De Moor V:8: The Communication of the Divine Essence by Generation @MPooleProject ((x.com/mpooleproject/status/2…)) → Therefore, from this interpretation of the divine Generation of the Son, given by the Lord Himself, the same is best described by our author as the Eternal and Incomprehensible of the Numerically Same Divine Essence, from the Father to the Son. How familiar among the Orthodox in this matter is the expression of the Communication of the Divine Essence, sought both from the proper concept of Generation, and from this passage of John, the Reverend Wilhelmius[1] teaches, with a great heap of examples brought forth in his preface to Paulus Hulsius'[2] Miscellanea (Mengelstoffen), sections 1, 3, and 4. He appeals to Polanus, Trigland, Cloppenburg,[3] Gomarus, the Professors of Leiden in Judicio Ecclesiastico laudato, D’Outrein,[4] Gerhard,[5] and Geier.[6] With these two Theologians of the Augustan Confession joins a third, Buddeus, in Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, tome I, book II, chapter I, § 49, page 369, and § 52, pages 393-395. Rightly also did Arminius deny that Christ does indeed have a common essence with the Father, but not communicated by the Father. Contrariwise, he asserted, "He is the Son, who has the divine essence communicated to Him by the Father," which is the same thing as "He is the Son, who is begotten of the Father." For to beget is to communicate essence. All antiquity defended and preserved the Unity of Essence in three distinct Persons by this explanation alone, that the Son has the numerically same Essence communicated to Him by the Father, but the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Very well said: see Arminius’ Responsiones ad XXXI Articulos, pages 138, 139; and Declarationem sententiæ suæ ad Ordines Hollandiæ et West-Frisiæ, pages 61 and following. Gomarus, in his Diatribe de Christo Αὐτοθεῷ (Autotheo), inserted in part I of Disputationum Theologicarum Voetii, page 447, wrote, "The Son has His Essence through Communication from the Father by eternal Generation…." In this manner Damascenus, in Concerning the Orthodox Faith, book I, chapter VIII, speaks, when he without distinction calls God αὐτοουσίαν (self-existent), ὡς μὴ παρ᾽ ἑτέρου τὸ εἶναι ἔχουσαν (as what does not have being from another), that is, effectively, but not communicatively. And, on page 448, on the words of Bellarmine in book II de Christo, chapter XIX, the objection is admirably refuted, with which he thus argues: "If Calvin asserts that the Father communicated essence to the Son, how is he able in truth to say that the Son has Essence of Himself. Likewise, if he says that the Son was produced by the Father, how is he able to deny that the essence and life in the Son is from the Father." For with the utmost ease it is able to be responded to Bellarmine, that essence is indeed communicated to the Son by the Father, but not effected and produced by the Father, as the Jesuit says in what precedes. Voetius, in his Notis on that Gomari Diatriben, page 461, similarly writes: "Essence is able to be said to be communicated, to be given, by the Father, and to be received and had by the Son by reason of that communication and giving. In short, the person of the Father begets the person of the Son by communication of the same essence." Again, on page 464, VII: "It is one thing to deny that the essence of the Son is begotten, and it is another thing to deny that the Son is begotten through the communication of essence." That well-known saying of Athanasius: "Whatever the Son has, He has by generation, but it is not generated." VIII: "It is one thing to deny that the essence of the Son was originated and produced by the essence of the Father (that is, essentiatam, given being, according to Valentinus Gentilis); and it is another thing to deny that it is from the person of the Father by communication of the same essence." And also on page 465. In the same place, Trelcatius, with Keckermann[7] in his Systemate theologiæ, appears to deny the communication of essence. Maccovius follows him in his Metaphysica, chapter VIII, where against Arminius he determines that essence is not communicated from the Father, but personality. But it must be expressed accurately (ἀκριβῶς) here: that is, the person is begotten by communication of essence. Those authors ought to be excused, because we think that they took the language of communication too physically, and had regard to Valentinus Gentilis. Add Zacharias Ursinus in Explicationum Catecheticarum, Question XXXIII, page 246; David Pareus in his Adversario ad John 5:26; Johann Piscator in his Analysi on John 5:26; Antonius Walæus in his Synopsi purioris Theologiæ, Disputation VIII, § 7; Frederic Spanheim the Elder[8] in his Disputationibus theologicis, part I, disputatione de Trinitate, § 12, page 48; Johannes Hoornbeeck in his Socinianismo confutato, tome 