evidently intended the Constantinopolitan Creed, which Charles only knew with the interpolated clause, Filioque. This is the first indication that we have that the interpolation has spread from Spain. The Franks, we thus discover, were already using the creed with the Filioque clause, and since about this time the creed appears, also under the influence of Charles, to have been adopted in the liturgy of the Gallican Church, its use rapidly spread.1 Hadrian, in his reply to the capitular, contents himself with defending the doctrinal orthodoxy of the statements of Tarasius, but does not touch on the question of the clause in the creed. This was not enough for Charles, and we find the doctrine of the double procession strongly affirmed by the third of the Caroline books, and also by the Council of Frankfort (A.D. 794), at which Charles brought together bishops from Italy, Gaul, Aquitaine, and Britain. Two years later at Friuli (A.D. 796) "the interpolation of the creed was for the first time openly defended before a Synod of the Church." The Council, however, was merely a provincial one of the suffragans of Aquileia, by whom the doctrine and the interpolation of the creed was accepted without difficulty, and as yet, although the clause has been adopted by the whole Western Church except Rome, the Easterns have apparently not discovered the fact. It came out, however, early in the next century. In A.D. 809 Charles assembled a Council at Aachen, for the express purpose of considering the doctrine of the procession. This was rendered necessary by a dispute which had arisen at Jerusalem between the Greeks and a colony of Latin monks residing there. The former accused the latter of heresy, alleging among other matters, that they chanted the creed with Filioque. The Latin monks appealed to the Pope, Leo III., urging

1 See Walafrid Strabo, De rebus Eccles. ch. 21. Migne, vol. xcviii.

3 Swete, History, etc., p. 218.

in justification of their practice

(1) that the creed

as sung in the Emperor's chapel contained the clause in question; (2) that it was also contained in the fides Athanasii, as well as in books which they had received from the Emperor. The reply of the Pope to this appeal is lost, but there is still extant a profession of faith sent by him to the East, containing no allusion to the interpolation of the creed, but strongly asserting the doctrine of the double procession. Shortly after this the above mentioned Council was held at Aachen. At this, as might have been expected, the doctrine was steadily maintained by the Franks, and legates were appointed to confer with the Pope concerning the interpolation of the creed. To the doctrine as asserted by the Council Leo readily agreed. Indeed he denounced the wilful rejection of the belief of the Western Church on this subject as heresy. But when he came to discuss with the legates the interpolation of the creed he drew back, and steadily refused to admit the clause. The Roman Church had never received it, and he could not consent to it. The legates urged that if it was now cut out of the creed used in the mass, the doctrine would naturally be thought to be erroneous. With the words the truth itself would be lost. Leo admitted the danger, and in order to avoid it advised the discontinuance of the custom of chanting the creed in the mass. It was not so used at Rome; why should it be in Gaul? If its public use was thus dropped, then after a time the excision might be made without danger, and the correct text of the creed restored. Of this advice Charles appears to have taken no notice whatever. The use of the creed was certainly not discontinued by the Franks, nor was the excision of the clause made. But so resolute was the Pope to guard against the unauthorised addition in his own Church that "for the love which he bore to the orthodox faith, and

out of his care for its preservation" he caused two silver shields to be made, on which was engraved the creed in Latin and in Greek; and these were set up on either side of the confession in S. Peter's. This plan appears to have succeeded for a time, and "it has been thought that the interpolated symbol obtained no recognised footing at Rome until, exactly two hundred years after the death of Charlemagne, the Emperor Henry II. prevailed upon Benedict VIII. (A.D. 1014), to adopt the German use of chanting the symbol at the holy mysteries." It was, however, long before this that the controversy which led to the final schism between East and West had broken out, and among the subjects of dispute the interpolation of the creed occupied a prominent position, although by no means the only matter of controversy, nor indeed the real cause of the schism.

This brief sketch of the history will serve to show (1) how the doctrine of the double procession has always been held by the Latins, and (2) how the interpolated creed gradually made its way from Spain till it was accepted in every part of the Western Church. Into the history of the dispute between the East and West, which originated in the quarrels of Photius of Constantinople with Pope Nicholas the First, it is unnecessary to enter here. But something must be said, in conclusion, on the objections which have been raised in both ancient and modern times to the insertion of the additional phrase, "And the Son" in the creed.

(1) The principal objection raised by Photius (A.D. 850) was that it implied the existence of two sources (apxai) of divinity, and thus destroyed the unity of the Godhead.

To this it is replied that such an interpretation of the phrase has always been rejected by the Westerns, who have consistently maintained that it is intended to 1 Swete, p. 225.

express the very same doctrine taught by the formula "from the Father through the Son," which, as has been already shown, many Greeks have been willing to admit.

(2) A second objection sometimes raised is, that it is contrary to the seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), which, we are told, forbade any addition to be made to the creed in future.

An obvious answer to this is, that if the canon in question forbids the words "and the Son," it equally forbids "proceeding from the Father," because the only creed recognised at Ephesus was the original creed of Nicæa, which ended with the words "and in the Holy Ghost." Both parts of the following clause, " proceeding from the Father and the Son," are equally "additions" to this, and therefore both fall equally under the condemnation of the canon, if it was really intended to forbid any addition to be made to the creed. But a reference to the terms of the canon, and the circumstances under which it was drawn up, is enough to render this interpretation of it extremely questionable. The circumstances were these: A Nestorian Creed, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, had been pressed upon some Christians of the East, and Charisius, a presbyter of Philadelphia, who had refused to accept it, had been excommunicated in consequence. He now appealed to the Council against his excommunicators. The Nestorian Creed was produced and read before the assembled Fathers, as well as the original creed of Nicæa, after which the canon in question was passed. It runs as follows:—

"These things having been read [namely, the two creeds, the heretical Nestorian and the orthodox Nicene], the holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to bring forward or to write or to compose another creed beside that defined by the holy Fathers who were assembled at the city of Nicæn with the Holy Spirit

(ἑτέραν πίστιν . . . παρὰ τὴν ὁρισθεῖσαν κ.τ.λ). But those who shall dare to compose any other creed (étépav TíσTI), or to exhibit or to produce any such to those who wish to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatever, if they are bishops or clergy, shall be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clergy from their office (ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐπισκόπους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς καὶ τοὺς κληρικοὺς τοῦ κλήρου), but if they are of the laity, they shall be anathematised. In like manner if any, whether bishops or clergy, shall be discovered either holding or teaching the things contained in the exposition (éxéois) exhibited by the presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the only begotten Son of God, or the impious and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which have been put down, let them be subject to the sentence of this most holy and Ecumenical Synod; so that if it be a bishop who does so, he shall be removed from his bishopric and be deposed: and in like manner, if he belong to the clergy, he shall forfeit his clerical rank; but if he be a layman, he shall be anathematised, as has been before said."

From this two things are clear-first, that the canon simply refers to the private action on the part of individuals. It forbids any person to bring forward another creed. It was not intended to refer to any possible action of the Church in future, or to bind it for all time to make no addition to the terms of the creed. Indeed, secondly, it is clear that the object of the canon was simply to prohibit the substitution of a different, that is, a heretical creed for the Nicene. It was with a definite reference to the attempt to force a Nestorian Creed on some Christians that the canon was passed, and it may safely be said that the thought of forbidding any addition to be made to the Nicene Creed in future cannot possibly