CHAP. I. Stating the Conference between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher , for Satisfaction of a Person of Honour . ARGUMENT .

1. The Introduction . 2. The Bishops Artifice in waving a direct Answer to the Question . 3. His pretended Solutions to certain Authorities referr'd to a fitter place for Answer . 4. His maintaining the Greeks not to have lost the Holy Ghost ; and that they are a true Church . 5. The Modern Greeks in Errour , not the Ancient . 6. why FILIOQUE inserted into the Nicene Creed .

1. THough Dedalus , that ingenious Artificer , might possibly shew no less skill in contriving his Cretan Labyrinth , then did the principall Architect , employ'd by Salomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jerusalem ; yet their Labours were of a different nature . For whereas the latter exercis'd his Art in raising a noble , elevated , lightsome Structure ; the former ( Dedalus ) us'd all his Inventive industry in framing a Subterraneous , darksome Prison , with such redoubled Turnings , perplexed Windings , and tortuous Meanders , that who ever entred into it , might indeed wander up and down within its involved and recurring paths , but never be able to get either back , or thorow it .

Now alluding to these different Works , we may not unfitly compare the learned Labours of the Fathers , Doctors , and worthy Divines of Gods Church , to this stately Temple of Salomon , being the rich and illustrious Monuments of their Piety , Zeal , and Erudition . Whereas by the Cretan Labyrinth are fitly Symboliz'd the Artificiall , but Pestiferous Works of all Hereticall Authors , who ( forsaking the ever-visible and conspicuous Church of Christ , and known Consent of Christendome ) induce themselves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Phanatick Brains . These mens Labours are so farre from being lightsome Monuments , that they are rather Labyrinths , or intricate Dungeons for poor seduced Souls ; who being once ingag'd in the perplexities of their intangled flexures , see not the radiant light of Gods Church ; some few onely excepted , whom of his great mercy he is pleas'd to shew the way out , and reduce into his Fold .

Now it hath already been shew'n by others , that the Works of many late Protestant Writers of this Nation are of the aforesaid intangling Nature ; and I doubt not , by Gods help , but to evidence , that this their Grand Authors Book I am now about to answer , is very liable to the same Reproach . For , to describe it rightly , it is a Labyrinth most artificially compos'd , with as many abstruse Turnings , ambiguous Windings , and intricate Meanders , as that of Dedalus , and therefore equally inextricable .

But a more sure and stronger Clew then Ariadne's , the Line of the Catholique Churches Authority and Tradition , joyn'd with Holy Scripture , hath not onely carried me through it , but by Gods good assistance , enabled me to render it pervious to all , by the Discoveries and Directive Marks I have set on the Leaves , that compose this present Volume .

Yet before I descend to particulars , I must advertise the Reader , that I designe not the Defence either of Mr. Fisher or any other Author , further then they deliver the generally received Doctrine of the Catholique Church ; which is that I undertake to maintain .

The three leading pages of the Bishops Book contain the occasion of the Conference between himself and Mr. Fisher , viz. for the satisfaction § 1 , 2. of an Honourable Lady , who having heard it granted ( on the Protestant part ) in a former Conference , that there must be a continuall , visible Company , ever since Christ , teaching unchanged Doctrine , in all points necessary to Salvation , and finding ( it seems ) in her own Reason , that such a Company , or Church , must not be fallible in its Teaching , was in Quest of a Continuall , Visible , and Infallible Church , as not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals , but to depend on the judgement of the true Church : which point of Infallibility the Bishop sought to evade , saying , That neither the Jesuit , nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly , if she said , she desired to relie § 3. num. 2. pag. 3. upon an Infallible Church , because an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church , in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible .

2. Here already you may observe the Bishop falling to work on his projected Labyrinth , by making its first Crook ; which is apparent to any man that has eyes , even without the help of a Perspective . For though he could not be ignorant , that the Lady sought not any one Particular Infallible Church , in opposition to another Particular Church not Infallible , but some Church , such as might without danger of Errour direct her in all Doctrinall Points of Faith , call it an or the Infallible Church as you please , ( for she had no such Quirks in her head ) yet the Bishop will by no means understand her sincere meaning , but instead of using a charitable endeavour to satisfie her perplexed Conscience , vainly pursues that meer Quibble , on purpose to decline the difficulty of giving her a satisfactory Answer in his own Principles . Neither indeed does that expression ( an Infallible Church ) denote a Particular Church , in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible , but positively signifies a Church that never hath , shall , or can erre in Doctrine of Faith , without connotating , or implying any other Church that might erre . Nor can it be pretended , that the Particle a or an is onely appliable to Particulars , seeing the Bishop himself applies it to the whole Church . For , omitting other places , see page 141. where speaking of the whole § 18. num. 5 Militant Church , he sayes , And if she erre in the Foundation , that is , in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith , then she may be a Church of Christ still . Here sure he cannot mean a Particular Church by this expression A true Church , but the whole Catholique or Universal Church , unless he intended to speak non-sense , viz. That the whole Militant Church is a Particular Church . And what Learned Interpreter ever understood those words of Saint Paul , Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit to himself A glorious Church , &c. of any other , save the Universall Church of Christ ? And seeing the Lady made enquiry after that Church IN WHICH one may , and OUT OF WHICH one cannot attain Salvation , ( as the Bishop sets down the words of Mr. Fisher , page 3. ) it is evident , that really and in effect she sought no other , save the Universall Visible Church of Christ : which A. C. ( to take away all doubt of her meaning ) expresses pag. 1. by saying , that she desired to depend upon the judgement of THE TRUE Church . Why then might not the Lady express her self , as the Bishop himself does in the place above cited , by the Particle a , or an , and yet not speak so improperly , that he must needs mistake her meaning ? The truth is , it was an affected mistake in his Lordship , as any man may easily perceive , that has not lost his discerning faculty .

But the Bishop having now entred his hand , and willing to shew his dexterity betimes , immediately redoubles the Crook he had made , while ( to countenance his former trisling with the Lady touching an Infallible Church ) he craftily attacks Bellarmin for maintaining an § 3. num. 3. pag. 4. Infallibility in the Particular Church , or Diocess of Rome , as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholiques ( which it is not ) and by confuting it , to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholique Church . Now though Bellarmins opinion is , indeed , That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot erre in Faith , and desert the Pope , so long as his Chair remains in that City ; yet the Bishop knew very well , that the Catholique Church doth not restraine the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin : it being sufficient for a Catholique to believe , that there is an Infallibility in the Church , without further obligation to examine , whether the Particular Church of Rome be Infallible , or not .

By what has been hitherto faid , a man may easily perceive the candour of the Bishops proceeding , and what he is to expect from him throughout his whole Work ; which will ( I assure you ) for the greater part , be found to correspond with that you have already seen .

3. From the fourth page to the twentieth he goes on disputing against § 3. num. 3. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , &c. severall Opinions of Bellarmin , ( as whether the Popes Chair may be removed from Rome ; and in case of such Removall , whether that Particular Church may then erre ) which seeing they are but Particular Opinions , I shall not expostulate them with the Bishop , as being no part of the Province I have undertaken . And as to the Authorities here quoted by Bellarmin , out of St. Cyprian , St. Jerom , St. Gregory Nazianzen , &c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome , seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Articles held de Fide among Catholiques , nor impugned by the Bishop but as insufficient to make good those particular Opinions , ( though he hoped the Reader would make neither of these reflections ) I cannot hold my self oblig'd to take notice of his pretended Solutions , till I finde them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholique , or Roman Church in its full Latitude , as Catholiques ever mean it , save when they say expresly the Particular Church , or Diocess , of Rome , as here Bellarmin doth . However , I intend to examine them , when I come to treat the Question of the Infallibility of the Universal Church .