2, book I, chapter I, section I, page 45; Heinrich Alting in his Locis Communibus, part I, locus III, Scriptorum Heidelbergensium, tome I, pages 38, 39, etc.; Reinerus Vogelsang[9] in his Exercitationibus theologicis XIII, § 13-16, pages 361, 362, 364, in which the use of that expression, "Communication of the divine Essence made to the Son," in eternal Generation repeatedly recurs. And in addition to the words of Cloppenburg related by Wilhelmius, see this expression of the Communication of the divine Essence made by the Father to the Son, used concerning the divine Generation of the latter on repeated occasions in the same Cloppenburg’s Exercitationibus theologicis, locus III, disputation I, section 2, § 11, disputation II, section 1, § 1, 2, 7, 8, section 2, § 1, 4, 6, 7, opera, tome I, pages 761-764. The Theologians of Leiden, Spanheim, Trigland, and Marckius, in their Judicio Ordinibus Hollandiæ dato de Röellii Dissertatione de Generatione Filii, etc., in the year 1692, also everywhere commend and urge the use of the expression, the Communication of the divine Essence, in this matter, saying: "Unto the present time, the reformed Confession has included, that the internal and eternal distinction of the three Persons in the One divine Essence especially consists in this, that God the Father from all eternity communicates that one and the same divine Essence, which He possesses of Himself, with the Son, and together these communicate it with the Holy Spirit; which everywhere occurs under expressions of this sort in the writings of God and of Theologians." They then note Röellius, as one who incorrectly asserts, Dissertation I, § XXVIII, page 28, that "the eternal Communication of the divine Essence is not able to be reconciled with the true Deity of the Son." They go on to add: "That to the Son and the Holy Spirit, as they are true God, this Deity is communicated by the Father, as far as we know, from the times of the Apostles to the present, not one of the Christians denied, who were professing themselves to believe with us that the Trinity was to be adored; doubtlessly because they were finding in Sacred Scripture certainty of this matter in so many, whether plain or figurative, modes of expression." To this purpose they then cite John 5:26; 1:14; 6:57 (in which last passage the Son confesses that the Father is no less the author of His divine Life, than He Himself is willing to be the author and cause of our spiritual life); Colossians 1:15; and Hebrews 1:3. Moreover: "Röellius, in confessing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, teaches a particular, but not all that the Formulas of our Union relate and set forth to be believed concerning this mystery according to the Word of God: Communication of the divine Essence made by the Father to the Son, and in this sense Generation, he not only passes over in silence, but rejects, against the Heidelburg Catechism XXXIII,[10] with the exegesis of Ursinus himself brought in for comparison, according to whom: 'Those born of parents are properly called natural sons, to whom the essence of their parents is communicated…. Therefore, as we are natural sons of our parents, so Christ according to His divine nature is the natural and sole Son of God of the same essence and nature with the Father, of whose substance in an ineffable manner He was begotten from eternity, John 5:26. Therefore, the Father communicated life to Him, whereby He also lives of Himself, and vivifies all creatures, which life is the one and eternal deity itself.'" And how much more truly and properly this agrees with Christ, than with us men, he vigorously expresses in this manner in the same place: "The essence and nature of our parents, of whom we are born, is communicated to us in part. The whole divine essence is communicated to Christ by the Father according to His divinity." Compare also Jan van den Honert’s[11] Præfationem ante Ursinum in Catechesin, part II, in Conclusione, chapter I, pages 110-113; and Stapfer’s Theologicæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XVI, § 1125-1128, which then in § 1129-1131 shows that this Generation by Communication of Essence is both absolutely necessary, and at the same time voluntary, but with an absolutely necessary will to generate, and no less eternal. Concerning this latter thesis of Stapfer, consult Spanheim, Decadum Theologicarum V, § 2, opera, tome 3, columns 1220, 1221. The Synod of South Holland, in the year 1758, in Article III, upon the occasion of the accusation of D. Sibelius, Pastor in the district of Alphen, on account of the ill-timed crisis raised concerning the language of Communication of the divine Essence numerically the same to the Son by Generation from the Father, stated: "D. Sibelius, whom the Brethren were happily acknowledging to be orthodox according to the more distinct declaration of his position more lately made, nevertheless