The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 1 · Section

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 1 · Section

p. 6The Defence of the Greek Church.

It is none of the least of those Arts which you make use of for the perplexing the Christian Faith, §. 5.to put men upon enquiring after an Infallible p. 7Church, when yet you have no way to discern which is so much as a true Church, but by examining the doctrine of it. So that of necessity the rule of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known, before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgement of any Church. For having already proved that there can be no other meaning of the Question concerning the Church, as here stated, but with relation to some particular Church to whose Communion the party enquiring might joyn, and whose judgement might be relyed on; we see it presently follows in the debate, Which was that Church; and it seems, as is said already, a Friend of the Ladies undertook to defend that the Greek Church was right. To which Mr. Fisher answers, That the Greek Church had plainly changed, P. 21. sect. 4.and taught false in a point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost: and after repeats it, that it had erred. Before I come to examine how you make good the charge you draw up against the poor Greek Church in making it erre fundamentally, it is worth our while to consider upon what account this dispute comes in. The Inquiry was concerning the True Church on whose judgement one might safely depend in Religion. It seems, two were propounded to consideration, the Greek and the Roman; the Greek was rejected because it had erred: From whence it follows, that the dispute concerning the Truth of Doctrine must necessarily precede that of the Church: For by Mr. Fishers confession and your own, A Church which hath erred cannot be relyed on; therefore men must be satisfied whether a Church hath erred or no, before they can judge whether she may be relyed on or no. Which being granted, all the whole Fabrick of your Book falls to the ground; for then 1. Men must be Infallibly certain of the grounds of Faith antecedently to the testimony of the Church; for if they be to judge of a Church by the Doctrine, they must in order to such a judgement be certain what that Doctrine is which they must judge of the Church by. 2. No Church can be known to be Infallible, unless it appear to be so by that Doctrine which they are to examine the truth of the Church by, and therefore no Church can be known to be Infallible by the motives of credibility. 3. No Church ought to be relyed on as Infallible, which may be found guilty of any errour by comparing it with the Doctrine which we are to try it by. Therefore you must first prove your Church not to have erred in any particular; for if she hath, it is impossible she should be Infallible: and not think to prove that she hath not erred because she cannot, that being the thing in question, and must by your dealing with the Greek Church be judged by particulars. 4. There must be a certain rule of Faith supposed to have sufficient Authority to decide Controversies without any dependence upon the Church. For, the matter to be judged is the Church; and if the Scripture may and must decide that, Why may it not as well all the rest? 5. Every mans reason proceeding according to this rule of Faith must be left his Judge in matters of Religion. And whatever inconveniencies you can imagine to attend upon this they immediately and necessarily follow from your proceeding with the Greek Church by excluding her because she hath erred, which while we are in pursuit of a Church can be determined by nothing but every ones particular reason. 6. Then Fundamentals do not depend upon the Churches declaration. For you assert the Greek Church to erre fundamentally, and that this may be made appear to one who is seeking after a Church. Suppose then I inquire, as the Lady did, after a Church whose judgement I must absolutely depend on, and some mention the Greek and others the Roman Church: You tell me, It cannot p. 8be the Greek, for that hath erred fundamentally. I inquire how you know, supposing her to erre, that it is a fundamental errour? will you answer me, because the true Church hath declared it to be a fundamental errour? but that was it I was seeking for Which that Church is, which may declare what errours are fundamental and what not? If you tell me It is yours, I may soon tell you, You seem to have a greater kindness for your Church then your self, and venture to speak any thing for the sake of it. Thus we see how finely you have betrayed your whole Cause in your first onset, by so rude an attempt upon the Greek Church.

And truly it was much your concernment, to load her as much as you can: For though she now wants one of the great marks of your Church (which yet you know not how long your Church may enjoy) viz. outward splendor and bravery, yet you cannot deny, but that Church was planted by the Apostles, enjoyed a continual Succession from them, flourished with a number of the Fathers exceeding that of yours, had more of the Councils of greatest credit in it, and, which is a commendation still to it, it retains more purity under its persecutions then your Church with all its external splendour. P. 5. n. 4.But she hath erred concerning the Holy Ghost, and therefore hath lost it. A severe censure which his 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, P. 25. n. 17. sect. 5.this therefore, his Lordship truely saith, is an errour of the first sort and not of the latter.

§. 6.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, P. 6. n. 4.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 p. 9much 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;§. 7. 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 p. 10become 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 p. 11our 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. Joh. 15.26.John 15:26But 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, foreign. foreign, &c. Athanas. ep. ad S…rapion. p. 357. Tom. 1.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, foreign; Basil. De Spir. Sancto. c. 18.and when the Hereticks enquired of him What kind of thing that Procession was, when the Spirit was neither foreign, nor yet foreign, all the answer he gives them, is, If there be such p. 12multitudes 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,foreign, &c. Greg. Nazian. orat. 37. p. 597. Tom. 1. foreign. Orat. 23. Tom. 1 p. 426 foreign. Cyril. Paschal. 12. Tom. 5. p 2. 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, Dogm. Theol. de Trinit. l. 7. c. 13, 14 Tom. 2and 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.

§. 8.2. 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 p. 13imagine 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, foreign. Athanas. c. Serapi. ubi supr.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, Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg. p. 217. &c. Res. 2. Patriarch. Concil. Florent. sess. 19, 20, 21, &c. Arcudii opuscula aurea. V. ep. Cyrilli Patriarch. ad Joh. Utenbogard. inter epistol. Remonstrant. p. 402.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, V. L…onis Allatii Graeciam Orthodox. Tom. 2.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,foreign. Athanas. ep. ad Epictet. Tom 1. p. 562. 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 p. 14all 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.Greg. Nazian. ep. 2. ad Cled. 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 foreign, 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,Concil. Ephes. part. 2. Act. 6. p. 357. Tom. 2. Binii ed. Paris. 1636.Acts 6 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,Concil. Florent. sess. 5. p. 587. 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, foreign. Concil. Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. p. 366.Acts 6besides that which was agreed on and defined by the Holy Fathers, who were met together at Nice by the Holy Spirit. p. 15Concerning 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. foreign. Concil. Chalced. Act. 5. Concil. Florent. As…. 5. p. 590.Acts 5I 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,§. 9. 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 foreign which the Greeks constantly acknowledge. This they make probable by two things: 1. That, when the Fathers dispute not with those who denyed the consubstantiality of Son and Spirit, they use not the particle ex, but only say that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son. So Cyril expresly, when Theodoret had denyed the Procession from the Son, he gives no other Answer, but this,foreign. Cyril. Alexan. Tom. 6. edit. Paris. p. 229. 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 p. 16purpose 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. foreign. Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg. Resp. 2. Patriarch. p. 202.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; Gregorius Palamas, c. 1. apud Petavium Dogmat. Theolog de Trin. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. foreign—foreign.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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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, Sess. 19.that when we say, Man comes foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign from the Son, is given to all; and that the Father foreign, Ubi supra.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, foreign 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, Spalatens. de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 10. sect. 125.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. foreign. Apud Acta Concil. Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p 360.Acts 6By 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 p. 17the 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,Petav. ubi supra. 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;Acta Theolog. Wirtenb. p. 350. &c. Resp. 3. Patriarch. 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 foreign, which only relates to the Spirit's manifestation, and is quite different from the foreign, 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 foreign there signifies no more than foreign, 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 foreign, the Identity of nature and essence, which is in the Spirit with the Father and Son. This he doth therein very largely explain, 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 foreign,Cyril. ep. ad Utenbogard. p. 403. 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 p. 18would 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?

§. 10.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 twelve 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 p. 19Spirit 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, foreign,—foreign. Theodoret. c. Cyril. Anathemat. Tom. 4. p. 718. ed. Sirmond. Concil. Ephes. part 3· p. 497. ed. Bin.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,Cyril. Tom. 6. p. 229. 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 foreign, 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,Dogmat. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. 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;c. 1. 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 collected the opinions of Nestorius out of his own Writings, should never make any mention at all of this,Concil. Ephes. Part. 2. Act. 1. p. 177.Acts 1 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,Part 3. p. 596. 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 Cyrils 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 p. 20Oriental 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, Part. 3. p. 581.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,§. 11. 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. Concil. Floren…. sess. 5. p. 593.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, Pithaeus Opus. de proces. S.S. p. 26. Petav. Dogm. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 1.