Chapter VIII:
CHAPTER VIII: WHICH CONTAINS THE FIRST ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR AFFIRMING THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY
§ 109. Now that we have taken care of these four principal foundations from the New Testament in favor of our confession of the Trinity, let us now add its foundations from the Old Testament. But before we list the distinct classes to which the Old Testament passages can be referred, we shall discuss in a little greater detail the four principal foundations drawn from the Old Testament.
The first argument from the Old Testament: from the article of creation.
The first is taken from the article of creation. Moses begins Holy Scripture with the work of creation, and no one can entertain any doubts that the doctrine of this article, divinely handed down, was repeated constantly in the public assemblies of the Israelite church, especially because the Sabbath itself had to be a permanent memorial of creation. Exod. 20:[9–]10: “Six days you will work, and on the seventh you will celebrate a sabbath, for God made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh day.” If, then, the mystery of the Trinity can be demonstrated from the article of creation as it is described in the Old Testament, it will be confirmed thereby that the people of Israel were not completely ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity but that the doctrine was taught and constantly repeated in the assemblies of the Church. Therefore we go to the proper seat of this article [articuli sedes], the first chapter of Genesis, with which we shall tie together parallel passages of the Old Testament that explain it, from all of which we produce the argument that follows.
§ 110. However many persons there are to whom the work of creation is attributed, that number of persons is to be acknowledged in the one essence of the Godhead. But the work of creation is attributed to three distinct persons. Therefore. The major premise is proved from the passages that testify that the work of creation is proper to the true God alone. Job 9:8: “God alone stretched out the heavens.” Ps. 134:3: “Jehovah made heaven and earth.” Isa. 44:24: “I am Jehovah who make all things, I stretch out the heavens alone.” Isa. 45:6–7: “I am the Lord, and there is no other, forming light and creating darkness.” Jer. 10:11: “May the gods who did not create heaven and earth perish from the earth.” Acts 4:24: “You are the God who created heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them.” Heb. 3:4: “He who created all things is God.” Irenaeus, bk. 2, c. 55, p. 156: “Here we find God alone, who made all things, who is omnipotent, and the Father alone, who creates and makes all things.” Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 11, c. 2: “No one but He has made all of nature, which is not what He is.” Clear reason also reveals this, because creation, which is the production of being from nothing, requires infinite power and might (Isa. 40:26; 42:[5]). Hilary, De Trin., bk. 2: “That is infinite through which is made everything that has been made.” But God alone is the infinite being; therefore creation is proper to Him.
[General proof.]
§ 111. The minor premise is proved: (I) In general, that creation is attributed not to one but to several persons: (1) On the basis of the expression Moses uses. In the first verse of Genesis 1, Moses speaks about the creation in this way: “In the beginning 
, Gods [plural] created [singular].” Here he joins together a singular verb with a plural noun to signify through the verb the unity of essence and through the noun the plurality of persons. Yet even some Christian interpreters—such as Abulensis, Cajetan, and others, whom Calvin follows (commentary on Genesis 1, where he calls this “a violent gloss”); Bellarmine (De Christo, bk. 2, c. 6); and Vázquez (p. 1, d. 108, c. 2)—claim that “this formula of speaking is without any mystery” and relate it “solely to an idiom of the Hebrew language.”
We divorce ourselves from their opinion, moved as we are by the following arguments: (a) From the proper significance of the plural number. (b) From the special construction of this word, because it is constructed not only with a singular verb but also with a plural verb and adjective in Gen. 20:13; 35:7; Deut. 5:26; Josh. 24:[19]; 2 Sam. 7:23; Ps. 58:[11]. (c) From the Holy Spirit’s explanation. (d) From the approval of most interpreters. (See our treatise On the Nature of God [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 3], § 27.) Here we employ this argument: Concerning the same one who created heaven and earth, Moses later declares that He made man (Gen. 1:26–27), for there is one Creator of all things. Yet in Him who created man there is a plurality, as is evident from the verb “let Us make” and the pronominal adjective “Our,” as also from the plural in Gen. 3:22: “Behold, Adam has become like one of Us.” Therefore in Him who created heaven and earth there is a certain plurality that we believe is indicated by the words bara Elohim.
§ 112. The Photinians object: (I) That this is an idiom of the holy language. Socinus, Defens. animadv., p. 132: “Nouns indicating power and domination are generally expressed among the Hebrews in the plural as a sort of hyperbole, though they are said about just one person.” He argues this from the noun adon [“master”] (Gen. 24:9, 50; Exod. 21:4, 32; 1 Kings 22:17) and from the noun baal [“owner”] (Exod. 21:29; 22:10–11; Isa. 1:3). Buxtorf says that this is “an exchange of the plural for the singular,” and he tries to prove this with similar examples (Thes. gram., p. 9). In Gen. 24:9 Abraham is called 
, “my lords.” In Gen. 42:30 it is said of Joseph: “A man, the 
(lords) of the land, spoke harshly.” 1 Kings 16:24: “built … after the name of Shemer the 
(lords) of the hill.”
We respond. This happens not only with nouns but also with pronouns and verbs that have the plural when used with reference to God. Therefore it must be proved that in all of these we must depart from the actual words without an urgent reason. On the contrary, we stress that: (1) This idiom applied to God denotes a plurality of persons according to the intent of the author of this language. You see, since Elohim has its own singular, eloah (Job 4:9; 12:4; 15:8; 36:2; etc.), why, in that simplest and purest language of all, would the plural be used in reference to God unless there were a plurality in Him? (2) Because according to the usual rule a plural verb should also have been added to the plural noun, it is by no means likely that Moses, contrary to the usual rule of syntax, would have wanted to add a singular verb to a plural noun immediately in the second word of his writing unless in a diverse respect both unity and plurality were in God. If, as one essence, so also there were one person in the Deity, that word would have given an opportunity for idolatry to the people of Israel, who were lovers of idols. However, the Holy Spirit in His singular providence removed this opportunity when He joined the singular verb to the plural noun. (3) From the fact that it does have its own singular, it is clear that the noun Elohim is plural not only in termination or formation but also in meaning. But now a noun that is both plural in termination and meaning cannot be taken as singular in its proper meaning. (4) It is in vain that they press the texts in which Baalim and Adonim are used for singular persons (1 Kings 22:17; Gen. 39:20; 42:30), for some of them are to be explained according to distribution [
]22 or according to division [
], while others are of the same type and condition so that they are taken to mean not just the one person but his entire dominion to which his counselors and ministers belong. (5) Even if Elohim in its transferred meaning were to put aside its meaning of plurality when used in reference to angels and judges, that still would take nothing away from the native, proper meaning of this word.
§ 113. (II) That it is used to refer to God for the sake of honor in the same way that important people are accustomed to speak of themselves in the plural. (Rabbi D. Kimchi, Michol, p. 9; Rabbi Salomon, on Josh. 24:19; Bechai, on Gen. 1:26).
