« PreviousContinue »
dels in Palestine our dear brethren, our very true brethren, • and co-heirs of the heavenly kingdom; to save the Church of • God from suffering loss to the faith; to defend the Eastern • Church, from which hath flowed all our salvation, which .suckled us with the divine milk, and first delivered to us the
sacred doctrines of the gospel.' And to this day are used the terms Greek and Eastern Church,-Greeks and Easterns; to distinguish them from the Latin and Western Church,- the Latins and Westerns.
Mr. Palmer considers the division which does undoubtedly exist between these two great portions of Christendom to be caused, less by any essential theological error on either side, than by a general moral and spiritual degradation. And he would, in the case of individuals, heal the breach by causing the East first to restore her own coherence, and so become capable of recovering that influence over the West, which it is confessed that she has at present wholly lost; and, secondly, to receive any who seek to enter her communion from the Latins, not by unction as in Russia, or by re-baptism as in the Levant, as if they were either heretics or heathens, but on their being willing to recite the Creed in the Canonical form, and to profess themselves free from malicious opposition to Orthodoxy on that and other points. In proof of the historical propriety of this line of treatment, the Author cites among other things an extract of some length, but of great interest, from the answer of Demetrius Chomatenus, Archbishop of Bulgaria, A.D. 1203, to Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrachium, as to certain questions proposed by the latter, in which, while he wholly condemns the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as the Father (the great doctrinal question at issue between the Churches), calling it a capital error, &c., he decides that no strife need be raised about the Azymes, or Western custom of consecrating the Holy Eucharist in unleavened bread, and permits Eastern Bishops to enter the Churches of the Latins, and even to give them, in their own, the compliment of the ávtidwpov or blessed bread; which however, it should be remembered, is carefully to be distinguished from the consecrated element, to have given which, would have been, of course, to have admitted the recipients into full communion. Now then follows the question, in the unity of Mr. Palmer's plan, how there could be grave doctrinal differences between the Churches, without the existence of such division as he is contending against ? To account for this apparent anomaly he enters at length into the discussion of the disputed questions themselves.
The main doctrinal point on which the division turns is the doctrine, held by the Westerns and denied by the Easterns, of
the Fatherie author the Nimencemet no earch in
the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father; or rather, the addition, by a single Bishop of Rome, without the authority of an Ecumenical Council, of the words and the Son,' to the Nico-Constantinopolitan Creed.
The first formal commencement of the maintenance of the Western doctrine took place at no earlier a period than the middle of the fifth century, and the Church in which it originated was that of Spain. In the year 447, Turibius, Bishop of Astorga, in Gallicia, addressed a letter to Pope Leo complaining of the state of the Church of Spain, and especially of the presence of certain Priscillianists in that country. These heretics held a kind of Sabellian doctrine, and even had an Episcopal succession of their own. On the receipt of Turibius' letter, Leo ordered a general Council of the whole Church of Spain: but the divided state of the country, which then lay much under the dominion of the Goths, prevented his design from being effectually carried out. They held, however, two Councils instead: one in Gallicia, then under the rule of Rechila, king of the Sueves; the other, as Fleury says (but the whole account is very doubtful), made up of the four provinces of Tarracona, Carthagena, Lusitania, and Bætica."
At the Gallician Council was first published in the Church a Creed with the addition of Filioque.' This Creed, which is given by Harduin to the first Council of Toledo, A.D. 400, and is plainly directed against Sabellianism, runs as follows:
Credimus in Unum Deum..... Patrem autem non esse ipsuin Filium, sed habere Filium qui Pater non sit. .... Filium non esse Patrem, sed Filium Dei de Patris esse naturâ..... Spiritum quoque Paracletum esse qui nec Pater sit ipse, nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paracletus, sed, a Patre Filioque procedens.'
The addition was received by Leo, and it was repeated in other Spanish Councils; viz. those held at Toledo, A.D. 589, 633, 653, 675, 681, 683. That the first of these Councils did positively insert the addition is questionable; the third, fifth, and sixth formally interpolated the Creed; and the second and fourth simply stated the doctrine in terms of their own.
