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
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
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
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
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
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
Article of the Procession from the Son to be no necessary Article of Faith but acknowledgeth it to be one of the deeper mysteries of Religion which none were obliged to believe but such as could reach to the knowledge of which either want of age in some capacity in others and invincible prejudice in many more might keep them from the knowledge of Thus it appears by the Pope's judgement the denyal of this could be no Heresie then because he declares it not to be necessary to be believed by all What now must we think of this Pope if we apply your words to him Were all other succeeding ages blind and this Pope only clear and sharp-sighted which judgement of his must be called nothing short of swelling presumption and if you please St. Austin shall be quoted for it too but it must be in some other place besides that where he sayes that Pride is the Mother of Heresie Do you think we can do other then hugely applaud our selves in seeing you so furiously lay about you when we know your first blows fall on the Fathers and your second cut off one Leg at least of your Infallible Chair Can we have better security against you then the judgement of one of your own Popes may we not well be accounted blind when for our sakes Infallibility it self must be so too If you tell us that after Popes declared otherwise I have but one request to make to you viz. To make it appear that when two Popes shall determine both parts of a Contradiction to be true they both are Infallible in doing so But if we proceed a little further it may be we shall find the judgement of another Pope agreeing with this For which we must consider that A. D. 858 Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople being imprisoned by the Emperour Michael and Photius being placed in his room in a Council held by Photius A. D. 861 Ignatius was condemned upon which he being likewise condemned by Pope Nicolaus at Rome he doth as much for him at Constantinople So that those grudges which had been before more closely carried between the Greeks and Latins did now openly discover themselves But among several other things which Photius charged the Latin Church with the chiefest and that which he insists on with the greatest vehemency is That they did attempt to corrupt and adulterate the holy and sacred Symbol of Faith which had obtained an unalterable force by the Decrees of Synods and Councils with false senses and new additions by an unmeasurable confidence O their Diabolical machinations for by a strange innovation they make the Holy Ghost proceed not only from the Father but the Son too This we find in his Encyclical Epistle published by him on the account of the difference between the Latin and the Greek Church in which he largely disputes against the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit from the Son and as we see charges the Latins with fraud presumption and a desire of Innovation in the inserting that Article into the Creed Not long after this Pope Nicolaus having advised with the Gallican Bishops what to do in this business dyes to whom Adrian succeeds as bitter against Photius as his Predecessor and had more advantage against him then the other had For at Constantinople the Emperour Michael being slain by Basilius whom he had adopted to a Partnership in the Empire the year before he presently banisheth Photius restoreth Ignatius calleth a Council A. D. 869 in which Photius is Anathematized and for the greater execration of him they dipt their Pens wherewith they subscribed in the Sacred Chalice This the Latins call the eighth Oecumenical Synod Notwithstanding all which Ignatius being dead Photius is restored by Basilius Macedo A. D. 878. Legats are dispatched to Pope John 8. as in courtesie to you we call him who succeeded Adrian that Photius might be restored to the communion of the Church and his Patriarchal dignity which is presently done The year following a General Council is held at Constantinople in which the Popes Legats are present and this the Greeks only admit for the eighth Oecumenical In which all that was done against Photius is abrogated the Constantinopolitan Creed without the addition of Filioque is solemnly read and it is decreed against the Latins the Popes Legats consenting that nothing should be added to the Creed But lest you should think the Popes Legats were practised upon by some arts of Photius for some of his Enemies among other reproaches did not stick to say he learnt Magick from the famous Santarabenus And that it was done without the Popes free consent we have his own testimony afterwards in approbation of it For Pithaeus an ingenuous as well as very learned man confesseth that the Letters of this Pope are still extant among the Latins by which it appears that he condemned all the Synods held against Photius whether at Rome or Constantinople and the Patriarch Hieremias whose testimony in other cases you make much of saith expresly not only that the Pope consented to this Synod by the Cardinal Peter and Paulus and Eugenius who were there his Legats but that in an Epistle he writ to Photius he hath these words I declare again to your Grace concerning that Article by which such scandals have been in the Churches of Christ. Assure your self that we not only speak this but that we really judge Those who first durst out of their presumption do this to be transgressors of the sacred Oracles changers of the Doctrine of our Lord Christ and the Holy Fathers and we place them in the Society of Judas What Article was this I pray which the Pope is so zealous against even no other then that which you account all blind who do not esteem the denyal of it Heresie It seems then we have one more added to the number of Heretical Popes for Photius himself could not express more vehemency against this Article then the Pope doth and that when by his Legats in a Council therefore Infallible according to you because confirmed by the Pope he had declared himself utterly against the addition of this Article to the Creed And instead of accounting them Hereticks who denyed it you see how much worse then Hereticks he accounted them who first added it So that I wonder you do not rather account the belief of that Article Heresie than the denyal of it I know well enough how your party rail here to purpose against Photius but what is all that to the business Let Photius be what he will Were not the Popes Legats present at the Council Did not they confirm the decrees of it Did not the Pope afterwards ratifie it So that if ever Council were Infallible according to your Principles this must be choose therefore either to relinquish the Pope's and Councils Infallibility or else acknowledge that men at one time may be infallibly guilty of violating Scriptures Fathers Councils for
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
things before mentioned concerning the Father and the Son where he useth dicimus non dicimus as well as here And therefore Aquinas was much wiser who plainly condemns Damascen for a Nestorian in this licet à quibusdam dicatur c. Although it be said by some that in these words he neither affirms or denys it wherein I am much mistaken if he reflects not on Bonaventure Vasquez Petavius and several others think to bring Damascen off by the distinctions of à filio and per filium much to your purpose but in the great dispute at the Council at Florence between Bessarion and Marcus Ephesius about the importance of the Articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marcus Ephesius produceth the words of Damascen expresly that the Spirit doth not proceed from the Son but by the Son whereby it is plain that he understood per filium in opposition to à filio And Bessarion had nothing else to return in answer to it but that he could produce but one out of Antiquity who said so Thus we see if Theophylact and Damascen as well as Theodoret and Photius be Ancient Greeks your distinction comes to nothing But besides this it appears by the disputations of Hugo Etherianus against the Greeks who lived saith Bellarmin A. D. 1160. still extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum that the Greeks held the very same then that they do now And so in the Synod of Bar in Apulia when Anselm disputed so stoutly against the Greeks that Pope Vrban said he was alterius orbis Papa as the story is related by Eadmerus and Wilhelmus Malmesburiensis it appears they denyed the Procession of the Spirit absolutely from the Son and this was A. D. 1096. as is evident from the Letter of Hildebertus to him about the publishing his Disputation and from the Book of Anselm still extant on that subject We find not therefore any ground for this distinction of yours concerning the Ancient and Modern Greeks and therefore they who said that there was no real difference in any matter of Faith between the Ancient Greeks and Latins must be understood as well of the Modern Greeks as them Their words being no more capable of such a tolerable interpretation as you speak of than the words of any of the Modern Greeks are His Lordship was proving that the point was not fundamental that the Greeks and Latins differed in from that acknowledgement of Peter Lombard and the Schoolmen that is to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Son and that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Son is not to speak different things but the same sense in different words Now in this cause saith he where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same penitùs eadem even altogether the same can the point be fundamental But say you he was to prove that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity erred not fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity But do you not herein wilfully mistake his Lordships meaning For in the Paragraph foregoing his Lordship first declares his own judgement concerning the denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost viz. That he did acknowledge it to be a grievous errour in Divinity but yet he could not judge the Greeks guilty of a fundamental errour which he proves by a double medium 1. Because they did not thereby deny the Equality and Consubstantiality of the persons 2. Because divers learned men were of opinion that à filio per filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a question in modo loquendi and therefore not fundamental now for this he produceth those testimonies Now I pray do you put no difference between the making the denyal of a Proposition to be an errour and the saying that such persons are guilty of the denyal of that Proposition His Lordship grants the denyal of the Procession to be a grievous errour in Divinity but he questioned as the Greeks expressed themselves for those very words he inserts whether they were guilty of denying that Proposition as appears by the authorities of the Schoolmen and therefore certainly much less guilty of a fundamental errour Thus you see his Lordship fully proves what he intends for if they agreed in sense they were much less guilty of a fundamental errour than if they had plainly denyed the Procession which he supposeth from those Authorities that they did not And therefore when you Sarcastically ask Is not this strong Logick The only answer I shall give you is That if you apprehend it not to be so it is because of the weakness of your Theological Reason And therefore you put his Lordships Defender on a strange task to prove from those Authorities that those Greeks who erre grievously in Divinity erre not fundamentally When the only design of his Lordship in producing those Authorities was to shew that according to their opinion the Greeks were so far from erring fundamentally that they did not erre grievously in Divinity And to this purpose the citation of Peter Lombard was pertinent who saith That because the Greeks acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son though he doth not proceed from him therefore the difference between the Greeks and Latins is in words and not in sense but you say He speaks only of such as differed in words and not in substance as though he put a difference between the Greeks that some differed in words and others really which is quite beside his meaning for he takes not the least notice of any such difference among themselves but saith The difference it self concerning the Procession the Greeks acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son is more verbal than real And that the present Greeks say full as much is evident for they acknowledge the same things in express words The testimony of Bonaventure hath been already considered as far as concerns Damascen as for the rest it was sufficient for his Lordships purpose to produce such a Confession from so bitter an enemy of the Greeks as Bonaventure was so his Lordship in his Marginal Citation sayes truly of him licèt Graecis infensissimus c. that he doth not deny but that salvation might be had without the article of Filioque but whether on that supposition there were sufficient reason to add it to the Creed will be considered afterwards Though Bonaventure held the Greeks to be Hereticks and Schismaticks I hope you do not think that is Argument enough to perswade us that they were so That any thing without which salvation might have been had before may by the definition of your Church become so necessary that men cannot be saved without the belief of it had need be more than barely asserted either by Bonaventure or you and we must wait for the proof of it for any thing here said
let us now make way for Theological reason to enter the lists armed Cap-a-pe in Mood and Figure For now at last you tell us You will argue in Forme against his Lordship and the Greek Church together And thus it proceeds If the Greeks errour be not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost then according to the Bishops own distinction they have lost all assistance of that blessed Spirit and are become no true Church But their errour is not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost Therefore c. The Major or first Proposition contains the Bishops own Doctrine the Minor or second Proposition wherein you learnedly tell us what the Major and Minor in Syllogisms are you thus prove All errours specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are according to all Divines not only errours concerning but errours against the Holy Ghost But the Greeks errour is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost as is already proved Ergo their errour is not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost whose assistance therefore they have lost not only according to the first but even latter branch of the Bishops distinction and consequently remain no true Church Now who is there that out of meer pitty can find in his heart not to yield this to you when you have been at such pains to prove it But things set out with the greatest formality have not alwayes the most solidity in them All the force of this Argument such as it is lye's in this that his Lordship had said That the errour of the Greeks was rather about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then against the Holy Ghost which he after explains by saying It was not such an errour as did destroy the equality or Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the other persons of the Trinity I pray now take his Lordships explication of himself and you must form your Argument after another way then you have done but you saw well enough that you could not make any shew of an Argument but meerly from words If I thought it worth considering it were easie to tell you that what is only against the Procession from the Son is not thereby against the Holy Ghost because it may be the Holy Ghost i. e. the third person in the Trinity though it proceed only from the Father And as well you might say that whatever Doctrine denies the Son to be begotten of the Spirit is not only concerning but against the Son and urge the consequences upon as good terms as you do about the Spirit But so trifling an Argument is too much honoured by any serious confutation And it seems you were something sensible of it your self when you say His Lordship seemed to have provided against the force of it as who would not by hinting a difference between errours fundamental and not fundamental which point I shall purposely examine in the following Chapter When you therefore come to hold forth what is now but hinted at I shall readily hearken to what you have to say Thus for any thing you have produced to the contrary it sufficiently appears that the Greek Church is very unjustly charged with Heresie by you and that those testimonies which his Lordship produced would as well hold for the Modern as Ancient Greeks to which I might add the judgement of others of your own side who speak as much concerning the Modern Greeks as Thomas à Jesu Azorius and others but I think not that way of arguing to have much force on either side and therefore pass it over And come to the debate of the Filioque with which you say his Lordship begins to quibble on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed But I am quite of another mind I think he speaks very seriously and with a great deal of reason when he saith And Rome in this particular should be more moderate if it be but because this Article Filioque was added to the Creed by her self And 't is hard to add and Anathematize too For what you say to this of the Holy Ghost's having leave to assist the Church in adding expressions for the better explication of any Article of Faith and then the Pope hath leave and command too to Anathematize all such as shall not allow the use of such expressions I commend you that when you must beg something you would beg all that was to be had at once but before you perswade us to the digesting such crudities as these are prove but these following things 1. Where it is that there is any promise of the Ghost's assistance in adding any Articles to the Creed under pretence of better expressions for explication of them 2. Supposing such an assistance what ground is there to impose such additional expressions so that those who admit them not must be guilty of Heresie and consequently by your principles incurr eternal damnation 3. How those expressions can be accounted a better explication of an Article of Faith which contain something not implyed in nor necessarily deduced from any other Article of Faith 4. If this assistance be promised to the Church how any one part of that Church as great a part stifly opposing such additional expressions can claim that assistance to it self the other parts of the Catholick Church utterly denying it 5. If an assistance as to such things be promised the Church why may it not be more reasonably presumed to be in an Oecumenical Council as that at Ephesus forbidding such additions than in any part of the Church which after such a Decree shall directly contradict it 6. What right can the Church have to Anathematize any for the not using such expressions which that Church which determins the use of them doth acknowledge to be only expressions for better explication of an Article of Faith and consequently the denyal of them cannot amount to the denyal of an Article of Faith but only of the better explication of it 7. If all these things be granted how comes the Pope not only to have leave but command too to Anathematize all such as use not these expressions Where is that Command extant how comes it to be limited to him Is he expressed in it or doth it by necessary consequence follow from it What good would it do us to see but one of these proved which you very fairly beg in the lump together And till you have proved them all you may assure your self that we shall never believe that the Pope hath so much as leave much less command to Add and Anathematize too As to the Filioque you grant That many hundred years had passed from the time of the Apostles before Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed and more since the declarations and decrees were sufficiently published and in all these years salvation was had without mention of Filioque A fair Concession and nothing is wanting to destroy all that
understood till we have gone through the Account of the Grounds of Faith If S. Augustine make some no Catholick Christians for holding obstinately some things of no great moment in his Book of Heresies it was because by Catholick Christians he understood all such and only such as were the members of the sound and Orthodox Church in opposition to all kind of unnecessary separation from it upon matters of small moment and not because he believed the Churches Infallibility in defining all matters of Faith and that all such things were so defined which men are call'd Hereticks for denying of unless you will suppose it was ever infallibly defined that there were no Antipodes for some were accounted Hereticks for believing them and that by such whom you account greater than S. Austin But for S. Austin how far it was from his meaning to have all those accounted Fundamental Errours which he recounts in his Book of Heresies appears not only from the multitude of particulars mentioned in it which no one in his senses can acknowledge Fundamental or declared by the Church as necessary to be believed by all but from his declared scope and design in the preface to that Book wherein it appears he was desired not only to write the greater errours concerning Faith the Trinity Baptism Repentance Christ the Resurrection the Old and New Testament Sed omnia omnino quibus à veritate dissentiunt i. e. all kind of errours whatsoever and do you think that there could then be no errour but it must be against some thing then defined by the Church as necessary to Salvation If not then all truths were then defined by the Church and consequently there could be no new Definitions ever since if there might then those errours mentioned by S. Austin were not about matters necessary to be believed and so S. Austin's Book of Heresies makes nothing for you but very much against you considering that in all that black list of Hereticks there are none brought in for denying those grand Fundamentals of your Church the Pope's Supremacy your Churches Infallibility nor any of that new brood of necessary Articles which were so prudently hatcht by the Council of Trent But if S. Austin do you no good you hope S. Gregory Nazianzen may because he saith That nothing can be more perillous than those Hereticks who with a drop of poison do infect our Lord 's sincere Faith Therefore all things defined by the Church are Fundamental What an excellent Art this Logick is that can fetch out of things that which was never in them What a rare consequence is this If Heresie be dangerous then whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental but it may be the strength lyes in the drop of poison as though S. Gregory thought a drop of poison as dangerous as a whole dose of it But were I your Physitian instead of the least drop of poison I should prescribe you good store of Hellebore and should hope to see the effect of it in making better consequences than these are But to see yet further the strange effects that Logick hath upon some men for say you in the prosecution of your proof that all things defined by the Church are Fundamental Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 8.17 If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican The Argument in form runs thus Whosoever deserves excommunication is guilty of a Fundamental Errour but he that will not hear the Church deserves Excommunication ergo Or else there may be more in it than so For no doubt the Heathens and Publicans as such were guilty of Fundamental Errours therefore they who will not hear the Church are guilty of as Fundamental Errours as Heathens and Publicans But before you urge us any more with this dreadful Argument I pray tell us What that Church is which our Saviour speaks of what the cases are wherein the Church is to be heard what the full importance is of being as a Heathen and Publican and you must prove this Church to be understood in your sense of the Catholick Church and that this Church hath hereby power to define matters of Faith and that none can possibly in any other sense be accounted as Heathens and Publicans but as guilty of as Fundamental Errours as they were Your next Objection concerning giving God and the Church the lye and preferring and opposing a man's private judgement and will before and against the Judgement and Will of God and the Church if men deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a truth revealed by God signifies nothing at all unless it be antecedently proved that the Church can never erre in declaring any thing to be a truth revealed by God which none who know what you mean by the Church will easily assent to till you have attempted a further proof of it than yet we find And although the questioning Divine Veracity be destructive to that which you call Supernatural Faith yet I hope it is possible to believe God to be true and yet that all men are lyars or that there is no such inseparable Connexion between God's Veracity and the present Declarations of any Church but that one may heartily assent to the former and yet question the truth of the latter If you think otherwise shew your pity to the weakness of our understandings by something that may look like a proof of it which we are still much to seek for But your greatest strength like Sampson's seems to lye there where one would least suspect it viz. in Athanasius his Creed For thus you go on Wherefore it is said in S. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the thirty nine Articles of the pretended English Church that Whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which unless every one hold whole and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply That all Points expressed therein are Fundamental in his sense for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into Hell he mentions expresly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship hath denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter But the better to comprehend the force of this Argument we must first consider what it is you intend to prove by it and then in what way and manner you prove it from this Creed The matter which you are to prove is that all things defined by the Church are Fundamental i. e. in your sense necessary to Salvation and that the ground why such things whose matter is not necessary do become necessary is because the Church declares them to be revealed by God now in order to this you insist on the Creed commonly call'd Athanasius his wherein some things acknowledged not to be Fundamental in the matter are yet said to be necessary
and endeavour to make it out that this is the most proper interpretation both of Scripture and Fathers when they seem most clearly to speak of the Procession of the Spirit from the Son The same likewise the Patriarch Cyril insists upon who acknowledgeth these several words to be attributed to the Spirit in reference to the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several others in the writings of the Fathers all which he acknowledgeth to be true but he denyes that any of them do import a Hypostatical Procession of the Spirit from the Son but that they all refer to the temporal mission and manifestation of the Spirit through Christ under the Gospel Whether this answer will reach to all the places produced out of the Fathers is not here my business to enquire only that which is pertinent to my purpose may be sufficiently inferred from hence that the Fathers certainly were not definitive in this Controversie when their expressest sentences seem capable of quite a different meaning to wise and learned men who one would think if the belief of this Procession had been a tradition of their Church or fully expressed in the Writings of the Fathers of the Greek Church could not be so ignorant or wilful as either not to see this to have been their meaning or supposing they had seen it to persist in so obstinate a belief of the contrary I can therefore with advantage return your words back again to you It is to be considered that for many hundred years the whole Greek Church never believed this to be an article of Faith nay the Fathers were so far from it that both single and in General Councils they did plainly express the contrary how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise defending the Power and Infallibility of the Roman Church affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so great and considerable that it is sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make Fathers and General Councils and consequently all Christendom 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 learnt from reason if not from S. Augustine That Pride is the Mother of making Heresies in unnecessary articles of Faith will easily collect Do not you see now how unadvisedly those words came from you which with so small variation in the manner of expression and much greater truth in the matter of it is restored upon your self But I go on still if possible to make you sensible how much you have wronged the Greek Church in this charge of a fundamental errour in her for denying this Procession of the Spirit from the Son Which shall be from hence that although there were some who did as plainly deny this as ever the Modern Greeks did or do yet they were far from being condemned for Heresie in so doing For which we must consider that although the Fathers as we have already seen did speak ambiguously in this matter yet the first who appears openly and stoutly to have denyed it was Theodoret which being the rise of the Controversie must be more carefully enquired into It appears then that a General Council being summoned by the Emperour Theodosius to meet at Ephesus concerning the opinions of Nectorius which were vehemently opposed by Cyril of Alexandria and several Aegyptian and Asian Bishops who being there convened proceed to the deposition of Nestorius and Anathematizing his doctrine before Johannes Antiochenus and several other Bishops who favoured Nestorius were come to Ephesus When these therefore came and found what had been done by the other Bishops they being seconded by Candidianus there and the Court-party at Constantinople assemble apart by themselves and proceed on the other side to a deposition and excommunication of Cyril and Memnon who were the leaders of all the rest and these make an Anti-Synod to the other which consisted of persons of several interests and perswasions some Pelagians some Nestorians and others more as Friends to Nestorius than his opinions as being his Ancient Familiars and acquaintance did joyn with them to prevent his deposition among which the chief were Johannes Antiochenus and Theodoret. But before the Council Cyril had published his Anathema's against the opinions of Nestorius to these therefore not only the Oriental Bishops gave an answer but John the Patriarch of Antioch particularly appoints Theodoret to refute them The ninth Anathema of Cyril was against Nestorius and all others who said That Christ used the Holy Ghost as a distinct power from himself for the working of miracles and that did not acknowledge him to be the proper Spirit of Christ. Theodoret grants the first part wherein he shews he was no Nestorian but quarrels with the latter part for saith he If by that he means that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son and that it proceeds from the Father we acknowledge it together with him but if by that he understands as though the Spirit had his subsistence from or by the Son we reject it as blasphemous and impious Was ever any thing in this kind spoken with greater heat and confidence than this was here by Theodoret And if this had been looked on as Heretical at that time can we possibly imagine that so zealous an opposer of all Heresies and especially of the Nestorians as S. Cyril of Alexandria was should so coolly and patiently pass this by as he doth For all the answer he gives is only that which was before cited out of him that he acknowledgeth The Spirit doth proceed from the Father but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not of another nature from the Son but did not Theodoret expresly assert that as well as Cyril Is it then possible that any one who hath his wits about him should imagine that if that doctrine of Theodoret had been accounted Heretical it being expressed in so vehement a manner as it is it should have no other answer from Cyril but only approving that which Theodoret confesseth viz. the Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son All the answer which Petavius and others give is so weak and trifling that one may easily see how much they were put to it to find out any Sometimes it was because Cyril was intent upon his business and therefore passed it by as though he were so weak a man as to let his adversary broach Heresie and say nothing to it because it was not pertinent to the present cause But if it were not it is an argument the second Answer is false viz. that Theodoret was herein a Nestorian for if he were so it could not be besides the business but was a main part of it Moreover if this were a piece of Nestorianism it is very strange the Fathers of that Council when they purposely
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
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
But the Greeks say this answer is unsatisfactory on these accounts 1. Because there is no reason to say that Decree doth not forbid the inserting Declarations into the Creed 2. That if it did not forbid that yet there is as little reason to say this was a meer Declaration 1. Because there is no reason to say that the Council did not forbid the inserting Declarations into the Creed For as Bessarion well observes it never was lawful to add new and distinct Articles of Faith from those which are contained in Scripture but the Church only undertook the explication and declaration of the things therein contained and this was only lawful Therefore the Ancient Fathers had full liberty of explaining Articles of Faith and using those explications as they judged most expedient and to place them where they thought good so it were not in Scripture thence they might insert them into the Creed or elsewhere But afterwards i. e. after this decree of the Ephesine Council this liberty was partly taken away and partly continued For it never was or will be unlawful to explain or declare Articles of Faith but to insert those explications into the Creed is now unlawful because forbidden by the decree of a General Council For saith he the Fathers of the third Council observing what great inconveniencies had followed in the Church upon the inlargement of Creeds and that no injury could at all come by the prohibition of any further Additions to be inserted for by that means they should only be bound to believe no more than what those Holy Fathers believed and who dare charge their Faith with imperfection and they did therefore wisely forbid all other expositions of Faith to be inserted into the Creed as he there at large proves And in the progress of that discourse takes off that which Bellarmin looked on as the only satisfactory answer viz. That the prohibition concerned only private persons For saith he It cannot be conceived that the Council should take care about the Declarations of the Creed made by particular persons whereas it alwaies was and is lawful for such to declare their Faith more particularly as appears by the Creed of Charisius received in this Council but this they looked after that the Creed which was commonly received in the Christian Churches and into which men are baptized should receive no alteration at all And to shew what their meaning was though their Council was purposely assembled against Nestorius yet they would not insert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Creed And the same decree was observed in the 4 5 6 7. Councils which by their actions did declare this to be the meaning of the Ephesine Council that no Declarations whatsoever should hereafter be inserted into the Creed For if they were meer Declarations there was much less necessity of inferting them into the Creed which was supposed to be a Systeme of the necessary Articles of Faith 2. There was as little reason to say that this Article was a meer Declaration For the Latins pretended that the Article of Filioque was only a further explication of that ex Patre For if so then whosoever doth believe the Procession from the Father doth believe all that is necessary to be believed And therefore certainly it can be no Heresie not to believe the Procession from the Son because that is only supposed to be a Declaration of that from the Father And since you are so ready to charge the Greek Church with Heresie I pray tell us whether this Article be a Declaration or not If not then the Latins were all deceived who pleaded the lawfulness of inserting Filioque on that account and consequently it must be a prohibited Addition If it be then shew us what Heresie lyes in not acknowledging a meer explication when all that is supposed necessary is believed in the substance of the Article Moreover Bessarion rightly distinguisheth between an explication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore grants that the Filioque might be said to be an explication of something contained in the Creed but not out of any thing contained in the Creed and therefore the Medium being extrinsecal it could not be said to be a meer Declaration For there can be no necessary Argument drawn from the Procession from the Father to inferr the Procession from the Son but it must be proved from some extrinsecal distinct Argument 2. Suppose this to be no prohibited Addition yet what right had the Pope and his Council without the consent of the Eastern Churches to make this Addition to the Creed For the Greeks said whatever authority the Church of Rome had it received by the Canons and its authority was therefore less then that of an Oecumenical Council wherefore it could not justly repeal or act contrary to the decree of a General Council as it did apparently in this case By which means the Latins were driven off from those which they looked on as slighter velitations and took Sanctuary in the Plenitude of the Pope's Power that therefore no Council could prescribe to him there could be no necessity of his calling the Eastern Churches to debate this Addition for he could do it of himself by virtue of his own authority in and over the Church Here Anselm and Bonaventure think to secure themselves and hither they are all driven at last So that we plainly see whatever else is pretended the Pope's usurped Power was that which truly gave occasion to the Schism For it was not the Latins believing the Procession from the Son which made the separation between the Eastern and Western Churches but the Pope's pretending a Power to impose an Article of Faith in the Creed against the decree of a former and without the consent of a present Oecumenical Council If you pretend that there hath been since an Oecumenical Council at Florence which hath declared it by that very answer you justifie the Greeks before that Council and so lay the guilt of the Schism wholly on the Pope who did insert and impose this Article before an Oecumenical Council Thus still it appears the cause of the Schism began at Rome and by the same Argument with which you charge them with Heresie viz. the Council at Florence you vindicate the Greek Church from Schism in all the actions of it before that Council And this might suffice to shew that it was not the levity vanity or ambition of the Greeks which gave the great occasion of the Schism but the Pride Incroachments and Vsurpations of the Church of Rome as might largely be manifested from the history of those times when the Schism began The rise of which ought to be derived from the times of the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Councils the second and fourth Oecumenical For the Canons of those Councils decreeing equal Priviledges to Constantinople with those of Rome made the Popes have a continual jealousie upon the Greek Church and watch
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
cannot be owned as an Apostolical Tradition 2. That what you call an unwritten Word must be something doctrinal so you call them your self doctrinal Traditions i. e. such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be believed by us and thence it was this Controversie rose from the Dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith Whether that contained all God's Word or all matters to be believed or no or Whether there were not some Objects of Faith which were never written but conveyed by Tradition 3. That what is thus doctrinal must be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical Tradition which you in terms assert According then to these Rules we come to examine the Evidences by you produced for such an unwritten Word For which you first produce several Instances out of S. Austin of such things which were in his time judged to be such i. e. doctrinal Traditions derived from the Apostles and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first you instance in is that we now treat That Scripture is the Word of God for which you propose the known place wherein he affirms he should not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto But this proves nothing to your purpose unless you make it appear that the Authority of the Church could not move him to believe the Gospel unless that Authority be supposed to be an unwritten Word For I will suppose that S. Austin or any other rational man might be sufficiently induced to believe the Gospel on the account of the Churches Authority not as delivering any doctrinal Tradition in the nature of an unwritten Word but as attesting that Vniversal Tradition which had been among all Christians concerning it Which Universal Tradition is nothing else but a conveying down to us the judgement of sense and reason in the present case For the Primitive Christians being best able to judge as to what Authentick Writings came from the Apostles not by any unwritten Word but by the use of all moral means it cannot reasonably be supposed that the successive Christians should imbezzle these Authentick Records and substitute others in the place of them When therefore Manichaeus pretended the Authenticalness of some other writings besides those then owned by the Church S. Austin did no more than any reasonable man would do in the like case viz. appeal to the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church upon the account of which he saies He was induced to believe the Gospel it self i. e. not so much the Doctrine as the Books containing it But of this more largely elsewhere I can hardly excuse you from a falsification of S. Austin's meaning in the ensuing words which you thus render If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church whereas it appears by the words cited in your own Margin his meaning is only this If you can find saith he something very plain in the Gospel concerning the Apostleship of Manichaeus you will thereby weaken the Authority of those Catholicks who bid me that I should not believe you whose Authority being weakned neither can I believe the Gospel because through them I believed it Is here any like what you said or at least would seem to have apprehended to be his meaning which is plainly this If against the consent of all those Copies which the Catholick Christians received those Copies should be found truer which have in them something of the Apostleship of Manichaeus this must needs weaken much the Authority of the Catholick Church in its Tradition whom he adhered to against the Manichees and their Authority being thus weakned his Faith as to the Scriptures delivered by them must needs be much weakned too To give you an Instance of a like nature The Mahumetans pretend that in the Scripture there was anciently express mention of their Prophet Mahomet but that the Christians out of hatred of their Religion have erased all those places which spake of him Suppose now a Christian should say If he should find in the Gospel express mention of Mahomet's being a Prophet it would much weaken the Authority of the whole Christian Church which being so weakned it must of necessity weaken the Faith of all those who have believed our present Copies Authentick upon the account of the Christian Churches Authority Is not this plainly the case S. Austin speaks of and Is it any more than any man's reason will tell him Not that the Churches Authority is to be relyed on as judicially or infallibly but as rationally delivering such an Universal Tradition to us And might not S. Austin on the same reason as well believe the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel when they were both equally delivered by the same Universal Tradition What you have gained then to your purpose from these three citations out of S. Austin in your first Instance I cannot easily imagine Your second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other person S. Austin's words are Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus tamen dicendum esse defenditur We never read in the Scriptures that the Father is unbegotten and yet it is defended that we must say so And had they not good reason with them to say so who believed that he was the Father by way of exclusion of such a kind of Generation as the Eternal Son of God is supposed to have But Must this be an Instance of a doctrinal Tradition containing some Object of Faith distinct from Scripture Could any one whoever believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture believe or imagine any other that though it be not in express terms set down in Scripture yet no one that hath any conceptions of the Father but this is implied in them If it be therefore a Tradition because it is not expresly in Scripture Why may not Trinity Hypostasis Person Consubstantiality be all unwritten Traditions as well as this You will say Because though the words be not there yet the sense is and I pray take the same Answer for this of the Father's being unbegotten Your third is Of the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary This indeed S. Austin saith is to be believed fide integra but he saith not divinâ but Do you therefore make this a doctrinal Tradition and an unwritten Word If you make it a doctrinal Tradition you must shew us what Article of Faith is contained in it that it was not looked on as an unwritten Word will appear by the disputations of those Fathers who writ most eagerly about it who make it their design to prove it out of Scripture Those who did most zealously appear against the Opinion of Helvidius were S. Hierom and S. Ambrose of the Latin Church S. Austin only mentions it in
their own Opinions to their posterity but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers As though the other side could not say the same things and with as much confidence as they did but all the Question was What that Tradition was which they were to retain The one said one thing and the other another But as Rigaltius well observes Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions And whether this doth not often come to pass let the world judge Now therefore when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have and yet so irreconcilably differ about it what likelihood or probability is there that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition than of the Writings of the Apostles Especially in such matters as these are in which it is very questionable Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them to determine any thing in them And therefore when Stephen at Rome and those of his party pleaded custom and consequently as they thought Apostolical Tradition it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian that that might be Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church which being of so black a nature as to carry in them such malignity by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them or the recovery of such who were fallen into them To this purpose Firmilian speaks That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks because no man would be so silly as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards And therefore S. Augustine who concerned himself the most in this Controversie when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists doth ingenuously confess That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it but however saith he that custom which is opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition as there are many other things observed in the Church and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they are no where found written But what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition He grants they determined nothing in it yet would needs have it believed that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages should imply such a determination though unwritten But 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already was far from being evident when not only the African but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice How doth it thence follow that it must be derived from the Apostles unless it be first proved that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing but what the Apostles commanded them Which is a very unreasonable supposition considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times and the different reasons of practice attending upon them with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner whence in the second Century came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies the praegustatio mellis lactis as Tertullian calls it and several of a like nature which by degrees came into the Church Must we now derive these and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles when even in S. Austins time several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition which yet are otherwise believed now As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and for all that I know the arguments used against this Tradition by some men may as well hold against Infant-Baptism for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both and as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason it doth likewise in the other and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary but if that place Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taken in the sense of the Fathers doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all and consequently of Children that other place Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this or for the rebaptizing Hereticks but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so and others which could not be known whether so or no by the ages next succeeding the Apostles And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings By which it appears 3. How vain and insufficient your reasons are Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures 1. You say Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men whereas universal and immemorial Traditions are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages To which I answer 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men But Do you think it a thing impossible or at least unreasonable to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible should by the care and vigilancy of men through the assistance of Divine Providence be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations Surely if you think so you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages and meaner of Divine Providence For you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of
Customs controverted between the Papists and us which no doubt is the true reason why the three first ages are declined by Cardinal Perrone yet there is not the least shadow of pretence why they should be silent in this present Controversie since the great business of their writings was to vindicate the Christian Faith to perswade the Heathens to believe it and to manifest the grounds on which they were induced to believe themselves If therefore in this they do unanimously concurr with that resolution of Faith I have already laid down nothing can be desired more for the evidence and confirmation of the truth of our way than that it is not only most consonant to Scripture but built on the truest Reason and was the very same which the Primitive Christians used when they gave an account of their Faith Which I shall do not by some mangled citations but deducing it from the scope and design of their writings and drawing it successively down from the first after the Apostles who appeared in Vindication of the Christian Faith I begin with Justin Martyr who as Photius saith of him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not far from the Apostles either in time or virtue and who being a professed Philosopher before he became a Christian we may in reason think that he was more inquisitive into the grounds of Christian Faith before he believed and the more able to give an account of them when he did Whether therefore we consider those arguments which first induced him to believe or those whereby he endeavours to perswade others to it we shall find how consonant and agreeable he is to our grounds of Faith how far from any imagination of the Churches Infallibility In the beginning of his excellent Dialogue with Trypho where if I may conjecture he represents the manner of his conversion in a Platonical way introducing a solemn conference between himself and an ancient person of great gravity and a venerable aspect in a solitary place whither he was retired for his meditations Pet. Halloix is much troubled who this person should be Whether an Angel in humane shape or a man immediately conveyed by an Angel to discover Christianity to him which when he had done he was as suddenly carried back again Scultetus I suppose from this story asserts Justin Martyr to be converted by Divine Revelation But if I be not much mistaken this whole Conference is no more than the setting forth the grounds of his becoming a Christian in the Platonical mode by way of Dialogue and probably the whole Disputation with Trypho may be nothing else but however that be it is apparent Trypho looked on him as a Platonist by his Pallium and Justin Martyr owns himself to have been so and therefore it was very congruous for him to discourse after the Academick manner In which discourse when Justin Martyr had stood up in vindication of the Platonick Philosophy and the other Person endeavours to convince him of the impossibility of attaining true happiness by any Philosophy For when Justin had said That by Philosophy he came to the Knowledge of God the other person demanded How they could know God who had never seen him nor heard him He replied That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was only intelligible by our minds as Plato said He again asks Whether there were such a faculty in the minds of men as to be able to see God without a Divine Power and Spirit assisting it Justin answers that according to Plato the eye of the understanding was sufficient to discover that there is such a Being which is the cause of all things but the nature of it is ineffable and incomprehensible Upon which he proceeds to enquire What relation there was between God and the Souls of men and what means to come to the participation of him after a great deal of discourse on which subject between them Justin comes at last to enquire if there were no truth and certainty in Philosophy By whose instruction or by what means he should come to it To which that person returns this excellent Answer That there had been a long time since several persons much elder than the reputed Philosophers blessed men just and lovers of God speaking by the inspiration of the Divine Spirit foretelling things which have come to pass since whom they call Prophets These only saw the Truth and declared it to men neither flattering nor fearing any nor conquered with the love of honour But they only spake the things which they heard and saw being filled with the Holy Spirit Whose Books are still extant which whosoever reads and assents to will find himself much improved in the principles and ends of things and whatever becomes a Philosopher to know For they write not by way of argument or demonstration but that which is above it they are most faithful witnesses of Truth For the things which have and do come to pass do enforce men to believe the Truth of what they spake And not only so but they are most worthy to be believed for the Miracles which they wrought Moreover they extol the Maker of the World God and the Father and declare to the World his Son Christ which the false Prophets who are acted by a seducing and impure spirit neither have done nor yet do do but they attempt to shew some tricks for the amazement of men and cry up the evil and deceiving spirits But do thou above all things pray that the gates of light may be opened to thee For these things are not seen nor understood by all but only by them to whom God and Christ shall grant the knowledge of them A most signal and remarkable Testimony as any is extant in all Antiquity for acquainting us with the true grounds and reasons of Faith which therefore I have at large produced The very reading of which is sufficient to tell us How true a Protestant this whether Angel or Man was When Justin asked him What Teachers he should have to lead him to Truth He tells him There had been long before Philosophers excellent persons in the world called Prophets men every way good who did nothing for fear or favour or love of themselves But Justin might further ask How he should come to be instructed by them He tells him Their Writings were still extant wherein were contained such things as might hugely satisfie a Philosophical mind concerning the Origine and Principles of things He might still enquire Whether those things were demonstrated or no in them No he replies but they deserve assent as much if not beyond any demonstration because they manifest themselves to be from God by two things the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made by them and the unparalleld Miracles which were wrought by them But might not the evil spirits work such things No For although their false Prophetsâ—ay â—ay do several things to amaze men yet they can do no
which had been in the world but knowing that the Christians did with the greatest resolution adhere to that Doctrine which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles they could not suppose that they should embrace these figments unless they could some way or other father them upon them Upon which they pretended that these very things which they delivered were really intended by Christ and the Apostles in their writings but because so few were capable of them they gave only some intimations of them there but delivered these great mysteries privately only to those who were perfect and that this was St. Pauls meaning when he said I speak wisdome among them that are perfect This Irenaeus gives us an account of in the beginning of all his discourse but is more fully expressed in the original Greek of Irenaeus preserved by Epiphanius in the heresie of the Valentinians On which account alone as Petavius saith Epiphanius hath well deserved of Posterity for preserving entire those original Fragments of Irenaeus his Greek therein being much more intelligible and smooth than the old harsh Latin version of him His words are All which things are not expresly declared in as much as all are not fit to understand them but are mysteriously couched by our Saviour in parables for such who are able to understand them Thus they said the 30. Aeônes were represented by the 30. years in which our Saviour did not appear publickly and by the parable of the works in the vineyard in which the 1 3 6 9 11 hours making up 30. did again denote their Aeônes and that St. Paul did most expresly signifie them when he used so often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Duodecad of Aeôns by the 12 years at which our Saviour appeared disputing with the Doctors The raising of Jairus his daughter of 12 years represented Achamoth being brought to light whose passions were set forth by those words of our Saviour My God my God why hast thou forsaken me in which were three passions of Achamoth Sorrow Fear and Despair With many things of a like nature but hereby we sufficiently see what their pretence was viz. That there were deep mysteries but obscurely represented in Scripture but whose full knowledge was delivered down by an Oral Cabala from Christ and his Apostles Now we must consider what course Irenaeus takes to confute these pretensions of theirs First he gives an account what that Faith was which the Church dispersed up and down the world received from the Apostles and their Disciples viz. that thereby they believed in one God the Father Almighty who made Heaven and Earth the Sea and all in them and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God c. which was directly contrary to the Valentinian Heresies who supposed the Supream God and Demiurgus to be different and so Christus and Salvator and so in others This Faith which the Church hath received it unanimously keeps though dispersed through the whole world for although the languages be different yet the Tradition is the same among them whether they live in Germany France Spain the East Aegypt Libya or elsewhere And after in the first Book he hath shewed the many different opinions of the several broods of these Hereticks and in the second discovered the fondness and ridiculousness of them in his third Book he undertakes from Scripture to shew the falseness of them And begins with that excellent expression before cited For we have not known the disposition or oeconomy of our Salvation by others than by those by whom the Gospel came to us which they then first preached and after by the will of God delivered to us in writings to be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith Which being laid down by him at his entrance as the grand principle on which he goes will lead us to an easie understanding of all that follows This therefore he not only asserts but proves for whereas some of the Adversaries pretended that the Apostles preached before they fully understood all they were to know he shews how false that was because after Christs Resurrection from the grave they were endued with the Spirit of God descending from on high upon them and were furnished with a perfect knowledge by which they went up and down preaching the Gospel which all and each of them had the knowledge of Thus Matthew in the Hebrew tongue set forth his Gospel when Peter and Paul at Rome preached the Gospel and founded a Church and after their departure Mark the Disciple and Interpreter of Peter writ those things which were preached Afterwards John published his Gospel at Ephesus in Asia And all these saith he delivered to us one God maker of Heaven and Earth and one Christ his Son To whom if one doth not assent he despiseth those who were our Lords companions and therefore despiseth our Lord Christ and likewise despiseth the Father and is condemned of himself resisting and opposing his own salvation which all Hereticks do Can any thing be more plain than that Irenaeus makes it his design to resolve Faith into the writings of Christ and his Apostles and saith That these writings were delivered as a Foundation of Faith that the reason why the Christians believed but one God and one Christ was because they read of no more in the Gospels published by them That he that despiseth them who were our Lords companions despise himself and God and condemn themselves He doth not say he that despiseth the lawfully sent Pastours of the Church meeting in General Councils nor them who have power to oblige the Church to believe as well as the Apostles had as you say but evidently makes the obligation to believe to depend upon that revelation of Gods will which was made by the Apostles and is by their writings conveyed down to us Would not the Valentinians have thought themselves presently run down by such wayes of confutation as yours are that they must believe the present Church infallible in whatever is delivered to be believed to the world But doth not Irenaeus himself make use of the Churches Tradition as the great argument to confute them by I grant he doth so and it is on that very account that he might confute them and not lay down the only sure Foundation of Christian Faith For he gives that reason of his doing so in the beginning of the very next Chapter For saith he when we dispute against them out of the Scripture they are turned presently to an accusing of the Scriptures as though they were not in all things right and wanted Authority and because of their ambiguity and for that truth cannot be found out by them without the help of Tradition I need not say that Irenaeus prophesied of you in this saying of his but it is as true of you as if he had Your pretences being the very same against the Scriptures being the rule of Faith with those of the Valentinians only
was to shew that their Church from which the Donatists separated was the true Catholick Church which he proves from their communion with all the Apostolical Churches which had a clear and distinct succession from the Apostles their planters And because of the Vicinity and Fame of Rome and the easier knowing the succession there he instanceth in that in the first place and then proceeds to the rest of them But withall to shew the Vnity of all these Apostolical Churches when he had mentioned Siricius as the present Bishop of Rome he adds That all the world agreed with him in the entercourse of the formed Letters not thereby intimating any supremacy of that Church above others but to shew that that succession he instanceth in at Rome was of the Catholick Church because the whole Christian world did agree in Communion with him that was the Bishop there And when he speaks of one chair it is plain he means it of the particular Church of Rome because every Apostolical Church had an Apostolical Chair belonging to it So Tertullian expresly That in all the Apostolical Churches there were their Chairs still remaining And Eusebius particularly mentions the Apostolical Throne or Chair at Hierusalem as others do that of Mark at Alexandria and of the rest elsewhere Nothing then can possibly be inferred from these words of Optatus concerning the Church of Rome but what would equally hold for any other Apostolical Church and how much that is let the Reader judge And how much soever it be it will be very little for your advantage who pretend to something peculiar to the Church of Rome above all other Churches From Optatus you proceed or rather return to S. Hierom who say you professes the Church is built upon S. Peter 's See and that whoever eats the Lamb that is pretends to believe in Christ and partakes of the Sacraments out of that house that is out of the communion of that Church is prophane and an Alien yea that he belongs to Antichrist and not to Christ whoever consents not with the successor of S. Peter This Testimony sounds big and high at first and I shall not impute these expressions either to S. Hierome's heat or his flattery although it looks the more suspicious because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops and that these words are contained in a complemental address to Damasus But setting aside what advantages might be gained on that account to weaken the force of this Testimony if we consider the occasion or nature of these expressions we shall find that they reach not the purpose you design them for We must therefore consider that at the time of the writing this Epistle S. Hierom seems to be in a great perplexity what to do in that division which was then in the Church of Antioch concerning Paulinus Vitalis and Miletius but besides this Schism it seems S. Hierom suspected some remainders of Arrianism to be still among them from their demanding of him Whether he acknowledged three distinct hypostases in the Trinity Now S. Hierom by hypostasis understands the essence as many of the Greek Fathers did and thence the Sardian Council defined That there was but one hypostasis of the Father Son and Spirit and therefore he suspects that when they require of him the acknowledgement of three hypostases they might design to entrap him and unawares betray him into Arrianism And therefore argues stifly in the remainder of that Epistle that hypostasis properly signifies essence and nothing else and from thence urgeth the inconvenience of admitting the terms of three hypostases Now S. Hierom being thus set upon by these Eastern Bishops he keeps off from communion with them and adviseth with the Aegyptian Confessors and follows them at present but having received his Baptism in the Church of Rome and being looked on as a Roman where he was he thought it necessary to address himself to Pope Damasus to know what he should do in this case And the rather because if S. Hierom had consented with them they would have looked on it as an evidence of the agreement of the Roman Church with them Therefore he so earnestly and importunately writes to Damasus concerning it as being originally part of his charge having been baptized in that Church But say you whatever the occasion of the words were Is it not plain that he makes the Church to be built on S. Peter's See and that whosoever is out of the communion of that Church is an Alien and belongs to Antichrist To that therefore I answer 1. That he doth not say that the Catholick Church is built on the particular Church of Rome for it is not super hanc Petram as referring to the Cathedra immediately preceding but super illam and therefore it is not improbably supposed by some that the Rock here referrs to Christ. And although Erasmus doth imagine that some particular priviledge and dignity did belong to Rome above other Churches from this place which is not the thing we contend about yet withall he sayes that by the Rock we must not understand Rome for that may degenerate but we must understand that Faith which Peter professed And it is a much easier matter for Marianus Victorius to tell him he lyes as he doth here in plain terms than to be able to confute what he saith And that the rather because he begins his discourse in that manner Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens whereby he attributes the supreme power and infallible judgement in the Church only to Christ. For as for your learned correction of praemium for primum though you follow Cardinal Perron in it yet it is without any probability at all it being contrary to all the MSS. used by Erasmus Victorius Gravius Possevin and others and hath no authority to vouch it but only Gratian who is condemned by your own Writers for a falsifier and corrupter of Authours 2. I answer when S. Hierom pronounces those Aliens and prophane who are out of the communion of the Church either it belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not much for your purpose 1. There is no certainty that he there speaks of the particular Church of Rome but that he rather speaks of the true Vniversal Church for it is plain he speaks of that Church which is built upon the Rock now by your own confession that cannot be the Church of Rome for that you suppose to be the Rock it self viz. the See of Peter and therefore the Church built upon it must be the Vniversal Church And that this must be his meaning appears from his plain words for he saith Vpon that Rock the Church is built and whosoever eats the Lamb without this house is prophane he cannot certainly mean Whosoever eats without the Rock but without the house built upon it so that the house in the latter clause
Cyprian The second Authority is out of St. Hierome whose words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such praestigiae deceits and delusions into it though an Angel should Preach it otherwise than it was Preached at first being armed and fenced by St. Pauls Authority it cannot be changed Here you tell us You willingly agree with his Lordship that by Romanam fidem St. Hierom understands the Catholick Faith of Christ and so you concur with him against Bellarmine that it cannot be understood of the particular Church of Rome But by the way you charge your Adversaries with great inconsequence that in this place they make Roman and Catholick to be the same and yet usually condemn you for joyning as Synonyma 's Roman and Catholick together A wonderful want of judgement as though the Roman Faith might not be the Catholick Faith then and yet the Catholick Faith not be the Roman Faith now The former speech only affirms that the Faith at Rome was truly Catholick the latter implyes that no Faith can be Catholick but what agrees with Rome and think you there is no difference between these two But you say further That this Catholick Faith must not here be taken abstractly that so it cannot be changed for Ruffinus was not ignorant of that but that it must be understood of the immutable Faith of the See Apostolick so highly commended by the Apostle and St. Hierom which is founded upon such a rock that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it But St. Hierom speaking this with a reference to that Faith he supposeth the Apostle commended in them although the Apostle doth not so much commend the Catholickness or soundness of their Faith as the act of believing in them and therefore whatever is drawn from thence whether by St. Hierome or any else can have no force in it for if he should infeâ— the immutability of the Faith of the Church of Rome from so apparently weak a foundation there can be no greater strength in his testimony than there is in the ground on which it is built and if there be any force in this Argument the Church of Thessalonica will be as Infallible as Rome for her Faith is commended rather in a more ample manner by the Apostle then that of Rome is St. Hierome I say referring to that Faith he supposes the Apostle commended in them must only be understood of the unchangeableness of that first Faith which appears by the mention of an Angel from Heaven Preaching otherwise Which certainly cannot with any tolerable sense be meant thus that St. Hierome supposed it beyond the power of an Angel from Heaven to alter the Faith of the Roman Church For in the very same Apology he expresseth his great fears lest the Faith of the Romans should be corrupted by the Books of Ruffinus But say you What is this then to Ruffinus who knew as well as St. Hierom that Faith could not change its essence However though St. Hierome should here speak of the Primitive and Apostolical Faith which was then received at Rome that this could receive no alteration yet this was very pertinent to be told Ruffinus because St. Hierome charges him with an endeavour to subvert the Faith not meerly at Rome but in all other places by publishing the Books of Origen with an Encomiastick Preface to them and therefore the telling him The Catholick Faith would admit of no alteration which was received at Rome as elsewhere might be an Argument to discourage him from any attempts of that nature And the main charge against Ruffinus is not an endeavour to subvert meerly the people of Rome but the Latin Church by his translation and therefore these words ought to be taken in their greatest latitude and so imply not at all any Infallibility in the Roman See The remaining Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzene Cyril and Ruffinus as appears to any one who reads them only import that the Roman Church had to their time preserved the Catholick Faith but they do not assert it impossible it should ever do otherwise or that she is an Infallible preserver of it and none of their Testimonies are so proper to the Church of Rome but they would equally hold for any other Apostolical Churches at that time Gregory Nazianzene indeed sayes That it would become the Church of Rome to hold the entire Faith alwayes and would it not become any other Church to do so to doth this import that she shall Infallibly do it or rather that it is her duty to do it And if these then be such pregnant Authorities with you it is a sign there is little or nothing to be found in Antiquity for your purpose But before we end this Chapter we are called to a new task on occasion of a Testimony of St. Cyril produced by his Lordship in stead of that in Bellarmin which appeared not in that Chapter where his Name is mentioned In which he asserts That the foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath is placed not in or upon the person much less the Successour of St. Peter but upon the Faith which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmly professed which saith his Lordship is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and of the Protestants Vpon this Rock that is upon this Faith will I build my Church On which occasion you run presently out into that large common place concerning Tu es Petrus and super hanc Petram and although I should grant all that you so earnestly contend for viz. That these words are not spoken of St. Peters Confession but of his Person I know no advantage which will accrue to your cause by it For although very many of the Fathers understand this place of St. Peters Confession as containing in it the ground and Foundation of Christian Religion Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God which therefore may well be said to be the Rock on which Christ would build his Church and although it were no matter of difficulty to defend this interpretation from all exceptions yet because I think it not improbable the words running by way of address to St. Peter that something peculiar to him is contained in them I shall not contend with you about that But then if you say that the meaning of St. Peters being the Rock is The constant Infallibility in Faith which was derived from St. Peter to the Church of Rome as you seem to suggest you must remember you have a new task to make good and it is not saying That St. Peter was meant by the Rock will come within some leagues of doing it I pass therefore by that discourse as a thing we are not much concerned in for it is brought in by his Lordship as the last thing out of that testimony of Cyril but you were contented to let go the other more material Observations that you might more
this way If you say that experience shews Christ never intended this by the errours of particular men in all ages To the same purpose we answer you as to Councils that large experience shews that when Bishops have solemnly met in Council they have been grosly deceived as you confess in all the Arrian Councils If your argument would have ever held from the power and goodness of Christ Would it not have held at that time when so great a matter of Faith was under debate If Christ therefore suffered so many Bishops so grosly to erre in a matter of such importance wherein the Church was so highly concerned How can you inferr from his power and goodness that he will never suffer General Councils to erre If you answer That these erred for not observing the conditions requisite in order to Christs hearing them viz. that they were not met in the name of Christ did not come without prejudice nor rely on Divine Assistance I pray take the same Answer as to all other Councils that we cannot know that Christ hears them or that they are Infallible till we are assured of their performance of the conditions requisite in order to that Infallibility And when you can assure us that such a Council met together in the name of Christ and came meerly with a desire to find out truth and relyed wholly on his assistance for it we do not so much distrust the power and goodness of Christ as to think he will suffer them to be deceived For we know upon those conditions he will not suffer any good man to erre much less an Assembly of them met in a General Council But here you have the hardest task of all lying upon you which is to prove that a General Council hath observed all these conditions without which nothing can be inferred from this place as to Christs being in any sense in the midst of them The last place mentioned for the Infallibility of General Councils is that Act. 15.28 Where the Apostles say of themselves and the Council held by them It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us And saith his Lordship they might well say it For they had infallibly the assistance of the Holy Ghost and kept close to his direction But there is a great deal of difference between them and succeeding Councils who never arrogated this to their definitions though they presumed of the assistance of the Holy Ghost and though that form might be used yet they did not assume such an Infallibility to themselves as the Apostles had And therefore it is little less than blasphemy in Stapleton to say That the Decrees of Councils are the very Oracles of the Holy Ghost And that all Councils are not so Infallible as was this of the Apostles nor the causes handled in them as there they were is manifest by the ingenuous confession of Ferus to that purpose This is the substance of his Lordships Answer to this place Which you think to take off by saying That there 's no essential difference between the certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a General Council confirmed by the Roman Bishop and though after-Councils use not the same expression in terms yet they do it in effect by enjoyning the belief of their decisions under the pain of Anathema If this be the meaning of the Anathema's of Councils there had need indeed be no great difference between the Apostles Decrees and theirs But this had need be very well proved and so it is by you for you produce several expressions of Cyril Athanasius Austin Leo Gregory and some others out of Bellarmin in which they magnifie the Decrees of General Councils calling them a Divine Oracle a Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost not to be retracted and some others to the same purpose by which you vindicate Stapleton and tell us he said no more than the Fathers had done before him Yet all this is far from any vindication of Stapleton or proving your assertion as to the equal certainty of the Decrees of Councils and of the Apostles For the ground of all those expressions and several others of the same nature was not the supposition of any inherent Infallibility in the Decrees of General Councils but their great assurance of the truth of that Doctrine which was determined by those first General Councils For although I am far enough from believing the Council of Trent Infallible yet if that had determined the same points of Faith which were determined in the first four General Councils and nothing else I might have said That the Decree of that Council was a Holy and Divine Oracle a Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost c. not that I thought the Council in the least Infallible in determining these things but that they were of themselves Divine Truths which the Council determined And in this sense Athanasius might well term the definition of the Nicene-Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever and Constantine stile it a coelestial mandate and Gregory might reverence the four first Councils as the four Gospels though Bellarmin tells you that expression must be taken in a qualified sense yet all these and any other of a like nature I say import no more than that they were fully assured the matters decreed by them were revealed by God in his Word and not that they believed that they became such holy and divine Oracles meerly by the Councils definition For the contrary might be abundantly manifested by many expressions in them quite to another purpose and if instead of all the rest you will but read Athanasius and Hilary concerning Councils you will find your self strangely deceived if you believed they ever thought them Infallible What you add afterwards that it is sufficient that there be a real Infallibility though not like to that of the Apostles will not be sufficient for me till you can shew me the degrees of Infallibility for I will promise you if you can once prove that Councils are really Infallible I shall not stick to say That they are alike Infallible with the Apostles As for your discarding Ferus as a prohibited Authour it only shews the great integrity of the man who spoke too much truth to be born by the tender ears of the Roman Inquisition Before I had proceeded any further I had thought because of a former promise to have looked back to the place where you speak in vindication of the decretal Epistles but because you only referr to Turrianus his defence of them I shall only return you an equal courtesie and referr you to the abundantly sufficient Answer to him by David Blondel One would have thought you should have been ashamed of so notorious an imposture as those decretal Epistles are but we see what shifts a bad cause puts you upon that such men as Ferus Cassander Erasmus are under an Index Expurgatorius but the
such distinctions were thought of then For they judged all Prayer and Invocation by the very nature of it to import Divinity in that it was made to and therefore that no created Beings how excellent soever were capable of it From whence Origen afterwards supposing the Sun Moon and Starrs to be Intellectual Beings gives this account Why notwithstanding that they made no prayers to them For saith he since they offer up prayers themselves to God through his only Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we judge that we ought not to pray to them that pray Since they would rather send us to God whom they pray to then bring us down to themselves or to divide our praying vertue from God to themselves Can we then suppose that the Church at that time did allow of prayers to be made to Saints in Heaven supposing their praying there in behalf of the Church on earth For we see Origen goes on this ground that all Intellectual Spirits which pray themselves are not to be prayed too And that if they knew of our praying to them they would send us to God and not accept of those supplications to themselves which are due only to God In the beginning of the eighth Book Celsus disputes against the Christians because they worship only the Supreme God without giving any to the Inferiour Daemons and that upon this ground because saith he They who worship the Inferiour Gods acknowledging them Inferiour is so far from dishonouring the Supreme that he doth that which is acceptable to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he that honours and worships those who are subject to him doth not displease God whose they are all These are Celsus his words from whence we are to take notice that Celsus doth not plead for absolute and Soveraign worship to be given to these Inferiour Deities or Spirits but only a relative and subordinate worship So that if the Controversie had been between Celsus and a modern Romanist all that Celsus here sayes must have been confessed on both sides and the whole dispute only have been concerning those Daemons or Spirits which were to have this relative and inferiour kind of worship viz. Whether those which Celsus call'd Daemons or only the Blessed Spirits and glorified Saints But Origen who went upon other grounds returns a far different Answer For saith he it is not lest we should hurt God that we abstain from the worship of any but God according to this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to render the inferiour worship of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to any but God but lest we should thereby hurt our selves by separating our selves from our portion in God And the reason he gives why Christ is to be worship'd is from that divinity which manifested it self in him and because of the unity of nature between God and him And although Origen saith That in some sense we may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give some kind of worship to Angels and Archangels yet he saith the sense of the word must be purg'd and the actions of the worshippers distinguished Yet in the following words he attributes that worship which is by supplication only to God and his only Son So that still he reserves the offering up our prayers as the appropriate worship to God himself through his only Son For to him saith he we first offer them intreating him who is the propitiation for our sins that he would vouchsafe as our high Priest to offer our Prayers Sacrifices and Intercessions to God over all Therefore our Faith is only in God through his Son who hath confirmed it to us And afterwards Away saith he with Celsus his Counsel that we should worship Daemons or inferiour spirits not taking them in the worst sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we must only pray to God over all and to the Word of God his only begotten and first born of all Creatures and we must entreat him that he as High Priest would present our Prayer when it is come to him unto his God and our God and unto his Father and the Father of them that frame their life according to the Word of God To the same purpose again in another place To whom we offer our first fruits to him we direct our prayers having a High Priest who is entred into Heaven Jesus the Son of God and we hold fast this confession while we live through the favour of God and his Son who is manifested to us And after saith That the Angels help forward their salvation who call upon God and pray sincerely to whom they themselves also pray But not one word of any praying to them but only to God through Christ. For as he saith elsewhere We must endeavour to please God only who is over all and pray that he may be propitious to us procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any others after him that is God over all let him consider that as when the body is moved the motion of the shadow doth follow it so in like manner having God favourable to us who is over all it followeth that we shall have all his friends both Angels and Souls and Spirits favourable to us For they have a sympathy with them that are thought worthy to find favour with God Neither are they only favourable unto such as be worthy but they co-operate with them also that are willing to serve God over all and are friendly to them and pray with them and intreat with them So as we may be bold to say that when men who with a resolution propose to themselves the best things do pray unto God many thousands of the Sacred Powers pray together with them uncalled upon Here indeed we find that Saints and Angels do intercede in Heaven in behalf of the Saints on Earth but that is not the thing in dispute between us but here we find no such thing at all as an Invocation of them but he sayes They pray together with us when we pray to God himself not when we pray first to them to pray with us For this Origen makes to be wholly needless for if God be propitious to us so will all the Sacred Powers be too So that still we find in Origen that Invocation was only to be made to God over all although he saith That with those who do sincerely call upon God the Holy Spirits do joyn with them To the same purpose Arnobius speaks when the Heathens asked Why they did not worship any Inferiour Gods satis est nobis saith he Deus primus the Supreme God is sufficient for us In hoc omne quod colendum est colimus quod adorari convenit adoramus quod obsequium venerationis poscit venerationibus promeremur In worshipping him we worship all that is to be worshipped we adore all that is fit to be