We respond. (1) If a signification of divine magnificence were to consist in the plural number, the holy men of God would always have used the plural with reference to God, but there are times when they use the singular Eloah. (2) Theodoret uses this argument (q. 20 on Genesis): “If God spoke about Himself in the plural because of His authority and majesty, He would have had to speak in that way always or as often as possible, especially when giving the Law on Sinai.” (3) If its effectiveness in signifying the honor of God must be attributed to the plural, why does Scripture not also use the word 
, meaning “essence,” in the plural? (4) As far as humans are concerned, we concede that the plural is sometimes employed for the sake of dignity. But what does this have to do with God, whose supreme dignity consists in being acknowledged for what He is? Princes signify that they are decreeing something by the aid of their counselors or captains, but this cannot be said of God. (5) Even if the plural is used for the singular in other languages, this certainly is not decisive for the holy language. (6) When in other languages the plural is used for the singular, the noun for the person remains singular and only the pronouns and verbs change: “We, Ferdinand, command . …” In this passage, however, the noun for the person is plural and has a singular verb added. It was necessary, then, that an example be provided in which a plural noun is connected with a plural verb and nonetheless indicates only one person. (7) In his commentary on Gen. 1:26, Rabbi Aben Ezra explains all the examples that are provided. (He calls these examples “false witnesses.”) Thus the fact that in Gen. 29:27 Laban says, “And we shall also give you this,” he explains from the Hebrew in this way: “This also will be given to you,” for it is a Niphal passive. This could also be taken jointly in regard to parents and kin. In Num. 22:6 Balak says: “We shall strike him down.” Aben Ezra says the meaning is this: “Perhaps I shall be able to strike him down,” so it is a Piel infinitive, not a Hiphil future, and the nun is part of the root. Or it means that “Balak” includes also the army of Balak. Eliphaz (Job 5:27) and Bildad (Job 18:2) speak of themselves in the plural, but they are including the rest of Job’s friends. In 2 Sam. 16:20 Absalom speaks about himself, his advisers, and his military forces. In Song of Songs 1:4 the Church uses the plural to refer to herself and her daughters, that is, all the faithful, for the royal bride is not alone but has her retinue. In reference to himself and to his companions, Daniel says in 2:36: “We shall tell our explanation to the king.“ For how would Daniel speak about himself by way of authority in the plural before the king when he was the king’s captive and the king himself would be above all kings? Others say that Daniel is speaking in the plural to attribute the interpretation of the dream to God. Let the judgment on the examples that Schmalz provides (Contra Schopp., pp. 6, 9) be the same. In 1 Kings 12:9 and 2 Chron. 10:9, the king is including himself and his counselors. In 1 Kings 22:3 the king is including himself and his captains, by whose advice and work his judgments are generally made and given to be carried out. In John 3:11 Christ says that He and His Father bear witness at the same time. Some refer this to John the Baptist and the rest of the apostles. In Mark 4:30 Christ is speaking about Himself and His hearers in the plural. In Rom. 1:5 Paul refers to himself and the other apostles.
§ 114. (III) That Elohim in the plural refers to one person of the Godhead (Ps. 45:[7]). This argument is used by Paraeus and others who accept the dogma of the Trinity but who reject this argument taken from the use of the plural.
We respond. (1) None of the literal meaning is lost because of this. For as the word “God” is essential and nevertheless is sometimes used personally, so Elohim is a personal name yet is sometimes used essentially. (2) This point proves the utterly simple unity of the three persons with regard to the undivided essence, as well as the mutual interpenetration of the persons, because “the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father,” and the Father is not God outside of the Son nor is the Son God outside of the Father, the Father is not God solitarily but a person of the Trinity or God in the Trinity. Thus any person in the Godhead has a permanent relation to the other two persons. (3) Therefore when it is used to refer to one person, it means that that one person is from the number of several or that that person is not solitarily God but is God along with the other two persons.
§ 115. The exceptions that Eniedinus raises are of lesser weight. (1) “Does a plural actually signify three?” We respond. We do not immediately prove the Trinity from the plural number, but mediately, because in other passages of Scripture that plurality is referred to the number three.
(2) “The Hebrews thought that there was no mystery here.” Bellarmine presses the same argument (op. cit.). We respond. In De arc. Cathol. verit., bk. 2, c. 9, Galatino cites the statement of Rabbi Hunna: “Unless these words had been written, it would have been impermissible to say: ‘Bara Elohim’ ” (same book, c. 4). In the Talmud, the words of Josh. 22:22 (“Jehova El Elohim Jehovah El Elohim”) are explained in this way: “First, they said, ‘God, God, God,’ because the world was created by these three. Second, they said, ‘God, God, God,’ because the light was also given by these three. But could one of them separately and by Himself [have created the world]? By no means, but the two others united with Him necessarily created it.” (See Weidner, Loca fid., tract. 1, p. 94.) These points are set down in almost the same words in the commentary of Rabbi Moses Hadarsan on Genesis 1: “In the beginning God created,” etc. Burgensis notes that even the earlier rabbinic scholars saw that plurality was indicated by the noun Elohim when they explained it as “God and the house of judgment.” In the Midrash Tillim, Psalm 50: “Why is the name of the holy and blessed God mentioned three times? So that you would teach that the holy and blessed God created the world according to three 
[“properties”], by which the world was created, which are wisdom, knowledge, and prudence.”
(3) “Elohim is singular in meaning because the other prophets and holy writers call El in the singular Him whom Moses calls Elohim (Job 9:2; Ps. [102:24]). Also the exclusive adjective ‘alone’ is added to it, by which the plurality of the word is restricted to the singular (2 Kings 19:15 and Ps. 85:[9]).” We respond. That happens because of the mystery of the one undivided essence in the three Elohim. The exclusive does not exclude the other persons of the Trinity but idols and creatures that are not of the same essence with Elohim.
(4) “The translators do not translate it in the plural: ‘The Gods created.’ ” We respond. The words Elohim and “God” do not have the same nature, for the former is personal it its nature but the latter is essential. The other languages do not have a word to express the force of the word. In addition, they wanted to guard against the opinion that the divine essence is multiple.
(5) “Creation is attributed to the Father alone.” We respond. Nevertheless the Son and the Holy Spirit are not excluded, as we shall soon see.
(6) “Although the Kabbalists’ interpretation would explain 
[“created”] with 
[“Father, Son, Spirit”], the fact that 
can be explained with 
, 
with 
, and 
with 
—‘you are the chief of sinners’—opposes this.” We respond. Allusion and mystical explanation are one thing; solid and firm proof is another.
§ 116. (II) The second argument by which we prove that the work of creation is attributed to several persons rather than to one we take: (2) From the divine utterance. Gen. 1:26: “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” Where plural conversation partners are introduced, there a plurality of persons is being signified. But in the creation of man several speakers are introduced. For Elohim said, “ 
Let Us make man after Our image and likeness,” where: [a] the name Elohim is plural; [b] the verb 
is plural; [c] the pronoun “after Our image” is plural; [d] the verb 
is used in three different places23 to express a threesome. V. 27: “God created man after His own image; after the image of God created He him; male and female He created them.” Those several [conversation partners] with whom the conversation takes place are taken into the communion of the divine work of creation through the verb “let Us make” and the pronoun “Our.” Man is also said to be created after “their” image.
At this point I recount the unanimous agreement of the earliest teachers of the Church. Irenaeus, preface to bk. 4, p. 232: “Man was fashioned by the hands of God, that is, through the Son and the Holy Spirit, to whom He also said: ‘Let Us make man.’ ” C. 17 of the same book, p. 243:
The Son, who is the Word of God, was laying a foundation from the beginning, for the Father did not need the angels to make the creation and to shape man because of whom also the creation was made. Nor did He need a ministry to fashion those works that were according to man, but He had a rich and indescribable ministry. For He was ministered to for all His work by His offspring and form, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, whom all angels serve and to whom they all are subject.
C. 37, [p.] 66: “Near the Father are always the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Holy Spirit, through and in whom He freely and voluntarily made all things, and to whom He speaks, saying: ‘Let Us make man after Our image.’ ”
Justin, Dial. cum Tryph., p. 222:
Do not corrupt what we have said nor bring up those words that your rabbis cite, either that God spoke to Himself, “Let Us make”—just as when we are about to make something we often say to ourselves, “Let us make”—or that God spoke similarly to the elements, that is, to the earth and other things from which man was made, “Let Us make.” Again I shall cite other words that Moses published, from which we can certainly know beyond ambiguity that He spoke to someone who is another in number and is rational. Moreover, these words are “And God said: ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of Us.’ ”
The Council of Sirmium, in Socrates, bk. 2, c. 25; Tripart., bk. 5, c. 7: “If anyone says that the Father did not say ‘Let Us make man’ to the Son but that God spoke to Himself, let him be accursed.”
Hilary, De Trinit., bk. 5, p. 50: “God, who speaks, is speaking to God, and man is being created in the image of the Father and of the Son. The name does not disagree, the nature does not differ, for there is one species of image after which man was created. In the meantime, when truth was lost, there remained between the two both the fellowship of creation and the truth of the common image.”
Basil, Homily 10, Hexaëm.: “He said, ‘Let Us make,’ and did not say, ‘They made,’ so that you do not seize the opportunity for a multitude of gods. But He said, ‘Let Us make,’ so you might know the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God made man so that you would unify the Deity. However, do not unify the persons but their power.”
Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 16, c. 6: “Because ‘after Our image’ follows ‘Let Us make man,’ it is wrong to believe that man was made after the image of the angels or that the image of the angels and of God is the same. Therefore the plurality of the Trinity is correctly understood in that place. Yet because this Trinity is one God even when He said, ‘Let Us make [plural],’ He also said, ‘God made [singular] man after the image of God.’ He did not say, ‘Gods made [plural]’ or ‘after the image of Gods.’ ” We have cited a passage of Augustine (De fide ad Petrum) and of Theodoret (q. 19 on Genesis) in our article On the Three Elohim [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 4], § 7.
Alcuin, De Trinit., bk. 1, c. 3:
When He said “image” in the singular, He showed that there is one nature after whose image man was made. However, when He says “Our” in the plural, He shows that the Lord, after whose image man was made, is not one person. For if that one essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person, He would not have said “after Our image” but “after My image,” nor would He have said, “Let Us make,” but “Let Me make.” However, if in those three persons three substances were to be understood or believed, He would not have said “after Our image” but “after Our images.”
The Talmudists in Rabba Beresith write on this passage: “In the hour when God said to Moses, ‘Let Us make man,’ Moses said in His presence: ‘Lord of the world, why do You provide heretics with the opportunity to err?’ And God answered him: ‘Write, and let anyone who wants to err, err.’ ”
§ 117. (I) The Jews and Photinians make the exception that God addressed the powers in man (Rambam in More Nebuchim).
We respond. From this the consequence would be: (1) That there is the same archetype in God and in the powers of man and that man was created according to the image of his own powers, that is, after his own image. However, Moses declares the contrary: that man was created “after the image of God.” (2) That God has an associate in creation outside of and besides Himself because he came together as working [
] along with God in this work; therefore, that man effectively concurred in the creation of himself. (3) That those powers existed separately before the shaping of man, for otherwise God would not have been able to address them. However, Moses declares that man’s soul was created by breathing upon it and that it was breathed on by creating it (Gen. 2:7). (4) That the other passage (Gen. 3:22) would have to be explained in the same way: “Behold, Adam has been made like one of Us,” that is, like one of the powers of the soul. However, we should observe carefully that this rabbinic scholar was compelled by the force of the truth to acknowledge that a sense of plurality is concealed in these words.
§ 118. (II) That God speaks about Himself in the way that important people do, and, therefore, He used a formula of speaking. Socinus, Explicat. aliquot loc. Script., p. 69: “It has prevailed in perhaps every language that when someone exhorts himself, however alone he may be, to do something or when he decides to do something, if that concept should be expressed, he uses the plural number in the subjunctive mood (in Greek or Latin). For example, in Livy, bk. 39, when Hannibal is about to drink the poison, he says, ‘We shall free the Roman people from their long-standing worry.’ ”
We respond. (1) The Hebrew language is not to be judged on the basis of an expression of other languages. (2) The plural proves the ministry or support or foreknowledge of others, for no one, deliberating by himself his course of action, uses the plural, but he does use it when addressing others. (3) Examples of this rule should have been produced from the Scriptures rather than from secular authors. (4) It is not only the deliberation but also the execution of this work that is being described in the plural. (5) Let the same responses that we gave earlier to this argument be repeated here. In Holy Writ there are many sermons, addresses, and commands of God and of kings, all of which are formed in the singular.
§ 119. (III) That God spoke to the angels. We respond. (1) The verb “let Us make” must be understood to refer to Him who is the creator of man, because true divinity is demonstrated by the work of creation, since it is proper to God alone (Isa. 42:5; 45:18; 48:13; etc.). Yet angels were not the associates of God in the creation of man. Ambrose, Hexaem., bk. 6, c. 7: “Certainly He is not addressing Himself, because He does not say, ‘Let Me make,’ but ‘Let Us make’; nor the angels, because they are His servants—for servants cannot have an association of operation with the Lord nor our works with the Author. Instead, He is speaking to the Son, even if the Jews do not want this, even if the Arians find it repugnant,” etc. (2) The plural “let Us make” must be understood to refer to Him who put that plan into effect. But it was God alone, not the angels, who put it into effect. The Damascene says concerning the angels: “Being creations, they are not creators” (De orth. fid., bk. 2, c. 3). Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 12, c. 24: “It is not right to believe and to say that there is a creator of any nature, however insignificant and mortal, except God.” (3) The plural “let Us make” must be understood to refer to Him after whose image man was created. Yet man was created after the image not of angels but of God. Therefore.
§ 120. (IV) That God spoke to the four elements that He created first and then used to finish the works of the six days. We respond. The same arguments militate against this opinion, for we are not created after the image of elements nor did the elements take an active part in creation nor can that address befit the elements.
(V) That God sometimes addresses irrational creatures (Isa. 1:2). We respond. This happens, rather, to strike out at the minds of thankless men and to stir them to attention. (Luther, in his commentary [on Isa. 1:2], writes: “The prophet uses this figure to catch the attention of his hearers, as if to say, ‘No one is listening. Everyone is wicked and neglects the Word of God. Therefore let heaven and earth listen.’ Why this? Because the Lord, whose word deserves to be heard, is speaking.”) But what does this have to do with the historical description of creation that is evident from its own clear words? Are we to say that man was created after the image of animals? Are animals to be included as an efficient cause of creation in the fellowship of this work? God is not calling heaven and earth into the fellowship of the work but is simply saying, “Hear, O heaven and earth, I have reared up sons.”
(VI) That God shares His counsel with the angels. We respond from Isa. 40:12 and Rom. 11:34: “Who has been the counselor of the Lord?” From what source, then, do they prove that such consultation with the angels took place? They cite 1 Kings 22 and Job 1, but those examples do not apply: (1) In both of these there is clear mention of angels, but in the Isaiah passage there is none. (2) The angels there are assisting as ministers and attendants, not as associates in the divine work. (3) Man was created after the image of those with whom God consults, but this cannot be understood of the angels. (4) Moses by no means says that God addressed the angels but that the Elohim conferred among themselves.
§ 121. (III)24 We take the third foundation in favor of our opinion from the prophetic form of speaking. For as Moses says in the plural that “Elohim created heaven and earth” and that Elohim took counsel, as it were, before the creation of man, so the prophets “are bold to speak” (to use the apostle’s verb, Rom. 10:20); that is, with the boldness taken from Moses, they themselves also speak in the plural with reference to the one God, the Creator of heaven and of earth. Job 35:10: “And no one said: ‘Where is God, my Makers, who gives me songs [
]?’ ” Here two singulars (
and 
) are added to the plural noun 
, “makers,” to signify the plurality of persons and the unity of the divine essence. Some take this to mean a comparison of the various benefits: “Where is God who made me?” that is, who adorned and obtained such great benefits for me, as we read in 1 Sam. 12:6: “The Lord, who made Moses and Aaron,” that is, He made them great and famous. However, this is more accurately taken in particular for the benefit of creation because he adds “who gives songs in the night,” that is, as He guards and keeps me at night, He supplies me with the material for singing His praises, so that in this way the benefits of creation and preservation are connected. In his commentary, Mercier thinks “the plural number is used in reference to God for the sake of honor.” (We responded to this earlier.)
Ps. 149:2: “Let Israel be glad in its 
Makers; let the sons of Zion rejoice 
in their King.” Isa. 42:5: “Jehovah, who created [singular] the heavens and stretched [plural] them out.” Isa. 44:2: “Thus said Jehovah, 
your makers.” (The segol before the suffix indicates that this is plural. You see, though according to the grammatical rule all plurals have the letter 
suffixed to them as a mark of the plural, nevertheless some special words are exceptions that lose the 
, such as 
, “your feet,” Jer. 38:22.) But there is immediately added the singular 
, “your shaper.” (It is clear from the suffixed shewa that this is singular.) Isa. 54:5: “ 
Your Makers are your husbands; the Lord of hosts is His name, and your Holy One of Israel is the 
God of the whole earth.” Here there are two permutations of singular and plural. (Lyra adds the passage Eccl. 2:12: “What is man who is going to come after the king because they have already made him,” but this is taken more correctly as referring to Solomon than to God the Creator, as is clear from the context. For the meaning is that the successor can make or find no new works, but if he is going to do anything, he will do what his predecessor has already done.) But who will allow himself to be convinced that that connection of singulars and plurals in the naming of the Creator is totally devoid of all mystery?
