Chapter IV:
CHAPTER IV: WHICH CONTAINS THE FIRST ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR AFFIRMING THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY
[The first argument from the New Testament: The Baptism of Christ.]
§ 75. Having now discussed the reason for the order, we draw our first principal argument from the theophany in the administration of the Baptism conferred on Christ (Matt. 3:16[–17]; Mark 1:10[–11]; Luke 3:22). The Father, the First Person of the Trinity, spoke these words from heaven: “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased.” The Son is baptized in the Jordan. The Holy Spirit comes down upon Christ in the corporeal form of a dove. Here, then, a very obvious trinity appeared: “The Father in the voice, the Son in the Man, the Holy Spirit in the dove” (Augustine, treatise 6 on John). To this theophany we join the account of Christ’s transfiguration described in Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35, in which also the voice of the Father was heard from heaven: “This is My beloved Son; listen to Him.” The Son is transfigured so that His face shines like the sun. The Holy Spirit reveals Himself in the bright cloud.
§ 76. Before we shape an argument from this theophany at the Baptism of Christ, however, we bid the reader note that this occurred: (1) At the solemn inauguration of Jesus Christ into His office, an inauguration foretold several times in the Old Testament. Deut. 18:18: “I shall put My words in His mouth.” Ps. 2:[6]: “I have established My king upon Zion.” Isa. 42:1: “Behold My Chosen, in whom My soul delights; I have put My Spirit upon Him.” Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me.”
(2) This occurred not in a hidden corner but publicly in the presence and sight of many people, something we see from what preceded, what happened, and also what followed. Immediately at the beginning of his ministry, when the Baptist was sent to baptize, he had received from God this response: that he would see the Holy Spirit descend upon the Messiah (John 1:33). However, he did not keep this revelation to himself nor did he hide it, but he shared it with his hearers as they came to be baptized by him, since he was “the voice crying” and since he repeated it after baptizing Christ (v. 32). Therefore this theophany occurred for all who were eagerly awaiting the appearance of the Messiah. Luke 3:21 notes clearly that this took place when “all the people were being baptized who had gone out to him from Jerusalem, from all of Judea and all the region about the Jordan” (Matt. 3:5). Therefore what is being described here did not happen after all the witnesses and spectators were removed and only between Christ and John, as if none of the people either saw or heard any of this, but it happened in the public view of all the people. For this reason Christ also appeals in John 5:37 to this testimony given Him from heaven: “And the Father who sent Me has Himself borne witness of Me.” Now what is added in the same place—“His voice you have never heard, His form you have never seen”—must be taken to refer either to the time of the promulgation of the Law (Deut. 4:12) or to those hearers with whom He was speaking, so that the meaning is: “You are not concerned about the testimony that the Father made of Me, because you were not present at that solemn spectacle connected with My Baptism. Consequently, you also did not hear His voice sound from heaven nor did you see the form of the dove visibly coming down from heaven.” Or it must be taken to refer to the inner hearing of faith, so that the meaning is: “You have indeed been called by God’s voice, but you have not heard it, that is, you have not received it in your heart nor have you wished to apply your faith to it.” But by no means in the sense that none of the people heard the voice of the heavenly Father except for John and Christ.
(3) This occurred when Christ was 30 years old and was about to begin His ministry of preaching in these lands, because it was at this age that the Levitical priests formerly would be admitted to the public ministries. Therefore this theophany was not merely the solemn confirmation of the ministry of the Messiah but also a brief summary of that doctrine which would be preached in the Church at the time of the New Testament.
