proceeding from him of the Father, who communicating his own individual essence, and so whatsoever he is (his paternal relation to him excepted) to the Son, could not but communicate this to him also, even to have the Spirit proceeding from him, as he hath it proceeding from himself. So that as whatsoever else the Father hath originally in himself, the Son hath also by communication from the Father, so hath the Son likewise this the Spirit's proceeding from him, by communication from the Father, as the Father hath the Spirit proceeding from him originally in himself. Neither is our church singular in this assertion, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father; for the ancient fathers of the church of Christ did generally teach the same: the Latin fathers expressly avouching

d

Nec de quo genitum est Verbum, nec de quo procedit principaliter Spiritus Sanctus, nisi Deus Pater. Ideò autem addidi principaliter, quia et de Filio Spiritus Sanctus procedere reperitur. Sed hoc quoque illi Pater dedit, non jam existenti et nondum habenti, sed quicquid unigenito Verbo dedit, gignendo dedit. Sic ergo eum genuit, ut etiam de illo donum commune procederet, et Spiritus Sanctus Spiritus esset amborum.-Aug. de Trinit. lib. xv. cap. xvii. p. 462. tom. iii. Edit. Bas. 1541. Si enim quicquid habet de Patre Filius, de Patre habet utique ut de illo procedat Spiritus Sanctus.—Ibid. cap. 26.

d Vide Concil. Anglic. p. 272. Feronil. 290. V. Concil. Lug. 2. Bayli. 327. et Tol. i. tom. ii. p. 232, 264, 290. Spiritus autem Sanctus verè Spiritus est, procedens quidem à Patre et Filio: sed non est ipse Filius, quia non generatur; neque Pater, quia procedit ab utroque.-Ambros. de Symbol. cap. 3. Filius autem de Patre natus est, et Spiritus Sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante communiter de utroque procedit. Diceretur autem Filius Patris et Filii, si, quod abhorret ab omnium sanctorum sensibus, eum ambo genuissent. Non igitur ab utroque est genitus, sed procedit ab utroque amborum Spiritus.— Aug. de Trinit. lib. xv. cap. 26. p. 472. Spiritus autein Sanctus non de Patre procedit in Filium, et de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit, quamvis hoc Pater Filio dederit, ut quemadmodum de se, ita de illo quoque procedat.-Ibid. cap. 27. p. 474. ad Bas. Et in servos cœlestia dona profudit, Spiritum ab unigena Sanctum et Patre procedentem. Paulin. in Nat. 9. S. Felic. p. 144. Poemat. Ed. Par. 1685. Cùm enim constat quia Paracletus Spiritus à Patre semper procedit et Filio, cur se Filius recessurum dicit ut ille veniat quia Filio nunquam recedit? - Gregor. Dial. lib. ii. cap. 38. fol. 226. Ed. Par. 1523. Audi manifestius proprium Patris esse genuisse, et proprium Filii natum fuisse, proprium verò Spiritûs Sancti procedere. -Vigil. contra Eut. lib. i. Bib. Patrum, tom. viii. p. 724. Proprium est Spiritûs Sancti quòd nec ingenitus, nec genitus est, sed à Patre et Filio æqualiter procedens. - Alcuin. de Deo.

it, that the Spirit did, in plain terms, proceed both from Father and Son. And the Greek fathers, though they do

Uter alius est qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque processit. Leo Epist. 93. cap. 1. fol. 165. Edit. Rayn. Par. 1639. Neque Spiritum Sanctum accipimus ut aut Pater sit aut Filius, sed ingenitum Patrem, et de Patre genitum Filium, et de Patre et Filio procedentem Spiritum Sanctum unius credimus esse substantiæ et essentiæ. - Eugen. de Cathol. Fid. lib. i. Bib. Pat. tom. viii. p. 683. Qui noster Dominus, qui tuus unicus spirat de Patrio corde Paracletum. - Prudent. Hymn. 5. Catechum. And so Hilary: De Spiritu autem Sancto nec tacere oportet nec loqui necesse est, sed silere à nobis eorum causâ qui nesciunt, non potest. Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, quia de Patre et Filio autoribus confitendus est.— Hilar. de Trinit. lib. ii. p. S4. Ed. Par. 1562. Spiritum autem Sanctum qui est tertia in Trinitate persona, unum atque æqualem cum Deo Patre et Filio esse credo, Deum unius substantiæ, unius quoque naturæ, nec tamen genitum vel creatum, sed à Patre Filioque procedentem, amborum esse Spiritum.-Pelegrin. Symb. Bib. Patrum, tom. xvii. p. 456.

6

I confess, in the creed attributed to Athanasius, it is expressly said in the Latin, (for in the Greek there is no such thing,) Spiritus Sanctus à Patre et Filio non factus, nec creatus nec genitus est, sed procedens.' But we cannot deduce any certain argument from thence that Athanasius was of that opinion, because it is doubted whether he was the author of that creed or no: or, if he was, it is probable that clause was inserted by others into this, as it was in the Constantinopolitan Creed. For that he was not of that judgment, we may perceive from his never mentioning it in any other place, though he so often disputes about the Deity and procession of the Spirit. Especially, it is probable that he would have mentioned it, (if he had held it,) in the rule of his faith he delivered in the Council of Nice, or, be sure, in some place or other in his writings; but though he speaks often of the procession of the Spirit from the Father, he never mentions any procession from the Son. But of this more Art. VIII.

• Τὸ ̔́Αγιον Πνεῦμα, Πνεῦμα ̔́Αγιον, Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἀεὶ ὃν σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Ὑιῷ, οὐκ ἀλλότριον Θεοῦ ἀπὸ δὲ Θεοῦ ὄν, ἀπὸ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ τοῦ γιοῦ λαμβάνον, -Epiph. Ancor. cap. 6. tom. ii. p. 10. Ed. Par. 1682. Ον γὰρ τρόπον οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν Πατέρα ἐι μὴ ὁ Ὑιος, οὐδὲ τὸν Ὑιὸν ἐι μὴ ὁ Πατὴς, οὕτω τολμῶ λέγειν ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐι μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ Ὑιὸς, παρ ̓ οὗ ἐκπορεύεται πὰς οὗ λαμβάνει. Ibid. cap. 67. p. 70. Ενὸς γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ γιοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος Λόγου, μίαν είναι δεῖ τελείαν καὶ πλήρη τὴν ἁγιαστικὴν, καὶ φωτιστικὴν ζωὴν, οὖσα ἐνεργείαν αυτοῦ καὶ δωρεὰν, ἥτις γε ἐκ Πατρὸς λέγεται ἐκπορεύεσθαι ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐκ Πατρὸς ὁμολογουμένου ἐκλάμπει, καί ἀπεστέλλεται, καὶ δίδοται.—Athan. ad Seraph. de Spir. S. tom. i. p. 166. where the interpreter translates ixλáμm,' desumit,' whence we may suppose for ἐκλάμπει he read ἐκλαμβάνει.

Ὄνομα δὲ ἀυτοῦ Πνεῦμα ̔́Αγιον, Πνεῦμα, Πνεῦμα ἀληθείας, Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Πνεῦμα Κυρίου, Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς, Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ.—Chrys. de Spiritu, f. p. 730. Ed. Savil.

Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Θεοῦ μὲν Λόγος ὁ γιὸς, ῥῆμα δὲ 'Υιοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα. — Basil, contra Eunom. tom. i. p. 777. Ed. Par. 1638. "Aga ☺sòc in Пargòç xai 'rioũ tò

not expressly deliver that he proceedeth from the Son (because the Scriptures do not expressly assert it), yet they say that he receives from the Son, that he is the Spirit of the Son, the Word of the Son, yea, God of the Son; plainly implying that what he hath is communicated from the Son as well as from the Father, which is the same thing that the others understood by his proceeding from the Father and the Son.

This Holy Ghost thus proceeding from the Father and the Son, is one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son: so that as the Son doth so receive his divine essence from the Father, as to be the self-same individual God with the Father; so doth the Spirit receive his essence from both Father and Son, as to be of one substance and glory with the Father and the Son. The Father did not communicate another, but his own numerical or individual nature to the Son, and so both Father and Son being of one nature betwixt themselves, communicate that their nature to the Spirit; by which means, though he proceed from both, and so is a distinct person from both, yet he hath the same nature and substance with both, and is as truly that one God which we worship and adore, as either or both of them. Insomuch that as, though the Father be the root, origin, and fountain of deity to the Son, yet the Son hath as much of the divine nature in him as the Father; so here, though it be from the Father and the Son that the Spirit doth proceed, yet he hath the divine nature in himself as perfectly as either of them, and so is truly and

Πνεῦμα ᾧ ἐψέυσαντο δι ἀπὸ τοῦ τιμήματος νοσφισάμενοι.—Epiph. Ancor. c. 9. tom, ii. p. 14. Ει δὲ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς πιστέυεται Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ πάς ̓ ἀμφοτέρων ὣς φήσιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, καὶ ουτος ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται. — Ibid. S. 67. p. 70. Where we may observe, he doth not only assert the Spirit to be God, of the Son and the Father, as the Son is God of the Father only, but also grounds this his assertion upon that plain Scripture," he shall receive of mine."-Vide etiam Basil. Advers. Eunomium, lib. ii. et Epiphan. Hares. 62.

