Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.

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 re∣ferr'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 Mo∣dern Greeks in Errour, not the Ancient. 6. why FILIOQUE in∣serted into the Nicene Creed.

1. THough Dedalus, that ingenious Artificer, might possi∣bly shew no less skill in contriving his Cretan Laby∣rinth, then did the principall Architect, employ'd by Salomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jeru∣salem; 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 them∣selves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Phana∣tick Brains. These mens Labours are so farre from being lightsome Mo∣numents, that they are rather Labyrinths, or intricate Dungeons for poor

seduced Souls; who being once ingag'd in the perplexities of their in∣tangled 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 Na∣ture; 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 artifi∣cially compos'd, with as many abstruse Turnings, ambiguous Windings, and intricate Meanders, as that of Dedalus, and therefore equally in∣extricable.

But a more sure and stronger Clew then Ariadne's, the Line of the Catholique Churches Authority and Tradition, joyn'd with Holy Scri∣pture, hath not onely carried me through it, but by Gods good as∣sistance, 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, fur∣ther 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 satis∣faction 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 think∣ing it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals, but to depend on the judgement of the true Church: which point of In∣fallibility 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 upon an Infallible Church, because an Infallible Church denotes a particu∣lar 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 cha∣ritable 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 oppo∣sition 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 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 him∣self 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 Sal∣vation, (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 Univer∣sall 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 ci∣ted, 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 mi∣stake 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 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 can∣dour 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 a∣gainst 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 Nazi∣anzen, &c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome, seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Ar∣ticles 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 Lord∣ship 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 necessa∣rily 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. Cy∣prians 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 Immemo∣rial 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 trans∣lates 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 one∣ly when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him: and when he al∣ledges 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 mat∣ters 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 Suc∣cessours, THE ROCK of Christs Church. But of these hereafter.

The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question con∣cerning 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 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 Lord∣ship 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 satis∣factory 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 ho∣nour'd his Majesty, and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judge∣ment 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 distincti∣on, 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 Assi∣stance, 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 ra∣ther 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 min∣ces what he had said before, That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the 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 prudent∣ly 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 rea∣son

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 so peremptory, viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamen∣tal. 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 Spi∣rit 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 lear∣ned men were of opinion. I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grie∣vous 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 be∣lieved it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks, and they decreed the con∣trary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church; and both together condem∣ned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council: 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 Con∣troversie is so small and inconsiderable, that it is not sufficient to pro∣duce an Heresie on either side? Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome, for many hundred years, quite blinde, and them∣selves 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 Consub∣stantiality, and Personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost (as the Bishop sayes) to save from Heresie the denial of his Procession from the Fa∣ther and the Son as from one Principle? would not he, that should af∣firm the Son to be a distinct Person from, and Consubstantial to the Fa∣ther, 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 Proces∣sion of the Holy Ghost from the Son, there must also be found suffici∣ent matter to constitute the erroneous Tenet Heretical. And seeing Pro∣testants 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 An∣cient Greeks, though they did indeed, in this question of the Holy Ghosts procession, express themselves sometimes by the word per Fili∣um (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 ex∣pression à Filio, but per Filium onely, and that too in a sense Dissigni∣ficative 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 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, how∣ever the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamen∣tal 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 expositi∣on, 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 dif∣fer 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 Fun∣damentally: 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 Au∣thors 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 il∣lud quod objicitur de Damasceno dicendum, quod non est in istâ parte ei as∣sentiendum. Sicut enim intellexi, ipse fuit in tempore, quando orta est con∣tentio. 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 ta∣men 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 under∣stand, 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 Tempo∣rally: and therefore the Roman Church condemns them both as He∣retiques 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 de∣serted the Roman Church, with the note of a Hereticks and Schis∣matiques, 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 PA∣TRE 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 con∣sequently seeing for many hundred years the Creed was without this ad∣dition, 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 be∣fore it was added, and at the first addition, before the said Declarati∣ons, Christians might be excused by ignorance: but after such Decla∣rations 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 La∣tin 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 pre∣sent 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 be∣fore 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 pro∣ceeds 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 af∣firmando nec negando, formalizing, as 'tis 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 Con∣substantiality 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 who∣ever makes an Inequality between the Holy Ghost and the Son, or de∣nyes the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Son, is an He∣retique. 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 pro∣ceeded 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 ex∣pression, that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, and then boldly tells him non est aliud, 'tis 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 Processi∣on 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 Pro∣cession 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 conse∣quently 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 fol∣lowing 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, he will give the Holy Ghost leave to Assist the Church, in adding ex∣pressions 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, 'tis true, that many hun∣dred 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 Salvati∣on 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 Ci∣ty 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 que∣stion 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 Fa∣ther; 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 ('tis clear, more may be added yet:) but when the Church understood that some of her Truant Chil∣dren began to stumble at a particular point, (the Holy Ghosts Proceed∣ing 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 Cruel∣ty (though the Bishop taxes her of it) because she is quick and sharp against those that fall into Heresie. 'Tis not the Libertine Heretick the Church looks so eagerly after, to have him punished; as a Mother∣ly 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 re∣present 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 ma∣ny times, more then the love of God, keeps from sinning.

Notes

• § 1, 2.
• § 3. num. 2. pag. 3.
• § 18. num. 5
• § 3. num. 3. pag. 4.
• § 3. num. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, &c.
• § 3. num. 17.
• § 5. pag. 21.
• Ibid;
• § 6. pag. 23.
• § 9. pag. 24.
• In Florentino.
• a

  Concil. Florentin, Sess. 18. pag 686. 690. Sess. 22. pag. 741. Sess. 23. pag. 749. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pro∣pter additio∣nem verbi Fi∣lioque eos re∣putant. Sess. 25. pag. 778.
• Ibid. num. 2. pag. 2. 5.
• a

  Suam Sen∣tentiam defen∣dere ausi sunt, & Auctorita∣ti Ecclesiae Ro∣manoe obviare; & ideo facti sunt Heretici quia negant Fidei verita∣tem; & Schis∣matici quia recesserunt ab Ecclesiae unita∣te. D. Bona∣vent. ibidem.
• § 9. num. 2. pag. 25.