« הקודםהמשך »
the word and the spirit, mean the same thing with respect to God.
It was supposed by the ancients, that the Spirit appeared in the proper form of a dove at our Saviour's baptism, and consequently it was a question to be determined what became of the body of this dove. Tertullian intimates, that “as it was made out of nothing, it might be resolved into nothing, like the bodies of angels.” +
Hippolytus perhaps considered the Spirit as a person; but it is not quite certain. Why,” says he, “ should any one say that we teach two Gods? I do not say there are two Gods, but one, and two persons, also the third economy, the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Father is one, but two persons; because there is a Son, and the third is the Holy Spirit.” I “ This is the Spirit that moved upon the face of the waters, by which the world is moved, by which the creation consists, and all things receive life.”8
Origen considered it as doubtful, whether, since all things are made by Christ, the Holy Spirit was not made by him. And after discussing the question a little, he says, “ We who maintain three hypostases, the Father, Son, and Spirit, and believe that the Father only is unbegotten, think it more agreeable to piety and truth, to inaintain that the Holy Spirit is superior to all things that were made by Christ; and that the only reason why he is not called a son of God, is, that the only-begotten Son had obtained that title, which the Holy Spirit wanted, being subservient to his nature, not only with respect to his being, but to his being wise and rational, and righteous, and every thing else that he is understood to be. But I think that the Holy Spirit, if I may so speak, furnishes the materials of all the gifts of God, which are distributed by Christ. We acknowledge, however, that there is room to doubt of this ; since whatever is made is said to have been made by Christ, and that, in some places, the Holy Spirit seems to have been considered as superior to Christ; especially as, in Isaiah, (xlviii. 16,) Christ himself confesses that he was sent by the Holy Spirit, as well as by the Father, and likewise that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more dangerous than blasphemy against the Son.” *
* In Ps. Montfaucon, I. (P.)
† “ Sed quæris corpus columbæ ubi sit, resumpto spiritu in cælum; æque et angelorum; eadem ratione interceptum est, qua et editum fuerat; si vidisses cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses, cum in ubilum subducebatur.” De Carne Christi, Sect. iii. p. 309. (P.) See Vol. XX. p. 459.
1 Τι εν φησειεν αν τις δυο λεγειν θεες; δυο μεν εκ ερω θεος, αλλα η ε: , προσωπα δε δυο, οικονομιαν δε τριλην, την χαριν το άγιο πνευμαίος. Πατηρ μεν γαρ εις, προσωπα δε δυο, ότι και ο υιος, το δε τριλον το άγιον πνευμα. Ad Noeluin, Sect. xiv., Opera, 11. p. 15. (P.)
5 Τελο δε εςιν το πνευμα, το απ’ αρχης επιφερομενον επανω των υδαίων δι' ου κοσμος κινειται, δι' ου κτισις ισαlαι και τα συμπαντα ζωογονειιαι. Ηom. in Theophanism, Opera, p. 264. (P.)
Afterwards he makes a distinction between those things which God made in wisdom, and those made by wisdom, that is, by the Son, † as if the Spirit had been made by God without the instrumentality of Christ. The following passage is not more determinate : “ For the Saviour made both one, , and he being the first-fruits of those things that are made one, I mean of those whose souls are mixed with the Holy Spirit, and each of those who are saved becomes spiritual." I
It is evident, from the uncertainty in which Origen appears to have been with respect to this subject, that in his time the doctrine of the church was by no means fixed, and that those who were deemed orthodox thought themselves at liberty to think and write as they pleased about it, without any danger of heresy:
Novatian, who had as much orthodoxy with respect to the Trinity as any person of his age, certainly did not believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, whom he represents as inferior to the Son, whom also he makes greatly inferior to the Father. Christ,” says he, is greater than the Paraclete ; for he would not receive of Christ, if he was not less than he.”S
We are not able to trace with certainty the opinion of
Ημεις μεντοιγε τρεις υποτασεις πειθομενοι τυγχανειν, τον πατερα, και υιον, και το αγιος πνευμα, και αγεννηθον μηδεν έτερον το παίρος ειναι πιςευονίες, ως ευσεβεςερον και αληθες, πρoσιεμεθα το, σανίων για το λογα γενομενων, το άγιον πνευμα πανίων ειναι τιμιωλερον, και ταξει πανίων των υπο τα παίρος δια Χριςο γεγενημένων και ταχα αυτη ειν ή αλλια τα μη και αυτο υιον χρηματιζειν το Θεό, μονο το μονογενες φυσει μια αρχηθεν τυγχανοντος, ου χρηζειν εoικε το άγιον πνευμα, διακονεντε» αυτε τη υποτασει, ου μονον εις το ειναι, αλλα και σοφον ειναι και λογικoν, και δικαιον, και σαν οτιπολBν χρη αυτο νοειν τυγχανειν, κατα μετοχών των προειρημενων ημιν Χριςο επινοιων οιμαι δε το άγιον πνευμα της, ίν' ουλως ειπα, υλην των απο Θεο χαρισματων παρεχειν τοις δι' αυτο και την μετοχην αυτο χρηματιζεσιν αγιους, της ειρημενης ύλης των χαρισματων, ενεργομενης μεν από το Θεό, διακονεμενης και υπο τε Χρις 8, υφεςωσης δε κατα το άγιον πνευμα.-Εχει δε επαπoρησιν δια τε το, σανία δι' αυλο εγενείο, και ακολοθειν το πνευμα γεννητον ον, δια το λογο γεγονέναι, πως οιονει προτιμασαι το Χριςου εν τισι γραφαις, εν μεν τω Ησαια ομολογεντG» Χριςου, ουκ υπο του καιρος απες αλθαι μονου, αλλα και υπο του αγιου πνευμαίος, φησι γαρ και νυν κυριος απέςειλε με και το πνευμα αυτου εν δε τω ευαγγελια αφεσιν μεν επαγ/ελλομενου επι της εις αυλον αμαρλιας, αποφαινομενου δε περι της εις το άγιον πνευμα βλασφημίας. Connmient. II. p. 57. (P.)
+ Παντα γαρ φησιν, εν σοφια εποιησας, ου δια της σοφιας εποιησας. Ιbid. p. 59. (Ρ.)
1 Πεποιηκε γαρ ο σωτηρ τα αμφοτερα έν, κατα την απαρχην των γινομενων αμφοτερων εν εαυτο προ πανίων ποιησας αμφοτερων δε λεγω και επι των ανθρωπων, εφ' ών ανακεκραίαι το άγιο πνευματι η έκαςου ψυχη, και γεγονεν έκαςος των σωζομενων πνευματικος.
İbid. p. 30. (Ρ.)
§ “ Major ergo jam Paracleto Christus est: quoniam nec Paracletus à Christo acciperet, nisi minor Christo esset." C. xiv. p. 56. (P.)
Cyprian on this subject. But, as he says that it was Christ who spake by the prophets, * he seems to have had no distinct office for the Spirit, and, therefore, probably thought that Christ himself was that Spirit.
It is enumerated among the faults of Luctantius, that “he makes no mention of the Holy Spirit, and that, in his epistles to Demetrianus, as Jerome says, he denied the personality of the Spirit; and according to a Jewish error, confounded him either with the Father or the Son.”+
“ Dionysius of Alexandria,” who is often called the father of Arianism,“ spake very improperly,” says Basil, “ with respect to the Holy Spirit, and, not admitting of his divinity, reduced him to the rank of a created and servile nature.'
Eusebius, who appears to have been as orthodox as other writers of his age with respect to the Son, (if his writings may be allowed to testify for him,) and who certainly was not bold in heresy, scrupled not to consider the Spirit as made by the Son. “ The Holy Spirit,” says he, “ is neither God, nor the Son, because he did not derive his birth from the Father, like the Son; but is one of the things that was made by the Son; because all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made.” Š He also speaks of the Holy Spirit as “holding the third place, as receiving from the logos, and imparting valuable gifts to inferior beings, just as the logos receives every thing from the Supreme Being." ||
Even Hilary, who wrote so largely concerning the divinity of the Son, seems not to have had the same persuasion concerning that of the Holy Spirit; but, in the little that he says on the subject, seems rather to have considered the Spirit as a divine influence. He represents our Saviour commanding the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as signifying “a confession of the Father, of the only-begotten, and of the gift," * which very much resembles what Irenæus says on the subject.
“ Sed quanto majora sunt quæ Filius loquitur, quæ Dei sermo, qui in prophetis fuit, propria voce testatur." De Oratione Dominica, Opera, p. 139. (P.)
† “ Navi Lactantii et Errores-Quod Spiritum Sanctum ne quidem nominat : imo quod in epistolis ad Demetrianum, autore Hieronymo, Spiritus Sancti substantiam negavit; et errore Judaico dixit, eum vel ad Patrem referri, vel ad Filium ; et sanctificationem utriusque personæ sub ejus nomine demonstrari.” Synthesis Doctrinæ Luctantii, p. 899. (P.)
1 Προς δε τουλους και σερι του πνευμαίος αφηκε φωνας, ήκισα τρεπουσας τα πνευματι: της προσκυνούμενης αυτα θεοληλος εξοριζων, και καλω σου τη κλιση και λειτουργο φυσει συναpi@uwie kan ó tev amp, Tololos. Letter to Magnus, in Nicephorus's History, L. vi. C. xxv. I. p. 419. (P.)
8 Το δε παρακληλον πνευμα, ουτε Θεος, ουτε υιος επει μη εκ του παίρος ομοιως το υιο και αυλο την γενεσιν ειληφεν εν δε τι των δια του διου γενομενων τυγχανει, ότι δε σαντα δι' αυτου εγενείο, και χωρις αυλου εγενείο ουδε εν. Ec. Theol. L. iii. C. iv. p. 175. (Ρ.)
Η Αλλα τουλο μεν, τριλην επεχαν την ταξιν, τοις υποβεβηκοσι των εν αυτω κρειτίονων δυναμεων επιχορηγει, ου μεν αλλα και αντιλαμβανει παρ' ετερου του, η παρα Θεου λογου, του δε και ανωτερω και κρειτίoνος, ον δε δευτερευειν εφαμεν της ανωταω και αγεννητου OUTEWS ECU TOU Taubainewe. Preparatio, L. vii. C. xv. p. 325. (P.)
They who said that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, held that there was a time when only one divine person existed; and again, that there was a time when only two existed, the Holy Spirit not being made. t
SECTION II. Opinions concerning the Holy Spirit after the Council of Nice.
It was Athanasius, the great advocate for the divinity of Christ, and his consubstantiality with the Father, who also exerted himself strenuously and effectually in behalf of that of the Holy Spirit, whose divinity was denied by Macedonius. He informs us, that he was in the desarts of Egypt when he heard of that heresy, and that he wrote from thence to prevent the spread of it. I He had so much influence in Egypt, that a synod was immediately called there, which he attended, and where the Holy Spirit was for the first time decreed to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son.
Not long after this, the divinity of the Holy Spirit was more solemnly determined at a council held in Constantinople, and from that time it was deemed equally heretical to deny the divinity of the Spirit, as that of the Son. The doctrine of the Ťrinity now began to assume a proper form and consistence, one part of the scheme coming in aid of the other; and there were distinct treatises to prove the divinity of the Spirit, which had never been the subject of discussion before. Then was the doctrine of the perfect equality of the Spirit and the Son, as well as that of the Son and the Father, fully established ; so that, among others, Epiphanius asserts that, whatever is said of the Son is also
* “ Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritûs Sancti: id est, in confessione et authoris, et unigeniti, et doni." L. ii. p. 22. (P.)
* Αναθεμαλιζομεν τας φρονωνίας και λεγονίας" ην πολε μονας, μη ον7ος υιe" και την πολε duas, un oylos áryse wYEVMATOS. Eugenii Legatio ad Athanasium, in Montfaucon's Collectio Patrum, II. p. 3. (P.)
