Christian creed, for it was not until three years before Bede's death that this movement received its final check in the West at the hands of Charles Martel. He thereupon begins with the assertion that 'The Spirit is God,' but this must not be understood as in any way implying a plurality of Gods. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is also Himself God; just as the Father is God and the Son is God, even so the Holy Spirit is also God; not three gods, but one God, one glory (lumen), one Substance, one Nature, one majesty, one eternity, one greatness (magnitudo), one power, one goodness.' So, again, Bede speaks of the Holy Spirit as the 'first principle' (principium), but he hastens to add that there are not three first principles, corresponding to the three Persons of the Trinity, but only one first principle; for he repeats, 'There are not three gods, but one God; not three "omnipotents," but one Omnipotent.' The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeding from Them Both, and therefore is of one Substance, power, and majesty along with Them. The fact of there being three Persons in the Trinity does not preclude us from having our relationship with the Trinity as such. In nothing must the Father be believed to be without the Son and the Holy Spirit.' The presence of any One of the Persons means the presence of the inseparable Three. Yet in stressing the unity of the Godhead, Bede guards against Mohammedanism without and Sabellianism within. Often, indeed, have we said that the operations of the Trinity are inseparable, but we have said too that the Persons should be praised singly, so that both the Unity and the Trinity may be understood to be not only without separation but also without confusion.' And in his comments on the seventeenth chapter, throughout which the Divine unity is especially to the fore, he continues the trinitarian safeguard expressed in the previous sentence. 'The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods, but the Trinity Itself is one only true God (unus solus verus Deus). The Father, however, is not the same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same as the Father or the Son, because They are three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here is a definition of the triunity of the Deity which, while steadfastly upholding His oneness or μovapxía, 1 Cap. 4. 2 Ibid., 7. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 14. Ibid., 16. laid down the distinctive belief of the Church as against Mohammed or Sabellius. The above extracts from Bede which show his attitude to the doctrine of the Trinity also contain proof of his adherence to the Western view of the Procession. He does not add the Filioque in every mention of the Spirit's procession from the Father-which is not surprising, as this addition had not altogether passed its liquid stage in the West—but in many instances he does state his belief in the procession of the Spirit from the Son also. In this connexion, too, he instances the Lord's words to the disciples in chapter xx., 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' with the remark that by breathing upon them He indicated that the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of the Father alone, but also His own '-an echo of Augustine. The Godhead of the Holy Spirit, and His equality to the other Persons in the Trinity, are both set forth as being largely consequent upon His procession from the Father and the Son. The little that this writer asserts with reference to the work of the Spirit follows, for the most part, his line of thought on the Being of the Trinity. 'Inseparable are the works not only of the Father and of the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit.' Nevertheless, baptism especially is administered in the Holy Spirit,' and is accompanied by the cleansing from sins' through the grace of the Holy Spirit.' It is not the outward rite, but the Divine mercy working through it, which is the source of such spiritual efficacy.' Bede and the two Spanish divines, Isidore and Hildefonsus, were particularly insistent on handing on from the earlier age a theology of the Holy Spirit and of the Trinity, along with the Western conception of the Procession, which was to strengthen the foundation of the Latin position against that of the Greeks during the ninth and succeeding centuries. 1' De Patre et Filio procedens' (7); 'Ex Patre et Filio procedens' (8), &c. 2 Ibid., 17. Ibid., I. This is reminiscent of the attitude of Cyril of Jerusalem (Swete, ibid., p. 206). III ADOPTIONISTS AND ANTI-ADOPTIONISTS THE ADOPTIONISTS 1 THE Carlovingian Renaissance brought with it a revived faculty for discussion which is apparent in a controversy that did not primarily concern the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but which nevertheless deeply affected the peaceful trend of Western thought. Adoptionism, as an attempt to uphold the Monarchian theory, exemplifies the case of heresy arising out of heresy, and that almost unwittingly; for intellectual activity in doctrinal development seemed so far ahead of fitting phraseology in which it might be contained and safeguarded, that the distance between the two was responsible for much misunderstanding. The Moorish Spaniard Migetius, who upheld the very anthropomorphic view of a corporeal existence of the three Persons in the Godhead, drew upon himself the condemnation of one of the leading divines of the country, ELIPANDUS A. 790-800), Archbishop of Toledo. Elipandus was eager to dismiss any suggestion of material corporeality