This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]On: 31 October 2014, At: 03:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studia Theologica - NordicJournal of TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sthe20

Luther's Trinitarian Theology andits Medieval BackgroundSimo Knuuttila & Risto SaarinenPublished online: 06 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Simo Knuuttila & Risto Saarinen (1999) Luther's Trinitarian Theologyand its Medieval Background, Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology, 53:1, 3-12,DOI: 10.1080/00393389950136975

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393389950136975

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-

licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Luther's Trinitarian Theology and itsMedieval Background

Simo Knuuttila and Risto Saarinen

One of the most widely accepted paradigms of historical theology is thethesis, put forward by TheÂodore de ReÂgnon a hundred years ago, that inWestern medieval theology, as distinct from the more CappadocianEastern tradition, the Augustinian conception of the unity of Goddominated to the extent that the doctrine of the Trinitarian personsremained in the background and was reduced to abstract discussionsabout the relations between the divine properties.1 We shall argue thatthis is an oversimpli®cation of historical fact and that one should not relyupon it in making comparisons between different theological traditionsor in tracing continuation and innovation in medieval and early moderntheology.2

The Semantics of Trinity

In his letter to Abelard, Roscelin explained his ideas about the Trinity asfollows. Different names signify the divine substance itself in the HolyTrinity. We do not therefore refer by the word `person' to anything otherthan what is referred to by the word `substance'.3 If this was Roscelin'sview, how was it possible that his theory was condemned as a form oftritheism at the local synod of Soissons (1092)? Roscelin apparentlythought that the three persons are three things (tres res), even though thedivine substance itself is indivisible. Anselm of Canterbury and someother contemporaries understood Roscelin's formulations to mean thatthe persons were heretically taken to be three Gods. This was probably amisunderstanding.4

Other texts from the same period make use of the expression `threethings' without substantiating Anselm's accusations. In an anonymoustext from the 11th century it is argued that the persons should bedescribed as `three things' without any further clari®cation, because the

Studia Theologica 53 (1999), pp. 3±12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Trinity consists neither of substances nor of parts of a substance nor ofanything else described by categorical de®nitions. This plurality cannotbe explained naturally, because these alternatives exhaust the possibi-lities of natural explanation.5 The opposite relations are not mentionedhere, probably for the reason that in natural language they alsopresuppose really distinct subjects. In the 11th century the relationshipbetween the unity and singularity of the divine essence and the pluralityof the distinct persons was held to be the dif®cult basic problem ofTrinitarian theology.

Abelard, who for a short time studied under Roscelin and who took avery critical view of him, did not wish to fall victim to the same kinds ofdif®culty as his teacher had done. Abelard's theory of the persons asspecial divine attributes was in turn condemned at the synod of Soissons(in 1121) as a Sabellianist heresy. The synod judged the persons inAbelard's formulations to be insuf®ciently separated from one another.At the same time, his theory was also judged to be a form of ArianTrinitarian subordinationism. Both accusations were again raisedagainst Abelard's theology at the synod of Sens (1140).6 It is unlikelythat any seriously considered theory could incorporate both theseopposed heresies, but because of the tensions inherent in the traditionalCredal af®rmations it was easy to render theological formulationssuspect. Abelard's theology was condemned, but his remarks on thelogic of utterances and on conceptual analysis in¯uenced subsequentdevelopment more than the views of his critics.Typical of Abelard's Trinitarian theology is the central role of the

tripartite complex Omnipotence ± Wisdom ± Goodness. These mutuallycompatible fundamental properties describe the Holy Trinity by way ofthe modes in which they are appropriate to the persons. The Father isdistinguished from the other persons through His having no origin. TheSon as Wisdom is eternally generated from the Father as Omnipotence.The Holy Spirit as Goodness and Love proceeds from the Father and theSon.7 Abelard's followers, especially Robert of Melun, tried to formulatethe difference between the essential attributes and the qualitiesconstituting the persons, which had remained somewhat imprecise inthe thought of their master. This was the beginning of an extensivediscussion concerning the distinctions between Trinitarian relations,proprieties and appropriations.8

Gilbert of Poitiers also ran into trouble with the church authoritiesbecause of his doctrine of Divinity. As in the process against Abelard,Bernard of Clairvaux was active in the case raised against Gilbert in1148. The personal terms favoured by Gilbert were paternitas, ®liatio andconnexio. To save the coherence of the Trinity, Gilbert characterized these

4 Simo Knuuttila and Risto Saarinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

relations as external aspects.9 Because the persons are different from oneanother, they apparently should also differ from the divine essence.There is no real distinction between quod est and quo est in God;nevertheless, some kind of difference between deus and divinitas, as wellas natura and persona, has to be postulated.10 Even though Gilbert'sformulations came to be rejected, they continued to shape laterdiscussions. Like Abelard, Gilbert described the Trinity as a mystery;theological distinctions were serviceable for the purpose of under-standing the revelational language of Christian doctrine in differingfrom the way we speak about natural things.11

More than any other thinker of the 12th century, Abelard concernedhimself with the logic of the concepts of identity and difference in hisTrinitarian studies.12 His ideas pertaining to this matter exerted far-reaching in¯uence on later authors. This is shown by the popularity ofsuch distinctions as for example identitas naturae versus identitasproprietatis, identitas essentiae versus identitas personae, idem qui versusidem quod, or the Augustinian alius versus aliud.13 These conceptualde®nitions also in¯uenced the Sententiae of Peter Lombard and the well-known formulation of the fourth Lateran Council concerning theidentity of the persons with the essence and mutual personal non-identity.14

The discussion about terminological distinctions continued until thetime of the Reformation. In the 14th century, the achievements weresystematized in the semantic and logical rules for Trinitarian proposi-tions, detailed collections of which can be found in several commen-taries on the Sentences.15 The purpose of these collections was to showhow it is possible to speak of God in a way that avoids contradiction. Therules were constructed in accordance with contemporary logical andsemantic theory (suppositional theory, the theory of paralogisms,obligational logic); they were thought to be more a safeguard formaintaining coherence than a substantial theory about the nature of theTrinity.16

Ontological Views

Alongside the aforementioned works in conceptual analysis, thetheological efforts of Richard of St. Victor, which concentrated on theTrinitarian processes and on the community of love, belong among themost in¯uential achievements of the 12th century. For Richard, theFather is the unoriginated origin of love, the Son the receiving and thedonating love, and the Holy Spirit the receiving love.17 In Richard'stheology, the persons are modes of existence and processions of divine

Luther's Trinitarian Theology and its Medieval Background 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

love. The relational concepts remain in the background. This way ofthinking in¯uenced the Trinitarian tracts of William of Auxerre, Williamof Auvergne and the Franciscan work Summa Halensis that emergedfrom the circle of Alexander of Hales.18

Although the idea of the procession of the persons is prominent inAugustine's psychological explanation of the Trinity, the relationalconcepts were given the ®rst place in his De trinitate. Thomas Aquinasfurther systematized the relational line in Augustinian Trinitariantheology. According to Aquinas, the theological persons are themutually opposite subsistent relations: paternity, ®liation and spiration.They are identical with the essence and differ from one another ashypostases. Aquinas emphasises that unlike Gilbert of Poitiers heconsiders the persons and the relations to be the same.19

It remains questionable whether Trinitarian dogma is any easier tounderstand in this way, but in any case the Thomist position became anin¯uential theological model. According to Thomas Aquinas, theprocessions and the relations are identical but differ from one anothersecundum modum signi®candi et intelligendi. Only the relations are under-stood to be constitutive of the persons.20 Whereas Dominican theologyfollowed Aquinas, some Franciscans found the tradition stemming fromRichard of St. Victor through Bonaventure and Henry of Ghent moreappropriate. The Franciscan line can also be described as Augustinian,because the psychological interpretation of the Trinity was givenemphasis there.21 According to Bonaventure, it is dif®cult to understandthat the Son should be generated, because he is the Son. We shouldrather think that he is the Son, because he is generated. The same can besaid of the other persons.22 Henry of Ghent further developedBonaventure's emanationist doctrine of the Trinity. According to him,the persons are not primarily constituted by the opposed relations, butby the distinctive emanative modes of being in divinity. His idea that thedivine powers of intellect and will constitute the grounds for theprocessions proved to be especially in¯uential.23

Intellect and will were the grounds and the productive principles forthe processions for John Duns Scotus as well.24 Scotus considers thedoctrine concerning the personally constitutive relations conjectural,and stresses that it is also possible and not heretical to think that thepersons are primarily constituted by the absolute properties.25 Accord-ing toWilliam of Ockham, the relations and the processions are identicalin the Trinity. Against Thomas Aquinas he claims that both are equallyconstitutive.26

It is surprising that this multitude of positions and their subsequentin¯uence has been so little studied. The interpretations of such

6 Simo Knuuttila and Risto Saarinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

traditional formulas as the Augustinian Pater principium divinitatisdiffered considerably according to whether emphasis was put on therelations or on the processions. The same holds for such principles as ªIfthe Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, it does not differ from theSonº.27

Luther's Last Disputation

The promotional disputation of Peter Hegemon on July the 3rd, 1545was the last academic disputation Luther was in charge of and for whichhe had prepared the theses. Theses 1 to 17 are about the doctrine of theTrinity.28 According to the disputation protocol, these theses werediscussed at different stages and in no apparent logical order.29 Whatdid Luther want to say about Trinitarian theology through his theses?

Let us ®rst have a look at Luther's sources. Luther knew Augustine'sDe Trinitate, the Sentences of Peter Lombard and Gabriel Biel'scommentary on the Sentences.30 He made use of the Trinitarian rulesof Peter of Ailly in some of his late disputations.31 In questions ofTrinitarian theology, Biel closely followed William Ockham's commen-tary on the Sentences in which Aquinas and Henry of Ghent werefrequently criticised. Luther thus knew the position of Ockham, Henryand Aquinas at least by way of Biel's work; probably, though, he hadalso studied Ockham and Aquinas at ®rst hand. As Professor oftheology, he must have been acquainted with the Trinitarian decisionsof the important synods and Councils.

The theme of theses 1 to 17 is Christ as `the wisdom of the Father'. Thequestion of the nature of the Son as sapientia Patriswas often discussed inmedieval theology, because Augustine found it problematic and dealtwith it in detail in De Trinitate VI, 1±7 and VII, 1±6.32 We have discussedthe history of this topic to some extent elsewhere; it is suf®cient to statehere that if `the wisdom of the Father' is read as an essential predication,it expresses a property, and if it is read as a relational expression, it canbe understood as referring to the Son.33

In theses 1±5 `the wisdom of the Father' is treated in the sameway thatAugustine, Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas had done. The essentialattributes like wisdom, power and goodness can be predicated of everyperson, as every person is equally of the divine essence (th. 3). In theses6±10 Luther deals with traditional Trinitarian terminology. The so-calledrule of Anselm is correctly ascribed to Augustine in thesis 6.34 Thedoctrine of relations constitutes the most dif®cult, but also the mostinteresting part of the theses (th. 11±16). Theses 11 to 13 are relativelygeneral and do not represent the views of a speci®c school of thought.35

Luther's Trinitarian Theology and its Medieval Background 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

In thesis 13 it is stated that the divine persons can be understood as threesubsistent relational things and that there is no real distinction betweennature and person in God.

The genuinely dif®cult theses are 14±16:

14. Here the relation does not argue for a distinction between things;rather the distinct things point out the existence of a relation.15. It does not follow: the Father in himself is wise, therefore the

wisdom of the Father in himself ± as something relative to him ± is athing distinct from him.

16. Although it is correct to say: the Son is relative to the Father,therefore he is a hypostasis different from the Father; and in the samemanner of the Holy Spirit.36

The word `here' in thesis 14 refers to in divinis (in th. 13). The actualtheme of the disputation, `the wisdom of the Father', is again picked upin thesis 15 which is an example of the claim made in thesis 14. We shall®rst throw some light on the nature of this example. Thereafter we shallclarify the dif®cult question concerning the meaning of the general claimmade in thesis 14.

According to thesis 16, `Father'; `Son' and `Spirit' are relative concepts,from which the presence of a real `other' can be argumentativelyinferred, because these relational terms signify a relation which impliestwo different members. In thesis 15 `the wisdom of the Father' is treatedas a relative notion. The second proposition, namely ªthe wisdom of theFather in himself is a thing distinct from himº cannot be inferred fromthe ®rst, ªThe Father in himself is wiseº. Still, the second proposition istheologically true in the sense that Christ as sapientia Patris is both of thesame essence as the Father and a distinct hypostasis. But this reading ofthe second proposition does not follow from the ®rst where `wise' can betaken to refer to an essential attribute. The presence of a relation betweentwo distinct things should be brought in as an additional premise.

