was the source of evil? Much more, therefore, did justice require that, on account of what was not given to these, such things should not, in place of a reward, be taken away from others. How, in conclusion, can it have place that Wisdom, which surpasses all reason, should join those things which have proceeded from evil with its own good gifts, seeing that the fields and the yield of the fields were of an evil principle? A And it would extinguish love, and is made a partaker of the reward, which from the beginning it ought not to have possessed. Rather, indeed, regarding the things for which the reward of others also is given, not to those to whom it might be given, should it be taken away from others—this is what justice brings. But where does Wisdom, which surpasses all reason, have room to arrange together with her own beneficent gifts the things which belong to wickedness, if indeed the fields and the works in the fields were from evil? (57).
VARIÆ LECTIONES ET NOTÆ. (57) Δημιουργήματα. It seems that something is wanting here. For the discourse is abrupt, and it is likely that our Photius was about to bring the discourse to an end with some new mode of address to Arsenius. Moreover, in the manuscript itself, there was no note of a colophon attached, which is wont to appear elsewhere.
OF PHOTIUS THE PATRIARCH
A DISCOURSE ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
OF PHOTIUS THE PATRIARCH
BOOK ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
WHICH, ILLUSTRATED WITH VARIOUS NOTES AND SUBJECTED TO THEOLOGICAL CRITICISM, WAS FIRST EDITED BY J. HERGENRŒTHER, Doctor of Sacred Theology and Professor of the same at the University of Würzburg, P.O. Ratisbon, 1857. At the expense of G. Joseph Manz.J. HERGENROETHERI PRAEFATIO
I. Concerning Photius himself, there is nothing that I shall say for the present. For I intend to treat more fully of his life and writings in a larger work, which, God willing, I hope will see the light in a year or two. This much it suffices to have pointed out: that although Catholic men heartily detest the dire schism excited by him to the ruin of his own people, and the atrocities that preceded and accompanied it, they have nonetheless always greatly valued his marvelous erudition, of which the works—besides his most celebrated *Myriobiblion* or *Amphilochian Questions*—that have at last been made public for the most part by the Eminent Mai, a man of immortal memory, provide clear testimony. Hence, no one can doubt that both the dogmas of the Church and the annals of the Church herself can be excellently aided and illustrated by an accurate history of him. And yet, the history of the patriarch Photius was not long ago treated by the illustrious Jager in the French language B both elegantly and skillfully. I do not deny that this recent work, accommodated to the author’s scope, is endowed with a very sagacious use of the Photian epistles, an outstanding study of those times, quite acute judgment, an excellent art of narration, and other ornaments. But, beyond the fact that, in my opinion, the sources of Byzantine history, and especially those far older than Cedrenus, Zonaras, and Glycas, can be of even wider use, and that our own nation’s historiographers generally follow a stricter and more severe manner and method of writing—though it may shine with less grace—I do not have the same mind and the same judgment in all the questions that arise, nor is my scope (inasmuch as it extends further, but in those matters more especially...)
A) subject to the limits which that well-deserving author saw fit to prescribe for himself.
II. Now regarding the work of Photius which concerns us here, and which we exhibit as a kind of prelude to our larger work, the edition was compiled chiefly from three manuscripts—two of which are in Rome, while the third is in the Royal Munich Library—with several others called in for support, as far as it was possible. When I was first setting out to conduct an investigation into the as yet unpublished works of Photius, it was in Munich Greek Codex no. 27, a paper manuscript of the 15th or 16th century, that I happened to find the greater part of this work. For there, after the Acts of the councils celebrated at Constantinople in the years 869 and 879 concerning the case of Photius, at fol. 449 a, under the title: *Of Photius the Patriarch against the Latins*, there occur in the first place fourteen paragraphs distinguished with the beginning: *Who would at all endure those among Christians who perform...*, containing the very arguments concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, which are read in the second epistle of Photius edited at London in 1651, pp. 51–54, and indeed verbatim consonant with this edition. B But at fol. 450 a, without any external or clearer indication of a new work, unless it were that a new series of chapters follows immediately in the margin, one reads right after those fourteen arguments: *Of the same, concerning the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, and that just as the Son is declared by divine ordinance to be begotten of the Father alone, so also the Holy Spirit is declared to proceed from the same single cause; and he is said to be of the Son as consubstantial and as being sent through him. In many things, etc.* The text continues from fol. 450 a (line 2 from the bottom) up to fol. 462 b, the final page, and breaks off abruptly at a newly noted chapter C [34]. It is written quite well, and although it is not free from mistakes, and is occasionally disfigured by more serious errors, these are not so frequent as they are to be found in very many other manuscripts of those later centuries. But I realized at once that the famous work of Photius *On the Holy Spirit* existed here, even if not complete, such as it had already been described by learned men.
III. Among scholars, as far as I know, the first to make mention of this work was Leo Allatius, who calls it a truly most lucid treatise and occasionally intersperses certain things from it into his own writings. From Allatius, those who wrote more extensively on the history of the Greeks, whether ecclesiastical or literary, drew their information regarding this work of Photius. Cardinal Mai finally provided more ample details in our own century, when he published in print the as yet unpublished and most noble part of the *Amphilochian Questions* and at the same time reviewed several works of Photius that had hitherto lacked public light. Although, as that most learned cardinal says, other writings of Photius on the Holy Spirit exist, this book, however—lucid, varied, and prolix—has not yet seen the light, even though it exists in more than one Vatican codex and is found in other libraries besides. And in one of the Vatican codices, specifically 216, Allatius observed that this work is attributed to Metrophanes; in which codex I myself saw that books against the Manichaeans were also attributed to the same Metrophanes, bishop of Smyrna. But who does not recognize this inscription as false, when so many other codices refute it? For if the context of the work is considered, where mention is made of Pope John, no one will doubt that Photius is the author. Now, in order to exhibit a survey of the work, I shall use the Vatican Colonna codex, which D [remainder of note 10: "which they judge to reach to the 12th or 13th century"].
A Leo III, Benedict III, John VIII, Adrian III. (Nicholas I, Adrian II, and Marinus I, being hostile to him, he passes over with a perverse and utterly intolerable artifice. Indeed, of the former two, Allatius complains on p. 590 of *De Consensione* that they were accustomed to being passed over by the Photians.) Photius also touches upon that notorious history of the Roman shields, upon which the creed was inscribed (p. 312), regarding which one should at least read Allatius, *De Consensione*, pp. 580, 581, and against Hottinger, p. 418. After these, with a few added inferences, he brings the pamphlet to an end (18).
[Note: The remaining text in the column is from the Præfatio.]
Its antiquity and correction commend it. The title of the work is: *On the Holy and Life-giving Spirit* (15). "Photius, by the mercy of God, Bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, to the most holy and reverend Bishop Beda (16), greeting in the Lord. There are many proofs, etc." Photius immediately proposes seven and thirty sophisms for his error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, which sophisms we know have long since been refuted in the Greek Orthodox Church and by other theologians. Then, in the thirty-eighth chapter, Photius objects to himself the saying of Paul: *God sent the Spirit of his Son*, from which statement he argues up to the forty-third chapter. Then he produces B the words of the Latin Fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome—which are repugnant to his opinion, against whose authority, so that he might not acquiesce, he uses a ridiculous and pernicious argument: namely, that other ecclesiastical Fathers also sometimes spoke with little accuracy on other matters. Among these he places Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Methodius, Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Pierius, Pamphilus, Theognostus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Basil: as if, by this method of discourse, we could with impunity resist the authority of almost all the Fathers. Moreover, that not only those three Latin Fathers, but many Greeks, favor the orthodox opinion is established on other grounds, just as a great number of them are collected in the Vatican codices 606 (p. 240 seq.) and 1115 (p. 46 seq.). Then, from page 304 of the codex, Photius begins to list the Roman Pontiffs who spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit without the addition of the *Filioque* (which argument Allatius, *De Consensione*, p. 583, refutes sufficiently with this one response: that they did not say "from the Father alone," but "from the Father," and indeed they spoke thus securely before this controversy was born). These pontiffs according to Photius are: Damasus, Celestine, Leo the Great, Vigilius, Agatho, Gregory the Great, Zacharias, C
IV. This brief synopsis, though not in every way accurate (for it is not to be believed that the most eminent man, occupied with other and weightier cares, devoted much time to the reading of this work), nevertheless sufficiently describes our work and determines its subject matter. From these and from various fragments of Photius which I had collected from the allegations of Allatius and others, and which for the most part perfectly matched the Munich text, I became more certainly convinced that in this codex is exhibited that very book of Photius which could easily have lain hidden for a long time, not only because what is read in the beginning from folio 449 for almost three pages had already been published in print (which however I do not know how many noticed), while the following parts, marked by no red ink and no clearer distinction of writing, were thought to pertain to the same writing since the title of a new work escaped the eyes of those looking at it; but rather for the reason that the false information of bibliographers, as I think, led into an obvious error concerning an entirely different tract of Photius. For the book that they (19) list as Photius's *Against the Latins on the Holy Spirit*, whose beginning is: "Who at all would tolerate those walking among Christians introducing two causes in the Holy Trinity," with which very words, as we have said (§ 2), Photius's argumentation on the same matter in *Epistle 2* (London edition) begins, can scarcely be considered a separate tract of the same patriarch, but is part of this encyclopedia. D
A it; mistakes by the copyist were likewise corrected therein, in which there were certain things that completely obscured the sense; that scribe of the fifteenth century, as it appears, or the beginning of the sixteenth, had omitted about three entire lines. The Vatican text, however, commended itself to such a degree that we judged we should depart from it only in very few places. To this text, therefore, which was generally adopted, variant readings—both those found in the Munich and Palatine codices, and those found elsewhere—were appended; the punctuation was established according to convenience, and the usage of writing customary today has been regularly observed, abandoned in only a few instances for the sake of greater clarity or convenience, or for other sufficiently obvious reasons (24). We have fashioned a new division of chapters, retaining the chapters of the Vatican codex in brackets, and designating them with Greek numerals (25). In that long discussion regarding Galatians 4:6, just as in the following one concerning the Latin Fathers, the Vatican codex had again distinguished paragraphs with new letters; these were likewise preserved in this edition.
VI. Yet it was a matter of the greatest annoyance that we were not permitted at least to consult, through the work of others, the Colonna codex employed by A. Maio. For the Cardinal had not indicated its number, and the reports sent back to me from the index of the Colonna codices—to which I had anxiously applied by letter twice and thrice—completely took away the hope that it would be sent over anytime soon. Having therefore laid aside this hope, the book was committed to the press, nor did I judge that I should delay any longer, especially since other cares were distracting me from this book, which is nevertheless entirely worthy to be offered to the learned. But when the text of Photius was already under the press—indeed, for the most part, already printed—word was finally brought that the codex praised by Maio had been found in the Colonna codex 38 (formerly 34), a parchment manuscript in quarto, elegantly written, which displays the pages signed by the hand of Maio himself—according to which he had cited the words of Photius—in this treatise; and B that it exists there in its entirety from page 271 to page 317, just as it is in the Vatican and Palatine. Those experts who have inspected this codex judge it to be assigned to the thirteenth century (26). This event, which had occurred beyond all expectation, at once caused both grief and
A joy: grief, because this codex was discovered so late, but joy, because it was discovered at all. Straightway, although I feared to burden with further trouble that excellent man whom alone I could then ask—one who was closely bound to me by the ties of a common fatherland and a pure friendship, and who was already sufficiently exhausted by my importunate requests—yet I decided that the more important variant readings of this book should be collected, by which I judged it not undeservedly possible for certain things to be corrected and illustrated; and therefore, desire overcoming fear, I asked my friend without any delay to provide me with this service. Nor was it in vain: he soon agreed, out of his extraordinary goodwill toward me; thus, as far as time and circumstances permitted, it was possible to make use of this fourth codex B not without fruit. Furthermore, the Colonna codex, as Mai had already observed, provides a most emended exemplar; it concurs entirely with our Munich codex in many places, and more often, where we had to choose between various readings, it confirms the reading we adopted, while in other places, and those fewer, it disagrees with us. I would certainly have embraced more of its readings if they had been available to me before. But while I lacked them, perhaps led by excessive anxiety, I considered it a matter of conscience not to change the text, as it was then explored, without a very grave reason; and it did not seem to me a sufficiently grave reason that the diction was sometimes less elegant and even that there was a neglect of certain grammatical laws—things which could easily have occurred in an author of later Greek, one who, though most erudite, was nevertheless not greatly devoted to the elegance and purity of style, but indeed rather negligent in writing, and who himself indicates (Pref. to Amphiloch. Quæst., ed. Scott, p. 3) that he utterly rejected "adorning arguments with polished speech." But now, for some C Munich readings, as well as Palatine ones, new strength is added from the Colonna; certain tougher phrases and words are softened, and sometimes Photios' meaning is revealed more clearly. But these things affect only a few places in the book. Now, however, the one thing we were still able to do—which we were about to perform for the absolute and final edition of the work—is that we have prefixed a catalogue of variant readings (27), besides those which had already been described from Mai, and those which are referred to at the end of the book, and which, as soon as we received them, we have added to the text itself, taking care that all were restored to their place.
VII. Now we must render an account of those things which were added in the notes to the book of Photios. In the first place, we have diligently noted the various parts of it, sometimes shorter, sometimes longer, which were cited in other authors; next, we have also subjoined many things which seemed appropriate for illustrating the words and thoughts of Photios, D especially, however, things which he himself argued elsewhere to the same effect, and which later theologians of the Greek schismatics took from this book. For although this dissertation of Photios contains almost nothing new or unsaid elsewhere, he nevertheless seemed to corroborate and fortify his conviction concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit with a dialectical dexterity and an exuberance of exposition, such as our work shows, in such a way that it holds a place of distinction among all the Photian opuscula of the same kind. Wherefore, I do not believe it will be ungrateful to the reader that I have attempted to place before his eyes in the notes those things which are found to be consonant in other such books of Photios, in what manner that crafty father of the schism elsewhere unfolded the same arguments, and with what forms, according to the fertility of his genius, he invested them.
A Furthermore, there serve for such a comparison: 1) that famous encyclical of his to the prelates of the East, of which we have already made mention (§§ 2, 4) and which, at least in part, is prefixed to our work in other codices (as in the cited Munich and Ottoboni codices), while in others it is appended, whence also our book is inscribed *Logos a'* (cited Vatican, Allatius, see Hottinger, p. 196); then 2) the other epistle to the bishop of Aquileia, published in Latin by Baronius (ad a. 883) and in Greek by Combefis and Anthimos of Rhamnous; and finally 3) that short booklet which Euthymios Zigabenos inserted into the 13th title of his *Panoplia* under the name of Photios. The Greek edition of this *Panoplia*, published in Wallachia in 1710, which alone exhibits this title against the Latins in Greek, I finally inspected at Vienna after a long and fruitless search, and I compared it with certain manuscripts of the Imperial Library. I observed, first of all, that Allatius did not suspect the authenticity of this booklet without reason, and that if it is truly by Photios, it must be considered at least interpolated, for by no means can this jejune and meager writing be compared with the work *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*. I thought it right to append the text of this very short treatise to my edition, both because it is not easily found and because the reader will want to form his own judgment about it. Concerning this booklet, I think the following should be premised. The first part (ch. 1–8), which can more easily be vindicated for our patriarch, is read in almost the same way in J. Beccus, who in the 13th century took it upon himself to refute this booklet inscribed with Photios's name (Orat. de un. Eccl. Gr. orthod. II, p. 154–179), and in Euthymios (op. cit. tit. 13) and in the Vienna codex Theol. Gr. 40, where it is likewise ascribed to Photios. However, with regard to the second part (from chapter 9 of our edition), the cited Vienna codex differs entirely from Euthymios's text; yet the latter part agrees excellently with the allegations of Beccus, and is read in the same way in the Munich codex Gr. 66. In the other synopsis of the arguments of Photios made by Nikolas of Methone. But if in this text of Euthymios there is speech of the younger Sergio, the patriarch who flourished after Photios, then that text of the Imperial codex could be attributed to a later addition. Indeed, the text of the aforementioned codex, with which another from the same library, Gr. philos. 258 (Lambecius 43), agrees, is also present in Euthymios (with a brief paragraph excepted) joined to the same booklet of Photios, but as if taken from an entirely different author; and there at the end (p. 120) there is mention of Emperor Alexios disputing with the bishop of Milan (12th century). Certainly, as it stands, neither text reaches the times of Photios, nor is it without reason that one would call the whole booklet—which usually appears in manuscripts separated from the works of Photios, and elsewhere, even regarding the first part, appears under the name of Nikolas of Methone—an epitome and synopsis elaborated perhaps by the same Nikolas from the disputations of Photios. Nor would it be permissible to believe that Walchius and Fabricius would have defended the authenticity of the booklet against Allatius if they had read through the book *On the Holy Spirit* now published for the first time, the synopsis and epitome of which is seen in this Euthymian booklet. However, I would not fully disagree if someone considered this booklet, as we publish it again distinguished into 13 chapters according to Euthymios (p. 113–117), to have been enriched by a man of a later age with that paragraph which deals with Sergios, rather than being entirely misattributed to the famous patriarch. For the following can suggest that it should be attributed to Photios: 1) the authority of Beccus and Euthymios; then 2) the diligence of Photios in varying and polishing his work in this matter, and his habit of presenting the same things sometimes more briefly and sometimes more explicitly; then 3) the inscription of very many codices, against which those that bear the name of Nikolas of Methone can hardly prevail, especially since things that are manifestly by Photios are in some manuscripts ascribed to this Nikolas; and I am not unaware that other reasons support these. But it is not my purpose at present to settle these matters. That I have held this booklet in much lower regard than the book *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit* will be revealed to every reader by even the briefest collation.
D VIII. We have added, moreover, in the notes, as much as space and the goal set for us allowed, the more important things which later followers of Photios seem to have drawn from our book, so that the weight and value of his theology in theirs may more easily be recognized.
A It is well established that these syllogisms of Photios, having been polished with wonderful art from the ninth century to the fifteenth, were expanded and repeated six hundred times under various forms; but most of all, the aforementioned Nicholas of Methone—whom many report to have lived in the eleventh century, but more recent scholars in the twelfth (37), and who also wrote other works at that time both on this controversy and on other matters (38)—pursued the same arguments, now more broadly, now more concisely, often retaining the very words of Photios. In the Munich Greek codex 66 of the sixteenth century, from folio 76 to 81, there is read a certain synopsis of the Photian arguments under the name of this Nicholas (39), which in thirty-five chapters contains most of what is drawn from the work *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*; we have placed in the notes many chapters of this kind, as they are suitable for illustrating Photios, whom this Nicholas follows so closely. B We could have added many other likewise unpublished items; however, it seemed wiser to abstain from these, lest the bulk grow beyond measure, especially considering the times and the small number of those who today truly favor studies of this kind. Hence, we also did not wish to add a Latin version, although we had already set our hand to it. For the learned men who will use this work, it is not needed; indeed, there are not lacking those who, in the current progress of philology, would hardly bear at all that Latin mediators should be added to the Greek writers; for others, this book is of no use. Furthermore, we have placed in the notes those versions of others which in any way can help to stabilize the reading and which do not lack their historical value; when, however, these do not fully satisfy, a double version should have been placed in various locations. Finally, to say nothing of those things which are repeated from the encyclical letter (c. 32-37) and which exist in Latin in Montagu, not only is the argument of the individual chapters briefly summarized, but also many things are reported in Latin in the added dissertation (40), concerning the plan and purpose of which we must now speak.
C IX. Lest we appear in any matter to be lacking in the duty of a Catholic theologian, and lest anyone charge us with the fault of editing a schismatic, or even a heretical work, and look upon it with an evil eye (41)—although, especially in this age of ours, the blunted weapons of the schismatics can be considered formidable by no one among theologians—we have appended an antirrhetic dissertation, or rather, animadversions for refuting the arguments of Photios, which provide an occasion for explaining the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit in almost its entirety, adjusted as much as we thought to be sufficient. But D so that we do not repeat for the hundredth time what has been said, to the annoyance of the readers, and indeed so that we may bring to this theological part whatever fruit of science we can, we decided that those things which have been answered and disputed at various times by the most noble theologians in repelling the objections of the Greeks should be collected, and the matter thus performed—with some hitherto unpublished works also being employed—so that the entire treatment of the history of dogmas might serve to some extent. We place before the eyes the kinds of weapons used in different epochs of the same controversy and explain more abundantly those principles which can be viewed as the fulcrums and foundations of the theory of the Greeks who followed Photios. Assuredly, we leave the more careful refutation of the sophisms of Photios to theologians who engage in these studies more subtly; we provide only those things which are closely relevant to our purpose, and these are for the most part obvious and plain. It would have been very pleasing to us if we could have appended a refutation of the same work written by a certain Greek, such as exists in a Laurentian codex of the best quality (42); but we were able to obtain knowledge of this codex only later from Bandini's Catalog, and we have not yet been able to go to Florence. If it is granted to me—and I was forced to defer this, being unable to bear the expenses of a longer journey until now—to visit some foreign libraries, especially those of Italy, [I hope to collect] not only more of Photios (some of whose other works I have already collected from Munich and Vienna codices).
A
To the previous discussion to be employed, but also [the works] of others, whose [writings] I am striving to investigate, [and] I hope to bring some unpublished minor works to the light of day. Meanwhile, no one will call into doubt the timeliness of the attached dissertation who notes that it is entirely appropriate, for the sake of those theologians who have used the book of Photios—such as Hugo Etherianus, J. Beccus, and L. Allatius—that their judgments and disputations concerning the same [book] be added, and that it be demonstrated clearly at the same time in what manner the strenuous defenders of the Catholic Church were accustomed to encounter and resist arguments and sophistries of this kind. Yet for us, a dissertation of this sort will be further useful, and this for a twofold reason. Firstly, it has been prefixed for this purpose, so that in our more complete study on Photios—where the role of the historian must be played rather than that of the defender of dogmas—we may not be forced to linger too long on this dogmatic question to the detriment of other inquiries; secondly, it will pave for us a more convenient path to some unpublished monuments of the Greek Church, some of which, by the progress of this contest over nearly ten centuries (43), will bring greater light and will form a not ignoble supplement to the "Orthodox Greece" of Allatius, which, if they are not totally disapproved by the learned, are to be published one day by our efforts, the labor we have undertaken being completed—to which [monuments], those things which have been discussed at present will be opportune under more than one heading.
X. We have set forth candidly both the plan and the scope of this little book, as well as its occasion, origin, and, as it were, its history. From this it will be clear what can and should be rightfully expected of it, what might be desired, why we have sometimes changed our opinion in establishing the readings, and why our edition could not attain that degree of perfection which we always had in our wishes, even though we frankly acknowledge the weakness of our powers and the common condition of human affairs, which B hardly ever allows the first fruits and *aparchas* (first-fruits) of studies of this kind to be immune from every blemish. And if, in spite of the praiseworthy zeal of the typesetter and the assiduous care of the editor—who is distracted by many other duties, far from the place of printing, and sometimes suffering from eye strain—errors have crept in that were not observed by us, I wish to likewise implore the indulgence of the learned reader. Any expert will grant this more easily, especially to one who had so many obstacles to overcome and who could not at one and the same time consult critical aids or examine for himself the better codices. Nor have lesser difficulties held back the greater study on Photios which I am preparing, which, due to the breadth of its conception, has overwhelmed me more than once with almost immense labor. I was forced to obtain from various places the necessary books, many of which were missing from the library of our university; yet in this matter the most learned man, Dr. A. Ruland, the supreme prefect of that same library, assisted me remarkably, and to him, as well as to the other most learned men who promoted my studies in Rome, Vienna, and Munich, I offer highest thanks, hoping to render them more fully in another place. Whether the matter has turned out not entirely unsuccessfully for me and how far my attempts have reached, the learned will judge; I, not being unmindful C of my own sufficiently meager powers, but devoted to my subject with love and ardor, and never moved by difficulties to desist from the tasks I have begun, cannot but ask for their pardon for those things that occur which are worthy of emendation, being always ready to receive their counsel, warnings, and judgments, [when] supported by appropriate reasons.
Würzburg, on Pentecost, the day before the Kalends of June, 1857.
(43) The thousandth year is numbered since Photius was first raised to the Byzantine cathedra (a. 857 according to the more common chronology), and in this very year his principal writing for his dogma finally comes to light.
OF PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE: TREATISE ON THE SACRED MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
AND THAT JUST AS THE SON IS THEOLOGIZED TO BE BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER ALONE, SO ALSO THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THEOLOGIZED TO PROCEED FROM THAT SAME SOLE CAUSE; AND HE IS SAID TO BE OF THE SON AS BEING CONSUBSTANTIAL AND SENT THROUGH HIM.
1. A In many and voluminous books are scattered arguments B by which the pride of those who struggle with great contention to hold the truth in unrighteousness is suppressed. Since, however, your magnificent and God-loving zeal has requested that these arguments be gathered into a synopsis and compendium, with Divine Providence favoring us, the execution of this matter will be accomplished, not unworthy of your love for God and your desire.
2. C There is, therefore, against them a sharp and inescapable weapon, and before all others, the voice of the Lord, which strikes down and exterminates every beast and every fox like lightning. What is this? The voice which says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. From the Father... D For, first of all, it keeps the Lord's voice, flashing forth more brightly than any brilliance, [the declaration] that the Spirit [proceeds] from the Father. For that which, above all, ought to be corrected as an absurdity is this: whereas Christ theologistically says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and has thus instructed us from whom and how the Spirit has His being, these innovators, these "theologians," do, by this addition of theirs, audaciously and most assuredly erase the theology of the One God and our only Teacher. For if the Spirit also proceeded from the Son, what prevented Him from saying: "Who proceeds from the Father and from Me"? But now, that which the evangelist of the poor did not say, they add of their own accord; it is manifest that they are not following behind Him, even though they think they are taking up the cross while remaining fixed upon the bare letter.
A The Son himself, by his sacred institution, teaches that the Spirit proceeds; and yet you still seek another teacher to imbue you, or rather to infect you, with impiety, and you invent the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? If you demand that the dogmas of the common Savior, Creator, and Lawgiver should yield to your insanity, and if you have not shrunk from conceiving such a desire, what, I ask, would one need to assume to most powerfully refute and tear down your impious attempt? If you despise the Dominical laws, who that thinks piously will not detest your opinion? But what else could raise you up from your fall? What other method of healing could cure your mortal wound? A wound not inflicted by the Savior’s word, but caused and augmented by a spontaneous sickness, which, through stubbornness, strives to turn the medicine of the Dominical teaching into deadly poison. B Indeed, when he who desired to cross over to the side of the enemies has brought upon himself the sword that is favorable to us but hostile to them, therefore, although you are already struck down by the two-edged sword of the Spirit, we nonetheless demonstrate our love and ready spirit for the common Lord, and we will not leave you outside our care, ignoring the wounds that are inflicted upon you by the reasonings of our sacred theology that arms and unites us in battle.
3. For if C both the Son and the Spirit proceed from one cause, the Father—even if the one proceeds and the other is begotten—and if, again, the Son is the producer of the Spirit, as this blasphemy cries out, how can the logic of consistency do otherwise than force us to agree that the Spirit also is a producer (or productivum) of the Son? For since they are equally
both products of the one Cause, if one fulfills for the other the role of a cause, does not the preservation of the immutable order demand that the other, in turn, repay an equal favor by becoming a cause for the first? B
[7] 4. Furthermore, if the Son does not depart from the ineffable simplicity of the Father, but the Spirit is referred to a twofold cause and subsists from a double procession, how will composition not follow? And how will the Spirit—who is equal in honor—not be blasphemed for having less than the Son? C [8] How will the simplicity of the Trinity (O tongue bold in impiety!) retain its dignity, which is by no means adulterated?
5. Who, I ask, of our holy and glorious Fathers has said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? What synod, supported by universal confessions, has preached that the Spirit of the Son proceeds from the Son? What ecumenical council, supported by confessions D of faith, has done so? Rather, which of the priests and renowned Fathers of ours has initiated this mystery, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?
5. If, because the Father and the Son are one, they are certainly one in nature, for that reason it must be granted that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father (for this is what the innovation of the Latin dogma demands); then it would necessarily have to be granted that the Son, just as He is begotten of the Father, must also be begotten of the Spirit, because the Father and the Spirit also are one in nature. If not, the Spirit is in danger of not being one in nature with the Father and the Son, and Macedonius again speaks with audacity. Furthermore, if because of the equality of honor between the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father, then of necessity it must be confessed that the Son, because of the equality of honor between the Father and the Spirit, is begotten of the Spirit just as He is of the Father; and thus the blasphemy will shift from the Spirit onto the Son. If this is not done, the Spirit is clearly blasphemed by falling away from divine honor; for as He has been brought forth from the Father with equal honor to the Son, if one fulfills for the other the need for existence, the other must repay the equal favor, so that both are preserved as equal in honor. But if He does not repay it, where is the preservation of order? And if He cannot, He is weak; if He does not wish to, He is envious. Alas! The good Spirit, the upright, the sovereign, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son!
A supported and distinguished by testimonies? Or rather, what gathering of priests and high priests, divinely summoned, did not condemn this opinion even before it came to light, through the inspiration of the most Holy Spirit? For, initiated in accordance with the Lord’s own mystical instruction, they themselves also proclaimed with clear and loud voice that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and those who did not think so, as despisers of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, they cast under anathema; since, from ancient times, foreseeing with prophetic eyes this newly born impiety, they condemned it, along with the manifold apostasy of former heresies, by writing, by word, and by conviction.
The second of the holy and ecumenical seven synods immediately dogmatized that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; the third followed, the fourth confirmed it, the fifth gave its concurrence, the sixth proclaimed it in unison, and the seventh sealed it with brilliant struggles. In each of them, one can clearly see piety speaking out freely, and the Spirit confessed as proceeding from the Father, and not from the Son B. But you, what impious flock taught you to think otherwise? Who among those who establish laws contrary to the Lord led you to fall into such godless opinions?
A 6. But from this also, their impiety and their autonomy in fighting against God can be detected. For if all things [(54)] which are common according to an indifferent, indivisible, simple, and singular community—if all things that belong to these are of the Spirit and the Father, [(55)] these must also belong to the Son; and likewise, [(56)] whatever is contemplated in the Spirit and the Son must also be acknowledged as subsisting in the Father. Moreover, one cannot deprive the Spirit of any of those things [(58)] which belong to the Son and the Father. [(59)] Consider for me: kingdom, goodness, [(60)] the supersubstantial nature of the Essence, the power beyond thought, the eternal, the incorporeal, and the thousands of associated terms through which the super-divine Theology of the Godhead has been handed down [(61)] to the faithful from of old. If these things are considered in this way—and there is no one among Christians who would dare to oppose them—yet, according to this heretical audacity, if the procession of the Spirit were common to the Father and the Son, then the Spirit himself (what could be more daring toward impiety?) would have to be divided regarding his own procession; and he would be in part that which produces, and in part that which is produced; and in part the cause, and in part the caused; and a vast array of other blasphemies would follow. B
7. But the Spirit indeed proceeds from the Son. For what reason? Only, it seems, so that he may receive something which he did not have while proceeding from the Father? But if it is possible to admit and affirm that the Spirit has received something more from this, how was he not imperfect [(65)] without that assumption? Or was he perhaps only perfect after he had received it? C If he has received nothing, then what is the reason (the necessity) for a procession that is capable of providing nothing at all? [(66)]
[alt-version omitted]
A 8. But consider this too with the balanced scales of a judge: If the Son is born of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Son, what other relation could be conceived through which the Spirit might preserve for Himself the prerogative of producing another person, and might not degenerate from the dignity of equality and consubstantiality?
9. Consider this point as well. If the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, proceeds also from the Son, what reason will prevent—must we not necessarily fall (O mind drunk with sheer impiety!)—the most constant firmness of the properties from collapsing, and the Father (may He be propitious to us and turn this blasphemy back upon the heads of those for whose sake we speak these things!) from being left a mere name? For that property by which He is distinguished having been made common, and the two divine hypostases having been contracted and confused (coalescing) into one person, Sabellius will rise up once more for us, or rather some other monster, a semi-Sabellian.
10. For neither does the generation concerning the Son, which is now understood and proposed to avoid the absurdity, make that blasphemy any more tolerable, which rises up against the paternal property, I mean... B C D
that which signifies the cause of the procession, A when this itself, according to the fables of the impious, is poured back into the property of the Son and mingled with it; for it is again a cutting and a partition and a division of what is indivisible. For if the Father gives one of His own idioms and departs from the property by which He is distinguished through that very idiom, while He preserves another inviolate, how will they not concede that a part of it is considered in the idiom, while a part is divided along with the innovation of the idiom? But indeed it strikes one with horror that we have endured to bring their blasphemy even to this point.
11. Beyond what has been said, if two causes are observed in the princely and super-substantial Trinity, where will the much-sung and God-befitting power of the monarchy be? B How will the godless dogma of polytheism and, following that, atheism not now make its triumphal entry? How will the superstition of Greek error not, under the guise of Christianity, be introduced by those who dare to assert these things?
12. Again, if two causes have ascended to the monarchical Trinity, how will not a third also emerge, proceeding from the same opinion? For once the unoriginate and super-princely principle has been pushed from its own seat by the impious and cast down into a duality, the division of the principle will proceed with easier boldness even to a trinity; C since, even in the super-natural and indivisible and single nature of the Godhead, the triadic rather than the dyadic shines forth, as it is indeed suited and adapted to the idioms.
13. Are these things, then, tolerable to the ears of Christians? Do not the impious, by their audacity, force to come together upon themselves anger and weeping—affections which, for the most part, are mutually exclusive? Anger, because they have conceived such arrogance and madness; weeping, however, D [by those who understand that the property of proceeding belongs to the Spirit, as the signifier of His hypostatic or personal existence; if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the One would be from the Two, and the Two would be the source of the One. For the Holy Spirit is one, just as the Father is one and the Son is one; but Father and Son are not one, but two, even if they are one in nature; for "another" and "another" is not "another thing" and "another thing." And since the reasons of all existing things proceed in God and are distributed from Him into all existing things, why then every unit perceived in existing things would be from a duality, and the duality would be the principle of the unit, which is absurd.]
A to which they are carried headlong unto irrecoverable destruction; for piety, even while it is angry, does not cast aside (does not lay down) compassion for its neighbor.
14. Moreover, it is not difficult, even by the things presently to be said, to perceive the magnitude of the impiety. For if, after the unoriginate and paternal principle and cause, the Son is again established as a principle and cause of a consubstantial person, how shall anyone escape asserting two principles in the Trinity, of which the one lacks a principle and is founded and established in this lack of a principle, while the other is indeed originated, and at once recurs to a principle, and is produced together with the difference of the relations? B
15. But if the Father is the cause of those from Him, not by the account of nature, but by the account of person, and yet no one has hitherto, however unscrupulous and impious he may be, dared to assert that the person of the Son is contained and included in the account of the paternal person (not even Sabellius himself, who excogitated the monstrous fiction of the Son-Fatherhood), then certainly the Son can in no wise be the cause of anything in the Trinity. C
16. Nor should this be passed over: that that impious doctrine divides the very person of the Father into two, or at least decrees and ordains that the person of the Son is assumed into a part of the paternal hypostasis. For if, as has been said, the Father is the cause of those who proceed from Him, not by the account of nature but by the account of hypostasis, and if the Son is also the cause of the Spirit, as that sacrilegious opinion cries out, we are necessarily compelled to affirm either that the Son, together with the Father, is a participant in the paternal hypostasis, from which he would have that which makes him a cause, or that the Son completes the person of the Father, which, therefore, prior to this completion, was indigent and deficient, and thus admit- D
VARIÆ LECTIONES ET NOTÆ: [index: entries preserved]
A ten the trembling mystery of the Trinity into a duality.
[17.] And there would be another great multitude of tares springing up from the wicked seed sown from the beginning; which, it seems, the enemy of the human race, coming upon them, sowed in their miserable souls, not when men were sleeping, but when those madmen were keeping vigil with a death of the soul, seeking how they might corrupt that seed which is from above, noble and saving. For indeed, whatever is properly (in itself) the B property of someone, if it is taken as being actually transferred from him to some two others, and is truly affirmed of one but not of the other, it shows that the two things proposed are of a different nature. For instance, the property of being risible, which is in itself proper to man, if it were considered as being transferred—to take an example—to the leader of Israel, Josue, but in no way fitting for the Angel, the prince of the host of the Lord who appeared to him, it clearly shows that the leader of the people is by no means to be considered of the same substance or nature as the Archangel. And in all other matters, whoever proceeds by the same method will clearly and without difficulty find the same truth advancing. But if this holds everywhere and is considered in the same way, and if the procession of the Spirit from the Father proclaims C a paternal property, but this—as heresy boasts—is fitting for the Son, yet in no way for the Spirit (for no one has yet conceived this blasphemy in their mind), then the authors of such evils gather upon their own heads what follows from this. For if the procession of the Spirit is not a paternal property...
[VARIÆ LECTIONES ET NOTÆ: entries preserved]
then they must say—those who are bold enough to say anything—how that which is the property of none of the three, nor yet A common to them, can have any place at all to be contemplated in any one of the Godhead’s hypostases.
18. B Affine to the things already said is this too: If the property of the Father is transferred into the property of the Son, then certainly the property of the Son must also be transferred into the property of the Father. For when impious garrulity has once opened the way by which it desires the essential characteristics of the hypostases to pass over into one another and be interchanged, the Father himself—O depth of impiety!—will undergo generation, since the Son is generated; for these most audacious men, as it seems, ought not to have left even such an impiety as this unattempted.
19. C But speaking generally concerning all things that are strictly properties, since if any of these things is verified as being participated in by some hypostasis, having been derived from that which first claimed it as its own, even if it does not entail the dignity of reciprocal conversion with it, nevertheless we see that that which provides for another to participate in the property is reduced to the definition of nature. If, therefore, that which was from the beginning known as the property of the Father, this boldness of theirs asserts is also present in the Son, let them see, even against their will, to what end their impiety finally leads. For it would be a consequence, for these lovers of deceit who have once raved against the properties of the Father, that the very hypostasis itself should be resolved entirely into nature, so that the rationale of the Cause is totally removed from the divine hypostases.
20. D Indeed, they say, but the Savior said when instructing his disciples: "The Spirit will take from what is mine and will announce it to you." And who would you escape, seeing that you have taken refuge in this voice of the Savior, not as though...
you might find an advocate, but in order to insult A even the Master himself, the ever-flowing fountain of truth, with dissonance? For so shameless is your tongue in venturing anything, and in fabricating and devising handles where there are none. If this very Creator and Provider of the human race now teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, in no wise adding that [he proceeds] also from himself, but commands that he [the Father] alone be believed and proclaimed as the cause, just as of his own generation, so also of the procession of the Spirit—and if, as you maintain, because he says: *He will take of mine* B, he has suppressed the former instruction and doctrine in deep silence; although, when entering upon a second initiation, it was necessary to recall the former and to join together doctrines so far removed from one another in their theoretical contemplation; yet he, while dutybound to do this, does not do it; but instead of saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he transfers the procession of the Spirit into himself: how is it not clearly proven that you are iniquitously accusing the substantial and unalterable truth of dissonance?
21. Since your C rashness, which contends even for impossibilities, has prevented you from knowing even the things of children, you ought at least now, if not before, to understand that nothing stands so clearly against your madness as this very voice of the Lord and Savior. For if he had said: "He will take of mine," not even so would the object of your striving reach its end; yet the error would have had some pretext. For "to take from someone for the sake of some other use" and "to proceed into being by substantial procession" do not coincide in thought; they are very far from it. Since the Savior, D foreseeing the magnitude of such impiety, did not utter such a voice, so that the wickedness of the Evil One might not devour many through you, how, instead of accusing the Master
A for the sake of obtaining pardon, do you not flee to His benevolence or open the ears of your heart to His teaching?
22. The Savior said, not, *He shall receive from me*, but, *He shall receive of mine*. For He who came to teach all to agree and harmonize with the truth knew that it was B even more important to preserve the harmony for Himself unimpaired. *He shall receive of mine*: although it differs by a brief word, there is nevertheless a great and significant distinction between *of mine* and *from me*. For by saying *from me*, he brings forward the very person who uttered the voice; but by saying *of mine*, an entirely different person is understood from the one who speaks. And what other person could this be, from whom the Spirit receives, if not the Father? For those who fight against God do not fabricate any other thing; for it is neither from another Son, nor indeed from the Spirit who receives. Do you see how you are not even acquainted with those things that are common to children? For even children who have just begun to attend C the grammar school know that by this voice, *from me*, he who uttered the passage of speech is included, but by *of mine* another person is significantly indicated—one who is indeed united by the bonds of affinity to the one who uttered the voice, but is altogether distinct in hypostasis; to this person the thoughts of the hearers are led without danger of error and securely guided. Wherefore your subterfuge, provided that you prefer to think piously rather than impiously, might be for you a refuge of repentance, and not at all an occasion for fighting against God.
A 23. What then? Was it not necessary for you to learn these things, if nothing else, before you uttered blasphemy, things which even children know? And how did fear not seize you, even if you are an expert at concealing wickedness, from dancing so shamelessly and impudently upon the words of the Master and from bearing false witness against them? And since neither the sequence of the discourse nor the integrity of the thought permits these things, are you not ashamed to claim that they are the Lord’s? For Christ certainly did not utter the expression *from what is mine*; yet you, if not by voice, at least by the zeal with which you practice fraud, transforming the expression *from what is mine* into *from me*, and asserting that the Lord taught what seems to you is signified by that phrase, you simultaneously attribute three things to him through calumny: namely, that he said what he did not say, that he did not say what he did say, and that he teaches a thought which not only did he not signify by the voice, but it is clearly seen to be contrary to his own doctrine; and fourthly, you induce him to legislate things contrary to himself. In what way? He himself said: *He shall take of what is mine (de meo),* but not *from me (de me)*; yet you insist that he teaches exactly what the words *from me* seem to you to convey; so that you destroy what he actually said, and you force as having been said what he did not say. For you cry out that Christ delivered to his disciples the meaning of a voice which he did not utter and through it teaches what is known to have in no way been brought forth by his most pure lips. And while the Wisdom of God subsisting in itself B teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, you, however, having come to the task with every eagerness to refute him as if he were dissonant with himself, cry out that he teaches instead that the Spirit proceeds from himself, and that he has retreated from the earlier theology, and that by the second he has despised the former, and has not even preserved its strength for the latter. For if the theology of grace is once subverted by grace itself, it will nowhere be able to find firm ground.
24. But it is time to hear from the beginning both the sequence of the Lord’s words and the scope which those words import; for it is through them that the impudence of impiety is refuted much more effectively C and indeed with much greater power, for the sake of the truth which is manifested by them. D
A For after he said, [Jn 16:5] "I go away to the Father," he continues with his own words: [Jn 16:6] "But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. [Jn 16:7] But I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you." And a little later: [Jn 16:12] "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [Jn 16:13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will proclaim to you the things that are to come. [Jn 16:14-15] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and proclaim it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and proclaim it to you." Are these not sacred and divine oracles? Do they not clearly allow the mystery of piety to be understood? Do they not reveal the reason for which the Savior wished to say these things? Do they not preserve the doctrine delivered from the beginning uncorrupted? Do they not put to shame every calumny and cut off every pretense of impiety? For since he saw that the disciples had fallen into despondency, because he had declared to them while he was present that his separation according to the body was coming, and that he was going to the Father, seeing them B cast down in their thoughts into sadness, he therefore restored them and comforted them with the truth. First, he teaches them that it is to their advantage that he go away; then, explaining also how it is advantageous: "For if I do not go away," he says, "the Paraclete will not come to you." Such utterances, quite clearly, stir them up to be exalted to the greatness of the Spirit; just as also the statement, "You cannot bear them now." But when? "When the Spirit of truth comes; for he will guide you into all the truth." Once again, here, another wonderful prerogative of the Spirit emerges, which, when explained to the disciples, elevates their mind to an immense height, in which the dignity of the Spirit shone forth to them beyond measure, and elevated their C understanding to an ineffable height, in which the dignity of the Spirit shone forth to them beyond measure.
Chapter XXV
What then? It was likely for them, being brought to this point regarding the Spirit, to reason thus: "But you, while present, O Teacher, did not provide us with the strength to bear the burden of the mysteries. But the Paraclete, coming upon us, will make us better and stronger, so that we may bear the knowledge of them without burden. And you, indeed, have revealed to us the truth in part; but he, D into all the truth, will make us able to bear the knowledge of them without burden."A And since we still have need of wisdom, power, and truth while you teach us the mysteries, may he, being present, grant to us the abundant enjoyment of all things. If, therefore, you, who are substantial wisdom and truth, teach these things, it is surely not fitting for us to hesitate to attribute to the Spirit, from our side, even greater honor and glory B.
26. Since, therefore, the Savior initiates the disciples into these lofty things concerning the Spirit, at once removing their despondency and at the same time handing down the true doctrine concerning the Spirit, yet it was human for the minds of the disciples to be agitated by thoughts not altogether pure (for the soul, when seized by grief, easily obscures the power of judgment with mist and can distort what is salutary into what is harmful); for this reason, lest they should suppose the Spirit to be greater than the Son, inasmuch as He provides greater things, and lest any thought should arise in them that harms their consubstantiality and tears asunder their equality into inequality, He, as the best physician of both bodies and souls, prepares a saving remedy.
27. But if such thoughts did not hold, stir, or disturb the apostles (for perhaps it is more holy to confess that that sacred band was not subject to such confusion and disturbance), yet the inventor and artificer of malice, most expert in clothing the good with the appearance of evil, could have made many the prey of his own fraud and could have sown a heretical opinion in the souls of men. C Confounding and dissipating this [attempt] along with the very fraud and the artificer of the fraud, the Savior, very sharply and divinely, adds that "He shall not speak from himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak." For He had also said previously concerning Himself, "All things whatsoever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you." As if He were to say: "Both of us have from the Father [the power] to teach and to illuminate your minds." And therefore, because, as He proceeded, He said concerning His Father, "I have glorified you on earth; but the Father also glorifies the Son; D for I have both glorified it, He said, and will glorify it again"; but now the Son also glorifies the Spirit through the aforementioned lofty and divine utterances; for this reason, shortly after, He adds: "He shall glorify me," everywhere preserving inviolate the consubstantiality, the identity of nature, and the equality of dignity. And if anyone should say: "It is common to the supersubstantial and su-
super-glorified A Trinity to be glorified by one another in an ineffable way." The Son glorifies the Father, but the Father also glorifies the Son, and the Spirit glorifies Him; for from thence the wealth of gifts flows to Him. But the Spirit also glorifies the Father, since He searches—or rather, He knows—the depths of God, and reveals them to those who have made themselves ready to receive the light of divine knowledge, insofar as it is graspable by human nature. And as has been said, the Son now glorifies the Spirit, and the Spirit the Son; and just as the kingdom, the power, and the might are common to them, so too is the glory, and not only that which is offered by us, but also that which they receive from one another. B
28. "He shall glorify me": that is, not because I have conferred glory upon the Paraclete do I therefore declare Him greater than myself, nor, conversely, because I said "He shall glorify me" do I set myself before Him in honor. "He shall glorify me," that is: in as much as you understand His height, you are able to contemplate my glory through Him. For just as I have taught you what I heard from the Father, so too shall He receive of mine and enlighten you. Equally flows the perennial fountain of our gifts, equally eternal is the procession from the Father, equal is the consubstantiality and the identity of nature; all things indicate the equality of honor and rank, and from every side the notion of a greater and a lesser is driven away. C
29. Then, having said that "he shall receive," He clearly declares for what purpose he shall receive; for He does not say this so that He may proceed, nor so that He may subsist (attend to the Dominical words, O man!), but why shall He receive? Why? "That He may announce to you the things to come." For having asserted this beforehand, He seals it again, saying: "He shall receive of mine, and shall announce it to you." And since He is explaining more clearly what is meant by the words, "He shall receive of mine," He immediately adds: "All things that the Father has are mine." Wherefore the Spirit, in receiving of mine, also receives of my Father. And He does not limit the explanation of His meaning merely to this, but even more precisely...
revealing and confirming that, he says: *Propterea dixi quia de meo accipiet*, A because my things are in the Father, but the Spirit receives from the Father; for what belongs to the Father is mine; so that he seems almost to cry out: "When I say *de meo* (from my own), you ought to turn and direct your thoughts to my Father, and not to another. For I have left you no pretext that I have not cut away, lest you be swept away in your imaginations toward some other thing, especially since I have already told you beforehand that all things that the Father has are mine."
30. What could be brighter than these immaculate utterances? And what could be presented more clearly, to show that those words, *He will take of mine*, refer us to the Person of the Father, and that the Spirit is heralded as receiving from the Father B the operation of gifts—as from the Cause—those gifts with which He will strengthen the disciples to bear the knowledge of things to come with a constant and firm mind, and to stand as spectators and contemplators of mysterious and hidden things without any difficulty, and indeed even as workers and performers of supernatural wonders? Is not, therefore, every pretext for thinking impiously cut away from you on every side? Will you still dare to devise slanders and lies against the truth, or weave deceits against your own salvation?
31. I, for my part, shall not henceforth C cease from my care: if you are incurable, I shall rebuke and correct you and strike you even as you lie on the ground; but if you can be healed, I shall offer you medicine from the very chalice of truth, both soothing to your pain and purging of your disease. For if (o by what name is one to address you?) the procession of the Spirit from the Father is perfect—and perfect because it is perfect God from perfect God—what then could this procession from the Son have contributed? For if it did contribute something, it will also be necessary to show what it contributed; but if, apart from the divine hypostasis of the Spirit, nothing else can be conceived or D thought of
why do you choose to insult the Son with this falsehood, and the Spirit, and, along with them and indeed before them, the Father? B
32. Further, if in that from which the Spirit proceeds from the Father, His property is recognized, and likewise in that from which the Son is begotten, the property of the Son is recognized; but if, according to their nonsense, the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then the Spirit is distinguished from the Father by more properties than the Son. For the procession from the Father—even if one proceeds by generation and the other by procession—equally distinguishes each of them from the paternal hypostasis; however, the Spirit is also distinguished by a second difference, which the duality of the procession causes in Him. If then the Spirit is distinguished from the Father by more differences than the Son, the Son would be closer to the paternal essence than the Spirit, and with twofold properties distinguishing the Spirit, through the other of these, the Spirit would be shown to be inferior to the Son in the equality of His consubstantial affinity with the Father, and thus the madness of Macedonius would again emerge against the Spirit, itself being even worse than that man's impiety.
33. Moreover, if it belongs to the Spirit alone to be referred to different principles, C how does it not necessarily follow that it belongs to the Spirit alone to be referred to a multiple-principled principle?
34. Furthermore, if in those points where the most brazen ones have innovated a communion between the Father and the Son, they exclude the Spirit from these; and since the Father is joined to the Son in communion according to essence, but not according to any of the properties, therefore, they exclude the consubstantial Spirit from the paternal relationship according to essence.
A 35. Does the Spirit proceed from the Son? Is this processional origin the same as the paternal one, or is it contrary to it? For if it is the same, how are the properties—by which alone the Trinity is characterized as a trinity and is worshiped—not rendered common? But if it is contrary to the paternal one, how do Manes and Marcion not come forward again to us, along with this sacrilegious word, once more spreading their impious chatter against the Father and the Son?
36. Furthermore, if everything that is not common to the omnipotent, consubstantial, and supernatural Trinity belongs to only one of the three persons, and the production B of the Spirit is not common to the three, then it is necessarily of only one of those three. Will they say, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? And how will they not then abjure the doctrine that is dear to them and new? But if from the Son, why did they not dare to vomit forth their whole poison from the very beginning, but rather pour it out little by little and bit by bit? For if they were confident in their impious dogma, they ought to have professed from the beginning not only that they were introducing an innovation regarding the Father and the Son, but also that they were walling off the Spirit from them; for [they believe that] the Father relates to the Son according to essence, but is not joined in communion according to any of the properties, and thus they limit the Spirit from the relationship according to essence.
A They teach that the Son is the producer of the Spirit, but they also exclude the Father from that production; and so, they ought also to have transposed and carried over the generation along with the production, declaring with monstrous futility that not the Son is generated from the Father, but the Father from the Son, so that they might not only obscure all the impious men of the ages, but also be found more insane than the madmen themselves.
37. Furthermore, if the Son is generated from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, why is it denied to the Spirit that something else also proceeds from Him? So that from this impious opinion, it is gathered that there are not three, but four hypostases, or rather an infinite number, while the fourth would again produce another, and that one another, until they surpassed the Greek multitude of gods.
B 38. But that argument can also be turned against them. What, then, is this? If He has received from the Father all things that belong to the Son, then surely He also received from Him the fact of being the cause of the Spirit’s procession. Whence, then, this partial favor, through which the Son is indeed seen to be the cause of the Spirit's procession, while the Spirit—although He has equal honor and has proceeded from the same substance in an equal rank and with equal dignity—is deprived of equal rights?
C 39. Again, the Father is Cause, and the Son is also Cause. Whom, therefore, will these arbiters of things that should not be dared declare to be the Cause? For if the Father, how is the honor claimed for the Son by them not adscititious, spurious, and insulting, especially when the Father already has the strength, inasmuch as He possesses the more powerful parts? But if the Son, alas, what a more grievous rashness!
For they did not think it would suffice for them to divide the paternal cause, as far as their impiety chose to sever it, and to share the paternal causality with the Son, unless they were also to subtract the greater part and, in place of the Father, introduce the Son as the cause to the Spirit.
40. What do you say? The Son received from the Father, having proceeded from Him through generation, and he also produces another related by nature? How then, given that the Son himself produces the Spirit—who is related by nature—did he not share, just as he himself had partaken, in the same power and honor, so that the latter might also, in turn, be glorified by the procession and subsistence of one related by nature? Yet it behooved the Son, if not for any other reason, at least in imitating the Father, to preserve that which is like through similar operations.
41. I, however, would not let this absurdity pass in silence. That the Father is greater than the Son, though not by nature (far from it! for the Trinity is consubstantial), but by reason of causality, the instruction of the divine voice allows, and the tradition of our holy Fathers derived from it. But that the Son is greater than the Spirit by reason of causality, we have neither heard in the divine oracles, nor have we discovered that any pious mind has until now conceived of such a thing. Yet the impious tongue makes the Son not only greater than the Spirit by reason of causality, but also closer to the Father.
42. Moreover: if the Son is the cause of the Spirit, how would a second cause not be found sprouting up in the supreme and transcendent C principle of the Trinity? And if the Father is greater because He is the cause, and the Son is greater than the Spirit by the same reasoning—where is this stated, how the Son is greater than the Spirit, unless by those who reject the Spirit further away than the Son from the Father? "If the Father is a greater cause than the Son, since the Son is also the cause of the Spirit, would not the Son also be greater than Him… Where have you found it said that the Son is greater than the Spirit?"
and natural to the principle of the Trinity, and caused by it, and not merely devised to the insult of the first principle, but also to the insult of Him in whose favor that honor is feigned? For since that causality provides no use at all, nay rather, cannot even find any pretext to provide one, how will it not appear rather to declare the Son insulted, and to do Him a more atrocious injury under the title of honor? For since the Spirit possesses His procession from the Father from eternity, full and lacking in no part, what other production or formation of substance will the cause fabricated by them be able to bestow?
43. B But how will the Spirit not be divided by them into two? One proceeding from the Father as from the true and primary cause (for He is uncaused), and another from the second and caused cause (for the Son acknowledges the Father as His own cause). And thus, the heresy does not only exhibit and bring forward for us a distinction and diversity in the Spirit through order, relation, and causality, but it even dares to drive the Divinity adored by us into a quaternity instead of a Trinity; nay, it omits no effort so that nothing in the most holy Trinity, the Creator of all things, may remain exempt from its insults.
44. C Verily, if the Son is the cause of the Spirit, and the Father is the cause of both, there will be found in the perfect and perfecting Trinity a certain cause removed from the perfection of its own primary cause, and rather an imperfect or semi-cause, or a composite one, receiving its composition from an imperfect and a perfect agent. And it is to be observed here that while the mythology of the ancients, in things subject to generation and corruption, formerly fashioned hippocentaurs in jest, the impiety of these men does not shudder to preach seriously in eternal and immutable things either a semi-cause or a cause fashioned out of a cause and a caused being; neither of which exempts itself from imperfection: D [The Monad is the cause of identity, but the Dyad of otherness; whence both the Son and the Holy Spirit, as being from one, the Father, possess the same essence among themselves and with the Father; but as being again two, they are distinct from each other and from the Father according to their hypostases, though not according to their nature; for it was not possible for these to be the same in nature and yet also distinct according to nature. If, therefore, the Spirit proceeds from one, that is, from the Father alone, it will be one and the same with itself; but if from two, that is, from the Father and the Son, it will be distinct from itself, as if that which is from the Father were one thing and that which is from the Son were another; for since the Father is one and the Son is another, the Spirit who is from the Father and the Son must also be one thing and another—which is absurd. ...the person according to the Son; which is referred to as being at once both cause and caused, being neither wholly cause nor wholly caused, but composed of imperfect elements on both sides.]
A For although each side may be seen as contending against the other (for such are the fruits of this impious sowing), they nevertheless both gather together into the same reproach of imperfection.
[46] 45. Furthermore, aside from what has been said, if the Spirit is eminently and properly one, just as the Father and the Son are purely and ineffably one, how would it not be both unlawful and absurd to ascribe to Him double causes?
46. For these and similar reasons, therefore, it is time that you finally come to a sense of your impiety and, abandoning the mother of many errors—superstition—you should agree with the sentiment of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. B Being initiated into the pure doctrine of piety, you should learn to believe with your whole heart and without any hesitation of mind that, while each person of the consubstantial and divine Trinity is united in an ineffable manner into the closest communion with the nature, yet according to the definition of his hypostasis C they preserve unchangeably the characteristics of their properties toward one another. For the distinction does not permit any opening for confusion to enter in among them—far from it! But just as the communion according to nature admits of no partition or division, so neither are the properties by which each of the three persons is distinguished ever mingled into any confusion. And just as, again, the Son is indeed begotten of the Father, yet remains preserving for Himself the dignity of sonship unalterable, so also the most holy Spirit proceeds indeed from the Father, but remains unchangeable, preserving for Himself the manner of His procession; and by what manner
He proceeds from the uncaused Father, He does not perform the generation or procession of another, nor does He innovate His own procession through some change; so too the Son, being generated from the uncaused Father, would not, either through generation or—it must be said—even through procession, sustain the imposition of any production of a consubstantial being, nor would He adulterate the prerogative of His sonship by the introduction of another relationship.
[48] 47. If you do not perceive this, I might justly accuse you of voluntary blindness. For if the Father produces the Spirit according to the principle of nature, and the Trinity is of the same nature, then, along with many other related absurdities, from what B ground would you have started to weave such an impious fable? For not only could you turn the Son into the producer of the Spirit, but you would also divide and partition the Spirit Himself, both into the generation of the Son and into His own production—passing over the other absurdities in silence, as they are better and more easily understood by prudent and pious seekers even without being put into words. And this would indeed be the case if one were to imagine that the Father produces the Spirit by the principle of nature, and not by the principle of His own hypostasis. But C since it is proclaimed in sacred oracles and most firmly believed by the pious that the Father, in that He is Father, produces the Spirit, the Son also, in that He is proclaimed as Son, will not alter the dignity of His sonship through the production of the Spirit, nor will He snatch away the causation of the Spirit from the Father and draw it to Himself, just as He does not do so with the causation of His own most tranquil and pure generation. For these matters do not at all pertain to nature, according to which communion is proclaimed, but to the properties of the hypostasis, through which we confess the distinction within the Trinity. D
A Well then, you say, how is it that you do not repudiate the herald of the Church, the teacher of the world, Paul? That heavenly man, who cried out with a great and truly heavenly voice: *God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father.* If, therefore, Paul, the standard of orthodox dogmas, says that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, how do those who do not accept this not repudiate him, the mystagogue of heavenly things? And who, I ask, is it that rejects Paul, the beholder of mysteries, with all his might? Is it he who strives to show that he contradicts his own teacher and common Master, or is it he who reveres and celebrates his accord and concord with him? For if the Master teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but heresy forces Paul to assert that he proceeds from the Son, who, I ask, is it that repudiates him? Or rather, who repudiates him but the one who accuses him of contradiction against the Master and contends that he incurs the unavoidable penalty of temerity? Do you see how you know how to strip the teacher of the whole world of the honor of a teacher, and how you do not pursue the one who leads us to piety with veneration and obedience, but sprinkle him with infamy and dishonor? But heresy does nothing here contrary to its custom. For since it slandered the very Son and Word of God, as if he sometimes fought against himself, how does it not act consistently with itself, while it brings forward both his own genuine servant and disciple as saying things contrary to him, and strives to show him to be the corrector of his own teacher? B C 49. But where, I ask, did Paul say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? That he is the Spirit of the Son (for he is not alien; far be it!—and both he said this, and the Church of God confesses and proclaims it) is indeed certain; but that he proceeds from the Son, neither has this come forth from his divine tongue, nor does anyone [else say so].
(for far be it from anyone even to harbor such slander), nor would anyone with ears endure to hear such a blasphemy.
50. A Paul said—he who, by the course of his divine preaching, revealed a greatness of the world smaller than his own zeal—"the Spirit of his Son." Why then do you not say this also, but act wickedly, turn everything upside down, and distort the preacher’s word? And, what is graver, you attribute your own distortion and blasphemy to the voice of the teacher.
51. B He said, "The Spirit of his Son." Well and wisely said. But why do you mangle the expression, and while you do not say what he said, you are not ashamed to proclaim as though he said it what he did not even conceive? "The Spirit of his Son." D For it could not be expressed otherwise or more aptly. For the Spirit is of the same nature and substance, and of the same glory, honor, and lordship as the Son. He, therefore, who says "the Spirit of his Son" teaches the perfect similarity [of the Spirit] to the nature [of the Son] without any difference, but does not anywhere [therein] introduce the cause of the procession. He acknowledges the unity of substance, but does not in any way proclaim the one who brought forth the hypostasis in a consubstantial manner, nor does he indicate a cause.
52. C What then? Is it not acknowledged by all that the Father is the Father of the Son? Does it follow from this that you will invert the generation for him? But if the Father is called the Father of the Son, not because he is begotten, but because he is consubstantial—and, if you wish, because he is also the Begetter—how is it that here, hearing "the Spirit of the Son," you, instead of calling him cause and bringer-forth, drag him down into the order of the one brought forth and caused? For if, by the similarity of terms, you were perhaps desiring to show yourself impious, you would be equally impious in calling the Spirit the producer of the Son, just as you do—vice versa—in saying the Son is the producer of the Spirit; unless it be that this error seemed to proceed by some appearance of truth and to be confirmed by an example. But now, your absurdity is revealed as impious, and your impiety contends and wrangles with your folly for the prize.
A 53. The Church, therefore, proclaims the Son to be of the Father, and the Father to be of the Son; for they are consubstantial. Yet, surely, just because the Son is theologically said to be begotten of the Father, and the Father is said to be of the Son, we must not for that reason, by reversing it, utter blasphemy. Thus, when we piously speak of the Spirit as being of the Father and of the Son, we introduce by these terms the consubstantiality with each one; yet we know that He is consubstantial with the Father because He proceeds from Him, and consubstantial with the Son, not because He proceeds from Him (far be it! for neither is the Son consubstantial with the Spirit by reason of generation), but because the procession of both from one and an undivided cause is eternal and in the same order.
54. The Spirit of His Son. Understand, good sir, and do not make the divinely wise and saving voice of the herald of truth a subject of fatal error B for yourself. Repentance is not a laborious task; it does not require a sharper mind to penetrate into more hidden mysteries. The phrase "The Spirit of His Son" signifies one thing, and the phrase "The Spirit proceeding from the Father" teaches another. And do not let the similarity of the cases drive you into an irreparable fall. For many words, which are brought forth with a similar form of expression, do not at all exhibit a similar meaning; and I could have listed many such words for you here, had not your rebelliousness changed my zeal into weariness.
55. But you, perhaps, might be led to speak, or rather, since you are enslaved to your own laws, you are under the necessity of not departing C from this absurdity. Since the Son is not only called by our theologians the splendor of the Father and Light from Light, but He Himself also said, "I am the light of the world," and since He is light consubstantial to Light, the Son is [text interrupted at PG 102, 332C].
A indeed Father, a snare woven for you by your own craftiness, opinion, and tongue, to finally impose upon you, if not the person himself, at least it would be just for you to pray and seek how you might escape the death of strangulation.
56. The divine Paul, who by the breadth of his evangelical preaching B confined the circuit of the whole world, said: "God sent the Spirit of His Son." While you declare what he said, we demand no penalty from you; but while you establish as preached by him what he did not say, we judge you guilty of punishment and impiety. That heavenly man said: "The Spirit of His Son"; but you, as if you had ascended higher than even the third heaven and had become a hearer of more ineffable words, reject his voice as imperfect and cast it out from your faith, yet "perfecting" what he left imperfect, instead of saying: "The Spirit of His Son," you assert (O supreme and intolerable audacity!) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And in this, C performing drama and blaspheming the One who is blasphemed, you take no shame in claiming the teacher and advocate for yourself. You have truly shown by what spirit you are moved and filled, in having vomited forth such great and such a quantity of the poison of impiety.
57. Do you wish me to set before you other sacred utterances, by which the evil device of your madness and folly is put to shame? The most holy Spirit is preached as Spirit of wisdom, Spirit of prudence, Spirit of knowledge, Spirit of love, Spirit of temperance, Spirit of adoption of sons. "For you did not receive," he says, "a spirit of slavery to fear," for He who extended the never-setting light of truth with the course of the sun, and encompassed the whole earth with its rays, but [gave] the Spirit of adoption of sons; and again: "For God did not give you a spirit of slavery, but a Spirit of wisdom and love and temperance." D And indeed He is also called the Spirit of faith and of promise.
A of mission, and of virtue, and of revelation, and also of counsel, and of fortitude, and of piety, and of mansuetude. "And if a man be overtaken in any transgression, you," he says, "who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of mansuetude." Paul, the fiery tongue of the Spirit. And indeed, He is also called the Spirit of perception; for the Scripture says: "Behold, I have called by name Beseleel; I have filled him with the Spirit of wisdom and of knowledge and of perception." Not only this, but He is also called the Spirit of humility, as the children who found refreshment in the fire sing: "But with a contrite mind and a Spirit of humility let us be accepted." But He is also called the Spirit of judgment and of burning, by which words the avenging and purifying power B of the Spirit is manifested. For Isaiah also cries out: "The Lord will cleanse them by a Spirit of judgment and by a Spirit of burning." But surely also the Spirit of fullness, which Jeremiah, most compassionate of the prophets, speaks of: "The way of the daughter of my people, not in a holy, nor in a pure Spirit of fullness," instead of saying: "It is not filled with a pure and holy Spirit." Why, therefore, do you with lifted brow affirm—by an impious reasoning—that the most holy Spirit proceeds from the gifts which He Himself bestows and gives, and that He derives His subsistence and His procession from them? Do not, therefore, let impiety with its flatteries entice you to weave fallacies against your own salvation. For that the Son and Word of God is called both Wisdom and Power and Truth in our sacred books, is most well known to everyone; but that the most holy Spirit C is called not only the Spirit of the Son, but also the Spirit of the gifts, the power of distributing which He possesses, is equally known to those who have the understanding and mind of Christ.
58. Your law, therefore, will bid you, or rather it will compel you, to assert that the Spirit proceeds not only from the Son, because He is called the Spirit of the Son, but also from the intelligence and from the distribution of other gifts and from the six hundred other divine operations and virtues of which the most holy Spirit is proclaimed and acknowledged to be the fountain and bestower, but especially from faith, revelation, promise, judgment, and intelligence, since it is not
permitted you, even if you were to desire it intensely, to act maliciously by applying these names to the Son A.
59. But if any one should think that in these passages "Spirit" is taken, not as the most holy Spirit Himself, who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, but as the gifts or charisms streaming from Him—because they have a reference to Him and He distributes them, and they have therefore assumed the name of Spirit—I could say much against this, but I shall not mention it at present. For why? Because, even if this were granted, their iniquitous attempt is nonetheless refuted; B for since those gifts are called gifts of the Spirit, and your new law commands us to proclaim that the Spirit proceeds from them, of whom He is also said to be the Spirit, they will no longer affirm that those gifts are produced by the Spirit, whose Spirit He is said to be; but, reversing these things, they will say that the gift proceeds and comes forth from intelligence, and from wisdom, and from all the other things mentioned above. So that it is not the Spirit who, through the spiritual gift, bestows intelligence, or wisdom, or power, or adoption, or C revelation, or faith, or piety, but rather, on the contrary, intelligence, revelation, piety, faith, and sobriety produce those gifts which it pleases you to call "spirits," and each of the others in the same way. Indeed, if you think that each several gift is to be called a spirit, then with the number of gifts you increase also the abundance of spirits, and thus for you there is no difference between saying "spirit" or "gift." Yet that from which the Spirit is said to be, from thence, according to your laws, He is set down to proceed and be produced. Therefore, will you divide each of the gifts or spirits into two, making many out of one, so that one may be the bestowing and the other the bestowed, the one producing and the other the produced—faith producing faith, and intelligence intelligence, and perception perception? And how much time must one waste in recounting your absurdities! D
A And against this, this heresy also gathers itself. The most holy Spirit distributes gifts to the worthy; but heresy, not content, as it appears, with this distribution, cuts these up, minces them, and divides them into more parts, so that it may have wherewith to compensate its own followers with yet more numerous and bountiful gifts; and thus the turbulence and confusion of their minds perverts and confounds the nature and order of things, and the first sowing of impiety begets countless heresies. But even if these things are sufficient to bend those who have not given themselves over entirely to impiety, and to refute those who wish to use impudence, and to call back those who love superstition from their error, nevertheless I will not leave the rest omitted. For of the sick, one is relieved or overcome by one treatment or malady, another by another, even if their own wickedness of will is incurable. B For one of the sick has one cure, another another; and one is freed from the disease, or else is voluntarily refuted, and for the baseness of his mind, undergoes what is incurable.
61 [§61] Wherefore, not even these things is it right to overlook. If the Son has been begotten from the Father, but the Spirit proceeds from the Son, how will their impiety—according to their own opinion—not relegate the Spirit to the condition of a grandson, and banish the trembling mystery of our theology into laughter and trifles?
62 [§62] But you might see from this also the excess of their impiety. If the Father is the proximate cause of the Spirit, just as He is also of the Son—for the generation and the procession exist alike immediately; for not through any medium is the Son begotten, and similarly, immediately does the Spirit also proceed—yet the delirium of the impious asserts that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son C by the same cause, namely...
A that the Father is the same cause, and that He must be pronounced to be both the remote and the immediate cause of the selfsame Spirit—a thing which cannot even be conceived in the case of a fluid and mutable nature.
63. Do you see the absurdity of this impiety? Look at this also from another direction: while it is in accordance with sacred theology, and not alien to the laws of incorporeal and supernatural substance, to profess that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds B at the same time, yet if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son at the same time—for "before" and "after" are alien to the eternal Trinity—how, I ask, will the difference of the divine causes not also constitute different hypostases and introduce a division into the simple, indivisible, and singular hypostasis of the Spirit? For it is easy to understand, and is declared by innumerable arguments, that from one and the same hypostasis there can proceed diverse operations and powers, especially in matters supernatural and surpassing our intellect. But a hypostasis C which is referred to diverse causes you will never find, without that very hypostasis, together with the difference of the causes, also differing from itself and being split asunder.
64. Furthermore, regarding what has already been said, if whatever indeed is in God, but is not seen in the unity and consubstantiality of the omnipotent Trinity, is clearly the property of one of the three persons, then the procession of the Spirit is not of that wondrous unity which is considered in the Trinity; therefore, it belongs to one alone of the three persons. One must also attend to the following reasoning. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, yet neither later nor earlier than when He Himself is begotten of the Father—for D these temporal adverbs are as far removed as possible from the supra-eternal Trinity—if, therefore, He proceeds from the Father at the same time as He proceeds from the Son, then the very thing which proceeds will be divided along with the hypostases of those projecting it, and the Spirit will be to them two instead of one: the one proceeding from the Father, the other from the Son. For there is nothing of this kind becoming new or different; indeed, not even in the case of those who have their existence through generation. For it is possible to denote differences according to hypostasis proceeding from one and the same hypostasis; but that one and the same thing according to hypostasis should proceed from diverse sources, and not be divided by the hypostases of those projecting it, neither generation knows, nor anything that is greater than generation. But if they say that to project the Spirit from Himself is not the property of the Father, then it will either not be the property of the Son either, or it will be common to the Father and the Son; but there is nothing in the consubstantial Trinity of the two that is common which is not also of the third. And if it is not the property of the Son, since it is not common either, let them gather the conclusion themselves.
eternal Deity are absent), at the same moment that the Son is generated by the Father, by that same token the Spirit must proceed from the Son. If therefore the Son comes forth through generation, and then produces the Spirit through procession, it would follow that he [the Spirit] is constituted and exists together with the Son—both He who produces and He who is produced (for this is the fruit of that impious insertion) A; while therefore the Son is being generated, it would follow at the same instant that the Spirit is also generated together with the Son and proceeds from the same; wherefore the Spirit would simultaneously exist as generated and proceeding: generated, because He would proceed together with the generated Son; and proceeding, because He would undergo a twofold procession. What else could be found more impious or more insane than these things?
B 65. You see to what a pit of error and perdition your sophistries and the abuse of holy testimonies have thrust you; you see that those words, *He shall take of mine*, and: *God hath sent* forth *the Spirit of his Son*, not only offer no defense for your blasphemous tongue, but rather they rebuke its temerity and summon down upon you an inevitable judgment and punishment. But how long must we linger over matters already fully and multifariously demonstrated, when we ought rather, if they bring forward anything else for their most wicked opinion, to scatter it?
66. They set Ambrose and Augustine and Jerome and some others against the dogma of the Church; for they say that they taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. But the holy Fathers, [they say], must not be subjected to the charge of impiety. C For either they spoke piously and rightly, and all those who acknowledge them as Fathers must be in agreement with their opinion; or they taught impious dogmas, and then those men also must be rejected together with their doctrine as impious. Who are these, indeed, who say such things? They are those, forsooth, who, puffed up by youthful arrogance and temerity, fear lest they perhaps leave any of their most grave crimes unfinished and void, as far as in them lies. For neither [do these youths fear the madness... fearing lest anything of their daring deeds might escape their boldness unaccomplished, so far as their own judgment goes].
m lies. For neither did it suffice for them to have distorted the Lord’s own voice, nor to have branded the herald of piety with the mark of impiety; but they deem their own study incomplete unless they also seek out those whom they celebrate as Fathers, through whom they may cast insults. But the simple word of truth also puts them to shame in this very thing: “See,” it says, “whither you are rushing, and how far you are thrusting your own destruction into the innermost penetralia of your soul.”
A 67. Who are they who truly hold these sacred men as Fathers, such as the love of apostasy—that ill-starred love—has forced us to bring forward as protectors of their impiety? Who more religiously preserve the rights of the Fathers for them? Are they those who do not allow them at all to contradict the common Lord, or those who compel them to produce a testimony opposed to the Lord’s own voice, and to overturn that admirable theology—through which we are taught to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father—by means of their own inventions? For how is it not manifest that the heresy, while in name indeed assigning the title of Father to the aforementioned men (for it does not begrudge them the bare [b]name, stripped of all honor), in fact and by the device it constructs, [c]drives them into the camp of the enemies of God and the destroyers of souls, unless perhaps those who are bold in all things believe that their Fathers are delighted and boast in such prerogatives?
B 68. Did Ambrose, or Augustine, or anyone else, affirm things contrary to the Lord’s voice? Who says this? If I do, then I am insulting your Fathers; but if you are the one asserting it, and I am the one forbidding it, then surely you are the one inflicting injury upon them, and I am calling you an insulter of the Fathers.
A But, he says, they have written these things, and it is contained in their writings that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. [γ'] And what of that? If, once taught, they did not alter their opinion, if, once defeated by just arguments, they did not turn back from their error, you bring forward your own work and your own uncorrectable mindset (this is yet another calumny against your own Fathers) and attribute it to their teaching. But if, as is the condition of human affairs, although they were otherwise adorned with every best virtue, they either fell into a certain ignorance or were carried away by an oversight, yet they did not oppose when taught nor did they stubbornly persist against one who admonished them, what is this to you? How, then, will you find in those who had nothing in common with your behavior a refuge to escape from inevitable punishment? For if those things that you possess in abundance they did not even slightly share in, but rather, being adorned with many other wonderful examples of virtue and piety, they expressed your impious dogma out of ignorance or oversight, why do you establish their human failing as a law for your own impious belief, and by this law of yours declare those who are found to have ordained nothing of the kind to be wicked law-breakers, and judge them guilty of extreme impiety under the mask of love and benevolence? The rewards of your labors are not good. B But behold the excess of impiety and the folly of a wicked mind. They summon the Lord to their defense; they have been caught as liars and slanderers. They called upon the Apostles as patrons; they have been convicted of slandering them in the same way. They fled again to the Fathers, and instead of honor, they pour upon them a great blasphemy.
69. [δ'] And they do indeed call them Fathers (for they do call them so), but not so that they might assign the merit due to the Fathers, but so that they might find the means by which they could become parricides. And they do not even shudder at the voice of the divine Paul, which they themselves turn with great malice against their own Fathers. For this very man, C who received the power to bind and to loose, and truly that power of binding is both fearful and mighty (for it extends even up to the Kingdom of Heaven itself)—this man, I say, cries out with a great and loud voice: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Paul, the sounding and never-silent trumpet of the Church, a man so great and of such stature, the herald of the...
A truth, sends those who dare to conceive and introduce any wisdom contrary to the Gospel unto anathema; and he subjects not only others, whoever might dare this, to insurmountable curses, but even himself, should he be seen to be guilty, he thrusts toward the same judgment. B And he does not limit the dread of his decree even to this, but he scrutinizes the heavens themselves, and if he should find an angel set by God over humans upon the earth, and if he should find him preaching any Gospel other than the evangelical proclamation, he subjects him to the same bonds and sends him to the devil. And you, calling upon the Fathers to the insult of the Dominical dogmas, to the insult of the proclamation of which the disciples were heralds, to the insult of all the ecumenical synods, and to the insult of the piety preached throughout the entire world, do you not shudder, nor tremble, nor are you terrified by these threats? But rather, unless you make your own Fathers partakers of this crime, you consider your life unlivable. And Paul does not stand in awe of even the incorporeal nature, nor does he care at all that angels, as pure minds, stand purely and immediately before the7 common Master—nothing of this does he make a reason for hesitation, but he drags them down to the same anathema as terrestrial beings. C And you, O you, calling Ambrose and Augustine and the others (alas, for such a ruinous honor!) Fathers, while arming them against the Dominical mystagogy, do you think that you are drawing down a lighter condemnation upon yourself or upon them? For you do not grant a good reward to your Fathers, nor do you pay back good wages of education to those who begat you. But truly, upon those blessed men, just as they partook of nothing of your sophistries nor of your disobedience and impiety, so too will your anathema have no room to pass; yet you, by means of those things through which you indeed think that your impiety is strengthened and proven, bring forth anathema upon them with clear works and with a voice crying out more loudly than any other. D [5] And I do not say this, that whatever you accuse them of is, in all respects, so obviously taught by them; but if it should have happened that they said something of this kind (for they were men, and human...
A fallibility is something from which no one who consists of clay and flowing matter can be perpetually exempt—indeed, sometimes even the best of men develop some traces of stains); but even so, if they should have happened to lapse into something indecorous or shameful, I should certainly have imitated the noble sons of Noah, and instead of garments, by silence and gratitude, I would have covered the paternal shame, rather than, as you do, following the example of Ham; nay, in fact, you proclaim the turpitude of those whom you call your "Fathers" much more bitterly and shamelessly than he did. For he underwent the curse, not because he revealed it, but because he did not cover it; you, however, both reveal it and glory in this audacity, and he indeed carried the secret to his brothers; you, however, do not carry it to brothers, nor to one or two, but, as far as your effort and impudence allow, you constitute the whole world almost as a theater and proclaim with a great clamor that your Fathers are foul with filth, and you revel in their turpitude, and you rejoice in their disgrace, and you seek companions through whom you might bring their dishonor and deformity into public light and solemnly celebrate it.
71. Augustine and Jerome said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And whence can faith be had or given, after so many years have elapsed, that their writings have not been corrupted through malice? For you ought not to think that you alone are fervent toward impiety and bold in doing the undoable; but rather, consider from this very disposition of soul that even then it was easy for the most crafty enemy of the human race to abound in such vessels. C
72. You say that they said these things. But if, on account of some pressing necessity, either opposing the madness of the pagans or refuting some other heretical opinion, or indulging the weakness of the hearers, or for some other reason of this kind, such as are wont to happen daily in human life—if, I say, on account of a cause of this sort, or even on account of several, such a voice happened to escape such men, how could you, concerning that which was not in them according to a dogmatic sense, D
A pronuntiarunt, pro dogmate ac lege sumens tibi quidem ipsi irreparabilem creas perniciem, illos vero in tuam abripere vesaniam contendis?
75. The herald of the inhabited world, the beholder of the ineffable, who ennobled human nature with qualities befitting himself, spoke to the Greeks, who were carried along by flowery speech; he opposed them and caused their arrogance, which was stretched upward, to incline downward—or rather, he stooped to their weakness—and what did he say? "Passing through and observing your objects of worship, I found also an altar on which was inscribed: 'To an Unknown God.' Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you." B What then? Those things by which the teacher of the Church snared the wise men of the Greeks, and led them by the hand and translated them from impiety to piety, these, I say, will you take as dogma and dare to maintain that Paul, the destroyer of idols, proclaimed the very one whom the error of the Gentiles worshipped and named an Unknown God? For your ingenuity in stitching together fallacious sophistries should not be a cause of wonder to us. That altar was erected to Pan; yet the city of the Athenians, not knowing the name of him who was being worshipped at that time, inscribed it: "To an Unknown God." C But since that excellent and heavenly man, from the oracles of the prophets and the words of Christ the Lord, saw that the Hellenic [mind] was not being persuaded, he calls them from those very god-hated objects of worship to the worship of the Creator; from the very programs of the devil he passes judgment upon his tyranny; from his fortifications he destroys the power of his dominion; from error he harvests piety; from destruction he brings forth for us the sprouts of salvation; from the snare of the devil he urges them onto the course of the Gospel; he makes the very height of apostasy the starting-line of the entry through which they might enter into the bridal chamber of Christ and his immaculate bedchamber, the Church. D Thus was that noble mind, through the weapons of the enemy, both energetic in wounding the enemy himself and in conquering him, and in bringing to himself strength from above. What then? Because Paul, with the weapons of the enemy, struck down the enemy, do you therefore honor the weapons of the enemy and call them divine weapons, and thrust them into your own slaughter? And how many other similar examples are there among him, who [arranged] all things?
in the wisdom and power of the Spirit, to be gathered!
74. But what need is there for examples? He himself says with a clear voice: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law to God, but under law toward Christ), that I might gain those who are without law." B Do you then, for this reason, revive Judaism, or do you legislate that lawlessness should prevail in life instead of divine and human laws, and clamor shamelessly—or rather, most impiously—that these are the commandments and the preaching proclaimed by Paul?
75. But how many others of our blessed and holy Fathers are there in whom you might find such things? Consider the Roman pontiff Clement, and those things which are named from him, the Clementines (not to mention, with the ancients, that those were written by the order of Peter, the prince of the apostles); Dionysius of Alexandria, who, while fervently arguing against Sabellius, almost held out C his hand to Arius; the great and among the blessed martyrs shining Methodius of Patara, who thought it not incredible that the disembodied and passionless nature of the angels had fallen into earthly love and the embrace of bodies. I shall omit Pantaenus and Clement, Pierius also, Pamphilus and Theognostus, holy men and teachers of holy instructions, whose propositions, although we do not accept them all entirely, yet, rendering to them the rewards of a noble life and of other doctrines, we pursue with great honor and commendation—especially Pamphilus and Pierius, as being also renowned in the struggles of martyrdom. With whom D
we also pass over the Western Fathers: Irenaeus, the priest of God who received the episcopate of the Lugdunenses, and Hippolytus, his disciple and a martyr among the high priests, men who were indeed admirable in many things, yet who at times deflected from the most exact norm of truth.
76. Will you then also, against all these, bring forward your dilemma C and, lifting your eyebrows, say: "Either one must honor these men and not reject what was written by them, or, if we reject some of their words, must we reject the men themselves at the same time?" And how could they not turn your clever argument back upon you much more justly, saying: "O man, why do you join things that cannot be joined? If you truly call us Fathers, how do you not shudder to take up arms against Fathers—and, what is most grievous, against the common Lord and Creator of all? But if you have once resolved to use wantonness against us, how are you not clearly insane, while you call us Fathers at the same time as you stretch out parricidal hands against us?" And through how many other ways might your sophism brought against us be turned against you! But, just as we have done with the aforementioned Fathers, so let us for the present leave these matters aside.
77. Furthermore, who does not know that the royal robe D of the great Basil—who in the chambers of his soul preserved piety pure and undefiled—nonetheless kept silent about the divinity of the Spirit? O soul surging with divine love, yet not breathing its flame out into the open, lest it be extinguished too quickly in its very beginning and by the very brilliance of its freedom! Therefore, he, disposing his words with judgment and carefully contriving so that the truth, instilled little by little and by degrees, might be more firmly established in hearts (for when it has been instilled softly into the souls of men, a stronger flame of dogma is kindled; whereas, by the speed and sudden onset of illumination, the mental eye, especially that of the simpler folk, is often accustomed to be dimmed, just as lightning obscures the eyes, and especially those of the weaker sort). For this reason, he keeps silent about that which he desired most ardently to preach above all others; yet he maintained his silence, so that in time
he might be able to proclaim A with a more powerful voice what he had kept silent. Indeed, one could compile a voluminous book if someone were willing to commit to writing the names of such persons and the reasons why they often did not bring forward the flower of the truth, so that the flower itself might bloom more gracefully, and the shoot might grow stronger, and they might gather a more abundant fruit. But we admire and commend them, both for the heavenly inspiration by which they were guided and for their wise and prudent counsel in managing matters; if, however, someone should attempt to introduce these things into the Church as laws and dogmas, we would certainly consider him an enemy of the saints and an enemy of the truth and a destroyer of piety, and we would condemn him with the punishments which he has brought upon himself by his guilt in such matters.
78. B You bring forward the Fathers from the West, or rather, you strive to pour this deep gloom over the entire universe. But I will kindle for you a light of piety, one not subject to the setting sun and spiritual, from the very West itself, before whose splendor your gloom will not be able but to vanish. "Ambrose said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son." It is from your own mouth that this fog proceeds. But the thrice-blessed Damasus, shining forth the rays of the right faith, speaks in opposition, and your darkness quickly vanishes. For he, confirming the second synod, whose dogmas the furthest ends of the earth revere, clearly professes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. "Ambrose or Augustine said..." Another fog, then, pours forth from your mouth. But C Celestine did not say it, did not hear it, did not accept it; but rather, shining with the light of the right faith, he dissipates the fog of your words.
VARIOUS READINGS AND NOTES
He deals with those three Fathers in the same way. There are, however, those who, in a completely futile attempt, adduce Augustine and Jerome for the Photian position, among whom is Andronicus Camater (in his *Epistulae*, ch. 149, apud Beccum, *Gr. orth.* 1, pp. 516, 517), who brings forward from the former the words of the *Enchiridion ad Laurentium*, ch. 9, and from the latter an "Exposition of the Creed to Damasus," falsely ascribed to him (Opp. Hier. XI, 146, ed. Vallars.), where the Spirit is simply said to proceed from the Father. Nor D could Theophanes Procopowicz, in the work cited, ch. 4, p. 118, produce more valid weapons from the Western doctors. [It notes the authority which the Roman pontiffs, whom he now tries to cite as witnesses to his own pleasure, have; opposing Damasus and Celestine especially to Ambrose and Augustine.] ... [on the] most blessed Damasus, who confirmed the second synod, whose decrees the entire world obeys. — Maius relates, *preface* to t. I of *Vett. scr.*, ed. Rom., in the same plain way from the columnar codex. ... [n. 11], he says: Cyril filled the chair and the presidency at the Ephesine synod, and he who confirmed that same third synod.
A 79. But what need is there for me to dwell upon other matters? Leo the Great, who showed the sacred cares of Rome to be even more sacred, the pillar of the fourth synod, through his God-inspired and dogmatic epistles, and through those who filled his office, and through the harmony by which he graced that great and God-summoned assembly, illuminates the same effulgence of orthodoxy not only to the whole West, but, shining even upon the borders of the East, he teaches clearly that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And not only this, but he also declares those who stand up to dogmatize anything other than the mind of the synod to be stripped of their priesthood, if they hold the rank of the priesthood; and if they fill the place of laymen, whether they have entered into the solitary life or are engaged in public affairs, he condemns them to anathema. For indeed, what the God-inspired synod decrees, this divine Leo openly seals through the holy men Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, so that it is possible to hear them ten thousand times—and not them alone, but also him who sent them. For indeed, in sending his synodical epistles, he testifies and maintains that both the words and the mind and the votes of his representatives are not theirs, but rather strictly his own B. And yet, even if nothing of this were present, it would be sufficient for those who sat with the synod to confess that they remain in what was decided upon, now that the synod has reached its end.
80. But there is nothing like hearing the sacred words themselves; for after the exposition of the faith which the C God-inspired synod decreed, this divine Leo openly signs it—as may be heard a hundred times over—through the holy men Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, not indeed from them alone, but from him who sent them. D For in sending his synodical epistles, he testifies and confirms that the speeches, the mind, and the votes of those who held his place were not theirs, but were his own. Although, even if nothing of that kind were present, it is sufficient that he sent them to sit in his stead at the synod, and that, once the synod had reached its end, he professed to acquiesce in its established decrees.
81. Verily it is better to hear the sacred words themselves; for he says after the exposition of the faith...
which the first and second synod established and transmitted: It was sufficient, then, for the full knowledge and A confirmation of piety, this wise and saving symbol of divine grace. He says "full," not "deficient," nor needing addition or subtraction. And how "full"? Pay attention to what follows. For he says that it instructs perfectly concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And how does it instruct perfectly? It proclaims that the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. And after a few words: And for the sake of those who fought against the Holy Spirit, it confirms the statement transmitted long ago by the hundred and fifty Fathers who gathered in the royal city concerning the essence of the Holy Spirit. And how did they establish the essence of the Holy Spirit? By saying plainly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Wherefore, he who teaches anything else besides this abrogates, confuses, and perverts—insofar as his own audacity is concerned—the very essence of the Spirit itself. Then, weigh these words: "For the sake of those who fought against the Holy Spirit." And who were these? Of old, those who made Macedonius their teacher instead of the Holy Scriptures; but now, those who instead of Christ and His sacred instruction—but I have no one to name, so headless is their impiety—who, I say, instead of the Savior, have run toward perdition. B And these things the holy synod proclaims with a many-tongued voice moved by the Spirit, and Leo the all-wise joins with them and confirms it with all his votes. But you, fix your mind on what follows; for towards the end of the whole passage of the discourse he says: These things, therefore, having been formulated by us with all and every exact care and diligence, the holy and oecumenical synod (whose president, of course, was Leo, having obtained a truly royal soul and discourse) has defined. What has it defined? That it is not permitted for anyone to set forth or write or compose or hold or teach others another faith; but as for those who dare to compose another faith, or to set it forth or to teach or to deliver another symbol to those wishing to be converted to the acknowledgement of the truth, whether from paganism or from Judaism or from any heresy whatsoever, these, if they be bishops or clerics, are to be alien from the epis- C
but if they be monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized. A 81. Look, you blind, and hear, you deaf, whom the darkness of the heretical West holds sitting in its midst; fix your gaze upon the light of the Church, which shines forever, and contemplate the valiant Leo, or rather the trumpet of the Spirit—hear what he proclaims against you through him, and tremble, if you do not reverence any other, at least reverence your own Father, or rather, through him, reverence the others also, who, by acquiescing in the preceding synods, are enrolled in the choir of the distinguished Fathers. You name as Fathers Augustine and Jerome and others like them; and you do well, not because of the purpose for which you allege them, but because you do not turn into a vainglorious boast for yourself the contempt of their paternal name. And indeed, if your artifice regarding the Fathers only proceeded this far, the more incomplete the wickedness was, the milder a punishment it would demand; for to begin an impious plan but not to carry it through to the end is the same as cutting off the vehemence of a crime, which certainly mitigates and softens the severity of the punishment. You have proposed to use the mask of the Fathers, against whom you act insolently, to terrify us. But the cloud of Fathers whom piety pits against your machinations are the Fathers of the Fathers; for you will not deny that these are the Fathers even of those whom you yourselves hold as Fathers—and if you should deny it, they certainly will not. B
C 82. Consider the one who shares the throne with these and is their equal in glory, the renowned Vigilius. He himself also presided over the fifth synod, which was distinguished by its ecumenical and holy decrees. This man, therefore, as an irreproachable rule, conforming himself to its right dogmas, utters harmonies with the rest, and [proclaims] the most holy and consubstantial Spirit as equal… D
A in zeal and likeness to the Father, [who] proceeds from the Father; and those who would dare to bring forward anything else contrary to the concept of the dogma—beside the unanimous and common faith of the pious—he brought under the same bonds of anathema.
83. B You may also see the good and noble Agatho glorying in the same right deeds; for even he, though not present in body, yet in mind and with all zeal, through his legates, convened and adorned the Sixth Synod, which likewise shines forth with ecumenical dignity; therefore, he preserved the symbol of our sincere and pure faith without any variation or innovation according to the standard of the preceding synods, and those who would dare to remove anything of what is there enacted—or rather, what was enacted from the beginning—he rejects, confirming and sealing [against them] equal curses.
84. C But how could I pass over in silence the high priests of Rome, Gregory and Zacharias, men who shone with virtue and who enlarged their flock with god-taught teachings, and who indeed also shone with the gifts of miracles? For even if neither of them sat in an ecumenical synod, yet they openly and clearly taught, in imitation of those others, that the most holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. For the divine Gregory flourished not long after the Sixth Synod; but the wondrous Zacharias [lived] one hundred and sixty-five years later; these, keeping the dogmas and proclamation D of the Lord and the Fathers in their minds as in a pure and undefiled bridal chamber, and [keeping] it there uncorrupted and intact, presented it to the faithful people—one in the Latin tongue, the other in the Greek language—and joined their flock to Christ, the true God and bridegroom of our souls, through pious worship. But as I said, this wise Zacharias, [while setting forth] other sacred writings of the holy Gregory, [also displayed those most useful ones composed in the form of a dialogue].
A This God-bearing pair, then, near the end of the second of the dialogues, when even the archdeacon Peter—for this man was a lover of God—was wondering why it is that the powers [of miracles] are present more to the small remains of the saints than to their whole bodies, brings to both of them a solution: that the divine grace is indeed present to both, but that it demonstrates its operation more in the small fragments of the relics. For concerning the whole [bodies], no one’s reasoning fluctuates, because they are those of the saints of whom they are said to be; nor that they are unable to gush forth miracles through the supervision of the triumphant souls that struggled and labored together with those bodies. But in not a few of those who are more weakly disposed in this regard, B a doubt is insulted by the thought that they are not of the saints whose names they bear, and that these too are not deemed worthy of the same grace and visitation. For this reason, in those places where doubt seemed to prevail, the subsistent and inexhaustible fountain of good things pours forth miracles more abundantly and more greatly than all hope, for the sake of the multitude and the magnitude. Thus, having solved the aforementioned doubt, the one through the Latin, the other through the Greek translation, along with many other things distinguished beforehand, they add thus shortly after: "The Comforter Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son."
...to God has it, and these, being in the station of faith, know that even if their bodies do not lie there, they do not fail to hear their prayers.
...question. What do we say that this is, which we observe happening in the relics of the holy martyrs? For it is almost more to say that miracles are performed in the oratories in which their relics are deposited in their name than in the place where their bodies lie. We believe, therefore, that the grace of God is indeed most fully present there, just as it is in their holy bodies; but it performs greater signs there where they do not lie with their whole body. Where the bodies of the holy martyrs lie, Peter, there is no doubt that they can show many signs, just as they do; for to those who approach with pure reasoning, they display countless miracles. But because those who are weakly disposed in their reasoning are in doubt, as if the saints were not present where their bodies do not lie as a whole, and as if for this reason those who approach are not heard, it is necessary for them to display greater signs there, where the weak reasoning fluctuates concerning their presence. But those whose mind is established in God, they know that even if their bodies do not lie there, yet they do not fail to hear their prayers.
...previously distinguished. Whence also the Truth itself, our Lord Jesus Christ, that He might add faith to the disciples, said: "If I do not go away, the Comforter does not come to you." It is evident, therefore, that the Comforter Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son. For whose sake, then, does the Son say that He is going away, so that He might come, who was never separated from Him? The disciples, seeing the Lord in the flesh, desired to behold Him always with their bodily eyes; rightly, therefore, was it said to them: "If I do not go away, the Comforter does not come," that is to say: If I do not hide the body, I do not show what is the desire of the Spirit, and if you do not leave me to be beheld bodily, you never learn to love me spiritually.
A This sacred doctrine the Forerunner first declared among those under grace, and from him the multitude of the faithful were instructed, and piety is seen constantly being brightened by it. For indeed he, that man who was almost more than human, while baptizing the source of life and immortality, the Lord of all the world and the purifier of the world, in the streams of the Jordan, and seeing the heavens opened—a miracle attested by miracles—beheld the most holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove; and the voice of the Word, which is truly the voice, sent forth a sound as he saw these wonders: "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and remaining upon him." The Spirit therefore remains, descending from the Father upon the Son, or if you prefer, in the Son; for the difference of grammatical cases introduces no variation here. And the prophet Isaiah also, prophesying similar things from above and referring the oracle to the person of Christ, says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." Have you ever heard those renowned men, Gregory or Zacharias (for perhaps they rather will be appropriate to put your impudence to shame); have you, I say, heard them asserting that the Spirit remains in the Son? And how is it that you did not immediately betake yourself from there to the voice of Paul, through which he says: "The Spirit of his Son"? If you had properly understood the place for fashioning your monstrous procession, you would have easily understood that it is rightly said to be the Spirit of the Son, since the Spirit remains in the Son. For the abiding of the Spirit in the Son B would not be an occult or overly abstruse cause for why he is called the Spirit of the Son. For what is more closely to be understood as remaining in the Son, the Spirit who has never been separated from him?
A For the dwelling of the Spirit in the Son is a cause that would not be obscure, nor would it be one that exerts force to produce belief, in asking why he is called the Spirit of the Son. For which is the more immediate sense that apostolic usage grants us to understand: that the Spirit remains in the Son, or that he proceeds from the Son? Indeed, the very comparison itself is an unfitting one. For the Baptist B proclaims that which is of our common Lord, the prophet foretold it long ago, and the Savior himself, reading the oracle, confirms it; and the pious, having received this mystical instruction from that source, set it forth as a teacher for all the faithful. But you, emerging from the dark gates of impiety, instead of glorifying that the Spirit remains in the Son and upon the Son, you fight against God by asserting that he proceeds from the Son. He remains in the Son; for this reason he is the Spirit of the Son, and because he is of the same nature, as I have said before, and of the same divinity, glory, kingdom, and power; or, if you will, because he anoints Christ. For "The Spirit of the Lord," he says, "is upon me, because he has anointed me," and because, when he overshadowed the Virgin, the conception beyond reason took place and the ineffable, seedless birth came forth; and indeed, because he also sends him. "For he has sent me," he says, "to preach good news to the poor." How much more correct and agreeable to reason it would have been for you both to think and to say that because of one or several of the aforementioned explanations he is called the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of Christ, rather than to spurn these so valid and consistent reasons in order to attempt, with your own fancies and groundless imaginings, to corrupt the dogmas of the Church! But once again, let the glorious Zachary and Gregory advance; with me they will refute your opinion (for a refutation that proceeds from those within one's own house brings shame even to the most impudent). C But again, the illustrious Zachary is my collaborator in bringing these proofs. For a refutation that proceeds from one's own side is more respectful even to those who are most shameless.
86. If, therefore, Zachary and Gregory, separated by so many years, held no divergent opinions regarding the procession of the most holy Spirit, certainly the chorus of pontiffs who stood between them, who by succession presided over the sacred decrees of the Roman Church, preached and cherished the same faith without any innovation; for as the middle is held and completed by the extremes, so it is also settled and directed. Although if any of the earlier or later saints were found to have turned to an alien sentiment, he is undoubtedly, as he has severed himself from their faith, D also severed from the order, the throne, and the high-priesthood. Thus, therefore, the chorus of the aforementioned holy men preserved their whole life in piety.
A Or do you not know the ancient things, and are you reluctant to review the mind of your Fathers, and indeed the true Fathers? Only yesterday, and not even a second generation [(53)] has passed, that renowned Leo, who also shone with the glory of miracles [(54)] and had in some respects [(55)] matters to boast of [(56)], cutting off every heretical pretext for everyone [(57)]; for since the sacred teaching of our Fathers, when spoken in Latin, because of the deficiency of that language, which does not extend as widely or as clearly as the Greek, did not adapt its terms purely or sincerely or precisely to the meaning, and for many provided suspicion of heterodoxy [(58)] regarding the faith, because the narrowness of the terms was not sufficient to explain the precision of the thought [(59)]; for that very reason that divinely wise man [(60)] determined to provide a memento (and the cause for the inclination toward this memento, along with the aforementioned reason, was the heresy now openly and boldly preached, but at that time whispered under the teeth B in the city of the Romans). Now the memento was to give the command to recite the sacred teaching of the faith in the Greek tongue, and for the Romans to speak it; for indeed through this divinely inspired plan, the deficiency of the language was restored to completion and elegance; and for the pious—
But also that Hadrian, who directed the same apostolic throne, in the things he wrote back to the most holy and blessed Tarasius, our spiritual uncle [(patrotheion)], it appears clearly and manifestly that he held the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father, but not from the Son. C Furthermore, also the more recent Leo, who in faith as in name was a rival—this man, this fervent zealot of piety, in order that by no means and in no way our unblemished teaching of piety should be corrupted by a barbarian tongue—delivered it to those in the West to glorify and theologize the holy Trinity in the Greek tongue, as had been said from the beginning; and not by word and command alone, but also having inscribed it on certain shields [(clypei)] fashioned like pillars, and having set them up for all to see, he fastened them at the gates of the Church.
to expel the heterodoxy arising from opinion, and that the new-born corruption might be the more quickly rooted out of the Roman polity. Therefore, he not only set up A proclamations and edicts in the city of the Romans itself, in accordance with the mystical sacred rites, whereby the holy Creed of our faith might be recited in the Greek tongue, just as it had been proclaimed from the beginning by synodal voices and decrees, even among those very people who speak the Roman language; but he also sent word and command not only by address but also by synodal letters to all the provinces that revere the Roman pontificate and rule, urging them to think and act likewise, and secured the unchangeable nature of the dogma with the threat of anathema.
88. And this action was not merely that of he who held the high priesthood alone; for that mild and gentle man, glorious Benedict, who was his successor in the pontifical throne B and shone forth in ascetic struggles, was no less zealous in cherishing and strengthening the same, although time had placed him in the second rank. But if, after them, anyone with a deceitful and cunning tongue—for he did not dare to oppose the best and most God-beloved things with head uncovered and openly, nor even to suggest that the fearful symbol of our faith should not be repeated on the lips of all, but instead, making that a pretense for his own opinion, he tore and mangled the aforementioned most pious and beneficial work of the Churches (for it is not my purpose to recount such wicked deeds by name; let the man himself know—or rather, he already knows bitterly and miserably, paying the penalty for such clandestine audacity from that source; but let him lie, cast into the region of silence, for he himself remains silent, even if unwillingly C)—nonetheless, the divine Leo did not limit this good and God-inspired care and action to those things which we have mentioned, but even when they were existing in the repositories of the princes
A Peter and Paul from most ancient times, and with piety still flourishing, stored among the sacred treasures were two shields, which in Greek letters and words declared the often-mentioned, holy exposition of our faith; these he deemed worthy to be read aloud before the Roman populace and exposed to the sight of all, and many of those who saw and read them at that time are still living among us.