(4) In this theophany, heaven was opened and split—not that there was only an opening in the air but that a miraculous and unique splitting or rending of heaven itself occurred in such a way that not all of heaven was opened nor was it opened over all the earth. Rather, only that part of heaven was opened where Christ was standing and praying on the bank of the Jordan, and not upon John as he baptized nor upon the others standing nearby but only upon Christ, as Dr. Chemnitz brilliantly concludes from the circumstances of the text (Harm., c. 17). This opening of heaven was a public warning not only regarding the heavenly origin of this person and of His teaching (that He would again join the things that are in heaven and on earth and would again open heaven to believers) but also regarding the solemnity and truth of this theophany (that the voice given from heaven and heard publicly is the voice of the Father in heaven and that the dove descending from that open part of heaven is the Spirit of God). To this the words of 1 John 5:7 can be applied: “There are three who give witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.” That is, there are three witnesses, divine and heavenly in nature, who revealed themselves at the Baptism of Christ with external and visible symbols. For from that rending of heaven, John the Baptist saw a light shining more majestically and divinely than the manner [of light] in this world and reaching by its rays all the way from heaven to Christ, who was praying on the bank of the Jordan. By descending in that heavenly light in the corporeal form of a dove, the Holy Spirit gently set Himself down upon Christ, and out of that light a voice was brought down upon Christ, as Chemnitz shows (op. cit., p. 18) from a comparison of this account with the transfiguration of Christ.
§ 77. Having first noted these points, which can make that marvelous theophany (the like of which does not exist in all of Scripture) more distinguished and majestic to us, we form the following argument from it for affirming the doctrine of the Trinity: In however many distinct persons the one and true God revealed Himself in the solemn inauguration of the Messiah and in His Baptism, that many persons—no more, no less—must be acknowledged in the Godhead. But the one and true God revealed Himself in three distinct persons in that solemn inauguration of the Messiah. Therefore. The major premise is obvious, because the goal of that revelation was not only the confirmation of the ministry of Christ but also a clearer revelation of the Trinity, which was reserved especially for the New Testament. And no one can entertain doubts that we should acknowledge, invoke, and worship God in the same way as He revealed Himself to us and wanted that revelation to be recorded in His Word. To the confirmation of the minor premise these two points pertain: (1) He who revealed Himself at that inauguration of the Messiah was and is that one and true God. (2) That one and true God revealed Himself in three distinct persons.
§ 78. The former is confirmed: (1) From a consideration of the circumstances. Heaven is miraculously split and rent apart, and it was the sort of opening of heaven that we read occurred in other appearances of the Divine Majesty, such as Ezek. 1:1; Acts 7:55–56; Rev. 4:1, 3; 11:19. From the opening of heaven a light shines, majestic and divine, which was the symbol and warning sign that He was revealing Himself who “dwells in the unapproachable light” of heaven (1 Tim. 6:16). The same sort of light shone round about the angel who was the first herald of the birth of the Lord. This light is called “the glory of the Lord” (Luke [2]:9) and is what shone about Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:13). (This is the same as in Exod. 16:10: “The glory of the Lord” was seen in the cloud, that is, an unusual light and splendor announcing the majesty of the presence of God was seen in the column of the cloud.) From that light the voice of the heavenly Father was heard, which no one doubted was the voice of the true God. In that same light the Holy Spirit in the corporeal form of a dove descended upon Christ, which itself argues the true divinity of the Spirit because He descends in the same heavenly light from which the Father’s voice sounds forth.
The Son, standing on the bank of the Jordan, is proclaimed the beloved Son of God in whom He is well-pleased. However, if He is the true and natural Son of God, surely He is of the same nature and essence with the Father, “for it is not right to suspect the Son of being the degenerate of the Father. Instead, it is necessary to confess that He is of equal loftiness and of the same dignity, power, and essence” (Bernard, sermon 1, De adv., col. 1). “The begetting of God would be vicious and monstrous if a different nature had come forth from His womb” (Augustine, Contra Maxim., bk. 3, c. 18).
