one essence of the Father, another
of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost, one of the two alternatives
would undoubtedly follow, viz.: either that there is not one true
God, or that the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded from the true
Godhead."

GRH. (III, 238): "The word (ousia), used of God, signifies an
essence common to the three persons of the Godhead, one in num-
-----------------End of Page 142--------------------------------
ber and undivided, which does not exist partially in the three
persons, so that a part of it is in the Father, a part in the Son,
and a part in the Holy Ghost; but, because of infinity and im-
materiality, is entire in the Father, entire in the Son, and entire
in the Holy Ghost."

CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 43) cites as different modes of expression
employed with reference to the unity of God, the following: "One
and indistinguishable nature; one and the same substance; simple,
one and undivided divinity; one and indifferent essence; in essence
there is unity; there are three persons, co-eternal and co-equal;
three persons, of one substance and inseparable equality, one God;
the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is one; their
glory, equal; their majesty, co-eternal; in this Trinity nothing is
before, nothing after, nothing greater or less, but the entire three
persons are co-equal and co-eternal to each other. John 10:30:
`I and my Father are one,' viz., in essence, will, power, and
work." On the other hand, he notes as false, the expressions:
"In essence, He is singular; there are three, eternal, immense,
etc.; three Gods, three Lords; essence is distinguished into Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost: in divinity, there is before and after, that
is greater and less."

[16] GRH. (III, 257): "There are three, to each of whom be-
longs the name of Jehovah and God, and likewise, truly divine
attributes, works, and glory, viz., the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost." Therefore, essence is thus defined: BR. (217): "By the
name, essence or ousia, there is meant the divine nature, as it is
absolutely in itself, all of which, with its attributes, is most simply
one and singular, and, thus, also of the three persons the essence
is only one; so, indeed, that there is also one intellect of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by which they understand; one
will of the three, by which they wish; and one power, by which
they operate outside of the divine essence."

QUEN. (I, 321): "The divine essence itself is that pertaining to
God, by which God is what He is."

HOLL. (284): "The essence of God is God's spiritual and inde-
pendent nature, common to the three divine persons, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost."

[17] HFRFFR. (48): "Plurality in the unity of divinity is not
accidental, for God is most absolute and simple, and no accidents
occur in Him. Therefore, since there are no accidents, no plurality
can arise hence."

[18] HFRFFR. (48): "Plurality in unity of the divinity is
hypostatic, i.e., of persons, for the essence, indeed, of the divinity
------------------End of Page 143--------------------------------------
is one, but the persons are plural; and, therefore, in the mystery
of the divinity there are, indeed, distinct persons, but not distinct
things. For the person of the Father is one, and the person of
the Son, another, and the person of the Holy Ghost, another; yet
they are not different things, but the essence of all the persons
is one."

By persons, hupostasis, there is understood, "an individual, intelli-
gent, incommunicable substance, which is not sustained, either
upon another or from another." Thus CHMN., (Loc. Th., I, 39).
This definition is thus explained by SELN. (I, 76): "A substance
is said to be individual and peculiar, in order to distinguish it from
accident, and to remove the error of those who have thought that
person signifies only a distinction of employments. It is said to
be incommunicable, on account of the distinction of persons, be-
cause the Father does not communicate His hypostasis to the Son,
or Holy Ghost, but each person has His own peculiar subsistence
and being; although essence itself is said to be communicable"
("the subsistence of one persons cannot be communicated to
another person, for the reason that each person possesses a peculiar
and ultimate act of subsistence, so that it cannot be farther deter-
mined by another person.") HOLL. (284): "Not sustained by
another, excludes the opinion of those who think that as there are
two natures in Christ, so also there are two persons."

HOLL. (284): "An intelligent suppositum: a stone, a tree, a horse,
are, indeed, called supposita, but not persons, because they are with-
out intellect."

A still more accurate distinction is made between persons, regarded
materially, or in the concrete, and person, considered formally, or in the
abstract. HOLL. (ib.): "A person, considered materially, is an in-
telligent suppositum. But a suppositum is a huphistamenon, or a subsist-
ence, singular, incommunicable, not sustained by another (a sin-
gular subsistence, not a singular substance; for persons, considered in
the concrete sense, is not a substance, but a huphistamenon, a singular
subsistence, which consists of substance and an ultimate mode of
subsisting. We call a person a singular huphistamenon, and not an indi-
vidual; because the latter implies a logical reference to a particular
species, which is predicated of the individual. But God is not 
predicated of the divine persons, under the mode of species, nor do
these differ in essences, diverse in number, just as do individuals).
But formally or abstractly considered, a person is an independent
and communicable subsistence of singular, complete, and intelli-
gent substance."

The meaning of this distinction will be more clearly apparent
------------End of Page 144------------------------------------------
from the definitions of hupostasis that we shall presently cite from
QUEN.: In the latter case, that is made particularly prominent
which constitutes the one person a person, in distinction from the
other; while, in the former case, the intention is not so much to
indicate this distinction as rather to assert the personality of the 
Divine Essence. The term, person, is employed abstractively, if I
say the Father is agennetos, for then I mention that which distin-
guishes Him from the other persons; it is employed concretively, if
I say the Father is almighty; for in that case it is, indeed, also
assetrted that God is a person, and the hypostatical character of the
person is asserted also in the word Father, yet in the statement I
am more concerned to assert something concerning the Divine Es-
sence, and not so much concerned to give prominence to the per-
sonal distinction.

The term hupostasis is employed in doctrinal writings as synony-
mous with person, but strictly speaking there is still a difference
between them. HOLL. (285): "According to the testimony of
Damascenus, the Fathers called the same thing hypostasis and per-
son. Nevertheless, person differs from hypostasis, in this, that
hypostasis is common to an intellectual nature, and to one destitute
of reason; but person is affirmed only of an intellectual nature."

QUEN. (I, 320): "Hupostasis is received either in the concrete, or
materially, when it implies, at the same time, an object itself and
the mode of the object, and marks an essence, distinguished by a
hypostatic character, i.e., a person, in the sense in which Christ is
said to be xarakter tes upostaseos theou, Heb. 1:3; or, abstractly and
formally, when it designates personality or substance itself, which
is an act, mode, or ultimate degree, in which an intelligent nature
subsists completely and incommunicably. In this signification the
word hupostasis is not employed in Scripture, yet can be correctly
inferred from its material signification; but, in this mystery, huparxis
is the same as hupostasis."

The Greek and Latin Fathers did not at once agree in the usage
of the terms here employed and in the distinction between hupostasis
and ousia. It was only from the time of Athanasius that the ex-
pressions were uniformly used in the sense above given.

BR. (216): "Although the Greeks and Latins contended for
awhile with each other (for the former thought that by the name,
person, there was designated among the Latins an occupation or
external habit, and on this account, three persons did not imply or
express the real distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but
the Latins thought that hupostasis, in the nominative case, denoted
the essence itself, so that if three hupostseis are admitted, three
-----------------End of Page 145-----------------------------------
essences muyst be affirmed), nevertheless, afterwards, when they
understood each other better, it came to pass that the Greeks spoke
of tria prosopa, and the Latins of three hypostases."

[19] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 39): "Thus, in the Church, the term
hupostasis, or person, is used in a different sense from the usage of
common speech. Among men we know what a person is; among
angels we understand what it is. Peter, Paul, and John are three
persosns to whom one human nature is common. But they differ
very much, (1) in substance, beccause one entirety is distinct from
another (totus a toto), (2) in time, (3) in will, (4) in power, (5) in
work... But in the Trinity Persons are not thus distinguished,
as an angel from an angel, and a man from a man (nor do they
differ in time, will, power, work; but, in the persons of the Trinity,
there is co-eternity, one will, one power, one working). Likewise
in creatures, it does not follow that where one person is, there,
because of their common nature, the others also are. And this
distinction must necessarily be observed; for the mystery at which
even the angels are astonished, would not be so great, if the one
essence were three persons, in the manner that Michael, Gabriel,
Raphael are three persons, to whom one angelic nature is common
and equally belongs."

In reference to the two terms, "essence" and "persons," CHMN.
remarks (Loc. Th., I, 39): "These are grammatical observations,
not idle exhibitions of acuteness; but if they have no other, they
yet have this use, that, with the foundations thoroughly known,
we can speak very cheerfully with the Church for the sake of har-
mony. But, if any one would cavil that the terms essence and
person are not sufficiently peculiar to designate this hidden mys-
tery of unity and Trinity, he has this reply that Augustine gives:
`Human language labors from its absolutely great poverty. Never-
the less the term, "three persons," has been adopted not for the
purpose of expressing this, but so as not to keep altogether silent
concerning it. For, by this term, the eminence of the ineffable
matter cannot be expressed.'"

[20] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 39). "The persons of the divinity do
not differ essentially as in creatures, where each one has his own 
peculiarity, nor is there only a distinction of reason therein as
Sabellius wished; but they are really distinguished, nevertheless
in a manner incomprehensible and unknown to us."

QUEN. (I, 326): "They are distinguished really, i.e., they are
distinct from each other, even when all operation of the human
intellect ceases."

[21] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 42): "The persons are distinguished,
----------------------End of Page 146------------------------------
not only by interior, but also by exterior marks, derived espec-
ially from revelation and their benevolent works in behalf of the
Church."

[22] QUEN. (I, 414): "Personal divine actions ad intra are those
which are limited to God Himself, in such a manner that they,
nevertheless, as a source of action, pertain to the divine essence,
not in so far as it is common to all three persons, but as it has
been determined by certain hypostatic characters and properties.
Hence, these personal works ad intra have been divided, i.e., they
are not common to three divine persons, but are peculiar to only
one person or to two persons."

As, in Note 20 above, the question was concerning the distinction
between the single persons, so here the question is concerning the
distinction between essence and person.