89. But in this way also these men caused piety to shine forth and preached that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. But my John (for he is mine, both for other reasons and because he stood by my side more ardently than the rest), this John of mine, therefore, a man manly in mind, manly also in piety, B and manly, finally, in his ability to oppose and overthrow every injustice and impiety, and possessing the power not only to aid sacred laws but also civil ones, and to restore order where it was disorderly; this man, I say, the gracious high priest of Rome, through his most religious and illustrious legates, the prelates Paul, Eugenius, and Peter, C and D [alt-version omitted]
priests of God, who came to our synod A, just as the Catholic Church of God and his predecessors, the Roman pontiffs, accepted the symbol of faith, in mind and tongue and by the sacred hands of the aforementioned most illustrious and admirable men, subscribed and sealed it B. Indeed, his successor, the holy Hadrian, also sent a synodical letter to us according to ancient custom, through which he proclaimed the same piety and taught in his theology that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Since, therefore, these holy and blessed high priests of Rome lived and thought and taught in this way, and since they departed from this fragile life to the immortal one in the same confession, whom can those suffering from heretical sickness put forward from whom they could have drawn that lethal poison of such impiety, without at once being convicted of C… D Those envoys in our own time, who went up to elder Rome not only once but three times (I do not think I should pass over in silence how, when our discourse naturally turned to matters of piety, they were found not to say or think anything different from the piety spread across the whole world; on the contrary, they clearly and unflinchingly proclaimed with us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father). Furthermore, regarding the synod which was held (though this was dealing in particular with the restoration of Photius), the legates sent from there by Pope John, of holy memory, as if he himself were present and theologizing with us, marked the symbol of faith, which is preached and confirmed through all the ecumenical synods according to the voice of the Lord, as men of one mind, by voice and tongue and by their own hand. [index: entries preserved]
A If those who have contracted the heretical sickness, from whom they have drunk the poisonous remedy of such great impiety, depart into the life that is uncorrupt while still holding to this same confession, what could those who have illuminated the western regions with the right faith have to say, if they do not immediately triumph over these adversaries? B 90. But if you do not wish to put aside this error, I at least shall sing to you other incantations from the oracles of the Spirit, even if you prefer, instead of repenting, to imitate the deaf asp closing its ears to the voices of the enchanters. The most holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God; for the Savior says: "If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons." He is furthermore the Spirit of the Father: "For it is not you who speak," says that same fountain of truth, "but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." He is called the Spirit of God, as Isaiah cries out: "And the Spirit of God shall rest upon him." He is the Spirit who is from God; Paul, the great herald of right dogmas, says: "But you have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God"; and elsewhere: "But if you are led by the Spirit of God, you are not in the flesh." C The Spirit of the Lord, cries Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." Again, He is called the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus Christ, as Paul again teaches: "God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father"; and: "The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus Christ dwells in you"; and: "You are not in the flesh, if indeed the Spirit of Christ dwells in you"; and: "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His." Observe most attentively that the Spirit is said to be of God, and from God and the Father, and of the Lord, and of Him who raised Christ from the dead, and the Spirit of the Father. Do you see, then, when He says "Spirit of God" or "of the Father" or "of the Lord who raised Jesus Christ," or "Spirit who is from God," that these utterances signify the very same thing as that which says He proceeds from the Father? Or is there no one so foolish, nor so ignorant of these very simple words, as not to be able to see most easily that each of these expressions, even though it is enounced regarding the same persons, yet presents a different meaning from the voice that says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and a meaning different from the voice that says "Spirit of God" or "of the Lord" or any other of those mentioned? For that one explicitly declares the procession, while this one does not; but although these things are said, because the Spirit proceeds from Him, nevertheless none of those words affirms the procession in explicit terms. For it is manifestly one thing to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and another—by the words themselves—to...
signify this with the names that call the Spirit of God and of the Lord and the like. A [105] 91.
41
. Although even if each of these terms signified the procession, inasmuch as it has been pronounced in the very divine words that He proceeds from the Father, this would also support us; for, since the Spirit is understood to proceed from the Father thousands of times according to this hypothesis, how has it not been said even once that He proceeds from the Son? For it is not valid to say that this was stated implicitly in those words which do not signal this at all by the expression, and because it has never been pronounced—whether in divine terms or even in human and Spirit-bearing words—that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; and while the fact that the Spirit is called the Spirit of God and similar things has the procession as the first and most sovereign cause (for the Spirit is consubstantial because He proceeds, not however because He is consubstantial is He one who proceeds). But that He is called the Spirit of the Son or of Christ or such things comes forth from a multiple cause (for it is because He is consubstantial, and because He anoints Him, and because He remains upon Him, and because He is in Him). If, therefore, the procession—occupying the most sovereign cause for which the Spirit is said to be of God and of the Lord and such things—nevertheless does not give these terms the power to enunciate the procession, how is it possible, B where more causes are observed for which the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son and of Christ, to seek in this case—when the procession is not even counted among the causes—that the procession is indispensable?92. But you, while straining your ears and mind toward impiety, whenever you hear "Spirit of Christ" or [106] "of the Son," passing over all those things from which you could not have fallen away from theology, you rush headlong toward that which no one has undertaken to assert. It is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; it is also said to be of the Son and of God, and other things, of which the discourse has often unfolded the account; and none of these, save the first term, signifies the procession. It is said that the Spirit is of the Son and of Christ and similar things, but nowhere is it said that the Spirit of the Son proceeds. Since, therefore, the procession has never been announced, how is it not the height of stupidity and madness to reduce the words to that to which they were never in any way announced? For this, C indeed, these men... D
bold in all things, will not dare to say—that it is possible to take from the words of the sacred Oracles the procession of the Spirit from the Son. A
93. But consider the matter also from this standpoint. The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, and it is not difficult to learn from Isaiah—or rather, from the very reading and voice of the Lord Himself—in what way He is so called. For "The Spirit of the Lord," He says, "is upon me, because He hath anointed me." Wherefore, the Spirit is called the Lord’s in one way, and the Son’s in another. For He is the Lord’s as consubstantial; but though He is also consubstantial, He is called the Son’s—that is, Christ’s—at this time because of the anointing, because He anoints Him. For "The Spirit of the Lord," says Truth Itself, "is upon me; because He hath anointed me." The Spirit anoints Christ. O man, how do you understand this? In respect of the Word by which He partook of flesh and blood and became man, or in respect of the Word by which He existed as God from eternity? B But the latter, I suspect, you would not dare to say, even if you were bold in all things. For the Son, as God, is not anointed; away with the thought! Therefore, Christ is anointed with the Spirit as man; and inasmuch as the Spirit anoints Christ, He is called the Spirit of Christ. But you say: "Since He is called the Spirit of Christ, He necessarily proceeds also from Christ." Therefore, the Spirit of Christ will proceed from Him not as God, but as man, and He would not be possessed of substance from the beginning and before the ages and together with the Father, but only then, when the Son assumed the human lump. C
94. Apply your mind and recover from your error, O man; do not show your own blow and wound to be of such a nature that it rejects all healing. The Spirit is proclaimed as Christ’s because He anoints Him; but your pernicious law commands you to say that He proceeds from Him. Yet He proceeds from Christ—as reason, proceeding according to your own opinion, shows—not as Christ is God, but as He assumed our flesh. If, therefore, in so far as Christ partook of our flesh, the Spirit proceeds from Christ according to this, and yet He proceeds again from the Son in so far as He is God (for the laws decreed by you demand this), it will be concluded, in fact, that human nature is consubstantial with the Divinity, if indeed you judge the Spirit to be consubstantial with the Son and, in turn, with Christ; for you make Him proceed even before... D
the incarnation and after the incarnation, yet you have not removed the consubstantiality. If, therefore, the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, and is also consubstantial with the assumed nature (since you order Him to proceed from it), then by inescapable laws of reasoning it would be proved that the Divinity in Christ is consubstantial with the humanity in Him. I do not wish at this moment to demonstrate that by the same power of reasoning it follows from your dogma that the flesh of Christ would be consubstantial even with the Father Himself; and what could be more detestable than this impiety or more wretched than this error?
B 95. Yet you do not wish to perceive into what steep cliffs and abysses of spiritual corruption this perverse will casts and buries you—the will by which you refuse to obey Christ and His disciples, to follow the ecumenical synods, or to turn your mind toward even those rational arguments that proceed from the sacred oracles; instead, you accuse our common Lord, you calumniate the noble Paul, you rise up against the ecumenical and holy synods, you disparage the Fathers and your own pontiffs, and excluding from the count of the Fathers those who are truly Fathers, you banish them to the crows and turn a deaf ear to rational contemplations; and you have already swallowed all the remedies that could have healed the sickness of your deceptive preoccupation. But for our sake, the Psalmist David, the forefather of God, shall cry out to you: "Understand, O you senseless among the people, and you fools be wise at last," lest the common enemy of the human race, setting so many snares for you, snatch your souls like a wild and roaring lion, and there be none to deliver.
C 96. You have these outlines, therefore, just as you requested, O man most religious and most studious. And if at some time the Lord restores to us our plundered books and our scribes, perhaps you will have, with the most holy Spirit breathing upon us and consenting, the very testimonies that these new enemies of the Spirit—nay, rather, the insane enemies of the all-good and tri-hypostatic Divinity (for there is nothing in It that they have not torn at with their madness)—advance; and you will also have the refutation of them from the testimonies which they themselves pro-
in their folly A insult; and indeed they also insult the proofs brought against them, derived from the very writings they themselves put forward, as well as their malice and machination in these matters; and indeed, they even insult the irrefragable and constant testimonies of our blessed and God-wise Fathers, by which their own opinion A is confounded and the mind of apostasy is banished from all piety.
Of Patriarch Photius: A Treatise against the adherents of old Rome, showing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son.
B 1. If the Spirit is simple, but proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, they would entirely have to be considered one person; and thence would be introduced a Sabellian, or rather a semi-Sabellian, contraction.
2. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, he would be entirely double and composite. If the Holy Spirit is referred to two principles, where will the much-celebrated monarchy be?
3. If the Father produces the Spirit, but the Son also produces him, the Father would be both the immediate producer of the Spirit and the remote one, on account of the production from the Son.
4. If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is complete, then the one from the Son is superfluous.
5. If the Son has the same production of the Spirit as the Father, the property of production will be common to them; and how will a common thing be a property? But if it is the opposite, how does the one not destroy the other? For contraries destroy one another. But if it is a different one, the Spirit will in this way proceed partly by one method and partly by another, and will be composed of unequal parts.
6. If both the Son and the Spirit have proceeded from one cause, that is, the Father, but the Son also produces the Spirit, then the Spirit will also produce the Son; for the Father brought forth both with equal honor, and is their producer.
7. If the Son partakes with the Father in the production of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will also partake of this; for all things that are common to the Father and the Son are also common to the Holy Spirit; and hence he himself will be both cause and caused at the same time, which is more monstrous than the very fables of the Greeks.
A 8. If the Son also produces, but the Spirit is deprived of the power of production, then the Spirit would have a lesser power than the Son, which was the madness of Macedonius.
9. They pretend, however, that Ambrose said this in his books, and likewise Augustine and Jerome; to which it must be replied that either the Pneumatomachi have corrupted their writings, or perhaps they spoke according to the *oikonomia*—which the great Basil also used, keeping the theology of the Holy Spirit hidden within himself for a time—or that they were deflected from accurate theology, which is the lot of men, a thing which many of the great ones have suffered in certain matters, as Dionysius of Alexandria, Methodius of Patara, Pierius, Pamphilus, Theognostus, Irenæus of Lyons, and his disciple Hippolytus. For we do not accept some of their statements, although we greatly admire them in other respects.
B 10. The three [persons] spoke precisely as the Romans say; but the high priests of the seven synods did not say so. For all the synods confirmed by succession the definition of our faith, to which the presidents and luminaries of the Roman Church assented without any contradiction, and they determined that it was not permitted to add anything to the said definition of the faith nor to remove anything from it, but rather that whoever dared to do this was to be entirely cast out of the Church.
11. The divine Gregory, however, the Dialogos, who flourished not long after the Sixth Synod, theologized in the Roman language and in Latin characters that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. C But Zacharias, one hundred and sixty-five years later, interpreting the books of the Dialogos into the Greek tongue, says: "The Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son," 95 having learned this from the Precursor [the Baptist], who had seen the Spirit descending like a dove and remaining upon Him.
95 John 1:32.
12. Leo and Benedict, great pontiffs of Rome, later decreed that the symbol of the faith be recited in the Greek language during the sacred solemnities of the Mass at Rome and in other churches subject to Rome, lest the limitations of the language provide a pretext for blasphemy. A This Leo, having opened the treasury of the apostolic Roman Church, brought forth two shields kept among other sacred votive offerings, containing the exposition of the Catholic faith in Greek letters and words, and he ordered these to be read aloud before the whole Roman people. And even until the time of the pious patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, the Roman pontiffs, at the beginning of their pontificate, sending synodical letters of their profession to all the patriarchal sees, inserted the symbol of the faith without any variation. B
13. But why is there need to say much? The Son and Master teaches and declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; and the great Paul also decides and ordains, saying: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Galat. 1, 9). And who would seek another teacher, unless he were clearly insane?
The second part of the same work, from the Vienna Greek theological codex 40
9a. David, by saying, "And by the Spirit of his mouth" (Ps. XL, 7), also taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, when he attributes that [proceeding] from his mouth to the Father, and not to the Son, in order to forestall by anticipation the blasphemy of those who suppose that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son.
10a. In all other cases, "procession" denotes simply a going out, as that which is said in the Psalms: "He went out abroad and spoke to the same effect"; but the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father C ...
A does not denote a simple going out, which is something that happens and ceases to be, but a substantial and natural one, which is declarative of a certain mode of existence and indicative of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, which is not by generation as the Son, but by procession and in its own proper way. For the property of the Son is to be generated naturally from the Father, while the property of the Holy Spirit is to proceed naturally from the Father; and in this alone do they differ from one another, that is to say, in the property of their subsistence, while they are otherwise one in essence and nature, in dignity and power, and, to speak in one word, in all other respects both with the Father and with each other. How, then, do you say that the Holy Spirit 89 [119] proceeds also from the Son? If [you mean] as from a cause, behold, two causes and two principles, Father and Son, and a dyarchy (of two principates) rather than a monarchy (the unity of one principate or principle) is that which is honored by you 90; and it is not for us to say all the absurdities that will follow from this. But if [you mean it] in another way, as from a mutual connection due to their circuminsession, and, to speak simply, as being sent forth—for the Son sends the Holy Spirit just as the Father sends the Son B. "When," he says, "the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me"—if, according to this meaning, you say that he also proceeds from 91 the Son, you may be sound in your mind, but you commit sin for another reason: first 92, by corrupting with this addition the exposition of the faith confirmed by the seven synods, and doing so alone out of all others; and then, the "and" that is added, which we are accustomed to call a conjunction, gives one to understand an equal procession both from the Father and from the Son, even if you understand it differently 93 regarding the [procession] from the Son, as we have said before. But one ought not only to think rightly, but also not to scandalize others; for if he who scandalizes one is judged in the Gospels 94 as worthy of terrible punishment, what kind of punishment might they find who scandalize almost the entire inhabited world?
C 11a. Since the Son and God said about the Holy Spirit that he proceeds from the Father, and not once, but twice in the same sequence of discourse, why did he not say, "And from me"? And these men answer that he spoke humbly because of his humanity 95; but we quickly replying, refute them as speaking falsely. For to say, "Whom I will send to you," he did not say as a man, but rather as God.
For man does not send God, since the Holy Spirit is God. Twice, therefore, he said "from the Father" in confirmation of such a statement, and in order to silence those who were about to say that He also proceeds from the Son. And this was derived from the keenness of the most wise emperor [Alexius Comnenus]; for he used this proposition when he was disputing against the Bishop of Milan.
IN THE BOOK ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS PERTINENT TO THE ILLUSTRATION AND REFUTATION OF THE WORK
I. — The book of Photius is examined and illustrated in general.
1. Among theological disputes, whether because of their age and duration, or because of the gravity and difficulty of the subject matter, there is scarcely any that is inferior to the controversy concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, which has not only been agitated among theologians, but is also wonderfully vexed by the contentions of the people. It has been shrewdly nurtured and propagated by secular hatreds and political maneuverings, and to this very day it divides Greeks and Latins—or rather, it exists as the primary pretext and cause, or indeed as the most valid prop and bastion, for the separation of the Eastern Church from Catholic unity. Although many learned men C have already disputed those things which have arisen concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and the controversies surrounding it, sufficiently revealing the nature, origin, and progress of the question, and the highest praise is to be attributed to their historical and dogmatic studies, yet hardly anyone would deny that there are still many things in this material 124 that remain for historiographers to illustrate, and that some things are in need of new inquiry and studies—especially since many writings pertaining to it have not yet seen the light of day, and certain parts of that history still remain obscured by fog and shadow, showing gaps and lacunae more than once. In this matter, Photius’ book *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit* brings forth fruit not to be despised; and it will truly greatly aid those who are about to treat the history of that dogma with repeated care. In the meantime, we deem it our duty, before we subject the now published book of Photius to a theological examination part by part, briefly to D declare its value in theological matters, its argument, the nature of its composition, the circumstances of its time, and other things that pertain to this, reserving many things to be weighed again more accurately for another, more copious lucubration on Photius. Nor is it our intention to outline the history of that most famous controversy in general, nor to provide a more copious explanation of its dogma; rather, we intend only to sample those documents of history and theology which cohere more closely with this polemical dissertation of Photius and which will seem to contribute something and in some way to be useful for a more apt judgment regarding it. Nor in these matters, which can still be subject to dispute, do we pronounce a judgment as if it were definitive; rather, we wish to suggest certain things, both for others who find studies of this kind attractive, and finally for our own modest efforts and investigations to be explored and scrutinized anew.
2. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, which, when the struggle with the Macedonians was raging in the fourth century of the Church, had not yet been heard of—the first seeds and traces of which are detected in the Nestorian controversy, then in the disputes with the Monothelites and the Iconoclasts—at length found in Photius its chief propagator, by whose industry it was not only aroused but also polished in every way and as it were reduced to a system 125. For this is he, says Hugo Etherianus (lib. II *contra Græc.* c. 16, *Bibl. PP. Lugd.* XXII, p. 1230), who after Theodoret, digging a well in the sea-sand, buried not seeds, but Circean poisons, and became the cause of a very dire languor of the Christian faith. Truly Isaiah laments this man with his accomplices, saying: Woe to you that are wise...
A among yourselves and prudent in your own eyes (Isa. v, 21). This man was, as John Beccus (s. Veccus) says in his *Oratio de unione Ecclesiarum* (c. 35, *Græc. Orthod. Allat.* vol. I, p. 154), the "first inventor and generator of the propositions falsely fabricated against the Roman Church." How much he labored in establishing this doctrine—beyond certain Amphilochian questions pertaining to this matter, beyond the arguments contained in his encyclical letter, and beyond a brief tract against the supporters of old Rome, which must at least be counted among his doubtful works (see our Preface)—is clearly shown by the prolix letters sent to the Archbishop of Aquileia, which you would not wrongly call a book, and which surpasses all others: the book *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*.
3. Repulsed by the Roman See and struck with anathema (c. 866), Photius sent his encyclical to the bishops of the East, in which, besides other matters of lesser moment, he reproached the Latins in very grave terms, as if for a most vile heresy, for the doctrine by which they professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 126 and the Son, and he attacked it sharply with about fourteen arguments. But these arguments of Photius do not seem to have been known to the Westerners at that time B; they had perceived only the heads of the accusations in a general way, such as Pope Nicholas had learned of from the Prince of the Bulgarians. Indeed, Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, and Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, who wrote against the Greeks at that time, knew only what crimes the Greeks had heaped upon the Latins, but were entirely ignorant of Photius’s proofs and reasonings, which neither any other Latin nor Nicholas himself seems to have known 5, from whose letters they had drawn their information. Ratramnus writes among other things (*lib. III Contra Græcorum opposita*, c. 6; Migne, vol. CXXI, p. 303): "For since they (the Greeks) wish to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, they show neither reasoning nor authority to confirm what they say; whence it seems to be rather a tumor of levity than the gravity of prudence." Truly, he could not have spoken thus if he had read Photius’s encyclical itself. Hence it is clear why an accurate refutation of the Photian syllogisms could not have been composed by these authors; there is no trace that they were translated into Latin. Again, in the East, the books of Ratramnus, Aeneas, and others seem to have been scarcely known.
A After the first expulsion of Photius (year 867), it seemed C no longer necessary, or rather imprudent, to rebuke the Greeks generally for his errors, which there was no suspicion that Ignatius encouraged; nor did the legates sent to the eighth council have anything of the sort in their mandates. But afterwards, when Photius had once again occupied the Constantinopolitan see after the death of Ignatius, a peace—though not one destined to last—was initiated, and in the synod celebrated under John VIII in the year 879, it is found that there is no trace of this having been a subject of discussion. I do not deny that there were those who affirmed that the addition of the Latins was solemnly prohibited there; but, when the matter is examined more accurately, it is clear that this cannot be defended, as many learned men have already demonstrated. Photius himself in our book (chap. 89) could gather no other argument for his cause from this synod, of which he had been the very soul and moderator, save that the legates of Pope John received the creed in the ancient custom, recited it, and subscribed to it; and furthermore, it is constant by no certain argument that the Roman Church itself at that time was accustomed to recite the creed solemnly with that addition, the sense of which, however, it embraced with its whole mind. What Photius writes (l. c.) concerning John VIII is not of slight moment in the history of those times; we shall meanwhile adduce the words of John Beccus, which follow the text recited here. "When those with whom we are speaking find Photius writing these things, they opine that he exchanged enmities for peace, because the legates of Pope John, holding his place, subscribed and sealed the creed without the addition which is read among us 6. But no one among those who are fit to conjecture well would easily propose such a thing to himself as credible, since no dogmatic question is found to have been raised in that synod, which had been convened for the establishing of peace; but the true cause was that concealment D according to which quarrels and enmities had arisen for Photius with the whole Roman Church. For since he feared lest he incur the reproach of all, because, when Pope Nicholas would not admit him, he had called the entire Roman Church injurious to the Divinity, impious, and the greatest violator of laws; and since Pope John had consented to the restitution of his patriarchal throne, he proclaimed the same as holy and a teacher of piety, weaving a kind of apology for the peace entered into with John, through his own representatives..."
by insisting that he had accepted the Symbol of the faith, and had subscribed and sealed it in mind and tongue by the hands of such illustrious and admirable men. For he insists that they fulfilled this in such a way because those who occupied the Roman see before Pope John also professed this holy and piety-filled symbol, which even those who have succeeded him up to this day embrace in their minds and proclaim with their tongues. “And my statement will be demonstrated by the fact that the Gospels have suffered no alteration, and all the writings of the Fathers which declare that the Spirit proceeds from the Father are read and approved among them without addition (7).” Finally, once this kind of painted peace had been broken, Photius could not restrain himself from reviving this controversy; indeed, he tenaciously fosters his own opinion, and although he did not dare to criticize the Roman pontiffs, with the exception of Nicholas, but rather sought from them the patronage of his own cause, B he strove to draw the Westerners, whom he could, into it. Yet, he deliberately refrains from naming Pope Marinus, just as he does Hadrian II, and keeps silent about the censure inflicted upon him by both, boasting of his consensus with the Roman Church. But the question revived by Photius did not at that time become known among the Latins in such a way as to provoke them to refute his ingenious reasonings; and although the Venetians were already meeting with the Byzantines through frequent trade (8), nevertheless, after John VIII and up to the reign of Leo the Wise, due to the sad condition of the times, communication between the Oriental and Occidental worlds languished more and more, so that, apart from those bishops whom Photius was drawing to his side (9), not many seem to have known of his efforts. The scarcity of documents is certainly to be deplored, which obscures the final times of Photius as if with thick shadows.
4. But that the Latins were putting forward, most of all, the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, this could by no means long remain hidden from Photius; and he knew well, if not from elsewhere, certainly from the epistles which he frequently received even from Western parts, to what extent the books of Ratramnus and others contained this, C and perhaps later those books were sent to Photius together with these epistles. Hence, in later writings on this question, in the epistle to Ursus, Doge of Venice, and others (10), let us pass over the brief opuscule addressed to Euthymius, and even more so the treatise on the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, in which he looks toward the arguments of the Latins that he deemed stronger, intermingling the refutation of them with his own demonstrations. He knew well that the Latins relied upon biblical testimonies, and most especially John xvi, 13–15; Galatians iv, 6; Romans viii, 9, and upon the authority of their Fathers, especially Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. But if he had read the writings of Ratramnus or Aeneas, either in whole or in part, where the texts of the Greek Doctors are also alleged, he must be said to have cunningly concealed them. Yet, at the end of our work (cap. 96), he promises, “if the Lord should turn the captivity of his books and scribes,” that he would transmit to the one to whom he dedicated this work the sayings and opinions which, as he calls them, “the Pneumatomachi bring forward in the middle,” seeking from them the patronage of his own cause, together with suitable refutations and the addition of the testimonies of the Fathers. We are informed by no historical document that he did this afterward; however, we rightly conclude this much: that Photius knew many more arguments of the Latins than he set forth in this treatise, and protections sought from their authority.
5. But what is this “captivity of books and writings” which Photius commemorates here? Let us not refer this to the earlier exile of Photius, in which he frequently complains of the loss of books, for chapter 89 seems to forbid it, whence it is evident that the book was written many years after the restoration of Photius, and not before the year 884, since there is mention of Hadrian III. If the work had been written shortly after the former expulsion of Photius, those things which he writes about the scarcity of books and writers would have been almost plain and open; but the mention of John VIII and Hadrian III confuses the matter. For how, when Photius was solemnly restored to the see under John VIII, having regained the favor of the Emperor Basil and being almost most powerful in all things, was he suffering from a lack of books and scribes? A suspicion could also be had regarding the second exile under Leo the Wise; that would fit the timeline, since that exile fell in the year 886. But D [131] ...
our book, apart from this A captivity of books, nowhere shows the author to have been afflicted by exile and sorrow; rather, in the very introduction (cap. 1), he seems to insinuate that prosperous times were granted to him by Providence. One might say that Photius wrote these things, or brought the writing to a close, when he was removed from his rank by Leo VI, though not yet judged, and thus enjoying leisure in a monastery, yet still filled with the hope of conquering the efforts of his adversaries. Nor would it hinder this that in the *Codex Columnensis* Photius calls himself patriarch in the inscription; for he always, even in his first exile, held himself to be the legitimate patriarch and the bishop of new Rome by right. What, therefore, should be said? But the matter does not seem of such importance. In the first exile, the very ample collection of books which Photius had gathered for himself was plundered and torn apart; B perhaps the books were never returned to the restored patriarch; and as for the amanuenses and tachygraphers whom he had previously had at hand, we do not know by what chance they were no longer available—perhaps detained out of political suspicion. But this perhaps does not completely satisfy everyone. What if it is said that Photius positioned the benevolence of Providence toward him in this: that with cares removed, he could freely attend to his studies, or that he finished a work previously begun by him at the beginning of his second exile in the year 886, to which year most things would fit? But however that may be, I would prefer to consider the book to be complete rather than to take refuge in hypotheses, such as are usually concocted in similar matters, that the work is interpolated and that other things were added later to those which were held in the first edition. Yet, I do not deny that it is also probable that Photius himself did not write the work continuously at one and the same time, but added different things in different circumstances of events [132]. Here again, the lack of sources does not allow the matter to be determined with certainty. Until firmer evidence is found, let the reader choose what seems more probable to him. At the same time, or rather a little earlier, the epistle to the archbishop of Aquileia seems to have been written, in which mention is made of John VIII, now deceased, but not of Adrian III (See note 85 to cap. 89). Both works, therefore, pertain to the final times of the patriarchate of Photius. This is certain; but the rest open a field to conjectures.
6. As for the question proposed, to state my opinion, it seems more probable to me that our work was composed around the year 886. If we are not mistaken, while we refer the words of Photius (cap. 89): "Since therefore these holy and blessed pontiffs so thought while they dwelt on earth, and passed from these shifting and corruptible things to the incorruptible life in this confession," not only to the former, but also to the most recently named pontiff and the last of them, then it can safely be concluded that Adrian III, while Photius was writing these things, had already departed this life and that his death had already become known D to him. But since Adrian died in the month of May in the year 885, and Photius probably only learned of this after several months had elapsed, we are easily led to the year 886, when, with Basil the Macedonian passing away and Leo his son assuming the reins of empire, Photius's affairs were again thrown into turmoil. Moreover, Photius does not cite the synodical epistle of Adrian III as if it had been sent to him recently and a little while before; a significant interval of time must be considered to have passed from that sending to the time when Photius wrote these things. Therefore, either Photius at the moment when he committed those things to writing had already been disturbed from his see, or at least a catastrophe of such a kind followed not long after. If the former is admitted, the "captivity of books and scribes" of which he speaks is very easily explained, and the only difficulty is in those things which are gathered from cap. 1. This, however, can be solved either from those things which are noted there [133] and in the Preface, or from the explanation given above of the words pertaining hereto. Indeed, the whole difficulty vanishes if that incise, "by divine providence," is not referred—as it appeared at first glance—to the condition and state of the author, as if he meant to say that he was satisfying the petition because providence was now looking favorably upon him, but is expounded in that legitimate sense: "With God propitious, the execution of this matter will be accomplished through your love for God and your desire, which is not unworthy;" or: "With divine providence assenting, we shall execute the matter and bring it to an end," or: "if God looks upon us kindly." The genitive absolute is to be understood not causally, but conditionally, and there is nothing that forces us to render "because" or "when." But if indeed he put an end to the book before his second expulsion from the throne, such adjuncts can easily be imagined, in which he could lament the defect of scribes and books, as have been brought forward in the things said above. Already with Basil ailing, Photius could have experienced adverse fortune; although there is no need to have recourse to these things, at least for those who adhere to the simpler explanation given above (10).
7. But what were those books, and those of greater scope, by which the author boasts that the pride and high brows of his adversaries are bent and utterly defeated (cap. 1)? Were there, before Photius, more extensive treatises on this matter which attempted to refute the opinion of the Latins at length? Could he have believed that the assertors of that dispute were already abundantly refuted before him? Or did he perhaps understand the works of the Greek Fathers, for example, those of the Damascene, which nevertheless nowhere manifest the scope and purpose of dealing with this controversy? Had he himself published other more extensive books on this matter, of which, however, we have none until now that is richer than this work of ours? The latter is not [134] easily to be admitted. It is far more credible to me that Photius, who almost everywhere boasts with a certain ostentation of the theology of the Greek Fathers, and who in cap. 96 invites their sayings, which he had either collected or was yet to collect, their treatises, although not...
(10) We could not treat questions of this kind more accurately until now; we hope [to provide] better things elsewhere.
cted or was yet to collect, their treatises, although not professional, as they say, dealing with this matter, have looked upon them only by way of appearance and rather through silence than through open words by which they might be favored in some way. He speaks, to be sure, of books of many verses (στίχων), into which were inserted arguments which he considered suitable for convincing the Latins; he had planned to collect those things which were dispersed in these and to exhibit them synoptically; consequently, these books were not concerned with that single question. Photius indeed appeals to these in order to reconcile antiquity and authority to his own statements, although almost everything he puts forward is a product of his own genius.
8. Then, the wording of the book itself and the column-inscription A suggest that our book was not different from that which was sent to the prelate of Aquileia, and which seems to have assumed the form of an epistle, which was directed to various people. Who the Bishop Beda was, to whom the column-codex [is dedicated], or who Eusebius was, to whom Beccus says the book was dedicated, we do not know. As regards the diction, at times it is concise like that of the dialecticians, at others adorned with rhetorical flowers, sometimes elegant, at others rougher, often affected, but for the most part clear (11), and almost never entirely devoid of salt. It shows an author who had read much and formed his style from many authors of different times. He attacks the Latins most bitterly. He accuses them of ignorance, error, stupidity, insanity, madness, fury, as well as of rashness, audacity, and impudence, and furthermore of heresy, polytheism, and impiety; he casts horrific crimes against the faith upon them; he uses all arts to confuse and refute them. Wonderous is the fecundity of his genius, which knows how to produce things said so often before in different ways, as if they were truly new; his manner of dealing with his adversaries is almost always unfair, as he exhausts all his strength to show their doctrine in a most hideous light, not only by perverse consequences but also by interpretations.
9. The authenticity of the work is so manifest that it is tedious to consume time to gather its arguments. As far as its integrity is concerned, neither can it be called into doubt. Yet perhaps the reason for doubting B is that the book contains almost nothing about the fact that the mission of the Holy Spirit through the Son is the reason why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, a point which is nevertheless expressed in the title of the three codices. But it can be said first of all that the title, as it stands, was perhaps not prefixed by Photius himself; then, it can also be affirmed that, even if he did set the title, he was carried away by the quantity of his statements and omitted the exposition of this thing which he was attempting, and perhaps had more in mind than he actually treated, especially if he finished the whole work at time intervals. If one reads in Hugo Eterianus (l. II, c. 20, p. 1235): "The Spirit is not called the Spirit of the Son as being consubstantial and [the one] who is sent through him, as the description of Photius declares," it seems that the inscription is to be understood here, which Hugo also had before his eyes, who furthermore alleges nothing from this work which might refer to this question. Theophylact (note 32 to cap. 60) and other later Greeks are accustomed to join both reasons, consubstantiality and mission, and the proposition, by which it is affirmed that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son [136] because of the mission, is not at all abhorrent to the mind of Photius, who (cap. 91) hands down that multiple reasons for this statement can be assigned, and (c. 85) also briefly touches upon the fact that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit.
10. Photius wished to entitle his book *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*. This vocabulary is most familiar to him (12), just as C *mystagogein* (13) and *mystagogos* are: for instance, Paul is called by him an apostle, a *mystes* and a *mystagogos* (14). He is properly a *mystagogon* who leads into the mysteries, who initiates and consecrates with a mysterious rite, who perfects the mysteries, who presents and teaches the mysteries (15); hence the priest also is called a *mystagogos* (16); *mystagogia* is initiation, admission, induction into the mysteries, sacred instruction, the perfection of any sacred rite (17). Moreover, since in ecclesiastical usage both sacraments and sacred rites as well as the more sublime dogmas which exceed the powers of reason are called *mysteria*, *mystagogia* is also referred in some way to the sacraments of the Church (18), and especially to baptism (19) and the Eucharist (20), and often in the latter acceptance [137] the same is understood, as *mysterion* follows. Cf. Suicer, Thess. s. v. *mystagogos*, *hiereus*. Hesych.: *mystagogos*, *hiereus*, *ho tous mystas agon*. There are, indeed, the *mystai*, those who know the *mysteria*.
A and it signifies *hierourgia* (21), and is used to denote the theological institution and sacred doctrine; and thus it embraces both *hierourgia* and *hierologia*. Photius frequently uses *mystagogia* to mean dogmatic instruction, doctrine handed down divinely; thus he calls an exposition of the faith taken from the definitions of the ecumenical councils a “divine *mystagogia*” (22); thus he uses the words *mystagogein, theologein, hierologein* as virtually synonymous (23). And in this way he understands the word in our work; he wishes to hand down the sacred and divine doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, the true dogmas concerning the third person of the Trinity. That *mystagogia* is equivalent to *theologia* and *hierologia*, and *mystagogein* to *theologein* and *hierologein*, the indiscriminate use of these terms makes sufficiently manifest (24).
11. Of what moment Photius’ book *De Spiritu sancti mystagogia* is, it is clear above all if we compare it with works of the same subject matter from later periods among the Greeks, which will be clear from the notes we have added to the work. It is clear again if we consider those who sharpened their pens for the dogma of the Catholic Church against the Greeks, 138 and who struggled not a little against the syllogisms of Photius. This work barely reached the hands of the Latins for three centuries. Finally in the XII century, Hugo Etherianus, who enjoyed singular favor under Emperor Manuel I, had it in his hands and in his books sent to Alexander III refuted some of its chapters (25). But Hugo is, in my opinion, to be numbered among the most noble theologians, who in this matter acted not imprudently, because, nourished by reading the Greek Fathers, he meticulously followed and imitated their manner of speaking (26), so that he might pave the way as much as he could to the desired union; in which matter, although his diction often seems harsh to the theological ears of the Latins, he is to be praised rather than blamed. Furthermore, if he did not treat everything accurately, it must be remembered that in the XII century that *akribeia* [accuracy] of theology 139 was yet to be found in the state it attained in the XIII century; one must remember, while frankly admitting both the poverty of his own powers and the difficulty of the sublime matter which he was treating. In his preface to book III of *De hæresibus quas Græci in Latinos devolvunt* (Bibl. PP. max. Lugd. XXII, p. 1237 c), he says, “To publish something on this matter is formidable; for in these things not only is the faculty of reason and speech weak, but the most powerful [of us] scarcely keeps itself from lying and from ill-considered errors.” Hence we have deemed that Etherianus should be placed on a not-lowest bench among those whom we shall introduce in the following articles of these animadversions as disputing against Photius. Nor of less, and in many things of even greater authority, is John Beccus, a patriarch of Constantinople equally noble in virtue and doctrine, who, once he recognized the true dogma, struggled vigorously for it, and who brilliantly illuminated the Greek nation both by his works and by his disciples. It is to be noted, however, that Beccus, in his *orat. de un. Eccl.* (Græc. orth. I, p. 154-180), while he puts forward and resolves certain of Photius’ arguments, does not cite our work, but another small work published by Euthymius; but in book III, to Theodore, bishop of Sugdaia (ibid. II, p. 133 seq.), he clearly drew from it. Others who have taken it upon themselves to refute this book of Photius are not known to us up to this point; but as for the subject matter, his arguments, which served as a torch for the schismatics of the following centuries, have been successfully enfeebled by very many theologians. While we bring various authors into the middle, although they are select, we do not in any way intend to make their statements our own, but rather to exhibit, as it were in a single view, those things which were put forward by different people, at different times, and according to the varying nature of their talent and education, against those subtleties—sometimes with a happier effort, sometimes with not a sufficiently happy one, yet not without any foundation.
12. But the value of this work is also clear from elsewhere. As for the various stages of that struggle concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit 140, they use *aitia* and *arche* indiscriminately; *arche* generally signifies a principle, which the Latins, led by the strongest reasons (see Thom. Sum. p. 1, q. 33, a. 1 ad 1 and *Opusc. contra Græc. ad Urban. IV*, c. 7), preferred for the latter term. Other examples will be supplied within. But generally, the work of our Theologian for the most part so redolent of Greek diction that you would say it was translated from the Greek into the Latin language rather than written in Latin, if it were not clear from elsewhere that Hugo wrote in Latin. There existed, as Allatius testifies (De eccles. consensione, l. II, c. 2, p. 654), a Greek version of this work, which if it were published, we could judge more easily concerning this matter. It does not seem incredible to me that Hugo wrote certain things in Greek at Constantinople for the Emperor, but that these were reworked in Latin eloquence and, gathered into three books, were handed over to his Western friends. To one reading the prefaces of his books, this will appear said not without foundation. Finally, I am persuaded of this as well: that whoever will have scrutinized more fully the philosophical teachings and dialectical excursus of Hugo, will gather from thence no small fruits for the history of the philosophy of the Middle Ages before Thomas.
A As regards the manner of proceeding and the progress of the argument, it must be noted first of all that weapons of a twofold kind were employed: those of authority, that is, and those of reason. The former class comprises the testimonies of the Scriptures and of tradition; the latter, arguments drawn from theological principles. Furthermore, regarding authority, the canon is assumed almost everywhere by Photius and his adherents: *Wherever the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, whether in the Scriptures or in symbols and the acts of synods, or among the Fathers, there the procession from the Son is entirely excluded.* Latin theologians prove with little effort that this canon is false.
The Latins were the first in this struggle to invoke the Fathers, and the Greeks in particular. It is established from the celebrated letter of St. Maximus to Marinus on this controversy that already in the seventh century, the Westerners, in addition to their own teachers, had appealed to the B exposition of Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of John. It is evident that not only later Latins, such as Etherianus and Anselm of Havelberg (*Dial.* lib. II, c. 24, p. 188, Paris ed. 1723), but even those very Western writers who first attacked Photius, produced testimonies from Athanasius, Didymus, and other Greeks. The Greeks, however, only began later to seek weapons from the opinions of their own doctors, and in explaining them, like men wavering and uncertain, they often changed their opinions. Nicephorus Blemmida, a distinguished man to whose integrity and erudition even the schismatics themselves pay the highest praise, testifies and approves that the older among his fellow-citizens, following Damascus, admitted C *that the Spirit is through the Son*, denying only the *from the Son*; but the later ones, in order to better abolish the other formula, equally rejected the former as being no less destructive to their cause. He himself appeals to the work *Of the Sacred Armory*, already long famous, where arguments were sought for attacking the formula *through the Son* based on the formula of the doctors.
D It is incredible to relate how many different ways they interpreted the sayings of their own Fathers: at one time pretending that the meaning of *to proceed, to go forth, to flow forth* was far different from that of *to emanate* [ἐκπορεύεσθαι]; at another time inventing other distinctions of words; at another time equating the preposition *dia* [through] with the prepositions *syn* [with] and *meta* [with]; at another time imagining I know not what *expansion*, which in no way is *procession*, at times a certain *passing through* or *being sent*, and other such contrivances. But he who was the first after Photius—who was at least already laboring at this—to collect into one the sayings of the Fathers which were thought to favor the causes of the schism was Andronicus Camaterus, flourishing in the twelfth (or eleventh) century; he could impart to them a certain sinew of specious proof only by adding his own observations; so lacking were testimonies clearly and purely conducive to his goal, besides those to which the aforementioned canon was applied. Beccus took it upon himself to refute Camaterus’s observations, and at the same time he collected in his epigraphs the texts of the Fathers in favor of the procession from the Son; against these, Palamas, the fiercest defender of the schism, later opposed his *Antirrhetica*, which Cardinal Bessarion confuted. But many writings of both parties still await the light, which would delineate more accurately the varying successes of the contest. No one knowledgeable in these matters would deny that Latin writers as early as the ninth century were by no means unequal to resolving the subtleties of the Greeks; but later, and especially in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, it is manifest that they were superior in every way in theology and the philosophical disciplines. Yet in the ninth century, this controversy could not yet be agitated with that splendor of erudition which we observe in the time of Beccus and the Council of Florence; nor were those exegetical, philological, and critical questions raised in which the highest theologians later excelled.
A They fought. However, in order for the struggle to proceed as the Greeks wished, certain principles had to be established by which doctrine contrary to the Latins might be stabilized, and by the aid of which the sayings of the authorities might be adapted to their goal. And this was the labor of Photius, who, according to the ability of his intellect, was the first to lay these foundations and hold up a torch to all the patrons of his same opinion; he himself opened the most fruitful fountain from which, through the following centuries, as many as have impugned the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son have drawn most of their arguments.
13. The theological arguments of the schismatics depend in large part on certain principles already stabilized by Photius. Whoever has scrutinized these axioms—the foundations of the sophisms being constructed—will be able to judge their artificial disputation in its entirety. Photius, however, as is wont to happen almost everywhere in such matters, mixes false things with true, by cleverly connecting with the thread of logical deduction those things which ought never to be admitted to established and conceded principles. As to the theological principles admitted by all, Photius uses these most especially: I. The Trinity is entirely consubstantial; the three persons have entirely the same nature and power. II. The Father is the first cause, the first principle, from whom both the Son and the Holy Spirit, although not in the same way, have their being and divine essence. III. Essence is communicated, but personal properties are entirely incommunicable, or, as Gregory Nazianzen speaks, *the property of each is unsharable* (Cf. John the Theologian, 18th session of the Council of Florence, Hard. Conc. vol. IX, p. 201). IV. The divine monarchy must be preserved in all things, by which the Trinity, which Christians adore, is distinguished from the polyarchy of the heathens. Connected with these are other dicta which are no less ratified and verified among theologians and among the Fathers. But let us now examine the proper axioms of Photius. These are the more important: I. To attribute the spiration of the Holy Spirit to the Son as well is to posit two principles in the Trinity, and ones diverse from one another. II. To produce the Holy Spirit or to spirate is the hypostatic property of the Father. III. What the Father produces from himself as from a cause, he produces by reason of person, not however by reason of nature. IV. Whatever is conceived in the Holy Trinity is either common to the three persons or proper to one person. V. Nothing in the Trinity can be common to two persons. VI. Whatever is said about the Trinity is either natural or hypostatic (that is to say, hypostatic in the sense that it is characteristic and proper to one person). VII. As is the Son, so also is the Holy Spirit from the Father immediately and directly, with no intermediate existing. Indeed, John Beccus brought up almost all these axioms, both in his *Animadversiones* against Camaterus (Gr. orth. II, p. 191) and in his *Second Oration on the Unjust Deposition*, ch. 54 (Ibid. p. 75), as having been introduced and defended by Photius. But these are found in our book in explicit terms, in which we judge his theological value should primarily be determined. Not only did Photius introduce the doctrine regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone among the Greeks, but he also attempted to connect it with the established theological system of the Fathers by a certain method and study, to fix it a permanent seat in the dogmatic institutions of the Greeks, and to fortify it on every side. Hence, we shall successively traverse these three articles: first, the arguments from authority brought forward by both sides which are touched upon in the book of Photius; then, these very Photian principles themselves; and finally, the more important sophisms of the same, adding the select opinions and responses of Catholic theologians.
[145] II. — Arguments sought from authority on both sides, which are the more important, are subjected to examination.
Regarding the arguments sought from authority, Photius urges in the first place the words of Christ in John xv, 26: "who proceeds from the Father," as if the Son were thereby excluded from the active spiration of the Holy Spirit and it were vindicated for the Father alone. Deservedly, along with Petrus Mediolanensis (*De proc. Spirit. sanct.* c. 6, Græc. orthod. Rome 1652, vol. I, p. 384, 385), Leo Allatius (c. Hotting. p. 296. Cf. *Enchir. De proc. Spirit. sanct.* Rome 1658, cap. 7, p. 55) says: "The schismatics accuse the Latins because they add 'and from the Son' to the words of Christ, and they themselves do not blush to add 'from the Father alone.' Both are an addition; if one is to be blamed, why not the other?" Catholic theologians respond that the proposition of John xv, 26 is expressed as an affirmation, not an exclusion, and furthermore that the Son is implicitly commemorated here, both from the words intimately connected with these and from certain theological principles; nor is it without cause, but rather according to the custom of the Scriptures, that spiration is attributed particularly to the Father; nor, finally, would it have been an obstacle to the Latins if it had been said: "Who proceeds from the Father alone." For regularly, as St. Thomas says (*Summa theol.* p. 1, q. 36, a. 2 ad 1), "even in Holy Scripture it is to be held that what is said of the Father must be understood of the Son, even if an exclusive diction is added, unless solely in those things in which the Father and the Son are distinguished according to opposite relations. For when the Lord says in Matthew xi: 'No one knows the Son except the Father,' it is not excluded that the Son knows himself. So therefore, when it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, even if it were added that he proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not be excluded from that, because regarding this—which is to be [146] the principle of the Holy Spirit—the Father and the Son are not opposed, but only regarding this, that this one is the Father and that one is the Son." Solemn is that saying of Augustine (*tract.* 99, *in Joan.*): "If therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say: 'He proceeds from the Father'? Why, do you think, except as he is accustomed to refer to Him that which is His own, from whom He Himself also is? Whence is that which He says: 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.' If therefore His doctrine is understood here, which nonetheless He said was not His own but the Father's, how much more is it to be understood there that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him, where He thus says: 'He proceeds from the Father,' but did not say: 'He does not proceed from me'?" The same argument is unfolded more abundantly by Petrus
- A trus Mediolanensis (l. c., c. 7, p. 386 seq.); Hugo Etherianus (l. III, c. Græc. c. 15, p. 1251, ed. cit. apud Petav. De Trin. VII, 15, 2, 3, et Natal. Alex. H. E. sæc. IX, diss. 18, assert. 1, t. XII, p. 532, ed. Bing. 1788); Nicephorus Blemmida (orat. 1, c. 19-21; Gr. orth. I, p. 26-28); Joannes Beccus in many places (Gr. orth. I, p. 348 seq., III p. 130-132, 145, 19; ibid. II, p. 1030-1031); Joseph Methon. (contra Marc. Ephes. Hard. Concil. t. IX, p. 570, 571); Leo Allatius (Enchirid. c. 7, p. 15 seq.; c. 25, p. 170, 171; contra Hotting. c. 18, p. 324 seq.), and many others.
2. Hence, the Latins maintain that this addition of *Filioque* to Christ's words is in no way an arbitrary addition contrary to the sense, nor foreign to the exposition, exegesis, and clarity of the biblical words, which offer themselves spontaneously and with the greatest harmony from the very reality and analogy of the Scriptures. To pass over other things for the present, the illustrious Archbishop of Rhodes, Andreas, in the Council of Florence, sess. 6 (Hard. IX, p. 72 seq.), shows that from the Christian tradition—from which the Greeks, just as the Roman Church, profess to draw the legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures, and which they decree must be held as equally venerable and entirely sufficient for dogmatic proof, whether it be constitutive or interpretive—he develops the principles from which the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son is evidently gathered: that the Father is not understood unless the Son is understood simultaneously; that the persons in the Trinity are B compared, where, with one end of a chain drawn along, the other end is also drawn along; that when one person is understood, the others are comprehended at the same time (34); that the Son has all things in common with the Father, with the exception of the one Paternity (35); that all things in the Trinity are one [148], where opposed relations do not enter (36). "Everything which does not separate the Father and the Son," so says Gregory of Constantinople to the Emperor of Trebizond, c. 6 (G. O., I, 429), "is common to the Father and the Son; but to spirate does not separate the Father and the Son; therefore, it is common to both (37)." Furthermore, as the aforementioned bishop shows in the 7th session of Florence (Hard. l. c., p. 93), the Spirit has the same relation to the Son that the Son has to the Father (38); whence, just as the Father is the *archē* (origin) of the Son, so the Son is the *archē* (origin) of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore Hugo Etherianus (l. II, c. 17, p. 1232 e): "Inasmuch as the Father is understood to have nothing in common either with the Son or with the Spirit, He is understood as Father alone, just as when He is called unbegotten, without cause and without beginning. But in as much as He is understood to have something in common with both or with only one, although He is named alone, yet He is not understood alone. But the Father truly has the Spirit in common with the Son; wherefore when it is said: 'He proceeds from the Father,' it must be sub-understood that He also proceeds from the Son." But if truly [149] it is asked what prevented Christ from adding, "and He proceeds from me," it can be asked first by the same right, why did He not say: "He proceeds from the Father alone" (39); secondly, it is answered that it was customary for the Lord to refer all His own things to the Father as to a beginning without beginning, from whom all His things were (40); then [the same is said] regarding the Son, as much as is said regarding the Father without being called Father. Cf. Chrys. hom. 38, in Joan. and many other testimonies in Beccus epigr. 10 (G. O. II, 615 seq.) and L. Allat. (in Vindic. syn. Ephes. c. 20, 37, 38, p. 81, 179-191; Enchirid. cap. 4).
A Since it is shown that those words, "Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth," sufficiently declare that the Son is not absent from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. But above all, one must note that argument of the theologians by which, from the mission of the Spirit through the Son, His procession from the same is proven.
3. Ratramnus of Corbie himself (l. 1, c. 1, p. 229, ed. MIGNE) argued thus: "You read 'who proceeds from the Father,' and you do not wish to hear the Son saying: 'Whom I shall send to you from the Father.' Say how He is sent by the Son; for you do not deny that it is the Son who says this, if indeed you read the Gospel or believe the Gospel. Therefore, either confess this mission to be a procession, or—which is impious—[confess it to be] servitude, and you will be, which God forbid, with Arius, who asserted that the Holy Spirit was lesser than the Son by a perverse dogma... Therefore when the Son says that He will send the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He surely confesses that He [the Spirit] proceeds from Him, while He confirms that He sends Him. Perhaps someone makes a question of the fact that the Savior did not say simply, 'Whom I will send to you,' but added: 'from the Father.' The Arians were the first to stir this up, wishing to create a hierarchy in the Godhead. But the truth of the Gospel shows the consubstantial unity of the whole Trinity. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, because He flows from His substance. The Son also sends the Spirit of truth from the Father, because in order for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son, He was Himself born of the Father; and just as the Son received His substance by being born from the Father, so likewise He received from the Father the power to send the Spirit of truth from Himself as He proceeds. Otherwise, when He says: 'Who proceeds from the Father,' He does not deny that He proceeds from Him, since the mission of the Son is the procession of the Holy Spirit; so that He sends the Spirit of truth not as if He were lesser, by Himself being the greater in commanding, but it is shown by the word 'mission' that, just as the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father, so He also proceeds from the Son." Beccus (in Camateri Animadv. c. 4. G. O. II, 297, 298) delivers a consistent view: "For because (the Holy Spirit) is sent by the Father and the Son, since He is not sent by either in the manner of a servant (διακονικῶς), He exists altogether naturally as it were from the essence of both." And George of Trebizond (De una cath. Eccl. c. 3, G. O. I, 540, 541): "Thence the Holy Spirit proceeds, from whence He is also sent; therefore He proceeds from the Father and the Son. For those who contrive temporal B progressions in God and the divine persons are insane..."
They indicate that they are eternal in those things that are temporal. For that which sends possesses a certain dignity vis-à-vis that which is sent; but in the Holy Trinity it is not lawful for us to understand a dignity of one person over another, except only that which arises from origin. Therefore the divine Scriptures do not teach that the Father is sent by the Son, nor the Son by the Spirit (except according to the humanity). Truly, since missions in the divine are to be understood not according to command, nor according to counsel, but according to origin, theologians thence conclude that the divine person who is sent by another certainly has its origin from that person; and since the Holy Spirit is said to be communicated and sent to us by the Son (John xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22), they deduce from hence His procession from Him. Hence Augustine (De Trin. IV, 10), whom Aeneas of Paris also brings forward (c. Græc. c. 40; MIGNE, Patrol. t. CXXI, p. 708): "The Father," he says, "although He is known by someone in time, is not said to be sent. For He does not have [One] from whom He is or from whom He proceeds." And Hugh of Rouen (Contra hæret. l. 1, c. 2, Bibl. PP. max. Lugd. t. XXII, p. 1341): "The Father is from no one; and so He is not sent; but because the Son is from the Father and the Spirit is from both, rightly is each able to send from whom He exists." Hugh Etherianus (l. c., l. 1, c. 10, 14, p. 1204, 1208) also uses this argument sagaciously.
4. But it is not for us to recite here what Photius might maintain elsewhere to refute this argument. For he contends (Amphiloch. q. 188, ed. Mai Vett. Scr. nova Collect. I, II, p. 180) that any of the three persons can be sent by another, indeed that the Father Himself is said to be sent by the Son and the Holy Spirit in Isaiah XLVIII, 16, by those words: "And now the Lord (God) has sent me and His Spirit." Which he touches upon again in another question (Galland. Bibl. PP. XIII, 742, 743) dealing with John XIV, 10, where he brings forward Chrysostom concluding from the cited words of the prophet: "As though the Father were being sent by both the Spirit and the Son." He surely refers to the homily on the Holy Spirit, a part of which he had recited in the *Bibliotheca*, cod. 277, p. 842, ed. vet. But primarily, the words of Isaiah, which are often joined with others in c. LXI, 1 (regarding which Photius determines otherwise, as is to be seen below), do not prove the matter. To say nothing of more recent authors who ascribe them to the prophet himself, they are commonly attributed D by the Fathers... They nevertheless show through the temporal [missions] what is eternal; for that which sends necessarily possesses some dignity vis-à-vis that which is sent; but in the holy and adorable Trinity it is not lawful to conceive of any dignity of one hypostasis in relation to another, except only that [of origin] from which [He is]; for this reason the Scriptures say that the Father is never sent by the Son, nor the Son by the Spirit, except according to the human [nature]. George Metochites discusses these things well in *Contra Manuel. Cretens.* c. 9. (G. O. II, 990 seq.). He teaches that by mission the dignity of the sender is shown, among others by Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 37, p. 596, 608, ed. Bill.
are attributed to the Son, and indeed regarded as He is man (44), nor does the author of that homily disagree, as Petavius (De Trin. 1. VIII, c. 1, § 14) shows, even though he called the person speaking the Creator of heaven and earth. Hence, those who later championed the schism do not wish those words to have been uttered from the person of the Father, but from the person of the Son; however, not as man, but as God (45). But there is no need to dwell on these things any longer; we shall provide the discussion of the divine Thomas, which is generally opportune for illustrating the matter. After (Summa, I, q. 43, a. 8) [153] he brought forward three arguments which seem to prove that a divine person cannot be sent except by Him from whom He eternally proceeds, and opposed to these the fact that in Isaiah XLVIII, 16, the Son is said to be sent by the Holy Spirit, he teaches these things: « I reply that it must be said that concerning this, some are found to have spoken in different ways. For according to some, a divine B person is not sent except by Him from whom He eternally exists; and according to this, when the Son of God is said to be sent by the Holy Spirit, this must be referred to the human nature, according to which He was sent by the Holy Spirit to preach. But Augustine says (De Trin. II, 5) that the Son is sent both by Himself and by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is also sent by Himself and by the Son, so that being sent in the divine does not belong to every person, but only to a person existing from another, whereas to send belongs to every person. Both views have truth in some way, because when some person is said to be sent, both that person existing from another is designated, and the visible or invisible effect, according to which the mission of the divine person is attended to. If, therefore, the sender is designated as the principle of the person who is sent, thus not every person sends, but only that one to whom it belongs to be the principle of some person. And thus the Son is sent only by the Father, but the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. If, however, the sending person is understood to be the principle of the effect according to which the mission is attended to, thus the whole Trinity sends the person sent. » To these must be connected the things which Thomas (l. c., a. 2) answers to that argument: « Mission implies procession; but the procession of the divine persons is eternal; therefore, mission is also. » For he says: To the third C point, it must be said that mission does not only import procession from a principle, but determines the temporal term of the procession. Hence mission is merely temporal, or mission includes the eternal procession and adds something, to wit, a temporal effect. For the habit of a divine person towards its principle is nothing but from eternity. Whence it is called a twofold procession, viz., eternal [154] and temporal, not on account of this, that the habit towards the principle is doubled; but the doubling is on the part of the temporal term and the eternal principle. » Thomas distinguishes a twofold habit in mission: I) the habit of the sent towards the sender; II) to the term to which He is sent. (Ibid. a. 1.) Furthermore, anyone sent has a habit towards Him from whom, and a habit towards Him to whom he is sent. The former habit can be threefold: « either according to authority, just as a master sends a servant; or according to counsel, as if a counselor were said to send a king to wage war; or according to origin, as if it were said that a flower is sent forth from a tree. » Now, in the divine, mission can take the place neither according to authority nor according to counsel; there remains only mission according to origin. Whence, although with respect to the term to which and the effect of the mission the whole Trinity is said to send: nevertheless, the relation of the sent to the sender depends on the origin, and all those arguments remain unmoved, by which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is confirmed from the mission.
5. Or rather, that which the Greek Fathers infer from the mission by which the Son sends the Spirit, that He is from Him (46), and this mission is described almost everywhere as proper and personal, with effects belonging only to persons, and is commonly joined with the eternal procession, so much so that even from this it appears to be entirely founded upon it. « If the Son, » says Hugo Etherianus (lib. II, c. 13, p. 1249), « is sender and sent, cause and from cause, nothing unexpected follows from the fact that He sends the Spirit just as He is sent. For if a man according to nature and by his own will breathes out and inspires his corpulent spirit: much more does the Son of God send and [155] emit His Spirit equal to the Father, perfectly and in the same way embracing Him without diminution (47).
A From this it is again evident that the Son is naturally a certain cause of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father Himself is. This is also supported by the fact that the Fathers, and Gregory of Nazianzus especially, in the passage concerning the characteristic of the persons, use the word *ekpempseos* (emission), and as we heard from Thomas (§ 4), that it belongs altogether to the mission—both the external effect and the eternal procession—which is manifestly derived from their own doctrine. On this matter, cf. Petav., *De Trin.*, VIII, 1, 7 et seq.
6. Therefore, let the Latins repel that "sharp and inevitable weapon" not only from the Scriptures B but also from that ecclesiastical tradition which, as Nicephorus Blemmida wisely notes (*Orat. 1, De proc. Spirit. sancti*, c. 3; G. O. I, p. 2, 3), should by itself suffice. However, Photius also struggles against tradition, and in chapter 5, with a great clamor of words [156], he attacks the doctrine of his opponents as new, unheard-of, and contrary to the synods and the Fathers. But the truth of the matter is that there are six hundred testimonies to be found in the writings of the Greek Fathers (48) by which the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son is established. Such testimonies are very numerous, though not all of them; yet the greater part were already gathered by Ratramnus (l. II, c. 3, 5; l. III, c. 6), by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus, and Aeneas of Paris (lib. *Adv. Græc.* c. 1-19, 29-34, 75) in the time of Photius himself; and later theologians brought forward much richer ones. It is incredible that Photius did not know or read those texts of his Fathers in which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed—*proienai, eklaｍpein, ekporeuesthai*, etc.—sometimes *dia tou Huiou ek tou Patros* (49) [157], sometimes *para* or *ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou* (50), sometimes *para amphoteron* (51) (52). In these, under various images (53) [158], the Holy Spirit is described as flowing forth naturally from God the Father through the Son, and, as with the breathing from the mouth in a figure, indicating to us His own existence (G. O. II, 536, 672). Cf. Cyrill. *in Joan.* XV, 27; *Adv. Nest.* IV, 3; *Trin. dial.* 2, t. V, p. 423. It is sufficiently well known that that formula, *dia tou Huiou*, was already used in this matter by Origen, and among the Latins, by Tertullian, *Adv. Prax.* c. 4.
(49) Cyrill. in Joel: "For the Son is God by nature, since He has been begotten of God and the Father; the Spirit is His own, and is in Him, and is of Him, even as He is understood to be of God and the Father." Hugo Etherianus, l. III, c. 21, p. 1259; Beccus, *Orat. 1, De unit. Eccl.* c. 28; and *Epigr.* 1 (G. O. I, 138; II, 525), Bessarion (*Orat. dogm.* c. 7; Hard. IX, 357), Jos. Methon. *Apol.* (ibid. p. 571), Leo Allatius (*Enchir.* c. x' [60], p. 70 [70]; *Vind. syn. Eph.* c. 40, p. 193; c. 57, p. 372) and others use this testimony. Likewise, Cyril, *Expos. anathem.* IX: "The only-begotten Word of God, having become man, remained God, and so He is God, possessing all things that the Father has, except only the being Father, and possessing as His own the Holy Spirit, which is from Him and substantially inherent in Him, He wrought the divine signs." Cf. Allat. *Vind. syn. Eph.* p. 79, 80, 371 seq. *Thes.* lib. II: "The Spirit comes forth also from the Father and the Son; it is manifest that He is of the divine substance." Cf. Niceph. Blem. G. O. I, 13; Beccus, ibid. II, 526; Allat. op. cit. c. 42, p. 208.
(51) Epiphan. *Haer.* 74, n. 7: "And the Holy Spirit is from both, Spirit from Spirit, for God is Spirit." The same expression in *Ancoratus* (n. 8, 9, 69-71, 77) occurs frequently. Cyril, *ep. ad Pallad.*: "But this is not a perversion of the Spirit; for if the changing is an evil, blame will return to the divine nature itself, if He is of God and the Father, and indeed also of the Son, the Spirit substantially from both, as proceeding from the Father through the Son." Hugo Etherianus (l. III, c. 21, p. 1259), Nicephorus Blemmida (*Orat. 1*, c. 5; G. O. I, p. 4-6), J. Beccus (*Epigr.* 1, G. O. II, 526, 543), Allatius (*Enchirid.* c. ia' [11]; *Vindic. syn. Ephes.* p. 209) use this testimony.
(52) Niceph. Blem. (l. c. c. 8 seq. G. O. I, p. 8, 21), Beccus (G. O. I, 98 seq. 148), Constantin. Meliteniota (*Orat. 1*, c. 18; G. O. II, 673 seq.), Georg. Trapezunt. (*ad Joan. Cubocles.* lib. 1, 478 seq.), Leo Allatius (*Contra Hotting.* p. 325 seq., *Enchir.* c. λβ' [32] seq. c. τκ' [320] seq. p. 5 seq.), Petavius (*De Trin.* l. VIII, c. 4) demonstrate these and similar formulas.
(53) See him (l. c. c. 5, n. 6 seq. c. 6), Allat. (*Ench.* c. η' [8] et ις' [16]). To mention a few, to this point belongs the fact that Gregory Nazianzen calls the Father the eye, the Son the fountain, the Spirit
A as river. But Chrysostom, in Ps. XCII, calls the Father the source, the Son the river, and the Spirit the living water (G. O. II, 302); likewise, Nazianzen calls the Father the sun, the Son the ray, and the Spirit the light, while Cyril calls the three persons fire, flame, and light, and elsewhere calls the Son the root and the Spirit the fragrance (G. O. II, 608). Names of the three persons of this kind are again root, branch, and fruit (cf. Niceph. Blem. G. O. I, p. 18-20. Hug. Eth. l. I, c. 4, p. 1201); furthermore, the Son is called the hand, and the Holy Spirit the finger (Niceph. Blem., l. c. p. 17, 18). Nothing is more illustrious than this description, which Gregory of Nyssa, in his Sermon on the Holy Spirit against the Arians and Sabellians and Macedonians, brings forward (Mai, *Nova Bibl. PP.* I, p. 20; Niceph. Blem. l. c. p. 56; Beccus, epigr. I, G. O. II, 537; Georg. Metoch. ib. p. 935 seq.), when he attacks those who maintained that the *πρὸς τὸ ἀρχικὸν* (principality) was a sign of some diminution or change according to nature.
(54) John Beccus (G. O. I, 98, 148; II, 539 seq., 627 seq., epigr. 13), Nicephorus Blemmydes (ib. I, p. 8–21), Constantine Meliteniotes (ib. II, 675 seq.), George Metochites (ib. 925 seq.), George of Trebizond, to John Cubuclesius (ib. I, 478 seq.), Allatius (c. Hotting. p. 325 seq., *Vind. syn. Eph.* c. 48, 59, p. 239 seq., 382 seq., *Enchir.* c. η' et ιά'), Petavius (*De Trin.* VII, 4) propound and prove this; and John Beccus explains this more fully regarding this matter (*De un. Eccl.* c. 20 seq., 24; *orat. 2, de injusta depos.* c. 15; l. 1, ad Theod. Sugd. c. 9 (G. O. I, 113, 123 seq.; II, 60 seq., 110 seq.); George Metochites, *C. Maxim. Plan.* (G. O. II, 944 seq.); George of Trebizond, *De una Eccl.* c. 2; *De proc. Spirit. sanct. ad J. Cubocl.* c. 2 (ib. I, 538 seq., 471 seq., 493 seq.); Gregory of Constantinople to the Emperor Trapezuntius, c. 5 (ib. 420 seq., 461); Gregory Protosyncellus, *Apol. c. Marc. Ephes.* (Hard. Conc. IX, p. 623–626); Joseph of Methone (ib. p. 586); Bessarion (*Orat. dogm.* c. 5, ib. p. 352 seq.); Hieronymus Donatus (*De process. Spirit. sanct. ad Leonem X*, lib. III, c. 9); Leo Allatius (*Enchir.* cap. η', p. [159] seq., *Vindic. syn. Eph.* c. 59, p. 382 seq.); Petavius, *De Trin.* l. VII, c. 17, n. 2 seq. Schismatics sometimes conceded that it is the Spirit *διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ*, but they denied that this signifies procession and is equivalent to *ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ*. Hence, Hugo Etherianus, who asserts that the Spirit has existence from the Son as from the Father, agrees; but he rejects one saying: "From the Father through the Son," and not understanding "from the Son" as well. Cf. with those things which were discussed at Florence (apud Hard. IX, p. 377, seq.).
(56) See Niceph. Blem. (*orat. 1, c. 3, 4*), Bessarion, Gregory Scholarius, and Joseph of Methone (apud Hard. IX, p. 313, 449, 567 seq.); Leo Allatius, *Vindic. synod. Ephes.* c. 50, p. 274 seq., c. 59, p. 398 seq.
B 356 seq., 348 seq.). Nor will any prudent person today dare to affirm that either the Macedonians or the Latins corrupted the codices of the Greek Fathers (as many as contain something of this kind, not by a second hand of an interpolator, but by the first hand entirely, showing this off without any suspicion of fraud), of which codices many still exist slightly older than the age of Photius, in their own favor; which accusation (as pertains to Greek books) has been stretched out over many centuries since the schism arose, from the straits into which Greek theologians were principally reduced at the Council of Florence; it was easy for Catholics to refute this (56); nay, they were within their right 160 to turn back such a reproach upon the authors themselves, who were most skilled in the art of falsification (57). Now, indeed, Photius, who preserves the C process to the Father and the Son, is clearly asserted. Indeed, the Fathers use the very same words to express the existence of the Son from the Father, as they declare the Spirit to have existence from the Son (54); but if, in narrating the procession of the Spirit from the Son, they sometimes use formulas different from those which are employed in relation to the Father, this happens because they wish not only the distinction of persons to be expressed, but also the prerogative of the Father to be preserved, by which He is the *ἀρχή προκαταρκτική* (primary cause), from which the Son has shared both essence and the spirating virtue. Nor do the prepositions *ἐκ* (out of) and *διὰ* (through) differ essentially in their usage in this matter (55); indeed, the phrases *τὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πεφηνέναι* (having appeared of the Son), *Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἶναι* (to be the Spirit of the Son), *διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ* (through the Son), or *ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι* (to proceed from the Son), are entirely equivalent, as Cardinal Bessarion, long after others, proved in his dogmatic oration c. 6 (Hard. IX. 356 seq., 348 seq.).
(57) Related to this is the most famous passage of Gregory of Nyssa, *serm. de Orat. Dominica* III, at the end, edited completely by Angelo Mai (*Nova PP. Bibl.* Rome 1847, vol. 1, p. 52, 53), on which the most learned editor treated widely in his own dissertation (p. 40-51). Petavius (*De Trin.* VII, c. 3, §§ 11-13) judged indeed that in those words: *Τὸ δὲ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς λέγεται καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἶναι προσμαρτυρεῖται* (And the Holy Spirit is said to be both from the Father and is testified to be from the Son), to which the text Rom. VIII, 9 is adjoined, that it was a later addition; but the internal arguments which he uses are not so definitive as to mean that we must or even can disagree with the external ones that stand for that reading, and which Petavius had not yet D perceived at least in their entirety; indeed, those arguments of his are easily resolved. Gregory rightly distinguishes *λέγεσθαι* and *προσμαρτυρεῖσθαι*; it is read clearly and expressly in the Bible that the Spirit is from the Father; but that He is from the Son is not said *κατὰ λέξιν* (word for word), but is concluded and deduced from what is explicitly said, especially from Rom. VIII, 9; as it is also deduced by other Fathers from other places where the Spirit is called *Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ* (Spirit of the Son), which will be demonstrated later. We have, moreover, the judgment of the synod in the year 1280 celebrated by John Beccus and eight metropolitans (Allat. G. O. I, p. 366-374. Cf. *De consens.* l. III, c. 1, n. 5, p. 893-897), where it was made manifest in public registers that the referendary Escammatismenus had erased that *ἐκ* (from) from a very ancient codex of this work (which everything persuades us now exists in Rome) and that he later confessed the same thing. Another codex written before the schism likewise bears that *ἐκ*, and those that are more recent are mostly those that lack it. Furthermore, many prudent writers bring forward the passage with this preposition, and others defend precisely that reading. Cf. Hug. Ether. (l. II, c. 19, p. 123); Beccus, *De injusta deposit.* orat. 2, c. 23 in *Camat. Animadv.* c. 22, epigr. 1, ad *Theod. Sugd.* l. II, 5 *De un. Eccl.* c. 28; *De proc. Spirit.* c. 1, n. 4 (G. O. II, p. 74, 333, 523, 141; I, 143, 230); Georg. Metoch. (ib. II, 944, 953, 1045); Isaiah Cyprius (ib. I, 398); Manuel Calecas (l. II, p. 401, ed. cit.); Jos. Methon. (Hard. IX, 571); Allat. (*Vind. Syn. Eph.* c. 41, p. 205; *Enchir.* c. ιβ'), then Card. Mai l. c. and the opusculum: *Confutazione di Antimo patriarca scismatico*, Rome 1854, p. 47. Added to this is another no less illustrious passage of Basil l. III *C. Eunom.* n. 1 seq., about which there was long dispute in the Council of Florence, sess. 19-22 (Hard. IX, 220, 225 seq., 241 seq., 255 seq., 264 seq., 328 seq.). Hugo Etherianus (l. III, c. 13, p. 1249) already reported the reading of the Latins, and his adversary Nicetas Thessaloniceus acknowledged it (Cf. Bessar. ep. ad. Alex. Lasc. c. 1; Allat. *Enchir.* cap. ια'). If judgment is made by the antiquity of the codices, Garnier must be said to have poorly accepted the text as the Photians defend it; nor does he attend to so many arguments, both internal and external,
A which Beccus, Bessarion, and others have brought forward. That the Greeks attempted fraud in the codex of Basil at the Council of Florence itself is attested by Joseph of Methone (apud Allat. *De cons.* III, 1, 5, p. 889, 892; Hard. IX, 567). Concerning this text of Basil, one should consult Beccus, *De una Eccl.* c. 27, 59; *De proc. Spirit. sancti* c. 1-3 (I, 133 seq., 200, 225-274; II, 120 seq., 523); George Metochites (ib. II, 1048 seq.); Constantine Meliteniotes (ib. 825 seq.); Manuel Calecas (l. I, p. 395); George Trapezuntius, *ad Joan. Cubocl.* c. 22 (G. O. I, 516, 517); John Plusiadenus, *pro conc. Flor.* (G. O. I, 629, 630); Bessarion (l. c. p. 171, ed. Arcud.; Hard. IX, 1045-1050); Bellarmine (*de Chr.* II, 25); Allatius (l. c.); Petavius (l. c. c. 3, § 14 seq.); Natalis Alexander (l. c. n. 3, p. 513-515, ed. cit.); Maius (l. c. p. 46-48).
Furthermore, it is objected against Photius himself that in *Bibliotheca* codex 277, in the homily on the incarnation ascribed to Chrysostom which begins: *Ὄντως ἐπεφάνη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις*, he struck out the proposition (p. 848, ed. 1601) which Beccus (G. O. I, 139; II, 313, 314, 334, 527), Manuel Calecas, Joseph of Methone (Hard. IX, 574), and the Savilian edition read quite consonantly. The words are: *Ἦλθεν ὁ Χριστὸς πρὸς ἡμᾶς· ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἀνελάβετο τὸ ἡμέτερον σῶμα*. Elsewhere, as in orat. 1, *prophyl.* (G. O. II, 528), it reads: *Τὸ παρὰ Χριστοῦ Πνεῦμα*. Regarding this testimony, cf. Petavius, *De Trin.* VII, 3, 19. Beccus enumerates examples of corruption in his second oration concerning his unjust deposition, c. 23 (G. O. II, p. 73, 74), and Constantine Meliteniotes treats at length of these and others in orat. 2, c. 20-28 (G. O. II, 823-854), c. 31 seq. (ib. p. 864 seq.). Other examples of corruption are noted by (58) Ratramnus, l. II, c. 2 (p. 245, 246), that the fathers of the second council added words regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit to the Nicene symbol against the Macedonians and set an example for the churches of Christ B by denying it, and only asserted those synods which necessarily had to be established against the heresies of their own times, and hence that later synods promulgated fuller expositions of dogmas (58), the Fathers who held the primary roles in these councils, such as Cyril of Alexandria (59), having openly handed down that dogma of the Latins; that the Ephesian council [165] specifically approved the ninth anathematism of Cyril (p. 356), and that the fifth and sixth synods solemnly proclaimed those Fathers and Doctors of the Church who also had been defenders of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (p. 360); that in the seventh synod, with no one objecting, the epistle of Tarasius to the Orientals was read and approved (act. 3), in which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed *ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δι᾿ Υἱοῦ* (60), and that it was in no way blamed (p. 368, 369). Moreover, that is also of the greatest importance, that in the contention with the Macedonians and Eunomians, it was never denied by the Fathers that the Holy Spirit is through the Son or from the Son, which they placed as a foundation; but it was denied that He is a creature, that He is from the Son alone, and not simultaneously from the Father; those Greek doctors surely brought forward arguments which admit the former and reject the latter. Thus, for example, Basil, l. II, *c. Eunom.*, asks: *πῶς οὖν* (Eunomius) *τοῦ Πνεύματος αἰτίαν τῷ Μονογενεῖ μόνῳ προστίθησι;* He finds fault only with this, that he excludes the Father, and refutes the adversary from this, that *οὐδεμία ἐνέργεια τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀποτετμημένη ἐστὶ τοῦ Πατρός* (61). As if he were to say: Through you C the *προβολὴ* of the Spirit [164] is said: "If they wished to add anything according to the sacred Scriptures, which might overcome heretics and strengthen the faith of believers," and that it could not be said that only things contained in the Bibles were to be received, since by such a pact the *ὁμοούσιον* with the Arians would have to be rejected, nay, almost the entire Constantinopolitan definition against the Macedonians; but if it is said that this is virtually contained in the Scriptures, even the Latins show that their dogma regarding the matter and sense and by "virtue of intelligence" is found there. Anselm of Havelberg speaks in almost the same way (Dial. II, 20, 22, p. 185, 186, 187, edit. Paris. 1723). Cf. furthermore S. Thom. (p. 1, q. 36, a. 2 ad 2); Beccus (*De una Eccl.* c. 46, G. O. I, 170-172); George Metochites (*c. Man. Cret.* c. 26, 27; ibid. II, p. 1060-1065); Manuel Calecas (l. IV, *C. Græc.* p. 449, 450, ed. cit.); Gregory of Constantinople (*ad imp. Trapez.* G. O. I, 422 seq.); Petavius, *De Trin.* VII, c. 2.
(59) Leo Allatius treats of this in the work inscribed: *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae*. Rome 1661, cap. 17 seq. p. 65 seq. The matter is so manifest that even some schismatics concede that he thought with Augustine on this question (ib. c. 74, p. 608 seq.).
(60) They use the testimony of Tarasius, which Nicephorus Blemmida, orat. 1, n. 24-26 (G. O. I, 31-38); J. Beccus, orat. 2, *de injusta deposit.* c. 26; l. I, *ad Theod. Sugd.* c. 8, epigr. 1 (Ib. II, 81, 109, 538); Constantine Meliteniotes, orat. 1 (Ib. II, 695, 696); George Metochites, *c. Maxim. Planud.* (ib. p. 924 seq.); Manuel Calecas (l. I, p. 386); *Flor.* (Hard. IX, 100); Bessarion (ibid. p. 349); Joseph of Methone (ibid. p. 574); George Protosyncellus (ibid. p. 623); Leo Allatius (*Contra Hotting.* c. 20, p. 521; *Vindic. Syn. Eph.* c. 48, p. 263; c. 77, p. 651) expound.
(61) Cf. concerning this text those debating in orat. 1, 14
A operation of the Son; but there is no operation of the Son that is disconnected from and foreign to the Father; therefore, you must also admit that this processional activity [προσβολήν] belongs to the Father. And here he uses precisely those words of Christ, from which catholic theologians also argue: *AllMine are Thine, etc.* Wherefore, since the Greek Fathers themselves most clearly support the Latins, it would have been of little moment what Photius could have brought forward. He could perhaps have invoked Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom, however, he held in almost no regard in dogmatic matters, or Theodoret, whom Hugo Etherianus calls “the inventor and herald of this negation” [L. I, c. 2, p. 1200 (62)], or at least in appearance John Damascene, who, however, although he affirmed (De F. O. I, 8, p. 141) that it ought not be said that the Spirit is from the Son, yet openly taught that the Spirit proceeds *through the Son*, and is judged with very good reason to differ from the Latins in words rather than in the thing itself (63). Since these things are so, Ratramnus does not rashly (L. I, c. 8, p. 242 et seq. ed. cit.) rebuke the Greeks of his time: B “Let the detractors, therefore, whether malevolent or ignorant, cease to rebuke the Church of Christ because it confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This the Gospels teach, this the Apostles profess, this the prophets do not remain silent about... See whither your... profession tends, by which you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son. You have not read this anywhere in the divine Scriptures nor in the ecclesiastical doctors. The holy Constantinopolitan synod did indeed say... that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and also the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father; did it deny that He proceeds from the Son? Or does it follow that, as He proceeds from the Father, He does not proceed from the Son? Rather, therefore, acknowledge, if you wish to be of the Church of the Son and to follow the doctrine of the Fathers, that by saying the holy council gathered at Constantinople meant the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, it did not deny that He also proceeds from the Son; but since the whole Trinity is consubstantial and the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the love of both, no one can deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, unless he denies that the Son has the love with which He loves the Father. Because this is insane, it must be held entirely and faithfully confessed, that since the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and this love, with which the Father loves the Son, proceeds from the Father, and from the Son no less. Moreover, this love is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.” We conclude with the words of Hugo Etherianus, who (L. III, c. 17, p. 1232) responds to Photius as follows: C “The Lord said: *The Spirit who proceeds from the Father*; the holy synods and the entire college of the Latins have confirmed this, not only not denying it, but believing it with every diligence and with their whole heart, and they say and confess that He proceeds also from the Son. For although only the Father is named, the Son is absolutely understood, for the reason that He does not proceed from the Father without a medium, and since the Father is nowhere found to have said: *I alone send forth the Spirit*; [163] nor did any of the prophets or other Fathers ever assert: *The Father alone sends forth the Spirit*. But neither is this against the decrees of the holy Fathers, who gathered at Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, or anywhere else to confirm the faith. For the same thing is said, but in another way by explaining and interpreting what ought to be piously understood, namely that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, with the Son being sub-understood, both because it is most true that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, and because many were dividing Him from the Son. Indeed, just as the Spirit of the Son is understood when He is said to be of the Father, so He is to be conceived as proceeding from the Son, since God proceeds from the Father... But the good Shepherd removes these false opinions from his own, and does not condemn the Church of the Latins without a synod by his own powers, but rather tells lies against the holy synods and against men of apostolic sanctity, while he affirms that they decreed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son... This detractor asserts that they taught what he thinks his expression indicates, namely, *who proceeds from the Father alone*... These two expressions do not mean the same thing: *Who proceeds from the Father*, and: *Who proceeds from the Father alone*, neither among the Greeks, nor among the Latins, neither among orators, nor among philosophers; truly it is necessary to examine not only the wording, but the intention of the wording. Indeed, things that are doubtful are sometimes made manifest by other things and from those things which have been written elsewhere. That which is *from the Father alone* seems spurious to the Latins, but that which is *from the Father and the Son* seems spurious to the Greeks, because neither is written in the Gospels. D
A However, they are so opposed that one of the two must of necessity be true, and the other not; for it is consistent and agrees with the Scriptures that he proceeds from the Son, and it is not found to be contrary or repugnant, even if it is not expressed by the synods. For every Roman pontiff who has sanctified and confirmed the synods has always said and dogmatized this... But from saying that he proceeds *from the Father alone* many inconveniences follow... 167 If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, he is not himself the image of the Son (64), but of the Father, as if coruscating from him without a medium; but this is not so, since the Spirit is the image of the Son and beams forth from him most proximately. He would be closer to the Father than to the Son, and more the Father's than the Son's. Furthermore, if he proceeds from the Father alone, the Father gives the Spirit to the Son by measure, since he attributes to him only the mission and not the procession. In which, indeed, he does not seem to measure back the paternal excellence, nor to have the Spirit entirely with all things that are considered around him, as the Father has. For the great Cyril says: “The Son does not give the Spirit by measure, according to the voice of John; but he himself sends him forth from himself, as indeed does the Father. Wherefore, whoever transforms the statement: *Who proceeds from the Father* into that which says *from the Father alone*, weakens the voice of the Savior, who is the perennial fountain of truth.”
8. But Photius deals much more fully with those arguments which the Latins used to bring forward for their opinion, and especially he has a long discussion in chapters 20-30, by which he strives to enervate the argument taken from John xvi, 13-15. C Utilizing this text, he followed the footsteps of the Western Fathers (65), 168 with Ratramnus (op. cit. I, 3, p. 229 seq.) saying: “For what will the Holy Spirit receive from the Son, since they are of one substance and one power? Truly he said *He will receive of mine*, that is: he proceeds from me, because just as the Father and the Son are of one substance, so also the Holy Spirit, proceeding from both, received the existence of consubstantiality. Nor should it disturb anyone that he said *will receive* in the future tense; for this refers to that which was to be, that he was to be sent to the disciples, not to that which proceeds from the Father and the Son; for he proceeds from the Father without time, and he proceeds also from the Son.” It follows: “*All things, whatsoever the Father hath, are mine; therefore I said, because he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.* If the Son also has all things that the Father has, then truly, just as the Holy Spirit is the Father’s Spirit, he is also the Son’s Spirit; otherwise, if he is only the Father’s, and not also the Son’s, then not all things, whatsoever the Father has, are the Son’s.” Similarly, theologians of later times dispute. Georgius Trapezuntius (De una S. Eccl. O. G. I, 542 seq.) says: “Since the Son is the true Son of the Father, it is necessary that the Son himself, remaining [in the Father], possess all things of the Father. But the Father produces the Spirit; therefore the Son also produces him, as he asserts the same: *All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said to you: that he will receive of mine...* He said *will receive* in the future tense, not that he was about to receive; for nothing new or added 169 or temporal exists in God; but he notes an operation not yet completed upon the Apostles, but one truly to be completed (66). For the manifestations of operations, since they are temporal in regard to us (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), also occur and appear in time. Since, therefore, a similar operation of the Spirit was to be manifested to the Apostles, he therefore says the Paraclete will receive from himself. To these things it cannot be, since we are human, that we understand and speak or conceive otherwise than in time and according to time: and therefore things which are expressed here by intervals of time are understood in Divine things eternally. Wherefore, what is now asserted that the Paraclete will receive from the Son, he received from him from eternity itself. But things which inhere in God from eternity itself and which he possesses from eternity are accommodated either to the nature or to the hypostases; but to receive a hypostasis from a hypostasis is not adapted to the nature; therefore to the hypostasis. Which is nothing else than for the receiving person to have existence from him from whom he receives. But he who receives existence from someone also has from him whatever he possesses (67).” Hence arises the famous 20: “Therefore he receives from the Son, who is both sent by him and proceeds from the Father, and I ask whether it is the same thing, to receive from the Son, as to proceed from the Father. But if it is believed that there is no difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, then certainly it is thought to be one and the same thing to receive from the Son that which is to receive from the Father. For the Lord himself says: *Because he will receive of mine*, etc. This which he will receive, whether it is power, or virtue, or doctrine, the Son said was to be received from himself.” Cf. Leo M. serm. 2, de Pentec. et August. apud Ratramnum, III, 2, p. 277.
that argument of John the Theologian (Conc. Flor. sess. XVIII, Hard. IX, 193 seq.): "From whom the Holy Spirit receives being in the divine, from Him He also proceeds; but the Holy Spirit is said to receive being from the Son; therefore He also proceeds from the Son (68)." "But what He receives," says Bessarion (ep. ad Alex. Lasc. c. 7, ib. 1067, 1068), "is His essence; for He Himself is not one thing and His essence another... since He is supremely simple, He receives His existence and being from the Son." Hence Catholic theologians draw manifold arguments from that text.
9. Now Photius insists more than others on this, A that Christ did not say *from me* (ἐξ ἐμοῦ), and that the interpretation of the Latins wrongfully introduces this, because that *from me* (ἐξ ἐμοῦ) points rather to the person of the Father, so that the sense might be: *from my Father* (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ Πατρός). (Cf. especially chapters 22, 29, 30). But 1) he falsely assumes that the Latins are constrained to change the words of Christ into *from me* (ἐξ ἐμοῦ), since everyone translates not *from me* (de me), but *from mine* (de meo), that is, from that which I have received from the Father, from that which is mine. Indeed, almost all Latins confess that the discourse is immediately about knowledge and doctrine, nor do they disagree with Chrysostom (hom. 78 in Joan.) who interprets: *From me* (Παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ), that is, *from my knowledge* (παρὰ τῆς ἐμῆς γνώσεως) (69). But from this, they rightly draw the conclusion of the procession from the Son. Gregory of Constantinople notes in his Apology against Mark of Ephesus (70), having adduced the words of Chrysostom: "The knowledge of the Son is not one thing, and the Son Himself another. For if He were one thing, and the knowledge which is in Him were something else besides Him, He would be composite and not simple." Furthermore, as George of Trebizond says B unless by receiving essence. Hence, when it is said that the Spirit speaks only what He has heard, just as the Son speaks only what He has heard from the Father, the same essential knowledge is understood. "The same," says Petavius (De Trin. VII, 5, 4) on the text of John xvi, 13, "in God, to hear is to see or to know; the same to know is to be, as Augustine also discusses at length in his tractate on John XVIII, 19." II) That interpretation is concocted by caprice and is in no way to be admitted: *from my Father* (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ Πατρός). "If this were the true understanding," says Manuel Calecas (lib. 1, C. Græc. p. 397, ed. cit.), "it would never be stated without an addition. For possessive pronouns of the masculine or feminine gender are never uttered without an addition in the usage of the Greek language. For we say: *My father* ('Ο ἐμὸς πατὴρ) and *my city* (ἡ ἐμὴ πόλις). For so the custom of the Greek language is wont to express it. Otherwise, the pronunciation would be faulty. But when it is said without an addition, it is understood as neuter and as signifying the thing itself, for example: *If there is anything of mine with you* (Εἴ τι καὶ τοὐμόν ἐστι παρά σοι), where 'my' (to-mon) allows the thing itself to be understood by itself." In the same way Bessarion (l. c.): "If, when it is said *from mine* (ex meo), it were to be sub-understood *from the Father*, this 'mine' would be a pronoun of the masculine gender; but no one taught in either the Greek or Latin tongue utters a pronoun of the masculine or feminine gender unless with an addition: *my brother, my friend*, or *my city* or *house*, as he says. For 'my' (meus) simply, without an addition, signifies the father no more than the enemy." III) Nor is this true, therefore: that *from mine* (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ) insinuates two persons, of whom one is the possessor, the other the possession itself (c. 22). Not without insight does Hugo Etherianus (l. II, c. 19, p. 1234) refute Photius here, saying: "The same Savior says: *I cannot of myself do anything*, because I do not seek my own will. And again: *I came down from heaven, not to do my own will*; and likewise: *My doctrine is not mine*. But if, according to the position of Patriarch Photius, the pronoun 'my' everywhere signifies two persons, and the will of the Son were a person other than the Son... Wherefore it is not necessary that the pronoun 'my' everywhere signify two persons, since it is also figuratively said of the same person, as Persius (Satyr. V, 88) says: *Vengeance, after I, my-self have left the praetor*, and Euripides: *But I, myself, am mine*." To pay attention C to the Paraclete whatever He was about to reveal to the Saints, but not His being itself, he will have uttered something that is plainly impious. "For the Paraclete," he says [171], "will have something acquired (ἐπίκτητόν τι) and thus will not be true God. For whatever God possesses, He possesses from eternity." Nothing, say the Fathers (71), does the Holy Spirit have that is adventitious, nothing subsequently acquired, but He has everything from eternity. Whence John the Theologian, sess. XXI, Conc. Flor. (Hard. l. c. 256, 257): "Everything that the Holy Spirit has received, and receives, and will receive, He has eternally; and what the Son hears from the Father, the same is knowledge; but knowledge in the divine is the same as being (72)." Briefly Allatius (Contra Hotting. c. 18, p. 295): "Lest the Holy Spirit become a creature, He will not receive knowledge, D *the being that receives from someone has also from Him everything that He has. The Holy One receives [His] being; He [proceeds] from Him*," nor did Mark of Ephesus entirely reject this; but John proved the minor premise, which was denied by him, with clear testimonies of the Fathers. and Beccum epigr. 13. (G. O. I, 15; II, 630): *The Spirit has nothing acquired for Himself, but has everything eternally as the Spirit of God and appearing from Him.* Cf. Athan. (ib. epigr. 8, p. 583): *Since everything He has received and receives, He has eternally, since the hearing of the Son from the Father is the same as knowledge, and knowledge in the divine is the same as being.* Cf. Bessar. l. c. "The same is wisdom and His being, and from whom He receives being, from Him He also receives wisdom, and when He is breathed, He receives both being and subsistence, and also receives wisdom... If the Spirit receives from the Son, therefore the Son gives to Him; but 'to give' in the divine persons signifies the same as 'to produce'."
'." A That man ought to have understood that "person" is accepted differently by Grammarians and differently by Theologians. Truly, in Grammar, any thing can be called a person, whether it subsists by itself, or through another, or whether it be a substance or an accident. Wherefore, according to a discipline of this kind, when the Son says: "my will, my judgment, my doctrine..." this or that is understood as a person (that is, grammatically) in the likeness of possessions. In theology, however, by tacit properties, apart from all things that are said according to substance, only three persons are insinuated (or diminished), none of which seems to be expressly understood where the Savior says: "He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you."
Furthermore, IV) that exposition by Christ is opposed to his own explanation, by which in v. 15 he proves from it "He shall receive of mine" B before he had affirmed it himself, because all things that the Father has are his own. These final words, according to the unity of essence, prove this in the Father and the Son; hence, that which the Spirit is said to receive is manifestly seen to be the divinity itself, and nothing else. Next, as Bessarion (l. c.) says, referring to John xvi, 15, this argument is constructed: "The Spirit receives from those things which are the Father's; but all things of the Father are mine; therefore the Spirit receives from my things or from mine. And since he himself and his things are one and the same because of the highest simplicity, in receiving from his things, he shall receive from him." Once it is established that the subject is the divine essence itself, it can no longer be denied that the Spirit receives this from the Son. If, however, the Spirit receives from the Son, the Son gives or communicates the essence to Him; but to give, in divine matters, is the same as to produce, as the same Bessarion (ib.) confirms with the support of Chrysostom on John v, 22. Even if, therefore, as far as the words go, it is not the same: "for the Spirit to receive from the Son" and "to proceed from the Son" (Phot. c. 21), in reality, however, it is the same thing, because "to receive" in the Spirit and "to give" in the Son are correlative, and the Spirit as God can receive nothing from him apart from divinity. Christ joins himself with the Father, he recurs to his own communion with the Father, from whom he has all things; nor does he separate his own from those things which are the Father's, but rather shows them to be the same.
Photius again absurdly (c. 23) presents them as two contrary things: to proceed from the Father and to proceed from the Son; the former does not exclude the latter, but includes it; nor does the later mystagogy abolish the earlier institution, but rather confirms it: "All things that are the Father's are mine." Manuel Calecas rightly said (l. c.): "For if the Spirit receives from the Son, and all things of the Father are also common to the Son, it is evident from this that the Son is insinuated to be one God with the Father, but the Spirit is declared to be true God from the essence of the Father and the Son." Furthermore, to say: "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore (διὰ τοῦτο) I said to you: because he shall receive of mine, etc."; either signifies nothing or does not signify what you propose; since things accepted for a structure C are extended by this very fact and are applied to the end that he may show that the Spirit is intimately joined with him and that he receives from that which is his own, to the extent that it has been said: "All things that the Father has are mine," which could have been said exactly as well even without that which follows. Truly, that repetition would be empty, that proof would be empty, if he only meant to say: "He shall take from my Father, not from me." Rather it seems to be said that, while Christ places himself as a kind of middle term between the Father and the Spirit, while he vindicates what he asserts through his communion with the Father, while he calls those things which the Spirit will receive his own and then refers them to the Father, he has designated himself as the proximate giver of them.
Added to this is that the universal proposition of Christ, "all things," etc., does not permit the Spirit to be removed from the Son (73). "But if by receiving," says Hugo Etherianus (l. c.), "he receives from those things which are the Father's and which the Father has, he receives from the Father; and by receiving from those things which are the Son's and which the Son has, he receives from the Son. It is therefore manifest that the Spirit does not receive from the Father alone, as Photius asserts... If the Spirit as emanator is not the Father in that he generates according to nature, and the Son is not even that, how will the Savior be truthful in asserting: 'Therefore I said to you, because he shall receive of mine, because all things that the Father has are mine'? For he will either have, according to nature, so that he may be the emanator, that which is the Father's not as begetter; or if not this, they are indeed the Father's, which exist as the Son's; but those things which are the Father's do not pertain to the Son. Therefore, if the Son has all things that are the Father's (not as begetter), yet to emanate the Spirit is not the Father's as begetter, this cannot be lacking in the Son."
This is that argument of which we spoke above (§ 2): What the Father has in divine matters, except for paternity (and innascibility), is common to him with the Son; therefore the spirating power, which is distinct from paternity (and from the property of being unbegotten), is common to the Son with the Father. In divine matters, according to Anselm (De inc., c. 3; De proc. Spirit. sanct. c. 2), all things are one, where the opposition of relation does not stand in the way. Cf. Petav. De Trin. VII, 9, 11.
10. Finally, V) the exposition of Photius is opposed by the Greek Fathers themselves, whose doctrine he always protests that he will most tenaciously follow. This, apart from others, Manuel Calecas and Bessarion, and no less clearly Beccus (l. III, ad Theodor. n. 10; G. O. II, 144, 145 and in Epigraph.) and Allatius (Enchirid. c. χε'. p. ρς' seq. and Vindic. syn. Ephes. p. 294) have sufficiently demonstrated. Let us hear one or other of these Fathers. Athanasius, to Serap., says: "The Son says: 'All that I have heard from the Father, these things I speak to the world'; but the Spirit receives from the Son: 'for he shall receive of mine,' etc." Item, orat. 3, c. Adrian. (it is Caleca's orat. 3): "The Spirit receives from the Word... for the Son himself gives the Spirit, and all things that the Spirit has, these he has from the Word." This witness is used by Nicephorus Blemmida, orat. 2, c. 6.
A Likewise, Bessarion and many others make use of it (cf. Petav. De Trin. VII, 5.1 ff.). Epiphanius provides arguments no less clear when, in his *Ancoratus* (cf. Beccus, G. O. II, 145, 580), he writes: "For if Christ proceeds from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: 'Who proceeds from the Father,' and 'He shall receive of mine.'" (Cf. also *Haer.* 74, n. 10, Opp. I, 898). Certainly, Epiphanius, intending to prove what force he attributes to the words "who proceeds from the Father" to show the origin of the Spirit from the Father, believes that the same force is present in the words we are discussing to manifest the procession from the Son. Let Didymus also be heard (*Lib. de Spiritu sancto*, Opp. Hier. IV, 1, 514, ed. Mart.): "Again, this 'receiving' must be understood in a way that befits the divine nature. How then is the Son, in giving, not deprived of what he bestows, nor does he impart to others to his own detriment? In the same way, the Spirit does not 'receive' what he did not previously have. For if he received what he did not have before, the gift being transferred to another, the giver would be rendered empty, ceasing to possess what he bestowed. How, therefore, we understood when discussing non-material natures above, must we also now recognize that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which is of his own nature; and this does not signify a giver and a receiver, but one substance: since the Son himself is also said to receive from the Father those things by which he subsists. For the Son is nothing else, except for what is given to him by the Father; nor is the Spirit of holiness any other substance B besides that which is given to him by the Son."
Let Cyril of Alexandria be added, whom Constantine Meliteniota (*De proc. Spirit. sancti*, orat. 1, c. 15; G. O. II, 571, 572) and Leo Allatius (*Vind. syn. Eph.*, pp. 279, 295-297) bring forward as a most abundant witness in many places, interpreting the same text in a way entirely different from Photius's reasoning. On those words: "For he shall not speak of himself" (John xvi, 13), he notes: "Certainly not as if I were to predict future things, unless it were by me, and proceeding through me." C Expounding further on John xvi, he relates: "But since he is consubstantial with the Son, and as befits God, proceeds through him, possessing all his most perfect operation and power in all things, for this reason he says: 'Because he shall receive of mine.'" And he adds to the verse, repeating the words of Christ: "That is, the Spirit who is through him and in him." Likewise in John xv, 26: "Behold, he calls him the Spirit of truth, surely of himself, and says that he proceeds from the Father. For just as the Spirit of the Son naturally remains in him and proceeds through him, so certainly is he also the Spirit of the Father. And those to whom the Spirit is common cannot indeed be separated according to substance." D What is clearer than the things Cyril disputes likewise on John xvi, 13? "For when he had predicted that the Paraclete would come to them, he named him the Spirit of truth, that is, of himself. For he himself is Truth. And so that the disciples might learn not that he would send a power alien or foreign from himself, but promised that he would give himself in another way, he calls him the Spirit of truth, that is, the Paraclete of himself. For the Holy Spirit is not understood to be alien to the substance of the Son, but naturally proceeds from it, being nothing else than he, as far as identity of nature is concerned, even if he should be conceived as existing in his own person. But when he has come, he says, 'he shall not speak of himself anything'; instead of saying: He will make you prudent, and will reveal the mystery of truth; he will speak nothing at all that does not agree with me, nor will he instruct you in foreign doctrines. Nor will he perhaps bring forth his own laws. But since the Spirit is as it were my mind, he will speak entirely what is in me. And these things the Lord says, not so that we might think, according to the ignorance of some, that the Holy Spirit has the place of a minister, but rather wishing to make the disciples more certain that, according to the nature of their essence, the Holy Spirit is not diverse from himself, and that these things he speaks and acts and wills. And therefore..."
[the Savior] added, "he will declare to you the things that are to come," saying as it were: This shall be a sign to you, that the Spirit is absolutely from my essence, and is, as it were, my own intellect, because he will speak things to come even as I do. A As if he were to say: This will be a sign to you, that the Spirit is of my essence and is my intellect, as it were, since he will predict future events just as I do. So again, he observes in reference to John xvi, 14, that by the fact that the Spirit receives from the Son, nothing at all is detracted from him, and he possesses all things perfectly. However, the points which Cyril makes contribute significantly to illuminating the context and the aim of Christ’s words; but the arguments which Photius sets forth, although they are for the most part true, do not assist his intended purpose. Christ comforts the disciples, testifies that he is not sending a stranger or a foreigner as a consoler, and shows his equality both with the Father and with the Paraclete, and their [ὁμοουσία] with the Father; but his words do not mean only this. He proves it much more effectively if, at the same time, he shows that the Spirit possesses all his things from him, whom the disciples knew and loved so much. And if, according to Photius (c. 26, 27), he wishes to guard against them thinking the Spirit to be greater than himself, he achieves it much more powerfully if he confirms that he is the same as himself, and presents himself as the very principle of him whom he had previously said proceeds from the Father. Indeed, to use the words of Photius, he truly unfolds the previous mystagogy more fully and joins and couples it with this explanation through the words: "All things that the Father has are mine." But what is the point of that reasoning, if the Spirit receives nothing from the Son? But whoever wished to pursue each of Photius's assertions would, without doubt, find a more ample store of proofs. We hasten to other matters.
11. No less prolix is the dispute (c. 48), where [180] Photius attempts to wrest another scriptural testimony from the Latins, namely Galatians iv, 6, where the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son. Although the words do not, by themselves, prove the procession of the Spirit from the Son, nevertheless, when scholars consider both other texts and the safeguards of Christian tradition, theologians have always, by the highest consensus, been persuaded that this text and others like it possess the power to demonstrate it, and have formed arguments from it in various ways. Ratramnus, a contemporary of Photius, discusses this text as follows (l. 1, c. 4, p. 232): "Paul does not say: God sent his Spirit. And if he were to say that, he would not entirely exclude the Son, since the Son too is God, just as the Father is God, and the two are not two Gods, but one God; for what person separates, substance conjoins. Wishing, however, to remove every question, he said that God specifically sent the Spirit of the Son of his [C] into our hearts. Is the Spirit of the Son any other than the Spirit of the Father? But if it is the same Spirit of both, he surely proceeds from both; for the Spirit is not called the Spirit of the Son as if he were inferior to the Son; whoever thinks or says this is not catholic. For this reason, there is no reason why he should be called the Spirit of the Son, except because he proceeds from the Son, just as he is called the Spirit of the Father because he proceeds from the Father." Ratramnus then adds other texts where the Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of Christ, and most notably Romans viii, 9, concluding that the Spirit of Christ is the same as that which is also called the Spirit of God (c. 6, p. 236), and comparing Romans viii, 15 with Galatians iv, 6, he notes: "See that he calls it the same Spirit of adoption of sons, which he confesses is the Spirit of the Son, so that the Apostle might teach us that it is the same Spirit of the Father which he calls the Spirit of adoption, and the same Spirit of the Son which God sent into our hearts; and in the same [Spirit], who is shown to be the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, we cry: Abba, Father. Which we could by no means do, if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son as he proceeds from the Father." Hence he again exclaims (c. 7, p. 238): "If the Spirit [181] does not proceed from Christ, how is the Spirit said to be of Christ? He proceeds, therefore, from Christ, because he is not said to be his out of subjection, nor from a particular division, but because his Spirit proceeds substantially from his substance." Nor does Georgius Trapezuntius speak otherwise to the Cretans, *De una S. Eccl.*, c. 3, 4: "The Spirit has from the Father and the Son what he is, according to the divine Gospel. And indeed Paul also says: God sent the Spirit of his Son. Therefore, if he is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, which is read most often, it is manifest that he is breathed or proceeds from both." With these agree many other theologians (cf. Walch, op. cit., c. 10, § 3, p. 168, 169), who are accustomed to reason thus: He who in divine matters is said to be another's, proceeds from him; because when one person is equal to another, he is not said to be the other's by reason of subjection or servitude, but by reason of origin; therefore, if the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, he already proceeds from the Son (cf. Demetr. Cydon, *De proc. Spirit. sanct.*, c. 10). Manuel Calecas argues excellently against the Greeks as follows: "Since one thing is said to be of another or proper to him in divine matters, with matter and that which follows after matter rejected, it cannot be said as a member, or as a possession, or by reason of any excellence or any other affinity, but only by reason of the principle and of that which is from the principle, in which one...
the other is distinguished, we perceive that even the being called the Spirit of the Son can be understood solely by this account of the principle. He is necessarily referred to the one who breathes, and He is called Spirit—but from Him He is altogether and is breathed. That the Spirit of the Son is the [Spirit] of the Son, is that He is of someone, not because of consubstantiality or because He is granted by Him to the worthy (this is something extra). For that the hypostatic names of the Trinity are relative, no one will gainsay; and the name of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, is hypostatic, just as the Father is of the Father and the Son of the Son; and it is necessarily relative, just as these are; since essence is not one thing, and there is nothing else in divine matters beyond the relations and the essence. Just as, therefore, we fear to call the Son "the Spirit of the Son" because that name is relative and is referred to the Father, lest He be thought to be his father, so also the Spirit, being a relative name and necessarily referred to the one who breathes, is from Him, and [also] is breathed, [of Him] whose Spirit He is said to be.
A voice you are corrupting (C. 50). He said: The Spirit of His Son. Recte omnino ac pro sapientia ipsi divinitus data. But you, why do you corrupt the voice; and that which He actually said, you do not repeat, but what He did not even think, you are not ashamed to proclaim as if spoken by Him? (C. 51.) But these, like others of the same kind, are vain declamation; this alone is sought, in what way the Latins establish their doctrine from the words of Paul; and it is clear that arguments are not wanting to them by which they may confirm their conclusion. This is rather to be examined, what, according to Photius, the phrase of Paul, "the Spirit of the Son," signifies. He therefore twists those words primarily toward a bare consubstantiality; he thinks it is indicated by them that the Spirit is not alien from the Son (c. 49), and that He exists of the same nature as the Son, of the same essence, of the same glory, of the same honor and dominion (c. 51). "Whoever, therefore, says 'Spirit of the Son,' indeed teaches the unity of nature without any difference, but in no way at the same time indicates the principle of the procession; he knows unity according to essence, but he in no way proclaims or implies that the hypostasis of equal nature produces or is the principle" (Ibid.) Then he teaches (c. 53) that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father, because He proceeds from Him; [and] consubstantial with the Son, B "not because He proceeds from Him (away with that, since He does not [proceed] from Him on account of generation), but because He proceeds from the one and indivisible principle by an eternal and equal order to both."
13. But that the denominative "[Spirit] of the Son" and similar expressions in biblical and patristic discourse should be referred to a single consubstantiality is entirely vain and false. For 1) the expression is broader: "this is of that," than the proposition: "this is consubstantial to that." This is especially urged by Georgius Pachymeres, who wrote C a special treatise against those asserting that the Spirit is said to be [consubstantial], saying (G.O. I, 393): "Anyone will admit that 'of' is predicated more universally than 'consubstantial.' For this house is Socrates', and the seat is Plato's; but it is not consubstantial, neither the house nor the seat, to those philosophers." In truth, the nominative "Spirit" with the genitive "of the Son" suggests to no one the idea of consubstantiality. But II) it helps nothing if the matter concerns only those things which we know to be consubstantial. "But if," thus the aforementioned author proceeds, "in D [these things]..."
A consubstantial things alone one inquires, we shall by no means find that this follows in all consubstantial things as being of this kind, but it is found to fail in these also in very many ways. For indeed Peter is consubstantial to Paul and Paul to Peter; but neither is Paul of Peter, nor Peter of Paul. Therefore, to be consubstantial will be much less evident than for this to be of that, and to be called so. For then the ‘consubstantial’ would be spread much less than the ‘to be of something’ and to be called so, if indeed this did not correspond to that on the other hand (οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει), but the consubstantial did respond and correspond to this; but since it is less, and not everything which is consubstantial to someone is said to be of him, to a greater measure the consubstantial will contain being less than that which is of this.” Similarly Hugo Etherianus (l. II, c. 20, p. 1225): Since all B men are consubstantial among themselves, yet “no man [185] in that he is man (or consubstantial to another) is said to be of another.” Pachymeres proceeds (p. 394): “With this conceded, it must be inquired whether the cause (αἴτιον) extends further, or the effect (αἰτιατόν). Without doubt, the cause. Wherefore if anyone should ask why light is said to be of a ray (φῶς ἀκτῖνος λέγεται), it would be foolish to answer: because it is consubstantial; but if anyone should ask: How are these consubstantial, then the answer has a place, because this is said to be of that, even if in many consubstantial things this may not be the cause. Thus also in the proposed question, someone will dare to bring forward: If the being and being called of the Spirit of the Son extends more widely, as we must now confess from what was said about consubstantiality, if anyone should ask: Why is the Spirit consubstantial to the Son? it will be conveniently answered that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son; for he is not adventitious (ἐπίκτητον) to Him, as those things which we possess are to us, but proceeding in an eternal and natural manner. Just as if one should ask: Why is the Son consubstantial to the Father? We say: because the Son is the Son of the Father; and he is moreover from the Father according to substance, but not as creatures are. But indeed, to answer the question, why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, by saying that he is consubstantial to Him, is a tasteless answer and not according to dialectical laws. For the consubstantial is less clear than that which is of this. And how shall we confess that what extends less is the cause of that which extends more? For the cause is of more or equal things, if it is reversed, but never of fewer.” (P. 395.)
By which that fiction is destroyed. “Those who assert,” A says George of Trebizond (G. O. I, 541, c. 4), “that the Spirit is said to be of the Son according to consubstantiality (κατὰ τὸ ὁμοούσιον), behave madly. For why do we not say the Father is of the Spirit, since he is of the same nature as the Spirit? Or does it not remain evident from this that he who calls the Father the Spirit, calls the Son the Spirit, and commits blasphemy? And likewise he who calls the Son the Spirit, as though transforming the Spirit into the Father [186]?” Indeed, according to that exposition, since the three persons are consubstantial among themselves, each one ought to be called the other’s. But the theological and Christian manner of speaking abhors this; and if there were any, very few, even among schismatics, who said that the Holy Spirit is the Son’s own (cf. Const. Meliten. orat. c. 37; G. O. II, p. 746), yet the many rejected it entirely, among whom is Mark of Ephesus: “The Son,” he says, “is neither nor is he called of the Holy Spirit, according to Gregory Nyssen (85).” For his words are these: Ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Πνεύματος οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε λέγεται, οὐδὲ ἀντιστρέφει ἡ σχετική αὔτη ἀκολουθία. But if this is not converted, it does not denote consubstantiality; for if it were to be referred to the ὁμοούσιον, it would be stated conversely: as the Spirit is of the Son, so the Son is of the Spirit. Moreover, the genitive τοῦ Υἱοῦ indicates possession, property, or a C certain relation; generally, that is said to be of someone which pertains to him in any way. But according to the theological principles of the Fathers, relations in the Godhead are relations of origin; the names of the three persons are themselves relative; the habit of origin is therefore denoted here (86). Nor could any other reason be rendered why the Son is not called the proper Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Father the proper Spirit of the Holy Spirit. A divine person has no property to another, except by the habit of principle. Let those things which we adduced from Bessarion (§ 11) be recalled. With these, the things of George of Trebizond (l. c. p. 541, 542) harmonize: “Just as Father and Son are hypostatic names, indicating the mode of being (τὸν τρόπον τοῦ εἶναι) of these hypostases, by the same reason also the name of the Spirit is hypostatic, manifesting his own mode of being. From the Father, therefore, and the Son, he is spirated, since he is the Spirit of both.” (Cf. ibid. ad Joan. Cubocl. c. 10, p. 487.) Add that, according to the Greek Fathers, the Spirit is the property of the Son in the same way he is the property of the Father. But according to these same Fathers, he is the property of the Father as proceeding from Him; therefore, according to them, he is the property of the Son as proceeding D from Him (87).
A If the Spirit were not the Spirit of the Father and the Son in one and the same way, but in a different way, then he would not be the Spirit of the Father and the Son "equally and indifferently," but in an altogether different manner, which would contradict the Fathers. Finally, other theologians note that even if it were conceded to Photius that the phrase "Spirit of the Son" should be referred to consubstantiality, the arguments of the Latins would nonetheless remain unmoved, which will appear more clearly from what is to be said below (Art. IV, § 20, end).
15. That it was said that the Son is not conversely called the "Son of the Spirit" can be supported also by a not ignoble theologian, whose fragments Photius himself has preserved for us. Job the Monk, in his work *On the Incarnation*, Book VII (in the *Bibliotheca* of Photius, cod. 222, pp. 318, 319, ed. 1601), dealing with the point that the Son is called "hand," "right hand," etc., among the Fathers, B notes that it is correctly said that a finger belongs to the hand, but not that the hand belongs to a finger; thus (he says) the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, but the Son is not called the Son of the Spirit, and he discourses on this matter in such a way that it provides an entirely consistent argument for the doctrine of the Latins. But if anyone objects, and argues that the Father is also of the Son, just as Photius argues in ch. 52, saying: "Will you therefore, conversely, attribute generation to the Father?" the answer can be given that nothing prevents the Father from being termed [190] of the Son, but much prevents the Son from being called the Spirit of the holy one; it is not for that reason to be said that the Father is begotten, because he is said to be of the Son, nor are the Latins forced C to maintain such a thing. Certainly, Father and Son are relative names, and such that they declare through themselves a relation of origin, by which one is from the other—the Son from the Father, not the Father from the Son; the Father is the Father of the Son and is so called, the Son is the Son of the Father. Spirit is also a relative name (like "breathed") if it is taken in ecclesiastical usage and personally; yet in itself it is not in this way…
A taken; however, it does not by itself manifest a relation of origin as clearly as the names Father and Son. "For in itself the Spirit is referred neither to the Father, nor to the Son" (Bessarion above § 11 and John the Theologian below, art. seq. § 1), "but to the one breathing" (ibid.). From this, the disparity is already evident. [191] While it is said, "the Father of the Son," the Father of the Son is understood; nor can the Son be taken as the principle, nor the Father as the principiated; but if it is said, "the Son of the Holy Spirit," the words indicate that the Son has His origin from the Spirit, and that the Spirit is the Father—which is absurd. "Father of the Spirit" cannot be said, because then the Spirit would be the Son; "Son of the Spirit" cannot be said, because then the Spirit would be the Father. It is one thing for something to be of someone simply, and another thing for it to be the Father or Son of someone; furthermore, the Father is not said to be of the Son simply, but "the Father of the Son"; it is understood that He is his Father. In like manner, the Spirit would be said to be of the one who breathes, and the breathing Spirit would be said to be the breather of the Holy Spirit, or the producer [πρoβολɛύς] of the Spirit. These terms correspond precisely to each other and pertain to the same genus, and thus they prevent confusion. It is rightly said again: the Father and the Son are producers [πρoβολɛῖς] of the Spirit, but not simply: the Father and the Son are the Holy Spirit. B
16. But Photius (c. 59) perversely and craftily imputes to the Latins that which they never taught: that whatever is said to be "of someone" is from him or out of him. Certainly, this can be said of that which belongs to another, whether as a possession of the possessor, or as a part of a whole, or as an effect of a cause, or as a form or quality of a subject, etc.—by whatever name the genitive case can be joined with a nominative subject, which shows how widely the use of the genitive extends. The Latins do not say of anything whatsoever that is said to be "of someone" that it exists from him; but they say this regarding persons, and not any persons indiscriminately, but divine persons. Creatures, too, are "of the Father and the Son," but the Father and the Son do not proceed from the creatures. From the quality and character of the subject, it is determined how that which is said to be "of it" pertains to another. Whoever is called "of another" pertains to him in a certain way; whether as a servant or as a necessity, etc., he has a relationship to him. Furthermore, all such relations that do not speak of the divine hypostases, such as servitude or ministry, are to be excluded from the divine; that relationship [192] should be established which conforms to the divine (95). This, moreover, is the habit of origin (§ 14), the relation between principle and C principiate. Just as the heat of the sun is said to be heat caused by the sun, just as the fruit of a tree is fruit produced by a tree, so the Spirit of the Son is the Spirit sent forth through the Son, just as the principiate is of the principle. Vainly, therefore, are examples gathered of similar locutions where there is no talk of the divine persons (Phot. c. 57 seq.). The Spirit is called the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of intellect, the spirit of knowledge, of love, of the adoption of sons, of promise, of faith, and other things of this kind (96); but wisdom, intellect, knowledge, etc., are not divine persons; rather, they are gifts and charisms, "of which the Holy Spirit is the fountain and dispenser," as Photius himself (c. 58) well knows; these are effects, fruits, donations, and are, as it were, the possession of the Holy Spirit; in these, the genitive has a far different meaning. "By no means," says Hugo Etherianus (l. II, c. 20, p. 1236), "is the Spirit of the Son named in this way (as the spirit of counsel, of fortitude, of fear, etc.); the Spirit of the Son is indeed reckoned equally and indifferently, just as [the Spirit] of the Father. But the Spirit is called the spirit of intellect, of graces, and of gifts, as the giver and as the effective cause of them." But that same [193] author had already treated this same matter much more fully before (c. 13, p. 1228) against Theophylact. And above all, he urges this: "To this end... namely, that it is one thing to be from something and another thing to be of something; these are found to concur in many things. For a part is of the whole and out of the whole, and the fruit of a tree is also out of the tree, and the foam of the sea is also out of the sea; and just as it is impossible for water to be of the fountain and not out of the fountain, so it is impossible for the Spirit to be of the Son and not out of the Son, or of the Father and not out of the Father—the Son and the Spirit; but as for the Father, He is not said to be 'of' someone in the sense that He is 'from' someone in that respect, but in the sense that He begets the Son, He is called the Son's [Father]." According to this doctrine, it can well be said that some things are so called "of someone" that they are also "from him," while others are not so; those which are called "of someone" in the former way are clearly distinguished by the fact that no other reason exists why they might be called his, or because such a nexus exists between both that it could make this evident by itself. Then, regarding that statement of Theophylact: "The Spirit is said to be of the Son, according to the fact that the Son is unity and power and wisdom, while the Holy Spirit is described by Isaiah as the Spirit of unity and of fortitude and of wisdom," Hugo observes that power, wisdom, and unity D belong to the three persons and are per se essential names; if they are taken essentially...
A understood as they are appropriated to the Son, the same arguments of the Latins recur. Furthermore, he rejects in this way various examples brought forward by his adversaries: "God is called the God of Abraham as creator and Lord of Abraham, perhaps indeed also as his friend; but He is called the cause effective of intellect, of fortitude, and of similar things. But the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son and of the Father, as being from God and being God Himself, not as something adventitious arriving from without (for who would dare to assert this?) but as His plenitude, who certainly cannot be understood by a sound intellect in any other way... unless He is understood and considered as having substance from the Son; here certainly the Spirit, according to the voice of the Lord, is Truth, because He is called the Spirit of truth; who indeed [194] in as much as He is of Truth, in so much He exists of the Son, and receives existence from Him... If (the Holy Spirit) does not have being from the Truth, His truth is arriving and adventitious; since He Himself is preached as Truth, and is said to be of Him. Therefore just as He is of the Truth, so He has both being and subsistence from that Truth, and He proceeds from it, namely from the Son, according to the order of the persons."
B 17. Photius objects (chap. 59) that in the testimonies of the Scriptures (chap. 57), such as Isa. xi, 2; II Tim. i, 7; Gal. vi, 1; Exod. xxxi, 2, 3, and others, the Holy Spirit Himself is not to be understood, but the gifts and charisms flowing from Him which He Himself bestows; but this, he maintains, does not aid the adversaries, because according to their law we ought to reason thus: the Spirit proceeds from that whose Spirit He is said to be, whether person or charism is understood; therefore, it is not the charism that produces wisdom, sonship, faith, etc., but wisdom, sonship, faith, etc., that produce the charisms. Indeed, since according to the adversaries it is the same to say *Pneuma* as to say charism, there will be for them as many *pneumata* as there are charisms, and each of these *pneumata* or charisms will be divided in two, of which one produces and the other is produced, one gives and the other is given, as faith gives faith, intellect gives intellect, and so on in order. But such conclusions are plainly absurd. In the first place, the Latins teach that the word *pneuma* is used in many ways; that it sometimes signifies an energy (ἐνέργεια) or power (δύναμις) not subsisting by itself, and signifies air, wind, breath, etc.; but when it is used with the article, C it generally denotes a certain thing, singular and regularly subsisting; in the Scriptures, as Didymus has already observed (Book I, *De Trin.*), *Pneuma* is commonly called the Holy Spirit; but *to Pneuma* can also signify the gifts of the Holy Spirit by the figure of metonymy, by which the effecting person is placed for the effects, as in Eph. iv, 23; I Thess. v, 19; I John iv, 1 (II Kilber, *Theol. Wirc., Tract. De Deo uno et trino*, disp. 6, c. 2; art. 1 fin. n. 343). And correctly in many places of the Scriptures they understand charisms by [195] *Pneuma*, as the plural *ta pneumata* (e.g., I John iv, 1) shows. But the things which Photius devises do not follow from this; for D that calculation of his, which he ascribed to the Latins (§ 16), falls away; the genitive here does not indicate a cause, but denotes an effect; wisdom, faith, revelation, etc., are not divine persons. And although in a true and biblical sense *pneumata* are called charisms and as many *pneumata* can be held in this accepted meaning as there are charisms: nevertheless these are not divided into two, as Photius argues from a false assumption (cc. 59, 60). But one must not linger over these childish games.
18. But Photius has other reasons also at hand why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son. One of these, although not explained at length in the work, is nevertheless expressed in the title and often insinuated (97): namely, that the Spirit is sent by the Son and provided to worthy believers. B And Catholic theologians have accurately refuted this. Indeed, I) even if the fact that the Spirit is said to be of the Son is referred to the mission, the procession can still be deduced from it, since the temporal mission rests upon the eternal procession (§§ 3, 4). II) The Spirit is said by the Fathers to be proper to the Son according to nature; thus Basil, Book I, *c. Eunom.*, explains *Spirit of Christ* (Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ), as "appropriate to Him by nature" (ὡς κατὰ φύσιν ᾠκειωμένον αὐτῷ) (Gregor. of Cpl., *Apolog. contra M. Ephes., Confess.*, cod. Mon. 27 f. 117 b, uses this text besides others); but nature is eternal, and if anything is proper to another by nature, the reason for that thing cannot be repeated from temporal things; the Spirit is therefore proper to the Son not by any other respect, but in so far as He is a divine person, and thence is of Him. III). The Cause: George Pachymeres reasons thus (l. c. G. O. I, 390 seq.), that the cause must be understood before the effect; and the eternal in divine persons prior to their effects [196] which are temporal. The Holy Spirit is therefore in time provided to believers by the Son, because He is and is called the Spirit of the Son; this is like the cause, that like the effect. Therefore, that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, the reason cannot be sought from the fact that He is given by the Son to the worthy. In the same way Bessarion (epist. ad Alex. Lasc. c. 7; Hard. IX, 1067): "But if anyone says He is called the Spirit of the Son because He is sent from Him, the reason is false; for conversely, because He is His, He is sent by Him; for the prior things are the cause of the posterior (not vice versa). But the prior thing is that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son; the posterior thing, however, is that He is sent by Him." IV) Not less timely are the things which Hugo Etherianus disputes (l. II, c. 20, p. 1235): "He is not called the Spirit of the Son as consubstantial and who is sent through Him, as Photius declares in his writing; for either He is eternally of the Son and is eternally sent through Him, or He was of the Son before He was sent through Him. But if, before He was sent, He was the Spirit of the Son, He does not exist as His because He is sent through Him. And again, if the Spirit is sent eternally through the Son, either He is sent by the Son together with the Father who sends Him, or He is sent through the Son as if through an instrument, just as an arrow is sent through a bow
but this is impossible, for the nature of the cause and that of the instrument are different; the Son would be alien to the Father, as an instrument is to the craftsman. Wherefore the Son sends and possesses the Spirit entirely, just as the Father does, in that the Spirit is not consubstantial to that—or rather to Him—by whom He is sent in any way. Indeed, things that are in no way substantially present cannot be identical in substance. For how is it possible to transfer the reasoning from properties to substantial qualities, that is, to substantial differences? I believe it is not rightly done. For a property is not the same as a substantial quality; therefore, a consubstantial nature cannot be transitioned into a community of properties. Therefore, the Son of God is the giver and emitter of the Spirit from His own fullness. For His fullness is the Holy Spirit, as John says: *Of his fullness have all we received* (John 1, 16), that is, of His Spirit. But if the Spirit, insofar as He is a person, does not communicate with the Son, then the fullness of the Son does not communicate with the Son; likewise, if the Spirit is not from the Son, which is inconsistent; since therefore He is from the Son, B He also proceeds from Him. Those who deny this seem to assert that He did not perform miracles by His own power through the Spirit.” Furthermore [V], if the Son gives the Spirit, He certainly possesses Him; but whatever He possesses as the Son, He does not possess by grace, but by nature; He possesses it from eternity. Hence, Hugo Etherianus again remarks (l. II, c. 11, p. 1226): “The Son does not possess the Spirit by participation, who exists as life in Himself, as light in Himself, and as truth in Himself; nor does He receive any small measure of this Spirit from another, so that He might be unable to emit Him, while the Father is able to do this fully. What He has always possessed, how did He receive it from another? And what more does He have regarding the Apostles, if He sends the Spirit by interceding with the Father, not having Him proceeding through Himself and from Himself? Why does the Son send and emit the Spirit, just as the Father does? ... In the prophets, in the apostles, and in Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit spoke, yet the same Spirit was possessed differently by them than by Christ. For Christ possessed the Spirit through Himself, but they possessed Him through Christ.” And again (l. III, c. 12, p. 1248): “The Spirit is the Son’s either by reason of nature or by reason C of grace. But the Word of God has nothing from grace, because He is God, possessing all things; wherefore He has nothing added, nothing recently acquired, but they exist according to the nature of the divine exuberance as it has stood from the beginning, that is, naturally.” Similarly, Beccus in *Camat. Animadv.* c. 2 (G.O. II, 294): “If the Spirit is given by the Father as existing from Him, but not through the Son as existing from Him, who would not eventually judge that the Spirit is given through the Son as through a servant and minister (διακονικῶς καὶ ὑπηρετικῶς)?”
19. A most common evasion by the Greek heterodox must be noted here, by which they frequently maintain that the Fathers understood the bestowal of gifts and the temporal mission, 198 but not the eternal procession (98), when they say that the Spirit is poured out, proceeds, is manifested, and is supplied through the Son. We overturn this exception by what we have already stated, and we overturn it by the very words of the Fathers, in which they say that the Spirit is poured out by the Son just as from the Father, and in such a way that He is the natural Spirit to Him—which cannot be said of gifts *per se*—that the Spirit is poured out by the Son from His own nature and substance (99), and six hundred other things of this kind. Nor are only gifts and charisms given to the faithful, but the Holy Spirit Himself who dwells in them (Petav. *De Trin.* VIII, 4 seq.), which is clearly denied by the Greeks in vain. Hugo Etherianus discusses these matters at length 199 (l. III, c. 18, p. 1254 seq. Cf. II, 13, 14, p. 1228 seq.); Beccus (*Orat. de un. Eccl.* c. 16-19 ad Theod. l. l. c. 2 in *Camat. Animadv.* et *epigr.* 8, G.O. I, 104 seq. II, 89 seq. 320-323, 586 seq.); Constantin. Meliten. (*orat.* 1, c. 20; ib. 2, 682 seq.); Georgius Trapezuntius (*De proc. Spiritus sancti ad Joan. Cub.* G.O. I, 479 seq. 481 seq.); Bessarion (*Or. dogm.* c. 8. *epist. ad Alex. Lasc.* 7, Hard. IX, 361, 1063); Bellarm. (*De Chr.* II, 22); Leo Allatius (*Vind. syn. Eph.* c. 47, p. 229 seq.; c. 51, p. 286; c. 55, p. 354-357). Let us bring forward Hugo Etherianus alone, who writes (l. c.): “Although the apostles and prophets received the Spirit from Christ in time, yet the Son of God did not begin to possess the Spirit in time, nor did the same Spirit begin to proceed from the Son through any passage of time (1).” Indeed, from the days of eternity, just as the Son D and the Fathers had inculcated, Christ possessed the fullness of the Spirit not accidentally, not by addition or extrinsically, but from Himself as the Son of God, regarding which point [the author cites] also the anathema of Cyril of Alexandria.
A Since the Holy Spirit B is generated from the Father, He likewise proceeds eternally from both, and C is sent from both, and, as has been shown, proceeds from both univocally. For with the Three there is nothing past, nothing future; in the Three Persons there is no transmutation nor shadow of vicissitude. As regards Them (the Father and the Son), before all ages They send and give (the Holy Spirit). However, when they who are worthy of the gift or mission exist, They are said to begin to send or give; this is in no way according to Themselves, but according to those who receive. Therefore, if the sending is eternal, the mission is eternal; and conversely: if the mission is eternal, the sending is eternal. Yet the mission is eternal. For the reason of building a tower does not precede the building and exist separate from it—as in the case of a stone cutter—so, in the Son and the Father 200, the reason of the mission of the Spirit does not precede the mission or exist separate from it. For if the reason of the mission of the Holy Spirit existed from eternity in the Son, and the mission of the Spirit Himself began to be in the Son at some point in time, then the Son would have something prior and posterior, something added and separable, and He would not escape the multiplicity of accidents. B Does not the sun, when it illuminates a house, begin to radiate on a certain day? Similarly, precious stones shine continuously, as do the stars; yet the splendor of the former in darkness, and of the latter in light, does not sparkle—not from an interception of splendor, but from the weakness of those who look at it. Furthermore, the mission of the Holy Spirit and the knowledge of the mission are simultaneously in the Father and the Son; for time does not prejudice either of these two; but the knowledge is eternal; therefore, the mission of the Holy Spirit from both is eternal, and Both are equally and eternally the cause of the mission of the Spirit. If, then, (the Father) is the cause, and the Son is also in some way a cause of the Holy Spirit; if neither is the cause, the mission of the Holy Spirit has neither cause nor beginning, which is the sole privilege of the Father in the Trinity. Wherefore, perhaps it is not inconvenient if the procession of the Holy Spirit, eternally flowing from the Father and the Son, is called mission when it reaches the receiving creatures—or more commonly, a gift, or whatever else may be named in this way—always referring the divine to the higher, and always referring the created to the lower. For the same Gospel uses the ninth [testimony] in Christ as doctrine, but in the apostles and in us it adjoins the opposition of Theodoret and the response of Cyril together with the testimony from his epistles to Nestorius. C Such is considered the doctrine by all. The light of the sun also is eternal; as long as it rises upon us, we call it day, attributing to it a brief span of time. To these examples, he joins another, following Jerome, taken from the Incarnation, which is said to have occurred as if from the beginning of the age, and then (p. 1255 C) he proceeds: "But if the unity of the mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation had no beginning of time in the Son, it is much less credible that the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son began in time in either of them." Furthermore, the same author, against Theophylact and others who argued that the Spirit was not given to the disciples once or more often, 201 and that the words of John xx, 22, were neither given before Christ’s departure from the world, nor that the gifts before Pentecost were to be referred to the gifts of the Spirit, and that John xx, 22, was merely for the gift of remitting sins, among other things teaches (l. II, 13, p. 1228) from Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory I, the Roman, that Christ did not give merely a certain gift, but the Holy Spirit Himself. This he strives to confirm again (c. 15, p. 1229) with other arguments, explaining what seemed to be contrary words of Chrysostom, and insisting on the very words: "Receive the Holy Spirit." If anyone says that only the gift of remitting sins was given, "let him attend," says Hugo, "whether such a virtue be separable. But it is clear that it is not separable, since nothing exists by accident in the divine hypostases; therefore, while He gives the Spirit, He bestows the whole, not a part." Then he teaches that Christ on the day of the resurrection gave the whole Spirit, but not according to every mode of operation, whereas on the day of Pentecost He gave according to every mode of operation in the apostles themselves; and that these distinctions are made for the sake of the distinction of persons and on account of the efficacy of the operations in the apostles themselves. "To this end," 202 he continues, "Christ breathed as the Sender, because He is believed to be God in the face of the disciples, then so that through this we might understand that the Spirit truly proceeds from Him, as that breath evaporated sensibly from the depth of His body, and also so that He might give them the Spirit to be held and as if possessed, which on the day of Pentecost... of the gift, but an addition of bounty; since both patriarchs and prophets and priests and all the saints who were in earlier times were quickened by the sanctification of the same Spirit, and without this grace no sacraments were ever instituted, no mysteries celebrated, so that the power of the gifts was always the same, although the measure of the gifts was not the same. D The blessed Apostles themselves also did not lack the Holy Spirit before the passion of the Lord, nor was the power of this virtue absent from the works of the Savior... But for that perfection which was to be conferred upon the disciples, a greater grace and more abundant inspiration was reserved, through which they might take what they had not yet received, and might possess more excellently what they had already taken." Cf. also Beccum, Or. de una Eccl. c. 68: "For since from the time that the breath of life was breathed into the first-formed man by the Creator, He has subsequently descended upon the worthy in various comings; yet, although He has descended upon many and many times, none of these arrivals is superfluous."
A For his strength, His operation, and the manifestation of signs, He is said to have sent Him to the disciples from heaven. This becomes liquidly clear from the following: while Christ was present, His disciples rarely performed signs; but when He departed to heaven and sent the Spirit through the hands of the apostles, signs were performed (Acts 2:43); whence He is said to have been sent in the form of fire, so that He might strengthen and confirm those who, as it were, were still like clay, being soft. . . From these things, therefore, it can be manifest that it is not out of heartlessness or imprudence if anyone says that Christ gave the Spirit to the disciples when, after the resurrection, He said to them: *Receive the Holy Spirit*, since the most learned and most holy of the Greeks have confirmed this, as has been shown. Furthermore, men of our own time consider this an error and a madness, purely for the reason that they strive to abolish the procession of the Spirit from the Son. B
20. Photius again reverts to the same subject, c. 90-94, where primarily (c. 90) he collects various formulas from the Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit which is from God, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit that raised Jesus Christ, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Son, etc. He then proceeds: Nothing of these declares by itself and by the force of the words the procession of the Holy Spirit, in the way that the explicit phrasing does: *Spirit proceeding from the Father*. Hence, those formulas differ entirely from this one. If, however, it is said that the procession is indicated by such expressions according to their meaning, this does not help the adversaries at all (c. 91). For since it is said almost six hundred times that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the formulas *Spirit of God*, *Spirit of the Father* could indeed be referred to the procession as to the primary and principal reason for the phrasing, but they refer of themselves to the consubstantiality; yet the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father is founded upon the procession [consubstantial, C and therefore proceeding], hence they can be referred to the procession as to the most principal cause. But the Holy Spirit is not said even once to proceed from the Son, neither in the Bible nor among the Fathers; hence there is a huge disparity; no right to build up a procession from the Son falls to us, nor can it be elicited from these words, as they do not say it *secundum litteram*. But there are other reasons for which He is called the Spirit of the Son or of Christ, and these are varied: I) because He is consubstantial with the Son, II) because He anoints Christ, III) because He remains upon Him and in Him. D He adds two new reasons which look not to the divinity itself, but to the humanity of Christ, the latter of which he previously illustrated more fully in cap. 85, on the occasion of the Greek version of the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, whose words he had alleged. Hence he contends (c. 93-94) that it is one thing to say the Spirit of the Son, and another to say the Spirit of Christ; He is called the Spirit of Christ in that He anoints Christ, but Christ was anointed as man, not as God. Therefore, he who argues: "He is called the Spirit of Christ, therefore He proceeds from Christ," asserts with horrific error that the Spirit proceeds from the humanity of Christ, and that the humanity is consubstantial with the divinity. Since, however, so many reasons can be assigned for why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son or of Christ, the argument of the Latins, by which they maintain that such a phrase can only be referred to the procession, is now refuted. Indeed, since the terms *Spirit of God* and *Spirit of the Father* do not directly and by themselves state a procession, much less should this be thought of concerning those—*Spirit of the Son, Spirit of Christ*—where no foundation of that kind exists, where no premise is held having that certainty which a divinely revealed proposition enjoys, namely "The Spirit proceeds from the Father," where consubstantiality is not equally founded upon the procession.
A These are, in essence, the stronger points that Photius disputes at length once again. We pass over, for the present, what Photius falsely assumes—namely, that there is no certain procession of the Spirit from the Son in the sources of revelation, about which the controversy itself turns and which has already been for the most part treated; we pass over his demand that this be handed down in the Scriptures in express words (c. 92, end), even though very many dogmas, held as indubitable by Greeks and Latins alike, are not found expressed *ad litteram* therein; we pass over other arguments of his of the same nature that might more appropriately be considered elsewhere. Instead, we shall bring forward the response of John Beccus, who B (book 1, to Theodore of Sugd., Ep. c. 5 et seq.; G. O. II, p. 141 et seq.) had this very part of our work before his eyes and compared Photius's doctrine acutely and skillfully with the theology of the Greek Fathers.
21. Therefore, Beccus willingly concedes to Photius that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ because He anoints Him, but he denies that He is called the Spirit of Christ in one way and the Spirit of the Son in another. "It is," he says, "a deceitful and twisted sort of exposition. For if the expression 'Spirit of Christ' is to be understood only in the way in which Christ became a partaker of flesh [206] and blood and assumed humanity, being anointed with the proper Spirit, while in the way He is God from eternity it is not to be accepted at all, then he will have denied the compensation and mutual communication of the two natures of Christ." Nyssen also refutes this perverse interpretation, saying: "That the Spirit is from the Son is confirmed by testimony; and this is proved by the Apostolic saying: 'If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his' (8)." Beccus rightly infers that Photius denies the communication of idioms (in the concrete), which is established among the Fathers and theologians; the name "Christ" signifies the Theanthropos, C one person who possesses both a divine and a human nature, who is the Son of God and the son of man, yet one and the same. Hence, regarding Christ, both divine and human attributes are predicated; about the same subject, however, they are not spoken of in the same way. He who separates Christ as the Son of man from the Son of God must necessarily fall into Nestorianism. Christ is the Word made flesh; He is the Son of God Himself; therefore, the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of Christ, although the Spirit relates otherwise to the humanity of Christ than to His divinity, when the natures are viewed in themselves. Again, Beccus proceeds thus (c. 6): He calls the Spirit the Spirit of the Son because He is consubstantial with the Son and because He remains upon Him and in Him. In treating divine matters, the great Basil sometimes says that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, [207] because He is from the Father through the Son (9), at other times he teaches quite openly (10) that there is no difference in theological matters between the prepositions "from" and "through." Further, Photius says it is one thing for the statement to affirm the Spirit of God or of the Father, or the Spirit of the Son, and another to assert that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. But the great Basil says: "I understand a property toward the Father when He proceeds from the Father; toward the Son, however, when I hear: 'Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him' (11). If, therefore, the Spirit is proper to the Father because He proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son because He is the Spirit of Christ, where is the force of the difference of terms invented by Photius (12)?" And again the same great Basil: "For we shall have no less to recognize that the Spirit is from God when we hear that He is the Spirit of His mouth (13)." But this name will be quite sufficient to indicate His existence from God. Who would trust Photius, unless he carried his brains in his heels, when he says: "It is one thing for the Spirit to proceed from the Father, and another thing is implied when someone says the Spirit who is from God"? "Hearing 'Spirit of God,'" says the great Basil, "we recognize that the Spirit is from God; and thence the expression 'from God' establishes that the Spirit's existence is from God, which the expression asserting that He proceeds from God also denotes, as is indubitable among all (14)." By the authority of the great Basil, therefore, Beccus refutes Photius's assertion that it is one thing...
for the Spirit to proceed from the Father, and another thing for the Spirit [to proceed] from God, and thus concludes: "It is much more consonant with the truth to call the Spirit of the same essence as the Father, because He is from the Father, and of the same essence as the Son, because He is through the Son, than [to call Him] the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit through the Son, because He is of the same essence as the Son. Nor is it the case that because He is of the same essence as the Son, He is therefore called the Spirit of the Son and [the Spirit] through the Son (as those who have drawn the arguments for this matter from Photius are currently babbling), but because He has His existence from the Father through the Son, and therefore is both the Spirit of the Son and consubstantial with the Son (15)." Finally, Beccus opposes to those things which Photius deduces from the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the baptized Christ, the famous words of the great Athanasius, in which he declares: "He (Christ) Himself sent the Spirit from heaven as God, and He Himself received Him on earth as man. Therefore, from Him [the Father] He [the Spirit] was descending into Him [Christ], from His Godhead into His humanity (16)." These things not only [209] work excellently for the present dispute of Photius, but also persuade one that Athanasius believed the Spirit to be from the Son. Thus, the same Athanasius says that Christ was anointed by the Spirit as man, but gave Him to the faithful as God; receiving the Spirit according to His human nature, but communicating the same according to His divine nature. But let us put an end to these things, although there is more that could be said, so that we do not exceed the limits of our treatise too much. Those who desire more concerning the latter matters should consult Nic. Blemmydes (G. O. I, 50); Beccus (ibid. I, 201); George Metochites (ibid. II, 968 seq.), and Leo Allatius (Vind. syn. Eph. c. 73, p. 574 seq.), nor should they overlook the famous words of Cyril of Alexandria in [his Commentary on] the Gospel of John, which Beccus (G. O. II, 561-567 seq.) rightly wished to keep inserted in his collection of sentences (17). C
22. Finally, Photius (c. 66 seq.) introduces his adversaries, who lean upon the authority of Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and other Western doctors, and who argue in this manner: "Either these Fathers handed down pious dogmas, and then whoever addresses the Fathers with honor ought to assent to their opinions; or they existed as inventors and propagators of impious dogmas, and then they should be rejected as impious together with their doctrine." Photius does not dare to reject the authority of the Western doctors entirely; he uses evasions, quibbles, suspicions, and various objections—cunningly, as if all the things he had discussed concerning the testimonies of the Scriptures were certain and indubitable—to inflict ignominy upon the very adversaries whom he praises the Fathers for claiming. D He exclaims: "For it was not enough for them that they perverted the words of the Lord with a wicked interpretation, nor that they dragged the herald of piety into impiety in a violent manner; but they think their efforts are incomplete [210] unless they have also inquired into how they might attack with insults the very Fathers whom they celebrate (c. 66)." For they call upon these Fathers by name, but in reality they deprive them of the prerogatives of Fathers, when they fabricate that they are in contradiction to Christ (c. 67). Hence, as if to vindicate the honor of those Fathers, he devotes all his effort to excusing them to some extent, based on human weakness and ignorance, on good faith coupled with a lack of necessary correction, and on the fact that they never intended to establish a dogma or a law (c. 68). But however much honor is attributed to them, he insists that one ought not to follow what they taught beyond the institution of Christ and the apostles, since no faith is to be placed even in an angel from heaven preaching anything other than the Gospel (c. 69); rather, the things that tend to their disgrace should have been covered up, after the example of the sons of Noah, than manifested before the whole world (c. 70). Furthermore, since such a long time has elapsed in the meantime, the reliability of the books is uncertain, as they may perhaps have been interpolated and corrupted (c. 71); then, [he argues,] it could easily have happened that while those Fathers were contending with gentiles and heretics, some slightly inaccurate expression escaped them, spoken *agonistikōs* (that is, polemically), and not *dogmatikōs*, or that they used a certain "economy" (c. 72), following the method of action of Paul (c. 73, 74) and Basil (c. 77); finally, that there are not lacking Fathers whose judgments the Church has not accepted, even though she otherwise esteems them highly (c. 75); and thus, those who abuse their expressions to attack the most salutary doctrine of Christ against their own intention truly lay murderous hands upon the Fathers; [he claims that he] is ready to rise up against these very Fathers and solemnly protest against the mind that has been falsely attributed to them (c. 76). But the more Photius accumulates in this matter, the more miserable his fight becomes, and indeed on all points. It would have been more prudent for Photius, who knew only very few of the writings of the Western doctors, certainly not to have descended into this arena. For in the first place, not only did those three, along with a few others, teach that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, but [211] the Latin doctors to a man, all who have treated the divine Trinity at any length—to pass over Tertullian, Marius Victorinus taught this even before Ambrose, and Hilary of Poitiers most copiously (18); innumerable doctors and councils of Spain and Gaul taught this with Augustine. Nor did they yield to them once and again.
to this sort of speech; but they constantly and everywhere professed this faith as the faith of the Church. Even the single, excellent work of Augustine, *De Trinitate*, abundantly refutes that assertion. Indeed, the universality and consistency of this tradition in the West shines forth with the greatest transparency; consequently, the hypotheses of Photius regarding the corruption of the books of those Fathers, regarding the 'economy' (accommodation) of certain saints, and other things of this kind are ridiculous. Nor can there be any talk of the error of one or another Father, but of the common faith of the Westerners; nor does Photius argue against only a few writers, but against the universal Western Church, not only of the ninth century, but back through all the centuries.
Indeed, Bessarion beautifully argues from the very principles of the Greeks themselves (*Orat. dogm.* c. 2, 4, 10; Hard. IX, 325 seq., 352, 368 seq.) that both the Oriental and Western doctors are to be considered in total agreement with one another, and that those Fathers who speak less clearly are to be explained by those who speak more openly; where they agree, they are to be admitted as witnesses of the faith in all matters. But that the disagreement B between the Latins and the Greek Fathers or with the doctrine of Christ himself, which Photius supposes, is falsely feigned, and that their agreement is most brilliantly proven, is clearly manifest (cf. § 6 seq.). It is established that the Westerners spoke most openly in this matter, and only those who are utterly ignorant of its documents would deny that the faith of the ancient Western Church is constant and universal. Hence, Beccus and others rightly censure Photius for being injurious toward the Western Fathers, whom the doctors of the East pursued with the highest honor, whom the Fifth Synod solemnly approved (19), and whom none of their own times accused of error in this dogma.
"If the cited Fathers of the Roman Church," says Beccus (*Or. de una Eccl.* c. 45, G. O. I, p. 170), "had known that they had lapsed from an accurate knowledge of things, then neither the other Fathers of the Roman Church, whom that age bore in great numbers and of the highest rank (especially in the 4th and 5th centuries), nor the lights of our own Church, who at that time cherished the union of the Churches, would have neglected this, but would have recorded it in writing, which C truly would have been most worthy of being known—namely, the error (20)."
Indeed, if Augustine had adversaries in the West who attacked his theology regarding grace and liberty, what would have happened if they had detected the Westerners introducing a new doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit? The West would in no way have suffered this, nor would the East have tolerated it, when even the slightest suspicion of innovation regarding the faith stirred up great disturbances. And how could so many 213 doctors, separated by place and time, how could Italians, Africans, Gauls, and Spaniards have conspired in the same opinion, unless it—having come to them from Christian tradition—had reached them?
23. But Photius objects (c. 78-89), after having reviewed the Latin Fathers and the Roman pontiffs, and indeed on the sole title that they declared in the profession of faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds simply from the Father, as if this excluded the procession from the Son, which, however, most of them explicitly taught. What was contained implicitly in the Creed, they themselves also taught explicitly, just as the many councils of Spain (21) did. Beccus rightly observes (l.c.) that the Latins do not even today reject the creed of the Greeks, but have shown by deed, not by words, but by their sentiments, that piety is cultivated by them (which the Council of Florence brilliantly confirmed once again); that they by no means inserted an addition into the books of the Gospels, but have always held that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [which] in reality signifies nothing other than to proceed from the Father and the Son.
"Therefore, not because the Son is not simultaneously pronounced (συνεκφωνεῖται) at times, is he not also understood simultaneously (συνεννοεῖται) with the Father; but because he is simultaneously understood with the Father, he is simultaneously pronounced in time and manner, as it pleased him who instituted the words concerning the Father and the Son, provided that according to pious sentiment he is understood together with him, even if not articulated, and will again be simultaneously articulated as one who is understood together with him."
Furthermore, Photius has nothing to offer, except that those pontiffs verified the Creed of the First Council of Constantinople, and that is not sufficient for his intent. He specifically names Damasus (22), Celestine, and Leo the Great, 214 Vigilius, Agapetus, and others.
[Regarding the Greek text:] (19) [Mentions the petulance of Marc of Ephesus:] "If the utterances of the Western holy Fathers were not approved, it was not fitting to call them saints, nor for the ecumenical councils to receive the testimonies brought forth by them for the confirmation of right dogmas; but rather to turn away and cast them out for being unapproved, as he himself legislates and says. But this has not happened in any of the synods; for those of Ambrose, Hilary, Leo, and Augustine were brought forth, and no one dared to come forward to utter such a thing. Furthermore, what does he think of the letter of Saint Maximus, which speaks of the Western Fathers saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son?"
(20) "If the others—both the Fathers of the Roman Church, whom that time showed to be many and great, and the lights of our own Church, who at that time cherished the union of the Churches—had perceived that the Roman Church had been swept away from accuracy, they would never have overlooked an error which happened in such a manner and is so worthy of our inquiry."
(21) Conc. Bracar. I, p. 411; Tolet. III, 589; IV, 633; VIII, 653 and following.
(22) Simon Cpl. ep. cit. (§ 7); ap. Allat. c. Hott. l. c., Joseph. Methon. Resp. ad Marc. Eph., Cales and Genebrardus attributed the formula of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son to Damasus as author, but that fact can in no way be proven. Cf. Petav. De Trin. VII, 2; Kilber Theol. Wirceb. with Natalis Alex. (sæc. IV, diss. 37, a. 5) who thinks that Nicholas I received the addition into the Creed, which many others also taught. But neither the words of Photius from the encyclical letter cited by him—which only says that the creed is corrupted by the Latins with vain and adulterous words, and that they preach that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son—nor the affirmation of Ratramnus, that the same is permitted to the Roman pontiff as to the Council of Constantinople, demonstrate this sufficiently. Cf. note 8, to Photius cap. 88.
A thonem, Gregory the Great, Zacharias, Leo III or IV, Benedict III, John VIII, and Adrian III. How rashly he cites Gregory I as a witness has already been shown (25); the same must be said of Leo the Great, who, although he retained the Creed in its ancient form, nevertheless openly taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (24). Nor does it help him that he reports (cap. 88) that it was done by Leo III or IV; for, as Natalis Alexander says (l.c., p. 525 seq.), even though Leo III did not approve of the *Filioque* being added to the Creed and chanted, with no cause then demanding it, with no necessity pressing it, and he ordered the Creed to be preserved engraved on silver tablets without that addition (25) for the everlasting memory of posterity, yet he professed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as a dogma of faith held by the Church, as is evident from the acts of the collation between the legates of the Gallican Church and those of the Emperor Charlemagne, sent from the Council of Aachen to the Apostolic See with Leo III, which Sirmondus copied from the abbot Smaragdus (26). "For when the aforesaid envoys, Bernarius of Worms, Jesse of Amiens, bishops, and Adalard, abbot of Corvey, had read in order the testimonies (De process. Sp. S. a P. et F.) and they had been most diligently heard by the apostolic Lord, he says: 'I so think, I so hold, together with these authors and the authorities of sacred Scripture. If anyone shall wish to think or teach otherwise concerning this matter, I defend [the faith], and unless he shall have been converted and shall have wished to hold according to this sense, I utterly reject him who thinks the contrary.' Then, when the legates asked why it was not good to insert into the Creed and to chant that which it was good to believe, the Pontiff answers: 'Certainly it is good and very good, B as it is already a great sacrament of faith, which it is not permitted not to believe, whoever is able to attain to this.'" In what follows, the pontiff persists in denying the petition, moved by the love of preserving antiquity and maintaining peace with the Greeks, not, however, as one abhorring the doctrine, which he also openly professes as his own and which he also expressed diligently in his own letter to the Orientals (27). The addition, however, received gradually in various churches of the West, prevailed little by little throughout the entire West, and the doctrine of Photius demonstrates the necessity of its open inclusion in the Creed. Whatever time the Roman Church finally inserted it explicitly into the profession of faith, the faith of the same has always been the same.
24. It remains that we say a few words about the objection of the schismatics, that the Council II, act 6 and Council IV, act 5 (cf. Phot. c. 80) prohibited any addition at all to the Creed. But it is C evident that this prohibition is not of a sort to proscribe the exposition of faith, but only that which is made by private authority, not, however, a fuller exposition of faith, and one made by legitimate authority. Furthermore, Catholics demonstrate that this addition *Filioque* is nothing but an explanation of words already expressed in the Creed [216] (§ 2 and 7) and established by the authority of the Church, and of the Roman pontiff above all, and of very many councils, and finally of the second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. For if the Church did not have the power to sanction any dogmatic definition after the third and fourth councils, the most evident absurdities would follow. But this matter was discussed and illustrated in every part at the Florentine council. Cf. besides, Natalis Alexander, H. E. cent. ix, dissert. 18, assert. 2; and Pitzipios, *L'Eglise orientale* I, p. 27 seq., 113 seq.
III. — The theological principles championed by Photius are considered.
1. That to attribute the spiration of the Holy Spirit to the Son as well is the same as to establish two principles in the Trinity and a double D *probolē*: this is already clearly stated in chapter 4. Truly, that this can in no way be shown, nay, that it is most false, is manifest, since the Father and the Son are said to be but one principle in the spiration, and they do not respire as distinct hypostases, nor from their distinct properties, but from their common essential ones. Just as the second Council of Lyons teaches, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by a unique spiration (Hard. VII, 680), and that Council of Florence inculcates again that *ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς καὶ μοναδικῆς προβολῆς*, so the Latin Church has always held, and its Fathers and theologians taught long before. Hugo Etherianus (l. 1, c. 4, p. 1201 D.): "For," he says, "the Father and the Son are not simply two things, from which the Holy Spirit comes forth. For they are neither two things properly, but one, nor two substances, but one, nor two principles, but one... Therefore [217] since these two persons are not two principles, nor are they two simply, it is manifest that whatever proceeds from them does not at all proceed from two principles, given and conceded that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both." This he then tries to illustrate with certain examples. Rightly St. Anselm (lib. *De processione Spiritus Sancti*, cap. 9): "But if they say that he cannot be from two causes or two principles, we answer that, just as we do not believe the Holy Spirit to be from this..."
A nor that there are two of his principles, but rather one principle and one cause. For the Father, insofar as he is Father, is referred to the Son; for he is the Father of the Son. And the Son, insofar as he is Son, is likewise referred to the Father; for he is the Son of the Father, and it is impossible for there to be a Father without the existence of a Son, for these things are relative and among those things which are referred to something. But the Holy Spirit is not of himself referred to the Father or the Son, as they are Father or Son... For the Spirit, as Spirit, must be referred to the one who breathes. The Father and the Son are the breathers; for he is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; and no one will gainsay this logos. They breathe forth the Holy Spirit, therefore, according to one spirative or, rather, B productive power; and this productive power, being one and the same in number, is understood originally to be the Father's, from whom the Son also has it. And in this sense we say that the Father and the Son are one principle and one cause of the Holy Spirit (28). Concerning this truth, Leo Allatius discourses more fully in *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae* (Rome 1661, c. 69, 70, pp. 534-554), as well as in the *Enchiridion de processione Spiritus Sancti* (c. 13, p. 75). Petavius (*De Trinitate*, vii, 10, 10) and Walch (*Historia controversiae de processione Spiritus Sancti*, Jena 1751, c. 10, p. 177), among many others, do the same. Nor can the Greeks argue that the more ancient Latins did not understand the matter this way, for they have no testimony to show this, but are rather refuted by the clear texts of Augustine and others (23).
[219] 2. But the Photians persist and invent many absurdities which they claim flow from this. That dilemma often occurs: "If the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, he is either from them as from one—and then he would also be from himself, because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one—or as from two, and then two principles are manifestly posited" (30). A similar objection is read in Saint Thomas (l. c. obj. 1): "It seems that the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit does not seem to proceed from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one; nor in nature, because the Holy Spirit would thus also proceed from himself, C as he is one with them in nature; nor even insofar as they are one in some property, because one property cannot belong to two supposita, as it seems. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are two." But Thomas replies: "To the first point it must be said that, if the spirative virtue is considered, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in the spirative virtue, which signifies in a certain way the nature together with the property... Nor is it inconvenient for one property to be in [220] and Ratramnus, l. iii, c. 4 (ib. p. 293, 294)."
(30) The Greeks argue similarly in George Scholarios, *De processione Spiritus Sancti ad J. Cubocl.* n. 23 (G. O. I, 319): "For since the Spirit is said to be from the Father and the Son, he will be from them either as from one or as from two. But if he is from them as from one, he will also be from himself; for the Father and the Son are one in divinity, in which the Spirit is also one with them. If, then, he is from two, a dyarchy is upheld by the Latins." Similar is the epicheirema of the Greeks refuted by George Scholarios (Cod. Monac. 27 f. 257 b): "If the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit together, they produce him either as one or as two; that is, either by the logos of essence, by which they are both one, or by the logos of distinction. But the second D is altogether impossible. For they are not one, since the Holy Spirit is contained within their unity, and he would be one producer together with them, and his own cause and principle, or if he does not produce himself, he would be excluded from their unity and would be different in essence. Nor are they two as they are distinguished, for then there would be two producers and two principles. If, then, the second is impossible, the first is also impossible; therefore they do not both produce the Holy Spirit."
A Georgius Scholarius (33) attempts to resolve the objection of kind: nor [is it] precisely and solely as one, nor as two that the Father and the Son breathe the Spirit, since the inspiration, as not being relatively opposed to the filiation, is communicated by the Father to the Son, while it is nevertheless 222 one action of both; [and] under a different respect it can be said of each: by reason of the unique operation they are one, [but] by reason of the persons, and according as the Father is from none, [and] the Son has received the inspiration from the Father, they are two; but each must be considered simultaneously and joined aptly. These things, as they ought to be understood, conspire plainly with the doctrine of the Aquinate.
3. But the matter stands thus concerning the twofold principle and the twofold inspiration, [and] it has been dealt with regarding the conclusions of Photius (c. 4), [namely] that the Holy Spirit would be composite and inferior to the Son, and that the simplicity of the Trinity would thence be destroyed. Truly, no composition follows if the simple Spirit proceeds from one principle by a unique inspiration; no inequality between the second and third person follows thence, deduced from the fact that the former has a simple principle and the latter a double one; but even if the Latins were to admit a double principle of the Holy Spirit—which, however, they reject in every way—it could still not be concluded that the Spirit is thereby deprived of equality of nature with the Son, which even the Tritheists themselves defend. As B regards composition, Manuel Calecas (34) argues well against the Greeks: «Whether, therefore, one wills composition in itself, he accepts nothing other than essence and being and what is; but the being and essence of the Holy Spirit and what it is, is one certain and simple thing; or if [it be] on account of those who give or produce, the Father and Son are one. For it is not in as much as they are two, but in as much as they are one, that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; but just as the Son is whole from the whole, so too is the Spirit asserted to be whole from the whole. Nor is the Father one whole and the Son another whole; but there is one whole according to the position of the faith, with the distinction of begetting and knowing preserved. In no way, therefore, is it permitted to think of composition. Although even if more than three persons C were God, no necessity 223 of composition [would follow].» D (31) 34 [alt-version omitted]
35) 4. From what has been stated, that point also can be judged which Photius affirms (c. 14), that the Latins establish not only two principles in the Trinity, but also two diverse and different principles, one without a principle, and the other principled. Certainly, if the persons are viewed, the notion of a principle is fitting to two persons of the same nature, insofar as it is in the Trinity B "a principle not from a principle, which is the Father, and a principle from a principle, which is the Son" (Thomas I, c. 33, a. 4). But just as the notion of principle and principled does not abolish the equality of their nature, so neither does the diverse relation in the one who principles. But if the power and act of spiration are viewed, the Father and the Son are one principle; they breathe by one and the same act. And if, strictly speaking, discourse cannot be held concerning two principles, still less can it be concerning two principles that are diverse among themselves. The difference is only on the side of the persons, insofar as one is without a principle and has from itself the spirative power, while the other is from a principle and has the power of spirating communicated to it; or insofar as they are Father and Son. But when they do not breathe in the way he is Father and he is Son, there is no diversity in spirating, and just as they do not differ in nature—because the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten—so neither do they differ in nature because the Father is from no one, while the Son has the spirative virtue from the Father. It can certainly be said that there are two persons who are principiant, but for that reason, they are not two principles. John Argyropoulos (De proc. Spirit. sanct. c. 10; G. O. I, 414–416) notes that [archē] can be taken for [dynamis] as well as for [hypostasis]; in the former sense, there are not held to be two principles, since [dynamis prosechēs] is only one and the same in 224 the Father and the Son; in the latter sense, it admits the term [dyo archas], since in such a way three principles can be spoken of in creation without absurdity, and just as three, so two persons who are participants in the same action can be conceived. Finally, let Hugh Ethereanus be heard again (l. II, c. 3, p. 1216), arguing: "If the Father and the Son are not simply called two, but according to some respect, nor is one separated from the other, much less will they be heralded as two principles or two causes, because one or the other (or both) is the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit. Is not the Word of God, the God of God, God with God? Indeed, God begotten from the unbegotten God. Yet they are not two Gods, the begotten and the unbegotten, but one and the same God. Thus, therefore, the Holy Spirit is one principle and one cause, who is without beginning, Father and Son, who is called the principle and head, as Hilary says; for the Son is the head of all, but God is the head of the Son. There are two, where similar names of counting wish to show some plurality of things, even if they are silent about the reason for their existence. For C they disclose neither continuity nor discretion nor the difference of things to be divided, but only manifest some variety, which is non-existent between the Father and the Son, from the fact that they provide being to the Spirit; but rather the one cause of the Spirit is both."
5. Another axiom brought forward by Photius (see c. 9, 17 seq., 47) is this: "To produce or emit the Holy Spirit is the Father’s idiom or the Father’s hypostatic property." Hence he concludes that the idioms of the persons are destroyed by the Latins, while they claim for the Son what he says is the Father’s idiom. But this principle, supported by no reason and no authority, is rejected by the Latins entirely. All say that the constitutive idiom of the Father is paternity, with which spiration cannot be identified; no one, moreover, among the Fathers claimed [probolē] for the Father alone, or considered it his constitutive character (35). Beccus adds (orat. 2, De injusta 225 dep. c. 24; G. O. II, 76, 77) that Photius's [protasis] is refuted by all those testimonies of the Doctors in which "the unity of the Father and the Son in all things that are said from the Father through the Son" appears, which he declares with the adduced texts of Basil and Athanasius. But so that the matter may be clearer, let us examine more accurately the properties of the divine persons spoken of broadly. Person-constituting D properties, the hypostatic, are entirely distinguished from the diacritic. (See Petav. De Trin. Proœm. l. IV.) The Fathers acknowledge as hypostatic or constitutive properties ([idiōmata hypostatika]) only three; and they are: [patrotēs, hyiotēs, ekporeusis] (36). "In the divine persons," rightly says Hugh against the Photians, the argument that he also brought forward in session 18 of the Council of Florence, as did John the Theologian (Hard. IX, 200). A similar thing happened in Gregory Nazianzen’s orat. 34 (Clem. 34), *De adventu Aegyptiorum*, namely in those words: "All that the Father has, belongs to the Son, except for the cause," and that instead of [aitias] one should read [agennēsias], Joan. Beccus shows, both from codices of better quality and from parallel passages of the same theologian (orat. 2, *De injusta deposit.* c. 18; l. IV, *Ad Constant.* c. 6, G. O. II, 63–65, 213; II, 128–133). Georg. Metoch. *Contra Maxim. Plan.* (lib. II, 929 seqq.) Concerning the fact that sometimes, as in Naz. orat. 38, p. 486; orat. 13, p. 211, ed. vet., [agennēsia] is put in place of [patrotēs]; see L. Allat.
A Etherianus (lib. I, cap. 8, p. 1204), "Three properties [226] are immutable: paternity, filiation, procession; according to which alone the three persons, to wit, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, are designated." Indeed, since the Greeks acknowledge only three persons in the Trinity, they can also admit only three constitutive idioms, which denote three subsistent relations really distinct from one another (Thomas, q. 30, a. 2); for personal properties are the same as the persons by that reason by which the abstract is the same as the concrete (ibid., q. 40, a. 1, ad 1). All agree that these three characteristic idioms of the persons remain absolutely immutable (37). After these are enumerated the diacritic, and not constitutive, properties: the unbegottenness, which is void of relation and regards the one Father, and the *probolē* (procession/out-pouring) or active spiration, to be distinguished from the passive, or *ekporeusis*. These diacritic marks, together with those three hypostatic marks, form five notions (*ennoiai*, *gnōrismata*), which Damascene (*De fide orth.* I, 9–11) already knows well enough. Of a triple kind are the idioms hence distinguished: first *hypostatika* (hypostatic), then *schetika* (relative), thirdly *systatika* (constitutive). The objective reason by which a person is designated and distinguished from another is the notion or *idiōma systatikon*; such notions therefore are paternity, filiation, procession, unbegottenness, and active spiration. The latter two do not constitute a person; hence they are called only notions of persons, not personal; but this is how they differ among themselves, that active spiration is also a relation or *idiōma schetikon*, while unbegottenness, which says nothing else except that the Father is not from another, is no relation, and therefore is called a mere and pure notion. We have therefore five notions, of which four are relations, three are constitutive marks. (Cf. Thom. q. 32, a. 3.) From these it is now evident [227] that active spiration is not a hypostatic idiom of the Father, but is truly a relation, since it says *schein* (a holding/relation) toward the Spirit; it is also evident that it has no relative opposition to paternity, nor to filiation. If it were a constitutive mark of the Father, it would be identified with paternity, and the Holy Spirit would be the Son; but if it is not constitutive, the Photians must show from elsewhere that it is to be attributed to the one Father. If we turn to the Greek doctors, they, while describing the peculiar characters of the Father, speak only of paternity and unbegottenness. Thus Basil brings forward these two marks alone (38), B and does not add *probolē* as proper to the Father. This ought to be said to all Greek Fathers, who dwell on that double mark and never put forward the spirating power as the *idiōma hypostatikon* of the Father. (Cf. Petav. *De Trin.* I, 1 seq.; VII, 10, n. 19 seq.) The Father is indeed called *gennētōr* (begetter) and *proboleus* (out-pourer) (e.g., among others, in Naz. orat. 33, p. 562, ed. vet.), but by this it is clearly shown that he, not insofar as he is Father, and therefore not by his constitutive property, spirates the Spirit; but *probolē* is never adjoined to those marks which belong to him alone, which, as Basil says, *monos autos echei* (he alone possesses); but never by reason of *proboleus*, as he appears distinct from the Spirit, so he appears distinct from the Son. C This is confirmed again by the property of the Son, which has nothing in itself that excludes the Son from active spiration. Hugo Etherianus cleverly says (lib. III, cap. 2, p. 1238 G.): "If paternity does not exclude the Spirit from the Father by reason of cause or principle, neither does unbegottenness exclude the same Spirit from the Son by the same reason." Indeed, while the Fathers see the Son named the "only-begotten" (Monogenē) in the Scriptures, and explain this [228] name in such a way that he himself is the only one who is from the Father alone, *monos ek monou* (39), they manifestly teach that the Spirit is not from the Father alone and in a wonderful way support the faith of the Latin Church. If the Son is the only one from the Father alone, then the Spirit is not from the Father alone; furthermore, there is no other person from whom he could be at the same time, except the Son. Whence the ancients of our side rightly said: "The Son [is] born from the Father, the only one from the only one, and by this the Only-begotten; but the Holy Spirit [proceeds] indeed from the Father, but not from the only one alone, since he proceeds also from the Son, lest we seem to preach two sons if we confess the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone." Indeed, if it is proper to the Son that he be from the Father alone, then the property of the Son migrates into the Spirit if he also were from the Father alone, and two would be called Sons. And again (lib. III, cap. 5, p. 295) the same author [cites] from Fulgentius: "There is indeed in the three persons a consubstantiality of one nature, but that which is proper to each is that the Father alone begat, the Son alone [is] born from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit [is] that which proceeds from the Father and the Son... Which (last) if they contend to deny, let them say what is proper to him (the Spirit). For the procession (40) from the Father is common also to the Son; since everything that is born, proceeds also; therefore D this [is] common."
A So far is it from being the case that the hypostatic marks of the Father and the Son exclude the Son from active spiration, that they show it to be present in him. Nor does the procession by itself forbid that the Spirit be said to be also from the Son; indeed, hardly any point seems better suited to declare the difference between generation and procession than that the former is accomplished from the Father alone, but the latter from the Father together with the Son. The Fathers, although most anxious about safeguarding the monarchy, attribute the primary roles to the person of the Father, yet they teach most frequently that the Holy Spirit is joined immediately to the Son. Hence if the Father is called *monos aitios*, the sole cause, it is only insofar as he is considered the supreme cause, fountainhead, and original, as the *archikon aition*, as the *aitia prokatarktike* (causa procatarctica), as Beccus notes from Damascenus (*orat. 2 De injusta depos. c. 20; G. O. II, 68*), and as Bessarion (41) inculcates again regarding the words of Maximus (*ep. ad Marinum*). The same Beccus (*De una Eccl. c. 50 G. O. I, 183*) B answers Phurnas when he objects: "If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the property of the Father is removed," as follows: "By asserting (the Italians) that the Spirit is also from the Son—if they were saying that he is from him as from his own proper source without the Father, then they would indeed entail the removal of the paternal property, decreeing the Son to be a fountain without beginning just as the Father (42). But if, when they say the Spirit is from the Son, they bring forward the great Basil, asserting: 'That which is said to be from the Son has a relation to the first cause, leaving no suspicion of the removal of the paternal property.' Let Nicephorus Blemmida finally be heard, who (*orat. 1, c. 18; G. O. I, 23, 24*) discourses thus: "For if the Father generates the Son, receiving this from no one, and the Son has the Spirit, receiving him naturally from the Father, not generated, but proceeding through him from the Father, I do not understand at all what paternal property they suppose the Son to have. And how do they designate the Father as God-begetter? If because he generates God-the-Son, this is truly C the principal [mark] of the paternal hypostasis. But the Son is not a God-begetter, since he does not generate a Son. But if they combine the generating and producing, and both into one, and on this account call the Father God-begetter and call him Father; if they mean that he generates the Son—this is truly the prerogative of the paternal hypostasis—but the Son is not a God-begetter, not generating a Son. But if they combine the generating and projecting, and both into one, and thus call the Father God-begetter, behold, D God's offspring is [also] the Spirit, and how then is there an Only-begotten Son?"
7. While Photius assumes this statement—that spiration is the hypostatic property of the Father—as a principle of demonstration, he becomes guilty of begging the question, since it is clearly the same thing to declare that, as it is to affirm the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone. More subtle questions are agitated concerning this matter among theologians, which at present do not concern our subject. Yet it is helpful to propose here what H. Kilber (*Tract. de Deo trino in Theol. Wirceb. Disp. 6, c. 1, art. 3, n. 381 seq.*) discusses more fully regarding the question of by what properties the divine persons are constituted, and to recount them by chief headings. A person consists, as John the Theologian argues in session 19 of the Council of Florence, of essence and property (*to prosopon apo tes ousias kai tou idiotatos*). The question is, therefore, what these properties are which, with the nature, perform this constitution; and this in a dual sense: first, whether they are something absolute, or indeed something relative—and here nearly all unanimously admit the latter, which alone can be rightly said; second, under what formality or consideration the relative property constitutes the notion of person in the divine. That the matter may be clearly understood, it must be noted: 1. The same property can be hypostatic, relative, and notional; just as in reality paternity, filiation, and passive spiration are in this triple order. 2. The same property can be viewed according to its *esse in*, or that which it says absolutely, and precisely toward the divine nature, to which it is immanent by identity; and according to its *esse ad*, or that which it says relatively, and toward a term or principle to which it is opposed. Having noted these and other things for the understanding of the question, the cited theologian now teaches: I) That divine persons are not constituted formally by properties under the aspect of absolute formality and according to *esse in*, but are accepted under the aspect of relative formality and according to *esse ad*, because, as Augustine teaches (*De Trin. V, 5, 8*), whatever is said toward itself, and not toward another, pertains to substance, and therefore cannot be held as a formally constitutive notion of person; II) That divine persons are formally constituted by relative properties, insofar as these denote a relation. It should be noted, however, more subtly and fully, why the progression of the Word is generation, but the procession of the Holy Spirit is not, which theologians resolve as follows: that the greater part say the reason is: "That the prior action is perfectly assimilative of the term to the principle, and the Word according to personal *esse* is a perfect likeness or image of the Father—such action and image is not had in respect to the Holy Spirit." Thus H. Kilber, *Theol. Wirceb. disp. 6, n. 376. Cf. Thom. Sum. 1, q. 27, a. 4, in corp.*
not, however, as though they express a formal origin, A because the constituting form must be conceived as something intrinsic to the person, fixed and existing permanently, which the very reality of the essence as well as the principle of subsistence seem to require, whereas nothing of this sort appears in the concept of formal origin; and furthermore because origins, being actions which belong to the supposita, do not constitute the producing supposita but presuppose them according to our mode of understanding. “Specifically regarding paternity. For this, in divine matters, is not constituted by the action itself as a transcendental relation, and as a principle whereby it is presupposed before the origin of generation and as a subsistent form precedes the, terminus and its production. Regarding active spiration, however, since it is certain that this does not constitute either the Father or the Son, but according to reason presupposes those already constituted through paternity and filiation; much less can the spirative origin or action be thought of as a constitutive form of those persons. What pertains to the produced persons is that in the formal concept they signify generally the category of terminus and product, and specifically the category of either the Word or of the subsistent Spirit; but it is certain that the way to the terminus, the production in the act of becoming, the action of utterance or love still as it were flowing, precedes the terminus itself, the complete product, and the perfect Word and Spirit.” Finally, he observes (n. 386): “Although from what has been said every hypostatic property is relative, nevertheless not every relative nor every notional property is hypostatic. For since this, by way of a determinant, must concur toward personal, proper, and incommunicable being; its account and formality agrees with neither innascibility nor active spiration. Not with innascibility, because according to Aug. *De Trin.* v, 6, ‘Nor is anyone a father because he is unbegotten, nor unbegotten because he is a father,’ and therefore by innascibility a father is neither determined nor constituted in the being of father and person. Nor yet active spiration. For although this is proper to the Father and the Son, nevertheless it does not determine the former in the being of Father, nor the latter in the being of Son; B otherwise, since it is common to both, the Father would be the Son, and conversely, paternity would belong to the Son. Hence it exists in relation to both, just like essence, common to many and determinable; and while it constitutes the Father and the Son in the being of a spirator distinct from the Holy Spirit, this relation is conceived as supervening upon those supposita already constituted in their own person, as though perfecting their explicit distinction.” But for the present discussion, this simple demonstration suffices:
Every person can have only one constitutive property, because constitutive properties are in reality the same as the subsistent persons and are identified with them; whence the Father, if he had two such properties, would not be one person, but two. Consequently, the Father is not constituted simultaneously by paternity and spiration, but by either paternity or spiration. But the Father is manifestly constituted by paternity; he is called Father and is such because he generates the Son, and the Son is conceived before the Spirit, and generation before spiration; in short, all tradition has viewed paternity as the constitutive seal of the Father, as was shown above (§ 5). Yet now, if spiration does not constitute the Father, nor is it in any way opposed to reason regarding the Son, it is not the property of the Father, but common to the Father and the Son. We shall bring forward Bessarion, who unfolds this more fully, in the following article (§ 13).
8. The third thesis follows: *The Father is the principle of those who are from him not by reason of nature, but by reason of person* (c. 15), which—as Beccus notes (in Camat. G. O. II, 291)—has passed into an axiom among the followers of Photius. George Cyprius argues against this law in relation to Beccus (in *tom. Cypr.* G. O. II, 158 seq. 236, 237). C The orthodox saw clearly enough that this cannot be simply denied, yet that it holds a certain perverse meaning among the Photians which must by no means be tolerated. Hence the lauded patriarch of the Byzantines concedes to his adversary (l. c. c. 11, p. 237) that the Father is the cause of those things which are from him not by reason of nature, but by reason of person; yet there he forbids the respect of nature to be excluded entirely and nature to be separated from the hypostasis together with the Photians; and he maintains that it is said better from the Fathers (c. 15, p. 246) that the Father is the principle both by word of the hypostasis and by word of the nature. It is certain that essence differs from hypostasis only by reason, and that neither an unhypostatic essence nor an essential hypostasis can be thought of, as Thomas (*Sum.* p. 1, q. 39, a. 1) and Petavius (*De Trin.* VII, 15, 13 seq.) declare. Not even the schismatics themselves deny this entirely; this Gregory Cyprius concedes (apud Becc. l. 1 Const. c. 5, 6; in *tom. Cypr.* orat. 2, c. 5; G. O. II, 156, 158, Jo. Cubocl. c. 11 [G. O. I, 491 seq.]): “How will you conceive the hypostasis if you have not considered it in the essence? For we can understand essence and nature in a certain more universal way without the hypostasis; wherefore it has seemed to some that it subsists universally. But to conceive and enunciate the hypostasis D without the essence considered or conceived at the same time is in no way possible. Therefore, also since the unbegotten and the proceeding are hypostatic properties...”
when we speak of them, we understand the essence viewed within the individual hypostasis. For we do not believe in bare properties, nor do we confess that these set aside anything of the essence, but we confess that they are defined around the essence.” A [The Greek fragment continues: “For it is possible to understand B essence more generally; therefore it also seems to some that it is defined generally. But to understand and to speak of a hypostasis when the essence and the nature are not conceived along with it and provided for is entirely impossible. Therefore, also when we call the unbegotten and the proceeding hypostatic properties, we understand the essence viewed in the individual hypostasis. For we do not believe in bare properties, nor do we confess that these set aside anything of the essence, but we acknowledge that they are defined concerning the essence.”]
B The text of the Latins has the following: “The Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son, inasmuch as, receiving from their substance, He renews creatures.” Perhaps he understood this dictum in the same way as the later Greeks; it is probable that he was writing to the Armenians, who felt the same on this dogma as the Roman Church (see Tschamtscheun, *Hist. Armen.* III, p. 234, and Avedichia, *Sopra la processione dello Spirito santo*, Venice 1824); he cunningly concealed and veiled his own view regarding the Holy Spirit in this expression, lest he should deter those enticed toward union with the Church of Constantinople by a manifestation of heresy.
We understand the essence, which is considered in the hypostasis of the unbegotten, the begotten, and the proceeding. For we do not believe in bare properties, nor do we confess that they segregate those essences, but we confess that they are segregated around the essence. Similarly, Beccus (Bk. 1, *Ad Const.*, ch. 8; p. 160 seq.) exposes the matter, and the rest agree that if the Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Father, He is simultaneously from His essence.
But before we discuss the statement of Photius more fully, the escape route of many Greeks connected with these matters must be considered, by which—coerced by the words of their own Fathers which are contrary to them—they concede that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Son, but pertinaciously deny that He is from the hypostasis of the Son. But prudent theologians demonstrate that this is done with an empty effort. And first from this, that, as we have said, a hypostasis cannot in reality be separated from essence, nor essence from hypostasis. “He who asserts that the Paraclete proceeds from the very nature and essence of the Son,” says Georgius Trapezuntius (*De una S. Eccl.*, ch. 5), “asserts that He proceeds from the hypostasis itself of the Son. For it is not permitted to conceive of bare hypostases without nature (ὑποστάσεις ψιλὰς χωρὶς φύσεως), nor nature without hypostasis (φύσιν ἀνυπόστατον), absolutely in all things and in God Himself.” And again elsewhere (to *Joan. Cubocl.*, ch. 11): “Whatever is generated and proceeds into existence is either from the hypostasis alone as it is hypostasis, or from essence and nature alone, considered without hypostasis, or from both, namely from the nature or essence which is in the hypostasis and is conceived in the hypostasis. The second, even the Greeks themselves would not say; for they think it absurd, as it seems, because of what follows from it; for the Trinity of the same nature would be confounded, so that each of the three would be both from itself and from others; and therefore they think it proceeds and is generated from the hypostasis, as it is hypostasis. Woe to the madness! For if the hypostasis, as it is hypostasis, generates and produces, the hypostasis will be from the hypostasis in the same way, and thus these will not be natures, but hypostasis.... The saints, however, teach: As the Son, existing as generated from the hypostatically-existing nature C and essence of the Father, is therefore consubstantial to the Generator; so the Holy Spirit, having His existence through the hypostatically-existing nature of the Father by way of the hypostatically-existing essence of the Son, is therefore consubstantial to the Father and the Son.” Cf. Maxim. Chrysoberg. *De proc. Spirit. sanct.*, ch. 5. Moreover, there was truly a reason why the Fathers insisted against the Eunomians and Macedonians that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son; namely, that He might not be thought a creature, so that His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son might be shown; so that He might not appear to have His origin from mere will; they conceded of their own accord that He proceeds from the hypostasis of the Son and is through the Son. J. Beccus and Georgius Trapezuntius treat this clearly, who note that it is rightly inculcated in the writings of the Fathers that the Son is from the Father by nature and the Spirit is from the Father and the Son by nature, so that it may be shown that it is not will that is the cause, but the natural power inherent in another way solely in the Father, by generation, and in another way in the Father and the Son together, by procession. Then thirdly, the theologians show that the proposition that the Spirit is “from the essence of the Son” does not pertain to the fact that He is declared consubstantial to the Son, either solely or principally. For, as Beccus rightly argues in his epistle to Agallianus, these propositions differ entirely: “Paul is of the same nature as Peter,” and “Paul is from the essence of Peter”; the latter declares Peter to be the parent of Paul, the former does not. Two angels and two souls are consubstantial to one another; yet it cannot be said or thought that one angel is from the essence of another angel, or a soul from the essence of another soul. Furthermore, if the matter were so, then the Son would have to be said to be from the essence of the Spirit, and the Father from the essence of the Son, which, however, no one admits. Again, it is clear from the same Fathers that to them it is the same to say “from the Son,” “from the person of the Son,” or “from the essence of the Son”; these are frequently both joined and converted. Lastly, it is clear that the Son is from the essence of the Father and at the same time from the person of the Father, being pronounced now one way now the other, and even both together; therefore the same is to be said if we hear that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son.
A Furthermore, since essence neither begets nor breathes, according to the theologians, and likewise according to the philosophers (for they too say everywhere that the operations belong to individuals, not to universals and genera—for it was not man in the abstract, but a certain man who begat me), if therefore the operations belong to individuals, not to universals, and not to the substance in a simple sense, what else is to be understood when we hear of the essence of the Son and that the Spirit proceeds from it, if not His divine person?
Moreover, let this not escape us: that the holy doctors who said these things, said them while opposing the Arians and Eunomians, who, asserting that the Son is from the Father and the Spirit from the (Father and) Son, nevertheless denied that they were from their substance. They said that the Son, even if He is from the Father, was not born from His essence or nature, but by will; and that the Spirit Himself was also from the Son, but not essentially or naturally, only voluntarily. Wherefore they asserted the Son to be lesser than the Father and of a different substance, and they posited three essences in the divinity. The Fathers, therefore, refuting their opinion as false, endeavored to prove that the Holy Spirit is not only from the Son but also from His substance, and likewise that the Son is not only from the Father but also from His essence. B [240] Consider, therefore, how they opposed themselves to what the heretics were saying—that the Spirit is from the Son by will, not by essence—and how the doctors asserted Him to be from the essence of the Son. However, as to the fact that they said He is from the Son, no one contradicted it; nor did anyone say that He is not from the Son, as they themselves felt this (cf. II, § 7), and by saying He is from the essence of the Son, they themselves understood the same thing; as if they were saying: "from His essence and His person," and we say the same thing.
10. Therefore, having been born: If the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, He is also from His person. But it is no less established from the things said (§§ 8, 9) that: If the Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Father, He is also from His essence. But the essence of the Father is already understood to be communicated to the Son when the procession of the Holy Spirit is conceived; the Father and the Son, each constituted in His own person, are already presupposed when the discourse is had concerning that procession. Hence the question raised by Photius—in what way the Father is the principle of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—suggests opportune arguments for the Latins. For if it were said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father as Father, then the Spirit would be called Son, and the prerogative of the Son would be destroyed; but if it is said that He proceeds from the Father as He is God or as He is the breather, since here there is no relative opposition to the Son, the Son cannot be excluded. The Theologians reason: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father either as He is Father or as He is God. If the former, the Holy Spirit will necessarily be the Son, which is contrary to revelation; if the latter, then He proceeds also from the Son, because no sign can be conceived by which the Father is God, by which the Son is not equally God. Consequently, either two Sons must be admitted in the Trinity, with the distinction of persons overturned, or the procession of the Spi
Spirit must be rated as also from the Son. A Nicephorus Blemmida (orat. De proc. Spirit. sancti, c. 22; G. O. I. 28) sets forth the first part of the argument thus: "If the Spirit is God, then by necessity the Spirit is Son; for the Father is properly the Father of the Son, and how is the Word only-begotten, if the Spirit also is Son?" Ratramnus [241] develops the other part thus (l. III, c. 6, p. 297, 298), insisting on the doctrine of Athanasius: "He testifies that the Spirit is of the same substance of which the Son is also, since He exists from the united Deity of the Father and the Son: which saying clearly shows that He proceeds from both; for since the Deity of the Father and the Son is so united, either it can receive no difference, or the Spirit cannot proceed from the Deity of the Father unless He also proceeds from that of the Son, just as He cannot proceed from the Deity of the Son unless He also proceeds from that of the Father; otherwise, the united Deity of the Father and the Son will no longer be indifferent if the Spirit proceeds from the Deity of the Father and not likewise from the Deity of the Son; and by this, it will no longer be united, which is impious and Arian." Hugo Etherianus confirms these statements (l. I, c. 8, p. 1203), writing thus: "If the Spirit proceeds from the Father not as begotten, the Father does not emit (προβάλλει) the Spirit as begetter; for if the Father were to emit the Spirit in that [respect] in which He is begetter, the Spirit would proceed from the Father as begotten; but in truth the Spirit is not from the Father as begotten; for the Father is believed to have not two sons, but only one; it is manifest, therefore, that the Father does not emit the Spirit as begetter. Furthermore: since the Father is the emitter of the Spirit, He either emits Him in that respect in which He differs from the Son, or in that in which He does not differ. But He does not emit Him in that respect in which He differs; for in that in which He is Father, He does not emit the Spirit, in which respect alone He differs from the Son." The B Father differs from the Son only by innascibility and paternity (§ 5), of which notions the former has no relation or regard to the procession of the Spirit, while the latter would show the term of such an origin and principiate to be the Son; whence the Father breathes only from that in which He does not differ from the Son; and then the active spiration is common to the Father and the Son. "It is openly understood," says Etherianus, "that the Father does not emit the Holy Spirit in that respect in which He differs from the Son, but in that in which He shares." And again (c. 15, p. 1209): "According to what (the Father) can beget, He can have a Son; but according to what He can emit, He cannot have a Son. Wherefore according to one thing He can beget [242] and according to another He can emit." But if, therefore, the pronouncement of Photius, that by the principle of the hypostasis (τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ὑποστάσεως) the Father is the principle of the Holy Spirit, means that the Father as such, by reason of paternity, is the spirator, it is manifestly false; but if he understands another note proper to the Father alone, and indeed [pre-existing/pros, C], the assumption is false—that this is the characteristic idiom of the paternal hypostasis (§ 5 seqq.). Finally, if he wished to say nothing else than what is handed down by the common principle of theologians, that actions are of supposits (cf. con. Mon. 27 f. 239 b. The divine hypostasis of the Father is the cause, as the 'what', whether from the 'what', but His divine essence as the 'in which').
11. But this pronouncement must be weighed even more accurately. Theologians distinguish between the principle that begets or breathes, and the principle by which it begets or breathes. John the Theologian explained this excellently in the Council of Florence, sess. 18 (Hard. IX, 204): That which produces or begets is a person; but the principle by and through which (ἀρχὴ δὶ ἧς γεννᾷ) it is essence, which is communicated to others [cf. Thom. 1, q. 41, a. 5] (52). That which is communicated in generation is nature; but the agent is the hypostasis (that which is communicated is nature, but that which operates is hypostasis). Hypostases, he continues, sess. 19 (ib. p. 216), are those that beget or breathe. Actions are of supposits (the operations are of the hypostases). Essence is an abstract name; and hence it cannot happen that the action of generation (or spiration) should belong to it. The substance of the Father and the Son is the principle through which the Spirit is breathed; the principle which the breathers are. "The Father"—so the same states in sess. 244 (l. c. p. 308, 309)—"indistinct from the essence, or indeed subsisting as the essence itself (αὐτοουσία), is not understood to have an essence distinct from the hypostasis; for the paternal hypostasis is distinguished from its essence not in reality, but by reason alone [243]. The Father is, therefore, a substantial (οὐσιώδης) hypostasis and begets the Son substantially; and the Son is begotten, also a substantial hypostasis himself; and there are indeed two hypostases, but one God and one nature of both, with which the Holy Spirit is understood indistinctly (ἀχωρίστως); and neither the Father nor the Son is any of those things that are 'towards something' (τῶν πρός τι). But the Spirit, insofar as He is Spirit, must be referred to the breather (πρὸς τὸν πνέοντα). But because the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, and Scripture testifies that He is also the Spirit of the Son, the Father and Son are therefore the breathers." When, therefore, it is said: "The Father is not the principle by reason of essence," it is indeed said of the proximate principle that begets and breathes, not of the remote principle by which He begets and breathes; but it is not true if the essence is entirely excluded, which is that which is communicated through both generation and spiration. Furthermore, theologians subdivide the principle 'by which' into the radical or most remote, which in generation as well as in spiration is the divine nature itself; into the potential or remote, which is the potency of action or the intermediate power of acting; and into the formal or proximate, which is the form or force of action or the immediate power of acting. They commonly teach that the proximate principle 'by which' is productive of the sole properties of the producing persons, while the communicative principle is the divine nature itself (cf. Kilber l. c. c. 1, a. 2, n. 368 seq.). Next, the statement regarding the hypostasis (ὁ λόγος τῆς ὑποστάσεως) can be considered either as the person is considered in itself, universally and in the abstract, or as the person is understood as affected by this or that individuating property.
A That no one would say that the Father is the cause of the hypostases in the abstract is evident, for it would be absurd; it is understood here as a concrete person. But now it is asked again whether the Father is considered in the constitutive property of paternity, by which he is Father, or in another property, which is distinguished from it. If the former, he can be viewed only as the Father of the Holy Spirit, and hence [244] he would be the Son. Surely all Greek doctors explicitly teach that the name of Father signifies only the relation to the Son (53); how then does the Father as Father breathe, yet the Spirit will not be the Son? But if the latter, that property, whatever it may be, since it is not opposed to filiation, is inferred from what was demonstrated above to exist also in the Son. This other property can be nothing else than B probolē, or spiration; hence when the Father is called begetter and producer (5), he is said to emit the Spirit not as Father, but as Spirator (54); yet this hypostatic property is not proper to the Father alone, nay, it belongs also to the Son. Finally, if the hypostasis of the Father is understood by Photius without essence, how does he communicate essence to the Spirit? But if it is understood in essence and with essence, how does the Son not participate? It is therefore clear from all sides, from Photius’s utterance, in whatever legitimate sense it may be explained, that nothing can be deduced against the Latins; nay, that arguments can be drawn from it in various ways against himself. But if he contends that the Spirit’s principium is the Father in the same way he is the archē of the Son, with the same property and the same action, then the Son and the Spirit, generation and procession, are confused, and many of the absurdities which he himself has hitherto objected to the Latins will follow from these. Hugo Etherianus saw the greater part of the matter, although he did not express it in words with sufficient accuracy. Thus, among other things, he writes (lib. ii, c. 4, p. 1217, 1218): “I say that the division made is insufficient, which signifies that the Spirit proceeds from the Son either by reason of nature or by reason of person, since indeed they have the same nature, and one is not from the other according to substance; for how could nature beget itself? Similarly, neither is it according to the reason of person. For just as the Father, in that he is Father, does not emit, so also the Son, in that he is Son, is not the cause and C principium of the Spirit. Wherefore, from the nature of the Father and the Son and from the person which is the Father, and which is the Son, by no means does this follow in the one in whom, indeed, as person, he offers him existence, the Spirit has being, nor are there two principles, since they do not receive number according to the emission of the Spirit.” It should be finally noted that by those words, *logō tēs hypostaseōs* etc., the *principium quo* is rather insinuated than the *principium quod*; although essence neither begets nor breathes, nevertheless, the Father begets according to essence, and the Father and the Son breathe (55); whence essence is considered as the most remote *principium quo*. But when Photius says: The Father is the cause by reason of his person, the statement itself suggests that he understands by that reason the *principium quo*, whose subject is the acting suppositum itself, or the *principium quod*. Whence, a proposition thus accepted can be simply denied. The *principium quo* is the divine essence according as it is active spiration, just as essence according as it is paternity is the *principium quo* in generation (Thom. in i, dist. 7, q. 1, a. 2); and in this sense Georgius Trapezuntius teaches (G. O. I, 492): [246] D “The begetting and the producing is a work of nature, but not of nature as a whole, but that around which the property of begetting or producing is contemplated,” as it is affected and modified by the properties of the power of begetting or spirating. Photius and, in chapter 9, Nicolaus Methonensis put forward a fourth proposition, from which they argue no less subtly: Whatever is said in the Trinity is either common to the three persons or proper to one person; hence, what is not common to the three is proper to one (*to epi tēs Triados legomenon, ē henos estin ē tōn triōn*, or *ē koinon esti tēs Triados ē mias hypostaseōs idion*). Beccus claims this principle was invented for the Photian cause as the first proposition (orat. 2 De injusta deposit. c. 24: G. O. II, 75), which he notes is refuted even by that one utterance of the Fathers, namely, that *to ek tou Patros* [that which is from the Father] is common to the Son and the Spirit. Truly, *to ek tou Patros* is neither common to the three nor proper to one person; but the being *aitiaton* (caused) belongs to the Son and the Holy Spirit. But if this is so, the Photian axiom is not generally true. Furthermore, as Nicephorus Blemmida argues (orat. 2, c. 11. G. O. I, 32, 53), to send the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son; therefore, it is neither of one alone nor of the three together. Hence, after Blemmida, Beccus (l. c. and in Camat. An. G. O. II, 291).
presses the Photians: “Is there any ‘caused’ or ‘effect’ (αἰτιατόν) in the Trinity? And is that thing common to the Trinity or proper to one hypostasis?” They are unable to say either. For the ‘caused,’ which is observed in God, is neither A common to the Trinity, nor proper to one hypostasis of the Trinity, since it is common to the Son and the Spirit, and is not common to the Father. And closer to the matter: “To send the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son; yet this is said in no way of the Holy Spirit; for it cannot be that the same one is both sender and sent.” (Cf. ibid. Enchir. ch. 95, p. 111 sq.) Thus, too, from Manuel Calecas and Bessarion, Petavius (De Trin. VII, c. 15, n. 5, 6) writes: “The Latins deny that there is no property which is not either common to the three or proper to one alone. For they say that there is a certain one which pertains to two. For of the things which are said of God, Calecas and Bessarion say that some are common to the three persons, as are all absolute things, or those which have an order toward creatures, such as Creator, Lord, etc.; others are proper, and these either belong to two persons compared to the third, as to proceed from the beginning to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and likewise to send the Spirit to the Father and the Son, or they belong to one alone.” Therefore, that principle is false: *Whatever is said in the Trinity is either common to the three persons or proper to one.* Nor let it be said that similar principles are established by Latin theologians. For these axioms of the Catholics differ C far from the assertion of Photius: *Whatever is said in the Trinity is either said absolutely or relatively;* or even: *Everything that is predicated of the Trinity is either common or proper.* In these, the disjunction is certainly entirely adequate. In the former axiom, there is no difficulty, since active spiration is included among the relations; in the latter, “proper” does not stand for that which belongs to one person alone; besides, nothing prevents that being called common which belongs to either three or two persons, and that being called proper which is adapted to one, excluding two, or to two, excluding one, provided the principle of opposition is maintained everywhere. Indeed, Gregory Nazianzen (l. c.) says that being the cause (τὸ αἰτίας εἶναι) is common to the Son and the Spirit; Gregory of Nyssa, however (Or. in Domin. Orat. among Beccus G. O. I, 163; II, 522, 523) says it is the property (ἴδιον) of the Son and of the Spirit; both, indeed, can be said; hence Nyssa continues: [248] “And it being common to the Son and to the Spirit, the not being unbegotten, etc.” Since active spiration belongs to the Father and the Son, it is common to both, inasmuch as it is not proper to the Father alone nor proper to the Son alone; it can also be said to be proper to both, insofar as it is incommunicable to the Holy Spirit and pertains to the two spirating persons, excluding the spirated. It is trite among theologians that the common in the Trinity is absolute, while the proper is relative; in this manner, active spiration, which is a relation, is correctly said to be proper to the two persons of the Father and the Son, just as passive spiration is proper to the Holy Spirit. “Although there are four relations in the divine,” says St. Thomas (q. 30, a. 2, ad 1), “yet one of them, spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father and the Son, but belongs to both. And thus, although it is a relation, it is not, however, a property (in the strict theological sense, cf. § 5), because it does not pertain to one person only, nor is it a personal relation, that is, one constituting a person. But these three relations: paternity, filiation, and procession are called personal properties, as if constituting persons.” (Cf. q. 28, a. 1, 3, 4; q. 32, a. 3.) Therefore, although Catholics admit the axiom: *Whatever is said in the Trinity is either common or absolute, or proper or relative,* they rightly reject the assertion of Photius: *Whatever is predicated in the holy Trinity is either common to three persons or proper to one person.* But these things will be clearer from what is yet to be said.
13. This principle of Photius is also false, and what is deduced from it by way of a corollary is equally so: *There is nothing in the Trinity common to two persons (μηδέν τι εἶναι τοῖς δυσὶ προσώποις ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος κοινόν); but if anything is common to two persons, it will also be common to the third.* Hence, with Photius (cap. 6), the Schismatics argue: If active spiration is common to the Father and the Son, it will also be common to the Holy Spirit. The Fathers sometimes conclude that those things which are common to the Father and the Son are also common to the Holy Spirit; but while they reason thus, they are treating of the divine substance itself [249] and its attributes, not of relations; of those things which are said absolutely, not of those which are said relatively, as George of Trebizond correctly notes (De proc. Spiritus sancti, ad Jo. Cubocl. n. 24. G. O. I, 519 sq.); but that this might not be extended to relations and notions, those things by which they refute the aforementioned axiom forbid it per se (cf. Allat. Ench. l. c. p. 112). “For although,” thus Leo Allatius (Vind. syn. Eph. p. 361, 362), “Nazianzen says that those things which are in the Father and in the Son are also in the Spirit (τὰ τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ προσόντα τῷ Πνεύματι ἐνεῖναι), let them know that that divine man was speaking of the Divinity against the Pneumatomachi, who were debating not about things that have the power of distinguishing, but about the Divinity of the Spirit. And this is the doctrine of Cyril himself, who writes: ‘For those to whom the Spirit is common, to them also things which are of the essence will not have been separate’ (art. preceding § 10, note 6). Cyril says that the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son; for as it is said to be of the Father, so it is said to be of the Son, and yet it is not called ‘the Spirit the Spirit,’ lest two spirits be insinuated. And that the matter may be treated more generally, in the most holy Trinity three conjunctions are considered, and in each of them, what is common is found to be in two. Thus, since the unbegotten is said in two ways—both when it is without beginning, and we call the Father unbegotten; and when not by way of generation as the Son, and then the Spirit is unbegotten. By the same reasoning, both the begotten… and that which has a principle and that which naturally, i.e., by way of procession, exists; and the opposite: that which has no principle and does not exist by way of procession (57).” Photius: had published Gr. orth. I, p. 520: “In the blessed Trinity three combinations are observed, and in each…”
A of those which distinguish the hypostases—both according to beginning and end, and by opposition—something common to the two is found." This will be clear if we first clarify the term, so that we may not be troubled by its ambiguity. "Ingenitum" (unbegotten) is spoken of in two ways: [first,] to exist without a beginning, as when we say "the Father is unbegotten"; and [second,] not to be begotten, as the Son is—for the Spirit is unbegotten. And "genitum" (begotten) is likewise spoken of in two ways: [first,] as having a beginning, and being so by nature, that is, according to procession; and the contrary, [second,] as not having a beginning and not being according to procession. The "unbegotten" according to the second meaning is common to the Father and the Spirit; for to neither of these does being belong in a begotten manner. But "begotten" according to the first meaning is common to the Son and the Spirit; for both originate from a cause. And "not to proceed" is again, according to the second mode, common to the Father and the Son; for to neither of these does being belong in such a manner.
B It takes [it], and according to both, it belongs to two, both according to the beginning, clearly, and according to the end; for what is common to all those taken according to the divine distinction, and as it were universal, is "to be from a Cause." This, in relation to the beginning, we call the "Cause," and in relation to the end, the "Effect" (causatum). And just as it is not absurd for the effect to belong to two, but it truly belongs to the Son and the Spirit, so it is not absurd—or rather, it is necessary—that the Cause should be considered in two, so that the middle may become a middle for the thing, and a true bond, connecting the extremities, by the one being effect and the other being cause.
C [The] being by way of procession and the "not being by way of procession" are altogether observed as part of an opposition in the two; thus also the "begotten" and "unbegotten" and "proceeding" and "not proceeding" appeared common to the two. For since God is the Trinity in reality, if any one of the hypostases is distinguished from the two, this, being taken by opposition, will of necessity belong to the two. For that which takes away two from three would surely leave [the third]—even children and women could acknowledge this... For [to be] unbegotten, that is, without a beginning, distinguishes the Father from both the Son and the Spirit; for this reason, the "being from a beginning" is common to the Son and D the Spirit. The "being begotten" constitutes the person of the Son, distinguishing it from the two; and for this reason, that which is opposed to this belongs to the Father and the Spirit. Similarly, the "being by way of procession" separates the Spirit from the Father and the Son; and for this reason, the "not being by way of procession," which is opposed to that, is of necessity common to the Son and the Father.
[As to] the hypostatic [properties], if you take the property of the hypostasis by which it is distinguished from the two, this, being taken by opposition, if it is observed in the other two hypostases of the Trinity, it is not called [its] property; but if not, such a property has been poorly assigned. For this reason, the "unbegotten" (that is, the beginningless) being the property of the Father, and "being begotten" of the Son, and "being by way of procession" of the Holy Spirit, the "begotten" and "unbegotten" and "not proceeding" were common to the two remaining, according to the same meaning taken by opposition.
A again the distinction can be found mixed in their properties, so that the common is preserved and the proper is not confounded. For the only-begotten Son is called "from the Father" through Holy Scripture, nor does any discourse/reasoning show his property beyond this. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and is established to be from the Son. For if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his (62).
14. Those who carefully observe the difference that exists between them, that which is common to two persons, and that which pertains to the three together, some scholastics have called the former "common" and the latter "most common." Marcus Eugenicus blamed the Latins for this, because, having spurned that division of the Fathers whereby they divide what is in God into the common and the proper, they have invented a new one, establishing as it were another theology (63). But Georgios Scholarios defended vigorously that this division, adapted to illustrate the matter, in no way opposes the doctrine of the Fathers, but rather is entirely in concord with it. "For we too say," he says, "of those things which are in God, some are common, B and some are proper to the divine persons, and thus we in no way fight against your division. But if, subdividing those things which are common, we say that these indeed pertain to two persons, while those things exist in all, or of those things which are proper, we call these 'simply' proper, and those 'relatively' proper, we do not impugn that division, but rather we stabilize it. Just as neither does one who has divided an animal into rational and irrational, while another—adding to it and perfecting the matter—says that of the rational kind, one is mortal and another is immortal, oppose by his subdivision the one who had made the division according to the former method; rather, to the contrary, he will confirm it and will support it. If every subdivision is false, many C of those things which are confessed among all will be taken away and vanish; and all labor regarding the sciences will be vain" (64). But if not every subdivision is to be rejected, but only that which is fallacious and lacks a foundation, we must inquire whether this one, which is under discussion, is to be ascribed to the number of those. Therefore, the same Scholarios shows more fully that the Fathers, while they separate the proper and the common, leave room to investigate these and those further and more subtilly, and to divide them conveniently; and that only this can come into question: whether such a subdivision was made rightly and truly, or otherwise; and furthermore, that the foundation of that subdivision exists in the matter itself, as is evident from the fact that the *aitiaton* (caused) pertains neither to three persons, nor to one alone, but to two, the Son and the Spirit, which is neither strictly common in the way that the deity is, nor proper in the way that fatherhood or sonship is. Then, weighing those things which are truly common to two persons, he illustrates and defends from the perverse explanation of D adversaries the famous testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, which we shall bring forward below (art. 4, § 7, n. 1, and in the present art. § 17, n. 1) from the book *Ad Ablabium* (Opp. II, p. 459). That axiom, however, by which it is established that all things common to two persons must also pertain to the third, he teaches must either be rejected or must be understood concerning those things which are not opposed to the reason of that third person (65). So that all confusion may be kept away, distinctions and divisions are highly to be sought by theologians, and the various acceptations of terms are to be separated, as Bessarion wisely warns (66), who therefore in the Trinity aptly separates only the essential and personal, the absolute and relative, those things which are said *ad intra* and those *ad extra*, the affirmative and negative, but subdividing them again even more subtilly, he represents other classes and species of attributes and properties.
A those which are properly so called, he separates that which belongs to one person and is so proper to it that it constitutes the person, from that which belongs to two and in no way constitutes a person; and, in agreement with Scholarius, he teaches that a third category would be common to three persons, unless it were opposed by the reason of a single hypostasis; that to breathe, or *proballein*, is common to the Father and the Son, and therefore cannot be common to the Holy Spirit, because it contradicts the reason of the breathed, in that He would simultaneously be producer and produced, producing and not producing, since He would then become the principle of Himself.
15. Hugo Etherianus had already long since perceived the falsity of the Photian axiom, and he correctly notes that Photius contradicts himself, while on the one hand (as in ch. 3) he acknowledges that what is common to the Son and the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, and does not proceed from something else, that the Spirit is not someone else's, nor is the Holy Spirit, but that He has a relationship to the others, a character of looking toward the others, and again equally according to a relationship to the others, etc. Yet on the other hand (as in ch. 6), he contends that what is common to two persons also belongs to a third. For Etherianus says (bk. II, ch. 18, p. 1232 H): “But since whatever properties two possess, the third also possesses, as was shown previously (according to Photius's thought). Therefore this same sophist says, finding himself in contradiction, when he says (ch. 53 end), that it is common to the Spirit and the Son to have their progress from one indivisible cause. Which, indeed, in no way befits the Father, who has no cause. Nor does the Theologian Gregory agree with this opinion in a certain discourse to Heron the philosopher. It is not common, he says, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, nor is Deity; but it is from the Father for the Son and the Holy Spirit. Secondly, just as the Spirit’s progression from the Father and the Son is a property, no reason compels it to be of three, because it is the property of two.” Concerning this very matter the same author had already discoursed earlier (bk. I, ch. 12, p. 1205, 1206; ch. 16, p. 1210; bk. II, ch. 3, p. 1217). And in the earlier text (p. 1205 seq.): “What inconvenience will there be, he says, if for persons dwelling together absolutely inseparably, some property of the Son or the Father is common? Not every property describes a person... A property which is called a cause or principle is not at all distinctive of any person, just as certain others are, such as being unbegotten, being without cause, being without principle, emitting, being without a Father, not being the Holy Spirit, not being processible, having the Holy Spirit, sending the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the Father communicates many things to the Son; similarly the Son possesses certain properties which are not distinctive. Wherefore he communicates certain things to the Spirit, such as being causative, not being anarchic, not being the Father, and other things similar to these. In the same way the Spirit also has some, which the Father communicates, such as not being the Son, not being begotten, differing from the Son, and other things of this kind, which are not hypostatic or personal properties. All these are considered with respect to the substance B and have not been allotted a singular person; therefore they are properties which are in no way distinctive of persons... Wherefore it is not the same thing to have properties and to be distinguished by them; for each of the animals has many properties, by none of which it is distinguished. It is therefore evident, as I think, that no inconvenience follows if the Father, and the two persons who are with Him, possess properties of this kind, since a differing relationship does not bring about a composition.” Likewise, against the prelate of Nicomedia, who argued on similar grounds, our Theologian (bk. I, ch. 13, p. 1207) had observed that Hugo Etherianus had long since rightly noted that Photius contradicts himself, while on the one hand admitting what is common, and on the other hand C contending that what is common to two persons also belongs to the third. 16. Added to this principle is that which is likewise castigated by Beccus (orat. 2, *de injusta depos.* ch. 24 and in Camat. *Anim.* G. O. II, 75, 291), namely: Everything that is said of the divine persons is either personal or natural, which Nicholas of Methone especially urges (ch. 9, to ch. 36 of Photius, note 3). “This assumption,” says Beccus (l. c. p. 75, 76), “common statements of the Fathers overturn, by which hypostatic properties are demonstrated to be naturally in each person. For it is not because such a property is hypostatic to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit that it is therefore not natural; for by nature and not by position the Father is Father, which is the first of His properties; and by nature the Son is Son, and not by position, which is the most powerful of His properties; and the Holy Spirit naturally proceeds from the Father, and the processive property of His hypostasis naturally resides only in that hypostasis. Therefore it should not have been said: Whatever is said of the divine hypostases is either hypostatic or proper or natural. For the common is D not opposed to the hypostatic as if it were not natural. For both the common and the hypostatic naturally exist in the divine hypostases, and nothing which is by position and external and according to accident has a place in them.” No otherwise do Constantine Meliteniota (orat. 2, *de proc. Sp. sancti*, ch. 39; G. O. II, 899, 900) and Leo Allatius (Vindic. syn. Ephes. p. 361; Enchir.) decide, which he follows closely.
A l. c. p. 108, 109). But such a response does not seem to satisfy the matter fully. It is true, indeed, that things which are hypostatic can be said to be natural in a certain sense, insofar as they are not from accident, from without, insofar as they depend upon nature itself and are essential when persons are taken reduplicatively; but then they are so called in a broader sense, not in a strict sense, as the rationale of opposition now seems to demand. The assertors of that axiom further inquire, 259 Allatius (*Enchir.* ch. 17, p. 95) and others: whether the Trinity is something *physical* or *hypostatic* (on which question see Thomas, q. 31, a. 1, ad 4), and whether they consider the name of person to be natural or personal (on which question see the same, q. 30, a. 4); and from this the adversaries can surely be pressed: If they say that person is a hypostatic name, then, according to their opinion, personality will belong to only one of the three; if it is *physical*, person and nature will seem to collapse into one; the name of person, as Thomas says (l. c.), is common to the three persons by community of reason, not of essence. From these and other things of this kind, Photians can discern how that axiom can be affirmed (69). If it means: Everything perceived in the Trinity is either of the divine essence or of one person only, then it is reduced to that first statement already refuted (§ 12) and falls with it. But if it means: Whatever is understood in the Trinity, is understood either according to substance, or is said in relation to something, whether it is either absolute or relative, or finally: whether it relates to essence or to persons, it can be permitted to them. Indeed, whatever is considered in the Trinity, it belongs either to the essence or to the persons; but not everything that does not pertain to the essence as such is, for that reason, proper to one person. Furthermore, theologians note with St. Thomas (q. 41, a. 1, ad 1), that notional acts, which differ from the relations of the persons only according to the mode of signifying, are in reality entirely the same, and are deservedly distinguished from personal ones; that division by which it is said: Whatever is in the divine, is either essence, or person, or notion, everyone admits (cf. *Sum.* q. 43, a. 3, ad 1) and indeed it is accurate in every way. Hence to this objection 260: "The active production of the Holy Spirit is either personal or substantial; in the former case it cannot belong to several persons, in the latter it must be attributed to the Spirit himself," Henry Kilber answers ( *Theol. Wirceb. De Deo uno et trino* disp. vi, c. 2, a. 4, n. 406): that active production can be called personal and also denied, because it cannot be common to two persons; yet it seems rather to be said to be neither personal nor essential, but notional, "because, of course, although it does not constitute the Father and the Son in the being of a person, as is the case with innascibility with respect to the Father and filiation with respect thereto, it is not opposed to the relative, but pertains to the distinction from the Holy Spirit and the notification of each person."
17. Finally, this is also a solemn statement of Photius and the Photians: That the Son, just as the Spirit, is from the Father B proximately and immediately (ἀμέσως καὶ προσεχώς), with no intermediary existing (Phot. ch. 62, Nic. Methon. ch. 22). And from this they inveigh against the Latins, because they make the Father the principle of the Spirit both proximate and remote; proximate, insofar as the Spirit is from the Father immediately, but remote, insofar as He is from the Son, who has his being from the Father. Others, still more iniquitous, pretend that the Spirit is mediate from the Father among the Latins in such a way that He is in reality from none but the Son, and from the Father only insofar as He is the principle and begetter of the Son, just as Enos the son of Seth originated mediately from Adam; and Photius is not alien to this corruption, as chapter 61 manifests. But omitting this absurd interpretation for the present, we shall deal only with the former. Beccus answers (G. O. I, 215; *Or. de un. Eccl.* n. 64) that no one of the Holy Fathers said that *tò Πνεῦμα ἀμέσως ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι*. Before him, Nicephorus Blemmydes had already proposed the controversy thus: "And that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, is indeed from the Father proximately, but not through Him"; and he affirms and proves that while many of the former (Greeks) maintained this, not one of the doctors of the Greeks held the latter (orat. 4, n. 2 seq.; orat. 2, c. 4; 261 G. O. I, p. 2 seq. 42). And among other witnesses he cites Gregory of Nyssa (p. 7), who calls the Son *tò προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου*, but the Spirit *tò διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου* [lib. *Ad Ablab.* t. II, p. 459] (70). C All the Fathers entirely agree, who taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (art. 2, § 6, note 2); for, as Constantine Meliteniotes says (orat. 1, ch. 31; G. O. II, 712): "It is the same thing to say through the Son and not immediately (*ταυτὸν γάρ ἐστι δι' υἱοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἀμέσως εἰπεῖν*); that *through* signifies a certain mediating cause (*αἰτίαν τινα μεσιτεύουσαν*)," as Cardinal Bessarion proves at length in *orat. dogm.* ch. 5 (Hard. IX, 332 seq.). They are supported by all those who teach that the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son (Const. Meliten. orat. 1, ch. 41 seq. G. O. II, 760 seq.) and who determine that the Son alone is from the Father, with no intermediary existing (Beccus, epigr. 2-4, G. O. II, 544-558). In exactly the same way the other Greeks of the Union (*τῆς ἑνώσεως*) argue. Hugo Etherianus follows them closely, and he imitates the Greek manner of speaking in many things. "The Son," he says (l. 1, ch. 1, p. 1200), "is begotten according to the fecund virtue of the begetter, by which existing D medium the Spirit proceeds from the same Father..."
A from his inexhaustible and infiniable source." And a little later: "The Spirit is similar to the Son, just as indeed it is from a cause and its immediate principle, to which it communicates as immediate, so it proceeds from Him without a medium and through Him is joined to the Father." Since, therefore, the Greek doctors expressly say that the Son alone is μέσως (without a medium) from the Father, but do not say the same of the Spirit, since they argue with wondrous consensus that the Spirit proceeds from the Father διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ (through the Son); since, furthermore, some of these doctors solve that most celebrated question—why the spiration of the Holy Spirit is not generation and in what way it differs from it (concerning which one should consult Petavius, *De Trin.* VII, c. 14)—by saying that the Holy Spirit is not immediate from the Father, as the Son is (cf. Petav. l. c. c. 13, n. 11), nor as others do, by the fact that He proceeds from both (ib. n. 9): it is now sufficiently clear that they differ not a little from the Photian doctrine, as Allatius (*Ench.* c. 6, p. 30 seq.) with others urges.
18. However, the difficulty is not lacking; hence it must first be investigated B in what manner it should be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father mediately. St. Thomas (*Sum.* p. 1, q. 36, a. 1) proposes this objection to himself in the first place: "What proceeds from something through someone does not proceed from him immediately. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed from the Father immediately, which seems inconvenient." To whom he himself satisfies thus: "In every action there are two things to consider, namely, the acting suppositum and the virtue by which it acts, just as fire heats by heat. If, therefore, the virtue by which they breathe the Holy Spirit is considered in the Father and the Son, no medium falls there, because this virtue is one and the same. But if the breathing persons themselves are considered, thus, since the Holy Spirit proceeds commonly from the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is found to proceed immediately from the Father, in so far as He is from Him, and mediately, in so far as He is from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father through the Son; just as Abel also proceeded immediately from Adam, in so far as Adam was his father, and mediately, in so far as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam; although this example of material procession may seem inept for signifying the immediate procession of the divine persons." Hence (in *corp. art.*) "because the Son has from the Father," he says, "that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father breathes the Holy Spirit through the Son." Hence elsewhere [263] (in *l. 1, Sent. d. 12, q. 1, a. 3) [in] the words of Richard of St. Victor (*de Trin.* v, 7), [he explains] that generation in the divine is immediate from the Father, but the procession of the Holy Spirit is in some way mediate and in some way immediate, [explaining] this in this manner: "immediate, as to the spirative virtue, which is one of the Father and of the Son, and again as to the suppositum of the Father itself, which is immediately the principle of the procession, because He Himself and the Son together breathe; but mediately, in so far as the Son, who breathes, is from the Father." From these three things follow: 1) that it is not denied by the Latins strictly that the Father is the immediate principle of procession; 2) [that it is] correctly C nevertheless said with respect to the Son co-breathing with the Father that the Spirit proceeds from the Father mediately; 3) that it cannot be deduced that the Father is held to be the immediate and mediate, proximate and remote principle of the Holy Spirit in the same respect. Both can be said, but under a clearly diverse consideration.
19. How, therefore, do the Orthodox Greeks who attack Photius deny that the Spirit is immediately from the Father, which the most excellent of the Latins clearly concede? But they do not posit this infinitely; rather, in accordance with the manner of speaking of their Fathers, attending to those utterances of the same Fathers by which the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son is excellently confirmed, while the spirative virtue communicated from the Father to the Son is shown simultaneously; they press this against their own schismatic citizens who, to exclude the Son, argued for the immediate procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father; and although they do not distinguish with that akribeia (precision) the diverse reasons of the *mesiteias* (mediation) which Thomas uses, yet concerning the thing itself they agree entirely with the Latins, placing the *mesiteia* principally in this, that the Son has the spirative power communicated from the Father, setting down that that *dia* signifies a true cause and principle of the *enparxeōs* (subsistence) of the Spirit (Flor. conc. Hard. IX, 421), [it being] subordinate to the first cause in so far as it depends on it and is from it. (Cf. Allat. *Vind. syn. Eph.* c. 58, p. 375 seq.) This *mesiteia* [264] which is so hateful to the Photians is excellently explained by John Beccus (*lib. De proc. Spirit. sancti* c. 7, n. 2; G. O. I, 292, 293), first denying that intervals or real separation are insinuated by that name, then describing and defining it positively: "I say that this *mesiteia* is nothing else than a natural relation, according to which the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son, as proceeding from the Father through Him." He illustrates this more fully (p. 294-298), explaining in what sense the Son is said to be secondary to the Father. Nor is it difficult to discern that Hugo Etherianus has no other mind, from those things which he disputes more fully in *lib. 11, c. 9, p. 1222, 1223*. But it is helpful in the first place to hear Bessarion treating of the proposed question (lib. *Ad Alex. Lascar.* c. 7; Hard. l. c. p. 1061, 1062): "We hold with Augustine that the Spirit proceeds immediately from both, but we understand that the Son, who is the principle of the Spirit, is a mediator as to being between the Father and the Holy Spirit, since He is understood naturally as produced from the Father before the Holy Spirit is from both." And elsewhere (*Refutat. antirrhet. Palamæ adv. Joan. Becci capita*): "Now if anyone looks to the singular emission and identity of the procession from both, then let him note this, that the Father is the fount and cause of the divinity: he will find that the Spirit is immediately from the Father, and that the sentences which he brings forward pertain to that. But if he considers the order which is in the Trinity in reality, and which does not consist in our cogitation alone, he will see that the Son is the medium and the Spirit is third from the Father, as proceeding from the Father through the Son, and having the Son as preceding Himself in thought,"
as the Son has the Father (71). Indeed, the Father cannot be thought of as a spirator before He is conceived as Father; consequently, He cannot be so thought before the Son is conceived. For this reason, the Fathers call the Son the medium; Gregory of Nyssa calls Him A *mesitēs* (intercessor/mediator) (Tract. *Quod non tres sunt Dii*. Cf. Georg. Trapez. ad Joan. Cubocl. c. 21; G. O. I, 515 seq.). Nor conversely can it be said that the Spirit is through the Father from the Son, that the Father is a medium between the Son and the Spirit, or that the Spirit is from the Son mediately. Thomas excellently states (I. c. a. 3, ad 4): "Order is not considered between the Father and the Son in respect to power, but only in respect to the Persons; and therefore it is said that the Father breathes through the Son, and not conversely" (cf. also Petav., *de Trin.* l. VII, c. 11, n. 11).
20. Here it will not be irrelevant to add certain observations of Leo Allatius, which are worthy of consideration in other matters as well. He writes (Vindic. syn. Eph. c. 71, q. 555 seq.): "If a Schismatic says: 'Therefore, if the Father, producing the Spirit through the medium of the Son, produces Him mediately, while the Son emits Him immediately, in such a way that the Son is the proximate cause of the Spirit through no other, and the Father is not proximate, there would again follow either a diminution of the Son in respect to the Father, or of the Spirit in respect to the Son, and thus place would be given to Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius.' That there is no place given to these heretics is manifest. For they rend the Godhead into diverse deities, of which they constitute one greater, another lesser, and a third intermediate; or they cut off both the Spirit and the Son from the uncreated nature of the Father as subaltern natures, so to speak, and they establish this creature as belonging to this one, and that one to another; or again, they drag the Spirit into the order of creatures. Among such people, the first is considered not pious, the proximate is considered impious, and the middle is considered no less than the greater and the lesser; and simply B order, 'prior' and 'posterior,' and what follows from that, and similar terms are understood and declared by them with the utmost impiety. Among Catholics, however, while order is asserted, it is assumed in the Trinity in a manner not discordant with piety; and 'first' and 'prior,' and 'anterior' and 'posterior,' and 'middle' and 'greater' and 'proximate,' and whatever else is found in the commentaries of the divine Fathers, are accepted by pious men as befits God and as is appropriate to the divine hypostases. For although similar terms are drawn from us and our affairs, we do not on that account philosophize about divine things as we do about our own, but in a certain superior way, as befits the divine nature and the divine hypostases; and likewise regarding other terms, such as generation, Word, Father, Son, Spirit, and other theological terms, which, although they are taken from our usage, yet signify realities above us. C Furthermore, since terms spoken of us are considered in one way, and those of the divine Triad in another, the community of diction does not destroy the differences of the things; but the difference of the things, which implies different concepts of the same, is in no way harmed by the similarity of the words. Nor should the use of such terms be rejected because they express impious opinions among heretics; rather, they should be admitted, provided they are understood and asserted piously." Finally, those things which blessed Leo the Great inculcates ought to be weighed: "No times, no grades, no differences are to be conceived there (in the Trinity); and if no one can explain concerning God what He is, no one should dare to affirm what He is not. For it is more excusable not to speak worthily of an ineffable nature than to define the contrary. Whatever, therefore, pious hearts can conceive regarding the eternal and incommensurable glory of the Father, let them understand this simultaneously and inseparably and indifferently regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Serm. 1, de Pentec. c. 3; Baller. serm. 75, p. 402 ed. MIGNE). "Concerning which (the Holy Trinity), when Holy Scripture speaks in such a way as to assign in deeds or in words something that seems to correspond to individual Persons, the Catholic faith is not disturbed, but taught; so that through the propriety of either word or work, the truth of the Trinity is insinuated to us, and the intellect does not divide what the hearing distinguishes. For this reason, certain things are brought forth under the appellation of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, so that the confession of the faithful might not err in the Trinity; which, since it is inseparable, would never be understood to be a Trinity if it were always spoken of as inseparable. Well, therefore, the very difficulty of speaking draws our heart toward understanding, and through our infirmity, celestial doctrine assists us, so that because there is neither singularity nor diversity to be thought of in the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, true unity and true Trinity can indeed be felt in the mind simultaneously to some extent, but cannot be uttered by the mouth simultaneously" (Serm. 2, in Pentec. c. 2; Ball. serm. 70, p. 405, ed. cit.).
IV. Responses of various theologians are proposed to the chief sophisms of Photius. Let us examine that series of sophisms with which he endeavors to establish his own opinion. Having introduced the words of Christ in John xv, 26 (cap. 2), he reasons thus (cap. 3): The Son and the Spirit have their being from the same principle, namely the Father, although in a different way; they are wholly the same nature and endowed with equal honor; therefore, if the Son were the principle of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would likewise be the principle of the Son, and one would necessarily have to be the cause of the other in turn, and the Son would also have to be generated from the Spirit. Which argument is certainly not of great weight. For just as to equality and consubstantiality—and after that the Spirit, rightly dividing with reason, not as that one (Marcus) and those following him, knowing not at all how to distinguish, as we have said more perfectly in other places to his teacher Palamas.
A It does not hinder the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, that the Son has his being from the Father, just as the procession of the Spirit from Him does not hinder the equality and consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit; for just as the homousia (consubstantiality) of the Father and the Son does not require that the Son should also be considered the principle of the Father, so neither does the homousia of the Son and the Holy Spirit require that the Spirit should also be considered the principle of the Son. And just as the equality of the three persons does not abolish the primacy of the one, [the Father], by whom he is the principle of the others, so the equality of those things that are from the principle does not abolish the procession of the Spirit through the Son. If from the consubstantiality, viewed nakedly and by itself, that consequence is deduced, it is manifestly false; then the Son ought also to be called the principle of the Father because they are consubstantial. Nor does the fact that both the Son and the Spirit are referred to the Father as to a common principle, by itself vindicate this reciprocal power of principle-origination for both, as is evident; then, besides the fact that according to revealed doctrine the Holy Spirit is held to be the term of the immanent origins, there is another [thing to consider], as Photius himself does not deny: generation is one thing, and the procession of the Holy Spirit is another, so that the Father is not the principle of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in the same way. What is more, that one person with respect to the same other person should be simultaneously principle and originated is clearly absurd; but it is not absurd that the Son, together with the Father from whom he is generated, should breathe the Spirit, being in relation to the first person a co-cause, but in relation to the third, a cause. "For truly the same thing," says Hugo Etherianus (lib. I, cap. 10, p. 1204 G), "can be a cause for one and a causative for another; but for the same thing there cannot be both a cause and a causative; the Father indeed exists as the cause of the Son and of the Spirit; but the Son must by no means be denied to be the cause of the Spirit." There is certainly no necessity shown for which the Spirit ought to be thought of as the principle of the Son; but many things entirely prove that the Son, together with the Father, is to be held as the principle of the Holy Spirit. Rightly Cardinal Bessarion (ep. Ad Alex. Lasc. cap. 7; Hard. IX, 1062, 1063) against those who speak otherwise, observes these things: 1) Generation is constitutive of the paternal person and incommunicable, but not so the [progression/spiration]; 2) [implied premise that it is a contradiction] for the Son to be simultaneously principle and originated; 3) generation is the first and immediate action of the Father, and therefore it cannot belong to the Spirit, whose spiration follows generation. B "Lo, after his first vain babbling, what blasphemy the shameless tongue and the defiled conscience of the president and author of the entire schism have conceived and brought forth! Daring to write what no other has written, and to compose empty syllogisms with extreme arrogance. A similar interrogation remains for him: for if the Son and the Spirit proceed from one cause, the Father, but the Son again sends the Spirit, as he himself asserts, how then can the logic of the consequence hold that the Son is not generated or sent by the Spirit? For since both proceed equally from one cause, the Spirit ought to receive as much as the Son receives from the Father. Wherefore if the Son sends the Spirit, and the Spirit generates the Son, [it should be], just as the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, so also the Spirit, in recompensing grace, [should] generate the Son from the Father. Furthermore: the Son receives from the Father that he should be His Paraclete; why should the Spirit not likewise receive [it], so that he might be called His Word? For which reason indeed such a recompense and equality exists, that just as the Son receives from the Father to be the cause of the Spirit, so also the Spirit receives from the same Father [the power] to be the causative of the Son. In which the logic of the faith is not corrupted, while the properties are preserved alike and equally."
With these must be joined those things which the same author had already previously answered to the arguments of the same kind by Nicholas of Methone. Thus to the Methonean (cap. 5), arguing that in the doctrine of the Latins it must be conceded absolutely that the Son is also generated from the Spirit, just as from the Father, because the Father and the Spirit are consubstantial, lest we fall into the heresy of Macedonius, Hugo (lib. II, cap. 18, p. 1212 D, E) thus encounters him: "But this man truly does not in the least approach the truth. For the Latins do not say that the Spirit is from the Son because the Father and the Son are one God (i.e., if that is taken as the reason by itself without any other respect), nor have they been compelled to say this by any disputation; but they confess that the Spirit proceeds from both because He exists equally of the Son and of the Father, not in a created way, not in a generated way, not in a possessive way, but he is of both in the same way, by no means as an act and work of a man, but in a certain way as the life-giving light exists of the sun." And shortly after he continues: "But someone will object: the Spirit is a person equal to the Father; but it is declared of the person of the Father that He has the Son; why will the same be preached of the Spirit, and the Son will be the son of the Holy Spirit? But I say that there is no such equivalent comparison, for the reason that it has never been granted that the Son is [related] equally to the Father and to the Spirit, since all confess the Spirit to be [related] equally to the Son and to the Father. Wherefore, in things in which nothing unworthy nor indecent follows the divine persons, in these we say the Father is the cause and the Son the co-cause, nor is any injury offered to the Son or the Father or the Holy Spirit." For in C D the equality of the principle does not destroy [the fact] that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. These and the things that follow will be illustrated more fully below.
A In missions and gifts, the Spirit is always a sharer with the Father and the Son; but to call the Father or the Son "the Spirit's son" is execrable and profane. Nor does that proposition, which states that the emission is common to the Father and the Son, destroy— [271] that which is proper to the Father's person, by which the Father alone is apt to be distinguished (just as a procession from the Holy Spirit would destroy the distinguishing property of the Son).
Then, moving to another syllogism of the Methonensian (c. 6), which responds almost word-for-word to the present argument of Photius, after he has earnestly inculcated that "the Begetter begets according to one property, and emits the Spirit according to another," he proceeds thus: B "And it must be noted that it is not because of a parity of honor between the Father and the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father. For if the Spirit emanated from both because of a parity of honor, it would seem to follow that the Son, because of a parity of honor, would exist from the Spirit just as He is from the Father; which the bishop asserts at Methone." Having related these words, "This man," says Hugo, "and everyone wishing to understand, will find that what has been said is true: the Spirit, as God, renders grace to the Son, who is equal to Him. For the same grace that He returns to the Father, proceeding from Him, He repays to the Son, proceeding from Him; for both are said to be emitted, and are." Finally, it should be noted that it is said most incorrectly by Mark of Ephesus (73): "Just as the Spirit contributes nothing to the generation, so neither does the Son contribute to the procession"; the disparity is manifest; because generation must be thought of before procession, and the Son must be thought of before the Spirit, although time does not divide them, because the divine essence is already conceived as communicated to the Son, while the Spirit is understood to proceed from the Father. Cf. § 30 seq.
[272] 3. Photius disputes Chapter 6 on the grounds that if the spiration of the Holy Spirit were common to the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit ought to be a participant in it, so that one part of Him would be the principle, one part the principled, and the Spirit Himself would proceed from Himself. As if he were saying: The Latins want the *probole* [the *proballein*] to be common to the Father and the Son, because whatever the Father has, the Son also has; but the Holy Spirit has in the same way the things that are of the Father and the Son; and therefore, in their opinion, the spiration of Himself must be claimed for Him too; thus the Spirit would be on one hand producing, and on the other hand produced. But these things do not prove the matter. Photius first assumes that principle—already refuted—that nothing can be common to two persons which does not also extend to a third; next, he confuses the idioms and the marks of the persons with the essential attributes, as Joan. Beccus (G. O. I, p. 166-168) has already observed. Indeed, they share C all natural attributes, but by no means the idioms and opposite relations; whence, just as the Son does not have paternity or active generation, so He who is spirated cannot have active spiration. Bessarion says (ep. Ad Alex. Lasc. c. 7; Hard. IX, 1062) that it is impossible for this to be in the Spirit, because it is opposed to His property. Natalis Alexander correctly responds (H. E. sæc. IX, diss. 18, ass. 1, p. 531, ed. 1788, 4): "All absolute attributes are common to the three persons, and those which have an order toward creatures, such as creator, lord, etc., but not the properties of the persons." For some of these are hypostatic, which Hugo Etherianus (l. 1, c. 8, 12 and passim) calls marks of the persons, or those which constitute them—of which sort only three are found in God: namely, paternity, filiation, and procession. Others are notional, which do not constitute, but indicate the persons; and some of these belong to one person only, as being unbegotten belongs to the Father, and others to two, as active spiration belongs to the Father and the Son (74). Nor indeed is it a consequence that the Holy Spirit would also be the author of His own procession, because He has the same essence with the Father and the Son. For it does not strictly pertain to the divine essence, as it is essence, to produce the Holy Spirit, but [275] to the essence as it is affected and modified by paternity and filiation, with which the property of spirating is complex, as the theology teaches.
Now Hugo Etherianus saw well enough the flaw in the Photian reasoning, while he rose up against Photius himself in this fashion (l. 11, c. 18, p. 1232 H): D "The complex of an acute sophist and skilled craftsman, as it seems, does not keep faith inviolate, putting forth words in deceit and craft; and he has made himself liable to reproaches by the poison of heretical impiety, even if he does not wish it, since he does not have the divine Scripture as his advocate, mixes things that should not be mixed, and compares things that should not be compared; and because he does not distinguish natural qualities from properties, he is cast into the Acherusian swamp. For property is not the same as a natural and substantial quality (75)." Then he shows these natural qualities to be common to the three persons, but not the properties. Joan. Phurnes also acknowledged this (apud Beccum 1. c. p. 180), who for this reason recurs to that principle: that the *proballein* is a property of the Father or a personal mark, about which we have already spoken enough.
4. Chapter 7 follows: The dilemma: Either the Holy Spirit receives nothing different through the procession from the Son than what He receives by proceeding from the Father, and then the procession from the Son is useless and superfluous; or He receives something different from that, and then composition follows. The theologians respond that the Holy Spirit receives nothing different through the procession from the Son, and hence "For there is no property of natural and substantial equality." The published text still needs correction in many places; once this is done, the mind of this most eminent theologian will appear much more clearly.
A that no composition follows, but that it receives the same, and that there are not two processions, but one; nor can the procession from the Son be considered useless. Manuel Calecas (bk. II, p. 439) and Bessarion (lib. *De proc. Spirit. sancti*, p. 254) note that it is falsely supposed here again that there are two principles (see the preceding art. § 1 seq.); 274 then they retort the argument in a twofold manner: The production by which the world exists from the Father is either perfect, and then the efficiency of the Son and of the Spirit is in vain; or it is imperfect, and then the Father is blasphemed. Or thus: if the Holy Spirit is sent perfectly from the Father, it will be superfluous for Him also to be sent from the Son; but if imperfectly, then the Father is not perfect. Whatever holds true here, the same holds true also of the procession, even much more so. "Perfect, as I think," says Calecas, "is the production of beings from the Father, one and the same in number is the operation of the Son and of the Spirit for producing them, nor is one of them different from that of the others. Thus, therefore, it also happens in these things. Perfect is, and more than perfect is, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father; it is one and the same in number, which is the procession from the same Son... since each produces with one and the same power in number." Similarly, Beccus had already used this retort, *Orat. de un. Eccl.* n. 40 (G. O. I, 160, 161): "If, because of the perfection of the procession from the Father, you judge the procession from the Son to be superfluous, what will you answer those who say: If the supply of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect, then the one from the Son will be superfluous? Yet it is undoubted (76) that the supply of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect and nevertheless the one from the Son is not superfluous, because of the perfection which it has from the Father." Maximus Chrysoberga, *Orat. de proc. Spirit.* c. 4 275 (G. O. II, 1083), observes that the argument of Photius: "If the Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, it is no longer necessary for Him to proceed also from the Son," is entirely assimilated to that which the Arians seemed to use: If the Father is perfect God, what need is there to believe that the Son also is perfect God? If the perfect Godhead of the Father does not prevent it from belonging also to the Son, neither does the perfect procession of the Spirit from the Father prevent the Son from communicating in it with the Father. Furthermore, by the same right it can be denied that the Son is the giver of the Spirit, because He is given perfectly by the Father; and yet, as Basil testifies, both the Father and the Son give the Spirit with one act (διὰ τοῦτο διδόντος αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ Υἱὸς αὐτὸ δίδωσι μιᾷ δόσει καὶ μιᾷ χορηγίᾳ), nay rather, according to Athanasius, the Son is the sole dispenser B of the Spirit (77). Thus Maximus Chrysoberga, l. c. c. 5 (p. 1085). Nor does Hugo Etherianus differ from these, who (bk. I, c. 14, p. 1207, 1208) argues thus against Nicolaus of Methone (c. 11): "If therefore the Son is perfect God from God the perfect Father, what, I ask, does the Spirit contribute to such a perfection? If He does contribute, neither is perfect, neither the Father nor the Son. For how is He perfect if He is in need of as much as the Spirit-giver is? If, however, one Father and Son is the perfect God, and there is nothing more to find nor to say regarding the manifestation of the paternal perfection, the Spirit would indeed be superfluous. Which is impious to think. For just as the universe is seen to be of the Father and the Son, so also of the Holy Spirit; and those whom the Father and Son calls, these the Son and Spirit calls; whom the Father sanctifies, these the Spirit also sanctifies.... Therefore the perfect procession of the Spirit from the Father ought not to prohibit that which is said to be from the Son, since neither does the perfection of the Son from the Father prohibit the perfection of the Holy Spirit from the same; wherefore it is plain that the Spirit has His perfection and being from both." To the present head of Photius the same author (bk. II, c. 18, p. 1233) answers thus: "The Father acts through the Son, receiving nothing, without whom He was unable to create, He who works all in all. Is the operation of the Father or the Son or the Spirit imperfect? The Father is in need of no one, being perfect and self-sufficient. Nevertheless, He creates all things through the Son, receiving nothing which He did not have. But also the Spirit proceeds from the Son and through the Son, taking nothing from Him, except what He receives from the Father; since the Father is indeed perfect God and in need of no one, He nevertheless generates from His substance the Son, through whom He creates the universe, being equally powerful as Himself. Nor does the procession C of the Spirit from both overflow so much, since it neither indicates an imperfect Spirit, nor demonstrates an impotent Father or Son, nor brings in any composition. If a part of the substance were cause and causative, the principle of composition would indeed have a place. But now the Son is said to be born (ed. *natura*), and the Spirit is said to be sent, not in that which is substance, but in that he is generated, and the latter proceeds. But this does not pertain to the nature of the Godhead (78). Furthermore: Since the Word of God is perfect and in need of nothing, what did He receive from the Holy Spirit, when D He assumed flesh, the flesh standing by, and the anointing?"
Consequently, the Son does not exist as one who completes some deficiency of the Spirit, who is the sender. But indeed, God, being in need of nothing, sends Him with the Father A both because He is the Spirit of both indifferently, and because the Son proceeds from the Father without intermediary; therefore, the Spirit is not from the Father alone, but (also) from the Son, who alone exists as the fruit of the Father according to the same relation by which He proceeds from the Father." Finally, this must not be passed over: that Saint Thomas proposed to himself a similar objection to be resolved: «The Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father; therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.» Which he solves thus (I, q. 36, a. 2 ad 6): B «By the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, it is not only not superfluous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but it is entirely necessary, because there is one power of the Father and the Son. And whatever is from the Father must needs be from the Son, unless it is repugnant to the property of filiation. For the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.» Cf. also Petav. de Trin. VII, 16, 2.
5. Photius continues (c. 8): Some new relation is imagined in the hypothesis of the Latins, by virtue of which the Holy Spirit, being consubstantial with the Son, would also have the prerogative of originating in order to preserve His own dignity. This chapter, although very brief, and although related to chapter 3 (see above § 1, 2) and in part refuted therein, and although it encompasses assertions not approved by Photius, yet it demands many animadversions, which will also hold true regarding other syllogisms of the same. I. It is certain from revealed doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the terminus of eternal and immanent origins and that the Divinity does not extend beyond the three persons. Thomas (l. c. q. 27, a. 3): «In divine things there is no procession, except according to an action which does not tend towards something extrinsic, but remains in the agent itself. Moreover, such an action in an intellectual nature is the action of the intellect and the action of the will. And the procession of the Word is considered according to an intelligible action. But according to the operation of the will, another kind of procession is found in us, namely, the procession of Love, according to which the beloved is in the lover, just as through the conception of the C word, the thing stated or understood is in the one understanding. Whence, besides the procession of the Word, another procession is set forth in divine things, which is the procession of Love.» From this he also proves (a. 5) that there are not more than two processions in divine things, and (a. 3 ad 1) he teaches «that it is not necessary to proceed to infinity in divine processions. For the procession which is internal in an intellectual nature is terminated in the procession of the will.» From this admirable doctrine it follows by itself that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son [occurs], since the procession of Love might proceed from the Word, as the same doctor (Opusc. III, c. 3) shows. I have already explained this sublime argument. Augustine (De Trin. XV, 17 seq.) uses it, and Ratramnus uses it (v. supra II, § 7), as does Hugo Etherianus, who (l. I, c. 14, p. 1208), having adduced the words of Jerome (in psalm. XIV): «The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but the love which the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father,» follows up thus: «Since, therefore, the Spirit is the love of the Father as He is of the Son, and He proceeds from the Father, He proceeds from the Son; it is manifest, therefore, from what has been said, that if the Spirit of the Son does not exist, nor proceed from Him, it is impossible for Him to be the same Spirit of the Father or to proceed from the Father.» John Argyropulus similarly proves this (De proc. Spirit. sancti, c. 3 seq. G. O. I, 404 seq.), imbued also with the principles of the Western doctors, insisting upon the names of *logou* (word) and *agapēs* (love). II. An inequality of dignity among the persons cannot be derived from the fact that one is without a principle, another is from a principle and is a principle, and a third is from a principle yet is not a principle. Photius maintains this when he supposes that the Spirit does not preserve His own dignity if He Himself is not also a principle of someone, just as the Son is. Indeed, he himself, who accuses the Latins of so many heresies, could be argued of Eunomianism, D while he thinks here and elsewhere that an equality of essence is compromised by relations of origin. «Equality,» says Thomas, «in divine things and similarity are considered according to essential attributes, nor can inequality or dissimilarity be said according to the enunciation of relations.» Whence Aug. c. Maxim. III, 18 says: «The question of origin is that of 'from whom' something is, but that of equality is of what sort or how great it is... Just as the same essence which is paternity in the Father is filiation in the Son, so the same dignity which is paternity in the Father is filiation in the Son.» (Q. 42, a. 4 ad 2.) In the same way, to that argument: «The Son is not more in agreement with the Father than the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one principle with respect to any divine person; therefore neither are the Father and the Son,» he answers thus (q. 36, a. 4 ad 3): «To the third point to be addressed, one should say that in divine things, similarity or dissimilarity is not considered according to relative properties, but according to essence. Whence, just as the Father is not more similar to Himself than to the Son, so neither is the Son more similar to the Father than the Holy Spirit.» Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not lose His dignity by the fact that no person proceeds from Him, and if Photius contends this, he must necessarily contend with Eunomius that being *agennetos* (unbegotten), *gennetos* (begotten), and generally *to archēn tinos einai* (being the principle of something) constitutes the essence itself, which has been so often condemned by the Fathers. III. Among the Latins, every person is distinguished from any other by relations, to such an extent that there is no need for a new relation; the Latins admit neither more nor fewer *scheseis* (relations) than the Greek Fathers. But if active spiration is also from the Son.
A is attributed to Him, by this very same relation the Son is distinguished from the Spirit as by an opposite relation, and the nexus and condition of these relations themselves demand this. Indeed, the Photian system can be shown to be lacking, imperfect, and destitute of the necessary coherence in this part. Subjoined demonstrations by theologians will teach this quite evidently.
6. J. G. Walch, in summarizing the tradition of the three persons in the divinity, also inculcates the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in this manner (*Hist. controv.* c. 10, § 2, p. 167, 168): [280] "For if, he says, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as Christ testifies in John xv, 26, and as the Greeks also teach; yet the Son holds the second place among the divine persons (81), and is of the same essence as the Father, it follows that the procession of the Holy Spirit also occurs from the Son. Indeed, those who deny this cast themselves into such difficulties that they must either abolish the order of the persons in the divinity along with the reason by which one relates to another, or they must affirm B that these by their nature are distant from each other, and, with the Son removed, that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father alone while having the same essence. Anyone who judges the matter from truth, not from perverse opinion and wicked will, sees that neither is to be admitted; and rightly, among others, John Affelmann (*Syntagma exercit. academic.* p. 1, p. 416) says: 'If the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, every personal nexus and relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit would be clearly abolished.' Yet the absolute perfection of the Trinity requires that the persons be so bound to one another by their respective modes of production and by their hypostatic relations—and thus each to each—that the Father is referred by a hypostatic relation to the Son as to the begotten, the Son to the Father as offspring to begetter, the Father to the Holy Spirit as one breathing to his breath, and the Holy Spirit likewise to the Father as to his spirator. Therefore, a certain solitude C and hiatus is left between the Son and the Holy Spirit alone, if no personal relation intervened between the hypostasis of the Word and that of the Holy Spirit. Such a *diastēma*, or hiatus, that absolute and infinite perfection of the Trinity does not admit in any way." But these things had already been most clearly examined and demonstrated by more ancient theologians. Anselm, Bishop of Havelberg, speaks excellently (*lib. II Dial.* c. 11, p. 179, ed. Paris, 1723): "When you say these things (that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son), [281] you do the greatest injury to both—to the Son, namely, and to the Holy Spirit; for since the Father and the Son have each other D as begetter and begotten, and likewise the Father and the Holy Spirit as emitter and emitted, and as giver and gift, tell me, I pray, do you not do great injury to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, to whom you attribute no relation to each other, nay, whom you disjoin, if I may say so, from the shared communion of the procession? For what is it that the Son should look to the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit to the Son, by some intermediate relation, if you remove the procession of the one from the other from the midst of both?" To the same point pertain these words of Hugh Eterianus (l. II, c. 5, p. 1220): "Either it touches the Son or it does not touch him; if it does not touch him, there is nothing that might join and couple the Spirit to the Son." Moreover, Beccus clearly asserts and declares that the order which is in the Holy Trinity dictates and confirms the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son (*De proc. Spirit. sanct.* c. 8; G. O. I, 301 seq.); yet this order, as necessary, eternal, and immutable, cannot be repeated from a contingent and temporary mission, nor from the essence, which is the same in the three persons; it must be sought, therefore, solely from the relation of origin (cf. Petav. *De Trin.* VII, 6, n. 6, 7). George of Trebizond more fully shows the nature of this order and the relations which it demands (*De proc. Spirit. sanct. ad Joan. Cubocl.* G. O. I, 470 seq.): "The very name of the Triad, he says, signifies order, and it is impossible that it be called a Triad in truth and in reality unless those three have a relation among themselves; for if one supposes two that are not related to each other by any relation, those two will be mere two, and not a duality. But if there are three that are posited, if each one has a relation to the remaining two, it will be a Triad; if not, they are simply three. Therefore, if the Father has a natural relation toward the Son and toward the Holy Spirit—the relation which is according to cause—but the Son has none toward the Father [as regarding the cause] but none toward the Spirit, nor the Spirit toward the Son, there will be either a duality or three gods, and not the Trinity, God. Declining this impiety with diligent provision, the doctors have well affirmed, [282] and it is believed according to the common notions of Christians, that the divine hypostases adhere to and are joined to one another; which among the Greeks is clearly antiquated, so that they are now in danger of falling away from faith in the Trinity (82). Truly, in the Photian system, the Father indeed has a relation to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, [and] the Son and the Holy Spirit have a relation to the Father, but the Son has no relation to the Spirit, and the Spirit has no relation to the Son; a mutual nexus between the two latter hypostases is entirely lacking, which is clearly discordant (83). Nor is this of such a kind...
be derived from consubstantiality viewed in itself; for “the fact that some things are consubstantial does not, for that reason, imply a relation between them, as can be observed in humans (84). Furthermore, it is known to all that in the divine realm, persons are united by essence and distinguished by relations. Therefore, the relation that arises through the likeness and identity of nature unites rather than distinguishes; but the name of the Trinity and the mutual connection of the hypostases, by which they adhere to one another, clearly demand a distinguishing relation (85).”
7. Connected with this latter observation of the Fathers and theologians is the reasoning which rests upon these principles: 1° that divine persons are distinguished from one another only by relations; 2° that relations, moreover, cannot distinguish persons except in so far as they are opposite; 3° that there are no opposite relations in the divine realm except relations of origin (86); whence it follows that, with the nexus of origin removed, the divine persons can no longer [284] be distinguished from one another. This no one has explained more accurately than the Angelic Doctor, who discourses thus (p. 1, q. 36, a. 2): “It is not possible to say that the divine persons are distinguished from one another according to any absolute quality, because it would follow that the essence of the three would not be one. For whatever is stated absolutely in the divine realm pertains to the unity of essence. It remains, therefore, that the divine persons are distinguished from one another solely by relations. But relations cannot distinguish persons B except in so far as they are opposite. This is evident from the fact that the Father has two relations, of which one is referred to the Son, and the other to the Holy Spirit, which nevertheless, because they are not opposite, do not constitute two persons, but pertain only to the one person of the Father. If, therefore, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit there were to be found only two relations by which each is referred to the Father, those relations would not be opposite to one another, just as the two relations by which the Father is referred to them are not. Whence, just as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit would be one, having two relations opposite to the two relations of the Father; but this is heretical, as it destroys the faith of the Trinity. It is necessary, therefore, that the Son and the Holy Spirit be referred to one another by opposite relations. But there cannot be opposite relations in the divine realm except relations of origin, as was proved above (87). But opposite relations of origin are understood according to the principle and according to that which is from the principle. It remains, therefore, that [285] it is necessary to say either that the Son is from the Holy Spirit (which no one says) or that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, which we confess. And to this indeed the reasoning of the procession of both conforms. For it was said above that the Son proceeds by way of the intellect as the Word, but the Holy Spirit by way of the will as Love. However, it is necessary that Love proceed from the Word. For we do not love anything except in so far as we apprehend it by a conception of the mind; and according to this it is manifest that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” And again: “If from the one person of the Father two persons proceed, viz., the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is necessary that there be some order of them toward one another (88). Nor can any other order be assigned, except the order by which one is from another. It is therefore not possible to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father in such a way that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless one were to postulate in them C an order of origin.” D
A Indeed, otherwise the processions themselves would not be distinguished, as Thomas (ibid., ad 7) teaches: “The Holy Spirit is distinguished personally from the Son in this, that the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other. But this very difference of origin exists because the Son is only from the Father, while the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. For the processions would not otherwise be distinguished, as was shown above.” In a similar manner, Hugo Etherianus had already argued (I. III, c. 12, p. 1247): “The Father is a different person from the Son, in that He provides existence to Him through generation. For He differs from the Son in that He gives existence to Him by birth; on the other hand, the Son differs from the Begetter in that, by being born, He received existence from Him. Also, the Father differs from the Holy Spirit in that He gives existence to Him while He emits Him. But the Holy Spirit does not exist as a person other than from the Father, except because He receives existence by proceeding from Him. Therefore, when the Spirit is a person other than the Son, He either gives existence to Him or receives it from Him. But He does not give it, as is manifest; therefore, He receives it. For regarding the one and simple substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, hardly anyone of sound faith will assign a cause of their difference from one another other than those which have been stated. Wherefore, if the Spirit is a person other than the Son, He has some one of the stated relations to Him. But if not, He is not a person other than Him.” Hence, Nicephorus Blemmida also (orat. 2, c. 14; G. O. I, 58) affirms that, among other absurdities following from the Photian system, there is this: that B the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son—even if He does not have His origin from Him—namely, from the fact that they do not both proceed from the Father in the same manner. This can be gathered both from our own work and from those things which are made manifest in the discussions on Amphilochius, quest. 28, edited by Scotus (Quædam ex Photii Amphiloch. Neapoli 1814, 4, p. 26-31): “If the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the same principle, how is it that they do not receive the title of brothers, nor will the Holy Spirit acquire the name of son?” There, he insists primarily on the fact that both are from the *same source* (ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ), *but not in the same way* (ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡσαύτως). However, he carefully avoids probing more deeply into this diversity of the procession of both, and attempts only to illustrate the matter to a certain extent with examples taken from created things. “But now,” says Scotus (p. 31, n. 1), “everyone sees how inept the comparisons are upon which he relies, since the things he adduces as an example are not distinguished by a different mode of procession, but by individuating matter and diversity of form—all of which have no place in the divine persons; indeed, as can be seen in St. Thomas (p. 1, q. 38, a. 3 ad 1), the proposed similarities make arguments rather against Photius.” It is evident both from the beginning and the end of this Photian dispute that it troubled certain orthodox men, whom he himself tries in vain to relieve. Moreover, among Greek authors who defended the Catholic dogma, many can be found who do not admit Thomas’s argument; George Scholarius seems to support them in his *Response to the Syllogisms of Marcus of Ephesus*, ch. 6 (Cod. Monac. 27, f. 194a seq.), where he discusses the matter at length. Bessarion, however, excellently shows that that doctrine of Photius either accomplishes nothing or collapses into Thomas’s reasoning. For he asks (Respons. ad Ephes. syllog. 48; cod. citat. f. 230a, b) of those who C think the Son and the Spirit are distinguished solely by the different processions from the Father, according to which one is begotten and the other proceeds, by what reason those two different progressions are held, and in what this difference consists. “If,” he says, “it lies in the fact that generation is immediately from the Father alone, but procession is through generation and the Spirit through the Son, this is for us, and it almost falls into the reasoning of Thomas. But if it lies in the fact that both are from the Father alone, then the Son and the Spirit can no longer be distinguished from each other. For the diverse processions of certain things are either from the cause or from the caused; the latter, in turn, can exist in a twofold manner (διχῶς): either because the things originated belong to different species or because they are separated and terminated in different supposita (ἢ διὰ τὸ τὰ αἰτιατὰ διαφόρων εἰδῶν εἶναι ἢ διὰ τὸ εἰς διάφορα ὁρίζεσθαι ἄτομα).” Now, however, the Son and the Spirit do not differ according to species, receiving one and the same nature and divine essence numerically by proceeding from the Father; nor do they differ thus *according to individuals* (κατὰ τὰ ἄτομα), first because there is no matter there, nor anything analogous to matter by which supposita of the same nature are separated from each other; and secondly, because the progressions of the supposita from the same causes are of the same species (ὁμοειδεῖς); but here, neither are both generations, nor are both processions. It remains, therefore, that the difference of the progressions must be *according to the account of the cause* (κατὰ τὸν τοῦ αἰτίου λόγον). But if the Father be one D *cause* (αἴτιος) in both cases, then certainly there is no difference at all on the part of the *cause* (τοῦ αἰτίου), and the distinction between the Spirit and the Son falls away entirely, so that they become one person, which is absurd and repugnant to faith. It is necessary, therefore, if the divine persons are to be distinguished from one another, that they be distinguished by opposite relations according to principle and originated, and that there be a difference of the Spirit from the Son and the Father (τοῦ προβαλλομένου πρὸς τὸν προβάλλοντα διαφορᾷ), and not be distinguished in any other way. Thus Bessarion.
9. Photius again declaims (cap. 11): "If two principles are discerned in the thearchic and superessential Trinity, where then will be the so often chanted and God-worthy force of the monarchy? How will the impiety of polytheism not then break in? How will not, under the guise of Christianity, the superstition of ethnic error be introduced by those who dare to say such things?" But in what way is the monarchy destroyed and polytheism introduced? "Two principles are being introduced." But this was for Photius to prove, not to assume, as Beccus rightly replies (Or. de un. c. 38; G. O. I, 158, 159); rather, the opposite has been proven above (III, § 1 seq.). "For even if," says Bessarion (91), "the Father and the Son are not one principle as Father and Son, yet they are one in the specific principle which is the divine essence, according to which, being one and the same in number [291] existing in both, they produce the Spirit; and this suffices for the fact that there is one principle of the Divinity; just as the Trinity is one principle of creation, although it is a Trinity, because of the one and same will of the three." By the same right, the aforementioned cardinal says elsewhere (ep. ad Alex. Lasc. Hard. IX, 1071), as the Gentiles of old accused Christians of establishing three gods and three principles, because they attributed the creation and governance of things equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so here the Greeks accuse the Latins; and in the same way that the holy Fathers refuted those ethnics by explaining the dogma of the monarchy, so too are these accusers refuted, since all things are referred to the Father, the Son possesses whatever He has from Him, and the action of the Father and the Son in spirating is one and the same.
19. No less fallaciously does Photius reason (cap. 12): If two principles are admitted in the Trinity, a third must also be admitted, since a triad has more place in the Trinity than a duality. It may be responded, first, that it is falsely supposed that two are admitted. You can contend that when the Romans say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then the confusion and contraction of the Father and the Son is introduced. For the Father and the Son are not one cause, nor is the Father and Son one [hypostasis], but they are in the specific principle, which is the divine essence, according to which, being one and the same in number in both, they bring forth the Spirit; and this suffices for it to be one principle of the Divinity; just as the Trinity is one principle of creation, although it is a Trinity, because of the one and same will of the three.
A For the same reason, the parent exists as the cause of both, but is not itself forced into the composition of the paternal person. Hugo (Bk. II, ch. 18, p. 1233) briefly responds to Photius thus: 293 « Vain and ineffectual is the discourse that, on account of the cause and the caused, divides the person of the Father into two, or constitutes the person of the Son as the cause (or part) of the person of the Father. For cause and caused do not know how to divide a person, not even in things inferior. Therefore, as the Spirit exists with the Father, the cause does not divide the paternal person (by the Son). » Furthermore, Cardinal Bessarion, in his *Epistle to Alexios Laskaris* (ch. 7, p. 1063), retorts the argument against the Photians in this way: « If the generation and the procession were so proper to the paternal person that each of itself constituted His person, and the principle of every operation is a form, then two forms (by form we understand the principle of these two operations) would be principles. But each form, that is, each principle of a constitutive operation, constitutes some person with that operation, just as the essence, which is the principle of active generation, constitutes the Father with that generation itself; and thus the Father would be two persons. But this is an absurdity. »
12. Photius teaches (ch. 17), and those who follow him, as does Nicholas of Methone (ch. 24): Everything that is proper to one, which when said of two others is verified of both in an equal manner, shows them to be consubstantial; but if it is true of one only and not of the other, C it manifests them to be of a different nature. They strive to illustrate this immediately with examples; the "risible," for instance, can be predicated of a man, not an angel; of Socrates and Plato, but not of the image of Socrates. Thus, they argue, what is proper to the Father—namely, active procession—when it is transferred and adapted to the other two persons, is indeed affirmed to be predicated of the Son, but not of the Holy Spirit; this entirely convicts the Son and the Spirit of being of different substances. But the whole affair is empty; not only because the types of properties that pertain to one [kυρίως] (properly) and can be accommodated to others are varied, and not all permit an inference as to the identity or diversity of nature, D but much more so because the theory of Photius 294 rests upon a false hypothesis, while it supposes that it is proper to the Father to produce the Spirit, and that this is not adapted and accommodated to the person of the Son and transferred to it except by some arbitrary act. Nor does any necessity follow from this whereby the Father's [11. Post alia...] A B C D [remainder of note 92: original-script column: see facsimile]
A Since it is supposed that the person of the Father, like the person of the Son, is already constituted and is not destroyed thereby, the constitutive elements of the person are not taken away from the Father, but remain completely intact, as has been sufficiently declared already. «is transferred into the Son, [and] even the proper attribute of the Son is transferred into the Father, so that the Father also undergoes generation and is considered begotten. But since it is sufficiently evident already that the foundation he posits is false, that consequence will have no force. B To avoid repeating the same things, we shall present here the excellent disputation of Bessarion, illustrating at greater length what has already been said. Bessarion asks therefore (ep. ad Alex. Lascar. c. 5; Hard. IX, 1060), what may be the constitutive of the Father’s person. And first he inquires, whether it be *agenneton* (unbegotten). But it does not seem so, he says; for this is a negation; yet nothing of those things which are by way of negation is a "this something." Moreover, unbegottenness 295 is nothing but a property which follows upon his already constituted person. Secondly, he argues whether it might be *to aition*, that which is called cause or principle. Neither is this to be admitted. For if this were its constitutive form, it would rather be called "cause" or "principle" (*aitios*) than "Father"; but by all doctors he is commonly named "Father." Furthermore, thus it would be nothing real, but a certain ideal *noēma* (thought), and it would not be communicable, whereas nevertheless to no one is it granted to have that which is formally incommunicable, which does—in relation to the person—make its own formal constitutive C (93). It remains therefore that either paternity alone or spiration alone, or both, are the constitutive of the paternal person. But primarily the third is impossible, whether 1) it is conceived in such a way that each by itself could constitute, or 2) in such a way that only both together are capable of it. For if each mark by itself constituted, the Father would already have two forms (*dyo eidē*), and consequently there would be two persons, possessing two persons and two forms. For when those are distinct relations, if any one of them were constitutive of the person, since the constitutive elements are formally diverse in respect D of the distinct constitutaries, it follows that which we have said: the Father would possess two personal forms, as if some man had two souls, which is absurd (94). But if they did not constitute each by itself, but both together, then neither he who speaks of the Father alone would signify the paternal person, nor he who speaks of the *proboleus* (sender forth). Yet the complete opposite of this is in use; for all doctors and all Scripture, when they say "Father," signify his divine person; and our people (the Greeks) also, when they say *proboleus*, think they signify the Father alone. Therefore, neither are both together constitutive of the paternal person, nor is each by itself. It remains therefore that either paternity is the constitutive and proper form of the Father, and spiration follows him already constituted, or vice versa. But if the *proballein* (sending forth) indeed constituted, and paternity followed, an absurd thing—and one which is contrary to the tradition of all the doctors—would follow: spiration would be the first and immediate operation of the Father; for this proceeds from the constitutive form of each person, and by it other operations are performed; from this it would follow further that generation occurs through spiration, so that not as the theologians assert, that the Spirit proceeded through the Son, but the Son would be generated through the Spirit (95). Since, however, these things are absurd and contrary to tradition, it remains that paternity constitutes the paternal person, and that this is its incommunicable form, and that spiration follows its already constituted 297 person. Hence it is effected that *to gennan* (the begetting) itself is the first and immediate operation of the paternal person; but the *proballein* itself occurs not indeed as through a principle, but as through something necessary, which is pre-exigible (96). But if this is so, an argument is immediately derived from it which demonstrates that the Son cannot be excluded from the active spiration. Bessarion (l. c. c. 6, init. p. 1061) proposes this in this manner: «By the first and immediate operation of each person all other operations are brought to completion; but the first and immediate operation of the Father is generation; therefore, the action of spirating is brought to completion through generation, and thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.» 14. After that long text of John xvi, 13, the disputation (caps. 20, 30) begins a new cycle of sophisms.
in which Photius repeats in other words many things already said and adds new ones. What he discusses in chapter 31 agrees in reality with the things he had disputed in chapter 7 (cf. § 4). A double procession A is supposed here, as asserted by the Latins; it is supposed that, according to their opinion, something peculiar is contributed by each of the breathers—that the Father breathes in one way, and the Son in another. But, says Hugo Etherianus (l. II, c. 2, p. 1260), «The Father and the Son do not breathe the Spirit *not partially*, but each emits him equally from the whole and perfectly; for the Son alone exists from the Father without intermediary, and therefore he emits the Spirit perfectly just as the Father does.» The rest that needs to be noted has already been stated in § 4.
15. As regards the point that the Spirit would be distinct from the Father in a different way than the Son is, and therefore must be thought of as more remote from the Father in the Latin system (cap. 32), the things said above prove this to be false. For the Spirit is distinguished from the Father and the Son solely by the procession or passive spiration; nor is the Son closer to the paternal substance than is the Spirit, since in reality both are [298] immediately from the Father and receive the entire fullness of the divinity from Him. Nor does it obstruct things that the Fathers say the Spirit is from the Father mediately and from the Son immediately; in what sense that is said, it was sufficiently declared (previous article, § 17 seq.). Let Manuel Calecas now also be heard, who (l. III, p. 438, ed. cit.) counters this objection in this way: «But these things should rather be blamed on the holy doctors, if they seem absurd. They are, indeed, the very ones who teach that the Spirit is the third from the Father, taking the occasion, of course, from the Lord Himself in the tradition of the salutary baptism; and they say that He proceeds through the Son, and through Him is joined to the Father.... Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit were to proceed from the Father by one procession, and from the Son by another, and the procession from both were doubled, perhaps there might be a reason to blame the difference in processions, and to conceive of certain degrees in the persons, because the Spirit would be distant from the Father and the Son differently. But if there is one and the same procession to Him from both, He is similarly referred to both.... Just as the Father is no more perfect than the Son because the one is the cause and the other is the caused (causate), nor does the latter differ from the former thereby, even if he is called the second in relation to the cause (for the divinity is one in both): so also the Holy Spirit, even though He is from the Father through the Son according to a single and simple procession, is referred to the Father and the Son as to one producer and breather, of whom the Spirit is and is called the breath; yet He is not less than the Son, nor will He be less than the Father, even if He is joined to the Father through the Son; otherwise the Son would also be dissimilar to the Father, because He is caused, although not in the same way as the Spirit, yet according to the rationale of proportion.... Now, order and having a relationship to something C (πρός τι or relatively) do not create a difference of natures. For example, because one is a friend, or a neighbor, or a teacher, nothing is added to him in himself anywhere, such that because of that habit he would be more perfect in himself according to essence; nor if someone has a son and a grandson, will the third be more similar or dissimilar to the grandfather according to essence than the son. [299] And if this happens in human affairs, much more so in the divine persons, where one nature is asserted, and besides the sole difference which is according to cause and what is caused, there is no other distinction.» Natalis Alexander (l. c. p. 529, 530) uses this reply of Calecas against the same difficulty.
16. That many principles of difference are being D referred to Photius (cap. 33), that has already been discussed sufficiently (previous art. § 4); nor can it be said that a *polyarchon archen* (a many-ruled beginning) is admitted, where only one principle appears. Furthermore, let the Photians say whether the three persons are *polyarchos arche* in common operations *ad extra*. If they affirm it, they will yield their hands to the Muhammadans and pagans; if they deny it, they will be much less able to assert it regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. We are brought back again to the things already stated when we ponder the following sophism of Photius (cap. 34), where he argues that the Spirit is excluded from consubstantiality with the Father, since the communion of the Father and the Son is according to substance. It is indeed true that the Father and the Son have communion according to substance, but according to what has been proven, they also have communion in the relationship to the Holy Spirit, which is distinguished from essence, not according to the thing, but according to reason. The Son is excluded from active generation even among the Greeks, and yet He communicates *kat' ousian* (according to essence) with the Father; for the same reason the Spirit is excluded from active spiration, and yet He is not barred from communion according to substance with the Father and the Son. For the rationale of principle and the principled does not constitute essence, as has been inculcated so often, nor do fewer relations or notions make a lesser power (cf. § 5, II.). Joan. Argyropulus, however, notes not inconsequentially (De proc. Spirit. sanct. c. 9; G. O. I, 413) that the generative faculty is communicated from the Father to the Son, and the generative and productive faculty to the Holy Spirit, not as *dynameis* (powers), but as *teleiotetas* (perfections); whence the Son cannot generate another Son, nor the Spirit emit or beget another Spirit. Hugo Etherianus means the same while he writes (l. I, c. 15, p. 1209): «The same power is in the Father [300] according to which He can generate, which is in the Son according to which He can be generated, although it shines forth with diverse properties, just as there is one power in man of the perceptibility of discipline» etc. These things must be connected with those which Thomas disputes in I, q. 42, a. 6 ad 1 and ad 3. That latter passage has these things: «Just as the same essence which is in the Father as paternity is in the Son as filiation, so it is the same power by which the Father generates and the Son is generated. Whence it is manifest that whatever the Father can do, the Son can do; yet it does not follow that He can generate; but the thing is changed in the *relative* sense; for generation signifies a relation in the divine. Therefore the Son has the same power as the Father, but with another relation, because the Father has it as giving, and this is signified when it is said that He can generate; the Son...
A has it as receiving; and this is signified when it is said that he can be generated.” These things also serve to illustrate other arguments of Photius. Finally, Cardinal Bessarion also shows by another method (Epist. ad Alex. Lasc. c. 7; Hard. IX, 1063) that no inferiority regarding nature follows from the fact that the principle of principle is denied to the Spirit: “But if anyone,” he says, “should again say: ‘The Holy Spirit is therefore less than both the Father and the Son, since indeed the Father generates the Son, and the Son himself together with the Father breathes the Spirit, but the Spirit neither generates the Son nor himself nor another Spirit’: his reasoning is vain and concludes against himself. For if the fact that anyone is a principle of no person were to be thought a sign of imperfection and diminution in the Trinity, it would follow that being the cause of fewer persons would also be a sign of imperfection; the Son, therefore, since he is the principle of only one person, namely the Spirit, would on this account be less than the Father, who is the principle of both persons. But to think this is absurd. Therefore, that other B idea is likewise absurd. For a principle, insofar as it is joined to an act, or to be from a principle, when it concerns personal properties, makes one neither greater nor less than another, whether in being or in name.”
[301] 17. Photius uses a new dilemma in chapter 35: “The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is either the same as the procession from the Father, or it is different or contrary. If the former, the idioms and characters of the persons are communicated; if the latter, we fall into the heresy of the Manichaeans or Marcionites.” The response of the Catholics is indeed concurrent, that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is not different from that by which He proceeds from the Father, and much less contrary; hence, from the specters of Manichaeism, which Beccus already sufficiently ridicules (G. O. I, 80, 81), there is nothing to fear at all, but it is entirely the same (III, § 1 seq.), yet the characters of the persons are not communicated, which Photius affirmed only from a falsely assumed principle (ib. § 5 seq.). Nor is there need for a more abundant response to chapter 36 after those things which have already been discussed (art. 3, §§ 12-15), where it was shown that it cannot by any means be gathered, from the fact that the C *prodotes* is not common to three, that it exists as one proper to a single person. Neither is the spiration taken away from the Father, nor are the hypostatic properties transferred (cf. supra § 13).
18. However, the author of the most evil schism, reproducing what has already been said in other forms, insists again in chapter 37 that in the hypothesis of the Latins, the Spirit must also produce another person, and this person another, and so on to infinity, so that they would even surpass and transcend the polytheism of the pagans. These things are clearly absurd. It is certain, first of all, that the Latins are in no way compelled to admit yet another person produced by the Holy Spirit. This was shown above (§§ 1, 5); and this is confirmed by the disputation of George of Trebizond (De proc. Spirit. sanc. c. 27; G. O. I, 327 seq.), which is clearly worthy of note. “The Father truly generates the Son, and when He generates, He exhibits to Him whatever He has, except those things which bring about confusion and which are understood before and after the hypostasis and are adverse to the reason of the hypostasis. But whatever things (with the hypostasis) are understood D not to be adverse [302] (to the reason of the hypostasis), not only are they outside all confusion, but they also constitute order. Since, therefore, the divine nature has once had the *to anarchon* in the person of the Father, it could not happen that it be communicated to the Son. For it is pre-understood and is adverse to the reason of the Son... Nor can it happen that He communicates the power of generating, lest, as Basil teaches, the Trinity, growing into an innumerable multitude, might generate sons from sons. Furthermore, the cause of this is that generation is taken according to principle and end (cf. art. 3, § 13 of the same Trebizond). I call the end that into which the progression (*proodos*) terminates, and the principle that from which it begins, not by an interval of time, but by the sole thought of the progression itself, which is a principle in the generator, but an end in the generated. Generation, therefore, considered as a principle, as it exists in the Father, is pre-understood to the end, which is in it; and therefore, being pre-considered to the hypostasis of the Son, it cannot be in Him. For nothing of those things which exist in the persons in the divine Trinity is pre-understood to the hypostasis in which it is, lest one of these two should follow: either that one and the same thing be understood as before and after, and that it be from itself, or that a multitude of Sons be admitted. The Son, therefore, does not generate, but He produces, and this is a consistent and logical argument. The Father produces the Spirit, and when He produces, He communicates to Him all things which are not pre-understood to His hypostasis; and for that reason it cannot be that He communicates to Him the power of producing or generating, just as neither to the Son that of generating; for these are pre-understood in the Father. But neither will being generated, which was said to be the end of generation, be in the Spirit. For the hypostasis of the Son is pre-understood to the hypostasis of the Spirit. But to produce is not pre-understood to the person of the Son, nor is it in any way adverse to the reason of the hypostasis. For the Father is not on that account the Son or the production, nor does the Son lapse into the Father, nor does the Spirit exceed His own proper characteristics. Since, therefore, to produce generates no confusion, but rather the whole contrary, if it is in the Son, it both preserves the order and the mutual [303] relation of the Triad (§ 6), the Father can communicate that entirely to the Son (97); and thus the Spirit will also be of the Son, and not imperfect because He does not produce, just as neither is the Son [imperfect] because He does not generate. Indeed, if He were to produce, He would be imperfect; for either His own...
(97) p. 528 : “But to suggest production is to bring in no confusion, but on the contrary, if it pertains to the Son, it preserves both the order and the unconfused relation of the Trinity; the Father will certainly share this with the Son.”
A If this is so, Photius continues, how does it come about “that the Spirit, although He enjoys the same honors and proceeds from that same essence with equal order and equal glory 305, is deprived of the prerogative of being a principle?” What is not of the same power is not of the same essence; either the Spirit is therefore endowed with the same prerogative, or He is cast down from consubstantiality. Indeed, by similar reasoning it can be said: if the Son does not beget a Son, He is not consubstantial with the Father. Let those things be recalled which were said elsewhere, and especially in § 16, and the solution will be plain. We would not, however, omit what Hugo Etherianus discourses on this matter, refuting the prelate of Methone (chap. 16, note 5 to the present chapter of Photius). In the first place, he urges that the same inconvenience follows from the mission; then he adds other points. “For if the Son,” he says (l. II, c. 11, p. 1225), “receives from the Father whatever He has, and the Spirit B also receives His mission from the same; for the Son indeed sends the Holy Spirit.... It is evident that the Son sends the Holy Spirit and that the same is sent by the Father. How, therefore, can the Spirit receive the mission from the Father (for He is both sending and sent), while the Spirit, however, does not receive a mission from the Son nor from another like unto Himself? This generosity is therefore deprived of equal honor.” Such an objection can, however, easily have a solution, since it can fittingly be replied that the reason the Spirit did not receive [the power] from the Son is that the Son is His cause, whereas the Spirit is nowhere found to be the cause of Him, nor of any other like unto Himself, lest a fourth person be shown to be introduced into the Trinity. Further: How does the Son receive all judgment from the Father C and not share it with the Spirit? For it is written: “The Father has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” (John V, 22). I suspect, or rather I firmly believe, that the procession of the Spirit, if it pertains to the honor of the Father, is referred to the honor of the Son, who, just as He has life from the Father, and has judgment, so also has the procession of the Spirit; and just as His not being begotten does not prevent the Son from having the nature of the Father—nay, it is proven from this that He has it—so the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son does not prevent the Spirit from having the nature of the Father and the Son; otherwise, the Spirit and the Son would not be of the same nature as the Father, since—as the Greek supposes—the Father alone begets, and alone sends forth the Spirit, D while the Spirit and the Son do not do so in any way. In a similar manner, one can reply to that which Photius brings forth in chap. 40: “The Son received from the Father, proceeding from Him through generation, the power to produce another of the same nature. How, therefore, when the Son Himself produces the consubstantial Spirit, has He not communicated to Him a similar virtue and honor?”
A And can He not delight and glory in the progress and subsistence of the person who is of the same nature, just as He Himself received it? Nor, as he adds there, did or could the Son confer this upon the Spirit "to imitate the Father"; the Son imitates the Father perfectly, even though He does not Himself beget the Son, and the Spirit enjoys equal glory, even though He neither produces nor begets. The three hypostases are equal, even though one is without beginning, another is a beginning from a beginning, and the third is the end of the divine processions. Nor does consubstantiality, considered by itself, ever demand that the reason for the third person's beginning be asserted.
20. But in this matter, those things which are variously put forward by different people must be noted with diligence. John Beccus, discussing *On the One Church*, ch. 51 (G. O. I, 184-186) against Phurnan (see note 2 on Photius) and other Greeks, holds to the *union*, arguing that from the immanent origin one can conclude to consubstantiality, but not conversely from the consubstantiality of two persons to the origin of one from the other. "The three persons of the Divinity," says Beccus (l. c.), "commonly share the same nature and the same Divinity among themselves, and whatever is inherent in one because of its nature being the same as the others, will also be in the other two. And if the Spirit were from the Son because of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father, the Son would also be from the Spirit because of the Spirit’s same nature with the Father; or rather, these three would be one from another B (or rather, the three would be from one another). But now, while it follows that the Son is consubstantial with the Father because He is from the essence of the Father, it does not therefore follow that the Father is from the Son, because the Father has the same nature as the Son. For if anyone is from the Father as a Son, this is also consubstantial with the Father, because that thing is from the essence of the Father; but it is not true that if anything is consubstantial with someone, it is just as if it were also from the Father of the same essence. Thus, therefore, the Spirit is also consubstantial with the Son, because He is from the essence of the Son; but it is not because He is consubstantial with the Son that He is therefore from the Son. For if that were the case, the Son would also be from the Spirit, since those things that are of the same essence are convertible among themselves. Consequently, other Catholic Greeks also decide this. This certainly cannot be subject to controversy, that one person is consubstantial to another because a bond of origin exists between them, and the doctrine of the Fathers is entirely clear, as show the testimonies C of Cyril of Alexandria in *John*, xvi, 13; *Dial. de Trin.*, p. 405, 408, and others collected by Jo. Beccus, *Epigr.* xi, (G. O. II, 619 sqq.) and Leo Allatius (*Vindic. syn. Ephes.*, ch. 36, p. 172 sqq., ch. 46, p. 225 sqq.). That theological reasoning is well-known: the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son if He is from His essence. But the latter assertion is not conceded in the same way. Consubstantiality, indeed, by itself and by the very force of the word, says nothing regarding the conditions of origin; from its own notion, it does not demand that it be predicated only of those between whom a bond of principle and principled thing exists, since even brothers are and are called consubstantial among themselves; yet if consubstantiality is predicated of the persons of the divine Trinity, it cannot be entirely denied that it coheres with the notion of origin, and that from the *homousia* one can make a posterior inference to the habit of origin, not by the inherent force of the word itself, but by the reason and nature of the Trinity according to entirely certain theological principles. To this point seem to pertain those things of Ratramnus (l. II, c. 3, p. 252): "It is shown, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from Him (the Son), of whose nature or substance He is; for He cannot be of the same nature or substance of which the Son is, unless He proceeds from Him." Those who do not admit this later inference are especially afraid, as can be seen from Beccus, lest an *emanation* (προβολή) be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, or the three persons be thought to exist in such a way that each person is held to be the principle of another and a reciprocal production is established. But they do not notice that there is no question of mutual production, which includes an absurdity, but of the habit and bond of origin, by which one person is either the principle of another—to whom He is said to be consubstantial—or is principled by Him. Manuel Calecas, Bessarion, and Demetrius Cydonius establish a double consubstantiality already hinted at by Beccus, and they teach that the first kind is predicated of those who possess the same nature, even if one has not been born from the other, like Peter and Paul; but the other kind couples one with another in such a way that it exists naturally and substantially through Him or from Him, and this latter kind of species properly deserves that name for itself, and has its only place in divine matters, as Calecas explains (bk. II, p. 407). But it does not seem necessary to distinguish a double species of consubstantiality, but rather only to distinguish between the native meaning of the word and that which is attributed from the subject.
A Theologians place the formal reason for consubstantiality in the unity of essence, the material cause in the plurality of hypostases, and the efficient cause in the relationship of principle and that which is derived from a principle. Nor is their reasoning to be despised, whereby they conclude: that if consubstantiality is predicated among the divine persons, it arises from the fact that a nexus of origin intervenes between them; consequently, if the Son and the Spirit are said to be consubstantial with each other, the reason must be sought from the nexus of origin, such that one is referred to the other as to a principle. But since the order of the Trinity prohibits us from calling the Holy Spirit the principle of the Son, we must hold the Son to be the principle of the Holy Spirit (Cf. Bessarion, *Or. dogm.* c. 6; Hard. IX, 353-356).
21. From these things it can be judged concerning those which Hugo Etherianus (l. II, c. 20, p. 1235) brings forward against that assertion, that the Spirit is not said to be consubstantial with the Son in the same way as he is said to be consubstantial with the Father. "But truly," he says, "it seems to me that it is not correctly said that 'consubstantial' is predicated univocally of the three persons. For many inconveniences and impossibilities follow. For if the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father because he is from him, then 'to proceed' is a substantial thing for the Spirit. Indeed, if Socrates is consubstantial with Plato because he is rational, it happens that both possess 'rational' substantially; but 'to proceed' is not substantial to either the Father or the Son; therefore the Son and the Spirit are not of the same nature as the Father. If this be true, they are not one God, since 'consubstantial' is not predicated equally and univocally of the three persons." This is what seems to be said also by Photius [310] (cap. 53): "We render 'consubstantial' as being of the same terms for both, though not in meaning (5)," but he does not say this well. For substantial things (i.e. consubstantial things) are of the same substance and nature; and those which are of the same substance and nature receive the same reason of substance; wherefore all consubstantial things receive the same reason of substance. From which it follows that "consubstantial" is enunciated of all consubstantial things similarly and in the same way. Indeed, just as the most specific species is predicated of its individuals, so indeed God and substance are said of the three persons, and just as all things that participate in a species are considered to be of the same nature and consubstantial, so indeed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are said equally to be of the same nature and consubstantial according to the name of substance, and not equivocally. Therefore, in the way in which the Spirit is said to be consubstantial with the Father, in that same way he is consubstantial with the Son; and just as the Son is consubstantial with the Spirit, so is the Spirit with the Son and the Father. For they possess no difference in that which they are consubstantial; wherefore the Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father because he proceeds from him, but rather he proceeds from him because he is consubstantial. B To the Father, the Spirit. Further: Since the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father, he does not differ from the Father; therefore, since he proceeds, he is not consubstantial with him. But although it may be granted that consubstantiality, viewed precisely in itself, does not state a nexus of origin, and since there is one essence in three persons, as regards their quiddity, it is not predicated equivocally of them: yet the reason for which it is held can clearly be distinguished in the individuals, and it is entirely wrong to deny that it is connected with the relationship of principle and derived, and that from this the conclusion [311] can be drawn, which nonetheless occurs frequently in the writings of the Fathers (§ 20). Etherianus confuses the formal cause with the efficient. In the example of Socrates and Plato, which he brings forward, the former is held; but in the proposition: "The Spirit is consubstantial by being from him" (διὰ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι), the efficient cause is held. For from an immanent origin it comes to pass that the Son and the Spirit have the same essence with the Father, and thus are consubstantial with him. But that "to proceed" is the substantial being of the Spirit cannot clearly be deduced, unless the formal reason of consubstantiality is placed in the procession, which is certainly false. We have already sufficiently pointed out that the things which this noble theologian discusses at length are not always solid and accurate, even if he seems to have contended with happy outcomes in many respects. This man must be said to have proceeded further than is just, overcome by the ardor of contradicting Photius.
22. Photius asks, cap. 39, which the Latins consider to be the greater cause, the Father or the Son. If the Father, that honor prepared for the Son will be spurious and more of a reproach to him; if the Son, it is of greater rashness. Nor, indeed, would they think it enough for the excess of impiety which they intend to ascribe paternal causality to the Son and divide it, unless they also took away the better parts and set the Son as the principle for the Spirit in place of the Father. But the Latins, who so often inculcate that the Father and the Son are equally and in like manner the principle, and that the Father only has the premier place insofar as he is the first cause from whom even the Son himself is, are not burdened by these points, nor is injustice done thereby to the Son, just as nothing harms him in the fact that he is not without cause, nor is he unbegotten. Nor can the honor given to the Son be considered spurious and added from the outside; rather, it is necessary, proceeding from an internal necessity, deduced from the relationships of the divine persons themselves, as all the arguments of Catholics for this dogma demonstrate. Is it not his great prerogative, which demands this honor absolutely, that the Son alone is from the Father alone? (Cf. preceding art. § 6.) D [312] 23. "To say 'greater,' even if not by nature (forbid it; for the Trinity is consubstantial), but truly by reason of cause, the begetter to the begotten, the voice of the Lord indeed teaches us and the choir of our Fathers, initiated thereafter, hands it down; that the Son, however, is greater than the Spirit by reason of cause, we do not hear from the divine Scriptures nor...
was such a pious sense perceived to be considered up to this point." Thus Photius, cap. 41. He denies that the Son is said to be greater than the Spirit, just as the Father is said to be greater than the Son, namely by reason of cause. Yet both Beccus (Or. de una Eccl. 1, 27, 63, in Camat. Animadv. et Epigr. XIII; G. O. I, 137, 206, 219; II, 383, 630), and Constantine Meliteniota (G. O. II, 748); Georgius Metochita (Contra Man. Cret. c. 7; ib. II, 933); Manuel Calecas B (lib. III, p. 438), Georgius Trapezuntius (ad Jo. Cubocl. c. 22; G. O. I, 517); John Plusiadenus, or Joseph Methonensis, or whoever is the author of the *Dialogue for the Council of Florence* (G. O. I, 628, 629), then Leo Allatius (Enchir. c. 23, p. 735 seq.; Vindic. syn. Eph. c. 66, p. 481), and many others, bring forward the clear words of Athanasius, *Orat. 1, contra Arianos*, n. 50: "Showing to the disciples His divinity and majesty, He no longer showed Himself as less than the Spirit, but as greater and equal, bestowing the Spirit and saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' and 'I will send,' and 'He will glorify Me,' and 'whatever He hears He shall speak.'" Which the aforementioned *Disceptatio pro conc. Flor.*, published under the name of Plusiadenus, rightly explains following the custom of the Fathers: "Equal in essence, for nothing of the three Persons is greater or less in substance and divinity, but there is supreme equality; but greater, because He has His being from Him." If Montfaucon in his edition (I, p. 454) omitted that "greater," it can still be debated whether he did so justly or unjustly. Certainly, besides the fact that he relies only on the authority of one Seguier codex and a manuscript *Catena* in his reading, the earlier editions retain the word excised by that otherwise remarkably learned man, and the cited Greek authors would not have easily used that reading against the adversaries of their own times, destitute of sufficient authority; and it must be weighed that even Andronicus Camaterus himself, hostile to the Latins, does not seem to have read otherwise, and that the context entirely favors this reading. For it is better and more strongly opposed to "and than equal" than "to the equal" alone; and the dignity of the Son is better shown, who is exhibited bestowing the Spirit Himself. Moreover, the phrase "lesser, or greater and equal" is familiar to the Fathers, especially when they speak of the Son, who is said by them to be "less than the Father" (John XIV, 28) with respect to generation, and "equal" with respect to common nature (John X, 20); Athanasius himself declares this: "So also the Spirit is combined, as Georgius Metocita (l. c. p. 985) has set forth." To this pertains also the scholion of the Basle codex placed in the margin of this place: "See, the Son is equal and greater than the Spirit; equal in divinity, greater by reason of cause." That both "greater and equal" must be read is urged by the testimonies of the Scriptures added, by which Christ teaches that He will send, or rather, that He gives the Spirit. These things, finally, agree entirely with the doctrine of Athanasius. For one who establishes the same order which the Son has toward the Father, that the Spirit has toward the Son, C will manifestly not deny that the Son is greater than the Spirit by the same reason of cause by which the Father is said to be greater than the Son, especially since the order in divine things is repeated from the relations of principle and principiated (see above § 6 seq.).
344 24. But let it be granted to the Photians that by this testimony, being unique or not sufficiently certain, the matter is not settled; it will little avail them. For even if it were not explicitly said that the Son is greater than the Spirit, in force, nonetheless, the words both of Athanasius and of other Fathers are at hand. Athanasius (*De incarn.* n. 9) calls the Son [the] Source, but the name among the Greek Theologians signifies the *cause* entirely (Cf. Petav. *de Trin.* VII, 4). The same word is used by Gregory the Theologian, while he calls the Father the source, the Son the river, and exhibits the Spirit as a stream flowing from the source (*orat. 27, de Spiritu sancto*, p. 611, ed. Bill. Cf. art. 2, § 6, note 6; Constant. Meliten. *Orat.* c. 29; Beccu, *Epigr.* X; G. O. II, 706, 707 seq.). And the Photians clamor against this almost everywhere. In reality, sometimes the Father alone is called the source of the Deity, because He is as it were the first root, the cause without cause, the principle not from a principle, from whom are all things. In the same way it is said, as Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, observes against Marc of Ephesus, just as one might call the protoparent Adam the only father of humanity, who certainly does not wish to exclude other men from fatherhood, but asserts it for him primarily, from whom the whole race was propagated, from whom the rest of the progenitors have it—that they are able to be fathers. Hence, nonetheless, the Greek doctors, as we have seen, also call the Son a source in relation to the Holy Spirit. Whence Isaiah Cyprius, in his epistle to Nicholas Sclengia: "You say, furthermore, that the Father alone is the source of the supersubstantial deity. And we also confess this, and much more fittingly than you, and as it befits theologians more; 315 but we confess, furthermore, that the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit, the great Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian..."
followed by John Chrysostom (Orat. de incarn. Dom.) as their guide. Again, Gregory Nazianzen calls the Father unoriginate, and the Son an origin, and the Spirit that which is with the origin; and he describes this while he is defining the notes of the divine persons without reference to creatures (Orat. 32, ed. Bill. 42, Clem.). "Behold," says Hugo Etherianus, having brought forward this testimony (lib. II, c. 3, p. 1216, 1217), "behold, this holy man absolutely calls the Son an origin, and counts the Holy Spirit from Him, because the Son is the immediate origin of the Spirit. For of all creatures the three persons exist equally as an origin; from which it is clear that the Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, both those things which are of the Son and those which are of the Spirit are referred to the Father, who alone is without beginning and without cause, while the Son, begotten of the Father, is the origin of the Holy Spirit. This can be demonstrated by the syllogism proposed: whatever is an origin in the Holy Trinity exists as an origin of something within it; otherwise the holy man would have called the Son an origin for nothing, since the three persons of all creators are reckoned equally as an origin. But the Son is indeed an origin in the Holy Trinity; therefore the Son is an origin of something in it; but the Son is not the origin of the Father; it is necessary, therefore, that He should exist as the origin of the Holy Spirit." B Other theologians also use this same distinguished testimony. Finally, the words of Gregory of Nyssa are entirely equivalent, who establishes that the Son is pre-understood before the Spirit by reason of cause (l. 1, contra Eunom. p. 164): "For just as the Son is joined to the Father, and having existence from Him, is not however posterior to Him in existence: so again the Holy Spirit adheres to the Only-Begotten, being only pre-understood before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the reasoning of cause. For extensions and intervals of time in the life that is before the ages have no place."
C ...and one in order that the Trinity itself might not be discordant. As the Father is pre-understood before the Son according to the reasoning of cause, so by the same reasoning the Son is pre-understood before the Spirit. To which nothing is surely clearer for refuting the objection of Photius.
25. Photius proceeds (cap. 42): "If the Spirit is the origin of the Son, how will He not be found in the super-principal and super-essential Trinity succeeding according to an origin, and that too as something originated, and not only concocted for the opprobrium of the first origin, but even against Him Himself, around whom that honor is figured? For if it affords no utility either to itself or to another, but indeed does not even find a handle or occasion to be introduced, does this not manifest the Son as being affected by injury, and under the name of honor render an injury even more atrocious? For since the Spirit possesses the procession from the Father abundantly from eternity, of what other production or substantiation will the origin be shown to have been supplied and bestowed by them?" D Furthermore, here again two processions are supposed, and here again what has been said in chapters and dicta (§§ 4, 14, 22) should be recalled and observed. Indeed, since both the Father and the Son are pre-understood before the Spirit (§ 24), and the divine essence is already understood as communicated to the Son before it is perceived as communicated to the Spirit; and since the divine essence is simple and indivisible: it is impossible that the Son, if He possesses it perfectly and truly, should be excluded from the spiration, or that the honor due to Him should be retained, if He Himself contributes nothing to the spiration. John Argyropulus excellently develops this most noble argument.
26. But how is the Spirit divided into two? Not so, but proceeding from the Father as the true and primary origin (without origin), the Spirit, when He is already understood to subsist, with a property toward the Son, namely paternity... in like manner the Son is also understood before the Spirit... that to be begotten is by nature prior to being produced... He sets forth that the Spirit cannot be from the Father alone, nor from the Son alone; not from the Father alone, lest the Son be reputed as unlike Him, as one who did not possess the same perfections as the Father, and for this reason not consubstantial, which is most conformable to the Arian heresy, which removed the Son from the divine nature of the Father; not from the Son alone, lest the Son in turn be reputed as extrinsic to the paternal essence; furthermore, lest the Holy Spirit be held to be a grandson of the Father and also a son of the Son of God; thirdly, lest we imagine that there is in the Son some productive faculty of the Holy Spirit, which would not be the same numerically in God and in the Father.
A (he is), but they must admit 318 that the other is from the second and originated source ([for] it is not without a principle)" (cap. 43). In the same manner, this doubt is proposed in Beccus (de proc. Spirit., c. 6; GO. I, 288 seq.): If the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, why are there not two existences (ὑπάρξεις) of the Spirit, one from the Father, the other from the Son? To this he replies, urging most strongly that neither in inferior things and those subject to sense, in which two effects are observed coming from a primary cause, one of which is through the other, can it be said that there are two existences of that which is third in order and does not consist directly (προσexῶς) from the primary cause. "Tell us," Beccus says, "if there are two existences of solar light, one from the disc, the other through the ray? Make it plain to us, if there are two existences of one river, one from the eye [of the spring], the other from the fountain?" (He alludes to the images of the Fathers, art. 2, § 6.) "But if in similar things subject to sense and to a created nature bounded by limits we cannot say that there are two existences of one thing, which possesses one existence emanating from the primary cause through an effect, how do you doubt concerning those things of which the nature is simple, similar, and whatever else they may be?" An equally evident response can be sought from Hugo Etherianus (l. II, p. 1255 F.), writing thus: "Furthermore, if because He proceeds from two the Spirit is divisible, let someone say that the Father is likewise divisible, since He produces the Son from Himself and sends forth the Spirit. For how do two as it were different things proceed from the indivisible, the Son indeed by generation, and the Spirit by procession? This is certainly a fallacy, when composition is thought to occur from relatives." Let Georgius Metochita also be heard, refuting the argument of Maximus Planudes (G. O. II, 939, 940): "For just as the Father is neither divisible nor composite, because He generates the Son and produces the Spirit, although it is considered to be a different thing to generate and to produce; likewise the egress from both is one and the same, because these are not parts, but properties; nor is either progress known according to any division: by the same reasoning, the Spirit is neither divisible nor composite, because He is from the Father and the Son, [and] is from simples, namely from the simple through the simple, and is individual from individuals, and is of the same nature as those who are of the same nature with him." And again (ib. 947, 948): B "If the Father, while being unbegotten, is begetter and producer—thereby the Spirit for the former, the Son for the latter—then the Father would be other and other from Himself, and thence also composite. And nevertheless, the Spirit, a progression (πρόοδος) from both, is one and the same, but the faculty of generating and producing the Father is one thing and another. But just as on that account the Father is in no way split into parts nor subject to composition (οὐ μεριστὸς ἐντεῦθεν, οὐ μὴν σύνθετος), because those are in no way parts of the Deity, and consequently there is no composition; for the Deity is simple above every simplicity and undivided above every division (ἁπλὴ γὰρ ἡ θεότης ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα, καὶ ἀμερὴς ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἀμέρειαν), but they are properties considered around Him (ἰδιότητες περὶ αὐτὴν θεωρούμεναι): in the same way, neither does the progression of the Spirit from the two cast Him out from his own identity nor constitute him as composite (ἐξ ἵστησιν αὐτὸ τῆς ταυτότητος ἑαυτοῦ ἢ σύνθετον παριστάνει!), but He is from the Father and from the Son, namely from the Father through the Son, simple from simples, that is to say from the simple through the simple, as is the sentiment of the divine Fathers." With the same dexterity that Metochita here unfolds the argument indicated by Hugo, he wonderfully employs the comparisons of the Fathers (p. 937, 948, 949). Nor does Bessarion refute the same reasoning of Planudes any less strenuously—which he not undeservedly determines to be perhaps merely the opinion of those who are wise in material and crasser things and those who cleave to carnal things (14). Since these things are so, the figment 320 which Photius deduces, that a quaternity is to be worshipped by Christians instead of a brotherhood if the doctrine of the Latins should prevail, is absolutely empty.
27. The chapters following cap. 44, which [propose] a principle that is imperfect, useless, and maimed, composite from the perfect and the imperfect—namely the Son—partly from those things which we have said now (§ 26), and partly from those stated before (art. 3, § 4; art. 4, § 4, 14), can be easily refuted. On this matter, Hugo Etherianus (l. c.): "But undoubtedly," he says, "(the Son) is indeed entirely cause and entirely from cause, since He is individual and incorporeal. Because, however, cause and the causative do not introduce composition, it is manifest. For behold, the Son and the Spirit are the principle and cause with the Father of the creation of the universe, from the Father indeed as cause to the Son and Holy Spirit according to one species and another, in which composition (ed. [composite]) appears in existing things more than in anything else; since either (both) is called cause, as the efficient cause of the creation, namely, according to D which the energy of the Father is distinguished from that of the Son, as mine is from yours. Yet in this way they are not one and another, as I and you; for then alone would composition in the effect have a place. For if they are also one and another in persons, but are nevertheless one and the same in Deity and one in number; so that their energy is also one in number; where the energy is one, how would that which arises from it not also be one, simple, and entirely without composition, and necessarily the same as itself?"
A nor that which is caused, according to the different manner in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father, in any way brings about composition in the Spirit or the Son; for each of them is creator, not a creature... Therefore, if the cause and the causative (what is caused) do not, according to the different relationship of the Spirit, create any composition in them with respect to the Son or the Spirit, it is manifest that the Son does not have composition from the fact that he is similarly named a cause of the Spirit alongside the Father. » Here, the following argument of Photius (c. 45), by which he argues that the duality of causes in no way accords with the unity and simplicity of the Holy Spirit, and that the former excludes the latter, must likewise be explained; there is indeed one principle, one power, and one spiratory act, and that is simple; one and simple is the end of this action. Concerning what the Methonensian says: "That which is from two is never equal to that which is from one only," Hugo Ethereanus (l. II, c. 12, p. 1226) sagaciously responds, retorting the argument in this way: B "That which is from one is never equal to that which is from none. But the Son is from one alone, namely the Father, who has existence from no one; therefore the Father and the Son are unequal." But "these are not in the category of quantities, because there is neither measure nor quantity in divine things. 28. "And the Son preserves his property, filiation, and the Spirit his procession from the Father; and just as the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, possesses no active production or generation, so too does the Son, begotten by the Father, not adulterate the prerogative of filiation with active generation or emission" (cap. 46). Certainly, both the Son and the Holy Spirit preserve their characteristic property even in the doctrine of the Latins; but the fact that the latter is the principle of no person, while the former is with the Father the principle of the Spirit, belongs to the constituents of neither. Furthermore, there is no contradiction in the fact that the Son is simultaneously principle and princepiate, because this is not in relation to the same thing, or the same person (15); with respect to the Father he is C caused, with respect to the Spirit he is the cause (16); he has, therefore, only a different relation to the Father and to the Spirit. Finally, there is no adulteration of filiation in the fact that the Son breathes the Spirit with the Father; for filiation constitutes him in the being of a Son and denotes his relation to the Father alone; nor is the Son the son of the Holy Spirit, nor is he his breather insofar as he is the Son. This brings no detriment to filiation, which does not extend further than we have stated. These points against Nicetas the Byzantine (17) are noted by Hugo Ethereanus (l. 1, c. 17, p. 1211), at times obscure, yet never entirely destitute of wit and acuteness. "He asks, what is this disinheritance, and detriment of the Son, such that he is not the Father in the fact that he is the Son? A question which ought not have been asked, but much less inferred, as can be seen from many other things; just as if the Father, in the fact that he is a creator, were to show that the Son is a creator (for all things were made through him), it would be necessary that the Son be the Father, to show that in the fact that he is creator, he is a begetter; yet no detriment is found concerning the divine nature. What a fallacy! If, from things as they are among us, a father in the fact that he is foolish shows his son to be foolish, there is certainly no necessity to infer the generation of a foolish son, lest a detriment to the father's foolishness occur. I think that a sin is wrapped up in this figure of speech, for the reason that the same thing is not explained by the same interpretation. For the consequence of this is substantial, not of the properties; which, when the hidden things are unlocked, may be considered, if one sets aside religious constraints and for a moment recalls the divine mind to the propagation of the human D race. Does not the son of any man, while possessing all things that are substantial to the father, sometimes retain the smallest portion of those things which are not such? If the generation of the Son and the emission of the Spirit were substantially (that is, as substance) inherent in the Father, then by necessity the Son would have acquired the same, and indeed the Holy Spirit too, and this ad infinitum; but the Father does not generate or emit the Spirit in the fact that he is substance, nor does he differ from the Son or the Spirit in the fact that he is God; for these three are one and the same God; but he differs from the Son in the fact that he generates, and from the Spirit alone in the fact that he emits. Wherefore it is manifest that such a consequence has place only regarding substantial things. For it is indubitable that personal or hypostatic properties are immutable, and that their permutation causes such great confusion and disappearance of persons, by which alone, when these are circumscribed, the different persons are known; but to be a cause and, so to speak, the causative, and to send and to be sent, and many other things, being an hypostatic emitter or existing from a cause—that is, from the Father. Moreover, if he were not existing from a cause, there would again be two principles and two causes in the Trinity. But if the Son, existing from a cause, is the emitter of the Spirit, he has obtained this entirely from the Father... But if he has this from the Father, what is this disinheritance and detriment of filial existence, so that he is not the Father in the fact that the Son generates the Son, and the Father is reckoned [as the begetter], when the Father, in the fact that he is the emitter, shows the Son again to be an emitter? For if the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit is unblemished from the Father, then just as the Son is shown to be an emitter, it is entirely necessary that there be found no detriment concerning the divine nature which generates the Son, and that there be some grandson fashioned from this, when the emitter of the Spirit is also shown to be the Son in the fact that he is from the Father; but if this be so, a mass of impiety and a profound pit will emerge."
A And yet, the fact that he emits the Spirit, and has the Son, is undemonstrable and impossible, because it is neither a first principle nor can it receive faith from any first principle (i.e., an axiom). The emission of the Spirit does not make the Father to be the Son, since the progression from the Father is not a becoming-born, by which alone the Son differs from the Father. And again (ibid. c. 17, p. 1211) against the same argument: “This has no consistency even in natural things; as indeed a bird first lays an egg, but the sparrow proceeds from the bird and the egg; therefore, the little bird that has progressed will be judged the grandchild of the bird. Much less does a refutation of this kind find a place in divine things, where there is neither corporeal generation, nor is anything passible; but everything that is subject to such generations must necessarily be cut; and everything that is cut is passible.” Then he notes that the most ancient heretics already uttered this same paralogism (18), and appealing to what was argued above B [326] he continues: “But if the Begetter, in that he is Father, has a bearing and relation to the Spirit, it follows by necessity, due to the identity of the bearing of the begetter, that the Spirit is begotten and is a son; and therefore, either the persons are confused, or the Spirit is feigned to be a brother of the Son, which likewise confuses the persons. Thus, the Begetter, not in that he is Begetter, is the cause of the Spirit, but in that he is cause and principle (breathing), as has been inculcated many times. Wherefore the Spirit is neither alien to the Son nor to be judged without a relation to him. But neither is this inconvenient, if the Son, not in that he is Son, emits the Spirit, since the Father—not in that he is Father—exists as the cause of the Spirit.” Briefly and vigorously, Ratramnus (l. III, c. 3, p. 288) says: “Thus, by clear reasoning, it is shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, while it is manifestly taught that he does not proceed from the Father alone, lest he be said to be the son of the Father, but not from the Son alone, lest the Son be blasphemed as being the father; but C the Holy Spirit is said to be both proceeding, and proceeding from both.” (Cf. Petav. de Trin. VII, 16, 3). With these must be connected those things which were said above (art. preceding, § 17 seq.) concerning the Father, insofar as he is called a principle, either proximate or remote, by which the following syllogism of Photius (cap. 62) is refuted.
30. In the two that follow, the arguments are from those D (ibid. I, 509); Bessarion (Orat. dogm. c. 6; Hard. IX, 336). Nor are those things which Epiphanius writes in the *Ancoratus* less worthy of consideration: “But someone will say: Are we then saying there are two Sons? And how is he the Only-begotten? And who is the one arguing against God? For if he calls the one from him the Son, and the Holy Spirit the one from both, etc.” Concerning which cf. Beccus Epigr. 1; Constant. Meliten. orat. 2, c. 29; and Georg. Metoch. C. Maxim. Plan. et Contra Man. Cret. (G. O. II, 532, 857, 956, 957, 977, 1059). Finally, the passage of Athanasius to Serapion, which Beccus cites in Epigr. x. (G. O. II, 639), looks to this: “It is not otherwise than as the Father is Father, and not grandfather, and the Son is the Son of God, and not the Father of the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit, and not the offspring of the Father nor the brother of the Son.”
Photius's reasoning proceeds, that "prior" and "posterior" are altogether alien to the eternal Trinity, since terms denoting time are as far removed as possible from the supremely eternal Divinity. From this it is deduced that generation and procession are to be thought of simultaneously, and that neither is to be accepted as prior or posterior to the other. This being posited, in another chapter (63) he argues thus: A “How will the difference of the theurgic causes not constitute different persons and introduce a division, contrary to the indivisible, simple, and unique hypostasis of the Spirit? For that from the same person different operations and virtues proceed, especially in those things which surpass nature and reason, is easier to understand, and countless testimonies to this fact can be found; but nowhere is it found that it can happen that a hypostasis, which is referred to the differing principles, does not itself also differ by the difference and diversity of the causes and at the same time be divided.” In the other chapter (64) he argues that the Spirit is both co-born with the Son and proceeding from Him, so that He is simultaneously begotten and proceeding: B “Begotten, indeed, in that He proceeds simultaneously with the begotten Son, but proceeding, because He undergoes a double procession.”
Indeed, all teach and defend the Divinity, and therefore that the three persons are beyond time and that there is nothing temporary in them. “No times are thought of there,” says Augustine (De Trin. xv, 26), “which have a prior and a posterior.” And Leo the Great, serm. 3, de Pentec. c. 4: C “When we direct the gaze of our mind to confessing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let us cast far from our mind the forms of visible things and the ages of temporal natures, let us cast far away the bodies of places and the places of bodies. Let that which is extended by space, which is concluded by an end, and whatsoever is not always and everywhere whole, depart from the heart. Let the thought conceived about the Divinity of the Trinity understand nothing through distance, seek nothing through degrees.” But if priority of time is excluded in divine matters, priority of reason is clearly not excluded. Indeed, the cause is conceived by the mind before the effect, the principle before the principled, the Father before the Son, and the Father and the Son before the Holy Spirit. D The simultaneous progression of the Son and Spirit from the Father, which excludes priority not only of time but also of thought, is refuted by those sayings of the Fathers which teach that the Spirit is related to the Son as the Son is related to the Father; it is refuted by clear testimonies by which the Son is understood as prior to the Spirit. 31. Therefore, generation is prior to procession, not in time, but in thought and order; intellect is understood before will, the Word before Love, the Son before the Spirit. Therefore, although no time divides them, yet they are not understood by our mind as simultaneous. Generation is prior to procession, by which they show that generation is presupposed before procession. But if the Fathers affirm that the Spirit proceeds simultaneously with the Son, this is done so that temporal posteriority might be warded off. Beccus and Constantine Meliteniota clearly show that sayings of this kind, along with others that express the mediation of the Son, are in complete agreement. George of Trebizond argues excellently from the already-cited words of Gregory of Nyssen and from the declaration set forth by himself: “Each (Father and Son) is understood prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit, as Nyssen asserts; therefore the Spirit is from both. If He were not from both, both would not be understood prior; but they are understood prior; therefore, from both.” But the adversaries raise a difficulty: “The cause is understood prior to the effect; but the effect (the Son) is the cause of producing; therefore, it is understood prior to the hypostasis of the Son.” Our author responds: “That reasoning is from the store of the Sophists. For the Father is understood prior to the Son as a cause, not the one which is according to procession; for this is another mode of existence; but the cause which is according to procession and shedding is understood neither before nor after the Son by the Father. For no one of them is in any way either a principle or an end to the other, lest the Spirit be entirely one of these. But the 'shedding' is understood after both.” But they insist again: “The Deity which is in the Father is understood prior to that which is in the Son and in the Spirit, and nevertheless the Father communicates it to those things which are from Him.” But Trebizond responds that these are not solid: “For the Deity which is in the Father, as Deity, is not understood prior to that which is in the Son, since it is the same in all respects and no relation is interposed; but indeed that Deity which is in the Father is understood insofar as it begets, (ᾗ γεννᾷ), later it is understood in the Son, insofar as He is begotten (ᾗ γεννᾶται).”
γεννᾶται).” A
But to these things, Hugo indeed responds that the Latins deservedly do not enunciate the words “before” and “after” properly concerning God, according to time, [nor do they speak of] “principally” and “secondarily”; they do not say the Spirit [proceeds] principally from one or the other, but equally from both. Then he notes: “As to what follows, namely, that a proximate cause is more of a cause, while that which is remote is less so, I judge it sufficient for the resolution of that to say that such a thing has its place in natural, logical, and similar matters, in which the same cause is not everywhere both proximate and remote; but in the divine Persons it by no means holds, both because of many other things which it is better to pass over in silence now, and because the Father and the Son are held to be altogether the same proximate and remote cause, and the Father is in no way prior to the Son—neither according to time, nor according to nature, nor according to any other mode—such that the Spirit would proceed from the Father principally, but from the Son secondarily or by no reason, as the Greeks claim all too unexpectedly; for as the Father and the Son are together in nature and of the same honor before all time, so whatever the Father can do, the Son can also do, nor would anything be removed from the power of the Father and the Son.” B Indeed, it is now utterly empty, what Photius (c. 63) puts forward regarding a difference of causes, which is none at all; and the conclusion derived from thence, that a section and division is introduced into the very person of the Spirit. Both [points] tear down what we have so often said. Nor does it follow (c. 64) that the Spirit would be simultaneously begotten and proceeding; both because generation and procession are two diverse actions, and because the Spirit cannot be conceived of as proceeding simultaneously with the Son, but the procession ought to be conceived of as following and presupposing the generation. The fact that time does not divide between generation and procession most certainly cannot make it so that the terminus of one action C and D the discourse of truth declares.
Regarding this, Hugo responds that the Latins deservedly do not use the words “prior” and “posterior” regarding God, in accordance with time, [or] “principally” and “secondarily”; they do not say that the Spirit proceeds principally from one or the other, but equally from both. Then he notes: “But as to what follows, namely, that the proximate cause is more of a cause, while that which is remote is less so, I consider it sufficient for solving this that such a thing has place in natural, logical, and similar matters in which the same cause is not everywhere both proximate and remote; but in the divine persons, by no means, both because of many other things which it is better to pass over in silence at present, and because the Father and the Son are held to be the same proximate and remote cause, and the Father is not prior to the Son according to time, nor according to nature, nor according to any other mode, so that the Spirit should proceed from the Father principally, and from the Son secondarily, or in no way, as the Greeks claim with too much unreasonableness; for as the Father and the Son are together by nature and of the same honor before all time, so whatever the Father can do, the Son can also do, and nothing would be removed from the power of the Father and the Son.” Now, it is entirely empty, what Photius (c. 63) brings forward regarding the difference of causes, which is none whatever; and the conclusion derived from it, that a section and division is brought into the very person of the Spirit. Both these things contradict what we have so often said. And it does not follow (c. 64) that the Spirit would be simultaneously generated and proceeding; both because generation and procession are two diverse actions, and because the Spirit cannot be conceived of proceeding simultaneously with the Son, but the procession must be conceived of as following and presupposing the generation. The fact that time does not divide between generation and procession cannot truly effect that the terminus of one action should be [the start of the other].
as to whether it should lack in duty or delay the edition itself too long. We shall be content if, by these studies of ours, we have provided an occasion for learned men more successfully to untangle theological questions of this kind, to enrich the history of dogmas in this regard, and to procure the increments of theological science—things which we could only assist from a distance—and to cloak it in the character that distinguishes the boundary of the other. Indeed, since according to Photius the Father simultaneously generates the Son and breathes the Spirit, how then will he explain that generation and procession do not collapse into one? (See Georg. Met. and Hug. Eth. § 26.) 32. We conclude this treatise, reserving the matter for those who meditate more perfectly upon theological things. We have preferred to add to the Photian work pieces not sufficiently digested and sometimes lacking in orderly arrangement, rather than to allow them to be lost or to delay the edition itself too long.
THIRD PART OF THE WORKS. PARÆNETICA. PROLEGOMENON. CATALOGUE OF THE INEDITED HOMILIES OF PHOTIUS WHICH ARE PRESERVED AT MOSCOW. COMBEFIS, Auct. noviss. p. 548.
A HOMILIES OF PHOTIUS.
I. Delivered on Holy Friday in the ambo of Saint Irene, after the completion of the Catecheses. Verum hæc quidem… Verily, these things were spoken chiefly to those who are already prepared for baptism, yet have not as yet attained perfection, but are still in need of cleansing, and are barred from the mystical table, etc.
II. Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch. After the reading of the divine oracles of divine instruction, which you have heard with attentive mind and contrite spirit, we also have judged it opportune to have a discourse with you at the present time.
III. Homily of the same most holy Photius, the first on the invasion of the Rhōs. What is this? What is this grievous and deep wound and wrath? Whence has this hyperborean and terrible thunderbolt fallen upon us?, etc.
IV. Homily of the same most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, the second on the invasion of the Rhōs. D I know indeed, and you all know well, as many of you as are keen-witted enough to understand the turning away from God; and as many of you as are otherwise more rudely disposed regarding the judgments of the Lord.
[E(A)] V. Of the same most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, homily delivered on the Annunciation of the most holy Theotokos.
The assembly and celebration of this present day is joyful, and it brings forth joy to the ends of the world. It provides joy, because it dissolves old sorrow. It provides joy, because it banishes the curse of the world and initiates the raising up of the long-fallen human race, and marks out salvation for us all, etc.
VI. Of the most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, third homily delivered in the ambo of the Holy Irene, on Holy Friday, after the reading of the customary catechism.
When the empire and power of the devil is despoiled; when the sting of death is blunted; when the trophy against Hades is set up, then the tablets of our testaments are read aloud, then the written document of our confession is brought forth, then the register of promises is opened to the theater of the world. Why is this?
B VII. Of the same most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, second homily on the Annunciation of the most holy Theotokos. It was delivered in the presence of the Emperor.
"How beloved are your tabernacles, O Lord of hosts," I shall cry out with the prophet David, as the circumstance of the time requires, seeing as I do the courtyards of the Church cramped by the multitude of rational sheep, adorned with the beauty and variety of those who have gathered, etc.
C VIII. Of the most holy Photius, Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople, homily on Palm Sunday and on Lazarus.
When the Church sounds the trumpet as the children cry "Hosanna in the highest," and I draw the sound of that bright and most divine voice into my ears, I am carried away completely in the alacrity of my spirit, etc.
IX. Of the same most holy Photius, Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople, homily on the Nativity of our most holy Lady, the Theotokos.
Every feast and every celebrated assembly, whereby the gathering of the pious is gladdened, dissolves disagreements and mutual quarrels; it brings together those who are divided in mind from one another, and those who have broken the bond of love by sedition, etc.
D X. Of the same most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, homily delivered in the form of an ekphrasis of the most famous church which exists in the Palace.
I see the joyful assembly of the present day: and what kind of [assembly] no one could ever fashion by human skill and labor, unless by the inspiration of the divine Spirit, etc.
XI. Of the same most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, homily delivered on the Lord's...
A divine burial of our Lord Jesus Christ, on Great and Holy Saturday. There is no action or office of Christ our Savior that does not manifest the greatness of His kindness toward us; for the sake of our salvation, the graces of it brilliantly shine forth, and a huge sweetness of joy is poured into the souls of men, etc.
XII. Of the same most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, homily delivered in the ambo of Hagia Sophia, on the Friday of the first week of the Holy Fasts. We have come, forestalling the appointed time, and being eager to pay in advance the debt owed to you, etc.
XIII. Of the same Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, homily delivered in the ambo of the Great Church. The end of the previous homily, if you remember, was handing over Arius as he was being deposed, cast out of the Church, acting shamelessly, feigning, and pretending to be pious, etc.
XIV. Of the same most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, homily delivered in the ambo of the Great Church. Concerning the defenders of the Church, as we said before, being attacked by the plots of the enemies of the truth, and abandoned by their own shepherds, B etc.
XV. Of the same most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, homily delivered in the ambo of the Great Church on Great Saturday, in the presence of the Christ-loving Emperor, when the image of the Theotokos was fashioned and unveiled. If anyone had imposed silence upon himself for all time, he would now be talkative, and his tongue would be instructed in the precepts and arts of rhetoricians; he would strive with the greatest possible exertion, beyond any other occasion, etc.
XVI. Of the same, a homily delivered in the ambo of Hagia Sophia, when the triumph against all heresy was inscribed upon a pillar to our orthodox and great emperors, Michael and […]. Time had long since grown old, and had no new labor C by which it might flourish in its prime and make bold to claim honor, etc.
D Furthermore, England is providing us with a new work of Photius, concerning the preeminence of the Church of Constantinople: in which I fear that the ambitious power might sell us its own vapors, and that it may intend, by right or by wrong, either to set the new Rome before the senior one, or to establish the same privileges for both.
HOMILIES
I.
Oration of Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Nativity of the most holy Mother of God.
Every festival and every solemn gathering, by which the assembly of the pious is gladdened, A both dissolves mutual discords and strife, and brings together those who are divided in mind and purpose, and who have broken the bond of love through dissension; presenting as if in deed the harmony of the "Song of Songs," in order to recall them to concord. It shows that those who are gathered together are the B creatures and works of one and the same Lord and Creator; and by the unity of their worship, pointing out the equal dignity of their creation, it pacifies and lowers the spirits of those who are fiercely exalted against one another, persuading them to think with moderation and as befits human beings, and teaching them to look to the same hand of the Creator, and to consider the clay of their creation to be the same. For the custom suitable for Christians suggests that we should celebrate solemn assemblies for this purpose; and one assembly shows Christ being born, another testifies to Him being baptized, another brings Him forth transfigured, another exhibits Him working divine signs: healing those possessed by demons, restoring sight to the blind, drying up fountains of blood, bracing the limbs of the lame and the paralyzed, raising the dead; and finally, one points to Him hanging on the cross, and another to Him rising again, and initiating my own resurrection through the deeds that are seen.
But since every such assembly, instituted in accordance with divine religion, provides both common gifts to be enjoyed and also displays its own uniquely shining illumination of grace, this present day, famous for the nativity C of the Virgin and Mother of God, far surpasses all others and bears off the illustrious signals of honor. For just as we recognize the root to be the cause of the branches, the trunk, the fruit, and the flower, even though all the effort and labor are expended on the others for the sake of the fruit, and nothing at all of the others grows without the root; so, if this festival of the Virgin were removed, none of the others—
A appears. For there is resurrection, because there is death; and death, because there is crucifixion; and crucifixion, because Lazarus, four days dead, has returned from the gates of Hades; and because the blind see, and the paralytic runs carrying the bed on which he lay—and [because of] the miraculous works, for it is not timely to recount everything; the remaining things, which the Jewish nation, instead of glorifying and hymning, perverted into envy—from which they contrived the envy against the Savior for their own destruction. These things happened because Christ, by baptizing and freeing men from the error of unbelief, was teaching the knowledge of God in deed and in word. Yet, baptism is because of the birth; and the birth of Christ, to speak concisely and well, is the birth from a Virgin, in which we are renewed, and which we have been deemed worthy to celebrate. Thus, the Virgin’s festival, filling the role of a root, or a fountain, or foundations—or I know not what more genuine and appropriate term I might use—is rightly adorned by all those others; it is distinguished by many and great gifts and is recognized as the day of universal salvation.
B Today, indeed, the Virgin Mother is born from a sterile mother, and the palace for the Lord’s advent is prepared. Today the bonds of barrenness are loosed, and the locks of virginity are sealed. For to those for whom the womb was barren and the accounts of childbearing had withered, it brought forth a glorious fruit when all hope was gone; to them also the incorruption of virginity is promised, and the miracle of the birth is signaled by manifest events. It is truly an exceptional thing, and what is greater than all nature, birth without a man and the preservation of virginity after the birth; but it also surpasses the laws of nature that an old woman, rendered sterile by age, should be cultivated and bear fruit, and it serves as a prelude to the birth of the Virgin through the wonders wrought thereby. Today Anna has cut down the reproach of barrenness, and the world reaps the harvest of joy. The father of the child is called Joachim, and we receive the guarantee of adoption as a crowning honor. C Today the Virgin comes forth from barren loins, and barrenness succeeds the births of sin; the assembly of the Jews of the Synagogue remains widowed, and from the bosom of the Church children come forth, growing and multiplying in a manner worthy of God unto Christ the bridegroom. The Virgin comes forth from barren loins at a time when, even had she been fertile, the birth would have been paradoxical. O the miracle! When the time for sowing had passed, then the opportunity for the fruit of the harvest arrived; when the fire of desire had been extinguished, then the torch of fertility was kindled. Youth did not bring forth the flower, but old age put forth the sprout; the swelling of a burgeoning womb of a woman in her prime was not known, and from a womb past its prime the ever-virgin infant is recognized as the offspring. D But you are at a loss, O man, as to whether the sterile woman has given birth?
Nay, you even seek those things by which you ought yourself to marvel, as we marvel, so that you might make a thing worthy of a miracle into something ridiculous, and you contend with words as to whether the barren brings forth. For if the barren does not bring forth, and she who brings forth is not barren, how are dried-up breasts sharpened into fountains of milk? For if old age knows not how to store up treasures of blood, how do they whiten into the appearance of milk, which the nipples did not receive? And how does a womb, even if dead, bring forth a mature and living offspring, and itself contain and nourish the embryo? These things you are plotting against yourself and your own salvation; for who are you? For you would not be one of the faithful, and of those who are worthy of the miracle. For a believer would not be produced who takes away faith from those things through which faith is built up; but rather you are a Jew. But how, and where did Sarah slip from your mind? For did she not, at the expense of old age and sterility, see the offspring, Isaac? A Since Anna confuses and disturbs your mind, with better right Sarah, since she was also prior. But if this creates a doubt, that person who you are, do you not perceive that you are prescribing and removing your own kinship, and are cutting away the roots from which it came to be a branch upon you, and that you have fallen away, convicted by Judaic laws?
C As for me, if I were saying that the birth was accomplished by the sequence of nature, and were then inviting you to come over to my opinion with hands and feet, rightly would sterility [and] old age bring forth the labor of natural arguments; but since I teach that it is a work of divine grace, why do you compel grace to serve nature, over which it is always prepared to rule? Do you admit that Adam was formed from clay, and produced without a birth? Do you admit also that Eve was brought forth without joining, and is a sprout of the side and rib? So that you would clearly not say that these are a matter of nature. For the increase and birth among men by succession, preserving a different mode of procession, does not allow you to consider the procession of those first ones as a work of nature: but neither, again, as contrary to nature; since that is the principle of the natural constitution of men. It is, therefore, a work of divine counsel and power. What then? At that time do you grant that the divine Power was able to [perform] even those things which had greater cause for admiration, and do not set the order of nature in conflict against its Maker; but now, as if you thought that the most powerful and immortal strength had been weakened by heavy old age, do you pronounce it to be more feeble in these things? When, being exercised in the former, it would have been appropriate for you to seem worthy, in other matters also, of providing an undoubted faith in such things. Therefore, not even a Jew would doubt, if indeed he were a Jew; but rather one of those who have a soul and mind tainted by gentile error.
D Do you not believe, then, and do you mock that a child has come forth from a barren woman, you who pretend that men have sprung from corruption? You who make your own ancestors receive the dragon’s teeth into wombs, by which they were conceived? And so, I would that you had pointed out those graves to yourself as you speak, you who command stones to grow together into men, and who recount the genealogy of your own ancestors in a series worthy of you, tracing them back to the blood of ants. You, thinking these things, although they are the greatest delirium; and nowhere, nothing, not grace, not mind,
not nature, not sense, not the opinion of another, not your own, nor anything else having to support it, except only your impudence or insensibility; you nevertheless venerate and hold in honor. But those things which even those who oppose them confirm by their opinions, truth compelling them to speak the same things соглаsingly concerning them; and of which the first witness is the very sight and sense, and to which many things that happened of old in a similar way, and besides those things that have been mentioned, provide belief: these things you attempt to mock and hold in low esteem? Indeed, I would not say that we ought to honor our own things with those things by which they honored most absurd matters; nor, far from it, to illustrate light with darkness, or to build up truth with a lie, or to confirm faith with the error of infidelity. B But it is clearly a sin for them, being altogether cast down to the lowest level of sense, while we are superior in nature, to treat as worthy of honor and admiration things that are contrary to nature and which no custom has approved; yet to attempt to tear down with speech and error those things which are of far greater stature in both discourse and nature, and in praise and proclamation, and which, up to this time, the tombs of the martyrs—whenever use calls for it and Providence ordains it—attest by the working of miracles.
Consider also this. Does not an affection overcome nature? Does not sickness? Does not old age? Does not youth itself, being so vigorous—if and when it is otherwise—become an impotence for procreation? And what a miracle it would be, did not familiarity gradually steal away the sense of wonder and astonishment, that the very thing by which one comes to be a father keeps him, in the meantime, from becoming a father. What then? Do affections overcome nature, unless there is present something else which is an affection and restoration of it? And will not the grace that fashioned and created it improve nature? Old age, growing cold, dries up the sources of generation; and will the Creator, warming it, not irrigate what has aged? C Those things to which these have not yet devolved, and when the time is not yet present, and when that toward which they are drawn is worse, they nevertheless bear with ease; and yet, will the Creator and Framer not restore those things to the modes in which He established them from the beginning, as He wills? Do you not have faith in the things said? You do well indeed; for not in me—there is no need for your solemn transformations of these things, which I shall enumerate for you. Nay, rather, it is for you to recount them, that you may have more to boast against us in the narrations that you think most beneficial for human life.
D Tell of the peoples made from humans, from whose eyes that fabulous amber flows, from which you gather the riches of foolishness. Count also the laurels and the phoenixes; the nightingales and the swallows; your song-loving swans, and the alcyones, and your man-loving dolphins. Sing the praises of your androgynous Tiresiases, so that they might resolve the strife of the gods, worthy of their licentiousness; they who, because they had attributed greater pleasure to the goddess, bore the evil rewards of that freedom.
VARIAE LECTIONES b Read praises.
A Shall I recall for you the sea-traversing bulls, guided by the love of a wretched girl; and the long journeys; and the many wanderings; and the sojourns far from Olympus? I pass over other things; for it is not fitting that we mix the mire of error with the ointment of faith; or that we insult the radiant beams of piety with the deep darkness of impiety. Wherefore, having bidden a long farewell to those grand trifles and fables, and while pitying the madness of those who admire them, as well as hating their arrogance, let us direct ourselves back to the original course of our discourse.
Olim, therefore, the human race having been enslaved by the victory of the ancestral sins in which our first parents had ensnared themselves, the offspring of their granddaughter, sounding out their future destroyer as if with an obscure trumpet, showed by a clear sign that it would emerge from tyranny and be liberated from slavery. B Therefore, also, Adam together with Eve, cleansing themselves of those old stains of transgression and casting off the sorrowful expression of their sadness, both with free voice and countenance, crown the virgin festival with joyous dances; nay, rather, they stand as its leaders. For since the old man of sin, having been born into the whole race, had corrupted it, now that this has been rooted out, they deservedly begin the joy and the dances, and summon and call together all who were begotten of them. For since the infirmity of the fall, having flowed forth from those who first transgressed, had been transfused into all, and all stood in need of a similar cure; and since today the foundations of the salvation of the whole world are laid by the birth of the Virgin, it was worth the effort that a common and all-embracing festival should be established; and that, for the monument of thanksgiving, songs greater than those of the people or of worldly things should be sung. For the salvation of the whole world demands and claims acts of thanksgiving greater than those of worldly things.
Let us send forth songs of thanksgiving; because Adam is reformed, and Eve is restored; and the dire curses are dissolved; and the human race, putting off the dead and leathern person of sin, is restored to the primitive and ancient dignity of the Lord’s image. C Let us send forth songs of thanksgiving, and constitute public choruses, because the Virgin, coming forth from an infertile womb, sanctifies the sterile womb of nature, and spurs its barrenness toward the rich fruits of virtues. For by those means which she provided to the Lord and Husbandman of all—the streams of her most pure blood for the irrigation of the whole dried-up mass—by these she deservedly receives the blessing of fertility. The ladder that carries up to heaven is prepared, and the earthly nature, leaping over its own boundaries, is transferred into the heavenly mansions. The Lord’s throne is prepared on earth, and earthly things are sanctified; and the ranks of heaven are gathered together with us; and he who is wicked, and who first deceived us, and was the author of the plots laid against the human race, finding his wiles and machinations vanishing, has his power shattered. D
HOMILY I. ON THE NATIVITY OF THE ALL-HOLY MOTHER OF GOD
A Who shall be able to recount the wonders of God? And what speech shall express that which exceeds the power of speech? Or what mind will not become numbed, extending its comprehension to the magnitude of these works? God formed man in the beginning, impelled by the ineffable riches of His love for the human race; the handiwork of His own hand, and bestowing upon it the grace to bear the image of the Creator; conveying by one [part], that of the flesh, and by the other, that of the spirit, the sign of his nobility. Paradise, a thing delightful and desirable, was planted toward the East, being breathed upon by the unfading flowers of the meadows, and enriched by the fruits of trees fair and of every kind; and rivers flowing through the midst, and irrigating the face of the ground with their clear streams, brought about an indescribable beauty to that place. In this, the Creator settles the refined B handiwork of the Master’s palm: having appointed him master of all things, and showing that it flowed abundantly with all good things. Then, having acted as midwife to a partner from his side by an ineffable parturition, He established her, so that the one who was taken from him—from whom she was taken—might recognize him as head, and might look toward him, considering the debt [of origin]; and by the bond of nature, the bond of harmony might dwell within them.
But having granted [them] the enjoyment and lordship of all things in Paradise, since it was necessary that he, to whom the magnitude of such and so great an authority had been entrusted, should also be instructed and exercised by some commandment, He introduces a law to him, according to which it was neither difficult to regulate his life, nor altogether easy to observe, by which either the reward or the liability to punishment was dispensed. For, having separated one tree, blooming in beauty, from the others by a word, He provided the commandment forbidding he alone should eat of this. But the evil beast and author of evil—whose action gave him the name of devil—looking upon man from the very moment of his creation with envious eyes, and using another beast of the creeping kind as an instrument, and having conversed with the woman with seductive and charming words, and having cast much blasphemy upon the Lawgiver, persuades the woman, and through her the partner of her life, to disregard the commandment; and, whereas they were forbidden to eat, C they ate. And they, as soon as they transgressed what was commanded, fell away from all the gifts; which was the design of the one plotting against them. For the entire contrivance had been prepared by him for this end; and from thence, by the transgression being sown from the ancestors into the descendants, the one who plotted held our whole race enslaved under his hand.
What, then, of the Creator and Protector? Did He overlook the creature in the end, laboring and submerged in such great error, and enslaved daily to passions? By no means. For how could He have contentedly endured to see the one whom He had formed with such ambition being dragged away and led astray? Therefore, the Unity of the Trinity, as it were, held an assembly within Itself—if it is lawful to speak in this way; and it is lawful to say this regarding the recreation, since even in the creation it was said: "Let us make man according to Our image D and likeness," for this has been said regarding the creation, to the single
will of His intent, to reform what was broken, He constituted it a creature. But that [creation] was truly far astray, and the human race was desolate, which neither by threats, nor by punishments, nor by laws, nor by the warnings of the prophets could be brought back; it sought a man who was a participant with us of the same nature, in whom it was permitted to perceive the observance of the law which had been given without any transgression; that the human race itself, to whom it might see a man of its own kind establishing a life, might imitate that same man; and so that through him, by whom the instructor of machinations had carried off a victory against us, he might be defeated by a legitimate victory and contest, and fall from his dominion.
Ergo B it was necessary that someone from the Trinity should become man, so that whose was the formation and the work, his also should be seen to be the reformation and restoration of the work. Furthermore, it was entirely necessary that he should be called a son on earth, and yet not violate his heavenly dignity, who from eternity was and was praised as such. Moreover, to be reckoned among the sons of men was impossible without the incarnation. For the incarnation is the way to generation; and generation is the consummation of conception and gestation; and since it embraces a mother, it necessarily requires that her preparation should precede it as a foundation. Therefore, it was necessary for the Maker's mother to be prepared, so that what was broken might be refashioned in this way; and it was necessary that she be a Virgin, so that just as the first man had been formed C from the virgin earth, so through a virgin womb the new formation might be brought about; and that no insinuation of pleasure at all, even if it were legitimate, might be understood in the birth of the Creator. For he who was a captive of pleasure, whom the Lord willed to be born to liberate him, was indeed to be freed. But who is worthy to be a minister of the mystery? Who is worthy to be made the Mother of God, and to lend flesh to him who counts all things as his riches? Who then is worthy? Or is it not clear that it is she who today by miracle germinates from Joachim and Anna’s barren root? Whose birthday we celebrate with joyful gladness; and whose offspring is the prelude to the miracle of the greatest mystery, I mean, the birth of the Word in the flesh; and for whose sake this public and divine festival is celebrated and gathered together by the assembly of the whole people.
It was necessary, indeed, it was altogether necessary, that she who D from the very cradle had preserved a chaste body, a chaste soul, and chaste thoughts—more than the power of words can express—should be predestined as the Mother of the Maker. It was necessary that she who from a child had been offered in the temple and had penetrated its inaccessible places, should be seen as the living temple of him who had endowed her with a soul. It was necessary that she who had been born of barren loins in a paradoxical manner, and who had taken away the reproach of her parents, should also restore the ruin of her ancestors. For the granddaughter possessed the power to repair the fall of her forebears, by bringing forth the Savior of the race by a birth that knew no man, and by clothing him with a body. It was necessary that she who to herself...
A had adorned with the beauty of the soul as a fitting bride should be presented to the heavenly bridegroom. It was necessary that she who had made herself a heaven through the manner of her virtues, as if by stars, should be known to all the faithful as the one who brought forth the Sun of righteousness. It was necessary that she who had dyed herself entirely in the purple of virginal blood should be yielded as a royal robe for the King of all. O miracle! He whom the whole of creation cannot contain, the virginal womb contains without being narrowed; she carries the Fetus within her. He upon whom the Cherubim dare not fix their gaze, him the Virgin holds in her arms with earthen hands. The holy mountain comes forth from a desert and barren womb, from which that precious corner-stone, Christ our God, cut without hands, shattered the shrines of the demons and the kingdom of Hades, together with their tyranny. The ensouled and heavenly furnace is fashioned upon the earth, in which that Modeller and Creator, having baked the first fruits of my mass with divine fire, and having burned away the tares that were sown over it, fashions the whole mass into loaves that are pure for himself.
But what could one say, or rather what could one not experience, while sailing across the sea of the Virgin's graces and achievements? One is faint and rejoices; one is at peace and leaps for joy; again one is silent and speaks out; one is straitened and one is expanded, being drawn along by fear and by desire. But I, for the present, indulging in desire more than in fear, would gladly—you know this well—have engaged with you much more abundantly, even if with a useless flow of words, as if with waters standing still and overflowing at the Virgin's surpassing miracles; and this most of all because I see you with such readiness opening your ears, and with your whole soul ignited in the praise of the Ever-Virgin; and at the same time I make my offering, if I am found to have performed anything worthy of the virginal rites. But yet, the time calls us to other things; to another praise of the Virgin: to the beginning, I say, of the mystical and bloodless sacrifice (for the remembrance of those passions which the Son voluntarily endured is the honor of the Mother); to which we are indeed drawn, and for the performing of which the most opportune time is at hand.
But do thou, O Virgin and Mother of the Word, my propitiation and refuge; who wert born of a barren woman by a miraculous plan; and, yet more miraculously, didst bring forth to us the Ear of life; interceding with thy Son and our God, and coming as a mediatrix, make those who praise thee, when they have D cleansed themselves from every filth and every stain, worthy of the heavenly bridal chamber, so that they may be illuminated in eternal rest by the threefold light of the Trinity, which is greater than all substance, and may delight in its marvelous and ineffable spectacles; in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power unto the ages of ages. Amen.
II. On Symeon receiving Christ into his arms
A Symeon was not a priest, although he excelled by far in virtue and in the ornaments of the priesthood. For this reason, he acted as a priest, fulfilling those things which the Law ordered to be done concerning the boy; but Symeon, alongside other righteous deeds, being venerable with the hoariness of old age, enjoyed his prayers according to the divine responses. He recognized that the responses had truly come to pass: he recognized him who was preached: he carried him who upholds all things by his word: and having seen the salvation of the race, and filled with a more divine sweetness, he was no longer held by any love of life. Instead, present with salvation, he was wholly eager to depart from the flesh and to bring the auspicious news of salvation and redemption even to those who were in hell. And he blessed God, that is, he celebrated him with praises and canticles; but he also gave thanks because he saw that the promises made to him had been fulfilled, and that he had been counted worthy to behold with his eyes and carry in his hands the Consolation of Israel: and hence, full of sacred joy, "Now," he says, "dismiss your servant in peace." Since I have obtained the end of the promises, let the end of my mortal life also follow: for long ago your word promised this to me. For you, O Lord, had long since promised me that I should not see death unless I first saw the Christ of the Lord. But because those things which I desired, which I sought, and for which I panted with longing have met my eyes, "Now dismiss your servant," who fears neither the danger of death nor is terrified by thoughts of doubt, but possesses a firm peace, and brings forth the greatest joy. For I have seen the salvation of all peoples. And look, I pray, at the careful diligence of the divine and holy old man. For before he became partaker of that blessed spectacle, he was awaiting the Consolation of Israel; but when he obtained what he hoped for and desired, he no longer cries out simply for consolation, but for the salvation of all peoples: thus, surely, that greater radiance in the boy had pierced the man with every word and thought B and had shed such light that things which were to be revealed gradually as time progressed, he then perceived suddenly and at once. And lest he provide anyone with an opportunity to think that he was speaking only of all those peoples who were included in the Jewish race, he subjoins this: "A light for the revelation of the gentiles": as if to say, Let no one think that I call the entire Jewish people; rather, by this voice I signify the entire human race. For he whom I see with my eyes and carry in my arms will be the salvation and redemption of all. Nor did he consider it enough to have said these things; but by distinguishing all the gentiles over against Israel, he adds: "A light for the revelation of the gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel"; as if to say: The salvation that I carry in my arms is indeed common, an infant to all peoples, and to Israel: but to the gentiles, it is a light, because it leads them out from the darkness of idolatry: to Israel, however, it is glory, because the legal statutes were once given to them, by which they emerged from the darkness of idol-worship, and he is to be turned toward glory and perfection. Furthermore, the born boy is also the glory of the Israelite people, as one who, from the seed of Abraham, has come forth as man. Isaiah shouts almost the same thing, saying: "Behold, I have set you as a light to the gentiles, that you may open the eyes of the blind"; that is, that you may provide sight to them, and discern light from darkness, truth from falsehood, and piety from error. Whence David also, preaching this salvation, and, as it were, clapping with his hands and leading the choirs: "All you nations," he says, "clap your hands, for the Lord is high, terrible, a great King over all the earth." But if the people of Christ is spoken of, and it is Israel as it is distinguished C from those who carry out the Mosaic laws and customs, although it has not yet obtained grace, nor been made partaker of it, when, I say, it is his people who are in the Old Testament, how are the lost mouths of the Manichaeans not obstructed, who refer them to another principle?
III. A description of the new holy Church of the Mother of God, built in the palace by Basil the Macedonian.
I see the joyful assembly of the present day: and such as no human skill and labor, and unless the breath of divine power had assembled it, could have gathered together.
A And therefore, I receive the joyful gifts of grace, and I exult, mingling with the flourishing and rejoicing flock of Christ; for I understand that the joy and gladness of this festival is not limited to us, but I know that its veneration refers to the common Master Himself. For the splendor of a festival provides manifest tokens of the Lord’s love in proportion to the dignity of us who celebrate it. And when it does not merely celebrate the remembrance of those things which are performed annually and by custom, but initiates some new and recently appeared honor to God, how could it not still more stir up the flame of divine love, and further develop the beauty and glory of those who celebrate? But what is this great gathering and assembly of the multitude? B What is this festival? What is it that has summoned and stirred us all? Will you that I speak, or is it better to yield to Him, and to let Him speak and teach the subject of this festival—to the Giver of it and at the same time its wise architect? For He is capable of setting forth the matter at hand in words, He who, having first placed the forms of things in His soul, has most wisely established an inimitable work on earth. Therefore, speak to us, O most Christ-loving and most God-beloved of kings, who at once surpass all those before you and brilliantly illuminate them by the fellowship of your dignity. Speak, having, as you see, eager listeners for that for which you have summoned us. Show to the C NOTE. [...] D and of Nicholas, who holds the first place among hierarchs, He built a divine and most beautiful temple, to which art and wealth and fervent faith and most abundant good purpose came together; and all the most beautiful things from everywhere gathered, which are known to be credible to those who see them rather than to those who hear of them. [...] divine election, but not having coveted power, nor by human machinations, of these new emperors.
A Or perhaps you have again, after victories won against the Barbarians, erected trophies, and many times welcomed us with other deeds by showing us favor, and by these means have gathered us, and gladdened us, that we might send up a common and public thanksgiving to the Giver of victory? Or perhaps you have received others under a pledge of safety, and have humbled the lofty and proud and alien spirit and mind, as if piously attributing to the mighty hand of God all those things which you have successfully accomplished; or have you brought cities under your rule, some which formerly fed their own citizens now reorganized by you with better institutions, others even raised from their foundations, and others which you have restored, and have fortified the borders of the empire with frequent towns and garrisons; or perhaps, being yourself wealthy, you have made your subjects blessed; tell us, upon whom are we, the common eye of the world, to look in our contemplation of all these things? For the sake of which of these have you invited us? Or do you yourself keep silent, B by the rule of modesty, and because you do not wish to recount your own achievements, for which we must necessarily weave a garland of praise: but to me you grant the opportunity, that I myself, inspired by your deeds, may perform the orator’s task and declare to the ears of all the cause of the present assembly.
Another, therefore, my friends, is the celebration, and another the mystery of this day. A Virgin temple is dedicated on earth today, and that which is, if anything in the world is, a worthy dwelling-place for the Mother of God is consecrated. A Virgin temple is dedicated on earth today, a work of regal magnificence truly worthy of many hymns of praise. A temple is raised in the very midst of the palace, another divine and venerable palace; of such a kind, indeed, that if you compare it with others, and take into account their design, the royal palaces themselves are clearly shown to be mere private dwellings, C and it, by the brightness and grace in which it excels, even illuminates and renders them more brilliant, and increases their former elegance and adornment. You would say, casting your eyes upon it, that it is not a work of human art, but that some divine power, superior to us, has bestowed beauty upon it. For the propylaea of the temple are fashioned with exceeding beauty; for the slabs of white marble, shining with a certain splendor and grace, encompassing the entire frontage, and by their mutual arrangement and the junction of their edges with smooth and level seams, and being joined so tightly as to conceal the joints, so that it appears like a single stone inscribed with straight lines (a thing wonderful and new!), they capture D in a most delightful manner the eyes of those who behold them. From this point, they hold the gaze, and turning it towards themselves, they prevent the spectator from wishing to pass on to those things that shine within; but in the very vestibule of the temple, he who approaches is straightway enlivened by the magnificent spectacle, and fixing his eye upon what is seen, he remains rooted in wonder, as if fixed by the roots. The myths assign to Orpheus the Thracian a lyre, with the power of playing it such that it moves lifeless things with its melodies. But if it were permitted for us also to carry truth into myths, and to render the awe-inspiring with fiction, one might say that those who approach the vestibule of the sacred edifice are transfigured by the miracle into the nature of plants and trees; so much so that one who has once cast his eyes upon it is with difficulty pulled away, and is held fast by the spectacle.
A But when someone has with difficulty detached himself from that point and glanced into the sanctuary itself, how great and how vast is the joy, the commotion, and the wonder with which he is filled! For, as if he had ascended into heaven itself, with nothing standing in his way, and being illuminated on all sides by the multiform and brilliant beauties shining forth like stars, he becomes utterly astonished. And it seems, moreover, that all other things are in a state of ecstasy, and that the sanctuary itself is spinning around; for by its own various rotations and continuous movements—which the variety of the spectacle from every side inevitably forces the spectator to experience—the emotion is manifested in the very thing that is looked upon.
B But indeed, gold and silver have marked out most of the temple; the one, applied in mosaics; the other, beaten into plates and molded, or applied to other parts. Here, the capitals of the columns are adorned; there, gold borders; elsewhere, gold entwined with chains, or something more wonderful than gold—the divine table—a sign [(5)]. Silver, furthermore, is by the small gates and the gates of the sanctuary, along with the colonnades; and the conical roof itself, which is placed over the divine table along with the small columns that support it and the vaulted ceilings, and as much of the multicolored marble as the gold or silver has not covered or intercepted, formed an intricate and delightful work of art, decorating the rest of the temple. C And the view of the floor, formed into the shapes of animals and other kinds of figures with multiform mosaics, displayed a certain wondrous wisdom in the craftsman. It truly put to shame those Phidiases, Parrhusiuses, Praxiteleses, and Zeuxises of old, who were considered masters of images, as being mere children in the art, with a more subtle skill. Democritus, I think, upon seeing the fine workmanship of the floor, and using this as his proof, would have said, had he been there, that it was not far off that one might even discover his own atoms, if they had fallen under his gaze; so completely is everything filled with wonder.
NOTE
D (5) Perhaps it indicates that something similar was done on the table of the altar of the new church, as had been done in Hagia Sophia by Justinian; namely, with several substances melted down, or even crushed, from which one altar table might be cast; yet Constantine does not mention this matter; though perhaps a more recent memory might defend Photius. It is, at any rate, likely that the grandeur of the buildings, almost a rival to the magnificence of Justinian, wanted to emulate this as well, and had attempted the deed. Constantine writes thus: "and with other things enumerated, which were in the sanctuary, he says, 'The sacred tables themselves, all made of silver which had been overlaid with gold, and precious stones, and pearls of the highest value placed upon them, had their construction and formation.'" But could these tables, if the anonymous author also describes other tables in the sanctuary of Hagia Sophia, having nothing in common in their construction and other things with the *very table of the altar; what if they were also in the sanctuary of the new church; and Constantine did not speak of the altar table itself, which he might rather have wished to note more specifically?As for the title, I have changed it, for it is nothing other than the carelessness of a copyist, while that which is accustomed to be written with a double letter, he renders with a single one. In which he erred more than once; and which removes every doubt, more often in the word it corresponds to nothing sufficiently fitting. It is a description, with Hermolaus as author, and indeed a refined one, and almost affected by the enticement of words, of the kind that is the one concerning Saint Euphemia, with Asterius as author, praised in the sixth synod, and edited more correctly by me in Asterius, and once and again republished by the Lyonese and Parisian printers from that edition of mine, whatever they may ungratefully omit to mention. There is also, by the same author, a description of the one born blind, from the *Orations* on the man born blind, for me likewise after the Photian excerpts, first edited from the codices of P. Jac. Sirmond and Seguier.
Had one found the atoms revolving before his eyes, he would have found all things A full of miracle. Yet it seems to me that the architect of the temple erred in only one respect: that, having gathered all the beauties together in one and the same place, he does not allow the spectator to enjoy the spectacle clearly, as some things pull and drag away from others, and do not permit one to be satiated by what is seen as much as one desires.
What indeed I omitted, which should have been mentioned first. Yet not even during prayer does the miracle of the temple allow the one praying to clearly discern its parts: and indeed I shall now speak of it. For in the very upper vault, a masculine image, bearing the form of Christ, shines forth, depicted with a varied flowering of small stones. You would say that he is looking down at the earth, and pondering its adornment and governance: so accurately has the painter, by the gesture, the attire, and the colors, depicted the Creator’s providence and care for us, inclining with divine favor. B In the circular segments of the hemisphere around the dome, a multitude of angels surrounding the common Master is depicted; and the apse that rises from the place of the altar shines with the form of the Virgin, who spreads out her immaculate hands for our sake, and procures for the emperor salvation and feats of valor against his enemies. A chorus of apostles and martyrs, and indeed also of prophets and patriarchs, filling the entire temple with their images, adorn it: one of whom, even though he is silent, cries out through those things he once uttered: *How lovely are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! My soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord.* Another says: *How fearful is this place! This is none other than the house of God.* And perchance someone else even of those not our own, nor of those inscribed [in our books], sings in response, although unwillingly proclaiming our things: *How beautiful are thy houses, O Jacob; thy tabernacles, O Israel! As gardens by the river side, and as the tabernacles which the Lord has pitched, and not man.*
C In times of old, the tabernacle was constructed for Moses, the beholder of God, by divine command, to offer sacrifices to God for the propitiation of sins. And the temple in Jerusalem, built later for King Solomon, was a thing truly delightful to behold, and one that obscured all those before it in beauty, magnitude, and costliness. But by as much as a shadow and a type falls short of the truth and the things themselves, by so much do those fall short of the temple which our faithful and great emperor has now built: not only in the sense that this one is of grace and the spirit, while those were of the law and the letter, but because it also holds the primacy over them in beauty and the remaining elegance of art and skill.
D Who then would attempt to run through the miracles of such a celebrated temple in so short a discourse; when not even sight itself, though one spend a long time inspecting it, even if the other senses are left far behind by its swift motion—
is able to grasp and comprehend these things, it is entirely clear. I am moved by no less joy, therefore, though my discourse has been vanquished, than if it had reached the measure of a satisfying narrative. For it was not my intention to make a display of oratorical power, but to show that the temple is most beautiful and lovely, and that it overcomes the laws of description. A
HOMILY III. ON THE DEDICATION OF THE NEW BASILICA
But let the course of my discourse be directed back to you, the author of this gathering. Rejoice, therefore, O Emperor, most beloved of God and most pleasing to God, and renew your youth, both in body and in soul, flourishing in good works; and celebrate the dedication of this renowned temple, the work of your wisdom and your hand. Stretch forth, prosper, and reign, for the sake of truth and meekness and justice. For, as it is possible to see clearly, the right hand of the Most High, who created you and anointed you from your very swaddling clothes as king of His own peculiar and chosen people, leads and will lead you. B Rejoice also and be renewed along with him, you who are the bright adornment of all the Caesars whom the sun has ever beheld, surpassing those who have gone before you in wisdom and prudence; you who obtained so great an imperial authority not by intrigue or human maneuvering, but by divine suffrage. Rejoice, then, and be renewed along with him who has taken you as a partner and associate in the empire for the common salvation of those he rules, as befitted his benevolence and most sincere love toward you. For through the society of you both, the Trinity, piously worshipped and adored, extends and transmits its providence to all, wisely steering and governing those who are subject to you. C
Rejoice also, you Fathers of the council, a venerable and august gray-haired assembly, who are being renewed, together with the faithful and great Emperor and the venerable Caesar, who are celebrating the dedication of this renowned temple. The entire assembly of holy doctors and bishops also rejoices and is glad, counting the consecration of the temple as its own proper honor and glory. Rejoice also, and join in the chorus, you who are the rest of the God-loving multitude, you who see on earth another heaven, the temple of the Virgin which is dedicated today; through whose intercessions may we all become partakers of that blessed and unending grace and exultation, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and empire, now and forever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. D
IV.
ENCOMIUM OF SAINT ATHANASIUS
Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, to his brother Tarasius, concerning the sermons of the great among the saints, Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria. A He says that he is clear in his language, just as he is everywhere in his discourses, as well as concise and unaffected; yet he is sharp and profound, and regarding his arguments, altogether forceful; and his productiveness in these matters is, he says, truly admirable. He does not employ logical methods in a tenuous or juvenile fashion, as do children and those untaught, but philosophically and magnificently. He is fortified for the purpose of confirmation by scriptural testimonies and demonstrations; and in the first place, that sermon against the Gentiles and that which is held concerning the humanity of the Word of God, and the five books against Arius, which truly are a trophy against every heresy, but especially against the Arian. And if anyone were to say that Gregory the Theologian and the divine Basil, as if drawing from a fountain, poured forth from this book those beautiful and brilliant rivers of their own discourses against the error, he would not, I think, be far from the truth. B There have also been written by him commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and on the Song of Songs, and likewise on the Psalter, and on many other things. Yet in grace and ornamentation, the sermons against Apollinaris truly excel, as do those letters that contain his defense regarding his flight.
NOTE. (7) Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, of which this fragment is prefixed to that excellent and ancient Athanasian codex which is at the Basle Academy, is set forth in the same words; and that was long ago rendered into Latin by Peter Nannius, who used the same codex. — Cf. cod. 140.
CARMINA
I.
STICHERON IN HONOR OF SAINT METHODIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
(BOLLAND. *Acta Sanctor.*, June vol. II, p. 960.)At Vespers, among other things, there is placed from the *Octoechos* a Sticheron or Versicle, to be sung to the melodies of the third tone, as a poem of Patriarch Photius.
Festively today the Church of God is adorned, and exulting she cries out: My beauty has been made bright above every city; for behold the illustrious gem of the chief priests, the glorious Methodius, has held his path toward the heavens. Come therefore, you lovers of the feast, the assembly of the orthodox
system of the orthodox, forming a chorus together around the A divine ark, and receiving the flood of healings flowing from it, let us beseech it to entreat Christ our God, that He may free the world from every heresy.
NOTICE
ON THE THREE FOLLOWING ODES
(Ang. Mai, *Scriptor. vet.*, vol. I, p. XXIII.)Three odes by Photius, written in sweet verse and of moderate length, exist in the old Barberini manuscript 246, as well as in its recent copy, among very many other Greek hymns of great elegance by various authors. Those of these that do not offend good morals should no longer be kept in darkness, nor should we allow the muse of Photius to be silenced against its will. Indeed, Labbe states (*Nov. Biblioth. mss.*, p. 139) that nine odes of Photius existed in the manuscripts of the College of Clermont among the French. Those three odes of Photius are found at the end of the Barberini manuscript; the first of which is to God—in it, Basil himself speaks. The second is from the person of the Church to Basil, the emperor who loved Christ; in other words, the Church addresses the emperor. The third is an encomiastic ode to Basil, the emperor who loved Christ.
It is well known that Photius flourished in the favor of Emperor Basil, before whom he even performed sacred prayers as he received the royal crown; and soon after, he was driven into exile by that same man. Georgius Hamartolus, in an unedited Vatican manuscript, describes both events: page 202 b: "Basil, having taken the crown from his own head, gave it to Photius the patriarch, and bringing him into the holy table, performed a prayer over him." The patriarch then brought forth the crown and gave it to the emperor; and after the scepters had fallen, as was the custom, Michael crowned Basil. When Basil came into the church and wished to partake of the immaculate sacrifice, the patriarch Photius prevented him from the divine communion, calling him a murderer, a robber, and unworthy of the immaculate mysteries. Angered by this, Basil prepared for bishops to come from Rome, bringing the Pope's tome, and he expelled this man from the patriarchal throne, and he promoted Ignatius, the patriarch who is among the saints, for the second time. Zonaras (XVI, 7, 8) uses both passages from Hamartolus, the second almost word for word. Regarding this matter, one must read the letter of Photius (now in Book I, 16), which is a grave expostulation sent from exile against Basil.
Finally, I advise that Photius the monk, the melodist, whose meager *stichera* are in Vatican manuscript 216, p. 6, and in Palatinus 138, p. 6–8, is a different person. Furthermore, the former was never a monk, although Photius recounts in a letter to the syncellus of Antioch—which I know to have been edited in Greek, and which I read in an old manuscript—that as a youth he was not estranged from the monastic life, but was hindered by secular cares (7).
Formerly, in the preface of the first volume of *Scriptores veteres*, where I discussed the unedited writings of Photius, I mentioned his three odes which I observed in the Barberini manuscript; in the first of which Basil the Macedonian emperor addresses God; in the second, the Church addresses Basil the emperor himself; and in the third, finally, the same Basil the emperor is praised in an imperfect ode. I now present these odes, copied by the celebrated man P. Matranga.
II.
Hymn of Patriarch Photius in the person of Emperor Basil. — Ode 1.
(Ang. Mai, *Spicil. Rom.* IX, 739.)Hymn from my lips I offer to Thee, Creator, From the depths of my heart I send up glory to Thee. The depth of Thy wisdom, The abyss of Thy judgments, What speech shall extol, O Master of all?
NOTES (7) Conf. ad Amphiloch. 160.
A But how shall a tongue declare Your power, O Most High? O depth, O wisdom, surpassing every word! By incomparable power You work wonders, and nothing resists Your divine will. I am distraught, and my heart is filled with trembling, when I consider the works of Your sovereignty. My mind does not suffice to seek out the wonder, the height of Your mercy, the riches of Your graces. You raised me from the deepest pit, O Lord, and set me in the midst of the princes of Your people, O God, Master of all, Lord of mercy. What speech shall suffice for Your glorification? He who sees all things, seeing the humility and labor of my heart, loosens the burdens of my troubles. B Just as You alone know, O Creator of every breath, who from my mother's womb became my protector, with a precious stone You crowned my head, and showed me a king and ruler of Your people.
I magnify Your divine power, O Savior, for the Mighty One has done great things for me. I was the youngest among the children of my father, but—O, the wonder of it!—You declared me a sovereign. The wonder truly astonishes every mind; for it is indeed a strange work of Your right hand. O You who see all things before they come to pass as if they were already present, You who rule over all, hearken to my voice. Vouchsafe that I may walk in the straight path of Your commandments, O You who chose me before I was formed. Armed with the sword of Your power, grant me to put the invisible enemies to flight. C O Wisdom, divine Word of the Father, He whom You chose to serve You, protect now Your people that bear Your name. Show the arrows of Your people sharpened, fixed in the hearts of the enemies of Your kingdom, for the sake of which You poured out Your blood, my Savior; preserve Your holy Church unshaken.
A O Lover of mankind and Compassionate One, grant to Your people the peace which You bestowed upon the divine apostles. Send forth, O Creator and Master of all, the grace of the Spirit which You promised to provide; that with one soul, and in knowledge and heart, we may perpetually praise You, and grant us Your divine kingdom. You who govern all things, both those above and those below, You know that I have placed all my hope in You. Do You, therefore, as the Creator of all, my God and King, guide with Your right hand the people whom You have given me.
A hymn by the same, in the person of the Church, to Basil, the Christ-loving emperor.
B Let us all hear the royal bride, Christ’s Church, mystically existing. Know that the counsel of the Highest shall remain forever, but the counsels of men have no steadfastness. Generation shall praise Your greatness, and generation shall speak of the powers of Your works. You gave strength and power to those who were crushed, and cast down to the ground the brow that was lifted high. C You are the beginning of David’s canticle; who shall proclaim the powers, singing the praise of the Lord? Seek out your musicians to strike the lyre; for the festal day of the Master is being celebrated. She who was once torn by the discord of her children now joyfully celebrates their concord.Virgin daughters, young men, seek out in the house those who may sing of the King of all. Behold me, as another heaven, adorned by the emperor with his children like stars. Rest from your labor, O charioteer of the day; for another sun has risen into the world. Beholding the divine light of the lamp shining for all in the midst of the lampstand, rejoice, O people of God. Let us magnify together, let us praise, crying out: This change is the work of the right hand of the Most High. Yes, indeed, and upon the holy head of the emperor let a diadem be woven from the flowers of speech.
It astonishes me, O king, That prudence of yours, Your divine works Of wise counsel. No longer is the choir Of children unruly before me; For deep peace Flows from your wisdom. Now they join in the dance Around the divine bridal chamber, And in a circle round my table The children stand. O great race of the Romans, Stretch forth and rejoice In the strength and the prudence Of the wise emperor. B Withdraw, and do not be High-minded in your wisdom, O Solomon, looking upon Our own emperor. Seeing the compassion and gentleness Of the emperor, Let David rejoice together In the height of his love. Yield, you other Kings of Judah; You cannot equal the sun, You, the sparks. Formidable to his enemies Was the great Constantine, But behold the emperor’s Multitude of trophies. Who, contemplating the field Luxuriant with the plants of God, That delightful palace, Would come to a contest of rivalry? As for the beauty of the soul, Who will dare to compete, Of all the kings whom The sun has looked upon? O image of wisdom, Ornament of peace, Splendor of the scepters, Stretch forth and rejoice.
Encomium by the same, addressed to Basil, the Christ-loving Master. — Plagal Second Mode.
From rational meadows Let us take the flowers of wisdom, So that we may crown The honored head of the wise master. O mightiest Emperor, hail, Divine eye of the world, Glory of the sovereigns, Marvel of the kings. O great race of the Romans, Christ’s inheritance, It has been granted to you now, O emperor, According to your divine heart. C Therefore clap your hands, Hymn the Giver of Crowns, And adorn the master With garlands of praise. Protecting the flock With the spring of your wisdom, Leading them unto the pastures Of life-bearing truths.
PART FOUR OF THE WORKS HISTORICAL WORKS. PHOTIUS PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE THREE BOOKS OF EPISTLES ARRANGED IN NEW ORDER.
BOOK ONE. CONTAINING EPISTLES TO THE ROMAN PONTIFFS, TO PATRIARCHS, TO BISHOPS, TO EMPERORS, AND TO PRINCES.
EPISTLE I. To the in all things most holy, most sacred, most reverend brother and fellow-minister, Nicholas, Pope of senior Rome, Photius, Bishop of Constantinople, new Rome.
A When I call to mind the magnitude of the hierarchy, and consider how far human worthlessness falls short of the perfection inherent therein, and when I proceed to measure the weakness of my own strength, and the contemplation I had nurtured within me regarding the height of such a dignity—which always served to make me wonder at and be overawed by all those who, whether in our own generation, to say nothing of preceding ages, have taken upon themselves the fearful yoke of the pontificate, while being men, bound to flesh and blood, and yet hazarding to perform the works of the incorporeal Cherubim—when I ponder these things and examine them with care, and see myself now caught in that same state for which I used to be troubled when I saw others in it, it is impossible to describe with what pains I am tormented and in what dejection I continue to be held. For even if from childhood B I had a care, simultaneously growing and keeping pace with me, to remain free from the business and tumults of this life, and to look ever toward my own account—for one must speak the truth, now that I have begun to write to your Holiness—and even if the administration of royal dignities compelled me to divert my impulse toward other tasks that pulled me downward, yet never did any confidence possess me such as would make the burden of the pontificate tolerable for me to accept. For it was always, and has always been, for me a thing venerable and fearful, especially when I recall the prince of the apostles, Peter, who indeed, while giving many proofs of C his faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God,
A and many proofs from every side of his love for Him—as if this were the golden crown upon all those noble deeds previously performed and accomplished by him—was deemed worthy by the Master to receive the ministry of shepherding. But I also know of the servant who was entrusted with a talent, and out of fear of the Lord’s severity hid it, so that what had been entrusted to him might not somehow slip away and be seized, and that having failed to return to Him who gave it the talent multiplied, he was called to account and suffered the condemnation of fire and gehenna.
But why are these things written by me, and why does my grief increase, and my distress intensify, and my agitation grow? For the memory of painful things renders the suffering sharper and does not allow the slothfulness to be relieved. B Yet, it is for this very reason that the tragedy of the things which have happened has been staged as it were, so that through your prayers, seeing the flock entrusted to us—I know not how to express it—being beautifully guided and steered, we might disperse the cloud of helplessness that obstructs us and escape the fog of slothfulness. For He knows, He knows how, for a helmsman, a ship running with a fair wind and steering straight by its rudders brings joy, and how the assembly of the Church, abounding in piety and virtues, brings joy to its leader and shepherd and causes him to wipe away the mist of a wavering mind and destitution of counsel.
Recently, therefore, when he who had been bound to exercise the priesthood before us departed from that honor, I know not how, they were impelled to attack me with great force—both those who were counted in the clergy and the assembly of bishops and metropolitans, and before them and with them, the pious and Christ-loving emperor, C who is indeed kind and fair and humane to all (for why should the truth not be told?) and possesses an equity that none of those who reigned before him could equal; yet to me at that time he seemed inhumane, violent, and altogether terrifying. For he, together with the aforementioned assembly of priests, remitted nothing of the force and pressure they were applying to me; but as to why he would not let me go, he used the excuse of the consenting will and zeal of the priests, and that even if he wished to, he could not fulfill my request. But to the priests and the rest of the clergy (for a great number had gathered), the words of my supplication could not even clearly reach: and if they did reach anyone, they would not accept them; since they had meditated upon and resolved to say only this one thing: that I must by all means, even against my will, take upon myself this burden of oversight. D And since for me the paths of supplication through words were blocked on every side, tears began to break forth, and the mist of despair having filled all things within with confusion, and having broken through even to my very eyes, was transformed into a river. For the thought [of being] hopeless, having filled [the soul] with confusion, even up to the eyes themselves, was transformed into a stream. For indeed, once my reason had despaired of being saved by words, it cast itself upon prayer itself, and brought forth tears, hoping through them to obtain some aid and assistance, even if it was deceived in its intent. For not even then did those who were compelling me let go,
but they accomplished what was contrary to my will, but according to their own judgment. Thus, living with tolerance amid the tumults that have since arisen, through those judgments—as He who knows all things knows—it would be timely to speak the proverb: “Enough is as good as a feast.” A Since the best of all communions is the communion of faith and true love—this being the most meaningful cause of it—in order that we may forge a pure and indissoluble bond with your holiness, we have resolved to record briefly, as if on a pillar, the content of our faith and of yours. From this, we may the more fervently and readily draw your prayers, and manifest our affection toward you.
I believe, therefore, in one God, a perfect Father, and the provider of perfection, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, not dividing the nature by the distinctness of the Persons (for let the division of Arius be cut off), but I confess the difference of the Persons in the identity of the nature. For let the contraction of Sabellius be likewise taken away. I believe in the most holy Trinity, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, existing eternally with Itself, as being beyond all temporal beginning, and wanting an origin, while fulfilling the principle of beginning and cause in the Father. For thus the Trinity shall be established with equal honor above temporal concept, and It shall be sung in theological hymns as being of the same substance with the Father, from whom the One is begotten without flux and ineffably, and the Other proceeds. I confess the most holy Trinity, a supersubstantial Essence: B the former, because It transcends all essence in a manner worthy of God; the latter, because from It there is for all beings a participation in being. I confess [the God of] super-abundant goodness: the former, because He is the Fount of goodness; the latter, because from Him comes to the good that they are good. This, for us, is, in brief, the irreproachable discipline of our theology.
But C that the Son and Word of God and the Father, in the last days, proceeded from the ever-Virgin and most glorious Lady, our Theotokos, with flesh animated by a soul intellectual and rational—that is, that He assumed perfect man in truth, and not by phantasy, nor personally, nor being limited to any individual or circumscribed character among the particulars, but the whole man, whom He caused to subsist as an individual in His own hypostasis, in order to save the human race; and that the natures of divinity and humanity are preserved in the same and one Christ, united indeed by the union according to hypostasis, but not confused by al- D teration of substance; that there is one hypostasis of Christ, but two natures, and to each of them I assign its proper will. For there are two wills in Christ, undiminished, because there are also two energies. I confess the same One as passible and impassible, corruptible and incorruptible, describable and indescribable, appropriating some things to the divinity, and attributing others to the humanity; crucified voluntarily for us. And He who granted us the honorable and venerable Cross, the cause of the destruction of death: buried, the same One, and among the dead
A counted, and on the third day, according to His own divine utterance, rose from the dead; and appearing to the disciples, and by eating and drinking with them, He completely removed from them every uncertainty and opinion of a phantom. Then also, He was taken up together with the assumption—that is, with the soul animated by a rational and intellectual spirit, and His own proper flesh—and again in the same manner He shall come to judge the living and the dead. "For in this way," says the holy Scripture, "He shall come, in the way you saw Him going into heaven."
Thus believing and confessing unchangeably that faith which is established and preached in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, I accept the seven holy and ecumenical synods. The first B indeed, inasmuch as it shattered and overthrew Arius and those who thought as he did, together with their abominable worship of the creature. The second, because it banished and cut off from the ecclesiastical choir the senseless Macedonius, who labored under a madness similar to that of Arius. For this man, too, placing the most holy and all-creating Spirit among the creatures, was not ashamed to worship the creature. But furthermore, also the third, which deposed the impious Nestorius and overthrew the God-hated superstition newly fashioned by him. For this man, blindly and foolishly, dared to tear away the whole man from the divine hypostasis of the Word—though he was united indivisibly and according to hypostasis to the God Word—and monstrously posited that he existed in his own proper hypostasis. And for this reason, dreaming that the Son and Word of God who appeared in the flesh was a mere man, the thrice-wretched one consequently refused to call the most holy Mother of God, Deipara [Theotokos] in the proper sense. And C the fourth, which struck down and anathematized the wretched Eutyches, and Dioscorus the apostate, together with their imaginative dementia and their whole crew. For they crazily asserted that the Lord's flesh was not consubstantial with us, but that while the union was made from two natures, into one nature after the union it had been consumed, neither keeping the properties of the divine nor, indeed, of the human. And the fifth also, which cut out and utterly burned away those wicked dogmas and offspring—raised up for the destruction of those who brought them forth—of the impious Nestorius, who had been a godless bishop of the royal city, and of Theodore, who had exercised the bishopric of Mopsuestia even more godlessly; both them, and all who were sick with the same vain opinion as they; and furthermore, which D tore apart and mowed down Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who by a mind resembling that of the heathens and an unwise judgment had fallen into the final abyss of godlessness. For having invented degrees and subordinate ranks of Godhead, and having established within themselves pre-existences of souls, and emanations and fallings away of their regard toward God, and pouring them into diverse and multiform bodies, and transforming them, and—to conclude—eructating from the belly, as is said, the end of punishments and the restoration of demons, with free and open
mouth they have spoken, and their own inventions have they contrived. But also the sixth [Synod], as it rejected and demolished Honorius, Sergius, and Macarius—monstrous men of speech and demented—together with those who were led by them into the same impiety and expressed it, along with their alien and absurd fabrications: for the miserable wretches wickedly ascribed to Christ our God, who is from two inconvertible natures, one will and one operation. Furthermore, the holy and great Synod which took place at Nicaea, for the second time, which purged and cast out as offscouring the Iconoclasts, and therefore Christ-fighters and calumniators of the saints, and with them their detestable and Manichaean heresy: for they were disgusted at painting the holy body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is consubstantial with us, in an image, raving that it cannot be painted and is uncircumscript, and therefore concluding with an insane custom that it is not consubstantial with us. B These holy and ecumenical seven Synods, therefore, I accept, anathematizing those whom they anathematized, and embracing and magnifying those whom they lauded.
This is my confession of faith, and of the things pertaining to it and subsisting around it, and in it is my hope; and not for me alone, but for all those who have studied to live piously, and in whom a divine love is inborn to retain the pure and unadulterated sentiment of Christians. Holding fast, therefore, this written confession of our faith, and expressing our affairs to your most sacratissime holiness as if on a tablet, and recounting them in words—which we have often requested—we stand in need of your prayers, that we may find God to be propitious and kind in the things that we do and have performed; that every root of scandal C and stone of stumbling may be seen to have been removed from the ecclesiastical order; that the subjects may be well pastured, and that by the multitude of our own transgressions their progress in good may not be so retarded that a multiplied sin is ascribed to us; but may I myself do and say to them the things that are required in doctrine, and may they themselves be led obediently and tractably toward their own salvation, and be congruously joined and compacted to Christ the head of all, by His philanthropy and kindness, to whom be glory and empire with the Father, and with the holy Spirit, to the life-giving and consubstantial Trinity, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
LETTER II.
The apologetic epistle of Photius to Pope Nicholas, in which he complained to him regarding the elevation [of the former] to the throne of Constantinople.
To the all-most holy, all-most sacred brother and fellow-minister, Nicholas, Pope of senior Rome, Photius, Bishop of Constantinople, new Rome. D Truly, there is nothing more venerable nor more precious than charity, and it is confessed by common consent.
A For by it things separated are joined, and things fighting are pacified; and things united and domestic are rendered more intimate, providing no entrance for seditions and contentions. For it thinks no evil; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, and, according to the blessed Paul, never fails. It reconciles servants who have offended to their masters, setting forward the equal honor of our nature as an apology for the slip. It teaches servants to bear gently the raging anger of their masters, consoling the inequality of fortune through the similarity of those who suffer the same things. It mitigates and cheers the anger of a father toward his children, and urges parents to accept the murmurings of their children without pain, arming the natural relationship against that disjunction which nature abhors. It easily repels a quarrel arising between friends, exhorting them to respect common salt as much as nature itself. B And those who hold the same opinion concerning God and divine things, even if they dwell at the farthest distance, and though they have never yet seen one another with their eyes, it brings into union, cements them in their opinions, and makes them true friends. And if by chance one of the two has slipped into thoughtless rebukes of the other, it heals the occurrence by making the one refrain from reckoning it, and the other to repent, easily saving what has happened and preserving the bond of union unbroken.
It is this which persuaded our mediocrity to bear—not with annoyance—the rebukes which were sent forth like darts from your paternal sanctity; and it caused me to think that these were not the offspring of a disturbed mind, nor words of a spirit desirous of offenses and enmities, C but rather the product of an affection that is true and feigns nothing, and of one that subtly examines ecclesiastical order and strives to lead it to the ultimate accuracy of diligence. For if, on account of supreme kindness, it does not permit one to even think of evil as evil, how will it allow one to declare it to be evil? For that reason knows that kindness is that which progresses even to the point of benefiting those who cause one pain. Since, however, nothing prevents brothers from speaking freely with brothers, and children with Fathers, in speaking the truth (for nothing is friendlier than truth), it is permitted for us also to use free speech and to write, not with a desire to contradict, but with a will to defend. For it would have behooved your perfection in virtue, D considering before all else that we were drawn into this yoke against our will, not to reproach, but to pity; not to despise, but to sympathize. For mercy and humanity are due to those to whom violence is offered, not rebuke or contempt. For we have undergone violence; but how great it was, God, to whom all things, even things hidden, are manifest, He Himself is the witness. We were restrained against our will, kept in custody like criminals, observed by guards; the vote was cast against us while we resisted; we were ordained while weeping, mourning, beating ourselves, and lamenting. All men know these things; for they were not done in a corner, and the magnitude of the oppression brought the history of it to everyone.
A What, then, is the point of attacking, reproaching, and assailing with insults those who have suffered many grave and bitter things, instead of showing pity and comforting them as much as one is able? I have fallen from a life possessed of peace; I have fallen from sweet and tranquil calm; I have fallen, too, from glory (if indeed some have a longing for worldly glory); I have fallen from dear quiet, and from that pure and most pleasant companionship with those who were near to me, a life of conversation free from sorrow, free from guile, and free from reproach. There was no one accusing me of injustice. I never wrote charges against another—not against strangers, not against locals, and certainly not against those unacquainted with me, let alone my friends. I never so grieved anyone that he would exclaim insults against me; unless, perhaps, one wishes to consider those dangers undertaken for the sake of piety. Nor did anyone else sin against me in such a way that his tongue slipped into insulting me. To such a degree were all men kindly disposed toward us—and B my own conduct, even if I do not speak of it, cries out. My friends loved me more than their own kinsmen, and I was esteemed by my kinsmen as both the dearest of kin and the most loving of all kinsmen.
The report of the devotion of those around me toward me drew even the unknown into divine love and the bond of friendship, and perhaps they will not repent of having praised me. But how is it possible to pass over these things without tears? For when I remained at home, a charming delight of pleasures would encompass me as I watched the labor of those who were learning, the eagerness of those asking questions, the cultivation of those who were conversing, by which the judgment is trained to be led toward that which is easiest, and they whose understanding was sharpened by mathematical schools, or who investigated the truth through logical methods, or whose mind was directed toward piety by the divine Oracles—which is the fruit of all other labors. For such a chorus was the chorus of my house.
When I went out again to the royal court, many times the prayers of those accompanying me were present, and their exhortation not to delay. For I held this privilege, too, as an exceptional gift: to have the discretion to determine the measure of my stay in the royal palace. And as I returned, that wise chorus again stood waiting before the gates. Among them, some—to whom, because of their excellence in virtue, a greater trust than to the others had been granted—would reproach my tardiness; some were content merely to greet me; others, only to show their waiting for me. And this happened in a cycle, not dissolved by plots, not cut down by envy, nor withered by neglect.
And who, having suffered an uprising C against such a life, could willingly and without wailing endure the change? I fell from all these things, and I lamented over them; for those who were being torn away from them, fountains of tears would open, and a mist of grief would encompass them. For I knew—even before I had experienced it—the manifold turbulence and care of this see; I knew the discontent and the stubbornness of the mixed-up mob, the strife among them, the envy, the factions, the uprisings, the insults against those who were standing by, and the murmuring whenever they
A do not obtain what they need, and whenever they are not shaped and molded in the way they desire; and their disdain and contempt again, when they seize upon a request and drag it down to their own will; for they do not reckon the fulfillment of their desire as a grace given willingly, but as a violent command. But when the mob seizes the power to rule, it becomes ruinous both to itself and to the one who leads. For a ship is easily sunk when the sailors, having pushed aside the helmsman, all steer at once; and an army perishes utterly when each one of them, being without a general, arrogantly usurps the duty of a commander against his neighbor. Why should one go through these things individually? For it is often necessary for one in charge to change the color of his face to sadness, even when his soul is not so disposed; and again, at times, to show a cheerful face while the soul is pained; and to be angry when he is not angry; and to smile while he is anguished. For such is the performance of those who are condemned to take on the headship of the multitude. What, then, was my character before? A friend not burdensome to his friends, and an enemy to no one; such as I was in disposition, so I was in appearance.
But now, there are times when it is necessary to rebuke friends harshly, to disregard kinsmen for the sake of a commandment, and to appear severe to those who sin. Envy is everywhere, and licentiousness, confirmed by long usage. Why must I enumerate the rest of the things I suffer while pursuing Simon? What temptations I endure daily, restraining C the worldly license of speech from the sacred assembly, the contempt for better things, and the diligence for vain things! I foresaw these things, and my soul was gnawed by them; yet it was not in my power to remove them. I fled the vote, I begged to be excused from the ordination, I lamented the leadership. But it was not possible, after all, to flee what was predestined.
But why am I writing these things? I wrote them before, and if they were believed, I suffer injustice in not being shown mercy; but if they were not believed, I am again treated unjustly for writing the truth and not being believed. Thus, unhappy in every way, from those whom I hoped would provide some solace for my grief, from them I am rebuked; from those from whom I expected exhortation and consolation, from them grief is added to my grief. "You ought not," they say, "to have been wronged." Say this to those who inflicted it. "Force ought not to have been used against you." A fine law, indeed; but upon whom should the rebuke fall? Is it not upon those who used force? Who are worthy of mercy? Is it not those who endured the force? But if someone leaves those who inflicted the force alone, but rebukes the one who suffered it—I had hoped to call upon your justice as a judge against him. "But the canons," he says, "were violated, because you ascended to the pinnacle of the high priesthood from the order of laymen." But who violated them? The one who inflicted the force, or the one who was dragged in by force and against his will? "But you should have resisted." Until when? I did resist, and even beyond what was required. But if I had foreseen that the storm of wicked spirits was going to become so much more violent, I would have resisted even unto death. But what are these canons whose violation is asserted, which even to this day the Church of the Constantinopolitans has not received? The violation is said to be of those whose observance has been handed down. But those which have not been handed down,
do not carry the accusation of transgression if they are not observed. A Indeed, what I have already said would have been sufficient, and even more than was necessary. For I was not led to construct a defense of myself; how could I be? I who consider it a labor of prayer to be delivered in every way from this storm, and to be lightened of this burden! That is how much I desire the throne, and that is how strongly I hold onto it. For the throne was not a burden at the beginning, only to become an object of desire as time went on; but just as I entered B unwillingly, so too do I sit unwillingly. That force was applied to me at the beginning is demonstrated by other things, as well as by the fact that from the beginning even until now I have wished to withdraw from this seat. But if things written to me were to be agreeable, they should not have been written in a kind, and otherwise praiseworthy, way: "We accept, we rejoice, and we give thanks to the all-wise God who governs the Church." But this [matter] of those from the order of laymen is not praiseworthy. For this reason, we are still held in uncertainty, having deferred our fullest consent until the return of our apocrisiaries. But if they had to write, they should have said: "We do not assent at all, we do not accept; and we shall never accept the one who rushed [to the office], the one who purchased the leadership, the one not chosen by just votes, the one who is wicked in all things. Depart from the throne, withdraw from the work of pastoring." If he had written this, he would have written things agreeable to me, even if most of it were false. For was it necessary, as it seems, that the one who was injured in his entrance should be injured again at his exit, and that the one who was abruptly pushed in, and [did so] unwillingly, should be repelled even more abruptly and insolently? He who is so affected C and considers these things does not greatly care, nor does he labor to repel slanders, the only power of which is that the throne might be taken from him. Therefore, as I have said, these things would have been sufficient.
But since, on account of us, the holy and blessed Fathers who were before us are in danger of being implicated with us in slander and accusation—such as Nicephorus and Tarasius (for they too advanced from the lay order to the pinnacle of the episcopate, they who were the brightest luminaries of our generation and became outstanding heralds of piety, confirming the truth by life and word)—I thought it necessary to add what remains to my discourse, demonstrating that those blessed men overcome every accusation and surpass every slander. But if others D indeed do not dare to call these men into accusation, yet they do place, as an offense and scandal, the fact that they came to the priesthood from the laity, they censure those whom they do not censure. For these [men] too were brought forth from the laity, whom they conversely hold in honor and admiration, [yet] they do not avoid censuring them. But these men (Tarasius and Nicephorus), shining like stars in the life of the world, and having been chosen for the priestly office, presided over the Church contrary to the rule and the ecclesiastical form. Far be it from me to utter such a voice, or to hear another saying these things; for these were accurate guardians of the canons, champions of piety, accusers of impiety, luminaries in the world according to the divine word, holding the word of life. But if [it is said] that the canons which they did not know
A they did not keep, no one acting justly could blame them; for it was because they were guardians of what they had been entrusted with that they were glorified by God. For it is the mark of a stable mind, and one that rejects a passion for novelty, to preserve what has been given to it; whereas to impose a law for things one has not received, when necessity does not call for it, or to attempt to keep them, is the excess of an innovation-loving and wandering mind. For each person is contained and directed by his own measure and rule. Many canons have been delivered to some, while to others they are not even known. He who has received them and violates them is worthy of judgment; but he who has not even known them, or has not received them, how is he liable? There are also many laws that were kept by those upon whom they were imposed, and they showed themselves to be servants of God by keeping them. Those who did not receive them, and for that reason did not even turn their minds toward them, were nonetheless recognized as beloved of God, and the examples are at hand.
B For, to set aside other examples, there is Abraham, who was circumcised and received circumcision as a legislation from a divine command, and Melchizedek, who was uncircumcised, who in the likeness of the Son of God had the beginning of his origin and his end unknown. Indeed, although God approved of Abraham’s keeping of circumcision, nowhere does He appear to bring a charge of transgression against Melchizedek; nor, if one were to write a record of law-breaking somewhere, would he be able to blame him, rather than the other (for the one who dares this will be proven to have written it). And yet, for those born from Abraham, and who had embraced this law into their bosom, death was the penalty for the one who had transgressed, not only brought upon them by men, but also fiercely threatened by the angels themselves. But in this respect, though Abraham and Melchizedek differed, they preserved for the common Master equal gratitude and piety and a similar manner of worship. From this C, no blame was attached by one to the other; but in the most important matters, their most constant fellowship with one another, and their freedom from the passion for novelties, did not allow any curious scrutiny of the difference in other matters. For there are truly things common to all, which it is necessary for everyone to keep, and before all else those things concerning the faith—where even to turn aside a little is to commit a sin unto death. There are also precepts that follow upon some in particular, the transgression of which brings much suffering to those to whom they must be held; but those who have not received them are in no wise condemned because they have not observed them. And those things which have been established by ecumenical and common votes, it is fitting for all to keep. But as for those things which one of the Fathers individually set forth, or a local synod determined, he who keeps the intention of them does not appear superstitious. To those, however, who have not received them, it is not dangerous to overlook them. D Thus, for some it is ancestral to shave the head, while for others it is cast off even by synodical definition. For it was necessary to say these things with good words, as we have said. And if we had also added the canon in Side, we would have seemed heavy and very burdensome. Thus, except for the one, to keep the other Sabbaths for us...
A is open to censure, whereas for others, more than one is fasted. And tradition thinks it escapes blame by having prevailed through custom over the canon. Furthermore, it is not possible to find in Rome a presbyter joined to a wife by lawful marriage, whereas we have been taught to raise to the rank of presbyter those who have ordered their lives by a single marriage; and those who discriminate against them, and separate themselves so as not to receive the sharing of the Lord’s body from them, we exclude from all sides, considering them the same as those who legislate for fornication or who do away with the law of marriage. Again, if among us anyone, passing over the ordination of presbyter, were to confer that of bishop upon a deacon, he is condemned as having sinned against vital matters. To some, it is considered similar to advance a bishop from a presbyter, or, leaping over the intermediate order from a deacon, to snatch for him the dignity of the episcopate; and yet, how great and how vast is the difference between these things? For there are, for each order and rank, other prayers, other rites, and again other ministries, and other observations of times and probations of characters. But as for that which one has not accepted as legislation, if he puts forward the plea of not having received it in order not to keep it, he will not be called to account; but if anyone among us were convicted of having done this, no one would grant him a drop of pardon. For the violation of lesser laws, unpunished, wears down men by leading to contempt for greater things. To some who have once become monks, the eating of meat—not that they abhor it, but as an exercise—is inaccessible until the end, while for others it is observable for a long time. I have also heard the account of men who honor truth above much, that they were compelled to undergo this rationale, as the one about to oversee the Church of the Alexandrians, because of a certain local mishap that had taken hold in that place, to never abstain from the eating of meat. But as for the habit of a monk, no one among us would ever change it into that of a cleric; some, however, when they wish to raise a monk to the height of the episcopate, by tonsuring him circularly, change his previous habit. Thus, where there is no betrayal of the faith, nor subversion of any common and catholic decree; while customs and laws are kept by some with some; the one who knows how to judge rightly would conclude that neither are the keepers behaving unjustly, nor are those who have not accepted them acting against the law. C
And yet, that which is put forward as an accusation against us, if it be compared with some of the things mentioned, will have the estimation of being right and true: for those other things are held in the place of nefarious and execrable acts, whereas this is matter for praise and is thought to be most beautiful; it is proclaimed to this day that it has been done and is being done with free voice, opinion, and countenances. For how would someone not be exalted with the highest praises, for the fact that, not yet D possessed of the name of bishop, he should enjoy it while he lives? Thus the crafty man demonstrates that he does not at all care for that which he desires most.
Eustachio to the sacred synod gathered at Side in Pamphylia. For Side is the metropolis of Pamphylia, or (which is no less likely) he prays from it that Ignatius might not be restored, but only be…
A permitted to follow the order of the priesthood, has he so regulated his own life that, even by those who have been allotted the priesthood and by the entire remaining body of the faithful, he is preferred to others for the pontificate? Certain things, however, are not praised even by those who commit them (as far as I know) because they are done, perhaps due to their extreme absurdity or—I know not what to call it—because those who commit them prefer the denial of the truth to the truth itself. For who among those counted as Christians, even if he were to succumb to these things a thousand times, would not abjure the keeping of the Sabbath? Who would abjure legitimate marriage, unless he were to set the judgment of impious and godless men above the Creator, and above that hypostasis which through His goodness has come into being from Him? And who would not be ashamed to confess that he plots contempt against the Lord's, the Fathers', and the synodal decrees (not to mention them one by one)? B Yet, that one who has taken up a holy way of life from the laity should be promoted to the pontificate—this has been shown to be very consistent with the divine Fathers, proven not by words but by the deeds themselves, to the great gain of the bride of Christ, the Church, at various times.
Look also, if you wish, at the varieties of ministries: in prayers, in invocations, in order and sequence, in the length or brevity of time, in multitude and paucity. And yet, in these (O miracle!), the common bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the common wine becomes His blood, who poured it out with water from His own side for our redemption. The difference and variety of these things have not hindered the reception of the uniform and deifying grace of the Spirit—powerfully and unchangeably—by those for whom these rites are performed. C Furthermore, we among ourselves and in our canons count up to three witnesses: if they are otherwise free of vice, they are sufficient to establish the truth, even if they are caught up in an accusation against a bishop. Among others, however, if the number of witnesses does not exceed seventy—a veritable crowd—the one accused, even if he has been caught in the very act, is acquitted and cleared of every crime. I believe what has been said is sufficient for fair-minded men who prefer to understand rather than to be refuted.
For what can the shape of the hair and the passage of time contribute to the undertaking of the priesthood? The character of a man demonstrates him to be worthy even before the form of the priesthood, even if no one imposes a hand upon him, even if he has not yet learned the prayers. Many, indeed, whom virtuous character avoids, remain venerable in habit; for the cutting of the hair is a sign of a life pure from dead works. He who is such, even if the trumpet of the sign has not yet sounded, by a life that proclaims itself pure, is in no way inferior in virtue to one who wears the sign. D And we say these things not to commend ourselves. Far be it! For we are just as far from the character as we are from the habit, and I am so far from saying these things about myself that, in truth, if anyone wishes to attack us with laughter and mockery, they can more easily do so from…
A the ways worthy of the priesthood than from the habit. These things, then, are written not for our sake, but for those whom we mentioned before. For I am afraid not to defend the Fathers who are ill-spoken of. Why, indeed, what is the difference between keeping silent when one is present to defend, and starting a comedy? Nature herself shrinks from the charge of parricide. Therefore, Tarasius and Nicephorus are not to be blamed, as they showed their lives to be worthy of the throne even before they took the habit. Nor should Ambrose be spoken of ill, and it will put us to shame—I know well—even the Latins, if there is no other, for Ambrose is the glory of Latinity and has written much in the Latin tongue that is most useful. Nor, indeed, will Nectarius fall under censure, for he had an ecumenical synod confirming the dignity of his bishopric; and whoever tries to defame him summons not him, but rather the synod itself to judgment, although both of them ascended to the perfection of the high priesthood not only from the laity, but while they were still among the uninitiated, they were accounted worthy of the gift of baptism and the high-priestly grace at the same time. If no one would dare—even if he were utterly audacious—to summon either of these to account, nor our great-uncle Tarasius, nor Nicephorus, the worthy successor of him both in lineage, in the throne, and in character. But I leave aside for the present Gregory, the father of the Theologian, and Thalassius of Caesarea, and the choir of the B other high priests, who, having received the oversight of the Churches in a similar order and rite, were free from all blame and calumny.
And these things, for which it was fitting to speak, have been said. Yet concerning us, one thing has been said and will be said: that we were brought here against our will, and up to this point we are held and remain. But showing that we obey your paternal charity, and clearly demonstrating that these things were not said for the sake of contention, but for the purging of our blessed Fathers, we have agreed that it should be synodically published that those who are created from among the laity or monks should no longer be raised suddenly to the height of the bishopric, unless they proceed through the successive priestly degrees. For where the disease of scandal grows against the brethren, if it does not greatly harm to heal it—since we have been taught to be scandalized even if you let them be—whenever some are willingly blinded by envy, we are ready to remove the occasion for scandal and to provide the healing of the infirmity most easily by taking away the thing that caused the turmoil. Therefore, for us to accept the counsel regarding past events and to demand that the canon which is among you should hold sway, would be to measure out insult against the Fathers and to demand punishment from those who have done nothing wrong. But to yield and leave it to the judgment of the many for those who will become bishops in the future brings no insult to the Fathers, nor does it impose unjust punishment, nor even any damage to anyone. For it is necessary to guard what has been established, and it is right and holy for children to obey their fathers. C D
A For this reason, the one we did not accept, but rejected, and advised others to reject, and will continue to advise them. The other, however, we have adopted and enacted synodically; and would that the Church of Constantinople had long ago observed this rule. For thus perhaps I might have escaped the intolerable violence and the throng of troubles that flow into me and weigh me down. But for others, indeed, the rule has been written for their salvation and freedom from care, but for me, what means of release from the overflow of successive toils and labors will be found? To stabilize the unstable, to teach the ignorant, to instruct the unlearned, and to attempt by reason and word to engage those who are turned back only with lashes; to draw forth the bold, to make men of the slothful, to persuade the avaricious to despise money and to love the poor; to restrain the ambitious, and thus to accustom them to seek that honor which renders the soul more honorable and more divine; B to pull down the proud and urge them to modesty and to thinking moderately of themselves; to repress the impure and the wanton and the fornicators, and to form them into temperance; to prohibit injuries and lead men to act justly; to soothe and soften the irascible, to console the faint-hearted; and why detail each thing in particular? To strive to free—even against their will—those held captive by the habitual passions and the wickedness and iniquity which both enslave souls and defile bodies, and to offer them to Christ as true servants. And by what reason could anyone upon whom the care of so many and such great things has been imposed, seek the removal of this office rather than its stewardship? C Again, the impious are all around: some spitting upon the image of Christ and in it reviling Christ Himself; others confounding the natures in Him, or denying them, and others, by the introduction of a new nature, banishing the earlier ones and assailing the Fourth Synod with countless blasphemies, against whom the war stirred up for us and waged for a long time has captivated many into the obedience of Christ. And who will give to me to see all of them captivated? The foxes again are coming out of their dens and, by fraud, are devouring those who are simpler and more easily misled than the many, just like little birds; I speak of the schismatic foxes, whose malice is hidden, much more dangerous than those who lie in wait openly. For, as they enter into houses, according to the divine Apostle, they deceive D silly women laden with sins, counting it to be a profit for their own gluttony and vainglory and all other kind of pleasure and impure lust, crafting an insurrection against the holy Church. For the character of the crowd is, for the most part, accustomed, because of the weakness and instability of their mind, to be more eager for novelties and new factions than to rely upon good institutions. And though the flame of the audacity and insult of all these may have been extinguished (5), by a synodical decree...
A and the judgment of your most venerable representatives confirming it against them, yet the smoke still bites and vexes those who desire to preside over the flock in a mediocre way, and who consider it a great harm to those being shepherded—I mean their being corrected. Perhaps, by these canons being established, by which the integral Church of the Romans has been preserved, the madness of the schismatics has not been divided, the smoke and darkness will be dissipated, and it will provide us with a refreshment from our despondency. For it is not only the aforementioned canon that deserves to be kept according to your exhortation, but indeed all—even those to which your representatives consented; these have been handed down, and their strength B and the great peace they bring to the Church, and the due honor and glory they will give to those who have long since received them, and now impart them. Nor was it fixed by your beatific fatherhood that these should be sanctioned and leave nothing wanting, unless some imperial resistance had intervened, preventing what our own power would have otherwise fulfilled. Therefore, since I judged it of advantage, together with your venerable representatives, not to seek to lose the whole in desiring the rest, while obtaining many things, we have endured for the moment the loss of the rest. For it is best that of those things which one desires, nothing should be lost; but it is not the act of a sound mind to be overly curious about those things which are not granted, in addition to those that are, and by contending for them, to deprive oneself of all. Therefore, concerning those things C about which a unanimous opinion has been reached, we have set them forth synodically, and we have subjoined them in the letter to those things which had been previously explained by us.
Regarding those, however, who for a long time have received their ordinations from elsewhere, D your venerable representatives have communicated with us, that it is proper for them to return and run back to their own mother-church, which was theirs from the first. But if something which we desired had been in our power, and the business had not been divided by the authority of the Empire, there would be no need for an apology; the fact itself would have been shown to be superior to any defense. But since ecclesiastical matters, and especially those concerning parish rights, are accustomed to being governed along with political and administrative powers, your holiness's kindness in approving our desire to concur in this, and your not taking this as a matter of civil right, but rather as one of dear peace, is worthy of a tranquil spirit. For I do not—as was the case D of old under others—after I have been put in charge, not only seek not to add to the burden of those who were previously attached to this throne, if one wishes to exercise authority, but I am even prepared to provide more for those who are able to be supported by more. For if one who does not possess something adds it to another, he is the one increasing the burden; but he who, while wishing to receive a little, is granted love, is rather giving me grace, and receiving gain himself, rather than being dragged into evil. Wherefore, it is necessary that your most beloved beatitude, having a care for ecclesiastical good order in all things, and holding fast to canonical rectitude, should not lightly receive those who depart from here to the Church of the Romans without commendatory letters, nor allow, under the guise of hospitality, for the seeds of hatred toward brothers to be sown. For that those who wish to do so should go daily to your paternal holiness, and enjoy your precious footsteps, is entirely dear to me and to be valued above many other things; but for them to make disorderly peregrinations without our knowledge and without commendatory letters is acceptable neither to us, nor to the canons, nor indeed to your impartial judgment. For we omit other things which follow when those who depart do not make their journeys according to the canon—the battles, the seditions, the strifes, the contentions, the calumnies, the deceits, the insurrections. But I will tell of what is currently seen and done; for when some, having polluted and soiled their lives here through a path-wrought laziness, and being expectant of having to pay the reckoning for their offenses, become fugitives with a solemn title, putting the name of prayer upon their flight and covering up a shameful act with a virtuous designation—of whom some have broken up others' marriages, some have been caught in thefts, or have been addicted to drunkenness, or enslaved to licentiousness; while others have been found to be the perpetrators of violence against those of lower station, and others have been gripped by other passions of impurity—when these perceive that the judgment against them is being let loose, as we said, they throw everything into confusion and stir it up, putting off the punishments for their shameful and daring deeds by flight, neither being disciplined by corrections, nor healed by punishments, nor rising up from their fall, but continuing to be ruinous both to themselves and to others. From which, to whoever wishes to wallow in passions, the wide door of destruction is opened; for they have an escape from judgment in the journey to Rome under the pretext of prayer. May your passion-killing and grace-filled head, considering their craftily-devised machinations, show their deceit and their craftily-weaving intention to be useless and ineffective to them, carefully causing them to return back to that place from which they poorly and disorderly fled. For thus would the salvation of those very persons be managed, and a common care be governed for the benefit of both soul and body.
LETTER IV. To Bardas, Magister, Patrician and Curopalates.
To add pain to the pain of my wounds was perhaps worthy of my misery, but...A to lighten the load makes it easier. If he who receives my requests with love and adds his own grace in return to one who seeks what is his own right, how could one not give gladly when there is nothing standing in the way, especially to so great a Father, and one who made the request through such God-beloved and earnest men? For the representatives of your paternal perfection are, in truth, men excelling in prudence, virtue, and great experience; and no less so in their own conduct than the disciples of Christ who honor Him who sent them. To these we have entrusted many things that ought to have been spoken and written, being thoroughly persuaded that they are more worthy of trust than any others.
And I had indeed wished to write nothing at all about our own affairs, especially since your paternal holiness had decided to be informed not by letters, but by your own representatives. B Yet, lest the desire to write nothing at all from the start be thought a cause of neglect, for this reason we have set forth our circumstances in summary, though there are many things left out that would require much leisure. But since the God-fearing representatives have been eyewitnesses and hearers of most things, they might be able to explain everything clearly, if your most noble prudence wishes to inquire.
That which ought to be said—and which almost escaped me—this too I shall add and bring the discourse to an end, fearing the length of this letter. The guardianship of the true canons is owed by every pious man, but much more indeed to those who have been deemed worthy by the providence of God to direct others; C and of these, even more so to those who have been allotted the primacy among them. For by as much as they excel, by so much the more are they bound to be guardians of the law. For the offense of those who are set on high is more quickly proclaimed to all, and from there it will be necessary for others to be led back to virtue or to be drawn into vices and ruined. Wherefore your lovable beatitude ought to…
to those who leave behind someone half-dead and half-cut, or those who finish him off. For each of them effectively destroys him, but the one does not draw out the sensation of pain, while the other, considering it a loss if he sends the person away with mere death, might make the death manifold for him by the bitterness of the torments of the punishment. It is possible to see our own situation thus. We are punished every day, and we are struck, and at present we have become half-cut; and it seems that because we asked to put off the whole, for that reason we have been stripped of the half; and if we had searched for the division of the authority, we would have been heard for the whole. But it is neither possible for the half-cut to live, nor for us to remain here, having been so divided; it is a shame and a reproach, not indeed to those who have lived before us, but to those who will come after us, if indeed there should be any at all who are more wretched than we, who after us will undergo this yoke for our sake. We depart from the place; let envy cease. If not, we cause grief to some, or rather, if not, we are even accused for this. And shaking off the dust, B we abandon the throne; let them abandon the deceit against us, the surveillances, the snares, the machinations. O justice, and laws, and judgments of God! Because we do not trample upon you, we do injustice; and because we love, we are not loved; and because we stand on your behalf, we are divided; and speeches are concocted, and he who devises something newer against us, this man is thought prudent and energetic; but he who sympathizes is brought forward as an enemy and a transgressor of laws, even if he were a brother, and possesses a nature moving him toward mercy. How could anyone easily endure that we have as judges of our life those who were formerly our praisers, and who would have confessed gratitude if they had not been condemned by us; that we are separated from friends, that we are torn away from brothers; who will be able to sustain C these things? But someone will say that one must not be despondent. He brings into the midst the sufferings of Christ, and Christ Himself, and the martyrs for Him; if one should show me the traitor, and the guard, and the tyrants, this person will bestow great cheerfulness; but as long as these do not appear, he who fashions the likeness by speech provides a weak consolation. If, therefore, our statue still needs more scraping and smelting-pots for purification, let it be scraped, and melted, and smelted. Christ providing patience, and measuring the test according to the weakness of nature. But if the excess of the punishments D anticipates and consumes our strength (for it is not mine to say whether it is purified), may the Fashioner release the work of His hands from the torment, and let no one be seen on our account as a traitor, nor a guard, nor a tyrant; but may all be elect of God and worthy of the glory above.
A with your sympathy and that disposition with which you ought to be animated toward me. But if anyone should persuade himself that these things befall us against your will—he, seeing that we suffer these things while you possess the power and authority to strike them down, would not be dissuaded from his opinion. We have been deceived, outraged, disgraced, slandered, and plotted against; yet we have not received blows, say they: nay, but we have received them, and what is more grievous, not on the body—for that would strike the eyes of all, and convict the assailant, and introduce much consolation in the sympathy of those who see and pity; but we have received blows upon the soul itself, through which the body is also tormented by disease; and he who strikes, as if doing no injury, is not ashamed; and he who is struck receives an addition to his punishment, in the pain of the blows, and the lack of compassion that comes from being unseen. For such a species of punishment escapes the notice of the majority, which even renders the one who punishes more cheerful and impenitent, and consumes the one who is punished all the more, even if it provides a greater reward B of requital.
But these things we endured beforehand for the sake of Christ and the divine laws; and thanks be to God, who, while we are distressed that our hardships are hidden, and that we suffer thus ingloriously, has accumulated a greater reward. I knew well, from the moment the contest began, that I would suffer these things; I expected them even before the suffering and the contest (if I am not saying what is true, may I suffer at their hands things worse than what I have suffered—but I did expect, as I said, what I have suffered, yet I am grieved at suffering from such men). For my end has been determined by God; and I receive with joy whatever cup is offered to me. Nor do I grow angry on account of the things I suffer; nay, I even desire those things which I must still suffer, however much I am unable to bear them without a sense of pain; for human nature is not fashioned to suffer without feeling pain. And regarding those who have attacked me, or those who still attack me, I must think and reason thus: I prayed to find you as avengers of those who act unjustly, but not as the originators of the injustices. But it is not possible for me to flee what I must suffer, nor to change the prayer of others or the mind of others.
And thus much we have suffered before; but D as if the evil were not sufficient, another mode of injury is devised to afflict me, so that on my account others also are afflicted. The clergy are strangled by famine, and those who are subject to me, particularly the more illustrious among them, to the end that when they speak and remember that they are burdened by this calamity on my account, they may finally cast reproaches and curses upon my own head. I pass over mentioning that my own portion is served out by measure, and that I am deprived of half of my jurisdiction. Certainly, a brilliant scheme has been devised by those who take them away, who have thus stirred up an artificial persecution against me. But if they have perpetrated these things in order to fulfill my desire (that is, that I might be freed from this yoke and burden) (however it may seem to them that they are playing with me in these matters), I shall certainly be grateful for what has been taken away: and it is grievous to me that anything remains, which I cannot escape; who can neither choose the rest...
A nor live in the remaining part, it being impossible to live as a half, yet impossible to remain here; so that being thus divided, I am an object of shame and reproach to those who have come before me, and even to those of my own time, if indeed any of us are more wretched than the rest; who, after us, will take up this yoke in our stead. B Out with envy! If not, then let us not be troubled by some, or if we must be, let us at least write of it. And casting off the evil, let us lay aside the throne; let those who weave against us plots, snares, and stratagems, lay them aside. O justice, and laws, and the judgments of God! For since we do not entreat you, we are treated unjustly; and since we struggle, we do not love; whereas we stand before you, we are divided and accused of crafting words C and new inventions against us. This man, then, is prudent and active; the man who is slandered is brought forward as an enemy and a transgressor of the laws, while the brother is one who has a nature that draws us to mercy. What is easier than to bring a charge? We have judges of our life; let those who formerly praised it, and for whom I confessed-if it were not that we were condemned by them-that we were being torn from our friends, that we were being snatched from our brethren, D who will bear the burden of these things? How, I pray, can one tolerate that those who are supposed to be laudable, and who could have been shown to act with us, would not be condemned by our judgment; and that we are torn from friends and removed from our own kin? Who is there that can endure any of these things?
But someone will say: one should not be dejected. If I set the sufferings of Christ, and Christ himself in the midst, and the martyrs who suffered for Him, he will show me the traitor, and he will grant much consolation to satisfy me. But until these appear, he offers consolation by word, being weak. If my manhood needs more cleansing
Letter 5
in a furnace and crucible, let it be scraped and melted and cleansed, if the Lord grants patience; and in the weakness of nature, let the trial be measured. But if the excess of the punishments goes beyond our strength (for it is not for me to say "it is purified"), let the Potter crush His own clay with the trial, and let no one among us be seen as a traitor, or a guard, or a tyrant; but may all be the elect of God and worthy of the glory above.Epist. VII. To Bardas Caesar.
We are aggrieved at being insulted; but we grieve that we have those who insult you as persons by whom we had hopes of protection, and [by whom] others, perhaps, were restrained, and—most heavily of all—that though we suffer unjustly, we are accused of acting unjustly, and are written of as weaving deceits by those by whom we ourselves suffer many things daily. Thanks, therefore, be to the Savior God for all things. And if we did not know the present life to be a den of pirates, we would have greatly lamented what has occurred. Do you, if you do not wish to call to mind any other of the ancient examples, at least bestir yourself to look upon the house of Herod and the ways of Antipater. How the one, through many devices, surrounded the man, though he was indeed shrewd, [and turned him] against his own dearest ones; and the other, though he was surrounded by all outward goods and deemed most fortunate, became most unfortunate and miserable; because, having opened his ears to envy and calumny, he showed his house shorn of kin and friends and offspring alike. If, therefore, we too have been reckoned by you in the rank of friends and relatives, beware, lest by presenting yourself as tractable to slanderers, you leave your own house destitute of friends and kinsmen. But if there is an eye of justice in these matters, do not think that it will sleep forever. Know that we are prepared, not now for the first time but of old, to suffer even the ultimate injustices, being nourished by divine commands; and we will know how to return thanks if someone should prepare for us a more direct path to the life hereafter.A
EPISTLE V. To the same, a plea for Christodulus, an imperial secretary [a secretis], who was in danger.
However troublesome I may seem, and measurelessly and fruitlessly merciful, I shall not refuse to do what I can, even if I perhaps provoke a harsh response and labor in vain. For what makes me think this is the fact that I have frequently been cast down from my hope; yet, as far as I have been able, I shall pay what is owed. A certain poor man, while joking, did what is his custom; he joked, though not with those whom he ought, nor in the manner he ought, acting like a comedian. Drunkenness was his leader, a state by which men are often caught and stumble into sin. He has paid the penalty for his unbridled tongue, suffering a bitter punishment, being severely beaten about the body and mutilated. Let the punishment stop there. The temple of God is holy, and inviolable by any Christian; to this he has fled. The priest of the temple intercedes for him, as does the slightness of the fault; and if you will still bear with that word: "Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you," and, "With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again."
EPISTLE VI. To Bardas, Magister, Patrician, and Curopalates, concerning the cleric Blasius, who was in danger.
I indeed knew, even before testing it, that I was unworthy of the archiepiscopal rank and dignity, and of any pastoral office whatsoever; and for this reason, while being led and hauled along, I resisted these things. I wish that death had snatched me away before I was seized by that violent—or rather, intolerable—election! C For not otherwise would the waves of so many and such great evils have daily washed over my soul, the hope and expectation of which—for the nature of men is especially gifted at foreseeing future difficulties, especially when the matter concerns one’s own self—at that time agitated and confounded me. Being tossed and bitterly vexed by these, I wept, I begged, and I did everything rather than agree to those who were voting for and compelling me, interceding that that cup of many and manifold cares and temptations might pass from me. But now the actual events teach me, and they sufficiently reprove my unworthiness; no longer does the fear of expectation torment me, but rather the pain of a lethal wound received, and sobs, sighs, and despair have taken hold of me. D When I look upon all the priests, one by one, treated cruelly with blows and chains, and even having their tongues cut out because of a single fault (forgive our sins, I beseech you, O Lord), why should I not call those who have died happier than myself? Why should I not consider this burden laid upon me as a reproof for my own sins? A needy man, without a patron, and not even endowed with a sound mind (qualities that elicit mercy rather than indignation) has suffered so many evils all at once; he was sold, beaten, and imprisoned.
Finally he was committed to confinement, and since he received no solace, his tongue was cut out; and what is even more unworthy, since he was a priest, I—who interceded for him most often, who poured forth prayers most often, and for whom I accepted only empty words in the sense of a wasted effort, which those who saw it understood well. For I who have been forgetful of these, may I not be forgetful of the divine Being. Since, with matters lying clear and before my eyes, I am not dejected but exposed to ridicule, since the hope [that was left] for me has been dashed by uncertainties; how, I ask, shall I intercede for transgressions and for you and for the people, and purge them, when I who interceded for one have been so deceived, so disregarded? A These things I have written, bedewed with tears, for you, oh you who must receive this, the first and the last of my letters. For I declare before the Lord, that if such is your goal, that you should send away those who are deceived and despised by you, when we offer such reasonable admonitions, so that—when I could—the wretch found no consolation and no refreshment, but rather, consulting my own affairs, I mourn my own lot and fall silent. For if, after the daily trials that are stirred up against me from without, I simultaneously waste my wretched soul, I should be the most miserable of all men. B
EPIS. VII. TO BARDAS CAESAR.
(Ed. Montacute, loc. cit. p. 71.)
We are affected by insults, yet we grieve that you know those who thus insult us; for there was hope that, should anyone else attack, you yourself would intercede as a patron. But it is even more grievous that, when we suffer unjustly, we are nonetheless accused of inflicting injury; we are accused of weaving deceits, and they—the very ones who write such things—are the ones who daily seek us out with deceits. C For all things, we give thanks to God our Savior. But if we did not know that this present life is a life of trial, we would be extremely grieved by those things which are happening to us. You, however, if you are not willing to recall to mind any other of the ancient examples, at least stir yourself to reflect on the house of Herod, and the ways of Antipater: how Antipater, though a man of many schemes and—so to speak—of shrewdness, against his dearest friends, was nevertheless surrounded by the machinations of strangers, and, though believed to be the most fortunate, he turned out to be the most wretched and miserable; he had ears for everyone, and showed himself to have a house deserted by both kin and friends, and even abandoned by his own offspring. D If, therefore, you have counted yourself among friends and acquaintances, see, I beg you, that you do not allow yourself to be led astray by slanderers, and cause your house to be emptied of friends and acquaintances. But if there is an eye of justice, do not think that it will sleep forever. As for us, we are prepared to suffer unjustly and even at the uttermost, as we have been, not just now, but for a long time since, trained in the divine commandments; know that we are grateful, if anyone has prepared for us a shorter path to the life hereafter.
LETTER VIII.
A Photii, most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, from his epistle to Michael, Prince of Bulgaria, on the office of a prince.1. Other gifts, most illustrious and beloved son, convey to those upon whom they are bestowed benefits that are clearly small and temporal. But whatever are of such a natural condition that they render our soul better, purging it of error and wicked passions, while illuminating it with the radiance and splendor of the virtues and of truth itself—these truly are to be called the most genuine gifts; for they bestow upon the mind, a divine and immortal thing, great and never-dying emoluments, and they procure for the soul that inviolable and heavenly wealth, of which the most precious gift, and the one that takes precedence over all others in regard to the Divine, is the unerring and saving guidance. This is what first and alone is bestowed by the pure and blameless faith of us Christians, the initiation and induction into the mysteries.
2. For this truly, having delivered man from multiform error B and having altogether dispelled its darkness, provides him the capacity to gaze with fixed eyes upon the beauty of Divine worship; through which, being led upward toward the substance that transcends the intellect, and the cause and maker of all things, we behold, as far as is possible for man, the singular and super-essential divinity of the Trinity. Therefore, of such a grace and gift, your prudent... C D
A mind—since we are persuaded you love virtue and piety—being worthy and capable, we deem you deserving of this gift, which we present to you as something magnificent. To this our faith, which is undefiled and pure, we have added that divine and God-taught discipline, having fortified this heavenly and orthodox doctrine by the seven holy and ecumenical synods, as if by a certain rampart and enclosure, which we have appended here in clear and brief discourse to be known at once. Nor, meanwhile, shall we pass over in silence those things that pertain to the right ordering of life and which bear witness to the rectitude of the faith. For just as to desire to speak of all things in every detail from the beginning is absurd, so too is it base and shameful to say nothing at all.
3. Yet virtues must be rooted in faith, B and through both the diligent man is perfected. For indeed, the uprightness of dogmas proposes the decorum of conduct, and the purity of actions declares the divinity of faith; each of which, without the other, is accustomed to easily slip away and be dragged off, not enduring to dwell alone in the souls of men. But of these things, we shall speak later. For the present, we set before you the sacred and divinely-inspired teaching of our holy religion.
4. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, C consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made: who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens; and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets. In one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; I await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.
5. Having such thoughts and belief, therefore, according to the tradition of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God, O noble adornment of my D labors...
accept and embrace the seven holy and ecumenical synods, A part as instructors of piety, part as its defenders. For through them every innovation and every heresy is driven away, and the uncorrupted and tradition-bound mind of Orthodoxy is established in the souls of the pious with unwavering reverence. I set out to narrate these synods, intending to describe the place, the number, the multitude, and the presidents of each, along with their acts, so that things may be better understood.
6. Therefore, the first and ecumenical holy synod was convened in Nicaea, in Bithynia; three hundred and eighteen priests of God, an assembly of divine high priests, gathered there to pass judgment on the truth. The leaders of this assembly were Alexander, who had been chosen to administer the archiepiscopal throne of Constantinople (he was a man venerable for his deep white hair, and for his prudence commensurate with it; a man who possessed great confidence before God due to the splendor of his life, the holiness of his soul, and the accuracy B of his profession of faith); but moreover, Silvester and Julius, the distinguished and renowned prelates of the Roman Church, were also present, though neither of them was there in person. But each of them, in his turn, during the time of his pontificate, ordered Vitus and Vincentius to be present at that common assembly, men endowed with virtue who had ascended to the dignity of the presbyterate. With them was also joined the bishop of Corduba (Hosius), who by the persecutions of the pagans had shown the truth of the name imposed upon him. For Hosius (i.e., 'holy') being so named, he had preserved his profession pure and holy from idolatrous worship.
7. Alexander of Alexandria was also present, a man exceptional for his holy and noble deeds. He brought with him as his fellow-combatant Athanasius, who at that time led the order of the deacons; but before long, [he was to become the successor to the archiepiscopal throne. Indeed, the famous Eustathius also was there...]
the singular ornament of the Church of Antioch, who was celebrated for the purity of his faith and admired by all for the chastity of his prayers and judgment. With them was also present Macarius of Jerusalem, well-formed in many kinds of virtues. But there were many others besides these, conspicuous for apostolic gifts and the sufferings of martyrs, among whom were numbered Paphnutius and Spyridion, James and Maximus, who were recognized as the excellent and admirable leaders and heads of that outstanding and wonderful assembly. In addition to all these, that great and most admirable Constantine, who then swayed the scepters of the Roman Empire, was present, and by his own presence he caused it to be more honored.
8. And so, since that sacred synod was gathered from such and so many great men, it demanded penalties of heretical pravity from a certain Arius, who was given to innovating, and it strengthened the apostolic and divine proclamation. B Now that wretched and accursed man, Arius, was Alexandrian by birth. Having been chosen for the clergy of that Church and having ascended to the rank of presbyter, he first began to manifest an arrogant disposition against his own pastor, that he might thenceforth extend his pride and insanity against the common pastor and Lord. For he was degrading the Son and Word of God (O that such a tongue and mind dared this!) down to the status and condition of creatures and produced things. He was not even willing to perceive that which, however, all men understand of themselves and commonly set forth in confession, namely that every son is of the same essence and nature as his parent; and he who places a son among creatures thereby also makes the father, and indeed prior to him, a creature; just as he who understands the Father to be endowed with the essence of the Creator and an eternal nature, would at the same time and by the same logic acknowledge the Son to be of the same nature. For where would the truth of sonship (if I may speak so) exist, if the father is of one essence, but the son is said to be of another? How, moreover, will the polytheism of the pagan error not emerge, if the Divinity is divided into a greater and a lesser essence, C and is split into a first, creator, and senior God, and then differentiated into a second, subordinate, and junior God? For these are the offspring of that wicked seed of Arius.
But that holy assembly stripped that man, as one having armed blasphemous lips against his Creator, of his priesthood; and his most impious and God-fighting heresy they subjected to anathema. And they clearly and solemnly proclaimed the Son and Word of God to be consubstantial, of the same nature, and coeternal with the Father who begot Him, and possessed of the same authority and lordship, as the divine oracles and the common dogmas of the D godly-minded testify. They knew well that just as it is Judaic and hateful to Christ to confine the Trinity’s monarchy and lordship into one person, so too is it Hellenic and polytheistic to cut the transcendent, supernatural, and unified Godhead into unequal natures and dissimilar essences. But these were the actions of the first holy and ecumenical Synod.
9. Furthermore, the second holy ecumenical Synod rendered the queen of cities A a holy school of sacred deliberations, as it were a museum. For there gathered one hundred and fifty holy men. Among them the leaders were Timothy, who guided the archiepiscopal see of Alexandria; the admirable Meletius of Antioch; and Cyril, who administered the churches of Jerusalem. Indeed, Nectarius was there, who not long before had been separated from the flock of the catechumens, and having washed away the impurities of his life in the divine bath, already pure, was invested with the most pure dignity of the episcopacy by the common vote of the Synod and the laying on of hands of the chief prelates; and at once he was named both bishop of the royal city and president of the Synod. Present also with them were Gregory, the bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, and he who had the name of Theologian from his works. With these, Damasus, the Roman bishop, was known to concur, since while he was B confirming the acts of that Synod, he held the same opinion as they.
10. Furthermore, this most sacred choir rightly judged that a certain Macedonius, who had formerly seized the throne of Constantinople by force, deserved to pay the penalty because he had blasphemed against the most holy and life-giving Spirit. For just as Arius had advanced into battle armed against the Son, so did he against the Holy Spirit, seeking to reduce His supreme dominion and excellent principate to a servile and submissive condition. Although it was easy, had that wretched and wicked man wished to attend to it, to perceive that, just as those who combine the Son into the order of creatures C nevertheless heap insult upon the Father, so too those who count His most holy Spirit among creatures are in a completely similar and equal manner blasphemers against Him. For if the Spirit is a creature, certainly He also is a creature, whose Spirit He is. But if our ears cannot bear the excess of this impiety, how did the wretch not understand that he must in every way avoid that from which it is necessary to fall into such god-opposing reasoning? You deny that the Spirit is God; D how then does He search the depths of God, being hidden from Him? How is there another besides...
Paraclete? How has it come about that He is joined with the Father and the Son? “For go,” says the Son Himself, “into the whole world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” But if one of these three—in whom we are enlightened—were a creature, the others would not be free from this injury and insult. But if He is a creature, how does He create? How does He sanctify, or give life? How does He distribute gifts? How is He God? The delirious man did not consider any of these things in his soul, but being an importunate man, he insolently dared to divide the Spirit from the monarchical, unique, and undivided Godhead. Therefore, he received the reward worthy of his impious schemes. For he was punished by being deprived of the priesthood, and along with him, all those who were jealous of the incurable nature of his battle against God. And just as he dared to assert that the all-holy Spirit was alien to the one Triadic Godhead and Dominion, so the holy and universal synod declared him, as a second Arius, alien to the priesthood and the company and lot of the faithful. B Moreover, they proclaimed by public decree that the all-holy and life-originating Spirit, as being of the same nature and consubstantial, equal in might and all-powerful, is to be worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, according to the patristic and theological voices; and they completely rooted out whatever tares of the Arian seed were still sprouting. At that time, the reins of the empire were being held by that great (and worthy of great praise) Theodosius, who was also known as a champion of piety. But so much for this holy synod.
11. The holy and universal third synod was assembled in Ephesus in Asia; it was completed to the number of two hundred. Among them were recognized as leaders: Cyril, most renowned among the Fathers, who, because of his virtue and the wealth of his wisdom, was governing the throne of that great city of Alexandria, and performing the duties and representing the person of Celestine, Bishop of the City of Rome. With them was Memnon, who had been entrusted with the helm of the Ephesian Church, and indeed also Juvenal of Jerusalem. D These, together with the whole assembly of the rest of the synod, exacted penalties from the impious Nestorius for the things in which he was impious. He, originating from Antioch, which is situated on the river Orontes, and having set out from there, had ascended the throne of Constantinople not at all legitimately. But this wretch, from the muddy springs of the impieties of Diodorus and Theodore,
A and having fallen into a drunkenness of the mind, spewed forth into many ears utterances offensive and bizarre, to the ruin of the flock. For Christ, the one Son of God, our true God, who for our sake and for our salvation shared in flesh and B blood and, having taken to Himself our own lump, became one out of two opposites, being the same God and man; one Christ, one Son, the same from above from the Father without a mother, and below from a mother without a father: the same and not another; one person, one hypostasis. As for this one, our Lord Jesus Christ, that most wretched man, without a shudder, dared to cut and divide into two C hypostases, fashioning the simple man, apart from the Word that assumed him, as subsisting in his own proper hypostasis, and separately from the Word, God, as stripped of all corporeality: fearing perhaps, in his folly, that God might suffer something while, out of ineffable love for mankind, He humbled Himself to experience His own creature in order to restore and heal it. Nor did he discern that in the very act of separating human nature from the hypostasis of the Word, he was declaring it to be utterly incurable and unhealable, and was effectively becoming a denier of his own salvation. But further, as if reason had been completely driven out of him by these perverse opinions of his, not even his mother according to the flesh, the all-holy Virgin, who truly and in a unique way gave birth to the incarnate God the Word, did he suffer to be called Theotokos; but just as he had deprived the Son of His divinity, so too did he make his parent a stranger to the title of Theotokos.
12. D For which reason, this gathering of the blessed Fathers, as was fitting for such insanity and blasphemous language, stripped him of all priesthood, and together with his own detestable opinion, consigned him to eternal anathema. As for our Lord Jesus Christ, they decreed—in accordance with the ancestral and holy tradition—that He be preached and worshipped in one and the same hypostasis; and consistently, they also handed down that His all-immaculate and ever-virgin Mother be properly and truly called and proclaimed Theotokos. For she who gave birth to the God the Word, who deigned to be born in the flesh, is justly glorified and called Theotokos. And with these matters thus determined, this synod also came to its end, at the time when the Roman state [received] the new Theodosius with calm
eyes, governing the kingdom received from his Father, the third in his line.
B 13. The holy and ecumenical fourth synod looked upon the most religious emperor Marcian, who was present and moved in harmony with it, and it consecrated Chalcedon, a renowned city of Bithynia, as an auditorium for the true dogmas. The number of those gathered extended to six hundred and thirty. Among these, those who stood out were Anatolius, who had been anointed to the priestly throne of the royal city; along with Paschasinus and Lucentius, who were radiant in episcopal dignity, and together with the presbyter Boniface, held the place of Leo, the most holy Pope of Rome, whose glory was vast and whose zeal for piety was great. Present, furthermore, were Maximus of Antioch and Juvenalius of Jerusalem. These were the men who demanded that Eutyches, that wretched man, and his most arrogant protector Dioscorus, render an account for their impieties. For these men, having embraced a folly diametrically opposed to Nestorius, fell into an abysmal wretchedness equal to his. For they, having recognized our one Lord Jesus Christ from deity and humanity—and adored in these two natures—boldly and foolishly confounded them, merging them into one nature. And the wretches did not understand what, through this invalid reasoning, they were defining: that he was alien-born, different from the paternal substance, and constituted by a nature distinct from that of men. For if there is only one nature of Christ, it must be either entirely divine or entirely human. But if it is merely divine, where then is the human? And if it is human, how is the deity not denied? And if it is something different from these two (for this is what remains, and toward this their judgment rather inclines), how will Christ not be imagined by them to be of another and different nature, both from his Father and from us? What could be imagined more impious or more foolish than to assert that the Word of God, being God, became man to the end that, while his own divinity was destroyed, the humanity he assumed would also be reduced to nothing? For this is what follows plainly if any man dares to hold that Christ shares in a nature that is not one of these, but one beyond them.
14. Therefore, those who were the authors of these dogmas, by which war is declared against Christ, underwent a punishment worthy of their impiety, being cast out from the priesthood and subjected to anathema by all the Churches; and with them, that Christ-fighting heresy was itself expelled. But the straight and unshaken judgment of orthodoxy, pierced by no wounds, was C in greater measure [confirmed] by testimonies and by Scripture
A became clearly celebrated. For they proclaimed one Christ, that is, his single hypostasis, but a dual nature, divine and human, considered inconfusedly and indivisibly; and this was clearly, explicitly, and without hesitation propagated to the whole world and the ends of the earth by these most blessed priests and theologians, through confession and preaching. Hence too, it is evident that when the footsteps of the lame were strengthened and blindness in the sightless gave way to the sprouting of eyes, when the dead were dragged back from the gates of Hades and transmitted anew into life, and when other divine miracles, which are not easy to number, were performed and manifested in the sight of all, the dignity and eminence of the divine nature were clearly demonstrated. And again, by the fact that he endured weariness, labor, thirst, hunger, poverty, and other properties of human substance akin and similar to these, the reality of his human essence was manifested. By performing and accomplishing some of these things as was worthy of God, and others according to the mode of human condition, the self-same one Christ, our true God, clearly displayed and confirmed his singular and unified hypostasis, and his two distinct natures in that inconfused union, with a rationale that is clear and in no way contradictory. And thus far as regards the fourth council. B
15. The holy and ecumenical fifth council follows. The great city of Constantine was consecrated as a sacred shrine for its assembly. It was strengthened by the presence and concurrence of one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing fathers. Of these, the leaders and as it were lamps were Menas from the beginning, and then Eutychius, his successor, who steered the helm of the government of that same royal see as C archbishop. Vigilius, who had undertaken the care of Rome, was present in the city, though he did not attend the council itself, because he was unwilling to join that assembly of his own accord. Nevertheless, although he was not willing to participate in the fellowship of that sacred gathering, he confirmed the faith issued by the common suffrage of the Fathers by means of a written document. With them were Apollinarius of Alexandria and Domnus, who were endowed with the archiepiscopal dignity of the Church of Antioch. There were also Didymus and Evagrius, occupying the place of Eustochius, the archbishop of Jerusalem. At that time, Justinian, the greatest among emperors, was governing the cares of the Roman empire, and he was in harmony with the ecclesiastical D sentiment. This holy and ecumenical council, therefore, completely mowed down the impure dogmas of Nestorius as they were sprouting up again, together with the very sower of the tares. After him, it condemned Theodore and Theodoret; the former of whom had been bishop of the city of Tarsus, and the latter of Mopsuestia. They, [following] before Nestorius...
gave birth to that very heresy, and after they were dead, left behind, committed to their writings, the spurious offspring of a spurious opinion. A Moreover, it condemned and anathematized Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who had long since been languishing in the faith, in that they had attempted to introduce pagan fables into the Church of God. For they raved that souls existed before bodies, and that one and the same soul enters into many bodies—a wicked doctrine, to be spit upon, and truly worthy only of those souls themselves. And finally, they voted for [an end] to the interminable punishment, which is the greatest incentive of all to sin and a precipice leading to ruin. Furthermore, they bestowed upon the wicked demons their former position and dignity, for they taught that for them the return to the heavenly glory from which they had once fallen would be made open. But neither did they imagine that bodies would rise again joined with their own souls, but that souls would rise naked, without bodies. I know not what thing they were meanwhile imagining to be a resurrection, since the resurrection is of that which has fallen and died, not of that which was always standing and remaining incorruptible, of which kind the state of the soul is; and these miserable wretches did not reflect upon or reverence the magnitude of the injustice with which they meanwhile burdened the just Judge. For how do they not bear witness of the greatest injustice against Him, who blasphemously proclaim that those bodies which had striven in the arena of virtue together with the souls are to be deprived of the common rewards for those labors: or that, just as they had sinned, they should be released from all guilt and punishment for their deeds; while the souls, alone and solitary and separated from the bodies that worked alongside them, should have their retribution—either a double punishment or a double reward—in solitude?
B 16. Nor did this holy chorus of [the] Fathers proscribe only such blasphemies as these, but in addition to them (22) (not long before) it deposed and anathematized Anthimus, of Trapezus, who secretly harbored the opinion of Eutyches, and along with him Severus, Peter of Apamea, Zooras, and all that wicked, many-headed, and variously dispersed society. Agapetus, bishop of Rome, acted as the leader in this holy business; while those most celebrated archpriests mentioned above were in agreement and conferred their joint efforts. Among their number were counted the glorious Euphraimius of Antioch, and the holy Peter of Jerusalem, [who] was the overseer. This holy assembly of archpriests, therefore, having denounced and cast out all these, confirmed the unswerving and divine [teachings] of the catholic and apostolic Church, and...
the matters regarding the fifth ecumenical synod were contained in these.
17. The holy and ecumenical sixth synod established its sacred theatre in the queen of cities, which was itself the scene of the mystical visions of the truth. Undertaking the contest with one hundred and seventy divinely-inspired men, it proved piety to be gloriously triumphant. Its leaders, judged worthy to preside over the others, were George, to whom the episcopal order of the royal city was entrusted, and Theodore and George (23), enrolled in the rank of presbyters, together with the deacon John, who were replacing Agatho, the most holy pope of Rome, in the rank of exarchs; and Peter the monk occupied the place of the throne of the great city of Alexandria. Together with them, George, a monk and presbyter, was sent from the see of Jerusalem, who presided over the rank of the archiepiscopal see of Jerusalem.
These men, together with the other holy and sacred fathers, tore asunder the intricate chain of lies of Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, who had initiated the heresy in Constantinople, and Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Theodore of Pharan. Moreover, they subjected to righteous condemnation Macarius of Antioch, together with Stephen, a disciple of the heresy, and a certain miserable old man named Polychronius, who were allied with those mentioned above and who undertook to champion their impiety: for they dared to assert, with an impious and foolish opinion, that there was one will and one operation in Christ our true God, who exists as two natures. These foolish men did not even grasp with their minds, which would have been easy and obvious to anyone to comprehend, that it is not of one and the same operation to straighten a lame man by power—and to undergo the rigors of travel—nor is it of the same faculty to restore sight to the blind, and with spittle, by the work of one’s fingers, to mix the earth, to coagulate it into clay, and to apply it to the eyes; nor, again, to raise the dead and to weep for one who has finished his life. Thus, it was not of the same will,
to pray that the cup of death might pass, and to speak of the same glorification again, and thus to will what is not willed. How could they fail to perceive that they were abolishing the difference of the natures, these things being abolished? For the source of every operation is nature: and according to the diverse natural operations, natural wills are distributed. But if, according to their heresy, there is a single operation and will, then certainly there must necessarily have been a single nature from which these arise. But if they granted two natures (for they have not yet broken out into such madness, since they had before their eyes the dispersion and ruin of those who first taught thus), how would not each nature B pour forth its own proper operation and will? But while they preferred their own blasphemous opinion in every way, they were condemned with an eternal anathema. The holy assembly of divine Fathers, however, having discoursed upon two natural wills and two operations in the one Christ our God, have handed down to the Churches everywhere, in an orthodox manner, the confession and proclamation of the duality, just as they have of the natures, so also of the operations and wills. Constantine at that time, the descendant of Heraclius, having accepted the ancestral lot of the empire, was acting. He contributed his own labors to the synod in other respects, and was defending the orthodox mind of the Church. And thus the sixth synod was constituted.
18. The holy and ecumenical seventh synod
designated Nicaea, a metropolis of Bithynia, formerly that tribunal of sound dogmas, and now finally dedicated to the judgment of piety. The synod was filled with a number of three hundred and sixty-seven men, whose foremost leaders and princes of that holy and numerous phalanx were Tarasius, illustrious among the priests of God, a clearly divine and in every way excellent man, worthy certainly (if any other is) to govern the rudder of the royal city; next, Petrus, most pious archpriest of the holy Roman Church; and another Petrus, who was also a presbyter, who was the prefect or archimandrite of the monastery of Saint Sabbas, which is located there. These were chosen to occupy the place of the apostolic see, over which at that time Adrian, the chief bishop, presided most worthily. Present with these were John and Thomas, men famous for their monastic profession and shining with priestly honor, who indeed held the place D of the entire eastern, apostolic, and great diocese, and held the dignity of the archbishops of the same—namely, of Apollinaris, Theodoret, and Elias—whose sees, the first of Alexandria, the second of Antioch, and the third of Jerusalem, they governed prudently and as became priests. At that time Constantine and Irene, crowned with the wreath of orthodoxy, were clothed in the purple of the Roman empire. These things, moreover...B This holy and great synod, therefore, condemned with its common and divinely guided suffrage a certain recently arisen and barbaric heresy, introduced by impious and unholy men, and it subjected the authors and defenders of it to the same judgment. For these miserable men, not daring to blaspheme Christ the true God with their mouth or confession, nevertheless in every way possible inflicted insults upon Him through their deeds, and discovered a path for those who blaspheme licentiously. Not daring to attack Him directly with abuse and with a naked mouth, without a veil, they fulfilled their entire will, and demonstrated their mind and disposition opposed to Christ by dishonoring His venerable image. An idol (O sound of too bold and atheistical a tongue and mind!) they call the venerable image of Christ, through which the error of idols is eliminated; they treat it with insults and all manner of dishonor, trampling it underfoot through the crossroads, the forum, and the squares, tearing it apart in various ways, and finally delivering it to be burned by fire. A spectacle to be deplored by Christians, and worthy only of the hatred of pagans against Christ! In such a way did they hasten to spill blood against the other holy images as well, which they defiled with sacrilegious hands and profane lips. Nor did these avenging spirits wish to be satiated in their madness and frenzy in this manner. Nor indeed did they show less—if not perhaps even more—hatred in defiling the holy signs and representations of the Christians than the accursed deeds of the pagans, so that they seem to have declared a war of extermination undertaken against Christ and His saints. C 19. For it is clear to all that the honor rendered to images becomes the honor of those who are represented; just as also the shame passes over from the image to the one depicted. But these new offspring of the Christ-fighting Jews, in that they dishonor the venerable image of Christ and of His saints, fulfilled that which was wanting in their ancestors, being carried away to the wicked deeds of the Jews, and vying to surpass their progenitors in the excess of their zeal. Through these things, they did not dare, while in the midst of Christians, to deny Christ with their lips, but they were convicted of falling away from that very Jewish and ancestral zeal, and of demonstrating this imitation of theirs to be spurious, and of having no standing, but like those overcome by the evil of heresy, they were driven and carried about here and there in a state of uncertainty. For while calling themselves Christians, they acted with fury against Christ; and while not accepting the label of Jews, they envied and surpassed their Christ-fighting spirit through the war against images. Not only that, but while avoiding the name of idolatry, they exhibited nothing more tolerable than idolaters toward the Christians themselves and toward the divine and undefiled mysteries of the Christians. Therefore, for all these who did not wish to turn away from and decline this degenerate, adulterous, diverse, and confused doctrine, that holy and ecumenical synod, as a spurious and cast-off offspring, and from all the noble lineage of the faithful D
A society excluded, and bound it with the indissoluble chain of anathema: but as for the image of Christ our true God, according to the ancient traditions of the Fathers and apostles and the declarations of the holy Oracles, it ordained and confirmed by common votes that it should be worshipped and honored in honor and reverence of Him who is portrayed; worship and honor being, of course, presented in the same manner as we approach other sacred signs and symbols of our most holy worship. For we do not pause and enclose our worship and honor within them, nor are we divided into alien and diverse ends; but through the visible, distinct, and divided care and worship of them, we are led in a sacred and divine, and indeed undivided, manner to that undivided, singular, united, and union-procuring Divinity.
B κ'. Thus we worship the precious Cross, on which the Lord’s body was stretched, and from which the blood that purified the world gushed forth; and the nature of the wood, being watered by the drops from thereon, sprouted forth deathless life instead of death. In this way we worship the figure of the Cross, by which the throngs of demons are driven away, and various diseases are healed; for the grace and power that once operated in the prototype accompany the representations themselves with the same operation. Every one of these things, therefore—I mean the image of Christ, and the Cross itself, and indeed the figure of the Cross—we consecrate with like reverence and worship, not, however, C circumscribing and limiting the worship and honor to them, but refer it and assign it to Him who for our sake became man through the ineffable wealth of His love for mankind, and who of His own will endured for our sake the shameful death. In the same manner we faithfully worship the basilicas of the saints, and tombs, and relics which overflow with healings for the faithful, magnifying and praising Christ our God who thus glorified them; and if our solemn and holy festivals and mystical sacrifices contain anything similar to these, through the power of the grace that operates therein, we both recognize and glorify in that very thing the original and primary cause of the benefit. And for this reason, that holy and God-filled gathering of the blessed Fathers, not only (as D we have said) as regards the image of Christ, but also of our untainted, ever-virgin Lady the Theotokos, and of all the saints, ratified and confirmed by their common decree and ordinance that their holy images should be honored and worshipped according to the rank and proportion of the excellence and dignity of their prototypes. For indeed, through them we are led toward a unifying and gathering
gatherer A, through it we are deemed worthy of divine and supernatural union. But the synod, having wisely and according to the good pleasure of God accomplished these things, has decreed; and having driven away all heretical disease and every defilement from the rational flock, it has presented to us the Church, having recovered its own adornment and beauty, as if she were a bride, not indeed adorned with golden fringes or nails, but adorned with sacred images, and, having placed her at the right hand of Christ the bridegroom, has enabled her to be beheld and contemplated with joyful and glad eyes by the whole multitude of the faithful.
B 21. This is the pure and blameless confession of faith of us Christians; this is the mystagogical instruction proceeding from divine wisdom regarding our immaculate and sincere worship, and the venerable mysteries that tend toward it: according to this, up to the setting and end of our life, thinking, believing, and living, we press toward the rising of the intelligible sun, that we may enjoy the rays of its light and brightness from that place more clearly and perfectly, without any setting. Furthermore, it is fitting that your God-guarded prudence, looking toward our lot of piety, should love and embrace this confession of faith once received, with sincere affection, right judgment, and an unshaken and unwavering faith, and not turn aside from it by a hair’s breadth to the right or to the left. For this is what the apostles preached, this is what the ecumenical synods decreed to be observed. And therefore it is C not only your duty to dwell in this conviction and to glorify God in this manner, but also to lead those who are subject to you to embrace this same truth, and to perfect them in this same faith, and to consider nothing more precious or urgent than such care and concern. For it truly belongs to the office of a prince not only to take thought for his own salvation, but also with equal care and providence to look out for the people entrusted to him, that they too might be led by the hand and brought toward the same knowledge of God and perfection. Do not, therefore, allow us to fall short of our hope, which your inclination toward virtue and your obedience easily invited us to put forward; nor prove our labors and struggles, which we undertook with joy for your salvation, to be in vain, nor render them empty. Do not begin with the utmost alacrity to receive the words of the divine proclamation, and, when you D
have granted this for a time, then turn that zeal of yours into sloth; rather, let the end correspond to the beginning; let your manner of life express your faith, and while you hold forth your authority to be observed by the eyes and tongues of all, for the common benefit of both kin and country, keep my joy and consolation of soul regarding you ever indelible.
B 22. But see, I entreat you, you who are to me a beloved son in Christ, and if there is any other distinguished and excellent name worthy of that fatherly affection with which I embrace you; see, I say, and observe how many battle-lines that wicked demon has drawn up against the pious, the only true worship of Christianity: he has stirred up, in truth, very many heresies, tumults, fights, contentions, and wars. See, moreover, how Christian piety has routed and put them all to flight, and has brought back a most brilliant triumph from them. And do not be surprised as you turn over in your mind the machinations and snares devised against it. For, in the first place, Christian piety would by no means have carried off a victory so illustrious, so powerfully won and glorious, if it had not engaged with any adversary. Secondly, it is also easily understood that where that evil one is attacked more strongly in war, there he himself also shoots the arrows of his iniquity more forcefully and adapts his machines. And certainly, among other nations, because there is no serious fighting against him, he himself does not arm himself to such a degree against them. But the people who take their name from Christ, that holy nation, that royal priesthood, because they prevail through faith and struggle daily against his impious acts and institutions, he too, in turn, devises six hundred snares and thinks up various paths, so that he might at least supplant some and thus be able to afflict the Church of Christ with sorrow and sadness—though in the end all his undertakings and those impious machinations will cease, having been turned to his own disgrace. C But other nations have their dogmas and doctrine indistinct and confused, nor is anything found among them to be refined or carefully polished. Hence it is that nothing appears distorted among them. But in that most pure, most holy, and most accurate faith of the Christians, because of its extreme purity and unmixed simplicity, and because of the rectitude and discernment by which it is preferred to the others, if anyone deviates even the slightest bit from that rectitude and introduces something innovated, that which is crooked and adulterated immediately appears and is convicted when it is tested by the straight rule of truth. Nor can that noble nature of sound doctrine in any way endure that spurious dogmas should lie hidden under the same name with it even for the least amount of time. D For just as on bodies that are distinguished by beauty, even a very small spot or blemish that may have attached itself can be seen and noticed more quickly, because it differs from the rest of the beauty when it is compared against it; but on those that are deformed and ugly to the sight, those things which are somewhat shameful are not detected so quickly and easily, for they lie hidden by the likeness of the deformity and the kindred form: so also...
sensory perception or even awareness of the shame admitted by their own followers. This same thing may be observed in all other matters, even in the arts and sciences; for in those which are most exact, even the slightest deviation is easily discerned, whereas in common things many errors are overlooked and are not even reckoned as errors. The matter is the same regarding princes and those placed in a position of dignity above others, and the more so the greater the number of those over whom they rule: for if they stumble even slightly, it is exaggerated, and by the judgment of all they are branded as having committed a great crime; yet subordinates and those of inferior rank, if they commit the very same things many times over, are noted by no one, nor is it observed that they have done so, but whatever they may have done vanishes, utterly concealed and hidden away along with the insignificance and lowliness of the one who committed it. A
23. In as much, therefore, as the faith and religion of the Christians in magnitude, power, and beauty, in accuracy, purity, and every other kind of perfection, surpasses and transcends the piety of the pagans, by so much does that evil one wage a more furious war against it; and by so much, too, do the transgressions of foolish and senseless men, when set against that which is right, become manifest, having not even a brief space of time in which to be obscured, nor finding any loophole for entrance. B Yet, as we have said in what went before, the catholic and apostolic Church of God declares that all the machinations of the devil are of no use or service to any action, but rather turns them back upon the designer himself; in this way she easily refutes the blasphemies of the heretics and puts their impudence to shame, possessing an insuperable and invincible power against all men and all things, and is glorified most splendidly by triumphs won for the salvation of the world. C
24. Do you, therefore (and with what shall I address you to be worthy of my longing?), having your mind illumined by the splendor of the divine Spirit and raised to the light of true piety, and having wrought a work by which you have been elevated to the deeds of that Great Constantine, imitate still those first fruits of your own mind, counsel, and wisdom. Stand firmly upon the rock of the faith upon which you have been well founded by the Lord; build upon your orthodox faith good deeds and the gravity of an emended life; do not build upon it wood, hay, or stubble—the combustible material of sin, useful only for burning and for nothing else—but build instead with gold and silver, the precious things of right action. D For these, when tried by tribulations, are rendered purer and appear more precious.
25. In His commandments Christ, our common Lord and Master, gave this: namely, to bring forth the fruits of virtue, and not to put the faith to shame by one's deeds. Thus Paul, the great teacher of the Church, counsels...
thus Peter, the leader of the apostles, to whom the keys and the entrance to the heavenly gates are entrusted, exhorts; thus the rest of the A apostolic choir instructed the world; thus our Fathers received the tradition; thus they have passed it down to us, who come after them; and thus we also advise and counsel you: to adorn faith with virtues, and by faith to render the virtues more brilliant. I myself wished to be present with you and to oversee your actions, so that by seeing your good works with my own eyes, I might acquire direct knowledge of them and be filled with even greater joy and gladness; and if anything irrational should occur, I might easily intervene and adjust it B immediately for correction. But since my will lacks the power and opportunity, and many things block and hinder that impulse, I shall now attempt to do what remains possible for me: to outline these exhortations in writing, as I promised in the beginning.
27. That it is necessary to love and serve the Divine being sincerely, and to cherish and love one's fellow man as oneself, is a knowledge somehow innate to human beings; but because the will does not always concur with this knowledge, it becomes necessary for that common understanding to be written down as a decree and law. Now, that sincere love for the Divine, and love for one's neighbor—and that, indeed, a perfect love—contain within themselves the actions of all the other commandments, is surely not difficult to discern from the matter itself. C And the word of the Lord teaches this as well, in which He says: *In these two commandments the whole law and the prophets depend* (Matt. xxii, 40). For he who has internalized love for the Divine, and who cherishes and loves his neighbor as himself, will love his father and mother in an exceptional way and, after God, will deem them worthy of the highest honor; furthermore, he will keep his hands pure not only from the blood of his kin and from murder, but also his tongue and his thoughts from any such design. Moreover, such a person will not steal—for no one was ever found to be a thief of the one whom he loves as himself and for whom he acts as a guardian—nor will he violate another's marriage-bed. He will not swear a perjured oath, nor will he bear false witness against his neighbor. And, in short, he will not initiate unjust deeds, attempting to strike or insult, nor will he become a tyrant (27) over everything D that belongs to his neighbor. For anyone who dares to do any of these things thereby injures both: the love for the Divine and Master, and the affection for his fellow man—the one by plotting against him and surrounding him with evils, the other by treating him as worthless and despising him. From which [actions], into what inexorable and bitter punishments he...
subjects himself, is manifest to all. For if he who transgresses human mandates and despises the authority set over him does not escape judgment, but often risks his very life, what sort of punishment will he pay who dishonors and treats with contempt the Lord of all, and King and Creator, through petulance and plots against his fellow servant, and who makes a mockery of His laws and holds them up for ridicule? It is necessary, therefore, in every way and with all care and diligence, to keep these commandments, along with our pure and blameless religion. For it is not possible, it is not possible, without them, either to attain a share with the faithful and those dear to God, or to be deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven. A
28.
Concerning the duty to keep the divine commands; and on the training of a ruler.
But these things must be kept by every man with all his might—by ruler and subject, young and old, rich and poor. For nature is common to all, and the commandments are common, and they require common guarding and care. But those things which look rather to the training of rulers, and to what is more fitting for your power to keep, and from which you will also gain the greatest experience regarding others, those I shall now set before you. For it is necessary for a ruler to be endowed with manifold probity, and among other things, especially with that which concerns the beauty of character, whence that saying is derived: "Authority shows the man." And: "As gold is tested on touchstones, so the human mind is tried in the works of authority and the dispositions of those who are ruled." B C29. You, however, must pay the greatest attention to me, so that you may not be a hearer only, but also a doer of good and admirable deeds. But our beginning, even in these matters, we shall take from divine things. Prayer, then, unites and draws man to God, being a certain divine conversation and an intellectual communion with the most beautiful and precious of all things—from whom comes all being and subsistence, all providence and abundance of good things, all perfection and all purification of the passions. D So that, even if no other profit were to arise from prayer, this feature alone would be more than enough for those who love God and are eager to behold the Good, as a substitute for every other delight and every blessedness and happiness that can occur in life. Since, moreover, through it we obtain the remission of sins, and receive whatever is conducive to us—being endowed with the best gifts, and those that make the recipients perfect, and which are themselves most beautiful—we are called upon to perform those things which usually confer upon us all good things that words cannot describe. Furthermore, through the thanksgiving which we perform in our prayers, we, as it were, remunerate the benefactor, and offer Him, as it were, certain first-fruits: the present affections and motions of our heart, and doxologies also, arising from our intellectual and rational nature. Since, therefore, so many and so great things are procured through prayer, how should it not be right for us to stretch ourselves eagerly toward it, and to desire it vehemently, and to embrace it in every way?
A 30. Therefore, pray privately at all times and by yourself to God. But pray also together with the multitude and in public; for through each manner of praying, as befits one who loves God, that which is holy is rendered. And in as much as the former leads to the purity of the mind, in so much the latter calls those who behold it to imitation. And the one contributes to one’s own advantage; the other knows how to benefit others as well, whose salvation and progress are, in turn, a great testimony to the virtue of the ruler.
B 31. Build temples in the name of God and His saints according to ecclesiastical laws, and accustom the people to gather for assembly in them; so that, rendering the Divine propitious in common, and offering up the doxology in common, they may thus more readily coalesce into a common harmony, and reap in common both salvation and other benefits.
C 32. The sacrifices of our sacred worship are assigned to the priests, to whom, if you show yourself willing to serve and make your offerings, you shall gain from that act great enjoyment, benefit, and grace. But you would also be able, if you so desire, to offer to God a most beautiful and most acceptable sacrifice, by offering up to Him a pure life and an uprightness of mind.
33. Knowing that strength and speed of mind contribute greatly to the administration of others, do not neglect this care. For though it is not possible for one not naturally disposed to it to become sharp-witted, yet study and the experience of affairs, by making knowledge readily available, have often shown the practiced man to be more acute in action than those who possess this power by nature. Wherefore it is fitting to exercise prudence throughout the course of one’s life. It is acquired while we recall and meditate upon past events, while we seek out the congress and familiar conversation of prudent men who are currently alive, and while we gather the daily experience of things to be done in life. For action, having grasped power through imitation, counsel, and operations, and with divine help not opposing it, arrives at a beneficial end.
D 34. Do not despise, as if they were trivial, matters pertaining to our body, and to its posture and movements. For the best order and arrangement in them is seen to be no small part of prudence; and of men, those who are not easily enabled to perceive the power and beauty hidden in the soul are, by being led by external spectacles, easily made lovers and heralds of things not understood. Therefore, it is necessary to be seen and to seem grave, through the disposition of one’s countenance, the grooming of one’s hair, and the wearing of seemly clothing—not carried away into what is effeminate or overly inquisitive, nor again dragged down beyond what is moderate into what is neglected. For either extreme is unseemly and contemptible, and alien to a princely character. And for the ruler, a well-composed gait is also fitting, that it neither
A move in a dissolute or womanly manner, nor again affect a novel, cramped, confused, or uneven gait; but, in general, every movement of the body must be ordered with decorum.
35. One must also avoid speed in speech. For a ready tongue, while perhaps not contemptible or ignoble in contentious disputes or debates, is foolish and dangerous in public speaking. In giving orders, and especially in matters of policy and the common good, it is cheap and base. To speak more fully: promptness in action, word, and movement, when accompanied by good order, reveals a man as something divine and exceptional. But this is rare, and it is most difficult for everything to converge at once. Moderation joined with order, gravity worthy to be seen, and a union with weight and caution, render those who possess it conspicuous with a certain pleasantness, and adorned for command, and a delight to the common people, who are thought to discern what is best. Yet volubility without any disposition or order seems something furious and insane; it more often wanders from the right path, even if sometimes it might be greatly beneficial. Slowness with confusion is foolish and effeminate: it seems to wander for the most part, and that in great matters, even if occasionally it accomplishes something good; but that is thin and of no value, and is only regarded as good when compared to his other actions. B
36. To be overcome by laughter, accompanied by a disfigurement of one's appearance, is an insult to the constancy and gravity of one's character.
37. Let both the ear and the tongue be pure of all foul speech. For whatever a person delights to hear, that same person is not ashamed to say; and he who is not ashamed to speak of them will certainly not be ashamed to commit them, of which fact he has provided clear demonstration. Above all, take care that your tongue does not slip; for often, by the lightest utterance, it has brought on huge detriment and put even those who stake their very lives on the line at extreme risk.
38. Keep your ears open to the injured, but closed to the blandishments and plausible inductions of those who inflict injury. C
39. Spurn accusatory and sycophantic lips; for not rarely have they driven children to rage against parents, and parents against children, broken asunder the bonds and connections of life, and incited kinsmen one against another. But why do I mention lesser things? Even a single voice of a sycophant often subverts entire cities and houses. D
40. Be not hasty to bind yourself in friendship; but having bound yourself, preserve the bond indissoluble in every way, taking upon yourself the whole burden of your neighbor, unless perhaps it brings danger to your own soul. For contentions and discords among friends bring into contempt the entire purpose and disposition of men; and not only those who are guilty of blame, but also those who are without blame, are dragged into the same suspicion. Enjoy the friendship of those who have always kept sincere friendship with others without guile; who have neither cast an envious eye upon those who are flourishing, nor neglected those who are suffering adversity. For many, though acting badly
A in their assistance and support of friends, yet when those friends are doing well, cannot bear to look upon their prosperity. For those who were not tested by the occasion for sympathy, the passion of envy has exposed. Therefore, choose for yourself friends who are not bad, but the best. For, in most cases, the character of friends is judged by those whom they choose to love; and through men of virtue, one might easily be restored even if he should slip, whereas bad men corrupt even the nobility of character that one possesses. The former, by reinforcing through themselves what is lacking in virtue, make it appear that nothing is missing; but association with the bad renders even the remnant of one's virtue spurious. Do not seek to hear from friends things that are pleasant, but rather things that are true; for if you are not to believe even the truth when spoken by enemies, and if the truth has also perished among friends because they seek only to speak what is pleasing, from where else B shall we have knowledge of the truth, and the transformation away from the things that are sometimes said or done by us unholily? For this reason, consider it of the greatest importance that friends differ from flatterers. The latter, by praising you to your face, do not allow you to perceive your own faults—which, as is natural, you have committed—and they make these faults greater to others through their slanders. But friends, by checking you through the correction of friendship, are more able to help you see what has been done amiss; and if they need to speak to those on the outside, instead of accusation, they contrive a defense of what was done. Therefore, by as much as practicing virtue surpasses progressing in evil, and by as much as it is better to be acquitted of charges C among one's subjects than to be accused of them, by that much ought you to prefer well-wishers to all flatterers.
41. Of your secrets, share with friends those things that increase your virtue; but those that corrupt the judgment, do not handle yourself, nor entrust them to friends. This is indeed the best course of action, even without any other reason. But if, as happens in human affairs, a satiety for friends should take hold of you, I know that you will prefer what is useful for admonition. For if any evil matter should be among your secrets, it then primarily enters the mind and thought of the one who is privy to it, fills him with turmoil, and certainly, he retreats from the friendship as quickly as possible and without hesitation, so that he does not even admit the spirit of returning or looking back. But if it is made public, it will become a great disgrace to you and will make the one who made it public all the more implacable. D Truly, however, that which is good does not allow one who is conscious of it to be torn away from friendship, since it is bound by the strongest bond of virtue; and it will stir up [his] mind toward the praise of your excellent and noble will, and for yourself, clearly seeing these things, [alt-version omitted]
you will be reluctant to take it ill if any advice has been offered, and you will be persuaded, if anything has been done amiss, to admit him again to familiar association and the desire for [your] company. Speak therefore always optimally of friends, especially when absent, and this in the presence of others: thus you will both avoid the suspicion of flattery—giving no cause for even a trace of this vice to appear in you—and you will be to your friends, by doing what is agreeable, one who has proven yourself to be such to those present as you have been known to be to them concerning those who are absent. B
42. In this way, having fenced yourself about with friendship, you will be implacable toward those who have offended against others and against the state, but most compassionate toward those who have offended against you. For by the former, there will be good order in the state, and your care and solicitude for the subjects will be manifest; and by the latter, the philanthropy of your disposition and the truly royal character are proclaimed. For tyrants often overlook common wrongs and those done against one another, but bitterly examine those done against themselves; whereas it is the work of a king and of the most lawful authority to bear those done against himself philanthropically, but to rightly settle and manage those done against the state and against one another.
43. Just as he is worthy of many praises who, having a great power to do wrong, nevertheless shows himself just; so he is worthy of much blame, who, in need of nothing necessary, nevertheless lays his hands upon the affairs of others. For to the man in want, poverty is an excuse—even if an irrational one—for wrongdoing; but a man who holds power, and has no lack, has an inexcusable sin for committing an injustice. C
44. By as much as any man excels in authority, by so much is he bound to excel in virtue. But he who does the contrary commits three things, and these most wicked: he destroys himself; he invites those who behold him to wickedness; he causes God to be blasphemed, in that He has entrusted such great authority to so wicked a man. For this reason, every man must avoid evil, but especially those who are in authority.
45. Rule your subjects, therefore, not trusting in tyranny, but in the goodwill of the ruled. For goodwill is a greater and safer foundation of authority than fear. And this is acquired by the possession of virtues and by the labors and cares expended toward the subject. Thus it will come to pass that you yourself will live a life truly vital and royal, and while you keep them safe and unharmed from plots and unjust calamities, you will preserve the immortal glory prepared for you for all time. D
46. Praise and accept the most rigorous laws; and looking toward them, regulate your own life. Do not, however, exact inexorable punishments upon your subjects according to the literal calculations of those laws, but rather govern and instruct them through more humane decrees. For thus, while you practice exactitude toward yourself, you will appear formidable,
yet not intolerable to your subjects.
A 47. You must exercise authority not by punishing, but by having the reputation of being a punisher. This is secured by a stable character, and by the seriousness and diligence of one's own way of life. The inflicting of frequent punishments belongs rather to an angry man than to a prudent one; for those others easily descend to punishment, since, through a lack of moderation, they do not know how to soothe men. A tyrant might do the former, but only one worthy of command will do the latter; for the virtue of a ruler is not to destroy, but to make his subjects more numerous and better.
B 48. Some have said that the virtue of a ruler is to make a small city great; but I would rather say it is to make a bad one good. For the former frequently occurs through the flow of circumstances, but the latter cannot happen except through one who governs most excellently. If you imitate this, you will advance the common good of your subjects through your own noble deeds and virtue.
C 49. Just as a crumbling wall brings a city into contempt, even if it has magnificent houses inside, and temperate air, and an abundance of goods, so too do the wicked men around a ruler bring even his own way of life into disrepute. For those who experience their wickedness assume that he who is protected by them is altogether similar to them.
50. Do not commend the lawlessness of any man, even if he seems to prosper by it. For you will thereby both entice him more into wickedness and prove to others that you yourself are only waiting for an opportunity to act in a similar way. For if a man, even before the proper time, is eager to praise and honor such things, what would he not do once a favorable opportunity has presented itself?
D 51. The character of rulers becomes law for those under their hand. If, therefore, the multitude commits error, they cast the blame upon the ruler; how great, then, do you suppose your obligation is to be diligent in virtue, and to be ever wakeful in performing good deeds?
52. Let counsel precede every action. For actions that are unconsidered are, for the most part, hazardous; and if anything should succeed well, it would justly be considered the work of some other cause rather than of the impulse and accidental turn of one who usually goes astray.
53. Things which the hands of many, and many times over, have failed to accomplish, a single piece of counsel and a single act have achieved. Therefore, prefer sound counsel to the labor of many hands.
54. Repentance is an aid to providence; therefore, whatever has escaped notice or fallen away, let this—being reconsidered and retrieved—correct and preserve.
55. Envy is a great disease for any soul; but it is the greatest, especially for those in power. For it is necessary for those whom he expects to use as partners in life and in the prosperity of the city to view these men as enemies, on account of their innate virtue, and as if from ambush...
for there could be nothing more destructive or more foolish than this.
B 56. As much as one must flee from envying, so much must one strive not to be envied. This is especially fitting for a ruler, whom it is not easy for the malevolent to strike. But if envy must be contained (for it is a bold and most versatile beast), one must evade its assaults, not by diminishing one’s own virtue, but by moderation of spirit, and by a certain reduction and subtraction in the display of power and the manifestation of superiority in matters that are not strictly necessary.
57. When one rules oneself, then let him consider that he rules his subjects as well, and in truth. For when they see the one who is over them commanding his own passions and mastering his pleasures, they will willingly and with desire submit themselves to his rule; but if they see him serving his own pleasures and passions, they will not tolerate being subject to a slave.
58. Consider him the best judge who can most quickly grasp the nature and condition of justice in his mind, and once grasped, brings it forth in order into the open; who is quick to come to the aid of the injured, but slow to punish those who commit offenses; who is superior to gold and not puffed up by power; who conquers anger, yet is not conquered by compassion; who knows no kinship, friendship, or popular favor in judging, other than justice, and who considers only injustice alien to him, hostile, and disgraceful.
59. Do not be alienated from your kin for a light or uncertain cause. For even if hidden causes exist on their part that might justly excuse such an alienation, those who are unaware of them will not cast the blame for the alienation upon them, but will instead accuse you of fickleness and infirmity of mind.
60. Martial bravery does not so much adorn and preserve a ruler as does kindness and pious affection toward his fellow countrymen. For many who have managed affairs of war admirably have perished at home at the hands of their own people because of their cruelty; and many have returned, saved by their own people after having been all but captured by enemy forces, for they did not prefer their own lives over the safety of their ruler.
61. One must appoint rulers who are, if possible, endowed with the full abundance of all virtues; but if not that, at the very least with justice. For to those who rule, it endures D...
A that the hatred and anger conceived by the people against the magistrates redounds upon those by whom they were appointed.
62. You must explore the intentions of your subjects from many quarters, so that you may employ them as sharers in your friendship, your authority, and your counsels: first, in those matters which you yourself use for ordering your own private household; second, in those which you share with your wife, your children, and your servants; third, in those you use toward your friends; fourth, in those you deal with regarding your neighbors; and fifth, in those through which you take up enmity and defend yourself, or again, in those whereby you lay them aside and effect reconciliation. For these things are sufficient to demonstrate the nature of any man, and to show him stripped of his mask, as those who watch B the hypocrisies of men on the stage are accustomed to observe.
63. You will be the best judge of others when, by contemplating your own actions and demanding an account of every act before the judge of your own conscience, you devise a correction for your transgressions. For if you rebuke others when you yourself are bound by the same crimes, you must necessarily blush. Again, how do you suppose they will feel, when they see you—you who are not obliged to give an account to anyone—nevertheless exercising judgment over them with severity?
64. Praise the best deeds, and do not praise them with words alone, but by yourself doing the same things as much as possible, and by preferring those who imitate these deeds over the rest, declaring them worthy of honor. For the former is something any man might do, but the latter belongs only to one who rules worthily.
65. Provide for all: for the upright, so that they may become the best and enjoy the honor and privilege owed to them; and for those who are not like them, so that they may improve their intentions and be delivered from the disgrace inflicted by the laws. For this is, in truth, the task of lawful rule and stewardship.
66. C Turn the disputes of your subjects toward your enemies, and transfer them to the struggles that must be undertaken for the fatherland; for it is the way of tyrants to incite the masses to sedition, since tyrants establish their own security in the discord and destruction of the people; but it is the way of a king to keep the concord of his subjects undisturbed, since the foundation of his authority is fixed upon the safety of those he rules.
67. Just as the ruler must be terrible to those who do wrong, so he must be a guardian and a protection to those who do no wrong but live according to the laws.
68. There are three things in men: punishment, D reproach, and your own affairs.
and, if it please you, beneficence. Enemies are worthy of punishment; citizens who go astray in certain matters are worthy of censure; those who have distinguished themselves by well-done deeds are worthy of praise and to be showered with benefits. But if anyone proceeds so far that he dares to do what enemies would do, A and imitates them, he transfers the punishment of the enemies upon himself. And he who changes his own order and the place in which he is established, is to be held an enemy of the commonwealth even more than enemies themselves. For he who bestows favors upon enemies is a traitor; and he who praises the wicked destroys the city, for he calls the citizens toward vice; and he who does not honor those who act rightly, brings the commonwealth to that same disorder.
69. It is difficult to mingle fear with love. For those who love generally have no fear, and those who are full of fear do not wish to love. But you must distinguish: B prepare yourself to love the best; for in their case there is no need for any fear. The others, however, it is necessary to frighten, so that they might abstain from doing evil. Yet they will fear without hatred if they see that you are not punishing them with anger, but as a parent instructing them; and if they perceive that you are not punishing them with a willing heart, but in times of adversity and misfortune are ready to bring aid without any pretext.
70. Those who use the gifts of nature for the service of wickedness, and not for the aid of their neighbors, C not only despise nature, but also pervert the munificence of the Creator toward them into insult and ingratitude.
71. Just as it is shameful and base to comply with the whims of the fickle masses and to conduct oneself too familiarly, so it is slippery and dangerous always to appear supercilious and arrogant. It is necessary, therefore, to flee both extremes, and to pursue the mean as a virtue, assigning to each time its appropriate deeds.
72. A hasty oath is a prompt perjury. Furthermore, it is not becoming to well-established morals nor a noble mind to swear at all. For a grave and magnanimous man will be ashamed if his words do not merit belief without an oath, and if a stigma is branded upon his conversation; so that it is joined with utility and our care that we are forbidden by divine law to swear at all.
73. D Always be mindful of the benefits you receive; but those you perform, quickly forget. For the former indicates a good and honest mind, but the latter indicates greatness and purity; and it also renders the benefit pure.
74. To reproach someone for benefits and misfortunes, consider to be of the same lightness and inhumanity.
75. Deceit everywhere confesses weakness: but if it is used toward friends, it is the ultimate evil and of excessive wickedness; if it is used against enemies and adversaries, even those who do not foresee it, it does not stray far from strategy. However, having held a discussion concerning...
A federated allies—provided the opponents do not shrink from that alliance—it is foreign to fortitude and uprightness to employ fraud. Therefore, as for those who place their trust in you, do not deceive them, even if they are enemies; for however much they may be enemies, he who deceives one who trusts him is, in every sense, a deceiver and a charlatan.
76. People usually love a traitor for the deed of betrayal, but they hate him once the betrayal is complete. You, however, must investigate whether he became a traitor because he was besieged and circumvented by his own inner and pressing passions. For if this is the case, there is no reason to despair that he may yet prove a man of integrity and honor; but if there is no such cause, consider him a man who would betray you as well. For it is human to wish to take vengeance on those who have done us injury, but to initiate such an impious work without cause B is the mark of a certain incurable wickedness.
77. Gold brings about every human change. Therefore, preserve the uncorrupted customs of your fatherland; and regarding gold, which is a powerful schemer, treat it as useless, showing all that it has no power over you against your friends.
78. One ought to endure one’s own private misfortunes with gratitude and nobility, but those of one’s subjects with sympathy and not with callousness. For the former is a sign of endurance and courageous spirit; the latter—callousness—is a sign of indifference C and is unworthy of imperial care and providence.
79. Not to take vengeance upon people of one’s own race is a divine and philanthropic law, and it also provides great utility in the affairs themselves; for one who takes vengeance merely possesses in return a more bitter enemy, whereas one who confers a benefit has either fashioned a friend out of an enemy, or at the very least a milder one.
80. Do not appear to violate anything you have pledged to others. For dishonesty in some matters reveals the entire character as untrustworthy. And for those who have been deceived, it is no shame if they do not reciprocate in kind. Therefore, every man must avoid falsehood, but especially those in power. For others, there is sometimes D the excuse of inability; but for those in power, there is no refuge from being proven wicked in their judgments in every way.
81. One ought to be cautious about promises made with vehemence. For if thou dost fulfill them, thou hast stripped away the greatest part of the grace of the favor through the vehemence of the promise,
A having partitioned and having diminished the single gift into two—but if you do not perform, you have incurred a twofold shame: both because you promised so vehemently, and because you provided nothing of what you promised. You appear as an enemy instead of a friend, for you have taken away the hopes that provided the gift. Moreover, such vehement promises are appropriate for those who are not very much trusted; they also demonstrate that they are offered not so much out of a sense of duty as out of necessity.
82. B Worthy of benefits is he who reveres both their nature and their name, and who does not cease striving until he returns them. Just as he is unworthy of benefits who recompenses his benefactor with ingratitude of mind, so he is worthy of the dignity of a benefit who grants a favor without expecting in return to receive the gift back.
83. Do not grant anything unlawful even to friends. For if they are upright, they will hate you more for violating the laws than they will cherish you for the benefit conferred; but if they are wicked, you succumb to a twofold loss: you have both benefited the wicked and incurred the hatred of the good. And besides these things, to exchange eternal reproach for a private and temporal pleasure is clearly great folly.
84. C Benefits, through the delays and extensions of time, as if coming into old age, wither away their proper beauty; for having cast off the bloom of promptitude, which, when it was present, presented a certain splendid and immense beauty, they can in no way delight someone even for an hour.
85. Benefits that are halved do not wish to be benefits; they will be, however, when they are completed. He who bestows his favor only by parts harms himself and does not gladden the receiver; for he who has received a half-measure of a favor will not be so gladdened by the half as he will be grieved for that which is kept back.
86. He who reproaches others for the benefits he has conferred is like the farmer who sows willingly but then lets pigs D and wild beasts into the seed. Just as that man ruins both the seed and the harvest that would come from it, so this man destroys both what he has bestowed and the gratitude that would have bloomed for him from these acts.
87. If you have benefited someone at the start but then neglect them, do not think that those to whom the benefit was directed wish to preserve their former goodwill. For I myself have known many by experience who, relying on the multitude and the magnitude of the benefit they conferred at the beginning, subsequently took no care to show anything of the sort afterward; for they persuaded themselves that the liberality shown in the beginning ought to suffice to bind the beneficiaries forever, and that no passage of time could possibly bring forgetfulness of the kindness to those who had been well treated.
A And yet, it did not turn out according to their expectations, but rather turned to the contrary. But as for the choosing of the wicked, there is nothing astonishing in this; for such people, even when benefits were flowing into their hands, did not even then repay them with sincere tongues. But in the case of others, one might see those who cared for virtue, as they carried a memory of what they happened to have enjoyed, and did not cease to bless their benefactor; yet, not receiving the same in return, they themselves did not preserve their original gratitude pure and uncorrupted, but as time passed (for not having a fresh influx of benefits to sustain them, they grew faint), the intensity and splendor of their affection withered away. B Those, however, considered to be of a middle disposition, while they were being benefited, behaved most gratefully; but when they were neglected, they were not ashamed to change their former disposition into the contrary, especially when seeing others enjoying honors. For they did not consider what they themselves had previously received—although they ought to have—but looked with envy upon those whose neighbors were faring well, and, being provoked by this, they turned their praise into ingratitude. It is, therefore, far more advantageous for a ruler, both in public and private life, to win over his subjects with gifts bestowed bit by bit over a lifetime, rather than all at once and on a single occasion. Indeed, the multitude and weight of favors accord better to those who have achieved something great and extraordinary for the common salvation, rather than being spent on those who appear very rarely to be in need of our help and assistance. C
88. Anger is a voluntary kind of ecstasy, and an alienation of one's own mind; for what those who are perpetually melancholy effect, those struck by anger at that time act out in a similar manner.
89. Just as fire destroys the fuel that feeds it, so also does anger consume the soul it occupies, and it often operates toward the total destruction of the living creature.
90. Do not under any circumstances punish anyone out of anger, even justly. For however the one suffering the punishment may endure it, you yourself will be condemned no less, having acted with recklessness in your administration of the matter. D For this reason, a certain one of the ancients expressed it most beautifully to a delinquent: "I would punish you, if I were not angry."
91. Anger is a blind passion, and has no power to judge the better from the worse. Therefore, no admonition is of any use to one who is angry. But when he has calmed down, the remedy of correction must be applied, having tempered it with kindness. For since physicians have not known how to offer bitter medicines to the sick without honey, so the soul of the uninstructed does not accept pure censures.
92. Just as it is fitting to be swift in rewarding those who are worthy, so it is proper to be slow
A in inflicting penalties for offenses. One ought to honor the good if they rejoice [in virtue], and to afflict with punishment those who are liable.
93. Do not ever appear as unfaithful to one who has entrusted himself to you. For if we become unfaithful to those who have trusted us, to whom shall we appear otherwise? And with whom, for the rest, shall we live securely and pleasantly?
94. Being does not desire to go along with seeming. Therefore, wherever you see conceit, consider the action to be a stranger, and that it has fled from reality.
95. It is shameful for one who rules and exercises mastery over men to be defeated by women, and to be seen as a slave to pleasures. One does not err if he lives with that woman whom he has acquired as a helper in his B life, according to the laws. Celibacy, to be sure, is a certain divine thing, and supernatural, and greater than political virtue and the observance of laws. Monogamy is a work of human nature, both for the continuation of the race, and for the fellowship of a mild and humane life, and for a well-ordered society. Polygamy is most shameful and filthy, and befits the licentiousness and impurity of beasts.
96. Alexander the Macedonian, having become ruler of Asia by the spear, used to say that Persian women were javelins of the eyes. But the man who is truly temperate and a diligent observer of divine C commandments will flee from and turn away from not only the sight of Persian women, but from the sight of every woman at all, as from a sharp and deadly dart of the soul. For the sound of a voice strikes the hearing, and through it the passion is imprinted upon the soul; and the beauty of bodies draws the eye, and having taken the reason captive through it as if bound in chains, it simultaneously reduces it to servitude, withdrawing it from its own proper authority and command.
97. Just as it is impossible for one who sails on the sea to remain untried by disturbance and swell, so it is impossible for one who examines and investigates the beauties of bodies to remain outside the waves and dangers that come from them. Therefore, it is necessary to decline the beginnings and causes of the passions. For this D is both beneficial and not difficult. But when this evil has once invaded the rational part, so that it has imprinted upon it the image of the desired object, the passion becomes difficult to cast off, and it is with difficulty that one frees himself from it.
98. There are those who claim that lovers have their souls in foreign bodies. I think it is stated more cogently by reason that they have lost both mind and soul in the bodies of others.
99 A Consider the intemperance and luxury of rulers to be the shipwreck of their subjects. For when the pilot is submerged by gluttony and wine, it is inevitable that the state committed to his governance should be tossed about, struck by countless waves and extreme billows, and that it should be engulfed in destruction along with the submerged pilot.
100 Never drive any man to despair, not even someone of low station. For despair is a powerful and irresistible weapon, and necessity, when it takes charge of hazardous affairs, often brings about unexpected changes, which one might consider fables before they are actually accomplished.
101 It is best for a person not to err at all, nor to fall away from sound judgment; but it is the mark of a prudent man that, should he fall, he rises as quickly as possible and utilizes his stumble as a lesson so as not to fall again.
102 That which is voluntary in the taking on of labors removes the unbearable and painful quality from those that are involuntary; hence, practical exercise and discipline in involuntary things is useful.
103 It is the hallmark of princely and perfect virtue not only to be ashamed before the multitude so as not to sin, but to be ashamed before oneself even before the multitude.
104 Insulting free men with words does not differ much from [striking them with] blows and lashes. One must therefore guard against being quick to act in this way. For what does not seem to be a great matter brings great harm.
105 Jest C has harmed many; for when it proceeds from a playful mind, it often inflicts a deadly wound on those who are mocked. For the sake of a brief pleasure afforded to any chance person, it has birthed great enmities among the serious. Every sensible person should guard against this, and a ruler especially more than others; for it causes one to appear vulgar and invites contempt rather than favor.
106 Protect your subjects while you benefit them, as if they were the sinews and essential members of your authority. For if those are torn apart, there is a danger that your own power will be dissolved along with them.
107 It is better to give over to the pretense of ignorance and to cover in oblivion any plotted seditions that cannot be easily extinguished, rather than to attack them after having celebrated a triumph over them. For the latter sometimes fans the flame further, brings about severe dangers, and entails great harm for the one who has been saved; whereas the former—to quiet matters gently—contains, along with lack of danger, both humanity, prudence, and lack of loss.
108 A ruler, even when things are sailing smoothly and are well-ordered for him, must [nonetheless] act with caution and care, as if they were being shaken. D Even when things are taking a successful turn and seem to be in a secure state, he must provide for and guard them no differently than in a storm.
for experience shows that neither of the directions in which affairs might turn is beyond expectation. But often a little carelessness has brought down great and massive origins, and again, diligence combined with good counsel has brought back to a great height of power those who had been brought low. B
109. Prudent and stable men, when things go well, are not puffed up, but adorn the bulk of their good fortune with a moderate disposition, by which they are also accustomed to soothe the sharpened malevolence of the envious. If they should stumble, they bear it bravely, drawing from the event an argument for their own virtue, by the power of which they strengthen their mind and banish all despair from their soul. For they know that all human affairs are versatile, unstable, and not at all firm; and that it is a mark of levity and folly, nay even of pusillanimity, to be lifted up and puffed up in prosperous circumstances, but in adverse ones to be greatly cast down and basefully worn away by sorrow.
110. It is fitting for wise men to foresee difficult situations and to push them away through good counsel; it is no less fitting to bear well whatever has happened and to steer it to their own advantage. C
111. I know that events can suddenly descend and terrify and consternate men because of their unexpected arrival—both the participants and those who were bearing the occurrences more quietly—to such a degree that, not standing ready for future events, they are unable to shake off that burden; and so even then, the damage flowing from them is not increased, but rather remitted, through otherwise more modest manners. I have seen, I say, I have seen some matters so arranged that, through customary familiarity, advancing little by little, they were alleviated and vanished into a total lack of trouble; while others, on the contrary, have aroused even those who were living in such a way that they dared and cared for nothing, as if they had been pricked out of sleep by goads. For each man, excited by the unexpected and sudden arrival of events, is impelled as if by an itching to act, so that the novelty could not be resisted for even the space of a single day. There are other events, not themselves familiar, which creep in little by little and, having slipped in quietly and without tumult, avoid all sense of an innovation, gliding in without labor and leaving behind not even a memory of any accessory novelty, not even among those taught by experience. Some things, indeed, when they... D
attempt to introduce themselves in the same manner, and not through any tyrannical or arrogant power and manifest violence—making an impression like a lightning bolt—are nevertheless most easily overthrown, even by those they encounter, under the pretext of timidity. For when they arm their naturally ingrained timidity—contrary to all expectation—with an intolerable audacity, they ruin even those who were previously considered very moderate at the very first attempt. Thus, it may be asked by what reasoning one might attain the proposed end, when contrary effects are produced by the same causes. It would certainly have been better not to have begun with such things at all; for novelties, when no other outside vexation accompanies them, are in a way self-manufactured, [designed] to disturb the mind and move it from its stable state, and to lead the common people to heap up calumnies and insults.
B 112. Since there are times when necessity is pressing, and one who is in charge needs to introduce some rather new measure, if the public finds in it great utility and joy, there is no need for reflection and study. But if it is otherwise, and it might be painful, it is not easy, I think, to explain in words how it might best be carried through. For matters that follow upon certain very specific circumstances cannot be accurately explained by a general discourse, nor can they be investigated by one who has stayed far away from the actions themselves. Nevertheless, he who has conducted himself commendably in the aforementioned matters, and has the divine aid ready at hand for the present affair, will bring great ability to its accomplishment.
113. Consider the goodwill of those being ruled to be stronger and safer than weapons, courage, and generalship. For if this is present and leads the army, those also are useful, and it provides great weight to everything. But if goodwill is taken away, it would be better for those things also to be taken away along with it. For they move much more quickly against a hated ruler than against enemies.
114. Arguments have often refuted spears. And frequently the strength of arguments has blunted the sharpest preparations for war and has dissolved the momentum of great armies. Therefore, hands joined with reason make a double trophy. Hope strengthens labors, and labors beget hope. But you, while propitiating the Divine, neglect nothing that must be done, and you will reap fine and great hopes.
115. To succor those in need of what each requires is fitting for a royal and prudent mind, especially for those who have fallen into calamities. For they are accustomed, among other things, to preserve an everlasting memory of the benefit bestowed.
116. The happiness of subjects proclaims the supreme prudence and justice of the authority.
117. Regarding whatever you do well, whether in your private life or in the common life of the state, it is right to ascribe the cause to God. For in this way you will have Him more willing as a helper, and you will seem to be beloved by God; and you will not prove yourself to be frivolous or arrogant, and you will show the stings of envy to be broken and blunted.
118. These few things out of many (O noble and genuine offspring of my spiritual travails, to whom I entrust the tokens of friendship and adoption, as if they were certain divine symbols and archetypal tablets of virtue) I place before you, that as you...
A turn your eyes to them, and as you model and shape yourself according to them, you will not find it difficult to perceive which of your actions cause beauty to flourish within your soul, and which, like stains and wrinkles, are wont to alter it into a shameful and unseemly appearance. By washing away the latter and inscribing the former, you will truly present yourself as a living and excellent statue of a life ordered according to God, a spectacle and a narrative most delightful to me and to all the pious.
For this reason, stretching forth my hands to heaven, and offering up to God in supplication both my affection and labor for you, and the glory resulting therefrom to God, I pray in every vow that you may fulfill our admonitions in deed, according to the hopes conceived for you, and faithfully guard them, so that in every particular of your noble works, you may be seen to be illustrious and excellent: that you may possess supreme prudence, that your memory may be strong, that you may be sweet in speech, sweeter in your ways, lovable to those you meet, and even more so to your companions and friends: that you may be able to prudently determine and order whatever is at hand, and keenly foresee what is to come: cautious in keeping safe, prompt and ready for undertaking great things, and able to bring them to completion and preserve them in the same state: that you may studiously hide what is for your advantage, and not bring it out from its hiding places, but rather uncover the spies and those who would use force: may you be terrible to your enemies, desirable to your subjects, and have both reverence and admiration from both. May you overcome pleasures by temperance and be master over anger. Be a friend of gentleness, swift in investigating justice, impartial in distributing it, constant in your judgment, faithful to your promises, courageous in fears, fearful of every transgression of the law, and exchanging no hardship or noble labor for ease. Be prompt to do good, slow to punish, a lover of friendship, an enemy of enmity, a fountain of mercy. Conceive no great opinion of yourself, judge yourself lesser through humility, despise riches, be a helper to the poor, cherish the truth, and do not make a covenant with liars. Do not be cast down in spirit if you do not attain glory, but if you do attain it, do not be puffed up. Restrain your tongue, guard your ears, stand as an immovable master over touch and the other senses, deliver yourself to no passion, nor be beguiled by the itch of desire. And to sum up all in one word, be for me an exemplar and outline of every virtue and piety; not only to your own subjects, but to the whole race of mortals, and to those who shall be after you, so that they may have an excellent admonisher of great and noble things. Thus, that kingdom of heaven, D the indescribable and eternal, will be granted to you as an inalienable inheritance, as a dwelling possessed without a successor, and for the enjoyment of a pleasure and joy that is above nature and clearly divine, to be enjoyed throughout all eternity.
ANGELO MAI'S ADMONITION
A1. The reason for my publishing in this volume the two letters of the Patriarch Photius—the one to Zacharias, Patriarch of the Armenians, and the other to Asutius, a supreme prince of that same people—was the 139th letter of Nicholas the Mystic, in which, as we have seen, these discourses of Photius with the Armenians are commemorated. Indeed, Samuel of Ani—whom I once published at Milan with the aid of the illustrious Zohrab—is also a witness to the letter to Zacharias, stating in his *Chronicle* under the year of Christ 878: "Photius was patriarch at Constantinople, who had recently written a letter to our patriarch Zacharias for the sake of entering into communion." At this point we editors noted: this long letter of Photius exists in the Armenian codices of the Venetian College of San Lazzaro. Concerning the other contemporary letter of Photius to Prince Asutius, Serpos speaks in his *Compendium of History*, Vol. II, p. 44. Admonished by this threefold testimony—of Nicholas, Samuel, and Serpos—concerning the existence and, at the very least, the preservation in a foreign tongue (for these two letters are read neither in the Greek edition of Photius’ letters by Montagu, nor have they ever been observed by me in Greek codices) of both Photian writings, I requested the Reverend Mechitarist Fathers that, if it could be done for their convenience and at their pleasure, they might share the Photian letters with me. They showed such great kindness that they immediately granted me a transcript of them, along with the Italian translation made by the very learned Father Edward Hormuz, a man most dear to me. Having received this gift, I was unwilling to miss the opportunity to associate Photius with Nicholas, who was his friend and successor in the see; and, what is of greater interest, I was eager to bring this new supplement to ecclesiastical history to public notice immediately. For this is one of the many discourses by which the Greek Church has endeavored to restore concord and religious unity of faith with the Armenians.B2. Assuredly, I will not weave together a series of all the disputations that have been held between the two Churches, for it pertains rather to the general history of religion. I see, however, that the first among almost all to descend into this arena was Saint Proclus, who lived in the fifth century, even before the Council of Chalcedon, writing a dogmatic letter to the Armenians by which he fortified them against false doctrines. The letter itself still remains among the works of Proclus, and the history of the matter is explained in Galanus, Vol. I, p. 69 et seq. The Trullan canons, issued in the seventh century, are most famous for having amended in particular the liturgy and discipline of the Armenians. Then, in the eighth century, Saint Germanus I, Patriarch of Byzantium, expressed his zeal for the orthodoxy of the Armenians, having sent letters to them to persuade them to the confession of the two natures in Christ and to the admission of the Council of Chalcedon; although these letters do not survive, certain knowledge of them is read in the menologion of the Armenians themselves in Galanus, p. 78, and also in the Council of Tarsus in the same, p. 341. It is said that the Armenians then completely agreed with Germanus (*op. cit.* p. 77), especially because they count him among the saints. Now, in the following century, Photius narrates with curiosity how many times the Armenian bishops received the faith of Chalcedon and participated in and subscribed to other ecumenical councils. A little while later, Nicholas the Mystic sent his letter to the Armenians, of which we also wrote a Latin summary in the preface, n. 14. Neither attempt had any result, as we said regarding Nicholas; and regarding Photius himself, Nicholas writes in the aforementioned letter, which strongly contradicts the things narrated by Serpos, Vol. II, p. 46. There followed in the twelfth century, after the year 1170, while Manuel Comnenus was reigning among the Greeks, two celebrated legations and disputations to the Armenians for the sake of religious concord between Theorianus the philosopher and Nerses of Kla, the first of which Leunclavius published, and the second of which we published, having found it in at least five codices. However, the happy outcome of these seems to have been corrupted by the death of the patriarch; until, five years later, the matter was again fiercely debated and nearly settled at the Council of Tarsus, when, by God’s permission, it collapsed again due to the similar death of the Emperor Manuel.
C3. But beyond the things said thus far, there are some other things I have found which, I hope, I shall deliver in another collection of ancient monuments; for now, however, I shall offer a summary notice of them. For around the year of Christ 1240, while the last Latin Emperor, Baldwin, was reigning at Constantinople, and the Greek Emperor, John Ducas Vatatzes, at Nicaea, the attempt to join the dogmatic peace with the Armenians was renewed by the Greeks. Germanus II, then the Greek patriarch, wrote a letter to Constantine, who was at that time the Armenian patriarch, which I read in the Vatican codices under this title and opening: "To the most sublime Catholicos of the entire Armenian Church, which is throughout the whole world, and who is adorned with wisdom and prudence, Lord Constantine, Germanus, by the mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch." It begins: "Let the heaven exult and the earth rejoice today," etc. In it, Germanus commemorates first Tiridates and Constantine as contemporaries of the—
(1) The letter of John, Bishop of Nicaea, to the same Zacharias, published by Combefis in *Auctarium B. PP.* Vol. II, p. 297, which deals only with the celebration of feasts, must be distinguished from the dogmatic letter of Photius. (2) Therefore, [the mention of] Germanus II, who likewise wrote to the Armenians for concord, as we shall soon see, cannot be confused with [Germanus I]. For the Council of Tarsus, in which words are made concerning Germanus, was before Germanus the Second.
A nations; and how the former was converted by the miracle of the sight of the Cross, and cleansed from leprosy by the waters of baptism through the blessed Sylvester; and the latter was snatched from the mire of vices and a beastly life by the preaching of St. Gregory: and how both these kings, concordant in the communion of religion, took care that the orthodox doctrine of Christ should be delivered to their own peoples. And that the Armenians indeed gave their assent to the first three councils of ecumenical authority; but later, deceived by the fraud of the devil, they fell into a pestiferous heresy, by which, affirming a single nature in Christ compounded of deity and humanity, they utterly ruined the whole economy of the incarnation. For thus Christ would be consubstantial neither to his eternal Father, who has nothing of humanity, nor to the Virgin Mother, who, in turn, is devoid of deity. In vain, however, did the Armenians object that the orthodox divide Christ in two; for this is the blasphemy of Nestorius, whom the Church abominates as a man like the Jews. But with the Armenians thus separated from the Catholic body, other corrupt customs, contrary to ecclesiastical tradition, later took root among them, as usually happens. We have said these things briefly, which are written somewhat more fully in the Greek text as follows: B "(The devil) separated the Armenians from the Romans, though they previously held brotherly opinions, not by a bodily separation (for this is a small injury), but by a psychic one. He also separated them from Christ, not that they themselves divide the one Christ into two Christs (for this is the doctrine of Nestorius, who is opposed to them, whom we also with our whole soul subject to eternal anathema, as one of the Synagogue of the Jews), but because they boldly fuse the two natures into one; so that the Son is not conceived as consubstantial and connatural either to the pre-eternal Father or to the time-bound Mother; for the Father is not from deity and humanity, nor is the Mother such; but it behooves those who think rightly to preach this as connatural to the Father and to us; but it will not be preached in this way, if the two natures, when mixed, have been brought together into one; but they are preserved unconfused in the same and one Christ. This is the first cause of the separation; and this good limb of the Armenians, cut off from the common whole body, was cast far away; and a limb, once cut off from the totality, is surrounded by many evils after the amputation, it blackens, it rots, it sends forth stench, it breeds worms; for the Church of the Armenians has not remained in that first heresy alone, but has also discovered other customs contrary to ecclesiastical traditions."
4. Germanus presently proceeds to the praises of Haiton, king of the Armenians, and likewise of their patriarch Constantine, who were laboring with sincere affection, as he hopes, for the restoration of the concord of the faith, having sent to the Greeks legates, Theodoret the hegumen and Basil the monk: from which matter and hope Germanus (being at that time driven from his see and wandering) affirms that he received more joy than if Constantinople, oppressed by the tyranny of the Latins, as he says, had been restored to the authority of the Greek Caesar. Furthermore, he says that he had conceived such confidence concerning the conversion of the Armenians that, even though he had received no letters from the Catholic, he himself, trusting in the testimony of the patriarch of Antioch, who was an observer of that matter, and also in the affirmation of the monk Theodoret, had undertaken the business, having sent the metropolitan of Melitene to the Armenians; whom he now requests to be sent back to him with some of the bishops of his nation, so that he may be made certain of the pleasure of the Catholic and the king concerning so great a matter.
C ... who, even though it is read in a different and far-removed codex in Armenian and Latin, it is manifest from the title that it pertains to this discussion, which is as follows: *A short confession of the faith of the Armenians, delivered by the holy Fathers and received; but written to the holy-begotten patriarch of Constantinople, by the order of Constantine, the Catholic of the Armenians.* This confession is concerned with the exposition of the mysteries of the most holy Trinity, and of the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and return to heaven of Christ Jesus. And the entire discourse is of such a kind that it seems it can be understood everywhere in a Catholic sense: although it altogether avoids any mention of two natures, let alone the definition of Chalcedon, and, moreover, a possibly equivocal meaning underlies certain particulars. Otherwise, Constantine calls the humanity of Christ passible and mortal, and his divinity immortal: the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father: the body of Christ given to us for food, and his blood as a sacrifice for sins: he twice praises the authority of Athanasius the Great, looking, as is plainly evident, to his symbol. Certainly, this Constantine was held as orthodox by the Roman pontiff Gregory IX, who sent the pallium and other ornaments to him with peaceful letters, which are in Rainaldus at the year of Christ 1239, n. 82.
5. ... changed his life and died; therefore he could be received by none other than the patriarchal clergy and the college of bishops, who, having read it, wrote back the epistle during the vacancy of the see, which survives in the Vatican codex, with this title and beginning: *An apostolic letter to the libellus of the Church of the Armenians, written by the order of Constantine, the lord of the same Church, to the most holy patriarch lord Germanus, published after his departure to the Lord by the archbishops subject to the throne of Constantinople.* — "He who has girded himself with the royal authority of the race of the Armenians, etc." *A response to the libellus of the Armenian Church [written] by order of the lord Constantine, the Catholic of the same Church, to the most holy patriarch lord Germanus. This response was made after his passing to the Lord, by the bishops subject to the Constantinopolitan see. It begins: He who holds the royal dignity among the Armenian people, etc.* And the Greeks say that the libellus of the Armenians was brought to the patriarch by Gregory, metropolitan of Isauria, and they seem to call it perhaps a little obscure and abstruse in the depth of its meanings, yet passable to the searching charity. Wherefore they, in turn, having recited their own brilliant profession of faith, invite the Armenians to the same, and to the establishing of an all-encompassing concord of dogmas. Therefore the seven synods (among which is Chalcedon) are sum-
- A moned as so many priestly trumpets by which they say the walls of a profane Jericho—that is to say, of heresies—were leveled. Then they rejoice that the Armenians now speak in their missive in such a way that it appears they do not dissent from the Chalcedonian synod: "For you know and confess clearly with us the one hypostasis of Christ the Son of God, composed of two natures, divinity and humanity; and you adore one Son and God, united to flesh that is ensouled, endowed with mind and reason, according to the hypostatic union; and the natures remain unconfused, having come together and constituted the one hypostasis of Christ. For we condemn with anathema the senseless Nestorius, who babbled of a duality of sons, and who called the All-holy Theotokos 'Christotokos.' But well done to you, brothers, that you now accept the fruits of the fourth synod, which you formerly spat out as sour grapes, as ripe and very sweet. We wish, moreover, that we might see you sitting together with us under the shadow of the tree that has put forth such fruits. For we have found in your missive the unconfused nature of the two natures in Christ that have come together, and the singleness of the hypostasis; and we trust that you also rightly cast off with us the mixture, and the blending, and the confusion which mixes the two natures into one single nature. And we trust you also cast off those who taught this, the mindless Dioscorus and the wretched Eutyches, whom the fourth synod of the six hundred and thirty Fathers at Chalcedon, together with the holy Pope Leo of ancient Rome, the divinely-minded, delivered over to anathema." It is certain, however, that the errors of the Armenians were condemned especially in the fourth, fifth, and sixth synods, which were celebrated against the Monophysites, Synusiasts, Synchytics, and Monothelites. And indeed the Greeks explicitly note that the fourth [synod] was confirmed by the sixth. Therefore, since the Armenians have now demonstrated by their own confession that they have tasted the fruits of the fourth synod, which they previously rejected, the Greeks urge them to finally be willing to rest under the shadow of this same tree, that is, under the authority of that synod; by this statement they hint that the Armenians had not yet offered a public and manifest assent to the Chalcedonian synod—which is the almost eternal calamity and misery of that nation; I speak of the nation insofar as it is schismatic and suffers from Monophysitism (for I always except that part of it which is catholic and in agreement with the Roman pontiff). B Then the letter touches, not without cause, upon the seventh synod also, [the one] against the Iconoclasts; for Nicetas Choniata narrates in *Historia* (book II, 3) that the Armenians were at one time also infected with this heresy. Finally, having renewed the exhortation toward full orthodoxy, with no article excepted ("If therefore, brothers, you also think as we do, refashion yourselves according to our likeness and form in Christ, in all our ordinances delivered by God and in our sacred traditions, and fill up whatever is lacking, and rightly remove whatever is in excess"), the Greeks say that they are sending to the Armenians John, the bishop of Melitene, together with another John, a logothete of the Constantinopolitan Church, who in the words of the Greek synod may treat in person on behalf of the recently deceased Germanus, to whose see no one had yet succeeded. C This man had occupied the Byzantine cathedra after the three-month administration of Methodius II. Behold the title and beginning of the letter: "Letter sent by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the lord Manuel, to the King of the Armenians, the lord Hethum, and to their Catholicos, the lord Constantine, and to their entire Church, again for the third time, concerning the union with us Romans, in the year 6756, which is for the Greeks the year 6756 [sic], for the Latins 1248, in the sixth indiction." And it begins: "Most fortunate, most noble, most glorious, most sublime, world-renowned King of the most manly and powerful race of the Armenians, for the third time now we address a letter to your most magnificent regal authority, and to all the most noble [men], et cetera, and to the most wise [men], et cetera, to the most sublime Catholicos of the Church of the Armenians, et cetera." The patriarch Manuel himself (as Germanus above) thus subscribes to the letter: "Manuel, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch." This letter is also long, in which prayers are first made to God that He might illuminate the king of the Armenians with His grace, whereby he might likewise hold a torch before his own nation for the discerning of orthodox faith; which words, I believe, indicate that the king and his nation had not yet come to the full light of truth. There is also a refutation once again of Monophysitism and Monothelitism, with a clear and theological exposition of the Lord’s incarnation and life. Mention is made of letters from the Greek Patriarchs of Antioch (for the Armenian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Antiochene patriarchate) to the Greek Emperor and to Germanus II, formerly patriarch, which urged the task of concord to be done "without any complication whatsoever and without guile," without any tergiversation or deceit: which Antiochene letters the monks Theodoretus and Blasius had brought. Thereafter a history of the past proceedings is woven together; namely, that Germanus, having received those letters, had ordered the Metropolitan of Melitene to go as legate into Armenia; and that the Armenians in turn had sent a libellus of their faith, when the patriarch Germanus had meanwhile died. Then the clergy of the vacant church and the emperor, having read the libellus, sent the bishop of Melitene again into Armenia, with another prelate, and with those letters which we have called the second [letters], and which we summarized a little while ago. What followed from that, the patriarch Manuel now says, namely that the Armenians gave the legates empty words—that is, that nothing could be concluded because their patriarch was far away at the fortress of Romela on the Euphrates, without whose authority, and that of the national synod as well, the union could not be accomplished. Therefore, after this second legation and the futile response of the Armenians, some years passed (namely from about the year 1241 up to 1248); until the Armenians seemed again to have written to the Greek Emperor concerning the business of concord: which the Greeks, so that they might conclude it without further delay, now send a third legation, namely the aforementioned [bishop] of Melitene, and Phocas, the metropolitan of Philadelphia,
A and to confirm, if possible, a religious covenant, yet in such a way that they would first inquire into certain chapters of the Armenians, as it was of great importance whether they would admit them or not. Finally, Patriarch Manuel urges King Haiton and his people, mindful of the orthodox Tiridates and the ancient bishops of Armenia who participated in the three previous councils, to conspire in the unity of faith with the Catholic antiquity.
8. From these things which we have hitherto discussed, it is clearly evident that the chief heresy of the Armenians consists in this, that they are willing neither to profess the two natures in Christ, nor to admit the Synod of Chalcedon and the epistle of the holy Pope Leo, which defined this dogma. Fourteen centuries, therefore, have now almost elapsed since the greater part of the Armenians have been mired in said sect and perversity of doctrine; and we have seen the efforts of the Greeks to insinuate orthodoxy and restore concord to be for the most part in vain. We know, however, that the efforts of the Latins with the Armenians have been somewhat more successful: for behold, a moderate number of his people, elected by the grace of God, having cast off that badge of heresy which we have designated, foster unity with the Roman pontiff, that is, with the Catholic Church. May that number of blessed and God-beloved souls increase more and more each day; a matter which we contemplate with hope that is perhaps neither vain nor weak.
EPISTLE IX
To Zacharias, Patriarch of the Armenians
To the illustrious man, shining in every kind of virtue, our most beloved lord Zacharias, an apostolic man holding the see of the great apostle Thaddaeus and the most blessed Saint Gregory, master and inspector of the Ararat region, primate of the northern people, and great shepherd of the armies of Ascenez, established in pontifical eminence, and possessing the pledge of a future reward among the angels, Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, says: Greetings to your holiness.
1. We give many thanks, by whose benefit it came to pass that we received the epistle of your holiness, which is a messenger of your Catholic faith; and that in it, as if in a sun of theology, sparing in words but rich in doctrine, we perceived a zeal for spiritual concord. But that you write that you are in doubt concerning the Council of Chalcedon, and hold it suspect, because it has been rumored that it is opposed to the other orthodox councils; yet you add that you are absolutely not disciples of Jacob Zanzalus, from whom the Jacobites [descend], nor of Julian of Halicarnassus, nor of Peter of Antioch, nor of Eutyches, but of Saint Gregory, martyr and confessor and illuminator of all the northern peoples—this, I say, has filled us with great joy. For since you are disciples of so great a teacher, it is by no means fitting that you should follow the counsels of your own mind, but rather embrace that sentiment which the Holy Scriptures persuade; nor should you hold in high regard the false cavil of those who distort Holy Scripture to suit their own opinion, casting a veil over the inconstant minds of men, just as the pseudoprophets of old used to speak according to the judgment of their own minds, not by the will of God.
2. We have discovered by diligent investigation that the Council of Chalcedon was convened in the fifteenth year after the departure of Saint Isaac from this life to Christ Jesus; in which year Saint Vardan, with his army, suffered martyrdom in the province of Ardacen, when Joseph, one of the companions of Leontius, held the episcopal see. Wherefore the Armenians, harassed by the Persian incursion, could not be present at that council; and hence it happened that a truthful report of that council did not reach them. Nevertheless, the Armenians did not oppose that council; nay rather, they acknowledged its authority until the conventicle of Dvin, for 106 years, namely from the second year of Marcian up to the tenth year of Justinian and the sixth B year of the Catholicus Nerses of Ascitaracis, who convened the aforementioned council of Dvin, while the Persians C in Armenia.
A reigning, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Chosroes; he used for this matter the ministry of Abdiscius the Syrian, who had arrived with his companions from the monastery of Sassan and Sarepta. These men were ordained as bishops by Nerses, and they admitted Dioscorus, and Flavian, the bishop of the city of Nabuch, and Timothy of Alexandria surnamed Aelurus. They also translated various books into the Armenian language, inserting many calumnies against the Council of Chalcedon. For this reason, they are designated by the title of the latest translators.
They added to the Trisagion the words “who wast crucified”; which they did zealously, in order to contradict the Council of Chalcedon and the five patriarchs; and thus, having been struck by anathema, they withdrew from the communion of the Greeks. This matter affected the King of the Persians with great joy, because he saw that the Armenians had indeed withdrawn from the authority of the Greeks; wherefore, having praised Nerses, he handed over his own son to him for adoption, just as he had promised, and permitted the tax revenues of the Armenian province to be managed by him and the bishops who favored him. Nevertheless, in the 16th year of the Armenian era, Vardan Mamikonian killed Surenas, the prefect of the Armenian province for the King of the Persians, being unable to endure the injury which Surenas had inflicted upon the nobles by transferring the dignities taken from them to the bishops; which crime having been committed, he himself fled to the Greeks with his kinsmen and great riches.
On the feast day of the Cross, Vardan refused to communicate in the sacred rites of the Greeks, saying that such a thing was not permitted to him by his founders. Then the emperor ordered a council of many bishops and teachers to be convened, and one hundred and thirty men gathered in Constantinople. This is called the Fifth Council; the Armenians also attended it, and testified in writing that they admitted the Council of Chalcedon. Furthermore, when Mushegh Mamikonian, with the combined forces of the Greeks and Armenians, had broken the power of Chosroes, King of the Persians, and had returned to the Emperor Maurice having been dismissed by the king himself not without honor, a conversation having perchance arisen regarding sacred matters in the presence of the emperor, he convened a new council, to which 21 Armenian bishops and 160 Greeks B gathered; and this is called the Sixth Council, in which the Armenians, a question having been instigated, again approved the Council of Chalcedon by a written vote under Moses, the Catholicus of their nation.
5. Finally, when the Emperor Heraclius had returned from the victory in Persia to Carinam (which is Erzurum), Esdras, the Catholicus of the Armenians, convened many bishops of his nation, and indeed several Syrians as well; with whom, the controversy having been aired carefully for thirty days, the Armenians consented again of their own accord, with no one compelling them, to firmly accept the Council of Chalcedon in writing. But as for John of Mairagom, he, being seized by the disease of Sabellius and Peter of Antioch, was disturbing the minds of all with madness. For which reason, in the reign of Constantius the son of Heraclius, while Nerses, who is called Scinoghus, was patriarch, and Diodorus of Restuni held the principate of the Armenians, the forehead of this wicked man was branded with the sign of a fox by a hot iron, and having been defamed in this way, he was relegated to the crags of the Caucasus. But he, having returned to Armenia after the death of Nerses, gained his wish, especially after the book of Julian of Halicarnassus was translated into the Armenian language by the efforts of Sergius at the synod of Manazkert. And hence, his doctrine being confirmed, it spread through almost the entire region of your people with rapid progress.
6. And now, true prudence clearly understands that if such a large number of bishops confirmed the errors by gathering at Chalcedon, it is not they alone who are to be blamed, but the whole world which has given its assent to their opinion. Nevertheless, I urge you, by your virtue, to take care lest you be deceived. For indeed, weak, unstable, and unlearned men are accustomed to labor under credulity and be deceived by frauds; however, wise men turn their ears away from fallacies of this kind.
Afterwards, Photius narrates the origins and growth of the Christian religion somewhat more fully, praising the Greek nation especially for its varied knowledge of human letters, which paved the way for the true religion that was to be received; and because of so many of its Catholic doctors, whom he names: and he praises Constantinople by name as if it were a new Jerusalem. Otherwise, he speaks maliciously and far from all truth concerning the origin of some of the patriarchates. This part of the Photian epistle, being useless as it contains nothing new, we omit because of the compressed space of our book: and we hasten to the controversy with the Armenians, which both then and at all times was twofold: namely, regarding the acceptance of the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and regarding what must be believed and professed in words as double in
Christ's nature. For the fact that the heterodox Armenians reject the Council of Chalcedon to this very day is not caused by ignorance or error concerning a historical fact, but rather by the monophysite heresy itself, which, though condemned by the Council, they retain, handed down from their ancestors and defended, while they tenaciously speak of one nature in their writings and confessions of Christ; this is against the protests of all those who at any time have disputed against them, the defenders of the Chalcedonian synod, as can be seen often in these epistles of Photius and other Greeks, and in other books of the ancients published by me. Thus, therefore, Photius continues:
B 7. C Now, since the years of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ have passed by 451; and then, after the Council of Chalcedon down to our time, 424 years have passed, it is wonderful and almost monstrous that it could be believed by you that a holy, elect, and acceptable people, who for 451 years preserved the Gospel with sound dogma, and by which they were irrigated as if by a copious fountain and a perpetual river of the world, could have allowed themselves to be carried away by a sudden error; since they have rather always refuted all heretics and preserved the orthodox faith. Moreover, it is most certain that all men have drawn the evangelical truth from the aforementioned doctors: for the books of the holy doctors whom we praised above have been spread throughout the world, who openly assert the divinity of Christ. Therefore, let us begin from the holy Nicene Council, whose argument we shall briefly set forth, and compare it with the Chalcedonian, so that it may appear whether the latter agrees with the former and follows in its footsteps, or whether it rather opposes or contradicts it.
8. Blessed Epiphanius counts eighty heresies, twenty indeed before the incarnation of our Lord, and after this sixty. Yet, there was no need of a universal council to extinguish them, because the holy doctors of the Church, at every time, along with some bishops, had defeated them and overwhelmed them as with stones by the oracles of truth. Therefore, that impious prince, who, aspiring to deity, said he would place his throne above the clouds, and that he equaled himself to the Most High, when he saw the Gospel running with a swift course through the four quarters of the world, with no one hindering it, touched by envy, himself also fashioned for himself a four-fold chariot, against the evangelical chariot, composing four wheels from four heresies, of which two vomit forth blasphemies against the most holy Trinity, and the remaining two against the incarnation of the Savior, just as it is written: They have set their mouth against the heaven, and their tongue has passed through the earth. Truly, they have done insult to the most holy Trinity, and have calumniated the Word who descended to the earth for the salvation of the world, and the economy of his incarnation. D The cause of such a pernicious error for them was their own stupidity, affirming one nature and one hypostasis, that is, one person. In reality, Sabellius the Libyan, although he professed one nature of the most holy Trinity, yet he confounded the persons into one, and cast himself into the abyss of destruction, because he introduced confusion and mixture, and another Judaism. Arius, on the other hand, a man of Alexandria, just as he split the three persons in the most holy Trinity, so he strove to subdivide the nature into three diverse and different substances; and consequently, straying from the truth, he said the Son was created by the Father, not begotten.
9. Since, therefore, the Church was being disturbed by Sabellius and Arius, 325 years after the nativity of the great God, our Lord Jesus Christ, under the Emperor Constantine, the holy Fathers came together at Nicaea, and there were present the patriarchs, Silvester for Rome, Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Constantinople, Macarius of Jerusalem, and also Aristaces of the Armenians, holding the place of Saint Gregory: and these together with 318 bishops drove out Sabellius and Arius from the Church with anathemas, and confessed the Son as begotten from the Father and of the same substance as him. Soon after, from the Arian sect arose Macedonius, the enemy of the Holy Spirit, whom he said was created, and not emitted nor proceeding from the Father. But Montanus and other disciples of Sabellius, with still greater impiety, reduced the most holy Trinity to a single person. Therefore, 56 years after the Nicene Council had passed, in the year 111 of the great Emperor Theodosius, the holy Fathers were gathered at Constantinople. Present were the patriarchs Damasus of Rome, Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Meletius of Antioch, and Saint Nerses.
713 EPISTOLARUM LIBER I. 714
Just as the Nicene Council was received, so also the Council of Chalcedon revered the three preceding ones; it clearly appears that it agrees with them and is in no way contrary. Furthermore, the laws, rules, canons, and institutions were confirmed either by councils or by miracles. By miracles, for example, those of Moses in Egypt and at the Red Sea, or those of our Lord Jesus Christ healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.; by councils, however, such as that of the 318 Fathers and that of the 150, which defined that there is one nature in the Trinity and three persons, and pronounced anathema upon Sabellius and Arius. But at Ephesus, the Fathers taught that the Virgin Mary is the Theotokos, and they excommunicated Nestorius. Finally, in the fourth council, they affirmed that the divine Word was incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and they removed Dioscorus, along with Eutyches, from Christian communion. But come now, Dioscorus and Eutyches, since they are two, certainly do not constitute a council, nor did they perform miracles, nor did anyone see them supported by the authority of wonders as were Elijah and Elisha. Why, therefore, should it be permitted, neglecting the 630 bishops who were the authors of the Council of Chalcedon—many of whom had also attended the Council of Ephesus—to give credence to two men only? This would certainly be the height of folly.
...was united, for the sake of avenging the murder of Flavian. But this is a mere fallacy: for that council was convoked by the will of God and the mandate of Leo, the Roman pontiff, of Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, of Maximus, patriarch of Antioch, and of Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem. For these four patriarchs, together with 630 bishops, confirmed the profession of faith published in the previous three councils, and they professed one Lord Jesus Christ in a single person and hypostasis, from two united natures, that they might stop the mouths of Nestorius and Theodore and Dioscorus: and they said that He is from two natures, that they might impose silence upon those who do not admit both the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ, and who say that He consists of a single nature.
...who said that there is one nature of the Word, created and made. Sabellius said that the divine Word only apparently, not in reality, put on a body for Himself in the world; and so he, too, declared there to be one nature. Peter thought that the Word was reduced into a body, and for that reason confessed one nature. Photinus and Paul of Samosata taught that Christ Jesus took His beginning from Mary; and for that reason they too said that there is one nature for them. Eutyches and Dioscorus opined that Christ Jesus only bore the likeness of a man, and that He passed through the Virgin like water through a pipe; and for that reason they affirmed one nature of Jesus Christ. Julian of Halicarnassus said that the body of Christ Jesus was impassible and wanting in mind, and on account of this he believed in a single nature. John of Maiuma and Peter the Fuller taught that the conjunction of Christ Jesus with the body was made before the ages, and from this [argued] that there is one nature. Apollinaris truly taught that Christ Jesus did not assume a human soul, but that its place was held by the deity: wherefore he, too, fostered the false dogma of one nature. Sophronius, likewise along with Eunomius, said that Jesus Christ lacked a human mind, and consequently that He has a single nature. Manes preached that the body of the Savior was phantastic, and therefore that there is a single nature in Him: nay, in his letter to Scythianus he recounted that the Son of God showed the apostles on the mountain the nature of His perpetual light, because He did not have two natures but one, fashioned from the visible and the invisible. Here the letter of Photius ends in the Armenian exemplar, of which the conclusion is certainly missing.
Letter 10. To Asutius, prince of the Armenians.
To the illustrious, pious, powerful Asutius, endowed with high dignity among his own, prince of Great Armenia, Photius, ecumenical patriarch, by the grace of God first of the bishops of New Rome.
...relies upon the protection of heavenly grace, and we know it to be joined with the holy canonical Church, with the exception of one article—that you believe the Council of Chalcedon to have been contrary to God and the truth, when it rather confirmed the deposition and exile of Nestorius, and fundamentally abolished his execrable dogma. For who does not know that they labor under stupidity who reject the Council of Chalcedon, and become entirely like those who reproached our Lord and Redeemer when He cast out demons? In reality, the princes of the demons do not differ at all from those who reviled Him for casting demons out of men. But now, since that holy council pronounced anathema on Nestorius and his followers, who now doubts that Nestorius is a minister of Satan, he who spurned the holy Council of Ephesus, and made himself the author of a new sect? If, therefore, the fourth council agrees with the third, why do you curse it, and traduce it as impious? When, moreover, it has been discovered by us that your greatness enjoys the patronage of the Lord, and that you are the people of God, and alien to any foreign dogma.
A Roman, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, who together with two hundred bishops exterminated the impious Nestorius from the Church, having struck him with anathema. Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Cyzicus, by letters sent to Saint Isaac in Armenia, informed him of the cause of the council that had been celebrated; and Saint Isaac truly admitted the authority of the council and pronounced anathema against Nestorius. This had been the third wheel of the Tartarean chariot.
14. Thereafter appeared the wicked Eutyches, a sprout of the Sabellian sect, who asserted that the nature of Jesus Christ was one of divinity; for he supposed that the union had been made before the ages, and that the body was brought down from heaven, and was not taken from the Virgin. Nestorius denied that the divine Word was born of the Virgin, while Eutyches denied that the Word had taken our nature from the Mother, and had joined it with His divinity by an ineffable and wondrous reason. Moreover, Flavian, the patriarch of our metropolis, when the matter was known, immediately deprived Eutyches of the priesthood and of the communion of the Church by the order of Leo, the Roman patriarch. Yet he begged the chief eunuch, whom his pestilence had affected, Chrysaphius, to write to Dioscorus of Alexandria on his behalf; which in fact the eunuch did, giving letters to Dioscorus, by whom Eutyches was received into the bosom of the Church. But soon Dioscorus himself, struck by the stings of conscience, fearing the canons of the Church and the law of excommunication—because he had received a man deposed and subject to anathema—demanded without delay from that chief eunuch in the palace that a council be convoked at Ephesus, B not indeed in conformity with the divine will, nor useful to the Church, but that he might veil the crime he had committed. And truly Dioscorus did not conduct himself there by synodical right, but, supported by the eunuch and military forces, he punished Flavian with exile and death, ignored the epistle of Leo, the Roman patriarch, and excommunicated Domnus, the patriarch of Antioch, who had disapproved of his crime. He likewise despised Juvenal, the patriarch of Jerusalem, promoting Eutyches instead, whom he held in honor as if he were orthodox. The fraud of Dioscorus being known, the sorrowful bishops departed, each to his own region and station, and only Dioscorus remained with Eutyches and a few others, like a raven in its nest, like a screech-owl in the ruins, like finally a burning brand in a forest. Therefore, from the age of the great Cyril and the first holy council of Ephesus until the conciliabulum of Dioscorus, 18 years passed; and from this to Chalcedon, two years.
15. Since a disturbance had been propagated by the report which Dioscorus had caused in the Church, and while he was greatly agitated on account of this matter, he received in time a letter from Leo, the Roman patriarch, who asked the emperor to convoke an ecumenical council for the sake of strengthening the tradition of the holy ancient Fathers. The emperor therefore ordered that an assembly of bishops be held. But when he had died in that same year, the decree lacked effect. Soon, however, his successor Marcian in the first year ordered the empire toward obedience, and in the second took care to execute the aforementioned proposal.
16. One must conclude, therefore, as we have already argued above, that if all the churches for 451 years after the saving incarnation until the Council of Chalcedon continued in the true religion and orthodox faith, and like a nurse provided milk to the world in Christ as to little ones, through renowned teachers flowing from the evangelical fountain—a matter which is manifest to the whole world—how could they have strayed from the straight path which they had always held? Who would believe that the five patriarchs could have diverted to the same false opinion and council? For if these had in fact revolted from the true faith, they would have been without doubt abandoned by God and cast out from the holy places, no differently than the Israelite people, rebellious to God, were despoiled of their glory.
17. Now let us compare with that orthodox doctrine the disciples of the Jacobites and acephali, the followers of Dioscorus and Eutyches, who contended that the nature of Christ, God and man, was one, and thought that the person and the nature were one and the same thing. Certainly, it follows from their opinion that the most holy Trinity does not exist; for if the nature of the Trinity is one, as it truly is, it must also be that there is one person: and so they conspire with Sabellius, and with Peter the Fuller, and John of Mairacomes. But otherwise, if person and nature are one [i.e., identical], it follows that, because there are three persons of the most holy Trinity, there must necessarily be three natures, as the insane opinion of your people demands, C who in this way agree with Arius, Eunomius, and Macedonius.
18. Add that opposites are excluded by opposites, just as the good repels the evil, and light destroys darkness; darkness does not endure the light. So entirely must it be argued in our case. If the Council of Chalcedon does not admit the previous three, then it opposes them and abolishes them. But otherwise, if, as has been proven by the Council of Constantinople...
[The Nicene faith was received, and subsequently the Chalcedonian, which revered the first three; it clearly appears that this agrees with those, and in no way is it contrary. Moreover, laws, regulations, canons, and institutions were confirmed either by councils or by miracles. By miracles, for example, those of Moses in Egypt and the Red Sea, or our Lord Jesus Christ healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.; by councils, however, such as that of the 318 Fathers and that of the 150, which defined that there is one nature in the Trinity, but three persons, and said anathema to Sabellius and Arius. But at Ephesus, the Fathers taught that the Virgin Mary is the Theotokos, and excommunicated Nestorius. Finally, in the fourth council, they affirmed that the divine Word was incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and removed Dioscorus from Christian communion along with Eutyches. But come, since Dioscorus and Eutyches are two, they surely do not constitute a council, nor did they perform miracles, nor did anyone see them supported by the authority of wonders as Elijah and Elisha were. Why, then, should it be permitted, having omitted the 680 bishops who were the authors of the Chalcedonian council—many of whom had also been present at the council in Ephesus—to join one's faith to only two men? This would surely be the height of folly.
19. They furthermore slander the aforementioned council, as if it were assembled by the work of the emperor’s sister Pulcheria, in order to avenge the death of Flavian. But this is a mere falsehood; for that council was indicted by the will of God and the mandate of Pope Leo of Rome, Anatolius the patriarch of Constantinople, Maximus the patriarch of Antioch, and Juvenal the patriarch of Jerusalem. For these four patriarchs, together with the 630 bishops, confirmed the profession of faith issued by the preceding three councils and professed one Lord Jesus Christ in a single person and hypostasis, from two united natures, that they might obstruct Nestorius, Theodore, and Dioscorus; and they declared him to be from two natures to impose silence on those who do not admit the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ simultaneously, and say that he consists of a single nature.
20. In fact, Arius taught that the Son was a created and made thing, and that he took nothing from the Virgin other than a body; therefore, he also said that the nature he took was one, created and made. Sabellius said that the divine Word had ostensibly assumed a body in the world, but not in reality; and therefore he, too, maintained a single nature. Peter thought that the Word had been reduced into a body, and therefore confessed one nature. Photinus and Paul of Samosata taught that Christ Jesus had his beginning from Mary; and for that reason, they also said that to them he had one nature. Eutyches and Dioscorus opined that Christ Jesus had assumed only the likeness of a man and had passed through the Virgin like water through a pipe; and therefore they affirmed one nature of Jesus Christ. Julian of Halicarnassus said that the body of Christ Jesus was impassible and wanting of a mind, and because of this he believed in a single nature. John Mairacomensis and Peter the Fuller taught that the conjunction of Christ Jesus with the body had occurred before the ages, and from this, that there was one nature. Apollinaris truly taught that Christ Jesus had not assumed a human soul, but that its place was held by his divinity: wherefore he, too, fostered the false dogma of one nature. Sophronius (41) in like manner as well as Eunomius said that Jesus Christ lacked a human mind, and consequently had a single nature. Manes declared that the Savior’s body was phantastic, and therefore there was a single nature in it: indeed, in his epistle to Scythianus he related that the Son of God had shown the apostles on the mount the nature of his perpetual light, because he did not have two natures but one, composed of the visible and the invisible (42).
Here the epistle of Photius ceases in the Armenian copy, and it is certain that the conclusion is missing.
EPISTLE X. To Asutius, Prince of the Armenians.
Edited by Ang. Mai (l. c. p. 460-462).To the illustrious, pious, and powerful, endowed with high dignity among his own, Asutius, Prince of Greater Armenia, Photius, ecumenical patriarch, by the grace of God the first of the bishops of the new Rome.
1. We know that your realm is sustained by the protection of heavenly grace, and joined with the holy canonical Church, with the exception of one article, namely that you believe the Chalcedonian council to be contrary to God and the truth, when it rather confirmed the deposition and exile of Nestorius and utterly abolished his execrable dogma. For who is ignorant that those who reject the Chalcedonian council labor under folly, and become altogether like those who were slandering our Lord and Redeemer when He cast out demons? In fact, the princes of demons differ in no way from those who were criticizing the One casting out demons from men. But now, since that holy council declared anathema to Nestorius and his followers, who now doubts that Nestorius, who scorned the holy council of Ephesus and made himself the author of a new sect, is a minister of Satan? If, therefore, the fourth council consents to the third, why do you curse it and denounce it as impious? When, moreover, it is certain to us that your Highness enjoys the patronage of the Lord, and that you are the people of God, and are alien to any foreign dogma.]
A However, we have received from you written sermons—which are inept in regard to this controversy—which certainly are of no moment, and nothing of perverse doctrine will remain thereafter, since you will follow the fourth council with due obedience, no less than the previous ones. For principal Rome, just as we, pays honor to the fourth council equally with the previous ones: likewise also does the great see of Alexandria, and indeed that of Jerusalem, without any complaint; finally, also the councils that followed: the fifth, sixth, and seventh. Who, then, would dare to resist a faith spread to the ends of the earth? Of which faith the Lord said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Beware, therefore, of the deceits of those who, only in name, differ from Antichrist, who offer deadly poison to souls while they turn them away from the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the demonstrations given by Him.
3. Indeed, these people, on account of the weakness of their minds, do not recognize our Lord Jesus Christ as being God and man, that is to say, endowed with both divine and human nature; and seized by this madness, they deny both natures. In reality, if that one nature which they confess is simple, without doubt they exclude the other; but if it is composed of two simple things, without doubt neither of these retains its own substance, which is rather destroyed in both. But come now, what is the opinion of these men? Do they believe that nature is composite, distinct from the nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit, or otherwise? If they deny it is distinct, they are overwhelmed by their own blasphemy, because the Father’s nature would turn out to be composite. But if, on the contrary, they say it is distinct, then the Son lacks the paternal nature: and it is already apparent to what precipices those who affirm this cast themselves. Who, indeed, could gather from the divine books all the demonstrations of this dogma which the Holy Spirit has already set forth through the fourth council as invincible arguments for the purpose of strengthening the faith, defeating adversaries, and scattering their counsels? Beyond the fact that if I were writing this letter to an ordinary man, there would be need of many words to explain the truth; to your Highness and wisdom, and to your zeal for truth and concord, what I have said so far suffices: especially since I have also written regarding this matter to your supreme prelate more than once (44). B 4. We beseech your Highness, therefore, that with the holy councils as your guides, you may fix your feet in the pure faith, and that you may not stray from the common way, but walk in it on the straight path. For he who dares to confess only one nature in Christ Jesus provokes Eutyches’ condemnation upon himself, and being corrupted by the opinion of the Sassanids (45), refusing to be subject to one head, he becomes polycephalous, and at the same time a disciple of Manes. Furthermore, he who does not confess two distinct natures in Christ, but rather asserts two persons, falls into the punishment of Nestorius. For which reason the Church of God, having refuted both errors, has repelled heresy from its own folds, and has confessed one person of our Lord Jesus Christ, and two distinct and unconfused natures (46); and it has set itself against those who attribute passions to the deity.
5. Therefore, devote your efforts, Great Prince, to teaching the people of Jesus Christ and bringing them to the profession of the true faith (47): for nothing is more dear to God than that we should recognize Him with true knowledge, glorify Him with an orthodox profession, and persevere in these with magnanimous and constant love. For thus, having always grown with greater progress, armed by the protection of divine grace against your enemies, and safe from perils and snares, like other holy kings, you will obtain both types of happiness, namely the present and the future, through the intercession of the illustrious Queen, the Mother of God, and of all the saints. To your Excellency and magnanimity, for the sake of a spiritual monument, we send a particle of the venerable and life-giving Cross (48).
EPIS. XI. To Michael, Emperor crowned by God.
A Having read the letter which we received from your imperial and truly divinely-crowned majesty, we were filled with both joy and admiration. With joy, certainly, in that through it we have received the good tidings that your empire is placed and guarded by God beyond all peril of conspiracy, established above all the machinations of insurgents, and free and tranquil from any other cause or infirmity. These were the things that filled us with inexplicable joy and exultation; but we were seized with admiration, and moved to shed tears, as we deplored human vanity; indeed, how not a few among men—flourishing as they do in great favor and manifold glory, and possessing vast wealth, so that they ought to be content with what they possess, and to acknowledge their own measure, and to pursue their benefactor with every proclamation of praise and veneration—nevertheless show an insatiable greed, engage themselves with every zeal and contention in all matters, and dare to behave insolently toward the very head which has behaved well to them, so that they exhibit in deed the myth of Salmoneus: B whence it happens that they not only fall from the hope which, dreaming, they had fashioned for themselves, and by which they were exalted; but they even, through their own folly, get themselves exterminated by those very persons whose just power, dominion, and concession they were enjoying. Such was that event which (would that it had not so happened!) we learned of through your letters, concerning that abject and humiliated man (for I do not know by what other name I might sufficiently designate him, mindful as I am of human wretchedness), who, having been raised almost to the very scepters of the empire by your munificent right hand—so that, even if he did not share the imperial name and title, he yet shared the power with you—could not bear the magnitude of the benefit, nor was he content with those graces with which he had been deigned worthy, nor did he give thanks for the enjoyment of what he had; but, moving his foot beyond the lines and stretching out hands of insolence against the head of his benefactor, he was forced C to abandon that very life, his arrogant hopes, and his vain breath, in a piteous and—alas!—lamentable fashion. I grieved indeed (O merciful and most mild power) when I learned that the man had been given over to an untimely death; and more so, because he suffered death in punishment for attempted tyranny. Certainly, the virtue and clemency of your power do not allow my mind to harbor the suspicion that the letter came to me as a fabrication, or that what concerned him happened in any way other than what is narrated therein—whence it comes about that he is crowned, and others are envious. And hence I received a lethal wound from grief, while, among other things, I kept in mind that man, having been caught in the very act of wrongdoing, and neither the stains and defilements of life, which this wretched nature is wont to rub against, D
had he washed away with tears, nor had he declared any repentance for the injuries with which he had perhaps afflicted others; nor had he striven in any other way to reconcile to himself the Judge who was to be in the next life. And so, burdened with sins, he was sent away to His tribunal; but according as it had been secretly decreed by the judgment of God, so did he meet the end of his life: to many it became a source of astonishment, to not a few a warning, to some pity, and to the majority perplexity. But you, we entreat (the glory and ornament of kings, the exaltation of the fatherland, the stabilizer of the empire, and the love, delight, and boast of all who are called Christians), hasten to us as quickly as possible. Restore the desired one to those who desire him. Free us first from the captivity in which we are held while we lack your presence; refresh us and cool us from that misery in which we are detained while your present invigoration is absent. Grant this first and principal favor to your city and citizens, so that they may be able, with hands and tongues, to bring forth to you—o Emperor—the dues of acclamation in total freedom, face to face. Let the gray hair of the sacred and venerable senate touch you; be swayed by the prayers of every age: of men, of women, of children; for assuredly all, with one spirit and one voice, implore the presence of your Majesty. And if even your high priest has any care and regard with you (as I know he surely does), imagine him to be present before you, and seizing your hand with his own, drawing you to your own city, to the temple of God in whom you have placed your hopes, and to the sanctuaries of the empire itself. Truly, we all beseech you; do not, I pray, bring shame upon our hopes or reject our prayers. For we hope in our true God, Jesus Christ, that it will come to pass that when your power returns to this royal city, you will drive the darkness of sorrow from the republic, and that you will crush the insolence of the enemies and foes even more and more, prevailing through counsel, prudence, and military discipline; and this through the intercession of the most holy Theotokos and all the saints. Amen.
EPIS. XII. To the same.
You have departed from us, and we from ourselves; and though living, we do not live, and though moving, we do not move. But if the promise of the Lord were to deign to nod to the prayers of our humility, we would either transfer Crete to Byzantium, or we would join Byzantium, with us, to Crete. But dying as I am, how does it happen that I write, or that I speak as one mute? If I should say one thing, I hold my silence. Hasten, o glory of kings and of sons! And either lead us, captives, to Crete, or free the Byzantines from captivity, for they bear so ill that we, as captives, are kept from your sight.
VARIOUS READINGS
EPISTLE XIII. Encyclical letter to the archiepiscopal thrones throughout the East, namely Alexandria and the others, in which he treats of the resolution of certain doubtful points; and that it is not permitted to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but from the Father alone.
A 1. There was not, it seems, any satiety of evils for the wicked one, nor any end to the inventions and machinations which he planned from the beginning to set in motion against the human race. Rather, with countless deceptions before the incarnation of the Lord in the flesh, he led man astray into alien and lawless acts, and by these he firmly established his tyranny over him; and even after that, he did not cease to trip up and drag away those who obeyed him with myriad errors and allurements. Hence arose the Simons, and the Marcions, and the Montanists, and the Manichæans, B and the varied and multiform war against God waged by the heresies multiplied. Hence arose Arius, and Macedonius, and Nestorius, Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the rest of the company of impiety; against whom the seven holy and ecumenical councils were convened, along with the assemblies of holy and God-bearing men in various places, who, with the sword of the Spirit, rooted out these wicked offshoots, and ensured that the harvest of the Church should flourish, clean and pure.
2. But when these had been removed, and delivered over to silence and oblivion, a good and deep hope was nurtured among the pious that there would never again be any inventors of new forms of impiety, C since in all matters where the devil had made an experiment, his counsels had turned to the opposite result. Nor did they think that any champions or defenders would ever again appear for those doctrines which had already deserved condemnation by synodical judgment, as the end, and the punishment of their authors, and of those who subsequently intended to follow their example, had deterred them. The pious mind found rest in these hopes, especially in the imperial city, where, by the co-operation of God, many things beyond hope are brought to a successful conclusion. Many tongues, spitting out their former defilement, have been taught to hymn with us the common Maker and Creator of all. For just as if from some high and lofty place, D the royal city sends forth the fountains of orthodoxy, and the purest waters of piety flowing to the ends of the world, and like rivers they irrigate with their doctrines the souls of those living there, which for a long time had been withered by the heat and conflagration of impiety or self-willed worship, and had become barren, as if turned into deserts; yet, having received the rain of the holy teaching, they adorn Christ’s farm, gladdened by cultivation, with fruits. For those who inhabit Armenia, strengthened by the impiety of the Jacobites, and resisting the right proclamation of piety, from which that populous and holy
A synod of our Fathers was gathered according to Chalcedon, with your prayers assisting us, they have been empowered to cast off that long-standing error. And today the Armenian province worships in a pure and orthodox manner the Christian worship, execrating Eutyches, Severus, Dioscorus, those stone-throwers against piety—the Peters—and Julian of Halicarnassus, and their entire, widely-diffused dispersion, just as the Catholic Church does, and submitting them, bound fast, to the indissoluble chains of anathemas.
3. But furthermore, the nation of the Bulgarians, barbaric and hostile to Christ, turned toward such gentleness and knowledge of God that, standing apart from their ancestral diabolical orgies and casting off the error of Hellenic superstition, they were paradoxically grafted into the faith of the Christians. B
4. But, O wicked, envious, and godless resolve and deed! For such a narrative, being a subject matter of the Gospel, or good tidings, is transformed into dejection, as delight and joy have turned into mourning and lamentation. For not yet two years had that nation embraced the right religion of the Christians, when certain impious and execrable men, monsters (or by what title might a Christian designate them?), men creeping out from the shadows (for they were sprung from the western regions)—alas, how shall I be able to recount the remainder? These, I say, leapt upon a nation whose piety was new and recently established, just like lightning or an earthquake or a mass of hail, or, to speak more appositely, like a wild boar C leaping upon the beloved and newly planted vineyard of the Lord, ravaging and devastating it with feet and teeth—that is, by certain paths of shameful conduct and perverted dogmas, such was their audacity; for with all manner of fraud they attempted to draw them away from sound and pure dogmas and the blameless faith of the Christians, and to corrupt them.
5. First of all, they illicitly moved them toward fasting on the Sabbaths. And the slightest abandonment of traditions usually leads men to a contempt for the entire doctrine. In the second place, cutting off the first week of the Lenten fasts from the rest of the fast, they drew them down into the drinking of milk, the eating of cheese, and the guzzling of similar things. D From these beginnings, widening the paths of transgression, they diverted them from the straight and royal way; and then, those priests who are joined in lawful marriage, they made many maidens into women without husbands, and women into those raising children whose father no one knows; these, I say, as I had indicated, truly to be abominated as priests of God
blasphemy? This stands against the Gospels; it arrays itself against the holy synods; it falsifies the blessed and holy Fathers: that great Athanasius, Gregory A famed for his theology, Basil the regalia of the Church, great Basil, the golden mouth of the world, that deep sea of wisdom, the truly golden-mouthed one. Why should I mention this one or that one? Against all the holy prophets, apostles, hierarchs, and martyrs simultaneously, and against the very words of the Lord, this blasphemous and God-fighting utterance is armed. 17. Does the Spirit proceed from the Son? Is it the same procession, or one opposite to that of the Father? For if it is the same, how are the properties not shared, by which alone the Trinity is characterized, exists, and is worshipped? But if it is opposite to that one, how is it that, by this very assertion, Manes and Marcion are not produced anew, stretching out again a tongue that fights against God, against the Father and the Son? 18. Furthermore, in addition to the things said, if the Son is begotten from the Father, yet the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, being referred to two causes, B he would not escape being composite. 19. If the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, what is this innovation regarding the Spirit, such that something else might not also proceed from him? So that, according to that God-fighting opinion of theirs, it is concluded that there are not three hypostases, but four—or rather, an infinite number—as the fourth would emit another, and that one another in turn, until they fall into the Greek polytheism. 20. In addition to what has been said, one might also observe this: if the procession of the Spirit from the Father contributes to existence, what benefit will accrue to the Spirit from the procession from the Son, seeing that the paternal procession is sufficient for existence? For no one, I suppose, would dare to say that it contributes to something else C among those things concerning the substance, since any doubling or composition is removed as far as possible from that blessed and divine nature. 21. Without the aforementioned, if everything that is not common to the omnipotent, consubstantial, and supernatural Trinity belongs to one only of the three, and the projection of the Spirit is not common to the three, then it must belong to one only of the three. Which one, therefore, will they say the Spirit proceeds from—the Father? And how, then, do they not abjure their beloved and common mystagogy? But if from the Son, why did they not dare from the beginning to uncover the whole of their God-fighting? For they do not merely install the Son in the production of the Spirit, but they strip the Father D of it as well; for it follows from this that by transferring birth itself to projection, they do not even [account for] the Son...
[in a way that honors] theology, and thus they diminish the dignity of the supersubstantial and monarchical Trinity by their insults. But to what end does the Spirit proceed from the Son? If the procession from the Father is perfect (and it is certainly perfect, because perfect God comes from perfect God), what is the procession from the Son, and for what reason? It would certainly be superfluous, and therefore futile.
10. Furthermore, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, why is the Son not also begotten from the Spirit, as from the Father? Thus all things would be completely impious for the impious, both their meaning and their words, and nothing would be left for them to fear attempting.
11. Consider also this: if, in the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, His property is recognized, then in the same way, in the fact that the Son is begotten, the property of the Son is recognized. But the Spirit proceeds—as their nonsense goes—also from the Son. Therefore, the Spirit is distinguished from the Father B by more properties than is the Son; since the procession of the Spirit from them both is something common to the Father and the Son, while the procession from the Father—and indeed also from the Son—is a property of the Spirit. But if the Spirit differs by more intervals than the Son, the Son will be closer to the paternal substance than the Spirit; and thus the bold crime of Macedonius against the Holy Spirit will creep in again, secretly entering into the drama and stage of these men.
12. Furthermore, if all things common to the Father and the Son are also necessarily common to the Spirit—such as God, King, Creator, Almighty, supersubstantial, simple, non-figurative, incorporeal, invisible, and simply all other things—and if the procession C of the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, then the Spirit will proceed from Himself; He will be for Himself His own principle, being at once cause and effect—a fiction that not even the myths of the Greeks would conjure up.
13. But if it belongs only to the Spirit to be referred to different principles, why is it not also the case that only the Spirit has a multi-principled principle?
14. Moreover, if in those things wherein they have introduced communion between the Father and the Son, they exclude the Spirit from them; and if the Father is joined to the Son by substance, D but not according to any of the properties, then they must also exclude the Spirit from that kindred relationship which exists by substance.
15. You see how futile these men are, and how they have assumed the name of Christian for themselves merely the more easily to hunt for the multitudes. "The Spirit proceeds from the Son." From where have you heard this? From which of the Evangelists do you have this expression? From which synod do you have this blasphemous word?
16. Our Lord and God says, "The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father." But the authors of this new impiety say, "The Spirit, who proceeds from the Son." Who would not close his ears to the magnitude of this blasphemy
A? It stands against the Gospels, it arrays itself against the holy synods, it contradicts the blessed and holy Fathers—the great Athanasius, Gregory celebrated for his theology, Basil the truly royal vesture of the Church, the golden mouth of the world, that ocean of wisdom, the true Chrysostom. And why need I mention this one or that one? This blasphemous and God-fighting voice arms itself against all the holy prophets, apostles, priests, martyrs, and the very words of the Lord Himself.
17. Does the Spirit proceed from the Son? Is it the same procession, or one opposed to the Father's? If it is the same, how are the properties not shared, by which alone the Trinity is characterized as being the Trinity and as being worshipped? But if it is opposed to that [procession from the Father], how are Manes and Marcion not, by this very statement, brought forth among us, again extending a God-fighting tongue against the Father and the Son?
18. Furthermore, in addition to what has been said, if the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then being referred to two causes, he will not escape being composite.
19. And again, if the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, what is this innovation concerning the Spirit, that something else should not proceed from Him too? So that, according to their God-fighting opinion, it would be concluded that there are not three hypostases, but four, or rather an infinite number—as the fourth would produce another, and that one yet another, until they fall into the Greek polytheism.
20. Besides what has been said, one might also consider this: if the procession of the Spirit from the Father contributes to [His] existence, what will the procession from the Son contribute to the Spirit, when the paternal [procession] is sufficient for existence? For no one, I believe, would dare say that it contributes to something else in regard to the essence, since any doubling or composition is removed as far as possible from that blessed and divine nature.
21. Apart from what has been said, if everything which is not common to the omnipotent, consubstantial, and supernatural Trinity is the property of but one of the three; and the projection of the Spirit is not something common to the three; then it is the property of only one of the three. Will they then say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? And how will they not renounce their beloved and common mystagogy? But if from the Son, why were they not bold enough from the beginning to reveal all their God-fighting impiety at once? That they might not only admit the Son to the production of the Spirit, but also completely deprive the Father of his own proper [role] B.
of being begotten [but not] of the Father, A so that they might be ringleaders not merely of those who are irreverent, but indeed of those who are deranged.
22. Observe from this, furthermore, how their irreverent and senseless intention is exposed and made manifest. For since everything that is considered and spoken of in the all-holy, consubstantial, and supersubstantial Trinity is either common to all, or [belongs] to one and only one of the three persons; and since, even by their own account, the procession of the Spirit is not something common—nor indeed, as they say, [proper] B to one and one only (may God be propitious to us as we speak thus, and may the blasphemy fall back upon their own heads)—it follows that there is no procession of the Spirit at all within the life-originating and all-perfect Trinity.
23. Certainly one could add ten thousand other things to these, in order to refute their God-fighting opinion, but the law of this epistle does not permit me to set them down now or to insert them into these missives; and for this reason the points I have made are stated briefly and imperfectly, while the detailed refutations and a more expansive method of teaching are, God granting, reserved for the common assembly.
24. This impiety those bishops of darkness (for they gave themselves the title of bishops) disseminated among the Bulgarian nation along with other illicit and unlawful [doctrines]. C The report of these things reached our ears; we were struck to the very marrow with a lethal wound, not otherwise than if someone were to see before his own eyes the offspring of his own womb being torn apart and ripped asunder here and there by serpents and beasts. For regarding those upon whom such effort, toil, and sweat were spent for their regeneration and baptism, it was inevitable that we should bear an insufferable grief and calamity, seeing our children lost.
25. For we grieved over the misfortune that had occurred just as much as we had been filled with joy when we saw them first delivered from their ancient error of paganism.
26. But we have mourned and do mourn for them, nor shall we grant rest to our eyes or slumber to our eyelids to revive them from this fall, D until, as far as it is possible for us, we have brought them back into the tabernacle of the Lord.
27. But those young precursors of apostasy, those ministers of the opponent, those worthy of a thousand deaths, the common plague, who tore apart with so many and such great lacerations that tender nation recently gathered together into piety—these, I say, perfidious deceivers and God-fighters, we have condemned by a synodical and divine vote: not now marking their condemnation, but [affirming what has been] predetermined by former synods and apostolic decrees.
A 28. For human nature is so constituted that it is not secured by past punishments as much as it is brought to its senses by those that are seen; and the confirmation of things that have occurred is the agreement of things present. Thus, we have by public announcement excluded these men, who persist in their manifold error, from the whole flock of Christians: for the sixty-fourth apostolic canon, striking those who intend to fast on the Sabbath, speaks thus:
29. If any cleric be found fasting on the Lord’s day, or on the Sabbath, except one Sabbath only, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be separated from communion. But also the fifty-fifth canon of the holy and universal sixth synod decrees thus:
30. Since it has come to our attention that in the city of Rome, during the holy fasts of Lent, some fast on the Saturdays thereof, contrary to the ecclesiastical tradition and custom, it has seemed good to the holy synod that, even in the Roman Church, the canon which says, "If any cleric be found fasting on the holy Sunday, or on the Saturday, except one only, let him be deposed; if he be a layman, let him be separated from communion," shall stand inviolable.
31. And the fourth canon of the council of Gangra, concerning those who treat marriage with abomination, says these things: If any priest who has married a wife should distinguish [himself] as if it were not proper to communicate in the oblation when he has celebrated it, let him be anathema. Against whom the sixth synod brings forward a similar judgment, writing in this manner: Since we know that in the Roman Church, in the place of a canon, it has been handed down that those who are to be promoted to the diaconate or presbyterate make a profession that they will no longer C have the custom [of living] with their wives; we, observing the ancient canon of apostolic perfection and order, wish the marriages of those who are constituted in sacred orders to be from this point on, and from this moment, firm and stable, in no way sundering their union with their wives, nor depriving them of their mutual company at suitable times. Therefore, if any man be found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, this man shall by no means be prohibited from being admitted to such a grade if he lives with his legitimate wife. Nor, at the time of ordination, shall there be demanded of him a profession that he will abstain entirely from the legitimate company with his wife: lest by that we seem to bring into contempt marriage, which was instituted by God and honored by His own presence, when the Evangelical voice cries out: "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder;" and the Apostle teaches: "Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled;" and, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed." If, therefore, any one shall incite against the apostolic canons any one of those who are in holy orders, namely, of the presbyters or dea-
Acons, or subdeacons, to deprive them of union and communion with their lawful wife, let him be deposed. Likewise, if any presbyter or deacon, under the pretext of piety or religion, puts away his own wife, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.
32. But the dissolution of the first week, and the re-anointing of those who have already been baptized and anointed, do not need to be subjected to condemnation through the cited canons; for even to have made mere mention of them exceeds the magnitude of any impiety whatsoever.
33. But furthermore, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or rather against the whole of the holy Trinity, possessing no equal, would, even if all the other aforesaid actions were absent, suffice to strike them with a thousand anathemas. B
34. We deemed it right, according to the ancient custom of the Church, to report the knowledge and information of these matters to your brotherhoods in the Lord; and we exhort and beseech you that you be eager and fellow-fighters for the condemnation of these impious and godless doctrines, and that you do not abandon the ancestral order which your ancestors, through their deeds, have handed down for you to keep and adorn; but rather, with great haste and eagerness, that you choose and send in your place certain representatives, men who occupy your position, adorned in piety, in holy orders, and in both speech and conduct, so that we may remove this gangrene of impiety that has recently crept into the midst of the church; and those who have raged so much as to introduce the super-sowing of their impiety into this new and C newly-constituted nation, we may pull up by the very roots and deliver to the fire by common vote of all; for the Lord's oracles decree that one should receive those who are accursed.
35. For in this way, with impiety being driven out and piety being strengthened, we have good hopes that the multitude of the Bulgarians, newly catechized in Christ and illumined by the light of baptism, will return to the faith that was announced to them. For not only has this nation exchanged its ancient impiety for the faith in Christ; but indeed, even that nation which is proclaimed by many voices, and which is ranked second to all in cruelty and the desire to shed blood—that known clearly as the Rhos, who, having enslaved their surrounding neighbors D against the Roman empire, were puffed up with pride and laid violent hands upon them—yet even these, having now come to purely profess the sincere and unmingled religion of Christ, have exchanged their former Hellenic and godless belief, in which they were previously held,
in the order of those who have been brought—instead of the raid which was made against us a short time ago and their great daring—to settle joyfully. And the desire and zeal for the faith has so inflamed them (Paul cries out again, *Blessed be God for ever*) that A they have received both a bishop and a shepherd, and embrace the rites of the Christians with great zeal and care.
36. Since these things are so, by the grace of the merciful God who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, as their ancient opinions are being changed, and they are exchanging them for the sincere faith of the Christians; if your fraternity would deign to rise up and cooperate with us with affection B so that the shoots that have sprung up may be cut out and cast into the fire, we trust firmly in our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, that His flock will be increased yet more, and that which is written will be fulfilled: *They shall all know me, from the least to the greatest* (cf. Acts VIII, 10), and, *Their sound has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world* (Ps. XVII, 5; Rom. X, 18).
37. It is therefore necessary that those who are sent by you in your stead, and who will assume your holy and reverent person, should be entrusted with your authority, which you have received C in the Holy Spirit, so that they may be able to speak and act with the authority of the apostolic throne regarding these matters and other things similar to them, without hindrance. For, indeed, a synodal letter from the regions of Italy has come to us, overflowing with unspeakable accusations, which those who inhabit Italy have sent to us against their own bishop, with much condemnation and with no small oaths, asking us not to overlook them as they perish so miserably, and are being oppressed by such a heavy tyranny, through which the laws of the priesthood are insulted and all the customs of the Church are overthrown. And these things were spread to the ears of everyone long ago D through monks and presbyters who fled from there. There was Basil, and Zosimas, and Metrophanes, and others with them, who lamented such tyranny and, weeping, called upon us to vindicate the Churches. But now, as I said, various letters have come to us from different places, full of tragic tales and countless laments. The copies of these letters—according to what they themselves, who had struggled so much, requested and vehemently adjured us to do, that they should be transmitted to all the apostolic sees everywhere—we offer to you to read, and we have in fact included them in these present letters, so that the holy and ecumenical...
A synod, being gathered in the Lord, may be confirmed by the common vote of those things which appear to accord with the canons of the Church, that so the Church of Christ may enjoy lasting and profound peace everywhere.
38. For we do not call only your blessedness to this, but truly the prelates of the other archiepiscopal and apostolic sees as well, who either have already arrived or are expected to be here before long.
39. May your brotherhood in the Lord, therefore, not cause our brothers who are here to wait longer than is right through any delay or procrastination of time; knowing that if, through some failure on your part, matters are not duly carried out in their proper order, the guilt incurred will not fall upon another, but upon him who is the delinquent.
40. Furthermore, we held it necessary to add this to our letters, that you should see fit to refer the holy and universal seventh synod to the same number and order as the six holy and ecumenical councils, throughout all the churches in your jurisdiction. For a report has reached us that some churches subject to your apostolic throne are accustomed to count the universal synods only up to the sixth, in no wise acknowledging the seventh; yet it is said that they cherish what was decreed in it, having received it with veneration, though it has not yet proceeded to such a state of reception as to be proclaimed publicly throughout the churches, as the former ones are, even though it possesses everywhere an equal dignity with the others. B
41. For indeed, this very synod overthrew the greatest impiety, having as its assessors and co-voters those who came from the four archiepiscopal sees. For it is evident that from your apostolic see of Alexandria came Thomas, a monk and presbyter, and those with him; from Jerusalem and Antioch, John and those with him; and from ancient Rome there was present the most religious archpresbyter Peter, and another Peter, a presbyter, monk, and superior of the venerable house of Saint Sabas which was in Rome.
42. And with all these having come together, alongside our father, the most holy and thrice-blessed man Tarasius, Archbishop of Constantinople, this great and universal seventh council was convened, C that it might overthrow the impiety of the iconoclasts, or rather the Christomachoi, and triumph over it. And it may be that the acts of this synod could not be brought to you on account of the barbaric and foreign nation of the Arabs, which was infesting all places far and wide. And this appears to be the reason why the constitutions of this synod, even if they are received and admitted among many of you with honor, have nonetheless not come into public knowledge.
43. It is therefore right that this D great and holy and ecumenical synod, as we have already said, together with the six prior
A synods, be proclaimed. For not to act and do so is, first, to wrong the Church of Christ, by disregarding such a great synod and by tearing apart and dissolving its bond and connection in so great a part. Second, there is the fact that the impiety of the iconoclasts—which I know you loathe no less than that of other heretics—would have its mouths opened wide; since their impious opinion, not being condemned by a universal synod but only by the judgment of a single see, would be flaunted with a certain plausibility B by those who have a pretext to act monstrously.
44. On account of all these things, we request and, as brothers to brothers, advise—proposing what is fitting—that in synodical letters and in all other ecclesiastical histories and discussions, this seventh synod be counted and included among the holy and ecumenical six synods, and be placed in order with them.
45. May Christ, our true God, the first and great High Priest—who offered himself as a voluntary victim for us and paid his own blood as the price of our redemption—grant that your archiepiscopal and venerable head be seen as superior to the barbarian nations that stand round about; may he grant you to finish the course of life in tranquility and peace; may he grant you to attain the heavenly inheritance with inexpressible joy and gladness, where the dwelling place of all who rejoice is, and from which all pain, sighing, and sorrow have fled; in Christ himself, our true God, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
We pray for you as is due to paternal holiness, and we ask that you yourselves not fail to remember our mediocrity.
EPISTLE XIV
To the bishops, from his exile. Edited by Montacutius (ep. 174, p. 245).I marvel how it is that he—whoever he may be—so quickly forgot our nature. For I should not even wish to bring D a rebuke against him by name, not even if he were to behave still more audaciously toward me. For I see that it is easier for most people to be admonished through impersonal rebukes than to bear the exhortation when it is addressed to them by name. But how is it that he so quickly let us slip from his memory, so as to charge us with such folly and neglect of divine laws? Or whence has he stood up so much against our mediocrity? Or rather, who raised him up to such an abrupt height, so that even when we were saying nothing, he heard us nonetheless; and even when we had not even contemplated anything of the sort in our mind, he, as if from some watchtower, looked upon the hearts of men from his own imagination, and peered into them to understand and perceive things that some had not even recognized in themselves? And he seemed more
A arrogant for wishing to possess greater knowledge of the affairs of others than the spirit which dwells in men possesses; and yet Paul, who did not expect such a flood of men to arise, did not leave behind equal knowledge for others. But whence, pray, is our great senselessness dispelled, and the betrayal of the whole Church, and the contempt for established laws? What have we done? What have we plotted? To whom have we announced anything? For even if he did not cast insults at us in the very same words, let no one think, or suppose, that one who rails at us in such a way is in a better condition than one who has railed [in a different way]; for it is not the words that burden the meaning and the thought, but rather the bitterness of the mind that renders the utterances more sharp and intolerable. But when words agree with the mind, and the bitterness of the thought corresponds to the virulence of the speech, it makes no difference whether they are brought forth in the same words, or whether the same meaning is brought forth through equivalent words. But if he was considering the tempest and the surge of evils in which we are submerged and dashed; if he deemed it just to attribute to madness the assault of those calamities by which we are surrounded and constrained, he was fostering human thoughts, and meditating with piety: this is the only thing that can be said in his favor. For the mass and excess of evils work emotion and alienation of the mind in those who are heavily oppressed. But if any of his opinion should fall away, he will be granting the devil more power in us than was once granted him over the divine man Job. For over his living soul he received no power: but against us, over our very soul, he has been granted the authority. For in that he, after other accusations against us, also imputes to me pure and unmixed madness, he makes it manifest that he had weighed this in his mind and had most certainly determined it. But if he was suddenly carried away to this thought about us, he found that an easy path for weaving other insults. To pass over for the present the artifice and the disguised appearance of his apology, he certainly ought not to have attacked me from a superior position out of ambush, nor to have procured for me a more tearful state through the heap of insults from his own storehouse: but rather, through some consolation and the soothing of words, to have alleviated the sorrow that burdened me, and to have thought of some measure of comfort, if there were any means of it: but to exasperate, to insult, to reproach calamities, is the hallmark of one who revels in the misfortunes of his neighbor, not one who sympathizes or shares in his suffering, and not one who performs the role of a friend, but of one who acts in a hostile manner. I, for my part, declare that they have poured out upon me all the wickedness that was in the wine-press, while they make friends into strangers, sever kindred, [and]—the most bitter of my sufferings—cut off and divide me from you B, and strip me of attendants and servants, taking [me] captive, and setting around me guards and commanders of guards; so that it is not permitted even to lament and bewail my own evils if I wish to; nor may any mercy creep in to us from anywhere, neither in word nor in deed; having hung over us myriad deaths, and, alas, having imposed upon us a famine of the oracles of God and of everything else. And that they, while in no way ceasing to encompass us with many evils, also [are depriving us of] all our...
A they divide and cut off, which adds to the most grievous accumulation of evils, while they deprive me of servants and ministers, after they have shut me up in a dungeon, with guards set to stand around on all sides: for this reason, clearly, so that it may not be granted to me, even if I should desire it most earnestly, to lament my wretched lot: so that not even through some tiny chink might the mercy of any word or action reach me. Nay, while they devise manifold kinds of death, they have destroyed me (wretched me) with the hunger for divine oracles and the address of anyone else. Nor do they cease even now to encircle me with multiplied evils: they have torn asunder all my sense, and set against each one of them new kinds of devices, standing in opposition, they have invented (for they are swift to do evil, who are alienated from God and humanity), and have closed their eyes to both. For what else remains to be said? when it is not permitted to look freely upon any human being, nor to have commerce with books, especially those which can provide the greatest consolation and principal solace to those who read them. This sentence they have passed upon me by their general assent and consent. Moreover, they have stopped my ears: for they do not allow the conversations of friends, nor even the voices of enemies, to resound in our ears. What else can I bring forward? save that, so far as in them lies, we hear neither voices singing hymns to God, nor praising, nor giving thanks. For not even for a shortest time do they permit me to converse with anyone who has even a moderate skill in singing, so much do they surpass all barbarity in their cruelty! But in place of clerics, monks, those singing and reading, and those transcribing dictation; in place of friends and acquaintances, through whom usually the tribulation of the wretched is accustomed to be alleviated, in place of all, to say it in one word, we are delivered as bound into the custody and companies of soldiers. What need is there to recount them one by one, or by mentioning weals to irritate the scars again? Verily, they have encompassed all our senses with their inventions of countless evils: nor do they allow the soul itself, as far as in them lies, to remain immune from these evils. What is there among all things that God abhors more detestable and more cruel? They demolish the divine temples: the beggars, the maimed, and those mutilated in their limbs, whom we had appointed to propitiate for our sins, they have driven out from their own dwellings and quiet, and distributed their utensils and property as if it were spoils taken from enemies; they have cut the flesh of servants down to the nerves; so that through the whole body, on account of the impact of the whips, chasms as it were were drawn; to the end that they might indicate gold and silver, which they asserted I had hidden: which they can never prove was done, and yet they pronounced that they certainly knew the beaten men would reveal it: so they always accuse me regarding hidden money. Nor are they themselves so greedy for money as I am a contemner of it, I who, up to this point, could never be led to do anything against right reason for the sake of money.
A And that the sun as it rises looks down upon this—for the aggressive wickedness of malevolent men has sometimes imposed a necessity even upon blessed Paul, the teacher of virtue, to utter words of this kind—this the opportunity of the day, or at least of the night, has carried away and borne off as a burden imposed upon it. Now, although they knew this no less than others, they nevertheless tore the flesh and lacerated it with stretched-out scourges; not that they might find any of those things which they pretended to be searching for (unless perhaps they rushed into such a state of insanity that they pretended to seek for things which they were not ignorant did not exist anywhere), but that they might inflict pain upon us from this side as well; nor did they omit any method of wickedness that they could bring to bear upon us. But as to the fact that Satan has plotted these and countless other things against us while enduring this, I do not fully understand; but indeed, that we are being exhausted by them, I would not deny. But that this wickedness has moved me from the state of my mind, or reduced me to a contempt for divine oracles, or defamed me by their betrayal, I cannot concede: so that consequently the most hostile of my enemies might breathe out against me and openly snarl in my face.
If, however, anyone, upon hearing such things, is suffused with shame and draws back, and shrinks away—and would never have said such a thing against us, nor even let it enter his mind; for it is the nature of sin, when it is stripped bare by just reproof, to appear more indecent than it did before, so that it seems genuine neither to the one committing it nor to anyone else, but rather as something base and most abominable, with the sting of conscience which the Creator in His infinite wisdom has implanted in our nature for the inspection of things to be done—if, then, he should contend that he would not even let any of those things come into his mind, but, as is likely, leads away even those who have ever dared such things into strange regions and to fearful curses, ask him, by friendship itself: what difference is there between saying the things that have been said about us, and saying that B we are among the enemies, and do not distinguish between friends and enemies, and then—whose? O the outrage against us! Friends of Christ and enemies of Christ. For this is where it all ends: the desire to enroll us in the company of those who suffer persecution for Christ’s sake, along with those who wage war against Christ; those who have considered the blood of His testament common (to leave aside other things for now), who have defiled the altars of the Lord, and have mocked the holy chrism—or rather, the all-holy Spirit through whom the chrism is made. Ask them, therefore, I beseech you, once again, what difference there is between these things and those, except in the extremity of wickedness? And if he should show these to be lighter than the former, count me as truly babbling, and deem him worthy of ten thousand praises; even though, not because he acted with less outrage than others, did he struggle, nor because he left an excess of insults for others; but because he did not dare to bring forth anything resulting in our blame, but yet if he should show his own actions to be less than the praises bestowed, do not denounce him. But if he shows nothing—as indeed he will not show—deem it wise for him to be silent; but consider my misfortunes from that point on, since the plots of enemies, the uprisings of friends, and blasphemies follow in succession. For how is it that he who says or thinks such things, in the way that noble friend of ours imagined that we speak and think, does not lead himself into utter madness, and become a common traitor to the whole Church, D a scorner and an abuser of the traditions of the fathers, and ten thousand other such things to those who see them.
VARIE LECTIONES. * ὁρᾶσθαι.
A Verily, if the painter is good and sketches our image to us with fair colors, he will assert with such vehemence that he has uttered nothing evil regarding us; but altogether, if we be moved by the simplicity of our character, as the Savior commands, *be wise as serpents and innocent as doves*—let us believe it to be so. But if they appear to indicate malice, let us change our opinion, and with the same Christ let us say: *Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.* Primarily, let us contemplate that punishment which is laid up against him who has offended one even of the least of his brethren. B And if he who offends one exacts the penalty without fail—the one who shakes and ruins the whole Church, does he not consider what a magnitude of evils he declares himself liable to? And if he were not liable to everyone among us who is superior to him, let no one be accused. C But how is it that another, insensibly and without tears, says that he accepts those whom he says one should not accept, but even if he did accept them, he would wish to be known with them? If he did not accept them for fear of the future punishment, he would preserve the present piety toward God, even against his will. But regarding faith, regarding the individual tribunals, regarding conscience, or rather regarding truth, regarding a stable opinion, regarding the fact that nothing—if all the Charybdis has taken and swallowed—escapes. I, on the contrary, judge otherwise and think that he who asks to accept them—just as if he were to say that he accepts those who ought not to be accepted—let us all insert the same and manifest cry, and let us not spare anything, D just as we have always received the pious reverence which we owe to our fathers, and let us not consider that we have preserved the same respect for anyone else; but these things, as I said, we have driven far from us, and I will insert the same. Why do you do these things, O man? Where are you going? Why do you take up arms against yourself, knowing [your] enemies? Whom do you drag into the disgrace of the pious assembly? Why do you provoke the judgment of enemies? Such things I truly hoped to hasten rather than to disregard, if anything were to pass—but not as now, mimicking the opinions of those who play—he brings to pass. I hoped that he, like one of the enemies, would dare to utter such voices against him, [note: no D marker in Greek, but corresponds to Latin column D] with ten thousand, and through such words [he] would drive him out by casting stones—a deceiver and a liar. For we are ordered by those who are others to neglect that we are the disciples of the peaceful one, and no one would endure to be insulted in the faith.
A Since he himself also, bearing other things patiently and not avenging himself, drove away with severe rebuke those who behaved senselessly, making his Father’s house a house of merchandise, and threatened a double punishment to those who sharpen their tongues against the Holy Spirit—an act of fire here and of the sword, while he made the city suffer famine entirely—and he whom he did not escape, through whom he brought about the present state with much wrath, you testify. B But I, as it seems, was feeding myself on such hopes as if for a famine. Who, then, truly informed him of those ascending the thrones of the archpriests, and of those entrusted with the authority of all actions and counsels? For such voices and inquiries are impious, and they are to be directed toward those who have received the steering and the reins to govern in a splendid and illustrious manner, and who preside over the throne for the public good: and where penitents cast themselves down at their knees, flooding the earth with rivers of tears, and speaking much to move them to mercy, and who—having sustained the fight for truth and virtue until the end—sit wreathed with radiant crowns, having obtained a place of judgment with Christ, among whom someone is said to be moved to pity for those of his own kind—others, having no regard for equity or canonical authority, but as though they wished to provoke the eyes of justice to dispense justice: certainly, it is right that here—here, I say, if anywhere—such things should be put forward, especially among those who are established in that order: not in the present life, not among those who are now being intercepted by hunger, thirst, prisons, and countless miseries, and who are struggling for their lives. C For to them pertains the place of justice, of judgment, of condemnation; the time of remission is indeed that future one, and not this present one. But, oh you good and noble man, if they are not to be received, why are you not ashamed to be numbered with them? And when you could appear crowned, why do you aggregate yourself to the evil captives? By a dream you praise the humanity of others, though you are far removed from that heavenly nobility and free condition, and you are even guilty of that betrayal. Nevertheless, if it was not considered shameful to be counted with them, let him know that he dwells in his soul with those whose life and actions he abhors, and he honors that flock over which he says that wolves, instead of shepherds, preside. D If you wish to act even more on behalf of some of those in it—if some of them, even though they are with them in body, have a conscience that rebels against their thoughts, they nevertheless falter. Yet you, even before you were joined in body, are eager to be joined to them in thought and intent; the remaining part of the connection is cowardice, not piety; shame, not choice. Who, then, is the one receiving them—he who has not even in a dream accepted this—or who, because he has not until now inclined toward them, has attributed the cause to fear, and thinks it better to be ashamed together with enemies, lest he pay the penalty later, than to be admired altogether with his own kindred? If it is not necessary to receive.
A such men, who but someone who has lost his senses would rather perish together with them than seem to avoid those whom one is not permitted to receive? For words do not improve actions, but actions are what establish the words.
Then, if someone were to see robbers or traitors of cities, abhorred by all and detested by everyone—and if he himself, being B for the time being pure of these things, were to imagine such a thing, and were to say to the one who holds authority over the laws, "If you leave unpunished those who ought to be put to death, why do I not quickly become a robber and a traitor so that I may find leniency? But if you demand a penalty, for fear of it, I will not imitate them"—if anyone were to come forward and speak thus, is there anyone who would not condemn his derangement and illness of mind, and thousands of other things? And why, then, would every man of sense condemn that man? But if one were to bring into the midst, instead of traitors of a city, traitors of the faith, and instead of robbers of bodies, robbers of divine laws, and then were to shout the same words, would we not deem that he deserves the same or even a greater verdict from those who are wise?
But, setting aside what has been said, if actions are guided by ecclesiastical canons, what is the need for untimely questions, and for wrestling with and being stifled by reasonings? But why do you, instead of quickly becoming a partaker of their lot, request much leniency for the delay? If you know them to be servants of established C works, why are you so officious, whether they pay the penalty here or not? For if they do pay it, it is better; they will have their sin cleansed by the punishment. But if they do not pay it, this makes them more wretched, because the judgment from there will confront them more bitterly. So that if a choice between these two were set before someone, he would seem to have chosen the lesser evil, and to have looked out for his own interest better, not the one who avoids paying the penalty here, but the one who, by paying it here, softens the judgment from there; since even in the case of a sick man, we do not consider him lost whom the hands of physicians, and incisions, and cauteries deliver from his malady, but him whom we see not bearing the practice of the medical art—him, I say, we consider to be in a desperate state and given up, when he is tormented by extreme diseases and exhausted by pains.
And why would anyone count up the things that follow from his own reasonings? These things will make what happens D easier for us to bear; we shall have these things for our consolation. You have striven to reclaim us by these means, friend and brother, for you are not of the more serious…
A of words, nor do I entrust everything to the deliberation made, but because for the moment it has not been carried out, and I divide my appeals in the hope of correction. *If the salt has lost its taste*, says the Lord, *how shall it be salted?* If the affairs of my friends, brothers, children, of my own members, of my own vitals (the things most precious to me of all), for whose sake I prefer to remain in the flesh rather than to depart and be with Christ, for whose sake I am cut and rent, and *my tears become my bread*; if the status of all these is such, what should I expect from others? And not unjustly. For I know that the blessed Paul, when he was left alone in chains, said: *At my first defense no one took my part*, and again, *Luke alone is with me*. For not all can steel themselves and rely on patience; wherefore, when the Lord foretold the coming afflictions and temptations, with which those who were to believe in Him had to struggle, He added: *But he who has endured to the end, he will be saved*. I know also before this the prophet David lamented the solitude of many, and offered this to God in place of a prayer: *Save me, O Lord, for the godly man has ceased to be; for the truths have diminished from among the sons of men*. And why do I mention this or that man? I know my own Lord and God, when He was seized and led away bound in chains, was left all alone; for it is written: *They all left Him and fled*. What is to be wondered at, then, if now also us, wretched and pitiable men, who are not even permitted to breathe free air, enslaved to prisons and bonds, everyday expecting a thousand ways to die, deprived of every better B hope, abandoned and deserted by all—and oh, if we were only deserted! We could bear that—but we are not deserted alone; under the pretext of our name, they deny the truth, they desert every ecclesiastical and right opinion, for the sake of observing which, if they have not yet chosen to suffer, they now cut themselves off from it and cast it far away. This is that which primarily strikes my mind, which consumes me, when I see the members into which we are incorporated and of which we are partakers, being torn away from that Head which is Christ, and being driven to destruction. And yet, this evil, though in itself insufferable, would certainly be tolerable through the examples already recited. But to attempt to artfully shift the cause of that desertion onto us—an example of which could not yet be found—how could anyone, however much he might be most sufficient in bearing all things, be able to bear it with equanimity? I understand perfectly the noble remuneration of my paternal love for you, which is joined with God, and of that spiritual, wondrous, and C awesome birth by which you brought us forth, and appeared as a light of the world in the mystical bridal chamber of the Church through the discourse of life. And these things I endure for and on account of your admirable and divine prudence, which yesterday and the day before imposed upon us receptions and grand receptions, and attempted to receive our commission from its own impulse—of shame and sins—
and the repulsion and removal of the sins committed, although it turned out otherwise than he had hoped. For the shifting of the crime onto another, if the artfully devised machination does not find its place, usually turns into a more severe condemnation of the conscience, as it suffers from within an inevitable and manifest reproof. For why were you seeking aid from elsewhere, and why were you contriving for yourself a form of defense and an artificial pretext, if you were not inwardly possessed of a conscience that was a bitter accuser of your will? Or why do you not perform by your own self the things you are so eager to achieve through others?
B And if the law of letter-writing did not constrain me, and if the hand of the scribe, weary at that time, had not withdrawn, I would have pursued my just grief more accurately and at greater length, and the things by which that man injured us. But how does he not cover with great shame his own brilliant confessions, which he uttered with boldness before God and angels, before all men, kings, rulers, and the ruled? How was he not put to shame for the boast of the Church, which he was able to proclaim and show forth always and everywhere, especially being corroborated by a hand from above, in which he would perpetually triumph? But he thought that in his own strength, and indeed in solitude, he could appease the adversary, and by his own fall he willed that the common state of the Church should limp beyond all expectation. For that most crafty serpent indeed desired to make known to the world something new and unusual of his own audacity; but the Maker and Creator of our nature in truth established a work more new, more paradoxical, and divine against him. For he—that is, the devil—having insinuated himself into those thrice-accursed men, men who count for nothing, having long since been stripped of priestly dignity and ousted from ecclesiastical assemblies for reasons that it is not even lawful for us to mention, twice-dead, uprooted according to the apostolic proclamation concerning such men, spots and blemishes, bold and arrogant—having made them the workshop of his own wickedness, he strove through them with the greatest impudence to overturn and seize the Church. But God, who alone works miracles and enlarges those who call upon Him in C afflictions, who manifests the inexplicable wisdom of His providence when we are oppressed and surrounded on all sides by inextricable waves, showed the Church to be so prepared and perfected and truly founded in Him, that the wicked one receives not only an equal and adequate blow of his own malice, but He procures for him one much more severe and painful. For how is it not a greatest and incurable blow for the devil, when in such a storm, in such a confusion and mutation of affairs, no one small or great, no bishop of an obscure town, let alone anyone who presides over someone distinguished, no one unlearned in speech, no one prepared on all sides, who has the volubility of tongue joined to the sharpness of the mind, no one illustrious for his life, conspicuous for the sublimity of his dogmas, surely no man at all... D
A nor did anyone at any time succumb to the occasion, nor did they yield anything to the violence of the assailant; but all, universally, as many as have been of the choir of piety (what man, by ancient hearing, or even by new hope, had accepted this before it was performed?), were seen to be stronger than every snare of the wicked one, and every ambush, and every artifice and violence. It is pleasant for me to relate these things, especially to you who are a great part of such a miracle; since there is nothing more pleasant to fellow-soldiers, even if they are otherwise in sorrows, than to converse about the successes achieved in the war itself; but what I was saying, the wicked demon boasted that he would swallow everyone up at once, and would show the work of his own knavery; but the holy fullness of the Church mocked and laughed at his machinations and devisings, being led and guided by Christ the Head, so that he was more likely to take some of them captive and lead them to the truth, than for anyone among them to become a runaway or a deserter of their orders. Wherefore, if the option were given to the devil, whether he would wish to employ such vessels as those into which he has now fallen—vessels capable of receiving his whole operation—and then for the Church, thus B contending manfully and courageously, to stand against him and break those vessels like earthenware together with the artisan himself, would he not rather refuse to make a trial of them? And would he not have valued it more highly not to find such vessels at all, nor to dream of joy coming from them, than to behold the Church so strengthened and flourishing, and inflicting a wound so deadly and bitter into his very vitals, and setting up a glorious trophy over all his power? Which, indeed, if nothing else, ought to have sufficed to make him—who is now too much moved (for I do not understand what, or how, I may say with greater modesty)—reverent, and not to attempt to remove the bays of victory from their proper seat. For why not? Although he did not bring to effect what he had conceived in his mind, he nevertheless caused the flourishing grace to wither by the very fact that he thought of it, which thought refutes his opinion. But the divine grace C now manifests the providence with which it has always protected us, since it did not allow what he had determined in his mind to proceed into effect.
Furthermore, my son, let no such thought henceforth steal into your mind. For now, laying aside every rebuke with which I have hitherto wounded my own vitals by striking them—which I confess I have done with sorrow—for although medicine, and even incisions, are necessary, yet compassion toward the laboring and the tortured surpasses the laws of any discipline and medicine; and therefore, not enduring the tyranny of compassion, I leave all things aside, and as if rushing into the embrace of one present, I draw to myself my son, my immaculate offspring, the member of my body. Whither am I carried away? Where is my boasting concerning you? Where is my hope? Or rather, after hope, where does the fragrance appear? D You see the gloom, the dejection, if you will, and the tears. The care for you is the cause of these; the pain I feel for you touches them.
vitals of my life. But if you have any care for my life (and no argument has yet convinced me that you do not), let nothing of this sort, nor anything akin to it, ever A proceed into your counsel or your study. For "blessed is the man who has not run in the works of the lawless, but who has not even walked in their counsel." And let us not boast because we are better than others, but if we are found inferior to some, let us be ashamed. For even a soldier is not deemed glorious and notable merely because he is not convicted of desertion, nor because he is not ranked with the fugitives, but if he is superior to his fellow soldiers in war; if he has brought back victory over the enemies, then he is judged worthy to be crowned. Yes, I entreat and implore you, show an end worthy of the beginning, worthy of the contests! B Oh, how many sighs, how many tears, when in the middle of the sea—midst winds and storms—to be sailing with a fair wind, yet to be shipwrecked at the very harbor itself! To conquer the enemy in battle, yet to yield the trophies to them! To endure the struggle in the stadium brilliantly, yet to grow soft at the prizes! But I was expecting that you—O lovers of virtue, heralds of piety, and champions of the truth—would, just as in all other things, so also find a consolation for this present pain, not only because grief, when revealed to friends, is wont to be dissipated, as it were, by words and to be exuded like steam, but even more because I cherish the great hope that, through your wise and noble incantations and exhortations, the man will be restored more quickly; that, having turned away completely from the serpent’s whispering, he will no longer endure counseling that causes division, that turns upright reasonings into hesitation and is a cause of downfall, but that he will have recourse to his former perfection, and C—unshaken and immovable—be preserved on the firm and unbroken rock of the confession of Christ, through his whole life and all his conduct.
And enough of these things for now. But if there be any consolation in Christ (for thus, with the divine Paul, I call out to you and through you to all), if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels of mercy, fulfill my joy; that, as until now, so always you may be of the same mind, in one spirit laboring together with one soul for the preaching of the truth, and not being terrified in anything by your adversaries, which to them is a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God; D because to you it has been given by Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him. And I write these things not as though you were in need of my words, but as one who is a debtor, and as one desiring to communicate with you—where there is the occasion—not only by acts and contests, but sometimes also by words. For you, as I would say with John the Theologian, have received the anointing from the Holy Spirit, and the anointing which you have received…
from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you about all things; and just as it has taught you, abide in him, that when the Son of God shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be put to shame by him at his coming."
But the guardian of peace and king, the cause and sustainer of our life, in whom we live and move and are, B by whose indissoluble bonds of love we are held fast, is the prince and great high priest, Christ, our true God, who "of a people that was no people" has made us "a people for his own possession" by his own blood; and not merely a people, but a beloved one, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood (O, the ineffable love for mankind!), having made us sons, heirs, and joint-heirs, "with whom there is no variation or shadow of change." He is the one who will guard us unblemished unto the end, binding us with the bond of peace and love, forming us in himself and mutually with one another in an unshakable and immovable disposition of piety, so that we might all have one and the same thought, saying the same thing, looking toward the same goal, and hastening toward the prize of the upward call; where the Church of the firstborn is, where the choirs of martyrs are, where the tabernacles of the patriarchs are; where there is no falsehood honored before truth, no strife, no tyranny, no arrogance; where there is deep serenity and the beauty of truth, fathomless and unhidden by any artifice; where there is perfect peace and concord, and the contemplation, participation, and enjoyment of those blessed and ineffable sights; and finally, the end of adoption, no longer merely hoped for, but already brilliantly possessed; the perfection for which we suffer present persecutions and are led away captive, for which we endure six hundred calamities and daily deaths, which we bear gladly, offering up thanks besides.
That we must pray for kings, the divine Paul instructed us long ago, and Peter, the chief of the disciples: C "Be subject," he says, "to every human creature for the Lord's sake, whether to a king as supreme." And again: "Honor the king." But prior to both of these, the common Lord and Master and Creator of us and them himself, by paying the tax to Caesar from his divine, invaluable treasure, taught by deed and word that we should render the prerogatives that have been assigned to kings. Therefore, in our mystical and awesome sacred rites, we offer prayers for kings, for it is both right, pleasing to God, and most fitting for us to preserve and protect intact—and to safeguard in common—the prerogatives of our kings who are beloved of Christ. D
EPISODE XV. From exile, to the bishops who have suffered a similar persecution.
Persecution is heavy, but the blessing of the Master is sweet; exile is grievous, but the kingdom of heaven is delightful. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Many are the tribulations, b
A and they surpass all severity. But the joy and exultation from above not only know how to lighten their bitterness, but for those who live according to hopes that are on high, they transform them into a subject for gladness. Let us therefore strive for the contests, that we may attain the prizes; that it may be granted to us also to cry out with Paul: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." What is sweeter or more graceful than this triumphal voice? And what is more powerful to put to shame the common enemy of the human race? "I have finished the race; I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." O voice that lulls the storm of every sorrow, or rather, that provides the grace of every spiritual joy, that brings the persecutors to astonishment, that gives boldness to the persecuted, that strengthens the weak, that raises up the cast down! May I, with my deeds backing up my words, be deemed worthy, together with you who contend in the same good struggle in the Lord, to utter this, through the intercession of our all-holy Lady the Theotokos, and of all the saints. Amen.
Letter 16
To the most pious and great king Basil
Hear me, O most humane king, I do not now allege our old friendship; nor C frightening oaths and treaties; nor the anointing and the laying on of hands of the kingdom; nor the fact that, having come to our hands, you were made a partaker of those awesome and immaculate mysteries; nor that bond by which the adoption of the good child united us. I do not speak of any of these things, but I propose to you the common justice due to all men. For all, both Barbarians and Greeks, when they condemn anyone to death, deprive him of life; but those whom they allow to live, they do not compel to die of starvation and a thousand other evils. But I am living a life more bitter than death; I am led into captivity, I am stripped of everything—relatives, servants, acquaintances, and simply all human service. And yet, the divine Paul, when he was led about as a prisoner, was not prevented from enjoying the care of his acquaintances and friends; indeed, even when he was being led to execution, he experienced humanity from the pagans, even those who held the name of Christ in hatred. But D perhaps the long duration of time shows that others—if not archpriests of God, yet at least certain evildoers—have suffered such things. But that we should also be deprived of books, this is something new and paradoxical, a punishment recently devised against me. And for what end? Surely so that we might not hear the word of the Lord. May it never happen in the days of your reign that this curse should reach its end, for "It shall be in those days, a famine of bread, and a famine of hearing the word of the Lord." For why have the books been taken away from us? If perhaps...
we are doing something wrong, more should have been given, and even informants employed, so that by reading we might derive greater profit, and being convicted, we might more quickly attain correction; but if we have wronged no one, why are we wronged? No orthodox person has suffered such a thing from those of a different belief. Athanasius the much-enduring was driven from his episcopal throne A many times, both by heretics and by pagans, but no one ever decreed that his books should be taken from him. The wonderful Eustathius endured the same treachery from the Arians, but not even from him were books taken away, as they were from us. Paul the confessor, John Chrysostom, Flavian the remarkable, and countless others—for what need is there now to count those whom the Book in heaven has recorded? And why do I mention the holy and orthodox bishops? The great Constantine punished Eusebius, Theogonis, and other heretics with them, because of their impiety and their vacillating opinions, with exile, but he neither despoiled them of their possessions nor deprived them of their books. For he was ashamed to debar from speech those whom, because they acted irrationally, he condemned to exile; Nestorius the impious is exiled; Dioscorus also; Peter the wretched; Severus, and many, many others; but no one of them endured the captivity of their B books. And why do I recount the ancients? Many even now surviving know that that impious Leo showed the nature of a beast rather than of a man. Yet he, when he was driving the great and truly Nikephoros from the throne and sending him into exile, not only did not relegate the exile away from his books, but he did not destroy him by starvation, as we are being starved. And yet he was very much in his prayers that that athlete should perish by death, no less than that his own impious reign should endure for as long as possible; but he did not wish to carry the title of murderer, nor did he cut the flesh of his own servants into pieces like that of robbers or traitors, even though he was otherwise impious and breathing out cruelty; he did not exclude anyone from the visitation of friends, nor did he punish anyone with the loss of property. C For he revered the Christianity which he affected, in such a way that he did not wish to rage more cruelly than pagans. For they, when they were finishing off the martyrs, did not prevent them from using the service of friends, nor did they deprive them of the ownership of their belongings. But neither did that Leo prohibit psalmody; indeed, he even allowed the gathering together of many monks for the sake of consolation. He did not tear down the divine homes and buildings sacred to God, fearing, as is probable, to rage against holy works, even when he did not fear to offend men. But against me, woe is me! Everything is being put to use that is new and surpasses every tragedy: I am held captive, I am deserted by all my friends, I am stripped of my kin and servants, of those who sing D the psalms, of the monks.
A I am handed over to the custody of soldiers and to military squads; the houses of God are overturned, the poor are ill-treated and exiled, their resources confiscated no differently than the spoils of war. To what end? Surely that I might be tormented; certainly I am tortured in a cruel manner. Those whom I had destined—along with the propitiatory offering and those houses—for the service of God and for the sake of my sins are now being withdrawn from serving Him. But one should have considered whether God Himself is affected by our loss, and grieves the more fiercely. Certainly He does grieve, if He is indeed the One who takes upon Himself the care of the condition of the poor.
B The civil laws of the Romans have devised bodily torments for those caught in crimes, for the sake of the purification of the soul; but as for tortures and treacheries against the soul, we have not, until now, heard that they were employed by anyone—although we are learning them now by experience. For it is clear what this achieves: both the removal of [my] books, and the destruction and eradication of the ransom for sins. The one extinguishes and corrupts the eye of contemplation; the other tears apart and dissolves the most beautiful of actions. Who from all time has heard of a war devised by men against the soul of a man? As if bodily punishments were not sufficient to exhaust all wrath—namely, exile, captivity, famine, imprisonment, and death brought on day by day; where life is spared only so far as not to remove the sense of evils along with life. This is the bitterest sting of death, an intolerable slaughter, that we should suffer the pains of the dying and yet not lose the sensation of pain in death, which is the only consolation for those dying in such great evils.
Consider these things within yourself, O King; and if your conscience acquits you, then add other things against me, if perhaps anything has been left out. But if it condemns you, do not await the judgment from above, when repentance will be useless. C I implore you, perhaps with a new sort of petition, but one adapted to these new circumstances: put a stop, O King, to these evils, in whatever way you wish; either by removing me from this life, and that as quickly as possible, and not preserving me with much and inexplicable delay, as if I were something salted; or at least by lessening the measure of the sorrows by which I am oppressed. Remember that you are mortal, though you be Emperor; consider that we are both clothed in the same flesh, and are participants in the same nature, both kings and the private individual alike. Remember that we have a common Lord, Creator, and Judge. Why do you put your own gentleness to the test by afflicting me? Why do you accuse your own goodness through the injuries you heap upon me? Do you treat mercy as hypocrisy, and hold up a guise of clemency to mockery, incited by hatred and heavy fury against me? I do not desire a throne, nor do I seek glory, D nor ease, nor comfort. But I ask for those things which are provided even to convicts, things which even captives do not fail to obtain, things which even barbarians are humane enough to provide to their prisoners. For my affairs have come to such a pass that I must ask for such things from an Emperor, and from the once most humane race of the Romans. What, then, do I ask? Either a life that is not more grievous than death, or to be released more quickly from...
the body. Revere nature, that you may be entreated; honor the common laws of mortality; do not abandon the common rights of the Roman empire, lest it be said of you that you have introduced a new example into life: namely, that an Emperor who promised mercy and clemency, an archbishop whom he had as a friend and a common son—at whose hands both he and the Empress had received the royal anointing and had put on the dignity of power, by whom he was vehemently loved, and to whom he had sworn a solemn pledge—that this very man, whom he had demonstrated to all that he loved and cherished deeply, he punished with starvation, exile, and six hundred other evils, and then—though the man was praying for him—delivered him to death. B
EPIS. XVII. To the same.
(Published by Montagu, ep. 98, p. 141).I indeed thought that when you were raised to the heights of the kingdom, there would be many future occasions for me to give you thanks for your beneficence toward us—for friends, for kinsmen, for acquaintances, and in short for all those whom I thought you would be able to gratify for my sake without reluctance. For my sincere and guileless disposition toward you had led me to such a hope, and the six hundred promises confirmed by oaths, which, even when I was reluctant, you yourself were assiduously spreading before everyone, did not allow me to doubt. But our hopes have at last come to this point, that though it is late, and not quite seasonal, I am able to give thanks for your reign. For what, and why, you will ask? Because you have promised to moderate the punishments of robbers and hung figures, in conjunction with whom I was C struggling even to the point of exhaustion. But observe, my dear friend—even if you are unwilling, O Emperor—that to try only to persuade men not only contributes nothing toward persuading God, but is transformed into the exact opposite; and certainly those things that are done here without any fear will one day bring more bitter punishments from the Justice that examines all things.
NOTICE ON THE FOLLOWING EPISTLE.
(Angelo Mai, *Script. vet.*, vol. 1, page xxi).While I was searching for the writings of Photius on the Vatican shelves, a certain unknown work presented itself beyond my expectation in an old palimpsest codex, brief indeed but nevertheless not to be despised. The earlier writing of the palimpsest is square, and contains parts of the sacred works of Leontius, of which work I shall speak in another volume. The later writing, of the twelfth century approximately, has the work of Eusebius *On the Place-Names of the Hebrews*; and indeed Vallarsi, in his edition of Jerome, vol. III, teaches that the text of the Eusebian work was revised according to the standard of this very rare codex, which was once the property of Cardinal Sirleti. There follow in the codex certain glossaries, then small works on measures and weights, and also some theological definitions. After these are the five canonical responses of Photius, with that title which we have written in Greek in our own edition. Finally, there follow after Photius...
certain things, and some anonymous. In truth, the palimpsest itself at the end of the leaves of the codex differs from its former and greater part: for it contains fragments of the Acts of the Apostles, written in characters older than the work of Leontius. But indeed, omitting these for the time being, I must speak briefly concerning the writing of Photius, which is sent to Leo, the archbishop of Calabria. I see that the episcopal see of Calabria is numbered among those that obeyed the Byzantine patriarch, in a novella of Leo the Wise 1, who was a pupil of Photius; and to that see is attributed a degree of honor between Mocissus and Larissa. Furthermore, whether one ought to understand Calabria as the island of the Argives, in which Demosthenes once drank poison, or rather as a province of Italy, I do not know if it is right to doubt. For I see that in the same novella (p. 100), Calabria of Italy is called by that name, in which place the bishops of Callipolis, Acerentia, and Castrum Vetus are subjected to the see of Santa Severina. Then, in the *Themata* of Porphyrogenitus (lib. II, 10), the little town of Santa Severina is placed near Crotone. And Ughellius (tom. IX, p. 475) teaches that in these places the rite of the Greek Church partly flourishes even now. Certainly, it is proven by many documents that at the time of Photius that furthest part of Italy was contained within the borders of the Byzantine patriarchate, and certainly by the already mentioned novella of the emperor. Yea, I scarcely doubt that this Leo was indeed the archbishop of Italian Calabria, when I consider a passage from a certain unpublished work of Photius against the Latins (concerning which work, more anon), where, having enumerated various peoples of Italy and the West who obeyed the Roman pontiff, Photius excepts the Calabrians, whom he says agree with the Greeks. But yet, Leo certainly subscribed as Bishop of Rhegion to the eighth synod celebrated against Photius 2; and he also appeared in the pseudo-synod of Photius 3, which matter Coletus wisely noted in the corrections to Ughellius 4, and thus established Leo in the series of the bishops of Rhegion in an order that is not doubtful. But behold, in the aforementioned novella (p. 100), the Bishop of Rhegion is sufficiently distinguished from the Calabrian. Furthermore, I am a proponent of reading also the very learned Bressius in his *Antiquities of Malta* 5 regarding the borders of the Byzantine patriarchate; he examines the authority of the Leonine novella after other critics. As for what pertains to our own subject, it is certain that Leo, the archbishop of Calabria, requested from Photius, his patriarch, and from the synod which was being celebrated in his presence, the solutions to certain doubts; Photius, meeting this honest petition, wrote back five chapters; which I, that I might earn merit well I hope in canonical matters, have rendered into Latin and clarified with a few scholia, and I deemed it worthwhile to publish them in this volume alongside those of Amphilochius.
THE CANONICAL RESPONSES OF PHOTIUS
To the most God-beloved and most holy fellow-minister Leo, Archbishop of Calabria, Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople. A The chapters sent to us by your God-belovedness, having been presented to our most God-beloved metropolitans 6 and having been examined and scrutinized by them, have met with such judgment and resolution.
I. Regarding those men who, being endowed with no sacred order, have performed baptisms by their own hand, this has been defined. If indeed they dared to lay hands upon such an act in a free land and in Christian peace and where there is an abundance of priests, making light of the law of sacred constitutions and ministries, or rather, having traded in it through arrogance; these, I say, having been severely rebuked, shall thereafter be excluded even from sacred ministry on account of that which they have hitherto perpetrated. For those who wished to usurp the grace of the divine Spirit, and to claim the honor for themselves, not being called by God, but rather, as though they were despisers of divine grace, having allowed B themselves to do this as though they were…
A We, however, do not consider those who have been baptized by them to have received the grace of the Spirit in any way; for which reason we decree that they be baptized with water, and anointed with the holy chrism, and thus be perfected. And even if some such thing was done contemptuously and unworthily, we, following the apostolic canons, strictly rebuke those who do not baptize those who have received baptism from the impious, as failing to distinguish priests from false priests. B If, however, some persons living in a barbarian territory, when there was a lack of priests, performed a holy baptism, necessity deserves forgiveness, so that, because of the tyranny, those who plead for it may not be turned away as if they were empty of grace. Therefore, it did not seem right to us to subject to penal judgment those who baptized, even though they were not marked by holy orders. But we do determine that those who were baptized must absolutely be anointed again with chrism, even if they had been anointed by the aforementioned, and thus be perfected within the space of seven days C by the one-time anointing of the divine oil; otherwise, that baptism which had been administered in urgent necessity is not to be invalidated. For although that rite was imperfect, yet by the invocation of the Trinity, and the pious intent of those invoking, and the faith of those receiving, it was sufficiently honored. Wherefore we do not decree that those who have been baptized should be baptized again with water, lest we should seem to be rebaptizing. For the faith of those who request it, and the diligent intent of those who perform it along with piety, and the disregard of the tyrannical power, and the contempt of the dangers D hanging over them for the sake of Christ, do not seem to leave the baptism performed devoid of the Holy Spirit or unhallowed. For the Church of God has of old validated many baptisms, which were usefully approved due to the necessity of times and places. So much for this.
NOTE.
(7) This canon is among those commonly called apostolic, the forty-seventh. We have already seen on p. 115 that Photius attributed them to the apostles as authors. Yet no one now doubts that these canons lack apostolic authority and age, and indeed even because of the errors they contain regarding baptism. Photius, not an acute enough critic in this matter, failed to recognize the fraud, as Montfaucon, the editor of Chrysostom, warns us in the preface, and (as I note in passing) even categorized many spurious writings of Chrysostom as genuine. Lest we wonder that Photius, so much and contrary to the true opinion, urges that baptism conferred by a layman should at least sometimes be held as valid, one should listen to the Greek Arcudius on baptism, saying: "Almost all Greece, Russia, Moscow, and other provinces that persevere in the faith of Christ under the Greek rite, are so involved in this error and scrupulosity, that in the absence of a priest they prefer to let infants depart this life without baptism, rather than wash them in the saving bath, because they think that it is not lawful for laymen to perform this duty even in necessity." Photius's opinion was undoubtedly known to Arcudius, by whom, in the cited chapter, Photius is placed among the rebaptizers, a man, as he says, most prompt to lash out with tongue and pen. Latin theologians everywhere refute an error of this kind, repeated ever since the times of Cyprian; therefore, one may spare further words here.
(8) Arcudius, in ch. 4 on the errors of the modern Greeks, says: "The ancients believed it was sacrilegious to repeat the sacrament of confirmation just as baptism once it had been administered; the moderns think that if they do not repeat it, they have violated the canons of the councils." Blastares, in the same Arcudius, ch. 12, entirely agrees with Photius, saying that one should not rebaptize, but that confirmation should be repeated. Zonaras, along with Aristenus, holds the same opinion on the apostolic canons. And again Zonaras on the canon of Carthage of Cyprian in Beveridge, vol. I, p. 367. But Arcudius, in the same place, refutes the repetition of chrism. Finally, Zonaras seems to agree with the rebaptizers on the canon of Carthage of Aurelius, vol. I, p. 575. One must read Blastares entirely in the *Syntagma* concerning the whole matter where he treats of baptism, in Beveridge, vol. II, p. 38 sqq.
(9) Understand the number of seven days, after which Greeks are wont to bring the boy who had been anointed in baptism back to the church to be washed. Arcudius, ch. 17, p. 55.
(10) For the Greeks express the opinion that those who are baptized without confirmation are not fully baptized. Thus also the imprudent Simeon of Thessalonica speaks, in Arcudius, ch. 13: "Someone baptized who has not received the chrism shall not be perfect."
777 EPISTOLARUM LIBER I. 778
CAP. II. — Concerning presbyters and deacons whose wives were violated by Barbarians.
A Regarding presbyters and deacons who, after the barbarian captivity, have taken back their own wives who have suffered defilement at the hands of the Barbarians, we do not see a simple rule, but one that varies according to the diversity of the events. For if they were not violated against their will, we hold that the men who are endowed with holy orders must by all means either abandon these women, or, if they wish to live with them, cease from the holy ministry. Thus, I say, if the women were not violated against their will. Again, there can be two kinds of such illicit sexual union; of which the one contains consent mixed with necessity, while the other is entirely voluntary, full of B consent, and free of compulsion. Let this serve as an example: some women, by hope, by the fear of scourges, or even by the experience of tortures, have allowed themselves to be violated. These are indeed more worthy of pardon than those who had previously experienced illicit union of their own accord, and later submitted to it out of necessity. Yet, I say, it is unworthy for these women too to share their lives with men who are in holy orders. For there is a vast interval between the indulgence of a defilement and purity. Therefore, if any priests wish to be joined with these, they too shall fall from their own dignity. There remains the involuntary kind of violation, which does not fall under the category of the aforesaid. Let this be an example: if a woman, upon the application of tortures, or even without them, having been bound by hands and feet, has nonetheless striven to guard herself with all her might, she has contributed nothing to the act, even if she appeared to be violated; for she is judged to have truly preserved her soul pure from vice. C Toward such women, if any of those in holy orders wish to live, we see no necessity for imposing a harsher separation. Nevertheless, it is desirable and praiseworthy if they break off their cohabitation by mutual consent and will; not that any stain or blemish follows from it, but that the opinion of the common people might be more stirred to admiration of virtue, and that the mouths of those who rejoice in the misfortune of others might be entirely stopped, and finally, that clear testimony might be provided that the injury happened to the woman by force alone. For since it is permitted to her to live with her legitimate husband, if she should instead choose to cling to God, does she not demonstrate that the barbarian disgrace happened to her beyond doubt involuntarily and without blame? This
we say, if it happens that the husband consents to the dissolution [of the marriage]; but if not, we do not drag the union into judgment. A
CAP. III. — Whether the infants of the Saracens ought to be baptized while they are in their own region and in their own homes.
It has been decreed that the infants of the Saracens, when offered by their mothers, should by no means be kept back from holy baptism. For it is not forbidden by the Church of God for minds still tender to receive the grace of baptism, even if later, having reached puberty, they should decide to live a life that is in part good and in part wicked. For since the future lies hidden, it would be absurd not to occupy with good foundations him who has the capacity to build up the edifice of his life according to his own will. And although the barbarian upbringing seems likely to render the baptism vain, the baptism itself does not bear the fault for this, but rather the one who has made the baptism void, or at least has attempted to make it so. For just as instruction in the Christian faith remains blameless, even if those who are instructed conduct themselves badly, so too does baptism, even if the life of the baptized should later turn out to be wicked and faithless. Therefore, it is B better for infants to be baptized and to receive meanwhile the pledge of the faith. For perhaps at some time they may remember that they put on Christ, and, aided by grace, they will pursue grace. Furthermore, where hope is ambiguous, it is better to choose the good and to adhere to it. And indeed, it is right, even if someone is not brought to perfection, to make at least a beginning of the good. Moreover, since the women have wished for their children to receive the pledge of the faith, if they attain their desire, they will be all the more eager for the completion of their instruction; but if they are repelled, they will perhaps abandon care not only for their children, but for themselves as well. C
CAP. IV. — Whether one ought to grant that divine gifts be brought to Christians held in the bonds of the Saracens.
As regards the women who carry holy communion to the Christians kept in the houses of the Barbarians, it has been decided that these women should be of good character, much like virgins, or adorned by a seemly old age, and worthy such that they might be assumed into the ministry and the rank of deaconesses. But if women of such...
A a nature are lacking, then indeed one must not even avoid those who are of a different faith, yet if they desire to do good to Christian brothers, they show such great boldness and do not refuse such a burden. We judge that the communion of the divine good should be brought through their hands even to those who do not neglect the Christian faith even under the yoke of tyranny. For the holy is not defiled; rather, it sanctifies even those who touch it. Unless, perhaps, certain suspected persons, who are accustomed to mock divine things, should pretend to accept such a duty.
CHAP. V. Whether children who have been subjected to violence for the sake of immorality by the Saracens ought to be admitted to holy communion.
Furthermore, it has been decided that, concerning children who have been subjected to ravishment by the indecency of the Barbarians, provided that the coercion and necessity brought upon them is taken into account, pardon should be given to them, B and they should not be barred from the life-giving communion. Unless, perhaps, they have committed the sin willfully; for then, not otherwise than those who entangle themselves in such faults of their own accord, a deserved punishment befits the children as well.
These, then, are the questions proposed by your God-fearing self, which are clearly worthy of inquiry and capable of characterizing the zeal of your wisdom. And such is the vote that has been passed concerning them by the most God-fearing metropolitans, which, having been sealed and approved by our mediocrity, is sent to your God-fearing holiness. Receive, therefore, the clear solutions to your questions, which you requested, and keep them, using them at an appropriate time and with suitable persons. And [see] that you do not slip in these matters, either through negligence... I desire that you be well, and that you rule your holy flock with constant holiness and justice, and keep [it] far from the soul-destroying passions. C The end of the chapters.
CANONICAL EPISTLES TO THE BISHOPS.
Letter XIX.
Everything is full of your high-priestly perfection and spiritual wisdom, and it is tempered with the precision of civil good order. For both [the act of] bringing the matter that was proposed to synodical judgment, and not trusting in the strength of your own prudence—although it is sufficiently able to bear the manifold weight of affairs—and, having first lulled the internal dissensions to sleep, thus finally proceeding to the judgment of external [affairs]... D
how is it not the task of one who conforms himself to the rule of divine wisdom? The four presbyters, therefore, who were brought forward for examination at the beginning, were rightly and immediately acquitted of an irrational and highly unjust censure, and received a just verdict. And it was an unreasoning folly that struck against this just verdict. For it is not, I say, it is not right that upon an accusation alone—whether the charge be small, or great, or even the greatest—if its intent lacks demonstration, a priest should be removed from his rank or be subjected to any other censure. For in this way, there would be a great gain for sycophants, if they saw those whom they were unable to convict of the crimes alleged against them, paying the penalties as if they had indeed been convicted. And what path could be found, if this absurd practice were confirmed, by which the one falsely accused might escape the clutches of his slanderers? Our mediocrity, therefore, in accordance with the verdict that proceeded from you from the beginning, releases those who were not convicted of the things of which they were accused,, immunizing them from any condemnation. B But as for those who have been caught and held by the crimes charged against them—I mean both the laymen and the presbyters involved in the same cause—we also pronounce that they are to be subjected to the temporary censure, provided that, as we said, the charge has been established as known. But as for those to whom no pardon has been granted, we have nothing to judge, since the crime is not established for us. Regarding this bishop, however, the inquiry and the conclusion of the examination proceeded reasonably, according to the canons, and in proper terms. We, however, cannot but be struck with amazement at how completely alien to the present discourse the letter of the bishop of Amasea is, in both what it narrates and what it suggests. For to ordain someone upon testimony, even if he be subsequently found unworthy, does not render the ordainer liable to blame. Yet those letters demonstrated nothing of the sort; rather, they narrated the opposite. It would be right, moreover, for those who provided the testimony when the accused received his ordination to be present, so that, as innocent and blameless men, they might be revealed even to those who are more unsparingly disposed toward the acquittal of their brothers and who [utterly] hate them: and that the priest of God may not be seen as having introduced any innovation in matters befitting a bishop. C But the synodical letter concerning the dispensation, which bears the address to the archbishop of Caesarea, was written with our consent and sent by our command; and it contains, I think, nothing either against conscience or contrary to the sacred laws of the Spirit. For there is a great difference between sins of ignorance and those forbidden acts that proceed from those who are knowledgeable and act with contempt. Indeed, the neglected care of deceased priests and Christians, and the omitted duty of the sacred psalmody that is owed, necessarily compel us to remit from the strictness of the sacred canon toward that which is more benign. But perhaps it is superfluous to say this to one who knows. As for the chapters of the definition, we have decided that they should be drawn up as could be done at this pressing time. Those who blessed the digamists before the matter was attested, both because of ignorance and because nothing had been determined by the bishops concerning this matter, and because no exact [instruction] from elsewhere...
A regarding the discipline of the canons is known, and for this reason they have fallen into such an error; such persons, if nothing else, at least for as long as the laws of the Spirit prohibit a digamist from the communion of the dread mysteries, for that same length of time shall also be suspended from the celebration of the sacred rites, they who have unreasonably bestowed the blessing upon those who are joined [in such a union]. Unless, perhaps, some other inescapable necessity urges it, or the life of the person is entirely tranquil and noteworthy—which often, in the view of our Fathers, out of a concern for equity, is seen to have prevailed over the exact letter of the canon, and to have shortened the time of penance. However, concerning a woman whose husband has died, we know indeed that she has obtained pardon from the divinely inspired Paul to enter into a second marriage. For there are many infirmities of women that excite shame, requiring that their feebleness be measured against the nature of men. But we do not know of the man being deemed worthy of the same indulgence from the apostolic bowels [of mercy]; wherefore, the penalty for one who has blessed a digamist woman will be either none at all, or much lighter than that for one who has blessed a man who is a digamist. Those who are joined to women without discernment—since the action is not simple, neither is the penalty uniform, nor do those who bless them fall under a single punishment. As for those women who have been dismissed by their husband, he providing the cause, because he was held by an impotence regarding natural intercourse: if they choose to remain continent, it would be better; but if they truly wish to be joined [to another], this does not entail condemnation for them, nor for any priest who honors their nuptials with a blessing. And if a woman provides the same cause, she shall enjoy the same liberty aforementioned, which we have deemed the man who was previously released, to be worthy of. But if any have been betrothed beyond the proper age, and then the law has separated them as being joined contrary to law, then neither of the persons who are departing, provided they are counted in the lay order, shall undergo censure if they approach other legitimate nuptials. But he who, on account of adultery, has caused his wife to be cast out, whether he be married or celibate, is an adulterer and is subject to the censure for adultery. B But if, simply on account of hatred and without reason, she has been expelled by her husband against her will, it would be better if she should return to her own husband; but if this cannot be done because he has already applied himself to other nuptials, she herself will not be held liable for the crime of adultery by being joined to another man; but indeed the priest who duly performs the blessing over her will not be blameless regarding her, but shall pay the penalty of him who has blessed digamists. Furthermore, to depart from marriage without reason, which is forbidden by the law, does not leave the man who approaches other nuptials innocent, nor the woman who does the same. Nay rather, grave punishments are established by the laws if anyone has dared to do this. And it is manifest that the priest who is present and duly performs the sacred rites in nuptials of this sort shall entirely lose his honor according to the exact discipline of the canons. But let these things be pronounced with haste, because the matters which were proposed for unexpected deliberation did not brook any delay in consideration; but if your ingenuity shall perceive anything else through diligent inquiry, let that which is better prevail. And C D
we too, perhaps, at a more leisurely time, shall examine the matter more accurately. A
LETTER XX.
Your holiness wrote regarding certain persons contaminated by the eating of defiled food. The cause of this contamination was as follows: They had gone to dig up a pagan tomb to find money, and as they were laboring in vain and finding nothing, each one said to his neighbor, "If we do not slaughter a dog and taste of its flesh, the earth will not yield to us what we seek." Immediately, then, the word passed into action. Having therefore come to a consciousness of the forbidden food, they fell at the bishop's knees, seeking a remedy and absolution for the sin they had committed. These are the things which the letter of your reverence reports. And regarding this matter, there is an ecclesiastical rule—a penance of forty days and certain prayers—by which those entangled in this crime are to be absolved. But the present participation in defiled food contains a mixture of another impiety. For to handle contaminated food because one wishes, according to their insane opinion, to appease the earth, increases the crime all the more, even if they arrived at such an opinion without the thought of greater impiety. Nevertheless, the character of the men, B their other conduct in life, their disposition, and whether their state of mind is one of simplicity or of cunning, can either extend or shorten the time; though perhaps the censure imposed is for forty days. But if a second determination must be stated, setting aside those circumstantial causes which provide grounds for extending or shortening the time, the penance for those caught in the aforementioned defilement shall be increased to three periods of forty days, along with other rigor in their regimen and the withholding of the fearful mysteries.LETTER XXI.
We did not notify the prelate in order to be satisfied as to whether the bishop, knowing him to be an adulterer, had permitted him to perform the priestly office—for that indeed would be grave—but whether, knowing him to be an adulterer, he had ordained him: which is graver. He, however, whom we wished to be informed about, taught us nothing regarding this, but reported what no one was asking. Nevertheless, if indeed he ordained him knowing him to be an adulterer, he is entirely deposed from his archpriestship and priesthood; but if he ordained him while ignorant that he was an adulterer, and then, having learned of it, he C suspended him for a time but then allowed him to officiate, he himself must also be suspended from officiating for certain periods of time. For it is one thing to despise God, and another to be deceived by error and seem to have observed the law even when you have not. Furthermore, we have decreed that he be suspended for a time, provided that his other merits and the quality of his other life can Dvirtues seem to compensate for such a fall; but otherwise, he shall be subject to censure in perpetuity. We say this, however, not if his prelate says that he ordained him knowing him to be an adulterer, or that after he had ordained him, having learned that he was an adulterer, and having made him abstain for a time, he then permitted him to perform sacred functions; but if he himself has been convicted by faithful and irreproachable witnesses, or even if not convicted, has assented and confessed with his own mouth. Such, then, is what our moderation has decided to be appropriate; and as for him, your holiness will decide what is to be done. Fare you well in the Lord. A
EPISTLE XXII
(Edited by Montagu, p. 390)Wonder indeed B and astonishment have seized us at such great folly, recklessness, insensibility, and illegality on the part of the prelate, although we have been carrying in our memory some ancient traces of such affections; but the persistence and increase of previous actions to the present, as if they were occurrences beyond expectation, have provided matter for our disturbance. However, it is not without trouble to persist in the causes of individuals one by one, which we have often said and now say again. For when we sinners laid our sinful hands upon your head, invoking the grace of the all-holy Spirit that is given to a prelate—and we trusted not in our own laying on of hands, but confided in the grace from above and your own virtue, that He would enrich us with His visitation—we command that not only those things which proceed illegally and against the canons from this prelate in the Church, but also whatever C proceeds from any other person demonstrating the same disposition, your episcopal perfection (as we, the humble, are present and assisting with the laws of the Spirit) should restrain, curb, and reform to a better and more excellent state; we not bestowing such spiritual power now, but the all-holy Spirit conferring it when He also gave the episcopal gift. Let those, therefore, who have been subjected to the bond of an irrational condemnation contrary to reason be released, and let them be restored to legitimate worship; and let those who have undergone deposition contrary to the laws, once the iniquitous decree has ceased, proceed in the administration of the priesthood. And let him who has imprudently admitted these things—especially since he attributes physical passions D to the connection of the soul—learn, if he cannot be persuaded by a word of exhortation, then by greater severity, not to depart from what is just. Therefore, the letter to him shall be sent rightfully and justly; and if even after this he does not become more sensible, let him not yet be forbidden to perform sacred functions and to have the administration of inanimate things, but let him not be permitted, being himself inanimate, to censure and regulate the animate, by the power granted to us in the Holy Spirit.
A
Letter XXIII.
Letters from your Holiness beloved of God have reached us, requesting that a judgment be brought forth by our mediocrity concerning the presbyter who, against the will of the parents and without awaiting their consent, had crowned their children—who were later separated through the zeal of the parents, and having come to nuptial communion with other persons, had received a blessing from another presbyter through the agency of the parents. Concerning the first presbyter, therefore, we thus decree: If he was indeed ignorant of the unwillingness of the parents, and then, from ignorance, slipped into error in crowning the persons who had come together, such a man is not entirely blameless or to be condemned as if for a voluntary sin, but neither is he to be dismissed as entirely free from all guilt; for it was his duty to have inquired accurately and to have learned thoroughly whether those approaching marriage were establishing their union with the will of their parents. B For this reason, such a man is not subjected to a loss of his order, but he shall be prohibited for some definite time from the performance of the sacred rites, and he shall undergo the hardship seen in others—namely, through fasts and prayers. The time of this penance shall be extended either to forty days or to twice that many, in proportion to the fervor of his repentance, so that he may never again fall into such a delinquency out of carelessness and sloth of mind. This, therefore, shall obtain if he refers his sin to ignorance. But if he knew full well the will of the parents, and how they were displeased with the union and agreement, and knowing this, he disregarded the natural law and also the spiritual law (for both declare the union invalid when the parents do not offer their consenting vote), such a person shall be subject to punishment. If, however, the parents, after the children had reached the legal age suitable for marriage, had delayed the marriage for a long space of time, and they themselves provided the necessity for the children to approach marriage even against the wishes of the parents, then the laws do not render such a marriage invalid, and the priest who is present and blesses the marriage is held guilty of no fault. Such a marriage is ratified, with the judge, from his knowledge of the case, preferring the guardianship of the children and their legitimate will over the wickedness of the parents. C Such, then, is what justice suggests to us concerning the first presbyter. But the consideration of the second is not simple. For if he were ignorant of the prior union, he is held liable to no penalty; for the presence of the parents at the nuptials bestows great weight for his absolution, as he did not come to an examination of previous events because the presence of the parents did not allow them to be recalled for judgment. But if he knew of the marriage that had taken place and that carnal relations had followed, since those who have departed from a prior union cannot, as if by necessity, be kept in celibacy, but must be bound in legitimate marriage so that they do not dwell in fornication, he who consecrated the marriage shall not indeed be stopped from the presidency of the sacred rites to the end, but he shall undergo some more moderate D penalties. Namely, because, when it was manifest that those which happened before the nuptials—which indeed
they cannot escape the charge of fornication—he dared to account those who are caught in the manifest charge of sin as pure and blameless, and to grant them the priestly blessing, and to adorn with the crowns of virginity those who had badly cast away their own. If, however, the first marriage took place with the approval of one's parents, but then they withdrew without reason, the first priest shall be completely absolved of fault; the second, whether the parents were present or not, shall be deprived of the priesthood. For neither the assent and presence of fathers, nor their refusal and absence, would remove an illicit and lawless union, nor indeed grant an acquittal for such a defilement. A
EPISTLE XXIV
To the most God-beloved, most holy, most sacred prelate, brother, and fellow-minister, most worthy of all admiration and of glorious fame, the Archbishop and Metropolitan of Aquileia, Photius, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.
1. The letter which arrived to us from your Beatitude, first of all, characterized your mind toward God and the warmth of the Spirit, showing how great and lofty it is, and how far above the condition of the majority of men. Furthermore, it also showed the character of this holy man to whom the letter was entrusted, both his other virtues and prudence, and the steadfastness and activity of his mind; through which, as if through a mirror, your sacred and God-honored holiness—as much as the letter, being indeed a letter, could convey—was permitted to be seen more clearly and more perfectly, and we were permitted to rejoice and take delight in the successes of your holiness. For we indeed beheld a man who is to be honored more for his wisdom than for the grayness of his hair. B C D
and one no less adorned by the variety of his virtues than by his prudence; a man who is supported by the constancy and sagacity of his mind, and—to speak in a word—one endowed with such grace as it was fitting for him to shine with, who has received from God to be set up as a priest of our wondrous mysteries, and who was held worthy of both your teaching and your laying on of hands. The experience of your holy sanctity revealed such an apostle to us. From this it was possible to observe and obtain proof that he who held the primacy over him, and had been his ordainer, and had been the author of his being sent as a legate to us, was full of divine graces; and that he, being altogether conspicuous in the splendor of his life and in his burning zeal and love for the dogmas, would also be a pattern of salvation to those who look upon him.
B II. For were it not that he—who drew the grace of the pontifical office from you—was generously filled with your God-pleasing teachings and instructions, and did he not revel in them, and had he not enjoyed a certain wondrous and great irrigation, as it were, from the fountain of your virtues, he would never have attained to such a clarity of virtue, such as is becoming for the high priests of God. For things that are secondary do not always, nor from a slight ray or illumination, preserve the likeness of their prototypes. For all these things, thanks are to be given to God, the benefactor and creator of all, who, as He does in the regions of the East, so also in the West, consecrates lights and guides, that they may shine daily and illuminate the souls and minds of the people, placing them upon the high pinnacle of episcopal sees.
C III. But while we were thus disposed regarding your holy virtue, and were exulting and rejoicing in its accomplished successes, that which has now fallen upon our ears—would that it had never!—is a grief of the soul, and not of the body. For through this, having conceived great hope from the sight of him, we thought it worth the labor to reveal the suffering itself. I do not know how I might speak of it without pain; unless perhaps it is well D to satisfy the soul, D-end; continue text: if not in words that are pleasant, then at least in those that are honest...
A contenting themselves with the Dominical utterances, or having no concern for the definitions and dogmas of the Fathers and the synods, or disregarding the precision found therein, or carrying a mind hardened toward such things—I do not know how anyone could say it—nevertheless, would that it were not so, it has reached our ears that some of those in the West introduce a new dogma: that the divine and most holy Spirit proceeds not only from God the Father, but also from the Son; and they cause much harm thereby to those who are persuaded by such a claim. To those who possess such an unreasonable prejudice, this, though great, might perhaps not cause as much damage, on account of the veil of ignorance; but once an investigation has been proposed, and the error has been clearly refuted both by the rest of our holy Scripture and by the very word of the Lord, if they do not quickly abandon it, as having become entangled in an absurd opinion, and if they do not quickly embrace what has been rightly demonstrated and set forth, it is entirely clear into what great blasphemy such people are precipitated, and to what great condemnation they render themselves liable, even if no one proclaims it. For they will fall away, along with other good things, from the mindset of piety and from the divine Spirit himself, as they belittle the Spirit, dogmatizing that He proceeds from the Son, and by a second procession not only insult Him but also mock the single procession. For how is it not absurd—or rather, how is it not full of the utmost blasphemy—to fight against the very words of the Lord and to stand against the tradition and teaching that prevails everywhere among the great and B archiepiscopal sees?
IV. For, to pass over those before him, Leo, the high priest of Rome, both the elder and then again the younger Leo who followed him, are shown to hold the same views as the catholic and apostolic Church, and the holy high priests before them, and the apostolic decrees. The former, in the fourth holy and ecumenical C synod...
contributed much toward its assembly, both through the holy men he sent as his legates and vicars, and through his own epistle—by which both Nestorius and Eutyches were overthrown—in which he also proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the synodal decrees before him, and not from the Son.
V. Similarly, Leo the Younger also, who attained not only the name of that former [Leo] but also a faith equal to his—this man, I say, this fervent zealot of piety, so that the spotless instruction of our faith might in no way, by a barbarian tongue, be corrupted—handed it down to those in the West in the Greek language, just as it had been uttered and read from the beginning, so that they might glorify and theologize the holy Trinity through it. And he did this not by word and commandment alone, but, having inscribed it upon certain shields like tablets and put it before the eyes of all, he fixed it to the doors of the church, so that it might be easy for all to learn the piety undefiled, and so that there might be no way for the secret corrupters and B empty-talkers to adulterate our Christian piety, nor to introduce a second cause of the Spirit alongside the Father—the Son—who proceeds from the Father with the same honor as the Son who was begotten of the Father.
VI. And not this pair of holy men alone, who shone forth in the West, preserved the piety unrenovated (for the Church in the West is not so lacking in preachers and teachers), but also another chorus, not easily numbered, who are contained within and shine together with the aforementioned men, as by the extreme and highest points, in the light of piety. Thus, then, the Roman Church, while agreeing with and confessing the same with the other four high-priestly sees, and being established and supported upon the rock of the Master’s words—against which even the gates of Hades C shall not prevail— [proclaims the faith].
A the truth has clearly demonstrated that the doors—that is to say, the mouths of the heretics, which possess no doors—can in no way prevail; whence, and from what sources, has this new blasphemy against the Spirit emerged? And how could that which has been brought about not be worthy of many groans and many tears, and of great diligence to check the growth of this evil, and to prevent us from seeing the disease consume more of those who are numbered in the flock of God?
VII. For this reason, we too, humble as we are, call upon your excellence—as though upon a great pillar of the Church and a watcher set over the house of Israel—to kindle the divine zeal that you have in your heart into a light for all to see; and, like an ignited lamp of the high priesthood, to bring the salutary light to all who are wandering, and to lead them by the hand, turning them away from error, toward the piety that is spread over the whole world.
