Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emanations and Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trinitarian Theology in Medieval and Reformation Thought

  • 123 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of late medieval theories of the divine emanations and relations. It begins with an analysis of the generation of the Son, looking at several models of generation that were normative in the thirteenth century. Following this discussion it shifts to the procession of the Holy Spirit, treating the question of whether or not the Spirit proceeds from the essence or the Father. The second half of the chapter turns to the divine relations and examines the Augustinian distinction between terms predicated of God according to substance and those predicated according to relation. Building upon this section, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the late thirteenth-century debate regarding disparate and opposed relations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pelikan-Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions, I.162–163.

  2. 2.

    This is the creed accepted in 381 at Constantinople. There is good reason, however, to think that the original sense of Nicaea 325 was in fact generation from the essence. See, for example, Athanasius, Against Arius I.

  3. 3.

    Pelikan-Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions, I.158–159.

  4. 4.

    See the medieval Latin creeds and statements as well, Pelikan-Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions, I.675: Deus [Filius] est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus… (Quicunque vult).

  5. 5.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 4.20.27 (CCSL 50, 195–196).

  6. 6.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 7.2.3 (CCSL 50, 250).

  7. 7.

    Abelard, Theologia Christiana 3.109 (CCCM 12, 235).

  8. 8.

    Cf., for example, Richard, De Trinitate 6.22 (259).

  9. 9.

    Lombard, Sent. I.5.1 (I.81).

  10. 10.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 4.20.27 (CCSL 50, 195–196).

  11. 11.

    See Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God. See also John T. Slotemaker, “The Primity of the Father.”

  12. 12.

    Augustine, In Iohannis evangelium 20–22 (CCSL 36, 202–232).

  13. 13.

    Augustine, De Trinitate II.1.2–II.5.10 (CCSL 50, 81–93).

  14. 14.

    Lombard, Sent. I.5.1 (I.82).

  15. 15.

    JT Paasch, Divine Production. I am grateful to JT for discussing this material with me and deeply informing what follows.

  16. 16.

    In particular, the second canon states that Joachim interpreted Peter Lombard as maintaining a quaternity within the Trinity, such that there are the three divine persons and the divine essence.

  17. 17.

    Liber extra 1.1.2 (CIC II.7): … in Deo solummodo trinitas est, non quaternitas. On this debate, see Axel Mehlmann, “De unitate trinitatis.”

  18. 18.

    Lombard, Sent. I.5.2 (I.110).

  19. 19.

    Henry, Summa 54.3 (Badius II, 84rE); JT Paasch, Divine Production, 33–38.

  20. 20.

    Scotus, Rep. I-A, 5.2 (I, 274–279); JT Paasch, Divine Production, 52–53.

  21. 21.

    Scotus, Rep. I-A, 5.2 (I, 274).

  22. 22.

    Scotus, Rep. I-A, 5.2 (I, 279–287).

  23. 23.

    See the discussion of Ockham in chapter 4, Personal Constitution.

  24. 24.

    This position was also held by non-Augustinians as well, such as Chatton and Holcot.

  25. 25.

    Lombard, Sent. I.13.3 (I, 123). Cf. Augustine, Contra Maximinum (PL 42, 770–771).

  26. 26.

    Rimini, Lectura I.13.1 (II, 199).

  27. 27.

    See Gregory’s rejection of all previous models, ibid. (198–199).

  28. 28.

    Pelikan-Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions, I.672; cf. ibid. I.675: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio (Quicunque vult).

  29. 29.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 15.19.36 (CCSL 50A, 512–513). The same is true of Hilary of Poitiers’s De Trinitate.

  30. 30.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 15.16.29 (CCSL 50A, 504): … proprie spiritus sanctus caritas nuncupetur (cf. 15.18.32).

  31. 31.

    Fulgentius, De Trinitate 2 (PL 65, 499). … Spiritus alicujus est aspirantis.

  32. 32.

    Isidore, Etymologies VII.3.2 (157–158).

  33. 33.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 15.16.29 (CCSL 50A, 503): … quo procedit principaliter spiritus sanctus nisi deus pater. Ideo autem addidi, principaliter, quia et de filio spiritus sanctus procedere reperitur.

  34. 34.

    Fulgentius, De fide 11.52 (PL 65, 696).

  35. 35.

    Alcuin, De Fide 1.11 (PL 101, 20).

  36. 36.

    Theodulf, Libellus de processione (PL 105, 259).

  37. 37.

    Ratramnus, Contra Graecorum 1.3 (PL 121, 229).

  38. 38.

    Anselm, De processione 14 (II, 213 f.).

  39. 39.

    Anselm, De processione 16 (II, 218).

  40. 40.

    See here Peter Gemeinhardt, “Logic, Tradition and Ecumenics.”

  41. 41.

    For an excellent introduction to Joachim, see Peter Gemeinhardt, “Joachim the Theologian.”

  42. 42.

    Liber extra 1.1.1 (CIC II.5).

  43. 43.

    Liber extra 1.1.2 (CIC II.7): [Essentia divina] non est generans, neque genita, nec procedens; sed est Pater, qui generat, et Filius, qui gignitur, et Spiritus sanctus, qui procedit.

  44. 44.

    Liber extra 1.1.2 (CIC II.6).

  45. 45.

    Lombard, Sent. I.5.1 (I.81).

  46. 46.

    Lombard, Sent. I.5.1 (I.86).

  47. 47.

    Lombard, Sent. I.12.2 (I.119).

  48. 48.

    Calvin, In evangelium Ioannis (CO 47, 438–440).

  49. 49.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 5.1.2 (CCSL 50, 206–207).

  50. 50.

    Ibid. 5.2.3 (CCSL 50, 208).

  51. 51.

    Ibid. 5.5.6 (CCSL 50, 210–211).

  52. 52.

    Ibid. 5.11.12 (CCSL 50, 218–220).

  53. 53.

    Ibid. 5.12.13 (CCSL 50, 220).

  54. 54.

    Boethius, De Trinitate IV (174).

  55. 55.

    Ibid. VI (180).

  56. 56.

    Ibid. V (179).

  57. 57.

    Alcuin, De fide (PL 101, 22–23).

  58. 58.

    While not all theologians employed it to the extent Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, or Thomas would, I can think of no theologian who argued against this distinction or rejected it as part of an alternative model, and so forth.

  59. 59.

    Luther, Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam 50 (WA 1, 226).

  60. 60.

    See Luther, Erfurter Annotationen, 581–596, see, for example, 592.

  61. 61.

    Calvin, Institutes (1559) I.13.6 (CO 2, 94). Here Calvin is difficult to pin down. While he does call the properties “relational” here, the ones he develops later are not necessarily relational. See John T. Slotemaker, “John Calvin’s Trinitarian Theology.”

  62. 62.

    Every writer fears being misunderstood, and it is my fear that I will be misread here. The claim here is that Augustine’s distinction between relational terms and substantial terms was universally accepted—it is not that the later medieval account of the divine relations is identical to Augustine’s, or even the “best reading” of it. The former claim is patently false, though one finds it in the literature. See, for example, the most egregious case of this in Edmund Hill, The Mystery of the Trinity, 93, where he states that he will analyze Augustine by presenting the “fruits of the developed tradition in their most mature form, which means in effect as formulated by Thomas Aquinas.” I am grateful to Michel Barnes for pointing out this reference.

  63. 63.

    Jaroslav Pelikan, The Melody of Theology, 90.

  64. 64.

    Thomas, Summa contra IV.24.8 (CT). See John T. Slotemaker, “John Duns Scotus and Henry Harclay,” 427–433.

  65. 65.

    De Rijk, Aristotle, 450–451.

  66. 66.

    Aristotle, Categories (11b24–31, Barnes 18).

  67. 67.

    Scotus, Reportatio I-A.11.2 (Wolter-Bychkov I, 412–421). See John T. Slotemaker, “John Duns Scotus and Henry Harclay,” 434–439.

  68. 68.

    On Thomas, see Gilles Emery, Trinity in Aquinas, 209–269.

  69. 69.

    See John T. Slotemaker, “John Duns Scotus and Henry Harclay,” 439–451, and the sources cited therein.

  70. 70.

    Scotus, Ordinatio I.11.1 (Vatican V, 3).

  71. 71.

    Lombard, Sent. I.12.2 (I.119–121).

  72. 72.

    Auriol, Scriptum I.11 (ES).

  73. 73.

    Rimini, Lectura I.11 (II, 177–189).

  74. 74.

    Basel, Lectura I.10–11 (II, 124).

  75. 75.

    Gracilis, Lectura I.11 (R fols. 39r–41v).

  76. 76.

    Aquila, Commentaria I.11 (190–198); Vorilong, Sent. I.11 (fols. 25va–26rb).

  77. 77.

    See, for example, John Mair, In primum Sententiarum I.11/12 (fols. 45rb–45vb).