quite imprudently conducted himself, as much in speaking as in writing, by expressions of this sort used concerning the expression Communication of the divine Essence, of which orthodox Theologians in our Church are wont to make use in explaining this momentous doctrine, as if this, understood literally, would open the doors to the Arians. In which manner he offended many, and brought upon himself a just suspicion of heterodoxy: hence the same D. Sibelius is to be admonished earnestly and in a brotherly manner by the Deputies of the Synod in that place, so that he might be more careful in the matter in times to come, and adhere as much to the Church’s manner of speaking as to her doctrine." Footnotes: 1. Johannes Wilhelmius (1671-1754) was pastor at Rotterdam. Wilhelmius's teaching and support were critical for the preservation of the German and Dutch Reformed churches of Pennsylvania. 2. Paulus Hulsius (1653-1712) was a Dutch pastor and theologian. He served as Professor of Theology at Groningen (1708-1712). 3. Johann Cloppenburg (1592-1652) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and controversialist. He studied at the University of Leiden, and held various ministerial posts until his appointment as professor at the University of Harderwijk (1641), and then at Franeker (1643). He was a lifelong friend of Voetius, and colleague of Cocceius at Franeker. 4. Johannes d’Outrein (1662-1722) was Professor of Theology at Dordrecht and Amsterdam. 5. John Gerhard (1582-1637) was an eminent Lutheran divine. He held the position of Professor of Divinity at Jena (1616), and he was four times the Rector of the same. He wrote copiously in exegetical, polemical, and dogmatic theology. His Loci communes theologici (1610-1622) was the largest Lutheran dogmatic text that had been produced to date. 6. Martin Geier (1614-1680) was a German Lutheran pastor and scholar. He served as Professor of Hebrew (1639-1643) and of Theology (1658-1665) at Leipzig. 7. Bartholomäus Keckermann (c. 1572-1608) was a German Reformed Theologian and educator. He served as Professor of Hebrew at Heidelberg (1600-1602), and as Rector of the Gymnasium of Danzig (1602-1608). 8. Friedrich Spanheim the Elder (1600-1649) studied at Heidelberg and Geneva. He served the academy at Geneva, first as Professor of Philosophy, then as a member of the theological faculty, and finally as rector. In 1642, he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Leiden, and became a prominent defender of Calvinistic orthodoxy against Amyraldianism. 9. Reinerus Vogelsang (1610-1679) was a Reformed divine, and Professor of Theology at Deventer (1676-1679). 10. Heidelburg Catechism 33: “Why is Christ called the only begotten Son of God, since we are also the children of God? Because Christ alone is the eternal and natural Son of God; but we are children adopted of God, by grace, for His sake.” 11. Jan van den Honert (1693-1758) was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1727-1734), and later at Leiden (1734-1758). End. Additional Observation: “…the identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is-Caused does not exist before in Act whereas that which Is-Communicated exists before in Act…” {Garrigou-Lagrange}

787/8 De Moor V:8: The Communication of the Divine Essence by Generation x.com/mpooleproject/status/2… → Therefore, from this interpretation of the divine Generation of the Son, given by the Lord Himself, the same is best described by our author as the Eternal and Incomprehensible of the Numerically Same Divine Essence, from the Father to the Son. How familiar among the Orthodox in this matter is the expression of the Communication of the Divine Essence, sought both from the proper concept of Generation, and from this passage of John, the Reverend Wilhelmius[1] teaches, with a great heap of examples brought forth in his preface to Paulus Hulsius'[2] Miscellanea (Mengelstoffen), sections 1, 3, and 4. He appeals to Polanus, Trigland, Cloppenburg,[3] Gomarus, the Professors of Leiden in Judicio Ecclesiastico laudato, D’Outrein,[4] Gerhard,[5] and Geier.[6] With these two Theologians of the Augustan Confession joins a third, Buddeus, in Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, tome I, book II, chapter I, § 49, page 369, and § 52, pages 393-395. Rightly also did Arminius deny that Christ does indeed have a common essence with the Father, but not communicated by the Father. Contrariwise, he asserted, "He is the Son, who has the divine essence communicated to Him by the Father," which is the same thing as "He is the Son, who is begotten of the Father." For to beget is to communicate essence. All antiquity defended and preserved the Unity of Essence in three distinct Persons by this explanation alone, that the Son has the numerically same Essence communicated to Him by the Father, but the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Very