Cameron, and several other Protestant Divines; the sense will only be this; that, by his being thus raised up again, it was declared and demonstrated that Christ is the Son of the Father, begotten of him from everlasting. The Jewish Council condemned him for blasphemy, because he had called himself the Son of God. But, by raising him again from the grave, after he had been put to death as a blasphemer, God acquitted him from that charge, and publicly recognised him as his Only-begotten Son.41 Thus he was declared, exhibited, and distinguished as the Son of God with power, expressly and particularly, to the entire exclusion of all others. The original word here employed by the Apostle, is remarkably expressive; and, as Ludovicus de Dieu has learnedly observed, it signifies that Christ was placed betwixt such bounds, and so separated and discriminated from others, that he neither should nor can be judged to be any one else than the Son of God. The expression," with power," may be joined with "declared ;" and then the meaning will be, that he was shown to be the Son of God by a powerful argument. Or it may be connected with "the Son of God;" and then it will intimate, that he is the Son of God in the most ample and exalted sense of which the term is susceptible; so that this name, when ascribed to him, is "a more excellent name" than any that is given to the noblest of creatures.w XIII. The fourth personal property of the Father is, that THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM HIM, TOGETHER WITH THE SON.+ The Spirit is, therefore, Εν δυνάμει. + Una cum Filio, Spiritum Sanctum spiret. * Ωρίσθη ὑιος θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. Rom. i. 4. W * Διαφορωτερον όνομα. Heb. i. 4. 41 See NOTE XLI. styled," the Spirit of his mouth ;" and, again," the "Spirit of God," and "the breath of the Almighty." Thus far our knowledge extends. But what the mode of this breathing is, and how the communication of the essence to the Third Person by breathing differs from the communication of the same essence to the Second Person by generation, are mysteries, the knowledge of which, it has seemed good to the great Teacher to reserve for the celestial state. We have no complacency in the boldness of the Scholastic Theologians, who have asserted, that generation pertains to the Understanding, and that the Father, by the contemplation of himself, begat that personal image of himself, who is called the Son while they refer breathing to the Will, and say, that the Father, in conjunction with the Son, by favouring and loving himself, produced the Holy Spirit. Not only are we afraid of becoming so profoundly wise; but we have, also, an aversion at such vain refinements of human ingenuity, presumptuously amusing itself with Divine topics. Far better, in our apprehension, is the discretion of Gregory Nazianzen, who satisfies himself with the following simple declaration of the truth: "The Holy Spirit is truly a Spirit, who proceeds from "the Father; not, however, by filiation, or generation, "but by procession." * XIV. This one thing, however, we can safely affirm; that, while it belongs to the Father alone to beget the Son, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This may be gathered from John xv. 26. "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send * Orat. xxxix. + Generatio soli Patri competat, Spiratio autem Patri et Filio. * 1 7 Ps. xxxiii. 6. .4 .Job xxxiii רוה אל ונשמת שדי y "unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, "which proceedeth* from the Father, he shall testify "of me." It is no less certain that the Spirit is sent by the Son, than it is, that he proceedeth from the Father. Both the sending and the procession here spoken of, I acknowledge, are not natural, or hypostatical, but economical;t and the subjects directly intended, are the giving of the Holy Spirit, and his going forth, to men. But these presuppose the eternal mystery; for it is altogether fit and congruous that the manifestation of the Divine persons, which is afforded in time, should correspond with the real manner of their subsistence from eternity. xv. I do not, however, dissemble, that to this observation it may be objected, that Christ, who, in respect to his person, is not from the Holy Spirit, is said to be sent by the Spirit; for we read in Isaiah xlviii. 16. "And now the LORD God and his Spirit hath sent "me." But I reply, 1st, It is not quite certain whether it be Christ that speaks in this passage. Eminent theologians, as Jerome, Vatablus, Calvin, Junius, our own Dutch Divines, and others quoted by Cornelius a Lapide, will have these to be the words of Isaiah himself, by which he vindicates his authority as a Prophet of God. 2dly, If the words are to be referred to Christ, which is the opinion of a great number of ancient as well as modern writers, whom I dare not contradict; it * Εκπορεύεται. + The author's words are: Fateor et missionem et ixxogrúow istam non esse φυσικην sive υποστατικην, sed 'οικονομικην. The meaning is, that the mission and the procession spoken of in this verse, immediately relate, not to the Divine essence, or to the subsistence of the Divine persons, but to their respective operations in the work of redemption. T. VOL. I. 2 D 8. may be affirmed that he was sent by the Holy Spirit, as he was man, and sent for the redemption of mankind; for the formation of our Lord's human nature is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. In this manner A Lapide, after Anselm, answers the objection. 3dly, The Hebrew text may, with propriety, be translated thus; "The LORD God hath sent me, and his Spirit."* According to this version, the mission of the Spirit is connected with the mission of the Son; which exactly corresponds with the event. In whatever sense you interpret the passage, it makes nothing against our hypothesis. XVI. Why, too, should he be called " the Spirit of "the Son," and be said to "receive of the things of "the Son," unless he proceeded from the Son? In the economy of redemption, as has been more than once remarked, the Three persons act suitably to the relations in which they stand to each other in the godhead.† XVII. Hence it is evident, what opinion we ought to form respecting the obstinate contention of the Greeks with the Latins relative to this point. There are faults, I doubt not, on both sides. Since the Creed of Constantinople, published in the year of our Lord 381, contained this expression," the Holy Spirit proceeding "from the Father;" the Latins did wrong in adding to that Creed these words," and to the Son."§ On this addition see Vossius, || and Heidegger. The Latins did wrong, I say, in this matter; for, although what אדני יהוה שלחני ורוחו * † Οικονομία sequitur την θεολογίαν. † Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, το ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. § FILIOQUE. || De Tribus Symbolis, Disser. iii. Thesi xv. et seq. Luke i. 35. a Gal. iv. 6. John xvi. 14. they added was true, the words of the Creed were the words of Scripture, whilst the addition is not contained in Scripture, in these precise terms. Besides, whoever makes any addition to an ancient Creed, involves himself in the guilt of bearing false witness; for he would have it to be believed that the Fathers who compiled that Creed determined something which they did not determine. The Greeks, also, have done wrong in contending so pertinaciously concerning this point; for the doctrine of the Latins is conformable to truth, and it was delivered in the same manner by ancient Doctors of their own church; as has been long ago shown from the writings of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and others. Nay, if we are willing to rest satisfied with what is essential, scarcely any real controversy remains. For it is of very little consequence, whether we hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or " from "the Father through the Son;"* as Cyril of Constantinople expresses it in his Confession, written in the year of Christ 1631. As neither of these two expressions occurs in holy writ, so neither of them is improper, or inconsistent with the truth. But let thus much suffice on this subject. XVIII. We must here take notice of the opinion of Episcopius respecting the subordination of the other persons to the Father. He contends "that the Father "is so the First person, that he is, also, the HIGHEST "in ORDER, in DIGNITY, and in POWER.-In OR"DER, because it was necessary that the Son and the Holy Spirit should be from him-In DIGNITY, because the Father is the Fountain and the cause of their existence; and it is more honourable to derive * Ἐκ τοῦ Πατρις δε υιοῦ. 66 66 |