By means of the theologically true claims: (a) the Father is sapiens and(b) Christ is the sapientia Patris, we cannot yet suf®ciently justify thedoctrine of two distinct hypostases. In principle it is possible tounderstand (a) and (b) in a Sabellianist fashion. We have to presupposethat there are two distinct things, i.e. the two persons, before even to beable to realize that the expression `the wisdom of the Father' containstwo distinct things. In the case of opposite relations this presuppositionis obvious. This is how thesis 15 is meant to exemplify the claim of thesis14.

In thesis 14 Luther represents a doctrine of relations that on the onehand allows for treating the persons as real relations (thesis 13), but on

8 Simo Knuuttila and Risto Saarinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

the other hand does not take the relations as the ®nal basis of the realityof the persons, claiming instead that the distinct things indicate therelations (thesis 14). Luther's opinion here is to a certain extentanalogous to the above-mentioned views of Bonaventure and Henryof Ghent: the Father is the Father, because he generates; he does notgenerate, because he is the Father. There is something, whether thedistinct processions (Henry) or the distinct things (Luther, th. 14), lying`behind' the relations.

In the disputation protocol both the relations37 and the processions38

are declared constitutive of the persons. Luther once mentions bothaspects together, but in such a fashion that the state of affairs which hedescribes as `relation' is in actual fact a procession.39 Here Luther seemsto accept the Ockhamist identi®cation of relations with processions.

In his later disputations Luther concentrates more on the processionsthan on the relations; the latter are extensively discussed only in ourdisputation. As is known, Luther often wished to accept the expressionessentia generat, condemned by the fourth Lateran Council.40 However,in the last disputations this view is moderated by the quali®cation thatthe essence does not generate or bring into being qua essence but quaperson.41 This is also stated in the passage from the protocol cited above.This fact is relevant to our analysis. It shows that Luther normallydescribes the constitution of the distinct persons as the tres res through aprocession and not through a relation.42

These remarks run parallel to thesis 14, which ascribes to the relationalconcept only a limited Trinitarian signi®cance. The relations in Godthereby have a `deeper' basis than a merely relational being. This `depth'Luther mostly clari®es by resort to the processions. It cannot beascertained whether he wanted to draw closer to Ockham's view hereor to the position of Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and Bonaventure.43 Itis also dif®cult to say whether thesis 14 is presented as a principleconcerning our understanding or whether it should be taken as anontological statement as well. At all events, in thesis 14 Luther wants todenounce the exclusive priority of relations and moves in the directionof the Franciscan emphasis on processions.

There remains for us the task of interpreting thesis 17.44 Here, as in somany places in Luther's works, a critique of the possibilities of humanreason can surely be discerned. In Trinitarian theology this is no specialphenomenon, as virtually all medieval theologians were unanimous onthe point that the Trinity cannot be adequately understood throughhuman reason. In addition a critique of the Thomist theory of relationscan be discerned here, as thesis 17 comes to its conclusion by way of theincongruence between theses 15 and 16, thereby generalizing the

Luther's Trinitarian Theology and its Medieval Background 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

warning contained in thesis 14. This incongruence shows the limitationsof the Anselmian rule and the synodal decisions based on it asinterpretive principles.

Notes

1. T. de ReÂgnon, E tudes de theÂologie positive sur la Sainte Trinite I, Paris 1892.2. For a longer German study of the theme of this paper, see S. Knuuttila and R. Saarinen,

`Innertrinitarische Theologie in der Scholastik und bei Luther', O. Bayer et al. (eds),Caritas Dei. Festschrift fuÈr Tuomo Mannermaa zum 60. Geburtstag, Luther-Agricola-Society, Helsinki 1997, 243±264.

3. J. Reiners, Der Nominalismus in der FruÈhscholastik (BeitraÈge zur Geschichte derphilosophie des Mittelalters 8.5), Aschendorff, MuÈnster 1910.