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 Filio que 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 Filio que , 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, p. 21giving an account of this Controversie, which are published both by Baronius, and Sirmondus;Baron. Annal. ad An. 809. Sirmond. Concil. Gallic. Tom. 2. p. 256, 257. 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, Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliori pertingere potest, & id scire, aut ita sciens, credere noluerit, salvus esse non poterit. Sunt enim multa, è quibus istud unum est, sacrae fidei altiora mysteria, ad quorum indagationem pertingere multi valent: multi verò aut aetatis quantitate, aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti non valent; & ideò, ut praediximus, qui potuerit, & noluerit, salvus esse non potuerit. Apud Sirmond. ubi supra.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 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.§. 12. 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 p. 22themselves. 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, foreign. Photius ep. 7. p. 51.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,Opuscul. edit. Lutet. 1609. 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, foreign. Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg. Resp. 2. Patriarch. p. 213, 214.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 p. 23the 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 asserting that Doctrine, which they may be Infallibly guilty of Heresie for not asserting at another. I know very well, that Marinus who succeeded John 8. at Rome, condemned his Predecessors acts and Photius together, (for he was before imployed both by Nicolaus and Adrian in the excommunicating and condemning Photius) but what this proves I understand not, any further, then that still one Pope may Infallibly contradict another, or that a Pope without a Council shall be more Infallible then with one, or lastly (which is the grand Arcanum Imperii) those Popes and those Decrees which are for the present interest of the Church of Rome must be owned as Infallible; but for the rest, the best Art must be used to blast them that may be. And for this you want not your many tricks and devices to accuse Authors of Forgery, cry out on them for Hereticks, rail out of measure when you have nothing else to say; or if after all this, Testimonies stand of force against you, then nothing is left, but Excogitato commento detorquere in alium sensum, to find out some trick to wrest them to another sense, as the Authors of the Belgick Index Expurgatorius professed in the case of Bertram. But for all men who think it not lawful to say any thing in a bad Cause, this may certainly be sufficient to shew, that if Fathers and Councils may be relyed on, if Popes and Councils be Infallible, that was not accounted an Heresie by them, which you condemn for such in the Greek Church.

Having thus discovered,§. 13. that this opinion you condemn for Heresie in the Greek Church, was otherwise esteemed both by Fathers, Oecumenical Councils, and Popes; I come to that which you seem to rely on for making it Heretical, viz. That the Greeks and Latins both together condemned it for Heretical in the General Council at Florence. Although it might be worth our while to inquire how far any General Council can either make or declare that to be a necessary Article of Faith, which was determined to be otherwise by former General Councils. But omitting that at present which we may have a fitter occasion to discuss in the question of fundamentals, and the Infallibility of General Councils; I therefore come to examine the matter of fact in the Florentine Council, concerning the determination of this opinion there as Heretical. Wherein if we consider p. 24the time in which, and the occasion upon which this Council was call'd, if we consider the way of the managery of it, the Arts whereby the Greeks were drawn to this consent, the manner of proposing the Decrees of it, or the acceptance which it found in the Greek Church, upon none of these respects we shall have cause to look upon it as a free and General Council, determining that opinion as Heretical, which you say was so determined here. In all which we must profess how much we are obliged to that faithful and impartial account of all the proceedings relating to this Council, written by Sylvester Sguropulus one present at the most secret negotiations of it, transcribed out of the MS in the King of France his Library, by Claudius Sarravius, and first published for the general good of the world by our learned Dean of Wells. It appears then, that which gave the first rise to the thoughts of union between the Greek and Latin Churches, was the miserable condition which the Greek Empire was now reduced to, by the incursions of the Turks and Saracens. For it seems for thirty years, (before that an Embassadour was sent to Rome from Manuel Palaeologus to negotiate the business of the union) from the time of the Patriarch Nilus and Pope Vrban, there had been no entercourse at all between the Popes and Patriarchs, but now upon this address made to them by the Greeks, the Popes caress them with all imaginable kindness, feed them high with Promises, engage their utmost to promote this union, (well knowing with what advantage to themselves it might be managed in this Critical juncture of their affairs). For now Amurath. 2. having subdued Peloponnesus, Sylvester Sguropul. Histor. Concil. Florent. sect. 2. c. 10.had advanced almost to the walls of Constantinople, and therefore when the Pope sent one to the Emperour and Patriarch to appoint a day for the Council, they told him they could not then have leisure to think of Councils; and if they had, by reason of the fury of the Wars the Bishops could not be assembled together to make a full Council. But it seems the state of affairs grew worse still with them, and the Dead-Palsy of Manuel Pelaeologus was but an Embleme of a worse in the State, the Empire being brought daily into greater dangers. Which put Johannes Palaeologus upon further thoughts, how any help or relief might be had from the West in this extremity. But they might easily understand the terms of that Vnion from the Speech of the Cardinals to the Emperours Legats, That the Roman Church was the Mother, and the Eastern only the Daughter, and therefore it was but fit that the Daughter should submit to the Mother; That for their parts, they would not leave the decision of this Controversie to multitudes of voices, (it seems then they had high thoughts of the Infallibility of General Councils),Sect. 2. c. 12. but three