The twofold repetition of the article is also not without emphasis. “This is 
the Son, the beloved,” uniquely removed by lot from the other sons. The Father says that He is well-pleased with this Son, that is, all His good pleasure rests, resides, and, as it were, has been deposited in this Son in such a way that, because of Him, He considers believers also to be beloved (Eph. 1:5) and that it is also said of the Church: “You will be called My good pleasure” (Isa. 62:4). This expression embraces the entire mystery of redemption: that this Son would reconcile the whole human race, which is God’s enemy because of sin (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:19; Eph. 1:5), and for this reconciliation and redemption the divine nature was required, as is shown elsewhere.
§ 79. (2) From a comparison with other passages of Scripture. No one in the Christian Church doubts that the Father, whose voice is heard from heaven, is the true God. This is confirmed from the fact that He who sent John to baptize said to him: “He upon whom you see the Spirit descend is the one who baptizes in the Spirit” (John 1:33). The same one also said, “This is My beloved Son,” and sent down the Holy Spirit upon Him. But He who sent John to baptize is the true God (John 1:6).
We also use this comparison. Whoever said at the Baptism of Christ, “This is My beloved Son,” is the same one who repeated these words at the transfiguration of Christ (Matt. 17:5). But He who said at the transfiguration of Christ, “This is My beloved Son,” was and is the true God: “We were eyewitnesses of His [Christ’s] greatness, for He received honor and glory from God the Father and a voice came down to Him” (2 Pet. 1:16–17). Therefore.
We prove in this way that the Son to whom the words of the Father “You are My Son” were addressed and upon whom the Holy Spirit descended is true God: (a) To whomever the heavenly Father says in this passage, “You are My beloved Son,” He is the same one who, according to Ps. 2:7, says, “I shall tell of the decree of the Lord: the Lord said unto Me, ‘You are My Son.’ ” But He who says this in Ps. 2:7 is true God. Therefore He, too, to whom the heavenly Father speaks in this passage, “You are My beloved Son,” is true God. The minor premise is proved because: (α) the Son of God is begotten of the Father “today,” that is, from eternity (v. 7). The points that they bring up from the literal meaning of the words against this interpretation are explained elsewhere. Here we urge the argument from Heb. 1:5–6: With respect to whatever begetting [from which] the Son surpasses by an extremely great measure the production of the angels prior to the creation of man [and] is the firstborn Son of God to whom the angels owe their adoration, concerning this begetting one cannot think or say that it is a begetting in time or a destination and calling to office or anything that would apply to any creature. But with respect to that begetting which is attributed to the Son in Ps. 2:7, He surpasses by an extremely great measure the production of the angels, etc. Therefore. (β) We must place the confidence of our heart in the Son (v. [12]). From this we draw the following conclusion: In whomever we should place the confidence of our heart, He is true and eternal God (Ps. 118:8; Jer. 17:7). Yet we should place the confidence of our heart in the Son. Therefore He is true and eternal God. (γ) The nations of the earth and the boundaries of the world are given to the Son as an inheritance (v. 8). From this we draw the following inference: Whoever possesses the rule of all the world and of all nations, He is true God (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15). The Son possesses such a rule.
(b) To whomever the heavenly Father says here, “You are My beloved Son,” He is the one of whom it is said in Isa. 42:1: “Behold My Beloved in whom I am well-pleased.” But He of whom the heavenly Father speaks in Isa. 42:1 is true God, and we prove this as follows. He who is “given to be the light of the nations” is true God, because as the first creation of corporeal light is a work truly and purely of God, so also that spiritual illumination of the nations is also a work of God (2 Cor. 4:6). Yet He of whom it is said, “Behold My Beloved,” was given to be the light of the nations (Isa. 42:6). Therefore. Furthermore, whoever is given to be the salvation of the nations, He is “God’s salvation” or “the saving of God” or “[the saving] established by God and given to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). But now there is no such Savior outside of God (Isa. 43:11; 45:21). Hosea 1:7: “I shall save them in the Lord their God.”
