Forbes on Article V: Of the Holy Ghost

THAT the bond in the Holy Trinity, the osculum Patris et Filii, should have been the object concerning which the greatest divisions in Christendom should have occurred, is an instance of the deep sinfulness in human nature, and of the way in which the gifts of God are perverted by the depraved agency of the free will of man. Though the question that divided the East from the West may really have turned on earthly matters, on strivings for pre-eminence, and perhaps on deep ethnical reasons laid far down in the nature and constitution of man, it was the device of the Patriarch Photius to choose this transcendental truth for the battle-field of the Churches, to give weight to his charges against the Latin Church. It was a point on which there was much to be said on either side. All a priori reasoning tended one way,

tradition testified in the other. The necessities of the case, and the consequences of truths admitted by both parties, led one way ; the past history of the Church, and the actual letter of Holy Scripture led the other.

On the part of the Latins it was urged that though the procession from the Son is not expressly stated in Holy Scripture, it is clearly to be deduced therefrom. As He is called the Spirit of the Father a, so He is termed the Spirit of the Son b, and the Spirit of Christ c. Again, as the Father is said to send the Spirit d, so the Son is said to send the Spirit e, and to send implying the Communication of Fssence, if He be sent by the Son as by the Father, there must be a Communication of Essence, a Procession from the Son.

Theologically, if the Father in begetting the Son communicates the whole essence and nature, save only the personal attributes of Paternity and Aseity, it fol lows that the Son, receiving of the Father whatsoever the Father is in Himself, with these two exceptions, must breathe forth the Spirit from Himself as well as the Father doth from Himself. For the Spirit does not proceed from the Father as a Father, else would He be begotten, and another Son. Yet there is this difference as a result of the doctrine of Subordi nation, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father of the Father, but He proceedeth from the Son of the Father, who communicating His own individual Es sence, and consequently whatever He is to the Son,

could not but Communicate to Him the Spirit proceed ing from Him as He hath it proceeding from Himself. What the Father hath in Himself by way of origin, the Son hath by Communication from the Father.

The Latins seem to say that the Unity in the God head is distinguished into Persons, and the Persons are distinguished one from another only by the direct relative opposition of causing and being caused, such as is implied in the Xames of the Persons themselves, thus : —

He who begets cannot so far be He who is begotten, nor rice rersd ; but in all other respects He who is be gotten is identical with Him who begets. Also, He who makes to proceed cannot, so far, be He who is made to proceed, nor rice versa; but in all other re spects He who is made to proceed is identical with Him who makes to proceed.

The Greek Church states its doctrine thus : ” The Father is the source and atria of the Son and Holy Ghost; but He is the Father of the Son, He is the producer of the Holy Ghost. The Son is the Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Strength, the Image, the Glory, the Character of the Father. As to the Holy Ghost, He is not the Son of the Father; He is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father. Pie is also the Spirit of the Son, not that He is of the Son, but because He proceedeth of the Father by the Son, for His only author is the Father f.”

Thus, stated theologically, it cannot be doubted that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being one in Essence but distinct in person, have two kind of attri butes, essential and personal. To which of these is the procession of the Holy Ghost to be referred ? If to the first, it follows that as the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, He must also proceed from Himself, which must be rejected ; if from the second, He proceedeth from the Father only, otherwise it would happen that an attribute of Deity was neither essential to the Trinity, nor confined to One Person.

Moreover, the Unity of the three blessed Persons, being founded on the Common Essence, and on that alone ; if the Filioque be true, it follows, instead of the reciprocal unity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being every way equal, there is a proximity between Father and Son which the Holy Ghost has with neither of the two.

Lastly, the Western doctrine attributes a kind of second, or inferior Monarchy, to the First and Second Persons in the Trinity, making them together a kind of fount or principiation of the Third, which neither has separately, and in which the Third hath no part s.

The intellect of man bows itself in the presence of such awful thoughts as those which concern the im manent action of God Most High. With such abstract reasoning, with authorities so equally ranged on either side, who are we that we should decide ? Better is it to turn the thoughts to the point of comfort which we

s Cf. Chris. Bern., vol. xlviii. p. 488.

may draw., when we think of the motives of the con test. Doubtless the supreme honour and pure worship of Gfod animates both Greek and Latin in this con test. The Greek dreads that any assault should be made upon what is with us also a matter of faith, the fjiovdp^ia, and a double principiation in God is a thought abhorrent to his feelings. The Latin, on the other hand, is jealous of the dignity of the Eternal Son, and will not endure that aught should be dero gated from Him ; yet surely there is some hope that in reality there is no dispute between them. Both Greeks and Latins admit the words of St. John’s Gospel, that the Holy Ghost “proceedeth from the Father.” Both Greeks and Latins admit, that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son. Now of implies either possession or production ; and as we cannot predicate possession of one Person in the Trinity by another, we must predicate production, so that the dis tinction becomes wire-drawn. Waiving the question of the propriety of the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed, may not the definition of the Council of Florence, — when for one short moment, in A.D. 1439, in the Dominican convent at Florence, the schism was healed, and the wall of partition that had divided the East from the West was broken down — be adequate ?

” The Latins and Greeks, meeting in that holy 03cu- menical synod, diligently laboured mutually that the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost should be most diligently and carefully discussed. Bringing for ward testimonies from the Holy Scriptures, and very

G

many authorities of doctors both Eastern and Western, in some of which it was said that the Holy Ghost pro- ceedeth from the Father and the Son, in others from the Father by the Son, two aspects of the same truth ; the Greeks asserted that when they say the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, they say it not to exclude the Son, but because as they say it seems to them that the Latins argue that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son, as from two principles and by two operations ; therefore they abstained from saying the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son. But the Latins asserted that it was not with this mind that they said the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, to exclude the Father from being the Fount and Principle of all Deity, that is, of the Son and Holy Ghost ; or this, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, the Son hath not of the Father ; or that there are two principles or two spira- tions. They assert, as they have always asserted, that there is one principle and one spiration of the Holy Ghost. When one and the same sense of the truth has thus been arrived at, they agreed in the following con session : —

” That the Holy Ghost is eternally from the Father and the Son, and hath His essence and subsistent Being from the Father and the Son together (Sumil et FiUo), and eternally from Both, as from one principle and one spiratiou, proceedeth. Declaring that what the holy doctors and fathers say, that the Holy Ghost pro ceedeth from the Father by the Son, leads to this

understanding : that by it is signified, that the Son. also, according to the Greek is a cause, according to the Latin a principle, of the substance of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father: and since all things which are of the Father, He gave to His only-begotten Son, in begetting, save Paternity : this also that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, the Son hath eter nally from the Father, by whom from all eternity He is begotten.”

This Article, after beginning by assuming the Double Procession of the Holy Ghost, goes on to predicate of Him that He is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, Yery and Eternal God.

I. This divinity may be proved 1. from the names whereby the Spirit is described in Holy Scripture ; 2. from the notes and characteristics of the Divinity attributed to Him ; and 3. from His operation and effects.

1. The text of the Acts, where St. Peter reproaches Ananias with having lied to the Holy Spirit, and adds that he had lied not to man but to God h.

2. That in which St. Paul applies to the Holy Ghost the words in the sixth chapter of Isaiah, spoken of tht* Lord of Hosts *.

3. In the Hebrews the author applies to the Holy Ghost the temptations in the wilderness : ” They tempted God in the wilderness k.”

4. In the Corinthians our bodies are said to be the

h Acts v. 3, 4. i Acts xxviii. 25 sqq. k Ps. xcv., quoted

in I-Icb. iii. 12.

temple of God1, and also the temple of the Holy Ghost m.

5. In the same Epistle, in enumerating the opera tions, and gifts, and ministrations, they are attributed to powers coming from God and the Holy Spirit n.

6. In 2 Cor. iii. 17, it is said : ” The Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.”

To this may be added the constant use of the article TO before the word Spirit, distinguishing the Person from the Gifts ; the epithet Holy as implying an inte gral, not an adventitious holiness ; and the word Para clete or Comforter, the Truth, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the Lord Himself, the Spirit of adoption, of love, of liberty, of wisdom, of prudence, of counsel, of strength, of the fear of the Lord.

II. Next, we gather that the Spirit is God, of one glory with the Father and the Son, from His parti cipation in those things which belong to God alone.

1. The fact of His mission and procession is proof of this. St. Ambrose says that as the Wisdom which pro- ceedeth out of the mouth of God cannot be called created, nor the Word uttered from His heart, nor the Virtue in which is the fulness of the Eternal Majesty, so, too, the Holy Spirit cannot be said to be created which is poured forth from the mouth of God, when God Himself so exhibits His unity, as to say, ” I will pour forth of My Spirit on all flesh °.”