[Specific proof.]
§ 122. (2)25 In particular, from those statements that attribute the work of creation to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and thus limit that plurality to the number of three persons. We shall set up two classes of these statements. The first includes those that expressly mention either three or two persons in the description of creation. The second contains those that add a distinct mention of one person, either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, for there never has been any doubt whether the work of creation belongs to the Father, the First Person.
These points are placed in the first class: (I) In the proper seat of this article, Genesis 1, not only does Moses speak about God the Creator in the plural, but he also applies that plurality to the three persons of the Godhead.
Let us pass over the fact that Origen and Rupert (in their commentaries on this passage), Augustine (De Genes. ad lit. imperf.), and others immediately refer the first words of Genesis (
) to the Son. Thus the Father is said to have created all things “in the beginning,” that is, in or through the Son, just as all things are said to have been created “through the Son” (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2) and “in the Son” (Col. 1:16). To this they apply the fact that the Second Person is the firstborn Son of God, who is generally called “the firstfruits (
) of strength” (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17); and that the Son of God is expressly called “the beginning” (Col. 1:18) and “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev. 3:14), not the material beginning but the effective beginning of creation; and that the Son testifies in Ps. 40:7 and Heb. 10:7 that it is written with reference to Himself “in the head, or beginning, of the book” and thus in the very word 
, “beginning.”
I say that we should pass over this. Because John 1:1 explains the word “beginning” as referring to the beginning and origin of the creation, it is obvious that Moses asserts that God created all things by “speaking” and that “the Spirit of Elohim brooded over the waters” and nurtured them. He first expresses the person of the Son and, second, the person of the Holy Spirit. For though the word 
, “He said,” repeated so many times in that chapter, denotes the order or command of God, as the Scholastics say, and the will of God extended into His work—and thus no harm is done to the uttered Word of God—Socinus presses this in vain when he says (Defens. animadv., p. 104): “The noun ‘word’ is attributed to the present and effective will of God in a meaning transferred from humans. Because humans endowed with power and authority who want something to be done generally express this with a word, therefore God is introduced as speaking when He wants something to be done, that is, to exist.” We do not completely disapprove of this, but we do concede that the words “He said” can be referred to God’s command. This is because: (1) Moses here is dealing with an account and describes history simply. (2) He not only reports in general that God spoke but also adds in particular whatever words God uttered, such as, “Let there be light,” “Let there be a firmament,” etc. (3) Because there is the same manner of speaking in the first days as in the last, or sixth, when God again is introduced, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image,” something that clearly must be understood as referring to the uttered counsel and word of God. (4) Because in other places Scripture explains the verb “say” in this way: “He said and it came to be; He commanded and it stood forth” (Ps. 33:9; cf. 2 Cor. 4:6). Nevertheless with the same verb “say,” the hypostatic and substantial Word is expressed, namely, the Son of God.
Therefore we cannot approve what Tossanus adds in his marginal note: “ ‘To say’ here is nothing else than the effective will and command of God.” But, in fact, along with the word of command, the substantial Word is denoted. This is evident: (1) From the infallible interpretation of John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him.” From this passage we draw this conclusion: The Word through which all things were made was in the beginning with God. Yet this is proper to a person who subsists. Therefore the Word, through which all things were made, is a person subsisting of Himself. (2) From the testimony of Solomon, who attributes to the Wisdom of God the same things that Moses attributes to the Word of God (Prov. 8:22ff.), regarding which argument we shall speak in greater detail a bit later. (3) From a consideration of the matter itself, because in that word of commanding or ordering there was the might of the Most High and the hypostatic Word of the Father, since the Father does not work without the Son (John 5:17). (4) From the explanation of the New Testament, which we explained in detail in our article On God the Father and His Eternal Son [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5], § 82, and in our article On Creation and Angels [Commonplace VIII], § 10. (5) From the agreement of the Aramaic paraphrase, for it was usual there for the Son of God, the promised Messiah, to be called by the name Memrah, which is taken from the word 
[“to say”].
§ 123. If all these things be observed properly, it is easy to respond to the arguments that Socinus raises in his Defens. animadv., p. 106ff., against our interpretation. (1) He makes the exception that “Vatablus explains ‘say’ as ‘order,’ ‘command,’ ‘will,’ ‘decree,’ ” etc. He could have added Flacius and Beza, who explain it in the same way in their annotations. But how does that injure our position?
(2) He makes the exception: “This command of God is similar to that which Christ used when He commanded the winds and the sea, saying, ‘Be still!’ (Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24), where there actually is nothing that understands the commands, takes them up, and executes them. Rather, everything is being said by personification and places a present and formed will before our eyes.”
We respond. Christ says: “The Father, who dwells in Me, does the works” (John 14:10). Therefore when Christ commands the wind and the sea, saying, “Be still!” the Father is not absent from Him but effects these things in and through Him by speaking or commanding, just as in the first creation He created the winds and the sea in and through the Son. Because the external works of God (as they say) are common to all three persons, therefore the Father does not address creatures apart from the Word nor does He do anything in His creatures without Him. And vice versa, the Word does not address creatures without the Father nor does He do anything in creatures without Him. Therefore we invert the argument. Whoever can command creatures with power and entirely divine authority has made them from the beginning. The Son can do this. Therefore.
(3) He makes the exception (p. 107):
It cannot happen that in those words “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ ” that the word “said” declares a Word subsisting of itself and flowing from God from eternity and necessarily, through which light was created. For if it declared this, that Word would undoubtedly be “saying” itself or that which is said. By no means can it be that which is said, unless we should wish the eternal Word of God to be the words “Let there be light” or “Let there be a firmament.” Similarly, it cannot be “saying” itself, otherwise the eternal Word of God now would exist and now would not exist. Nothing more absurd than this can be thought up, for it is clear from Moses’ account that God did not always speak but both began speaking and stopped speaking.
We respond. His enumeration is insufficient, for he omits the principal meaning by which the word is taken for the hypostatic Word that was in the uttered and external word of saying and commanding. In intelligent creatures the external word is not without the internal word; the external word requires the internal word as a prerequisite,26 the uttered word presupposes a conceived word. Who, then, will attribute to the absolutely wise Creator an external and uttered word without an internal and eternal one? Therefore though God said in time, “Let there be light,” and created all things by speaking, nevertheless He had the eternal and hypostatic Word joined with Him from eternity in the unity of essence, who was present in the external word “say” that was uttered in time.
(4) He makes the exception: “It is not enough to have made it very likely or even to have proved clearly that there is an eternal Word and also a Spirit without proving at the same time that this Word and Spirit are persons and that our Lord Jesus Christ is this Word.”
We respond. John 1, however, teaches this clearly, as we show in greater detail in its own place. Concerning the Holy Spirit, he says: “The Spirit of the Lord brooded over the waters” (v. 2). Cajetan takes this to refer “to the angel of God moving upon the waters, that is, whirling the first movement, by whose movement the waters and lower things were given life.” The rabbinic scholars understand it as “the wind.” Francisco Vallés understands it as elemental fire (Sacra Philosop., p. 28). (Luther, on Genesis, vol. 4, p. 4, explains it as referring to the wind, but he later changed his mind.) The Photinians, as also Calvin, understand it as the might of God; but our people understand it as the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Deity.
§ 124. (1) We confirm this last explanation: (1) From the name. He is called the “Spirit of Elohim,” of the Father and of the Son, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son, to which are related the other statements of Scripture that call the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of the Father” (Matt. 10:20), “the Spirit of the Son” (Gal. 4:6), “the Spirit of God” (Matt. 3:16), etc.