QUEN. (I, 326) answers: "A divine person is distinguished in
one way from essence, and in another way from another person;
from the former not in fact but in thought, with its foundation in
fact; but from the latter actually, even when all operation of the
human intellect ceases." The former distinction is a distinction
"not actually, or from the nature of the thing itself, nor modally,
but in thought, which is proved as follows: for, if the relation of
paternity, filiation, and procession were really distinguished from
the divine essence, then something real would be superadded to it,
and in the divine persons which are constituted by these relations,
and, therefore, in God Himself, there would be a real compound-
ing." (I, 327)..."Thus divine essence and relations are
acutally one thing, and the former is separated from the latter in
thought and the apprehension of the mind alone; or, in other
words, by our mode of conception, yet in such a manner that the
foundation and occasion of the distinction exists in fact."

(Id.) (328): "The true and real distinction of the divine per-
sons does not introduce a division or multiplication of the divine
essence. For God is not divided into three persons, but the three
persons, distinct from each other, undividedly share the essence,
one in number undivided and infinite, in such a manner that each
persons has the same essence, without its multiplication  or division.
For, in this mystery, several persons are considered hypostatically,
not several things essentially. But these three really distinct per-
sons are and remain homoousioi."

[23] QUEN. (I, 415): "Extyernal actions ad extra, or emanent and
transient actions, are those which both relate to an object outside of
God, and are performed outside of God, producing or leaving an
effect outside of God."
-----------------End of Page 147--------------------------------------
GRH. (I, 199): "These works are undivided, because in them
the three persons are together and work together.... In God
there is so great unity, and so great power of one and the same
essence, that to invididual persons individual and peculiar works,
which are wrought separately in creatures, ought by no means to
be assigned;" whence follows the statement: "By one person
named in works ad extra, the entire Trinity is meant." QUEN.
*I, 328): "The reason of this rule is the unity of the divine
essence, the common participation in the power to act, the equality
of the operations, and the identity of the works of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost; and, hence, there then follows an equality of
denomination. Nevertheless, this clause must be added to the
rule of Augustine: `The order and distinction of persons being
preserved;' for, inasmuch as the Father has an essence from Him-
self, therefore He also acts of Himself, the Son acts and works
from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both. John 5:19."

By the additon of this clause: "the order and distinction of
persons being preserved," the canon, "the works ad extra are un-
divided," is more accurately defined; for the Dogmaticians do not
wish directly to call in question the statement that even in the
works ad extra the distinction of persons may be recognized. Not
without reason, do they believe that in the Scriptures a work ad
extra is ascribed to the one person and not to another; and the
difference which, notwithstanding all the oneness of essence, is yet
indicated in the order which is assigned in the Scriptures to the
single persons, and in accordance with which the Father is placed
first, the Son second, etc., seems to them to indicate also a differ-
ence in the order and in the manner in which the single persons
work. So CHMN. already states (Loc. Th., I, 42): "Works ad
extra are considered, as Luther has remarked, in a twofold manner:
First, absolutely, and thus they are without distinction, and are
called works of the three persons in common. Secondly, relatively,
when they are considered in the order in which the persons act, or
with reference to what is the property of each person, and which
person acts immediately." The order in working and the relation in
which the three persons stand to a work ad extra, the Dogmaticians
find most clearly stated in Rom. 11:36, where they refer the ex to
the Father, the dia to the Son, and the en to the Holy Ghost.
CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 42): "For, as the apostle speaks of works ad
extra, he makes mention of one eternal essence; to Him be honor,
not to them. And, nevertheless, as the essence is one, without
confusion of persons, it performs works ad extra, common to the
three persons, without confusion, but implying a distinction of per-
---------------End of Page 148--------------------------------------
sons, `of Him, and through Him, and to Him.'... In fine, as
we believe that there is unity of essence, and, neverthesless, ought
not to admit a confusion of persons, we must understand also the
rule, that works ad extra are common to the three persons, yet in such a
manner that the distinctions and properties of the persons be not con-
founded." The Dogmaticians remark, in general, that sometimes
in the Scriptures there is predicated of one person an attribute or
an act, from which, however, the other persons are by no means to
be excluded, insasmuch as this attribute or act pertains to the
Divine Essence and does not peculiarly belong to the one person.
Whence they draw the inference that nevertheless this attribute
must pertain to the one or to the other person in a more eminent
sense, either because it belongs more especially to the one or the
other person, in accordance with the order which we assign to the 
three persons, or because in a certain sense it more especially be-
longs to the mode of existence (tropos huparxeos) of a particular per-
son. The Dogmaticians say, in this case, that this occurs through
appropriation. GRH. (I, 203). "Hence certain essential attributes
are appropriated by the ecclesiastical writers to each person,
although, because of the identity of essence, the essential attributes
are common to the three persons." Thus there is specially appro-
priated to the Father, power; to the Son, love; to the Holy Spirit,
wisdom.

