Beveridge on Article V: Of the Holy Ghost

Christ did truly rise from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature ; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to gudge all men at the last day.

moriam revocetur, cujus corpus ita in ceelo esse creditur ut erat quando ascendit. Isidor. Hispal. de eccles. offic. lib. 1. cap. [32. p- 591-]

[…]

de vera fide. [vol. II. p. 389.]

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

F the three Persons in the sacred Trinity, every one of which is God, and yet all but one God, the two first have been already considered. I say the two first?, not in nature or time, but order; for as to their nature one is not better or more God than another, neither as to time is one before another, none of them being measured by time, all of them and every one of them being eternity itself. But though not in nature or time, yet in order one must needs be before another. For the Father is of himself, receiving his essence neither from the Son nor the Spirit, and therefore must needs be in order before both Son and Spirit ; the Son received his essence from the Father but not from the Spirit, and there- fore must needs be in order before the Spirit, as well as after the Father; but the Spirit received his essence both from the Father and the Son, and therefore must needs be in order after both Father and Son. Hence it is that the Father is called the first, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third Person in the Holy Trinity. Which order is observed by’ St. John; There be three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, 1 John vy. 7. And by our

[…]

174 Of the Holy Ghost. Art.

Saviour himself, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them. in. the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. xxvii. 19. And of these three, the two first in order being considered in the four preceding articles, the third is set down in this: of whom it is here said, that he, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance and glory with the Father and the Son.

The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son: which last words, (and the Son,) as they were inserted into the Constantinopolitan Creed by our ancestors in these West- ern churches, (which ‘was the occasion of the vast schism betwixt them and the Eastern,) so are they here inserted into the articles of our faith, both to shew the constancy of our church in so great a truth, and to keep her children still constant and faithful to it. And though this the Spirit’s procession from the Son be not expressly delivered in the scriptures as the procession from the Father is, John xv. 26, yet is the substance and purport of it virtually contained in the scriptures, and may clearly be deduced from them ; for as he is called the Spirit of the Father, Matt. x. 20, so is he

b The first general council assem- bled at Nice, an. Dom. 325, having composed an excellent creed, or rule of faith, (which in the eighth Article, God willing, we shall treat of,) and having said no more in it concerning the Holy Ghost, than kal eis 76 mved- pa 7d dytov, and (we believe) in the Holy Ghost, there being another ge- neral council about fifty years after, held at Constantinople, they thought good, for the better suppressing of the heresy of Macedonius, who de- nied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, to confirm the same creed, with this addition amongst others to it, kai eis TO TVEdpLA TO dy.ov, TO KUpLoy, TO Cwo- MOLY, TO EK TOU TATPOs EKTFOPEvOpEVOY. Which creed, with this addition, the next general council at Ephesus, an. Dom. 431, not only continued, but also denounced an anathema against all such as should make any more additions to it. Yet notwithstand- ing the controversy being started in the Western churches, Whether the

Spirit proceed from the Son or no, as well as from the Father, the eighth council at Toledo in Spain, an. Dom. 653, debating the question, and carrying it in the affirmative, they, after those words in the Con- stantinopolitan Creed, é« rod Marpds, put in cat viod, and so made it run in Latin, Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum, dominum, vivificatorem, ex Patre Filioque procedentem ; and not only so, but they caused this Creed, so enlarged and altered by them, to be put into their public liturgies, and so sung continually in their churches, the French joining with them, and afterwards the En- glish too, as we may see in our public Liturgy. But in the council held at Akens, in Germany, the matter was after debate referred to pope Leo the Third, but he was so far from allowing of that addition, that he desired it might by degrees be quite left out of the Creed. For the legates being come from the