from the conception of the Trinity, and, in his eagerness, he alluded to the Son, in the days of His flesh, as filius adoptivus an assertion which raised the controversy from the side of the orthodox theologians in Spain and in France. It might have been that the Archbishop was unconsciously influenced by the tenets of Islam concerning the solitary oneness of God to put forward this defence of the Divine monarchy. Certain it is that Mohammedanism, with its Eastern and Western Caliphates, had a strong grip upon the civilized world at the time; and also that this religion and Judaism were the two principal' heresies' attacked by Western churchmen of the eighth and ninth centuries. But, whatever be the origin of the idea in the mind of Elipandus, the idea itself was held to undermine the Doctrine of the Trinity as 'Adoptionism regarded Christ as adopted as to His humanity though not as to His Divinity. See Fisher's note on p. 205 (Hist. of Christian Doc.). taught by the Church, and it is natural that during the controversy the discussions should converge upon the Second Person rather than upon the Third. Though, however, the Doctrine of the Person of Christ was uppermost in the Adoptionist debates, the writers involved also dealt with the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Holy Spirit with equal definiteness if not at equal length. Further, the protagonists of the filius adoptivus, although decidedly unorthodox on that account, seem to have been generally in line with the fides catholica when they had to consider truths relating to the Spirit. Elipandus adheres to the pronounced verdict of the Church of Spain in emphasizing the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and also from the Son.' Then follows a trinitarian formula which is typically Occidental: 'Behold the three Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, spiritual, incorporeal, undivided, unconfused, co-essential, consubstantial, co-eternal in one Divinity and power and majesty: without beginning, without end, always abiding ... a Trinity of Persons subsisting in one Deity.'• Again, in another of his letters, Elipandus makes a statement concerning the Son to which none of his opponents would object when he remarks that the Son of God is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Holy Spirit.' This setting of the Doctrine of the Trinity would appear quite orthodox from these extracts alone, though, if he 'lower' the essence of the Son, he would, according to his own symbol of faith, also 'lower' the essence of the Father and of the Spirit. It will be seen how Beatus and Etherius were not slow in pointing this out to him. The Symbolum Fidei of Elipandus, as quoted by these two ecclesiastics, is too traditional to yield any 'newness' in his doctrine of the Spirit, while the very part which he played in the Adoptionist Controversy accounts for the fact that he wrote comparatively little on the theology of the Holy Spirit, and nothing on His work. FELIX OF URGEL While in the midst of his Spanish critics Elipandus found a supporter in Felix, Bishop of Urgel, who proved to be the chief debater in the defence of Adoptionism, and who, in Ibid., i. 9. 1 Ad Migetium Haereticum, Epist. i. 5. consequence, confined his attention almost entirely to the Person of the Son. The same might be said of the orthodoxy of his trinitarian profession as has already been said with reference to that of his co-sectarian Elipandus. In his Confession of Faith he speaks of the Son for whom, with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, there is a like and co-equal glory before all ages, now, and for the days of eternity.' It is probable, however, that these words formed part of the orthodox Confession which Pope Adrian compelled him to draw up while in captivity at Rome in 793, and which he repudiated on regaining his liberty. Nevertheless, the controversy was brought to an end on the withdrawal of his Adoptionist statements in 800; hence it may be safely assumed that his views on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit were substantially in harmony with those of the Western Church. THE ANTI-ADOPTIONISTS Almost immediately after its declaration by the Archbishop of Toledo the Adoptionist position began to be assailed by certain leaders of the Church of the day. The orthodox clergy in Spain at once regarded the filius adoptivus as a dangerous innovation in the accepted teaching concerning the inner Life of God, and BEATUS (c. 730-798), Abbot of Libana, and ETHERIUS (A. 790), Bishop of Osma, addressed a joint letter of protest to Elipandus before he was championed by Felix. That the Son of God in His human nature was infinitely higher than a Divinely adopted man is clear from a study of the Gospels. 'Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He [the Son] breathed (insufflans) the Holy Spirit Himself upon the Apostles, that it might the more plainly be shown that He pre-existed as because He Himself was-the Son of God, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds.' 1 The procession of the Spirit from the Son, a belief to which the Spanish Church, including Elipandus, rigidly adhered, ipse facto makes the position of Adoptionism utterly untenable. Such appears to be the line of argument taken by these two joint authors. They thereupon offer to the erring prelate a trinitarian Confession of their own : Alone in His own Person the Holy Spirit exists only as Holy Spirit. . . . And thereupon there really exists a Trinity, since neither the 1 Ad Elipandum Epistola, i. 10. ... |