« ZurückWeiter »
stand thereby, was the same which the Latins meant by the procession from the Son, that is, the receiving of his essence from him. That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father, so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son,* as receiving that infinite and eternal essence from them both.
This being thus the general doctrine of the eastern and the western Church, differing only in the manner of expression, and that without any opposition; Theodoret gave the first occasion of a difference, making use of the Greeks' expression against the doctrine both of Greeks and Latins ;t 'denying ταm de me accipiet, et annunciabit νο- Yίον ει μή ο Πατήρ, ούτω τολμώ λέγειν, bis.’ S. Hil. I. viii. de Trin. 5. 20. So ότι ουδε το Πνεύμα ει μή ο Πατήρ, και ο St. Cyril: 'Επειδή (το Πνεύμα) ομοού- Υιός, παρ' ου εκπορεύεται, και παρ' ου σιόν τε εστι τω Υιώ, και πρόεισι θεοπρε- λαμβάνει, και ουδέ τον Υιόν και τον Παπώς εξ αυτού, πάσαν αυτού την εφ' άπα- τέρα, ει μη το Πνεύμα το άγιον, και παρά σι τελειοτάτην έχουν ενέργειάν τε και δύ- του Πατρός και εκ του Υιού. Ιbid. 5. 73. ναμιν, διά τούτό φησιν, έκ τού εμού λή * Non loquetur a semetipso, hoc est, ψεται. Com. in Ioan. 1. xi. c. 1. De non sine me et Patris arbitrio, qui Filio ergo accepit, et omnia quæ ha- inseparabilis a mea et Patris est vobet Pater Filii sunt, quæ Spiritus S. luntate; quia non ex se, sed ex Patre accepit; quia non de solo Filio, sed et me est; hoc enim ipsum quod subsimul de utroque procedit.' Fulg. sistit et loquitur, a Patre et me illi 1. vii. contra Fab. fragm. apud Theo- est.' Didymus de Sp. S. I. ii. §. 13. Et dulph. de Sp. S.
paulo post : ' Ille me clarificabit, id est * That this was the sense of the Paracletus, quia de meo accipict. RurGreek fathers anciently, who used sum hoc accipere ut divinæ naturæ those two Scriptures of the Holy conveniat intelligendumSpiritum Ghost, appeareth by Epiphanius, who S. a Filio accipere id quod suæ natufrequently declares so much; as in ræ fuerat, cognoscendum est. Neque Ancorato: Πνεύμα γάρ θεού και Πνεύμα enim quid aliud est Filius, exceptis Πατρός και Πνεύμα Υιού, εκ του Πατρός his que ei dantur a Patre, neque alia και του Υιού, τρίτον τη ονομασία. 3. 8. substantia est Spiritus S. praeter id And speaking of Ananias who lied quod datur ei a Filio.' unto the Spirit: "Αρα θεός εκ Πατρός • St. Cyril having set forth anatheκαι Υιού, το Πνεύμα, ψέψεύσαντο οί από ιnatisms against the heresy of Nestoτου τιμήματος νοσφισάμενοι. 8. 9. Ουκ rius, in the ninth anathematism conαλλότριον Πατρός και Υιού, αλλά εκ της demned all who did not speak of the αυτής ουσίας, έκ τής αυτής θεότητος, έκ Holy Ghost as ίδιον του Χριστού το Πατρός και Υιού, συν Πατρί και Υιώ εν- Πνεύμα. Το which Theodoret returnυπόστατον αεί Πνεύμα άγιον.Ιd. Heres. ed this answer: "Ιδιον δε το Πνεύμα του Ixii. 3. 4. In these words is plainly Υιού, ει μεν, ώς ομοφυές και εκ Πατρός contained the truth, Theat the Spirit is εκπορευόμενον, έφη, συνομολογήσομεν, God of God the Father, and of God και ως ευσεβή δεξόμεθα την φωνήν· ει δ' the Son. And that they did conclude ώς εξ Υιού ή δι' Υιού την ύπαρξιν έχον, this truth from tliose two scriptures, ώς βλάσφημον τούτο και ως δυσσεβές he proceedeth from the Father, and απορρίψομεν. Πιστεύομεν γάρ τω Κυρίω receiveth of the Son, as is also evident λέγοντι, Το Πνεύμα και εκ του Πατρός εκby these and the like passages: Ει δε πορεύεται και το θειοτάτω δε Παύλο Χριστός εκ του Πατρός πορεύεται θεός εκ ομοίως φάσκοντι: "Ημείς δε ου το πνεύμα του θεού, και το Πνεύμα εκ του Χριστού, ή του κόσμου ελάβομεν, αλλά το Πνεύμα το παρ' αμφοτέρων, ώς φησιν ο Χριστός, και εκ του θεού. Reprehens. Anath. Cyril. παρά του Πατρός εκπορεύεται, και ούτος t. V. p. 717. St. Cyril in his reply έκ τού εμού λήψεται. Epiph. Αncor, takes no great notice of this high 5. 67. Εί τοίνυν παρά του Πατρός εκ- charge of impiety and blasphemy, and πορεύεται, και εκ τού εμού, φησίν ο Κύ- only auswers the argument so far as it ριος, λήψεται. "Ον γάρ τρόπον ουδείς concerned his expression, νια. That έγνω τον Πατέρα ει μή ο Υιός, ουδε τον 1he Spirit is ίδιον του Υιού Πνεύμα, but
that the Holy Ghost receiveth his essence from the Son, because the Scripture saith, he proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit which is of God. But St. Cyril, against whom he wrote, taking small notice of this objection; and the writings of Theodoret, in which this was contained, being condemned; there was no sensible difference in the Church, for many years, concerning this particular. Afterwards divers of the Greeks expressly denied the procession from the Son, and several disputations did arise in the western Church, till at last the Latins put it into the Constantinopolitan Creed;* and being admoin this answer makes use of that Scrip- lawful to make any addition to il: türe by which he and others used to notwithstanding, the question being prove that the Spirit had his essence agitated in the West: Utrum Spiritus from the Son: 'Ectopeterai uèv yap S. sicut procedit a Patre, ita et proceως εκ του θεού και Πατρός το Πνεύμα το dat a Filio ;' and it being concluded in äylov, katà TTV TOŨ Ewrñpos pwvijvállà the affirmative, they did not only deουκ αλλότριόν εστι του Υιού πάντα γάρ clare the doctrine to be true, but also έχει μετά του Πατρός και τούτο αυτός added the same to the Constantinoέδίδαξεν ειπών περί του αγίου Πνεύματος: politan Creed, and sang it publicly in IIávra oa ēxel Ó Tarno, èuá toti dà their Liturgy: ‘Credimus et in SpiTOŪTO El Tov úuiv, őri ék ToŨ éjoũ Xv1ye- ritum S., Dominum et vivificatorem, rai, kai ávayyɛlɛī úuiv, vol. vi. p. 229. ex Patre Filioque procedentem.' This Although therefore St. Cyril doth not being first done in the Spanish and go to maintain that which Thcodoret French churches, and the matter bedenied, and St. Cyril elsewhere teach- ing referred to Leo the third bishop of eth, viz. that the Holy Ghost is from Rome, he absolutely concluded that the Son, yet he justified his own posi- no such addition ought to be tolerated: tion by that Scripture which by him- for in the acts of the Synod held at self and the rest of the fathers is Aquisgranum, we find it so determined thought to teach as much.