Ve Of the Holy Ghost. 175 called the Spirit of the Son, Gal. iv. 6, and the Spirit of Christ, Rom. vii. 9. 1 Pet. i.11, and the Spirit of Jesus Ohrist, Phil. 1.19. Now why is he called the Spirit of the Father, but because he proceedeth from the Father? And how therefore could he be called the Spirit of the Son, unless he proceeded from the Son also? Hence also it is that as the Father is said to send the Spirit, John xiv. 26, so is the Son also said to send the Spirit, chap. xv. 26. xvi. 7. The Father is said to send the Spirit, because the Spirit proceeds from the Father; for the right of the Father’s mission of the Spirit is grounded upon his communication of his essence to him. And by consequence, the Father sending the Spirit, therefore because the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Spirit: must needs proceed from the Son also, because the Son also is said to send the Spirit ; for if the Son also did not communicate his essence to him, and so he proceed from the Son, the Son would have no relation at all to him, much less any right of

mission over him.

council to him, we find in the Acts of the said council one of them say- ing to him, Ergo ut video illud a vestra paternitate decernitur, ut pri- mo illud, de quo questio agitur, de seepe fato symbolo tollatur: et tunc demum a quolibet licite et libere, sive cantando, sive tradendo, dis- catur et doceatur: to whom Leo answers, Ita proculdubio a nostra parte decernitur; ita quoque ut a vestra assentiatur, a nobis omnibus modis suadetur. [vol. IV. p. 973.] And that a true copy of the said Creed, without any such addition to it, might be recorded and perpetu- ated, he caused it to be graven in Greek and Latin upon silver plates, and placed in the church for every one to read. So Lombard: Leo tertius (symboli illius) transcriptum in tabula argentea post altare beati Pauli posita posteris reliquit, pro amore, ut ipse ait, et cautela fidei orthodoxe. In quo quidem sym- bolo in processione Spiritus Sancti solus commemoratur Pater his ver- bis, et in Spiritum Sanctum Domi- num vivificatorem, ex Patre proce-

dentem. Sent. 1. 1. dist. 11. [p. 27.] But afterwards these tables were neglected, and pope Nicholas the First caused this clause, Filioque, . to be added again to the Creed, and so to be read in all the churches under his power. But Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, con- demned him for it: and in the council of Constantinople, an. Dom. 879, it was declared that the ad- dition should be quite taken away again; and after that Cerularius, Theophylact, and the Grecians ge- nerally, inveighed against it. For which the popes of Rome branded them, and so all the Greek churches, with heresy. And so the quarrel betwixt the Greek and Latin, or Eastern and Western churches, be- gan and hath been continued: the Eastern churches condemning the Western for inserting the clause Filioque into the Creed of a general council without the consent of the like authority; the Western churches, on the other hand, condemning the Eastern for keeping it out.

ART.

176 Of the Holy Ghost.

And indeed I cannot see in reason as well as scripture how the Spirit can be denied to proceed from the Son as’ well as from the Father. For the Father in begetting of the Son communicated his whole essence and nature to him, so that whatsoever the Father is or hath, as God, that hath the Son also: only with this personal distinction, that the Father hath all things not only in himself, but of himself also, where- as the Son hath all things though in himself, yet not of himself, but only by communication from the Father. Now the Son receiving from the Father whatsoever the Father is in himself, and being every way the same God with the Father, he must needs issue forth the Spirit from himself, as well as the Father doth from himself. For the Spirit doth not proceed from the Father as he is a Father, (for then he would be a Son too as well as the Word,) but only as he is God. And therefore the Son being God as well as the Father, (though not a father,) the Spirit must needs proceed from him as well as from the Father: only with this dis- tinction, that the Father hath the Spirit proceeding from him of himself, but the Son hath the Spirit proceeding from him of the ¢Father, who communicating his own individual es- sence, and so whatsoever he is, (his paternal relation to him excepted,) to the Son, could not but communicate this to him also, even to have the Spirit proceeding from him, as he hath it proceeding from himself. So that as whatsoever else the Father hath originally in himself, the Son hath also by com- munication from the Father, so hath the Son likewise this, the Spirit’s proceeding from him, by communication fromthe Father, as the Father hath the Spirit proceeding from him originally in himself. Neither is our church singular in this assertion, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father ; for the ancient Fathers of the church of Christ did generally

