XVI. NOTE it. For what if I should say, that there is evidence, even from the Creed, of this Spirit of God's proceeding from the Son, as well as from the Father, which is the utmost that is affirmed concerning Him? As perhaps I may say, if we consider this the Spirit of God's receiving His divine essence from another, and the order wherein He here stands as to the other Persons of the Trinity. For supposing Him to be third in the order of nature, as He is there placed, and accordingly, that the Son, though not in time, is in order of nature before Him, we shall find ourselves obliged to grant that He derives this His essence from the Son, as well as that He derives it from the Father. For the Father communicating His Godhead to the Son antecedently, in the order of nature, to His communicating it to the Holy Ghost, we must also suppose, (because thereby, as our Saviour speaks, He makes that which is His own to become the Son's also), that there must be a concurrence in the Son to that communication, which is made of the same Godhead to the Holy Ghost; because in order of nature, though not of time, it is after that which is made of it to Himself. For how can the Son be supposed not to have an interest in the communication of that Divine Nature, which by being the Son of God He is already as fully vested in, as that Father from whom He has Himself received it?" And again: "Supposing, as we may, and as I think I have before shewn, that One of these Hypostases (Persons) acts with some subordination to the other, the difficulty will appear far less than it doth, if indeed it do not perfectly vanish: because so, though distinct Hypostases, they will be but as one principle to that operation, to which they concur.”—P. 289. III. William Beveridge, Bishop of St. Asaph, in his Treatise on the XXXIX Articles, Art. v. has the following: "The Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father; only with this distinction, that the Father hath the Spirit proceeding from Him of Himself, but the Son hath the Spirit proceeding from Him of the Father; who communicating His own individual essence, and so whatsoever He is, (His paternal relation to Him excepted) to the Son, could not but communicate this to Him also, even to have the Spirit proceeding from Him, as He hath it proceeding from Himself. So that as whatsoever else the Father hath originally in Himself, the Son hath it also by communication from the Father, so hath the Son likewise this, the Spirit proceeding from Him, by communication from the Father, as the Father hath the Spirit proceeding from Him originally in Himself." And he quotes the following from St. Augustine: "Nec de quo genitum est Verbum, nec de quo procedit principaliter Spiritus Sanctus, nisi Deus Pater Ideo autem addidi principaliter, quia et de Filio Spiritus Sanctus procedere reperitur. Sed hoc quoque Illi Pater dedit, non jam existenti et nondum habenti, sed quicquid Unigenito Verbo dedit, gignendo dedit. Sic ergo Eum genuit, ut etiam de Illo Donum commune procederet, et Spiritus Sanctus Spiritus esset Amborum."-De Trin. L. xv. c. 26. vol. viii. p. 988. XVI. Now as when the Easterns say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the NOTE Father in order by or after the Son, they seem to our Divines to agree with us, that in a certain sense He proceeds from the one common substance of the Father and the Son, or, to use the Latin language, from the Father and the Son, Who are in respect of their one common substance but one principle, (for the unity of substance may be distinguished in thought from the abstract Personalities of Both ;) so, in like manner, when we Latins allow that in respect of the distinct Personalities (the Ipsa Subjecta of Aquinas) of the Father and the Son, as taken abstractedly, and distinguished from their one common substance, and substantial property (virtus productiva,) the Holy Ghost proceeds immediately, properly, or principally, from the Father, but mediately only from the Son, we may be said to agree with the Easterns, that in a certain sense the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only, and not from the Son. For the Son, we say, receives from the Father His own being, and by consequence all properties of that being, of which we believe this to be one, 'habere virtutem productivam Spiritûs Sancti.' The Person of the Father therefore, who gives, is by the force of the terms themselves confessed to have this virtue, not in time indeed, but in order and relation, before the Person of the Son, who receives it: and since to have this virtue and to exercise it is all one, there being no respect to time, it may be said that the Father, as to His distinct Personality, is understood to produce the Holy Ghost before the Son produces Him. But such production being perfect as soon as it is conceived at all, and admitting not of division or duality, he who thinks of the abstract Person of the Father as producing first or principally, will scarcely afterwards assert a secondary or communicated production from the Son; but will rather say that the Spirit 'rests in the Son,' 'receives of Him