should be chosen on either side, who being apart by themselves should invoke God, and whatever he should reveal unto them, that all should consent to: For he that hath said, that Where two or three are gathered together in his Name he would be in the midst of them; he that made the Ass to speak (the Cardinal's own Argument) would not fail of letting them know his Will Infallibly, which was to be received from them by all others. (There may be then a much readier way for Infallibility, than by Pope and Councils). But if nothing else would satisfie but a Council, it must be in Italy, contrary to the Popes promise before, that it should be at Constantinople; but when they urged the vastness of the expense, and unsuitableness of it to their present necessities; rather then a matter likely to be so much for the advantage of the See of Rome should not go forward, the Pope proffers to advance a considerable sum of money for the defraying the charges of the Greeks, both p. 25in coming to, and abiding at the Council. Which those who understand not the intrigues of that Court, would have thought had been far better spent in a present supply of the Greek Emperour, the better to have enabled him to defend the Christian Churches from the invasion of their enemies. But any one who looks into the management of things, will easily discern upon what grounds the Pope chose rather a dilatory proceeding, drawing the Emperour and so many Bishops from Greece into Italy at that time, and all the while to feed them with rich Promises of Assistance upon condition that the Vnion was accomplished; but at last after two years attendance (for so long the Council continued at Ferrara and Florence) the poor Emperour was sent home as empty as he came, and found things in a much worse condition then he left them. Which could not rationally be expected to be otherwise. When the Greeks knew that the Emperour had assented that the Council should be in Italy, C. 17, 18.they began strangely to be troubled at it, some resolved never to communicate more in the Councils of the Vnion; the Patriarch often said, that he knew no good issue could come of a Council held in the Popes Territories; and if they must receive their allowance from the Pope, what did they else but therein confess themselves his Vassals already, and therefore nothing could be expected from them, but to do just what he would have them; or else he might easily starve them into consent and approbation of his Will. For they should be wholly under his power, and if he denyed their stipends, there was no possibility of getting from him. Was not this then like to be a very free Council? And it proved accordingly: for when they were at Council the Pope kept them short enough, so that many of them were reduced to the greatest necessities, and were not suffered unless by stealth to go so much as out of the Gates of the City, as Bessarion himself once found,Sect. 6. c. 1. when he attempted it at Florence. But notwithstanding all the perswasions of the wisest of his Councellors at home to the contrary,Sect. 3. c. 12. notwithstanding an Express from the Emperour Sigismund to disswade the Greek Emperour in the present state of affairs from this journy into Italy, yet he was resolved upon it, and used all the arts he could before-hand to make choice of such persons as might be most for his purpose. Himself without the consent of the Patriarch, appointing the Legats of the three other Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria: Sect. 3. c. 3.and when these Patriarchs had given no other instructions to these Legats, then that they should have power to give their suffrages upon these terms and no other, That all things were carried fairly, and defined Canonically, according to the decrees of Oecumenical Councils and Holy Fathers, so that nothing should be added, changed, or innovated in the Symbol of Faith; he at the instigation of one of the Latin Legats, then resident at Constantinople, sent away to the several Patriarchs, for the altering their instructions, upon a solemn Promise that the conditions mentioned by them should however be exactly observed:C. 4. which whether they were or no, will appear by the series of the story. And that we may better judge how General this Council was like to be, at the same time that these negotiations for Vnion were on foot, the Council of Basil was then sitting in opposition to Pope Eugenius; to them and to the Pope at the same time, the Emperour dispatcheth several Legats with the same instructions, and both of them returned theirs to the Emperour, seeking as much as possible to outvy each other in large Promises if the Greeks did joyn in Council with them;Cap. 12. both which the Emperour held in play till he could see with whom he was like to make the best terms. But as p. 26the Romanists are never backward at such arts, they had caused it by their Instruments to be reported at Constantinople, that the Council at Basil had submitted to the Pope, which within fifteen days was confuted by the arrival of the Gallyes sent from the Council to convey the Greeks over to it;C. 11. upon which the Emperour had much to do to keep Condelmerius the Popes Nephew from fighting the Councils Gallies within his view; for he said, he had express order from the Pope to sink them where-ever he met them. And were not these fair tendencies to a free and General Council? And yet after all this, not full thirty Bishops of the Greek Church went along with the Patriarch, C. 15.as appears by the particular enumeration of them by Sguropulus: other Officers indeed, and Monks, there were to fill up the number; and yet these were more then the Emperour could well mould to his designes when he had them there. But the Pope soon accomplished the Patriarchs prediction in keeping them bare enough, when they were at his finding,Sect. 6. c. 3. that he might be sure to make them hungry Greeks, and then he supposed the other part of the Proverb would follow after. After the Council had begun at Ferrara, and continued there sixteen Sessions, wherein were many publick and solemn Disputes between the Greeks and Latins, it was removed to Florence; where the Greeks still underwent the same hardships, and the Latins sought to hold out at Disputations, till the Greeks necessity should be so pressing, as to necessitate them to an absolute submission to the Latin Church. But, Reports and Messages coming from Constantinople, acquainting the Emperour with the difficulties the City was in, and the Progress which the enemies made; and finding, that during the sitting of the Council the Pope still put him off and gave him