(2) We confirm it from His attribution. “The Spirit of the Lord 
hovered upon the waters,” 
, moved, stirred. Deut. 32:11 reads in the Syriac: “He rests upon the eggs; He fosters them in the fashion of birds; He embraces them with love and mercy.” (Basil, Hexaëm., Homily 2, at the beginning, says that he learned from a Syrian that the word used here means the same thing as “to foster with life-giving warmth, like a hen.”) “He hovered above with an effecting and constructing power in such a way that the thing over which He hovers is made, just as the will of a craftsman hovers over wood or anything else subject to him for working,” says Augustine (De Genes. ad lit., c. 4). Eucherius says (commentary on this passage): “It says the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters not by roaming about but by power, not locally but powerfully, not through the space of places the way the sun hovers over the earth but through the power of His loftiness.”
(3) We confirm it from His description. When “spirit” is used for “wind,” it signifies something forceful. The added phrase “of the Lord” declares the greatness of the thing, such as “the mountains of God” and “the cedars of God” (1 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 36:[6]; 65:[9]; 80:[10]; Jer. 2:31; Jon. 3:3). So a violent wind would be signified that could not have “brooded upon,” because it would be flying along with force. (See Wolfgang Capito on Genesis 1.)
(4) We confirm it from the use of the participle. Moses speaks about this Spirit with the Benoni participle [present tense] 
—stirring up or brooding over or one who stirs up or broods upon the face of the waters—something that indicates the person of the Holy Spirit.
(5) We confirm it from a consideration of time. Luther, Not.: “On that first day the wind did not yet exist. Therefore we cannot take this to refer to the wind.” Wind is the stirring of the air, but the air did not exist before the second day. And no wind would have had any function before the separation of the entire mass.
(6) We confirm it from a comparison with other passages of Scripture, in which the work of creation is attributed to the Holy Spirit (about which more later).
(7) We confirm it from the attribution of divine work. Moses is speaking about creation and the sustenance of the original mass. However, this does not befit a created power but God alone.
(8) We confirm it from the Aramaic paraphrase. The Targum Hierosolymitanum says: “ 
The Spirit of mercy or grace was breathing upon the face of the waters.”
(9) We confirm it from the agreement of interpreters. Burgensis notes that the earlier rabbinic scholars explained this passage as a clear reference to the Holy Spirit. This interpretation agrees with that of the Christian interpreters. See Origen (
., bk. 1, c. 5), Basil (Homily 2, Hexaëm., p. 35), Cyril (Contra Julian., bk. 1), Augustine (Conf., bk. 13, c. 4; De civ. Dei, bk. 8, c. 11), Ambrose (Hexaëm., bk. 1, c. 8). The Glossa Ordinaria, citing Jerome: “Merachepeth is ‘was brooding upon’ or ‘was fostering,’ in the fashion of a bird animating her eggs with her heat. From this it is understood that it is not speaking about a spirit of the world, as some think, but about the Holy Spirit, who is Himself the Giver of life to all things from the beginning. Moreover, if He is the Life-giver, He is consequently also the Creator. But if He is the Creator, He is also God.”
** Pererius, on Genesis 1, n. 60: “I want to explode the new and astonishing explanation of Cajetan, who understands ‘spirit’ metaphorically to mean the angels.” Sixtus of Sienna (bk. 5, Annot. 7, fol. 414) rebukes the same Cajetan for thinking contrary to the mind of the saints, contrary to the decrees of the popes, and contrary to the authority of the Church. **
§ 125. Goslavius makes the exception (Contra Keckerm., p. 82): (1) “We rather conclude the opposite from the passage, for what belongs to something is not that very thing to whom it belongs, properly speaking. However, the Holy Spirit is called ‘the Spirit of God’ and ‘the Spirit of the Lord.’ Therefore He is not God.”
We respond. (a) The “Spirit Elohim” can also be taken by apposition to be “the Spirit, Lord” because “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17). (b) The word “God” sometimes is taken essentially, sometimes personally. The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of God,” that is, of the Father and of the Son, because He is “of God” (1 Cor. 2:12), proceeding from the Father and the Son from eternity and sent by them in time. He is also the “Spirit, God,” who by the unity of essence is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. It is the same argument as if someone should wish to say: “Christ is called the Son of Man; therefore He is not man.” Here we should note that according to the theological rule the genitive in sacred matters sometimes indicates a different substance when the matters are definite and sometimes signifies another person when the subject is indefinite. An example of the former is when it is called “the wind of the Lord”; of the latter, when it is called “[the] Spirit of [the] Lord.”27 (c) What belongs to something as a part of it, that is not that very thing. However, the Holy Spirit is not a part of God or of the divine essence because that essence is one in number, infinite, utterly simple, and indivisible, wholly in the Father, wholly in the Son, wholly in the Holy Spirit.
§ 126. (2) He makes the exception: “He is not speaking directly about the Holy Spirit because He is called the ‘Spirit of Elohim,’ for not every spirit is immediately the Holy Spirit.”
We respond. Let the foundations for our position be repeated and let a sufficient enumeration of other interpretations less in harmony with the text be established. It has already been demonstrated that this cannot be understood as “wind.” Cajetan understands it as “the angel who is the mover.” Yet it is uncertain whether the angels already had been created at that time before the light, and that original mass sustained by God Himself did not need such a mover. Vallés takes it as the element of fire, but fire should not be considered so much the preserver as the destroyer of nature, and, moreover, elementary fire had not yet been created. Some explain it as referring to air, but that did not yet exist before the 
[“firmament”] was created on the second day.
(3) Socinus, Defens. animadv., p. 110: “This was the might and power of God, not a subsisting person.” We respond. A distinct action is attributed to Him. He is carefully called “the Spirit of the mouth of the Lord” (Ps. 33:6), and in the creation of the universe, God did not need an instrumental power.
§ 127. So much for the points concerning our argument from Genesis 1. Now, as a conclusion, the observation of the ancients can be mentioned, which the blessed Luther recounts in his explanation of Genesis 1. He says:
The holy fathers, especially Augustine (De civit., bk. 11, c. 24), observe that Moses uses these three words: “God said,” “made,” and “saw,” as if he wanted to show in this way three persons of the Godhead. With the word “says,” the Father is signified, who begets the Son, the Word, from eternity and in time established this world through that Word. They apply the word “made” to the person of the Son, for the Son bears in Himself the model not only of the divine majesty but also is the model of all things. Therefore He gives being to things, and just as things are said to be of the Father, so all things subsist through the Son, the Word of the Father. And to them is connected the Third Person, the Holy Spirit, who “sees” and approves of the things that have been created.
[From Psalm 33:6.]
§ 128. (II) Ps. 33:6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made and all their host by the Spirit [breath] of His mouth.” In this statement clear mention is made of three persons, and the work of creation is attributed to each and every one. In his commentary and in the Instit. (bk. 1, c. 13, fol. 15), Calvin rejects this argument, and Socinus stands in his footsteps when he says (Defens. animadv., p. 103): “The word of God by which the heavens were made is nothing other than the formed will of God, not something subsisting in God Himself.” p. 110: “ ‘The Spirit of His mouth’ signifies the same thing as the word or it signifies something else—the might and power of God—but not anything subsisting by itself.”
** (Cajetan also denies that Ps. 33:6 should be understood to refer to the Holy Spirit, but Ambrosius Catharinus, bishop of Conza, reprimands him, according to Sixtus of Sienna, Biblioth., bk. 5, n. 168.) **
We respond. (1) The arguments we adduced earlier show that “word” means the Son of God. Also John proves this clearly when he gives the name “Word” to the Son. What Socinus adds—“The Son is called the ‘Word’ because He has revealed to us the will of God, just as through the word of man, that is, through his discourse, his will is known” (p. 104)—is indeed true, but incomplete. For the Son of God was the Word at the first creation of all things and, indeed, from eternity. The force of the truth compelled Socinus to write: “We have not denied that when John called Christ ‘discourse’ or ‘the Word’ that he also could have been considering the fact that it is written in Ps. 33:6 that the heavens were made by the word of God” (p. 105). Yet if Christ is called the Word from this passage because the heavens were made by Him, surely He is called this not only by reason of the manifestation of the divine will but also because all things were created through this Word. (Socinus objects, p. 106: “He is called the ‘Word’ not because the heavens and earth were made through Christ but because the new heavens and the new earth that God once foretold through Isaiah that He would make were created through Him. John could have freely named Him, through whom the new world was made, with the same name by which that was called through which, as we read, the old world was created.” However, anyone sees that this is a violent gloss, for neither the psalmist nor John is speaking about the new creation still to be awaited in eternal life but about the first creation of all things that had already occurred.)