Still another case is mentioned by QUEN. (I, 415): "Personal
actions ad extra are, in a certain respect and manner, also essential
or common to all three persons, viz., by reason of efficiency or source,
and inchoatively; but they are personal or peculiar to any one divine
person by reason of their end, or terminatively, because they are ter-
minated in a certain person. Thus, the Spirit appeared only in
the visible form of a dove. The voice from heaven, `This is my
beloved Son,' belonged to the person of the Father alone, and the
Son of God alone appeared under the form and habit of man, in
the time of the Old Testament, and in that of the New Testament
was born of the Virgin Mary, and was made flesh. But, neverthe-
less, the entire Trinity was operative, with regard to that flesh of
the Son alone, and that voice of the Father alone, and that form
of a dove of the Holy Ghost alone."

[24] The Dogmaticians in part distinguish also between the
hypostatical characteristics or personal qualities and the personal nota-
tions. By the former, they understand those peculiarities which
one person possesses having distinct reference to another, and by
the latter, the makrs by which, in general, one person can be
recognized as distinct from another.  Thus QUEN. (I, 330): "Some
---------------End of Page 149-----------------------------------------
personal properties are absolute, which have no relation to another
person; such a property is agennesia, and the not being born (innas-
cibilitas), with respect to the Father, likewise the not being breathed
(inspirabilitas), with respect to Father and Son. Other personal
properties are relative, which have respect to another person, and
constitute an order of things producing and being produced, of
which there are only three; paternity, filiation, and procession."

HOLL. (285) distinguishes: "Personal properties, i.e., relations
founded upon a personal act, constituting a person in the being
(esse) of a certain person, and, by relative opposition, introducing
a distinction from another person" (of such he enumerates three:
paternity, filiation, and procession), and "personal notations, i.e.,
modes of recognizing the divine persons and distinguishing them
ad intra." These, taken in a wider sense, and constitutively of
each person, in the being (esse) of such person, comprehend the
personal properties, and as such are regarded the five enumerated
in the text. More strictly taken, however, or significatively, i.e.,
such as do indeed describe the divine persons and indicate the dis-
tinction between them, but still do not constitute a person, in the
being of such person, they are distinct from the personal proper-
ties. Of these there are two, viz., agennesia and spiratio activa.

[25] QUEN. (I, 327): "From the real distinction of persons,
arises their order, both in subsisting and in operating. Neverthe-
lesss, we must distinguish between the order of nature, of time. of
dignity, of origin, and of relation. Among the divine persons,
there is not an order of nature, because, they are homoousioi [consup-
stantial]; nor of time, because they are co-eternal; nor of dignity,
because they have the same honor. But there is among them an order
of origin and relation, because the Father is of no one, the Son is of
the Father, and the Holy Ghost is of both. An order among the
divine persons in subsisting is proved from the procession or ema-
nation of one person from the other. For if the Father proceeds
from no one, but has His essence of Himself, as the fountain and
source of the Holy Trinity, and the Son has His essence of the
Father by eternal generation, and the Holy Ghost has the same of
the Father and the Son, by eternal procession, it follows that the
Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third per-
son, and this order, both fixed in nature itself and unchangeable,
is clearly shown in the formula of baptism. Matt. 28:19."
Concerning the order in working, which is recognized in the use
of the diacritical particles ex, dia, en, we have already spoken in
Note 23.

[26] GRH. (III, 243): "The term homoousios embraces both ideas,
--------------------End of Page 150--------------------------------
viz., that the Son is of a distinct person from the Father, and that
He is of the same essence with the Father."

(Id.): "For the Father and the Son are not heterousioi of different
or diverse essence; they are not sunousioi, as men who have one com-
mon essence, nor only homoiousioi, of like substance, but homoousioi, having
the same essence, eternity, will, work, power, and glory."

[CHEMN. (I, 43): "By this term, the unity of the essence is sig-
nified, viz., that there is one eternity, one will, a common operation,
and equal glory, and, at the same time, the distinction of persons
is indicated."]

[27] QUEN. (I, 328) further adds, as a consequence of homoousia:
"The most perfect communion of all essential perfections, and the
identity both of the divine works ad extra and the mode of action,
so that they do the same things and in like manner; John 5:19,
although not in the same order." Concerning the latter, see below.

In the perixoresis the Dogmaticians usually also distinguish "p.
essentialis, the absolutely unique immanence of one divine person
in the other," and "p.personalis, that inmost and ineffable perme-
ation, by which the divinity of the logos intimately permeates, in-
habits, and perfects the assumed human nature." The discussion
of the latter does not belong here.

[28] HOLL. (301): "The name, `Father,' is recieived here not
ousiodos, or essentially, but hupostatikos, or personally. The name, Father,
essentially taken, belongs not to the first person alone of the Godhead,
but to all the divine persons equally; inasmuch as, received in this
sense, it introduces a relation to cratures, of whom God is said to
be the Father, both on account of creation, as the angels are re-
garded sons of God, Job 38:7, and on account of regeneration and
adoption, as converted and regenerate men, by means of the merit
of Christ, apprehended by faith, have obtained this exousia, power or
dignity, to become the sons of God, John 1:12. But personally
received, the name, Father, is peculiar to the first divine person, and
introduces a relation to the consubstantial Son, whom He begat
from His essence, as His image, whose idios pater, own Father, He
is called, John 5:18."

[29] QUEN. (I, 332): "The characteristic of the Father ad extra is
manifested in the work of creation, preservation, and of the govern-
ment of the universe. For the work of creation is ascribed to the
Father, in a peculiar manner, in the Holy Scriptures and the
Apostles' Creed, i.e., not exclusively, nor exochikos, or only particu-
larly, much less as a principal cause, so that the Son is only an
instrument, but on account of personal order, because the Father,
through the Son and Holy Ghost, has created, preserves, and gov-
---------------------End of Page 151--------------------------------- 
erns all things, Gen. 1:1, 2; Ps. 33:6; John 1:3, and because to
God the Father power is ascribed, which especially shines forth in
creation."

[30] QUEN. (I, 332): "The second person is the Son of God, not
by huiothesia, or gracious adoption; nor on account of gracious and
glorious union with God, and love--for thus all the pious, the
blessed, and the holy angels are sons of God; nor on account of His
wonderful conception by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, as the Socinians wish, but through and on account of a true,
peculiar, essential, most singular [unparalleled] and inexplicable
eternal generation, and thus is the Son of God properly, incom-
municably, and alone. In a few words: He is the Son of God, not
chariti, or by grace, but phusei, or by nature, John 1:14, 18."

HOLL. (305): "Hence, the Son of God is called His own, Rom.
8:32; the only begotten, John 1:14; existing in the bosom of His
Father, John 1:18; the image of the invisible God, and the first-
born of every creature, Col. 1:15; the brightness of the Father's
glory, and the express image of His person, Heb. 1:3."

[31] For this reason, according to HOLL. (322), there is ascribed
to the Father, as a hypostatical characteristic, eternal active genera-
tion, and to the Son, filiation, or passive generation, "by which the
Son of God is produced by the Father, as His substantial image,
really and literally, yet in a manner hyperphysical and inexpli-
cable, by an eternal communication of one and the same essence."

More detailed description of generation. HOLL. (322-325): "The
generation of the Son of God is not improper, metaphorical, or acci-
dental (as is the regeration of sinful men), but proper, true, and
substantial. Proof: a. He would not be God's own Son, if His
generation were improper or metaphorical; b. God the Father, in
producing His Son, communicated to Him His essence in such a
manner that He is His image; not physical (`which occurs, in
matter and out of matter, in time, having relation to that which is
before and after, and is an essential change from that which has no
being into a being.' QUEN. I, 385), but hyperphysical (`which
occurs from eternity, without any succession of time, matter, and
change, and which consists alone in the communication of essence.'
QUEN. I, 385); not temporal, but eternal. Proof: a. From passages
of Scripture which testify that the Son is eternal; b. From the re-
lation between the Father and the Son. The first person is the
eternal Father, therefore the second person also is the eternal Son;
c. Because, otherwise, the essence of the Father would be affirmed
to be changeable, if, in time, He had begun to beget the Son. Fur-
thermore, from Ps. 2:7: The act of generation is described by the
------------------------End of Page 152---------------------------
`to-day,' which is employed concerning an internal divine act, a
generation such as is only during `a divine to-day,' and, therefore,
excludes the flow of time, separates from the past and future, and
denotes a perpetual now, or a day of immutable eternity; not exter-
nal, but innermost (because God the Father produced His own Son,
not ad extra, but begot Him within His essence; nor is the Son
separated from the Father, as happens otherwise, but remains in
His Father's bosom, John 1:18; nor is the Son only in the Father,
but the Father is also in the Son by the inmost communion and
mutual perichoresis); not voluntary, but natural and necessary, (but, if
the generation of the Son of God were called forth by an act of the
will, and were free, and were not necessary or natural, the Son
would not be equal and homoousios to the Father, for He exists neces-
sarily and cannot not be. Here it is well to observe that God the
Father, not being contrained, and, nevertheless, not by the pur-
pose of His free will preceding generation, but from the necessity
of His nature, which is yet entirely removed from all contraint,
begat His Son by the most perfect generation...)."

Concerning the eternity of generation, QUEN. (I, 330) says further:
"This generation of the Son does not occur by derivation or trans-
fusion, nor by an action which may begin or cease, but it occurs
by an unceasing emanation, like which there is nothing to be found
in nature. For God the Father from eternity begat, and always
begets, and never will cease to beget His Son. For, if the genera-
tion of the Son should have an end, it would also have a beginning,
and this would not be eternal. Nevertheless, this generation can-
not be said, for this reason, to be imperfect and successive, for the
act of generation in the Father and the Son is considered perfect in
work and constant in operation." The consequence of passive gen-
eration, is the passive sending forth. QUEN. (I, 338): "The conse-
quence of this passsive generation is the passive sending of the Son
of God into the flesh, which is not accurately the incarnation of the
same, for they differ as former and latter, He having been first
sent and, afterwards, made of a woman, Gal. 4:4."

