Christopher who thrust Leo the Fift out of his Chaire in the yeare 908. and after seaven Moneths was in like manner dejected by Sergius But Baronius gives a reason to the contrary Anno 888. Nullo pacto possunt tribui ista Christophoro qui invasor Apostolicae Sedis mox sede pulsus perbrevi tempore eam tenuit tumultuosè That is This Addition cannot be ascribed to Pope Christopher who having invaded the Apostolick See was quickly thrust out againe having held it but a very little while and that in great troubles Wherefore with more probability we may attribute this Addition to Pope Sergius his Successour who made this businesse of the Procession his first and chiefe work and sent unto the French Bishops to gather the most solid Arguments they could find against the Errour of the Greekes upon the Receipt of which letters a Synod was called at Soissons 6 Cal. Jul. Aº 909. Wherein Herivaeus Archbishop of Rheimes earnestly exhorts the Clergy to prosecute the question against the Photian Errours and Blasphemies Hortamur vestram Fraternitatem saith he ut unà me cum secundum admonitionem Domini Romanae sedis presidis singuli nostrum perspectis Patrum Catholicorum sententiis de divinae Scripturae pharetris acutas proferamus sagittas ad conficiendam belluam monstri renascentis ad terebrandum Caput nequissimi Serpentis And this may be the reason why the ancient Romane writers never delivered to posterity the name of that Pope who contrary to the Precept and Practise of his Predecessor Leo 3. undertook to adde this Particle to the Creed namely because they were ashamed of such an Author as Sergius an usurper of the See and one of a most infamous life whom if they had alleadged they had laid both themselves and their cause open to the scoffes and railings of the Greekes who would greedily have laid hold on such an advantage Otherwise it were a Thing extreamly improbable that the Clergy and Notaries of the Romane Church should be so grossely negligent as not to insert a matter of this consequence into their publique Registers and that all the Ecclesiasticall Writers of that and the next Age should quite passe over it in silence Especially it being done in a great Synod of Westerne Bishops as the forenamed Bishop of Colosse witnessed in the Councell of Florence when he there disputed in this cause on behalfe of the Romane Church His words are these Cyrillus literis mandavit Sanctum spiritum esse per Filium ac Filii esse ab ipso profluere quam profecto sententiam non dixisset nisi coactus fuisset haereticorum ipsorum opinionem evertere quemadmodum etiam Romanae Ecclesiae contigit nam maximo in Gallia in Hispaniis Schismate imminente cum jam ex filioque passim celebraretur Romano Pontifici fuit necesse in multorum Occidentalium amplae Dignitatis magnique Consilii Patrum Conventu addito ex Filioque Symbolum magis illustrare That is Cyril hath wrote that the Holy Ghost is by the Sonne and of the Sonne and that he proceedeth from him which he had not declared unlesse he had been compelled thereby to overthrow the opinion of the Hereticks as it fell out also in the Romane Church for a great Schisme being now ready to breake forth in the Churches of France and Spaine when as the particle Filioque was commonly used it was necessary for the Bishop of Rome to illustrate the Creed by the Addition of that particle which he did in an Assembly of many Westerne Bishops and those of the greatest Dignity and judgement Sess 7a. About 165 years after the ejection of the Patriarch Photius Michael Cerularius vehemently set himselfe against the Latines accusing them not only concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost but also concerning Traditions and Ceremonies as for Communicating in unleavened bread fasting on Saturday c. Leo Achridenus Metropolitan of Bulgaria seconded him Michael Psellus Tutor to Michael Ducas the Emperour surnamed Paropinaceus pursued the quarrell and so did Theophylact who flourished about the yeare 1070. Thus began and thus continued the deplorable Schisme between the Churches of East and West the causes whereof were these that follow 1. The Addition of this particle Filioque to the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed not only without but against the Consent of the Easterne Churches who had composed that Creed but were never called to that Synod wherein this Alteration was made yea still protested against it But which was more this Addition was made in contempt of the third generall Councell held at Ephesus which expressely forbad it and denounced an Anathema against him whosoever should dare to alter this Creed by Addition or Diminution cap. 7. For though an Oecumenicall Synod cannot absolutely prescribe to another Oecumenicall whence the first Councell of Constantinople added much by way of explication to the Nicene Creed yet it may prescribe Lawes to Inferiour Synods whether Provinciall or Nationall so that nothing ought to be done in the common cause of the Faith but by the common Judgment and determination of the Catholick Church Thus did the Greeks complaine And when the Latines afterward urged the Authority of the Romane See now growing daily greater that the Bishop of Rome by a peculiar priviledge derived from St Peter the Prince of the Apostles was to take care that the Church received no Damage that he had an infallible Judgment by the speciall Gift of the holy Ghost in all controversies of Faith and authority to decide them so that there was no necessity he should expect the judgment of the Easterne Churches and that this was the Priviledge of the first See which had received the Primacy from S. Peter Christs vicar on Earth The Greeks replyed First that S. Peter never chalenged that priviledge to himselfe to judge alone and to be judged of none for being called in question that he had conversed with the Gentiles he was faine to make an Apology for himselfe in the publick audience of the Church Act. 11. And when the Controversy arose whether the Gentiles should be circumcised and observe the Ceremoniall Law no Appeale was made to S. Peter but a Synod was called wherin though he spake first yet Iames as Bishop of Jerusalem the place where the Synod was called decided the question and seemes to have sate therein as President Besides S. Paul resisted him to his face at Antioch and publickly rebuked him for causing others to Judaize by his example as we Read Galatians 2. 14. Which he would not have presumed to doe if he had conceived him endued with such a supereminent priviledge So then there appeares nought in Peter above the rest of the Apostles but a Primacy of order or of Dignity at the most such as is acknowledged to be fit in the Church of God and this Primacy conferred on him either for that he was first called or for his Age or Zeale or that he was commonly the first Speaker
and so rather the Mouth than the Head of the Apostles but there appears no Primacy of order or Jurisdiction over his fellow-Apostles But suppose we should grant said they that Peter had such an unerring paramount privilege yet this might well be personall and annext to his Apostleship not derivable to any Episcopall successour and if derivable why should the Bishop of Rome rather arrogate it to himselfe than the Bishop of Antioch in which City S. Peter first sate Or the Bishop of Alexandria a See instituted by the same Apostle under S. Marke before he ever appointed any Bishop at Rome As for the Grounding of this priviledge on S. Peters martyrdome at Rome where appears any such Dependance or legacy bequeathed by S. Peter that his Infallibility and Supremacy should be annexed to that Chaire alone as to the place of his Death and Buriall 'T is true they confest that the Bishop of Rome was of old accounted Primae Sedis Episcopus The Bishop of the Principall See but withall they said that there was a vast difference between Primacy and Power for if by this pretence he should challenge any Authority or Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Constantinople the Second See Why should not he of Constantinople likewise claime the same Power over the Bishop of Alexandria which is the third And so in like manner Alexandria over Antioch Antioch over Ierusalem An opinion never heard of or entertained in the Church of God The Bishop of Rome therefore had this primacy not by divine right but by humane or Ecclesiasticall that is not from any Apostolicall Priviledge derived from S. Peter but by the graunt of Emperours and Decrees of Councells It was fit that one Bishop should be chiefe for order sake this Honour was given to the Bishop of Rome for the Dignity of his Seat Rome beeing the Head of the Roman Empire For which cause Alexandria had of old the Second place as beeing Praefectura Augustalis the Peculiar of the Romane Emperour so ennobled by Augustus Caesar Antioch the third as the Metropolis of Syria and the Eastern Countryes adjoyning whereas if the preeminency of Sees had been derived from S. Peter the City of Antioch where he sate seven years in person should have beene preferd before Alexandria whether he only sent an other viz S. Marke and appointed him for the first Bishop And for this cause Caesarea too was made the Metropoliticall See of Palestine because it was the seat of the Roman Governor untill the Fathers of the Nicene Councel in honour of Jerusalem where S. James was made the first Bishop of the Christian world and whence the Gospell spread into the whole earth gave the Bishop therof a Patriarchall title that rather of dignity thē Authority for thus runs the seventh Canon of that Councell Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit vetusta Traditio ut Aeliae id est Hierosolimorum Episcopo honor Deferatur habeat consequenter honorem manente tamen Metropolitanae Civitatis Caesareae propriâ Dignitate that is Because from an old Custome and Tradition honuor hath been given to the Bishop of Aelia that is of Jerusalem let him have Honour accordingly provided that the Dignity of the metropolitan City Cesarea remaine entire For the same cause also when Constantinople was reedifyed made the seat of the Empire and called new Rome by Constantine the Great it was thought fit by the Emperours and succeeding Councells that the Bishop of Alexandria should no longer have the Second but the third Place Constantinople now succeeding in that honour for thus runs the fift Canon of the first Councell of Constantinople Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportet Primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum propter quod sit nova Roma that is The Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the next place of honour after the Bishop of Rome because his City is new Rome And because there could not be two Sedes primae two first or chief Sees the same Councell ordeined that the Bishop of Constantinople should be styled the second Patriarch but in all other things should be of equall Dignity and Authority with the Bishop of Rome So in all the rest whosoever will please to compare the Prelates Sees with the Notitia Imperii shall find that the Church still accommodated her Hierarchy of Mertropolitās Archbishops Bishops unto the state of the Empire the distinction of Provinces and the Dignity of the Cityes according to that ancient Rule Ecclesia est in Republicâ non Respublica in Ecclesiâ The Church is in the Commonwealth not the Common-wealth in the Church 2. The second cause of the Schisme was the Deposition and Excomunication of the Patriarch Photius and of the other Prelats and Abbots his adherents in a great Synod at Constantinople held under the Emperour Basiliu◠and the Patriarch Ignatius in the yeare 869 which businesse was mainly urged and furthered by two Bishops of Rome successively viz. Nicolas the first and Adrian the second 3. The third cause was the Rash and Inconsiderate Zeale of the said Patriarch Photius who first dared to accuse the Romane Church of Heresy because it held that the holy Ghost proceeded from the Sonne as well as from the Father whereas in all former disputes between the Greeks and the Latines whether by word or writing neither party accused his Adversary of Heresy for holding either opinion Yea the Latines Demōstrated that some of the Greeke Fathers spake as they did neither could the Greekes deny it And since this precipitate Censure of Photius not a few of the Romane Divines have in requitall accused the Greeke Church of the same Crime for holding the Contrary 4. The fourth cause was the contention about the Primacy between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople For Iohn surnamed Iejunator and Cyriacus his successour Patriarchs of Constantinople were very earnest with the emperour Mauritius to obteine the Title Authority of Oecumenicall Patriarchs thereby challenging a Superiority over the Bishops of the whole Christian World from the Dignity of their City which was then the Head of the Romane Empire that of the West being utterly broken and Rome the Ancient Seate thereof for that Cause loosing its former Dignity Now against these their endeavours Gregory the great then Bishop of Rome publickly opposed himselfe and taxed them in expresse Termes of Antichristian ambition saying withall that Dato uni Episcopi universalis Titulo reliquos Sacerdotes honore debito privari The giving of the Title of Universall Bishop unto one doth deprive the other Bishops of their due Honour Yet with in lesse than two years after his Death Boniface the Third his Successour abtained the same Title of the Emperour Phocas which Gregory had so much Decried But the Greeke Prelates would never yeeld to it 5. The fift cause was the busines of Images which brake out after this contention about the Primacy For the Emperour Leo Isaurus and his sonne Constantinus Copronymus
interdicted the worship thereof and commanded them to be broken Both of them for this Cause being very hatefull to the Church of Rome 6. A sixt cause was the Pride Pompe and Covetous Exactions of the Popes Legates who were yearly sent from Rome to carry the Chrisme unto Constantinople 7. The seventh and last cause was the Division of East and West Empire caused by Leo 3. Bishop of Rome who seeing Italy and more especially his owne Church and City dayly vexed and in danger of imminent Ruine by the incursions of the Saracen◠on the East the oppression of the Lombardes from the West and seeing that the Greeke Emperour at his earnest solicitation either would not or could not protect him In fine he perswaded the Senate and people of Rome to elect Charlemaigne Emperour of the West which they did he accordingly crowned him at Rome in St Peters Church uppon Christmas Day Aº Dni 800. Thus this great Breach had its originall both from Prince and Prelate The Emperours became odions to the Popes for the businesse of Images and the Popes to the Greeke Emperours for the Division of the Empire Then for the Clergy The contention about the Primacy made way for the Schisme The Pride Pompe and Avarice of the Romane Legats fomented it Then the Doctrine of the Procession accōpained with the Deposition of Photius and the adding of the particle Filioque to the Nicene Creed on the one side with the retortion of Heresy wherewith Photius charged the Latine Church on the other brought it to the Height And when the Differences were thus high then every petty diversity in matter of Ceremony or opinion was a sufficient occasion of Cavill and served to make the Breach wider For to insist a little upon this last The Greeks celebrate the Eucharist in both kindes and give it to Infants presently upon their Baptisme but the Romanists doe neither They give it also in leavened bread and condemne the contrary use whereas the Church of Rome usually delivers it in light Wafer-cakes They admit of Preists marriages that is the use of those wives whom they married before ordination which the Romanists do not They prohibite the fourth mariage in any Christian as a thing intollerable They solemnize Saturday festivally in memory of the Creation and eat flesh therein forbidding as unlawful to fast any Saturday in the yeare except Easter Eve in memory of our Saviours then lying in the Grave They Eate no bloud nor any thing strangled in observation of that Decree of the Apostles Act. 15 28 29. They observe foure Lents in the yeare They reject the religious use of massy Images or statues in their Churches though they admit of Pictures or plaine Images They disallow private Masses and the sale of Indulgences and Pardons with the Adoration of the elevated Host lastly they have their service in a knowne Tongue In these and some other small particulars they differ in practise from the Romane Church And as in matter of practise so in opinion too as about Transubstantiation Purgatory the State of Soules departed c. But too much of the causes and the sad effects that followed The great head of his Church unite all his members to himselfe and each other in Verity and Unity in the same Faith and the same Love He who is the Wisdome of his Father supply his Church with that VVisdome from above which is first pure then peaceable that so it may seeke and seeking obtaine those two inestimable Blessings Truth and Peace The Great Physitian of Soules in his due time apply an effectual Salve to heale up these Wounds of his torne mangled Spouse The Great Shepheard of his Church who came to binde up that which was broken to seeke that which was lost to recollect the dispersed ones and who once brake downe the partition-wall between Iew and Gentile bring his Scatterd Sheep into one Fold heere and hereafter set them at his right Hand in his Heavenly Kingdome FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. lin 24. for sunt read sicut p. 9. l. 24. r. 2 Cor. 1. 24. p. 17. l. 21. r. Marcellus Ancyranus p. 88. l. 16. r. Contextio p. 102. l. 32. r. Heb. 6. 1. p. 105. l. 20 21. r. this testimony p. 117. l. 19. r. his comments p. 118. l. 14. r. where p. 122. l. 12. r. this p. 116. l. 25. r. discessuri p. 128. l. 19. r. confinem p. 141. l. 17. r. Melania p. 145. l. 31. r. God p. 157. l. 6. r. forme p. 159. l. 23. r. out of p. 161. l. 31. r. Test p. 173. l. 29. r. this p. 174. l. 27. r. Moscovitish p. 175. l 34. r. Act. 8. 37. p. 179. l 21. r is p. 181. l. 12. r. spake p. 183. l. 22. r. generality p. 189. l. 16. r. or p. 193. l. 15. r. words l. 25. thus p. 196. l. 20. r. ita p. 204. l. 12. r. commonly p. 205. l. 12. f. in the. r. to be p. 207. l. 34. r. unjust p. 209. l. 11. r. Areop p. 210. l 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 214. l. 31. r or p. 223. l 18. Creed made by p. 245. l 34. r. Lauraeus p. 252. l 9. r Haymo
more especially from the two Creeds of Marcellus and Chrysostome to which we may adde that of Arius 1. That the Greeke Church received the Apostles Creed by Tradition as well as the Latine Church therefore it was no composure of the Romane Clergy as some invidiously affirme 2. That this Creed was extant amongst them long before the yeare 400 contrary to the assertion of some for both Marcellus and Chrysostome flourished before that time especially Marcellus who convinced the Arians in the Councill of Nice as Epiphanius tells us in the fore cited place Haer. 72. 3. That these Creeds are found upon record after that the Nicene Creed was framed which shewes that the Nicene as it was not the first so it was not the only Creed of the Greeke Church yea it shewes that the Apostles Creed was of publike use amongst them rather then the Nicene which was made but upon a particular occasion viz. The detection and suppression of the Arian heresy Afterwards indeed when a full Creed was composed in the second Generall Councell held at Constantinople wherin the foure last Articles of the Apostles Creed were added to the Nicene and some of them amplified more at larg partly for Illustration of the Faith partly in opposition to Hereticks then that Creed began to be publickly used in the Greeke Church and inserted in their liturgy yet not as a Creed contradistinct to that of the Apostles but as one including or containing it so that we may not unfitly call it the Apostles Creed growne Bigger the parts or Limbs the same the Quantity only augmented 4. That the Greeke Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Cyrils Creed addes to the foure last Articles redounds by a Pleonasme as also in that of Arius for neither Marcellus nor Chrysostome prefixe it to those Articles CAP. V. Testimonies of the Creed and the composure thereof by the Apostles taken out of the Latine Fathers who beare witnes for the Westrne Churches Some objections to the contrary Answered YOU have heard what the Greek Fathers say concerning the Creed and its Originall its Frame and Authors let us now come neerer home and examine what the Fathers of the Westerne Church and other Doctors of note famous for learning and Antiquity have delivered concerning the same Argument and we shall find I hope an unanimous Consent a joynt agreement in their Testimonies which will not a little confirme this Truth to the impartiall Reader when he shall find both East and West to bring in their suffrages in the cause These Witnesses shall be fourteene viz Clemens Romanus Irenaeus Turtullian Ambrose Ierome Austin Maximus Taurinensis Crysologus Leo the Great Cassianus Eusebius Gallicanus Venantius Fortunatus Isidore of Sevil and Rabanus Maurus 1. Clemens Romanus contemporary to the Apostles and mentioned by St Paul as his fellow-worker Phil. 4. 3. Successour also to St Peter in the Bishoprick of Rome in his first Epistle Ad Fratrem Domini translated into Latine by Ruffinus hath these words Apostoli collatâiis scientiâ linguarum adhuc in uno positi symbolum quod fidelis nunc tenet ecclesia unusquisque quod sensit dicendo condiderunt ut discedentes ab inuicem hanc Regulam per omnes Gentes praedicarent that is the Apostles having the gift of Tongues confered upon them being assembled together framed that Creed which the Christian Church now keepeth every one of them contributing thereto that so departing each from other they might publish this Rule amongst all Nations And alittle after Hoc praedicti Sancti Apostoli interse per Spiritum Sanctum salubriter condiderunt This Creed the said Holy Apostles joyntly and profitably composed through the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But least we should doubt whether the Creed he heere makes mention of were the same which we now have he thus breifly Sumes up the Heads of it Summam ergò totius fidei Catholicae recensentes in qua integritas credulitatis ostenditur unius Dei omnipotentis id est Sanctae Trinitatis aequalitas declaratur mysterium Incarnationis Filii Dei qui pro Salute humani Generis a Patre de Coelo descendens de virgine nasci dignatus est quoque ordine quando mortem pertulerit quomodo sepultus surrexerit in carne ipsa Coelos ascenderit ad dexteramque Patris consederit Judex venturus sit qualiter Remissionem Peccatorum sacro Baptismo renatis contulerit Resurrectionem humani Generis in eadem Carne in vitam aeternam futuram sic docuerunt That is The Apostles recounting the summe of the Catholick Faith wherin the whole Beleefe of a Christian is declared viz. The Equality of one Almighty God the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God who for the Salvation of mankind descended from the Father out of Heaven deigned to be borne of a Virgin how and when he suffered Death how after his Buriall he arose and in the same Body ascended into Heaven and sate on the right hand of the Father and shall come as Judge and how he conferred remission of sinnes on those who were regenerated by holy Baptisme and that there shall be a resurrection of mankind in the same Body unto life Everlasting thus have they taught us And alittle after Et quod in primordio ejusdem Symboli praeponitur Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem praeclarum fidei Testimonium Fundamentum in prima fronte monstratur that is That which is set in the begining of the Creed I believe in God the Father Almighty shewes in the very front a renowned Testimony and Foundation of the Faith I am not ignorant that not a few among the Learned doubt of this Epistle whether it truly belong to Clemens or be a counterfeit set forth under his name as many Decretal Epistles have beene falsly ascribed to severall of the Ancient Bishops of Rome and they bring this for the cheife if not only reason of their Doubt that the Author of this Epistle which is entituled unto Iames the Brother of the Lord makes mention therein of the Death of Peter whereas Peter survived Iames Iames being Martyred at Ierusalem about the midest of Nero's Empire as both Iosepus and Eusebius witnesse but Peter was Crucified at Rome in the latter end thereof For the satisfaction of which doubt I shall desire my Reader to consider what followes First that the stile of this Epistle relisheth of the Ancient primitive Simplicity and that it is entitled To the Brother of the Lord with this Addition Episcopo Episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed omnes Ecclesias quae ubique Dei Providentiâ fundatae suut In which words the Author of this epistle gives this Iames two eminent Titles namely Bishop of Bishops and Vniversall Bishop and both of them I conceive in regard of his See Ierusalem where he was constituted the first Bishop that ever was in the Christian World the Bishop of that