substantially,' 'is dependant upon Him,' and 'inseparable from Him as to His substance,' being the third in order, after the interposition of Him who is second. And thus perhaps the Greek and Latin tenets may be so represented, as not only not to contradict, but even mutually to imply each other; the Greek, if taken only with respect to the two distinct Personalities of the Father and the Son, which are not numerically one principle; the Latin, if taken only with respect to that common nature and substance of the Father and the Son, which is numerically one principle in Both. And yet these distinctions apply merely ad modum concipiendi et loquendi. For though we even say with the Greeks that the Father alone, and not the Son, produces the Holy Ghost, still we mean not that the Personality of the Father is really separable from His essence; nor that this one essence, now already common to the Son, is separable from the Personality of the Son. Nor on the other hand when we say as Latins, that the Father and the Son together as one principle produce the Holy Ghost, (having respect to that one common essence and its operation, which is numerically one in Both) do we mean that this one common essence and operation is really XVI. NOTE separable from the Personalities of the Father and the Son; or that these two distinct and abstract Personalities, are as such one principle; or that the latter of these two Personalities is not absolutely, with all its attributes, to be referred to the Father, as to the sole first principle and cause. But whatever may be thought of any such attempts as the above to reconcile the two contrary modes of expression, thus much at least is certain, that the Eastern Church has never yet refused to the Latins the liberty of holding to their own doctrine, and language; nor has ever required of them to condemn and reject the expression 'Filioque' as it comes to them in the writings of their own Fathers: all that they have required, and still require, is this, that the Latin doctrine should not be interpolated into the Ecumenical Creed. This will sufficiently appear from the following testimonies: IV. At the very beginning of the Controversy, Pope Leo the Third, on being appealed to for protection by the Latin monks on Mount Olivet, though he strenuously forbade the interpolation of the Creed as has been shewn above, (Section v.,) yet no less distinctly proclaimed his own agreement with the Latin language and opinion; and sent the following Letter, as it is said, to all the Eastern Churches : : "Leo, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God, to all the Eastern Churches. We send you this confession of the orthodox faith, that both ye and all the world may hold according to the right and undefiled faith of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. We believe the Holy Trinity, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, one God Almighty, of one substance, of one essence, of one power, the Creator of all creatures, from Whom are all things, through Whom are all things, in Whom are all things: the Father in Himself, not from any other; the Son begotten of the Father, very God, of very God, very light of very light, yet not two lights, but one light; the Holy Ghost proceeding equally from the Father and the Son, and consubstantial (ceterum) with the Father and the Son: The Father is perfect God in Himself; the Son perfect God begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost perfect God, proceeding from the Father and the Son.... From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead: Whom the wicked shall see as their Judge in that same form in which He was crucified; not in that humility in which He was unjustly judged, but in that brightness in which He shall justly judge the world; the beholding of Whose majesty is the everlasting bliss of all Saints. Whosoever believes not according to this faith is condemned by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is founded by Jesus Christ Himself, our Lord, to Whom be glory for ever." "Thus Leo, as it seems, although he respected the authority of the holy Fathers, and further thought the doctrine of the Procession from the Son to be such, that not every one could attain to it,' still took care to guard against any damage to the credit of that doctrine, in his own Confession NOTE addressed to the Eastern Bishops. Nor, be it remarked, did this his declaration cause the separation of any single Eastern See from the See of Rome."