4. C. Mews, C., `Nominalism and Theology before Abelard: New Light on Roscelin ofCompieÁgne', Vivarium 30 (1992), 4±33.

5. Mews 1992, 10±1.6. For an overview of Abelard's philosophical and theological activities, see J. Marenbon,

The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997, 7±35.7. See, e.g., Theologia `Summi boni' I. 1±11, III. 52±3, Theologia Christiana I. 16±36, IV. 87±8,

Theologia `Scholarium' I. 21±44. Peter Abelard, Theologia christiana, ed. E. M. Buytaert(Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 12), Brepols, Turnholt 1969, Theologia`Summi boni' and Theologia `Scholarium', ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews (CorpusChristianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 13), Brepols, Turnholt 1987.

8. F. Courth, TrinitaÈt in der Scholastik (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, ed. M. Schmaus etal., II 1b), Herder, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 1985, 57±9.

9. De Trinitate, 147. 56±148.81 in Gilbert of Poitiers, The Commentaries on Boethius, ed. N.HaÈring, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Toronto, 1966.

10. De Trinitate, 113. 40±57. Cf. also L. Nielsen, Theology and Philosophy in the TwelfthCentury, Brill, Leiden 1982, 142±163.

11. De Trinitate, 148. 77±81; cf. Abelard, Theologia Christiana III. 184±6, Theologia `Scholarium'II. 75±6.

12. Theologia `Summi boni' II. 82±103, Theologia Christiana III. 138±160, Theologia `Scholarium'II. 95±9.

13. Theologia Christiana IV. 36±56, Theologia `Scholarium' I. 20.14. H. Denzinger and P. HuÈnermann, Enchiridion symbolorum, Herder, Freiburg, Basel,

Vienna 1993, 804.15. See, e.g., Adam Wodeham, Abbreviatio Henrici Totting de Oyta seu Adam Goddam super

quattuor libros Sententiarum, Paris 1512, I, d. 33±4, Roger Roseth, Lectura super Sententias,MS Oxford, Oriel Coll. 15, q. 3, a. 1, Peter of Ailly, Quaestiones super libros Sententiarum,Strasbourg 1490, q. 5.

16. Cf. H. Gelber, Logic and the Trinity: A Clash of Values in Scholastic Thought 1300±1335,University of Wisconsin Ph. D. dissertation 1974, A. MaieruÁ , `Logic and TrinitarianTheology: De modo predicandi et sylogizandi in divinis', in N. Kretzmann (ed.),Meaning and Inference in Medieval Philosophy, Kluwer; Dordrecht 1988, 247±295, M. H.Shank, `Unless You believe, You Shall Not Understand'. Logic, University, and Society in LateMedieval Vienna, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1988, 57±86, S. Knuuttila,`Trinitarian Sophisms in Robert Holcot's Theology', in S. Read (ed.), Sophisms inMedieval Logic and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1993, 348±356, S. Knuuttila, `Positioimpossibilis in Medieval Discussions of the Trinity', in C. Marmo (ed.), Vestigia,

10 Simo Knuuttila and Risto Saarinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

imagines, verba. Semiotics and Logic in Medieval Theological Texts, Brepols, Turnhout 1997,277±288.

17. De trinitate, ed. J. Ribaillier, Paris 1958, III, 18±9, V, 8, VI, 6.18. Courth 1985, 67±8.19. Summa theologiae, ed. P. Caramello, Marietti, Turin 1948±50, I, q. 28±30.20. Summa theologiae I, q. 40.21. Courth 1985, 119±20, 137, 153±4.22. R. Friedman, `Relations, Emanations, and Henry of Ghent's Use of the `Verbum

mentis' in Trinitarian Theology: the Background in Thomas Aquinas and Bonaven-ture', Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale VII (1996), 144±58.

23. Friedman 1996, 158±62.24. Ord. I, d. 6, d. 10. Ioannes Duns Scotus, Opera omnia, studio et cura Commissionis

Scotisticae edita, Civitas Vaticana 1950-.25. Ord. I, d. 26, 36±72.26. Ord. I, d. 26, q. 2, 180.20±181.1. William Ockham, Opera philosophica et theologica, St.

Bonaventure 1967±1984.27. For some examples cf. Knuuttila 1997, 282±5, Friedman 1996, 165±8.28. WA 39 II, 339±40. Martin Luther, Werke (Weimarer Ausgabe, WA), Weimar 1883-.29. WA 39 II, 343±4 (arg. 1), 362±5 (arg. 11), 368±70 (arg. 13±14), 383±4 (arg. 21), 387±8 (arg.