Where I make no doubt , but I shall clearly evince against his Lordship and the whole party , these particulars following . First , that to draw the word perfidia ( which St. Cyprian useth ) to his own sense , the Bishop leaves out two parts of the Sentence , which he ought necessarily to have expressed . Secondly , that by glossing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alledged , he makes that Father give no more Priviledge to Rome , then what was due to every particular Church , yea to every Orthodox Christian of those times , quite contrary to St. Cyprians intent . Thirdly , how he presses St. Cyprians not being tax'd by the Ancients , for holding a possibility of the Popes teaching Errour in matter of Faith , but never reflects , that he was as little tax'd by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universall and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization , embrac'd and practised against him by the whole Church . Fourthly , I shall shew , that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is meerly Nugatory , making him advertize Ruffinus , that the Apostolicall Faith , first preach'd at Rome , could not in it self be any other , then what it essentially is ; that is , it could not be changed , so long as it remained unchang'd . Fifthly , that he trifles as much in the allegation of St. Gregory Nazianzen . For though that Father useth the word Semper retinet , ( as the Bishop translates him ) and doth not expresly say Semper retinebit ( it ever holds , and not it shall ever hold the true Faith ) speaking of the Roman Church ; yet certainly in this place the word retinet , coming after these other ab antiquis temporibus habet , and having Semper annexed to it , must in all reason be understood to relate to the severall Differences of Time , past , present , and to come . Sixthly , that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alledging of St. Cyril and Ruffinus , as holding his opinion about the particular Church of Rome : whereas Bellarmin hath not so much as St. Cyrils name in that whole Chapter ; nor Ruffinus's , but onely when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him : and when he alledges those two Authors in his third Chapter , he expresses both the places and their words ; but it is to prove another Proposition : and that of St. Cyril is a quite different Text , from what the Relatour thrusts into his Margent . Thus eagerly fights he by Moon-light with his own shadows . Seventhly , that his Lordship confounds two Questions that are distinct , and distinctly treated by Bellarmin , viz. Whether the Pope , when he teaches the whole Church , can erre in matters of Faith ( which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter , and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastour of the Church ) with this , whether the particular Roman Church , that is , the Roman Clergy and People , cannot erre in Faith ; which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th . Chapter . Lastly , that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus ; &c. ( Thou art Peter , &c. ) cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter , as abstracted from his Person , but onely to his Person , as made , in that occasion , for and in vertue of that Confession , perpetually to endure in him and his Successours , THE ROCK of Christs Church . But of these hereafter .

The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question concerning Infallibility , whether to be admitted in any Church or not ? at length in the 20 th . page , removing St. Peters Chair out of his way and § 3. num. 17. from the City of Rome , and disporting himself a while in that particular City , or Diocess , in a kinde of Raillery upon its Infallibility , his Lordship comes to the Greek Church , on occasion of some words spoken by a friend of the Ladies , in defence of that Church . I believe that Friend did a friendly office to the Bishop , in giving him a rise for a new Dispute , and diverting the Lady from pressing him further for a satisfactory answer to her Querie .

4. The question started by this friend was ( as I have already hinted ) about the Faith of the Greek Church , which Mr. Fisher told him , had plainly made a change and taught false Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost ; and that he had heard his Majesty should say , That the Greek Church , having erred against the Holy Ghost , had lost the Holy Ghost . This latter part of Mr. Fishers assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King ; whereas in truth he highly honour'd his Majesty , and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judgement in that point , touching the Holy Ghost . But the Bishop with all his respect and present flattery , is resolved to contradict his Majesty : yet that he might seem to do it but in part , he introduces this distinction , § 5. pag. 21. viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two wayes . 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit , as preserves it from all dangerous errours and sins , and the punishment that is due unto them . 2. The other is , when it loses not onely this Assistance , but all Assistance , to remain any longer a true Church .

Now the Bishop denyes the Greek Church to have lost the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in this latter Acception , viz. totally , which would render it no true Church ; but grants it to have lost that special Assistance specified in the first branch of the distinction . But this ( he sayes ) is rather to be called an errour , CIRCA SPIRITVM SANCTVM ( about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost ) then an errour CONTRA SPIRITVM SANCTVM ( against the Holy Ghost . ) Thus he minces what he had said before , That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Ibid ; Holy Ghost , and that they erred against him .

But let us see what Arguments his Lordship brings in proof of his Assertion , that the Greek Church continues a true Church , and that their errour is not properly against the Holy Ghost . Here the Bishop makes no great haste , but breathing himself a while , does very prudently prepare his Reader to expect no great matter from him in this kinde . For , dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds , There is no reason § 6. pag. 23. the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man ; or that the personal defects of any man should press any more then himself . Also that he entred not upon this service , but by command of Supreme Authority ; there being , as he sayes , an hundred abler then himself to maintain the Protestant Cause . This his acknowledgement as I have no reason to blame him for it , so I cannot see , what just cause his Lordship had to censure Mr. Fisher , for thinking so humbly of himself as to confess , there were a thousand better Scholars , then he , to maintain the Catholick Cause .