(c) He who here is called the “beloved Son” is elsewhere called “the Only-Begotten” (John 1:14) and “God’s own Son” (Rom. 8:32). But now whoever is the Only-Begotten and God’s own Son is equal to His Father (John 5:18) and, as a consequence, is true God. Here we should mention the observation in Heb. 11:17 that Isaac is called the “only-begotten” and in Gen. 22:2 is called “the beloved.” Isaac was a type of Christ, about which more is said elsewhere.
(d) He upon whom the Holy Spirit here descends and upon whom He remains is said to be “anointed with the oil of gladness more than His fellows” (Ps. 45:[7]) and to have “received the Holy Spirit without measure” (John 3:34) in such a way that “of His fullness we can all receive grace for grace” (John 1:16). But now He to whom the Holy Spirit is given without measure in that clearly unique and singular way, so that He also can give Him to others, is true God.
§ 80. We gather that the Holy Spirit is true God from the fact that in that miraculous theophany He is united with the Father and the Son; and just as the Father reveals Himself in an audible voice and the Son reveals Himself to be seen in the assumed flesh, so the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove and, in fact, in that very light from which the voice of the heavenly Father was being heard.
The other passages of Scripture should also be compared. Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because the Lord has anointed Me; He has sent Me to announce good news to the meek.” Christ Himself explains this in Luke 4:18 as follows: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He has anointed Me; He has sent Me to preach the good news to the poor,” where that which the prophet had said about Jehovah is applied to the Holy Spirit.
Also, lest anyone doubt that that work of sending truly belongs to the Holy Spirit, I compare the passage of Luke 4:1: “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Holy Spirit in the wilderness.” Therefore that Spirit who had descended upon Christ at the Jordan in the form of a dove led Christ into the wilderness and sent Him to carry out the parts of His office. The Holy Spirit would never have had this power toward Christ, as He is man, if He were not the true Jehovah, for our adversaries admit that nothing is more excellent than Christ the man in heaven and on earth except the true God alone.
I compare also the passage Isa. 48:16: “Now Jehovah sends Me, and His Spirit.” It is understood that these are the words of the Messiah from the context of the passage, for it adds immediately: “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel” (v. 17). And in John 18:20 Christ applies to Himself what is said in Isaiah (v. 16): “I have not spoken in secret.” From this we draw the following conclusion: Whoever sent Christ to His office is true God. The Holy Spirit sent Christ to His office. Therefore. So, then, we have given the first section as confirmed, namely, that He who revealed Himself in this inauguration of the Messiah is true God.
§ 81. The second section—that the one true God has revealed Himself in three distinct persons—we prove in this way. (1) There are three distinct names, for He whose voice is heard from heaven is called Father (2 Pet. 1:17). He who stands on the bank of the Jordan is called the Son (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). He who descends in the form of a dove is called the Spirit (Mark 1:10), the Spirit of God (Matt. [3]:16), the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:22).
(2) There are three external symbols in which these three reveal themselves: the Father in an audible voice, the Son in the assumed flesh, the Holy Spirit in the corporeal form of a dove. Ambrose, sermon 21:
When the Lord is baptized, God the Father is present and God the Holy Spirit is present. Because God cannot be seen, the Holy Spirit descends in a dove and the Father comes down in a voice, and what alone was necessary to establish faith in men exhibits the Savior. For except by hearing our faith does not stand, and by seeing. Therefore the Spirit in the dove subjects Himself to the eyes, and the Father in the voice gives Himself to their ears. For if this did not have to occur for the sake of our faith, the Father and the Holy Spirit, as the invisible God, could have come down in an invisible descent to the Word, the Son. Therefore for the sake of our faith, heaven being opened, the Spirit came down to Christ, the Father to the Son, the voice to the Word, for the Word is Christ. Yet the Father is well called the Voice, and the Son, the Word, because the Word does not proceed except from the Voice.
