De Unitate Sanctae Trinitatis Dialogus [Incertus]

A Dialogue on the Unity of the Holy Trinity. When the vigilant care of faith had kept me sleepless, I questioned myself with these inquiries, and with such study I kindled the light of our school. But let the reader judge whether this is useful to him; yet for me, if he neglects it, he takes nothing away. QUESTION. The Father, they say, is God? ANSWER. Not even a profane person is ignorant of that. Q. The Son is God? A. The Apostle is witness. Q. For what does he say? A. "Whose fathers, and from whom Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5). Q. What do you think about the Holy Spirit? A. The great brevity of teaching that He is God supports me. Q. I am eager to know what that is. A. That He proceeds from the Father: let us prove only that He also forgives sins. Q. Where do you read that? A. In John, when the Lord breathed upon the face of the disciples and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; and whose you retain, they are retained" (John 20:22-23). Q. Nothing could be stronger. A. Do you not know many other things? Q. What? A.

That Christ creates in the womb, that it comes upon Christ in the river, that it gives life to all things, that it consecrates Baptism, that it directs Christ, that it fills the world, that it is joined to the Trinity, that it knows, comprehends, and rules all things, not only earthly but also heavenly, that it chooses and sends forth the Apostles, that it imparts its gifts and prophecies to whom it wills: and many things which are placed in the holy Scriptures do not occur to me at the moment. And if you are not moved by these, yet for me that alone which is from the Father would have sufficed as a proof of his divinity. There are also singular statements, supporters of this truth, such as that of Paul: "The divisions of ministries are, the same Lord himself; and the divisions of operations are, the same one God, who works all things in all" (1 Cor. 3:5). And among others, that of Peter: "In truth," he says, "I know that God is not a respecter of persons. When I was thinking and hesitating about the vision, the Holy Spirit said, 'Rise, and go with them without any doubt; I have sent them to you'" (Acts 10:20, 34). For David very often calls him the Right Spirit in the fiftieth psalm. He calls him Lord God in the ninety-first: "For," he says, "our Lord God is righteous, and there is no iniquity in him"; and, "The Lord over many waters," he reveals in the twenty-eighth psalm, with which in its beginning Genesis declares the Spirit of God to be borne over (Gen. 1:2).

Although I clearly know that the Holy Spirit could never be counted with the Father or even with the Son, since it is said, "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19), unless a shared divinity reigned. INT. What then? Are there three Gods? RESP. Far be it: one who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, unless to the Lord alone. INT. Are there two? RESP. By no means, because no one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). INT. Can it be proven that there is one? RESP. There is no God except one. INT. I read that: but I wish to know how it is true of the whole Trinity. RESP. You will know, if you fix your mind on the sayings: for Father is an appellative name, Son is an appellative name, and likewise Holy Spirit is an appellative and natural name. Although Father is said in relation to the Son and Son in relation to the Father, these relative names are so called. But God is a proper name for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: as it is written in the Psalm, "According to your name, God, so is your praise to the ends of the earth" (Ps. 47:11). Therefore the appellative names are Father and Son and Holy Spirit; the proper name, however, is God, God, God. INT. Then are there three Gods? RESP. I ask you, recall again another thing: "Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4). Do you see, I ask, in this saying a certain royal height of meaning? INT. Explain briefly, let me hear. RESP. "The Lord," it says, "your God, the Lord is one.

If I am not mistaken, he here united a threefold naming of God: "Lord," he says, "and your God, and Lord." You have what the Father, what the Son, what the Holy Spirit is. And he immediately added, "He is one." A clear indication of unity! INTERLOCUTOR: Where then is the Trinity? RESPONSE: In the begetter, the begotten, and the one proceeding; that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, namely in appellative or relative names. INTERLOCUTOR: What, in proper names, that is, God, and God, and God, is a threefold repetition not admitted? RESPONSE: No. INTERLOCUTOR: Why? RESPONSE: Because He is one; proper terms are not tripled. INTERLOCUTOR: Therefore the Trinity is understood in relative names. RESPONSE: It is so. INTERLOCUTOR: In which? RESPONSE: In the distinction of persons and names, namely of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Finally, Christ himself does not say, "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the gods," but "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," so that he might teach the Trinity in the relative names of persons, and show the name of God, which is not tripled, in singularity. INTERLOCUTOR: Do not proper terms, then, run together with appellatives? RESPONSE: They do. INTERLOCUTOR: Are they then also counted together? RESPONSE: Far from it: because if we triple them, we introduce a plurality of gods. INTERLOCUTOR: Is the Father not God, then? RESPONSE: He is clearly God. INTERLOCUTOR: Is the Son not God, then? RESPONSE: He is entirely God. INTERLOCUTOR: Is the Holy Spirit not God, then? RESPONSE: He is God without ambiguity. INTERLOCUTOR: You see three, then; do you dare to say gods?