Before we come to the Bishops proofs , I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words , which are these ; I was not § 9. pag. 24. so peremptory , viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamental . Divers learned men , and some of your own , were of opinion , that ( as the Greeks expressed themselves ) it was a question not simply Fundamentall . I know and acknowledge , that errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , to be a grievous errour in Divinity . After this he adds as a Theological proof of his own , Since their form of speech is , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father BY THE SON , and is the Spirit of the Son , without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons , I dare not deny them to be a TRVE CHVRCH ; though I confess them AN ERRONEOVS Church in this particular . Are not these very specious expressions ? I was not so peremptory . Divers learned men were of opinion . I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grievous errour in Divinity . I dare not deny them to be a true Church . They seem to agree with us . They think a diverse thing from us . But I pass by his trifling , and make way for truth . It is to be considered , that now for many hundred years the whole Latin Church hath decreed and believed it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks , and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church ; and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council : In Florentino . how then bears it any shew of probability , what some few of yesterday ( forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick Arguments against them ) affirm , that the matter of this Controversie is so small and inconsiderable , that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side ? Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome , for many hundred years , quite blinde , and themselves onely clear and sharp-sighted ? which swelling presumption , what spirit it argues , and whence it proceeds , all those , who have learn't from St. Augustine , that pride is the mother of Heresie , will easily collect .

But though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses , Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it , that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it . Is it ( think you ) enough to assert the Divinity , and Consubstantiality , and Personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost ( as the Bishop sayes ) to save from Heresie the denial of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle ? would not he , that should affirm the Son to be a distinct Person from , and Consubstantial to the Father , but denyed his eternal Generation from him , be an Heretick ? or he , who held the Holy Ghost , distinct from , and Consubstantial to them both , but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son onely , and not from the Father , would he not be highly guilty of Heresie ? It is then most evident , that not onely an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction , but against the Origination , Generation , and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient mattter of Heresie : which being here most manifestly found , either in the Affirmative maintained by the Latins , or in the Negative embraced by the Greeks , about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , there must also be found sufficient matter to constitute the erroneous Tenet Heretical . And seeing Protestants acknowledge with the Bishop here , that the Greeks in this are the erring party , how can they possibly excuse them from Heresie ?

5. But before I fall upon a particular examen of his proofs , we must distinguish between Greeks . Some are Ancient ; other Modern . The Ancient Greeks , though they did indeed , in this question of the Holy Ghosts procession , express themselves sometimes by the word per Filium ( by the Son ) yet the sense they gave them was Confignificative with à Filio ( from the Son . ) Whereas the Modern Greeks , since they rais'd this Dispute against the Latin Church , will not admit that expression à Filio , but per Filium onely , and that too in a sense Dissignificative to à Filio . For they so affert the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father by the Son , that he proceeds from the Father alone , and not from the Son at all : thereby making the words perrFilium to signifie the Medium onely , not the Principle , from which he is Originiz'd as truly as from the Father . And that this is the erroneous perswasion of the Modern Greeks is manifest , not onely by those long Discourses between the Greeks and Latins , set down at large in the a a Concil. Florentin , Sess. 18. pag 686. 690. Sess. 22. pag. 741. Sess. 23. pag. 749. 〈◊〉 propter additionem verbi Filioque eos reputant . Sess. 25. pag. 778. Council of Florence , but by the free acknowledgement of Hieremias late Patriarch of Constantinople , in his Book intituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae , cap. 2. where expounding the Belief of the Modern Greek Church , he hath these express words , Spiritum verò Sanctum , Dominum vivificantem , & EX PATRE SOLO procedentem .

Now after this distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks , and their different meanings even under the same expression , it will be seasonable to give solutions to all the Bishops proofs . To the first therefore , however the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamental Ibid. num. 2. pag. 2. 5. errour , he takes a wrong course to effect it , and in stead of excusing them , directly overthrows and condemns them ; nay renders those , whom he endeavours to excuse , incapable of that favourable exposition , which the Authors he alledges in their behalf , have made for some of the Greek Church . For pag. 24. § 9. num. 1. he acknowledges that errour , of denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son , to be a grievous errour in Divinity , and pag. 26. § 9. num. 3. that the Greeks think a diverse thing from the Latins in this point , as I have noted above . Now to prove that these who erre thus grievously , and differ from the Latin Church in re , not in the words onely , but in the thing , do yet not erre Fundamentally , he brings Testimonies from our Authors , who speak of such Grecians , ( even as he cites them ) which erre not at all in the opinion of those alledged Authors , and which differ from the Latin Church onely voce , in words , and not in the thing , or matter of their Doctrine .

Thus he cites Durandus . Pluralitas IN VOCE , salvata unitate IN RE , non repugnat unitati Fidei . Magist. Sentent . Dist. 11. Sanè sciendum est , quod licet in presenti Articulo à nobis Graeci VERBO difcordent , tamen SENSU non differunt : and the like sayings are in all the following Authors there cited by the Bishop . But what a strange Medium is this to prove his intent ? He was to prove , that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity , erred not Fundamentally ; and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity . He was to prove , that such as differ in re , in the thing it self , from the Latin Church , about the Procession of the Holy Ghost , erre not Fundamentally : and for proof of this he alledges such as differ onely from us voce , in words , but not in the thing controverted . Is not this strong Logick ? Let his Lordships Defender then prove , from the said Authorities , his Assertion , viz. That those Greeks , who erre grievously in Divinity , and differ in re from the Latin Church , erre not Fundamentally , and he will have done more then my Lord himself has done , or any other ( I presume ) can do . In the mean time every half eye will discover , how inappositely the Relatour hath reasoned hithertó , and brought no Authority at all to make good his Assertion .

For the Master of Sentences , he speaks only of such Ancient Authors , as differed onely in voce , in words , and not in Substance from the Latin Church ; or at least who spake not so clearly against it , but that their words might admit some tolerable interpretation . But how proves this , that those of the Greek party say now no more , nor otherwise , then the others did in those Ancienter times ? seeing it is manifest from the Council of Florence , and from Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople , that their Doctrine cannot admit of that Exposition , which those Authors give to the Doctrine of the Ancient Grecians . For they flatly and in express terms deny , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son , and understand per Filium ( by the Son ) in that sense which excludes à Filio ( from the Son . )

This difference of times was long since observed by St. Bonaventure in that very place , wherein his Lordship cites him , to wit , in 1. Sentent . dist. 11. quest. 1. art. 1. ad 3 um . & 4 um . His words are these . Ad illud quod objicitur de Damasceno dicendum , quod non est in istâ parte ei assentiendum . Sicut enim intellexi , ipse fuit in tempore , quando orta est contentio . Vnde non est in hoc sustinendus , quia simpliciter fuit Graecus : tamen ipse cautè loquitur . Unde non dicit , quod Spiritus non est a Filio , sed dicit , NON DICIMVS A FILIO ; quia Graeci non confitebantur , nec tamen negabant . Sed modò eorum maledicta progenies addidit ad paternam Dementiam , & dicit , quod non procedit à Filio , nisi temporaliter : & ideo tanquam Haereticos & Schismaticos Romana eos damnat Ecclesia . To that ( sayes he ) which is objected from Damascen it is to be answered , that we are not to assent to him in this particular . For , as I understand , he lived in the time , when this Controversie was sprung up . Wherefore we are not bound to maintain him in this point ; because , absolutely speaking , he was a Grecian : yet himself speaks warily . For , he doth not say , the Holy Ghost is not from the Son , but he saith , we say not from the Son . For the Grecians , as they did not confess , so neither did they deny ( to wit , the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son . ) But now their accursed off-spring hath added to the madness of their Fore-fathers , and professeth , that the Holy Ghost doth not at all proceed from the Son , otherwise then Temporally : and therefore the Roman Church condemns them both as Heretiques and Schismatiques .

But let us adde a word or two more in particular to his Authorities cited . Durandus his words give onely a general Doctrine , which is most true , viz. That difference IN WORDS is not repugnant to the unity of Faith . The Master of Sentences ( we said but even now ) speaks of those Ancienter Greeks , who spake moderately and warily in this point . Bandinus is cited , but no words of his alledged . St. Bonaventure is quite against his Lordship . For in that very place which he cites , St. Bonaventure brands the Greeks of his time , who had deserted the Roman Church , with the note of a a Suam Sententiam defendere ausi sunt , & Auctoritati Ecclesiae Romanoe obviare ; & ideo facti sunt Heretici quia negant Fidei veritatem ; & Schismatici quia recesserunt ab Ecclesiae unitate . D. Bonavent . ibidem . Hereticks and Schismatiques , Now the Bishop uses some cunning , in not giving notice of those precedent words , and thereby perswading his Reader , that St. Bonaventure , by not answering to the Objection pressed by the Greeks , viz. That Salvation might be had without that Article , A PATRE FILIO QUE PROCEDIT ; but onely saying , that such a determination was opportune by reason of the danger , tacitly grants that Salvation may be had without it . And consequently was of opinion , that the Greeks who separated from the Church of Rome in his time , were capable of Salvation , even in that Separation . Whereas it is most manifest in that very Paragraph , that St. Bonaventure ( as is said ) holding them Heretiques and Schismatiques , excluded them from Salvation . And this would have appeared , had not St. Bonaventures former words been concealed by the Bishop .

