Gibson on Article V: Of the Holy Ghost

There was no article corresponding to this in the series pubUshed in 1553. Ten years later (1563) this was added by Archbishop Parker, being taken by him substantially from the Confession of Wlirtemburg. The reason for its insertion was possibly twofold — (1) The spread of false teaching concerning the distinct Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit That these truths were impugned by some at the time of the Eeformation is shown by the first of the Thirteen Articles of 1538, which ends with a condemnation of “Samosa tenos veteres ct neotericos, qui cum tantum unam personam esse contendant, de Verbo et Spiritu Sancto astute et impie rhetoricantur, quod non sint personse distinctae, sed quod verbum significet verbum vocale, et Spiritus motum in rebus creatum ” ; while the Eeformatio Legum Hcclesiasticarum supplies further proof how necessary it was to guard against error on this subject, for after language referring to other heresies it proceeds as follows : ” Sic illorum etiam est execrabilis impudentia, qui cum Macedonio contra Spiritum Sanctum con-

spiraverunt, ilium pro Deo non agnoscentes.” ^ But while these quotations witness to the prevalence of error, a recollection of the date to which the documents from which they are drawn belong, shows that they describe the state of things that obtained before the pubUcation of the Articles of Edward’s reign ; and it may fairly be asked why there was no article repudiating these errors in that series. The answer may perhaps be found m the supposition that it was considered that they were sufficiently condemned by the terms of Article I. (” Of the Holy Trinity ”), the language of which our present Fifth Article partially repeats, adding only a statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Since, however the same would hold good also of the Elizabethan article, it appears probable that Archbishop Parker’s addition was due, not so much to the felt need of more precise and definite language, as (2) to the desire to give the document the character of greater completeness. If there was an article on the Son of God it may well have been felt that the lack of a corresponding article on the Third Person of the Holy Trinity was a deficiency which it would be wise to supply, for the sake of symmetry and proper balance, even though there was no positive necessity for it arising from heresy, which without it would not be excluded. The subjects which caU for attention in connection with this article are three in number :

1. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

2. The distinct Personality.

3. The doctrine of the Procession.

I. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost. It is hard to understand how this can ever have been

1 Ref, Leg. Eccl. ” De h«res.” ch. 6. Even so late as the middle of the seventeenth century. Bishop Pearson speaks of -the ancient but newly-revived heresy of the Arians and Macedonians. -On the Creed, Art. viu.

doubted ; and it is probable that but few persons will be found in the present day to question it. The evidence of Scripture upon it is full and complete, and leaves no room whatever for doubt as to its teaching. Not only are divine actions and attributes ascribed to the Spirit, but also He is directly termed God.

(a) Divine actions and attributes are ascribed to the Spirit. — In the Old Testament the references to the action of the Spirit of God in creation (Gen. i. 2 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6), and in inspiring the prophets (Isa. Ixi. 1), whatever may be thought of their bearing on the doctrine of His distinct Personality, are manifestly inconsistent with the notion that He is a Krlaiia. His work in bringing about the Incarnation can only belong to one who is in the highest sense divine. ” The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee ; wherefore also that which is to be bom shall be called holy, the Son of God ” (S. Luke L 35). The Spirit dwells in the bodies of men as in a temple. See 1 Cor. iii. 16: ” Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? ” Compare 1 Cor. vi. 19: ” Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you […] Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ” is an offence of so heinous a character that it is spoken of as a sin which “hath never forgiveness” (S. Mark iii. 29), whereas all other blasphemies may be forgiven — a fact which it is impossible to reconcile with any other supposition but that of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

(6) But, besides this, the Spirit is directly termed God. In Acts V. 3, 4, Peter says to Ananias, ** Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? . . , thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God,” Thus to lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God.

2 Cor. iii. 15-18 : ” Unto this day, whensoever Moses

is read, a veil lieth upon their hearts. But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit” **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 which considereth the force and plainness of the apostle’s discourse.” ^

Again, whereas in one Gospel we read : “If I by the finger of God cast out devils” (S. Luke xL 20), in the parallel passage in another we read, ” If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils” (S. Matt. xiL 28), and whereas Isaiah describes a divine utterance that came to him, and says, ” I heard the voice of the Lord ” (Isa. vi. 8), St. Paul quotes the words as an utterance of the Holy Spirit (Acts xxviii. 25 seq.), thereby identifying Him with the Jehovah of the Old Covenant.

II. The Distinct Personality.

If it is difficult to understand how the doctrine of the Spirit’s Divinity could ever be doubted, with the doctrine of His distinct personality the case is very different. It is not hard to see how error would be likely to grow up on this subject. The same term, irv€vfia, is used in Holy Scripture both for the Person, and for the spiritual gifts. It is largely owing to this that men have sometimes failed to see the truth of the distinct PersonaUty, and have imagined that where-

^ Pearson On Uie Creed Art. viii.

ever the “Spirit of God” is mentioned, it is an impersonal attribute or quality, or an endowment granted to man as a divine gift. Careful consideration, however, of the language used in Holy Scripture makes it quite clear that such a view is wholly inadequate. It will be seen that, throughout the New Testament, personal actions are ascribed to the Spirit, and such actions as cannot be predicated of the Father or the Son. Our Lord’s discourses in the upper chamber on the eve of His passion (S. John xiiL-xvi) deal largely with the subject of the Holy Spirit, whom He would send from the Father, or whom the Father would send in His name (xiv. 26, XV. 26), as “another Comforter” or “Advocate” (aXXov TrapaKXTfTov). The use of this term seems of itself decisive. Whatever be the exact translation of wapd- /c\t)to^ the title is certainly a personal one. It is applied to our Lord in 1 John ii. 1, and if the Spirit is to be ” another Paraclete,’* He must not only be distinct from the Son, and from the Father, by whom He is “sent,” but must equally be a Person. Further, the masculine pronoim is used, ” He (eVelvo?) shall teach you all things” (S. John xiv. 26), and such personal actions are ascribed to Him as teaching, reminding, bearing witness, convicting of sin, guiding into truth, declaring things to come, glorifying Christ, taking of the things of Christ, and declaring them to the disciples (xiv. 26, XV. 26, xvi. 8-14). But the proof of the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost is not confined to these chapters of S. John’s Gospel. The apostolic epistles are full of passages which testify to the same truth. ” The Spirit also helpeth our infirmity : for we know not how to pray as we ought ; but the Spirit Himself (avro t6 irvevfia) maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered ; and He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh

intercession for the saints according to the will of God ” (Rom. viiL 26, 27). The Spirit here can only be thought of as distinct from the Father with whom He intercedes, nor can there be any personification of, or confusion with, the human spirit, since the Spirit “helpeth our infirmities,” and “maketh intercession for us.” And though, undoubtedly, such attributes as love are personified in Scripture, and personal actions ascribed to them, which are really done by the men in whom they reside (see e.g. 1 Cor. xiii.), yet such a passage as 1 Cor. xii 4: seq. is decisive against the notion that the language of the apostle concerning the Spirit may be explained in the same way. Here the Spirit of God is spoken of as apportioning the gifts of grace. He is expressly distinguished from the gifts which He assigns to men, and personal action is markedly attributed to Him. ” There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit … But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withaL For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom ; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another faith, in the same Spirit; to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy ; and to another discernings of spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; and to another the interpretation of tongues : but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as He will.” The Personality of the Holy Spirit is evident throughout this passage. “Even as He will” could be said of no influence or attribute. Many other passages to the same effect might be quoted. Elsewhere we read of the Spirit being “grieved” (Eph. iv. 30), of men being “led by the Spirit” (Gal. v. 18). It is possible to ” lie to the Holy Ghost ” (Acts v. 4), and to “blaspheme against Him” (S. Matt. xiL 31). Language

such as this is surely conclusive. It would be inexplicable and misleading if the Spirit were only an attribute, influence, gift, or operation. He is plainly revealed in the Holy Spirit as a divine Hypostasis, distinct from both the Father and the Son — the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity.

It may be added, with reference to the use of the same term, irvev^a, both for the Person and the gift, that a comparison of passages will show that as a rule where the gift, operation, or communication of the Spirit is spoken of in Scripture, the word irvevfia is without the article. Where the word is definite, to irvev^ia, it will generally, if not always, be found that the divine Person is designated.^

Before passing on to the subject of the procession, it will be well to notice briefly the history of the doctrine of the Divinity and Personality of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

In the earliest ages comparatively little attention was paid to the subject. The doctrine was held, so to speak, in an informal manner. The witness of hymns, doxologies, and professions of faith, as well as the incidental statements of early Fathers, all combine to convince us that the Church had no real doubts on the Divinity or Personality of the Holy Ghost, although the doctrine was not formally and dogmatically stated, and occasionally there are traces of a confusion of thought and language, so that not only are acts and operations ascribed to the Son which would be properly assigned to the Spirit, but the Spirit is actually identified with the Son.2 Such passages are, however, rare; and against

’ See Ps. Clement, 2 Cor. ix. and xiv. Hernias, Pastor. Sim. v. ix. ; Theoph. ad AiUolyc. ii. 23; Justin Martyr, Apol, i. 33, where the Incarnation is said to have been wrought by the Word Himself, though

them may be set the witness of many others, which show that the doctrine was recognised from the beginning.^ ” The Catholic doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Ghost,” it has been truly said, ” found a place from the first in the life and worship of the Church ; in her worship because in her life. Yet the dogmatic expression of this truth will be sought in vain among the outpourings of Christian devotion. Until heresy attacked one by one the treasures of the traditional creed, they were held firmly indeed, yet with a scarcely conscious grasp: the faithful were content to believe and to adore.” ^

The first recognition in any form of the fact that the doctrine had not hitherto received the attention due to it may be found in the outbreak of Montanism in the latter half of the second century. It has been said that Montanus claimed himself to be the Paraclete, but this assertion probably arises from a misunderstanding of his claim to be the inspired organ of the Spirit. According to the express statement of Epiphanius,^ his views were sound on the subject of the Holy Trinity, and therefore the prominence which he gave to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit may be taken as ” the first expression of a need already beginning to make itself felt — the need of a fuller recognition of the Person and work of the Holy Ghost” *

In the early days of the Sabellian heresy the subject

elsewhere Justin clearly distinguishes the Spirit from the Word, placing *‘in the third order” {iv rpL-rtj rd^n) the Spirit of prophecy “for we honour Him with the Word,” Apol. i. 13.

^ See Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. ii. xlv. xlvii. Iviii. ; Ignatius, Ad Magti. xiii. ; Philad. vii. ; Eph. ix. xviii. ; Mart. Polyc. xiv. xxii. ; Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15 ; Athenagoras, Legat. x. ; Irenaeus, IV. xiv.; xxxiv. etc.

[…]

of the Holy Spirit was not prominently brought forward, but as the controversy proceeded there were indications that the Sabellians were prepared to extend to the Third Person of the Trinity the principle of explanation which they applied to the second, and to regard the Spirit merely as a manifestation or character of the one Person whom they admitted as God. The subject, however, still remained in the background, nor was the attention of churchmen specially directed to it for some time yet. Indeed, it is not till a considerable time after the outbreak of the Arian heresy in the fourth century that it receives due consideration. The creed which received the sanction of the Fathers assembled at Nicaea (a.d. 325), being drawn up expressly to guard against Arianism, ended abruptly with the clause, “And in the Holy Ghost.” All the clauses which follow this in our present (so-called) Nicene Creed were wanting, and the reason why this article of the faith was so brief and free from all elaboration was, if we may believe the express statement of S. Basil of Caesarea, “because no question had as yet arisen on this subject.”^

