Abbildungen der Seite

ed Spirit is God: to which purpose, that I may proceed methodically, my fourth assertion is, That the Spirit of God, which is the true and living God, is neither God the Father, nor the Son of God

First, Though the Father be undoubtedly. God, though the Holy Ghost be also God, and (because there cannot be two Gods) the same God; yet the Holy Ghost is not the Father: for the Scriptures do as certainly distinguish them in their persons, as they do unite them in their nature. He which proceedeth from the Father is not the Father, because it is impossible any person should proceed from himself: but the Holy Ghost "proceedeth from the Father;" (John xv. 26.) therefore he is not the Father. He which is sent by the Father, and from the Father, is not the Father, by whom and from whom he is sent; for no person can be sent by himself, and by another from himself: but the Holy Ghost is sent by God the Father, and by the Son “from the Father;" (Ibid.) therefore he is not the Father.

Secondly, Though we have formerly proved, that the Son of God is properly and truly God; though we now have proved, that the Spirit of God is God, and in reference to both we understand the same God; yet the Holy Ghost is not the Son: for he which receiveth of that which is the Son's, and by receiving of it glorifieth the Son, cannot be the Son, because no person can be said to receive from himself that which is his own, and to glorify himself by so receiving; " but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,” (John xiv. 26.) received of that which is the Son's, and by receiving of it glorified the Son; for so our Saviour expressly said, “He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine:” (John xvi. 14.) therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Son. Again, he whose coming depended upon the Son's departing, and his sending after his departure, cannot be the Son, who therefore departed that he might send him. But the coming of the Holy Ghost depended upon the Son's departing, and his sending after his departure: as he told the apostles before he departed, “I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you:” (Ibid. 7.) therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Son.

Thirdly, Though the Father be God, and the Son be God, and the Holy Ghost be also the same God, yet we are assured that the Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son; because the Scriptures frequently represent him as distinguished both from the Father and the Son. As, when “the Spirit of God descended like a dove, and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” (Matt. iii. 16.) he was manifestly distinguished from the person of the Son, upon whom he lighted, and from the person of the Father, who spake from heaven of his Son. The apostle teaches us, that "

through the Son we have an access by one Spirit unto the Father,” (Eph. ii. 18.) and consequently assureth us, that

the Spirit by whom, is not the Father to whom, nor the Son through whom, we have that access. So“God sent forth his Son, that we might receive the adoption of sons:” and “because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (Gal. iv.446.) Where the Son is distinguished from the Father as first sent by bim, and the Spirit of the Son is distinguished both from the Father and the Son, as sent by the Father after he had sent the Son, And this our Saviour hath taught us several times in his word, as, “The Comforter whom the Father will send in my name;" “'The Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father;" (John xiv. 26. xv.26.) and wben that Comforter is come, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xxviii. 19.) I conclude therefore against the old Sabellian heresy,* that the Holy Ghost, although he be truly and properly God, is neither God the Father, nor God the Son, which is my fourth assertion.

Our fifth assertion is, That the Holy Ghost is the third person in the blessed Trinity. For being he is a person, by our first assertion; a person not created, by the second; but a divine person, properly and truly God, by the third; being though he is thus truly God, he is neither the Father nor the Son, by the fourth assertion it followeth that he is one of the three ; and of the three is the third. For as there is a number in the Trinity, by which the persons are neither more nor less than three; so there is also an order, by which, of these persons, the Father is the first, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third. Nor is this order arbitrary or external, but internal and necessary, by virtue of a subordination of the second unto the first, and of the third unto the first and second. The Godhead was communicated from the Father to the Son, not from the Son unto the Father; though therefore this were

* This heresy was very ancient, gust. Hær. 36. Suddenly after Noëeven before Sabellius, though those tus arose Sabellius: Aoyuarišel ouwhich held it were afterwards all s0 τος, και οι απ' αυτού Σαβελλιανοί, τον denominated from Sabellius. For we αυτόν είναι Πατέρα, τον αυτόν Υιόν, τον find it was the opinion of Praxeas, αυτόν είναι άγιον Πνεύμα ως είναι εν against whom Tertullian wrote; who mộ 'tortáoel tpɛīs óvopaolaç. S. Epibeing urged with that place, where phan. Hær. Ixii. §. 1. From him afterthe three persons were distinguished, wards were all which held the same “ The Holy Ghost shall come upon opinion, called Sabellians: 'Sabelthee, and the power of the Highest liani ab illo Noëto, quem supra mesball overshadow thee; therefore that moravimus, defluxisse dicuntur. Nam which is born of thee, sball be called et discipulum ejus quidam perhibent the Son of God," answered thus: 'Fi- fuisse Sabellium. Sed qua causa duas lius Dei Deus est, et virtus altissimi Hæreses Epiphanius computet, nealtissimus est.' c. 26. After Praxeas scio; cum fieri potuisse videamus, ut followed Noëtus: povorútWg ròv av. fuerit Sabellius iste famosior, et ideo τον Πατέρα, και Υιόν, και άγιον Πνεύμα ex illo celebrius haec Heresis nomen rynoáuevos. S. Epiphan. Hær. lvii. acceperit. Noëtiani enim difficillime §. 2.' Noëtiani a quodam Noëto, ab aliquo sciuntur; Sabelliani autem qui docebat Christum eundem ipsum sunt in oro multorum.' S. August. esse Patrem et Spiritum S. S. Av. Hær. 41.

done from all eternity, and so there can be no priority of time, yet there must be acknowledged a priority of order, by which the Father, not the Son, is first, and the Son, not the Father, second. Again, the same Godhead was communicated by the Father and the Son unto the Holy Ghost, not by the Holy Ghost to the Father or the Son; though therefore this was also done from all eternity, and therefore can admit of no priority in reference to time; yet that of order must be here observed; so that the Spirit receiving the Godhead from the Father who is the first person, cannot be the first; receiving the same from the Son, who is the second, cannot be the second; but being from the first and second must be of the three the third. And thus both the number and the order of the persons are signified together by the apostle, saying, “ There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” (1 John v. 7.) And though they are not expressly said to be three, yet the same number is sufficiently declared, and the same order is expressly mentioned, in the baptismal institution made " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." As therefore we have formerly proved the Son to be truly the second person, and at the same time the Father to be the first, so doth this which we have (but briefly) spoken, prove that the Holy Ghost is the third ;* which is our fifth assertion.

Our sixth and last assertion (sufficient to manifest the nature of the Holy Ghost, as he is the Spirit of God) teacheth that Spirit to be a person proceeding from the Father and the Son. From whence at last we have a clear description of the blessed Spirit, that he is the most higb and eternal God, of the same nature, attributes, and operations, with the Father and the Son, as receiving the same essence from the Father and the Son, by proceeding from them both. Now this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly, in relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. First, it is expressly said, That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as our Saviour testifieth, “When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John xv. 26.) And this is also evident from what hath been already asserted: for being the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and being so the same in the unity of the nature of God, are yet distinct in their personality, one of them must have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been already shewn to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from him.

Secondly, Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, yet the substance of the same truth is virtually contained there: because

# Vide p. 123. So Epiphanius τρίτον τη ονομασία. . In Ancorat. several times calls the Holy Spirit §. 8. &c.

those very expressions, which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, for that reason because he proceedeth from the Father, are also spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there must be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son, which is expressed in reference to the Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, therefore it is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Father. “ It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (Matt. x. 20.) For by the language of the apostle, the Spirit of God is the Spirit which is of God, saying, “The things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. And we have received not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God.” (1 Cor. ii. 11, 12.) Now the same Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son, for “because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts :” (Gal. iv. 6.) the Spirit of Christ, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his;" (Rom. viii. 9.) even “the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets :" (1 Pet. i. 11.) the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the apostle speaks, “I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.(Phil. i. 19.) If then the Holy Ghost be called the Spirit of God the Father, because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that, being called also the Spirit of the Son, he proceedeth also from the Son.

Again, Because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is therefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath by the original communication a right of mission; as," the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send.” (John xiv. 26.) But the same Spirit which is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith, “when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you.” (John xv. 26.) Therefore the Son hath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be acknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never sent by the Son, because be received not the Godhead from him; but the Father sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him: in the same manner neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy Spirit, because neither of them received the divine nature from the Spirit; but both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because the divine nature, common to both the Father and the Son, was communicated by them both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare expressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father; so do they also virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son.