well said: see Arminius’ Responsiones ad XXXI Articulos, pages 138, 139; and Declarationem sententiæ suæ ad Ordines Hollandiæ et West-Frisiæ, pages 61 and following. Gomarus, in his Diatribe de Christo Αὐτοθεῷ (Autotheo), inserted in part I of Disputationum Theologicarum Voetii, page 447, wrote, "The Son has His Essence through Communication from the Father by eternal Generation…." In this manner Damascenus, in Concerning the Orthodox Faith, book I, chapter VIII, speaks, when he without distinction calls God αὐτοουσίαν (self-existent), ὡς μὴ παρ᾽ ἑτέρου τὸ εἶναι ἔχουσαν (as what does not have being from another), that is, effectively, but not communicatively. And, on page 448, on the words of Bellarmine in book II de Christo, chapter XIX, the objection is admirably refuted, with which he thus argues: "If Calvin asserts that the Father communicated essence to the Son, how is he able in truth to say that the Son has Essence of Himself. Likewise, if he says that the Son was produced by the Father, how is he able to deny that the essence and life in the Son is from the Father." For with the utmost ease it is able to be responded to Bellarmine, that essence is indeed communicated to the Son by the Father, but not effected and produced by the Father, as the Jesuit says in what precedes. Voetius, in his Notis on that Gomari Diatriben, page 461, similarly writes: "Essence is able to be said to be communicated, to be given, by the Father, and to be received and had by the Son by reason of that communication and giving. In short, the person of the Father begets the person of the Son by communication of the same essence." Again, on page 464, VII: "It is one thing to deny that the essence of the Son is begotten, and it is another thing to deny that the Son is begotten through the communication of essence." That well-known saying of Athanasius: "Whatever the Son has, He has by generation, but it is not generated." VIII: "It is one thing to deny that the essence of the Son was originated and produced by the essence of the Father (that is, essentiatam, given being, according to Valentinus Gentilis); and it is another thing to deny that it is from the person of the Father by communication of the same essence." And also on page 465. In the same place, Trelcatius, with Keckermann[7] in his Systemate theologiæ, appears to deny the communication of essence. Maccovius follows him in his Metaphysica, chapter VIII, where against Arminius he determines that essence is not communicated from the Father, but personality. But it must be expressed accurately (ἀκριβῶς) here: that is, the person is begotten by communication of essence. Those authors ought to be excused, because we think that they took the language of communication too physically, and had regard to Valentinus Gentilis. Add Zacharias Ursinus in Explicationum Catecheticarum, Question XXXIII, page 246; David Pareus in his Adversario ad John 5:26; Johann Piscator in his Analysi on John 5:26; Antonius Walæus in his Synopsi purioris Theologiæ, Disputation VIII, § 7; Frederic Spanheim the Elder[8] in his Disputationibus theologicis, part I, disputatione de Trinitate, § 12, page 48; Johannes Hoornbeeck in his Socinianismo confutato, tome 2, book I, chapter I, section I, page 45; Heinrich Alting in his Locis Communibus, part I, locus III, Scriptorum Heidelbergensium, tome I, pages 38, 39, etc.; Reinerus Vogelsang[9] in his Exercitationibus theologicis XIII, § 13-16, pages 361, 362, 364, in which the use of that expression, "Communication of the divine Essence made to the Son," in eternal Generation repeatedly recurs. And in addition to the words of Cloppenburg related by Wilhelmius, see this expression of the Communication of the divine Essence made by the Father to the Son, used concerning the divine Generation of the latter on repeated occasions in the same Cloppenburg’s Exercitationibus theologicis, locus III, disputation I, section 2, § 11, disputation II, section 1, § 1, 2, 7, 8, section 2, § 1, 4, 6, 7, opera, tome I, pages 761-764. The Theologians of Leiden, Spanheim, Trigland, and Marckius, in their Judicio Ordinibus Hollandiæ dato de Röellii Dissertatione de Generatione Filii, etc., in the year 1692, also everywhere commend and urge the use of the expression, the Communication of the divine Essence, in this matter, saying: "Unto the present time, the reformed Confession has included, that the internal and eternal distinction of the three Persons in the One divine Essence especially consists in this, that God the Father from all eternity communicates that one and the same divine Essence, which He possesses of Himself, with the Son, and together these communicate it with the Holy Spirit; which everywhere occurs under expressions of this sort in the writings of God and of Theologians." They then note Röellius, as one who incorrectly asserts, Dissertation I, § XXVIII, page 28, that "the eternal Communication of the divine Essence is not able to be reconciled with the true Deity of the Son." They go on to add: "That to the Son and the Holy Spirit, as they are true God, this Deity is communicated by the Father, as far as we know, from the times of the Apostles to the present, not one of the Christians denied, who were professing themselves to believe with us that the Trinity was to be adored; doubtlessly because they were finding in Sacred Scripture certainty of this matter in so many, whether plain or figurative, modes of expression." To this purpose they then cite John 5:26; 1:14; 6:57 (in which last passage the Son confesses that the Father is no less the author of His divine Life, than He Himself is willing to be the author and cause of our spiritual life); Colossians 1:15; and Hebrews 1:3. Moreover: "Röellius, in confessing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, teaches a particular, but not all that the Formulas of our Union relate and set forth to be believed concerning this mystery according to the Word of God: Communication of the divine Essence made by the Father to the Son, and in this sense Generation, he not only passes over in silence, but rejects, against the Heidelburg Catechism XXXIII,[10] with the exegesis of Ursinus himself brought in for comparison, according to whom: 'Those born of parents are properly called natural sons, to whom the essence of their parents is communicated…. Therefore, as we are natural sons of our parents, so Christ according to His divine nature is the natural and sole Son of God of the same essence and nature with the Father, of whose substance in an ineffable manner He was begotten from eternity, John 5:26. Therefore, the Father communicated life to Him, whereby He also lives of Himself, and vivifies all creatures, which life is the one and eternal deity itself.'" And how much more truly and properly this agrees with Christ, than with us men, he vigorously expresses in this manner in the same place: "The essence and nature of our parents, of whom we are born, is communicated to us in part. The whole divine essence is communicated to Christ by the Father according to His divinity." Compare also Jan van den Honert’s[11] Præfationem ante Ursinum in Catechesin, part II, in Conclusione, chapter I, pages 110-113; and Stapfer’s Theologicæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XVI, § 1125-1128, which then in § 1129-1131 shows that this Generation by Communication of Essence is both absolutely necessary, and at the same time voluntary, but with an absolutely necessary will to generate, and no less eternal. Concerning this latter thesis of Stapfer, consult Spanheim, Decadum Theologicarum V, § 2, opera, tome 3, columns 1220, 1221. The Synod of South Holland, in the year 1758, in Article III, upon the occasion of the accusation of D. Sibelius, Pastor in the district of Alphen, on account of the ill-timed crisis raised concerning the language of Communication of the divine Essence numerically the same to the Son by Generation from the Father, stated: "D. Sibelius, whom the Brethren were happily acknowledging to be orthodox according to the more distinct declaration of his position more lately made, nevertheless quite imprudently conducted himself, as much in speaking as in writing, by expressions of this sort used concerning the expression Communication of the divine Essence, of which orthodox Theologians in our Church are wont to make use in explaining this momentous doctrine, as if this, understood literally, would open the doors to the Arians. In which manner he offended many, and brought upon himself a just suspicion of heterodoxy: hence the same D. Sibelius is to be admonished earnestly and in a brotherly manner by the Deputies of the Synod in that place, so that he might be more careful in the matter in times to come, and adhere as much to the Church’s manner of speaking as to her doctrine." Footnotes: 1. Johannes Wilhelmius (1671-1754) was pastor at Rotterdam. Wilhelmius's teaching and support were critical for the preservation of the German and Dutch Reformed churches of Pennsylvania. 2. Paulus Hulsius (1653-1712) was a Dutch pastor and theologian. He served as Professor of Theology at Groningen (1708-1712). 3. Johann Cloppenburg (1592-1652) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and controversialist. He studied at the University of Leiden, and held various ministerial posts until his appointment as professor at the University of Harderwijk (1641), and then at Franeker (1643). He was a lifelong friend of Voetius, and colleague of Cocceius at Franeker. 4. Johannes d’Outrein (1662-1722) was Professor of Theology at Dordrecht and Amsterdam. 