At the same time, it is necessary to remember that the denial of the Divmity of the Holy Spirit was logically involved in the position of the Arians. If the Son is not ” very and eternal God,” but a ” creature ” (Krlafjui), what can be thought of the nature of the Spirit who is ” sent ” by Him, and is actually called in Scripture ” the Spirit of Christ ? ” It is clear that on the Arian hypothesis the Spirit cannot be truly divine, or else He would be superior to the Son who ” sends ” Him. For a while, however, this inference remained in the background. The main question at stake was that

[…]

of the Divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It required time for the full issues and results that flowed from the Arian position to become manifest. Not till about the middle of the fourth century does the question of the nature and position of the Holy Spirit begin to assume importance in the controversy. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem were delivered in the year 347 or 348. In the creed on which S. Cyril commented, the article on the Holy Spirit, though slightly fuller than that in the Nicene Creed, was still lacking in crucial and decisive terms. It simply consisted of the words, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake by the prophets ” ; and S. Cyril’s lecture upon it^ makes it perfectly clear that he was aware of no recent development of heretical speculation upon the subject, for the only heresies against which he thinks it necessary to caution the catechumens whom he is instructing, are those of older days and of long standing, such as those of the Gnostics and the Montanists. But a very few years later, among the anathemas appended to the first Sirmian Creed (A.D. 351) are several which mark the rise of controversy on the Person of the Spirit. Those are condemned who speak of Him as the ” ingenerate God,” or as ” one Person ” with the Father and the Son, or as ” a part of the Father or of the Son.” ^ From this time onwards the battle rages round the subject, and the heresy associated with the name of Macedonius is developed by some among the semi-Arians, who shrank from the blasphemy of attributing a created nature to the Eternal Son. ” Unable to grasp the Catholic conception of the Holy Trinity, unwilling to accept the Arian position as a whole, they fall back upon the middle course of giving up the Deity of the Spirit, while they confessed the Son

• S. Cyril, Cat. Led. xvi. * Athan, J)e Synodis, 27.

to be of like essence with the Father.” ^ In this way there arose the heresy of the Pneumatomachi (in/evfiaTO’ fidxoi)t or Macedonians,^ as they were also called, after Macedonius, the deposed Patriarch of Constantinople (a.d. 360). Its essence consists in the denial of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For a time it must have been most formidable. One Council after another condemns it,^ and creeds are enlarged with fuller statements in order to exclude it. So in the (so-called) Nicene Creed we find the brief statement of the original creed expanded in the following manner : — ** I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life (to Kvpiov Kot TO ffi)o7ro<oi/), who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.” These additions are found for the first time in the creed as given by Epiphanius in his Ancoratus which was written in 373 or 374.* They were perhaps ratified

’ ” Macedoniani sant a Macedonio Constantinopolitanse ecclesiee Episcopo, qiios et TvtvtiarofjAxoxn Grseci dicunt, eo quod de Spiritu Sancto litigent. Nam de Patre et Filio recte sentiant, quod unius sint ejusdemque substantias vel essentiae ; sed de Spiritu Sancto hoc noluut credere, creaturam eum esse dicentes.” — Augustine, ” Haeres.” 52. Of the share of Macedonius in propagating this heresy, but little is known. ” His name makes no figure in the history of the controversy beyond its use in designating the sect.” — Swete, p. 53.

3 E.g. The four Synods at Rome under Damasus, between 368 and 881. See Hefele, CmmcilSy ii. 287 seq.

• Epiphanius, Aiicoratus, §. 118. Compare also the other form of the creed given immediately afterwards by Epiphanius (§ 119) as that current since the days of Yalens and Yalentinian. In this the article on the Holy Ghost is still fuller. **And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the law and preached by the prophets, and came down at the Jordan, speaking by the apostles, dwelling in the saints. Thus we believe in Him that He is Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Paraclete, uncreated, proceeding from the Father, and receiving of the Son, and believed on.” There are also appended to this

and sanctioned by the Council of Constantinople in 381, a question which will have to be considered in connection with Article VIII. But however this may be, the Council in its first canon emphatically condemned and anathematised the heresy of the Macedonians, which from this time found place only without the Church ; and henceforth the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and His place in the Godhead as the Third Person of the blessed Trinity was fully recognised and acknowledged as that which had been the impHcit faith of the Church from the beginning, and which was now distinctly expressed in her formal and dogmatic decisions.

III. Tlie Dodrim of the Procession,

In treating of the procession of the Holy Spirit, it will be convenient to consider — (a) the scriptural grounds for the doctrine, and its meaning ; and (b) the history of its expression in the creed.

(a) The Scripture grounds for the doctrine, and its meaning.— The term ” proceeding ” is used by the Church to denote the manner in which the Holy Spirit derives His eternal Being from the Father, who is alone un-originate (apapxo^y As the property of the Son is ” to be begotten,” so the property of the Spirit is ” to proceed.” WTiat the word ultimately denotes must ever remain a mystery in this life. But we cannot doubt that there is some real truth, and an eternal fact in the divine nature, indicated by the way in which Holy Scripture, while speaking of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as God’s Son, and begotten, never makes use of these terms when speaking of the Third Person in the Godhead.

creed, anathemas of those who say that the Spirit once was not, or that He 18 of a different substance from the Father, or is liable to change or alteration. *’

• See Greg. Naz. Orat, xxix.

Consequently the Church, following the guidance of Holy Scripture, has never ventured to employ them. Some word, however, was required to express the scriptural truth that the Spirit is not unoriginate, but issues forth from the Father. Early in the second century, Ignatius had spoken of the Spirit as being from God (aTTo Seov ov) but it was impossible to avoid the use of some definite term. In the course of the fourth century we meet with various ones, especially e/cTre/i/rt?, •77/000809, and e/c7ro/oev(7t9, all of which are employed by writers of repute to describe the property of the Holy Spirit. The first of these terms, however, is open to the objection that it may lead to some confusion between the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, who is “sent” in time by the Father and the Son, and His eternal procession as the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Accordingly the term which finally obtained widest acceptance and found a place in the creeds was ” proceeding,” ixTTopevofievov It was evidently suggested by the use of the expression in our Lord’s discourse in S. John XV. 26. “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father (h irapa rov irarpo eKiropeveraC), He shall testify of Me.” It is, however, not at all certain that in this passage our Lord intends to indicate the eternal relation of the Spirit to the Father by His use of the expression. It is possible that the phrase appHes to His temporal mission to men, which is certainly the main subject of the discourse. But however this may be (and divines are not all

^ Ignatius, Ad Philad. vii.

[…]

agreed on the point ^) the selection of the term by the Church was a wise one, for it is entirely free from any associations of Sonship^ and leaves the manner in which the Spirit ” proceeds ” or ” issues forth ” from the Eternal Fount of Deity unexplained. The Church makes no attempt to be wise above what is written, but is content to leave the mystery where Scripture leaves it.

But it may be urged that the creed as used in the Western Church, while borrowing our Lord’s phrase to express this eternal fact, docs attempt to be wise above what is written, and is not content to take the phrase as it stands in S. John’s Gospel, but adds an important word to it, repeating it in the form ” proceeding from the Father and the Son” How their last word (Filioque), which has never been received by the Eastern Church, came into the creed of the West will be explained later on. For the present we are concerned with the doctrine rather than the history. It must be admitted that the exact phrase is nowhere found in Scripture. But it is maintained that the doctrine which the phrase is intended to express is abundantly taught in Scripture.^ One passage, indeed, approaches very near to being a verbal expression of it. In Rev. xxii. 1, we are told that S. John saw ” a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,

Bishop Westcott, who takes it of the temporal mission, lays stress on the fact that the preposition used in the Gospel is not (as in the creed) iKj which would naturally be required to define the source, but irapd, ” from the side of,” which is habitually used of the mission of the Son. Godet, however, points out that it is difficult to refer the words, who proceedeth fron tlu Fatlicr to the same fact as the former, tchoin I will send to you from the Father as this would be mere tautology. Besides the future, W/iw, / imZl send, refers to an historical fact to take place at an undefined period, while the present, iKiropeverai, proceedeth seems to refer to a permanent, divine, and therefore eternal relation.

’ “The procession of the Spirit in reference to the Father is delivered expressly, in relation to the Son is contained virtiuUly in the Scriptures/* Pearson On the Creed^ Art. viii.

proceeding out of (iKiropevofievov €k) the throne of God and of the Lamb.” And that the ” river of water of life” is intended to symbolise the Holy Spirit is shown by the evangelist’s comment on the very similar phrase used in the Gospel by our Lord himself. ” He that beUeveth on Me … out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive” (S. John vii. 38, 39). If the ” rivers of living water ” in the one passage symbolise the Spirit, we can scarcely doubt that the ” river of water of life ” in the other has the same significance. And, if so, ” proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb,” forms a complete justification of the language of the creed. But, apart from this text, there is ample proof in Holy Scripture of the doctrine, for the relation of the Spirit towards the Son is habitually set forth in the very sime terms that are used of His relation to the Father. Our Lord speaks of the Spirit as ” sent ” now by Himself, and now by the Father (compare S. John xiv. 26 with xv. 26). So clear is this, that the Greeks have never denied the mission of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. Again we find that the Spirit is spoken of sometimes as the ” Spirit of God ” (1 Cor. ii. 11), or the “Spirit of the Father” (S. Matt. x. 20), sometimes as the ” Spiiit of Christ ” (Kom. viiL 9), the « Spirit of Jesus Christ ” (PhU. L 19), the ” Spirit of God’s Son ” (GaL iv. 6). Christ also said of the Spirit ” He shall receive of Mine” (S. John xvi. 14), and when He imparted the gift of the Spirit to His apostles after the resurrection He ” breathed on them, and said. Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (S. John xx. 22), apparently thus signifying that the Spirit proceeds from Him as the breath from man.

From all these passages, and from the use of similar language elsewhere, it may be gathered that even though

the procession from the Son be not expressly stated in the Scriptures, it may yet be reasonably inferred from them. Only, care must be taken in order to avoid a misunderstanding of the article in the creed. Much of the objection which has been taken to the doctrine of the ” double procession ” has arisen from the notion that the phrase gives a sort of sanction to the idea of there being two dp^al, or sources of the Godhead, as if the Spirit were said to proceed from the Father and the Son in the same manner. Any such notion is an entire mistake. The Western Church, which alone makes use of the formula, “proceeding from the Father and the Son” has always disclaimed such an interpretation of it, and has been careful to explain that its meaning is precisely the same as that of the formula, which many among the Greeks have been willing to adopt, namely, ” proceeding from (i/c) the Father through (Bid) the Son.” Some words of the late Archdeacon Freeman may be cited here to illustrate this and make it clear.

” It is commonly and widely imagined that there was direct and irreconcilable opposition between East and West ; the Greeks holding that the Holy Spirit does not come forth, in any sense, from all eternity from the Son ; the Latins, that He comes forth from both in the same sense and way. Whereas Greeks and Latins held alike, that the Spirit came forth from the Son as well as from the Father, only in a different sense and way. Tertullian, who is early enough and central enough to be counted neither Greek nor Latin, in any strict sense, states the whole relation with admirable clearness, so far as human language and earthly types can shadow forth a mystery : * Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filio ; sicut tertius afonte riws exflumine : ita Trinitas per connectos gradus a Patri decurrens monarchiae nihil obstrepit.’ The Holy