command for the observation of these in holy writ nor for many other Church ordinances that might be named Our Church indeed justly blames the Romish for obtruding upon us and other Churches her owne Rituall Traditions as of necessity to Salvation some of which are uncertain others frivolus burthenous superstitious and even contrary to Gods word so did St Augustin long agoe sharply taxe Vrbicus a Romane Presbyter for pressing the Weekly Fast one Saturday as necessary to be observed by all Christian Churches whereas the vsuall Fasting-dayes at that time in all Churches were Wensday Fryday the Saturday fast being a peculiar custome of the Church of Rome But our Church abolisheth not all Traditions as appeares by this of the Creed which she with other Reformed Churches retaines as also by her 34th Article which was on purpose framed touching this subject wherein she intreateth only of Rituall not Doctrinall Traditions telling us that they need not to be alwayes and every where alike but may be diversified according to Times Countries and mens Manners so that nothing be ordained against Gods Word that what soever Private Person purposey and openly breaketh such ought to be openly rebuked and that every particular or nationall Church hath Authority to ordaine change and abolish Cerimonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all Things be done to Edifying CAP. VIII Severall Objections which some have alleadged against the fore-assigned Authors of the Creed answered at large Certain Creeds compared together whereby their conformity appears to one another and to that of the Apostles HAving thus confirmed the first of the Five Poynts which I proposed to my selfe in the beginning namely that the Apostles were the Framers or Composers of the Creed which commonly bears their name I should now proceed in order to the Rest but that I conceive it necessary to cleare my passage as I goe on by the removall of such Doubts and Objections which like so many rubbs or stumbling-blocks hinder my farther proceeding and obstruct the way The Truth though sufficiently cleare in it selfe yet will shine forth unto others more gloriously when these mists are scattered though firmely establisht yet her strength will appeare more formidable in the overthrow of her Adversaries For there be some and those of no vulgar ranke who have taken great Paines and still delight themselves in overthrowing those ancient fabricks which our forefathers left us building in their roome some slight painted Toy without either strength or use to please the fancy of the contriver not satisfy the judgement or conduce to the profit of the sober Christian A course if prosecuted which will ere long bring the Doome of the Jewish Temple upon the Christian Church that shee will not have one stone left upon another that shall not be thrown downe Math. 24. 2. As for this present Argument though the Reasons which some have brought against it seeme to the objectors more then probable yet I suppose that upon due triall they will appeare lesse then necessary so that they will prove unsufficient to overthrow the constant Tradition of so many Ages and to sway against the streame of so maine a current the joynt Authority and Testimony of so many Doctors of the Church as well Moderne as Ancient I shall therefore set downe their Reasons fully and faithfully yea somewhat more distinctly than they have done and then subjoyne their Answers in severall Object 1. Were the Creed compiled by the Apostles it is not likely that S. Luke writing the history of their Acts would have omitted so principall a matter Sundry other things of farre lesse consequence he hath carefully recorded as the Apostles Decree concerning Ceremonies and things indifferent but of this so important and weighty a businesse the Decree concerning the Rule of Faith he makes not so much as one word mention which certainly he would never have failed to doe had they made any such At least if S. Luke had omitted it in the Acts yet it cannot be conceived how S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles should not speake a word of it in their Epistles I answer First that this is but a negative argument and concludeth not S. Luke makes no mention thereof in the Acts therefore it was never done To give a like instance or two S. Mathew undertakes to write the History of our Saviours Life and Death with the Precedents of the one and the Consequents of the others and yet there be many weighty Passages omitted by him which we find afterwards related by S. Luke and S. Iohn S. Iohn especially composed his Gospell of those particular Actions and Speeches of our Saviour which were left unmentioned by the three former Evangelists yet he himselfe tells us in the conclusion of his Book that There were many other things which Iesus did the which if they should be written every one he supposed that even the World it selfe could not containe the Bookes that should be written Ioh. 21. 25. But to come closer yet to the Argument S. Luke in that Booke of his which is entituled The Acts of the Apostles mentions very few Acts of the Apostles in generall yet hath large Digressions concerning S. Stephen and S. Philip who were no Apostles but Deacons Then he prosecutes the story of S. Peter and S. Barnabas but more at large that of S. Paul whose companion he was in his Apostolicall Peregrinations and yet how many materiall Passages even touching S. Paul doth he omit some of which we find afterwards occasionally recorded by himselfe in his Epistles especially in those of his to the Churches of Galatia and Corinth As for example his Travailes into Arabia after his conversion his Coming to Ierusalem three yeares after and communicating his Gospell with Peter Iames and Iohn his withstanding Peter at Antioch his rapture into Paradise and unto the third Heaven together with many other particulars things sure of greater consequence than his making of Tents at Corinth or the signe of the Ship wherein he sailed to Italy and yet these are exprest the other excluded If it be replyed that this Argument is produced only as probable and yet will hold good unlesse some probable cause of the omission can be assigned why a poynt of so great importance and so necessary is not mentioned when others of lesse weight are and that the Evangelists omit indeed diverse Things which Christ said and did yet set downe all Things necessary to Salvation which was their main end I rejoyne That whosoever goes about to overthrow so old and received a Tradition may justly be required to bring more than probabilities and conjectures if he expect to be believed that this Probability grounded on S. Lukes omission is sufficiently overthrowne by the positive Testimonies of the Ancients which I haue produced to the Contrary that the Composure of the Creed by the Apostles was a businesse confessedly of great importance but the mentioning of it by S.
word or title Gennadius alluding in his rehearsall of the Athanasian Creed calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Confessor as we have already shewed Lastly Nicetas Metropolitan of Heraclea in his notes on this Oration understands it of this Creed CAP. III. The Time and Place wherein Athanasius wrote his Creed together with the Person to whom The Cause wherefore he wrote it and the Language wherein HAving produced these Testimonies in vindication of the Author and Authority of this Creed I shall in the next place for the farther Illustration of this Argument examine in briefe these three Particulars First When Where and to whom this Creed was written To whom viz. To P. Iulius Liberius or the Emperour Iovianus Where At Rome Triers or Alexandria When In the yeare 340 before or after Secondly The Ground or Cause whereupon it was written Thirdly The Language wherein it was Written First As to the Time Place and Person to whom Pelargus will have it wrote in a Synod at Alexandria and sent to the Emperour of the East And others say it was wrote in a Well at Triers as the Inscription of that Well testifyes so Possevine in his Apparatus Genebrard also tels us that in an Ancient Manuscript in the Library of the German Monkes at Paris he found an imperfect Copy of the Synods taken forth by a namelesse Author which testifyed the same in these wordes Fertur Athanasius Patriarcha Symbolum praedictum edidisse apud Treverim in quodaÌ„ puteo latitans propter gravissimam persecutionem Arianorum praecipue Constantii Imperatoris Ariani qui eum ubique perquiri faciebat ad mortem quia nolebat haeresi Arianae consentire Nauclerus reports the same in his Chronology Seculo 12 mo But the more rceeived opinion is that Athanasius gave in this his Creed in writing unto Julius BP of Rome in in a Synod of 50 Western Bishops there Assembled in his Cause So Baronius ad An. 340. Athanasius Romam citatus quantumlibet ipsius Fides Catholica omnibus innotuisset ut nulla penitus potuerit suboriri suspicio tamen Romanae Sedis communicationem haud habere licuisset alioruÌ„ EpiscoporuÌ„ qui ad Synodum convenissent nec plane audiendus esset qui reuâ— advenerat nesi edita Publicè Catholicae fidei Professione eademque ex more latino sermone coram Pontifice ei assidentibus recitata Athanasius saith he being cited to Rome although the Catholicknesse of his Faith were well knowen to all so that there was no suspition at all to the contrary yet he would not have obtained Communion with the See of Rome nor the other Bishops who came unto the Synod neither indeed was he to be heard being a person accused before he had made a Publick profession of the Catholick Faith and that according to custome in the Latine Tongue before the Bishop of Rome and his Assessours Of the same opinion is Binius who in the first Tome of the Councels sets downe for one the second Roman Councell held by Iulius and above 50 Bishops when Athanasius had now expected the coming of the Eusebians to Rome above eighteene monethes At the same time saith he Publicam Catholicae Fidei professionem quae Symbolum Athanasii appellatur latino sermone coram Pontifice eique assidentibus recitavit Hanc Pontifex ab ipso cognitam atque susceptam unà cum actis Synodi in amplissimo Romanae Ecclesiae Archivo collocari mandavit that is Athanasius then made a Publick Profession of the Catholick Faith which is called his Creed rehearsing it in the Latine Tongue before the Bishop of Rome and his Assessours This Creed so acknowledged and received the Bishop of Rome commanded to be put in the Archives of the Roman Church together with the Acts of the Synod Manuell Caleca in his forecited Booke against the Greeks agrees in Substance with Bâ—nius and Baronius though he seeme to place the writing of this Creed a yeare sooner and sayeth that it was sent to P. Iulius not delivered him in presence These are his words Gregorius Theologus in Athanasii laudibus ipsius meminit dicens Solus ille vel cum paucis admodum ausus est veritatem in Scriptis confiteri c. quam tunc temporis conscriptam ad Iulium Romanum Pontificem misit cum insimulareâ—ur non rectae esse fidei Now all these opinions may well agree according to Possevins Conjecture who in his Apparatus verbo Athanasius thinks it probable ut sanct Trinitatis acerrimus propugnator hymnum illum he meanes his Creed because sung hymne-wsie in the Church-service locis quibus potuit omnibus scripser it cantaverit disseminaverit So that he might write it at severall times in all the forementioned Places First At Triers as the Inscription of the Well there is said to witnesse when he was first banisht about the yeare 336. Secondly He might send it in writing to Iulius Bishop of Rome when the Eusebian faction sent Legates unto him with letters to accuse Athanasius Anno Domini 339. Thirdly He might give it in writing to the Synod at Rome of which Iulius was president to satisfy them all concerning his beliefe A. D. 340. Lastly He might send it from a Synod at Alexandria to the Emperour of the East either to Constantius in his Synod held A. D. 339. Or rather to Iovianus in his last Synod held about the yeare 364 together with the Synodicall Epistle before mentioned which Nazianzen seemes to imply in the forecited Oration where he opposeth Emperour to Emperour as well as Doctrine to Doctrine that is the Catholick Jovians to Constantius the Arian as well as the Orthodoxe Creed to the Hereticall Confessions Except we will say that this Creed was exhibited in the Councell of Sardica a famous City in Illyricum held in the yeare 347 and called by Constans the Emperour of the West who favoured Athanasius and by Constantius joyntly or to Valentinian the successour of Iovianus in whose time Athanasius lived seaven or eight years but for this wee have no Authors Testimony The same Creed was probably sent also to Liberius Bishop of Rome as we shall shew anon Secondly As to the Ground or Cause whererupon Athanasius Framed his Creed I answer that he wrote it to give an account of his Faith to vindicate himself from the recrimination of his Adversaries who accused him of Sabellianisme as he did them of Ariniasme Indeed who can with any likelyhood suppose but that Athanasius in his so many years persecutioÌ„ by the Arians set forth some where the Confession of his Faith to cleare himselfe and that the Orthodoxe might see for what cause they so pertinaciously vext him Now that this Creed is that Confession will appeare besides what hath been already alleaged by the Agreement thereof both in words sense with those more full large Treatises of his against the Arians whereof this seemes a Compendium and by the Constant Tradition of the Church which hath received this and
none other as the Confession or Creed of Athanasius whose judgment ought to prevaile with us above the the rashnesse of some Novellists who have questioned both the Authority the Author But because this Recrimination of Sabellianisme is but obscurely set downe in the writers of that Age and utterly denyed by some of ours I shall endeavour in a few worrdes to clear it First It was the custome of that Age that when any was advanced to a Bishoprick but more espepecially to a Patriarchall See such as Alxandria was whereof Athanasius was Bishop he sent about his Literae Formatae or Encyclicae wherein he testifyed his Faith unto the Christian world and his communion with the Catholick Bishops and this was in use whether the new Bishop were suspected of heresy or not Now there was far greater Cause for this in the case of Athanasius when he appealed to Iulius Bishop of Rome as the most Eminent Patriarch of the Church and one not engaged in the quarrell between him and the Eusebians For it had litle stood with the gravity impartiall uprightnesse of such a Judge to have presently with an overforward affection received a man into his Communion laden with so many and so heavy Accusations before he had given an Account of his Beliefe which that it was the custome then observed and particularly in the case of Athanasius and his fellowes is plainly set downe by Sozomen lib. 3. cap. 7. where having premised that Athanasius and three other Bishops being thrust out by the Arian faction fled unto Julius for succour he subjoynes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The Bishop of Rome having learned the crimes objected against each of them after that he found them all agreeing in the Doctrine of the Nicene Councell he received them into his Communion as persons of the same judgement with himselfe Secondly Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra who was the chiefe of those three Bishops that were thrust out by the Arian faction and fled to Rome with Athanasius having formerly accused the Eusebians of the Arian Heresy and convicted them in the Nicene Councell was himselfe also scandalized with the crosse imputation of Sabellianisme whereupon he freely made an Orthodox Confession of his Faith at Rome such as the Synod lately held at Sardica had imbraced Now that Athanasius who was principally hated by the Eusebians had the charge of Heresy recriminated also upon him appears by a passage of the same Julius in his Letter to the Easterne Bishops then Assembled at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now as concerning Marcellus saith he seeing ye have wrote touching him also as of one who thinkes impiously of or against Christ where the particle Also necessarily implies that the Orientall Bishops had accused the rest of the same crime and who but Athanasius as the principall of the Accused See the place in Athan. Apolog. 2. pag. 548. Edit Comm. And his Epistle ad Solitarios two leaves from the beginning Epiphanius also in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Her 72. tels us that this Marcellus being accused by the Arians of Sabellianisme to Iulius Bishop of Rome voluntarily came to Rome and having long but in vaine there expected the appearance of his Adversaries upon his departure left an Epistle with Iulius wherein he sets downe a Confession of his Faith His case is just parallell to that of Athanasius who was accused of the same Heresy as Epiphanius there witnesseth and in like manner cleared himselfe Thirdly this imputation of Sabellianisme was so pertinaciously urged upon Athanasius by his Arian persecutors that Liberius successor to Julius in the Romane See was constrained to send a short Epistle to him for farther satisfaction wherein having set downe his own Faith concerning the Trinity he addes by way of Antithesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I condemne the opinions of Sabellius and Arius and all the forementioned Heresies to everlasting punishment according to the voyce of our Saviour Then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou then agreest with mee Brother Athanasius in this Confession which is the only true Faith received in the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church as in the presence of God and his Christ write unto me thy consent agreement therin with me that so I may be ascertained thereof and without scruple performe thy commands This Epistle of Liberius with the rescript of Athanasius we find extant in the first Tome of Athanasius his workes The same Athanasius in his forecited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exposition of the Faith vindicates himselfe from Sabellianisme in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We neither make the Father and the Sonne the same Person as the Sabellians doe in this destroying the relation of the Sonne neither doe we attribute to the Father that passible Body which the Sonne tooke on him for the Salvation of the whole world Fourthly Sulpitius Severus lib. 20 hist Tels us that Athanasius was condemn'd of Sabellianisme in a certain Councell by the Arians Adde hereunto that Arius himselfe in his Disputation before Probus the Judge taxeth Athanasius in these words somtimes saith he he makes three appeare One saying But these three are one God then I know not by what strang mixtion he makes them Triforms triple saying And this one God is the Trinity So Geneb To prevent such mistakes and cavils Athanasius hath a chapter in his Workes entitled Quod non tres Dii that there are not three Gods Thirdly As to my last Query in what Language this Creed of Athanasius was originally written I Answer it is most probable that Athanasius first wrote it in Latine as being a Language which he well vnderstood although some have been pleased to deny it and the Creed being exhibited unto Julius Bishop of Rome in a Synod of Latine Bishops My reasons are these First The Latine edition of this Creed is the same in all Copies whereas the Greek Copies vary as Translations use to doe Genebrard in his third booke De Trinitate hath set downe three severall versions there of out of the Latine into the Greeke namely Vulgatam Dionysianam Constantinopolitanam The first is that which is commonly Printed The last is that which the Church of Constantinâ—ple useth The middlemost is so called from Dionysius a Grecian Bishop entitled Zienensis Firmiensis who gave the foreeited Manuscript of the Procession to Lazarus Bayffius the Booke was fairly written by the Learned Nic. Sophianus And to these three which are set downe and compared by Genebrard we may adde a fourth found in an Horologium of Greeke hymnes composed by Thechara a Monke of Constantinople and is set downe by the R. Armach in his Tract de Symb. which besides that it hath much inserted heere and there by the Greeke Translator very much differs in the residue from all the three former as they also doe from each other Secondly As the Bishop of Rome wrote in Latine to the Bishops of the East
reason challenge a belief contrary to the verdict of so many grave Authors so much Ancienter than he especially in a matter of fact such as this is But I suppose Meletius in those words absolutely denies not that Athanasius was the Author of the Creed now entitled to him but that it is not to be fathered on him as 't is now read in the Westerne Church with the Appendix filioque added thereto by the Bishops of Rome but not Originally inserted as he conceives by Athanasius of which I have already spoken Ob. 8. Nazianzens Testimony concerning Athanasius his Creed or Confession of Faith is to be understood of the latter end of that Synodicall Epistle which he sent to the Emperour Jovianus wherein after he had set downe the Nicene Creed he addes these wordes Nonnulli hanc Fidem a Patribus in Concilio Niceno confirmatam antiquare non sunt veriti alii vero simulant assentiri illi reipsâ autem pernegant dum hanc vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perversè interpretantur iisdemque in Spiritum Sanctum loquuntur blasphemè asserendo eum creatum esse factum per filium That is Some have not been afraid to abrogate this Faith Established in the Nicene Councell others there be who feigne to receive it but in truth reject it whilest they interpret the word Homâ—ousion in a perverse sense the same men speake also blaspheamously against the Holy Ghost affirming that he was created and made by the Sonne Then in the close they say Quinetiam neque Spiritum Sanctum a Patre Filio separârunt sed ei unà cum Patre Filio in unâ sanctae Trinitatis fide propterea quod una est in sancta Trinitate Divinitas gloriam tribuerunt That is Neither did they separate the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne but ascribed glory to him together with the Father and the Sonne in the same faith of the holy Trinity because there is but one Divinity in the holy Trinity Theod. hist lib. 4. cap. 3. Answ Whether or no this fragment this foot this Appendix of an Epistle deserve the Title of a Confession of Faith so venerably esteemed by the Churches of East and West of Libellus a Declaration of a Guift truly Royall and Magnificent with which Titles Nazianzen in that place honours Athanasius his Creed let the impartiall Reader judge Besides we may observe for our fuller satisfaction in this particular 1. That these words which the Objector calls Athanasius his Creed referre not to him and to the Bishops of his Patriarchate who wrote the said Epistle but to the Fathers of the Nicene Councell for they run in the third Person neque separarunt gloriam tribuerunt not in the first neque separavimus gloriam tribuimus Therefore they relate to those Fathers who made the Nicene Creed which is immediatly prefixt not to the Bishops who sent this Synodicall Epistle 2. That this Synodicall Epistle was sent in the name of all the Bishops of Egypt Thebais and Lybia whereas the Confession of Faith written by Athanasius was attested by him only or by very few besides So witnesseth Nazianzen in his forecited Oration Primus ille solus aut cum admodùm paucis veritatem palam apertisque verbis promulgare non dubitavit unam trium