« PreviousContinue »
Fifthly, He, to whom are attributed those Works which are proper unto God, by and for which God doth require of us to acknowledge and worfhip him as God, is properly and truly God: because the operations of all things flow from that essence by which they are; and therefore if the
operations be truly divine, that is, such as can be produced by no other but God, then must the essence of that Person which produceth them be truly fuch. But such works as are proper unto God, by and for which God hath required us to acknowledge him and worship him as God, are attributed often in the Scriptures to the Spirit of God, as the acts of creation and conservation of all things, the miracles wrought upon and by our blessed Saviour, the works of grace and power wrought in the hearts of true Believers, and the like. Therefore without any farther disputation, which cannot be both long and proper for an exposition, I conclude my third assertion, That the Holy Ghost, or Spirit of God, is a Person truly and properly divine, the true and living God.
Now being we do firmly believe, that the true and living God can be but one, that the infinity of the divine essence is incapable of multiplicity, being we have already ihewn, That the Father is originally that one God, which is denied by none; and have also proved, That the only Son is the fame God, receiving by an eternal generation the fame divine nature from the Father ; it will also be necessary, for the understanding of the nature of the Spirit of God, to fhew how that blessed Spirit is God: To which purpose, that I may proceed methodically, my fourth assertion is, That the Spirit of God, which is the true and living God, is neither God the Father, nor the Son of God.
First, Though the Father be undoubtedly God, though the Holy Ghost be also God, and (because there cannot be two Gods) the same God; yet the Holy Ghost is not the Father: For the Scriptures do as certainly distinguish them in their Persons, as they do unite them in their Nature. He which
proceedeth from the Father is not the Father, because it is impossible any Perfon Thould proceed from himself; but the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Fa- john is. 26. ther, therefore he is not the Father. He which is sent by the Father, and from the Father, is not the Father, by whom and from whom he is fent for no Person can be sent by himself, and by another from himself. But the Holy Ghost is sent by God the Father, and by the Son from the Father therefore he is not the Father.
Secondly, Though we have formerly proved, that the Son of God is properly and truly God; though we now have proved, that the Spirit of God is God, and in reference to both we understand the same God; yet the Holy Ghost is not the Son: For he which receiveth of that which is the Son's, and by receiving of it glorifieth the Son, cannot be the Son, because no Person can be said to receive from himself that which is his own, and to glorifie himself by fo receiving. But the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghoft, John 16. 15. received of that which is the Son's, and by receiving of it glorified the Son; for so our Saviour expressly faid, He shall glorifie me, for he shall receive of mine. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Son. Again, He whose coming depended upon the Son's departing, and his sending after his departure, cannot be the Son, who therefore departed that he might send him. But the coming of the Holy Ghost depended upon the Son's departing, and his sending after his departure ; as he told the Apostles before he departed, I tell you the truth, It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I g, not away, the comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him unto you; therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Son.
Thirdly, Though the Father be God, and the Son be God, and the Holy Ghost be also the fame God; yet we are assured that the Holy Ghost is nei
ther the Father nor the Son ; because the Scriptures frequently represent Matt. 3. 16. him as distinguished both from the Father and the Son. As, when the Spic
rit of God defcended like a Dove, and lo, a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, he was manifestly distinguished from the Person of the Son, upon whom he lighted, and from
the Person of the Father, who spake from Heaven of his Son. The Eph. 2. 18. Apostle teaches us, that through the Son we have an access by one spirit
unto the Father, and consequently assureth us, that the Spirit, by whom,
is not the Father, to whom, nor the Son, through whom, we have that Gal. 4.4,5,6. access. So God sent forth his Son, that we might receive the adoption
of Sons: and because we are Sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Where the Son is distinguished both from the Father as first sent by him, and the Spirit of the Son is distinguished from the Father and the Son, as sent by the Father after he had
sent the Son. And this our Saviour hath taught us several times in his John 14. 26. word, as, The Comforter whom the Father will send in my name ; the
15. 26. Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father, and when that ComMatt. 28. 19. forter is come, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I conclude therefore a* This Herefie gainst the old * Sabellian Heresie, That the Holy Ghost, although he be
truly and properly God, is neither God the Father, nor God the Son ; which cient, even before Sabel- is my fourth assertion. , lius, though those which held it were afterwards all so denominated from Sabellius. For we find it was the opinion of Praxeas, against whom Tertullian wrote ; who being urged with that place, where the three Persons were distinguished, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God, answer'd thus, Filius Dei Deus eft, & virtus altisliini altissimus est. After Praxcas followed Noëtus, povolúmwst cuitiv flatiege, saj Yion, rj öytoy live ūmas jyncéjelyos. Epiph. Her. 57: Noëtiani à quodanı Noëto, qui docebat Christum eundem ipsum effe Patrem & Spiritum S. S. Aug. Hær. 36. Suddenly after Noëtus arose Sabellius, A.(malisht ğ sro, soi un' wts Ez6iXdcevoit autor eiuce 11e71eg, to w to "Tiè, i auto divatékson Hviua, ws ciucea cu Maç varsace retis óvomatics. Epiph. Her. 62. From him afterwards were all which held the same opinion called Sabellians, Sabelliani ab illo Noëto quem suprà memoravimus defluxiffe dicuntur. Nam & difcipulum ejus quidam perhibent fuisse Sabellium. Sed quâ causå duas Hæreses Epiphanius computet nescio, cùm fieri potuiffe videamus, ut fuerit Sabellius iste famofior, & ideo ex illo celebriùs hæc Hæresis nomen acceperit. Noëtiani eniin difficillimè ab aliquo sciuntur, Sabelliani autem sunt in ore multorum. S. Aug. Hær. 41.
was very an
Our fifth assertion is, That the Holy Ghost is the third Person in the blessed Trinity. For being he is a Person, by our first assertion; a Person not created, by the second; but a divine Person, properly and truly God, by the third ; being though he is thus truly God, he is neither the Father, nor the Son, by the fourth assertion it followeth that he is one of the three ; and of the three is the third. For as there is a number in the Trinity, by which the Persons are neither more nor less than three; so there is also an Order, by which, of these Persons, the Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third. Nor is this Order arbitrary or external, but internal and necessary, by virtue of a subordination of the second unto the first, and of the third unto the first and second. The Godhead was communicated from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son unto the Father ; though therefore this were done from all eternity, and so there can be no priority of time, yet there must be acknowledged a priority of order, by which the Father not the Son is first, and the Son not the Father second. Again, the fame Godhead was communicated by the Father and the Son unto the Holy Ghost, not by the Holy Ghost to the Father or the Son; though therefore this was also done from all eternity, and therefore can admit of no priority in reference to time ; yet that of order must be here observed; fo that the Spirit receiving the Godhead from the Father who is the first Person, cannot be the first; receiving the same from the Son, who is the second, cannot be the second ; but being from the first and fecond must be of the three the third. And thus both the number and the order of
times calls the
the Persons are signified together by the Apostle, saying; There are three 1 John 5. 7. that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost; and these three cre one. And though they are not expressly said to be three, yet the same number is fufficiently declared, and the same order is expreslly mentioned, in the baptismal institution made in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. As therefore we have formerly proved the Son to be truly the second Person, and at the same time the Father to be the first, so doth this which we have, but briefly, spoken, prove that the Holy Ghost is the * third ; which is our fifth assertion.
* Vide p. 68. Our sixth and last assertion, (sufficient to manifest the nature of the Holy so EpiphaniGhost, as he is the Spirit of God,) teacherh that Spirit to be a Person proceed
us several ing from the Father and the Son. From whence at last we have a clear Holy Spirit description of the blessed Spirit, that he is the most high and eternal God, restov*17
, iroof the same nature, attributes, and operations with the Father and the Son, uurige, as receiving the fame essence from the Father and the Son, by proceeding from them both. Now this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly, in relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. First
, It is expreslly said, That the Holy Ghost proceedcth from the Father, as our Saviour testifieth, When the Comforter is come John 15. 26. whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testifie of me. And this is also evident from what hath been already asserted: for being the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and being so 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 been already thewn to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from him.
