Library › Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjurors › Correspondence (1716–1725)

Correspondence (1716–1725)

Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjurors, ed. Williams, 1868

No. 29: Points on Which the Conference with the Greeks is to Be Held, Copied from a…

The Points on which the Conference with the Greeks is to be held, are,

The Addition which the Latin Church made to the Nicene or rather Constantinopolitan Creed by adding the Word Filioque, which Addition we retained at the Reformation and still use; but have promised that, if other Matters be agreed upon, this additional Word shall be laid aside. Therefore it will need no great Matter of Debate. However, something ought to be said to it to justify our Orthodoxy on this Article, and to shew that we have nevertheless always believed the Father to be the Sole Fountain of the Deity both to the Son and the Holy Ghost. Now we did think that the Greeks believed the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father by the Son, ἐκ Πατρὸς διὰ Υἱοῦ. So that we both believed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, only we differed in the Manner and Expression; and this seems to be the Opinion generally received amongst us even at this Time, as may appear from what Dr Waterland says upon that Article in his Critical History of the Athanasian Creed. From whence it is supposed that our Difference with the Greeks on this Article was only a Strife of Words, both having the same meaning: we supposing that ἐκ and διὰ are equivalent Expressions. But the Greeks in the Answer they have sent us deny ἐκ and διὰ to be equivalent, and say that ἐκ is never used for διὰ nor vice versa διὰ for ἐκ. They also say when they speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost by the Son, they do not mean that Procession which is Natural eternal and before time; and upon that Account make use neither of the Preposition ἐκ nor διὰ, when they speak of the Son. “For (say they) we do not say the Holy Ghost proceeds from or by the Son in that respect, for as the Son was not begotten of the Father by the mediation of the Holy Spirit, So neither does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father by the Mediation of the Son. But as for His temporal and outward Procession, we agree that He proceeds, comes or is sent by the Son, or through the Son’s Mediation, and from the Son in this Sense of an outward Procession, for the Sanctification of the Creature.” Therefore in justifying our own Orthodoxy in saying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, in any Disputation with the Greeks, we can no longer defend ourselves by pretending to prove that ἐκ and διὰ do or may signify the same thing; since they positively deny that either ἐκ or διὰ may be used with respect to the natural and Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost: which they allow not to be either from or by the Son; and it is that Eternal Procession which is meant in the Creed: For the other Procession, in which they admit of the Word διὰ, does not denote the Holy Ghost to be very and eternal God, which that Article of the Creed declares Him to be. But Bishop Pearson, who seems to have known in what Sense the Greeks explained the Procession by the Son, and that they never applied it to his eternal Procession, takes no Notice of that Argument, tho very common and often used by the Defenders of the Latin Addition. Therefore our Defence of ourselves for having retained and still retaining this Addition must be by Bishop Pearson’s Argument, viz. that as the Holy Scripture expressly teaches that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, So it virtually teaches that He proceeds from the Son. For as He proceeds from the Father He is called the Spirit of the Father, Mat. x. 20, and the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. xi. 12. But then He is also called the Spirit of the Son, Gal. iv. 6, and the Spirit of Christ, Rom. viii. 9, 1 Pet. i. 11. Phil. i. 19. If then the Holy Ghost be called the Spirit of God and of the Father, because He proceedeth from the Father; it followeth that being also called the Spirit of the Son, He proceedeth also from the Son. Also John xvi. 14, 15, Christ speaking of the Holy Spirit says, He shall receive of Mine. In the Original, according to our common printed Books, it is ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λείψεται according to which our translation is made. But it appears from Dr Milles that the best MSS. in both places read λαμβάνει, he does receive. According to either of these Readings, Bishop Pearson has proved that the Ancient Greek Fathers understood it to be spoken of the eternal Procession, to which purpose he quotes Epiphanius (Hæres. 69): Καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημοῦσι καὶ τολμῶσι λέγειν κεκτίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὅπερ ἐστιν ἄκτιστον ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύομενον, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβάνον. And (Hæres. 62, § 4): Ἀεὶ γὰρ τὸ Πνεῦμα σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ, οὐ συνάδελφον Πατρὶ, οὐ γενητὸν, οὐ κτιστὸν, οὐκ ἀδελφὸν Υἱοῦ, οὐκ ἔνγονον Πατρὸς, ἐκ Πατρὸς δὲ πορευόμενον καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβάνον. So also St Cyril of Alexandria (Comment. in Joan. L. 11): Ἐπειδὴ (τὸ Πνεῦμα) ὁμοούσιόν τέ ἐστι τῷ Υἱῷ, καὶ πρόεισι θεοπρεπῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐφ’ ἅπασι τελειοτάτην ἔχον ἐνέργειάν τε καὶ δύναμιν, διὰ τοῦτό φησιν, ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται. And that by receiving of the Son the ancient Greek Fathers understood proceeding from the Son is evident from St Epiphanius (Ancorat. Cap. 9), where he says Ἄρα Θεὸς ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα; with several other Passages to the same Purpose. However, the Bishop grants, that the Addition of Words to y^e formal Creed without the Consent of the Oriental Church is not justifiable; which may therefore justify us if to procure an Union we consent to the putting it out again. However, if no Union is made we may lawfully retain it; believing the same to be truth, so long as we pretend it not to be a Definition of that Council, but an Addition or Explication inserted, and condemn not those who, out of a greater respect to such Synodical Determinations, will admit of no such Insertions, nor speak any other Language than the Scriptures and their Fathers spake. And this is Bishop Pearson’s Judgement of this Matter.

As to Souls suffering any Pains in Hades, I hope there may be no occasion for a Dispute about that Matter; we being on both Sides agreed that Prayers and Sacrifices are to be offered for the Dead who dy in y^e Faith. And whether those Prayers and Sacrifices are believed to ease their Pains, or procure an improvement of the Happiness they already enjoy, is not material; provided there be no Words used in those Prayers determining in favor of either Opinion, nor one Party impose their Opinion on the other, but both keep to the ancient Forms: The Greeks as well as we believing the Popish Purgatory to be a Fiction and a doating Fable, invented for Lucre and to deceive the Simple.

As to that which is called the seventh general Council, or the second Council of Nice, held under the Reign of the Empress Irene and her Son Constantine then a Child, A.D. 787, we cannot allow it to have been General, because the three Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were neither cited to it nor present at it: And the Monks of Palestine, John and Thomas, who pretended to be Legates from them and represent them in this Synod, had received no Legation from them. (See Cave’s Hist. Liter. Vol. ii. p. 649¹.) And altho’ the Bishop of Rome had his Legates there, yet the other Western Bishops neither were at the Council nor would receive its Decrees; but about seven Years after, in the Year 794 held a Council at Francford where they condemned the Decrees of this Council. “Hic Causa Imaginum summâ curâ ventilata, conclusumque, in Ecclesiis quidem memoriæ et ornamenti causâ retineri posse, omnem vero cultum et adorationem penitus esse abrogandum; acta Synodi Nicenæ secundæ, quæ in partibus Græciæ, pro adorandis Imaginibus, solide, sive aroganter gesta est (ut habet operis Carolini inscriptio) post longam et diligens examen rescissa et reprobata: Testimonia ex patribus Scriptisque ecclesiasticis a Nicænis deprompta sedulo excusa, omnia ipsorum Sophismata et argutiunculæ solide refutatæ. Unde Synodum Nicænam nec pro Œcumenicâ, nec pro septima, habendam esse rite judicarunt.” (Cave, Hist. Liter. Vol. ii. p. 652²). Photius himself, a very great Zealot for the second Council of Nice, can find no more than those two Monks, John and Thomas, to represent all the Eastern Patriarchs and Archbishops. For in his first Epistle (which Epistle is written to the King of Bulgaria to instruct him in the true Faith) speaking of this Council, and having mentioned the Delegates of the Bishop of Rome, he says, ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Ἰωάννην καὶ Θωμᾶν ἄνδρας μοναδικῇ πολιτέιᾳ περιωνύμους, καὶ ἱερατικῇ τιμῇ διαλάμποντας, καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ἁπάσης διοικήσεως τῶν Ἀποστολικῶν καὶ μεγάλων θρόνων τοποτηρητὰς, καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων προνόμιον ἔχοντας. Λέγω δὴ Ἀπολλιναρίου τε καὶ Θεοδορήτου, καὶ Ἡλία, ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἀλεξανδρείας, ὁ δὲ Ἀντιοχείας, καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς δὲ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεπρεπῶς τε καὶ πανσοφῶς προειστήκεισαν. Roger Hoveden an English Historian, who wrote about the Year 1180, tells us in his Annals, Part i. fol. 232, C. Anno 792, “Carolus Rex Francorum misit Synodalem Librum ad Britanniam, sibi a Constantinopoli directum, in quo libro (heu proh dolor) multa inconvenientia, et veræ fidei contraria reperiebantur; maximè, quod pene omnium orientalium doctorum non minus quam trecentorum, vel eò amplius Episcoporum unanimâ assentione confirmatum fuerit imagines adorari