personarum Divinitatem essentiam scripto confessus quod multis illis Patribus circa Filium prius concessum fuerat idem ipse postea in asserendâ Spiritus Sancti Divinitate superno afflatu consecutus Atque Imperatori donum vere Regium magnificum offert c. That is He first of all and alone or accompanied with very few doubted not to publish the Truth openly and in expresse Termes professing in writing one Deity and Essence of three Persons and that which God had formerly granted to many Fathers viz. the Nicene concerning the Sonne Athanasius obtained the same afterwards by an inspiration from above to assert the Divinity of the Holy Ghost And he presents the Emperour with a Gift truly Royall and Magnificent c. Of what Creed or Confession of Faith can these Words be understood but of that which now bears the name of Athanasius wherein he so clearely and at large asserts the great mystery of the Trinity in Unity and in particular the Divinity of the Holy Ghost in these words The Holy Ghost also is God such as the Father is such is the Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Sonne neither made nor created nor begotten but Proceeding Whereas the Nicene Fathers had only vindicated the Divinity of the Sonne then called in question by Arius and his Adherents as Nazianzen heere tels us 3. Nazianzen informes us here of the Time when Athanasius wrote his Creed when very very few 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 durst openly professe the true faith which must needs be meant of the Times immediatly succeeding the Death of Constantine the Great or when he was first deposed by the Synod of Tyre and banished to Triers by the importune calumnies and violence of the Arian Party in the latter end of his Reigne for then there appeared but three Bishops in the cause with him who were in like manner faine to fly into the West as Sozomen witnesseth lib. 3. cap. 7. Whereas after this in the yeare 347. there was a Synod of Orthodox Bishops called together at Sardica a City of Illyricum who professed the Nicene Faith and when Athanasius sent the forenamed Epistle to the Emperour Jovianus his whole Patriarchate subscribed together with him to the Nicene Creed therein inclosed the Emperour being then a Catholick Wherefore it is most probable that Athanasius first wrote his Creed at Triers or when he fled to Iulius Bishop of Rome for succour which Creed he afterwards sent also with that Synodicall Epistle to the Emperour Iovianus by whom he was restored to his See thereby to confute his Adversaries who would have had the World believe that he was justly condemned as erroneous in the Faith The Epistle he sent in the name of the whole Synod The Creed in his own THE SECOND APPENDIX OF THE Nicene or Constantinopolitan CREED CAP. I. The Reason of the double name of this Creed The Composure thereof The Additionall or Exegeticall Particles inserted into it When and by Whom it was conveied to other Churches and brought into Divine Service THIS Creed hath a double name from a double Councell whereof the one began and the other finisht it It was begun in the First generall Councell held at Nice in Bithynia in the yeare 325 thence called the Nicene Creed But it was recited approved and enlarged as now wee have it by the second generall Councell held at Constantinople in the yeare 381 thence called the Constantinopolitan Creed by many latter writers The Nicene Fathers being 318 in number all subscribed to it except five who adhered to Arius and would not acknowledge the Sonne to be of the same Essence or
13. his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is They the Fathers of that Synod added to that Divine Confession of Faith made at Nice The Glory of the most Holy Spirit as a Person of equall Honour and Glory with the Father and the Sonne Gregory of Nyssa supplying what was defective in that Sacred Creed Not that they were the first framers of those additionall particles for we find them extant before the celebration of this Councell in Epiphanius his Anchoratus and for the most part in Cyrils Catecheses but the first who by their Synodicall Authority confirmed the entire Forme having left out something of the Nicene Creed viz. those three fore mentioned Passages but added more and so commended yea prescribed the whole unto the Christian Church This Creed so enlarged was presently received into the Publick service of the Church for Platina in the life of Damasus tels us Mandavit ut in principio celebrationis quam missam vocant Confessio diceretur ut hodie fit that is Damasus who lived at the time of the Constantinopolitan Creed commanded that in the Begining of Common-service this Creed or Confession should be rehearsed as now we use it And Walafridus Strabo de Reb. Eccles cap. 22. informes us that this was done in imitation of the Greeke Church Illud Symbolum quod nos ad imitationem Graecorum intra missas adsumimus Et mox Ab ipsis ergo ad Romanos ille usus creditur pervenisse Yet for some yeares though it were received into the Greeke Liturgy it was not Constantly used till the Time of Timotheus Patriarch of Constantinople who came to that See in the yeare 511. So Theodorus Lector in the Second Booke of his Eclogae or Collectanea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Timotheus at the desire of his Friends tooke order that the Creed of the 318 Fathers should be rehearsed at every Communion and this in reproofe of Macedonius who had not received it whereas before it was rehearsed only once in the yeare to wit on the Eve of the Passion at the Time when the Bishop Catechized By this it appeares that it was used Publickly in the Easterne Church though but once in the yeare whereas this Timotheus caused it to be constantly rehearsed at every Communion Not long after this we find it commanded to be used in the third Councell of Toledo a Nationall Councell of 78 Bishops assembled under K. Recaredus whereof Leander Bishop of Sevil was one This Councell was celebrated in the yeare 590 the second canon whereof runs thus Pro reverentia sanctissimae Fidei petitione Recaredi Regis constituit Synodus ut per omnes Ecclesias Hispaniae Galliciae secundum formam Orientalium Ecclesiarum Concillii Constantinopolitani hoc est 150 Episcoporum Symbolum fidei recitetur prius quam Dominica dicatur oratio voce clarâ— praedicetur quo fides vera sit manifesta testimonium habeat ad Christi corpus sanguinem praelibandum pectora populorum fide purificaâ—a accedant that is Out of a venerable regard of the most holy Faith and upon the motion of K. Recaredus the Synod hath ordeined that the Creed of the Constantinopolitan Councell that is of the 150 Bishops should be rehearsed after the use of the Eastern Churches throughout all the Churches of Spaine and Gallicia and that it be openly published before the saying of the Lords Prayer that so the true Faith may be manifested and witnessed and that the Hearts of the People being purifyed by Faith may come to the participation of Christs Body and Bloud From Spaine in likelihood it came over the Pyrenees into France part whereof namely Languedoc and the Country adjacent was then under the Dominion of the Gothish Kings of Spaine And as it was commanded to be rehearsed in the Spanish Churches on purpose to profligate the Arian heresy wherewith all their Princes had bin infected until K. Recaredus so was it more generally received in the Churches of France in the latter end of the 8 Century when Elipandus Archbishop of Toledo and Felix Bishop of Urgell had been condemned of Nestorianisme in two Synods namely at Ratisbone in the yeare 792. And at Frankfort where Charles the great was present in the yeare 794. So Walafridus Strabo de Rebus Eccles c. 22. Apud Gallos Germanos post dejectionem Felicis haeretici sub gloriosissimo Carolo Francorum Rege idem Symbolum latius crebrius in Missarum caepit officiis iterari that is The same Creed viz. the Nicene began to be used amongst the Galles and Germans after the deposition of the heretick Felix under Charles the most glorious King of the French more often and throughout more Churches in the Communion-service And the Synod of Frankfort to prevent the spreading of this Heresy tooke order that together with the Apostles Creed the Nicene also should be diligently delivered for the publick use of the Churches the thirty third Canon of which Synod set forth by Sermondus runs thus Vt fides Catholica sanctae Trinitatis