Holy Ghost, although he be truly and properly God, is neither God the Father, nor God the Son, which is my fourth assertion. Our fifth assertion is, That the Holy Ghost is the third person in the blessed Trinity. For being he is a person, by our first assertion; a person not created, by the second; but a divine person, properly and truly God, by the third; being though he is thus truly God, he is neither the Father nor the Son, by the fourth assertion it followeth that he is one of the three; and of the three is the third. For as there is a number in the Trinity, by which the persons are neither more nor less than three; so there is also an order, by which, of these persons, the Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third. Nor is this order arbitrary or external, but internal and necessary, by virtue of a subordination of the second unto the first, and of the third unto the first and second. The Godhead was communicated from the Father to the Son, not from the Son unto the Father; though therefore this were done from all eternity, and so there can be no priority of time, yet there must be acknowledged a priority of order, by which the Father, not the Son, is first, and the Son, not the Father, second. Again, the same Godhead was communicated by the Father and the Son unto the Holy Ghost, not by the Holy Ghost to the Father or the Son; though therefore this was also done from all eternity, and therefore can admit of no priority in reference to time; yet that of order must be here observed; so that the Spirit receiving the Godhead from the Father who is the first person, cannot be the first; receiving the same from the Son, who is the second, cannot be the second; but being from the first and second must be of the three the third. And thus both the number and the order of the persons are signified together by the apostle, saying, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." (1 John v. 7.) And though they are not expressly said to be three, yet the same number is sufficiently declared, and the same order is expressly mentioned, in the baptismal institution made "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." As therefore we have upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that which is born of thee, shall be called the Son of God," answereth thus: Filius Dei Deus est, et virtus altissimi altissimus est.' c. 26. After Praxeas followed Noëtus : μονοτύπως τὸν αὐτὸν Πατέρα, καὶ Υἱὸν, καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἡγησάμενος. S. Epiphan. Hær. lvii. §. 2. Noëtiani a quodam Noëto, qui docebat Christum eundem ipsum esse Patrem et Spiritum S.' S. August. Hær. 36. Suddenly after Noëtus arose Sabellius: Δογματίζει δὲ οὗτος, καὶ οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Σαβελλιανοί, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν Υἱὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶν Πνεῦμα· ὡς εἶναι ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς όνομαolas. S. Epiphan. Hær. Ixii. §. 1. From him afterwards were all which held the same opinion, called Sabellians: Sabelliani ab illo Noëto, quem supra memoravimus, defluxisse dicuntur. Nam et discipulum ejus quidam perhibent fuisse Sabellium. Sed qua causa duas Hæreses Epiphanius computet, nescio; cum fieri potuisse videamus, ut fuerit Sabellius iste famosior, et ideo ex illo celebrius hæc Hæresis nomen acceperit. Noëtiani enim difficillime ab aliquo sciuntur; Sabelliani autem sunt in ore multorum.' S. August. Hær. 41. : formerly proved the Son to be truly the second person, and at the same time the Father to be first, so doth this which we have (but briefly) spoken, prove that the Holy Ghost is the third; which is our fifth assertion. Our sixth and last assertion (sufficient to manifest the nature of the Holy Ghost, as he is the Spirit of God) teacheth that Spirit to be a person proceeding from the Father and the Son. From whence at last we have a clear description of the blessed Spirit, that he is the most high and eternal God, of the same nature, attributes, and operations, with the Father and the Son, as receiving the same essence from the Father and the Son, by proceeding from them both. Now this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly, in relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. First, it is expressly said, That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as our Saviour testifieth, "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John xv. 26.) And this is also evident from what hath been already asserted: for being the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and being so the same in the unity of the nature of God, are yet distinct in their