« AnteriorContinuar »
from giving him the appellation of God. For Paul concludes that we are the temple of God, because his Spirit dwelleth in us. (w) This must not be passed over without particular notice; for the frequent promises of God that he will choose us for a temple for himself receive no other accomplishment, than by the inhabitation of his Spirit in us. Certainly, as Augustine excellently observes, "If we were commanded to erect to the Spirit a temple of wood and stone, forasmuch as God is the sole object of worship, it would be a clear proof of his divinity; how much clearer, then, is the proof, now that we are commanded, not to erect one, but to be ourselves his temples?" And the Apostle calls us sometimes the temple of God, and sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, both in the same signification. Peter, reprehending Ananias for having "lied to the Holy Ghost," told him, that he had "not lied unto men, but unto God." (iv) And where Isaiah (x) introduces the Lord of hosts as the speaker, Paul (y) informs us that it is the Holy Spirit who speaks. Indeed, while the Prophets in.. variably declare that the words which they utter are those of the Lord of hosts, Christ and the Apostles refer them to the Holy Spirit; whence it follows, that he is the true Jehovah, who is the primary author of the prophecies. Again, God complains that his anger was provoked by the perverseness of the people; Isaiah, in reference to the same conduct, says, that "They vexed his Holy Spirit." (z) Lastly, if blasphemy against the Spirit be not forgiven, either in this world or in that which is to come, (a) whilst a man may obtain pardon who has been guilty of blasphemy against the Son, this is an open declaration of his Divine majesty, to defame or degrade which is an inexpiable crime. I intentionally pass over many testimonies which were used by the fathers. To them there appeared much plausibility in citing this passage from David, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth;" (b) to prove that the creation of the world was the work of the Holy Spirit, as well as of the Son. But since a repetition of the same thing twice is
(c) 1 Cor. iii. 16. vi. 19. 2Cor. vi. 16. («■) Acts v. 3, 4.
(v) Isaiah vi. 9. (;) Acts xxviii. 25. (r) Isaiah Uiii. 10.
(a) Matt.xii.31. Mark iii, 29. Luke xii. 10. (i) Psalm xxxiii. 6
common in the Psalms, and in Isaiah "the Spirit of his mouth" means the same as "his word," this is but a weak argument. Therefore I have determined to confine myself to a sober statement of those evidences on which pious minds may satisfactorily rest.
XVI. As God afforded a clearer manifestation of himself at the advent of Christ, the three Persons also then became better known. Among many testimonies let us be satisfied with this one: Paul connects together these three, Lord Faith and Baptism, (c) in such a manner as to reason from one to another. Since there is but one faith, hence he proves that there is but one Lord; since there is but one baptism, he shews that there is also but one faith. Therefore if we are initiated by baptism into the faith and religion of one God, we must necessarily suppose him to be the true God into whose name we are baptized. Nor can it be doubted but that in this solemn commission, "Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," Christ intended to testify, that the perfect light of faith was now exhibited. For this is equivalent to being baptized into the name of the one God, who hath clearly manifested himself in the Father, Son, and Spirit: whence it evidently appears, that in the Divine Essence there exist three Persons, in whom is known the one God. And, truly, since faith ought not to be looking about hither and thither, or to be wandering through the varieties of inconstancy, but to direct its views towards the oim God, to be fixed on him, and to adhere to him; it may easily be proved from these premises, that if there be various kinds of faith, there must also be a plurality of gods. Baptism being a sacrament of faith, confirms to us the unity of God, because it is but one. Hence also we conclude, that it is not lawful to be baptized, except into the name of the one God; because we embrace the faith of him, into whose name we are baptized. What then was intended by Christ, when he commanded baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but that one faith ought to
(c) Ephes. iv. 5.