Land furnishes us with a magnificent illustration of what is meant. Not far from Caesarea Philippi the primary spririg of the Jordan rushes forth with great violence, and immediately forms a deep and large fount \ the largest, probably, says Mr. Tristram, in the world. From this fount or well the Jordan proper flows. It issues forth, that is, from the spring, and from that alone, as its primary source ; but it proceeds also, in strictest truth, from the fount or well, only not as its primary source. In this most real sense the Holy Ghost ” proceedeth from the Father and the Son.” And the ancient Greek Fathers, while stedfastly maintaining that God the Father is the only original fountain of Deity, did not hesitate (so S. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, John Damascene) to acknowledge that God the Son, as being eternally consubstantial with the Father, is mediately a fomitain (irrjyrj) of the Holy Spirit ; that He flows to us eternally through God the Son (8t* avTov\ although not o^ct of Him in the sense in which He does flow out of the Father.” ^

Any illustration is capable of misleading if pressed too far. And this one is no exception to the rule. But if all thought of time and separation be excluded, the type of the stream is perhaps the best that can be found to shadow forth the heavenly mystery,^ and will probably convey to the reader’s mind the clearest notion of what is intended to be expressed by the clause in the creed which we have been considering.

Qi) From the explanation of the doctrine we pass to the history of its expression in the creed.

• Letter to the Guardian, Nov. 6, 1872. The statement in the text about the ancient Greeks is strictly true. The modern Greeks, however, appear to hesitate to admit anything more than a temporal mission from the Son.

[…]

The Creed of Nicaea, it will be remembered, contained

no statement whatever on the subject of the procession,

for it ended abruptly with the words, ” And in the Holy

Ghost.” It has been commonly stated that all the

clauses which follow these words were added at the

Council of Constantinople, in 381. This, however, is

certainly erroneous. The Council cannot have ” added ”

what was there already, and we know that the additional

clauses were in existence and had found a place in the

^ creed some years before the Council of Constantinople

P was held. More will be said on this subject later on, in

connection with the Eighth Article. In this place it

will be sufficient to point out that the words, ” the Lord

and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father, who with

the Father and the Son together is worshipped and

glorified, who spake by the prophets,” are found for the

first time in the year 373 or 374, when they are given

by Epiphanius in his Ancoratv^. Whatever be the

truth concerning the acceptance of the enlarged creed

containing them at Constantinople there is no doubt

that it was accepted at Chalcedon in 451, under the

impression that it had been previously sanctioned at

Constantinople, and henceforward it is known for some

centuries as the ” Constantinopolitan Creed.” But

previous to the date of the Council of Chalcedon there

is no trace of a knowledge of it — as distinct from the

original Nicene Creed — in the West, nor do we find

notices of its use there for some time to come. In 589,

however, was held the famous Third Council of Toledo,

at which Spain publicly proclaimed its catholicity. The

Visigoths in Spain had up to this time professed an

Arian Creed. But now under King Eeccared the heresy

was renounced, and the Catholic faith was formally

accepted. The Council was called by Eeccared shortly

after his conversion for the purpose of publicly proclaim-

ing the orthodoxy of the Gothic Church in Spain. Accordingly, the assembled bishops, to testify their adhesion to the Catholic faith, recited (1) ” the Creed published at the Council of Nicaea” [i.e. the original Nicene Creed of 325], and (2) ” the holy faith which the hundred and fifty fathers of the Council of Constantinople explained, consonant with the great Council of Nicaea ” [i.e. the Creed in our Communion service, which is commonly termed Nicene]. But in this latter form, as recited at Toledo, there occur two variations from the true text as current in the Greek Church then and at the present day — (1) The words Deum de Deo are inserted. These correspond to the Seov ix Geov of the original Creed of Nicaea, but they are wanting in the larger Constantinopolitan Creed. (2) Ut FUio is added in the article on the Holy Ghost after the words a paire in the clause a patre procedentem. Thus there appears for the first time in a formal creed of the Church the expression which has since been the subject of so much controversy. The question at once arises : To what cause was the addition of the words ” And the Son ” due ? To this it is believed that the only answer that can be returned is that the insertion was purely accidental, that is, that it was made without the slightest intention of “adding” anything, and in the full belief that the words formed part of the creed as generally received by the Catholic Church. There was at the time of the Council no controversy whatever on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit,^ and no good reason has ever been assigned

Some controversy on the subject there had been previously in the far East during the fifth century, when Theodoret had objected to S. Cyril’s statement that the Spirit is Idiov toO vlov, saying that it was blasphemy if it meant that the Spirit was $ vlov 8i* viov rv Vvapiv ov. The Council of Ephesus (431) not only approved Cyril’s language, but had also condemned a creed ascribed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, which denied to the Spirit a Hxapis 3id rod vlov. But the controversy had proceeded no

why the words Ft Filio should have been of deliberate purpose added to the creed. Moreover, the language of the bishops assembled at Toledo on the decrees of the General Councils, as well as on the Creed the use of which they adopted, is such as to preclude any idea of their having made any conscious alteration of its terms. They anathematise any who believe ” that there is any other Catholic faith and communion besides that of the universal Church, that Church, to wit, which holds and honours the decrees of the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and Chalcedon.’* Again, after confessing the error of their past belief, they anathematise, among others, those who despise the faith of the Nicene Council, those who say ” that the faith of the hundred and fifty bishops of the Council of Constantinople is not true,” and those who do not receive ” all the Councils of orthodox bishops consonant to the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and Chalcedon.” After which they proceed as follows : ” The constitutions of the holy Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, which we have heard with well-pleased ear, and have approved as true by our confession, we have subscribed with our whole heart and our whole soul and our whole mind : thinking that nothing can he more lucid for the knowledge of the truth than what the authorities of the aforesaid Councils contain. Of the Trinity and the Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nothing can ever he shown to he clearer or more lucid than these.”

