« ZurückWeiter »
whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matt. xii. 31, 32.)* By which words it appeareth there is a sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost distinct from all other sins and blasphemies committed against God the Father, or the Son of God; that this sin hath an aggravation added unto it, beyond other sins and blasphemies: but if the Holy Spirit were no person, the sin could not be distinct from those sins which are committed against him whose Spirit he is; and if he were a person created, the sin could receive no such aggravation beyond other sins and blasphemies.
To this they answer, that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not therefore unpardonable, because he is God, which is not to our purpose; but they do not, cannot, shew that it can be unpardonable, if he were not God. It is not therefore simply, and for no other reason unpardonable, because that person is God against whom it is committed: for if so, then any sin committed against that person which is God, would be unpardonable; which is false. But that sin, which is particularly called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is a sin against God, and in such a manner aggravated, as makes it irremissible; of which aggravation it were incapable, if the Spirit were not God.
Thirdly, Every created person was made by the Son of God as God, and is now put under the feet of the Son of God as man. But the Spirit of God was not made by the Son of God, nor is he now put under the feet of the Son of man. Therefore the Spirit of God can be no created person.“ All things were made by the Word, and without him was not any thing made that was made;" (John i. 3.) therefore every created person was made by the Word. God hath put all things under the feet of Christ; and when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him:" (1 Cor. xv. 27.) and being none is excepted beside God, every created person must be under the feet of the Son of man. But the Spirit of God in the beginning, was not made, yea rather in the beginning made the world, as Job speaks of God, “By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens:"(Job xxvi. 13.)+
* Quomodo audent inter omnia nu- made by the Son, as Epiphanius tesmerare Spiritum S., quando ipse Do- tifieth of the Arians: Havri roŰTO minus dixerit, Qui blasphemaverit in δήλόν έστιν, ότι ομολογούσιτους αγγέλους Filium hominis, remittetur et; quί υπό του Υιού γεγονέναι, και γάρ και περί autem blasphemaverit in Spiritum S., του Πνεύματος βλασφημούσι και τολμώσι nec hic nec in futurum remittetur ei. Néyelv certiodai ÚTÒ TOŨ Yioû. Hær. Quomodo igitur inter creaturas audet Ixix. §. 52. 'Ariani ab Ario, in eo quisquam Spiritum computare? Aut sunt notissimi errore, quo Patrem et quis sic se obligat, ut si creaturæ de- Filium et Spiritum S. nolunt esse rogaverit, non putet sibi boc aliqua unius ejusdemque naturæ, sed esse Fi. venia relaxandum.' S. Ambros. de lium creaturam, Spiritum.vero S.creaSpiritu S. l. j. c. 3.
turam creaturæ, hoc est, ab ipso Filio + Those which anciently did be- creatum volunt. S. August. Hær. 49. lieve tlie Spirit of God to be a created As Eusebius: Το δε παράκλητον "Αγιον person, did also teach iliat he was Πνεύμα, ούτε θεός, ούτε Υιός, έπει μη
nor is he under the feet of Christ, now set down at the right hand of God, who with supreme authority, together with the Father, sent the prophets; as Isaiah testifieth, saying, “Now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me;" (xlviii. 16.) and with the same authority, since the exaltation of our Saviour, sént forti such as were separated to himself, as appeareth in the case of Barnabas and Saul, and with the same authority giveth all spiritual gifts,* « dividing to every man severally as he will;” (i Cor. xii. 11.) so that in the kingdom of Christ all things are done by the power of the Spirit of God.” (Rom. xv. 19.)
