Origen's works have been so mangled and interpolated, that I will only recommend it to the Student not to depend absolutely on any single passage of his works, in points which have been much disputed; except he should wish to enter fully into the subject, and then I would refer him to Huet's Origeniana. The Sabellians, of whom we have spoken before, were to be re-baptized; but their particular form of baptism is not extant: and the Priscillianists have been reckoned a species of Sabellians'. m Lactantius has been mentioned before. The Arians were so much engaged in controversy about the Son of God, that they attended less to fixing a doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost: yet Augustin says" of them, that they called him "creaturam creatura;" which, by the way, allows to the Son a creative power. This agrees too with Epiphanius, and might be taken from him. However, only the Eunomians, of the Arian sects, seem to have been re-baptized by the Catholics. They baptized into the Death of Christ only; though the following was a form ascribed to some of them; -in the name of the uncreated God, the created God, and the sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son. But the Christians most distinguished for their opposition to the Holy Spirit, were the followers of Macedonius; called on that account TvevuаToμáxoi. Macedonius was a Patriarch of Constantinople, and deposed by a Council there in the year 360; his followers were the more noticed for their hete rodoxy i Art. i. Sect. 4. * Seventh Canon of first Council of Constantinople. m Art. i. Sect. 4. See Lard. Works, vol. IV. p. 113. P See Bingham, 11. 3. 10. n Hær. 49. Rom. vi. 3. rodoxy in regard to the Holy Ghost, because they were orthodox with regard to the Son, and could urge, in their own defence, that they received the whole of the Nicene Creed". What the precise idea of the Macedonians was, we do not seem to know certainly: Augustin reckons them only Semi-arians; and Sozomen says, that they looked upon the Holy Ghost as a kind of Servant; διάκονον καὶ ὑπηpéry: but our Reformatio Legum only says, illum pro Deo non agnoscentes; speaking of those Christians, who conspire with Macedonius against the Holy Ghost. 3. We will now take some notice of the disputes of the eighth and ninth Centuries; Mosheim, a professed Historian, acknowledges, that the origin of them "is covered with perplexity and doubt;" and the occasion and rise of a dispute generally influences the whole of it: so that, if the occasion is doubtful, there will be doubts and different opinions concerning the rest. What opinion I have formed of this part of History, from the materials which have come in my way, I will give you frankly. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various disputes took place with the followers of Macedonius, with respect to the nature and procession of the Holy Ghost: it might be particularly mentioned, with a view to what followed, that, so soon as the years 430 and 431, in the Councils of Alexandria and Ephesus, it was declared, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. In order to terminate these disputes, the Church in general made a sort of settlement or determination what should be accounted the Catholic doctrine; and, to avoid farther a See Lord King, p. 319, from Epiphanius. c De Hæresibus, Cap. 6. d Mosheim, vol. II. 8vo. p. 268. ther adjustings of formularies, agreed, that nothing should from that time be added to those then under consideration. It is probable that, at that time, the question, whether the Holy Ghost should be spoken of as proceeding from the Father and the Son, (Filioque is the famous word) did not occur to men's minds; Filioque was not in the Creeds, though it was not new. The Students in the Western Church seem to have ere long contracted an opinion, that it was proper for them to profess in a Creed, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son: they therefore inserted (or one might say, restored) Filioque, meaning, probably, no harm: -and then the Eastern Church thought as little of complaining, as the Western of offending. Afterwards, however, contentions for worldly grandeur produced contentions about theological truth. Rome and Constantinople were Rivals; not only for imperial, but for spiritual pre-eminence.-The Patriarch of Constantinople stiled himself Episcopus Ecumenicus: Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, was more lowly in the title he assumed; he was "Servus servorum" scilicet Dei; but, in his pretensions to authority, he was equally ambitious. The Patriarch was the head of the Eastern Church; the Pope of the Western.-This rivalship made the Churches seek occasions of blaming each other; and thus the insertion of Filioque came to be complained of as a breach of Faith. It was defended by the Western Church, because the word contained right doctrine; this was enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the doctrine; they did so, nd the dispute still subsists, and still causes a sepa See Long's Councils, p. 104. ration f Bp. Hallifax's Sermons on Prophecy.-Serm. 11th, p. 341, Note; where he shews, that Vicarius Dei," means the same with Servus servorum Dei." ration betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches. -One Pope (Leo 3d) did once, for the sake of peace, order Filioque to be put out of the Creed, at the same time ratifying the doctrine, which it comprehends; but he could only prevail in those Churches, which were under his most immediate inspection; and that only for a time.-The obstinate resistance of the Greek or Eastern Church to the insertion of Filioque, is the more likely to be owing to some worldly considerations, as several of the Greek Fathers have the doctrine in their works, clearly expresseda. 4. The doctrine, which has the best claim to be called Catholic, is that, which our Church professes: but, in the age of the Reformation, when every one was heated, and eager to distinguish himself, some extravagancies broke forth; some of the old enthusiastic pretensions shewed themselves again. Mosheim does not say, that Servetus pretended to be the Paraclete, but I think others do: and he says, that Servetus pretended to a divine commission to explain genuine Christianity, which had been long lost.-Gentilis's scheme before mentioned makes the Holy Spirit distinct from the divine essence; he has also been said to deny, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Sond. In the Book mentioned in the Introduction to the Articles, called a necessary Doctrine, &c. the words made use of seem calculated to express both the personality of the Holy Ghost and his being f an energy. He is holy and "holinesse itselfe;”"full of all goodnesse and benignitie, yea goodnesse itselfe," and so, "charitie itselfe."-In the Refor matio a See Nicholls on this Article.-Epiphanius, Cyril, and Basil. b Index, Servetus. Art. ii. Sect. 14. Long's Councils, p. 104. f See on the Crede. • Introd. to Book. iv. Sect. 4. matio Legum, those were to be subject to all the pains and penalties of Heresy, who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.-Yet our present Article was not in those of 1552; perhaps the main substance of it was considered as already in the first Article; but, as that did not then prevent the second from being made separately, so neither need it have prevented the fifth: though there is certainly more fresh matter in the second, than in the fifth. The Socinians, though they changed their language concerning the Son of God, seem always to have denied the Personality of the Spirit. Even in their old Catechism, we have "Spiritus Sanctus est Virtus Dei." And the Racovian catechism says the same, and denies, that the Holy Spirit is "in Deitate Personam." Lastly, Mosheim mentions Paul Maty as having published at the Hague, in 1729, an hypothesis, that the Holy Ghost has two natures, as before mentioned; which hypothesis he is said to have adopted from Dr. Thomas Burnet. I think, pretensions to being the Paraclete were not uncommon amongst the enthusiastic Anabaptists in the age of the Reformation, but I have no instances before me at present. 5. Having finished our History, we come to the Explanation: which will be confined to the meaning of the term Holy Ghost, or Spirit of God.The Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of God."The Holy One" was one of the names of God. Luke i. 49, we have "Holy is his Name." De Hæresibus, Cap. 6. When h Cap. 6. p. 167. edit. 1651. i Index, Maty. The account is rather Maclaine's, but from a work of Mosheim's. k Sect. first of this Article. |