Secondly, Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, yet the substance of the same truth is virtually contained there ; because those very expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, for that reason becaufe he proceedeth from the Father, are also spoken of the fame Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there muit be the same reason presupposed in reserence to the Son, which is expressed in reference to the Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, therefore it is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Father. It is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your Father mar. which speaketh in you. For by the language of the Apostle the Spirit of God is the Spirit which is of God, saying, The things of God knoweth no : Cor.z. 11,12. man but the Spirit of God. And we have received not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God. Now the fame Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son, for because we are Sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of Gal. his Son into our hearts: the Spirit of Christ, Now if any man have not the Rom. 8. 9. Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; even the Spirit of Christ which was in 1 Pet. I. is. the Prophets; the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle speaks, 1 know phil. I. 19. that this Mall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. If then the Holy Ghost be called the Spirit of God the Father, because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that, being called also the Spirit of the Son, he proceedeth also from the Son.
Again, Because the Holy Ghost procecdeth from the Father, he is therefore lent by the Father, as from him who hath by the original communication a right of Mission; as, the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom John 14. 26. the Father wil send : But the fame Spirit which is sent by the Father is also sent by the Son, as he faith, when the Comforter is come whom I will fend unto you. Therefore the Son hath the same right of Mission with the Father, and consequently must be acknowledged to have communicated the
Mar. 10. 20.
fame Essence. The Father is never sent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the Father fendeth 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 ;. fo * This is not do they also virtually teach, That he proceedeth from the Son. the late 6:10
From whence it came to pass in the primitive times, that the * Latine Faon of the La-thers taught expressly the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the zine Church, Son, because by good confequence they did collect so much from those pafby thefere sages of the Scripture which we have used to prove that Truth. And the fiimonies, Lo- Greek Fathers, though they stuck more closely to the phrase and language of qui de co
the Scripture, saying, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and f not (Sp. S.) non necelle ett," saying, that he proceedeth from the Son; yet they acknowledged under anoquia de Patre ther Scripture-expression the same thing which the Latines understand by pro& Filio aucto
cession, viz. That the Spirit is of or from the Son, as he is of and from the ribus confitendus eit. S. Father; and therefore usually when they said, he proceedeth from the Faail
. de Irin. ther, they falso added, he received of the Son. The interpretation of which quoq; Sanctus words, according to the Latines, inferred a * procession; and that which the cum procedit Greeks did understand thereby, was the same which the Latines meant by lid.ahren Sie bi- the procession from the Son, that is, the receiving of his essence from him. ratur à Patre, That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father, so the Holy Ghoft non separatur is God of God by being of the Father † and the Son, as receiving that infià Filio.S. Amb.
nite and eternal essence from them both. de Sp. S.C. 10. Spiritus autem Sanctus verè Spiritus eft procedens quidem à Patre & Fillo : fed non est ipse Filius, quia non generatur, neq; Pater, quia procedit ab utroque. Id de Symb. C. 3. Et in servos cæleftia dona profudit. Spiritum ab Unigena Sana cum & Patre procedentem. Paulinus in Nat. 9. S. Felicis. Non possumus dicere quod Spiritus S. & à Filio non procedat, neque enim frustra Spiritus, & Patris & Filii Spiritus dicitur. S. Aug. de Trin. 1.4. Firmissimè tene & nullatenus dubites, eundum Spiritum S. qui Patris & Filii unus eft Spiritus, de Patre & Filio procedere. Fulg. de Fide ad Petrum. Qui noster Dominus, qui tuus unicus spirat de Patrio corde Paracletum. Prud. Hymn. 5. Caihem. Tanquam idem Deus nunc Pater, nunc Filius, nunc Spiritus S. nominetur, nec alius est qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque proceffit. Leo Speaking of the Sabellian Herefie, Epiit. 