De Moor V:26: Defense of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, Part 5

William Cave

Read carefully THEODORET, discourses in favor of the true Deity of the Holy Spirit, Hæreticarum Fabularum, book V, chapter III, opera, tome 4, pages 257-260. See the same Deity of the Holy Spirit confirmed and defended at length by the Holy Fathers, ATHANASIUS, EPIPHANIUS, GREGORY NYSSEN, and especially BASIL the GREAT, in books and passages summarily reviewed by SCULTETUS,[1]Medulla Patrum, pages 467, 468, 486-488, 642-644, 680, 896-898, 1090-1104; to which are able to be added DIDYMUS’ libri de Spiritu Sancto, which out of the translation of JEROME are found near the end of tome 9 of the works of that Father; and AMBROSE’S libri tres de Spiritu Sancto, opera, tome 4, columns 209-276; but of which CAVE in his Historia litteraria notes, that they were mostly culled in a humble and unpolished style our of the Writings of Didymus, Basil, and other Greeks. In Ἐκθέσει πίστεως περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοουσίου Τριάδος, which is found in the opera of JUSTIN Martyr,[2] those things that occur on page 373 are worthy of note, Εἷς οὖν ταῖς ἀληθείαις ἐστὶν ὁ τῶν ἁπάντων Θεὸς, ἐν Πατρὶ, καὶ Υἱῷ, καὶ ἁγιῳ Πνεύματι γνωριζόμενος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας οὐσίας ὁ Πατὴρ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀπεγέννησεν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς τὸ Πνεῦμα προήγαγεν, εἰκότως ἂν τὰ τῆς αὐτῆς καὶ μιᾶς οὐσίας μετέχοντα, τῆς αὐτῆς καὶ μιᾶς θεότητος ἡξίωνται. πῶς οὖν, ἐρεῖ τις, μὴ διαφέροι τὸ γεννῶν τοῦ γεννωμένου, καὶ τὸ ἐκπορευτὸν τοῦ ἀφ᾽ οὗ περ ἐκπεπόρευται; ἔστι δὲ ὁ Πατὴρ ἀγέννητος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς γεγέννηται, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα προῆλθεν. οὐ ταὐτὸν οὖν τῷ Πατρὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἀγέννητον καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἐκπορευτὸν, οὐκ οὐσίας ὀνόματα, ἀλλὰ τρόποι ὑπάρξεως· ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως, τοῖς ὀνόμασι χαρακτηρίζεται τούτοις· ἡ δὲ τῆς οὐσίας δήλωσις τῇ Θεὸς ὀνομασίᾳ σημαίνεται. ὡς εἶναι τὴν διαφορὰν τῷ Πατρὶ πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα, κατὰ τὸν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπον· τὸ δὲ ταὐτὸν, κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον. εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἀγεννήτως ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, ὁ δὲ γεννητῶς, τὸ δὲ ἐκπορευτῶς, τὰ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἐπιθεωρεῖσθαι πέφυκεν· εἰ δὲ καὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ τὸ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν εἶναι σημαίνει, τῷ κοινῷ τῆς θεότητος ὀνόματι παραδηλοῦται, Therefore, the God of all is verily one, made known in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: For, seeing that out of that shared essence the Father begat the Son, and out of the same essence the Spirit proceeded; the attributes of one and the same essence, of one and the same Godhead, are accordingly reckoned: How then will anyone say that the one begetting would not differ from the one begotten, and the one proceeding from whom He has proceeded? But the Father is unbegotten, from whom also the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds: The Son and the Holy Spirit, therefore, are not identical with the Father: for the unbegotten, the begotten, and the proceeding are not terms of essence, but modes of existence: and the mode of the existence is characterized by those terms: but the manifestation of the essence is signified by the term God: As there is a difference between the Father and the Son and Spirit according to the mode of existence, they are nevertheless the same with respect to essence: For, if one has being in an unbegotten manner, but another in a begotten manner, but yet another in the manner of procession, then it happens that they are to be considered principles of distinction: but if they also signify the being according to essence of the hypostasis of it, it is intimated by the common term of the Godhead.

Moreover, on § 26 compare CALVIN’S Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, chapter XIII, § 14-16; ZANCHI, de Tribus Elohim, former part, book VII, latter part, book II, chapter V, book IV, chapters I, II; ARNOLDI, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ on chapter VI de Prophetico Christi munere, question 12, § I-VII, pages 454-456; LAMPE, Dissertationum philologico-theologicarum, volume II, Disputation V, where in Chapter IV, de Spiritu Sancto, he demonstrates the Deity of the Holy Spirit at length, pages 151-175; GERHARD’S Loca Communia, tome I, locus de Spiritu Sancto, chapter II, pages 149-158; PETAVIUS’ Dogmata theologica, tome 2, book II, chapters XIII, XIV, XV.

[1] Abraham Scultetus (1566-1624) was a German Reformed scholar, theologian, and historian. He served as court preacher to the Elector of the Palatinate, and also as Professor of Old Testament at the University of Heidelberg. He was chosen as a representative of the Palatinate to the Synod of Dordt. [2] This is widely regarded as the work of Theodoret of Cyrus.