The session at the right hand of God' is the next doctrine contained in this Article. This is treated by Pearson in the following manner: 1

The fact that Christ was thus enthroned at the right hand of God is asserted frequently in Scripture (e.g. Mark xvi. 19; Eph. i. 20). This was covenanted to none but the Messiah (Heb. i. 13). The session itself is shown not to refer necessarily to a corporeal posture; but chiefly to imply rest, dominion, majesty, and judicial power. It, therefore, imports the entry of the Messiah into His full dominion. The place, the right hand of God, is not named in our Article, but is necessarily implied. It is interpreted as conveying no corporeal position, since God is a Spirit; but as signifying power, honour, and the place of highest felicity.

That this session shall continue until the judgment day is asserted by the word until. This appears from many passages of Scripture (e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 25, 28; Acts iii. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 16).

Lastly, the return to judgment is the subject of the Seventh Article of Pearson On the Creed.' The principal points of doctrine there elaborated are these:-That Christ shall return is declared frequently in the New Testament (e.g. Acts i. 11), as it is also stated that His purpose then shall be judgment.

The propriety of the judgment being committed to Him. appears from these considerations:-It is a part of His exaltation, the reward of His sufferings and obedience (John v. 22, 23). The Judge will thus be visible. He will know human infirmities by His own experience.

The judicial action itself is sparingly described. But it involves the eternal disposal of the souls and bodies of all persons. As to the manner, we can only say that it is represented to us under judicial terms. A judgment-seat is spoken of (2 Cor. v. 10). A personal appearance of all before the tribunal (Rev. xx. 12); the manifestation of all thoughts and actions (1 Cor. iv. 5); a definitive sentence (Matt. xxv. 34, 41); execution of the sentence (Matt. xxv. 46), are among the judicial particulars set forth in Scripture.

That this judgment shall take place at the last day, the very closing hour of this dispensation, is manifest from every consideration of its nature and purpose; and further is clearly declared-2 Pet. iii. 7—which predicts the destruction of the existing frame of heaven and earth at the time of the judg

ment.

ARTICLE V.

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.

De Spiritu Sancto.

Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio procedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiæ, majestatis, et gloriæ, verus ac æternus Deus.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE V.

The Latin text is closely coincident with the English. Νο verbal comment is required on either.

This Article is not found amongst those of 1552; it was added in the time of Elizabeth. It is said by Hardwick to have been borrowed from the Wurtemberg Confession, presented to the Council of Trent in 1552.

The observation made under other Articles may be repeated. It is obviously essential to such a code of doctrine as this that the truth about the nature of the Holy Ghost should be declared. But it is also certain (omitting mention of the ancient Macedonians) that in the age of the Reformation there were some Anabaptists, also the elder Socinus and others, who denied the personality of the Holy Ghost.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE V.

This Article defines the nature and Person of the Holy Spirit; it does not speak of His office in dealing with the Church or individuals. It may be divided into two principal sections the procession of the Holy Ghost, and His divine

1 Mosheim, 'Cent. XVI.' iii. part ii. ch. iv. § 3.

nature.

We were compelled to anticipate the latter of these in commenting on the First Article. The procession of the Holy Ghost now remains for consideration.

The history of this doctrine may be briefly recapitulated. The original form of the Nicene, or rather the Constantinopolitan, Creed declared that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). At the close of the sixth century the words and from the Son were added by the Provincial Council of Toledo, in Spain. Thence the clause appears to have gradually found its way into Gaul, in portions of which kindred Gothic races were settled. Nearly two hundred years afterwards, this dogma of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as well as from the Father, found a strenuous supporter in Charlemagne. He called a council of his own bishops at Frankfort, in which this doctrine was affirmed, and the Pope was afterwards addressed on the subject of the defect of the Creed on this important matter. The Pope declined to make any change in the Creed. Nor, so far as can be clearly ascertained, was the alteration ever made officially and authoritatively. Gradually and stealthily the change spread. About the year 1014 it had established itself in Rome, and was adopted in the Pontifical services.

The opposition called forth in the Eastern Church is well known. The presumption of the Western portion of the Church in venturing to alter the Creed confirmed by all the great General Councils, added to the assumptions of the Pope, made the great schism between the East and the West which has never been closed. It has, perhaps, been a divine mercy that, in the midst of so general a corruption of Christian doctrine, the Papal tyranny should have thus received a check; and that a perpetual protest should have been made against it by a Church scarcely purer than itself in point of doctrine.

Nothing could well be more unsatisfactory than the mode in which this additional clause found its way into the Creed. Nevertheless we see that it is distinctly affirmed by the Church of England; and the fact of its truth, or otherwise, is quite distinct from any particular time or mode of its promulgation. We turn, therefore, as before to Pearson's treatment of this

doctrine. The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father is confessed by both parties, and is commonly taken to be expressly declared in John xv. 26 (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκποpEverα). This is also said to be evident on this ground. 'Since the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and being the same in the unity of the nature of God, are yet distinct in their personality, one of them must have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from Him.'

The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is said to be 'virtually contained' in the Scripture. Because those very expressions, which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, for that reason because He proceedeth from the Father, are also spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there must be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son which is expressed in reference to the Father.' In proof of this it is shown that the Holy Ghost is equally called the Spirit of God (e.g. 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12) and the Spirit of Christ (e.g. Rom. viii. 9). Again it is urged that the Holy Ghost is said to be sent by the Father (John xiv. 26) and by the Son (John xv. 26). Hence a parity of relation is said to follow. "The Father is never sent by the Son, because He received not the Godhead from Him; but the Father sendeth the Son, because He communicated the Godhead to Him. In the same manner neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy Spirit, because neither of them received the divine nature from the Spirit. But both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because the divine nature common to both the Father and the Son was communicated by them both to the Holy Ghost. As, therefore, the Scriptures declare expressly that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, so do they also virtually teach that He proceedeth from the Son.'