And as if this was not sufficient, they order that in future, ” for reverence of the most holy faith, and for the strengthening of the weak minds of men … throughout all the churches of Spain and Galicia, the

further, and it is quite impossible that the assertion of the double procession at Toledo in 589 can have had the slightest connection with it.

symbol of faith of the Council of Constantinople, i.e, of the hundred and fifty bishops, should be recited, acm-dirig to the form of the Eastern Church’*

In the face of these very precise and definite statements it appears inconceivable that they could have set themselves deliberately to make material alteration in the form of one article of the creed, and, as Dr. Pusey says, ” the only solution seems to be that the Spanish bishops knew of no other expression of doctrine, and that accordingly it [i.e. the Filioque clause] had in some way found its way into their Latin translation of the creed. For the liturgical use of the creed, which by the multiplication of copies and its universal use, made variation impossible, dated from this Council.” ^

There is really no sort of difficulty in this supposition. The creed is so familiar to us, its exact words are so jealously guarded, and copies of it are so numerous, that it is hard to throw ourselves back into the position of the Spanish bishops to whom, as coming over from Arianism, the form was probably novel. But the ease with which such an insertion might be made is shown by the parallel case of the clause Deum de Deo. This was evidently the result of accident. But the clause has since then been adopted universally by the Western Church, although it is still wanting in the form of the Constantinopolitan Creed in use in the East. Nor must it be forgotten that the whole Catholic Church of the West, at least since the days of Augustine, had been accustomed to speak of the Holy Ghost as “proceeding from the Father and the Son.”2 More particularly was the phrase a familiar one

^ The double procession had been asserted by Western writers even before Augustine. Hilary of Poictiers had spoken of the Spirit as ex Patre

to the orthodox in Spain, since it had been definitely adopted in a profession of faith set forth at a previous Council held at Toledo, under the influence of Leo the Great, in 447. ” We believe ” — so runs the ” rule of the Catholic Faith against all heresies, and especially against the Priscillianists […] in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one Trinity of Divine Essence … The Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Paraclete proceeding from the Father and the Son.”’^ Thus the doctrine of the double procession would appear to those who had but just abjured the Arian heresy as an acknowledged part of that Catholic faith to which they had given in their adherence. They would naturally give expression to it, and when the creed was translated into Latin for their use, the translator would almost inevitably insert it either by inadvertence, not noticing its absence from the Greek, or else in perfect simplicity and good faith, believing that it ought to be in the creed, and that its omission from his copy must have been an accident.^ Anyhow there the phrase is for the

per Filium De Trinit. xii. 55, 57). S. Ambrose had said that the Spirit proceeds from ex) the Son, as well as from the Father ; though he apparently intended by this the temporal mission as distinct from the eternal procession. (See Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto i. 11). Augustine, however, is very clear on the subject (see especially De Trinitaie xv. 47) : * ’ Filius de Patre natus est, et Spiritus Sanctus de Patre principaliter, et, ipso sine uUo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit.” Other passages from Augustine may be seen in Pusey (“On the Clause, ’ And the Son ’ ”), p. 142 seq. , and earlier in the same work (pp. 53-59) quotations are given from a number of other Western writers, preWous to Toledo, who had given expression to the doctrine, e.g. Eucherius of Lyons (434), S. Leo the Great (410), Vigilius, Fulgentius, and others. Compare also Swete’a History of the Doctrine of the Procession of tJie Holy Spirit ch.

• Dr. Pusey writes as follows : ” It seems to me morally certain that

first time in the creed, and there it has remained ever since, although it only made its way gradually from Spain into the other churches of Western Christendom. It is most remarkable how long the addition remained unnoticed. During the seventh century there are one or two faint murmurs of controversy between Easterns and Westerns, concerning the doctrine of the procession,^ but no hint is given that the interpolation of the creed in Spain has been discovered. In the Lateran Council of A.D. 649 the Constantinopolitan Creed was recited without the Filioque, as it was also at the Sixth General Council at Constantinople in 680 ; although curiously enough, we find that the year before this the doctrine of the double procession had been distinctly asserted at our own English Council of Hatfield, held under Archbishop Theodore, a fact which is all the more remarkable, as Theodore, who was himself a Greek from Tarsus, seems to have accepted it without the slightest difficulty.^ After this we hear of nothing further which bears upon the subject until the latter half of the eighth

whoever inserted it supposed that the Filioque had dropped by mistake out of the Latin translation of the Nieene Creed, to which alone they pro* bably had access in Spain at that time. Anyone in the least familiar with the collation of MSS., will be aware of this cause of change in the text of a Father, that a scribe, bona fide, inserts what he thinks has been accidentally omitied. Thus, when the whole context relates to some contrast between the Father and the Son, a scribe will insert ’ et Spiritu Sancto * to complete the confession of the Trinity ; the insertion has sometimes found its way into the printed text. In like way, I doubt not, the Filioqiie came into the translation, which was before the bishops of the third Council of Toledo, under a misapprehension that it must be there.”— C>p. cit. p. 64.

2 See Baeda, ff. E. IV. xvii.: ” Glorificantes Deum Patrem sine initio et Filium ejus unigenitum et Patre generatum ante sjBcula, et Spiritum Sanctum procedentern ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter, sicut pnedicaverunt hi quos memoravimus supra, sancti apostoli et prophette et doctores.” Whether the interpolated creed was already accepted in this coimtry is a matter on which we have no evidence whatever.

century, and even then the question is only with regard to the doctrine, and no notice is taken of the interpolation of the creed. In A.D. 767 a Council (of which the records have perished) was held at Gentilly, near Paris ; and at this, according to a writer of the following century. Ado of Vienne (t874), the question was discussed between the Greeks and Romans concerning the Trinity, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same way as He proceeds from the Father (utrum Spiritus Sanctus sicut procedit a Patre ita procedit a Filio). This notice, however, stands by itself, and of the details of the discussion we have no knowledge. Twenty years later (a.d. 787) was held a great Council at Nicaea in connection with the Iconoclastic Controversy. At the third session of the Council a letter was read from Tarasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, containing the words, ” I believe … in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father through the Son.” ^ This, which had been previously approved by the Pope Hadrian, was formally accepted by the Council, which was closed by the recitation of the uninterpolated Constantinopolitan Creed. The proceedings of the Council were then communicated to the West. With Rome there was no difficulty. Not so with Gaul, and under the influence of Charlemagne, a capitular was sent to Rome objecting strongly to various statements made or permitted by the Council, and among other matters callmg attention to the doctrine of Tarasius upon the procession, and pointing out that it was not in agreement with the Nieene Creed,^ by which is