In the year 767 the question was agitated and the Western doctrine asserted, at the Council of Gentilli, near Paris, before Constantine Copronymus. In the year 809 some Latin monks established on Mount Olivet, under the protection of Charlemagne, were accused by the Easterns, and especially by a certain monk named John, of heresy, for singing the Creed with this addition,
Baronius, A.D. 447, 8 xvii.
They sent to Pope Leo III. reminding him that one of their number, and their amanuensis (also called Leo), had heard it so sung in the presence of the Pope himself and of the Emperor, and inquiring whether or not the addition were lawful. Leo, in reply, is said to have sent them a Creed drawn up on the model of that of Nice, but in which the addition in question was plainly expressed – The Father perfect God in Himself; • the Son perfect God begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost 'perfect God proceeding from the Father and the Son. But in the same year Leo, after a Council held at Aix-la-Chapelle, summoned by the Emperor Charlemagne, advised the imperial legates who were sent to him to obtain his sanction to the addition, that although retaining the doctrine as necessary to salvation, yet they should expunge the addition. The Churches of France and Spain did not, however, follow his counsel, but continued as before to use the Creed with it, and that of Rome without it. Hence it came that the Pope caused the silver shields to be hung up in the Church of S. Paul, with the Creed engraven on it in Greek and Latin, as it was originally composed. At the latter end of the same century, however, Pope Nicholas I. (or as Vossius thinks, Sergius, the successor of Christopher) restored the addition, for which he met with the determined hostility of Photius and the East; and in the eighth General Council, so called, held at Constantinople, A.D. 868, it was ordered that the addition should be taken away. The next occasion on which this question was publicly disputed was at a Council held at Bari, in the year 1098, in which our own archbishop, S. Anselm, at the direction of Urban the Pope, took the chief part, composing a disputation, the substance of which is found among his works. To the nature of the arguments contained in it we shall shortly make allusion.
It is not our intention to give any great number of citations from the early Fathers on the question; the manner in which they spoke, as far as they did speak, on it may be seen in Petavius, book xvii. ‘De Trinitate,' or Suicers ‘Symbolum Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum,' or his ‘Thesaurus ;' or, lastly, in Mr. Neale's careful and elaborate dissertation on the subject, in vol. ii. of his · History of the Eastern Church.' Thus, as regards the Fathers of the East, we find S. Athanasius saying that the Son with the Father is the Fountain of the Holy Ghost.'? S. Epiphanius' common expression, both in the · Ancoratus,' and in his account of the Macedonian heresy, is, • The Holy Ghost, who is from both Father and Son,' Trapá: in sect xii. of the
Fleury, book xlv. § 48. Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, vol. ii. p. 1163
De Incarnatione, et Contra Arianor, tom. i. p. 2, $ 9, ad fin. Padua, 1777.
latter he says, the Holy Ghost is of the same essence as the Father and Son,' ék, (this it was, viz.—the essential identity,– which Theodoret denied, according to Bishop Pearson, who, however, seems hardly borne out in his assertion, Theodoret having confessed the Holy Ghost to be ópódves with the Son). S. Cyril of Alexandria, in his ninth anathema, said the Holy Ghost is CSLOV TOŮ Tioû, which he afterwards explained to the Easterns to mean that He was êk Toll Tioû.'
So the Westerns :-S. Hilary, in his second book on the Trinity, says of the Holy Ghost, qui Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est;'? and in his eighth book he says, that to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father,' and thereby, as Petavius thinks, manifestly proves that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. S. Ambrose, in his book • De Spiritu Sancto,' says—although Mr. Neale, on plausible grounds of internal evidence, thinks the passage interpolated* The Holy Ghost, since He proceeds from the Father and Son,
is not separated from the Father-is not separated from the • Son: for how can He be separated from the Father, who is “the breath of His mouth ?'3 A plainer assertion is contained in the following words, also cited by Mr. Neale, but understood by him of the temporal mission, on the grounds of its otherwise proving too much :- The Son is the Fountain of Life, that is, of the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost is Life. Again, in the third chapter, section 46,- If you name the Holy Ghost, you • name also the Father from whom He proceeds, and the Son, • because the Holy Ghost is also the Spirit of the Son.' And, lastly, he asks, in the same work (book i.) What is it, then, that the Son is said to be born of God, and the Spirit is signified to proceed ? If you ask what is the difference between • Him who is born, and Him who proceeds, it is plainly this,
that the first is born of one, and the second proceeds of both.'' Lastly, he is cited at the same Council as showing, in his second book, that every Temporal mission presupposes an Eternal Procession from the Person who sends.
S. Jerome, in his first Epistle to Damasus, says,— We believe in . . . . . the Spirit, not begotten nor made, but pro'ceeding from the Father and Son;' and to Augustin and Alyppius,—“We believe in the Holy Ghost, Very God, proceed‘ing from the Father and Son, equal in all things to the Father and Son, in Will, Eternity, and Substance.' S. Augustin has, as is well known, been considered the chief
ving Holy Ghoection
Hecause the s, in the s be born what is thes, it is pla of both
from also the book in therence
i Petavius, De Trin. lib. vii. c. xvii. $ 10. Petavius, De Trin. lib. vii. c. viii. $ 2.
3 Lib. i. c. xi. $ 120. 4 Book i. c. xv. § 172. 5 Council of Florence, Sess. XXI. Harduin, vol. ix. p. 933. . 6 Ibid.
the host, and the Another whences, to pro from the heat the worde · begottenuster of the wine teel pleniher, to pr
champion on the Latin side. Petavius cites the following words from the twenty-sixth chapter of his fourth book •De Trinitate:'s As the Father hath in Himself that the Holy Ghost proceeds * from Him, so has He given it to the Son that the Holy Ghost should proceed from Him, and both without time; and thus it is said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, that it ‘may be understood that He also proceeds from the Son, and
that He is of (de) the Father, and of (de) the Son. For if what.ever the Son has, He has of the Father; He has it assuredly
from the Father that of Him should proceed the Holy Ghost." S. Leo concluded his before-mentioned letter to Turibius with the words, “They,' the Priscillianists, "assert the Person of • Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be one and the same, as if • the same God were called now Father, now Son, now Holy Ghost, and there were not One who begets, Another who is begotten, and Another who proceeds from both.'
The Master of the Sentences, to prove that the Holy Ghost does not proceed prius rel plenius from the Son, cites à forcible passage from the same Father, to prove that the words of our Lord, Who proceeds from the Father,'' are not to be confined, by the rule of analogy, to their strictly and exclusively literal meaning.
If the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, why has the Son said, “Who proceedeth from the Father?” Why, think you, but because He is accustomed to refer to Him that which is also His own, just as" (He refers to Him “ from whom He is Himself." Thus He says, “My doctrme is not mine, but His that sent Me."2 If, therefore, that is here understood to be His doctrine, which yet He did not call His own but the Father's, how much more, in that passage, must the Holy Ghost be understood to proceed from Him, where He so says, “ Proceedeth from the Father," as to avoid saying, “ doth not proceed from Me." For from whom the Son hath it that He is God, for He is God of God, from Him doubtless He hath it that from Himself should proceed the Holy Ghost. Therefore the Holy Ghost has it from the Father Himself that He should proceed also from the Son, as He proceeds from the Father.'-Lib. i. distinct. xii. It is notable that S. Anselm, at Bari, exclusively directs his .arguments to prove that the Holy Ghost is of the Son, quoad
Essentiam, chaps. vi. vii. viii. (which, as will be seen, is not denied). In chap. xix. he seems to prove that the term, · My Father,' Matt. xvi. 17,- Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for • flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father
which is in heaven,'—includes the Son, (as S. Augustin says it does in John xv. 26,) inasmuch as they are not alii ab invicem.
To elucidate and add force to the above passages, we may, perhaps, be allowed to condense the argument, on the subject, of one of the greatest of our divines—Bishop Pearson:
i Petavius, De Trinitate, lib. vii. c. viii. $ 4.
? John xv. 26.
3 John vii. 16.