nothing but words, he therefore resolves upon another course; he breaks all publick and Conciliary proceedings, pretending that no issue would come of those Disputations, calls a private Cabal of such whom he knew fittest for his purpose to contrive some shorter way to put an end to this business. For that end, makes choice first of ten Persons of either side to agree upon some proposals for Union,Sect. 8. c. 12. and acquaints none else of the Greeks with their transactions. When these things took no effect, the Patriarch who carryed on the Emperour's design, often convenes the Greeks together, and in plain terms perswades them to perfect dissimulation, that since the necessity of affairs was such, it would be hugely for their advantage, if in some things they did yield to the Latins desires. When they told him that in matters of Faith they could not do it, he replyes, that if in twenty four Articles of Faith they yielded but in one, the soundness of twenty three would make amends for the twenty fourth. Such kind of Arguments as these were they driven to, to bring the Greeks to hearken to any terms of Vnion. After this, the Latins sent them an explication of Faith, which if the Greeks would subscribe, there might be an Union between them: which being read among them,C. 13. containing chiefly the acknowledgement of the Procession from the Son, all but the four who were the Emperour's instruments in this work, unanimously disown it: and when the Emperour urged them every one to deliver their Suffrages in writings,C. 14. they tell him, it was contrary to the proceeding of all Oecumenical Councils: However, he told them he commanded them to do it. By which means rebuking some, cajoling others, he at last brought it by the multitude of Suffrages, that five persons were selected among the rest,C 16. to draw up a Form of Vnion; which, though drawn up very favourably for the Greeks, yet, those who were for it,C. 18. did not easily carry it from those who opposed it. And yet to this p. 27the Latins returned no less than twelve Exceptions: Upon 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;Sect. 9. c. 4. but Marcus Ephesius still continued in so great opposition, that he publickly charged the Latins opinion with Heresie. Notwithstanding all which,C. 5. 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,C. 8. 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,C. 9. 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.C. 10. 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,Sect. 10. c. 1. 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;C. 4. 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 of… 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) p. 28shewed, 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, §. 14.that you introduce it with confidence in abundance. But, say you, though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses, P. 6.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,Sect. 9. n. 1. p. 24. 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 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 p. 29much 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, §. 15.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, P. 7. n. 5.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,Theophylact. in Joh. 3.26.John 3:26 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, foreign. Theophylact. in Joh. 3.John 3The 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 p. 30Spirit 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, foreign. Id. ib.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. foreign. Joh. Damascenus de Trinit. c. 8. & l. 1. de Orthodoxa fide c. 11.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. Acta Theolog. Wirteab. p. 220.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,P. 8. as to produce at large, Tamen ipse cautè loquitur, unde non dicit quod Spiri…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 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, Sum. 1. q 36. a…t 2. Vasquez in Tho…. To. 2. dis. 146. c. 7. Petavius dogm. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 17.&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 foreign, 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,foreign. Hist. Concil. Florent. sect. 8. c. 15. p. 239. 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 p. 31comes 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, Eadmer. de vita Anselm. l. 2. Malmesbu. de gestis Pontif. Angl. l. 1.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,§. 16. 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? P. 25.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. P. 8.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 p. 32were 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, Sentent. 1. dist. 11.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.In sent. l. 1. dist. 11. art. 1. q. 1. 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 Filio que ; 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 by either of you. That the Greeks might be excused by Ignorance, before such Declaration of your Church concerning the Filio que , 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, §. 17.though he proceed not from it; Ib.which, you say, is a matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into. p. 33But 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 p. 34then 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 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. P. 11.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 p. 35trifling 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 Filio que , with which, you say, his Lordship begins to quibble, on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed. §. 18.But I am quite of another mind, I think he speaks very seriously,P. 11. 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 (Filio que ) was added to the Creed by her self. And 'tis hard to add and Anathematize too. P. 25.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 Holy 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, p. 36which 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 Filio que , you grant, That many hundred years had passed from the time of the Apostles, before Filio que 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 Filio que . A fair Concession; and nothing is wanting to destroy all that 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 Filio que , 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. P. 11, 12.Your words are. But it is also true, That the addition of Filio que to the Creed, was made many years before the difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks; so that the inserting this word (Filio que ) 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 Filio que 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 Filio que 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 Filio que , 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,P. 164. 