-Le Quien, Dissert. Damasc. I. xiv, xv. p. viii. XVI. * ** The above is given, as not being inconsistent with the known sentiments of Pope Leo. The text of his Letter to the Easterns rests upon the authority of Le Quien, to whom it was furnished by Baluzius "ex veteri codice S. Martialis Lemovicensis." At the same time, as this document would read perfectly well, and even better, without those words which express the Latin doctrine, and as there are other manifest difficulties to be accounted for, if we admit their genuineness, no opinion is here hazarded as to the value of this testimony. Only thus much may be said, that if the text be genuine, the Letter of Pope Leo is of too great importance to be passed over unnoticed; and until it be shewn to be otherwise, the names of Le Quien and Baluzius are deserving of respect. At any rate it cannot be amiss to have called the attention of the learned to the question. With regard to all that follows there can be no doubt: V. In none of those repeated renewals of communion which took place, as is well known, after the first formal rupture in the time of Photius, did the Greeks ever require from the Latins any retractation or condemnation of their doctrine on the Procession, but only the omission of the interpolated clause from the Creed. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the circumstances of each of these temporary reunions; but a few testimonies shall be here adduced, to shew that the Easterns have ever down to the present time professed for themselves, and have been understood by others to profess a willingness to communicate with the Westerns upon these same terms:— VI. Theophylact, Archbishop of Acrida in Bulgaria in the eleventh century, as quoted by John Beccus, uses the following words : “On other occasions I will grant you (the Latins) the use of the expression, of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, as may suit your speech; in common discourses, I mean, and in Sermons in the Church, if ye please; but in the Creed, and in that alone, I will not grant it you.” VII. Again, in the year 1249, when overtures were made by the Emperor John Ducas for a union of the Eastern and Roman Churches, the Easterns would have been willing to agree to it on the following conditions: "that the Pope should be prayed for in the Liturgy: that the Latins should not countenance or assist those who had seized Constantinople: that the interpolation should be put out of the Creed, but might be retained and read in any other form." (Pachymeres, Hist. book the fifth, ch. xii.):— "The Emperor (Michael Palæologus) brought forward those precedents of ancient memory which they had found in history; especially the example of the Emperor John Ducas, and the Bishops of his time, XVI. NOTE who with the Patriarch Manuel consented, and promised, and even sent Bishops expressly to pledge themselves to communicate with the Latins in the holy Liturgy, and pray therein for the Pope by name, if only he would abstain from assisting those who had seized the city. In proof of which fact the Register of the Church, in which all was written, was produced; and the Emperor enlarged upon it, drawing a comparison between the circumstances of that time and those of the present. He appealed also to the written declarations of the Primates of that time authenticated by subscription, which he said ought to be owned and allowed even as their own by those (the Patriarchs and Bishops) who were now in the same place : bidding them take notice how those Fathers, as appeared from the documents produced, had entirely abstained from taxing the Italians with impiety or heresy on account of their attempt to interpolate the Creed, and had merely demanded that the words added should be put out; leaving them free liberty both to retain them and read them as they pleased any where else."-Tractat. Zoernicavii, vol. ii. p. 948. VIII. And the same writer, Pachymeres, (B. v. ch. xi.) gives us to understand that the Emperor Michael Palæologus (A.D. 1273,) found the Greek Bishops and Clergy ready enough to offer union again on the same terms : "To this the Prelates of our Church answered; That peace was indeed honourable and desirable ; no one denied that; especially between Churches so conspicuous... but still this peace was to be sought and made on just and safe terms; not recklessly, on any terms whatsoever for that no little danger was theirs, who should err from the straight path, whether on the one side or the other. . . . It would therefore be good and convenient, that thou shouldest bring about the peace of the Church, by endeavouring with a sincere zeal, as thou professest, that it be moved for on such principles as make most fairly and directly to that end; namely, that thou shouldest use thy wisdom and authority and influence with the Italians to induce them to take away the scandal . . . of innovation in changing the Creed." -Tract. Zoernicavii, vol. ii. p. 972. IX. And in the Council of Florence, Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, the great champion of the Greeks, held the following language, as may be seen in the Acts of the Council, and as he is quoted by Michael Ducas : 66 Expunge this clause from the Creed, and then place it where ye will, and sing it in your Churches on occasion, as is sung ‘O Movoyevǹs Abyos, k.t.^.” X. That this has ever been the sense and disposition of the Eastern Church, however much her Divines may seem sometimes to attack the Latin Doctrine in itself, or tax the Latins with heresy on account of it, has been understood and noticed by the most learned writers both of the Roman-Catholic and of the Anglican Communions; as, for instance, by Marcus Antonio De Dominis, sometime Archbishop of Spalatro, and |