hearts of men. But it figures very largely in history, and has occasioned, deepened, and perpetuated
the greatest schism in Christendom. The single word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest, and most
nearly related churches divided since the ninth century, and still forbids a reunion. The Eastern
church regards the doctrine of the single procession as the corner-stone of orthodoxy, and the
doctrine of the double procession as the mother of all heresies. She has held most tenaciously to
her view since the fourth century, and is not likely ever to give it up. Nor can the Roman church
change her doctrine of the double procession without sacrificing the principle of infallibility.
The Protestant Confessions agree with the Latin dogma, while on the much more vital
question of the papacy they agree with the Eastern church, though from a different point of view.
The church of England has introduced the double procession of the Spirit even into her litany.^569
It should be remembered, however, that this dogma was not a controverted question in the time of
the Reformation, and was received from the mediaeval church without investigation. Protestantism
is at perfect liberty to go back to the original form of the Nicene Creed if it should be found to be
more in accordance with the Scripture. But the main thing for Christians of all creeds is to produce
"the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
meekness, self-control."
Let us first glance at the external history of the controversy.
- The New Testament. The exegetical starting-point and foundation of the doctrine of the
procession of the Holy Spirit is the word of our Lord in the farewell address to his disciples: When
the Paraclete (the Advocate) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit
of truth, who proceedeth (or, goeth forth) from the Father, he shall bear witness of me."^570
(^569) "O God the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners." No
orthodox Greek or Russian Christian could join an Anglican in this prayer without treason to his church. It is to be understood,
however, that some of the leading divines of the church of England condemn the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed. Dr.
Neale (Introduction to the History of the Holy Eastern Church, vol. II. p. 1168) concludes that this insertion "in the inviolable
Creed was an act utterly unjustifiable, and throws on the Roman church the chief guilt in the horrible schism of 1054. It was
done in the teeth of the veto passed in the sixth session of the Council of Ephesus, in the fifth of Chalcedon, in the sixth collation
of the second of Constantinople, and in the seventh of the third of Constantinople. It was done against the express command of
a most holy Pope, himself a believer in the double Procession, who is now with God. No true union—experience has shown
it—can take place—between the churches till the Filioque be omitted from the Creed, even if a truly oecumenical Synod should
afterwards proclaim the truth of the doctrine." Bishop Pearson was of the same opinion as to the insertion, but approved of the
Latin doctrine. He says (in his Exposition of the Creed, Art. VIII): "Now although the addition of the words to the formal Creed
without the consent, and against the protestation of the Oriental Church, be not justifiable; yet that which was added, is nevertheless
certainly a 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 insertion, nor speak any other language than the Scriptures and their fathers
spake."
570
John 15:26:ο Παράκλητος...τὸ πνευ̑ματη̑ς ἀληθείας,ο παρα του̑ Πατρὸςἐκπορεύεται(Vulg.: procedit). The
verbἐκπορεύομαι(med. ), procedo, may in itself describe either proceeding from a source, or proceeding on a mission; but in
the former caseἐκ, out of, would be a more suitable preposition thanπαρά, from the side of. Hence the Nicene Creed and the
Greek fathers substituteἐκforπαράin stating their dogma. Theπαρά, however, does not exclude theἐκand the Father is in any
case the source of the Spirit. The question is only, whether he is the sole source, or jointly with the Son.