Note--"The sending forth of the Son of God (1) is not a local
and separative removal, as though He had been locally removed from
the highest heaven to the lowest earth, and had been separated
from His Heavenly Father. For this conflicts with the infinite and
intimate identity of the persons of the Father and the Son; (2) it
is not an imperious sending forth, but one of free consent, and there-
fore proves, between the one sending and the one sent, no inequal-
ity, such as the Arians once attempted to derive thence, and as the
Socinians at the present day maintain. In divine things a sending
-----------------------End of Page 153-----------------------------
forth does not remove equality of persons, but only presupposes an
order of origin. (3) The sending forth is not constrained, but is spon-
taneous, John 4:34: 5:30; (4) it is not accurately incarnation itself.
For the sending forth preceded incarnation, and the latter is the
goal of the former, since the Son was sent forth in order to become
man."

According to GRH. (I, 288), the difference between to beget and
to create is: "To beget is, from one's own substance, to produce
something similar according to essence. To create is to make, out
of nothing, something different from the substance of the Crator."
QUEN. (I, 330) says, indeed: "Although this generation is most
peculiar and most true, yet the mode itself of generation is un-
known to us and ineffable," and yet he attempts, as follows, to
form at least an appproximate conception of it: "This divine gen-
eration, however, can be adumbrated by the similitude of rays of
the sun, flowing from the solar body with a perpetual dependence.
For, as the sun is not older than its rays, nor the one begetting
prior, in time, to the one begotten; so, the eternal Father, from
eternity, generated the Son; and, just as the sun has, from the be-
ginning, generated its own rays, and even now begets them, and
will continue to generate them, and nevertheless, it cannot be in-
ferred thence that the generation of the rays of the sun is not yet
perfect, so also, from eternity, God has begotten, and always be-
gets, and will never cease to beget His own Wisdom, and, never-
theless, it cannot on that account be said that the generation of the
Son is not yet perfect. The Holy Ghost, Ps. 2:7, seems to inti-
mate this. In these words, the generation of the Son is expressed
in the preterite in such a manner that, nevertheless, it is said to
occur to-day, because the generation of the Son is present, and will
never cease. Yet there is this great distinction between the two:
the sun is a substance, but the rays are an accident; whereas the
substance of the Son is the same with the substance of the Father."

[32] The hypostatic character of the Holy Ghost is "passive
spiration, or the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the
Son, i.e., the eternal origin of the Holy Ghost, by which He is
sent forth, within the bosom of the Godhead, by the Father and
the Son, by the communication of an essence numerically one and
the same, as the common breath of both." HOLL. (337.) QUEN.
(I, 343): "The origin of the Holy Ghost, by which, within the
Godhead, He received, through an ineffable procession, from the
Father and the Son, an essence the same in number."

HOLL. (337): "It is called passive spiration, not physically, as
though it implied passive power or imperfection, but grammatically,
------------------End of Page 154--------------------------------------
because the Holy Ghost is said not to breathe, but to be breathed.
Nor are active and passive spiration two spirations, but the spira-
tion is one and the same, which, with respect to the source breath-
ing and producing, is called active spiration, and with respect to
the end attained, is called passive. In other respects, the emana-
tion of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is most
absolute."

"The spiration here understood is not external, like the breath-
ing of Christ upon His disciples, John 20:22, but internal and 
immanent, since it occurs within the very bosom of the Godhead;
not transitory and evanescent, as is that of breathing men, but eternal
and permanent, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from eternity, as
the breath of the Almighty, Job 33:4, and the spirit of the mouth
of the Lord, Ps. 33:6; not an accidental but a substantial spiration,
for in God there is no accident, nor can the Holy Ghost, as a divine
person and substance, be produced by an accidental act."

An analogy for the conception of the procession was sought by
some of the Dogmaticians in the going forth of the word from the
mouth, and in our spirit. GRH. says, however, concerning the
former (I, 321): "Our word proceeds in such a manner from the
heart, that there is an evanescent sound, but the Holy Ghost so
proceeds that there is a subsisting person." Of the latter (ibid.):
"The spirit of God is asomatos, of altogether the same nature and
essence with Himself, but our spirit is corporeal, because an ex-
halation from the most refined and subtle portion of the blood,
and not at all the same nature with the soul."

Proof of the procession from Father and Son, HOLL. (337): "Holy
Scripture teaches in express words, that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from God the Father. John 15:26. That He proceeds from the 
Son of God is correctly inferred from the name, the Spirit of the
Son (Gal. 4.6), from the homoousia of Father and Son (John 16:15),
and His reception of omniscience from the Son (John 16:13, 14),
from the apocalyptic vision of the river proceeding from the throne
o the Lamb (Rev 22:1), from the sending of the Holy Ghost
from the Son (John 15:26), from the breathing of Christ upon
His disciples (John 20:22), and from the order and distinction of
the divine persons."