53. c. 1. Audi manifeftius proprium Patris eile genuisse, & proprium Filii natum fuille : proprium verò Sp. S. procedere de Patre Filioque, Virgil. cont. E:dt. I. 1. By which Testimonies, and the like, of the Latine Fathers, we may well guess in which Church the Creed commonly uitributed to Athanafius first was framed; for as it is confessed to be written first in Latine, so it is most probable that it was composed by some Member of the Latine Church, by that Expression in it, Spiritus S. à Patre & Filio, non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. The ancient Greek Fathers Speaking of this procession, mention the Father only, and never, I think, express the Son, as sticking constantly in this to the language of the Scriptures. Thus Gregory Nazianzen diftinguisheth the three Persons, 'Era of Mus Tigar öz ar ise piškos; to a lion ton escalopfen
, si to glerntov, se to e'x 78 11c7e95 cnTopscópos. Orat. de Fulio. And the three Properties attributed to the three Persons are these, a foscia to the Father, glównois to the Son, and inzó suors to the Holy Ghoft
. But this word exrózbois or the verb cxtogóle aj was not used by the Greeks in reference to the Son, but only as the Scriptures speak, in relation to the Father. #As Epiplhanius, Και γδ και σει το πνεύμα7G- βλασφημίσι, και τολμώσι λέξειν κεκοί ό τα 18 έπες εςιν άκλισον, οκ Πατρος εκπορόυόμδυον, και τα Υ λαμβάνον. Ηer. 69. 5. 52. Το άιον πνεύμα, πνεύμα άτον, πνεύμα Θεέ, αει ο Cυ Πατρί και Υα 8x adórexov Oiš, da oss öv, die au?egs intoescópulver, tj 78 Yi Acerbárov, idem Ancor. c. 6. 'Asi 78 to wrcüuz Cue Ilclei x Yü, o Cuvedeapov Halei, 3 puntiv, 8 x7ısòv, şx uden av Yo, óxiy lovor Neo95cx 1a7egs woestopetoer, tj 'Yð acerbotvor, Id. Hær. 62. §. 4. * A Filio accipit
, qui & ab eo mittitur, & à Patre procedit: & interrogo utrum id ipsuin sit à Filio accipere quod à Patre procedere. Quod fi nihil differre credetur inter accipere à Filio, & à Patre procedere, certè id ipsum atque unum effe existimabitur, à Filio accipere,
quod fit accipere à Patre. Ipfe enim Dominus ait, Quoniam de me accipiet, a annunciabit vobis. S. Hil. I. 8. de Trin. So s. Cyril, 'Eted) (το πνεύμα) ομοέσιον τι εσι τω Υα, και πρόεσι θεοπρεπώς εξ αυτ8 σώσαν αυτά τ' εφ' άπασι τελειολάτίω έχον έρΓειαν Te rij duscemis, die rõró onow, cx rõ épg arbe). Com. in Joan. I. II. De Filio ergo accepit, & oinnia quæ habet Pater Filii sunt, quæ Spiritus S. accepit ; quia non de folo Filio, fed fimul de utroque procedit
. Fulg. l. 7. contri Fab, apud Theodulph. de Sp. $. f That this was the sense of the Greek Fathers anciently, who used those two Scriptures of the Holy Ghost, appeareth by Epiphanius, whó frequently declares so much; as in Ancorato, wrence goo Θε8 και πνεύμα Παρος και πνεύμα Υ8, οκ τ8 Παρος και το Y8, τρίτον τη ονομασία. cap. 8. And [peaking of Ananias who 1yed into the Spirit, "Aeg Θεός εκ Παρος και Υ, το πνεύμα, ώ εψεύσαντο οι Σπο τύ τιμήμα7%- νοσφισάμενοι. cap. 9. Ούκ αλλότριον Παθρος και Υδ, αλλα κ σ αυτης οσίας, εκ τ αυτής θεότη7G-, κ Παρος και Υα, (Παίρι και το υπόφαλος as wvenc álov. Id. Hæref. 63. In these words is plainly contained this Truth, That the Spirit is God of God the Father, and of God the Son And that they did conclude this Truth from those two Scriptures, he proceedeth from the Father, and receiveth of the Son, as is also evident by these and the like pallages, Ei 3 Xersos c'x 78 lla?egs moesía) cos οκ τέ Θεέ το πνεύμα εκ τ8 Xeiσε η παρ' αμφοτέρων, ώς φησιν ο Χριστός και οι τ8 Παρος εκπορόύε), κ έτG- οκ τε εμε λή4o 7, Epiph. Ancor. 9. 67. Ei toive a rã Ilzlogs exxogoue), me c'r 78 tuš, @rein • Kiero, avon Or 78 tagov odes
έγιω τ Πατέρα και μη ο Υιός, αδέ τ Υιόν α μη ο Πατήρ, έτω τολμώ λέειν, ότι δε το πνεύμα ει μη ο Παγής, και ο Υιός, σας Š "anopos ), sej wag' Š nauband, rej xidt roov sej i llamóca, es my to aviõpece no ámytov, ô a oš 1c7e95 Se c's iš 'Við. 16. Non loquetur à femetipfo, hoc est, non fine me, & Patris arbitrio, qui inseparabilis á inea & Patris eft voluntate quia non ex se sed ex Patre & me est, hoc eniin ipfum quod subsiitit & loquitur à Patre & me illi eft. Didymus de sp. s. I. 2. Et paulo poft; ille me clarificabit, id eft Paracletus, quia de meo accipier. Rurfum hoc accipere ut divine naturæ conveniat intelligendum Spiritum S. à Filio accipere id.quod fuæ naturæ fuerat cognoscenduin eft, Neque enim quid aliud eit Filius exceptis his quæ ci dantur à Patre, neque alia fubftantia eft Spiritus S. præter id quod datur ei à Filio.