Fourthly, He, by whose operation Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin, was no created person: for by vir tue of that conception he was called the Son of God; whereas if a creature had been the cause of his conception, he had been in that respect the son of a creature; nay, according to the adversaries principles, he had taken upon him the nature of angels. But the Holy Ghost it was by whose operation Christ was conceived in the womb of a virgin. For it was an angel that said to Mary (not that an angel, but that) « the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke i. 35.) Therefore the Spirit of God is no created person; which is our second assertion against the ancient, but newly-revived heresy of the Arians and Macedonians.+ εκ του Πατρός ομοίως τω Υιώ και αυτό νοιαν μεθερμηνεύοντες ου γάρ το θείον την γέννησιν είληφεν, εν δε τι τών διά Ευαγγέλιον περί του Πνεύματος έφη, αλτου Υιού γενομένων τυγχάνει, ότι δε πάντα λά περί πάντων των κεκτισμένων, ότι εί δι' αυτού εγένετο, και χωρίς αυτού εγένετο τι κτιστόν, διά τού Λόγου γεγένηται, και ουδέ έν. De Eccl. Theol. 1. iii. c. 6. υπό του Λόγου" τα γάρ πάντα δι' αυτού ο δε Υιός μόνος πατρική θεότητι τετι- εγένετο, και χωρίς αυτού εγένετο ουδέ έν, μημένος, ποιητικός αν είη και δημιουργη- παρεκτεινομένης της αναγνώσεως, έχει και τικός της των γεννητών απάντων ορατών γέγονεν, ίνα ούτω γνωστή, ότι πάντα δι' τε και αοράτων, και δη και αυτής της του αυτού εγένετο, και χωρίς αυτού εγένετο παρακλήτου Πνεύματος υπάρξεως πάντα ουδε έν. S. Epiphan. Her. Ixix. 8. 56. γάρ δι' αυτού εγένετο, και χωρίς αυτού : * Ταύτα πάντα ενεργεί το εν και το εγένετο ουδέ έν.. Ιbid. Where it is αυτό Πνεύμα, διαιρούν ιδία εκάστω κα
worth, our, observation, that Eusebius θώς βούλεται. Καθώς βούλεταί φησιν, citing the place of St. John, to prove ου καθώς προστάττεται διαιρούν, ε: ου that the Holy. Ghost was made by διαιρούμενον αυθεντούν, ούκ αυθεντία the Son, leaves out those words twice υποκείμενον τήν γάρ αυτήν εξουσίαν, together, by which the Catholics used ήνπερ εμαρτύρησε τω Πατρί, ταύτην και to refute that theresy of the Arians, τω αγίω Πνεύματι ανατίθησιν ο Παύλος υια. δ γέγονεν. All things which were και ώσπερ επί του Πατρός φησιν, ο δε made, were made by the Son, but the Θεός έστιν ο ενεργών τα πάντα εν πάσιν: Holy Ghost was not amongst them, ούτω και επί του αγίου Πνεύματος, Ταύα γέγονεν, which were made, and there- τα δε πάντα, φησίν, ενεργεί το εν και το fore was not made by the Son. Το αυτο Πνεύμα, διαιρούν ιδία εκάστω, κα *"Αγιον γάρ Πνεύμα κτίσμα πάλιν κτί- θώς βούλεται είδες απηρτισμένην εξ. σματός φασιν είναι, διά το, διά του Υιού ουσίαν; ών γάρ ή ουσία μία, δήλον και τα πάντα γεγενήσθαι, ως είπεν ή γραφή, ότι η αυθεντία μία και ών ισότιμος ή ασυνέτως τινάς διαρπάζοντες" ου καθώς αξία, τούτων και η δύναμης και η εξουσία είρηται το ρητόν έχοντες, αλλά κακώς μία. S. Chrysost. de Sanct. Pentecost: υπονοούντες, και από ρητού, το καλώς Ηom. ii. t. v. p. 10. ειρημένον κατά την κακήν αυτών υπό † This express notion of the Spirit
Our third assertion is that which necessarily followeth from the former two, that the Spirit of God, in whose name we are of God, that he was a person, as a niani sunt a Macedonio Constantiministering Spirit, and created, was nopolitanæ Ecclesiæ Episcopo, quos acknowledged the doctrine of the et Ilvevmatouaxovs Græci dicunt, eo Arians, as may appear out of the for- quod de Spiritu S. litigent. Nam mer testimonies, and is evident by de Patre et Filio recte sentiunt, those which followed his opinions. quod unius sint ejusdemque subWhich being of two kinds, the Ano- stantiæ vel essentiæ, sed de Spiritu means, or pure Arians (such as were S. hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum Aetius, Eunomius, and Eudoxius), esse dicentes.' S. August. Hæres. 