(2) Because “Spirit” is distinguished from “Word,” therefore it is not likely that one and the same person is to be understood by both names.
(3) He is famously called “the Breath of the mouth of the Lord,” clearly because He is breathed eternally by the Father and the Son from the inmost mouth of the divine essence.
(4) Compare the other statements of Scripture that separately attribute the work of creation to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
(5) If “the host of heaven being made by the Spirit of God” has this meaning: that all things were made by the power and might of God, then surely “the heavens being made by the Word of God” will have the same meaning, because Socinus claims that these names are equivalent. He clearly denies the latter, however, for he writes:
Eutropius, and those who believe as he does, have been deceived by a disgraceful fallacy of a figure of speech when they take those words “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made” as if the phrase “by the word” were used in the same sense as, for example, the expression “by the power of the Lord were the heavens made,” namely, to signify a mediate efficient cause, but not in effecting a manner or mode as it undoubtedly does signify. Indeed, God merely decreed that the heavens be made and they were made, clearly not by that decree as a mediate efficient cause but by the Lord’s might and power, which was the mediate efficient cause.
(6) The more ancient rabbinic scholars themselves here acknowledge the mystery of the Trinity, according to Galatino (De arc., bk. 2, c. 4). In Rabbi Moses Hadarsan’s commentary on the Book of Genesis, on the passage of c. 42 “Joseph himself was powerful upon the earth,” we read that Rabbi Eleazar said: “The world was not created except by the word of the holy and blessed God, as it says in Psalm 33: ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made.’ Here Rabbi Simeon also says: ‘The Lord breathed the Spirit of His mouth, and the world was created,’ as it says in Psalm 33: ‘and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth.’ ” Here these three—God, His Word, and His Spirit—are distinctly given as having concurred in the production of the world.
The work of creation is attributed to the Son of God.
§ 129. To the second class pertain the statements that deal distinctly with (1) the Son and (2) the Holy Spirit and attribute to both the work of creation. Concerning the Son, these are found in: (I) Prov. 8:22. To the Wisdom of God are attributed (1) eternity, (2) the work of creation, (3) filiation, (4) personal subsistence, (5) distinction from the Father.
, “The Lord possessed or acquired Me.” Among other things, 
means to acquire by begetting (Gen. 4:2). See also Zech. 13:5, where the Septuagint translators rendered it 
[“begot Me”]. The Aramaic rendered Prov. 8:22 
; the Septuagint, 
, “created.” Because of this, Arius called Christ a 
[“creature”]. To the Chaldeans, however, 
also refers to being born (Job 3:3); and among the Greeks, 
, and Aquila, 
, had to be read for 
, in which way they translated it elsewhere.
, “The beginning of His way.” Aben Ezra renders this as “the beginning of His intent” because it is quite clear that this Wisdom is as old as God’s eternal decrees. Mercier explains it as “from all eternity.” We proceed like this: The “way” of God is the work of God and is used in particular in reference to the work of creation (Deut. 32:4; Job 40:[19]; Isa. 55:8; Rom. 11:33). Therefore “Wisdom,” or the Son of God, is called “the beginning of the way of the Lord,” that is, of creation—not the material beginning (in which sense it is used in Job 40:[19]), but the effective beginning, as is understood from what follows. In this sense the Son is also said in the New Testament to be “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev. 3:14), the one from whom every creature has its beginning. On the other hand, if you should wish to connect this with the preceding verses, there will be an ellipsis of the preposition 
[“in”]: “The Lord possesses Me in the beginning of His way,” that is, when He began to create all things in the beginning of time. In this way these words of Solomon will agree precisely with the words of John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God . … All things were made through Him.”
, “Before His works from then.” The Hebrew lacks the prefix 
[“in”]: “in the beforeness of His works,” that is, before He worked or created the world, as is understood from what follows; “from then,” that is, then already or before any time, I was. Aquila has 
[“He created Me from the beginning of His works”]. Theodotion has 
[“before His working from then”]. In Ps. 93:2 
[“from then”] is explained as 
, “from eternity” (just as is immediately added in this passage).
Prov. 8:23: 
, “From the age (or before the age, that is, from eternity), I had my beginning (with regard to the verb “I was enjoined” or “I was poured out”: namely, to be king and governor, because kings used to be anointed with oil), from the head (that is, from the beginning or before the beginning of the world or of created things, before the origin of the earth), from the beforeness of the earth (that is, before the earth was created, as is explained in what follows).”
Prov. 8:24: 
, “in not depths.” Add an understood 
, “when the depths did not yet exist,” “there were still no depths.” 
, “I had been begotten, born (the root is 
, “conceived, bore,” Ps. 51:[5]), when the fountains were not yet heavy” or full, abounding “with waters.” (See also Prov. 8:25–29.)
By a remarkable elaboration and wonderful abundance of verbiage, Wisdom teaches that it existed before the creation of the world. Then v. 30 adds: 
“I was beside Him, a workman.” Septuagint: 
[“fit together” or “betrothed” or “in tune”]. Aquila: 
[“nursing”]. Symmachus and Theodotion: 
[“standing”]. Targum: 
, “faithful.” Mercier explains this as a passive, “nursling,” and it is used in this way in the plural in Lam. 4:5. Rabbi Salomon: “I was educated with Him,” beside Him. Vulgate: artifex, “a master craftsman” who puts together all things. Rabbi Levi takes it as active, a nursing “wet nurse” who nourishes, directs, and governs all things. Aben Ezra takes it substantively: 
, that is, 
, “for nourishment.” (Cf. Esther 2:20.) The root is 
, “was established, firm,” and from it we get 
, “craftsman,” one excelling in his art. (See Jer. 46:25, where it is used for “master craftsman.”) And from it we also get 
, “nourisher” or “foster father.” Therefore note that here a personal distinction is being expressed, just as in John 1:1: “The Word was with God.” “And I was His daily delight, playing before Him always.”
V. 31: “I was playing in His world, and My delights were with the sons of men.” (Just as playing children are the joys of their parents, so Wisdom, or the Son of God, is the delight of the heavenly Father. He also plays in the world by admiring its works and effects, and His delights are with the sons of men from whom He even assumed His human nature in the fullness of time.)
With this passage of Proverbs 8 I also compare the other passages of Scripture in which creation is attributed to the Wisdom of God. Prov. 3:19–20: “The Lord founded the earth in Wisdom; in understanding He established the heavens. Through His Wisdom the abysses were divided and the clouds drop down the dew.” Ps. 104:24: “You have made all things in Wisdom.” Jer. 10:12: “It is God who established the world in His Wisdom and in His prudence stretched out the heavens.” Jer. 51:15: “He established the world in His Wisdom and in His prudence stretched out the heavens.” Wisdom 9:2: “By Your Wisdom You have formed man.” It is clear that this Wisdom is the hypostatic Second Person of the Deity, the Son of God. This is clear not only from the New Testament (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35; 11:49; 1 Cor. 1:24; Col. 2:3) but also from Proverbs 8, where He is set forth to us as a person distinct from the Father before the creation of the world, that is, as begotten by Him from eternity, as well as from Ps. 2:7 and Prov. 30:4, where this Wisdom is called “the Son of God.”
§ 130. Socinus makes the following exceptions in Animadv. ad assert. 2., p. 33, and in Defens. animadv. c. 7, p. 204: (1) “The wisdom about which Solomon speaks is never called ‘the wisdom of God’ but simply ‘wisdom.’ But Christ is called ‘the Wisdom of God.’ ” We respond. This is an empty deception. The things predicated to it by Solomon do not befit a created wisdom but the uncreated and divine Wisdom. The Wisdom begotten by God is indeed the Wisdom of God. But Solomon is speaking of the Wisdom begotten of God. Therefore. The very force of the reference “God established the earth in His own Wisdom” shows clearly that none of this can be understood as referring to anything but the Wisdom of God.
