Boultbee on Article V: Of the Holy Ghost

This Article is not foimd amongst those of 1552 ; it was added in the time of Elizabeth. It is said by Hardwick to have been borrowed from the Wurtemberg Confession, pre- sented to the Cotmcil of Trent in 1552.

The observation made under other Articles may be re- peated* It is obviously essential to such a code of doctrine as this that the truth about the nature of the Holy Ghost should be declared. But it is also certain (omitting mention of the ancient Macedonians) that in the age of the Reforma- tion there were some Anabaptists, also the elder Socinus and others,^ who denied the personality of the Holy Ghost.

Observations on Article V.

This Article defines the nature and Person of the Holy Spirit ; it does not speak of His office in dealing with the Church or individuals. It may be divided into two principal sections — the procession of the Holy Ghost, and His divine

• Mosheini, ’ Cent. XVI.’ iii. t)art ii. ch. iv. § 3.

nature. We were compelled to anticipate the latter of these in commenting on the First Article. The procession of the H0I7 Ghost now remains for consideration.

The history of this doctrine may be briefly recapitulated. The original form of the Nicene, or rather the Constantino- politan, Creed declared that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father (Ik row Harpoe eKiropevo/JLevoy), At the close of the sixth century the words and from the Son were added by the Provincial Council of Toledo, in Spain. Thence the clause appears to have gradually foxmd its way into Gaul, in portions of which kindred Grothic xaees were settled. Nearly two hundred years afterwards, this dogma of the procession of the Holy Ghost from tlie Son, as well as from the Father, foimd a strenuous supporter in Charlemagne. He called a council of his own bishops at Frankfort, in which this doctrine was affirmed, and the Pope was afterwards addressed on the subject of the defect of the Creed on this important matter. The Pope declined to make any change in the Creed. Nor, so far as can be clearly ascertained, was the alteration ever made officially and authoritatively. Gradually and stealthily the change spread. About the year 1014 it had established itself in Rome, and was adopted in the Pontifical services.

The opposition called forth in the Eastern Church is well known. The presumption of the Western portion of the Church in venturing to alter the Creed confirmed by all the great General Councils, added to the assumptions of the Pope, made the great schism between the East and the West which has never been closed. It has, perhaps, been a divine mercy that, in the midst of so general a corruption of Christian doctrine, the Papal tyranny should have thus received a check ; and that a perpetual protest should have been made against it by a Church scarcely purer than itself in point of doctrine.

Nothing could well be more imsatisfectory than the mode in which this additional clause fbimd its way into the Creed. Nevertheless we see that it is distinctly affirmed by the Church of England ; and the fact of its truth, or otherwise, is quite distinct from any particular time or mode of its promulgation.

We turn, therefore, as before to Pearson’s treatment of this

doctrine.* The procession of the Holy Ghost from fhe Father is confessed by both parties, and is commonly taken to be ex- pressly declared in John xv. 26 (o Trapa row HaTpog imro- peverai). This is also said to be evident on this groimd. ’ Since the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and being the same in the imity of the nature of God, are yet distinct in their per- sonality, one of them must have .the same nature from the other ; and because the Father hath it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from Him.’

The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is said to be * virtually contained ’ in the Scripture. * Because 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.’ In proof of this it is shown that the Holy Ghost U equally called the Spirit of God (e.g. 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12) and the Spirit of Christ (e.g. Rom. viii. 9). Again it is urged that the Holy Ghost is said to be sent by the Father (John xiv. 26) and by the Son (John xv. 26). Hence a parity of relation is said to follow. * The Father is never sent by the Son, because He received not the Godhead from Him ; but the Father sendeth the Son, because He communi- cated the Godhead to Him. In the same manner neither tlie 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 pro- ceedeth from the Father, so do they also virtually teach that He proceedeth from the Son.’

’ * Creed,’ Art. VIIL

paet n.

6. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCEIPTUEES.