"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; 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 ixxogevo‹ 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.

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.f

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 θεολογίας.

† Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, το ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον.

§ FILIOQUE.

|| De Tribus Symbolis, Disser. iii. Thesi xv. et seq.

¶ Dissert. Sel. tom. ii. p. 728.

* Luke i. 35.

a Gal. iv. 6.

b 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 of Christ 1631. As neither of these two expresyear sions 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

66

Holy Spirit should be from him-In DIGNITY, be"cause the Father is the Fountain and the cause of "their existence; and it is more honourable to derive * Ἐκ τοῦ Πατρος δι ὑιοῦ.

"existence from none than to receive it from another, "to beget than to be begotten, to cause to proceed "than to proceed *-In POWER, that is, authority "or dominion; because the Father has authority to "send and to give the Son, and to pour out the Holy Spirit; but neither of them has authority over "the Father; and accordingly we no where read of "the Father as sent or given, but always as sending "or giving." Such is the doctrine of Episcopius;† and similar sentiments are expressed by Curcellæus.‡

66

XIX. In reply to these writers, we make the following general remarks. 1st, They depart in this instance from the catholic faith of the Church, which, as it is expressed by the Emperor, § "believes, ac"cording to the instructions of Apostles and the doc"trine of the Gospel, that the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Ghost, are one God, subsisting in equal “ majesty, and in an adorable Trinity." || Athanasius, in like manner, states the common faith in the following terms: "Where there is an undivided dignity, one "sovereignty, one power, and will, and energy, peculi"arly distinguishing the Trinity from the creatures,—— "there is one God." 2dly, The majesty of the Father is artfully extolled with a view to disparage the infinite dignity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is the will of the Father himself, "that all men should

• Spirare, quam spirari, is the Latin expression; which literally signifies, to breathe than to be breathed. T.

↑ Instit. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 32.

Dissertat. de vocibus Trinitatis, &c. parag. lx.

§ Lege i. Codi. De Sum. Trinit. et Fide Catholica.

|| These expressions are quoted in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis, tom. 2. from an Edict relating to the Trinity, issued by the Emperor GRATIAN in the year of our Lord 380. T.

¶ Libro de Communi Essentia, &c. Capite, Quod non tres Diüi sint.

"honour the Son even as they honour the Father." 3dly, All these expressions have a manifest tendency utterly to deprive the Son and the Spirit of true godhead. A subordinate Deity, is not Deity. Supreme majesty, dignity, and power, are essential attributes of godhead; and he that is not possessed of them, is not God.

66

xx. More particularly, 1st, The Scriptures teach a distinction of order; but, since it is merely a distinction of personal order, it implies no superiority or inferiority attributed to the essence. Athanasius, who has stated this distinction of order with singular accuracy, makes the following excellent observation, in the Creed which is commonly received by the Church: "And in this Trinity, nothing is prior or posterior," that is, with respect to dignity, "nothing greater or "less; but all these Three persons are co-eternal and co-equal." 2dly, Begetting and being begotten, causing to proceed and proceeding,* imply no distinction of DIGNITY amongst the Divine persons: for the begetting and the causing to proceed are the communication of the same numerical essence, which belongs to him who begets and causes to proceed; and which possesses an infinite dignity, than which none greater can either be allowed, or imagined, without a contradiction. 3dly, The sacred writings nowhere speak of the Father's having power, authority, and dominion over the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor is it warrantable to infer any such superiority on the part of the Father, from the mission of the Son and Spirit; which is entirely according to the economy in redemption, and founded in the common council of the whole Trinity.

* Spirare et spirari.

c John v. 23.