id est Symbolum Constantinopolitanum oratio Dominica atque Symbolum fidei Apostolorum omnibus praedicetur ac tradatur That the Catholick Faith of the holy Trinity that is the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed and the Lords Prayer and the Apostles Creed be Preached and Delivered unto All. As for our Church of England it was probably brought hither by Augustine and his fellow Preachers who were sent to convert the Nation by Gregory the Great then Bishop of Rome CAP. II. When and by whom the Particle Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed is historically delivered and at large Severall other causes of the breach betweene the Churches of Greece and Rome IT will not be amisse for a close unto the Discourse on this Creed to shew as far as good Authors give us light the Time when and the Person by whom the Particle Filioque and from the Sonne was added to this Creed which declares the holy Ghost to Proceed from the Sonne as well as from the Father And this I thought fit to adde partly for that the matter is obscure and not generally knowne partly for the compleating of my discourse on this Creed and partly also for to shew the Originall and progresse of so chiefe a cause of Difference betweene the Churches of East and West which hath now lasted for some hundreds of years to which I shall adde some other causes of the Breach and so give a conclusion of the whole Treatise My collections on this Argument I have cheifely from the Learned Vossius who with his wonted industry and fidelity hath acquainted us with what he found recorded concerning it out of the best witnesses of Antiquity viz. Dissert 3a. De 3 bus Symb. The Churches of Spaine where the first who added this Particle to the Creed in a Synod held in Gallicia in the yeare 447 as it is cited by the R nd Armachanus The French Churches
following their example are said next to have added it and after them the Romane As for our Church of England venerable Bede tels us hist. eccl lib. 4. cap. 17. That Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury though a Grecian in a Synod which he with his fellow-bishops held at Hatfeild in the yeare 680. Spiritum sanctum ex Patre Filio inenarrabilitur procedentem praedica verunt that is declared the ineffable procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne Yet in the Canons entitled Cresconiana the Article touching the holy Ghost runs in the ancient Forme Et in Spiritum sanctum Dominum vivâ—ficatorem ex Patre procedentem cum Patre Filio adorandum conglorificandum qui locutus est per sanctos Prophetas that is And I believe in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life who proceedeth from the Father who with the Father and the Sonne together is worshipped and glorifyed who spake by the holy Prophets This Collection of Canons is extant in the Publick Library at Oxford Then for the French Churches Aeneas Bishop of Paris in a Booke of his not extant in Print which he wrote against the errours of the Greekes witnesseth for his Time In fide Catholicâ quam die Dominicâ decantat ad missam universalis Galliarum Ecclesia sic canitur inter caetera Credo in Spiritum sanctum Dominum vivificantem qui ex Patre Filioque procedit qui cum Patre Filio simul adoratur conglorificatur qui locatus est per Prophetas that is In the Catholick Faith or Creed which the whole Church of France singeth at the Communion-Service they sing this among the rest And I believe in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life who proceedeth from the Father and the Sonne c. But to examine this controversy more particularly and in order In the yeare 767 there was a Synod held at Gentilliacum in France under Pipin Father to Charlemagne in which the Greeks and Latines disputed concerning the Procession of the holy Ghost So Ado viennensis Facta est tunc temporis Synodus anno Incarnationis Domini 767 quaestio ventilata inter Graecos Romanos de Trinitate utrum Spiritus sicut procedit a Patre ita procedat a Filio that is There was a Synod called in the yeare of our Lord 767 wherein the question concerning the Trinity was agitated between the Greeks and Romans as also whether the holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as he doth from the Father Then in a Synod at Aquisgrane the question was renewed and decided as it seemes upon this occasion because the Particle Filioque was usually added in the singing of this Creed throughout the Gallicane Churches he who moved the question was one John a Monke of Jerusalem The wordes of Ado in his Chronicle concerning this Synod are these Syuodus magna Grani Aquis câ—ngregatur Anno Incarnationis Dom. 809 in qua Synodo de Processione Spiritus sancti quaestio agitatur utrum siâ—â—â— procedit a Patre ita procedat a Filio Hanc quaestionem Joannes Monacus Hierosolymitanus moverat cum Regula Fides Ecclesiastica firmet Spiritum sanctum a Patre Filio procedere non Creatum non Genitum sed Patri Filio coaeternum Consubstantialem To give a finall determination unto this question Bernarius Bishop of Amiens and Jesse or Asius Bishop of Wormes were sent by the Synod together with Adelhardus Abbot of Corbey unto Leo 3 Bishop of Rome who confirmes the decree of the Synod concerning the Procession as agreeing with his Opinion yet speakes very honorably of the Constantinopolitan Fathers who added not the particle Filioque unto whom he would not presume to equall himselfe but withall he expresly chargeth them to raze it out of the Creed The sending of these three by the Synod is mentioned by a Monke of S. Eparch in the life of Charlemaigne the Answer of Leo is set downe in the Acts of the Synod collected by Smaragdus and out of him by Baronius in the yeare 809 wherein after much discourse the said Legates of the Synod thus aske the Pope Ergo ut videmus illud a vestra Paternitate decernitur ut primo illud de quo quaestio agitur desaepe fato Symbolo tollatur tunc demum a quolibet licite ac libere sive cantando sive tradendo discatur doceatur P. Leo answers Ita procul dubio a nostrâ parte decernitur ita quoque ut a vestra assentitur a nobis omnimode suadetur After this as I said before he tooke order that this Creed should be engraven in a silver Table or Scutcheon without that Addition which he well foresaw would prove the Aple of contention between the Churches of East and West and so to be publikly hanged up and exposed to the view of all that so the whole world might see the Romane Church had added nothing to the Creed So Pet. Lâ—mb witnesseth lib. 1. Sent. Dist 11. Anastas in the life of Leo 3. Euthymius Zygabenus in Panopliâ Dogmat Tit. 12. Photius in Epist ad Aquil. Episc apud Baronium A. 883. § 9. Nicetus Choniates in Orthod fid Thesauro Tom. 21. Thus Leo 3d left the Nicene Creed as he found it without the insertion of this Particle Then for Nicholas 1. and his Successour Adrian who deceased in the yeare 872. They seeme not to have added it for Andrew Bishop of Colosse who pleaded in this cause against the Greekes in the Councell of Florence having diligently revised all that belonged thereto denies that Photius although their bitter enemy for their opinion of the Procession ever objected to them their corrupting of the Creed These are his words Photius Romanae Ecclesiae inimicus acerrimus nullam de Synodi additione faciens mentionem in Nicholaum ac Adrianum summos Pontifices literis invectus est Plurimum Much lesse did Iohn the 8. the successour of Adrian make this Addition who sate in the Romane See till the yeare 882. For this Pope allowed the Restitution of Photius to his See and sent his Legats to the Synod held at Constantinople in the yeare 879. of which Synod Photius was President and wherein with the assistance of the Popes Legats whatsoever had been determined against Photius in the times of P. Nicolas and Adrian was abrogated amongst which chiefely that Synod was condemned which had been held in the yeare 869. against Photius by Ignatius then Patriarch of Constantinople and is now counted by the Church of Rome for the 8. Oecumenicall whereas the Church of Greece gives that Title to this wherein Photius Presided in which among other Things there transacted the Nicene Creed was also read without the Addition of Filioque and so subscribed to yea that Addition was interdicted and all this done Consentientibus Ioannis Papae Legatis by the consent of the said Legats of Iohn 8. The Greekes lay the blame of this Addition on Pope