[…]

evidently intended the Constantinopolitan Creed, which Charles only knew with the interpolated clause, Filioque. This is the first indication that we have that the interpolation has spread from Spain. The Franks, we thus discover, were already using the creed with the Filioque clause, and since about this time the creed appears, also under the influence of Charles, to have been adopted in the liturgy of the Galilean Church, its use rapidly spread.^ Hadrian, in his reply to the capitular, contents himself with defending the doctrinal orthodoxy of the statements of Tarasius, but does not touch on the question of the clause in the Creed. This was not enough for Charles, and we find the doctrine of the double procession strongly affirmed by the third of the Caroline books,^ and also by the Council of Frankfort (a.d. 794), at which Charles brought together bishops from Italy, Gaul, Aquitaine, and Britain. Two years later at Friuli (a.d. 796) “the interpolation of the creed was for the first time openly defended before a Synod of the Church.” » The Council, however, was merely a provincial one of the suffragans of Aquileia, by whom the doctrine and the interpolation of the creed was accepted without difficulty, and as yet, although the clause has been adopted by the whole Western Church except Rome, the Easterns have apparently not discovered the fact. It came out, however, early in the next century. In a.d. 809 Charles assembled a Council at Aachen, for the express purpose of considering the doctrine of the procession. This was rendered necessary by a dispute which had arisen at Jerusalem between the Greeks and a colony of Latin monks residing there. The former accused the latter of heresy, alleging among other matters, that they chanted the creed with Filioque. The Latin monks appealed to the Pope, Leo in., urging

[…]

in justification of their practice — (1) that the creed as sung in the Emperor’s chapel contained the clause in question; (2) that it was also contained in theses Athanadiy as well as in books which they had received from the Emperor. The reply of the Pope to this appeal is lost, but there is still extant a profession of faith sent by him to the East, containing no allusion to the interpolation of the creed, but strongly asserting the doctrine of the double procession. Shortly after this the above mentioned Council was held at Aachen. At this, as might have been expected, the doctrine was steadily maintained by the Franks, and legates were appoiated to confer with the Pope concerning the interpolation of the creed. To the doctrine as asserted by the Council Leo readily agreed. Indeed he denounced the wilful rejection of the belief of the Western Church on this subject as heresy. But when he came to discuss with the legates the interpolation of the creed he drew back, and steadily refused to admit the clause. The Koman Church had never received it, and he could not consent to it. The legates urged that if it was now cut out of the creed used in the mass, the doctrine would naturally be thought to be erroneous. With the words the truth itself would be lost. Leo admitted the danger, and in order to avoid it advised the discontinuance of the custom of chanting the creed in the mass. It was not so used at Kome ; why should it be in Gaul ? If its public use was thus dropped, then after a time the excision might be made without danger, and the correct text of the creed restored. Of this advice Charles appears to have taken no notice whatever. The use of the creed was certainly not discontinued by the Franks, nor was the excision of the clause made. But so resolute was the Pope to guard against the unauthorised addition in his own Church that ” for the love which he bore to the orthodox faith, and

out of his care for its preservation ” he caused two silver shields to be made, on which was engraved the creed in Latin and in Greek ; and these were set up on either side of the confession in S. Peter’s. This plan appears to have succeeded for a time, and ” it has been thought that the interpolated symbol obtained no recognised footing at Rome until, exactly two hundred years after the death of Charlemagne, the Emperor Henry ii. prevailed upon Benedict viii. (a.d. 1014), to adopt the German use of chanting the symbol at the holy mysteries.”^ It was, however, long before this that the controversy which led to the final schism between East and West had broken out, and among the subjects of dispute the interpolation of the creed occupied a prominent position, although by no means the only matter of controversy, nor indeed the real cause of the schism.

This brief sketch of the history will sei-ve to show — (1) how the doctrine of the double procession has always been held by the Latins, and (2) how the interpolated creed gradually made its way from Spain till it was accepted in every part of the Western Church. Into the history of the dispute between the East and West, which originated in the quarrels of Photius of Constantinople with Pope Nicholas the First, it is unnecessary to enter here. But something must be said, in conclusion, on the objections which have been raised in both ancient and modern times to the insertion of the additional phrase, ” And the Son ” in the creed.

(1) The principal objection raised by Photius (a.d. 850) was that it implied the existence of two sources (apxai) of divinity, and thus destroyed the unity of the Godhead.

To this it is replied that such an interpretation of the phrase has always been rejected by the Westerns, who have consistently maintained that it is intended to

express the very same doctrine taught by the formula ” from the Father through the Son,” which, as has been already shown, many Greeks have been willing to admit.

(2) A second objection sometimes raised is, that it is contrary to the seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus (a.d. 431), which, we are told, forbade any addition to be made to the creed in future.