But, as I see, the Trinity is believed in relative terms. RESP. And clearly in natural terms, and persons, and relative names. INT. Why God, and God, and God? RESP. They are natural names. "God" is natural to each, but it is a proper name. For we cannot say three gods, but we speak of the Trinity in the relative terms of nature and persons, that is, in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But we speak of unity in God, and God, and God. INT. Do you not then say three persons? RESP. We do. INT. And do you believe that in each person there is God, and God, and God? RESP. It is manifest that this is believed without hesitation. INT. Therefore, just as you say three persons, do you also say three Gods? RESP. Far from it. INT. Why? RESP. Because in the persons there is distinction, but in the divinity there is not. INT. What is that distinction? RESP. That the Father is Father, the Son is Son, the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit. INT. Do you claim to worship the Trinity by diversity? RESP. Of persons and names, not of nature, because it is one. INT. Certainly you have already said that these names are natural and appellative, and that which are proper are repeated? RESP. God, and God, and God—these, when tripled, do not create a distance. INT. So with appellative natural names, the proper ones are not tripled. RESP. In no way. INT. Therefore, Father and God, or Son and God, or Holy Spirit and God are not joined together. RESP.

They are clearly conjoined; the same Father is God, and the same Son is God, and the same Holy Spirit is counted in his own divinity without doubt. INT. The divinity will be tripled. RESP. That is a crime of sacrilege: because number is under God, not within God. INT. Therefore neither the Father is called God, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit. RESP. And we are taught, and we believe thus, that we deprive neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit of their own divinity. INT. As if you do not do that, when you say, Father God, and Son God, and Holy Spirit God, which together implies that they are other Gods. RESP. Do human ears hear this, and not all cover it with spitting? Nevertheless, in appellative terms, that is, in persons, I accept the Trinity, but I am confident that the divinity can in no way be tripled; because I find no variety and distinction in the nature. INT. How many names then do you believe? RESP. Relative ones in the three persons. INT. How many proper ones? RESP. I have already borne with you often, inquiring pluralistically about the proper name, but the proper name of the divinity is one. INT. You have removed a great wall, but I would have you say, is this name natural? RESP. Certainly. INT. And the relative ones which you designate as appellative, are they natural? RESP. Yes, but through the efficacy of generation and procession, not through the property of the undivided divinity. INT. Therefore the Son, unless he were the Son of God, could he not be God? RESP. Why do you doubt? INT. Because he is the Son of God, therefore he is God. RESP. I assent. INT.

And unless there were an efficiency of generation which conferred the appellative name upon the Son, he would not have the proper name of divinity, and would not be God. RESP. Indeed, from generation the Son is truly the Son of God, and the proper name of God belongs to him: which he did not have afterward when he did not exist before, but when he was generated from the timeless in a timeless manner, he assumed it. INT. What of the Holy Spirit? RESP. He likewise, unless he proceeded from the Father and had his substance, would not be God. INT. Therefore, did the procession confer divinity upon him? RESP. In the Holy Spirit, both the name and the nature exist, but because he proceeded from the Father, he obtained the proper name of divinity. For nothing else could proceed from the Father than what he himself is, yet he was neither exhausted nor divided. Therefore, the appellative name, natural and personal, is Holy Spirit; the proper name is God. INT. That name which you call proper, what reason does it contain, that in the three persons it runs one and the same, yet is not tripled? Just as, for example, we can name several individuals: Statius, or Sallust, or Horace. RESP. I will clarify by reason as best I can, if you are attentive. INT. I am attentive. RESP. We read Paul speaking of Christ, that he himself is our peace, who made both one (Eph. 2:14). But let this support of our most invincible cause serve to make it more easily believed, that Christ is designated under the name of peace, which can neither be split nor torn apart, nor in any way doubled.

Now, he who made both beyond one is much more himself one with the Father and the Holy Spirit; but he is not one if he is divided. Therefore, he is both one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and one, because he joins others together, and admits no division entirely. INT. I accept that as a very strong weapon against rebels; but I desire to know where this proposition leads. RESP. Let peace be God, as we wish, and may it lead us on a prosperous course. INT. So be it; now proceed. RESP. This same peace, since it is written with three letters, does it receive a plural number? INT. No. RESP. Consider, therefore, that P is said to be the Father, A is named the Son, and do not think this said without a most subtle reason. For A is the beginning of letters, and is known to have no element before it, so that you may have proof that nothing is before the Son. Nor shall I leave this without the evidence of divine testimony: for he himself indicated that he is the beginning to the Jews who were questioning (John 6:23). Therefore, no other letter precedes this letter; and because every letter has a time, therefore time was also lacking. Nevertheless, this same syllable is both long and first; but that it is long suggests the eternity of the Son of God, not temporality. That it is a syllable, because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, and this is one. That it is first, because the Son is not second. For in the Apocalypse John, placing the letter itself, says: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 1:8).

But take the last letter, because he deigned to be born humbly in the end times for the sake of the dying, and to undergo the final judgment himself. X, however, is the third letter at the end, where you may understand that the Holy Spirit does not tend toward an end, but proceeds in the highest majesty always. And so the apostle Paul says, "Think on things that are above" (Colossians 3:2), so that we may have our hearts raised upward to God; and indeed the Lord is Spirit. But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). Therefore I do not doubt that the Apostle, inviting us to this most excellent glory, spoke thus: "Forgetting one thing, those behind, and stretched out toward those before, I follow according to intention toward the palm of the heavenly calling of God" (Philippians 3:15, 14). So that peace may come about: P is joined to A, a vowel letter, so that P does not remain mute: because God the Father is always attached to his voice and his Word. So that there may be peace, X is added, which is placed as a double letter for consonants, so that here too you may see the consonance and participation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, and recognize his fellowship in the highest and perfect Trinity. These letters differ from one another in their names and persons, because that one is called and written P, this one A, that one X: but nevertheless, so that there may be peace, these letters are connected to each other.

P, however, is a letter substantially, and A is a letter substantially, and X is a letter substantially; just as the Father is God naturally, and the Son is God naturally, and the Holy Spirit is God naturally. But that discrepancy of characters makes a discrepancy of appellations and persons, not of nature, because the whole is a letter. Just as in these three different letters, called by different appellations, the word "Pax" is written, which is not held in the plural number: so also the appellation of Father and Son and Holy Spirit is a document of the Trinity; but just as "Pax," so "God" holds the singular number of divinity. In this conjunction of three letters, therefore, division is not admitted, so that "Pax" may be fulfilled. For if you remove even one, there will be neither Trinity nor "Pax." INTERLOCUTOR: Repeat, please, these things more clearly. RESPONDENT: Pay attention. And P, I say, is a letter, and A is a letter, and X is a letter; just as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God: but the appellations and persons are diverse, although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are incorporeal. Nevertheless, what is P and A and X? "Pax," namely, which does not admit a plural number in itself. The stupidity of unbelievers, who do not attend to what is placed before their eyes! For this reason, I think, the impious man understands this least of all because he does not seek God in simplicity of heart. INTERLOCUTOR: It is true, it is entirely true what you say. For what is nearer than this example? What is found clearer than this reasoning? RESPONDENT:

But I will repeat these things to you, and I will demonstrate them more willingly. Therefore, just as with three persons and different names of those letters, Pax is formed; but take this as referring to the concord and fellowship of the persons: it also shows that that letter, and this letter, and that other letter exist, but Pax is singular. Here, then, in God and God and God, behold the demonstration of one God. For although P has a different name and a different person, A has a different name and a different person, and X has a different name and a different person—just as the Father has a different name and a different person, and the Son has a different name and a different person, and the Holy Spirit has a different name and a different person—nevertheless, that letter, and this letter, and that other letter are called; just as this God, and this God, and that God are believed without ambiguity, but one God is recognized, because Pax is not held in the plural number. Unless you have something to say to this. INT. I would not even wish others to hesitate here, so brightly has the light of this demonstration shone upon me. But it is more, as I understand, to believe this more delightfully, and not to waver here in any way; so that what men, blinded by carnal cares, cannot see, they may at least attain by the shortcut of faith.

