Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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, sent forth 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;” (1 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.)

66

Fourthly, He, by whose operation Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin, was no created person; for by virtue 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.+

the Arians, vἰς. ὃ γέγονεν. All things which were made, were made by the Son, but the Holy Ghost was not amongst them, ἃ γέγονεν, which were made, and therefore was not made by the Son. To "Αγιον γὰς Πνεῦμα κτίσμα πάλιν κτίσματός φασιν εἶναι, διὰ τὸ, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὰ πάντα γεγενῆσθαι, ὡς εἶσσεν ἡ γραφὴ, ἀσυνέτως τινὰς διαρπάζοντες· οὐ καθὼς εἴρηται τὸ ῥητὸν ἔχοντες, ἀλλὰ κακῶς ὑπονοοῦντες, καὶ ἀπὸ ῥητοῦ τὸ καλῶς εἰρημένον κατὰ τὴν κακὴν αὐτῶν ὑπόνοιαν μεθερμηνεύοντες· οὐ γὰρ τὸ θεῖον Εὐαγγέ λιον περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔφη, ἀλλὰ περὶ πάντων τῶν κεκτισμένων, ὅτι εἴ τι κτιστὸν, διὰ τοῦ Λόγου γεγένηται, καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Λόγου· τὰ γὰρ πάντα δι ̓ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν, παρεκτεινομένης τῆς ἀναγνώσ σεως, ἔχει, ὃ γέγονεν, ἵνα οὕτω γνωσθῇ, ὅτι πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. S. Epiphan. Har. lxix. §. 56.

* Ταῦτα πάντα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται. Καθὼς βούλεταί φησιν, οὐ καθὼς προστάττεται· διαιροῦν, οὐ διαιρούμενον· αὐθεντοῦν, οὐκ αὐθεν τία ὑποκείμενον· τὴν γὰρ αὐτὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἥνπερ ἐμαρτύρησε τῷ Πατρὶ, ταύτην καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι ἀνατίθησιν ὁ Παῦλος· καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρός φησιν, Ὁ δὲ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν· οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα, φησὶν, ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ,

καθὼς βούλεται· εἶδες απηρτισμένην ἐξουσίαν; ὧν γὰρ ἡ οὐσία μία, δῆλον καὶ ὅτι ἡ αὐθεντία μία· καὶ ὧν ἰσότιμος ἡ ἀξία, τούτων καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία μία. S. Chrysost. de Sanct. Pentecost. Hom. ii. t. v. p. 10.

This express notion of the Spirit of God, that he was a person, as a ministering Spirit, and created, was acknowledged the doctrine of the Arians, as may appear out of the former testimonies, and is evident by those which followed his opinions. Which being of two kinds, the Anomeans, or pure Arians (such as were Aetius, Eunomius, and Eudoxius), and the Homoousians or Semi-Arians (such as Eusebius and Macedonius), they both alike denied the Divinity, and asserted the creation of the Holy Ghost. The opinion of the Anomeans is clear out of the words of Eunomius, who very subtilly delivered it, as if it had been the opinion of the ancients: Τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ἐν ἅπασι φυλάσσοντες διδασκαλίαν, παρ ̓ ὧν τρίτον αὐτὸ ἀξιώματι καὶ τάξει μαθέντες, τρίτον εἶναι καὶ τῇ φύσει πεπιστεύκαμεν. δι Basil. contra Eunom. 1. iii. S. 1. The confession of the ancients was, that the Holy Ghost was the third person in the Trinity in order and dignity; and Eunomius pretending to follow them, added, that he was also third in nature; which the an

Our third assertion is that which necessarily followeth from the former two, that the Spirit of God, in whose name we are 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

cients never taught. And what this third in nature was, he thus declared : Τρίτον τάξει καὶ φύσει, προστάγματι μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γενόμενον· τρίτη χώρα τιμώμενον, ὡς πρῶτον καὶ μεῖζον ἁπάντων, καὶ μόνον τοιοῦτον τοῦ μονογενοῦς ποίημα, Θεότητος καὶ δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως ἀπολει πόμενον. Ibid. §. 5. And again: 'Eàv μὴ κτίσμα ἐστὶν, οὐκοῦν γέννημα ἢ ἀγέννητον· εἰς δὲ ἄναρχος Θεὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος· οὔτε μὴν γέννημα· λείπεται οὖν κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα αὐτὸ ὀνομάζεσθαι. Ibid. §. 6. So Gregory Nyssen repeats the words of the same Eunomius : Πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸν Παράκλητον γενόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς, and declares that their ordinary language was ἀντὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος κτίσμα κτί σματος καὶ ἔργον ἔργου ὀνομάζειν. Orat. 1. cont. Eunom. p. 485--7. Besides these, the Semi-Arians, and some of those which were orthodox as to the Divinity of the Son, were of the same heresy as to the nature of the Holy Ghost, and therefore were called Πνευματομάχοι (as Epiphanius derives them in the description of that heresy, ἀπὸ Ἡμιαρείων καὶ ἀπὸ ̓Ορθοδόξων, Har. lxxiv. §. 1.), and afterward Macedoniani. 'Macedoniani sunt a Macedonio Constantinopolitanæ Ecclesia Episcopo, quos et Πνεύματο μάχους Græci dicunt, eo quod de Spiritu S. litigent. Nam de Patre et Filio recte sentiunt, quod unius sint ejusdemque substantiæ vel essentiæ, sed de Spiritu S. hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum esse dicentes.' S. August. Hæres. 52. This heresy was first condemned by the Council of Alexandria: "Ενθα τὸ ̔́Αγιον Πνεῦμα Θεολογήσαντες, τῇ ὁμοουσίῳ τριάδι συναγε λαμβάνοντο. Socrat. 1. iii. c. 7. Afterward, by the Council held in Illyricum : Ημεῖς δὲ φρονοῦμεν ὡς καὶ αἱ Σύνοδοι νῦν ἥ τε

