accounted Heresie by the Fathers which will be proved by these two things 1. Because it is very doubtful whether many of the Fathers did believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son or no. 2. Because those who did believe it did not condemn those of Heresie who did not 1. That it is very doubtful whether many of them did believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son or no at least so far as to make it an Article of Faith for 1. There are clear testimonies that they make it unnecessary to be believed 2. The testimonies which seem to say That they did believe it do not necessarily imply that they did 1. That there are clear testimonies that they did not account it a thing necessary to be believed both because they in terms asserted the nature of this procession to be incomprehensible and withall did as clearly affirm the belief of that which doth not imply this procession to be sufficient for salvation 1. They in terms assert that the mystery of this Procession is incomprehensible And can you or any reasonable man imagine they should make the manner of that Procession to be an article of Faith which they acknowledge to be absolutely beyond our apprehension I grant Something supposed by them to be incomprehensible is made an article of Faith but then it is not that which is supposed as incomprehensible under that notion which is made so but the thing it self which may be incomprehensible yet being clearly revealed in Scripture ought to be believed notwithstanding that incomprehensibility of it As the mystery of the Trinity it self the Eternal Generation of the Son the Procession of the Spirit from the Father c. But then I say these things are such as are either declared by them to be expresly revealed in Scripture or necessarily consequent from something supposed to be so As for instance supposing the Trinity in Vnity to be something divinely revealed whatever is necessarily consequent from that and is necessary to be believed in order to that though it be incomprehensible must be believed as Supposing these two things clear from Scripture that there is but one true God and that there are three Persons who have the Name Properties and Attributes of God given to them though our reason be too short to fathom the manner how these can have three distinct Subsistences and yet but one Essence because our reason i. e. all those conceptions which we have formed in our mind from the observation of things doth tell us that Those things which agree or disagree in a third agree or disagree one with another and from thence it would inferr that if the Father be God and the Son God there could be no difference between Father and Son yet this being meerly as to the connexion of two propositions both of which are supposed distinctly revealed in Scripture we are bound in this case to believe such a Connexion because both parts are equally revealed by an Infallible Testimony though the Mode of that Connexion be to us Incomprehensible But it is not so where neither clear Revelation nor a necessary Consequent from something which is divinely revealed doth inforce our belief of it As in our present case Since we suppose it revealed in Scripture that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God whatever is necessary to the belief of that though incomprehensible we ought to believe it but if there be something without which I may believe the Deity of the Father Son and Spirit and this not clearly asserted in Scripture but is a thing in it self incomprehensible that cannot be made a necessary article of Faith Thus that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father seems necessary on both accounts as consequent upon the belief of the Trinity in Vnity and as clearly expressed in Scripture but that the Spirit should proceed from Father and Son as from one principle that they should communicate in an action proper to their Subsistences and yet be distinguished from each other in those Subsistences and agree only in Essence and if the Spirit proceeds not from their Subsistences but from the Essence the Spirit must proceed from it self because that is common to all three these things being in themselves incomprehensible and not necessary to the belief of the Divinity either of Son or Holy Ghost nor pretended to be clearly revealed in Scripture cannot be said to make a necessary article of Faith the denyal of which must suppose Heresie And therefore that which is the only Objection in this case is removed viz. that this Procession of the Spirit from the Father is incomprehensible and yet supposed to be an article of Faith for that I have already shewed is expresly revealed in Scripture that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father But neither is the procession from the Son necessary to the belief of the Deity of the Son for if it were it would be as necessary to the Deity of the Holy Ghost that the Son should be begotten by the Spirit neither doth it follow from any place of Scripture for all those places which are usually brought are very capable of such interpretations as do not at all infer it from hence then it follows that those who upon these terms acknowledge this Procession incomprehensible do therein imply that the belief of it is no article necessary to salvation and therefore the denyal no Heresie Now for this we have the clearest testimonies of such who were the greatest and most zealous assertors of the Doctrine of the Trinity Athanasius saith expresly That it is sufficient to know that the Spirit is no creature nor to be reckoned among Gods works for nothing of another nature is mingled with the Trinity but it is undivided and like it self These things are sufficient for believers But saith he when we come hither the Cherubims vail their faces but he that inquires and searches into more than these neglects him that hath said Be not wise overmuch c. If it be sufficient to know that the Spirit is no creature it cannot be necessary to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son for they who do not believe that do firmly believe the Deity of it And if whatever goes beyond that goes beyond the bounds which God hath set us then certainly he never dreamt that men should be condemned for Heresie as to some things which cannot be supposed to be within them To the same purpose speaks St. Basil in several places acknowledging the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be a thing inexplicable and when the Hereticks enquired of him What kind of thing that Procession was when the Spirit was neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the answer he gives them is If there be such multitudes of things in the world which we are ignorant of what shame is it to confess our ignorance here And if it be here our duty to confess our
concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost was looked on as sufficient to Salvation and therefore certainly they did not then judge this Article of the Procession to be so necessary as you would have it be But suppose we yeild Nazianzene and the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council that though this Creed was not defective as to the Son yet there ought to be somewhat added further concerning the Holy Ghost upon the rising of Macedonius yet even here we shall find when they purposely added to the Article of the Holy Ghost they added only this touching the Procession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which proceedeth from the Father And thus the Copies of the Constantinopolitan Creed either in the Councils or elsewhere have it where they mention the Procession at all And when Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council read this Creed the Latins took no exceptions at all to it but it passed then as it doth still for the Nicene Creed although it much differs from the Original Nicene and therefore it is a great Mistake of them who imagine the Article of Filioque was found in some Copies of this Creed for this the Latins never pretended in the Florentine Council but did indeed as to the Creed of the second Council of Nice but were therein much suspected of forgery by the Greeks which might be the ground of that mistake But that which I insist on is If this Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son had been by these Fathers judged necessary when had there been a fitter time to insert it then now when purposely they added the Procession to the former Creed And yet we see they did not judge it at all necessary to be inserted It may be you will say it was Because the Controversie was not then started concerning the Filioque But that can signifie nothing here because we have already shewed that the Fathers themselves spake differently concerning it and looked upon it as a thing not necessary to be known but the things which were upon the rising of Hereticks inserted into the Creed were such as by the Fathers were judged and believed as necessary before ever those Hereticks arose as in the Case here of Macedonius for I hope you will not say it was no Heresie to deny the Divinity of the Holy Ghost till it was determined in this Oecumenical Council For the Fathers never thought that they made Articles of Faith in Councils but only declared themselves and what they believed against the Hereticks which did arise in the Church And therefore that Answer of the Filioque not being then controverted comes to nothing From hence we come to the third Oecumenical Council to see if that adds any thing concerning this Procession instead of which it highly confirms what was established before for the Fathers of that Council discerning at last the great inconveniency of making such additions to the Creed because the Nestorians had got the art of it too and made a new Creed of their own which by Charisius was brought to the Council and there read upon which the Ephesine Fathers make an irrevocable decree against all additions being made hereafter to the Creed For after they had caused the Nicene or rather the Constantinopolitan Creed to be publickly read in which yet the Article of Procession was left out as appears by that Copy which Marcus Ephesius produced at the Council of Ferrara as it is likewise in the Copies of the Ephesine Council upon which they pass this definitive Sentence That it should not be lawful hereafter for any one to produce write or compose any other Creed besides that which was agreed on and defined by the Holy Fathers who were met together at Nice by the Holy Spirit Concerning the meaning of this Decree we shall fully enquire when we come to the addition of the Filioque That which I take notice of it now for is not only the further ratification of what was in the Creed before and that what was therein contained was as much as was judged necessary but an express Decree made against all after-additions which doth as fully as a General Council could do declare that nothing else was necessary to be believed but what was already inserted in the Creed or else To what end did they prohibit any further additions To the like purpose the fourth General Council of Chalcedon determins That by no means they would suffer that Faith to be moved which was already defined I might proceed to the fifth and sixth Councils but these are sufficient Let me now put some few Questions to you Are General Councils Infallible or no Yes say you if confirmed by the Pope Were not these four first Councils confirmed Yes it is evident they were Were they then Infallible in all their Decrees or no especially concerning matters of Faith If they were were they not Infallible in this Determination That it should not be lawful to add to the Creed any thing else but what was in before were they Infallible in declaring the received Creed to be full and sufficient If they were so how comes any Article to become necessary which was not then in the Creed If you say The Pope and another General Council have power Infallibly to contradict these and to say that somewhat else is necessary to be inserted into the Creed and to be believed in order to Salvation I must content my self with having brought you to the humble confession that both parts of a Contradiction may be Infallibly determined Thus we see that the Fathers whether single or joyned in such Councils which are of the greatest Authority in the Christian world have been so far from believing or determining this Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be necessary which must be if the denyal of it be a fundamental error that they have plainly enough expressed and determined the contrary 2. The next thing we come to is That those Testimonies which are produced out of the Fathers are so far from asserting the necessity of this Article that the most of them do not evidently prove that they believed it For these two Answers the Greeks return to them 1. That they do not assert the Procession of the Spirit from the Son but the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son 2. That those which speak of a Procession do not mean it of an Eternal Procession but a Temporal which is the same with the Spirits Mission 1. That they do not assert the Eternal Procession of the Spirit from the Son but the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son And therefore no more can be inferred from them but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks constantly acknowledge This they make probable by two things 1. That when the Fathers dispute not with those who denyed the consubstantiality of Son and Spirit they use not the particle ex but only say that the Spirit is the
Spirit of the Son So Cyril expresly when Theodoret had denyed the Procession from the Son he gives no other Answer but this The Holy Spirit doth truly proceed from God and the Father according to our Saviours words but is not of another nature from the Son We see he contents himself with the acknowledgement that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son To the same purpose is another testimony of his produced by the Patriarch Hieremias speaking of the Spirit whereby the Apostles spake he saies Which proceeded in an ineffable manner from the Father but is not different from the Son in regard of his essence Several other testimonies are there produced by him and elsewhere by others which need not be here recited 2. That when they use the particle ex it is against those who denyed the Consubstantiality both of the Son and Spirit and therefore Gregorius Palamas lay's down this Rule That as often as the praepositions ex and per have the same force in Divinity they do not denote any division or difference in the Trinity but only their conjunction and inseparable union and consent of their wills For which he cites the famous Epistle of Maximus to Marinus which was made the foundation of the Vnion at the Council of Florence who therein saith that when the Latins said in their Synodical Epistle sent to Constantinople that the Spirit did proceed ex filio they meant no more than to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfect and inseparable Vnion of the Divine Essence So when S. Basil saith that the Father did create the world per filium he adds that notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conjunction of their Wills And by this means the Greeks interpret all those passages of the Fathers which seem most express for the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio So Marcus Ephesius tells the Latins in the Florentine Council that when we say Man comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Essence of a man therein is not implyed that the Essence of man is the productive cause of man but only it notes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Communion of Essence which is in men so when the Greek Fathers speak of the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio that doth not imply that the Son is the Principle of Spiration but that there is a Communion of Essence between the Son and the Spirit So when Athanasius disputing against the Arrians saith the Patriarch Hieremias saith that the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Son is given to all and that the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Son in the Spirit doth create work and give all things you must consider that Athanasius was then disputing against the Arrians who made both Son and Spirit to be creatures that therefore he might shew that the Spirit was of the same Substance with the Father and the Son he therefore useth that preposition ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very opportunely and conveniently Therefore saith he It is to be observed that he never useth this but in opposition to the Arrians and such who denyed the Divinity of the Holy Ghost To which purpose it is well observed by Spalatensis that when the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council did insert into their Creed the article of the Spirit 's Procession from the Father they did it not with a purpose to define any thing concerning the Procession as an article of Faith but that they might from those words of S. John inferr the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because it proceeds from the Father And withall it is further observable that in the Creed which Charisius delivered into and was accepted by the Council of Ephesus all that he sayes as to the Holy Ghost is And in the Spirit of Truth the Paraclete who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son By which that which Spalatensis saith is much confirmed for this Symbol of Charisius was accepted by the Council as agreeable to the Nicene Creed Thus we see how probable this Answer of the Greeks is That the intention of the Fathers in those expressions is only to assert the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son because when they used them it was in their disputes with them who denyed it And therefore Petavius spends his pains to very little purpose when going about to take off this answer of the Greeks he only shews that those expressions in themselves cannot be confined meerly to the signification of the Consubstantiality of the persons whereas the main force of this answer ly's in the intention and scope of the persons who used them and the adversaries they disputed against and not in the importance of the Articles themselves 2. The second answer of the Greeks is that most of those places which speak of the procession of the Spirit from the Son are not to be understood of the Eternal Procession but of the Temporal which is the same with the Spirits Mission This as the rest of the Greeks so the Patriarchs Hieremias and Cyril especially insist upon the first in his last answer to the Divines of Wirtenberg For when they in their reply to his second answer had produced several testimonies of Athanasius Cyril Epiphanius Basil and Nazianzen in behalf of the Spirit 's Procession from the Son he wonders at them that leaving the plain and clear places both of Scriptures and Fathers which do as he saith so openly proclaim the Spirit 's Procession from the Father only they should hope for relief from other obscure places which are capable of a different interpretation As from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only relates to the Spirit 's manifestation and is quite different from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so cannot imply his Eternal Procession Therefore for the clearing the controversie and giving account of the mistakes in it he begins with the signification of the Spirit which when it is applyed to the Divine Spirit is capable of different significations being taken either for the several gifts of the Spirit or for the person of the Spirit and so though the word Procession be taken in a peculiar manner for the Eternal Procession of the Spirit yet it is not only some times attributed to the bestowing the forementioned gifts but likewise to the Eternal Generation of the Son and therefore whenever they meet with the word Procession attributed to the Spirit with a respect to the Son they must not presently infer the Eternal Procession but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that the Spirit doth come through is sent and given by the Son which the Fathers often mention the better thereby to assert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Identity of nature and essence which is in the Spirit with the Father and Son This he doth therein very largely explain
which the Emperour was fain to take a new course and exclude those from the Councils who were of greatest authority in obstructing his designs but Marcus Ephesius still continued in so great opposition that he publickly charged the Latins opinion with Heresie Notwithstanding all which when it was put to Suffrage Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son for ten who affirmed it there were seventeen who denyed it which put them yet to more disquietment and new Councils At first the Emperour would vote himself which when the Patriarch kept him from some advised him to remove more of the Dissenters but instead of that they used a more plausible and effectual way the Emperour and Patriarch sent for them severally and some they upbraided with ingratitude others they caressed with all expressions of kindness both by themselves and their Instruments Yet at the last they could get but thirteen Bishops to affirm the Procession from the Son all others being excluded the power of giving Suffrage who were accustomed formerly to give it such as the great Officers of the Church of Constantinople the Coenobiarchs and others but to fill up the number all the Courtiers were called in who made no dispute but did presently what the Emperour would have them do Having dispatched this after this manner the other Controversies concerning the Addition to the Creed unleavened bread in the Eucharist Purgatory Pope's Supremacy the Emperour agreed them privately never so much as communicating them to the Greek Synod Among the Emperours Instruments the Bishop of Mitylene went roundly to work saying openly Let the Pope give me so many Florens to be distributed to whom I think fit and I make no question but to bring them in very readily to subscribe the Vnion which he accordingly effected and the same way was taken with several others by which and other means most of those who were excluded from the Suffrages were at last perswaded to Subscribe This is the short account of the management of those affairs at Florence which are more particularly and largely prosecuted by the Author wherein we see what Clandestine Arts what menaces and insinuations what threats and promises were used to bring the poor Greeks to consent to this pretended Vnion For it afterwards appeared to be no more than pretended for the infinitely greater number of Bishops at home refused it and these very Bishops themselves when they saw what arts were used in it fell ofâ— from it again and the Emperour found himself at last deceived in his great expectations of help from the Latins Must we then acknowledge this for a free and General Council which hath a promise of Infallibility annexed to the definitions of it Shall we from hence pronounce the Greeks Doctrine to be Heretical when for all these proceedings yet at last no more was agreed on than that they did both believe the Procession from the Son without condemning the other opinion as Heretical as you pretend which the Greeks would never have consented to or Anathematizing the persons who denyed it as was usual in former General Councils who did suppose it not enough to have it virtually done by the positive definition but did expresly and formally do it For when this Anathematizing dissenters was propounded among the Greeks by Bessarion of Nice and Isidore of Russia who for their great service to the Pope in this business were made Cardinals it was refused by the rest who were zealous promoters of the Vnion Thus I have at large more out of a design to vindicate the Greek Church than being necessitated to it by any thing you produce shewed that there is no reason from Authority either before or after the Council of Florence to charge the Greek Church with Heresie I now come to the examination of your Theological Reason by which you think you have so evidently proved the Greeks Opinion to be Heresie that you introduce it with confidence in abundance But say you though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Still you so unadvisedly place your expressions that the sharpest which you use against your adversaries return with more force upon your self For it being so fully cleared that these clouds of witnesses are Fathers Councils and Popes against you What do you else by this expression but exclude them from the number of Rational men because forsooth not acquainted with the depth of your Theological Reason But Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and your self only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what Spirit it argues c. You see wee need no other weapons against you but your immediate preceding words What pitty it is that the Fathers and Councils had not been made acquainted with this grand Secret of your Theological Reason but happy we that have it at so cheap a rate but it may be that is it which makes us esteem it no more But such as it is it being Reason and Theological too it deserves the greatest respect that may be if it makes good its title His Lordship had said That since the Greeks notwithstanding this opinion of theirs deny not the equality or Consubstantiality of the Persons in the Trinity he dares not deny them to be a true Church for this opinion though he grants them erronious in it So this you reply Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denyal of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle But why is it not enough your Theological Reason is that we want to convince us of the contrary That therefore follows Would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick Or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son only and not from the Father be guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not only an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient matter of Heresie Your faculty at Clinching your Arguments is much better than of Driving them in For your Conclusion is most evident when your Premises have nothing like evidence in them For 1. He that doth acknowledge the Son to be Consubstantial with the Father and yet a distinct person from him must needs therein acknowledge his Eternal Generation for how he should be the Son of the same nature with God and yet having a distinct Personality as a Son without Eternal Generation is so hard to
the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated Page 44. CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmin not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and diffusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmin not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end Page 79. CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C. his fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone Page 98. CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches Testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches Infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T.C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself Page 109. CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The â—estimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith C's Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not Infallible C's Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of Infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated p. 161. CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolutions given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly true How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the Certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared p. 202. CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated p. 235. CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first part concluded p. 261 PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church THe Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entred upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Unity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from S. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the Unity of the Catholick Church had no dependence on the Church of Rome
Roman Church And from what hath been hitherto said I am so far from suspecting his Lordships candor as you do that I much rather suspect your judgement and that you are not much used to attend to the Consequences of things or else you would not have deserted Bellarmin in defence of so necessary and pertinent a point as the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome Secondly You answer to his Lordships Discourse concerning Bellarmin's Authorities That you cannot hold your self obliged to take notice of his pretended Solutions till you find them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholick or the Roman Church in its full latitude as Catholicks ever mean it save when they say the particular Church of Rome But taking it in as full a Latitude as you please I doubt not but to make it appear that the Roman Church is the Roman Church still that is a particular Church as distinct from the Communion of others and therefore neither Catholick nor Infallible which I must refer to the place where you insist upon it which I shall do without the imitation of your Vanity in telling your Reader as far as eighthly and lastly what fine exploits you intend to do there But usually those who brag most of their Valour before-hand shew least in the Combat and thus it will be found with you I shall let you therefore enjoy your self in the pleasant thoughts of your noble intendments till we come to the tryal of them and so come to the present Controversie concerning the Greek Church The Defence of the Greek Church It is none of the least of those Arts which you make use of for the perplexing the Christian Faith to put men upon enquiring after an Infallible Church when yet you have no way to discern which is so much as a true Church but by examining the doctrine of it So that of necessity the rule of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgement of any Church For having already proved that there can be no other meaning of the Question concerning the Church as here stated but with relation to some particular Church to whose Communion the party enquiring might joyn and whose judgement might be relyed on we see it presently follows in the debate Which was that Church and it seems as is said already a Friend of the Ladies undertook to defend that the Greek Church was right To which Mr. Fisher answers That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and after repeats it that it had erred Before I come to examine how you make good the charge you draw up against the poor Greek Church in making it erre fundamentally it is worth