1 Εγω μεν Bν, καιπερ εν ερημο διαγων, δια ποτε εν την αναιδειαν των εκτραπεντων εκ της αληθειας: ου φροντισας των γελαν εθελοντων δια το ασθενες και ταπεινον της δια των λογων επιδειξεως δι' ολιγων γραψας, απεςειλα τη ευλαβεια, παρακαλων ένα εντυγχαναν τετοις τα μεν διορθωσης: επι δε τους ασθενως ειρημενους συγΓινωσκης. Αd Serapion, Opera, I. p. 207. (P.)
και Εν τετω δε πολλων πολεων επισκοποι συνελθοντες εις Αλεξανδρειαν, άμα Αθανασια και Ευσεβια, τα δεδογμενα εν Νικαια κρατυνσιν ομοεσιον τε τω πατρι και το υιω το αγιον πνευμα ομολογησαν, και τριαδα ονομασαν. Sozomen, L. v. C. xii. p. 198. (Ρ.)
said of the Spirit, as that they are both sent, they both speak» they both sanctify, they both heal, they both baptize, &c., and we are justified by them both, &c., &c., &c.
Still the forms of public worship were unfavourable to the new doctrine, for it had from time immemorial been the custom to give glory to the Father only ; but about this time, it is said, that “ Flavianus of Antioch, having assembled a number of monks, first shouted out, Glory to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; but that before him, some had said, Glory to the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, which was the most customary form ; and others, Glory to the Father in the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”+
But the new doctrine soon bore down the old forms, especially by the influence of Basil, and the two Gregories, his contemporaries, who exerted themselves as strenuously in this busines as Athanasius had ever done with respect to the divinity of the Son. Busil even maintained, that “ to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, is to be guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”# In former times we have seen that many persons were deemed orthodox who only held the divinity of the Son ; but Chrysostom says, “ It cannot be that he who halts with respect to the Spirit, can walk upright with respect to the Son.” The description of the Spirit, as issuing from the substance of the Father, from this time very much resembled the former accounts of the generation of the Son from the Father. Thus Cyril of Alexandria says, “ The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the unbegotten God, and comes forth from him, has personality and life, and always exists, being from that which exists.” ||
At this time the formerly innocent doctrine of the Spirit having been created by the Son, or of his being inferior to him, was severely reprobated. Austin says, “ he remembered to have read in some work of Eusebius, that the Spirit did not understand the mystery of our Saviour's nativity, and he
• Ancoratus, Sect. Ixviii., Opera, II. pp. 71-73. (P.)
+ Οτι φησι τον Αντιόχειας Φλαβιανον, πληθος μοναχών συναγειραντα, πρωτον αναβοησαι, Δοξα πατρι και μια και αγια πνευματι' των γαρ προ αυτ8, τες μεν, Δοξα πατρι δι' υιε εν άγιο πνευματι, λεγειν και ταυτην μαλλον την εκφωνησιν επιπολαζειν' τες δε, Δοξα TaTPI ev Úsą kan dy, w wyEUMATI. Philostorgius, L. iii. Sect. xv. p. 496. (P.)
| EXEIYO αν ήδεως αυτες εφ' υμων ερωτησαιμι, και διοριζομαι πεποιθοτως, ότι μεταμελησει σοι ποτε της αθεου ταυτης σοφιας, κτισμα λεγοντι το πνεύμα το άγιον" ου φοβη την ασυγχώρητον αμαρτιαν και η τι ποτε οιει δυσσεβεςερον τοτε δυνασθαι βλασφημειν. Hom. xxvii. Opera, 1. p. 525. (P.)
9 Αμηχανον δε εςι τον περι το πνευμα σκαζοντα ορθοποδησαι περι τον υιον. De Spiritu Sancto, Opera, VI. p. 219. (P.)
! Και γαρ εςιν αγεννητο πνευμα Θεου, ιδιον αυτ8, και εξ αυτο προϊον, ενυποςατον τε, Kai (wy, nal ael oy, oto te ovt o aşi. Contra Julianum, L. viii., Juliani Opera, II.