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 p. 37own private judgments, and not as the publick Creed received by all Churches. For, Petavius confesseth, that, in Symbolo ipso nihil adjecerunt, Dogmat. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 2.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,P. 164. 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, Baron. To. 5. An. 405. n. 58.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, Magni Athanasii symbolum, quamvis Treve…is ut pleri que tradiderunt, i. e. in Gallia à Theologo tam…n inter illos doct…ssimo, acutissimu que scriptum. P. Pithaeus opusc. de process. …p S. Vossius de tribus symbol. Addend ad p. 55 31. Spala…ensis de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 10. sect. 124. Patriarch. Cyril. ep. ad Joh. Utenbogard. p. 404.the Controversie being then so rise about the Procession. But that seems the less probable, because the Article of Filio que 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,P. 164. 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, p. 38and his Council at Rome; the Pope and Council at Rome approved of their said Confession; but yet added, by way of explication, the word Filio que to the Article which concerned the Holy Ghost; and this they did, to signifie, that the Holy Ghost as true God, proceeded from the Son, and was not made or created by him, as some Hereticks in those times began to teach. Neither doth he, say you, affirm this without citation of some credible authority. I could wish you had produced it, not only for our satisfaction, but of the more learned men of your own side▪ who look on this as an improbable fiction. Bellarmin produceth many Arguments against it, saying, That no mention is made of it in the Councils, or Theodoret's History, who particularly relates the Letters of the Council to Damasus, Bellarmin. de Christo. l. 2. c. 21. sect. ult.and his to the Council; that Leo 3. caused the Constantinopolitan Creed to be inscribed in a silver Table, without that Addition; that the third Council of Toledo used the Creed without that Addition; that the Greeks did not begin this Controversie till A. D. 600. And how could they possibly charge the Latins with breaking the Canons of the third Oecumenical (when, according to this opinion) it was added in the second. Petavius is so great a friend to your opinion, that in plain terms he calls it ridiculous, Petav. dogmat. Theolog. de Trinit To. 2. l 7. c. 2.and abundantly confutes that imagination of its being inserted, because of the Heresie of the foreign, as Manuel Calecas calls it, who with Aristinus are all those worshipful Authorities which this opinion stands on. But, setting aside the contrary Authorities to these, any one, who is any thing versed in this Controversie, must needs esteem this the most improbable account that can be given of this Addition. For, if this were true, how little did the Latins at the Council at Florence understand their business; when, if they could have produced such an Addition before the Ephesine Council, all the Greeks objections had come to nothing? If this were true, how little did Leo 3. consult his own, or his predecessors honour, who disswaded the Legats of the Council at Aquisgrane, from continuing in the Creed that Addition of Filio que : for, when after a great deal of discourse concerning the Article and the Addition; the Legats at last tell him, That they perceived, his pleasure was, that it should be taken out of the Creed, and so every one left to his liberty. His answer is, So it is certainly determined by me, and I would perswade you by all means to assent to it: Ita procul-dubio à nostra parte decernitur; ita quo que , ut à vestra ass…ntiatur, à nobis omnimodis suadetur. Apud. Sirmond. Concil. Gallic. To 2. p. 256.And, to manifest this to be his constant judgment, he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed, without the Addition of Filio que to be inscribed in a greater silver Tablet, Baron. Annal. ad An. 809.and placed publickly in the Church, to be read of all, as appears by the testimony of Photius,Phot in ep. ad Patriarch. Aquileiens. Pet. Lombard. lib. 1. sent dist 11. and Peter Lombard, that so all, both Greeks and Latins, might see, that nothing was added to the Creed. Had not this now been a strange action of his, if this Addition had been so long before in the time of Damasus? Nothing then can be more evident, than that in this Leo's time, no such Addition was made to the Creed: Therefore, it seems most probable, which the famous Antoninus delivers, that this Addition was made by Pope Nicolaus 1. For, when he relates he causes, why Photius excommunicated him, he mentions that in the first place, That he had made an Addition to the Creed, Ta… inter alias accusationes hoc principaliter posuit, Ipsum fore excommunicatum, quòd apposuerat ad symbolum, Sp. Sanctum à filio procedere. Similiter & depositum, quod ipse Nicolaus Papa incidisset in sententiam tertit Concilii. Antonin. Part. 3. Tit 22. cap. 13. sect. 10.by making the Spirit to proceed from the Son; and therefore had fallen under the sentence of the third Oecumenical Council, which prohibited such Additions to be made. To which P. Pithaeus subscribes p. 39likewise, and Petavius seems not to dissent; the only thing which is pretended against it, is, that Andreas Colossensis in the Council at Ferrara, saith,Concil. Florent. sess. 8. That though Photius was a known and bitter enemy of the Latin Church, yet he never objected this Addition against Nicolaus or Adrian; but how strangely overseen Andreas was in these words, sufficiently appears by Photius his Encyclical Epistle, wherein he doth in terms object this against the Latins, as appears by the words already produced. So that although you would willingly have set this Addition far enough off from the Schism, yet you see how improbable a fiction you produce for it; and withall, you see, that this Addition, by the consent of your own most learned and impartial Writers, falls just upon the time when the Schism broke out, viz. in the time of Nicolaus and Photius; and therefore now judge you, whether these words were so long added before the Schism, that they could give no occasion to it.

2. The next thing to be considered, is, Whether they, who added it, §. 19.had power so to do? Two things the Greeks insist on, to shew, that it was not done by sufficient authority. 1. Because all such Additions were directly prohibited by the Ephesine Council. 2. That supposing them not prohibited, yet the Pope had no power to add to the Creed, without the consent of the Eastern Churches.

1. That such Additions were severely prohibited by the Ephesine Council: the Sanction of which Council to this purpose hath been already produced, and is extant both in the Acts of the Ephesine and Florentine Councils, Concil. Ephes. part. 2. Act. 6. p. 366. Concil. Florent. sess. 5. p. 587.Acts 6in which latter it is insisted on as the Foundation of the Greek's Arguments against the Addition of Filio que , by Marcus Ephesius; and the reason he there gives of such a Sanction made by the Council at Ephesus, is, that after the Nicene Council, in several Provincial Councils, there were above thirty several Expositions made of the Nicene Creed; upon which, the second Oecumenical Council made a further explication of it, explaining those things which belonged to the Divinity of the Spirit, and the Incarnation of Christ; and, because they did not prohibit any Additions, the Nestorians easily depraved the Nicene Creed, inserting their own opinions into it (as appears by the confession of Faith exhibited to the Council by Charisius) which being read in the Council, and the Fathers thereby understanding how easily, after this rate, New Creeds might be continually made in the Church, they severely prohibited any further Additions to be made to the Creed. And therefore, although they decreed in that Council the Virgin Mary to be foreign, in opposition to Nestorius; yet, they never offered to insert it into the Creed, although they apprehended it necessary to explain the Oeconomy of our Saviour's Incarnation. And that which much confirms the meaning of the Decree, to be the absolute prohibition of all kind of Additions to the Creed, is, the Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandria to Johannes Antiochenus, wherein reciting this decree of the Council, he adds these words as the explication of it. We neither permit our selves or others to change one word or syllable of what is herein contained (speaking of the Nicene Creed) which Epistle was read and approved in the fourth Oecumenical Council. foreign. p. 589. Sess. 5.To this the Latins answered them, that which is still answered in the same case, viz. That this Article of Filio que was only a declaration, and not a prohibited Addition: 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 p. 40Declarations 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,Concil. Florent. sess. 8. p. 626. 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 foreign 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 Filio que , 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 Filio que 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 p. 41rightly distinguisheth between an explication, foreign, from foreign, and therefore grants,P. 625. that the Filio que 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, §. 20.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 all opportunities to disgrace it, and infringe the liberties of it. Thence came the rage of Leo against Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the time of Martianus; thence the feud between Simplicius and Felix 3. of Rome, and Acacius of Constantinople, for defending the Priviledges of his See, in opposition to the Pope's; insomuch that Felix fairly excommunicates him, because he would not submit to the Pope's tryal in the case of the Patriarch of Alexandria; which continued so long, that Euphemius, who succeeded Acacius, though he excommunited Petrus Moggus of Alexandria, yet could not be received into the Communion of p. 42the Roman Church by Felix, because he would not expunge the name of Acacius out of the Diptychs of the Church; and afterwards Gelasius refused it on the same grounds; which Euphemius still denying to do, the Schism continued. And, although afterwards the Emperour Anastasius, and the Greek Church, desired the making up of this difference; yet no other terms of communion would be accepted by Hormisdas, without the expunging the name of Acacius. So implacably were they bent against the very memory of Acacius, for defending the Priviledge of his See, that they would rather continue that lamentable Schism, than not avenge themselves upon him; and consequently, make all future Patriarchs fearful of opposing the Pope's Authority. If we look yet further, we shall still find the ambition of the Popes to have caused all the disturbance in the Greek Churches, although some of the Patriarchs of Constantinople cannot be excused from the same faults. In the time of the second Council at Nice, Pope Adrian not only contends for the enlargement of his Jurisdiction, but threatens to pronounce them Hereticks, Petrus de Marca, de Concord. Sacerd. & Imp. l. 1. c. 1. sect. 5.who did not consent to it, which makes Petrus de Marcâ say, That he supposeth [that] the first time ever any were charged with Heresie on such an account. The same pretence we find still in all the Schisms which after happened, as that in the time of Photius, that afterward, in the time of Michael Cerularius, and in the successive ages, still the terms of communion were, Submission to the Church of Rome, and acknowledgledging the supremacy of that See, which the Greeks did then, and do still constantly deny; so that it was not the Greeks Levity, but the Romanists ambition and usurpation which gave occasion to that fearful Schism.

§. 21.But for all this, It must still be lawful for your Church to add, and Anathematize too: which his Lordship thought a little unreasonable, but it seems you do not: For, say you, The Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers; why so? Because the meaning of the Latin Church being understood by the Addition of Filio que , and that whosoever denyed, must be supposed to deny the Procession, then it became Heresie to deny it, and the Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers. So you say indeed; but, you would do well 1. To shew, that the understanding the meaning of the Latin Church, is sufficient to make the denyers of what she affirms, to be Hereticks. 2. How any one that denies the Filio que , must be supposed to deny the Procession, if you mean the Procession à Filio, you speak very wisely, but prove nothing; for some might grant the Procession, and yet deny the lawfulness of your Churches adding to the Creed. 3. All this while we are to seek how the Latin Church can make any thing to be a Heresie, which was not so before. And therefore if your Anathema's have no better grounds, the Greeks need not much fear the effects of them. That your Church on any occasion is apt enough to speak loud words, we may very easily believe, but whether she had just cause to speak so big in this cause, is the thing in question, and we have already manifested the contrary.

His Lordship sayes, It ought to be no easie thing, to condemn a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith; P. 26. n. 3.much less a Church; least of all, so ample and large a Church as the Greek, especially so as to make them no Church. Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes, when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his own Girdle. To this you answer; Neither is the Roman-Catholick Church justly accusable of cruelty (though the Bishop taxes her of it) because she is quick and sharp against those that fall into Heresie. P. 12.But, if she hath power to pronounce whom she please Hereticks, and on what account she please p. 43(as Hadrian I. in case of his Patrimony) and then it be commendable in her to deal with them as Hereticks, it must needs be dangerous opposing her in any thing, for such who dread her Anathema's. But his Lordship was not speaking of what was to be done, in case of notorious Heresie, but what tenderness ought to be used in condemning men for Heresie; and much more in condemning whole Churches for it, on such slender accounts as you do the Greek Church. You should shew, When S. Peter, or any of the Apostles did exclude Churches from communion, for denying such Articles as that you charge the Greek Church with. And it would be worth your enquiry, why those in the Corinthian Church, who at least questioned the Resurrection; those in the Galatian and other Churches, who asserted the Necessity of the Ceremonial Law under the Gospel, both which errours are by the Apostle said to be of so dangerous a nature; are not Anathematized presently by the Apostle, and thrown out of the Church, at least, to prevent the infection of other Christians, if not for the good of the Libertine Hereticks, as you speak. Your mentioning S. Peters proceeding with Ananias and Sapphira, must be acknowledged a very fit resemblance for your Churches dealing with Hereticks; only they whom you are pleased to account Hereticks, have cause to rejoyce, that since your Churches good will is so much discovered, she hath not the same miraculous Power: For, then she would be sure to have few left to oppose her. But do you really think, Anania's and Sapphira's fault was no greater than that of the Greek Church, that you produce this instance? and, do you think the Church enjoyes still the same power over offenders, which S. Peter then had? If not, to what purpose do you mention such things here; unless to let us see, that it is want of some thing else besides will, which makes you suffer any whom you call Hereticks to live. That S. Paul chastised his untoward Children, indeed you tell us, from 1 Cor, 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. but if you bring this to any purpose, you must make the Greeks Errour, as bad as Incest, or a denying the Faith; and when you have done so, you may hear of a further answer. On what account your Church punisheth Delinquents, will be then necessary to be shewed, when you have a little further cleared what Power your Church hath to make Delinquents in such cases as you condemn the Greek Church for. But, as long as your Church is Accuser, Witness, and Judge too, you must never expect that your Anathema's will be accounted any other than bruta fulmina, noise and no more.