A NOTE ON THE FOLLOWING BOOK. It is clear that this is not by Augustine, even though it is attributed to him in very many manuscripts, and is cited under his name by the Master of the Sentences, book 2, distinction 35, chapter "Quocirca"; book 3, distinction 1, chapter "Diligenter"; and book 4, distinction, chapter "Institutum." Trithemius assigns it to Alcuin in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers and in his book On Illustrious Men of the Benedictine Order, chapter 26. John Bale does the same in his Century of British Writers. To Father Bishop, Gratian, On Consecration, distinction, chapter 13. To Gennadius, Algerus, book 1 On the Body and Blood of the Lord, chapter 22; and St. Thomas, Quodlibet 12, article 11, and in the Catena on the first chapter of Matthew: also the Master of the Sentences himself in book 1, distinction 8, of the Louvain edition; and many others, whom certain manuscripts support: among them one from the Colbert collection, of the best authority, has at the beginning of the book: "Here begins the Book of Ecclesiastical Dogmas of Gennadius"; and at the end, "Here ends the Definition of Ecclesiastical Dogmas of Gennadius." Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, in his book Against the Objections of the Greeks, chapter: "Gennadius," he says, "the bishop of Constantinople, a man well-versed in the reading of the ancients, in his Book of Ecclesiastical Dogmas speaks thus concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit." The words certainly smack of a Greek writer; for example, those which are read in the chapter, and which some Latin presumers affirm.

Nevertheless, it is praised under the name of Gennadius of Massilia by others, namely by Platina in his life of Symmachus, where he mistakenly calls him a bishop; by Walafrid Strabo in his book On Ecclesiastical Matters, chapter, in these words: "Gennadius of Massilia, presbyter, in the Ecclesiastical Dogma," etc. The codex of Padolirone attributes it to Faustus with this inscription: "Here begin the Definitions of the Ecclesiastical Dogmas of Faustus, bishop of the Church of Massilia"; from the Italian Literary Journey of May 1686, page 208. In the very ancient Colbertine codex, written almost nine hundred years ago, it exists without the author's name under this title: "Here begins the Dogma of the Holy Fathers, three hundred and eight bishops gathered at Nicaea." Then to the first chapter these words are prefixed: "In the Father, unity; in the Son, equality; in the Holy Spirit, unity and equality of substance; and these three are one because of the Father, equal because of the Son, conjoined because of the Holy Spirit. We believe that God the Father is one," and so forth thereafter, as in other manuscripts, except that in it the order of the chapters is better, with all things pertaining to Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance placed continuously; and the book is more ample, with a chapter on Baptism and a chapter on Penance added in the same place, besides certain other things on other matters at the end of the book. Moreover, after the chapter, those things which in the printed editions followed up to the chapter.

Now concerning Baptism, twenty-two chapters are absent from all manuscripts, and they had been transferred here against the errors of certain preceding chapters from a letter of Coelestinus to the bishops of Gaul, from the Council of Carthage against the Pelagians, and from the Second Council of Orange, all of which you have in a more genuine form in the tenth volume. Therefore we have removed these thirty chapters, as well as three others now inserted before the beginning against the evidence of the manuscripts. But the old codices do not all end at our chapter; various other chapters are added in different codices. It is helpful here finally to append the censure of the theologians of Louvain. This book, they say, is not the work of a Catholic writer, but of Gennadius of Massilia, a presbyter in Gaul... of the faction of the Gauls, against whom Prosper and Hilary wrote to Augustine, and against whom the Second Council of Orange was convened. Moreover, just as he often has serious errors in his catalogue of Illustrious Men, so also in these Ecclesiastical Dogmas he has certain things to be avoided by the reader. Indeed, this author nowhere in this book mentions original sin or the baptism of infants for the remission of sins; and although he names many heretics, he nowhere mentions Pelagius or the Catholic dogma set forth against him; but on the contrary, he diligently insists that souls are not from traducianism, because he knew that Pelagius based his own dogma on that.