52. and the Homoousians or Semi-Arians This heresy was first condemned (such as Eusebius and Macedonius), by the Council of Alexandria : 'Evja they both alike denied the Divinity, το "Αγιον Πνεύμα θεολογήσαντες, τη and asserted the creation of the Holy ομοουσία τριάδι συνανελαμβάνοντο. SoGhost. The opinion of the Ano- crat. I. iii. c. 7. Afterward, by the means is clear out of the words of Council held in Illyricum: “Ημείς δε Eunomius, who very subtilly deliver- φρονούμεν ως και αι Σύνοδοι νύν ή τε ed it, as if it had been the opinion of κατά Ρώμης και η κατά Γαλλίαν, μίαν the ancients: Τήν των αγίων εν άπασι είναι και την αυτήν ουσίαν του Παφυλάσσοντες διδασκαλίαν, παρ' ών τρί- τρός, και του Υιού, και του αγίου Πνεύτον αυτό αξιώματα και τάξει μαθόντες, ματος έν τρισέ προσώποις, τουτέστιν τρίτον είναι και τη φύσει πεπιστεύκαμεν. έν τρισί τελείαις υποστάσεσι. Αpud Š. Basil. contra Eunom. 1. jji.§.1. The Theodoret. Hist. Eccl.1. iv. c.8. The confession of the ancients was, that the Synod held at Rome with the GalliHoly Ghost was the third person in can bishops under Damasus: "DOTE the Trinity in order and dignity; and τον Πατέρα και τον Υιόν μιάς ουσίας, Eunomius pretending to follow them, μιάς θεότητος, μιάς αρετής, μιάς δυνάadded, that he was also third in na- μεως, και ενός χαρακτήρος πιστεύεσθαι ture; which the ancients never taught. χρή, και της αυτής υποστάσεως και ουAnd what this third in nature was, he σίας και το Πνεύμα το άγιον. Αpud thas declared: Τρίτον τάξει και φύσει, Theodoret. 1. ii. c. 22. Another Syπροστάγματι μεν του Πατρός, ενεργεία nod held under the same Damasus at δε του Υιού γενόμενον τρίτη χώρα τιμώ- Rome: Εί τις είπoι το Πνεύμα το άγιον μενον, ως πρώτος και μείζον απάντων, ποίημα ή διά του Υιού γεγενήσθαι, ανάκαι μόνον τοιούτον του μονογενούς ποίη- θεμα έστω. Αpud Τheodoret. 1. v. C. μα, θεότητος και δημιουργικής δυνάμεως 11. After and upon these particular απολειπόμενον. Ιbid. 5. 5. And again: Synods this heresy was fully conΕάν μή κτίσμα εστίν, ουκούν γέννημα demned in the second general Coun-η αγέννητον· είς δε άναρχος Θεός και cil held at Constantinople, in which αγέννητος ούτε μην γέννημα: λείπεται these words were added to the Nicene ούν κτίσμα και ποίημα αυτό ονομάζεσθαι. Creed: Και εις το Πνεύμα το άγιον, το Ibid. 5. 6. So Gregory Nyssen re- κύριον, το ζωοποιόν, το εκ του Πατρός peats the words of the same Euno- εκπορευόμενον, και συν Πατρί και Υιώ mius : Πιστεύομεν εις τον Παράκλητον συμπροσκυνούμενον, το λαλήσαν δια γενόμενον από του μόνου θεού διά του των προφητών. And in the first Canon μονογενούς, and declares that their mentioning the heresy condemned ordinary language was αντί του αγίου expressly by the Council, they name: Πνεύματος κτίσμα κτίσματος και έργον ιδικώς τήν τών Ευνομιανών, είτουν 'Ανοέργου ονομάζειν. Οrat. 1. cont. Eunom. μoίων, και την των 'Αρειανών, είτουν p. 485-7. Besides these, the Semi- Ευδοξιανών, και την τών Ημιαρειανών, Arians, and some of those which were ήγουν Πνευματoμάχων. And thus the orthodox as to the Divinity of the Son, heresy of Macedonius, who made the were of the same heresy as to the na- Holy Ghost a created person, was ture of the Holy Ghost, and therefore condemned by the second general were called Πνευματομάχοι (as Epi- Council; Ούτος δή ούν ο ιεροφάντης phanius derives them in the descrip- χορός Μακεδόνιόν τινα, τον Κωνσταντινοtion of that heresy, από “Ημιαρείων και πόλεως θρόνον άρπαγμα πάλαι ποιησάαπό 'Ορθοδόξων, Harr. Ixxiv. 5. 1.), and μενον, ότι το πανάγιον και ζωαρχικών afterward Macedoniani. “Macedo- έδυσφήμει Πνεύμα, ευθύνας εδικαίου δού
baptized, and in whom we profess to believe, is properly and truly God. For if he be a person, as we have proved in the declaration of our first assertion; if he be a person not created, as we have demonstrated in the corroboration of the second assertion: then must he of necessity be acknowledged to be God, because there is no uncreated essence beside the essence of the one eternal God. And there is this great felicity in the laying of this third assertion, that it is not proved only by the two precedent assertions, but also by the adversaries of them both. He which denies the first, that is, the Socinian, affirms that the Spirit of God is in God, and is the eternal and omnipotent power of God; he which denies the second, that is, the Macedonian, asserts that he is a person of an intellectual nature subsisting; but whatsoever is a person subsisting of eternal and omnipotent power, must be acknowledged to be God. Whether therefore we look upon the truth of our assertions, or whether we consider the happiness of their negations, the conclusion is, that the Holy Ghost is God.
