« הקודםהמשך »
wondered that a man of his learning should fix such a blot on the Iloly Spirit.”*
Austin had been led into the belief of the divinity of Christ by the principles of Plato, as he expressly acknowledged ; but he owns that Platonism was not very favourable to the doctrine of the divinity of the Spirit. He says, “that he found two principles in Plato, God the Father, and the Son, or the divine mind; but he found nothing concerning the Holy Spirit; and what the Platonists said of the third priuciple, he did not understand.”+ Indeed, here it is that Platonism entirely fails those who wish so much to avail themselves of it; for the third principle of Plato was nothing belonging to the Deity, but either the world, or the soul of the world. “ Plato's third principle,” says Eusebius, the soul of the world.” I And as the world and the soul of the world were sometimes considered as different principles, the Platonic principles are sometimes said to be four. Justin Martyr says, that “ Plato sometimes said there were four principles, making the soul of the universe the fourth, and sometimes he held matter to be created, and again to be uncreated.” Cyril of Alexandria, after mentioning Plato's three principles, “ God, idea, and matter," says, “ there is a fourth, which he calls the soul of the world."||
Still, however, the orthodox Christians were very desirous of making out something of a Trinity in the doctrine of Plato; and Justin Martyr and others imagined they saw it so clearly, that they were confident it must have been derived from the Scriptures. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus imagined, from his construction of the language of Plato, that he had a knowledge of the Trinity, and that he learned it from Moses, alleging the two passages that have been already quoted from Plato, viz. that concerning the oath, in the epistle to Erastus, &c., and that concerning the king of all, in the epistle to Dionysius. * But this has been shewn to be a thing very different from the Christian Trinity.
“ Memini me in quodum libello Eusebii quondam egregii in reliquis viri, legisse, quia nec Spiritus Sanctus sciat mysterium nativitatis domini nostri Jesu Christi, et admiror tantæ doctrinæ virum hanc maculam Spiritui Sancto intlisisse." Questiones Mixtæ, Opera, IV. p. 865. (P.)
+ • Quæ autem dicat esse principia tanqnam Platonicus, novimus. Dicit enim Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Græce appellat paternum intellectum, vel paternam mentem : de Spiritu autem Sancto, aut nihil
, aut non aperte aliquid dicit : quamvis quem alium dicat horum medium, non intelligo." De Civitate Dei, L. X. C. xxiii. Opera, V. p. 577. (P.)
1 Και τριτην την τε κοσμο ψυχην Θεον τριλον και αυτην οριζομενοι ειναι. Preparatio, L. xi. C, xix. p. 541. (P.)
και Ποτε δε τεσσαρας προςιθησι γαρ και την καθολα ψυχης και αυθις την ύλην αγεννητον προλερον ειρηκας, ύςερον γεννητην αυλην ειναι λεγει. Αd (Grecos, p. 8. (Ρ.)
Η Τρεις δε παλιν ο Πλατων τας των όλων αρχας ειναι λεγων, Θεον τε καν ύλην, και ειδος, προσεπάγει και τελαρίην, ήν δη και ολε ψυχην ονομαζει. Con. Jul. L, ii. Juliani Opera,
The resemblance between the Christian and the Platonic Trinity is very imperfect, as it fails entirely in both the essential circumstances. For it was never imagined that the three component members of the Platonic Trinity were either equal to each other, or, strictly speaking, one.
But then, neither had this been the language of those who introduced the doctrine of the Trinity; for they went little farther than the proper principles of Plato, without pretending either to make a perfect equality, or a perfect unity of the three persons; and, therefore, they did not maintain that this doctrine was so very mysterious and unintelligible as it was afterwards represented to be.
Notwithstanding the doctrine of the Trinity seemed to be completed by means of the divinity and personality of the Spirit, and in some respects it seemed better guarded against attacks, there were still some awkward circumstances attending it. The Spirit being a divine person as well as the Son, and yet like the Son not absolutely underived, there was some difficulty in settling the mode of his derivation. The term generation had been already appropriated to the Son, and it had also been settled that there could be only one son produced in that manner, Christ being denominated the only-begotten Son of God. Fortunately the Spirit was said to proceed from the Father or the Son, or from both ; and though, in the Scriptures, this meant nothing more than his being sent by the Father, or the Son, and this being sent was only a figurative expression, denoting the imparting those powers which came from God, this term proceeding was immediately laid hold of, as expressing the manner of the emission of the Spirit from the fountain of Deity, and was deemed to be different from generation; but then there was great difficulty in determining in what that difference consisted. “ The nativity of the Son,” says Austin, or differs
from the procession of the Spirit, otherwise they would be - brothers." +
Which may be seen, supra, pp. 158, 165. Σιωπω γαρ Πλατωνα αντικρυς ουτος εν τη προς Εραςον και Κoρισκον επιςολη φαινεται πατερα και υιον, ουκ οιδ' όπως, εκ των εβραικων γραψων εμφαινων – “Ωςε και επαν ειπη, περι τον παντων Βασιλεα παντα εςι, κάκεινα ένεκεν τα παντα κάκεινο αιτιον απανίων καλων δευτερον δε, σερι τα δευτερα και τριλον, περι τα τρια ουκ αλλως εγωγε εξακρω, η την αγια τριαδα μηνυεσθαι τριλον μεν γαρ ειναι, το άγιον πνευμα' τον υιον δε, δευτερον, δι' ου παντα εγενετο κατα βέλησιν του watpos. Strom. L. v. p. 598. (P.)
“ Sic enim videbis quid distet nativitas verbi Dei à processione doni Dei,
But notwithstanding all the ingenuity of the orthodox, nothing more than a mere verbal distinction could ever be made between a mysterious generation and an equally mysterious procession.
" What is the difference,” says the Macedonian, in the dialogue on this subject, ascribed to Athanasius, “ between generated and proceeding?" The orthodox disputant answers, “ Do not inquire into this difference, for it is incomprehensible. Attend to what is commanded you, and inquire no farther. You are commanded to believe that the Son is begotten, and that the Spirit proceeded. All other things, as the heaven, the earth, the sea, and things rational and irrational, are crea
It was, generally thought, however, that there was something more intelligible in the doctrine of generation than in that of procession. For Basil says, “ The Son is produced from the Father by generation, but the Spirit in an ineffable manner.” † There is an air of still greater modesty in what Gregory Nazianzen says on the subject. “It is peculiar,” says he, “ to the Father to be unbegotten, to the Son to be begotten, and to the Holy Spirit to proceed. If you inquire the manner how, should you not leave it to themselves, who have declared that they only know each other, and to those of us who may be illuminated about it hereafter?” I
Austin says, that the Holy Spirit, being the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, proceeds from them both ; and this he makes to be the difference between the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit. “ It is peculiar,” he says, “ to the son of man to proceed from two," meaning of different sexes. “Far be this from the Son of God, &c. & procedere dixit Spiritum Sanctum." De T'rinitate, L. xv. C. xxvii. Opera, III. p. 476. (P.)
* Και τις η διαφορα της γεννησεως και της εκπορευσεως ; ΟΡΘ. Την διαφοραν μη στεριεργαζε" ου γαρ καταληπτη, αλλ' απροσεξαγη σοι, ταυλα διανε, και περαιλερω τείων μη εξείαζε. Προσεταγη δε σοι το πιςευειν, ότι ο υιος γενναίαι, και το πνευμα εκπορευελαι. Τα δε αλλα παντα, ερανος, γη, θαλασσα, και τα εν αυτοις λογικα και αλογα, κτισματα εισι, κατ' εντολην αυτα τα Θεον κτισθενία. Opera, . p. 276. (Ρ.)
* Αλλ' ο μεν υιος, εκ του πατρος γεννηθως το δε πνευμα αρρηθως εκ του Θεου. Ηom. xxvii. Opera, I. p. 526. (P.)
Η Ιδιον δε, πατρος μεν, η αγεννησια, υιε δε η γεννησις, πνευμαίος δε, η εκπεμψις" ει δε τον τροπον επιζηλεις, τι καλαλειψεις τους μονοις γινωσκειν αλληλα, και γινωσκεσθαι υπ' αλληλων μαργυρομενοις, η και ημων τοις εκειθεν ελλαμφθησομενοις ύσερον. Οr. xxiii. Opera, p. 422. (P.)
$ “ Quæro quid distat inter nativitatem Filii et processionem Spiritus Sancti? Filius autem solius est Patris, non Spiritûs Sancti. Amborum inquam Spiritus, id est, Patris et Filii. Quod si spiritus sanctus filius esse diceretur, nullus autem filiis est nisi duorum, patris et matris, quod absit ut inter Deum Patrem et Filium tale quid suspicemur, quia nec filius hominis simul ex patre procedit et ex matre." “ Sed quemadmodum unusquisque nostrum, proprium in seipso spiritum continet, et ab intimis visceribus ad exteriora profundit: propterea corporaliter Christus sufflavit: ostendens hoc signo, quia quemadmodum ab ore humano corporaliter humanus spiritus procedit, sic ex diviva substantia deitati congruenter spiritus, qui ab ea est, profunditur." In Johan. L. ix. p. 936. (P.)