personality, one of them must have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been already shewn to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from him. Secondly, Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, yet the substance of the same truth is virtually contained there 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. Because the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, therefore it is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Father. "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." (Matt. x. 20.) For by the language of the apostle, the Spirit of God is the Spirit which is of God, saying, "The things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. And we have received not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God." (1 Cor. ii. 11, 12.) Now the same Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son, for "because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts:" (Gal. iv. 6.) the Spirit of Christ, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his ;" (Rom. viii. 9.) even "the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets:" (1 Pet. i. 11.) the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the • Vide p. 104. So Epiphanius several times calls the Holy Spirit Tpítov Tỹ ivouacia. In Ancorat. §. 8. &c. apostle speaks, "I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. i. 19.) If then the Holy Ghost be called the Spirit of God the Father because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that, being called also the Spirit of the Son, he proceedeth also from the Son. Again, Because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is therefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath by the original communication a right of mission; as, "the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send." (John xiv. 26.) But the same Spirit which is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith," when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you." (John xv. 26.) Therefore the Son hath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be acknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never sent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the Father sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him in the same manner neither the 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 proceedeth from the Father; so do they also virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son. From whence it came to pass in the primitive times, that the Latin fathers taught expressly the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son,* because by good consequence they did collect so much from those passages of the Scripture This is not the late but ancient opinion of the Latin Church, as will appear by Paulinus in Nat. 9. S. Felices, ver. 92. 'Non possumus dicere quod Spiritus S. et a Filio non procedat; neque enim frustra Spiritus et Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur.' S. August. de Trin. 1. iv. c. 20. 'Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, eundem Spiritum S., qui Patris et Filii unus est Spiritus, de Patre et Filio proce dere.' Fulg. de Fide ad Petrum, c. 11. Qui noster Dominus, qui tuus unicus Spirat de Patrio corde Paracletum.' Prud. Cathem. Hymn. v. 159. Tanquam idem Deus nunc Pater, nunc Filius, nunc Spiritus S. nominetur ; nec alius est qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque processit.' Leo (speaking of the Sabellian heresy), epist. xcii. c. 1. Audi manifestius: proprium Patris esse genuisse, et proprium Filii natum fuisse; proprium vero Spiritus S. proce dere de Patre Filioque.' Vigil. cont. Ext. 1. i. §. 10. By which testimonies, and the like, of the Latin fathers, we may well guess in which Church the Creed, commonly attributed to Athanasius, first was framed; for as it is confessed to be written first in Latin, so it is most pro bable that it was composed by some member of the Latin Church, by that expression in it: Spiritus S. a Patre et Filio, non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.' Inter Op. Athanas. vol. ii. p. 728. which we have used to prove that truth. And the Greek fathers, though they stuck more closely to the phrase and language of the Scripture, saying, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and not saying,* that he proceedeth from the Son ; yet they acknowledged under another Scripture-expression the same thing which the Latins understand by procession, viz. That the Spirit is of or from the Son, as he is of and from the Father ; and therefore usually when they said, he proceedeth from the Father, they also added, he received of the Son.t The interpretation of which words, according to the Latins, inferred a procession ; and that which the Greeks did understand thereby, was the same which the Latins meant by the procession from the Son, that is, the receiving of his essence from him. That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father, so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son,§ as receiving that infinite and eternal essence from them both. The ancient Greek fathers, speaking of this procession, mention the Father only, and never, I think, express the Son, as sticking constantly in this to the language of the Scriptures. Thus Gregory Nazianzen distinguisheth the three persons: Επὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων ἱστάμενοι, τὸ ἀγέννητον εἰσάγωμεν, καὶ τὸ γεννητὶν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. Οrat. i. de Filio, μ. 503. And the three properties attributed to the three persons are these, ἀγεννησία to the Father, γέννησις to the Son, and ἐκπόρευσις to the Holy Ghost. But this word ἐκπόρευσις or the verb έκπορεύεσθαι was not used by the Greeks in reference to the Son, but only as the Scriptures speak, in relation to the Father. + As Epiphanius : Καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημοῦσι, καὶ τολμῶσι λέγειν κεκτίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄκτιστον, ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβάνον, Her. Ixix. 3. 52. Τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, ἀεὶ ὃν σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ, οὐκ ἀλλότριον Θεοῦ, ἀπὸ δὲ Θεοῦ ὅν, ἀπὸ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβάνον. Ιι Ancor. §. 6. Αεὶ γὰρ τὸ Πνεῦμα σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ, οὐ συνάδελφον Πατρὶ, οὐ γεννητὸν, οὐ κτιστὸν, οὐκ ἀδελφὸν Υἱοῦ, οὐκ ἔγγονον Πατρὸς, ἐκ Πατρὸς δὲ ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβάνον. Id. Har. lxii. §. 4. + A Filio accipit, qui et ab eo mittitur, et a Patre procedit: et interrogo, utrum id ipsum sit a Filio accipere, quod a Patre procedere. Quod si differre credetur inter accipere a Filio, et a Patre procedere, certe id ipsum atque unum esse existima. bitur, a Filio accipere, quod sit accipere a Patre. Ipse enim Dominus ait, Quoniam de me accipiet, et annunciabit vobis.' S. Hil. I. viii. de Trin. §. 20. So St. Cyril: Ἐπειδὴ (τὸ Πνεῦμα) ὁμοούσιόν τέ ἐστι τῷ Υἱῷ, καὶ πρόεισι θεοπρεπῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐφ ̓ ἅπασι τελειοτάτην ἔχον ἐνέργειάν τε καὶ δύναμιν, διὰ τοῦτό φησιν, ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται. Com. in Ioan. l. xi. c. 1. De Filio ergo accepit, et omnia quæ habet Pater Filii sunt, quæ Spiritus S. accepit ; quia non de solo Filio, sed simul de utroque procedit. Fulg. 1. vii. contra Fab. fragm. apud Theodulph. de Sp. S. That this was the sense of the Greek fathers anciently, who used those two Scriptures of the Holy Ghost, appeareth by Epiphanius, who frequently declares so much; as in Ancorato: Πνεῦμα γὰρ Θεοῦ καὶ Πνεῦμα Πατρὸς καὶ Πνεῦμα Υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τρίτον τῇ ὀνομασίᾳ. §. 8. And speaking of Ananias who lied unto the Spirit: "Αρα Θεὸς ἐκ Πατρὶς καὶ Υἱοῦ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, ᾧ ἐψεύσαντο οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ τιμήματος νοσφισάμενοι. §. 9. Οὐκ ἀλλότριον Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς θεότητος, ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ ἐνυπόστατον ἀεὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Id. Hares. xii. §. 4. In these words is plainly contained the truth, That the Spirit is God of God the Father, and of God the Son. And that they did conclude this truth from those two scriptures, he proceedeth from the Father, and receiveth of the Son, as is also evident by these and the like passages: Εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς πορεύεται Θεὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦ μα ἐκ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ παρ' ἀμφοτέρων, ὥς φησιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, καὶ οὗτος ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται. Epiph. Ancor. §. 