[33] The consequence of the procession is the temporal sending
forth of the Holy Ghost. QUEN. (I, 331): "The sendinf forth, in
time, of the Holy Ghost upon and to the apostles and other be-
lievers, is the manifestation, or consequence and effect, of the
eternal procession. The latter is eternal and necessary; the
former is gracious, intermitted, and free, and likewise conditionate;
-------------------End of Page 155---------------------------------------
nevertheless this sending forth is not local, and does not introduce
an inferiority; because it is not ministerial and servile."

[34] The Scriptureal proof we give partly according to GRH., and
partly according to QUEN. and HOLL.

In the Old Testament GRH. finds indicated: "Where God is
spoken of, I. a plurality of persons, and II. when by name, a
Trinity of persons."

I. The plurality is shown (I, 186 seq.):

(a) By those passages which employ the plural term Elohim,
concerning God ... Gen. 20:13; 35:7; Deut. 5:26; Josh. 24:
19; 2 Sam. 7:23; Job 35: 10; Ps. 149:2; Is. 44:2; 54:5; Jer.
10:10; 23:36, where observe that this plural word is not only
construed with a singular verb in very many passages of Scripture
(to denote the unity of the divine essence), but even is sometimes
joined with a plural verb and adjective (to make known more
clearly the plurality of persons).

(b) By the passages in which God speaks of Himself in the
plural number, Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Is. 6:8.

(c) By the passages in which God speaks of God, and the Lord
of the Lord; for there, in like manner, plurality of persons is
signified. Gen. 19:24; Ex. 16:7; 34:5, 6; Numb. 14:21; 2
Sam. 5:24; 7:11; Ps. 45:7; 110:1; Jer. 23:5, 6, 33.15; Dan.
9:17; Hos. 1:7; Zach. 2:8, 9.

(d) By the passages in which mention is made of the Son of
God; for it is necessary that He be also true God. Ps. 2:7; 72:
17; Prov. 30:4. Finally, there are to be referred hither all the
testimonies of the Old Testament in which Jehovah is said to send
an angel, to whom the name Jehovah or divine works are ascribed;
for then by the name angel is meant the Son of God, who, with the
Father and the Holy Ghost, is true God. Ex. 23:20, 21.

II. The three persons in one essence, are proved (I, 190 sq.):

(a) From the passages in which three persons of the Godhead
are distinctly enumerated, Gen. 1:1, 2; Ex. 31: 1, 3; 2 Sam. 23:
2; Ps 33:6; Is. 42:1; 48:16; 61:1; 63:7; Hagg. 2:5.

(b) From the passages in which the name of Jehovah and God
is thrice repeated in one connection; for there, according to the
corresponding mode of revelation of the Old Testament, three per-
sons of the Godhead are implied. Numb. 6:23-26; Deut. 6:4;
Ps. 42:1, 2; 67:6, 7; Is. 33:22; Jer. 33:2; Dan. 9:19

(c) From the Trisagion of the angels. Is. 6:3.

(d) From the passgages in which God speaks concerning God,
and the Lord concerning the Lord, as above. I,c.

But of the Old Testament proof-passages for the Trinity, GRH.
-----------------End of Page 156------------------------------
(III, 218) says in general: "1. We do not say that in the Old
Testament and the New Testament there is the same clearness and
evidence of the testimonies concerning the Trinity; because the
clearer revelation of this mystery was reserved for the New Testa-
ment. 2. Nor do we wish that, in a discussion with an obstinate
adversary, a beginning be made with the more obscure statements
of the Old Testament. But we only assert that from the Old
Testament some testimonies, in constructing the doctrine of the
Trinity, both can and ought to be cited, since God always from
the beginning revealed Himself thus, in order that the Church at
all times might, in this manner, acknowledge, worship, and praise
Him, namely, as three distinct persons in one essence."

In the New Testament there is shown, I. The Trinity of persons
in God; and, II. The true divinity of each person.

I. The Trinity of persons.

QUEN. (I, 324 seq ): "The Holy Trinity is proved in three ways:
(1) From 1 John 5:7. (2) From the wonderful theophany at the
baptism of Christ, where three persons of the Godhead are mani-
fisted. Matt. 3:16,17. (3) From the solemn formula of bap-
tism given by Christ. Matt. 28:19. But we cannot be baptized
eis onoma of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, unless the name of
these three, as equal in authority, dignity, and essence, be invoked
over us. Hence, we argue: He to whose faith, religion, worship,
and obedience we are bound, is true God."

II. The true divinity of each person.

1. (QUEN. I, 329): "The Deity of the Father is proved (1) by
the names peculiar to the true God alone; (2) by attributes, e.g.,
eternity, infinity, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.; (3) by works
truly and purely divine; (4) by the truly divine worship."

2. (I, 332 sq.): "The Deity of the Son is proved:

I. From His names. Some names are essential, others personal.
Those are essential which express the divine nature and essence of
Christ. Personal names are those which designate His person.