This being thus the general doctrine of the Eastern and the Western Church, differing only in the manner of expression, and that without any opposition ; * Theodoret
the first occasion of a difference, making ule *s. Cyril baof the Greeks expression against the doctrine both of Greeks and Latines ; ving jet forth
Anathemadenying that the Holy Ghost receiveth his essence from the Son, because the
tims again? Scripture faith, he proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit which is of the Herefie of God. But S. Cyril, against whom he wrote, taking small notice of this ob- Nestorius, iri jection; and the writings of Theodoret, in which this was contained, being nathenianifm condemned ; there was no sensible difference in the Church, for many years, condemned all concerning this particular. Afterwards divers of the Greeks expressly denied to enl not the procession from the Son, and several disputations did arise in the Western Holy Ghost as Church, till at last the Latines put it into the † Conftantinopolitan Creed ; 3100 1# Xext and being admonislied by the Greeks of that, as of an unlawful addition, and to which refusing to rase it out of the Creed again, it became an occasion of the vast Theodoret Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches.
returned this. answer, '18:00
και το πνεύμα τα Υις α ως ε ομοφυές και οι Παρος εκπορόυόμδυον έφη, ζωομολογήσουν και ως ουσική δεξόμεθα ή φωνών: είδ' ως εξ και ή δι με τ' ύπαρξιν έχον, ως βλάσφημον τε το και ως δυσσεβες Απορρίψομίμ. Πισδύον δ Κυρίω λέγονλι, το σχεύμα και οι τα Παίρος εκπορεύε2, και το θολάτα και Παύλο ομοίως φάσκον7ι. ημάς και και το πνεύμα το κόσμο έλατο μου, αλλά το πνεύμα και TŐ Ocõ. s. Cyril in his Reply takes no great notice of this high Charge of impiezy and blafphemiy, and only anszvers the Argument so far as it concerned his Expression, viz. That the Spirit is iqlov og aveõucebut in this answer makes use of that Scripture by which he and others used to prove that the Spirit kad his Effence from the son. 'Exzooós ας τα τέ Θεέ 15 Παρος το πνεύμα το άγιον τ τα ΣωτήρG- φωνω, αλλά αν αλλότριόν έσι το 4% πάντα το έχει σ τα Παρες και τέτο αυτος εδίδαξεν όπων αξι το αγία σνάμαλο πάν7α όσα έχει ο Παλης εμά έςι δια τούτο είπον υμιν ότι τα rõ fugam sa ne sjevery leasi veño. Although therefore s. Cyril doth not go to maintain that which Theodoret denied, and s.Cyril elsewhere teacheth, viz. that the Holy Ghajt is from the Son,
yet he jufti jed his ozun position by that ScripPure which by himself and the rest of the Fathers is thought to teach as much. it. The second general Council held et Constantinople, finding it necesary to make an addition to the Nieene Creed in the Article concerning the Holy Ghost, of which that Council had said no more than this, I believe in the Holy Ghost, framed this accession against Macedonius, as to wysiness to bylov, to Kúesor, tò (woroid, to iz rõ Izlegs o'x*uest espor. in which they spake most wairly, using the words of the Scripture, and the language of the Church which was jo known and publick, that it is recordcil éven by Lucian in his Dialogue called Philopatris, Kes. Kai tius éconócourí ys; Τελ. Υψιμίδονία Θεον μέγαν, άμβρονον, οσανίωνα, 4ον Πα7e9ς, πνεύμα εκ Παρος εκπορόυόμδυον, εν εκ τριών, και εξ ενός τρία. Τώτα νόμιζε