κατὰ 'Ρώμην καὶ ἡ κατὰ Γαλλίαν, μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐν τρισὶ προσώποις, τουτέστιν ἐν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσι. Apud. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. 1. iv. c. 8. The Synod held at Rome with the Gallican bishops under Damasus: "Ωστε τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν μιᾶς ουσίας, μιᾶς θεότητος, μιᾶς ἀρετῆς, μιᾶς δυνάμεως, καὶ ἑνὸς χαρακτῆρος πιστεύεσθαι χρή, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐσίας καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Αpud Theodoret. I. ii. c. 22. Another Synod held under the same Damasus at Rome: Εἴ τις εἴποι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ποίημα ἢ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Apud. Theodoret. 1. v. c. 11. After and upon these particular Synods this heresy was fully condemned in the second general Council held at Constantinople, in which these words were added to the Nicene Creed : Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. And in the first Canon mentioning the heresy condemned expressly by the Council, they name: ἰδικῶς τὴν τῶν Εὐνομιανῶν, εἴτουν ̓Ανομοιων, καὶ τὴν τῶν ̓Αρειανῶν, εἴτουν Εὐδοξιανῶν, καὶ τὴν τῶν Ἡμιαρειανῶν, ἤγουν Πνευματομάχων. And thus the heresy of Macedonius, who made the Holy Ghost a created person, was condemned by the second general Council; Οὗτος δὴ οὖν ὁ ἱεροφάντης χορὸς Μακεδόνιόν τινα, τὸν Κωνσταντινοπόλεως θρόνον ἅρπαγμα πάλαι ποιησάμενον, ὅτι τὸ πανάγιον καὶ ζωαρχικὸν ἐδυσφήμει Πνεῦμα, εὐθύνας ἐδικαίου δοῦναι· ὡς καὶ ̓Αρειος κατὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς κατὰ παναγίου παραταττόμενος Πνεύματος, εἰς δούλους καὶ ὑπηρέτας τὴν δεσποτικὴν καὶ ὑπερκειμένην αὐτοῦ συνέταττε κυριότητα. Photius, Epist. i. §. 10.

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 Spirit 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

The places alleged by them are these: Περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν Πνεύματι, οὐ γράμματι. Rom. ii. 99. Ωστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος, καὶ οὐ παλαιό τητι γράμματος. Rom. vii. 6. Ἥτις καλεῖ ται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα καὶ Αἴγυπτος. Rev. xi. 8. One of these places speaks only adverbially, the other two have яvμa in

obliquo; and one of those two have it cum adjuncto, both of them cum opposite, none of them cum articule, none of them are in loco subjecti, or prædicati; and therefore how any of these can shew, that τὸ πνεῦμα in this place by us urged, invested with an article, standing in the place either of a complete subject, or a complete predi

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,* 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,† but that the Lord in the language of the same apostle may not signify the second, but the first or third person of the Trinity. If then the Lord be the eternal God, as the apostle without any question understood him in Moses; if the Spirit be the

cate, with nothing adjoined, nothing opposed unto it, must be taken in the same sense with them, I cannot imagine. In the sixth verse of this chapter (2 Cor. iii.) indeed it is the subject of a proposition, and invested with an article; but that is an article of opposition: Τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ὑποκτείνει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ· and this not. Howsoever, in that sense objected, it neither agrees with the words before it, nor with those which follow it.

The words in Exodus were these, χτείν. 34. Ηνίκα δὲ ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο Μωϋσῆς ἔναντι Κυρίου λαλεῖν αὐτῷ, περιηρεῖτο τὸ κάτ λυμμα which are thus made use of by the apostle: ἡνίκα δὲ ἂν ἐπιστρέψη προς Κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. Κύριος then is here used by St. Paul citing some place out of the old covenant, and the words which follow, 'O di Kúgios, signify the same Kugos, as appeareth by the conjunction dé: and if so, then according to the doctrine of our adversaries, it cannot signify Christ. For that the Lord of whom Moses spake, was then when Moses wrote; but that Christ of which they interpret it, was not then, as they teach; therefore that Lord cannot be Christ, in their interpretation, without a contradiction.

+ For though Christ be most frequently called our Lord, yet being God the Father of Christ is our Lord, being Kúgos is often used by St. Paul without any restriction or intimation of appropriating that act unto the Son, which is attributed to the Lord by him, the rule cannot be

[ocr errors]

certain and universal. For I desire to
know by what means they can be assured
that the apostle doth by the title
intend Christ, and not the most high God
the Father, in these following places:
1 Cor. iii. 5. iv. 19. vii. 10. 12. xvi. 7.
1 Thess. iv. 6. v. 27. 2 Thess. iii. 1. 5. 16.
2 Tim. i. 16. 18. ii. 7. And beside, I
ask how the pretence of this general rule
can be properly objected by those who
know that they, to whom they do object
this rule, have contended that this title
is elsewhere attributed to the Holy Ghost.
As St. Basil upon that place, 2 Thess.
iii. 5. Ὁ δὲ Κύριος κατευθύναι ὑμῶν τὰς
καρδίας εἰς τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ εἰς τὴν
ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, thus disputes : Τίς δ
κατευθύνων Κύριος εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγάπην,
καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ὑπομονήν ; ἀποκρινάσθωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ τὸ Πνεῦμα
καταδουλούμενοι. Εἴτε γὰρ περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς
ὁ λόγος, πάντως ἂν εἴρητο, ὁ δὲ Κύριος ὑμᾶς
κατευθύναι εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην· εἴτε περὶ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ, προσέκειτο ἄν, εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ὑπο-
μονήν· ζητείτωσαν οὖν τί ἐστιν ἄλλο πρόσωπον,
ὃ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου τιμᾶσθαι ἄξιον.
And upon the like place, 1 Thess. iii.
12, 13. Ποῖον Κύριον εὔχεται ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ
Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ
Κυρίου ἡμῶν, ἀμέμπτους τὰς καρδίας ἐστηρι
γμένας ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλονίκη πι
στῶν στηρίξαι ; Αποκρινάσθωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ
μετὰ τῶν λειτουργικών πνευμάτων τῶν πρὸς
διακονίαν ἀποστελλομένων (the newly-re-
vived opinion clearly) τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα τις
θέντες· ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἔχουσι. De Spiritu Sancto,

c. 21.

Spirit of the Lord, as the apostle expounds himself in the words immediately following; then the Spirit of the Lord is the eternal God, and so termed in the Scriptures.

Again, the same Scriptures do clearly manifest the same. Spirit to be God, and term him plainly and expressly so. For when Peter said, " Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" (Acts v. 3.) he repeateth the same question in reference to the same offence, "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." (Ibid. 4.) To lie unto the Holy Ghost, is to lie unto God: to lie unto the Holy Ghost, is not to lie unto men, because the Holy Ghost is not man: and consequently not to lie unto any angel, because the Holy Ghost is not an angel; not to lie unto any creature, because the Holy Ghost is no creature; but to lie unto God, because the Holy Ghost is God.

To this plain and evident argument there are so many answers, that the very multitude discovers the weakness of them all; for if any one of them were sufficient to bear down the force of our reason, the rest would be superfluous. First, They answer that it cannot be collected from hence that the Spirit is God, because the Holy Ghost in the original is put in one case; and God in another; and the apostle speaking in one manner of the Spirit, and in another of God, cannot shew that the Spirit is God. To which is easily answered, that the case or manner of the apostle's speech can make no difference, if the sense and substance be the same, as here it is; for to deceive the Holy Ghost, is nothing else but to lie unto him, or by a lie to endeavour to deceive him. The act objected to Ananias was but one, which act of his the apostles looked upon as injurious, not to themselves, but to the Holy Ghost; and therefore St. Peter shewed the sin to be not against men, but against God: as certainly then as the apostles were men, so certainly was the Holy Ghost, in the esteem of St. Peter, God.

As for that sense which they put upon the words, different from that of lying to God, as if Ananias were accused for 'counterfeiting the Holy Ghost,' it is most certain that the words can in this place bear no such sense; for the sin of Ananias is again expressed in the case of his wife Sapphira, to whom St. Peter said, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" (Ibid. 9.) But to tempt the Spirit, and to counterfeit the Spirit, are two several things; and it is evident that in this place the tempting of the Spirit was nothing else but lying to him: for St. Peter said to Sap

[ocr errors]

Ex his facile apparet haudquaquam ex eo loco concludi posse Spiritum S. esse Deum; cum alio modo de Spiritu S. loquatur Petrus, alio de Deo. Illic dicit mentiri seu fallere, ac ludificari Spiritum S., hic mentiri Deo.' Crellius, De uno Deo Patre, l. i. §. 3. Argum. 1.

« ZurückWeiter »