2. The formula of Baptism lias always been alleged as proof; ” for what society or communion can there be between the Creator and His creature ? How can that which is made be numbered with its Maker, for the perfection of all men p ?”

3. And the word “in the Name;” for we believe man, but we believe in God.

4. Again, an irrefragable argument may be drawn from His infinite knowledge. ” The Spirit searcheth out the deep things of God V To know God or His secrets is in the power of no created Being, and the whole argument runs on the identity of nature — as man knows man, so God knows God.

5. The last and most awful proof of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is the singular atrocity of sin against Him, the only irremissible sin.

III. The third kind of argument is that which de duces the Divinity of the Holy Spirit from the attri butes and works predicated of Him in Holy Scrip ture. Substance and operation must be one. Con- substantial things have the same operations ; now if there exist that Bestowal of Grace, of Holiness, of Righteousness, which the Church terms Justification and Sanctification, which consists in the remission of sin, and in the infusion of grace or adoption, a creature cannot sanctify another creature r, and the Sanctity of the Spirit is not adventitious, but substantial. Thus St. Cyril admirably reasons s : ” He is holy, not by par-

P Athan., cont. Arian. Or. 2, t. i. p. i. 508, ed. Ben. 1 1 Cor. ii. 10. T Bas. ad Anann. s Dial. vii. de Trin. 658.

86 AllTICLE V.

ticipation, nor by an external relation to the Son, but being by Nature and Truth His Spirit. And as it is stupid and illiterate for a man to be called a man, yet something totally different to be understood, so it is very foolish to call the Spirit the Holy Spirit, and yet to den}7’ that He is holy by nature, and to force Him into another nature. For that name does not signify any measure of glory or eminence, as the names of Princedoms, Thrones, or Dominations, which are attri buted to those who were made by Him ; but it will express rather a substantial quality, such as the word Father, in the case of the Father ; or Son, in that of the Son. And as it would be extremely absurd to call God the Father, and yet not to understand Him as Father ; or to call the Son the Son, and yet not to hold Him as such ; how shall we free from the charge of ignorance those who dare to despoil the Holy Spirit of a natural and true Sanctity ? ”

Again, grace and righteousness are peculiarly as cribed to Him : ” On the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost*.” “The offering up of the Gentiles is made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost V ” The love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit x.”

Again, the immunity from sin, and the power of forgiving it. ” Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins ye remit V &c.

Lastly, all those striking words of anointment and

1 Acts x. 45. u Rom. xv. 16. x IbiJ. v. 5.

y St. John xx. 22, 23.

healing are proofs of the point. ” How,” asks St. Cyril, “can the Holy Spirit be said to be created, if >y Him we become partakers of the Father and of the Son. The participation in God cannot come to us from the creature.”

Others argue that the fact of our bodies being temples is proof of this, for to no angel or saint may temples be raised. But the highest proof of all, from Holy Scripture, is His office with regard to the Eco nomy of Redemption. It is by this operation that the Incarnation took place. ” The Holy Ghost shall come upon Thee,” was the announcement of the Holy Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin. Also ” the Holy Ghost anointeth and sendeth Christ. Christ was predestinated by the Holy Ghost2.” Christ is said to be full of the Holy Spirit, and how can He not be God, who fills God. By the Spirit He cast out devils, and by the Spirit He was raised from the dead. Christ must not be said to be helped by creatures, nor can the Incarnation be said to be effected by the power and efficacy of anything short of God.

This argument is well summed up by St. Fulgentius : “Therefore let it be said, if one who was not God could strengthen the powers of heaven, if he could give life, if he could sanctify by the regeneration of baptism, if he could give charity, if he could dwell in believers, if he could bestow grace, if he could have the members of Christ as his temple, then the Spirit z Horn. i. 4.

may be justly denied to be God. Again, let it be said, that the things which are mentioned of the Holy Ohost could be done by any creature, then rightly may the Holy Spirit be called a creature. But if these things were never within the power of the crea ture, — if those things are found in the Holy Ghost which are competent only to God, — we ought not to

Notes

• St. MattJL 20. b Gal. iv. 6. c Horn. viii. 9; 1 St. Pet. i. 11; Phil. i. 10. d St. John xiv. 26. e Ibid. xv. 26, xvi. 7.
• Compare St. John Damascene, De Fide Ortk., 1. 1, p. 137 E, and 141 I)., eel. Le Q.uien.
• 1 Cor. iii. 6. » Ibid. vi. 19. n Jbid. xii. 4—11.
• Oral, de Sp. S., c. § 97.