Augustine, De Trinit., bk. 2, c. 10:
The person of the Father is revealed in that voice, saying, “This is My Son,” etc., not that the voice could have occurred without the work of the Son and the Holy Spirit (in fact, the Trinity operates inseparably), but that voice occurred to reveal the person of the Father alone, just as the Trinity worked that human form from the Virgin Mary, but it is the person of the Son alone, for the invisible Trinity has worked the visible nature that belongs to the Son alone.
The Holy Spirit did not assume that visible form of the dove into the unity of His own person in the way that the Son did with the assumed flesh; nevertheless in that revelation the Spirit did want to reveal Himself to be seen in a special form assumed temporarily so that the distinction of persons might be shown more clearly.
(3) The distinct actions of the three are described. There is one who cries out from heaven, “This is My Son.” These words cannot be referred to the Son as if this voice were also His, otherwise He would be His own Son. Nor can they be referred to the Holy Spirit, otherwise He would be the Son of the Holy Spirit. There is another who prays on the bank of the Jordan after being baptized. There is another who comes down in the form of a dove and rests upon Christ. The one whose voice sounds from heaven is heard but not seen. He who descends in the form of a dove is seen but not heard. He who was baptized in the Jordan and stands on the bank is seen in the assumed flesh and heard in the words of His prayer.
(4) The benefits of the three distinct persons are described. The Father sent into this world His beloved Son through whom He spoke with the human race and through whom He reconciled the world to Himself. The Son assumed human nature into the unity of His person and received Baptism for our sake to fulfill all righteousness. The Holy Spirit descended upon Christ visibly and “anointed” Him invisibly “to proclaim pardon to the captives and opening to them that are bound” (Isa. 61:[1]). That is, through the ministry of the Gospel begun by Christ in His own person and entrusted to the apostles, the Holy Spirit distributes the benefits of Christ obtained by His suffering and merit. In prayer we should look to these distinct benefits of the three persons of the Godhead set before us in this wonderful theophany, and we should rejoice in this revelation with simplicity of faith against all the wiles of our adversaries, just as the devout ancients say: “If you do not believe the Trinity, accompany John to the Jordan and you will see it.”
§ 82. The Photinians make the exception: (I) “One cannot prove from this passage that those three are persons of one undivided essence” (Goslavius, Contra Keckerm., p. 42, part 1, c. 4). We respond. On the contrary. If, regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who reveal themselves in this theophany, we can truly affirm and firmly prove, on the one hand, that any one of these is true God and, on the other, from other passages of Scripture and even from the concession of our adversaries, that there is only one true God, we draw the immovable conclusion from this that there is one divine essence of these three persons. For the proof of their consubstantiality, we add also the other passages of Scripture listed in their places.
The Photinians concede that the Father is true God and separate from the person of the Son. They admit that the Son is a person distinct from the Father, but they deny that He is true and eternal God. They concede that the Holy Spirit is the power of God, but they deny that He is a person distinct from the Father and the Son. However, if it is demonstrated that the Son is true and eternal God and that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, the consubstantiality of these three is proved. We have demonstrated both points earlier from a comparison of this passage with other statements of Scripture (to which we are sent back in this theophany), as well as from a consideration of the circumstances.
(II) They make the exception that from this passage one cannot prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. Goslavius, op. cit.: “From this the Holy Spirit does not appear to be a person.” (However, to assume physical form and to appear and descend in it does not befit bare power, for who has ever read, heard, or seen the mercy, wisdom, etc., of God appearing in an external, assumed form? Instead, it befits a power that subsists of itself, that is, a certain person.)
Schmalz tries to prove the contrary with three rational arguments. The first is drawn from a simple negation: “The text does not teach nor does the verity of the situation show that the Holy Spirit appeared upon Christ under the peculiar form of a dove” (Contra Frantz., p. 35). But what is more clear than these words of the evangelists? “John saw the Spirit of God coming down as a dove and coming upon Him (Christ)” (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). “The Holy Spirit came down upon Him in bodily form as a dove” (Luke 3:22).
The second is taken from the wording of the evangelist: “The Holy Spirit came down in such a way that He was resting upon Christ” (John 1:33). “How can He be a person when we nowhere read concerning persons such as are God and Christ that they rest or are upon anyone, though we read this about things: for example, concerning the wrath of God or His peace and mercy?” (Contra Schopp., de Trinit., p. 34). We respond. Not only regarding Christ in John 14:10 is it said that “the Father who dwells in Me does His works,” but Christ says also regarding the devout: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood, the same dwells in Me and I in him” (John 6:56); “The Holy Spirit will dwell with you”18 (John 14:16); “with you” (v. 17); “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We shall come to him and make Our home with him” (v. 23); “Abide in Me, and I in you” (John 15:4). Therefore just as that wording used of the Father—that He dwells in the Son or is in the Son (John 14:10)—marks the closest interpenetration by which “the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father” (John 10:30) because of the unity of essence, so also that wording used of the Holy Spirit—that He rests upon the Son—likewise marks that unique mode of indwelling by which the Holy Spirit dwelt in Christ or, as the prophet says, “rested” (Isa. 11:2), not in the way that He dwells in the rest of the saints. For this reason also it is not said about any of them that the Holy Spirit dwells upon Him in such a way that He rests upon Him and others receive of His fullness.
The third is from the particle of comparison. “The words ‘like a dove’ must not be referred to the essence of the thing, namely, so that the thing animated is the Holy Spirit, as it is a dove, but to the external form and manner and this not of the thing itself, but of its descent” (Contra Frantz., p. 35). “Because Scripture said ‘like a dove,’ it is apparent that the word ‘like’ or ‘as’ must be referred to the word ‘descending’ and also that it declares a likeness to the descent of the dove but not to the body of the dove.” Socinus teaches the same thing in the same words in Explic. loc. de Spirit. s., p. 103. We respond. The words of the evangelist are clear: “The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form as a dove” (Luke 3:22). It was, then, a true and real descent that is being attributed to the Holy Spirit, not absolutely and simply with respect to His invisible and divine essence, but relatively, that is, with respect to the bodily form temporarily assumed. The adverb “as” refers not to the word “descending” but clearly to “dove,” as the investigation of the text would have shown. The words “in bodily form” belong not so much to the verb “descend” as to the noun “Spirit,” so that the meaning is: the bodily form in which the Spirit appeared was a dove.
Socinus urges the word 
[“form”] (op. cit., p. 109). We respond. 
signifies outward form, under which the essence of a thing lies. Thus the dove was equipped with its own individuating properties. It is not necessary to search out in this place whether the form of dove in which the Holy Spirit appeared was a true animal, newly created without the aid of other doves, which immediately ceased to exist after its function, or, on the other hand, whether it was merely the likeness or image of a dove that was used simply to signify the presence of the Spirit. Instead, it is enough for us against our adversaries that the Holy Spirit revealed Himself in a peculiar and distinct form as a person distinct from the Father and the Son.
Therefore having removed the babbling of Schmalz, we draw this conclusion in favor of the personality of the Holy Spirit: He who produces the voice from heaven is a person, and He who stands on the bank of the Jordan is a person (as our adversaries admit). But with whatever arguments their own personality is demonstrated from this account, with the same arguments the personality of the Holy Spirit can also be demonstrated. If it cannot be inferred that the Holy Spirit is a person from the fact that He descended visibly in the form of a dove, surely it also cannot be inferred that the Father is a person distinct from the Son and that the Son is a person distinct from the Father from the fact that the Father produces the audible voice from heaven and that the Son is seen in the assumed flesh.
Goslavius objects: “Not everything that appears is something that subsists; in fact, even accidents appear” (Contra Keckerm., p. 80). We respond. Those accidents that meet the senses first, immediately, and of themselves bear witness of the substance that offers itself to the senses by means of those accidents. For since accidents subsist not of themselves but in their subject, therefore they also bear witness of it. So, then, that “bodily form of a dove” that John saw was not a pure and naked accident but something that truly subsists.
§ 83. (III) Schmalz says (Contra Frantz., p. 34): “Even if the Holy Spirit had appeared in the form of a dove, would that really cause the Holy Spirit to be eternal and immense and thus the Preserver of heaven and earth? For something can appear in the form of a dove that is not eternal, can it not? Is it not also necessary that that which appears in the form of a dove not be immense? Finally, is it not a great blasphemy to say that that which appears in the form of a dove is the Creator and Preserver of heaven and earth?” We respond. We do not draw so naked and crude a conclusion: that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and therefore He is eternal and immense and thus the Preserver of heaven and earth. Instead, from this theophany we conclude primarily and chiefly that in the Godhead there are three persons really distinct (because in this revelation God showed Himself in this way) and that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father and the Son (because He revealed Himself distinctly in the form of a dove, as did the Father in the audible voice and the Son in the assumed flesh).
As far as the actual matter is concerned, the Photinians concede that “the Holy Spirit is the might and power of God.” Yet they cannot deny that that power is eternal and that through it God created heaven and earth. Therefore they should not deny that the Holy Spirit is eternal and as He is the Creator, so also is He the Preserver of heaven and earth. As to the fact that Schmalz struggles to conclude from this theophany that the Holy Spirit is not immense, he errs in this with an obvious fallacy of the consequent. For the only thing that follows is that the physical form of a dove was not immense and is not the Preserver of heaven and earth. But it is extremely uneducated to infer from this that the Holy Spirit Himself, who appeared in the form of a dove, is not immense (though this is clearly affirmed in Ps. 139:[7] and Wisdom 1:7) and that the Holy Spirit is not the Creator of heaven and earth (though that work of creation is clearly attributed to Him in Gen. 1:3; Job 26:13; Ps. 33:6).
§ 84. (IV) Goslavius writes, op. cit.:
From this passage we conclude the contrary, rather than that there are three persons of one divine essence. For if the rule of Philipp is certain—that all things that can be separated from each other are distinguished really—it follows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished really because they are separated from each other. For the Father does not come down from heaven and is not baptized in the Jordan, and the Holy Spirit does not address the Son and is not washed with the baptism of water. But whatever things are distinguished really, their essence cannot be singular.
We respond. External symbols as sign must be distinguished from persons of the Trinity as signified. Those external symbols—the voice of the Father, the assumed nature of the Son, the form of a dove in which the Holy Spirit revealed Himself—are distinguished and separated not only really but also essentially. But the persons of the Trinity who reveal themselves in these external symbols are indeed distinguished really, yet not essentially but only personally, as we gather from all the statements of Scripture that prove the unity of the divine essence. Consequently, as a comparison must not be extended otherwise beyond that point of comparison because of which the comparison is established, so also this symbolic manifestation of the Trinity through the three external symbols must not be extended further than to make manifest the true and real distinction of persons. But by no means should it be opposed to the unity of the divine essence. The rule that “those things that can be separated from each other are distinguished really” is not convertible, because those things that are distinguished really cannot immediately be separated from each other by natural virtue, as the example of things proper reveals, things that the philosophers call “the second components of nature” [secunda naturae momenta].19 Also, even if this is quite true when taken of the real instead of the essential distinction, it still could not and should not be applied to the mystery of the Trinity, in which we know from the Word of God that the three persons are really distinguished, nevertheless not essentially but personally.
18 Following Cotta’s ed. The Hamburg/Frankfurt and Preuss editions read “us.”
19 “ ‘Components’ for metaphysicians are non-complex principles, namely ‘essence’ and ‘existence.’ For essence is called ‘first component’ [momentum primum]; existence, ‘second component’ [momentum secundum].” First component is composed of matter and form; second component is composed of subject and accidents. Micraelius, s.v. “momentum.”