From whence it came to pass in the primitive times, that the Latin fathers taught expressly the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son,* because by good consequence

This is not the late but ancient appear by these testimonies. 'Loqui opinion of the Latin Church, as will de eo (Sp.S.) non necesse est, quia de

they did collect so much from those passages of the Scripture which we have used to prove that truth. And the Greek fathers, though they stuck more closely to the phrase and language of the Scripture, saying, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and not saying, that he proceedeth from the Son; yet they acknowledged under another Scripture-expression the same thing which the Latins understand by procession, viz. That the Spirit is of or from the Son, as he is of and from the Father; and therefore usually when they said, he proceedeth from the Father, they also added, he received of the Son. The interpretation of which words, according to the Latins, inferred a procession ;I and that which the Greeks did underPatre et Filio auctoribus confitendus a Patre et Filio, non factus, nec creaest.' S. Hil. de Trin. I. ii. Ş. 29. “Spi- tus, nec genitus, sed procedens.' Inritus quoque Sanctus cum procedit ter Op. Athanas. vol. ii. p. 728. a Patre et Filio, non separatur a * The ancient Greek fathers, speakPatre, von separatur a Filio.' S. ing of this procession, mention the FaÀmbros. de Sp. . 1. i. c. 11. •Spiri- ther only, and never, I think, express tus autcm Sanctus vere Spiritus est, the Son, as sticking constantly in this procedens quidem a Patre et Filio: to the language of the Scriptures. sed non est ipse Filius, quia non ge- Thus Gregory Nazianzen distinguishneratur, neque Pater, quia procedit eth the three persons: 'Eti Tūv njeab utroque. Id. de Symb. c. 3. τέρων όρων ιστάμενοι, το αγέννητον εισά“Et in servos coelestia doua profudit, γωμεν, και το γεννητών, και το εκ του Spiritum ab Unigena Sanctum et Pa- Ilarpos éxtropevóuevov. Orat. i. de Filio, tre procedentem.

p. 563. And the three properties atPaulinus in Nat. 9. S. Felices, ver. 92. tributed to the three persons are these, Non possumus dicere quod Spiritus åyevvnoia to the Father, yévvious to S. et a Filio non procedat; neque the Son, and {KTÓPevolg to the Holy enim frustra Spiritus et Patris et Filii Ghost. But this word škTÓPevois or Spiritus dicitur.' S. August. de Trin. the verb ÉkTropɛúeoJai was not used 1. iv.c. 20. Firmissime tene et nul- by the Greeks in reference to the Son, latenus dubites, eundem Spiritum S., but only as the Scriptures speak, in qui Patris et Filii unus est Spiritus, relation to the Father. de Patre et Filio procedere.' Fulg. + As Epiphanius: Kai vào vai một de Fide ad Petrum, c. 11.

του Πνεύματος βλασφημούσι, και τολμώσι “Qui noster Dominus, qui tuus unicus λέγειν κεκτίσθαι υπό του Υιού, όπερ έστιν Spirat de Patrio corde Paracletum.' άκτιστον, εκ Πατρός εκπορευόμενον, και

Prud. Cathem. Hymn. v. 159. ToŨ Yioở laußávov. Hær. Ixix, s. 52. Tanquam idem Deus nunc Pater, Το άγιον Πνεύμα, Πνεύμα άγιον, Πνεύμα nunc Filius, nunc Spiritus S. nominc- Okoũ, đeì ôv oùv Tarpi cai Yių, oùr åł. tur; nec alius est qui genuit, alius quί λότριον θεού, από δε θεού ον, από Παgenitus est, alius qui de utroque pro- τρός εκπορευόμενον, και του Υιού λαμβάcessit.' Leo (speaking of the Sabellian vov. Id. Ancor. §. 6. 'Aki ydp TÒ IIveūberesy), epist. xciii. c. 1. 'Audi ma- ja oùv Ilarpi kai Yiq, ovváden pov llanifestius: proprium Patris esse genu- τρί, ου γεννητόν, ου κτιστόν, ουκ αδελφών isse, et proprium Filii natum fuisse; Υιού, ουκ έγγονον Πατρός, έκ Πατρός δε proprium vero Spiritus S. procedere de εκπορευόμενον, και του Υιού λαμβάνον. Patre Filioque. Vigil. cont. Eut. I. i. Id. Hær. Ixii. §. 4. ş. 10. By which testimonies, and the I'A Filio accipit, qui et ab eo like, of the Latin fathers, we may well mittitur, et a Patre procedit: et interguess in which Church the Creed, rogo, utrum id ipsum sit a Filio aceicommonly attributed to Athanasius, pere, qnod a Patre procedere. Quod first was framed; for as it is confessed si differre credetur inter accipere a to be written first in Latin, so it is Filio, et a Patre procedere, certe id most probable that it was composed ipsumy atquc unum esse existimabitur, by some member of the Latin Church, a Filio accipere, quod sit accipere a by that expression in it: 'Spiritus S. Patre. Ipse enim Dominus ait, Quon.

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »