How then are those passages of Scripture to be understood wherein actions which properly pertain to

persons,

quæstio de Filio tanta contentione per universum orbem agitaretur. And he adds further on: Nunc audemus profiteri Spiritum Sanctum homousion Patri et Filio, et Deum verum de Patre Deo vero, et de Filio Deo vero. "No one of the ancients ventured plainly to assert that the Holy Spirit was of the same substance with the Father and the Son;-not even when the question concerning the Son was every where discussed with so much warmth: but now we scruple not to declare that the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Father and the Son, very God, of the Father very God, and of the Son very God." Annot. in 1 Cor. vii. 39. Similar observations occur in his preface to Hilary. The same thing is acknowledged by Petavius, Dogm. Theol. tom. iii. See also Curcellæus, Instit. lib. i. cap. x., et lib. ii. cap. 19, et 21. Hilary, in the twelve books which he wrote concerning the Trinity, never styles the Holy Spirit God-but only the gift of God (donum Dei), and clearly distinguishes it from God himself. Among other things, he thus writes towards the beginning of his second book: Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: id est, in confessione et auctoris, et unigeniti, et doni, &c. "He commands us to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: that is, into a confession of the author, of the only-begotten, and of the gift,' &c. The doxology also of the ancients was addressed to God the Father, by or through Christ, in the Holy Spirit ; as may be seen in the Apostolic Decrees, Can. 35, and every where among the early writers. See also Grotius on Matth. xxviii. 19. Neither again did the ancients address prayers to the Holy Spirit; and they assigned this as their reason-That a gift was not to be asked of a gift, but of the giver of the gift. See on this point Cardinal Hugo's Explanation of the Mass; and also the Cracovian Missal, in the Order of the Holy Office. Thus also writes Hilary in concluding his work: Conserva rogo hanc fidei mea religionem, &c.; ut, quod in regenerationis meæ symbolo baptizatus, in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, professus sum, semper obtineam: Patrem scilicet te nostrum, Filium tuum una tecum adorem, et SanctumeSpiritum tuum, qui ex te per unigenitum tuum est, promerear, &e." Preserve, I pray, this form of my faith, &c. that I may always maintain what in the symbol of

293 persons, and refer to God himself, are attributed to the Holy Spirit?

We are to understand them in this manner, viz. That, in the Scriptures, that is frequently attributed to things which pertains to persons, without nevertheless those things being on this account thought to be persons: as for instance (Rom. vii. 11), it is asserted of Sin that it DECEIVED and KILLED ; Rom. iii. 19, of the Law that it SAID; and Gal. iii. 8, of the Scripture that it FORESAW and SPOKE. Of Charity my regeneration I professed, when baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit;-namely, that I may worship thee our Father, and with thee thy Son; and may obtain thy Holy Spirit, which is of thee by thy only-begotten."

It was first decreed in the council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, that the Holy Spirit was Lord. But if any among the ancients thought the Holy Spirit to be a person, they never regarded him as the supreme God, but only as the chief of those spirits which are called angels. Of which opinion there have been many in our own times. But it appears from what has been said that this notion cannot be maintained. Others, perceiving these difficulties, have suggested, whether by the Holy Spirit may not be understood the race of holy spirits, that is of angels? as may be seen in C.C.S. [C. C. Sandius] Paradoxical Proposition concerning the Holy Spirit, lately published. But neither has this opinion, though more probable than the other, a solid foundation in the Holy Scriptures. Nor can it evade all the difficulties which are here enumerated. Besides, the Holy Spirit is said to be only one, and is manifestly distin'guished from the angels (1 Pet. i. 12, and Ephes. chap. iii. ver.5, compared with ver. 10, as also Matth. iii. 16, iv. 1; Luke iv. 1; John i. 32, 33, compared with Matth. iv. 11, John i. 5). Add to this, that the Jews even to this day have never acknowledged the Holy Spirit to be a person. It is most safe therefore, adhering to the proper import of the word, to believe the Holy Spirit to be the power and energy of God, and consequently his gift; as is clearly revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament.-B. WISSOWATIUS.

it is stated (1 Cor. xiii.), that it "suffereth long and is kind; that it envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up; doth not behave itself unseemly; seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." And lastly, it is said of the Spirit, that is, of the wind (John iii. 8), that "it bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." Since then the Holy Spirit is the power of God, those things which pertain to God are attributed to it; and by the title Holy Spirit, God himself is often to be understood, since he manifests himself by his spirit.

But how say you that the Holy Spirit is the power of God, when the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest are separately named in the words of the angel to the Virgin Mary, Luke i. 35 ?

Frequently, in written compositions, the same thing is expressed by two different words, for the better elucidation of the subject. Many examples of this practice occur in the Holy Scriptures, one of which I have already adduced in reference to the very term Holy Spirit, from Matth. iii. 11, and Luke iii. 16-It is there written concerning Christ, that he should baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire; whereas in Mark it is merely stated that he should baptize with the Holy Spirit. Thus also it is said of John, that he should go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elias: and God is stated to have anointed

anointed Christ with the Holy Spirit and with power, where any one may perceive that this power is identical with the Holy Spirit; for no one can be anointed with a person. This is still more evident in respect to what I have said of the words of the angel: because in Matthew (chap. i. ver. 20), the angel, speaking of the same thing, mentions the Holy Spirit alone: nor indeed was there need of any other power besides the Holy Spirit in order to the conception of Christ.

But Paul (2 Cor. vi. 6, 7) distinguishes between the Holy Spirit and the power of God, and mentions them as two distinct things?

Paul does this, because he understood by the Holy Spirit, a power communicated to him by God, and displaying itself in him;-such a power of God as I have stated is to be understood by the Holy Spirit. But by the Power of God he meant in this place the miracles which God, by his own power, without the instrumentality of Paul, performed in confirmation of his discourses and preaching. For the Holy Spirit of which I speak does not comprise all the power of God.

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DIVINE WILL. IT has been shown in what manner Jesus declared to us the divine will; I wish you now to state how he has confirmed it?

In respect to what Christ himself did towards confirming the divine will which he had declared, these three things present themselves-The perfect innocence of his life, his great and innumerable miracles,

and

and his death; as may be perceived, not to mention others, from that testimony of John (1 Epist. v. 8), where he states that "there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood." For undoubtedly by SPIRIT, he means the Spirit of God, by the power of which it is manifest those miracles were wrought by Christ; and indeed the greatest miracle of the Holy Spirit was the being itself given in the name of Christ to his disciples: the water denotes the purity of his life; as the blood does his sanguinary death.

What was the innocence of the Lord Jesus's life, and how was the will of God confirmed by it?

The innocence of his life was such, that not only he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, nor could he be convicted of any offence,-but also that he lived so holy a life, that neither before nor since has any one equalled him in holiness; so that in this he approached the nearest to God himself, and was in respect of it, exceedingly like him. Hence it follows that the doctrine delivered by him was most true; since such holiness could have pertained only to a man truly divine, and imposture and a design to deceive others in religious matters could not have existed in such holiness.

Of what kind were his miracles, and how did they confirm the divine will?

His miracles were such as no one before him had performed (John xv. 24); and so numerous that John does not scruple to assert (John xxi. 25) that he supposes "if they should be written every one, even the world