67. Εἰ τοίνυν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ, φησὶν ὁ Κύριος, λήψεται. Ον γὰρ τρόπον οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱὸς, οὐδὲ τὸν Υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴς, οὕτω τολμῶ λέγειν, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, παρ' οὗ ἐκπορεύεται, καὶ παρ ̓ οὗ λαμβάνει, καὶ οὐδὲ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸν Πατέρα, εἰ μὴ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. This being thus the general doctrine of the eastern and the western Church, differing only in the manner of expression, and that without any opposition; Theodoret gave the first occasion of a difference, making use of the Greeks' expression against the doctrine both of Greeks and Latins;* denying that the Holy Ghost receiveth his essence from the Son, because the Scripture saith, he proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit which is of God. But St. Cyril, against whom he wrote, taking small notice of this objection; and the writings of Theodoret, in which this was contained, being condemned; there was no sensible difference in the Church, for many years, concerning this particular. Afterwards divers of the Greeks expressly denied the procession from the Son, and several disputations did arise in the western Church, till at last the Latins put it into the Constantinopolitan Creed ;† and being admo Ibid. §. 73. Non loquetur a semetipso, hoc est, non sine me et Patris arbitrio, qui inseparabilis a mea et Patris est voluntate; quia non ex se, sed ex Patre et me est; hoc enim ipsum quod subsistit et loquitur, a Patre et me illi est.' Didymus de Sp. S. 1. ii. §. 13. Et paulo post: Ille me clarificabit, id est Paracletus, quia de meo accipiet. Rursum hoc accipere ut divinæ naturæ conveniat intelligendum-Spiritum S. a Filio accipere id quod suæ naturæ fuerat, cognoscendum est. Neque enim quid aliud est Filius, exceptis his quæ ei dantur a Patre, neque alia substantia est Spiritus S. præter id quod datur ei a Filio.' * St. Cyril having set forth anathematisms against the heresy of Nestorius, in the ninth anathematism condemned all who did not speak of the Holy Ghost as ἴδιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα. Το which Theodoret returned this answer: Ιδιον δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, εἰ μὲν, ὡς ὁμοφυὲς καὶ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἔφη, συνομολογήσο μεν, καὶ ὡς εὐσεβῆ δεξόμεθα τὴν φωνήν· εἰ δ ̓ ὡς ἐξ Υἱοῦ ἢ δι ̓ Υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, ὡς βλάσφημον τοῦτο καὶ ὡς δυσσεβες, ἀποῤῥίψου μεν. Πιστεύομεν γὰρ τῷ Κυρίῳ λέγοντι, Τὸ Πνεῦμα ὃ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται· καὶ τῷ θειοτάτῳ δὲ Παύλῳ ὁμοίως φάσκοντι· Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Reprehens. Anath. Cyril. t. v. p. 717. St. Cyril in his reply takes no great notice of this high charge of impiety and blasphemy, and only answers the argument so far as it concerned his expression, viz. That the Spirit is ov τοῦ Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα, but in this answer makes use of that Scripture by which he and others used to prove that the Spirit had his essence from the Son: Ἐκπορεύεται μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος φωνὴν, ἀλλὰ οὐκ ἀλλότριον ἐστι τοῦ Υἱοῦ· πάντα γὰς ἔχει μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς· καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸς ἐδίδαξεν εἰπὼν περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος Πάντα ἔσα ἔχει ὁ Πατὴς, ἐμά ἐστι· διὰ τοῦτο εἶ στον ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται, καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. vol. vi. p. 229. Although therefore St. Cyril doth not go to maintain that which Theodoret denied, and St. Cyril elsewhere teacheth, viz. that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet he justifieth his own position by that Scripture which by himself and the rest of the fathers is thought to teach as much. The second general Council held at Constantinople, finding it necessary to make an addition to the Nicene Creed in the Article concerning the Holy Ghost, of which that Council had said no more than this, I believe in the Holy Ghost, framed this accession against Macedonius : Εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενων Concil. Gen. t. i. par. 1. p. 536. in which they spake most warily, using the words of the Scripture, and the language of the Church which was so known and public, that it is recorded even by Lucian in his dialogue called Philopatris. §. 12. Κρι. Καὶ τίνα ἐπομόσομαί γε ; Υἱὸν Πατρὸς, Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκατο “Εν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία Ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ' ἡγοῦ Θεόν. This Creed being received by the whole Church of God, and it being added also by the next general Council at Ephesus, that it should not be lawful to make any addition to it: notwithstanding, the question being agitated in the West: Utrum Spiritus S. sicut procedit a Patre, ita et procedat a Filio;' and it being concluded in the affirmative, they did not only declare the doctrine to be true, but also added the same to the Constantino |