23), 397±8 (arg. 28±29).30. Gabriel Biel, Collectorium in quattuor libros Sententiarum, ed. W. Werbeck and U.

Hofmann, J.C.B. Mohr, TuÈbingen 1973±1979.31. S. Streiff, Novis linguis logui. Martin Luthers Disputation uÈber Joh. 1. 14 aus dem Jahre 1539,

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GoÈ ttingen 1993, G. White, Luther as Nominalist, Luther-Agricola-Society, Helsinki 1994.

32. De trinitate, ed. W.J. Mountain and F. Glorie (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 50),Brepols, Turnhout 1968.

33. Knuuttila and Saarinen 1997.34. `In divinity, all is the same or one, where the opposition of relation does not stand in

the way'. Anselm of Canterbury, De processione Spiritus Sancti in Opera omnia II, ed. F. S.Schmitt, Rome 1940, 180±181. See also Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. B. Dombart andA. Kalb (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 47±8), Brepols, Turnhout 1955, XI.10,Shank 1988, 70, 75±6, Courth 1985, 17±18.

35. WA 39 II, 339, 26±240, 7: ª11. Sane tamen intelligenda est relatio in divinis, et longe aliaquam in creatura vel philosophia 12. Relatio in rebus non efficit rem, ut dicunt, relatioest minimae entitatis, et non per se subsistens, imo secundum Modernos est nihil. 13.In divinis relatio est res, id est, hypostasis et subsistentia, nempe idem, quod ipsadivinitas; tres enim personae, tres hypostases et res subsistentes sunt.º

36. WA 39 II, 340, 6±11: ª14. Relatio hic non arguit distinctionem rerum, sed res distinctaeprobant esse relationem. 15. Non sequitur: Pater est sapiens in se ipso, ergo sapientiaPatris in se ipso, cum sit relativa ad eum, est distincta res ab eo. 16. Sicut tamen rectedicitur: Filius est relativus ad Patrem, ergo est alia hypostasis a Patre, ita de SpiritoSancto.º Our translation of th. 15 differs from that of A. Schmidt in Christologie inLuthers spaÈten Disputationen, EOS Verlag, St. Ottilien 1990, 309 and T. Beer in DerfroÈhliche Wechsel und Streit. GrundzuÈge der Theologie Martin Luthers, Johannes Verlag,Einsiedeln 1980, 510.

37. WA 39 II, 363, 17±8; 384, 29.38. WA 39 II, 364, 7±8.39. WA 39 II, 364, 20±2: ªPersona constituitur ex relatione et essentia, ut filius est essentia

genita, natura essentia generat essentiam, sed ita, ut sint distinctae personae.º

Luther's Trinitarian Theology and its Medieval Background 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

40. Cf. Streiff 1993; White 1994.41. WA 39 II, 363, 16±20; 370, 9±11, 15±20. Cf. also WA 39 II, 18, 6±10. In conformity with

the tradition, Luther also made use of the distinction unum/aliud (substantia, essentia) ±unus/alius (persona). WA 39 II, 28, 15±6; 314, 17±20.

42. Melanchthon (WA 39 II, 334±5) takes the sentence essentia generat to be a critique of theThomist theory of relations: ª…sciendum est, non tantum relationem esse terminumgenerationis, sed ipsa essentia genita est terminus generationis… relatio sola nongignitur.º (334, 28±30; 335, 5).

43. A. Schmidt has remarked that the Thomist priority of relations is denied in thesis 14.From this he draws the conclusion that Luther here lapsed into heresy from a Catholicpoint of view; Schmidt 1990, 309. However, Luther remains throughout within aframework of positions developed by orthodox Franciscan theologians. Cf. theformulations in M. Schmaus' Katholische Dogmatik, 6. ed., Munich 1960, 480: ªDie durchder Hervorbringungen und UrspruÈnge begruÈndeten Beziehungen in Gottº. (Our italics.)

44. WA 39 II, 340, 12±3: ªSumma, per rationem et philosophiam de his rebus maiestatisnihil, per fidem vero omnia recte dici et credi possunt.º

12 Simo Knuuttila and Risto Saarinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

03:

21 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014