Ζώα, τις δ' ηγυ Osór. This Creed being received by the whole Church of God, and it being added also by the next general Council at Ephesus, that it should not be lawful to make any addition to it. Notwithstanding the Quefiion being agitated in the West, Utrum Sp. S. ficut procedit á Patre, ità & procedat à Filio, and it being concluded in the afirmative, thery did not only declare the Doctrine to be true, but also added the fame to the Conftantinopolitan Creed, and sang it pullickly in their Liturgy. Credimus & in Spiritum S. Dominum & vivificatorem, ex Patre Filioque procedentem. This being first done in the Spanish and French Churches, and the matter being referred to Leo the third Bishop of Rome, ke absolutely concluded that no such addition ought to be tolerated: For in the Acts of the Synod held'at Aquisgranum, we find it so determined by the Pope, upon the Conference with the Legates, Ergo, ut video, illud à veítra Paternitate decernitur, ut primò illud de quo quæstio agitur, de sæpe fato Symbolo tollatur, & tunc demum à quolibet licitè ac liberè five cantando, five tradendo difcatur & doceatur; so one of the Legatcs. To which Leo anfivered thus, Ita proculdubio à noftra parte decernitur: ita quoque ut à veftra affentiatur, à nobis omnibus in odis suadetur. Befide, left the Roman Church might be accused to join with the Spanish and French Churches in this addition, the same Pope caused the Creed pullickly to be set forth in the Church, graven in silver Plates, one in Latin, and another in Greek, in the same words in which the Council of Constantinople had first penned it. Hæc pro amore & cautela Orthodoxæ *Fidei fecit in B. Petri Basilica scuta argentea duo fcripta utraque Symbolo, unum quidem literis Græcis, & aliuin Latinis, sedentia dextrâ læváque super ingreflum Corporis. Anaftafius in vita Leonis III. Leo tertius (Symboli
) tranfcriptum in tabulâ argentea, poft altare B. Pauli polità, pofteris reliquit, pro amore, ut ipfe ait & cautelá Fidei orthodoxæ. In quo quidem Symbolo in proceslione Spiritús S. solus commemoratur Pater his verbis, Et in Spirituin S. Dominum vivificatorem, ex Patre procedentein, cum Patre & Filio co-adorandum, & glorificandym. P.Lombardses. These were taken out of the Archiva at Rome, saith Photius, and so placed by Leo, that they might be acknowledged and perpetuated as the true Copies of that Creed not to be altered. “ο Θεσέσιο- Λέων και τας και τους θησαυροφυλακίοις ή κορυφαίων Πέτρου και Παύλα οκ παλαιολάτων χρόνων λογεθησαωρισμούας τους ιερείς καμηλίοις δύο ασπίδας, αι γράμμασι και σήμασιν ελληνικούς πλείον τ' ιεραν τ ημών πίσεως έκθεσιν, ταύτας καταναλνωθώαι και ενώπιον τ8 Ρωμαικό πλήθος και ας όψιν απάντων ελθείν εδικαίωσε και πολλοί ή θεασαιτίων την ικαύτα και ανείνωκότων έτι τω βίω οι μαίεσι. Photius αρκλ Niceran. Ther. Orshod. Fid. 1. 21. ut exfcripfit Archiep. Armachanırs. Oirgu ó séwv sj To Inconeg@uzexion is ’Amofonexãs 'Erxancias 'Papeach we avoižas ecoridas dúo tris isogis resunions 2270ncovero felices is elkeveralwixois se peap.uasi red paperv éxécus 7 60çesă pe nistas éxbecw. Idem apud Euthymium, Panopl. Dom. Tit. 12. ab eodem Archiep. exscript
. This was the great and prudent care of Leo the third, that there should be no addition made to the ancient Creed authorized by a general