'Omnia quæcunque habet [Pater] mea sunt, propterea dixi, De meo accipiet, et annunciabit vobis.' A Filio igitur accipit qui et ab eo mittitur, et à Patre procedit; et interrogo utrùm idipsum sit à Filio accipere quod à Patre procedere, certè idipsum atque unum esse existimabitur à Filio accipere quod sit accipere à Patre: ipse enim Dominus ait, quoniam de meo accipiet,' &c.— Hilar. de Trin. lib. viii. p. 168. Ed. Par. 1652.

VOL. IX.

eternally God, that one God blessed for evermore, which angels and men are bound continually to worship and

adore.

1. Confirmation from SCRIPTURE.-And that the Holy Ghost is thus very and eternal God, is frequently asserted by himself in the Holy Scriptures which himself indited. Indeed his inditing of the Scriptures is a clear argument of his deity, as well as the Scriptures that were indited by him. What man, what creature, who but God, could ever have composed such articles of faith, and enjoined such divine precepts as are in the Scriptures expressed? Neither doth his inditing of the Scriptures only, but the Scriptures that were indited by him also, give a full testimony unto this truth. Nay, the Scriptures do therefore testify that the Spirit is God, because they testify that themselves were written by that God who is a Spirit; and that it was the Lord Jehovah that spake by the prophets, and other writers of the Word of God, himself saying, "Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I the Lord (Jehovah) will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Num. xii. 6. And hence it is that the prophets so frequently cry out, "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts," to wit, because what they spake from the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Hosts had first spoken unto them. Now, who was this Lord of Hosts that thus spake by the prophets, and instructed the penmen of the Scriptures what to write? Was it God the Father, or God the Son? No, but it is God the Holy Ghost. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. i. 21. It was the Holy Ghost that spake by the prophets, and therefore it must needs be he the prophets mean, when they say, "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts." So he that bade them say, "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts," in the Old Testament, hath also discovered who is the Lord of Hosts in the New: even it is the Spirit of God that was this Lord of Hosts, and being the Lord of Hosts, he must needs be God; there being no person that is or can be called the Lord of Hosts, but he that is the very and eternal God.

"So

This truth is also unveiled to us in those words, " Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of

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

But one of the clearest discoveries of this great truth is made in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, recorded Acts, v. 3. where St. Peter propounds this question to Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" And tells him in the next verse, "Thou hast

· Ποῦ γὰρ ἔτι θεὸς καὶ ναὸς Θεοῦ ἴσμεν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς διὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν; τὸ γὰρ τοι τοῦ εἶναι Θεὸς τητώμενον, πῶς ἂν ἐνθείῃ τὸ χρῆμα ἑτέροις ; ἀλλὰ μὲν ἔσμὶν ναὸ καὶ θεὸι. Προσεκτέον δὲ οὔτι ποῦ τοῖς πεπλανημένοις οὐχ ὁτερούσιον ἄρα πρὸς Θεὸν τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ. - Cyril. de S. Trinit. Dial. 7. tom. v. pars 1. p. 640. A. Ed. Par. 1638.

• Though the original now hath it, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ̔́Αγιον, yet there is no reason to condemn our translation for rendering it "to lie to the Holy Ghost." For the dative and the accusative cases are here used promiscuously, for we may see the like in Psa. lxvi. 3. where, for the Heb. 75, "they shall lie unto thee," the Septuagint hath it, fiovrà os. And truly he that condemns ours, must condemn with it all the most ancient translations of the New Testament, which carry the sense the same way, as if they had for τὸ Πνεῦμα read εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ̔́Αγιον, as is in some copies. Thus the Syriac plainly Leraar Lojo tireris in Spiritum Sanctitatis.' And so the Arabicundi'll ut mentireris Spiritui Sanctitatis.' And the Ethiopic also ሲ፡ ተሐስ፡ ኮፈስ፡ ቀጾሽ: “ ut mentireris Spiritui Sancto. Where we see the Syriac using and the Arabic and the Ethiopic ↳ to express is by, which seems to have been in the copies which they made their translations by. Or howsoever they read the words, be sure they render them as we do to lie to the Holy Ghost.'

ابرمح