our while to consider upon what account this dispute comes in The Inquiry was concerning the True Church on whose judgement one might safely depend in Religion It seems two were propounded to consideration the Greek and the Roman the Greek was rejected because it had erred From whence it follows that the dispute concerning the Truth of Doctrine must necessarily precede that of the Church For by Mr. Fishers confession and your own A Church which hath erred cannot be relyed on therefore men must be satisfied whether a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relyed on or no. Which being granted all the whole Fabrick of your Book falls to the ground for then 1. Men must be Infallibly certain of the grounds of Faith antecedently to the testimony of the Church for if they be to judge of a Church by the Doctrine they must in order to such a judgement be certain what that Doctrine is which they must judge of the Church by 2. No Church can be known to be Infallible unless it appear to be so by that Doctrine which they are to examine the truth of the Church by and therefore no Church can be known to be Infallible by the motives of credibility 3. No Church ought to be relyed on as Infallible which may be found guilty of any errour by comparing it with the Doctrine which we are to try it by Therefore you must first prove your Church not to have erred in any particular for if she hath it is impossible she should be Infallible and not think to prove that she hath not erred because she cannot that being the thing in question and must by your dealing with the Greek Church be judged by particulars 4. There must be a certain rule of Faith supposed to have sufficient Authority to decide Controversies without any dependence upon the Church For the matter to be judged is the Church and if the Scripture may and must decide that Why may it not as well all the rest 5. Every mans reason proceeding according to this rule of Faith must be left his Judge in matters of Religion And whatever inconveniencies you can imagine to attend upon this they immediately and necessarily follow from your proceeding with the Greek Church by excluding her because she hath erred which while we are in pursuit of a Church can be determined by nothing but every ones particular reason 6. Then Fundamentals do not depend upon the Churches declaration For you assert the Greek Church to erre fundamentally and that this may be made appear to one who is seeking after a Church Suppose then I inquire as the Lady did after a Church whose judgement I must absolutely depend on and some mention the Greek and others the Roman Church You tell me It cannot be the Greek for that hath erred fundamentally I inquire how you know supposing her to erre that it is a fundamental errour will you answer me because the true Church hath declared it to be a fundamental errour but that was it I was seeking for Which that Church is which may declare what errours are fundamental and what not If you tell me It is yours I may soon tell you You seem to have a greater kindness for your Church then your self and venture to speak any thing for the sake of it Thus we see how finely you have betrayed your whole Cause in your first onset by so rude an attempt upon the Greek Church And truly it was much your concernment to load her as much as you can For though she now wants one of the great marks of your Church which yet you know not how long your Church may enjoy viz. outward splendor and bravery yet you cannot deny but that Church was planted by the Apostles enjoyed a continual Succession from them flourished with a number of the Fathers exceeding that of yours had more of the Councils of greatest credit in it and which is a commendation still to it it retains more purity under its persecutions then your Church with all its external splendour But she hath erred concerning the Holy Ghost and therefore hath lost it A severe censure which his
ignorance it is far from it to be Magisterial and definitive that unless men acknowledge every punctilio they are guilty of Heresie and fundamental Errors St. Gregory Nazianzene mentioning that Question What this Procession is returns this Answer Tell me first what it is for the Father to be unbegotten and I will explain the Generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Ghost that we may both therein shew our folly who pry into these Divine mysteries and do not know the things which are before our feet And elsewhere If we enquire into these things what shall we leave to them whom the Scripture tells us alone know and are known of each other St. Cyrill requires of men To believe his Being and subsistence and dominion over all but for other things not to suffer the mind to go beyond the bounds allotted to humane nature These spoke like wise men and the true Fathers of the Church who would have men content themselves with believing meerly what was necessary in these deep and incomprehensible mysteries and not to make Articles of Faith of such things which are not made necessary either by deduction of Reason or clear Divine Revelation Although therefore I should grant that some or all of these did themselves believe this Procession from the Son yet hereby it appears they were far from imposing it upon others or making it a Heresie in any not to believe it They saw well these were not things to be narrowly searched into but as the Philosopher said of some kind of Hellebore taken in the lump it is Medicinal but beaten into powder is dangerous is true of these more abstruse mysteries of Religion for whosoever will endeavour to satisfie himself concerning them from the strange niceties and subtilties of the Schools may return with greater doubts then he went to them For not to go beyond our present Subject whosoever would examine the way they take to make the Procession to be immediate from the Father and the Son so as to be from one principle to shew how the Spirit comes from both by the same numerical spiration but most of all when they come to make distinctions between the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost of which no less then nine are recounted and rejected by Petavius out of the Fathers and Schoolmen and the last which he rests in which is the common one of the Schools viz. That the one is per modum Intellectûs and the other per modum Amoris as unsatisfactory as any there being so vast a disproportion between the most immediate acts of our souls and these emanations will see much greater reason to commend the Wisdome of those Fathers who sought to repress mens curiosity as to these things and as much to condemn you who are so apt to charge whole Churches with Heresie if they come not up to every thing which you shall pronounce to be an Article of Faith 2. It is plain from the Fathers That they made the belief of that to be sufficient for salvation which doth not imply this Procession from the Son which is that the Holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father If therefore they often mention the Procession from the Father without taking notice of the Procession from the Son and when they do so assert the sufficiency of the belief of that for Salvation there cannot be the least ground to imagine that they looked on the Procession from the Son as a necessary Article of Faith We see before Athanasius made no more necessary then the belief of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and in the same discourse where he speaks expresly what the Orthodox opinion was of the Holy Ghost he says no more but If they thought well of the Word they would likewise of the Spirit which proceeds from the Father and is proper to the Son and is given by him to the Disciples and all that believe on him In which words there is nothing but what the Greeks to this day do most freely and heartily acknowledge viz. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and is the Spirit of the Son being given by him to all that believe Many other Testimonies are produced out of him and the rest of the Greek Fathers by the Patriarch Hieremias in his Answer to the Wirtenberg Divines by Marcus Ephesius in his Disputes in the Council of Florence by Gregorius Palamas in his Answer to Beccus the Latinizing Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Michael Palaeologus and other modern Defendants of the Greek Church But although I do not think that the places produced by them are sufficient for their purpose viz. That those Fathers believed the Procession from the Father exclusivè to be an Article of Faith yet whosoever will take the pains to compare those Testimonies with the others produced on the other side by those who writ in defence of the Filioque either Latins as Hugo Eterianus Anselme c. or Latinizing Greeks such as Nicephorus Blemmydes Beccus Emanuel Calecas and others will find it most for the honour of the Fathers and most consonant to Truth to assert that they did not look upon this as any necessary Article of Faith and therefore took liberty to express themselves differently about it as they saw occasion For such different Testimonies are produced not only of different Fathers but of several places of the same that it will be a hard matter but upon this ground to reconcile them to each other and themselves And that which abundantly confirms it is That when they sate most solemnly in Council to determine the matters of Faith about the Trinity they were so far from inserting this when they had just occasion to do it that they only mention the Proceeding from the Father and determine this to be a perfect Symbol of Christian Faith which contained no more In the first Nicene Creed and that which is properly so called for that which now goes under that Name is the Constantinopolitan Creed there was nothing at all determined concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost and yet Athanasius saith expresly of the Faith there delivered by the Fathers according to the Scriptures That it was of it self sufficient for the turning men from all impiety and the establishment of all Christian Piety And afterwards saith That though certain men contended much for some additions to be made to it yet the Sardican Synod would by no means consent to it because the Nicene Creed was not defective but sufficient for Piety and therefore forbid the making any new Creed lest the former should be accounted defective We see then by the Testimony of Athanasius and the Sardican Synod which when it serves your turn as in the case of Appeals you extoll so much and in defence of Zozimus his forgery of the Nicene Canons you would have confounded with the Nicene that the Nicene Creed without any thing at all
collected the opinions of Nestorius out of his own Writings should never make any mention at all of this no not when they produce his opinion concerning the Spirit of God Why was it not then condemned and Anathematized as one of his Heresies why did not the Oriental Bishops when they subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius and the election of Maximianus at Constantinople and sent a Confession of their Faith to Cyril at Alexandria by Paulus Emesenus mention this among the rest of their agreement with the Orthodox Bishops Yet in that extant both in Cyril's works and in the third part of the Council at Ephesus there is not the least intimation of it And therefore the learned Jesuit Sirmondus in the life of Theodoret prefixed by him to the first Tome of his works which he set forth vindicates Theodoret from all suspition of Nestorianism and imputes all the troubles which he fell into on that account to the violence of Dioscorus the successor of Cyril at Alexandria who being a great Patron of the Eutychians thought to revenge himself on Theodoret by blasting his reputation as a Nestorian There is not then any shew of probability that this opinion in Theodoret was condemned as a piece of Nestorianism which certainly the whole Greek Church could not have been ignorant of from that time to this But though that piece of Theodoret against Anathema's were condemned in succeeding Councils yet that might be for the defence of other things which they judged bordered too near on Nestorianism or because they would not have any monument remain of that discord between the Oriental Bishops and the Ephesine Council which Theodosius doth so much and so heartily lament in his excellent Epistle to Johannes Antiochenus about a reconciliation between him and Cyril after the banishment of Nestorius and the choice of Maximianus Thus we see one who in a divided and busie time ventured upon the absolute denyal of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son not as a bare errour but as impious and blasphemous yet was far from being condemned for Heretical himself for saying so by those Fathers who were the most zealous defenders of the true Apostolical Faith And if these things considered together do not make it appear that the Fathers did not make the denyal of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a Heresie I know not what can be made plain from them But I know whatever the Fathers say you are of Cornelius Mussus his mind who heartily professed that he preferred the judgement of one Pope before a thousand Augustines and Hieroms but what if the Popes should prove of the same mind with the Fathers how then can this be accounted an Heresie And that they were exactly of the same mind might be made appear by the several Epistles of Vigilius and Agatho in confirmation of the Faith established in the four first General Councils in which it was determined that all necessaries were already in the Creed and that there needed no further additions to it both which are produced and insisted on by the Greeks in the fifth Session at Ferrara But I pass by them and come to more particular testimonies of Popes and that either in Councils or upon a reference to them from Councils The first time we read of this Controversie in the Western Churches was about A. D. 767. in the time of Constantinus Copronymus upon which in the time of Pepin King of France there was a Synod held at Gentilly near Paris for determining a Controversie between the Greeks and Latins about the Trinity as appears by the several testimonies of Ado and Rhegino in their Chronicles produced by Pithaeus Petavius and others but little more is left of that Convention besides the bare mention of it but it seems the ashes were only raked over these coals then which about two and fourty years after A.D. 809. broke out into a greater flame for as appears by the testimonies of the same Ado and Adelmus or Ademarus a Synod was held at Aquisgrane about this very question Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son as well as the Father which question they say was started by one John a Monk of Hierusalem which Monk Pithaeus supposeth to be Johannes Damascenus who after Theodoret most expresly denyed the Procession from the Son but whether it was he or any other it seems from that Council called by Charls the Great there were several Legats called Apocrisiarij dispatched to Rome to know the judgment of the present Pope Leo 3. concerning this Controversie the Legats were Bernarius Jesse and Adalhardus the two former the Bishops of Worms and Amiens the latter the Abbot of Corbey But Petavius herein betrayes either his fraud or inadvertency that he will by no means admit that these came to the Pope to know his judgement concerning the Procession it self but only concerning the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed which now began to be used in the Gallican Churches with that Addition But although I grant that the main of their business was concerning the Addition of Filioque by the same token that Leo condemned it as will appear afterwards yet that brought on the discourse concerning the Doctrine it self of the Procession from the Son For in the Acts of Smaragdus which were sent to Charls the Great giving an account of this Controversie which are published both by Baronius and Sirmondus it appears that when they urge the Pope for his consent to the addition of Filioque they make use of this Argument That it was a matter of Faith and therefore none should be ignorant of it upon which they ask the Pope this Question Whether if any one doth not know or doth not believe this Article he could be saved To which the Pope returns this wise and cautious Answer Whosoever by the subtilty of his wit can reach to the knowledge of it and knowing it will not believe it he cannot be saved For there are many things of which this is one which being the deeper mysteries of Faith to the knowledge of which many can attain but many others cannot being hindred either through want of age or capacity and therefore as we said before he that can and will not shall not be saved I pray Sir do me the Favour to let me know your judgement whether this Pope were Infallible or no or will you acknowledge that he was quite beside the Cushion that is not in Cathedrâ when he spake it What not then when Solemn Legats were dispatched from a Council purposely to know his judgement in a matter of Controversie which the Church was divided about If so the Pope shall never be in Cathedrâ but when you will have him or if he were there you will surely say he did not act very Apostolically when he spake these words For can any thing be more plain then that the Pope determins this
make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot erre in her Definitions From whence Protestants will be in less danger of Heresie than Papists till you give us more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God And although you tell us Men may be accounted Hereticks before they are condemned as such by General Councils if they oppose the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church yet you tell us not what the measures are whereby we ought to judge what things are thus clearly contained in Scripture or universally received whether the Churches judgement must be taken or every man 's own judgement if the former the ground of Heresie lyes still in the Churches Definition contrary to what Scotus affirms if the latter then no one can be an Heretick but he that opposeth that which he is or may be convinced is clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church If that which he is convinced then no man is an Heretick but he that goes against his present judgement and so there will be few Hereticks in the world If that which he may be convinced of it must be understood either in his own judgement or yours if in his own judgement then a Heretick is one who dissents to things rashly without using means to inform himself if in yours why may not he say You may as well be convinced of the truth of that which he believes as he be convinced of the truth of that which you believe and so you may be a Heretick to him by the same reason that he is to you But you say further That there are many things which in themselves are matters of Faith yet so obscure in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons that before the decree of the Church we are not Hereticks though we should either doubt of them or deny them because as yet there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other But it is impossible to understand how there can be such things which men might safely not believe but upon the Definition of the Church they are bound to believe them necessarily unless it be clear to them that the Church hath power to make obscure things plain and unnecessary things to become necessary For suppose one of these obscure things be this very Power of the Church in defining such things while this remains so obscure you tell me I may doubt or disbelieve it without Heresie and while I do so I may certainly doubt or disbelieve all she declares But by what means shall this thing become clear must it be by the Churches defining it But that very Power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared by it And if there be any thing then so obscure that men may without sin doubt of it or disbelieve it certainly the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith is such it being not capable by any act of the Church of being made so clear as to oblige men to believe it But we must see how his Lordship hath wronged the Testimony of Scotus For first say you He would perswade his Reader that this Author supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost whereas Scotus declares that there was no real difference between them But doth his Lordship say there was doth he not expresly cite Scotus his testimony in an hypothetical manner If there be a true real difference c. and it is evident from Scotus his words that he supposeth If the difference had been real that either the Greeks or Latins were truly Hereticks And therefore you are guilty of a much greater injury to his Lordship than he was to Scotus Again you say He wrongs him in saying That after the Churches Definition it becomes of the substance of Faith Now say you Scotus hath not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes only thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque Since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Sure you never expect to be believed but by a very implicit Faith for if one doth but offer to search an Author your Jugling becomes notorious Had you the confidence to say That Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith I pray who made that c. for you in the sentence If you did it your self you abuse your Readers if another did it for you he abused you For that very c. leaves out those words sicut de substantia fidei and try if you can render that otherwise than as of the substance of Faith to manifest your Forgery the whole place is cited in the Margin Is this your fidelity in quoting Authors even when you charge others with wronging them It may be you will say yet That Scotus doth not say it is to be held sicut de substantia fidei though it be declared by the Church to be so held But what means then the ex quo if men's Faith must not be guided by the Churches Declaration for if it be therefore to be believed necessarily because declared by the Church it must be believed as it is declared by the Church If therefore the Church declares that it is to be held as of the substance of Faith it ought to be held so by such as are bound to believe it on the Churches Declaration Besides you will not say but that it was to be believed before now what alteration is caused by the Declaration of the Church but this That which was before to be believed simply and in it self is now to be believed on the account of the Churches Declaration as of the substance of Faith And thus it is impossible to relieve your self with your old shift of Material and Formal Object which you betake your self to Thus still we see you are that most unhappy person who never begin a charge against your adversary but it falls back most unevitably upon your self who so readily make use of forgeries to prove others guilty of them Upon Scotus his mentioning the Churches Declaration his Lordship inquires What this Declaration is and how far it extends For which his Lordship saith The Master teacheth and his Scholars too that every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another intus est is not another contrary thing but is contained within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erronious because instead of declaring it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in Council either that which
were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T. C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself HE that hath a mind to betray an excellent Cause may more advantagiously do it by bringing weak and insufficient Evidences for it then by the greatest heat and vigour of Opposition against it For there cannot possibly be any greater prejudice done to a weighty and important truth then to perswade men to believe it on such grounds which are if not absolutely false yet much more disputable then the thing it self For hereby the minds of men are taken off from the native evidence which the truth enquired after offers to them and build their assent upon the certainty of the medium's suggested as the only grounds to establish a firm assent upon By which means when upon severe enquiry the falsity and insufficiency of those grounds is discovered the person so discovering lyes under a dangerous temptation of calling into question the truth of that which he finds he assented to upon grounds apparently weak and insufficient And the more refined and subtle the speculations are the more sublime and mysterious the matters believed the greater still the danger of Scepticism is upon a discovery of the unsoundness of those principles which such things were believed upon Especially if the more confident and Magisterial party of those who profess the belief of such things do with the greatest heat decry all other wayes as uncertain and obtrude these principles upon the world as the only sure foundation for the belief of them It was anciently a great question among the Philosophers whether there were any certainty in the principles of knowledge or supposing certainty in things whether there were any undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rules to obtain this certainty of knowledge by If then any one Sect of Philosophers should have undertaken to prove the certainty that was in knowledge upon this account because whatever their Sect or Party delivered was infallibly true they had not only shamefully beg'd the thing in dispute but made it much more lyable to question then before Because every errour discovered in that Sect would not only prove the fondness and arrogance of their pretence of being Infallible but would to all such as believed the certainty of things on the authority of their Sect be an argument to disprove all certainty of knowledge when they once discovered the errours of those whose authority they relyed upon Just such is the case of the Church of Rome in this present Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith The question is What the certain grounds of our assent are to the principles and rule of Christian Religion the Romanists pretend that there can be no ground of True and Divine Faith at all but the Infallible testimony of Their Church let then any rational man judge whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrow the belief of Christianity in the world For our assent must be wholly suspended upon that supposed Infallibility which when once it falls as it unavoidably doth upon the discovery of the least errour in the doctrine of that Church what becomes then of the belief of Christianity which was built upon that as it s only sure foundation So that it is hardly imaginable there could be any design more really destructive to Christianity or that hath a greater tendency to Atheism then the modern pretence of Infallibility and the Jesuits way of resolving Faith Which was the reason why his Lordship was so unwilling to engage in that Controversie How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God not out of any distrust he had of solving it upon Protestant Principles as you vainly suggest nor out of any fears of being left himself in that Labyrinth which after all your endeavours you have lost your self and your cause in as appears by your attempting this way and that way to get out and at last standing in the very middle of that circle you thought your self out of If his Lordship thought this more a question of curiosity then necessity it was because out of his great Charity he supposed them to be Christians he had to deal with But if his charity were therein deceived you shall see how able we are to make good the grounds of our Religion against all Adversaries whether Papists or others And so far is the answering of this question from making the weakness of our cause appear that I doubt not but to make it evident that our cause stands upon the same grounds which our common Christianity doth and that we are Protestants by the same reason that we are Christians And on the other side that you are so far from giving any true grounds of Christian Faith that nothing will more advance the highest Scepticism and Irreligion then such Principles as you insist on for resolving Faith The true reason then why the Archbishop declared any unwillingness to enter upon this dispute was not the least apprehension how insuperably hard the resolution of this question was as you pretend but because of the great mischief your Party had done in starting such questions you could not resolve with any satisfaction to the common reason of mankind and that you run your selves into such a Circle in which you conjure up more Spirits then ever you are able to lay by giving those advantages to Infidelity which all your Sophistry can never answer on those principles you go upon That this was the true ground of his Lordship's seeming averseness from this Controversie appears by his plain words where he tells you at first of the danger of mens being disputed into infidelity by the Circle between Scripture and Tradition and by his expressing his sense of the great harm you have done by the starting of that question among Christians How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God But although in this respect he might be said to be drawn into it yet lest you should think his averseness argued any consciousness of his own inability to answer it you may see how closely he follows it with what care and accuracy he handles it with what strength of reason and evidence he hath discovered the weakness of your way which he hath done with that success that he hath put you to miserable shifts to avoid the force of his arguments as will appear afterwards I am therefore fully of his mind that it is a matter of such consequence it deserves to be
Reason For I look upon all these Assertions to serve you in no other capacity than as excursions from the matter in hand and therefore I shall not gratifie you so far as particularly to examine them For all then that hath been yet produced by you his Lordships Argument remains good that according to your Principles the Churches Testimony must be made the Formal Object of Faith and I am the more confirmed in it by the weakness of your evasions and I hope I have now made good those words which you challenge his Lordship for That it were no hard thing to prove it The next Absurdity charged upon you by his Lordship is That all the Authorities of Fathers Councils nay of Scripture too must be finally resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own writings or the Decrees of Councils because as they say We cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church teaching by Tradition And this he tells you is the cunning of this devise To which you answer By what hath been said it appears That there is no device or cunning at all either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our adversaries party But they must pardon us if we prefer the general interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extol it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other than the present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applied to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the assistance and direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. the Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church The Question is Supposing your Churches Testimony to be infallible without which we can have no Assurance of what Fathers Scriptures and Councils say What Authority remains among you to any or all of these And it is not what respect you tell us you give them for you may as easily speak as believe contradictions but what is really left to them if your Opinion concerning the present Churches Infallibility be true And he that cannot see the cunning of this Device of resolving all into the Authority of the present Roman Church will never understand the interest of your Church but it seems you apprehend it so much as not to seem to do it and have too much cunning to confess it But this must not be so easily passed over this being one of the grand Artifices of your Church to make a great noise with Fathers Scriptures and Councils among those most who understand them least when your selves resolve them all into the present Churches Testimony Which is first to gagge them and then bid them speak First For the Fathers you say You acknowledge all due respect to them but the Question is What kind of respect that is which can be due to them when let them speak their minds never so plainly and agree in what they please and deliver what they will as the Judgement of the Church yet all this can give us no Assurance at all on your Principles unless your Church doth infallibly determine the same way What then do the Fathers signifie with you Doth the Infallibility of your Churches Definition depend on the consent of the Fathers No you tell us She is supernaturally assisted by the Holy Ghost and if so I suppose the judgement of the Fathers is not that which she relyes on But it may be you will say This supernatural Assistance directs the Church to that which was the Judgement of the Fathers in all Ages This were something indeed if it could be proved But then I would never read the Fathers to know what their mind is but aske your Church what they meant And though your Church delivers that as their sense which is as opposite as may be both to their words and judgements yet this is part of the respect due to them not to believe whatever they say themselves but what your Church tells us they say A most compendious way for interpreting Fathers and making them sure not to speak any thing against your Church Therefore I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto who spake that out which more wary men are contented onely to think Ego ut ingenuè fatear plus uni summo Pontitifici crediderim in his quae mysteria fidei tangunt quà m mille Augustinis Hieronymis Gregoriis That I may deal freely saith he I would sooner believe the Pope in matters of Faith than a thousand Augustines Hieromes and Gregories Bravely said and like a man that did heartily believe the Pope's Infallibility And yet no more than every one will be forced to do that understands the Consequence of his own Principles And therefore Alphonsus à Castro was not to be blamed for preferring an Epistle of Anacletus though counterfeit because Pope before Augustine Hierome or any other however holy or learned These men understood themselves and the interest of their Church And although the rest of them make finer leggs to the Fathers than these do yet when they seem to cross their way and entrench upon their Church they find not much kinder entertainment for them We may guess at the rest by two of them men of great note in their several waies the one for Controversies the other for his Commentaries viz. Bellarmine and Maldonate and let us see when occasion serves how rudely they handle the Fathers If S. Cyprian speaks against Tradition it was saith Bellarmine In defence of his errour and therefore no wonder if he argued after the manner of erroneous persons If he opposeth Stephen the Bishop of Rome in the business of Rebaptization He seemeth saith he To have erred mortally in it If S. Ambrose pronounce Baptism in the name of Christ to be valid without the naming other Persons in the Trinity Bellarmine is not afraid to say That in his judgement his Opinion is false If S. Chrysostome saith That it is better not to be present at the Eucharist than to be present and not receive it I say saith Bellarmine That Chrysostome as at other times went beyond his bounds in saying so If S. Augustine expound a place of Scripture not to his mind
nothing new to our consideration But at last we are come to a man who did in good earnest believe Purgatory and was the first of any name in the Church who did so and that is Gregory 1. But whosoever reads in his Dialogues the excellent arguments he builds it on and confirms it with will find as much reason to pitty his superstition and credulity as to condemn his Doctrine And after this time his Lordship saith truly Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffer'd to cool again and in the after-ages more were frighted then led by proof into the belief of it And although amidst the variety of judgements among the Fathers concerning the state of the dead not one of them affirmed your Doctrine of Purgatory before Gregory 1 yet by all means you will needs have it to have been still owned as an Apostolical Tradition and an Article of Faith But I commend you that knowing the weakness of the arguments brought from the Fathers and Scripture you at last take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition on the account of which you say We are as much bound to believe it as any other Article of Faith yea as the Trinity or Incarnation it self But this holds for none but only those who so little understand the grounds of their Religion as to believe it on the account of your Churches Infallibility which is so far from being any ground of Faith that if we had nothing more certain then that to establish our Faith upon you would be so far from making men believe Purgatory on that account that you would sooner make them question whether there were either Heaven or Hell But though your Church be so far from Infallibility that we have found her guilty of many Errours yet the Word of God abideth for ever which alone is the sure Foundation for our Faith to rest upon And so I conclude with your own Prayer I beseech God to give all men light to see this Truth and Grace to assent unto it to the end that by living in the militant Church in the Vnity of Faith we may come at last to meet in Glory in the triumphant Church of Heaven which we may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory world without end FINIS §. 1. 1 Joh. 1.1 3. Mark 16.14 §. 2. P. 1. P. 2. §. 3. P. 2. P. 2. sect 2. P. 3. sect 3. n. 2. Page 3 §. 4. Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam Principalem c. nec cogitare eos esse Romanos ad quos pâ—rfidea habere non potest accessum Cypr. l. 1. c. 3. Scito Romanam fidem ejusmodi praestigias non recipere Hierony Apol. 3. c. Ruff. Roma semper fidem retinet Greg. Nazianz. carm de vitâ suâ Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 4. sect 1. Pag. 4. §. 5. P. 21. sect 4. P. 5. n. 4. P. 25. n. 17. sect 5. §. 6. P. 6. n. 4. §. 7. Joh. 15.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athanas. ep ad Sâ—rapion p. 357. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. De Spir. Sancto c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Greg. Nazian orat 37. p. 597. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 23. Tom. 1 p. 426 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Paschal 12. Tom. 5. p 2. Dogm Theol. de Trinit l. 7. c. 13 14 Tom. 2 §. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. c. Serapi ubi supr Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg p. 217. c. Res. 2. Patriarch Concil Florent sess 19 20 21 c. Arcudii opuscula aurea V. ep Cyrilli Patriarch ad Joh. Utenbogard inter epistol Remonstrant p. 402. V. Lâ—onis Allatii Graeciam Orthodox Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. ep ad Epictet Tom 1. p. 562. Greg. Nazian ep 2. ad Cled Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p. 357. Tom. 2. Binii ed. Paris 1636. Concil Florent sess 5. p. 587. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. p. 366. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Act. 5. Concil Florent Asâ— 5. p. 590. §. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alexan. Tom. 6. edit Paris p. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 202. Gregorius Palamas c. 1. apud Petavium Dogmat. Theolog de Trin. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sess. 19. Ubi supra Spalatens de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 10. sect 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Acta Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p 360. Petav. ubi supra Acta Theolog. Wirtenb p. 350. c. Resp. 3. Patriarch Cyril ep ad Utenbogard p. 403. §. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret c. Cyril Anathemat Tom. 4. p. 718. ed. Sirmond Concil Ephes. part 3· p. 497. ed. Bin. Cyril Tom. 6. p. 229. Dogmat. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. c. 1. Concil Ephes. Part. 2. Act. 1. p. 177. Part 3. p. 596. Part. 3. p. 581. §. 11. Concil Florenâ— sess 5. p. 593. Pithaeus Opus de proces S.S. p. 26. Petav. Dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 1. Baron Annal. ad An. 809. Sirmond Concil Gallic Tom. 2. p. 256 257. Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliori pertingere potest id scire aut ita sciens credere noluerit salvus esse non poterit Sunt enim multa è quibus istud unum est sacrae fidei altiora mysteria ad quorum indagationem pertingere multi valent multi verò aut aetatis quantitate aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti non valent ideò ut praediximus qui potuerit noluerit salvus esse non potuerit Apud Sirmond ubi supra §. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius ep 7. p. 51. Opuscul edit Lutet 1609. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 213 214. §. 13. Sylvester Sguropul Histor. Concil Florent sect 2. c. 10. Sect. 2. c. 12. C. 17 18. Sect. 6. c. 1. Sect. 3. c. 12. Sect. 3. c. 3. C. 4. Cap. 12. C. 11. C. 15. Sect. 6. c. 3. Sect. 8. c. 12. C. 13. C. 14. C 16. C. 18. Sect. 9. c. 4. C. 5. C. 8. C. 9. C. 10. Sect. 10. c. 1. C. 4. §. 14. P. 6. Sect. 9. n. 1. p. 24. §. 15. P. 7. n. 5. Theophylact. in Joh. 3.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. in Joh. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. Damascenus de Trinit c. 8. l. 1. de Orthodoxa fide c. 11. Acta Theolog. Wirteab p. 220. P. 8. Sum. 1. q 36. aâ—t 2. Vasquez in Thoâ— To. 2. dis 146. c. 7. Petavius dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist. Concil Florent sect 8. c. 15. p. 239. Eadmer de vita Anselm l. 2. Malmesbu de
understand that I must confess that whoever asserts the one and deny's the other is so far from Theological Reason that I think he hath no common reason in him Is this then think you a parallel case with the Procession of the Spirit from the Son which may be supposed Consubstantial to Father and Son and a distinct person from both without any Connotation of respect to the Personality of the Son as a principle of Spiration 2. He that should affirm the Procession of the Spirit only from the Son and not the Father would speak much more absurdly than the Greeks do for thereby he would destroy the Father's being the fountain or principle of Origination as to the distinct Hypostases of Son and Spirit he would plainly and directly thwart the Creed of the second General Council and which is more than would speak directly against express words of Scripture which say The Spirit proceeds from the Father which by the consent of the Christian Church hath been interpreted of the Eternal Procession And by this time I hope you begin to have better thoughts of rational men than to make such a wonder at their questioning the Greeks Heresie but if this be your Theological Reason one scruple of common reason goes far beyond it We have had a fair proof of your skill at charging we shall now see how good you are at standing your ground Your main defence lyes in a distinction which ruines you for you think to ward off all the citations his Lordship produceth against you out of the Schoolmen and others that the Greeks and Latins agree with each other in eandem fidei sententiam upon the same sentence of Faith but differ only in words by saying That the Greeks must be distinguished into Ancient and Modern The Ancient you say expressed themselves per filium but they meant thereby à filio whereas the Modern Greeks will not admit that expression à filio but per filium only and that too in a sense dissignificative to à filio This is the substance of all the answer you give both in general and to the particular authorities for several pages The disproof therefore of this distinction must by your own Confession make all those testimonies stand good against you which I shall do by two things 1. By shewing that the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do in this Controversie 2. That those who speak expresly of the Modern Greeks do deny their difference from us in any matter of Faith 1. That the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do By the Ancient Greeks we must here understand those who writ before the Schoolmen whose testimonies you would answer by this distinction Now nothing can be more clear than that those Greeks who writ before them did as peremptorily deny the Procession from the Son as any of the Modern Greeks do We have already produced the testimony of Theodoret who accounts the contrary opinion blasphemous and impious and that of Photius who so largely and vehemently disputes against the Procession from the Son To whom I shall add two more of great reputation not only in the Greek but in the Latin Church and those are Theophylact and Damascen Theophylact whether he lived in the time of Photius about 870 as the common opinion is or more probably in the time of Michael Cerularius as great an adversary as Photius to the Latins about 1070. yet was long enough before the Schoolmen for Peter Lombard flourished A. D. 1145. and Thomas and Bonaventure about 1260. So that in this respect he must be one of the Ancient Greeks He therefore delivers his opinion as expresly as may be in his Commentaries on St. John and that not as his own private opinion but as the common sense of the Greek Church for there taking occasion to speak how the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son For the Latins saith he apprehend it amiss and mistaking it say That the Spirit proceeds from the Son But we answer That it is one thing to say The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son which we assert and another that it proceeds from the Son which we deny for it hath no testimony of Scripture for it and then we must bring in two principles the Father and the Son And withall adds that when Christ breathed the Spirit on his Disciples it is not to be understood personally but in regard of the gift of remission of sins after which he briefly and comprehensively sets down the opinion of the Greek Church Believe thou that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father but is given to men by the Son and let this be the Rule of sound doctrine to thee And what now do the Modern Greeks say more than Theophylact did or what do they say less for they acknowledge that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as he To the same purpose Damascen who lived between the 6. and 7. Synod about A. D. 730. in the time of Leo Isaurus delivers the sense of the Greek Church in his time concerning this Article It must be considered saith he That we assert not the Father to be from any but that he is said to be the Father of the Son We say not that the Son is a proper cause neither the Father but we say the Son is from the Father and of the Father The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father and of the Father but we say not the Spirit is from the Son but we call him the Spirit of the Son And we confess that by the Son the Spirit is manifested and given to us These words are so plain that the Patriarch Hieremias producing them saith Nothing can be more clear and evident than these words are But the Philosopher who was so much pleased to see the Ass mumble his thistles could not take much less contentment to see how the Schoolmen handle this testimony of Damascen For being very loath that so zealous an assertor of Images should in any thing seem opposite to the Church of Rome they very handsomly and with wonderful subtilty bring him off by admiring the wisdom and caution he useth in these words So your own St. Bonaventure whose testimony youthink so considerable as to produce at large Tamen ipse cautè loquitur unde non dicit quod Spiriâ—us non est à filio sed dicit non dicimus à filio which you put in great letters the more to be taken notice of But I pray What was it which Damascen was there delivering of was it not the sense of the Greek Church concerning the Persons of the Trinity and how could he otherwise have expressed it than by non dicimus but if this must argue what Bonaventure and you would have from it for this is the only testimony you give of your distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks will it not as well hold for the other
by either of you That the Greeks might be excused by Ignorance before such Declaration of your Church concerning the Filioque and not be excused after through greater ignorance of any such Power in your Church to declare such things to be matters of Faith is an assertion not easie to be swallowed by such as have any strength of Logick or one drachm of Theological Reason Or else it is a very strange thing you should think it sufficient for the Greeks to know what your Church had declared without an antecedent knowledge that your Church had power to declare How much you answer at random appears by your answering Aquinas his testimony instead of that of Jodocus Clictoveus as is plain enough in his Lordships Margin and you might have been easily satisfied that it was so if you had taken the pains to look into either of them But the art of it was Aquinas his testimony might be easily answered because he speaks only by hear-say concerning the opinion of some certain Greeks but Clictoveus his was close to the purpose who plainly confesseth that the difference of the Ancient Greeks was more in words and the manner of explaining the Procession then in the thing it self This therefore you thought fit to slide by and answer Aquinas for him Your answer to Scotus depends on the former distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks and therefore falls with it Bellarmin's answer concerning Damascen and your own after Bonaventure of his non dicimus hath been sufficiently disproved already What Tolet holds or the Lutherans deny the words of neither being of either side produced deserve no further consideration You tell us his Lordships Argument depends upon this That the Holy Ghost may be equal and consubstantial with the Son though he proceed not from it which you say is a matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into But any indifferent Reader would think it had been your concernment to have shewn the contrary that thereby you might seem to make good so heavy a charge as that of Heresie against the whole Greek Church For if the Holy Ghost cannot be equal and consubstantial with the Son if it proceeds not from the Son then it follows that they who deny this Procession must deny that Equality and Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son which you ought to prove to make good your charge of Heresie But on the other side if the Spirit may be proved to be God by such Arguments as do not at all infer his Procession from the Son then his equality and consubstantiality doth not depend upon that Procession for I suppose you grant that it is the Vnity of Essence in the Persons which make them equal and consubstantial but we may sufficiently prove the Spirit to be God by such Arguments as do not infer the Procession from the Son as I might easily make appear by all the Arguments insisted on to that purpose but I only mention that which the second General Council thought most cogent to that purpose which is the Spirit 's eternal Procession from the Father if that proves the Spirit to be God then its equality with the Son is proved without his Procession from the Son for I hope you will not say that the proving his Procession from the Father doth imply Procession from the Son too because the Procession cannot be supposed to be from the essence for then the Spirit would proceed from it self but from the Hypostasis and therefore one cannot imply the concurrence of the other And since you pretend so much to understand these depths before you renew a charge of Heresie against the Greek Church in this particular make use of your Theological reason in giving an Intelligible Answer to these Questions 1. Why the Spirit may not be equal and consubstantial to the other Persons in the Trinity supposing his Procession to be only from the Father as the Son to be equal and consubstantial with them when his Generation is only from the Father 2. If the Procession from the Son be necessary to make the Spirit consubstantial with the Son why is not Generation of the Son by the Spirit necessary to make the Son consubstantial with the Spirit 3. If the Spirit doth proceed from Father and Son as distinct Hypostases how he can proceed from these Hypostases as one principle by one common Spiration without confounding their Personalties or else shew how two distinct Hypostases alwayes remaining so can concur in the same numerical action ad intra 4. If there be such a necessity of believing this as an Article of Faith why hath not God thought fit to reveal to us the distinct emanations of the Son and Spirit and wherein the eternal Generation of the Son may be conceived as distinct from the Procession of the Spirit when both equally agree in the same essence and neither of them express the personality of the Father Either I say undertake intelligibly to resolve these things or else surcease your charge of Heresie against the Greek Church and upbraid not his Lordship for not entering into these depths Methinks their being confessed to be Depths on both sides might teach you a little more modesty in handling them and much more charity to men who differ about them For you may see the Greeks want not great plausibleness of reason on their side as well as Authority of Scripture and Fathers plain for them but not so against them As long therefore as the Greek Church confesseth the Divinity Consubstantiality Eternal Procession of the Spirit and acknowledgeth it to be the Spirit of the Son there must be something more in it then the bare denyal of the Procession from the Son which must make you so eager in your charge of Heresie against her The truth is there is something else in the matter by this Article of Filioque the Authority of the Church of Rome in matters of Faith is struck at and therefore if this be an Heresie it must be on the account of denying the plenitude of her power in matters of Faith as Anselm and Bonaventure ingenuously confess it and plead it on that account And therefore wise men are not apt to believe but that if the Church of Rome had not been particularly concerned in this addition to the Creed if the Greeks would have submitted in all other things to the Church of Rome this charge of Heresie would soon be taken off the File But as things stand if she be not found guilty of Heresie she may be found as Catholick as Rome and more too and therefore there is a necessity for it she must be contented to bear it for it is not consistent with the Interest of the Church of Rome that she should be free from Heresie Schism c. But if she hath no stronger Adversaries to make good the charge then you she may satisfie her self that though the blows be rude yet they are given her by feeble hands For
added by way of explication the word Filioque to the Article which concerned the Holy Ghost and this they did to signifie that the Holy Ghost as true God proceeded from the Son and was not made or created by him as some Hereticks in those times began to teach Neither doth he say you affirm this without citation of some credible authority I could wish you had produced it not only for our satisfaction but of the more learned men of your own side who look on this as an improbable fiction Bellarmin produceth many Arguments against it saying That no mention is made of it in the Councils or Theodoret's History who particularly relates the Letters of the Council to Damasus and his to the Council that Leo 3. caused the Constantinopolitan Creed to be inscribed in a silver Table without that Addition that the third Council of Toledo used the Creed without that Addition that the Greeks did not begin this Controversie till A. D. 600. And how could they possibly charge the Latins with breaking the Canons of the third Oecumenical when according to this opinion it was added in the second Petavius is so great a friend to your opinion that in plain terms he calls it ridiculous and abundantly confutes that imagination of its being inserted because of the Heresie of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Manuel Calecas calls it who with Aristinus are all those worshipful Authorities which this opinion stands on But setting aside the contrary Authorities to these any one who is any thing versed in this Controversie must needs esteem this the most improbable account that can be given of this Addition For if this were true how little did the Latins at the Council at Florence understand their business when if they could have produced such an Addition before the Ephesine Council all the Greeks objections had come to nothing If this were true how little did Leo 3. consult his own or his predecessors honour who disswaded the Legats of the Council at Aquisgrane from continuing in the Creed that Addition of Filioque for when after a great deal of discourse concerning the Article and the Addition the Legats at last tell him That they perceived his pleasure was that it should be taken out of the Creed and so every one left to his liberty His answer is So it is certainly determined by me and I would perswade you by all means to assent to it And to manifest this to be his constant judgment he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed without the Addition of Filioque to be inscribed in a greater silver Tablet and placed publickly in the Church to be read of all as appears by the testimony of Photius and Peter Lombard that so all both Greeks and Latins might see that nothing was added to the Creed Had not this now been a strange action of his if this Addition had been so long before in the time of Damasus Nothing then can be more evident than that in this Leo's time no such Addition was made to the Creed Therefore it seems most probable which the famous Antoninus delivers that this Addition was made by Pope Nicolaus 1. For when he relates he causes why Photius excommunicated him he mentions that in the first place That he had made an Addition to the Creed by making the Spirit to proceed from the Son and therefore had fallen under the sentence of the third Oecumenical Council which prohibited such Additions to be made To which P. Pithaeus subscribes likewise and Petavius seems not to dissent the only thing which is pretended against it is that Andreas Colossensis in the Council at Ferrara saith That though Photius was a known and bitter enemy of the Latin Church yet he never objected this Addition against Nicolaus or Adrian but how strangely overseen Andreas was in these words sufficiently appears by Photius his Encyclical Epistle wherein he doth in terms object this against the Latins as appears by the words already produced So that although you would willingly have set this Addition far enough off from the Schism yet you see how improbable a fiction you produce for it and withall you see that this Addition by the consent of your own most learned and impartial Writers falls just upon the time when the Schism broke out viz. in the time of Nicolaus and Photius and therefore now judge you whether these words were so long added before the Schism that they could give no occasion to it 2. The next thing to be considered is Whether they who added it had power so to do Two things the Greeks insist on to shew that it was not done by sufficient authority 1. Because all such Additions were directly prohibited by the Ephesine Council 2. That supposing them not prohibited yet the Pope had no power to add to the Creed without the consent of the Eastern Churches 1. That such Additions were severely prohibited by the Ephesine Council the Sanction of which Council to this purpose hath been already produced and is extant both in the Acts of the Ephesine and Florentine Councils in which latter it is insisted on as the Foundation of the Greek's Arguments against the Addition of Filioque by Marcus Ephesius and the reason he there gives of such a Sanction made by the Council at Ephesus is that after the Nicene Council in several Provincial Councils there were above thirty several Expositions made of the Nicene Creed upon which the second Oecumenical Council made a further explication of it explaining those things which belonged to the Divinity of the Spirit and the Incarnation of Christ and because they did not prohibit any Additions the Nestorians easily depraved the Nicene Creed inserting their own opinions into it as appears by the confession of Faith exhibited to the Council by Charisius which being read in the Council and the Fathers thereby understanding how easily after this rate New Creeds might be continually made in the Church they severely prohibited any further Additions to be made to the Creed And therefore although they decreed in that Council the Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to Nestorius yet they never offered to insert it into the Creed although they apprehended it necessary to explain the Oeconomy of our Saviour's Incarnation And that which much confirms the meaning of the Decree to be the absolute prohibition of all kind of Additions to the Creed is the Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandria to Johannes Antiochenus wherein reciting this decree of the Council he adds these words as the explication of it We neither permit our selves or others to change one word or syllable of what is herein contained speaking of the Nicene Creed which Epistle was read and approved in the fourth Oecumenical Council To this the Latins answered them that which is still answered in the same case viz. That this Article of Filioque was only a declaration and not a prohibited Addition