5. John Gerhard (1582-1637) was an eminent Lutheran divine. He held the position of Professor of Divinity at Jena (1616), and he was four times the Rector of the same. He wrote copiously in exegetical, polemical, and dogmatic theology. His Loci communes theologici (1610-1622) was the largest Lutheran dogmatic text that had been produced to date. 6. Martin Geier (1614-1680) was a German Lutheran pastor and scholar. He served as Professor of Hebrew (1639-1643) and of Theology (1658-1665) at Leipzig. 7. Bartholomäus Keckermann (c. 1572-1608) was a German Reformed Theologian and educator. He served as Professor of Hebrew at Heidelberg (1600-1602), and as Rector of the Gymnasium of Danzig (1602-1608). 8. Friedrich Spanheim the Elder (1600-1649) studied at Heidelberg and Geneva. He served the academy at Geneva, first as Professor of Philosophy, then as a member of the theological faculty, and finally as rector. In 1642, he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Leiden, and became a prominent defender of Calvinistic orthodoxy against Amyraldianism. 9. Reinerus Vogelsang (1610-1679) was a Reformed divine, and Professor of Theology at Deventer (1676-1679). 10. Heidelburg Catechism 33: “Why is Christ called the only begotten Son of God, since we are also the children of God? Because Christ alone is the eternal and natural Son of God; but we are children adopted of God, by grace, for His sake.” 11. Jan van den Honert (1693-1758) was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1727-1734), and later at Leiden (1734-1758). End. Additional Observation: “…the identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is-Caused does not exist before in Act whereas that which Is-Communicated exists before in Act…” {Garrigou-Lagrange}

→ → xitter.cf/m_christianity/status/… → →

De Moor V:5 — The Three Modes of Subsistence in the One Divine Essence {{slight edits for readability/flow}} There are three modes of subsistence belonging to this one essence; or, more precisely, there are three true Persons, which are abstractly incommunicable modes of subsistence belonging to the Divine Essence. These are relatively and terminatively distinct from the Essence and relate to it as something more absolute and broader in a certain measure. The Essence is regarded as absolute, to which a certain relation is added by the mode of subsistence proper to each Person. Under that relation this Person, and not another, possesses the Essence, and by which these Persons relate to one another — yet in such a way that the personal character of each Person is terminated in that relation and cannot be predicated of another. If one should object that a predicative relation is an accidental property, which is inconsistent with God, and that personality is not an accidental property but a mode, it cannot be denied that the term Father asserts a true relation to the Son, and vice versa. Hence, in order to exclude all imperfect concepts, we may call this relation transcendental and hyperphysical. Here, Essence is as what is broader in a certain measure, and Personality as what is narrower: the Essence is communicable and actually common to the three Persons, while Personality is proper to each Person and incommunicable to the others. Our author allows this distinction between the Persons and the Essence to be expressed in various ways, provided the terms employed are not pressed with undue rigor, nor the imperfections of finite things applied to this mystery. It may be called: 1. A distinction of reason of having reasoned (rationis ratiocinatae) — that is, one which is not merely conceived by reasoning reason (a ratione ratiocinante), but at the same time has a foundation in the thing concerning which we reason. 2. Formal, because by that mode of subsistence superadded to the Divine Essence, the Essence is formally constituted in the being of a Person. 3. Modal, whereby the mode is said to be distinguished from the thing; just as we called the personal properties, by which the divine Persons are distinguished, modes of subsistence belonging to the Divine Essence. Thus the Persons are distinguished from the Essence and from each other, not really or essentially (like a thing from a thing), but modally (like a mode from a thing, and one mode of a thing from another). Hence, our author hardly allows this distinction to be called real, unless bare truth is noted in opposition to fiction, and it is signified that the divine Persons do not differ in reason alone, yet not therefore essentially. That is what those among us who here call the distinction real mean. They are unwilling that we should speak scholastically of a greater real distinction (the sort that exists between a thing and a thing), as if in the Trinity there were one thing and another, or one and another Essence, whereby the perfectly simple unity of the divine Essence would fall. Rather, they understand a lesser real distinction, which is between a thing and the mode of a thing, or between the modes themselves, and which exactly coincides with a modal distinction. Compare Eckhardus’ Fasciculum Controversiarum cum Calvino, chapter II, question VI, pages 44–50; Nicolaus Arnoldi’s Scopas dissolutas Eckhardi, chapter II, question VI, pages 11–13; Van Mastricht’s Gangraenam Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior section, chapter XVIII, §§ 6–11, pages 328–335, where with Maresius, Systemate Theologico, locus III, § 20, note a, he disputes against Wittich that a distinction real, modal, or of reason of having reasoned is not to be admitted here, but only personal, or by the personal properties; just as the Persons are nevertheless distinguished from each other rather than from the Essence. For in the disputation with the Socinians, if one would stand in the truth, one will always be obliged to explain a personal distinction of this sort with reference to mode. By this discourse of Mastricht and Maresius is also sufficiently supplied what may be replied to Lampe, who likewise rejects a modal distinction among the Divine Persons as distinct modes of subsistence, as if this were the ancient heresy of the Sabellians, and substitutes a personal distinction as something greater, implying the proper intellect and will of the individual Divine Persons — although he testifies elsewhere that he acknowledges the Essence of the Three Persons to be one with respect to number. From what has been previously said it is evident that Person regarded in the concrete does not bespeak a bare mode of subsistence, but the Essence together with a peculiar mode of subsistence, through which the Essence is terminated in this or that Person; whereas Personality regarded in the abstract is an incommunicable mode of subsisting in the same Essence. Hence it follows of itself that the Divine Persons are distinguished from one another by the mode of existence (τρόπον ὑπάρξεως), and that no other distinction obtains between Essence and Persons, and between one Person and another, except a modal distinction. If one calls this distinction personal, one speaks less determinatively. A personal distinction also obtains between the various angels and men, as many individuals sharing in the same (with respect to species) angelic and human nature. But if the Socinians should ask whether one conceives of the personal distinction between the three Divine Persons in the same manner, and one gives assent, they will with good reason call one a Tritheist, and the mystery of the Trinity will be ruined. If one rightly answers in the negative, how will one explain what one understands by a personal distinction in the divine, and how a personal distinction in the divine and in creatures might differ, except by returning to a modal distinction, and by showing that a multiplication of numeric essence does indeed obtain in the multiple persons of angels and men (since the same, with respect to species, angelic or human nature is communicated to three substances diverse in number), whereas in the divine Persons, sharers of the same (with respect to number) divine Essence, there is only a distinction in the diverse mode of subsisting in the same nature, or of possessing the same (with respect to number) nature, and that hence no progress is able to be made here beyond the modal distinction. Moreover, just as the Divine Essence bespeaks an infinite spiritual substance, furnished with the faculties of intellect, will, and power, and infinite perfection; so this Essence, one with respect to number, with intellect, will, power, and infinite perfection numerically the same, which the individual Divine Persons enjoy, agrees with and is common to them. Does he not speak incoherencies and contradictions (ἀσύστατα) who acknowledges one substance or Divine Essence with respect to number, and at the same time affirms that among the three Divine Persons a distinction obtains more than modal, called personal, by which intellect and will as proper are applicable to the individual Divine Persons? Let others judge. Compare the end of § 8 of this chapter, and chapter XVIII, § 18, where one will find the various passages of Lampe to which I have regard here also cited. Lampe would be greatly deceived if he should confound the orthodox opinion concerning three distinct modes of subsistence in the numerically one Divine Essence with the position of the Modalists, as they are called, who explain the three Divine Persons by three diverse modes of thinking. Such are taken for the more recent Sabellians and are referred to the Unitarians, since one and the same Person is able to have the thoughts of a Judge, a Mediator, and a Comforter. See Buddeus’ Institutiones Theologiæ dogmaticæ, book II, chapter I, § 54, tome 1, pages 417–418, and his Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 10, tome 2, page 1354b. Compare also what Spanheim, in Historia ecclesiastica, Century III, chapter VII, § 3, column 749, notes on Christophorus Sandius concerning the catholic doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity (ὁμοουσίου) turned into Sabellianism, to which similarly tend Curcellæus, Quaternione Dissertationum adversus Maresium, Dissertation I, § 119, opera, page 877, and Vorstius, Exegese Apologetica, chapter IX, pages 37–38. Attend also to the caution of Ambrose, whereby, if one wishes to preserve the consubstantiality (ὁμοουσίον) of the numerically one divine Essence, he teaches that a recognition of several that as individuals have their own wills is to be far removed (de Filii Divinitate et Consubstantialitate contra Arianos, chapter II, opera, tome 4, column 277): “Or, if He is true God and not of the Father, then there are two having their own wills individually,” etc. This thesis concerning three true Persons in the one divine Essence is to be maintained against the error that has especially been known by the name of Sabellianism. The name was taken from Sabellius, a Pentapolitan African, who spread in the third century, after the same had already been disseminated by Simon Magus in the first century, and by Noëtus and Praxeas in the second century: that the Father, Son, and Spirit are merely three names (τρεῖς ὀνομασίας), relations, or offices, but not three hypostases (ὑποστάσεις); and that there is only one Person or hypostasis in God, the Son-Father (υἱοπάτορος). They wished God to be called Father in heaven, the Son on earth, and the Holy Spirit in creatures, to the extent that He exerts His power in them. But because they acknowledged only one Person in God, they supposed that what happened to the Son also happened to the Father; that is, they said that the Father, under the notion of a Son, was also born of the Virgin, and afterwards suffered, from which absurd thesis they were also known as Patripassians. See Epiphanius, Hæresi XLII or LXII, opera, tome I, pages 513–520; Hæresi XXI, page 55; Hæresi XXXVII or LVII, pages 479–488; Augustine, de Hæresibus, chapters XLI, I, XXVI, and Danaeus’ notes on him; Spanheim, Historia Ecclesiastica, Century III, chapter VII, § 3, columns 748–749; Century I, chapter XIV, § 2, column 574; Century II, chapter VI, column 647. Against whom, among other arguments, he alleges that one Person of the Deity is very frequently found speaking to or concerning another Person, with relation to His personal property (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 3:17; John 15:26, etc.). Pierre Poiret attempts to excuse Sabellius and to enervate his doctrines, as if the contention between the Sabellians and the orthodox were merely a verbal dispute, with Sabellius merely refusing to acknowledge three Persons (that is, three individual substances) because thus he would have professed Tritheism. But by others it is believed that Poiret himself is not far removed from the error of the Sabellians: while he does indeed admit the language of Person, and profess that there are three hypostases or Persons in the divine Essence, he does so only in this sense, that this is the same as if one should establish three mere relations, habits, respects, or qualities in the divinity. See Walch’s Miscellanea Sacra, book III, Exercitation VIII, § 5, pages 736–737. Just how far the blasphemous doctrine of Servetus agrees with this ancient heresy, see in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, chapter XIII, § 22, opera, tome 6, and likewise in his operibus, tome 7, folio 592, etc.; add Pictet’s Syllabum Controversiarum, book I, chapter XI, pages 79–81. That Servetus and his followers are to be held as neoteric Samosatenians, Walch contends, Miscellaneis Sacris, book I, Exercitation V, pages 122 and following. The wicked blasphemies with which Servetus hostilely pursued the doctrine of the Trinity, see in Hoornbeeck’s Apparatus ad Controversiam Socinianam, page 18. The doctrine of Hobbes concerning the Trinity is also to be referred to Sabellianism, which Cocquius confutes in his Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus VI, chapter XIII, pages 127–133. Moreover, it appears that to this same class of errors concerning the Holy Trinity is to be referred a conception of this mystery which was forged both by Pierre Poiret, just now mentioned, and Wilhelmus Deurhof, concerning God knowing and loving Himself, in which the Trinity would consist, while the latter says that he who speaks of three distinct Persons in one Essence explains the Trinity in a monstrous manner. See Taco Hajo van den Honert’s Veras Dei Vias, part II, book V, chapter I, § 21, pages 774–792; Deurhof’s Leer en Eer verdeedigt, pages 72–92, 136, 137. → → fromreformationtoreformation… → →

Trinitarian Life ||| Helpful Items From Dr. Steven Dilday @MPooleProject De Moor: The Truth of the Holy Spirit As Person (4 Part Series) → Part 1 fromreformationtoreformation… → Part 2 fromreformationtoreformation… → Part 3 fromreformationtoreformation… → Part 4 fromreformationtoreformation… →