But this is not all the Art he useth in this Citation . He was to prove , that according to St. Bonaventure the Grecians opposite to the Roman Church , notwithstanding their Errour and Separation , were capable of Salvation , even supposing the Declarations and Decrees of the Roman Church in his time against them : and to prove this he alledges an Answer of St. Bonaventure to an Objection about the addition of the word Filioque to the Creed . Now this addition was made before the succeeding Declarations of the Church against the Grecians ; and consequently seeing for many hundred years the Creed was without this addition , it was most evident , that Salvation might be had , and was had without it : nay , even after the addition was made , till the necessity of it was sufficiently declared by the Church , and the point fully defined against the Grecians who opposed it , it was not happily so necessary , but some might be saved without it . But by what reach of Logick will the Bishop be able to prove this Consequence ; St. Bonaventure tacitly grants , that Salvation might be had without that Article , before it was added and decreed by the Church to contain a Point of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation : Ergo St. Bonaventure holds , that even after such decrees were made , Salvation might be had without it ; and even by those who obstinately contradicted the Truth contained in it ? For before it was added , and at the first addition , before the said Declarations , Christians might be excused by ignorance : but after such Declarations were made , those who knew them , as the Greek Church did , could by no ignorance be excused .

Jodocus Clictoveus is cited to small purpose . For the question is not , whether quidam ex Graecis ( some of the Grecians ) hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Sou ; for that is true even at this day : but whether those , who violently oppose the Church of Rome , that is to say , the Patriarchs , Bishops , Clergy , and people who take part with them ( which we now term the Greek Church ) hold , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son .

Scotus is of as little force as Clictoveus . For the Bishop was to prove from this Author ( as he undertakes ) that the present Greek Church errs not Fundamentally . And to prove this he alledgeth him saying , That the Ancient Greeks differed rather in Words , then in Substance from the Latin Church ; which was not at all touched in the Controversie between them . For all of ours grant , that the Ancient Grecians were guilty of no real errour at all , land so of no Fundamental errour . But how does that excuse the present Greeks from Fundamental errour ? His Lordship should have shew'n this . And Bellarmin is as far from proving the present Greek Church not to erre , as his words point from the time of it . For he speaks of St. John Damascen , who flourished six hundred years before Bellarmin was born , and who spake so warily and moderately in the point , that ( as St. Bonaventure observes ) his words may be taken in a favourable sense , to wit , as not denying , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son , as the latter Grecians now do , but onely saying non dicimus , we use not to say ex Filio , but rather per Filium , neque affirmando nec negando , formalizing , as 't is evident , at the manner of expression , but not at the thing . Lastly , when the words of Tolet , and of the Lutherans to Hieremias the Patriarch shall be cited , they shall receive answer . Onely this is most certain , that Tolet holds , with all Catholique Doctors , that the Modern Grecians are Hereticks , and so do erre Fundamentally : and the Lutherans oppose Hieremias , who denyes in express terms the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , as we have already shew'n .

His second and Theological Argument is , that since their forme of speech is , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son , and is the Spirit of the Son , without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons , they must be a True Church , though an erroneous one in this particular . Here the Bishop thinks to blinde all the Churches of Christendome with a trifle . He grants , that whoever makes an Inequality between the Holy Ghost and the Son , or denyes the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Son , is an Heretique . But he goes not about to shew in Divinity ( though he talks much of it ) how all this can be , viz. That the Holy Ghost should be in all respects Equal and Consubstantial with the Son , unless he proceeded from the Son . This ( it seems ) was matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into , and therefore very dexterously he puts it off as a business of no great moment . And to hide his face from an open profession ( with the Greeks ) against the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son , he first casts a vail over the Readers eyes , giving him a dark expression , that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son , and then boldly tells him non est aliud , 't is the same to say the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son , as to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son . But I ask his Lordship whether the Modern Greeks say , the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son ; for he cites none , but St. John Damascen , for it , who is none of the Moderns ? Secondly , whether the Spirit he here sets forth , do truly proceed from the Son ? if not ; then he trades with some other Spirit , and not with the Holy Ghost .

