Obrazy na stronie



representations involuntarily, and had no intention of being a Sabellian, but his pupil Photinus (Pwrevós), probably Bishop of Sirmium, put the Dogma in a more logical form, and approached nearer to Sabellianism and Samosatenism.* He taught that the Logos was truly in the Father, but as such was not the Son, that Christ was not the Son of God from Eternity, but only in virtue of his human appearance; and that the pre-existence with God which belonged to him according to the New Testament, referred only to his predestination. In his views of the human appearance of Christ, he differed from his teacher. Both were deposed from their offices by the Synod at Sirmium, a.d. 351.


IT must excite surprise that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is only adverted to in very general terms in the Nicene Creed. Why was the Homousion doctrine not applied to it? It has been alleged that at that time there was no controversy respecting it. But this ground is not correct; for it is evident from the express statement of Athanasius,‡ that Arius applied the doctrine of subordination to the Holy Spirit; he placed the same distance between the Son and the Spirit as between the Father and the Son. According to him, the Holy Spirit was only the first of created beings, brought into existence by the Son as the organ of the Father. Or should we be justified in saying that attention had not been sufficiently directed to this point? that it was not held to be of sufficient importance? The true reason rather consists in this, that the Oriental Church was at that time much less

*Athan. De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. § 26 The Formula Antiochena, 4, § 27. Formula Sirmiensis Antith. 5.-ε TIG кατà πроуνшσш πρо Μαρίας λέγει τὸν υἱὸν ὄντα, καὶ μὴ πρὸ αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγέννημένον πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἶναι, καὶ δι ̓ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι τὰ πάντα, ἄ, ἔ. 6. Ει τις τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ πλατύνεσθαι ἢ συστέλλεσθαι φάσκοι, ἄ. ἔ. 7. Ει τις πλατυνομένην τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν λέγοι ποιεῖν, ἢ τὸν πλατυσμὸν τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ὀνομάζοι, ἄ. ἔ.

Neander's Ch. Hist. iv. 84.

† Orat. contr. Arian. i. 6.—καὶ ὅτι μεμερισμέναι τῇ φύσει καὶ ἀπεξενωμέναι καὶ ἀπεσχοινισμέναι καὶ αλλοτριοι καὶ ἀμέτοχοί εἰσιν ἀλλήλων αἱ οὐσίαι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος καὶ ὡς αὐτὸς εφθεγξατο ἀνόμοιοι πάμπαν ἀλλήλων, ταῖς τε οὐσίαις καὶ δόξαις εἰσὶν ἐπάποροι· τὸν γοῦν λόγον φησὶν εἰς ὁμοιότητα δόξης καὶ οὐσίας ἀλλότριον εἶναι παντελῶς ἑκατέρων, τοῦ τε πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

fitted to admit the Homousia of the Holy Spirit as part of its doctrine, and if it had been urged, its opposition against the Homousion would have been still greater. EUNOMIUS developed this doctrine more logically. He represented the Holy Spirit to be the first created being brought into existence by the agency of the Son, according to the command of the Father. He denied his possession of creative power, but attributed to him sanctifying and enlightening power, from which resulted a remarkable separation of the Intellectual and the Moral in Religion. His unspiritual * Subordinationism is shown in the following expressions,-the Holy Spirit cannot be compared either with the Son, or with other created beings; he is neither God nor Lord; he is the servant of Christ his God, since he sanctifies and enlightens rational creatures, and puts them in mind to keep Christ's command. He supports the weakness of our prayers; he forgives the sins of the penitent at the command of Christ, and leads them to a true knowledge of him; he makes known what he has received from Christ; he speaks not of himself, and confesses Christ as his Lord and God. But even as late as A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among different parties respecting this Dogma, so that even GREGORY NAZIANZEN could say, "Some of our theologians regard the Spirit simply as a mode of divine operation, others as a creature of God, others as God himself; others, again, say that they know not which of these opinions to accept, from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon it." HILARY of Poictiers, a Nicene theologian, acknowledges that the Holy Ghost exists, and that faith in him is necessarily connected with confessing the Father and the Son, and to know this is sufficient. If any one ask ‡ what the Holy Spirit is, and is not satisfied with the answer that he is through Him and from Him through whom are all things; that he is the Spirit of God, and his gift to believers, even Apostles and Prophets will not satisfy such a person, for they only assert this of him, that he is. He does not venture to attribute to him the name of God, because the Scripture does not so call him expressly,§ yet it says, that

* A. Maii Scriptt. Vett. Collectio Nova, t. iii. fragm. 3.

Orat. 37, cap. 12. p. 595, ed. Colon. 1690.

† De Trinitate, 2, c. 29.

§ Ibid. 12, c. 55.-Nulla te (Deum) nisi res tua penetrat nec pro


the Holy Spirit searcheth the deep things of God, it follows that he partakes of the divine essence. Though Basil of Cæsarea wished to teach the divinity of the Holy Spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually. The subject was brought more distinctly under discussion, when many of the Homoiousians showed themselves ready to adopt the Nicene doctrine, but could not make up their minds to extend the Homoousion to the Holy Spirit. In order to remove their objections, Athanasius, who from the first had been consequential on this dogma, composed his letter to Serapion,

bishop of Thmuis.* His arguments are the following:† "How can the Holy Spirit belong to the same class as the beings who are sanctified by him? The Holy Spirit is the source of true life; when he is imparted to us, we attain to communion with God. This would be impossible if the Holy Spirit were foreign to the divine nature. If he were not divine but of a created nature, then something created would be admitted into the Trinity. Arianism could not be logically rejected if the Homousion were not also ascribed to him." Subsequently, this dogma was defended by Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa,§ Basil of Cæsarea,¶ Didymus,|| and Ambrose of Milan.** Its impugners were called Pneumatomachi, and Macedonians after Macedonius, a semi-Arian bishop of Constantinople. In opposition to them, likeness of essence was ascribed to the Holy Spirit first of all by the fundum majestatis tuæ peregrinæ atque alienæ a te virtutis causa metitur.


*Neander's Ch. Hist. iv. 86. Athan. Epp. i. 3, 4. Opp. tom. i. p. 2. + Ep. i. § 24.-εἰ κτίσμα δὲ ἦν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἄν τις ἐν αὐτῷ μετουσία τοῦ Θεοῦ γένοιτο ἡμῖν· ἀλλ' ἢ ἂρα κτίσματι μὲν συνηπτόμεθα, ἀλλότριοι δὲ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐγινόμεθα, ὡς κατὰ μηδὲν αὐτῆς μετέχοντες· νῦν δὲ, ὅτε λεγόμεθα μέτοχοι Χριστοῦ καὶ μέτοχοι θεοῦ, δείκνυται τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν χρῖσμα καὶ ἡ σφραγὶς, μὴ οὖσα τῆς τοῦ γενητοῦ φύσεως, ἀλλὰ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ διὰ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ πνεύματος, συνάπτοντος ἡμᾶς τῷ πατρί. 1 Joh. iv. 13.—εἰ δὲ τῇ τοῦ πνεύματος μετουσίᾳ γινόμεθα κοινωνοὶ θείας φύσεως, μαίνετ ̓ ἄν τις λέγων τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς κτιστῆς φύσεως καὶ μὴ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ· διὰ τοῦτο γαρ καὶ ἐν οἷς γίνεται, οὗτοι θεοποιοῦνται· εἰ δὲ θεοποιεῖ, οὐκ ἀμφίβολον, ὅτι ἡ τούτου φύσις

θεοῦ ἐστι.

Orat. 37, 43.

Oration against Eunomius.

περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος πρὸς ̓Αμφιλόχιον. De Spiritu Sancto, translated by Jerome. ** De Spiritu Sancto, libb. 3.

Synod held at Alexandria about A.D. 362; for those who maintained that he was a creature could not consistently reject Arianism. An Illyrian Council, A.D. 375, and the Ecumenical at Constantinople, confirmed the Nicene Creed, with the addition of ascribing the Homousion to the Holy Spirit; *"“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord who makes alive, who proceedeth from the Father, and equally with the Father and the Son is to be worshipped and glorified."