(1) Divine essential names: In the Old Testament, Christ, the
branch of David, is called Jehovah, our righteousness. Jer. 23:6.
He is called Jehovah, whom Jehovah anointed, Is. 61: 1, 8;
Adonai, Is. 6:1-3, cf John 12:41. In the New Testament, the
Son of God. (a) He is called God absolutely, without any limit-
ing or alienating condition. John 1:1; 20:28. (b) To the divine
names, the words are added, by which the incarnate Son of God is
designated. Thus Paul, Acts 20:28. The same apostle, 1 Tim.
3:16; Heb. 2:14; John 1:14; 1 John 4:2,3. (c) To the divine
names, epithets are annexed, by which He is declared to be
----------------End of Page 157------------------------------------
supreme God. For (alpha) Christ is named by St. John the true God
and eternal life, 1 John 5:20. (beta) By St. Paul, the Son of God
is called the great God. Tit. 2:13. (gamma) By the same apostle,
Christ is named God over all, blessed forever, Rom. 9:5. He is
called the Lord from heaven, 1 Cor. 15:47; He is said to be Lord
of all, Acts 10:36, and therefore Lord of heaven and earth, which
is the description of the true God, Matt. 11:25; Lord of lords and
King of kings. Rev. 17:14; 19:16.

(2) Divine personal names: Christ is called in Holy Scriptures,
(a) God's own Son, Rom. 8:32; having God as His own Father,
John 5:18. (b) The only-begotten Son of the Father, John 1:14.
(c) The Son existing in the bosom of the Father, John 1:18. (d)
The first-begotten Son, Heb. 1:6. (e) The Son above angels,
Heb. 1:5. (f) The Son equal to God the Father, John 15:
17,18.

II. From Divine Attributes

For the Son of God is: (1) Eternal, Col. 1:17; Heb. 13:8;
John 1:1, 14; Rev. 1:8. (2) Infinite and omnipresent, John 1:
48; Matt. 18:20; 28:20. (3) Immutable, Ps. 102:27; Heb. 1:
12. (4) Most holy, Dan. 9:24. (5) Omnipotent, Rev. 1:8; John
10:28. (6) Omniscient, John 21: 17; 2:25. (7) Most happy
and autarkestatos [perfectly self-contented], John 16:15. (8)
Most glorious, 1 Cor. 2:8; John 17:5.

III. The Divine Works of the Son, proving His deity, are either
ad intra, as the active procession of the Holy Ghost, and the send-
ing of the same (elsewhere discussed); or ad extra, since in the
Scripture divine works ad extra are ascribed to Christ, the Son of
God. From them His true deity is effectually proved. Moreover,
there is ascribed to Him: (1) The creation of the world, Gen. 1:2;
Ps 33:6; 102:25; Prov. 8:30; John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:10.
(2) The preservation and governing of all things, John 5:17;
1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:3. (3) The working of miracles, Ps. 72:18.
(4) The redemption of the human race, Hos. 13:14; Zach. 9:11.
(5) The preservation and protection of the Church, Matt. 16:18.
(6) THe raising of the dead, Job 19:25; John 6:39, 40; 11:25.
(7) Salvation, Matt. 1:21.

IV. The final argument for the deity of Christ is derived from
His divine worship and honor. These are ascribed to Him (1) in
general, John 5:23; (2) specifically, Is. 45:23; Phil. 2:10; John
14:1; Matt. 28:19."

(3) (I, 340): "The Deity of the Holy Ghost is proved:

I. From His divine names. For He is distinctly called Jehovah,
2 Sam. 23:2, XXXXXXX the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, cf. v.
----------------------End of Page 158-----------------------------
2, and Acts 1:16; Is. 1:21; Ez. 1:3, etc., with Zech. 7:12; Luke
1:70; with 1 Pet. 1:11; 2 Pet. 1:21; Is. 6:8, 10, with Acts 28:
25, sq., etc., etc., theos, Acts 5:3, 4; 1 John 5:7, 9, etc., etc., kurios,
2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Cor. 13:4, 5.

II. From essential divine attributes ascribed to Him; namely,
Eternity, Heb. 9:14. Omnipotence, Is. 11:2. Luke 11:20; 1 Cor.
12:11. Omniscience, 1 Cor. 2:10-12. Goodness and mercy, Neh.
9:20; Ps. 103:11. Omnipresence, Ps. 139:7.

III. From divine works, such as the creation of the universe,
Gen. 1:2; Job. 26:13; Ps. 33:6. Preservation, Job 33:4. The
working of miracles, Acts 10:38. Add to these, works of grace
and justice, of which Scripture speaks frequently.

IV. From divine worship, such as (a) Adoration, Is. 6:3; Acts
28:25 and 26. (b) Invocation, 2 Cor. 13:13; Rev. 1:4. (c) Faith
in the Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19."
-------------------End of Chapter on Page 159---------------------

  This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William
Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy
or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert
E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.

		E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
	Surface Mail:  6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
    Phone: (260) 452-3149			   Fax: (260) 452-2126