of the Divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It required time for the full issues and results that flowed from the Arian position to become manifest. Not till about the middle of the fourth century does the question of the nature and position of the Holy Spirit begin to assume importance in the controversy. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem were delivered in the year 347 or 348. In the creed on which S. Cyril commented, the article on the Holy Spirit, though slightly fuller than that in the Nicene Creed, was still lacking in crucial and decisive terms. It simply consisted of the words, "And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake by the prophets "; and S. Cyril's lecture upon it makes it perfectly clear that he was aware of no recent development of heretical speculation upon the subject, for the only heresies against which he thinks it necessary to caution the catechumens whom he is instructing, are those of older days and of long standing, such as those of the Gnostics and the Montanists. But a very few years later, among the anathemas appended to the first Sirmian Creed (A.D. 351) are several which mark the rise of controversy on the Person of the Spirit. Those are condemned who speak of Him as the "ingenerate God," or as "one Person" with the Father and the Son, or as "a part of the Father or of the Son." 2 From this time onwards.

the battle rages round the subject, and the heresy associated with the name of Macedonius is developed by some among the semi-Arians, who shrank from the blasphemy of attributing a created nature to the Eternal Son. "Unable to grasp the Catholic conception of the Holy Trinity, unwilling to accept the Arian position as a whole, they fall back upon the middle course of giving up the Deity of the Spirit, while they confessed the Son 1 S. Cyril, Cat. Lect. xvi. Athan. De Synodis, 27.

to be of like essence with the Father." 1 In this way there arose the heresy of the Pneumatomachi (πveνμаτоpáxo), or Macedonians,2 as they were also called, after Macedonius, the deposed Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 360). Its essence consists in the denial of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For a time it must have been most formidable. One Council after another condemns it, and creeds are enlarged with fuller statements in order to exclude it. So in the (so-called) Nicene Creed we find the brief statement of the original creed expanded in the following manner:-" I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life (Tò κύριον καὶ τὸ ζωοποῖον), who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets." These additions are found for the first time in the creed as given by Epiphanius in his Ancoratus which was written in 373 or 374. They were perhaps ratified

1 Swete, Early History, p. 45.

"Macedoniani sunt a Macedonio Constantinopolitanæ ecclesiæ Episcopo, quos et яνeνμатоμáxovs Græci dicunt, eo quod de Spiritu Sancto litigent. Nam de Patre et Filio recte sentiant, quod unius sint ejusdemque substantiæ vel essentiæ; sed de Spiritu Sancto hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum esse dicentes."-Augustine, Hares. 52. Of the share of Macedonius in propagating this heresy, but little is known. "His name makes no figure in the history of the controversy beyond its use in designating the sect."-Swete, p. 53.

3 E.g. The four Synods at Rome under Damasus, between 368 and 381. See Hefele, Councils, ii. 287 seq.

Epiphanius, Ancoratus, §. 118. Compare also the other form of the creed given immediately afterwards by Epiphanius (§ 119) as that current since the days of Valens and Valentinian. In this the article on the Holy Ghost is still fuller. "And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the law and preached by the prophets, and came down at the Jordan, speaking by the apostles, dwelling in the saints. Thus we believe in Him that He is Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Paraclete, uncreated, proceeding from the Father, and receiving of the Son, and believed on." There are also appended to this

and sanctioned by the Council of Constantinople in 381, a question which will have to be considered in connection with Article VIII. But however this may be, the Council in its first canon emphatically condemned and anathematised the heresy of the Macedonians, which from this time found place only without the Church; and henceforth the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and His place in the Godhead as the Third Person of the blessed Trinity was fully recognised and acknowledged as that which had been the implicit faith of the Church from the beginning, and which was now distinctly expressed in her formal and dogmatic decisions.

III. The Doctrine of the Procession.

In treating of the procession of the Holy Spirit, it will be convenient to consider-(a) the scriptural grounds for the doctrine, and its meaning; and (b) the history of its expression in the creed.

(a) The Scripture grounds for the doctrine, and its meaning.—The term "proceeding" is used by the Church to denote the manner in which the Holy Spirit derives His eternal Being from the Father, who is alone unoriginate (avapxos). As the property of the Son is "to be begotten," so the property of the Spirit is "to proceed." What the word ultimately denotes must ever remain a mystery in this life. But we cannot doubt that there is some real truth, and an eternal fact in the divine nature, indicated by the way in which Holy Scripture, while speaking of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as God's Son, and begotten, never makes use of these terms when speaking of the Third Person in the Godhead. creed, anathemas of those who say that the Spirit once was not, or that He is of a different substance from the Father, or is liable to change or alteration.

1 See Greg. Naz. Orat. xxix.

Consequently the Church, following the guidance of Holy Scripture, has never ventured to employ them. Some word, however, was required to express the scriptural truth that the Spirit is not unoriginate, but issues forth from the Father. Early in the second century, Ignatius had spoken of the Spirit as being from God (άπò eoû ŏv),1 but it was impossible to avoid the use of some definite term. In the course of the fourth century we meet with various ones, especially ěkteμfis, πρόοδος, and ἐκπόρευσις, all of which are employed by writers of repute to describe the property of the Holy Spirit. The first of these terms, however, is open to the objection that it may lead to some confusion between the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, who is "sent" in time by the Father and the Son, and His eternal procession as the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Accordingly the term which finally obtained widest acceptance and found a place in the creeds was "proceeding," KTOрevóμevov.2 It was evidently suggested by ἐκπορευόμενον. the use of the expression in our Lord's discourse in S. John xv. 26. When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father ( Tapà тоÛ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), He shall testify of Me.” It is, however, not at all certain that in this passage our Lord intends to indicate the eternal relation of the Spirit to the Father by His use of the expression. It is possible that the phrase applies to His temporal mission to men, which is certainly the main subject of the discourse. But however this may be (and divines are not all 1 Ignatius, Ad Philad. vii.

2 For EKTEμis, see S. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xxiii., Iôtov TATρÒS μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, πνεύματος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις. Πρόοδος occurs in Orat. xiii. and πveûμа πрóodov in Orat. i. Elsewhere in Orat. xxxix we read: Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς τὸ πνεῦμα, προϊὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, οὐχ ὑϊκῶς δὲ οὐδὲ γὰρ γεννητῶς, ἀλλὰ ἐκπορευτῶς.

agreed on the point 1) the selection of the term by the Church was a wise one, for it is entirely free from any associations of Sonship, and leaves the manner in which the Spirit "proceeds" or "issues forth" from the Eternal Fount of Deity unexplained. The Church makes no attempt to be wise above what is written, but is content to leave the mystery where Scripture leaves it.

But it may be urged that the creed as used in the Western Church, while borrowing our Lord's phrase to express this eternal fact, does attempt to be wise above what is written, and is not content to take the phrase as it stands in S. John's Gospel, but adds an important word to it, repeating it in the form "proceeding from the Father and the Son." How this last word (Filioque), which has never been received by the Eastern Church, came into the creed of the West will be explained later on. For the present we are concerned with the doctrine rather than the history. It must be admitted that the exact phrase is nowhere found in Scripture. But it is maintained that the doctrine which the phrase is intended to express is abundantly taught in Scripture.2 One passage, indeed, approaches very near to being a verbal expression of it. In Rev. xxii. 1, we are told that S. John saw "a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,

1 Bishop Westcott, who takes it of the temporal mission, lays stress on the fact that the preposition used in the Gospel is not (as in the creed) ék, which would naturally be required to define the source, but rapá, "from the side of," which is habitually used of the mission of the Son. Godet, however, points out that it is difficult to refer the words, who proceedeth from the Father to the same fact as the former, whom I will send to you from the Father, as this would be mere tautology. Besides the future, wéμyw, I will send, refers to an historical fact to take place at an undefined period, while the present, ékπopeveтαι, proceedeth, seems to refer to a permanent, divine, and therefore eternal relation.

2 "The procession of the Spirit in reference to the Father is delivered expressly, in relation to the Son is contained virtually in the Scriptures." Pearson On the Creed, Art. viii.