(2) He makes the exception: “He had said in v. 15 that through the same wisdom kings rule and princes decree their justice. Therefore he is not speaking about any wisdom proper to God.” We respond by inverting the argument. The cause is not lower than its effect. But kings and princes rule as subsisting persons through this Wisdom. Therefore it, too, is a person subsisting of Himself. However, we must note that kings are said to reign through this Wisdom not formally but efficiently; therefore it is not speaking of that wisdom which is a quality or disposition in the minds of kings but the uncreated Wisdom that effects that quality which distributes and orders kingdoms. Solomon says entirely the same thing as does Daniel (2:20–21): “To God belong wisdom and might. … He removes kings and makes kings to stand; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who understand discipline”; and the same as the apostle says in Rom. 13:1: “There is no power except from God”; and Sirach 1:1: “All wisdom is from the Lord and is with Him forever.” Nor is it free of mystery that the uncreated, hypostatic Wisdom of God attributes to Himself the establishment and preservation of empires, because for the sake of the Son, the Mediator, who is that Wisdom, not only spiritual and eternal benefits but also temporal and corporeal ones have been given to the human race. Among those benefits an important one is the constitution and conservation of civil powers.
(3) He makes the exception: “Whoever does not see that Solomon is speaking by personification about wisdom in general and in the abstract, which can by no means be Christ, is reading with far too little attention what is written in this and in the following chapters.” We respond. On the contrary. By trying to understand, our adversaries cause themselves to understand nothing. Solomon attributes to this Wisdom the work of creation, eternity, personality, and birth from God, as we have shown, all of which taken together can befit no one but the Son of the eternal Father. (a) Wisdom ascribes to itself “counsel, strength, and prudence” (v. 14), and these are properties that befit a rational hypostasis. (b) It says, 
, “I have existence” (v. 14). (c) It says, “I love those who love Me” (v. 17). (d) It is said to have been “conceived, begotten, born” (v. 24). However, this is proper to a hypostasis (Ps. 51:[5]; Job 45, etc.). (e) It says, 
, “I was there” (v. 27). (f) It says, “I was playing before the Lord in the world and My delights were in the sons of men” (v. 31). Who does not acknowledge that these are attributes of something subsisting of itself or of a person? Socinus has not yet proved that this must be acknowledged as a personification. He says that the aim and sense of Solomon’s words is that “the Lord made all things wisely.” He is, indeed, speaking the truth, but it is not enough, for this Wisdom is not said to have first worked in the work of creation but that it existed even before the work of creation, certainly beside God, because before creation there was nothing except God. Justin says: “There would be no middle between the Divinity and creation” (
, p. 304).
(4) He makes the exception: “Because that Wisdom about which Solomon is speaking is in God and is of His nature and essence, it will follow that God has, besides His own person, also another person, and this is not only absurd but clearly impossible, for it implies an obvious contradiction. You see, the person that someone has is completely the person of the one who has it. However, if he has it outside his own person, it is no longer the person of himself.” We respond. The word “God” is taken either personally or essentially. If the word “God” is taken personally, we deny that God, that is, one person of the Trinity, has another person outside His own person. If it is taken essentially, surely the Deity or the divine essence has plural persons, that is, it is common to several persons—that is, three. Or, to say the same thing: in the one divine essence there are plural persons. This implies no contradiction except in the judgment of a corrupt reason, which least of all possesses a critical authority with regard to these mysteries.
The heretic objects (Defens. animadv., p. 205): “Anyone at all can deny boldly that by the word ‘God’ one of the persons of the Divinity—namely, the Father—is understood, because in it there are three beggings of the question: that there are plural persons of the Trinity, that only one of these can be understood by the simple and absolute word ‘God,’ and finally that here a certain one of them—the Father—must certainly be understood.” But God will one day restrain this bold denial with the fires of hell. From the word “God,” taken personally, we cannot and should not understand one person of the Trinity because the deity is perfect in each person, since it is infinite and utterly simple—for the three persons are not three parts of the deity nor is the deity divided part by part into persons. Rather, the deity is whole in each person and whole in all.
(5) He makes the exception (Defens. animadv., p. 216): “If Solomon were speaking about a true person, it would be necessary that this person have been made known already at that time to all people, which is false.” We respond. The same person who is called in the Aramaic translation of the Bible Memrah, who is called in the Hebrew codex “the Son of God,” “the Angel of His face,” “the promised Messiah,” etc., in this passage is called “the Wisdom of God.” But now the people of Israel knew that Memrah, the Son of God, the Angel of His face, the promised Messiah, is a person distinct from God the Father.
(6) He makes the exception (ibid.): “Solomon names not only wisdom but also along with it quite often prudence or intelligence, or even prudence and intelligence separately, as persons.” We respond. On the contrary, when he speaks about the hypostatic Wisdom of God, the Creator of all things, he uses only the word “wisdom.” And even if he were to use the word “understanding,” just as 
[“wisdom”] and 
[“understanding”] are joined in other passages of Scripture in reference to the description of creation, one can without any absurdity take the former to mean the hypostatic Wisdom of God, who is the Son, and the latter to mean the essential wisdom, which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(7) He makes the exception (p. 218): “Solomon speaks about wisdom in the plural, 
(Prov. 9:1), and by way of antithesis introduces a foolish woman. That is, he makes foolishness and stupidity speak by personification.” We respond. We admit that Solomon mentions some things about human wisdom, which is the effect and gift of the divine, uncreated, and hypostatic Wisdom that he discusses in c. 8. However, from this it cannot be inferred that he is not discussing hypostatic Wisdom in the passage cited, for what would prohibit anyone from progressing from cause to effect and from effect to cause in the treatment? From these it is also clear what we should respond to the arguments that Socinus brings out from Sirach 1 and 24. We are quite willing to admit that Sirach is discussing a created wisdom there. Meanwhile, it should not be denied that there is an uncreated Wisdom, unless we want to strip God of His eternal Wisdom.
§ 131.28 (II) As God is said to have created all things “in wisdom” or through wisdom, so also He is said to have done this through “His might and power.” Job 26:12: “In His power He divided the sea; in His understanding He broke its strength.” Jer. 10:12: “God made the earth in His power.” Jer. 32:17: “Ah, Lord Jehovah! Behold, You have made heaven and earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm.” Jer. 51:15: “He made the earth in His strength.” However, it is clear that this can and should be understood to refer to the hypostatic Might of God, which is the Son. This is clear not only from the New Testament (Luke 1:[35]; 1 Cor. 1:24) but also from the Old because the Messiah—the Son of God, the Wisdom and Might of God—is called “the arm of Jehovah” (Isa. 52:10; 53:1; 63:5; etc.).
(III) It is asserted that God made all things through His Word not only in the New Testament (John 1:3; Heb. 1:3) but also in the Old. Wisdom 9:[1]: “O Lord, who created all things through Your Word.” But that Word is the Son of God.
(IV) Isa. 44:24: “I am the Lord, who made all things alone, who shaped the earth 
from with Me,” through Him who is with Me, that is, through the Son, through the Wisdom, which is “next to Me” (Prov. 8:30); through Him who is “the man that is My fellow” (Zech. [13]:7). Targum Jonathan paraphrases this passage as follows: “I the Lord, the Creator of all things, have stretched out the heavens by My word (or through My word), I have established the earth in My might or strength.” But if we would add here a comparison of the Old and New Testaments, it will be very obvious that the work of creation must be attributed to the Son. Compare Exod. 3:2 and 20:11 with 1 Cor. 10:9; Ps. 102:[25] with Heb. 1:11; Isa. 45:23 with Rom. 14:11; Ps. 97:8 and Heb. 1:6 with Rev. 14:7; Isa. 48:12–13 with Rev. 1:[8].
The work of creation is attributed to the Holy Spirit.
§ 132. The following passages deal with the Holy Spirit: (I) Job 26:13:
“In His Spirit the beauty of heaven” or “His Spirit adorned the heavens.” Some take this to mean the wind that brings the serenity of the sky, but the circumstances of the text show that it is speaking about the Holy Spirit, the Creator. For v. 12 precedes: “In His power He divided the sea; in His understanding He broke its might.” And v. 13 follows: “His hand created the serpent.” Mercier, on this passage: “I prefer to take this to refer to the nourishing Spirit of God by whom God makes all things.” For as David says in Ps. 33:6, “By the Spirit of the mouth of the Lord all the host of the heavens were made,” so here Job says, “The Spirit of the Lord adorned (or embellished) the heavens.” He was not content simply with creating them but also adorned them with the marvelous and varied ornamentation of stars and constellations. Rabbi Levi and others take 
[“beauty”] as a noun of the form 
(“discourse”): “By His Spirit the heavens are beauty,” that is, the heavens were adorned with beauty and elegance so that nothing more absolute or greater can be desired.
(II) Job 33:4: “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” Both creation and preservation are attributed to the Spirit of God, for Elihu says that he was made by God and also preserved by God, just as the apostle declares: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Therefore it also should not seem strange if he is endowed with “the Spirit of understanding.”
(III) Ps. 104:30: “When You send forth Your Spirit they are created, and You renew the face of the ground.”
** (Cajetan says that this passage does not speak of the Holy Spirit, and because of this Bishop Ambrosius Catharinus of Conza reprimands him, according to Sixtus of Sienna in bk. 5, Annot. 196.) **
Just as the Holy Spirit in the first creation was effective in fostering the waters and brooding over them, so also in the preservation of created things He acts effectively with the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit renews the face of the earth not only with the annual renewal with which all things begin to turn green and produce foliage in the springtime after they had become dead during the winter but also with a daily renewal by which other things are born every day to preserve the species. These newborn things again take the place of those that have been subjected to death and destruction. He renews the face of the earth not only externally and corporeally in the way just explained but also internally and spiritually because He illumines, regenerates, and renews the hearts of men; takes them out of the darkness of error and ignorance; and places them in the light of the saving knowledge of God. It should not disturb anyone that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent, as if that would conflict with His consubstantiality and equality with the Father, because just as being sent does not remove His nature, so also it does not take away His consubstantiality. A ray of the sun is sent to the earth in such a way that it is not separated from the sun. In the same way the Holy Spirit is sent to renew the face of the earth but is not, as a consequence, separated from Him who sends.
(IV) Isa. 40:12–13: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand? … Who has instructed the Spirit of the Lord?” Here he is speaking about the one by whom the work of creation was done.
(V) Isa. 57:16: 
, “The Spirit that is from My face will clothe, and the souls I have made.” 
means “was wrapped, covered with,” and metaphorically “was covered with miseries and afflictions; suffered the failure of life [animi].” It is taken in this latter sense in Ps. 61:[2] and 102:[2]. Therefore Piscator renders it in this way: “I shall not contend forever, for their spirit will fall into failure from My sight, and their souls that I have made,” so that there is an ellipsis of 
, with reference to which it is taken as referring to the human, created spirit. Vatablus: “The spirit of man whom I have created has put on” (namely, a body). “That is, it has been sent into a body. I have surrounded the spirit with body,” as if to say: I have created human beings. I know they are flesh, etc. But it is more correct to take this as a reference to the divine Spirit, so that it is the sweetest comfort set against the temptations of the devout concerning the greatness of divine wrath, and it is a Gospel promise about the giving of the Holy Spirit. “I shall not always be angry, but the Spirit from My face will cover, and I shall make the breath or breathing (Hebrew: 
),” that is: I shall send the Holy Spirit, who will overshadow the apostles and will breathe on others who believe in Me. In this way, He will refresh consciences that are afflicted by the heat of temptations and are failing, just as the Etesian winds refresh man in summer. The Septuagint has rendered it 
[“will come forth”]. Vulgate: egredietur [“will come forth”]. Luther: Es soll von meinem Angesicht ein Geist weben [“A spirit shall blow from My face”]. This is taken to refer to the Spirit by Irenaeus (bk. 5, c. 12), Tertullian (De anima, c. 11), Jerome (in his commentary), etc.
(VI) Wisdom [11:26–]12:1: “O Lord, the Lover of souls, Your immortal Spirit is in all things.” As God made all things with His Word and Spirit, so also He rules and preserves all things with His Word and Spirit. Therefore the immortal Spirit of God is in all things not formally but effectively as Creator, Preserver, and Sustainer.
§ 133. Socinus makes the exception: “Nowhere do the Scriptures clearly attribute to the Holy Spirit that He creates anything. Rather, things are said to have been created by or through the Spirit of God as through an instrument. Job 33:4 (he says) does not have ‘the Spirit of the Lord has created Me’ but ‘has made Me.’ Nor must we immediately take it to mean the Holy Spirit wherever the Spirit of God is mentioned” (Refut. Bellarm. et Wieck., p. 494). We respond. (1) Ps. 33:6 says: “By the Spirit of the mouth of the Lord all the host of the heavens was created.” And Job 26:13 asserts: “God adorned the heavens in His Spirit.” These cannot be taken to mean anyone other than the eternal and uncreated Spirit of God nor anything other than the work of creation, as Socinus himself acknowledges (Defens. animadv., p. 110). Consequently, he explains this as a reference to the might and power of God.
(2) It is clear from other passages of Scripture that this Spirit is a person distinct from the Father. In fact, in these passages He is called “the Spirit of the Lord” and “the Breath of the Almighty.” Surely, then, He is distinguished from the Lord and from the Almighty, from Father and the Son. He is said to be sent by the Father and to proceed from His face. Surely, then, He is a person different from Him who sends.
(3) It is clear that God did not use the Holy Spirit as an instrument in the work of creation. This is clear because not only are all things said to have been created, in an oblique case, “in the Spirit” or “through the Spirit,” but also even in the nominative case the Spirit is said to have made all things. For example, in Job 33:4 it is obvious from the context that Job is speaking only about the mediate formation and creation of himself.
(4) The Photinians themselves say that “the Spirit is the might and power of God.” But now an instrument is not the essential might and power of the one acting but is something distinct from the principal agent. If someone says, “The soul acts through its own faculties as through instruments,” he will first have to prove that the faculties act instrumentally as something really distinct from the soul. And even if this were to occur in created things in such a way that powers to act, added to substances, acted in the manner of an instrument, we still could not apply this to God, the uncreated being, in whom the power to act is not something added to His essence but is His essence itself.
(5) The prepositions “through” and “in” as used concerning the persons of the Trinity do not indicate an instrument because they are used even to refer to the Father in 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 6:4; Heb. 2:10. The Photinians do not acknowledge that in Rom. 11:36 the prepositions “from,” “through,” and “into” pertain to the order and distinction of the persons of the Godhead. Therefore they are compelled to take all of them to refer to God.
(6) The word 
is used several times to refer to creation. Passing over the other passages, we draw our testimony from the proper seat [sedes] of this article, Gen. 1:[31]: “God saw everything that He had made (Hebrew: 
), and behold it was very good.” Gen. 2:2: “On the seventh day God finished the work that He had made (Hebrew: 
), and He rested from all His work that He had made (Hebrew: 
).”
22 “
distribution, is when something whole is explained more broadly by separating it into parts (either properly or analogously)” (Salomon Glassius, Philologia Sacra [Leipzig: Gle-ditsch, 1743; 1st ed., 1623–36], col. 2049). Glassius gives Isa. 24:1–3 and Ezek. 36:4 as examples.
23 Reading vicibus for vocibus.
24 Gerhard here continues the argument from § 116.
25 Gerhard is here continuing the argument from § 111.
26 Yet Gerhard’s text here reads: “
praerequirit 
”
27 As is usual in Latin but unusual in English, the words “Spirit” and “Lord” here do not have definite articles. This corresponds exactly to the Hebrew grammatical rule that Gerhard describes. At Gen. 1:2, in the phrase “Spirit of God,” both nouns lack definite articles and thus, according to this rule, this signifies another person, not a different substance.
28 Cotta repeats “§ 130” for this paragraph and continues with an enumeration one less than Preuss until § 154.