What I have hitherto said is , I doubt not , sufficient to undeceive any indifferent Reader , touching the Question in Dispute . Yet to press the point a little harder , I thus argue in form against his Lordship , and that out of his own Concessions .

If the Greeks errour be not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost , then ( according to the Bishops own Distinction ) they have lost all Assistance of that Blessed Spirit , and are become no True Church .

But their errour is not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost .

Therefore they have lost all the Assistance of that Blessed Spirit , and are become no True Church .

The Major , or First Proposition , contains the Bishops own Doctrine : The Minor , or Second Proposition , viz. That the Greeks errour is not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost , I thus prove .

All errours specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are ( according to all Divines ) not onely errours concerning , but errours against the Holy Ghost .

But the Greeks errour is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost , as is already proved .

Ergo their errour is not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost : whose Assistance therefore they have lost , not onely according to the first , but even latter Branch of the Bishops Distinction ; and consequently remain no True Church .

But here the Bishop may seem to have provided against the force of this Argument , by hinting a difference between errours Fundamental and not Fundamental ; which point I shall purposely examine in the following Chapter . In the interim I observe , that his Lordship having been for a while serious , begins now to quibble upon the word Filioque , on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed . And first he grumbles , that the Pope should Adde and Anathematize too . I hope , § 9. num. 2. pag. 25. he will give the Holy Ghost leave to Assist the Church , in adding expressions for the better explication of any Article of Faith : and then the Pope hath leave and command too , to Anathematize all such , as shall not allow the use of such expressions .

6. Now to come to the debate of Filioque , 't is true , that many hundred of years had passed from the time of the Apostles , before Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed , and more since the Declarations and Decrees were sufficiently published : and in all these years Salvation was had in the Church without mention of Filioque . But it is also true , that the Addition of Filioque to the Creed was made many years before the Difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks . So that th' inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schisme . But grudges arising among the Greeks , who had been a large flourishing Church with a number of most learned and zealous Prelates , and held the Articles still , though upon emptier heads : such , quickly fill'd with winde , thinking their swelling places , and great City of Constantinople might hold up against Rome , they began to quarrel , not for places ( that was too mean a Motive for such as look'd so big ) but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome , nay they spyed out Heresies in it , ( the old way of all Hereticks ) and so fell to question the Procession of the Holy Ghost , and must needs have Filioque out of the Creed .

To return unto which , after the meaning of the Latin Church was understood , and that the word Filioque lay in the Creed to confess that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as truly as from the Father ; and that whoever denyed the Filioque must be supposed to deny the Procession , then it became an Heresie to deny it , and the Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers . None can be so ignorant as to think the Church , in composing the Creed , intended to thrust in all points of Faith concerning the Trinity ( 't is clear , more may be added yet : ) but when the Church understood that some of her Truant Children began to stumble at a particular point , ( the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son ) then she thought it high time to speak a loud word , that might keep her good Children from falling .

Neither is the Roman-Catholick Church justly accusable of Cruelty ( though the Bishop taxes her of it ) because she is quick and sharp against those that fall into Heresie . 'T is not the Libertine Heretick the Church looks so eagerly after , to have him punished ; as a Motherly compassion of her other Children ( yet good ) lest they should come to be infected . If sinners could be bad themselves onely , and not infuse their venome into others , nor give scandal , the Church might possibly have reason to mitigate her severity . But seeing the Bishop brings in St. Peter , with the Keyes at his girdle , to shew his mildness , may not I represent to his Lordship St. Peters proceeding with Ananias and Sapphira , Acts 5. 5 , 10. striking them dead at his Feet for retaining some part of their goods , though they had deliver'd the far greater part of them to St. Peter ? Yea , why may I not joyn St. Paul to him , chastising most severely such untoward children , 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20 ? Certainly the Church punishes not her Delinquents , to encrease the suffering of such as are to dye , but to strike a terrour into the living , whom fear many times , more then the love of God , keeps from sinning .