debere, quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur.” Simeon Dunelmensis who flourished about the Year 1130, in his History published among the Decem Scriptores page 3, says the very same, almost in the very same Words. And the same does Matthew of Westminster, in his Flores Hist. An. Grat. 793, who flourished A.D. 1377, his Words are, “Anno 793, Carolus Rex Francorum misit Librum Synodalem ad Britanniam, in quo veræ fidei multa reperta sunt obviantia, et eo maximè quod penè omnium orientalium Doctorum unanimi assentione est definitum, Imagines adorari debere, quod omnino Ecclesia Catholica execratur. Contra quod Albinus scripsit Epistolam ex Authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter dictatam, illamque cum eodem synodali libro, in persona Episcoporum, ac Principum, idem Albinus ad regem attulit Gallicanum.” Du Pin, speaking of the Council of Francfort, says it was composed of 300 Bishops or thereabout, of France, Italy, and Germany. This is sufficient to prove that the second Council of Nice was not a General Council, since it’s Decrees were so immediately opposed and condemned by so large a Council of the West. The Worship of Images was not received in Germany till after the end of the 12th Century and after the Beginning of the 13th. For Nicetas Chomates in the Annals of Isaac Angelus (Lib. 2d. § 3, pag. 437, 4to. Edit. Genev. 1593), says, Ἀρμένοις καὶ Ἀλαμανοῖς ἐπίσης ἡ τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων προσκύνησις ἀπηγόρευται. Now Isaac Angelus, in whose Time he mentions this, began his Reign, A.D. 1184; and was deposed by his Brother Alexius 1194, and restored by the Latins 1202, and Nicetas finished his History about 1205. How long it was before England and France received the Worship of Images, I do not find; but it appears from hence that the Second Council of Nice was not received in Germany above 400 Years after it was holden. And one would think by the Words of Simeon Dunelmensis, Roger Hoveden and Matthew of Westminster, that it was as long before it was received in England. Du Pin (Eccles. Hist. cent. 8, p. 146) says, “That the French, as well as the Germans persisted long in their Usage, and it was very late e’re they owned the second Council of Nice, in the room of which, they put that of Francfort, as it appears by the testimony of several French Authors and Historiographers.”

The Distinction in Worship between Latria, Dulia and Hyperdulia is what we do not understand; For 1 Sam. viii. 3, we read ἐτοιμάσατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν πρὸς Κύριον, καὶ δουλεύσατε αὐτῷ μόνῳ. And Acts xx. 19, Δουλεύων τῷ Κυρίῳ. Rom. vii. 6, ὥστε δουλέυειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος. Rom. xii. 11, τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. And 1 Thess. i. 9, δουλεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ. We also read Numb. xxviii. 18, 25, πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε. And we likewise meet with the same Phrase, Numb. xxix. 1, 7, 12, 35, [Mat. iii. 10. Luk. iv. 8.]

In the Manuscript from which this was transcribed, this and the six preceding Pages were wrote with Mr Lyon’s own Hand on three Pages, with the following Note at the End. [This and the two preceding Pages copied from a MS. in Dr Brett’s Handwriting: if ever he finished it is uncertain. In the last Reference to Numb. xxix. I had omitted to set down, v. 7, because in ὁ Vat. I found only πᾶν ἔργον οὐ ποιήσετε, but ὁ Alex. has λατρευτὸν in that Verse also.]

N.B. The Originals of the foregoing Papers were brought to, and probably are still lodged at, Lambeth.

Previous · Contents · Next