Nice For if this be taken care for as to the Inferiour Clergy and Laity How much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops that so they who are in their own Province suspended from communion be not hastily or unduly admitted by your Holiness Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuges of Priests and Inferiour Clerks for no Canon of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africk and the decrees of Nice hath subjected both the Inferiour Clergy and Bishops io their Metropolitans For they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province that so equity may be prudently discovered and constantly held by Christ's Priests Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an Vniversal Council Vnless perhaps some body believe that God can inspire to every one of us the justice of examination of a cause and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in Council Or How can a judgement made beyond the Sea be valid to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought by reason of the infirmity of their sex and age or of many other intervening impediments For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our Fellow-Bishop as belonging to the Council of Nice we could not find it in the truest Copies of the Council sent by holy Cyril our Colleague Bishop of Alexandria and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface of happy memory by Innocent a Presbyter and Marcellus a Deacon Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ which beareth the light of simplicity and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God And concerning our Brother Faustinus Apiarius being now for his wickedness cast out of the Church of Christ we are confident that our brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of your Holiness Africa shall no more be troubled with him Thus I have at large produced this noble Monument of the prudence courage and simplicity of the African Fathers enough to put any reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome I wonder not that Baronius saith There are some hard things in this Epistle that Perron sweats and toils so much to so little purpose to enervate the force of it for as long as the records of it last we have an impregnable Bulwark against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome And methinks you might blush for shame to produce those African Fathers as determining the Appeals of Bishops to Rome who with as much evidence and reason as courage and resolution did finally oppose it What can be said more convincingly against these Appeals than is here urged by them That they have neither authority from Councils nor any Foundation in Justice and Equity that God's presence was as well in Africk as Rome no doubt then they never imagined any Infallibility there that the proceedings of the Roman Bishop were so far from the simplicity and humility of the Gospel that they tended only to nourish swelling pride and secular ambition in the Church That the Pope had no authority to send Legats to hear causes and they hoped they should be no more troubled with such as Faustinus was All these things are so evident in this testimony that it were a disparagement to it to offer more at large to explain them I hope then this will make you sensible of the injury you have done the African Fathers by saying that they determined the causes of Bishops might be heard at Rome Your Answer to the place of S. Gregory which his Lordship produceth concerning Appeals viz. that the Patriarch is to put a final end to those causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Arch-Bishops is the very same that it speaks only of the Inferiour Clergy and therefore is taken off already But you wonder his Lordship should expose to view the following words of S. Gregory where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocese there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick as being the Head of all Churches Then surely it follows say you the Bishop of Rome 's Jurisdiction is not only over the Western and Southern Provinces but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs and Metropolitans never extended See how well you make good the common saying That Ignorance is the cause of Admiration for Wherefore should you wonder at his Lordships producing these words if you had either understood or considered the abundant Answers which he gives to them 1. That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his judgement is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome 2. It is as plain that in those ancient times of Church-Government Britain was never subject to the See of Rome of which afterwards 3. It will be hard for any man to prove that there were any Churches then in the world which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitan 4. If any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where-ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome And Do you still wonder why his Lordship produces these words I may more justly wonder why you return no Answer to what his Lordship here sayes But still the Caput omnium Ecclesiarum sticks with you if his Lordship hath not particularly spoken to that it was because his whole discourse was sufficient to a man of ordinary capacity to let him see that no more could be meant by it but some preheminence of that Church above others in regard of order and dignity but no such thing as Vniversal Power and Jurisdiction was to be deduced from it And if Gregory understood more by it as his Lordship saith 'T is gratis dictum and Gregory himself was not a person to be believed in his own cause But now as you express it his Lordship takes a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England No neither his Lordship nor we take a leap from thence hither but you are the men who leap over the Alps from the Church of England to that of Rome We plead as his Lordship doth truly That in the ancient times of the Church Britain was never subject to the See of Rome but being one of the Western Dioceses of the Empire it had a Primate of its own This you say his Lordship should
yet the best your cause would bear And the greater you say the number of Bishopricks is in Italy the more friends I hope the Pope must make by disposing them and Could they do the Pope better service than to help him in this grand business at Trent wherein they sought to outvy each other by promoting the Popes Interest But not only the Protestants complained of this but the Emperour and other Princes and all impartial men in Germany France nay and in some part of Italy too But here his Lordship encounters an Objection of Bellarmine viz. that in the Council of Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present as were of the East at Trent and manifestly shews the great disparity between the the two Councils 1. Because it is not a meer disparity in number which he insists on but with it the Popes carriage to be sure of a major part but neither the Greek Church in general nor any Patriarch of the East had any private interest to look to in the Council at Nice 2. It was not so much a disparity between the Eastern and Western Bishops but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes Power than of all Germany France Spain and of all other parts of the West besides 3. Even in the comparison of those two Councils as to Eastern and Western Bishops there is this remarkable difference that Pope Sylvester with 275. Bishops confirmed the Council at Nice but the Council at Trent was never confirmed by any Council of Eastern Bishops To the two first of these you Answer with your best property silence Only you would fain perswade some silly people if there be any so weak in the world that enquire into such things That the Pope had no private interest at Trent but what was common to him with other Bishops You should have done well to have commended the excellency of an implicite Faith before you had uttered a thing so contrary to the sense of the whole Christian World To the third you confess It is some disparity but nothing to the purpose because if the Pope himself had ratified them the Council would have had as much Authority as by that accessory Assembly The more to blame was the Pope a great deal for putting so many Bishops to so needless a trouble But you say further This Council was not held just at the same time But Binius tells you it was held assoon as might be after the notice of what was done at Nice shew us the like of the Eastern Bishops at any time and we will not quarrel with you because it was not at the same time Though these Answers may pass for want of better they come not near your last which is a prodigious one the sense of it being That the Doctrine of Faith defined by the Council of Trent was more universally received in the Church then that of the Council of Nice For that of Trent you say was universally received by the whole Catholick Church and hath been more constantly held ever since whereas many Provinces either in whole or in part deserted the Faith defined at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie It seems then the twelve good Articles of Trent have been more generally received by the Catholick Church then the eternal existence of the Son of God and consequently that you are more bound to believe the Doctrine of Purgatory or Transubstantiation then that the Son is of the same substance with the Father For your grounds of Faith being resolved into the Churches Infallibility you cannot believe that which hath been so much questioned in the Church so firmly as that which hath been universally believed and constantly held But the universal reception of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent by the whole Catholick Church is so intolerable a falshood that you would scarce have vented it unless it were your design to write for the Whetstone To C's objection That neither French nor Spanish nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with the Protestants in those points which were defined by the Council his Lordship Answers That there can be no certainty who did agree and who not or who might have agreed before the Council ended because they were not admitted to a fair and free dispute And it may be too some Decrees would have been more favourable to them had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer Here you complain of his Lordships falling again to his Surmizes of the Bishops being over-awed by the Popes Authority in the Council which you call an empty and injurious suspicion an unworthy accusation and arguing the want of Christian charity But usually when you storm the most you are the most guilty For if you call this an empty suspicion c. you charge many more with it besides his Lordship and those the greatest of your own Communion what meant else the frequent Protestations of the French and Spanish Ambassadours in which they often declared that as things were managed the Council was not Free What meant those words of the Emperour Ferdinand in his Letters to the Legats and the Pope That the Liberty of the Council was impeached chiefly by three causes one because every thing was first consulted of at Rome another because the Legats had assumed to themselves only the liberty of proposing which ought to be common to all the third because of the practises which some Prelats interested in the Greatness of the Court of Rome did make The French Ambassadour Monsieur de Lansac writ to the King his Master That the Pope was so much Master of this Council that his Pensioners whatsoever the Emperours or we do remonstrate to them will do but what they list Several of the like nature might easily be produced so that it is not his Lordship only is guilty of this want of charity as you call it but all impartial persons who were most acquainted with the Affairs of that Council Whose judgement is certainly much more to be taken then such who have sworn to defend it But you have an excellent Argument to prove the Council Free because the Bishops of the Council continued in the Faith and Doctrine of it as long as they lived And had they not good reason so to do when they were sworn before hand to defend the Pope and having secured him from danger of reformation by the Council and subscribed the Decrees of it they were as much bound to defend their own acts And although it is well enough known what practises were used to bring off the French and Spanish Bishops yet when they were brought off what a shame would it have been for them to have revolted from their own Subscriptions But what is this to that General freedom which was desired by the Roman Catholick Princes for Reformation of the Court of Rome and by Protestants both of the Court and Church Was the Council any thing
evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church alwayes observed this rule and could never be deceived in it For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Pope and Councils challenge this and this is the common Doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as Heretical and Seditious persons or ought I not rather to take the judgement of the greatest and most approved persons in that Church And these disown any such Doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not so before in which case I ask Whether when a thing is de novo determined to be de fide that Church believed as the precedent did or no If it did How comes any thing to be de fide which was not before If it did not What assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of Faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of Faith which never was so in Christ or the Apostles times and so the Infallibility on the account of Tradition is destroyed 2. What security is there that in no age of the Church any practises should come in which were not used in the precedent You may say Because they could not be deceived what their fore Fathers did but that satisfies not unless you prove that all the Church in every age looked upon it self as obliged to do nothing at all but what their fore-Fathers did For although they might know never so much what was done by them if they did not judge themselves bound to observe unalterably what they did this doth not hinder at all but new customs and opinions might be introduced in the Church And therefore I cannot but justly wonder that any men of parts who professedly disown the vulgar wayes of establishing the Roman Church should think to satisfie themselves with Orall Tradition and cry it up as so impregnable a thing Because no age of the Church can be deceived in what the foregoing did and taught Whereas a very little of that reason which these men pretend to might acquaint them that the force of it doth not lye in their capacity to know what was done by others but in their obligation not to vary at all from it For the main weight of the Argument lyes here That nothing hath been changed in the Faith or Practise of the Church which being the thing to be proved the bare knowledge of what was believed or practised is not sufficient to prove it for men may know very well what others believe and do and yet may believe and do quite contrary themselves But the only thing to be proved in this case is That every age of the Church and all persons in it looked upon themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the Doctrine or practise of the precedent age And I pray let me know by what demonstrative medium can this be proved for no less then demonstrations are spoken