by the pope, upon the conference with * The second general Council beld the legates : ' Ergo, ut video, illud a at Constantinople, finding it neces- vestra Paternitate decernitur, ut prisary to make an addition to the Ni- mo illud de quo quæstio agitur, de cene Creed in the Article concerniny sæpe fato Symbolo tollatur, et tunc the Holy Ghost, of which that Council demum a quolibet licite ac libere, sive had said no more than this, I believe cantando sive tradendo, discatur et in the Holy Ghost, framed this acces- doceatur :' so one of the legates. To sion against Macedonius: Eis tò Ilveữ- wbich Leo answered thus: “Ita proμα το άγιον, το Κύριον, το ζωοποιόν, το culdubio a nostra parte decernitur: ÉK Toũ llarpòs škropɛvóuevovo Concil. ita quoque ut a vestra assentiatur, a Gen. t. i. par. 1. p.536. in which they nobis omnibus modis suadetur.' Bespake most warily, using the words side, lest the Roman church might be of the Scripture, and the language of accused of joining with the Spanish the Church, which was so known and and French churches in this addition, public, that it is recorded even by the same pope caused the Creed pubLucian in his dialogue called Philo- licly to be set forth in the Church, patris, $. 12.
graven in silver plates, one in Latin Κρι. Και τίνα επομόσομαι γε;
and another in Greek, in the same Tp.. 'Yyquédovta Okov, péyav, äußporov, words in which the Council of Conουρανίωνα, ,
stantinople had first penned it. “Hæc, Υιόν Πατρός, Πνεύμα εκ Πατρός εκ- pro amore et cautela Orthodoxe Fiπορευόμενον,
dei, fecit in B. Petri Basilica scuta "Εν έκ τριών, και εξ ενός τρία argentea duo scripta utraque Symbo
Ταύτα νόμιζε Ζήνα, τόνδ' ηγού θεόν. Ιo, unum quidem literis Graecis, et This Creed being received by the alium Latinis, sedentia dextra lævawhole Church of God, and it being quc super ingressum corporis.' Anaadded also by the next general Coun- stasius in vita Leonis III. De Vit. Poncil at Ephesus, that it should not be tif. Rom. xcviii. • Leo tertius (Sym
nished by the Greeks of that, as of an unlawful addition, and refusing to rase it out of the Creed again, it became an ocboli) transcriptum in tabula argentea, Papa incidisset in sententiam tertii post altare B. Pauli posita, posteris Concilii.' Antonin. Part. 3. tit. 22.c.13. reliquit, pro amore, ut ipse ait, et cau- This was it which Photius complained tela Fidei orthodoxæ. In quo qui- of so highly in bis Encyclic Epistle to dem Symbolo in processione Spiritus the Archiepiscopal Sees of the EastS. solus commemoratur Pater his Ver- ern Church: 'Αλλά γάρ ουχί μόνον εις bis, Et in Spiritum S., Dominum υιυί- ταύτα παρανομεϊν εξηνέχθησαν, αλλά fcatorem, et Ρatre procedentem, cum και εί τις κακών εστί κορωνίς, εις ταύτην Patre et Filio co-adorandum, et glori- ανέδραμον πρός γάρ τοι τοίς ειρημένοις icandum. P. Lombardus, I. i. di- ατοπήμασι και το ιερόν και άγιον σύμstinct. 11. 5. 2. These were taken out βολον, ο πάσι τοίς συνοδικούς και οίκουof the archivα at Rome, saith Pliotius, μενικούς ψηφίσμασιν άμαχον έχει την ίand so placed by Leo, that they might σχύν, νόθοις λογισμούς και παρεγγράπτους be acknowledged and perpetuated as λόγους και θράσους υπερβολή κιβδηλεύειν the true copies of that Creed not to be επεχείρησαν (ώ των του πονηρού μηχαaltered. “ο θεσπέσιος Λέων και τας εν νημάτων) το Πνεύμα το άγιον ουκ εκ του τοίς θησαυροφυλακίοις των κορυφαίων Πατρός μόνον, αλλά γε και εκ του Υιού Πέτρου και Παύλου εκ παλαιοτάτων εκπορεύεσθαι καινολογήσαντες. Phot. χρόνων αποτεθησαυρισμένας τοίς ιερούς Epist. ii. 3. 8. “Hugo Etherianus leκειμηλίοις δύο ασπίδας, αι γράμμασι και git κενολογήσαντες, dum vertit frustra ρήμασιν ελληνικούς έλεγον την ιεράν της profitetur. Tlius far Photius against ημών πίστεως έκθεσιν, ταύτας κατανα- Nicolaus before he was deposed. γνωσθήναι κατενώπιον του Ρωμαϊκού After he was restored again, in the πλήθους και εις όψιν απάντων ελθείν time of Pope John the Eighth, in the εδικαίωσε και πολλοί των θεασαμένων eighth general Council, as the Greeks τηνικαύτα και ανεγνωκότων έτι τω βίω call it, it was declared that the additapajévovoi. Photius apud Nicetan. tion of Filioque, made in the Creed, Thes. Orthod. Fid. t. 21. ut exscripsit should be taken away. 'EĚýtnaev dè Archiep. Αrmachanus. Ούτος ο Λέων ή Σύνοδος αύτη και περί της προσθήκης και το θησαυροφυλάκιον της Αποστολι- τού Συμβόλου, και έκρινεν άξιον ίνα εξκής Εκκλησίας Ρωμαίων ανοίξας ασπί- αιρηθή παντελώς, says Marcus bishop δας δύο τοις ιερούς κειμηλίοις αποτεθη-' of Ephesus, in the Council of Floσαυρισμένας εξήνεγκεν ελληνικούς και rence. After this the same complaint γράμμασι και ρήμασιν εχούσας την ευ- was continued by Michael Cerularius, σεβή της πίστεως έκθεσιν. Ιdem apud and Theophylact, in as high a manner Euthymium, Panopl. Dum. Tit. 12. as by Photius. "Έστιν ούν το μέγιστον ab eodem Archiep. erscript. This was εκείνο σφάλμα, και τούτο δε το τού Σολοthe great and prudent care of Leo the μώντος άδου πεταύρους ποιούν συναντάν, Third,that there should be no addition ή εν τω της πίστεως Συμβόλω καινοτοmade to the ancient Creed authorized μία, ήν εποιήσαντο ανακηρύττοντες το by a general Council, and received by Πνεύμα εκ του Πατρός και εκ του Υιού the wliole Church; and by this means εκπορεύεσθαι, Theophyl. ad Ioan. c. 3. he quieted all distempers for his time. Και τοϊς Δυτικούς τοίνυν εί τι μεν περί But not long after, the following το δόγμα διαμαρτάνεται την πατρικήν popes, more in love with their own πίστιν σαλεύον, οίον δή το εν τώ Συμβόauthority than desirous of the peace λω περί του αγίου Πνεύματος προστιθέand unity of the Church, neglected μενον, ένθα ο κίνδυνος μέγιστος, τούτο the tables of Leo, and admitted the μη διορθώσεως αξιούμενον ο συγχωρών addition Filioque. This was first done ασυνχώρητος. Ιbid. Thus did the Oriin the time and by the power of Pope ental Church accuse the Occidental Nicolaus the First, who by the acti- for adding Filioque to the Creed, convity of Photius was condemned for it. trary to a general Council, which had • Tunc inter alias accusationes hoc probibited all additions, and that principaliter posuit Photius ipsum without the least pretence of the au(Nicolaum) fore excommunicatum, thority of another Council; and so quod apposuerat ad Symbolum Spi- the sehism between the Latin and the ritum S. a Filio procedere. Similiter Greek Church began and was conet depositum, quod ipse Nicolaus tinued, never to be ended until those
casion of the vast schism between the eastern and western Churches.
Now although the addition of words to the formal Creed without the consent, and against the protestation of the Oriental Church, be not justifiable; yet that which was added, is nevertheless a certain truth, and may be so used in that Creed by them who believe the same to be a truth; so long as they pretend it not to be a definition of that Council, but an addition or explication inserted, and condemn, not those wbo, out of a greater respect to such synodical determinations, will admit of no such insertions, nor speak any other language than the Scriptures and their fathers spake.
Howsoever, we have sufficiently in our assertions declared the nature of the Holy Ghost, distinguishing him from all qualities, energies, or operations, in that he is truly and properly a person ; differencing him from all creatures and finite things, as he is not a created person; shewing him to be of an infinite and eternal essence, as he is truly and properly God; distinguishing him from the Father and the Son, as being not the Father, though the same God with the Father, not the Son, though the same God with him ; demonstrating his order in the blessed Trinity, as being not the first or second, but the third person, and therefore the third, because as the Son receiveth his essence communicated to him by the Father, and is therefore second to the Father, so the Holy Ghost receiveth the same essence communicated to him by the Father and the Son, and so proceedeth from them both, and is truly and properly the Spirit of the Father, and as truly and properly the Spirit of the Son.
Thus far have we declared the nature of the Holy Ghost, what he is in himself, as the Spirit of God; it remaineth that we declare what is the office of the same, what he is unto us as the Holy Spirit: for although the Spirit of God be of infinite, essential, and original holiness, as God, and so may be called Holy in himself; though other spirits, which were created, be either actually now unholy, or of defectible sanctity at first, and so having the name of Spirit common unto them, he may be termed Holy, that he may be distinguished from them; yet I conceive he is rather called the Holy Spirit, or“ the Spirit of holiness,” (Rom. i. 4.) because, of the three persons in the blessed Trinity, it is his particular office to sanctify or make us holy. words kai Éx roŨ Yioû, or Filioque, are should not acknowledge the truth taken out of the Creed. The one re- which was acknowledged by their anlying upon the truth of the doctrine cestors, in the substance of it; and contained in those words, and the au- that the Latins should force the Greeks thority of the pope to alter any thing ; to make an addition to the Creed, the other either denying or suspect- without as great an authority as hath ing the truth of the doctrine, and being prohibited it, and to use that language very zealous for the authority of the in the expression of this doctrine ancient Councils. This therefore is which never was used by any of the much to be lamented, that the Greeks Greek fathers,
Now when I speak of the office of the Holy Ghost, I do not understand any ministerial office or function, such as that of the created angels is, who are “all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of salvation;" (Heb. i. 14.) for I have already proved this Spirit to be a person properly divine, and consequently above all ministration. But I intend thereby whatsoever is attributed unto him peculiarly in the salvation of man, as the work wrought by him, for which he is sent by the Father and the Son. For all the persons in the Godhead are represented unto us as concurring unto our salvation : “God so loved the world, that he gave
his only-begotten Son,” (John iii. 16.) and “ through that Son we have an access by one Spirit unto the Father.” (Eph. ii. 18.) As therefore what our Saviour did and suffered for us belonged to that office of a Redeemer, which he took upon him; so whatsoever the Holy Ghost worketh in order to the same salvation, we look upon as belonging to his office. And because without holiness it is impossible to please God, because we are all impure and unholy, and the purity and holiness which is required in us to appear in the presence of God, whose eyes are pure, must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God, who is called Holy because he is the cause of this holiness in us, therefore we acknowledge the office of the Spirit of God to consist in the sanctifying of the servants of God, and the declaration of this office, added to the description of his nature, to be a sufficient explication of the object of faith contained in this Article, I believe in the Holy Ghost.
Now this sanctification being opposed to our impurity and corruption, and answering fully to the latitude of it, whatsoever is wanting in our nature of that holiness and perfection, must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore being by nature we are totally void of all saving truth, and under an impossibility of knowing the will of God; being as “no man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ; even so none knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God':” this “Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,” (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.) and revealeth them unto the sons of men; so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is expelled, and they are enlightened with the knowledge of their God. This work of the Spirit is double, either external and general, or internal and particular. The external and general work of the Spirit, as to the whole Church of God, is the revelation of the will of God, by which so much in all ages hath been propounded as was sufficient to instruct men unto eternal life. For there have been "holy prophets ever since the world began,” (Luke i. 70.) and prophecy" came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet. i. 21.) When it pleased God “in the last days to speak unto us by his Son," (Heb. i. 2.) even that Son sent his Spirit into the apostles, “ the Spirit of