2. It was said under Creed (vol. ii, p. 568) that this addition o^ filioque first appeared in the acts of a synod at Bragrt, in Spain, A.D, 412 (A.D. 411 ; Bingham, Orig. Eccl. x, 4, 16), but the records of that synod are now acknowledged, even hj the Latins, to be spurious (Hefele, C-oncilie7i/)cschichte, ii, 91). In 446, Turibius, bishop of Astorga, addressed a letter to Leo the Great complaining of the Priscillianist heresy in Spain. Leo ordered a council of all Spain, but the troubles of the time (the Goths controlling much of the country) made this impossible ; and two sj'uods were held, one in To- ledo, the other in Gallicia (A.D. 447 ; Mansi, vi, 491). At Toledo, nineteen bishops were present ; and here, and by these nineteen Spanish bishops, the words' fili- cqne were first used of the procession of the Holy Ghost in a creed (Hefele, Conciliengesvhichte, ii, 289). But the words were not added here to the Nicasno-Con- stantinopolitan Creed. This was first done at the third Council of Toledo (A.D. 589), held by order of king Reccaredus, on the occasion of his abjuring Arianism (Hefele, iii, 44). At this council, and by order of Reccaredus, an anathema was declared against all who should deny the procession from "the Son also" {filioque). It is doubtful, however, whether the rev-, erend fathers really knew what was the original form of the creed, as they issued a canon at the same time ordering the creed to be recited "according to the form of the Oriental churches." But the General Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681) paid no attention to this ol)scure Spanish innovation, and promulgated the creed in its original form, as also did the seventh General Council at Nica'a, A.D. 787. But the habit of usintr the creed with the fi.lioqi:e had now grown up in the "West, and was favored by Charlemagne. In 809 two "Western monks from the court of Charle- magne were at Mount Olivet, and there used this new
FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 559 FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY
Western form, for which they were accused of heresy by the Easterns. Cliarleniayne hated the East heart- ily, drew up a refutation of the Eastern doctrine, and summoned a council at Aix-la-Chapelle (f^09), which sanctioned the Jilioqiie, and sent deputies to Leo III to obtciin his contirmaticin of their decision. Leo refused to add the Ji/ioque to the creed, and even had the creed itself, in its original form, ent^raved on two silver shields (in Greek and Latin), which he hung up in St. Paul's Cliurch as a testimony to his unwillingness to break his oatli of allegiance to the general councils b}' adding to the creed. At the same time, he gave his sanction to the doctrine of the filioque as scriptural and sound. In the latter part of the century the troubles with Photius (q. v.) renewed the controversy between East and West; and the Council of Constan- tinople (A.D. 879), which was attended by 380 bish- ops, anathematized all who add the jiUoque. No pope had as yet formally authorized tlie addition, and yet it was coming into general use in the AVest, under the authority, especially, of pope Nicholas I (Neale, Eastern Church, p. 1155 sq. ; jMansi, xv, 255). Final- Ij', Rome did add the filioque to the creed, but in no public or open waj' ; " no decretal, encyclical or synod- ical, announcing her adhesion. Tlie thing was done in a corner, and, but for a curious liturgical writer of the Western empire, who went to see his sovereign, Henry II, crowned at Rome, A.D. 1014, bj' pope Ben- edict VIII, nobody could have guessed when it occur- red. Berno therefore records what he witnessed with his own eyes and ears ; and being engaged himself in a work on the IMass, he would naturally be ver^' par- ticular in his inquiries when he came to Rome, of all places, how things were done there. Now his account is that 'up to that time the Romans,' that is, the Church of Rome generall}', ' had hi no wise chanted the creed after the gospel ; but that the lord emperor Henry would not desist till, with the approval of all, he had persuaded the apostolic lord Benedict to let it be chanted at high mass.' TIius Reccard inaugura- ted the addition, Charlemagne patronized it, and Hen- ry II got it adopted b}' the popes themselves. When this had been done, the pontilical oath was changed. Later popes, of course, shrank from imprecating a judgment upon themselves, according to the terms of their oath, in case the}'^ failed to keep the decrees of the general councils enumerated in it, ' usqt/e ad unum ojyicem,^ when tliej' felt they had notoriously failed to do so by the creed. That clause was accordingly struck out. For the last 1000 jears the Roman com- munion has been committed to the use of a creed which is not that of the Church, but of the Crown ! I do not say, therefore, to the use of a creed which is hete- rodox. On the theological question involved in it I •would wish to spealv with becoming reverence; but thus much is certain, that the addition which forms its distinguishing feature was made and had been in use many centuries before any pope judged it allowable, much less necessary ; many centuries before theolo- gians in the West had agreed among themselves whether the terms 'mission' and 'procession' were distinguishable. Doubtless it has since found able defenders ; but among them there are scarce two who give the same account of it, historically or doctrinally, and some of them are neither consistent with each other nor with themselves. Others, in arguing for it against the Easterns, have grievously misstated facts, and numberless passages have been adduced in sup- port of it from the fathers, either wholly spurious or interpolated. I know of no parallel to it in this re- spect in any religious controversy before or since. If the Athanasian Creed was not expressly coined for this controversy, it was employed in this controversy first as a polemical weapon" (Ffoulkes, Letter to Arch- bishop Manninr/, London, 1868).