¢ Si enim quicquid habet, de Patre habet Filius; de Patre utique habet ut de illo procederet Spiritus Sanctus. Aug. de Trin. 1. 15. c. 26. [47. vol. VIII. p. 1000.] Nec de quo genitum est Verbum, nec de uo procedit principaliter Spiritus Sanctus, nisi Deus Pater. Ideo autem addidi principaliter, quia et

de Filio Spiritus Sanctus procedere reperitur. Sed hoc quoque illi Pater dedit, non jam existenti et nondum habenti, sed quicquid unigenito Ver- bo dedit, gignendo dedit. Sic ergo eum genuit, ut etiam de illo donum commune procederet, et Spiritus Sanctus Spiritus esset amborum. Ibid. c.17. [29. p. 988. ]

Ve

Of the Holy Ghost.

Vii.

teach the same: the Latin ¢ Fathers expressly avouching it, that the Spirit did in plain terms proceed both from the

Father and Son.

a Spiritus autem Sanctus vere Spiritus est procedens quidem a Patre et Filio, sed non est ipse Filius, quia non generatur, neque Pater quia procedit ab utroque. Ambros. de symb. c. 3. [vol. II. App. p. 322.] Filus autem de Patre natus est, et Spiritus Sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante, commu- niter de utroque procedit. Aug. de Trinit. 1. 15. c. 26. [47.] Spiritus autem Sanctus non de Patre proce- dit ad Filium, et de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit : quamvis hoc Pater Filio dederit, ut quemad- modum de se ita de illo quoque procedat. Ibid. c. 27. [48.]

—et in servos ccelestia dona profudit,

Spiritum ab unigena Sanctum et Patre

procedentem.

Paulin. in nat.9. S.Felic. [Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. VI. p. 287.] Cum enim constat quia Paracletus Spiritus a Patre semper procedit et Filio, cur se Filius recessurum dicit ut ille veniat qui a Filio nunquam recedit? Gre- gor. Dialog. 1. 2. c. 38. [vol. II. p. 276.| Patrem quoque confiteri inge- nitum, Fillum genitum, Spiritum autem Sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum, sed ex Patre Filioque procedentem. Isidor. Hispal. Eccles. offic. 1. 2. c. [23. vol. I. p.611.] Audi manifestius, proprium Patris esse genuisse, et proprium Filii natum fuisse, proprium vero Spiritus Sancti procedere, de Patre Filioque. Vigil. contra Eut. 1.1. [Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. VIII. p. 724.] Proprium est Spiritus Sancti quod nec ingenitus, nec genitus est, sed a Patre et Filio zqualiter procedens. Alcuin. de Deo. [p. 761.] Nec alius est qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius

ui de utroque processit. Leo Epist. XV. vol. I. p. 450.] Neque Spiri- tum S. accipimus ut aut Pater sit aut Filius, sed ingenitum Patrem, et de Patre genitum Filium, et de Patre et Filio procedentem Spiritum Sanc-

And the «Greek Fathers, though they do

tum, unius credimus esse substantize et essentiz. Eugen. de cathol. fid. [ Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. VIII. p. 683. ] Qui noster Dominus, qui tuus unicus Spirat de patrio corde Paracletum.

Prudent. Hymn. 5. [Cathemer. 159. vol. I. p.41.] De Spiritu autem S. nec tacere. oportet nec loqui necesse est ; sed sileri a nobis, eorum causa qui nesciunt, non potest. Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, quia de Patre et Filio autoribus confitendus est, Hilar. de Trin. 1. 2. [29. p.802.] Spiritum cum Deo Patre et Filio esse credo, Deum unius substantiee, unius quoque nature, nec tamen genitum vel creatum, sed a Patre Filioque procedentem amborum esse Spiritum. Pelegrin. in symb. [vol. XVII. p. 456. Bibl. Max. Patr. | Spiritum vero sanctum nec creatum, nec genitum, sed procedentem ex Patre et Filio profitemur. Concil. Tolet. IV. c. 1. [vol. ILI. p. 579.] Spiritum quoque Sanctum, qui est tertia in Trinitate persona, unum et zqualem cum Deo Patre et Filio cre- dimus esse Deum, unius substantize unius quoque nature: non tamen genitum vel creatum, sed ab utris- que procedentem, amborum esse spiritum. Concil. Tolet. XI. Expos. fid. [Ibid. p. 1020.] Et quos sus- eeperunt suscipimus, glorificantes Deum Patrem, sine initio, et Filium ejus unigenitum ex Patre generatum ante secula, et Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenar- rabiliter sicut preedicaverunt hi quos memoravimus supradicti sancti apo- stoli et prophete et doctores. Synod. Anglic. apud Bed. Hist. Eccles. 1. 4. c. 17. [p. 161.] V. et Acta concil. Forojul. an. 791. [vol. IV. p. 847.] Fideli ac devota professione fatemur quod Spiritus Sanctus eternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duo- bus principiis sed tanquam ex uno, non duabusspirationibus,sed una spi- ratione procedit. Concil. Lugdun. II. [gen.] in decretal. (vol. VII. p. 705.

€ J confess in the creed attributed

N

Of the Holy Ghost.

ART.

not expressly deliver that he proceeds from the Son, (because the scriptures do not expressly assert it,) yet they say that he freceiveth from the Son, that he is &the Spirit of the Son, hthe Word of the Son, yea, iGod of the Son; plainly implying that what he hath is communicated from the Son as well as from the Father, which is the same thing that

to Athanasius, it is expressly said in the Latin, (for im the Greek there is no such thing,) Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio non factus nec creatus nec genitus est sed procedens. But we cannot deduce any certain argu- ment from thence, that Athanasius was of that opinion, because it is doubted by some whether he was the author of that creed or no; or if he was, it is probable that clause might be inserted by others into this, as it was into the Constantinopolitan creed. And that he was not of that judgment, we may perceive from his never mentioning it in any other place, though he disputes so often about the Deity, and procession of the Spirit. Especially it is probable he would have mentioned it (if he had held it) in the rule of his faith which he delivered in the council of Nice, or, be sure, in some place or other of his writings; but though he speaks often of the procession of the Spirit from the Father, he never mentions any procession from the Son. But of this more hereafter. TO dyev mvedpua, mvedpa dyov, mvevpa Ocod det ody Tlarpi kal Yia, ovk ad\Aétpiov Gcod, awd dé Ceod dy, amo Uarpos exmopevdpevov, kal rod Yiod AapBavoyv. Kpiphan. in Ancor. ce. 6. [vol. II. p. 11.] *Ov yap tpdmov ovdels eyvw Tov warépa ei pu 6 vids, ovde tov vidv ef py 6 maTHp, ovT@ TOAUG héyetv Gre ovdE TO mvevpa Et pr) 6 Ilarjp, kal 6 Yids, wap’ ob éxzro- peverar, map ob AayBdver. Ibid. c. 67. (vid. c. 11. Ibid. vol. II. p. 16. etc. 67. p. 7I.] “Evos yap dvros rod viod rod @vros Néyou, play etvar Set Teelay Kal mANpH THy ayraoriKHy Kal horiorixny Conv, odcapy evepyelav ad- ToD Kal Swpedy, ris ye €k martpds Aéeyerau exmropever Oar, eTreLOn) Tapa TOU Adyou Tov €k-tmatpds dpodoyoupévou

éxAdparet, Kal atrooréAXeTat, kat dido- ra. Athan. ad Serap. de Spir. S. [vol. I. p. 669.] where the interpreter translates éxAdpret desumit ; whence we may conjecture for it he read éx\apBaver. And that accipere and procedere signify the same thing in the procession of the Holy Ghost, St. Hilary expressly: Omnia quz- eunque habet Pater mea sunt, prop- terea dixi, De meo accipiet et annun- ciabit vobis. A Filio igitur accipit qui et ab eo mittitur et a Patre pro- cedit: et interrogo utrum id ipsum sit a Filio accipere quod a Patre pro- cedere. Quod si nihil differre cre- ditur inter accipere a Filio et a Patre procedere, certe idipsum atque unum esse existimabitur a Filio accipere quod sit accipere a Patre. Ipse enim Dominus ait Quoniam de meo acci- piet, &c. Hilar. de Trinit. 1. 8. [20. P: 959-]

[…]

NE Of the Holy Ghost. 179

rae others understood by his proceeding from the Father and on.

This Holy Ghost, thus proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son; so that asthe Son doth so receive his Divine essence from the Father, as to be the selfsame individual God with the Father ; so doth the Spirit receive his essence from the Father and Son, as to be of one substance and glory with the Father and Son. The Father did not communicate another, but his own numerical or individual nature to the Son, and so both Father and Son being of one nature betwixt themselves communicate that their nature to the Spirit ; by which means though he proceed from both, and so is a dis- tinct Person from both, yet he hath the same nature and substance with both, and so is as truly that one God which we worship and adore, as either or both of them. Insomuch that as though the Father be the root, origin, and fountain of Deity to the Son, and yet the Son hath as much of the Divine nature in him as the Father; so here though it be from the Father and the Son that the Spirit doth proceed, yet he hath the Divine nature in him as perfectly as either of them, and so is truly and eternally God, that one God blessed for evermore, which angels and men are bound continually to worship and adore.

And that the Holy Ghost is thus very and eternal God is frequently asserted by himself in the holy scriptures which himself indited. Indeed his inditing of the scriptures is a clear argument of his Deity, as well as the scriptures which were indited by him. What man, what creature, who but God, could compose such articles of faith, and enjoin such divine precepts as are in the scriptures expressed? Neither doth his inditing of the scriptures only, but the scriptures that were indited by him also give a full testimony unto this truth. Nay, the scriptures do therefore testify that the Spirit is God, because they do testify that themselves were written by that God who is a Spirit; and that it was the Lord Jehovah that spake by the prophets, and other writers of the Word of God; himself saying, Hear now my words: If there be a pro-

• “whet amongst you, I the Lord (Jehovah) will make myself known nQ

180 Of the Holy Ghost. Art.

unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream, Num. xii. 6. And hence it is that the prophets so frequently ery out, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, to wit, because what they speak from the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Hosts had first spoken unto them. Now who was this Lord of Hosts that thus spake by the prophets,.and instructed the penmen of the scriptures what to write? Was it God the Father or God the Son? No, but it was God the Holy Ghost: For the pro- phecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21. It was the Holy Ghost that spake by the prophets, and there- fore it must needs be he the prophets mean when they say, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts. So that he that bade them say, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts in the Old Testament, hath also discovered who is the Lord of Hosts in the New, even it is the Spirit of God that was this Lord of Hosts, and being the Lord of Hosts he must needs be God; there being no person that is or can be called the Lord of Hosts but he that is the very and eternal God.

This truth is also unveiled to us in these words, Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1 Cor. iii. 16. None can. be the temple of God but he in whom God himself dwells; for it is God’s dwelling in a place that makes that place the temple of God ; and whosoever else dwells in it, unless God himself dwells in it, it is no temple. Now we are here said to be the temple of God, and that because the Spirit of God dwelleth in us; we know we are the temple of God if God dwelleth in us, and that God dwelleth in us if we be the temple of God, and the God that dwelleth in us, and so makes us the temple of God, is here said to be the Spirit of God. As also in these words, What, know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you? 1 Cor. vi. 19. And ‘therefore the Spirit of God must needs himself be God; none can have

[…]

V. Of the Holy Ghost. 181

a temple but God, but the Holy Ghost hath a temple, and therefore the Holy Ghost is God.