In these doctrinal definitions lay the germ of a difference between the Eastern and Western Church. In the East it was customary to contemplate God as the efficient cause in the Trinity, and to make this essential to the Monarchy. The Logos was looked upon as the mediating principle, and hence the representation was formed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. The relations of causality in the Triad were supposed to be such, that all things originated with the Father, were brought into existence by the Son, and completed by the Holy Spirit.† The existence of all Spirits proceeds from the will of the Father, by the Son they are brought into existence, and they attain perfection by the character imparted to them by the Holy Spirit; there are not three ἀρχικαὶ ὑποστάσεις, but there is one ἀρχή, God the Father, who creates all things by the Son, and completes them by the Holy Spirit. Thus the way was opened for giving special prominence to the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Another occasion for maintaining it was found in the controversy with the Pneumatomachi, against whom it was maintained that the Holy Spirit had his existence from the Father in the same manner as the Son. Theodore of Mopsuestia adopted this view, which was now established in the East. In his confession of faith, he says: "The Spirit derives his essence from the Father; we do not look upon him as the Son, nor do we admit that he received his being through the Son."

In the West, on the contrary, while asserting the Homousion of the Father and the Son against the Arians, it was also held

* Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τὸ κύριον τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ του πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

Basilius De Spir. S. 38.

Walch Bibi Symb p. 204.


that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. AUGUSTIN* illustrates the doctrine of the Triad by the analogy of the Trinity in the human spirit. Being corresponds to God the Father; knowing, as a self-representation of being, to the Son; and willing, or love in which being and knowing embrace each other, to the Holy Spirit. Hence, the idea that in the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son embrace each other, and that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Trinity appeared to him † to be a law of all existence; for in all things he distinguished the universal Being, the special form of Being, and the unity of both. He did not conceal from himself that this was only an analogy; ‡ we know the Triad in this manner as far as it is possible, as in a glass darkly. Of the Holy Spirit in particular he says, that he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, sent by both. He is that whereby we stand in connexion with God and with one another; he is the Love with which the Father and the


*Conf. 13, cap. 11.-Vellem ut hæc tria cogitarent homines in seipsis. Longe aliud sunt ista tria quam illa Trinitas: sed dico ubi se exerceant et ibi probent, et sentiant quam longe sunt. Dico autem hæc tria: esse, nosse, velle. Sum enim, et novi, et volo; sum sciens et volens; et scio esse me, et velle; et volo esse, et scire. In his igitur tribus quam sit inseparabilis vita, et una vita, et una mens, et una essentia, quam denique inseparabilis distinctio, et tamen distinctio, videat qui potest.

De Vera Religione, 13.-Qua Trinitate quantum in hac vita datum est cognita, omnes intellectualis et animalis et corporalis creatura, ab eadem. Trinitate creatrice esse in quantum est, et speciem suam habere et ordinatissime administrari sine ulla dubitatione perspicitur, non ut aliam partem totius creaturæ fecisse intelligatur Pater, et aliam Filius et aliam Spiritus Sanctus, sed et simul omnia et unamquamque naturam Patrem fecisse per Filium in douo Spiritus Sancti. Omnis enim res vel substantia vel essentia vel natura, vel si quo alio verbo melius enuntiatur, simul hæc tria habet, ut et unum aliquid sit et specie propria discernatur a ceteris et verum ordinem non excedat.


Serm. 71, 18.-Nostis carissimi in illa invisibili et incorruptibili Trinitate, quam fides nostra et catholica ecclesia tenet et prædicat, Deum Patrem non Spiritus Sancti Patrem esse sed Filii, et Deum Filium non Spiritus Sancti Filium esse sed Patris: Deum Spiritum Sanctum non solius Patris aut solius esse Filii Spiritum, sed Patris et Filii. Et hanc Trinitatem quamvis servata singularum proprietati et substantia personarum, tamen propter ipsam individuam et inseparabilem æternitatis, veritatis, bonitatis essentiam vel naturam non esse tres Deos sed unum Deum.

« PoprzedniaDalej »