SECTION II. SCRIPTURAL PROOF. THE first I. and second II. heads of this Article concern the Divinity and the Personality of the Holy Ghost. Both these were treated under the First Article, and it is not necessary to repeat the arguments here. It may be enough to add that among the strongest passages of Scripture in proof of these doctrines will be found the following :— Divinity. Matt. xii. 32. compare 1 Cor. vi. 17. Acts v. 3, 4. 1 Cor. iii. 16: Personality. Matt. xii. 32; xxviii. 17. John xiv. 16, 26; xvi. 8, 13. Acts v. 3, 4. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Cor. xii. 11. Eph. iv. 30. 1 John v. 7. III. The third division of the subject is concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost; the Article after the Latin versions of the Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Creed of St. Athanasius, asserting that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The distinction between the three Persons in the Godhead was set forth in treating on the first Article. The relation of God the Son to God the Father, how that from all eternity God the Son derived His Being from God the Father, by a proper but ineffable generation, was set forth in the FIRST part of the second Article. Now whereas it is certain that the Scriptures ever speak of the Second Person of the Trinity as the Son of God, and as begotten of the Father, so it is equally certain that they speak of the Spirit as coming forth or proceeding from the Father, but never as begotten of Him. The early Christians, observing this distinction, cautiously adhering to the language of inspiration, and striving to imbibe the notions conveyed by it, ever taught that it was peculiar to the Father to be underived and unbegotten; to the Son, to be begotten; to the Holy Ghost, to be proceeding1. 1 That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, scarcely needs to be proved. In Matt. x. 20, He is called 'the Spirit of the Father.' In Rom. viii. He is called the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead.' In John xiv. 26, the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,' is promised, as to be sent by the Father in Christ's name.' In John xv. 26, we read of the Comforter... even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.' Compare also Matt. iii. 16. Acts v. 9. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 14; iii. 16; vi. 19, &c. Accordingly there never has been any doubt, among those who admit the doctrine of the Trinity, that, as the Son is begotten of the Father, so the Spirit proceeds from the Father. 2 But, though the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father is thus unquestionable, it has been seen that the Greeks doubted the propriety of saying that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father. They doubted it, as it seems, merely because in John xv. 26, it is said that the Spirit of truth proceedeth from the Father,' and there is no passage of Scripture, which, in the same express terms, says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son. Yet, if we except this one expression of John xv. 26, every other expression whatsoever, from which we infer that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, is used in like manner concerning His relation to the Son. For example; 1 Ιδιον Πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, Υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, Πνεύματος δὲ ἡ EKTEμis.—Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. Tom. 1, p. 422. Colon. Suicer, Vol. I. p. 1069. VOL. I. M (1) Is He called the Spirit of God,' the Spirit of the 6 Jesus'? In like the Spirit of the read, Rom. viii. 9, Father,' the Spirit of Him that raised up manner He is called 'the Spirit of Christ,' Son,' the Spirit of Jesus Christ.' Thus we 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ ;' where it is evident the Apostle means the Holy Spirit of God spoken of in the preceding sentence. Gal. iv. 6, 'God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son.' Phil. i. 19, The supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.' 1 Pet. i. 11, The Spirit of Christ,' which was in the prophets. And so surely is this the case, that the Greeks themselves were even willing to call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son; confessing that He proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit of the Son.' And hence many of our divines, and even divines of the Church of Rome, have concluded that their difference on this point from the Western Church was but in modo loquendi, in manner of speech, not in fundamental truth1. (2) But again, do we infer that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, because He is sent by the Father, and is breathed forth into the prophets by the Father? Still, in like manner we read, that the same Spirit is sent by the Son, and was by Him breathed upon His Apostles. Thus He says Himself, John xv. 26, The Comforter, whom I will send unto you from the Father.' John xvi. 7, If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you.' And in John xx. 22, after He had risen from the dead,' He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' Now, our principal reasons for concluding that the Spirit of God proceeds from God the Father are these: viz. that He is 1 Laud, Conference with Fisher, p. 19 (Oxf. 1839), Sect. 9, who quotes Damascene (Lib. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11) as saying, Non ex Filio, sed Spiritum Filii esse dicimus. called the Spirit of the Father, that as the Father sends the Son, who is begotten of Him, so He sends the Spirit, and that He sends Him especially in that manner which in Scripture is called inspiring or breathing forth. From all this we conclude that, like as the Son is begotten, so the Spirit proceedeth of the Father. Yet the Scriptures set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Son, in all these respects, in the very same language in which they set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Father. Hence we conclude that, as the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, so He proceeds from the Son1. And though we may question the wisdom of adding the words Filioque to a Creed drawn up by a General Council, without the authority of a General Council; we yet do not question the truth of the doctrine conveyed by these words, and which we believe was implicitly held by the divines of the Eastern Church, though they shrank from explicit exposition of it in terms. 1 Nec possumus dicere quod Spiritus Sanctus et a Filio non procedat: neque enim frustra idem Spiritus et Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur. Nec video quid aliud significare voluerit, cum sufflans in faciem discipulorum ait, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum. Neque enim flatus ille corporeus, cum sensu corporaliter tangendi procedens ex corpore, substantia Spiritus Sancti fuit, sed demonstratio per congruam significationem, non tantum a Patre sed et a Filio procedere Spiritum Sanctum, &c.-August. De Trinitat. Lib. IV. cap. xx. Tom. viii. p. 829. De utroque autem procedere sic docetur, quia ipse Filius ait, De Patre procedit. Et cum resurrexit a mortuis et apparuisset discipulis suis, insufflavit et ait, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum, ut Eum etiam de Se procedere ostenderet. Et ipsa est Virtus quæ de Illo exibat, sicut legitur in Evangelio, et sanabat omnes.-Ibid. Lib. xv. cap. XXVI. p. 998. See also, De Civitate Dei, Lib. XI. c. XXIV. Tom. VII. p. 290; where S. Augustine, shewing that the Holy Spirit is a Person, doubts if He can be called the goodness of the Father and the Son; but observing that the Father is a Spirit and holy, and the Son is a Spirit and holy, and yet the Third Person of the Trinity is called the Holy Spirit of the Father and of the Son, he supposes that that Third Person may be called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son, and the Holiness both of the Father and of the Son, but yet a substantial Holiness, consubstantial with both. |