Cyril of Alexandria seems to think that he had some idea of the nature of the procession of the Spirit from the substance of God, when he says, that “Christ breathed upon his disciples, to shew that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the divine substance, as the breath of man proceeds from him.” *
There was likewise another difficulty with respect to the Holy Spirit being said to be sent by the Son, from which some concluded that, in his origin, he issued from the Son, as well as from the Father; and this doctrine prevailed in the Latin Church ; whereas the Greeks held that the Spirit proceeded from the Father only. To the objection, that if the Spirit be God, the Father has two Sons, Epiphanius replies, that " the Spirit proceedeth both from the Father and the Son.”+ Damascenus says, that “the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and rests in the Son."! But Basil seems to have considered the Spirit as deriving his being from the Son only; for he says,
As the Son is the logos of the Father, so the Spirit is the word (emua) of the Son. For it is said that he," meaning the Son, “ supporteth all things by the word of his power.” The ancients are said, by M. Caleca, to have believed that “ the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son."|| So miserably do men bewilder themselves, when they leave the path of simple truth, abandoning reason to follow mere imagination.
Of the proper Office of the Spirit, with respect to the Offices
of the Father and the Son. There being now three Divine persons instead of one, there was a farther difficulty in adjusting their several pro
+ To & iyoy aye PC to wcp auopoteper. Ancoratus, Sect. lxxi. Opera, II. p. 75. (P.)
1 “ Eodem modo etiam in Spiritum Sanctum credimus, qui dominus est, et vivificat, qui ex Patre procedit, et in Filio conquiescit.” Orthod. Fid. L. i.C. x. Opera, p. 268. (P.)
και Δια τε7ο και Θεου μεν λογος ο υιος, ρημα δε υιου το πνευμα φερων γαρ, φησι, τα σαντα το ρημαδι της δυναμεως αυτου. . Ad Eunom. L. v. Opera, l: p. 787. (P.)
1 Και είι το πνευμα το άγιον εκ τε πατρος δια τα υιε εκπορεύεσθαι λεγεσιν, ouline ilsyou the fdoune guvoda bajarilaries. Combefis Auctuarium, II. p. 216. (P.)
vinces, for each Divine person must have an employment suited to his character. This arrangement being left to men, who can seldom agree, a considerable difference of opinion unavoidably arose in this case. However, after much discussion, it was at length settled, at least for a long time, that all the three Divine persons acted jointly in every operation in which any of them was concerned. But before it was determined in this manner, divines were much employed in settling the proper department of the Holy Spirit, after having agreed before, that the Son was the maker of all things under the Father.
For some time it was generally thought that the Father was the only prime cause, the fountain of Deity, the Son his immediate agent in the creation, and that the Spirit was the sanctifier or the perfecter of every thing. “ There are three, ” says Basil, “ the Father ordaining, the Son executing, and the Spirit perfecting. “ The Father,” says M. Caleca, “is distinguished as the primary cause, the Son as the creator, and the Spirit as the perfecter.”+
It appears most clearly from Eusebius, that to sanctify and to perfect meant the same thing. In the interpretation of Psalm xxxiii. 6, “ By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, he says, “ By these we are to understand our Saviour, and the Holy Spirit, for both co-operated in the creation of the heavens and their host; for nothing is sanctified without the presence of the Spirit. The word, being the demiurgus, introduced the angels into being, but the Holy Spirit gave their sanctification, for the angels were not created infants."#
But though it had been settled by most of the Fathers, that the logos, or the Son, was the medium of all the Divine communications of God to man in the Old Testament, it was now generally thought proper to take from him the province of inspiring ihe prophets, and to leave to him only the visible appearances to Abraham, Moses, and others. Irenæus says it was the spirit of God that spake by the prophets and
Τρια τοινυν νοεις, τον προςασσονία κυριον, τον δημιεργενία λογον, τον σερεενία το Wy&upa to dyr. De Spiritu Sancto, C. xvi. Opera, 11. p. 325. (P.)
+ Δια ταλαν την προκαταρκτικην αιτιαν αινιτίoμενος τον πατερα την δημιουργικην, τον υιον την τελειωτικην, το πνευμα το άγιον. Combefs Auctuarium, J. p. 209. (Ρ.)
1 Iνα νοηθη ο σωτηρ και το άγιον αυ7α πνευμααμφοτερα δε συνηργησεν εν τη κτισει των ουρανων και των εν αυτοις δυναμεων· δια τελο είρηται το λογω κυριε οι ερανοι εςερεωθησαν και το πνευματι τα τοματος αυτο πασα η δυναμις αυλων' ουδεν γαρ αγιαζείαι ειμη τη σαρωσια τα πνευματος αγελων γεν την μεν εις το ειναι παροδον, ο δημιουργος λογος και ποιησης των ολων παρειχετο τον αγιασμον δε αυτοις το πνεύμα το άγιον συνεπεφερεν, ου γαρ VOT206 KTIGTEXTEŞ és ay tehes. Monfaucou's Collectio, I. p. 124. (P.)