Bibliography

  • (CCSL = Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina; CCCM = Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis; CO = Calvini Opera; CR = Corpus Reformatorum; OP = Opera Philosophica; OT = Opera Theologica; PL = Patrologia Latina; WA = D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe)

    Google Scholar 

Manuscript Sources

Pre-Modern Sources

  • Alcuin of York. De Fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, in PL 101, 13–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselm. S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, Opera Omnia, ed. F.S. Schmitt. Edinburgh 1946–1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 vols. Princeton 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustine. Contra Maximinum Arianum, in PL 42, 743–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. De Trinitate, in CCSL 50 and 50A.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. In Iohannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV, in CCSL 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boethius, Contra Eutychen et Nestorium and De Trinitate, ed. Claudio Moreschini, in Boethius De Consolatione Philosophiae, opuscula theological. Munich 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., ed. Guilielmus Baum, et al. (Brunswick 1863–1900).

    Google Scholar 

  • Corpus Iuris Canonici [Liber extra], ed. Aemilius Friedberg, 2 vols. Graz 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulgentius of Ruspe, Liber de Trinitate ad Felicem, in CCSL 91A, 631–646 (cf. PL 65).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. De fide ad Petrum, in CCSL 91A, 709–760 (cf. PL 65).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory Rimini. Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, 7 vols. Berlin and New York 1981–1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry of Ghent. Summa quaestionum ordinariarum. Paris 1520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isidore of Seville. The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, ed. Stephen A. Barney, et al. Cambridge 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • John of Basel. Lectura super quattuor libros Sententiarum, 2 vols. Würzburg 2016 and 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • John Duns Scotus. Opera Omnia. Civitas Vaticana 1950–.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Reportatio I-A, ed. and trans. Alan B. Wolter and Oleg V. Bychkov, 2 vols. St. Bonaventure, NY, 2004 and 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 73 vols. Weimar 1883–2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Erfurter Annotationen 1509–1510/11, ed. Jun Matsuura. Köln 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, John. In primum Sententiarum. Paris 1519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Abelard. Theologia Christiana, in CCCM 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter of Aquila. Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, ed. C. Paolini. Levanti 1907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Auriol. Scriptum super primum Sententiarum, at http://www.peterauriol.net/editions/electronicscriptum/contents/, accessed January 2020. NB: cited as Electronic Scriptum.

  • Peter Lombard. Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 2 vols. Grottaferrata 1971 and 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum opposita, in PL 121, 223–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard of St. Victor. De Trinitate, ed. J. Ribaillier. Paris 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodulf of Orléans. Libellus de processione Spiritus Sancti, in PL 105, 239–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Aquinas. Summa contra gentiles, in Corpus Thomisticum, ed. Roberto Busa. at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org, accessed January 2020. NB: cited as CT.

  • William Vorilong. Super quattuor libris Sententiarum. Lyon 1502.

    Google Scholar 

Modern Sources

  • De Rijk, Lambertus M. Aristotle: Semantics and Ontology. Volume I, General Introduction, The Works on Logic. Leiden 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, Gilles. Trinity in Aquinas. Ave Maria 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Russell L. Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham. Cambridge 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemeinhardt, Peter. “Joachim the Theologian: Trinitarian Speculation and Doctrinal Debate,” in A Companion to Joachim of Fiore, ed. Matthias Riedl. Leiden 2018, 41–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Logic, Tradition and Ecumenics: Latin Developments of Trinitarian Theology between c. 1075 and c. 1160,” in Trinitarian Theology in the Medieval West, ed. Pekka Kärkkäinen. Helsinki 2007, 10–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Edmund. The Mystery of the Trinity. London 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehlmann, Axel. “De unitate trinitatis. Forschungen und Dokumente zur Trinitätstheologie Joachims von Fiore im Zusammenhang mit seinem verschollenen Traktat gegen Petrus Lombardus” (Ph.D. dissertation, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasch, JT. Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology: Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. Oxford 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Melody of Theology: A Dictionary. Cambridge 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie R. Hotchkiss, eds. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols. New Haven 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • John T. Slotemaker. “The Primity of the Father in Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo,” in Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer. Leuven 2011, 855–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “The Primity of the Father in Origen of Alexandria.” “John Duns Scotus and Henry Harclay on the Non-necessity of Opposed Relations,” The Thomist 77 (2013), 419–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdicombe, Peter. The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius. Oxford 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT, USA

    John T. Slotemaker

Authors
  1. John T. Slotemaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Slotemaker, J.T. (2020). Emanations and Relations. In: Trinitarian Theology in Medieval and Reformation Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47790-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation