Project Canterbury
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology
William Laud, Works, Volume Two
Conference with Fisher the Jesuit
Sections 4-9
Transcribed by John D Lewis
AD 2001
| Sect V | Sect VI | Sect VII | Sect VIII | Sect IX | Notes |
[24]
[SECTION IV]
F. The question was, Which was that Church? A friend of the lady’s1 would needs defend, that not only the Roman, but also the Greek Church, was right. [A.C.p.43.]
§ 4. B. When that honourable personage answered, I was not by to hear. But I presume he was so far from granting that only the Roman Church was right, as that he did not grant it right; and that he took on him no other defence of the poor Greek Church than was according to truth.
[SECTION V.]
F. I told him, That the Greek Church had plainly chaired, and taught false in a point of doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost; and that I had heard say, that even His Majesty should say, That2 the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost, had lost the Holy Ghost. [A.C.p.43.]
§ 5. B. You are very bold with His Majesty, to relate him upon hearsay. My intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majesty said; but if he said it not, you have been too credulous to believe, and too sudden to report it. Princes deserve and were wont to have, more respect than so. If His Majesty did say it, there is truth in the speech; the error is yours only, by mistaking what is meant by losing the Holy Ghost. For a particular Church may be said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways, or in two degrees. 1. The one, when it loses such special assistance of that blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errors and sins, and the temporal punishment which is due unto them. And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost; for they erred against Him, they sinned against God; and for this, or other sins, they were delivered into another Babylonish captivity under the Turk, in which they yet are, and from which God in His mercy deliver them! But this is rather to be called an error circa Spiritum Sanctum, about the doctrine "concerning the Holy Ghost," than an error against the Holy Ghost. 2. The other is, when it loses not only this assistance, but all assistance ad hoc, to this, that they may remain -any longer a true Church; and [25] so Corinth and Ephesus, and divers other Churches, have lost the Holy Ghost. But in this sense the whole Greek Church lost not the Holy Ghost; for they continue a true Church, in the main substance, to and at this day, though erroneous in this point which you mention, and perhaps in some other too.
[SECTION VI.]
F. The lady’s friend, not knowing what to answer, called in the Bishop, who, sitting down first, excused* himself as one unprovided, and not much studied in controversies; and desiring that, in case he should fail. yet the Protestant cause might not be thought ill of ........ [A.C.p.43.]
*[The Chaplain taxeth the Jesuit, as if in this parcel he did insult, and saith it was the B.’s modesty to use this excuse, and to say "there were a hundred scholars better than he." But I do not see any insultation, but a simple and true narration of what was said. Neither do I see less modesty in the Jesuit’s preferring a thousand before himself, than in the B.’s preferring a hundred before himself.—A.C. marg. note to p. 43.]
§6. B. This is most true; for I did indeed excuse myself, and I had great reason so to do. And my reason being grounded upon modesty for the most part, there I leave it. Yet this it may be fit others should know, that I had no information where the other conferences brake off, no instruction at all what should be the ground of this third conference, nor the full time of four-and-twenty hours to bethink myself. And this I take upon my credit is most true; whereas you make the sifting of these and the like questions to the very bran your daily work, and came thoroughly furnished to the business, and might so lead on the controversy to what yourself pleased, and I was to follow as I could. S. Augustine said once, Scio me invalidum esse, "I know I am weak;"3 and yet he made good his cause. And so perhaps may I against you. And in that I prefered the cause before my particular credit, that which I did was with modesty, and according to reason. For there is no reason the weight of this whole cause should rest upon any one particular man; [26] and great reason, that the personal defects of any man should press himself, but not the cause. Neither did I enter upon this service out of any forwardness of my own, but commanded to it by supreme authority.
[SECTION VII.]
F. . . . it having an hundred better scholars to maintain it than he. To which I said, There were a thousand better scholars than I to maintain the Catholic cause. [A. C. pp. 43, 44.]
§ 7. B. In this I had never so poor a conceit of the Protestants’ cause, as to think that they had but an hundred better than myself to maintain it. That which hath an hundred, may have as many more as it pleases God to give, and more than you. And I shall ever be glad that the Church of England, which, at this time, if my memory reflect not amiss, I named, may have far more able defendants than myself. I shall never envy them, but rejoice for her. And I make no question, but that if I had named a thousand, you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the Catholic cause, as you call it. And this confidence of yours hath ever been fuller of noise than proof. But you proceed,
[SECTION VIII.]
F. Then the question about the Greek Church being proposed,* I said as before, That it had erred. [A.C. p. 44.]
* [The Chaplain telleth, that the Jesuit said, that what the B. would not acknowledge in this, he would "wring and extort from him." But these words of "wringing and extorting" the Jesuit never useth, even to his meanest adversaries, and therefore not likely to have used then to the B.; but at most, that he would evince by argument or such like.—[A.C. marg. note to p. 44.]
§ 8. B. Then I think the question about the Greek Church was proposed. But after you had, with confidence enough, not spared to say, that what I would not acknowledge in this cause, you would wring and extort from me; then indeed you said as before, that it had erred; and this no man denied. But every error denies not Christ, the foundation; or makes Christ deny it, or thrust it from the foundation.
[SECTION IX.]
F. The B. said, that the error was not in [a] point fundamental.* [A.C.p.44.]
* [The Chaplain saith: "The B. was not so peremptory: his speech was, that divers learned men, and some of your own, are of opinion, as the Greeks expressed themselves, it was a question not simply fundamental." But the Jesuit cannot remember the B. to have said these words: yet if he did the Jesuit did not much miss of the chief point of the B.’s meaning, which [27] was, by the distinction of faith fundamental and not fundamental, to defend the errors of the Grecians not to be such, (although held against the known definitive sentence of the Church,) as doth hinder salvation, or exclude them from being members of the true Church. About which see more hereafter.—A.C. marg. note to p. 44.]
§ 9. B. I.—I was not so peremptory. My speech was, that divers learned men, and some of your own, were of opinion, that, as the Greeks expressed themselves, it was a question not simply fundamental. I know and acknowledge that error, of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to be a grievous error in divinity. And sure, it would have grated the foundation, if they had so denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as that they had made an inequality between the persons. But since their form of speech is,4 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 true Church for this, though I confess them an erroneous Church in this particular.
II.—Now that divers learned men were of opinion, that a Filio et per Filium, in the sense of the Greek Church, was but a question in modo loquendi, "in manner of speech,"5 and therefore not fundamental, is evident.6 The master and his [28] scholars agree upon it. "The Greeks," saith he, "confess the Holy Ghost to be the ‘Spirit of the Son,’ (with the Apostle,) and the ‘Spirit of truth.’ [Gal. iv. [vi] John xvi. [13]] And since non est aliud, ‘it is not [29] another thing’ to say, the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, than that He is or proceeds from the Father and the Son, in this they seem to agree with us in eandem fidei sententiam. ‘upon the same sentence of faith,’ though they differ in words." Now in this cause, where the words differ, but "the sentence of faith" is "the same,"7 penitus eadem, "even altogether the same," can the point be fundamental? You may make them no Church, (as Bellarmine8 doth,) and so deny them salvation, which cannot be had out of the true Church; but I for my part dare not so do. And Rome in this particular should be more moderate, if it be but because this article, Filioque, was added to the Creed by herself. And it is hard to add and anathematize too.
III.—It ought to be no easy thing to condemn a man of heresy in foundation of faith; much less a Church; least of all, so ample and large a Church as the Greek, especially so as to make them no Church. Heaven gates were not so easily shut against multitudes, when S. Peter wore the keys at his own girdle. And it is good counsel which Alphonsus a Castro, one of your own, gives: "Let them consider, that pronounce easily of heresy, how easy it is for themselves to err."9 [30] Or if you will pronounce, consider what it is that separates from the Church simply, and not in part only. I must needs profess, that I wish heartily, as well as others,10 that those distressed men, whose cross is heavy already, had been more plainly and moderately dealt withal, though they think a diverse thing from us, than they have been by the Church of Rome. But hereupon you say you were "forced,"
ENDNOTES
Note: Initial number/letter, eg. 31g, indicates page number and letter of original footnote. Other endnotes have been gathered from marginal notes in LACT No. 11.
1. [The lady’s friend … A.C.]
2. [That ... caret A. C.]
3. 25y De Util. Credendi., [contra Manichaeos,] c. ii. [S. Auguatin. Op., tom. viii. col. 48. B. ed. Benedict. Quoniam propter peccata mea propterque consuetudinem plagis veternosarum opinionum sauciatum oculum animae gerens, invalidum me esse cognosco, saepe rogo cum lacrymis.]
4. 27z [At vero Eum] non ex Filio esse dicimus: sed Filii Spiritum [nominamus.]—Damascen. lib. i. Fid. Orth. c. 11. [p. 272. A. B. ed. Billii.—Denique Spiritum sanctum et ex Patre esse statuimus,] et Patris [Spiritum appellamus ..... atque Ipsum nobis] per Filium [et patefactum esse, et impertiri confitemur.]— Ibid. [To de pneuma to hagion, kai ek tou patros legomen, kai pneuma patros onomazomen; ek tou huiou de to pneuma ou legomen; pneuma de huiou onomazomen ei tis gar to pneuma Christou ouk echei, phêsin ho theios apostolos, houtos ouk estin autou; kai di’ huiou pephanerôsthai, kai metadidosthai hêmin, omologoumen;—S. Joann. Damascen. De Fid. Orthodox. lib. i. cap. 8. Op., tom. i p. 141. B. ed. Lequien.]
5. 27a [Ad secundum dicendum quod in tribus symbolis una veritas continentur, magis tamen explicita in uno quam in alio, propter novas haereses variis temporibus insurgentes; talis autem] pluralitas in voce, salvata unitate in re, non repugnat unitati fidei.—Durand[i de Sancto Portiano Apostolici quondam penitentiarii, Meldensis ecclesiae Episcopi, in quatuor Sententiarum libros quaestionum resolutiones]. Lib. III. D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uaest.] 2. [fol. ccxciii. ed. Paris. 1508.]
6. 27b [Petri Lombard.] Magist[ri Sententiarum,] I. Sentent. D[istinct.] xi. D. [Sciendum est tamen quod Graeci confitentur Spiritum Sanctum esse Filii, sicut et Patris; quia et Apostolus dicit, Spiritum Filii (Galat. iv. 6.) Et Veritas in Evangelio, Spiritum Veritatis (Joan. xvi. 13.) Sed cum non sit aliud Spiritum Sanctum esse Patris vel Filii, quam esse a Patre et Filio; etiam in hoc in eandem nobiscum fidei sententiam convenire videntur, licet in verbis dissentiant.]—Sane sciendum, quod licet in praesenti articulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent, tamen sensu non differunt. [Confitentur enim Spiritum esse Filii, etsi non a Filio, quia scriptum est, Spiritum Filii.]—Bandinus, lib. i. de Trin. d. xi. [i.e. Bandini, Theologi doctissimi ac pervetusti, Sententiarum libri quatuor, &c.—lib. i. de Trinitate, Dist. xi. p. 54. ed. Lovan. 1557.]—Et Bonaventura, in I. Sent. D[istinct.] xi. A[rt.] i. Q[uaest.] i. Sect. xii. [Op., tom. iv. p. 95. A. ed. Mogunt. 1609.], licet Graecis infensissimus, quum dixit Graecos objicere curiositatem Romanis, addendo Filioque [ubi ait, Redarguunt tauquam curiosos...... Graecos,] quia sine hujus Articuli professione salus erat, non respondet negando salutem esse, sed dicit tantum, Opportunam fuisse determinationem propter periculum.—Et postea, [Bonavent.] Sect. xv. [Ad illud quod objicitur de nexu, dicendum quod nexus non habet rationem medii, sed rationem tertii, quanquam aliqui voluerunt dicere quod locum tenet et media et tertii:] et voluerunt isti sustinere opinionem Greacorum, et Latinorum, et distinguunt duplicem modum procedendi, [scilicet in alium, et sic procedit a Patre, vel ab alio, et sic procedit a Patre et Filio.