be exercised in the Father, Son, and Spirit? and what is that but a clear testimony, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the one God? Therefore, since it is an undeniable truth, that there is one God, and only one, we conclude the Word and Spirit to be no other than the very Essence of the Deity. The greatest degree of folly was betrayed by the Arians, who confessed the divinity of the Son, but denied him to possess the substance of God. Nor were the Macedonians free from a similar delusion, who would explain the term "spirit" to mean only the gifts of grace conferred upon man. For as wisdom, understanding, prudence, fortitude, and fear of the Lord, proceed from him: so he alone is the Spirit of wisdom, prudence, fortitude, and piety. Nor is he himself divided according to the distribution of his graces: but, as the Apostle declares, how variously soever they are divided, he always remains one and the same. (d)
XVII. On the other hand also we find in the Scriptures a distinction between the Father and the Word, between the Word and the Spirit: in the discussion of which the magnitude of the mystery reminds us that we ought to proceed i with the utmost reverence and sobriety. I am exceedingly pleased with this observation of Gregory Nazianzen; " I cannot think of the one, but I am immediately surrounded with the splendour of the three; nor can I clearly discover the three, but I am suddenlv carried back to the one." Wherefore let us not imagine such a trinity of persons, as includes an idea of separation, or does not immediately recal us to the unity. The names of Father, Son, and Spirit, certainly imply a real distinction; let no one suppose them to be mere epithets, by which God is variously designated from his works: but it is a distinction, not a division. The passages already cited shew, that the Son has a property, by which he is distinguished from the Father; because the Word had not been with God, or had his glory with the Father, unless he had been distinct from him. He likewise distinguishes the Father from himself, when he says, "that there is another that bcareth witness of him."(e) And to the same effect is what is declared in another place,
(>0 1 Cor. xii. 11. (e) John v. 32. viii. 16,18.
that the Father created all things by the Word: which he could not have done, unless he had been in some sense distinct from him. Besides, the Father descended not to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father. The Father neither died nor rose again, but he who was sent by the Father. Nor did this distinction commence at the incarnation, but it is evident, that, before that period, he was the only begotten in the bosom of the Father. (f) For who can undertake to assert, that the Son first entered into the bosom of the Father, when he descended from heaven to assume a human nature? He, therefore was in the bosom of the Father before, and possessed his glory with the Father. The distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father is announced by Christ, when he says, that he "proceedeth from the Father." (e) But how often does he represent him as another, distinct from himself? as when he promises that "another Comforter" (A) should be sent, and in many other places.
XVIII. I doubt the propriety of borrowing similitudes from human things, to express the force of this distinction. The fathers sometimes practise this method; but they likewise confess the great disproportion of all the similitudes whieh they introduce. Wherefore I greatly dread, in this instance, every degree of presumption; lest the introduction of any thing unseasonable should afford an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of error to the ignorant. Yet it is not right to be silent on the distinction which we find expressed in the Scriptures; which is this: that to the Father is attributed the principle of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the arrangement of all operations; and the power and efficacy of the action is assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though eternity belongs to the Father, and to the Son and Spirit also, since God can never have been destitute of his wisdom or his power, and in eternity we must not inquire after any thing prior or posterior; yet the observation of order is not vain or superfluous, while the Father is mentioned as first; in the next place the Son, as from him; and then the Spirit, as from both. For the mind ot
(/) John i. 18 (g) John \v. 26. (h) John xiv IS.
every man naturally inclines to the consideration, first, of God, secondly of the wisdom emanating from him, and lastly of the power by which he executes the decrees of his wisdom. For this reason the Son is said to be from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son: and that in various places, but no where more clearly than in the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where the same Spirit is indifferently denominated "the Spirit of Christ," and "the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead," and that without any impropriety. For Peter also testifies that it was the Spirit of Christ by whom the Prophets prophesied: (i) whereas the Scripture so frequently declares that it was the Spirit of God the Father.
XIX. This distinction is so far from opposing the most absolute simplicity. and unity of the Divine Being, that it affords a proof that the Son is one God with the Father, because he has the same Spirit with him: and that the Spirit is not a different substance from the Father and the Son, because he is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For the whole nature is in each hypostasis, and each has something peculiar to himself. The Father is entirely in the Son, and the Son entirely in the Father, according to his own declaration, " I am in the Father, and the Father in me:" (I) nor do ecclesiastical writers allow that one is divided from the other by any difference of essence. "These distinctive appellations," says Augustine, "denote their reciprocal relations to each other, and not the substance itself, which is but one." This explanation may serve to reconcile the opinions of the fathers, which would otherwise appear totally repugnant to each other. For sometimes they state that the Son originates from the Father, and at other times assert that he has essential divinity from himself; and so is, together with the Father, the one first cause of all. Augustine, in another place, admirably and perspicuously explains the cause of this diversity, in the following manner; "Christ, considered in himself, is called God; but with relation to the Father, he is called the Son." And again, "The Father, considered in
(V) 1 Pet ill. (*) John xiv. 10,11.