apostoli et evangelista et prophetæ, hoc tantum de eo quod esset loquentes, et post hæc pater et filius displicebit. He also advises us not to be perplexed by the language of Scripture, in which both the Father and the Son are sometimes called "Spirit." "He grossly confounds the terms: Deus Spiritus, Dei Spiritus, and Spiritus S.; and, though he believes in the separate subsistence of the Spirit, he does not go beyond the idea that he is a donum, a munus," Meier, Trinitätsl. i. s. 192.-Cyril of Jerusalem, too, endeavours to avoid all further definitions as to the nature of the Holy Spirit not contained in the Scriptures, though he distinctly separates him from all created beings, and regards him as an essential part of the Trinity; but he urges especially the practical aspect of this doctrine in opposition to the false enthusiasm of heretical fanatics, Cat. 15 and 17.1

(4) Athanasius (Epp. 4, ad Serap.) endeavoured to refute those who declared the Holy Ghost to be a Kríoμa, or the first of the πνευμάτων λειτουργικῶν, and who were called τροπικοί, πνευματομαχοῦντες. He shows that we completely renounce Arianism only when we perceive in the Trinity nothing that is foreign to the nature of God (ἀλλότριον ἢ ἐξώθεν ἐπιμιγ vúμevov), but one and the same being, which is in perfect accordance and identical with itself. Τριὰς δέ ἐστιν οὐχ ἕως ὀνόματος μόνον καὶ φαντασίας λέξεως, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ vπápķei тpiás (Ep. i. 28, p. 677). He appealed both to the declarations of Holy Writ, and to the testimony of our own Christian consciousness. How can that which is not sanctified by anything else, which is itself the source of sanctification to all creatures, possess the same nature as those who are sanctified by it? We have fellowship with God, and participate in the divine life by means of the Holy Spirit; but this could not be if the Spirit were a creature. As certain as it is that we through Him become partakers of the divine nature, so certain is it that He must Himself be one with the divine essence (εἰ δὲ θεοποιεῖ, οὐκ ἀμφίβολον, ὅτι ἡ τούτου φύσις

1 As one shower waters flowers of the most different species (roses and lilies), so one Spirit is the author of many different graces, etc. Cat. xvi. 12. He is τίμιον, τὸ ἀγαθόν, μέγας παρὰ θεοῦ σύμμαχος καὶ προστάτης, μίγας διδάσκαλος ἐκκλησίας, μέγας ὑπερασπιστὴς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, etc., ibid. c. 19. Hence His glory far surpasses that of all angels, c. 23.

OeOû eσTí). Ep. i. ad Serap. § 24, p. 672. The Holy Ghost θεοῦ ἐστί). is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father, ib. § 26. Neander, l.c. s. 895. Meier, i. s. 187 ff. Voigt on Athanasius in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1858, s. 81 ff.

ἡμῖν

(5) Basil the Great on a particular occasion composed his treatise, De Spiritu Sancto, addressed to the Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium (comp. with it Ep. 189; Homilia de Fide, t. ii. p. 132; Hom. contra Sab. t. ii. p. 195). He too maintained that the name God should be given to the Spirit, and appealed both to Scripture in general, and to the baptismal formula in particular, in which the Spirit is mentioned together with the Father and the Son. He did not, however, lay much stress upon this express designation, but simply required that the Spirit should not be regarded as a creature, but be considered as inseparable from both the Father and the Son. He spoke in eloquent language of the practical importance of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (as the sanctifier of men), De Spir. S. c. 16: Tò dè μéyiσтov TEKμŃρLOV TÊS πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν τοῦ πνεύματος συναφείας, ὅτι οὕτως ἔχειν λέγεται πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, ὡς πρὸς ἕκαστον ἔχει τὸ πνεῦμα Tò év uîv (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11). In answer to the objection that the Spirit is called a gift, he remarks that the Son is likewise a gift of God, ibid. c. 24; comp. Klose, Basilius der Grosse, s. 34 ff. His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, in the second chapter of his Larger Catechism, starts from ideas similar to those of Lactantius, that the Spirit (breath) must be connected with the Word, since it is so even in the case of man. He does not, however, like Lactantius, identify the Spirit with the Word, but keeps them distinct. The Spirit is not to be considered as anything foreign which enters from without into the Deity (comp. Athanasius); to think of the Spirit of God as similar to our own, would be to detract from the glory of the divine omnipotence. "On the contrary, we conceive that this essential power, which manifests itself as a distinct hypostasis, can neither be separated from the Godhead in which it rests, nor from the Divine Word which it follows. Nor does it cease to exist, but, being self-existing (avтоKÍVηTOV), like the Divine Word, it is ever capable of choosing the good, and of carrying out all its purposes." Comp. Rupp, Gregor von Nyssa, s. 169, 170.-The views of Gregory of Nazianzus

HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. 1.

2 A

agreed with those of these two writers, though he clearly perceived the difficulties with which the doctrine in question was beset in his time. He anticipated the objection that it would introduce a θεὸν ξένον καὶ ἄγραφον (Orat. xxx. 1, p. 566. Ullmann, s. 381). He also acknowledged that the doctrine in this particular form was not expressly contained in Scripture, and therefore thought that we must go beyond the letter.' He therefore had recourse to the idea of a gradual revelation, which, as he conceived, stood in connection with a natural development of the Trinity. "The Old Testament set forth the Father in a clear, but the Son in a somewhat dimmer light: the New Testament reveals the Son, but only indicates the Godhead of the Spirit; but now the Spirit dwells in the midst of us, and manifests Himself more distinctly. It was not desirable that the Godhead of the Son should be proclaimed as long as that of the Father was not fully recognized; nor to add that of the Spirit as long as that of the Son was not believed." Gregory numbered the doctrine of the Holy Spirit among those things of which Christ speaks, John xvi. 12, and recommended, therefore, prudence in bringing forward this dogma. He himself developed it principally in his controversy with Macedonius, and showed, in opposition to him, that the Holy Spirit is neither a mere power nor a creature, and, accordingly, that there is no other alternative except that He is God Himself. For further particulars, see Ullmann, s. 378 ff.

(6) The word IIvevμaтoμáxoι has a general meaning, in which it comprehends, of course, the strict Arians. But the Godhead of the Spirit was equally denied by the Semi-Arians, while their views concerning the nature of the Son approximated to those of the orthodox party; the most prominent theologian among them was Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 341-360). Sozom. iv. 27, says of him: Elonyeîto δὲ τὸν υἱὸν θεὸν εἶναι, κατὰ πάντα τε καὶ κατ ̓ οὐσίαν ὅμοιον τῷ πατρί· τό τε ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἄμοιρον τῶν αὐτῶν πρεσβείων

1 Comp. Meier, Trinit. Lehre, i. s. 190: "The want of a sufficiently definite interpretation of Scripture was one of the chief hindrances to the recognition of the consubstantiality (Homoousia) of the Son. To conduct the proof from the depths of the Christian consciousness appeared to many too adventurous, especially in view of the tendencies of the East at that epoch; they had doubts about ascribing to the Holy Spirit identity of essence, and paying worship to Him without express declaration of Christ and the apostles."

ἀπεφαίνετο, διάκονον καὶ ὑπηρέτην καλῶν. Theodoret, ii. 6, adds that he did not hesitate to call the Spirit a creature. His opinion was afterwards called the Marathonian, from Marathonius, Bishop of Nicomedia. His followers appear to have been very numerous, especially in the vicinity of Lampsacus, see Meier, i. s. 192. The Macedonians, though condemned at the second Ecumenical Council, continued to exist as a separate sect in Phrygia down to the fifth century, when they were combated by Nestorius. The objections which the Macedonians either themselves made to the Godhead of the Spirit, or with which they were charged by their opponents, are the following: "The Holy Spirit is either begotten or not begotten; if the latter, we have two unoriginated beings (Suo Tà avaρxa), viz. the Father and the Spirit; if begotten, he must be begotten either of the Father or of the Son: if of the Father, it follows that there are two Sons in the Trinity, and hence brothers (the question then arises, Which is the elder of the two, or are they twins?); but if of the Son, we have a grandson of God (feòs viwvós),” etc. Greg. Orat. xxxi. 7, p. 560, comp. Athanas. Ep. i. ad Serapion. c. 15. In opposition to this, Gregory simply remarks, that not the idea of generation, but that of exπópevous, is to be applied to the Spirit, according to John xv. 26; and that the procession of the Spirit is quite as incomprehensible as the generation of the Son. To these objections was allied another, viz. that the Spirit is wanting in something, if He is not Son. But the Macedonians chiefly appealed to the absence of decisive scriptural testimony. Comp. Ullmann, s. 390, 391.

(7) Τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, Tò λaλñσav dià тŵν πрорητшν. Comp. § 91, note 4

§ 94.

Procession of the Holy Spirit.

J. G. Walch, Historia Controversiæ Græcorum Latinorumque de Processione Spir. S., Jenæ 1751. Chr. Matth. Pfaff, Historia succincta Controversia de Processione Spir. S., Tüb. 1749, 4to. [Swete, u. s. Pusey on the clause: "And the Son," Oxf. 1876.]

The formula of the Council of Constantinople, however, did not fully settle the point in question. For though the relation of the Spirit to the Trinity in general was determined, yet the particular relation in which He stands to the Son and the Father respectively, still remained to be decided. Inasmuch as the formula declared that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not indeed expressly deny the procession from the Son; but yet it could be taken in a negative (exclusive) sense. On the one hand, the assertion that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, seemed to favour the notion that the Son is subordinate to the Father; on the other, to maintain that He proceeds from both the Father and the Son, appeared to place the Spirit in a still greater dependence (viz. on two instead of one). Thus the attempt to establish the full Godhead of the Son would easily detract from the Godhead of the Spirit; the effort, on the contrary, to give greater independence to the Spirit, would tend to throw the importance of the Son into the shade. The Greek Fathers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, asserted the procession of the Spirit from the Father, without distinctly denying that He also proceeds from the Son (1). Epiphanius, on the other hand, derived the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, with whom Marcellus of Ancyra agreed (2). But Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret would not in any way admit that the Spirit owes His being in any sense to the Son (3), and defended their opinion in opposition to Cyril of Alexandria (4). The Latin Fathers, on the contrary, and Augustine in particular (5), taught the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. This doctrine became so firmly established in the West, that, at the third Synod of Toledo (A.D. 589), the clause filioque was added to the confession of faith of the Council of Constantinople, and so the dogmatic basis was laid for a schism between the eastern and western Churches (6).

(1) In accordance with the prevailing notions of the age,