—Ib. p. 95. B.]—Sed forte si duo sapientes, unus Graecus, [et] alter Latinus, uterque verus amator veritatis, et non propriae dictionis, [unde propria est] de hac visa contrarietate disquirerent, pateret utique tandem ipsam contrarietatem non esse vericiter realem, sicut est vocalis: [alioquin, vel ipsi Graeci, vel nos Latini sumus vere haeretici. Sed quis audet hunc auctorem Joannem sc. Damascenum, et Beatos, sc. Basilium, Gregorium Theologum, Gregorium Nazianzenum, Cyrillum, et similes Patres Graecos arguere haerescos?] —Scotus in I. Sent. D[istinct. lxi.Q[uaest.] 1. [Op., tom. v. par. i. p. 858. ed. Lugd. 1639.]—Antiquorum apud Graecos auctorum, [ut Cyrilli, Damasceni, et similium,] a Latinis in voce potius, et modo explicandi emanationem Spiritus Sancti est discrepantia, quam in ipsa re. [Eandem enim penitus sententiam praetendunt, dicentes Spiritum Sanctum per Filium procedere, quam Latini et dicentes Spiritum Sanctum procedere ex Fillo; licet aliis ad illum exprimendum utantur verbis.]—Jodocus Clichtovaeus [Neoportiensis, Comment.] in Damasc. Fid. Orthod. lib. i. c. 11 [Op., S. Joan. Damasc. p. 274. B. ed. Billii.]—[Unde etiam ipsi Graeci processionem Spiritus Sancti aliquem ordinem habere ad Filium intelligunt. Concedunt enim Spiritum Sanctum esse Spiritum Filii, et esse a Patre per Filium.] Et quidam eorum dicuntur concedere, quod sit a Filio, vel profluat ab Eo, [non tamen quod procedat. Quod videtur vel ex ignorantia vel ex protervia esse.]—Tom. [Aquin. Summ.] P[ars] i. Qluaest.] xxvi. A[rt.] 2. [in conclus.]—Et Thomas ipse dicit, Spiritum Sanctum procedere mediate a Filio, saltem ratione Personarum Spirantium: [sc. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in qualibet actione est duo considerare, scilicet suppositum agens, et virtutem qua agit, sicut ignis calefacit calore. Si igitur in Patre et Filio consideratur virtus, qua spirant Spiritum Sanctum, non cadit ibi aliquod medium: quia haec virtus est una et eadem. Si autem considerentur ipsae personae spirantes, sic cum Spiritus Sanctus communiter procedat a Patre et Filio, invenitur Spiritus Sanctus immediate a Patre procedere, in quantum est ab Eo, et mediate in quantum est a Filio.]—Ibid. A[rt.] 3. [Resp.] ad 1.—Respondeo [igitur] cum Bessarione et Gennadio, Damascenum non negasse Spiritum Sanctum procedere ex Filio, quod ad rem attinet, cum dixerit, Spiritum esse imaginem Filii, et per Filium [esse]; sed existimasse, tutius dici per Filium, quam ex Filio, quantum ad modum loquendi, [propter haeresim Macedonii, et Eunomii, qui ex Filio, tanquam primaria, immo etiam sola, causa processisse dicebant Spiritum Sanctum.]—Bellarm. Lib. ii. de Christo c. 27. § Respondeo igitur, [Op., tom. i. col. 372. B.]—Et Tollet. in S. Ioann. xv. Annot. 25. [Graecus intelligens fatetur Spiritum esse Filii et Patris, et a Patre procedere, sed per Filium, quod non aliud significat quam quod nos dicimua, Filius producit Spiritum Sanctum a Patre; id est, habet a Patre producere Spiritum; hoc est, Patrem per Filium producere Spiritum Sanctum, sicut Deus per Verbum omnia creavit.—Toleti Cardinal. in Ioann. Evangel. Comment. tom. ii. col. 131. ed. Lugd. 1615.]