of by the magnifiers of this way although there be so little evidence in it that it cannot work but upon a very weak understanding Must that obligation to observe all which the precedent age believed or practised be proved by reason particular testimony or universal tradition And let the extollers of this way take their choice so they will undertake to bring evidence equal to the weight which depends upon it It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary And they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible that men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their Predecessours did If particular testimonies could be produced they signifie no more then their own judgements but we are enquiring for the judgement of every age of the Church and the persons who live in it And to prove an universal tradition of this obligation is the most difficult task of all for it depends upon the truth of that which is to be proved by it For if they did not think themselves obliged to believe and do what their Predecessours did they could not think themselves bound to deliver such an obligation to their posterity to do it And therefore you must first prove the obligation it self before you can prove the universal tradition of it For although one age may deliver it yet you cannot be assured that a former age did it to them unless you can prove the same sense of this obligation ran through them all But this is so far from being an universal tradition that the present age from which it begins was never agreed in it as I have shewed already 3. It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the foregoing when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this Argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the History of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries For this Argument proceeds just as if men should prove the world eternal by this medium The present age sees no alteration in it and they could not be deceived in what their fore Fathers believed nor they in theirs and so on in infinitum for no men did ever see the world made and therefore it was never made and so eternal But if we go about to prove by reason the production of the world or by Scripture to shew that it was once made then this oral tradition is spoiled And so it is in the present case These men attempt to prove there could never be any alteration in the Faith or practise of the Church since Christs time for the present age delivers what it had from the precedent and so up till the first institution of the Church but in the mean time if we can evidently prove that there have been such alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did
Lordship rebukes Mr. Fisher for citing King James so boldly for but two wayes it may be taken he adds 1. To lose such assistance as preserves from all errour 2. Or else from all fundamental errour this therefore his Lordship truely saith is an errour of the first sort and not of the latter Passing by therefore his Lordships expressions of his modesty which if an errour is one you are like to be secured from and his cautious expressions concerning the Greek Church which he highly shewed his wisdome in we come to consider how you prove the Greek Church guilty of fundamental errour You say You pass by his trifling and make way for truth I wonder not to see you reflect on his Lordship for his modesty considering how little of it you shew towards him let us then make way too but it is to see you and Truth combat together It is to be considered say you that now for many hundred years the whole Latine Church hath decreed and believed it to be flat Heresie in the Greeks and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a General Council in Florentino how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick arguments against them affirm that the matter of this Controversie was so small and inconsiderable that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome for many hundred years quite blind and themselves only clear and sharp-sighted which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learn'd from St. Augustin that Pride is the mother of Heresie will easily collect I grant this speech of St. Augustin to be true only let it be added that Pride is likewise the Mother of making Heresies as will appear in this present Controversie and whether we who vindicate the Greek Church from Heresie or you who would find the Bill against her to keep her from any rivalship with your Church be more guilty of Pride will be soon discovered but sure you believe us not only to be men of yesterday but to know nothing who should sentence the Greek Church for Heresie upon such feeble pretences as these are I know not what presumption that can be to say Men may be too forward on both sides in calling each other Hereticks and it may be not so much their Blindness as Pride and Passion which may make them do it But if they will condemn that for Heresie which is not so made appear to be upon any evidence from Scripture and Reason they were not so blind in defining it as we should be in following their judgement without further examination But this was for many hundred years The more to blame they for continuing in so rash judgements so long if it appear so But it is well still you tell us that as the Latin Church condemned the Greek for Heresie the Greek condemned the Latin for it too And so by your own rule the one was as blind as the other But the Latin Church had the right to determine Heresie and the Greek had not This is the question Which Church must be relyed on for judgement and if they mutually condemn each other we must have a higher rule to judge of both by But still Is it not an Argument that it is a Heresie of one side or the other because each party condemns the other of Heresie Just as much as if two men fall out and call each other Knaves it must be granted that if both be not yet at least the one of them is so Heresie being grown the scolding word in Religion and no two parties can differ but they seek to fasten this reproach on each other If one should bring greater evidence than the other of his Knavery he ought to be more accounted so No otherwise can it be here if sufficient proof be brought of Heresie on the one side and not the other that party may be looked on as more guilty but still remembring that the more confident affirmation the pretence to greater honesty and power be not taken for the only evidences of it As I doubt it will appear in our present case But still suppose that of two men who have so reproached each other the one of them being fallen into distress and poverty and not hoping for relief but from the other person and he denying it unless he be content by joynt-consent to be proclaimed Knave which he through his necessity yeilding to but assoon as that is over declaring on what account they agreed Must this man be more pittied for his Necessity or condemned for his Knavery Just such I shall make it appear that which you call condemning the Grecians as Heretical in a General Council at Florence to have been and no otherwise But I come to a closer examination of this Subject to see with what Justice you charge the Greek Church either with Heresie or Schism For both these you accuse it of in this Chapter Two things were the most in dispute between the Greek and Latin Churches the one was the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son the other was concerning the addition of the Filióque to the Creed And although the Greeks in the debates at Ferrara would not meddle with the Doctrine before the Latins could clear themselves concerning the addition which they said was the main cause of the Contest between them yet I am content to follow your method and handle the other first Your discourse concerning the first consists of two parts Proofs and Answers Proofs of their Heresie and Answers to his Lordships Arguments against it The Proofs are double the one from Authority the other from Theological reason Through every of these particulars I shall follow you and from them I doubt not to evince that the Greeks are not guilty of the faults you lay to their charge We have already seen what your Proofs from Authority are their condemning one another for Hereticks and the Greeks being condemned by a General Council If I can therefore prove that the Greeks opinion was not accounted an Heresie before the Council of Florence and that it did not become a Heresie by the Council of Florence I shall sufficiently discover the weakness of your Arguments from authority 1. That it was not accounted a Heresie before the Council of Florence I mean not that there were no hot-brain'd persons in all the time of the difference who did not brand the Greek Church with Heresie but that it was never accounted a Heresie by any of those whom your selves account the only competent Judges of Heresie and those are either the Fathers or Popes or Councils which I prove in their order 1. That it was not
you had said before but only this that what was not once necessary to salvation cannot by any after-declaration of the Church be made necessary as shall be abundantly manifested in the Controversie of Fundamentals What follows must be more particularly considered because therein you would fain remove the Article of Filioque from being the cause of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches and impute it wholly to the Pride and Ambition of the Eastern Prelates Your words are But it is also true That the addition of Filioque to the Creed was made many years before the difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks so that the inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schism But grudges arising among the Greeks who had been a large flourishing Church with a number of most learned and zealous Prelates and held the Articles still though upon emptier heads such quickly filled with wind thinking their swelling places and great City of Constantinople might hold up against Rome they began to quarrel not for places that was too mean a motive for such as look'd so big but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome nay they spyed out Heresies in it the old way of all Hereticks and so fell to question the Procession of the Holy Ghost and must needs have Filioque out of the Creed These words of yours lay the charge of Schism on the Greeks wholly and therefore in order to our vindication of them from that two things must be enquired into 1. Whether it was in your Churches Power to make the Addition of Filioque to the Creed 2. Whether the Greeks Ambition and Pride were the only cause of the Separation between the Eastern and Western Churches 1. Concerning the addition of Filioque two things must be enquired into 1. When it began and by whom it was added to the Creed 2. Whether they who added it had power so to do and to impose on all others the use of it 1. Concerning the time of this Addition nothing seems more dark in Church-history than the precise and punctual time of it And so much you acknowledge your self elsewhere But it seems it is your concernment to say That the Addition was made before the difference brake out To that I answer if you mean that in some Churches the Procession from the Son was acknowledged before that difference I grant it as is clear by some Councils of Toledo and that the doctrine of the Procession was received in France too about the time of Charls the Great I acknowledge and that it was admitted into the solemn Offices of the Church but that it was added to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed to be received by all Churches so that it should not be lawful for any to use that Creed without such Addition that I deny to have been before the Schism but assert it to have been a great occasion of it It is acknowledged that in Spain several Councils of Toledo in their profession of Faith do mention the Procession from the Son but this they delivered only as their own private judgments and not as the publick Creed received by all Churches For Petavius confesseth that in Symbolo ipso nihil adjecerunt they added nothing at all to the Creed And although the custom of singing the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Liturgy seems first to have begun in Spain from whom Petavius supposeth both the French and Germans received it yet even there it appears it was not universally received For the Church of Sevil contented it self still with the Mozarabick Liturgy in which only the bare Nicene Creed was used You tell us indeed That the inserting the Article in the Councils of Toledo is supposed to have been done upon the authority of an Epistle they had received from Pope Leo which though it be not barely supposed but asserted with great confidence by Baronius yet as most other things in him which are brought to advance the Pope's Authority it hath no other ground but his confident assertion There being not the least shadow of proof for it but only that this Leo in a certain Epistle of his to the Spaniards did once upon a time mention that the Son proceeded from the Father Therefore in Spain I grant the Doctrine to be received I deny the Addition to be made to the Constantinopolitan Creed although it be read as added to it in the 8. or 10. Council of Toledo under Reccesuintus A. D. 653. But this was still only the declaration of their own Faith in this Article and no imposing it on others In France that it began to be received in publick Use A. D. 809. must be acknowledged by the proceedings of the Legats from the Council of Aquisgrane to Pope Leo 3. But it appears as clearly that Pope Leo did then condemn the use of it as will be shewed afterwards When it should creep into the Athanasian Creed seems as hard to find out as when first added to the Constantinopolitan but if we believe Pithaeus the whole Creed was of a French Composition there being many Arguments to perswade us it never was made by Athanasius of which in their due place and Vossius adds That it is very probable it was composed about the time of Charls the Great the Controversie being then so rise about the Procession But that seems the less probable because the Article of Filioque is not found in the Ancient Copies of that Creed For Spalatensis saith That in all the Greek Copies he had seen there was only mention made of the Procession from the Father And the Patriarch Cyril saith That not only the Symbol of Athanasius is adulterated among the Latins but that it is proved to be so by the more ancient and genuine Copies But however this be we deny not but the Article of Procession from the Son grew into use especially in the Gallican and Spanish Churches before the Schism broke out between the Eastern and Western Churches but our enquiry is not concerning that but concerning the time when it was so added to the Constantinopolitan Creed that it was required to be used only with that addition For this you tell us That Hugo Eterianus affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome but he names not the Pope So likewise the Latin Divines at the Council of Florence pretended still that it was added by the Pope in a full Council but very carefully forbare the mention of the person or the punctual time But it is your unhappiness if there be divers opinions to be followed to make choice of the most improbable as you do here when you embrace that of Socolovius which is That the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome the Pope and Council at Rome approved of their said Confession but yet