But were there nothing, which is already said, demonstrated, there is enough written in the Word of God to assure us of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, to make us undoubtedly believe that the Spirit of God is God. It is written by Moses, that “ when he went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out.” (Exod. xxxiv. 34.) And that Lord, with whom Moses spake, was the one Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. But we are assured that the Spirit was and is that Lord to which Moses spake; for the apostle hath taught us so much by his own interpretation, saying, “Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit.” (2 Cor. iii. 15–17.) The Spirit is here so plainly said to be the Lord, that is, Jehovah, the one eternal God, that the adversaries of this truth must either deny that the Lord is here to be taken for God, or, that the Spirit is to be taken for the Spirit of God: either of which denials must seem very strange to any person, who considereth the force and plainness of the apostle's discourse.
But indeed they are so ready to deny any thing, that they will by no means acknowledge either the one or the other: but the Lord must be something which is not God, and the Spirit must be something which is not the Spirit of God: and then they conclude the argument is of no force, and may as well conclude the apostle's interpretation hath no sense. The Lord, they say, is Christ, and not God; for Christ, they say, is not God: the Spirit, they say, is the mystery of the Law, or the hidden sense of it, and that every one knows is not the Spiναι ώς και "Αρειος κατά του Υιού, ούτω τας την δεσποτικών και υπερκειμένην και αυτός κατά παναγίου παραταττόμε- αυτού συνέταττε κυριότητα. Photius, νος Πνεύματος, εις δούλους και υπηρέ- Epist, i. 5. 10.
rit of God. But we are assured that the apostle did mean by the Spirit, the Spirit of God, not the sense of the Law; for he addeth immediately, “ Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" and the sense of the Law is never called the Spirit of the Lord. Nay, were it not that the coherence of the discourse did satisfy us; yet the objection ought not at all to move us: for the name of Spirit, in those places mentioned by them to signify the sense of the Law, hath no affinity with this, according to their own way of argumentation : for it is never so taken with the emphasis of an article,* and put in the place either of an entire subject or a predicate in a proposition, except by way of opposition; and one of those it must of necessity be, in the words of the apostle,“ now the Lord is the Spirit,” and that without the least intimation of any opposition.
Again, we are assured that by the Lord the apostle did understand the eternal God; for he speaketh of the same Lord which he mentioned in the verse before, and that is the Lord God spoken of in the Book of Exodus; of which except the apostle speaks, his argument hath neither inference nor coherence. In vain therefore is this pretended for an answer, that the apostle by the Lord doth always, unless he cite some place out of the old Covenant, understand Christ; for in this particular he citeth a certain place out of the Book of Exodus,t. and useth the name of the Lord in the same notion in which there it is used, framing an argument and urging it from thence; and if he did not, that rule is not so universal and infallible,I
* The places alleged by them are ther agrees with the words before it, these: Περιτομή καρδίας εν Πνεύματι, nor witli those which follow it. ou ypáupati. Rom. ii. 29. "Qote dov + The words in Exodus were these, λεύειν ημάς εν καινότητα πνεύματος, και ΧΧxiv. 34. Ηνίκα δε αν εισεπορεύετο ου παλαιότητι γράμματος. Rom. vii. 6. Μωϋσής έναντι Κυρίου λαλείν αυτω, “Ητις καλείται πνευματικώς Σόδομα και περιηρείτο το κάλυμμα which are thus Asyuntos. Rev. xi. 8. . One of these made use of by the apostle: vika di places speaks only adverbially, the αν επιστρέψη προς Κύριον, περιαιρείται otlier two have πνεύμα in obliquo; and το κάλυμμα. Κύριος then is here used one of those two have it cum adjuncto, by St. Paul citing some place out of both of them cum opposito, none of the old covenant, and the words them cum articulo, none of them are which follow, 'o dè Kúplos, signify tbe in loco subjecti, or prædicati; and same Kúplos, as appeareth by the coritherefore how any of these can shew, junction dé: and if so, then accordthat rò Tveõua iv this place by us ing to the doctrine of our adversaurged, invested with an article, stand- ries, it cannot signify Christ. For ing in thie place eitlier of a complete that the Lord of whom Mosés špake, subject, or a complete predicate, with was then when Moses wrote; but that nothing adjoined, nothing opposed Christ of which they interpret it, was unto it, must be taken in the same not then, as they teach; therefore sense with them, I cannot imagine. that Lord cannot be Christ, in their In the sixth verse of this chapter (2 interpretation, without a contradicCor. iji.) indeed it is the subject of a tion. proposition, and invested with an ar # For though Cbrist be most freticle; but that is an article of op- quently called our Lord, yet being position: Tò vào ypápua Útokteivel, tò God the Father of Christ is our Lord, dè avęõua Swo Troiei: and this not. How- being ô Kúpeoç is often used by St. soever, in that sense objected, it nei. Paul without any restriction or inti