—Et Lutheran. Respons. ad Respons. ii. Jeremiae Patriarchae. [Producuntur etiam Patres, clarissima illa Ecclesiae lumina, quinetiam Pontifices aliquot Romani, tanquam testes, qui de processione Spiritus Sancti a Patre loquantur: Athanasius videlicet, Gregorius Theologus, &c. …. Agnoscimus sane inter hos plerosque fuisse magnae in Ecclesia Dei authoritatis, et eorum saluberrimos laborea exosculamur, atque Deo pro eximiis donis, quae in ipsos contulit, gratias agimus. Sed non videmus, quomodo ipsorum dicta a vobis allata cum nostra sententia pugnent. Idem enim dicunt, quod Christus; quod videlicet Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procebat. At nos hoc nunquam negavimus; neque unquam, Domino bene nos juvante, negabimus. Aliud autem est affirmare, quod Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procedat: et aliud dicere, quod non a Filio etiam procedat. Primum dicunt illi Patres et pontifices commemorati: alterum vero nequaquam dicunt. Quare cum nostra sententia non pugnant. .... Quinetiam vestri Patres nobiscum faciunt: licet verbis aliquatenus discrepent. Athanasius certe, &e—Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergensium et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae: quae utrique ab anno MDLXXVI. usque ad annum MDLXXXI. de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt: Graece et Latine ab iisdem Theologis edita. pp. 291-293. ed. Witebergae, 1584.]
7. 29c Eandem penitus sententiam, &c. —Clichtov. ubi sup. [p. 28. note c.]
8. 29d Bellarmin. Do Notis Ecelek3iie, lib. iv. c. 8. [Op., tom. ii. col. 183. D. Dico accundo, argumentum a succesBione legitima adferri a nobis prwcipue ad probandum non esse Ecelesiam, ubi non est huge succession quod quidem evidens est: ex quo tamen non colligitur nece&ario ibi esse Ecelesiam, ubi est successio. Itaque hoe argumento probamus evidenter, non esse Ecelesiam apud Lutheranos.] Quod autem apud Greecos [non sit Beelesia, probamus allo modo, quia nimirum convicti sunt Iegitime in tribus plenariis concillis, Lateranensi, Lugdunensi et Florentino, do Behismate et beeresi, ae preecipue do heeresi circa proceseionem Spiritus Sancti a Filio, quam esw manifestam hmresim, Lutherani et Calvinistic etiam confltentur.]
9. 29e Lib. iii. adv. Haereses, in verbo Beatitudo. [Secund. Haeres.] fol. 93. A. [Alphonsi a Castro Op., p. 211. F. ed. Paris. 1571. Aut ergo Papias non est haereticus censendus, aut alii qui eum in hac parte sunt secuti, eadem ratione dicentur haeretici. Haec omnia in medium placuit adferre,] ut videant hi, qui facile de haeresi pronuntiant, quam facile etiam ipsi errent: et intelligant, non esse tam leviter de haeresi censendum, [praecipue cum non sit pejus crimen quod viro Christiano possit impingi, quam si haereticus appelletur.]
10. 30f Junius, Animad[versiones] in Bellar[min.] Controv. ii. lib. ii. [de Christo,] cap. 23. [1. Art. 10. Op., tom. ii. col. 564. ed. Genev. 1613. Viderint ergo homines nostri, quo jure Graecis et Orientalibus Ecclesiis assensum praebitum, et ex assensus mendacium perfidiamque secutam objiciant. Mihi profecto non liquet, ut dicam ex solemni formula. Simplicius moderatiusque agi eum iis qui diversum a nobis sentiunt optaverim.]