« PreviousContinue »
(6) in connecting this judgment with His second advent, and not with the moment of each man's death.
(a) It is the teaching of Scripture that the second Person of the Holy Trinity, who has come as the Saviour of the world, shall also “come to be our Judge." See S. Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 37, xxv. 31; Acts i. 11, x. 42; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 2, etc.
(6) The time of the general judgment is not the moment of each man's death, but what Scripture terms " the last day."i See S. Matt. xiii. 39 seq., xxv. 31-33; Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 5, 16; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Pet. ü. 9, 10, etc.
"See S. John vi. 39 seq.; xi. 24 ; xii. 48.
De Spiritu Sancto. Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio procedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiæ, majestatis, et gloriæ, verus, ac æternus Deus.
Of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.
THERE was no Article corresponding to this in the series published in 1553. Ten years later (1563) this was added by Archbishop Parker, being taken by him substantially from the Confession of Würtemburg. The reason for its insertion was possibly twofold (1) The spread of false teaching concerning the distinct Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. That these truths were impugned by some at the time of the Reformation is shown by the first of the Thirteen Articles of 1538, which ends with a condemnation of “Samosa. tenos veteres et neotericos, qui cum tantum unam personam esse contendant, de Verbo et Spiritu Sancto astute et impie rhetoricantur, quod non sint persona distinctæ, sed quod verbum significet verbum vocale, et Spiritus motum in rebus creatum"; while the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum supplies further proof how necessary it was to guard against error on this subject, for after language referring to other heresies it proceeds as follows: “Sic illorum etiam est execrabilis impudentia, qui cum Macedonio contra Spiritum Sanctum conspiraverunt, illum pro Deo non agnoscentes." But while these quotations witness to the prevalence of error, a recollection of the date to which the documents from which they are drawn belong, shows that they describe the state of things that obtained before the publication of the Articles of Edward's reign; and it may fairly be asked why there was no Article repudiating these errors in that series. The answer may perhaps be found in the supposition that it was considered that they were sufficiently condemned by the terms of Article I. (“Of the Holy Trinity "), the language of which our present Fifth Article partially repeats, adding only a statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Since, however, the same would hold good also of the Elizabethan Article, it appears probable that Archbishop Parker's addition was due, not so much to the felt need of more precise and definite language, as (2) to the desire to give the document the character of greater completeness. If there was an Article on the Son of God, it may well have been felt that the lack of a corresponding Article on the Third Person of the Holy Trinity was a deficiency which it would be wise to supply, for the sake of symmetry and proper balance, even though there was no positive necessity for it arising from heresy, which without it would not be excluded.
The subjects which call for attention in connection with this Article are three in number:
1. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost.
I. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost. It is hard to understand how this can ever have been 1 Ref. Leg. Eccl. “De hæres.” ch. 6. Even so late as the middle of the seventeenth century, Bishop Pearson speaks of “the ancient but newlyrevived heresy of the Arians and Macedonians."-On the Creed, Art. viii. doubted; and it is probable that but few persons will be found in the present day to question it. The evidence of Scripture upon it is full and complete, and leaves no room whatever for doubt as to its teaching. Not only are divine actions and attributes ascribed to the Spirit, but also He is directly termed God.
(a) Divine actions and attributes are ascribed to the Spirit.-In the Old Testament the references to the action of the Spirit of God in creation (Gen. i. 2; Ps. xxxiii. 6), and in inspiring the prophets (Isa. lxi. 1), whatever may be thought of their bearing on the doctrine of His distinct Personality, are manifestly inconsistent with the notion that He is a ktioua. His work in bringing about the Incarnation can only belong to one who is in the highest sense divine. “ The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God” (S. Luke i. 35). The Spirit dwells in the bodies of men as in a temple. See 1 Cor. iii. 16: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ?” Compare 1 Cor. vi. 19: “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in
“Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is an offence of so heinous a character that it is spoken of as a sin which “hath never forgiveness" (S. Mark iii. 29), whereas all other blasphemies may be forgiven-a fact which it is impossible to reconcile with any other supposition but that of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
(6) But, besides this, the Spirit is directly termed God. In Acts v. 3, 4, Peter says to Ananias, “ Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? . . . thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” Thus to lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God.
2 Cor. ii. 15–18: “Unto this day, whensoever Moses
is read, a veil lieth upon their hearts. But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit." “The Spirit is here so plainly said to be the Lord, that is Jehovah, the one eternal God, that the adversaries of this truth must either deny that the Lord is here to be taken for God, or that the Spirit is to be taken for the Spirit of God: either of which denials must seem very strange to any person which considereth the force and plainness of the apostle's discourse.” 1
Again, whereas in one Gospel we read : “If I by the finger of God cast out devils” (S. Luke xi. 20), in the parallel passage in another we read, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils" (S. Matt. xii. 28), and whereas Isaiah describes a divine utterance that came to him, and says, “I heard the voice of the Lord” (Isa. vi. 8), St. Paul quotes the words as an utterance of the Holy Spirit (Acts xxviii. 25 seq.), thereby identifying Him with the Jehovah of the Old Covenant.
II. The Distinct Personality. If it is difficult to understand how the doctrine of the Spirit’s Divinity could ever be doubted, with the doctrine of His distinct personality the case is very different. It is not hard to see how error would be likely to grow up on this subject. The same term, Ttveüua, is used in Holy Scripture both for the Person, and for the spiri ual gifts. It is largely owing to this that men have sometimes failed to see the truth of the distinct Personality, and have imagined that wher
* Pearson On the Creed, Art. viii.