An obvious answer to this is, that if the canon in question forbids the words ” and the Son,” it equally forbids ” proceeding from the Father,” because the only creed recognised at Ephesus was the original creed of Nicoea, which ended with the words ” and in the Holy Ghost.” Both parts of the following clause, ” proceeding from the Father and the Son,” are equally ” additions ” to this, and therefore both fall equally under the condemnation of the canon, if it was really intended to forbid any addition to be made to the creed. But a reference to the terms of the canon, and the circumstances under which it was drawn up, is enough to render this interpretation of it extremely questionable. The circumstances were these : A Nestorian Creed, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, had been pressed upon some Christians of the East, and Charisius, a presbyter of Philadelphia, who had refused to accept it, had been excommunicated in consequence. He now appealed to the Council against his excommunicators. The Nestorian Creed was produced and read before the assembled Fathers, as well as the original Creed of Nicaea, after which the canon in question was passed. It runs as follows : —

” These things having been read [namely, the two creeds, the heretical Nestorian and the orthodox Nicene], the holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to bring forward or to write or to compose another creed beside that defined by the holy Fathers who were assembled at the city of Nicaea with the Holy Spirit

IS

krkpav TTiaTiv … irapa ttjv opicOelaav k.tX). But those who shall dare to compose any other creed (hipav irlaTLv), or to exhibit or to produce any such to those who wish to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatever, if they are bishops or clergy, shall be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clergy from their office (aXXoTptou? elvai tou? eiriCKoirov rrj iTnaKOTri] Kol Tov<; K\7)pcKov Tov K\i]pov), but if they are of the laity, they shall be anathematised. In like manner if any, whether bishops or clergy, shall be discovered either holding or teaching the things contained in the exposition (eV€<rt9) exhibited by the presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the only begotten Son of God, or the impious and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which have been put down, let them be subject to the sentence of this most holy and (Ecumenical Synod ; so that if it be a bishop who does so, he shall be removed from his bishopric and be deposed: and in like manner, if he belong to the clergy, he shall forfeit his clerical rank ; but if he be a layman, he shall be anathematised, as has been before said.”

From this two things are clear — firsty that the canon simply refers to the private action on the part of individuals. It forbids any person to bring forward another creed. It was not intended to refer to any possible action of the Church in future, or to bind it for all time to make no addition to the terms of the creed. Indeed, secondlj/y it is clear that the object of the canon was simply to prohibit the substitution of a different, that is, a heretical creed for the Nicene. It was with a definite reference to the attempt to force a Nestorian Creed on some Christians that the canon was passed, and it may safely be said that the thought of forbidding any addition to be made to the Nicene Creed in future cannot possibly

have been present to the minds of those who are responsible for it. It does not touch the case of the Filioque clause at all, and it is to be hoped that we have heard the last of this objection, which was due to an entire misconception of the terms and purpose of the canon, but which has been raised not only to the addition to the Constantinopolitan Creed, but also to the use made by the English Church of the (so-called) Athanasian Creed.

(3) One more objection remains. It may be urged that the clause was inserted in the creed irregularly, without any proper ecclesiastical authority, and that it is beyond the competence of any one branch of the Church to add in this manner to a creed of the universal Church.

There is some force in this objection, and considerable weight might be attached to it, had the clause been in the first instance an intentional addition, though even so, its insertion might plausibly be defended by the treatment which the original Nicene Creed received after its acceptance by the whole Church at Nicaea. Local branches of the Church certainly did add to it without incurring censure, or having fault found with their action, for additional clauses on the Incarnation, as well as those in the latter part of the creed, were current for a considerable time before they could claim any proper and regular ecclesiastical sanction,^ and any objection to the Filioque on the score of irregularity would at one time have equally applied to them. But in the case of the Filioque the objection is still more effectually removed by the further consideration that the ” addition ” was unintentional, and that it was not discovered to be an addition, nor called in question for more than two centuries after the Council of Toledo, to which it has

been traced. The Western Church does not seem ever to have made any public use — at least on a wide scale— of the creed without the clause ; and to have omitted it at a comparatively late date would have looked very much like a repudiation of the doctrine contained in it. The clause, when rightly understood, as has been abready shown, expresses a real truth of Scripture, which the Western Church had been for centuries accustomed to teach in the formula now found in the creed. It was impossible for her to alter the form which she publicly used without thereby endangering the doctrine. It was clearly an act of unwarrantable tyranny on the part of the Latins to attempt to force the acceptance of the clause on the Greeks, as was actually done by Pope Nicholas III. (a.d. 1277).^ The Greeks had never received it, and were accustomed to express the doctrine by a different formula. To them its adoption would have seemed a change of doctrine in the direction of heresy. But it is too much to ask the Latins to give up the use of the clause, since they would thereby practically disown the doctrine which it contains. A parallel case is afforded by the difficulty connected with the word hypostasis in the fourth century, and the treatment which this received at the Council of Alexandria indicates the proper solution of the difficulty connected with the varying forms of the creed in the East and the West. There was a difference of phraseology between different portions of the Church as regards an important matter of faith. But so soon as it was discovered that, in spite of varying language, the meaning of both parties was identical, it was felt that a difference of phraseology was, after all, but a minor inconvenience, which might well be endured without causing any schism in the Church, and it was agreed that both parties might keep to their own traditional mode of

expressing the doctrine which they both held in common. So also, if Greeks and Latins are really at one in the doctrine, it is possible to look forward to the day when similar wise coimsels may prevail, and the acceptance of the Constantinopolitan Creed, either with or without the Filioquc, may be admitted as a basis for intercommunion between the long-estranged branches of the Church in the East and West.

Notes

• See Dean Vaughan, Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans^ p. 103, and cf. Pearson On the Creed, Art. viii.
• Swete, On the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 8.
• Swete, Early History ^ p. 45.
• ’ Letter to the Rev. H. P. Liddon on the clause ’ And the Son, p. 49, where much information will be found on the Council of Toledo. Compare also Mansi, ix. p. 977, and Hahn, Bibliothek dcr Symbole, p. 158 seq.
• See Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 129, and cf. Hahn, p. 130. The profession has been assigned to the year 400. It is now generally believed to belong to the Council of 447.
• See Swete, History, etc. p. 183.
• ” Quod Tarasius non recte sentiat qui Spiritum Sanctum non ex Patre et Filio Secundum Nicenum Symbolum, sed ex Patre per Filium procedentern in suffi credulitatis lectione profiteatur.” — Migne, vol. xcviiL p. 1257.
• Swete, p. 225.
• See below on Article VIII. p. 320.
• See Miliuau’s Latin Christianity, vol. vi. p. 412.