It may indeed be undignified to give any answer at all to the statements that are foolish we seem to be pointed that way by Solomon’s wise advice, “n

 What then is the charge they bring against us? They accuse us of profanity for entertaining lofty conceptions about the Holy Spirit. All that we, in f

 What then, shall be our way of arguing? We shall answer nothing new, nothing of our own invention, though they challenge us to it we shall fall back

 We can confirm our argument by material instances. Fire naturally imparts the sense of heat to those who touch it, with all its component parts one

 If, then, the Holy Spirit is truly, and not in name only, called Divine both by Scripture and by our Fathers, what ground is left for those who oppose

 For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is est

 Since, then, it has been affirmed, and truly affirmed, that the Spirit is of the Divine Essence, and since in that one word “Divine” every idea of gre

 But if all must shrink from that, as going even beyond the most revolting blasphemy, then a devout mind must accept the nobler names and conceptions o

 If such is the doctrine concerning Him when followed out , let the same inquiry be made concerning the Son and the Father as well. Do you not confess

 If, then, they agree that the Holy Spirit is perfect absolutely, and it has been admitted in addition that true reverence requires perfection in every

 In what sort of manner, then, can you honour the Deity? How can you heighten the Highest? How can you give glory to that which is above all glory? How

 The heavens proclaim the glory of God , and yet they are counted poor heralds of His worth because His Majesty is exalted, not as far as the heavens,

 What means, then, this lowering and this expanding of their soul, on the part of these men who are enthusiastic for the Father’s honour, and grant to

 “Yes,” replies one of them, “but we have been taught by Scripture that the Father is the Creator, and in the same way that it was ‘through the Son ’ t

 What shall we answer to this? That the thoughts of their hearts are so much idle talk, when they imagine that the Spirit was not always with the Fathe

 The view which is consistent with all reverence is as follows. We are not to think of the Father as ever parted from the Son, nor to look for the Son

 If, on the contrary, this Spirit has the impulse to work, but some overwhelming control hinders His design, they must tell us the wherefore of this hi

 This is the view we take, after the unprofessional way usual with us and we reject all these elaborate sophistries of our adversaries, believing and

 But with regard to service and worship, and the other things which they so nicely calculate about, and bring into prominence, we say this that the Ho

 But if there is any of them who rejects this statement, and this idea involved in the very name of Divinity, and says that which, to the destruction o

 These destroyers of the Spirit’s glory, who relegate Him to a subject world, must tell us of what thing that unction is the symbol. It not a symbol of

 Again, let us look at it in this way. Kingship is most assuredly shown in the rule over subjects. Now what is “subject” to this Kingly Being? The Word

 For notice the amount of absurdity involved in the other alternative all things that we can think of in the actual creation have, by virtue of all ha

 Then let us look to this too. In Holy Baptism, what is it that we secure thereby? Is it not a participation in a life no longer subject to death? I th

 So that if these despisers and impugners of their very own life conceive of the gift as a little one, and decree accordingly to slight the Being who i

 If, then, every height of man’s ability falls below the grandeur of the Spirit (for that is what the Word means in the metaphor of “footstool”), what

 On the contrary the Holy Spirit is, to begin with, because of qualities that are essentially holy, that which the Father, essentially Holy, is and su

 If such, then, is the greatness of the Spirit, and whatever is beautiful, whatever is good, coming from God as it does through the Son, is completed b

 But you will say, “When I think of the Father it is the Son (alone) that I have included as well in that term.” But tell me when you have grasped the

 Do they too, then, mean this by their worship? Well, is it anything but absurdity to think that it is wrong to honour the Holy Spirit with that with w

 [Translation lacking]

On the Holy Spirit. Against the Followers of Macedonius. 1    Macedonius had been a very eminent Semi-Arian doctor. He was deposed from the See of Constantinople, A.D. 360: and it was actually the influence of the Eunomians that brought this about. He went into exile and formed his sect. He considered the Holy Spirit as “a divine energy diffused throughout the universe: and not a person distinct from the Father and the Son” (Socrates, H. E. iv. 4). This opinion had many partizans in the Asiatic provinces, “but,” says Mosheim, “the Council of Constantinople crushed it.” However, that the final clauses of the Nicene Creed which express distinctly, amongst other truths, the deity and personality of the Third Person of the Trinity were added at that Council to the original form, is extremely doubtful. For—1. We find the expanded form which we now use in the Nicene Creed, in a work written by Epiphanius seven years before the Council of Constantinople. So that at all events the enlarged Creed was not prepared by the Fathers then assembled. 2. It is extremely doubtful if any symbol at all was set forth at Constantinople. Neither Socrates, nor Sozomen, nor Theodoret makes mention of one: but all speak of adherence to the evangelic faith ratified at Nicæa. It is significant too that the expanded form was entirely ignored by the Council of Ephesus, 431. But at the Council of Chalcedon, 451, it was brought forward: though even then it appears that it was far from attaining general acceptance. By 540 it had become the accepted form (according to a letter of Pope Vigilius). “It seems most likely therefore that it was a profession received amongst the churches in the patriarchate of Constantinople, but at first not more widely circulated” (J. R. Lumby, Commentary on Prayer-Book, S. P. C. K., p. 66) F. J. A. Hort, however, (see Two Dissertations by) regards this “Constantinopolitan” Creed as the old Creed of Jerusalem enlarged and expanded; and he suggests that S. Cyril of Jerusalem may have produced it before the Council, which gave it some sort of approval. The addition, moreover, of the later clauses was not, as Mosheim seems to imagine, the only difference between the Nicene Creed and this Creed.   That this lateness of accepted definition on a vital point should not excite our wonder, Neander shows “the apprehension of the idea (of the ὁμοούσιον of the Holy Spirit) had been so little permeated as yet by the Christian consciousness of the unity of God, that Gregory of Nazianzum could still say in 380, ‘Some of our theologians consider the Holy Spirit to be a certain mode of the Divine energy, others a creature of God, others God Himself. Others say they do not know which opinion they ought to accept, out of reverence for the Scriptures which have not clearly explained this point.’ Hilary of Poictiers says in his own original way that ‘he was well aware that nothing could be foreign to God’s nature, which searches into the deep things of that nature. Should one be displeased at being told that He exists by and through Him, by and from Whom are all things, that He is the Spirit of God, but also God’s gift to believers, then will the apostles and prophets displease him; for they affirm only that He exists.’” There can be little doubt, however, that Gregory, in the following fragment, is defending a statement already in existence. He seems even to follow the order of the words, “Lord and giver of Life.” “Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.” Doubtless the next clause, “Who spake by the Prophets,” was dealt with in what is lost. But, essentially a creed-maker as he was, his claim to have himself added these final clauses cannot be substantiated. For the mss. of this treatise, see p. 31.

[ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΝΥΣΣΗΣ] ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑΝΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΜΑΧΩΝ