HISTORICAL EXCURSUS ON THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE CREED OF THE WORDS "AND THE SON."

The introduction into the Nicene Creed of the words "and the Son" 

(Filioque) has given rise to, or has been the pretext for, such bitter 

reviling between East and West (during which many statements unsupported 

by fact have become more or less commonly believed) that I think it well 

in this place to set forth as dispassionately as possible the real facts 

of the case. I shall briefly then give the proof of the following 

propositions:

1. That no pretence is made by the West that the words in dispute formed 

part of the original creed as adopted at Constantinople, or that they 

now form part of that Creed.

2. That so far from the insertion being made by the Pope, it was made in 

direct opposition to his wishes and command.

3. That it never was intended by the words to assert that there were two 

'A    rkai    in the Trinity, nor in any respect on this point 

to differ from the teaching of the East.

4. That it is quite possible that the words were not an intentional 

insertion at all.

5. And finally that the doctrine of the East as set forth by St. John 

Damascene is now and always has been the doctrine of the West on the 

procession of the Holy Spirit, however much through ecclesiastico-

political contingencies this fact may have become obscured.

With the truth or falsity of the doctrine set forth by the Western 

addition to the creed this work has no concern, nor even am I called 

upon to treat the historical question as to when and where the 

expression "and the Son" was first used. For a temperate and eminently 

scholarly treatment of this point from a Western point of view, I would 

refer the reader to Professor Swete's On the History of the Doctrine of 

the Procession of the Holy Spirit. In J. M. Neale's History of the Holy 

Eastern Church will be found a statement from the opposite point of 

view. The great treatises of past years I need not mention here, but may 

be allowed to enter a warning to the reader, that they were often 

written in the period of hot controversy, and make more for strife than 

for peace, magnifying rather than lessening differences both of thought 

and expression.

Perhaps, too, I may be allowed here to remind the readers that it has 

been said that while "ex Patre Filioque procedens" in Latin does not 

necessitate a double source of the Holy Spirit, the expression 

    ekporeuomenon        ek        tou    

    patros        kai        ek    

    tou        Uiou    does. On such a point I am not 

fit to give an opinion, but St. John Damascene does not use this 

expression.

1. That no pretence is made by the West that the words in dispute ever 

formed part of

the creed as adopted at Constantinople is evidently proved by the patent 

fact that it is printed without those words in all our Concilias and in 

all our histories. It is true that at the Council of Florence it was 

asserted that the words were found in a copy of the Acts of the Seventh 

Ecumenical which they had, but no stress was even at that eminently 

Western council laid upon the point, which even if it had been the case 

would have shewn nothing with regard to the true reading of the Creed as 

adopted by the Second Synod.(1) On this point there never was nor can be 

any doubt.

2. The addition was not made at the will and at the bidding of the Pope. 

It has frequently been said that it was a proof of the insufferable 

arrogancy of the See of Rome that it dared to tamper with the creed set 

forth by the authority of an Ecumenical Synod and which had been 

received by the world. Now so far from the history of this addition to 

the creed being a ground of pride and complacency to the advocates of 

the Papal claims, it is a most marked instance of the weakness of the 

papal power even in the West.

"Baronius," says Dr. Pusey, "endeavours in vain to find any Pope, to 

whom the 'formal addition' may be ascribed, and rests at last on a 

statement of a writer towards the end of the 12th century, writing 

against the Greeks. 'If the Council of Constantinople added to the 

Nicene Creed, "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life," and the 

Council of Chalcedon to that of Constantinople, "perfect in Divinity and 

perfect in Humanity, consubstantial with the Father as touching his 

Godhead, consubstantial with us as touching his manhood," and some other 

things as aforesaid, the Bishop of the elder Rome ought not to be 

calumniated, because for explanation, he added one word [that the Holy 

Spirit proceeds from the Son] having the consent of very many bishops 

and most learned Cardinals.' 'For the truth of which,' says Le Quien, 

'be the author responsible!' It seems to me inconceivable, that all 

account of any such proceeding, if it ever took place, should have been 

lost."(2)

We may then dismiss this point and briefly review the history of the 

matter.

There seems little doubt that the words were first inserted in Spain. As 

early as the year 400 it had been found necessary at a Council of Toledo 

to affirm the double procession against the Priscillianists,(3) and in 

589 by the authority of the Third Council of Toledo the newly converted 

Goths were required to sign the creed with the addition.(4) From this 

time it became for Spain the accepted form, and was so recited at the 

Eighth Council of Toledo in 653, and again in 681 at the Twelfth Council 

of Toledo.(5)

But this was at first only true of Spain, and at Rome nothing of the 

kind was known. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Creed is found in its 

original form.(6) The same is the case with the old Gallican 

Sacramentary of the viith or viiith century.(7)

However, there can be no doubt that its introduction spread very rapidly 

through the West and that before long it was received practically 

everywhere except at Rome.

In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it 

three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the 

subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express 

ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made 

to their formulary.(8) Later on, the Frankish Emperor asked his bishops 

what was "the meaning of the Creed according to the Latins,"(9) and 

Fleury gives the result of the investigations to have been, "In France 

they continued to chant the creed with the word Filioque, and at Rome 

they continued not to chant it."(10)

So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced 

into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in 

St. Peter's at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and 

on the other in Greek, without the addition. This act the Greeks never 

forgot during the controversy. Photius refers to it in writing to the 

Patriarch of Acquileia. About two centuries later St. Peter Damian(1) 

mentions them as still in place; and about two centuries later on, 

Veecur, Patriarch of Constantinople, declares they hung there still.(2)

It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was 

used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. 

acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal 

authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared 

from St. Peter's.

3. Nothing could be clearer than that the theologians of the West never 

had any idea of teaching a double source of the Godhead. The doctrine of 

the Divine Monarchy was always intended to be preserved, and while in 

the heat of the controversy sometimes expressions highly dangerous, or 

at least clearly inaccurate, may have been used, yet the intention must 

be judged from the prevailing teaching of the approved theologians. And 

what this was is evident from the definition of the Council of Florence, 

which, while indeed it was not received by the Eastern Church, and 

therefore cannot be accepted as an authoritative exposition of its 

views, yet certainly must be regarded as a true and full expression of 

the teaching of the West. "The Greeks asserted that when they say the 

Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, they do not use it because they 

wish to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, 

that the Latins assert the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and 

the Son, as from two principles and by two spirations, and therefore 

they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 

and the Son. But the Latins affirm that they have no intention when they 

say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son to deprive the 

Father of his prerogative of being the fountain and principle of the 

entire Godhead, viz. of the Son and of the, Holy Ghost; nor do they deny 

that the very procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the Son derives 

from the Father; nor do they teach two principles or two spirations; but 

they assert that there is one only principle, one only spiration, as 

they have always asserted up to this time."

4. It is quite possible that when these words were first used there was 

no knowledge on the part of those using them that there had been made 

any addition to the Creed. As I have already pointed out, the year 589 

is the earliest date at which we find the words actually introduced into 

the Creed. Now there can be no doubt whatever that the Council of Toledo 

of that year had no suspicion that the creed as they had it was not the 

creed exactly as adopted at Constantinople. This is capable of the most 

ample proof.

In the first place they declared, "Whosoever believes that there is any 

other Catholic faith and communion, besides that of the Universal 

Church, that Church which holds and honours the decrees of the Councils 

of Nice, Constantinople, I. Ephesus, and Chalcedon, let him be 

anathema." After some further anathemas in the same sense they repeat 

"the creed published at the council of Nice," and next, "The holy faith 

which the 150 fathers of the Council of Constantinople explained, 

consonant with the great Council of Nice." And then lastly, "The holy 

faith which the translators of the council of Chalcedon explained." The 

creed of Constantinople as recited contained the words "and from the 

Son." Now the fathers at Toledo were not ignorant of the decree of 

Ephesus forbidding the making of "another faith" (    eteran    

    pistin   ) for they themselves cite it, as follows from the 

acts of Chalcedon; "The holy and universal Synod forbids to bring 

forward any other faith; or to write or

believe or to teach other, or be otherwise minded. But whoso shall dare 

either to expound or produce or deliver any other faith to those who 

wish to be converted etc." Upon this Dr. Pusey well remarks,(1) "It is, 

of course, impossible to suppose that they can have believed any 

addition to the creed to have been forbidden by the clause, and, 

accepting it with its anathema, themselves to have added to the creed of 

Constantinople."

But while this is the case it might be that they understood 

    eteran    of the Ephesine decree to forbid the making of 

contradictory and new creeds and not explanatory additions to the 

existing one. Of this interpretation of the decree, which would seem 

without any doubt to be the only tenable one, I shall treat in its 

proper place.

We have however further proof that the Council of Toledo thought they 

were using the unaltered creed of Constantinople. In these acts we find 

they adopted the following; "for reverence of the most holy faith and 

for the strengthening of the weak minds of men, the holy Synod enacts, 

with the advice of our most pious and most glorious Lord, King Recarede, 

that through all the churches of Spain and Gallaecia, the symbol of 

faith of the council of Constantinople, i.e. of the 150 bishops, should 

be recited according to the form of the Eastern Church, etc."

This seems to make the matter clear and the next question which arises 

is, How the words could have got into the Spanish creed? I venture to 

suggest a possible explanation. Epiphanius tells us that in the year 378 

"all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together make 

this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may 

proclaim and say as follows."(2) If this is to be understood literally 

of course Spain was included. Now the creed thus taught the catechumens 

reads as follows at the point about which our interest centres:

    kai        eis        to    

    agion        pneuma        pisteuomen   , 

...     ek        tou        patros    

    ekporeuomenon        kai        ek    

    tou        lambanomenon        kai    

    pisteuomenon   ,     eis        mian    

    kaqolikhn        k   .     t   . 

    g   . Now it looks to me as if the text had got corrupted 

and that there should be a full stop after     lambanomenon   , 

and that     pisteuomenon    should be 

    pisteuomen   . These emendations are not necessary however 

for my suggestion although they would make it more perfect, for in that 

case by the single omission of the word     lambanomenon    the 

Western form is obtained. It will be noticed that this was some years 

before the Constantinopolitan Council and therefore nothing would be 

more natural than that a scribe accustomed to writing the old baptismal 

creed and now given the Constantinopolitan creed, so similar to it, to 

copy, should have gone on and added the     kai    

    ek        tou        Uiou   , according to 

habit.

However this is a mere suggestion, I think I have shewn that there is 

strong reason to believe that whatever the explanation may be, the 

Spanish Church was unaware that it had added to or changed the 

Constantinopolitan creed.

5. There remains now only the last point, which is the most important of 

all, but which does not belong to the subject matter of this volume and 

which therefore I shall treat with the greatest brevity. The writings of 

St. John Damascene are certainly deemed entirely orthodox by the 

Easterns and always have been. On the other hand their entire orthodoxy 

has never been disputed in the West, but a citation from Damascene is 

considered by St. Thomas as conclusive. Under these circumstances it 

seems hard to resist the conclusion that the faith of the East and the 

West, so far as its official setting forth is concerned, is the same and 

always has been. And perhaps no better proof of the Western acceptance 

of the Eastern doctrine concerning the eternal procession of the Holy 

Spirit can be found than the fact that St. John Damascene has been in 

recent years raised by the pope for his followers to the rank of a 

Doctor of the Catholic Church.

Perhaps I may be allowed to close with two moderate statements of the 

Western position, the one by the learned and pious Dr. Pusey and the 

other by the none less famous Bishop Pearson.

Dr. Pusey says:

"Since, however, the clause, which found its way into the Creed, was, in 

the first instance, admitted, as being supposed to be part of the 

Constantinopolitan Creed, and, since after it had been rooted for 200 

years, it was not uprooted, for fear of uprooting also or perplexing the 

faith of the people, there was no fault either in its first reception or 

in its subsequent retention.

"The Greeks would condemn forefathers of their own, if they were to 

pronounce the clause to be heretical. For it would be against the 

principles of the Church to be in communion with an heretical body. But 

from the deposition of Photius, A.D. 886 to at least A.D. 1009, East and 

West retained their own expression of faith without schism.(1)

"A.D. 1077, Theophylact did not object to the West, retaining for itself 

the confession of faith contained in the words, but only excepted 

against the insertion of the words in the Creed."(2)

And Bp. Pearson, explaining Article VIII. of the Creed says: "Now 

although the addition of words to the formal Creed without the consent, 

and against the protestations of the Oriental Church be not justifiable; 

yet that which was added is nevertheless a certain truth, and may be so 

used in that Creed by them who believe the same to be a truth; so long 

as they 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 spoke."