3. For the theological question involved, see Hoi.y Ghost, Procession. Suffice it here to say, that while the Latins are inexcusable, according to their own canon law, for their addition of the JiHoque to the creed, thev arc still correct as to the doctrine. Their deeper anthropological investigations naturally developed the doctrine of the mission of the Hoh' Ghost hj' the Son. Palmer (^Dissertations on Suhjects relating to the Euslern Communion^ Lond. 1853, 8v6, p. 103 gq.) gives the fol- lowing summary of the controversy: "I. That when the expression of the Holy Ghost proceeding 'also from the Son' was first noticed and objected against by the Greeks, the Latins explained it awaj' or dissembled it, instead of opcilly insisting on it as truth. Again, IL That when, at length, tliej' had all received it them- selves, the Latins attempted to force it into the creed, and to impose it on the Church at large by overbear- ing violence, not by an CECumenical council. Again, III. That in seeking to impose it upon the Easterns, the Latins generally have rested it upon manifestl}' false grounds, as upon tlie ground of unbroken and ex- plicit tradition. Again, IV. That a vast multitude of passages, formerly alleged by the Latins, both from Greelv and Latin fathers, have been proved cither to be interpolations altogether, or to have been corrupt- ed. Lastly, V. That some of the texts most insisted on by the Latins at tlie Council of Florence, and shown afterwards, IvZoernikaff, to have been corrupted, have, since Za'rnik .ff wrote, been surrendered, even by Lat- in editors ; so that tlie Greek cause, as respects the critical examination of passages, lias gained materially in strength since the Council of Florence. But to re- ject a doctrine not revealed in Scripture, nor handed (Inwn by unbroken tradition from the beginning, but ' Jug out' or developed by a part of the Church in later ages, and violently thrust upon the rest on false grounds, can never I)e heresj'. If, indeed, it were con- fessed to be a novelty and a development, and suffi- ciently shown to be, notwithstanding, a legitimate and necessary development, there might be a greater re- sponsibility in rejecting it. On the other side, ver3' many of the Greeks assert, not only that the Latin doc- trine is false in itself, but also that it is a heres}-, and that the Latins arc heretics for maintaining it. But against tliis view it is fair to object, I. That those he- retical consequences which seem to flow from the asser- tion of tlie procession from the Son as well as from the Fatlier, and on account of which the doctnne it- self is said to be heresj', are clearly rejected and con- denincd as heresies l)y the Latins, no less than Ijy the Greeks ; which would reem to reduce the Latin error, if it be an error, to a mere misconception and misuse of words. 11. That all heresies spring from evil mo- tives ; but the motive which prompted the assertion of this doctrine is commonlj' admitted, oven by the Greeks, to have been good, namely, the desire to main- tain, against the Arians and other heretics, the co- equality of the Son with the Father. III. That the Greeks have repeatedly and all along offered to unite and communicate \vith the Latins, winking at all oth- er faults if only the form of the creed wore restored, which they could not have done if the doctrine of the procession from the Son had been held to be heresy in itself. IV. Tliat until not only some or many passages, but all those passages in St. Augustine and other Lat- in fathers which assert the procession from the Son, have been sliown to be corrupt or inte* pointed, or, in sense, to mean no more than they were stated to mean in the explanation given at Komc to Maximus the
martyr in the 7th century, the Latins, even if they be in error, cannot be called heretics for adhering to a doctrine seemingly taught and bequeathed to them by great saints, who are venerated as such by the Eastern Church, no less than by their ow'n. ' We conclude, then, that so long as the ^^ Filioque" is not interpolated into the creed without the consent of a council, the question of the doctrine in itself is still open and pend- ing; and that neither are the Greeks heretics if they deny it, nor the Latins if they assert it, so long as they both desire that the subject may be fairlj' and relig- iously decided bj' an oecumenical council.' "
Litei-ature. — Besides the works already mentioned, see J. G. Walch, Hist. Cant. Grac. Latirmrnmque (.Jen. 1751, 8vo); J. G. Voss, De Tiihus Siimholis, diss. iii. ; Neale, Eastern Church, Introdiict. ; "Waterland, Works (Oxford, 1843), iii, 201, 437 ; Pearson, On the Creed, art. viii ; Hagenbacli, History of Doctrines, § 169; Nc ander, Church History, Torrey's transl., iii, 224, 553 sq. ; Schaff, Hist, of the Christian Church, § 131; Gieseler, Church Hist. § 13, 41 ; Hist, of the Council of Florence, transl. by Popoff and J. M. Neale (Lond. ISGl, 12m(j) ; Neale, Voices from the East (London, 1859), p. GO sq. ; Harvey, Histoi-y of the Creeds, p. 452 sq. ; Hardwick, Middle Age, p. 61, n. 4 ; Browne, Exposition of the Ai-> ticks, p. 114 sq. ; Procter, On Common Prayer, p. 234 ; Hcurtley, Hurmonia Symholica, p. 121 ; Christian Re- membrancer, Juh', 1853, p. 69 sq. ; Ffoulkes, Christen- dom's Divisions, i. 59 sq. ; ii, 67, 551 sq. ; Westminster Rev. Jan. 18G8, p. Ill ; American Quarterly Church Re- vieu\ April, 1868, art. v. See Fi.orexce, Council of ; Greek Church; Holy Ghost; Procession.