But one of the clearest discoveries of this great truth is made in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, recorded Acts v. where Peter propounds this question to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart \ to lie to the Holy Ghost? and tells him in the next verse, Thou hast not lied to men, but God ; by which words the apostle plainly shews that Ananias lied, and that he lied not to men only but to the Holy Ghost, and that in lying to the Holy Ghost he lied not to any creature, but to God himself, and so that the Holy Ghost to whom he lied is the very and eternal God, otherwise, though he had lied to him, he would not have lied to God.

But beside such places of scripture wherein it hath pleased the Holy Ghost expressly to call himself God, there are several other scriptures which reason will gather this truth from ; all, or the most of which we may crowd together into this or the like syllogism: He that is the same in essence that the Father or Son is, hath the same worship that the Father or Son hath, and doth the same works as the Father or Son as God doth, is himself the very and eternal God as well as either Father or Son. But the Holy Ghost is the same in essence that the Father or Son is, hath the same worship due to him as the Father or Son hath, and doth the same works that the Father or Son as God doth: therefore the Holy Ghost is the very and eternal God. The first of

1 Though the original now hath it WevoarOai ce TO IIvetpa 7o dyiov, yet there is no reason to condemn our translation for rendering it to lie to the Holy Ghost. For the da- tive and accusative cases are here used promiscuously, for we may see the like in Psal. lxvi. 3; where, for the Heb. 75 ywra> i.e. they shall lie unto thee, the Septuagint hath Wevoovrai oe. And truly he that condemneth ours, must with it con- demn all the most ancient transla- tions of the New Testament, which carry the sense the same way, as if for 7d IIvedpa they had read eis 16 IIvedpa TO dysoy, as it is in some co- pies. Thus the Syriac plainly, \22?

Lazao? ropa, ut mentireris in Spiritum Sanctum: the Arabic Uno) oo,) GG): i.e. ut mentireris in Spiritum Sanctum : and so the Ethiopic, too, nav:

tHAAD: ADH: PRN:,

ut mentireris Spiritui Sancto. Where

we see the Syriac using 5, the Ara-

bic J, the Ethiopic fl, to express eis ’ by, which seems by that to have

been in the copies they made their

translations by. Or howsoever they

read the words, be sure they render

them as we do, to lie to the Holy

Ghost.

182 Of the Holy Ghost. Arr.

these propositions is unquestionable, and the last is unde- niable, and therefore it is the second only that requires proof, to wit, that the Holy Ghost is, hath, and doth, whatsoever the Father or Son is, hath, or doth. First, the Holy Ghost is in essence the same that the Father and Son is. For the essence and the properties of God are not at all distinguished, so that as whosoever hath the essence cannot but have the properties, so whosoever hath the properties cannot but have the essence of God: now the same essential properties that are attributed to the Father and Son are ascribed also to the Spirit in the holy scriptures. Is the Father and Son holy? so is the Spirit ; who therefore is so frequently called the Holy Ghost; holy not as creatures are, secondarily, derivatively, finitely holy, but so as none but God himself is, essentially, originally, infinitely holy; so that we may conclude the Holy Ghost to be God upon that very account, because he is the m Holy Ghost. Again, is the Father and Son eternal? so is the Spirit: for Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, Heb. ix.14. Is God the Father and the Son everywhere? so is the Spirit ; for, whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? Ps. exxxix. 7. Is God the Father and Son a wise, understanding, power- ful and knowing God?! so is the Spirit too; he is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord, Isa. xi. 2. Se- condly, as the same properties are ascribed, so is the same worship to be performed to the Spirit that is to be performed to the Father and Son as God. As we are to pray to the Father and pray to the Son, so are we to pray to the Spirit also ; as we are baptized in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son, so are we baptized in the name of the Spirit also; for thus saith our Saviour, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. xxviii. 19. And so in baptism, as we are not baptized only in the name of the Father and of

m Si enim Spiritus sanctus est, Spiritus sanctificatione venerunt, sed quomodo creatura est? Non enim ipse naturaliter semper sanctus est, sic sanctus est ut ceeteri qui ad ita ut alios sanctificet. Faustin. de

sancti vocabulum fide et Deo placita fide, contra Arian. c. 7. [ Bibl. Max. conyersatione, atque ipsius Sancti Patr. vol. V. p. 650. |

we Of the Holy Ghost. 183

the Son, but also of the Holy Ghost; so in baptism we dedicate ourselves to the worship of the Holy Ghost, as well as of either the Father or Son. And hence it is that we may sin against the Holy Ghost as well as against Father or Son ; nay, the sin against this Person only is accounted by our Saviour himself as a sin never to be pardoned, Matt. xii. 31, 32. We may sin against God the Father, and our sin may be pardoned ; we may sin against God the Son, and our sin may be pardoned ; but if we sin against God the Holy Ghost, that our sin shall never be pardoned. But if the Holy Ghost be not God, how can we sin against him? or how comes our sin against him to be unpardonable unless he be God? I know it is not therefore unpardonable because he is God, for then the sin against the Father and Son would be unpardonable too, they being both God as well as he: but though this sin is not therefore unpardonable because he is God, yet it could not be unpardonable unless he was God. For supposing him not to be God, and yet the sin against him to be unpardon- able, then the sin against the creature (as every one is that is not God) would be unpardonable, when the sins against God himself are pardoned ; which to say would itself come near, I think, to the sin against the Holy Ghost. But, thirdly, as the same properties and worship which are attributed to the Father and Son are ascribed also to the Spirit, so are the same works likewise performed by the Spirit that are per- formed either by Father or Son as God. It was he that moved upon the face of the ™ waters, Gen. i. 2. and so had a hand in the creation of the world. It was by his Spirit that God garnished the heavens, Job xxvi. 13. It is the Spirit that scattereth his gifts, and distributeth his graces amongst the children of men, 1 Cor. xii. 4. It was the Spirit that instructed the prophets, 2 Pet. i. 21. and ordained the apo- stles, Acts xiii. 2. and appointeth overseers in the church of Christ, Acts xx. 28. Yea, it was by the Spirit of God that Christ cast out devils, Matt. xii. 28. It was the Spirit that

n Hic Spiritus Sanctus ab ipso mentum dabat congruum motum et mundi initio aquis legitur superlimitem prefinitum. Cyprian. de fusus, non materialibus aquis quasi Spiritu 5. [ad calc. edit. Oxon. p.

[…]

184 Of the Holy Ghost. Art.

wrought miracles then by casting devils out of possessed bodies, and it is he that worketh miracles still by casting sin out of corrupted souls; for it is he that throweth the old man out of us, and maketh all things to become ° new within us, Tit. ii. 5. All which being throughly considered, the Spirit, that proceedeth from the Father and the Son, cannot but be acknowledged to be the one very and eternal God as well as either Father or Son; and that though he proceed from both, yet as God he is inferior to neither ; nay, that he so proceed- eth from them both as to be the same individual God with them both.

And this hath been the constant doctrine of the church of Christ in all ages. To begin with AthenagorasP, who saith, “ The Holy Ghost also, that acted those that spake propheti- cally, we say is a procession or effluxion from God, flowing from him and reflected to him, as a beam of the sun. Who therefore doth not wonder to hear us called atheists, that profess and preach God the Father, God the Son, and Holy Ghost, teaching their power in unity and distinction in order ’” viz. that in power, and all other essential properties, they are but one and the same God, but distinguished in their order and relation to one another. And Justin: to the same pur- pose’: “ But we have the same notion also concerning the Holy Ghost ; for as the Son is of the Father, so is the Spirit too, but only that they differ in the manner of their subsist- ing. For he (the Son) is Light of Light, shining by way of

[…]

—

ve Of the Holy Ghost. 185

generation. But this (the Spirit) is himself also Light of Light, but not flowing as one begotten but as one proceeding, and so coeternal with the Father, and so the same in essence with him, so impassibly proceeding from him; and so it is that we understand an Unity in Trinity, and acknowledge a Trinity in Unity.” And St. Basil’ clearly; “ Seeing those things that are common to the creatures are not communi- cable to the Holy Ghost, and those things that are proper to the Holy Ghost are not communicable to the creatures, it is hence gathered that the Spirit is not a creature. Seeing what is common to the Father and Son is common also to the Spirit ; seeing by the same things that God the Father and the Son are characterised and described in scripture, by the same things is the Holy Ghost characterised and de- scribed ; it is hence gathered that the Spirit is of the same Deity with the Father. Seeing that whatsoever is in the Father as God only and not as a father, and whatsoever is in the Son as God only and not as a son, the same is also in the Holy Ghost, but not in any creature, as names and things incommunicable to the creatures, common only to the Trinity, it is hence gathered that the Trinity is of one substance and glory.” And so Gregory Nyssen®’ saith, “ The Holy Ghost hath, in common with the Son and the Father, an uncreated and eternal nature, and is distinguished from them only by his own proper notions or personal properties.” And St. Chrysostome, speaking of the Son and the Spirit, saith ¢ “« There is one nature of the Son and Spirit, one power, one

[…]

Art.

186 Of the Holy Ghost.

truth, one life, one wisdom.” And St. Augustine shews also how the Spirit is so of one nature and substance with the Father and Son, that they are all but one God; 4%“ For so the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and altogether one God; and yet it is not in vain that in this Trinity none of them is called the Word of God but the Son, nor the gift of God but the Holy Ghost.” And Maxentius* to the same purpose: “ The Father is God, the Son, and Holy Ghost is God; not three but one God, one substance or nature, one wisdom, one power, one dominion, one kingdom, one omnipotence, one glory, and yet three sub- sistences or Persons.” I shall conclude this with that of Euge- niusy: “ Let us therefore make a rehearsal of what hath been said: If the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, if he sets at liberty, if he be the Lord and sanctifieth, if he createth with the Father and the Son and quickens, if he hath the same dignity with the Father and the Son, if he be every- where and filleth all things, if he dwelleth in the elect, if he convinceth the world, if he judgeth, if he be good and upright, if it be said of him, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, if he appoints prophets and sends apostles, if he prefers bishops, if he be a comforter, if he orders all things as himself pleaseth, if he washeth and justifieth, if he kills those that tempt him, if he

u Sic enim et Pater Deus, et Fi- lius Deus, et Spiritus Sanctus Deus, ét simul omnes unus Deus. Et ta- men non frustra in hac Trinitate non dicitur verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec donum Dei nisi Spiritus San- ctus. Aug. de Trinit. 1. 15. [28, 29. vol. VIII. p. 988. ]

x Est Deus Pater, Filius, Deus etiam Spiritus Sanctus, non tres sed unus Deus, una substantia sive na- tura, una sapientia, una virtus, una dominatio, unum regnum, una om- nipotentia, una gloria, tres tamen subsistentiz sive persone. Maxent. fid. confes. [Biblioth. Max. Patr. vol. IX. p. 537. |

y Faciamus ergo recapitulationem dictorum nostrorum. Si de Patre procedit Spiritus Sanctus, si libe- rat, si Dominus est, et sanctificat,

si creat cum Patre et Filio, et vivifi- cat, si preestantiam habet cum Patre et Filio, si ubique est et implet omnia, si habitat in electis, si arguit mundum, si judicat, si bonus et rectus est, si de eo clamatur hec dicit Spiritus Sanctus, si prophetas constituit, si apostolos mittit, si epi- scopos preeficit, si consolator est, si cuncta dispensat prout vult, si abluit et justificat, et tentatores suos inter- ficit, si is gui eum blasphemaverit, non habet remissionem neque in hoc seculo neque in futuro, quod utique Deo proprium est; hzec cum ita sint, cur de eo dubitatur quod Deus sit ? Cum eum operum magnitudo quod est ipse manifestat. Eugen. de cathol. fide, [ Biblioth. Max. Patr. vol. VIII. p- 687.]