VIII. For in the first place, as it has already been said, you have the Dominical voice, shining more brightly than any torch, declaring that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; to which, if at last those who teach through blasphemy that the Spirit proceeds from the Son would lift up their eyes, they would cease to tarry in error and darkness. Illuminating themselves with the light of piety, let them enter into the shelters that contain the sanctuary of the radiance of orthodoxy, which knows no setting, B revering especially him who, having drawn from the Dominical breast, became a disciple and teacher of celestial dogmas, and obtained the name of "Theologian"—John—and let them put him forward as an intercessor, so that they may obtain forgiveness for having once stood against both him and their Master, and the disciples of the most theological one. For to those who dogmatize that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, two causes and principles are necessarily introduced; and the monarchy in the Trinity will perish. For those who speak in this way clearly proclaim two causes, from which the one principle is also divided into two—and may God turn this blasphemy upon the heads of those who are guilty of it.
IX. Otherwise, if the procession from the Father is perfect, what need is there for a second procession, since the Spirit is already understood to be perfect from the paternal procession? But if it is imperfect, who will endure what is so absurdly asserted? For in the first place, whoever dares to say this flings imperfection upon the all-perfect Trinity. C Then, he also makes the Spirit—the author of all perfection—the outcome of two imperfect things again; and he also creates Him as composite, as if from two certain causes and authors; and thus (O unbridled tongue and reprobate mind!) the Spirit proceeds imperfectly from each. And those who are gripped by this blasphemy would not hesitate to call the Spirit a grandson. D And if the voice... [index: entries preserved]
A of the pious is avoided out of fear, yet they nevertheless foster the understanding through which they dogmatize. For if the Son proceeds from the Father through generation, but the Spirit proceeds from the Son through procession, it will inevitably end up as the order of a grandson; and how could this be tolerable to those who are zealous for piety and to be reckoned in the catalogue of Christians? Or how, if it is overlooked for long, will it not drag those who are silent, yet who have been granted from God the sense and graces to refute, into the same destruction as those who blaspheme, unless it is refuted?
X. But do you, most sacred of holy men, set before them the disadvantage that emerges from their absurd opinion. For if the Spirit also proceeds by the generation of the Son, and at once the one is begotten, while the other proceeds from him who is begotten or born; then the Spirit will none the less, just as the Son, proceed from the B Father receiving his procession through generation, if indeed the Father begets the Son, and the Spirit proceeds along with the Son who proceeds through generation. For if they suggest a different time for the Son of the Father to be submitted to generation, and a different one for the Spirit to proceed from the Son (for perhaps they might even contrive this, being hard-pressed by the difficulty), they will necessarily have to establish the Spirit as later than the generation of the Son, and younger than him. But if they recoil, fearing the danger of this manifest fighting against God, they will be forced to confess that the Spirit is begotten.
XI. I hear, moreover, that these men are emboldened against Paul and against our common Lord and teacher, adducing the divine Paul as a defense of their own C heresy. For they say that he said, *God sent the Spirit of his Son crying in our hearts, Abba, Father* 33. But let those who think to confirm their own ignorance with these words of the Apostle know that they are shown to be erring all the more by the very sentiments of the Apostle upon which they think they rely. For we do not find fault with the things which Paul teaches and proclaims, but we blame them for the way they corrupt his divinely inspired words. And because they shamelessly bring forward things for his indictment—things he neither said nor ever even thought of—for this reason they are caught bringing a just judgment of condemnation D upon themselves. Therefore, that man who is sublime in heaven says that the Spirit of the Son was sent by the Father. Say you also the same word as Paul. For it is the Spirit of the Son, since it was never seen to be alien, or speaking against him, or legislating differently; but because, just as they are of the same essence and power, so too are they of the same counsel and purpose, and in the same way likewise they are referred to the One, from whom the one was begotten and the other proceeded, he called it the Spirit of the Son. Let them speak in this way also, and there will be no one to accuse them of heresy. He did not say, "He proceeds from the Son"; if any say this, they are both insulting the teaching of Paul and proving themselves guilty of a heretical opinion. But if, because he is called the Spirit of the Son, they also judge that he proceeds from him, they would also [have to judge that the] Father proceeds from the Son...
For the Father is called, everywhere, [the Father] of the Son. And such men would also posit many producers and causes of the Spirit. For he is called, no less, the Spirit of wisdom, and of knowledge, and of power, and of other such divine things. If, then, because the Spirit is called [the Spirit] of these things, they also demand that he proceed from them, one can see the “wisdom” of their thinking and into what a pit of error it plunges and leads them astray. B
XII. Furthermore, from another way, yet another blasphemy is seen to arise from their opinion. For if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, [he proceeds] neither after his generation nor before it—for in the most holy Trinity these temporal adverbs are utterly banished. If, therefore, he proceeds at once from the Father, and at once from the Son, the thing being produced itself will be divided by the hypostases of those producing [him]; and the Spirit will be two to them instead of one: the one proceeding from the Father, and the other proceeding from the Son. For there is nothing of such novelty to be found, nor does it happen among those that receive existence through generation. For it is possible to see a difference according to hypostasis in things proceeding from one and the same substance; but for one and the same thing according to substance to proceed from *different* [sources], and not to be divided along with the hypostases of those producing [it]—neither nature knows this, nor does anything higher than nature. C
XIII. For children are often seen [to be born]—many [of them]—from one and the same womb, and at the same time, and separately, brought to light; and the same hand both strikes and writes, and provides benefits, and is raised toward God—but that the writing is a complete work of the hand, and likewise that the walking is the function of either of the aforementioned, or that the seeing is of the eye and the ear, or other things of this sort, no one of sound mind would think. But just as the members are distinguished from one another by their own circumference, so also the power of each is divided according to the character of the operators and is distinguished from the rest. And thus, even in the case of those things that have obtained a completely distinct substance, the same order of contemplation is preserved. D
XIV. What other excuse, then, is left for those who choose to blaspheme? For the evil one is resourceful in deception; even if the wisdom and power of the corner-stone, through his own servants, easily shatters his devices. But what is left for them for blasphemy?
Notes
(12) "A complete work." He seems to have read *katallēlon*—"more congruous work"—but it adds nothing to the matter. alt-version omitted: the remainder of the Latin footnote is a polemic against Photius’s logic regarding the impossibility of the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son, which the editor dismisses as "insipid" and "a drowsy nightmare."
A themselves by their own voice, as if they had too little, seeing that they blaspheme the Lord themselves, unless they first bring an accusation against Him who is blasphemed, as if He were the legislator and author of the blasphemy. For the Savior says, they assert, *He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you.* But if this is brought forward by us against them, to prove that the Spirit receives from the Father, and proceeds from Him, and not from the Son, what other escape from these refutations could they invent for themselves? Therefore, those things which openly refute the madness of their heresy, if they bring them forward for the confirmation of that same heresy, how would they not be miserable in their understanding, and more miserable in their intent? For what could be clearer than this Dominical voice, to crush the shamelessness of those who bring it forward? What is more manifest to prove that the Spirit proceeds not from the Son, but from the Father?
XV. And indeed, what the Savior said in other places, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, this He now teaches through the passage set before us, saying, *The Spirit shall receive of mine.* For He did not say, "from me," but *of mine*—it is manifest that this means "of the Father" (13); unless perhaps they wish there to be, and to be called, something else besides the Father and the Spirit that is the Son's. Those, therefore, who think that such manifest refutations in their own favor stand for them, what other alliance will they procure for the confirmation of their deluded opinion? But as it seems, these men, understanding neither the words known to all, nor possessing knowledge of the things at hand, not only do not endure to learn from others what they are ignorant of (though they ought to pray, and diligently inquire, that they might be drawn out from the depth of their ignorance), but they even set themselves up as teachers of their own figments. For how are they not ashamed, when the Lord says, *The Spirit shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you*, that they do not B interpret it as He said? C
NOTES
(13) *It is manifest, that of the Father.* He is clearly making a violent exposition, proper to Photius alone, by which he so exults and triumphs, as if that passage of John totally invalidates the whole dogma concerning the procession of the Spirit also from the Son, and does not establish it; he falsely accuses the Latins of having corrupted it, as if they had read or written [something else] in its place. Nothing of the sort: Cyril, however, did not think it a corruption, as if he had used words signifying the same thing. In *John* I. I, c. 1: "But if (as he himself says) the Spirit receives from Him, although He is powerful and accomplishes all things, how shall He not have the power over all things?" Therefore, he explains it in the same way. And so we will say that the Spirit receives from the Father and the Son, which are of them, not that, etc. And Chrysostom [says] no otherwise, that there is one knowledge of the Son and the Spirit; how the Son is also said not to speak from Himself, but the things which He heard from the Father, by eternal generation, clearly, and which are His own, He received: and thus, accordingly, the Spirit [receives] also from the Son, although from the Father as from a quasi-fontal principle, and from Himself, since the Son Himself with the Father is the principle, and from the Father, one principle with Him, which the Greeks are accustomed to explain by the preposition *dia*; and Cyril himself there [says]: "Since He is consubstantial with the Son and D divinely proceeds through Him, having all His most perfect power and efficacy in all things; therefore He said, *Because He shall receive of mine.* For we believe that the Spirit subsists by Himself, and is in truth that which He is and is called." Thus that Dominical voice does not favor the new Greece, led astray by the error of Photius, but persuades to the truth of the faith recognized by the Greeks even of old. By the same voice, the same Cyril there also explains the procession of the Son from the Father, lest anyone here cavil, as if it were something greater and subject to eternal emanation, when the other rather regards the temporal effect: by which they think to deceive themselves, who, with a schismatic spirit, do not offer light, but smoke and darkness to the dregs of a waning Greece, after so many of her former lights. But to pursue these things is the work of other leisure and labor.
A ...saying that the Spirit "shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you," they do not understand "of mine" as the Savior spoke them, but by misinterpreting this, they substitute "from me" in its place. For this, perhaps, they thought would establish their intent. Yet even if it were so spoken—as it is not—the assault would have had no strength even so. For "to receive" does not always have the same force as "to proceed," but sometimes vaguely indicates a great diversity and dissimilarity. For it is one thing to receive and draw forth one substance from another substance, and quite another for a substance and person to proceed as truly existing. Thus, they do not have a right mind even regarding the very meanings of the words. And if anything else were brought forward by them, it holds to the same madness, the plant of the same ignorance is seen, and it ends in the same ruin of impiety.
B XVI. "Be it so," they say; "but the great Ambrose and Augustine and Jerome, and some others of equal rank and order, who have obtained a great name for virtue and the brilliance of their lives, have written in many of their works that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And we indeed yield, that they might speak and think so; yet we do not bring the calumny and injury of heretical stain upon the Fathers." But first, it is permissible to answer them with what is manifest to all: if ten or even twenty of the Fathers have spoken this word, but six hundred and countless others have not, who are they who injure the Fathers—those who circumscribe the whole of their piety within a few, and set these against the ecumenical councils and the countless multitude of God-bearing men, or those who take to themselves a much greater number of advocates? "Who," you ask, "injures the Fathers by not saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? For they indeed spoke thus; and how does he who says this not injure by far more C people?" For they never deigned to say this at all. But does he injure the Fathers who speaks contrary to their voice? How does he not injure the common Master who corrupts His voice, and puts forward another in His place as a teacher of theology? But who says this? Who is the one who treats irreverently those around the holy Augustine and Jerome and Ambrose? Is it the one who sets them against the common Master and teacher as speaking contradictions, or the one who does nothing of the sort, but desires that all follow the decree of the common Master?
D XVII. "But," he says, "if they reasoned well, then it is necessary to cherish the opinion of those who acknowledge these as Fathers; but if they spoke impiously, they must be rejected along with the heretical opinion." These are even more wicked in their impiety. For it does not seem to them, as it appears, a great thing for impiety that they should establish the perversion of theology which they introduce, but they deem the endeavor to be incomplete, if they do not also seek with...
A to find those whom they call Fathers, and in what manner they might injure them by such improper investigation and the uncovering of shameful things, thus showing themselves in this as genuine disciples of Ham, who did not cover his father’s nakedness but mocked it with an impudent face. But the foster-children of the Church, not forgetful of sacred teachings, according to Shem and Japheth, know how to cover parental nakedness, and they turn away, condemning those who imitate Ham.
XVIII. Furthermore, if those whom the discourse mentioned earlier as Fathers spoke nothing against our common Master, then neither shall we speak against them. But if you say that they spoke against the voice of the Master, it is for you to make the Master secondary to them, and to drive those men, because they disregarded the Master’s command, into an inevitable judgement and condemnation. But how much could one say on behalf of those beatified men? For how many circumstances of affairs compelled many, in part to speak in this way, and in part to speak according to a dispensation B, when both the unbelieving opposed them, and because of the ignorance into which they had fallen—as human affairs go. For one was struggling against heretics; another was accommodating himself to the weakness of his listeners; another was doing something else, and having a time that called for many things to be relaxed from the strict standard, he finally said and did things which it is not allowed for us to say or do.
XIX. And to leave others aside, consider with me the sanctification of the admirable Paul, who was the teacher to the inhabited world, and his being shaven; his nourishing those newly established in learning with milk, and not with solid food. And if one were to go through the chorus of holy men one after another, he would pass his whole life enumerating and describing such things. But if one of those who... C
NOTES. ...the legal requirements which Paul observed in Jerusalem, with James, the bishop of that city, as his guide, by the observance of which they thought the minds of the Jews, who were more hostile to Paul, could be appeased, albeit by an ineffectual attempt. This dispensation did nothing to affect the faith, since the legal requirements were not yet deadly, provided that one did not place hope in them, but laid claim to salvation for himself through faith in Christ. This dispensation has nothing to do with the aforementioned Fathers, and this chapter of doctrine, to which it compelled nothing, is what Photius exaggerates with such a great flow of words. Theirs was a most erudite age, the highest peace of the Church: no tyrants, heresies for the most part suppressed, open preaching; all of which, even if they had been lacking, would have given the Fathers no such license (especially in theology and the doctrine of the deity), to speak (to use Photius's own word) against their own mind, and to introduce the false in place of the true: unless they were to suppress something, or be content with the Master’s own voice and its simplicity, and that from the Father He does not exclude the Son, as they themselves interpreted by the same divine Spirit as did certain others. And this is true concord, injurious to neither side, not that which Photius manufactures with a Pythonic spirit; he himself is the true Hamite, not those whom he accuses with his virulent mouth and pen. Nor does it appear that either the legates of Pope John, or other Latins, had any other attitude toward the Greeks and Photius himself than to allow the word *Filioque* to be unspoken, provided the sense was maintained, and not to note as an error or even as a heresy those who admitted it. By this indulgence, the Latins do not even now (even at Rome) compel the Greeks to declare the procession of the Spirit from the Son more explicitly in the faith. Metius is very much hallucinating in the way he translates this, as he writes about chastity, about shaving the beard, etc. Paul writes about chastity, but his teaching is not for little ones but for the perfect; in which there is no strictness expected, but as to the beard, I wish he had annotated where and when Paul wrote: although there is nothing here about Paul’s writing, but about things he did out of necessity of place and time or circumstance, which would otherwise be illicit, and which it is not appropriate to adduce as an example. I would prefer "purification," a word which Luke uses once and again, Acts xxi, 24: "Purify thyself with them, that they may shave their head"; not the beard.
A of such words and deeds, removing the weakness of the hearers and the economy of the discourse, as well as the struggle against those set in opposition, stripping those things which were said, and as if he were putting forward and nurturing [it] as a dogma, he will find that those very ones who both said and did such things will pass the judging sentence against him.
XX. Furthermore, if, when reminded of the subject matter at hand, the assembly of the said Fathers had contradicted it, and had grown bold for the sake of some objection and disobedience, and had stretched [their views] to the same perversion of the faith, and after being refuted had ended their lives in that [opinion], it would be necessary for them to be cast off together with their way of thinking. But if they spoke incorrectly, or if for some reason—which is now unknown to us—they deviated from the straight path; nevertheless, because no inquiry was offered to them, nor did anyone call them to the learning of the truth, we shall not attribute to them any less [authority as] Fathers, even if they did not say this, both because of the brilliance of their life and the venerability of their virtue, and the irreproachable nature of their other piety; but we shall not follow their words in those matters in which they were led astray. B Indeed, as many of these as struggle to arrive at a testimony contrary to the Dominical voice, these indeed, by a bare word, assign to them the title of Father; but in deed and with all zeal they thrust them into the class of parricides and enemies. We, however, since we understand that some others of our blessed Fathers and teachers also wandered away, in many other things, from the precision of the right dogmas—that in which they erred, we do not receive as an addition to the doctrine, yet we embrace the men. Thus, even if some have been carried away to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, we do not accept it as it is contrary to the Dominical voice, but we do not separate them from the flock of the Fathers.
XXI. For indeed, while we enroll Dionysius of Alexandria C among the choir of holy Fathers, we do not similarly accept the Arian-like terms spoken by him against Sabellius the Libyan, but we utterly turn away from them. And the great martyr Methodius, who governed with the episcopal steering-oars of the see of the Patarenes; furthermore also Irenæus D
A the bishop of Lyons, and Papias of Hierapolis—the former having bound upon himself the crown of martyrdom, and the latter being men of apostolic standing, and shining forth with wonderful brilliance in their manner of life. If, however, they have in any way neglected the truth, and have been carried away to speak things contrary to the common and ecclesiastical dogma, in these matters we do not follow them; yet, for that reason, we do not deprive them at all of the honor and glory of the Fathers.
XXII. The day would fail me to enumerate the men whom we honor with the dignity of the Fathers, yet in those points where they have strayed from the truth, we do not listen to them. Thus, therefore, even if some should seem to have spoken things contrary to the Lord’s voice, which guides us all into the mysteries, by stating that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; we turn away from the innovation as one that corrupts and falsifies the Lord’s voice, yet we by no means condemn the author of it, especially since he is silent and not present to defend his own case or to contradict. For when he who is departed from human affairs is not present, no one of sound mind could wish to act as an accuser, either by himself or through others who are designated to take up the role of defending him. B Indeed, where there is no accusation, the sentence of the crime does not proceed; and since no sentence of condemnation has been given, he who dares to insult the one who is placed beyond all these circumstances does not turn the reproach so much against him as he turns it, rather, upon his own head.
XXIII. But, they say, did not the Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? But they were few in number; the greater part did not endure to say it. C The Fathers who spoke were easily numbered, but the decrees of the holy synods reject those who have spoken contrary to the Lord’s voice. They say, "The Fathers [spoke it]," but why do I need to quibble about the number of those who spoke? For even if the whole of creation had sent forth one voice, no one who has abandoned the initiation of the Creator and Maker, and D the instructions of theology [would follow it].
A B
XXIV. Do you seek Fathers as advocates for your opinion? You have the Lord himself; you have the votes of the universal councils; you have a choir of God-bearing Fathers that exceeds all numbering. Imbued with their doctrine, the Roman prelates I mentioned above, having accepted the incorrupt doctrine of the triune consubstantiality through the holy rule of faith that was set forth, transmitted it throughout all the regions of the West. And not only the holy Leo, who was renowned at the fourth and ecumenical holy council, nor he who shone with equal piety and the same name, but also that Adrian who directed the same apostolic see, in the writings he sent to our most holy and most blessed greater father Tarasius, openly and manifestly held to [this] C point.
[notae: text omitted]
clearly acknowledging the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father, and not from the Son.
B XXV. This also does not seem to me to be something to be omitted, even if it is conspicuous to all due to the recentness of the time: those legates who in our own times came from elder Rome—not once, but a third time—when we had conferred with them about the faith, as is proper, they neither said anything diverse or dissonant from the faith which is spread throughout the whole world, nor were they detected in holding such, but rather, clearly and without wavering, they joined with us in preaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Moreover, when a synod was convened concerning certain ecclesiastical matters, the vicars of holy Pope John who had been sent from there, as if he himself were present and united with us in the theology of the faith, confirmed the symbol of faith, which is heralded and prevails by the vote of all the universal synods according to the voice of the Lord, as holding the same sense and the same opinion, by voice and tongue alike, and by the subscription of their own hands.
C XXVI. Since these things are so, and the Roman Church stands in agreement and of one mind with the other four patriarchal sees, how is it that those who emulate Cham are not ashamed to uncover the turpitude (as they call it) of their own Fathers, and to expose them to the laughter of all? For it behooved them, if indeed they are seeking the voices of the Fathers, to have recourse to the synodal decrees; to direct their minds toward the voices of the bishops of Rome; to take refuge in the choir of the rest of our holy and God-bearing Fathers; and not at the same time to make out certain ones to be Fathers, and yet bitterly slander them as if they had raised their neck against the common Lord, and then to employ them as a set standard and rule of the faith. But they ought also to have considered this: that they do a far greater injury to those whom they cast as opposing the Lord than they do honor to those whom they label with the title of Father. For truly, even if they have no concern for the injury of the Fathers, they ought nevertheless to fear and revere the execration and sentence inflicted by the decree of God upon him who was the first parricide and the author of that wickedness, and not to emulate the accursed one, nor to uncover—or rather, to cover up—if they had perceived anything shameful or to be feared in their own Fathers.
D XXVII. Would that no one might be an emulator of that deed, or guilty of such a curse! Rather, may Christ our God be propitious to those upon whom that injury by the parricides has encroached, and to those who have risen up against His own law and voice; and with his kindness [may He]
A lead them back from error, and be reconciled to those who are haughty in such injury, and grant that they may strive for amendment, and bring within their fold those who have covered up their father’s shame; and let Him allow no one henceforth to become food and prey for the beast who is the author and instigator of evils; while your venerable head, for their salvation, sustains struggles and erects trophies against the common enemy of the human race, and produces and offers to God the fruit of the salvation of those who have fallen into error, in whom may the love of divine charity towards us remain unquenchable and unshaken, in the same Christ our true God; through the intercession of our all-holy Lady the Theotokos, the deiform angels, and all the saints. Amen.
SECOND BOOK OF THE EPISTLES OF PHOTIUS
EPISTLES TO BISHOPS, CLERGY, MONKS, NUNS, MOSTLY TO FRIENDS, LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION, OR CONSOLATORY LETTERS. SERIES I.—TO BISHOPS.EPISTLE I. To John, Metropolitan of Heraclea.
You deplore your own state, because you are ignorant of ours. For if you knew what we suffer, and the struggles into which we descend each day, I think you would not wish to enumerate and deplore your own misfortunes any longer. Indeed, to the ill-omened sounds of thunder and lightning, when they are struck with much greater horror, we have become accustomed to endure with much less fear than formerly. What, then, must be done? Surely nothing other than to struggle more stoutly against what has happened: as we know very well, as the holy and divine oracles suggest to us, that this present life is not to be passed in luxury, C nor are garlands and prizes bestowed in it, but struggles, labors, and wrestling matches are to be undergone; and that retribution, crowns, and enjoyment are to be awaited from elsewhere, from where, if I may say so, we shall find them through the philanthropy of God.EPISTLE II. To Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch.
The length of the way and the fear of enemies provide an argument for brevity. And certainly, if we had made this agreement with one another, a courier should have delivered a concise letter. It is said that your priestly perfection loves us and desires to see us; know, however, that we (for what need is there here of protestation?) are held by this affection, which is according to God, no less, if not more, than you. If, therefore, truth accompanies our words, nothing prevents those who love one another from fulfilling that desire by deed, and revealing one another to one another, and thence...A common benefit being enjoyed. For the road and distance, for those whose love has taken wing, even if they are most difficult, are traversed most easily and lightly. As for other matters, best of Fathers and brothers, farewell, knowing that we await your presence, and in the meanwhile, we refresh the heat of our longing with the hope of future attainment. Farewell. Written by his own hand.
EPISTLE III. To John, Metropolitan of Nicomedia.
I know neither how to mock, nor how to endure those who mock. If you were such a man of ancient habit, and so simple, that you think we ought not to be affected by the insults we have suffered, it would not have been right for you to harm us, on the assumption that the simplicity of your character would mitigate the fault and make it lighter. But since, through the things you have dared to do, you have acted with B deliberate intent, so as to steal away all feeling from us, you have thought that through this rusticity of yours you could inflict calumny upon us; and you will not be able to take refuge in that levity which you stage for us. Nevertheless, lest I seem to construct a rebuke not for the sake of correction but for the sake of punishment, since you are found to have satisfied strict justice—which scrutinizes and perceives all things—for the injuries and insults by which we have been affected, then I freely and deservedly release you, as one harming me, from punishment, only reminding you of this, which you ought to remember: that it is not because of the malice and cleverness of your own ways (in which perhaps you pride yourself), but because of the goodness C of us who were plotted against (for we are disciples of Christ), that you have escaped vengeance.
EPISTLE IV. To Ignatius, Bishop of Lophorum.
It pains you that I now prevent you from acting unjustly; but it ought to pain me more justly, for not having prevented these very things from being started. But if my hidden grief must be expressed, that I myself provided the occasion for you, through which you were able, when you wished to be wicked, to be wicked in reality, you see how I write myself down as the author of your improprieties. What do you think others will say about me, when D they are annoyed at your deeds, and have no way to escape? And how do you think that the common Lord, whose architect you are, will tolerate the afflictions of those people? Will you not find Him an enemy, who exalted a man in dignity, whom it was instead right to rank among the lowest of the subjects? Consider me to be so disposed toward you: that if you do not willingly and as quickly as possible cease to act wickedly, know that a necessity falls upon me, both for myself and for the whole Church, to cut you off completely.
EPISTLE V. To George, Metropolitan of Nicomedia.
Those from your region proclaim you a man who is upright and honest, who [index: entries preserved]
A receives us with joy. For sometimes, when envy is asleep, men take no less pleasure in the righteous deeds of others than in their own. As for me, I do not merely rejoice; I refrain from astonishment. For I was not ignorant of you as you were, nor did I entertain different hopes of you long ago, since it was I who ordained you bishop according to the sacred institutions of the Christians. But I suppose I would be moved to amazement if I heard of any change in your character and the well-known habits that I have already recognized. But if you rightly determine not to flee from the province in which you have been set, regarding the tranquillity formerly praised as a desertion of your station, know well that I would applaud this with both joy and the highest praise.
B EPISTLE VI. To John, Metropolitan of Heraclea, when a rebellion was stirred up in Armenia.
You enumerate unfeeling sorrows at the spread of present evils, just as if you had willfully closed your senses and your soul did not wish to see with its eyes. Almost all of Asia is shaken by civil strife, and cities with their entire population of inhabitants are borne down by the flood of evil. He who was believed to be capable of propping up this ruin with the hope conceived is not only providing no help, but is pushing them toward the abyss, and for this reason he feels gloriously about himself. Our army leaders, abandoning the exercise of taking up arms against the enemy (to say nothing now of how they conspired against their own head and authority), are moving their camps against one another in the manner of barbarians, fearing neither the laws of God nor respecting human customs. C How do you think the city, the emperors themselves, and even us, if you will, are affected by such a great calamity? Yet if this common evil should subside—and it shall subside, for this is what justice suggests both to say and to believe—then those private calamities that press upon each person will also vanish, the laws will regain their ancient force and due authority, and those who have committed injustice or who wish to commit it will pay the penalty. Farewell.
EPISTLE VII. To Theodore, Metropolitan of Laodicea.
If this present life is the stadium, then the life to come is the reward. Do not be amazed if some of the righteous struggle here with miseries; but be much more amazed if any of them think that the time of contests is the same as the place of crowns, or that this day is the day of manifestation and the tribunal of judgment.
EPISTLE VIII. To Ignatius, Bishop of Lophoron.
You are distressed, you lament, and you turn everything upside down, because you think that you have been moved so quickly and so D vehemently...
to these reproaches without regard. Yet I, no less, accuse you—you, who have rendered yourself worthy of these reproaches and have forced us, contrary to our custom, to speak in this way. But if you have truly been wounded, and the point of these rebukes has penetrated deeply, you will prove it by fleeing those things which compelled us to release this arrow: and, by the mercy of God, we shall not only heal the wound inflicted upon you, but shall henceforth cherish you as a member of our own body. A
EP. IX. To Theodore, Metropolitan of Laodicea.
Now is the opportunity, O friend—and, if you will, our son—either to show yourself a steadfast champion of the truth, fearing not the threats of mortals, and so to obtain the illustrious proclamation of praise from heaven and be declared a victor there; or else, by betraying the truth and being called a traitor, to enjoy a temporal and fleeting pleasure and glory. B
EP. X. To the same.
If the end of instruction and training is for one to be checked by one's own sense of shame, it must be the mark of the utmost ignorance not to be moved even by the shame of others. But to glory in those things which ought rather to be hidden exceeds the bounds of human wickedness. C
EP. XI. To Theodore, Metropolitan of Laodicea.
The things we have heard said about you, if they are true, make me slow and hesitant, and I can scarcely understand who you are; but if they are false, I have known from the beginning who you are. Therefore, to the extent that it behooves a man to be good and honest, and not evil and wicked, and to the extent that it makes me rejoice rather than grieve that I have gained you as a friend, to that extent you must avoid those things which rumor says you are doing; may all this report, I pray, be devoid of truth. D
EP. XII. To Eulampius, Archbishop and Sceuophylax.
Darkness cannot exist together with light, for truth hates the congress of falsehood. After your departure from us, he who falsely bears the title of Emmanuel arrived, and he manifested those things which it was likely and probable that he would do, and which were befitting his own character.
EP. XIII. To Anthony, Archbishop of Bosphorus.
Once, the Scythian Sea was called Axinus. For it used to devour the strangers who entered it—a story terrible to hear. But the Milesians, through their kindness and civilized way of life, softened its savage and barbarous nature and transformed it into the Euxine. Now, through you and your labors and struggles undertaken for the sake of virtue and—
the other service concerning the Divine, it is nominated not only Euxine, but also Eusebes. A With how much joy and gladness, think you, am I filled while conceiving and writing these things? And if you should also lead the Jews who are there, captive into the obedience of Christ, from the shadow and the letter, as you have written, into grace, I shall abstain, and with abundance I shall cherish the mature fruits of that excellent hope, which I foster regarding you continuously.
EPISTLE XIV.
To Zacharias, Metropolitan of Chalcedon.
If I were to be ignorant of my Zacharias, I would have forgotten myself as well; but he, as it seems — for I cannot find a more moderate way to say it — has forgotten me. B For he would not otherwise have suspected us of being swayed by the opinions of men regarding the reputation concerning him which we guard from of old. Yet he fears this with a fear where there is not only no fear, but not even any suspicion of fear among those who have known us. For if the long time in which I have known you from childhood, and the great struggle and course undertaken on our behalf, or rather on behalf of Christ and His oracles, have not yet made me firmly persuaded of your virtue, I truly do not see how I should not appear most unjust, together with him who is unwise. And those who fear that we might suffer any such thing, because they do not know us, will have a sufficiently just reason for counting me among the worst. But be most persuaded of these things, and I wish you to know, as is known to others, that I do not desire my mind to be dragged elsewhere by others; do not, therefore, on account of a naked and not sufficiently congruent suspicion, C make both me and above all yourself significantly guilty; but also bear and endure fraternally those among our brothers, if any suffer according to human custom, being excited by your own superiorities. For it is not proper that we should be angry with others for those things for which we ought to give thanks; nor, from those things by which it is possible to obtain a bright proof that we hold the primacy, are we bound by those same things to be angry with those who are in fault, and to transform an irrational passion into a rational apology for them. D But also concerning the things said, understand this other thing: that we who are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak. And above all, make this a practice throughout your life; what is this? That "love does not behave unseemly" (1 Cor. XIII, 5). Inquire well into what "it does not behave unseemly" might mean; for you will find an ineffable depth of utility. Then, why does it not behave unseemly? Because "it seeketh not its own" (1 Cor. XIII, 5), it says; but also "it beareth all things, hopeth all things." Exalted indeed are these burdens to be endured, and one ought always to hope for the improvement and turning of one’s neighbor toward the better. What else is it, O wisdom of Paul, wealth and grace, but love? It says, "it never faileth." O blessed voice, and more blessed mouth, and a sentiment surpassing all praises and wonders; it "never," it says, "faileth." Even if others should stir up discord; even if they should rejoice in battles; even if
A they should seek first places; even if envy should incite them; and even if they should turn things upside down, love never falls from its own station and virtue, nor does it despair, nor does it turn away from those who have caused pain; but it always seeks excuses, and moves everything, and employs every method, by which it may gather back those who are leaping away into the meadow of their own connection and unity. Meditate upon these things, my child in the Lord, and conform yourself to them, in harmony with yourself. For you know well that you will find nothing more useful than these bread-baskets. For the rest, farewell, most holy one, and commend our mediocrity in your prayers.
EPISTLE XV. To the same.
B Grace be to Christ our true God, who consoles us in all things, and who grants to noble natures, if they should ever stray to some extent from their innate virtue, that they may more quickly discern their own slip and return to their own noble dignity. He who even now, not—as you might think—by the power and admonition of my arguments and words, but by the greatness of soul granted to you from on high and from Him Himself, has graciously enabled you to cast away base and humble thoughts held with contempt, by the faculty and strength of that magnanimity which you yourself possess. But if the innate and applied amplitude of your own will, which is most excellent, and the rest of your way of life, has led you back without difficulty, however much the occasion of contingent events may have disturbed me with many a hazard, you nevertheless persist, established in the institution of unshaken friendship. Farewell, my most sacred son.
EPISTLE XVI. To Gregory, Archbishop of Syracuse.
Whatever your archiepiscopal holiness does for the establishment of the Church of God, my mediocrity conspires with you in these things from the very beginning; so that there is no need to recall it to your memory frequently; especially now, at a time when the things that have mutually befallen us teach us this more clearly and consummately than any voice, and suggest to us both an equal state, the same spirit, and the same thoughts, namely, our common cause in Christ, the persecution, the common sufferings, and D the unspeakable things with which we are counted worthy to struggle for the sake of the observance and keeping of the commandments of our Lord. Proceed therefore, and walk on a straight path, laying on hands, performing sacred rites, multiplying and increasing the flock of Christ, building and dedicating venerable temples; especially when the times are such that priests and the priesthood are, for the most part, lamentably overwhelmed by silence, and are being eliminated from among men; when temples lie desolate on every side, and have been demolished or plundered, for that order and beauty
in which the Roman commonwealth once flourished, and Christianity itself is all but uprooted from its very foundations. To groan over these things, who else would be sufficient, according to their deserts, than Jeremiah, who by his own laments and dirges could both express and tragically deplore the magnitude of such great devastation and desolation? But these things, though pressed into silence, cry out nonetheless. As for the rest, fare you well, and by your prayers intercede with God for my mediocrity. A
LETTER XVII. To Ignatius, Metropolitan of Claudiopolis.
B There was once a time when anathema was a thing terrible and to be avoided; for it was leveled by the heralds of truth against those who were guilty of impiety. But since the bold and shameless madness of certain avenging spirits—contrary to every law divine and human, and contrary to every reason, whether Hellenic or barbarian—has arrogantly taken to turning its own anathema against the champions of Orthodoxy, and has contended with great fervor to treat barbarous furies as if they were ecclesiastical transgressions, that fearful thing—the ultimate of all punishments—has at once withered into fables and toys; or rather, it has been transformed into something desirable for the pious. For neither does the all-daring judgment of the enemies of truth make ecclesiastical penalties fearful, but rather the culpability of those against whom they are directed; indeed, it turns the immunity of the innocent into a mockery of their punishments, and reverses the right of punishment against its authors, procuring for the one they have punished an unfading crown and immortal glory in place of punishment. C Wherefore, every pious and holy man would choose a thousand times over to be insulted and struck with anathema by those who are estranged from Christ, rather than to share with splendor and applause in the wicked acts of those who are loathsome to Christ and hateful to God.
LETTER XVIII. To Michael, Metropolitan of Mitylene.
Just as the Christ-hating council of the Jews, by casting out the disciples of our Lord from the synagogues, did by that very act bind them more closely to their Teacher and Lord, while rendering themselves utterly estranged from the divine mysteries and the kingdom of heaven; so too now, the imitators of the Jews, by casting us out—who are the zealots of the apostles—from their gatherings, have by that very act joined and united us more closely to those divine men and eyewitnesses of the Word. D For a communion of sufferings produces a more exact union in life and faith. As for themselves, they have miserably and wretchedly cut themselves off from their teaching and from our Orthodox faith; and, having completely severed their portion from the name and polity of Christians, they have fallen away, carried off into the very opposition against Christ and the pollution of bloodguiltiness of those Jews whom they have emulated in their zeal.
LETTER XIX
ATo Euschemon and George, metropolitans.I do not despair in my spirit, while I gaze upon the tempest of evils and the intensification of tyranny; for I hear that you are flourishing and blossoming through a sure faith in God and piety; nay rather, I am filled with joy that the shamelessness of those who sought to bring disgrace and dishonor upon you has rendered you more splendid and more proven. But, O my friends, and children, and brothers, and if there be any name more intimate through filial love and natural affection, let us preserve unto the end this same gratitude and love toward God; and just as the noble Job led into triumph the devil himself, who was the leader of those who had inflicted suffering upon him, through that wondrous patience and fortitude, so may you also, as the holy people of Christ and a royal priesthood, just as you have done until now, so also always, show these men—the genuine and chief disciples B of that same devil—to be lamenting and at a loss for what to do, being held up to public view. For, as you also know as well as I do, prizes and crowns await those who struggle unto the end.
LETTER XX
To Theodore, metropolitan of Laodicea.I know that many of the faithful are so disposed that they seek every opportunity by which they might exhibit some illustrious specimen of their own virtue; and they count the martyrs happy, because they encountered the cruelty of barbarian tyrants, by which they could establish their own greatness of soul as if inscribed upon a column for all eternity. This very opportunity is now at hand—or rather one even greater than even the most valiant man would have hoped for. I am confident, however, that he who has risen up against your nobility will incur C the final, greatest, and eternally memorable confusion, to the reproach of both his own weakness and his own audacity. So that, struck with terror at your unshakeable resolve, he will cease to attempt anything further. Thus, through this single struggle, you will achieve two brilliant trophies: both to be proclaimed as victor, and to lighten for your brethren the weight of the calamities that hang over them, and their many labors, by means of your own contests.
LETTER XXI
To the same.The stadium truly awaits those who are noble: let no one softened by womanly D tenderness enter. And if anyone such should have leapt into it, let him withdraw as quickly as possible—either from his purpose or from the wrestling. For such labors do not befit such persons. But neither do they befit those burdened with gold, nor those puffed up with empty ambitions. For one who is gaping after the pleasures of the body, as is my opinion, should not even prepare himself for the contest; I would wish him to be removed far away, unless he forestalls me and fulfills that wish himself.
LETTER XXII. To Euthymius, Metropolitan of Catania.
A I pray that I may not have the leisure to recount your affairs; and you have guarded against me understanding them by forestalling me. What then is your complaint, that I hear things I did not hope for, and that we have covered with silence things that I would not willingly hear if they were told? But if, because I have heard necessary things by hearsay, I am deemed worthy to have it written that I have despised our friendship, what then should they do who act in such a way that they deprive their own friends of the freedom of speech on their behalf, and sharpen malicious tongues not only against themselves, but also B against those who were once their intimates? What then must be done? It belongs to you—oh, how should I address you?—and it is for us, on your behalf, to restore—would that you had!—the freedom of speech we once had; and may I hear nothing unpleasant concerning you; but rather, by returning to your former state, may you stop the mouths of those who are now tearing you to pieces.
LETTER XXIII. To George, Metropolitan of Nicomedia.
Would that my deeds were equal to your words! Not so that the glory of the Acestoridae, Galen and Hippocrates—as you yourself write, complimenting me with divine praise—might yield the first place to me; C nor that that great name of the Asclepiadae might be overshadowed by my own; but so that, if not for any other purpose, there might at least be in this respect some small assistance for my friends and fellow-athletes against the passions of the body.
LETTER XXIV. To Theodore, Metropolitan of Laodicea.
You are "plowing with an ox," as the proverb says, emboldening yourself instead of repenting. For it is not the act of one who repents, but of one who is insane, to grant oneself forgiveness for one’s own errors. But if I should seem to you to be babbling, it will not be long before that proverbial saying, so often repeated of late, will fit you: "The mouse is just tasting the pitch."
LETTER XXV. To Euschemon, Archbishop of Caesarea.
D It is not surprising if all men do not entirely delight in just people; but it would have been a wonder, and very justly so, if all were to live their lives as if in the sight of justice. It is enough for me if there are more—though there are not—who are friends of justice. For I see only a small portion inclining toward justice, while the multitude is dragged along by injustice. Since, therefore, things are thus, why are you restless and distressed that, while you are distributing justice to those to whom it is owed, you endure the same abuse from those who hate what is just? On the contrary, it behooved you to be sorrowful and to seek to find a solution to the
A affliction, if those who are enemies of justice were willing to grant you their friendly tongue.
EP. XXVI. To Paul, who became Archbishop of Caesarea, and apostatized.
You ask me for Arcadia—someone might say, and with good reason, using a common proverb—but I, for my part, will give you, not what is “from a wagon,” nor a saying borrowed from the Scythians, but rather that which the truth loves: you became wicked toward your friends, a traitor to the divine dogma, and an enemy to your own confession. And then you ask why the pious turn away from you as if you were profane, and do not even deem you worthy of the common greeting? (O, what may I rightly call you?) They consider it a terrible thing, even by a “hail,” to have communion with your wicked deeds.
EP. XXVII. To Zacharias, Metropolitan of Chalcedon.
I have sent you a bitter potion, new in its preparation and composition; it is also a stomachic remedy, of the same art as that which was sent previously, but of older vintage. Of these medicaments, you shall receive the first in the morning, taking a third part of what is sent, mixed in lukewarm water or hydromel, according to which of the two you can bear more easily. And after taking the draught of that bitter medicine, you should take the other for a whole month continuously, in an amount the size of a Pontic nut, distributed into three boluses. Thus, one before the rising C of the sun, and the rest at the setting of the sun after supper; you will thereby reform your stomach’s cachexia for the better, and you will soothe the pain in your ears. I cannot, however, promise you a total healing, for chronic diseases are not easily cured in a short time. And as elsewhere, so especially in medical promises, that which is puffed up is to be rejected; but with divine help easily breathing upon you, you will attain a more tempered state and condition. D
EP. XXVIII. To Eulampius, Archbishop and Sceuophylax.
Wickedness is opposed to virtue, nor could they ever coalesce into friendship: for each of them holds the subject proper to itself upon which it is founded. It is not possible, therefore, for the things that are superimposed, while the subjects are at war, to conclude a truce. If this is so, do not be surprised if he who is a minister of impiety declares war with great display against those who are positioned opposite to him, representing virtue.
EP. XXIX. To Euschemon, Archbishop of Caesarea.
Wickedness (and let this not appear as anything paradoxical to you, for daily experience throughout life is a clear teacher of such things), if it does not veil itself with the covering of virtue, most quickly perishes
Do not therefore lose heart if you see this, as they say, with bare head and shameless face raging audaciously against all. A short time will intervene, and you will see it fallen with a great crash into destruction. And here you have the Prophet agreeing with me: "I have seen the impious one lifted up high and exalted like the cedars of Lebanon; I passed by, and behold, he was not; I sought him, and his place was not found." A
EPIS. XXX. To Zacharias, Metropolitan of Antioch.
The blessed and divine Paul, the apostle of the nations and teacher of the world, who traveled round every corner of the earth preaching, he who was taught by the heavenly school and was the prince of those ineffable words, having the ears of humanity attentive to him—though he in many places kept his disciples away from association with the wicked, he himself not only lived and associated with such people, but even lived as one without law with those who exist without law. What is this? For did he perform with pleasure what he forbade to others? Or did he create harm for himself in order to provide for the safety of his disciples? Or, having forgotten what he had taught others, did he himself embrace the opposite? Far be it! But he understood both precisely: both his own perfection, immovable toward evil, and the imperfection of the many and their tendency toward worse things. Knowing and understanding these things well, he restrained those others from the harm that comes from living carelessly, and forbade them from living and associating with them; but he himself went and moved in their midst, and was often under the same roof with them, and lived at the same table, not fearing to share in a stain from them, but trusting that he would communicate his own inherent purity. And so, the same goal—I mean, the salvation of souls—was being achieved by the blessed Paul through opposite ways: he himself did not decline the gathering of those who were not living piously, for the sake of the correction of those who were with him; but he did not allow his disciples to do the same, so that a good character might not be corrupted by evil talk. C But what is the drift of my discourse, and what does it mean? It is clear that it resolves the question proposed by your perfection. For just as it was not permitted for the imperfect to have the liberty of mingling with the wicked, but Paul, doing what he forbade, appeared to be conducting it in a calculated way, gaining more from that which was a source of harm to others; so too must one think regarding the ordinance of the three years, which accurate reasoning defined for those approaching the monastic life. For it is better for the many, who are in need of purification, to undergo that period of probation; but those who have purified themselves beforehand and enter upon the philosophical life do not need to observe that time precisely; just as among those who institute this life, there is found much and great difference, and for that reason diverse...
A probation is allowed, so also regarding them who are set in charge and deemed worthy to govern others, the same power and wisdom for instruction is not displayed. Therefore, for those who are somewhat simpler in their disposition, it were better that they devise nothing of their own, but perform all things looking toward and aiming at the judgment of the canon. But as for those in authority, who have B sufficient ability—whether by the experience and exercise of human affairs, or by grace and celestial aid—to judge and discern the impulses and dispositions of those being introduced: in their case, it is my opinion that there is no need for the three-year term to be fulfilled precisely; nor will he depart much from the rule who judges in this way, since the calculation and discretion of judgment and conscience reside in those who wish to administer all things for salvation and have received, moreover, wisdom from above and from experience. And what, above all, favors a change in the cause and merits pardon, is that they are constricted by the necessity of this time, in which birds and foxes—or if you will, wolves, dragons, leopards, and, to use a word, men endowed with bestial characters—inhabit illustrious and ample houses, and assume for themselves the license to do whatever they please; whereas the disciples and imitators of the Son of Man have not where to lay their heads, nor the free use of any necessity without which life is not vital. He who is deprived of necessary things, who is not even permitted to breathe the air freely, how shall he, for a full three years, prepare those wishing to learn virtue and describe to them the exercise of future asceticism? It is sufficient if, by any means whatever, one may be extracted from manifold wickedness and joined to the philosophical life. Where will that training-school be, in which one might pass the time for three years, when persecution is spread everywhere, and when the pious are not permitted to live without molestation even in the mountains, in caverns, or in the holes of the earth? Where is the order and compliance with which monks undertake the labors of asceticism, when all things are swept away by such a vast torrent of evils? Indeed, when affairs flow according to one's will, and no urgent necessity hinders exact discipline, it would be better, I judge, for everyone to observe the prescribed form; but since, as the proverb says, "The rivers flow backward," and all things are overturned, it would be better, in as far as possible and in as far as circumstances allow, to provide for salvation by any means, rather than, by clinging to the bare name of exact discipline, to turn out to be betrayers of human souls and evil stewards. Wherefore, since your archiepiscopal perfection is sufficient to judge what is appropriate, and observes how these tempests push everything against precision, I consider that the entire matter should be referred to your judgment, that you may act with the power of sanctification as a pure conscience, or rather the grace of the Spirit working through an immaculate conscience, shall suggest to you.
EPIST. XXXI. To Theodore, Metropolitan of Laodicea.
Study is the mother of right action; but an unthinking impulse is close to sin. Therefore, we must not abandon reflection in order to rush into that for which, besides accomplishing nothing of what we pursue, we are caught giving proof of our own folly.
EPIST. XXXII. To Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus.
Just persuasion derives not so much from the ability of the speaker as from the disposition of the hearer. Therefore, I do not wish to provoke laughter when I instruct an indocile person, if I fail to persuade him; but I pray that the indocile person—if he must incur laughter—may at least not have to pay for it in the supreme judgment to come.
EPIST. XXXIII. To George, Metropolitan of Nicomedia.
If it is evident C that anyone who gives counsel while hunting for glory is worthy of the harshest reproach, it is nothing new or unexpected that someone who offers counsel is spoken of ill or mocked. Therefore, do not be surprised if Petronius, upon being admonished, received your perfection with harsh words. Nevertheless, do not neglect on that account the exhortation owed either to him or to others. For if we do so, we shall appear to demonstrate that we ourselves are worthy of reproach before others can do so, and we will turn their irrational complaint into a reasonable accusation.
EPIST. XXXIV. To George, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, whose cleric had passed away abroad after his ordination to the presbyterate.
I desired, from the moment I received the bitter news (which I wish had never reached my ears), to mitigate your grief with words of consolation, and to soothe your affliction with whatever comforts I could. But since I myself was rendered dull by the same evils—lacking the capacity to remove the sadness of others, since I could not find consolation for my own (for truly, the situation reached such a pass with me, if I may speak of something more grievous—and I do not fear that credence will not be given to me, for I speak the truth: I was certainly tortured by sorrows and was in a distressed state of mind)—and since, late and with difficulty, I have returned to my senses, I began to think of this above all: that that archiepiscopal and holy hand still survives (and may it long survive, I pray, which fashions and forms for us such ministers of our sacred rites), I gathered myself together more effectively, and I ceased to suffer so heavily, and I gained the confidence to draw your own disposition toward that same perfection
A of recent events—I do not know what kind of newer suffering we have experienced; we have been bereaved of a member, but it is dedicated to God. Yet it was necessary that the first-fruits of good things, with which we have been enriched from that source, should be given back; this is an ancient law, to offer the first-fruits of precious things to their Giver and our common Master. A thriving branch, bearing beautiful fruit, has been cut away; but the root remains, and it will sprout others no less excellent. And if the removal of the branch causes more pain, let it sprout even more, so that the vine-dresser may not have to grieve painfully again when taking one of the branches for himself, but, in the delight of those that remain, he may lose the sense of the one removed. The bright and admirable image of virtue is gone; but the Painter still moves His hand, and He will certainly paint—for He is a lover of what is good—no longer one, but many more. B But for me, this is the medicine for my despondency; I believe that any religious person would accept this readily, and that you yourself, as regards the common body of the Church to which we have been called, would not justify, nor see it as anything other than a consolation to your archiepiscopal compassion. For what is the matter? He was taken away before the time; and who, I ask, knows better how to judge and observe the times than He who has arranged all things with reason and order? But he was snatched away in the flower of his age, and truly, those who are such enter the contests manfully; for to be stretched out until old age is an interruption, for the most part, to great courage. He ran alongside us toward virtue; one must not begrudge it if he finished his race first. But he was a consolation C amid pressing afflictions; yet he did not take with him all methods of consolation. Indeed, he provides more now: first, through his noble actions in life; second, through his intercession before God, inasmuch as he has now become closer to Him, and assumes heavenly aid on our behalf, both for succor and for vindication. The lips are silent, but his deeds cry out. The tongue is quiet, but his rebukes against those who violate the laws perpetually lash the counsels of those very people, and stir each of the pious to joy and courage. What then? He ended his life in persecutions, afflictions, and miseries. This is the greatest consolation you tell me. For it was not fitting that one who was yearning for the kingdom of heaven, and seeking the inheritance there, should live in luxury. It was not fitting for the athlete to remain at ease, nor for the combatant to have reclined and rested under the shadows and trees and gardens of paradise; but it was necessary to be tested in the midst of the contests, in the very tribulations, D in the midst of the bloodthirstiness of the persecutors, that he might appear beautiful to the Judge of the games, still dripping with athletic sweat; that he might be seen blessed, gasping from his races and toils. This, I say, is more blessed than the crowns. For the one is from the Giver of the prizes, but the other is from the zeal and approval of the one competing. In the very middle of the peak of persecutions, he fled to the Giver of the crown. Why would you wish the combatant to toil endlessly, and not attain more quickly that for which he endured and suffered these things? You speak to me of the wish of enemies, not of the providence of friends; nor of pain, nor of pity. The common child of the Church, the good
A man of God; no, but rather one who has gone to heaven, to the common Master, to lead the dance with the angels—a priest indeed. How much consolation I have found in this! For it was fitting, it was necessary, that our first-fruits should have been designated an ordained priest to God for the sake of holy glory, during a time when sacred laws were being persecuted; a priest who, with even greater boldness, blocked the mouths of the profane and bridled tongues accustomed to vanity; a priest, even if the profane would not have it so.
What more? Every virtue flourished in him. For this reason, he departed all the swifter to the unfading life of paradise, so that none of his virtuous accomplishments should wither. For if no one is pure of filth, not even if his life was but a single day, then he who departed the race-course of life sooner, sooner escaped the greatest part of that filth. He was a common pillar for those who live in piety; he left behind for them a noble rule and pattern in his labors endured for the sake of piety, having departed this life. He did not see the restoration of the Church for which he contended; for this reason, he possesses the rewards of his labors there in their entirety. For in whatever degree one labors, receiving joy here below, the recompense of that blessedness above is cut short. He did not see the restoration with sensible eyes, but now he sees it with intellectual ones; or perhaps, having become nearer to God, it will be better for those who are still struggling within the realm of the senses if He hastens this. The tomb holds his body, but heavenly chambers his soul; the earth has his dust, but the bosom of Abraham his spirit. He was deprived of friends, B but he found better ones; and those whom he left behind he will find again after a little while, if they remain friends of God in that state. He escaped the snares of enemies—of the sensible, those manifest, hidden, from without, from within, those that are frightful with ambuscade. He saw, even if as in a mirror (for this is what I myself see in those dreams sent by God), those things he longed for and to which he was unceasingly attracted; those things toward which he had given wings to his soul, and toward which, even though burdened by this tent, he was being carried. He saw the King beckoning, the radiant angels serving at the call, that holy place, untouched and unseen by the profane, into which he was being conducted, that ineffable and unending glory and luxury. O sweet enjoyment, and even before the enjoyment, the vision! O blessed departure! O one worthy to be admired, not to be provoked to tears, not to be envied, not to be mourned! With brilliant heavenly shrouds he ascended the gates; with a brilliant lamp, illuminated not by oil alone, but irrigated by the sweat of his struggles; brightened not only by virginity, but adorned by the dignity of the priesthood; and not by these only, C but by other virtues through which the abundant and perpetual outpouring of light was enriched. These things have become my refreshment, these my comfort, or rather, having begun from consolation, they transported me into spiritual joy and exultation. Let these things also serve as comfort, joy, and gladness for your archiepiscopal perfection. D
These things in this instance, inasmuch as they pertain all the more to your teaching and study, are the accomplishments of the one who has departed. A
LETTER XXXV
To Euschemon, Archbishop of Caesarea
Someone receives a prophet, or altogether one of the just, because he sees many admiring the man, and he hunts for no small glory from that admiration. Another, again, cherishes hopes that from such a reception he might be showered with an abundance of flowing wealth, or attain some other good bodily condition. Yet absolutely no one among those mentioned will obtain a prophet’s reward or a just man’s recompense. B Who, then, will receive it? He, assuredly, who receives him for the very reason that he is a prophet and a servant of God—for this is what “in the name of a prophet, and in the name of a just man” means—and not by trafficking, or catching at some commodity, while demonstrating towards him the service he is able with purity of heart and a zealous mind. For such a one is truly and altogether worthy of divine remuneration and repayment. That phrase, “he will receive a prophet’s reward, and the reward of a just man,” has a C double meaning; for either it signifies that those who receive prophets, and generally those who receive any of the just, will certainly receive the reward of sincere and pure hospitality, and it is not possible for them to be deprived of the honors of which they have shown themselves, through the deeds they have performed, to be worthy; or it means that these also will receive not simply the reward of hospitality, but one equal and similar to that of the prophets and the just. For hospitality is a great thing, and it procures great rewards, especially when honest men who are pursued for the sake of God’s laws, D whom you are setting right, are received. And if you host his friends in the name of God’s servants, and not for any other reason, you will better understand the evangelical oracle, and from that you will find the profit—O blessedness!—far greater than words can describe.
LETTER XXXVI
To Paul, Metropolitan of Laodicea
I have grown weary counting the clear days and looking out for your arrival; but, as it seems, your clear-weather days have become winters for you. To what end, then, will the storms of your affairs be answered?
LETTER XXXVII
To Paul, Metropolitan of Laodicea
If it were not the winter of which the Savior spoke: “Pray that your flight may not be in winter,” I would justly have stirred up a winter of words against you. I do not know, shall I speak in the manner of those who are not friends, whether to blame such a long journey, which draws nearer to the flight of that ancient raven? But if you possess the wings of the chaste, pure, and swift dove, I have a love that is safe and sound, and winter is of no account, nor is anything else burdensome; but if...
as A if nothing else. But if it has suffered some fracture—though I do not believe this has happened—it is necessary for it to remain below until the pinion grows again from above, and not to soar toward us even in fair weather. But may you fare well, urging on the divine love more and more, rather than having the pinions that had grown excellently from the beginning broken by sloth.
EPISTLE XXXVIII.
To Paul, Metropolitan of Laodicea.I do not know how to benefit the ungrateful in words, B even if (as you yourself might say) you embrace the matter more philosophically in other respects. Nor is it my custom to obey those who commit solecisms (for now, if ever, is the time for joking), provided they remain grateful; but as for those who are so perversely disposed that they not only injure the discourse with poorly produced words, and thus mangle the Greek language like the illiterate, I for one will not readily admit them as initiates of the new mysteries of rhetoric. Do you, therefore, having purified your mind with meditations on Atticism, and your friend with the mysteries of good disposition—once you have purified your mind—pray, with God’s help, that you may attain what you desire.
EPISTLE XXXIX.
To Zacharias, Metropolitan of Chalcedon.You write to us a letter C which, had another been the one to write it, you yourself would justly have accused him of bringing an unjust charge. And you write an apology, though no one is pursuing a case against you; yet every plea for pardon and apology is separated from an accusation by a very long measure. For it is not possible—it is not possible—to ask for mercy and to demand an account of injustices, unless one has first incurred guilt. By such means you have shown yourself a debtor to very long explanations; I have not called for any at all. And I see that your apology is none the more moderate than the fables of Aesop. I have not committed any fault, I think, and I see the accusation as more shameless than those who D railed against Socrates. For while you, beating the air for your own sake, have boxed against me, you have struggled with a course that is swift and violent, but slippery and aimless. For the amplification of praises does not just fail to excuse the insults you cast upon me; it actually increases the accusations made. For farmers fall, and sailors, and soldiers, and petty traders; but if anyone should attribute the blame for their fall to a friend of the truth, or a general, or a priest of God, or simply to a man who possesses an excellence in virtues beyond the many, good heavens, what a monstrosity he creates through this contrivance, and proves himself to be contriving! In this way, by carrying me up to the heights with praises, you have cast me into the depths, accusing me of abusing men and doing them wrong, when no cause for accusation has been committed by me; and at that time, being overwhelmed with myriads of disasters—and the most grievous thing of all, for the sake of the truth—and drawing all, by the magnitude of the sufferings, and the very ones who are attacking me, to pity. For who—I will not say considering such afflictions, but—if he is not very much moved, if he is not unjust, cruel, savage, barbaric, if his power has not emptied him of every rational and human feeling, would not be deeply touched? So be it, you will say,
A you ought to have called me and consoled me; or, at the very least, in prosperous times, if not that, to have allowed me to depart immediately. Since neither of these things happens, why does he not immerse me in the greatest evils and make me hate and fear life? But, O good and virtuous man, if you are unaware of how great the rage of those who persecute me has been poured out against me, and of how many plots and ambushes they are establishing everywhere on land and sea, you might perhaps have had room to attribute your failure to other pretexts, about which you have been eager both to complain and to find fault, because I do not love you in return for your loving me. But being aware of these things through personal experience, and pursuing them tragically in your letters, to then inquire why I have not summoned you, nor agreed to your coming when you desired it, is not the action of a man truly seeking the cause, but of one neglecting the truth standing before his eyes and inventing pretexts B by which you might not seem impudently to deal with me regarding a just cause. But the scene and the theater that has been set in motion against us has settled down in this way; as for the rest, I see a zeal that is childishly skimmed, and dejection turned into laughter, and a comic chorus singing of tears. For to lament the things that have happened, and to have recourse to passions, diseases, and fortune, is the sign of a soul that is truly mourning and sincerely striving to wash away the stains it has contracted. But to say that this man has sinned, and that another is attempting to defend him—not to mention: Why do you agitate yourself for another, what do his prosperous affairs have to do with you, who have no relation to you? Leave him to his own guilt, and if it is fitting for you to be tortured, to be scourged, and to suffer what he is worthy to suffer who has exercised malice against you and insulted virtue itself—not to mention anything of this kind C (for in matters of play one must not act in earnest), nevertheless it is fitting that all should affirm that such wisdom is becoming, to admit such apologies as that sweet Aristophanes, as a chorus leader, might compose. Yet this is not pleasant, however much it may refer to Philistion by its very charms. But that is most delightful, to compose an apology in jest as if it were a matter very serious and splendidly just; nay, even to offer an oath and to inquire whether there is any man who, when one has been caught, thinks it just that another should be held guilty. Certainly this philosophically employed method of yours obscures not only the Aristophanic wisdom, but the arts and methods of the entire poetic genre by its novelty; for if an oath had not been offered, I would have wished to remain in admiration of the comic jest and the drama. But since, as should not have been done, God comes into the midst of the jest, surely he who does not wish to speak the truth will not hold you guilty of the committed fault, but neither will he exempt you from all blame D until he has understood your mind more clearly through your words. I do not think that such a manner of jesting has ever exempted anyone from guilt, and I affirm this consistently, just as I affirm that no one is accountable for guilt on account of the use of jesting, who, when another has truly sinned, deserves to undergo punishment or to be subject to rendering an account. Nor among judges has there been found anyone
A who would release one who has put forward such a pretense instead of groaning for the things in which he sinned. And tell me, by justice herself and the sacred mysteries of truth, having cast aside the pretense and speaking the things that are (for it is more appropriate for me to propose such things to you than to others), would you say that he himself is liable to a just charge, if one, for those things in which he acts insolently, should put forward this defense of yours? But you would not say so, nor would you say so. But these things [I say] so as not to appear to have been sworn to silence or to honor lies before the truth, and so that you might the more recognize how gladly and not perfunctorily I have read your letter—in which I praise your grammatical accuracy—and that I do not at all join this verb with the dative, unless the sense of the circumlocution requires the syntax. It will be permitted to join it with the dative, teaching in my discourse that I do not do this to praise you, but to make another better on your account. And certainly, that B *diken* [for "avoided"] must not be said; I will not call things of this sort "barbarous," but "barbaric," which have adulterated the letter, which you can understand, otherwise fine. But enough of these things. I, for my part, do not now begin to spare my Zechariah—far from it—nor have I ceased to punish him, nor, being moved by his illnesses and passions and misfortunes and difficulties, nor by the plots and torments—not much less bearable than those of Phalaris—have I set them aside, but keeping safe my innate and ancient judgment, and not having forgotten the pure and undefiled affection for my own, I embrace him paternally and clasp him with priestly respect; neither C exulting over him who long ago stumbled, as you write, but loving and kissing him who has remained unshaken in the bowels of Christ, and I receive him who comes with joy, despising from on high all dangers, nor carrying the heavy burden of tragic tales, but [wishing] that his own mind and soul, immersed in the matter of darkness, might be purified—in which the stability of an immovable life consists—to be sent on from here with splendid attire, to receive the heavenly crown.
LETTER XL. To Paul, Metropolitan of Laodicea.
Fugitives, who at one time blame that action, in persuading others to become fellow-fugitives, not only are they not cleared of any of the things of which they are accused, but they also show themselves to be subject to a double, or rather, a multiple, accountability. For D the sharing of an injustice does not procure liberty for the one who initiates it, but the imitation of those doing wrong is an inexorable increase of the original injustice, accumulating the penalty of desertion, both as a fugitive and a ringleader and one who persuades others to imitate him, and, what is more serious, [those who] had sworn before they were captured that they would carry out such things. You see, then—you see, I say, or rather, you see...
A (for I grant you as a sharer in this counsel the genuine disciple of flight) what account you intend to give when He wishes to exact from you the reckoning for such great things. But farewell; and no longer hold within yourself a fugitive’s reasoning, nor urge others to flee; for the matters of the inescapable and fearful judgment are resolved into mere threats. B
EP. XLI. To Zacharias, Metropolitan of Chalcedon.
I think I have found a bloodletting that is appropriate for the condition of your body, even though it is summer. And although this is contrary to the opinion of the physicians who are now so abundant everywhere, it is nevertheless not paradoxical. For—not to pursue their other errors regarding the craft, lest I speak of my misfortunes—they consider *hipparis* to be *polygonum*, and *seselis* to be *heracleum panaces*, and they take the small *batrachion* for *chelidonium*; they take *tithymallus* for *peplion*; they take *leimonion* for *potamogiton*; they take the black chameleon for the white; they bring forward *argemone* instead of *anemone*. Among them, infinite species of herbs and natures serve different times, uses, and names; for the things I have already mentioned are those at hand, which without question ought certainly to have been distinct even for those who have just reached the harbor of medicine. What is surprising if bloodletting, being beneficial to you, is deemed alien by them? If you accept my counsel, with the good God’s help, you will find it to be profitable through experience, to their shame. C
EP. XLII. To Michael, Metropolitan of Mitylene.
The sufferings you have endured at the hands of the persecutors—others might perhaps say that they exceed my consolation; but I, with your kind permission, would say that they are greater even than praise. It is therefore a fitting time for you to consider whether you would rather be among those who are received with pity or those who are received with blessedness. For if you endure them with a grateful spirit (and I know that you do), I would pray to share even more in your sufferings and your crowns. But if—which I pray may not happen, nor would I even speak of it, for I am convinced it would be nonsense—should you faint, I would say once again: may your struggles and your rewards be shared with me. Farewell.
EP. XLIII. To Michael, Metropolitan of Mitylene.
Another might wish to share in your crowns, D but not to undergo your sufferings and your struggles for the sake of piety. For me, however, your sufferings are honorable, even if no one extends their hand to place a crown upon my head. It does not behoove a soul to be cast down when it is so enviable, blessed, and so illustrious and conspicuous—a man who has appeared and shone even in the midst of these very dangers and sufferings. For the things of the present life, although they...
A proclaimed by lawgivers, by prophets, by pious kings, and by other friends of truth, all mouths would fall silent, since they miserably recount the vanity inherent in them. But you see how, by their continuous flux and change, all glory, wealth, fortunes, and splendors are not at rest but are shifted up and down, and there is nothing among present things that could captivate and draw toward itself a sober mind. As for those things from above, which are beyond description, and which grant the enjoyment of good things to those who are worthy in an unchangeable and unflowing manner: who, keeping their hopes fixed on those things, and their eyes opened, would fall into present evils—which are like dreams that bring pain—and lose heart in the struggles through which it is possible to be glorified? It is better, I think, and superior to any speech, to possess the worse things as if in dreams, and to attain, without end, the enjoyment of those true goods which are beyond speech, rather than, having been deceived and having played with small and temporary goods that are like dreams, to experience unavoidable evils.
EPIS. XLIV. To Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus.
The other discourses of Plato are, as it were, models of political speech, except that the choice of words is sometimes neglected. But his epistles perhaps fall short to an equal degree, both from his own standard and from the epistolary form. Those of Aristotle are generally more accurate than his other writings, and yet they do not equal the Platonic ones. As for Demosthenes, his other works fill the mouths of rhetoricians and critics with praise; but you will find his epistles to be no better than those of Plato. What epistles, then, should be read, and from whom shall we draw our practice in order to express the style we have learned through art? There is, indeed, another multitude that is infinite; but, so that the course of your practice may not be too long for you, you have the epistles that are said to be by Phalaris, the tyrant of Agrigente, and those to which the name of Brutus, the Roman general, is inscribed; and also Libanius, who was a philosopher among emperors and a sophist among the common people. But if, along with the epistolary style, you desire to acquire the benefit of many great matters, Basil the Sweet will suffice, if ever anyone did; and Gregory, the preeminent master of beauty among all; and that varied Muse of Isidore, who, like us, was a monk. He is most worthily inscribed as a canon of speech, as well as of the priestly and ascetic life. To these, add if there are any others who, with the same intent, have expressed their idea in their own epistles. B C D
EPISTLE XLV. To John Metropolitan of Heraclea.
A It seems to me, since Christ is our God and King, and the Lord of all existing things, that for many other inexplicable reasons which transcend the intuition of the mind, He chose to undergo suffering by His own will, rather than to work the salvation of the whole world by absolute power. Primarily for this very reason: that He might leave behind as a great, noble, and manifest consolation to those who are afflicted in this life and suffer every extremity, His own passions and His contumelious death. Looking to these things, you should rather rejoice, in that you have, as a servant, instances in which you may imitate your Master. Do not murmur at those things which will result for you in the proof of crowns, if you are chastised—even if against their will—by the enemies of the truth. BSERIES SECOND. TO THE ABBOTS. EPISTLE XLVI. To Sabas Hegumen of the Pissadae.
What I should say concerning your disposition and nature, I do not know. For I truly saw you clothed in a sheepskin, and I judged that which was covered by it to be simple and guileless, worthy of the flock of Christ. But the common talk says that the skin hides a fox; in which dead and foul-smelling bodies are nourished—such as, having rotted in the ecclesiastical assembly, become food for demons and their ministers. I certainly heard you preaching against a long error, and lamenting your own vain error, that is to say, your ancient error. But people say that you are still wandering in that same error, and are disposed no differently than the insane Corybantes. To our face you blessed us and called us saviors, because we drew you forth from the pit of that perversion and deception: but they say that when we are absent, you murmur against us, and behave no differently than those who act licentiously upon the stage. Remember whether these things befit a Christian at all, to say nothing of a monk. But if these things are fabricated, I must lament those who are whispering, because the holy one has failed, and truths have been diminished from the sons of men; but if the things reported are true, those who have sinned must be wept for, because each one speaks vanity to his neighbor, and kisses with deceitful lips. In any case, I must be grieved: for they belong to my flock and that of Christ, whether they wish it or not, infected with leprosy; and with Paul we are in anguish over them, even though they may not wish to be moved in spirit.EPISTLE XLVII. To Theoctistus Hegumen.
Praise virtues; but do not praise your disciples to their face, who follow them. For to encourage and to exhort is a part of good work; but to praise to one's face, neither C ...dolatry; and it is accustomed to soften the tone of virtue for those who are praised with admiration, either to lead them to an opinion of themselves or to relax the spirit; from which it happens that the sweetness of the labors undertaken according to God flows away, and the pleasures of the flesh are rekindled as if by a fanned fire. A
EP. XLVIII. To Theodore the Hegumen.
Not the man who immediately makes a torrent of words flow from his tongue is to be considered capable, nor, by the same token, does the man who is renowned in his deeds always have the persuasion of words swaggering on his lips. I could prove this to others with many and various examples; but writing to you, who are one of those who Homerizes, I think it will suffice if I suggest a single one. Famine was wearying the army surrounding Troy. Odysseus was sent to Anius to ask for corn, for the Achaeans trusted in his tongue. He, having arrived, poured out words like winter snow, and with this he flooded the man; but not only did he obtain none of the things he had hoped for, but, having seemed tiresome, he returned empty-handed, rendering the life of those who were gaping for him in expectation helpless. But Palamedes (you know the man, how much less talkative he was than Odysseus), dared to undertake the embassy after that eloquent orator. And having found Anius intent upon farm work, he said nothing at all, but, putting aside his cloak, he became his fellow-worker in the task. B When, after the work was finished, he was invited to supper, he supped with the man; and only then did he bring forward a brief word, asking for grain for the army, for those who were his friends and were suffering from hunger; and having obtained it, he departed rejoicing, bringing to his fellow-countrymen utility instead of words. And so, do not you trust in words for everything; for a brief work done by a man who is silent with prudence often silences long speeches, and shows that they possess nothing more than empty noise and sounds without meaning. C
EP. XLIX. To the Same.
Consider the maxim of Aesop, which he delivered to Chilon the Lacedaemonian when he asked him (for from what springs you desire, I mix for you a cup of exhortation), not only to have been spoken aptly and wisely, but to be extremely useful. For it is possible, indeed it is, to see clearly in the very nature of things that the firm and immovable mind frequently (as he said) raises up humble things to the heights, and brings down sublime things into humility. D Recalling this frequently to your own mind, even if you seem to exist exalted in a high place, look upon those things which are below, so that you may not suddenly, and beyond your expectation, having fallen, be thrown into complete helplessness, and as you grow dizzy...
A and whirling about, you might excite laughter—which is the deplorable condition of men—in those who now pronounce you blessed through flattery, while causing pain to us, who now freely suggest the best things to you. And however much you might then vehemently accuse yourself, because you previously held in suspicion those who were counseling you well, you will derive no profit from this, except that you will repent in vain after the opportunity has been neglected, and you will bear it most bitterly.
EPISTLE L.
*To Nicholas, hegumen of the monastery of Saint Nicephorus.*A friend is a necessary thing; for why would he not be? But the word of the just man is more necessary. B I had hoped that both would converge in the matter for which you intercede—namely, friendship and justice. For thus I would have gladly favored a friend. But if that is not to be, I am no longer the one to be blamed, but he who disjoined his own friendship from justice. You would certainly not bear it if you did not prefer me, who loves with justice, to one who loves without it. Indeed, I know that you, even before this, consider in your mind—a thing that is not pleasing to you—that I, who at some future judgment must one day pay the penalty for an unjust and unfair sentence, should not have to see him endure a double penalty: first, because he acted unjustly at the beginning; C and second, because, when he had violated justice and had been absolved of the crime, he committed another unjust act, which was that he was not punished with the penalty he ought to have paid.
LETTER LI.
*To Dorotheus, hegumen of the monastery of the Cedronites.*You, indeed, lament and weep because you were formerly separated from our love in Christ; and you do rightly. For it is no less a matter of virtue to lament the loss of love, and not only to desire to rectify the situation, but also to feel it bitterly, that a fall once prevailed at the beginning. But I am so far from blaming the former state of discord, because of the purity D of our present concord, or from being slow to grant pardon, that I assert that thanks must be rendered to Divine Providence, which governs all things wisely. For of those who then professed friendship, only a few preserved the nobility of their soul; as for the rest, time convicted some of having merely feigned their flattery. Others, whom I did not fear while I was testing them, their audacity disarmed in the opposite direction; and yet it happened that he who stood with them was not free from the suspicion that attached to them. But to have manfully preserved sincere friendship through such times as these possesses both the excellent praise of such a disposition, and is, without doubt, a pledge of future things, and an apology for things past, which requires no other trial; but with all forgiveness, if one were called to judgment concerning past sluggishness, it would be justly and excellently achieved before a tribunal that cannot be corrupted by any gifts, and it will itself obtain honor and veneration in the present.
EPISTLE LII
To the same. AThe gift is from genuine love; but at this time it is sent with ardent desire: and, with such great perils hanging over, with the zeal of martyrdom. For which may our God, Christ, even while we are silent, enroll you into the lot of His kingdom. May your presence also come to us with bright and great salvation, and with the holy hopes to which your most holy soul adheres; may it no longer hang in suspense, but may you be clearly seen as firmly steadfast in the very deeds themselves.SERIES THIRD — TO VARIOUS CLERICS
LETTER LIII
To George, deacon and hospitalarian. BThe observer and herald of secret things has removed drunkenness far from the kingdom of God. If, therefore, drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God, what does it profit you that, as you say, you have not become a slave to other sins? For it is impossible, when reason (which ought to have been the guide of the way and to have warded off injuries) has become blind through drunkenness, not to stumble against every stone, and not to show oneself a slave to every passion.EPISTLE LIV
To the same. (This epistle is now question CCII of our edition.)EPISTLE LV
To Theophanes, deacon and protonotary. CYou are pained that you sinned against me unwillingly; or rather that, being tyrannically compelled and subjected to the temptation of inflicted blows, you showed the strength of their violence only as far as the tongue, while keeping your mind, in the meantime, from succumbing to the torments. And what other consolation could be had for this present state of mind, than that through such a great multitude of terrible fears you did not defile the judgment of your conscience, nor did you present yourself as an instrument for the force of those perpetrating wickednesses, even though you were tormented with many and varied species of tortures, and not merely lightly or just by the finger? DBut how would we not judge you worthy of pardon, or if there be anything more excellent than pardon, and that most willingly, seeing that you fell into the sin of offense by being swept off course by a torrent and by violence, and yet you have so humbled yourself that there is no need, I think, for you to be taught constancy by us? Certainly, we are so far from harboring any bitterness against you that we encourage many others to look upon you, as if intothe choir of genuine servants previously enumerated. A
LETTER LVI
To George, Deacon and Hospitaler.
They say that Melanthius, the tragic poet, was such a glutton that he grieved because he did not possess a swan’s neck, so as to enjoy for a longer time the pleasure of food passing down his throat. If he had been a participant in your banquets, I believe he would have found in them a great remedy for his distress, and would have prayed that his neck not remain at its ancient length, so as not to consume much time while lingering over your table and your dishes. What, then, must be done? Surely, always and everywhere, to consider “Nothing too much” B as the best motto.
LETTER LVII
To the same.
You love riches, and for that reason, you do not love virtue. For by the love of evil, the praiseworthy love of all good things is extinguished. But if you quench the flame of avarice and consume at the same time the thorns of covetousness, then the soil of your soul will more easily cause its own proper fruit, almsgiving, to sprout; and it will transfer you, instead of being placed with the goats, into the flock of sheep. Farewell. C
LETTER LVIII
To George, Deacon and Hospitaler.
Those who are considered wise among the Greeks, having expended many and long discourses, have scarcely been able (as they themselves say) to persuade a slow, dull, and weak reason that matter, or *hyle*, is something other and different from all existing things, and that, being subject to perpetual alterations, and being flux, fluid, and receptive of all forms, it is the underlying subject of all existing things. If it had been your lot to be born at that time, you, by merely coming to their notice, would have easily freed them from many long labors and fatigues. For no one, I believe, has ever caught you, even for a moment, remaining in the same opinion; but [they have seen you] always flowing, and changing, and acting according to those who happen to be present, and shaping yourself to everything, and adorning your deformity as if it were your own proper beauty. D
LETTER LIX
To Gregory, Deacon and Chartulary of Amaseia.
I hear that some of our adversaries are proclaiming peace, and are attempting to entice the simpler folk by that name. But if that peace were the one which the Lord gives—
A as the Lord declares, it would not be fitting that they announce it to Him, but that they ought to receive it from us. But if it is the peace which He came to take away (for He said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword"), let them know that they are warring against Christ, and under the pretext of peace, are setting out to surround Him with a siege.
EPISTLE LX. To the same.
If there is any doxology, if there is any thanksgiving, I offer this to God with my whole soul, that He did not permit me to rule over men in such days, nor B to behold with my own eyes an inconsolable evil, when not a city, but a sepulchre, is what the city of Constantine has become, and lamentation instead of psalmody occupies not only private homes, but even churches; some of which, razed from their foundations, are leveled to the ground—a spectacle pitiable to anyone, and one which, if told, would not find belief; others, for the greatest part, although no disaster had laid them waste, nevertheless await ruin. And not even one of the churches remains outside this calamity, but the very earth itself, through intolerable shaking and trembling, has split into many parts, whence those evils by which this city was formerly afflicted must be held for nothing. At present, I C look only to my own affairs, and all my care and anxiety is directed toward those things. But if I were in power, I would have had the necessity both to fear for others who are sinning, and to sympathize more vehemently with their afflictions, and to fear lest, through the communion of sins, we who seem to be placed over them should be condemned to a common punishment—from all of which, what seemed to be human conspiracies, God, in His own grace and kindness, has delivered us.
EPISTLE LXI. To the same.
I, for my part, would not say that the city, having been turned into a graveyard, is a retribution for the injustices done against me; nor do I urge your holiness to cherish this same opinion with me. For who are we, even if we have suffered D unspeakable things, that we should have called down such great wrath from God? Moreover, even at that time, we were suffering in those things which the city is now suffering—according to the common law of sympathy and nature—more than we were suffering in those things which were done by those citizens. But if they are paying the penalties for their crimes, through which they sheared away the glory of God and of the Churches situated throughout the Roman Empire, and insulted with insolence the mysteries of the Christians, and by every device and every force, cast out and drove away the bishops and priests of God from their thrones and their Churches; and in a time of Christianity, prepared the deeds of the Hellenes to be spoken of with boldness—by deep silence, or rather by total destruction, the...
divine sacrifices and those venerable rites were handed over. If they are to be punished for all this boldness, there is nothing I can pronounce, until that judgment in heaven shall reveal that they have perpetrated things far greater than these. A
EPISTLE LXII. To George the deacon and cubicularius.
I declare to you, O best of friends, that you are no longer to be called a friend of mine. For now I know that among all mortals, I am the most unfortunate in having true friends. That good and faithful steward, our common friend (woe is me as I say and write this, while he meanwhile remains silent), having abandoned me, has—so it seems—exchanged me for temporal friends, preferring them to eternal ones; as if he could not endure that such virtue should dwell in times like these. That old Timon of old, perhaps moved by the intolerable wickedness of men, might have seemed to have acted prudently when he wished to be regarded as a misanthrope rather than a philanthropist. But I should appear far more justly named, considering my feelings, a "misophile" (hater of friends): for when I seemed to be enjoying such a wonderful display of virtue among friends, I rejoiced in the enjoyment, only to be immediately cast out with bitter pain—which is what harms me. Thus, whoever he is that has hurled this weapon at me, whether moved by envy or some other cause, he has acted only to torment me, so that we might only taste of pleasure as if in some final drops. I am carried out of myself by what I endure, nor is there anything for me to say, other than that you have had no pity on me at B all; neither when I was exiled, nor when I was cast into chains, nor in any of the miseries by which I am drained. Unmoved by any of these things, you have taken and snatched away my friend from me, and he has gone, planting a bitter and inflexible sting into the midst of my heart. But perhaps the time will not be long, and this will put an end to it completely (for this alone, amid such great evils, refreshes us) and will drive us to that which is longed for. Do you, however, O you who are my sole remaining consolation in life, farewell: love me; and carry out the funeral rites in my stead, as is worthy of your virtue and of his friendship, and by becoming a guardian and patron to my kinsmen and relatives in my place, and to yourself, alleviate a great part of the pain. For I do not think there is any other way to assist a departed friend. Indeed, more profuse tears have hindered me, though I wished to write more. C
EPISTLE LXIII. To Damian the xenodochus.
When he who suffers an injury remains silent, he convicts the perpetrator all the more; for it is evident that unless the cruelty of those who inflict the injury were great and insurmountable... D
A, they would not have refrained from taking steps to evoke pity, preferring silence to a just lamentation of their wrongs. But that wretched and poor man, in whose cause I wrote to you before, confesses that you have done him wrong, and cites none other as witnesses of the injuries than yourself. For you wish now to be considered the legitimate lord of those things which you previously seized by force and tyranny. Yet he does not judge B you to be held by a desperate or incurable malady, nor incapable of being corrected by repentance. For this reason, he visits friends everywhere, utters piteous words, and, above all, offers justice itself as his advocate—not treating the matter before external courts, but before friends acting as arbitrators and before the tribunal of your own conscience. If, however, you still discern nothing humane or just regarding his case, and if you are unwilling to cede possession of those things C which the law of tyranny has snatched away from him and handed over to you, know that even though that man whom you have injured by your poverty-stricken treatment has not said this against you, you yourself, through the actions you perform, have nevertheless judged yourself to be the most wicked of all men.
EPIST. LXIV. To Gregory the deacon and chartulary.
D The heretical synod and the entire assembly of the Iconoclasts have long since struck us with anathema; and not us alone, but also our father and our uncle, men who were confessors of Christ and the glory of the bishops—yet they intruded us, though we were unwilling, into the episcopal throne which they had anathematized. May they, then, also now strike with anathema those who have similarly disregarded the Dominical commandments and who have flung wide the broad and spacious gate to all manner of lawlessness, to the end that they might send us from earth into the kingdom of heaven, even though we hesitate.
EPIST. LXV. To George the deacon and orphanotrophos.
If you judge matters by the intention and consider the purpose (which is proper to do, since the divine oracles so command), you have us, if I may say so without appearing burdensome, splendidly crowned and honored by you. But if you give the crown to deeds, you will not, even in that case, cause us any loss. For we have not, even when the times were adverse, failed in our duty. You ought also to know this: that by judging in such a way, you do not so much deprive us of one of the two crowns, as you take both from yourself—namely, that which deeds bestow and that which the will and intention weave.
EPIST. LXVI. To Anastasius, presbyter and librarian of Rome.
From the holy line, as the proverb has it, your contest is taken up. Nor do I blame you, seeing that the opportunity has passed after experience and knowledge. And the enigmatic saying does not seem to me to suggest this ineptly, which
represents A opportunity as having hair in front, and bald in the back. For when once it has passed by, even if you pursue it with all sorts of devices, you cannot catch it. But good for you, and for your sympathetic purpose that has come, however belatedly. For friends ought not to measure grace by utility and necessity, but by affection and will.
EPISTLE LXVII. To Damian the Xenodochus
B If you have imposed penalties more severe than the offenses merit, do not think that you are not overstepping the bounds of justice; for not only will this not exempt you from rendering an account, even if it is done under the pretext of law, but it makes you guilty of a twofold injustice—namely, that you have inflicted an injury and offered insult to the laws. Up to this point, perhaps, it is fair and lawful to demand a penalty from the one who has done the injury; but to overstep the measure in inflicting punishment is manifestly against the laws, and makes one deserving of the very punishment one has imposed—if not more grievous, certainly not more moderate. For it provides a beginning for another injury; for if one who demands justice from another for an injury ought, by that very fact, to learn moderation, lest that same penalty be justly demanded back from him, then—if you also call to mind the debtor of the ten thousand talents, and that terrible threat, full of horror, even if he was not extorting anything that was not owed, but simply because he did not spare his fellow-debtor—what will your scene and your pretext, that you are acting according to law, avail you? What help will it provide you then?
EPISTLE LXVIII. To Paul, a fallen monk.
C Peter denied our God and Christ; Thomas doubted the same; Judas betrayed him. If, then, you repent of those things which, driven by fury, you have perpetrated against us—or rather, against your own salvation—things which ought to have brought you back to a sound mind, do not despair. For we, however much you have yourself wandered away, have not fallen away from our affection for you. Let Thomas and Peter be ancient examples to you of conversion; and you will also save other fallen ones when you have been raised up from your own fall. But if you do not repent, even though it is with grief that we say it to you, it remains for you to look toward the noose of Judas.
EPISTLE LXIX. To monk E., who has fallen.
D You have sinned; this is human. But you persist in the evil and do not turn back; woe is me, this is diabolical. Consider, I pray you, whether you have not—when you professed the lot of the monks and pledged the angelic conversation...
fallen into the wretched state of the demons, and been cast down to their punishments, where purpose ceases and repentance is frustrated.
EPISTLE LXX.
To Athanasius, monk and anchorite.
A Bishop Eristas, B raised up by your prayers, has recovered from his malady, and, freed from the schismatic putrefaction, now fulfilling once more the office of a member and a part, has been joined again with the entire ecclesiastical body. Condemning the earlier removal of his sound mind, he watered the floor with many tears; and with many laments and tearful pleas he finally converted to compassion the present synod, which he saw to be inexorable toward him. Nor did he, as if innocent, beseech pardon for his gray hairs, but showed that he hated, with more than youthful intensity, the wickedness that he had practiced. For the old man had not sinned through simplicity, but had been caught in a trap of deceit; for the latter, relief alone is needed, but for the former, purgation is also required. Since, however, that old man was excellently reformed by the zeal you displayed, and because the seeds of counsel had been sown beforehand, we reaped the fruit of his salvation without any labor of our own. Not all of the medical varieties were at hand for us; but what were in readiness have been sent. Care for the remainder will not be lacking until they are procured. We greatly rejoiced in the gifts sent by your holiness: for they have proceeded from an unfailing love, which has grown to such size and beauty, and through them it gives an image that represents the lofty and transcendent nature of the life from which they originated. Farewell.
EPISTLE LXXI.
To Zosimus, monk and anchorite.
C Your gifts are mountainous, namely, chestnuts and mushrooms; but their quantity fulfills a royal munificence; you have delighted us with mountain products, though not so much with the abundance; you injure the mountains, and you steal a kingdom for yourself in the mountains. D I have written these things so that you may reduce the quantity and preserve the proper appearance of gifts. I wished to be present with you, but that impulse is hindered; nevertheless, it will not be long before someone is sent in our stead who—I will not say will fulfill (for we ourselves could not do this at any time, nor would we be able to) but will measure out our deficiency. As for other matters, I reverence God, and pray that your fatherly holiness may be well, and may you not forget our mediocrity.
EPISTLE LXXII.
To Athanasius, monk and anchorite.
He who has been promoted to the principate and magisterium is the one whom your holiness, having made trial of him, deems fit to preside over the spiritual flock...
Pray, therefore, Father, that you may not be deceived in your judgment (for this is—above all else, if anything is—fitting both to your holiness and to him), nor that the imposition of our hands be called into question, A but rather that the man may be shown to be clearly worthy, both by your suffrage and by the hope we have conceived. As for the rest, I pray that your holiness may fare well, and that you may ever remember our mediocrity.
EP. LXXIII. To the same.
He who brought your holiness's letter was instructed in the shortest and most appropriate time regarding those things to which he ought to attend. He showed himself most compliant and declared by his promises that he would bring forth a fruit worthy of those admonitions—namely, concerning the rest, to order his life as is pleasing to God, and not to lift a finger, as they say, without your direction. B I pray to God that his deeds may answer to his words, lest, if we chance to be sowing on rock, the season of harvest might find us wanting.
The monks of the Symbolon acted in a disorderly manner, having arrogated to themselves the censure and power of deposing their abbot. It is an act of the same nature as if horses were to rise up against their charioteer, or flocks against their shepherd, or sailors against their captain. Indeed, it is far more absurd for monks to grow insolent against their hegumen, who is bound to render an account of them to others, and not to them. If anything had been done amiss by him, they should have approached a greater judge, C and not snatched for themselves the episcopal judgment, being as they are—with difficulty—among the number of those to be judged. Nevertheless, since they have fled to your holiness, that daring act of anarchy and the sedition stirred up is forgiven them, provided that they betake themselves to promising to be more obedient in the future. They will demonstrate this to be so if they consent to the abbot nominated by your holiness; for they should not entertain the idea that it will be tolerated that those who were carried away into sedition should again conspire and join together to elect him whom they had previously designated for themselves by written ballots. D It ought to be enough for those who have done wrong if they have obtained pardon for their admitted faults; but they shall by no means aspire to the prerogative of those who have not erred, lest good and evil should be held as matters of indifference, and doing right and sinning be regarded with equal judgment. As for the rest, I pray that your holiness may fare well, and not forget our mediocrity.
EP. LXXIV. To Barnabas the monk.
"Why do you lament poverty? The just man is not forsaken." "Yes," you say, "Job was forsaken." But it was to the end that, by overcoming that wicked one, he might overcome him who, through the height of impudence, sought to traffic in his most pure piety by a prosperous course and happiness of life; and so that, much more than that of which he was stripped, he might be seen...
assailed; but Paul also says: "In hunger and thirst I have lived, and in cold and nakedness"; yet he did so willingly. Let it suffice for you, however, to have Paul as an example in place of all riches and all happiness.
EPISTLE LXXV. To Sophronius the monk.
AJust as scars that have formed over wounds render those places on which they have hardened even after the healing of the disease susceptible and prone to injury, so too the weals of sins in the soul, even after their healing, render it easily predisposed and ready for the sin that once marked it to be branded upon it again. Flee, therefore, in your youth, with all zeal, from sins; for if it should happen that you become ensnared in them, even if you should escape the affliction with much labor, nevertheless the marks of the scars and the characters will not cease, even up to old age, to incite you; and when they represent to you the images of your familiar and kindred passions, they will not have difficulty in making you conformed to them again.
EPISTLE LXXVI. To Metrophani the monk, who has apostatized.
BNo one among men, not even the perfect, is pure from spot and filth; and no one among men, not even the worst, is entirely devoid of virtue; this is an ancient dogma, and one still preserved to this day in the judgments and actions of all. Do not desire to dissolve it by your own example, striving to show yourself empty of all virtue, and becoming an empty fable among all men.
EPISTLE LXXVII. To the same.
CDavid fell, but he rose again; and he rose again through the prayers of the prophet, and tears, and bitter reproofs brought to bear upon him by the vision; and indeed also by labors, and repentance, and the other virtues of that same man who, though cast down by his fall, disposed himself philosophically toward his reproof. You have fallen, too; but I see no prophet; nor do I see the humility of soul and repentance of David. It is left to you, therefore, to see and to take care how you may rise from your fall, unless it is more to your inclination to suffer punishment in the future than to be delivered from torment. D
EPISTLE LXXVIII. To Euthymius the monk, who has collapsed.
If neither the desire for the heavenly kingdom, nor the fear of the inescapable punishment, nor even the examples of those who like you have spent their lives in such remarkable wickedness
A have yet roused you to repentance and to sobriety from your daring crimes: I fear, truly, that the nature of demons has simulated human form in you. Would that you had never compelled me to present these things! You are certainly exhibiting in yourself the preludes of the coming Antichrist.
Epistola LXXIX. To Mark the Sicilian, a monk.
B Many historians teach that when impiety was spreading throughout the entire world, the Westerners held only Saturn, Venus, and Proserpina as gods: and that they did not reckon as gods, nor would they admit among the company of the gods, either Hercules, the most long-suffering of evils, nor Vulcan, the praiseworthy craftsman, nor the rhetorical Mercury, nor anyone else among those whom fables suggest are the advocates and guardians of excellent and noble works. Nor did they build an altar to justice, temperance, or any other virtue, though C at that time mortals were deifying many such things and worshipping them with prevalent superstition. But why was it that among them Saturn, Venus, and Proserpina were worshipped, saving only that men were addicted solely to the pleasures of the belly and of lust? For surely they gathered together in their own actions those whom they worshipped as gods by mingling with one another and clinging in promiscuous embraces, and derived from them, as if flowing from those gods, food, luxury, and every kind of pleasure. It is no wonder, then, if you, who derive your lineage from the Westerners, can say or do nothing prudent or temperate: truly, paternal customs are scarcely, if at all, corrected and brought into order, even when the greatest diligence, care, and labor are applied.
Epistola LXXX. To Sabas the hesychast, who has taken up residence with the apostates.
Whence does it happen that, while you are slow and burdensome in moving toward everything, you have become swift and vehement in your devices against me? D It is clear from this, I believe, that in those matters where reason proceeds according to nature, even if there is no innate speed for anticipating evils, yet it is not willing to be borne toward evils impetuously, continuously, and without pausing. But when it falls away from what is according to nature, all movements and individual actions are carried along with it into a turbulent and furious state. Know, however, that I am extremely suffused with shame and seized by immeasurable grief, not because all the dice are currently cast against me, but because you yourself once seemed to be one of those who loved me.
[index: entries preserved]
EPISTLE LXXXI. To Athanasius, monk and hermit.
A They say the palm tree delights in a salty soil, that it lifts its fronds on high, and produces fruit in abundance and of great sweetness; and, in a word, salty earth is highly suitable for the palm, even though it is destructive to all other seeds and plants that favor sweetness and richness. Well, then, even you, although you do not have many rivals, chose to inhabit the desert instead of the tumult of political strife. For from that solitude it is easy for you, like those endowed with lofty foliage, to ascend to heaven through your virtues. B
EPISTLE LXXXII. To Metrophanes, an apostate monk.
The passion of malice (for I call passion everything that destroys what is according to nature)—when this passion escapes all the remedies of those who offer correction, it is checked either by the severity of punishment or by death, lest it proceed from bad to worse. I have admonished you not once, but often; but you, as the ancient proverb has it, have proven to be deaf to those knocking at the door. You show that you are suffering from a disease that exceeds human healing; but I do not think you will prevail against the penalty that the law must impose. If, however, such is your wicked audacity that you wish to make light of that too, you will not, in any case, be able to escape the fact that your own importunate contentiousness will end miserably in the very end. C
EPISTLE LXXXIII. To Theodosius, monk and hermit.
Why are you amazed if the profane preside with arrogance, while the glorious bishops of God stand by? What of the fact that those who are condemned exercise judgment, while those free from blame are brought to trial, surrounded by swords, so that they do not even dare to utter a voice? But there are many such examples, both ancient and recent. Annas, Caiphas, and Pilate sat in judgment; and Jesus, my Lord and God, the common judge of all hereafter, stood subject to examination. D Stephen, glorious with the ribbons and rewards of martyrdom, stood before the tribunal, and the council of murderers buried that athlete with stones as he preached the divinity of Christ. James, the prince of bishops, who received the sacred unction and the prelacy of Jerusalem from the hand of the Lord, stood before the tribunal; and Ananias the Sadducee convened a council, by which death was immediately decreed against the just man, as if he were a transgressor of the Law. Paul, again, that great and illustrious herald of the whole world, stood ready; and Ananias—who, as he preceded the former Ananus in time, was no second to him in his ways—ordered the mouth of truth to be struck. But remembering Paul, of many...
such assemblies you will find an enumeration. What need is there to speak man by man? All the cruelty and madness of persecutors and tyrants against the confessors and martyrs of Christ will provide you with examples of this brilliant assembly. For it is plain to all that those men, far from being worthy of merely one or a simple death, but rather a multiple one, sat before the tribunal clothed with the names of legislators and judges with a certain supercilious gravity; and they, of whom the world was not worthy, stood before them condemned to capital punishment. A Be not, therefore, too vehemently struck by these events, nor interpret the patience and long-suffering of God in tolerating them as if it were a dereliction of human affairs: for divine providence did not cease to preside over things or to care for them during these times; for who could believe that to be so? But it is thus: divine dispensation directs our affairs wisely and in an ineffable manner, above human grasp, in the best and most wondrous way.
EPISTLE LXXXIV. To the Same.
B Enimvero, even if up to this point it has not been audaciously attempted, and is without precedent, that the legates and ministers of the godless Ishmaelites should be refashioned into archbishops, and adorned with patriarchal prerogatives, and become the presiding officers of their admirable assembly; do not, however, remain any longer a stranger to this matter; for it corresponds to the rest of their audacities, and they knew that the grace of the priesthood applied equally to themselves and the others: C those profane men were not easily to be found, who would fulfill the gathering of another assembly; nor could these men, being apostles of those who hated Christ, become the leaders and ringleaders of others than those very people. For who else would join their side, to imitate their fury against so many, such great, and such mighty prelates and priests of God, if not the ministers, nurslings, and offspring of the barbarians who assault Christ and God? Furthermore, one may rightly call their judicial or synodal gathering, mingled with barbarians, a place for concealing treachery; D since they could produce neither witnesses of the injury done nor accusers, even though matters were being turned upside down, nor could they censure anything that was known for certain to have occurred. What, moreover, was done thereafter? An army armed with swords surely stood ready, threatening death all around to those summoned to judgment, who meanwhile dared not even open their mouths or utter a word; in this state, surrounding them for six or even nine hours, they were never sated with growing insolent and reveling, but incessantly attacked them with insults. Meanwhile, many prodigious things were displayed, as if acts were being performed on a stage, and barbarous and blasphemous letters were read. Once these things were thus settled, they finally dismissed the theater late and with difficulty, having done nothing humanely, although they pretended to do so.
A And not acting by deed or voice; nor did they roar like the Corybantes, madly and discordantly, saying: "We have not come here to judge this cause; nor have we passed judgment on you; for we have already condemned you long ago, and you should be content with that condemnation." This, then, this—I say—impious, shameless, and unprecedented deed, even if it surpassed all the Jewish outrages which the sun has beheld and the moon has hidden, and if it exceeded the impudence and lawlessness of the godless heathens, and left behind the madness and insanity of all the outlaws and barbarians of every nation, yet do not be dismayed by this, and let no irrational thought or grumbling enter your mind regarding the wise and divine judgments. For I am so far from being dismayed by these things, and I know that you, too, will perceive this after a little while. On the contrary, even if I seem to some to be saying something paradoxical, from these very actions I see the inexplicable and ever-abiding care of the divine and transcendent providence confirmed by the most manifest testimonies. How, and in what way? It is because when the wrath of those in power rages so severely and boundlessly against the faithful, because they have kept their tongues and minds pure B from blood; and when the truth is injured in every way, while falsehood is displayed with splendid honor; and when impious audacity most bitterly harasses every action, word, and movement, while the pious, seeing these things, only groan, and lift up their eyes and hands toward the eye of judgment—and when some approach sycophants to provide testimony, and many desire to gratify the authorities and comply with their pleasure, and not one fear but death itself is cast around all those who desire to speak for the truth: when they dare so many things, and these and more are tolerated; when the others do not even have the permission to write, or if they have written, to produce it; when not a single witness of any crime is brought forth against the saints, nor is even the form and process of a barbarian tribunal maintained, but everything is dissolved in such a shameful and ridiculous manner, without any modesty or decency—how can we not derive from this the most manifest demonstrations, and through inexpressible and indubitable testimonies grasp that divine providence which embraces all things with C wisdom? And that there is always, even if it often escapes the human mind while lying hidden, a retributive justice advancing with it, punishing those who act unjustly, and being an avenger and helper to those who are wronged? Through this providence, God has also filled with shame and disgrace those insolent men, however much they may have seemed glorious and conspicuous in their tyranny; and He has filled the athletes, though they were sentenced to suffer the ultimate fate, with joy and gladness, and has adorned them with the continuous applause of every tongue, as if with unfading crowns; and while He begins to exact the penalties from those by whom these impious acts were dared, and prefaces their inescapable misery in the world to come, He rewards the others for their struggles. D
A And as if setting down a certain pledge of those ineffable rewards, and of that most beloved and eternal beatitude. You possess, I think, clearly and without any wavering, the unerring and all-seeing nature of that wonderful and transcendent providence; and [you know] that even in things that seem most irrational, it joins and maintains its own just and steady scales with an ineffable and infinitely powerful force and wisdom, injecting a certain divine bond into them, and an excellent and most beautiful order, even if, due to the unfathomable depth of its judgments and the uncrossed sea of its wisdom, it is not always apt to be understood by human reasoning.
LETTER LXXXV.
To Acacius, monk and physician.
If you have never existed as pure from impure thoughts, what you say is entirely novel, nor is there any finding of tears to match it. But if you have been at some time pure (and surely you have been; for it is not celestial to have never been purified), nor would you at present be possessed by any love of purity, if you had not at some time had experience of it; and surely, if you had not been freed, at least to some extent, from those defilements, you would not have observed how one might keep oneself pure; but since you have been made pure, in that way in which you so exist, see to it that you conserve yourself in that purity. Prayer will provide this to you, provided you extend it for some time. Let the divine Paul, before me, suggest the exhortation to you, where he says: “Pray without ceasing.” But also guard the gift of abstinence with the utmost care: for a force and power naturally accompany it that is irresistible for blunting such passions. But also approach the mercy towards the needy, nor be willing to recoil from it: for this sacred oil lights a bright torch, distributing its operations, for by some it consumes the passions, while by others it illuminates and directs the steps toward the chariot of virtue. Toward those who appear to have offended you, if you are able, do not be moved; but if you should fall into anger, nonetheless, before the setting of the sun, having returned to yourself, absolutely grant forgiveness. To speak simply: from whatever source it happened to you that you were so quickly cleansed, from that same source it is fitting to search, nor to desist from the purity of life; otherwise it will not be easy to obtain rest from troubles, but [only] through one of the aforementioned, or some of them, or even through all of them joined together. D
EPISTLE LXXXVI
A To Acacius the monk and physician. Great a calamity is self-opinion; it makes a man a fool, nor does it allow him to be liberated from a disease, or to learn late what will be beneficial. It suggests that those who spend their effort trying to pull one back from error and provide assistance should be regarded as enemies; yet it makes more intimate those who, through flattery, exacerbate the disease and render it incurable. Flee with all your might from conceit; it is a sheer precipice, having completely cut off any ascent to salvation.EPISTLE LXXXVII
B To Isacius the monk. Although you may be most immature for that harvest to which the Lord, moved by the bowels of mercy, sends His disciples to work, yet you are taught by the time of your age that you are well-prepared for that harvest to which the angels are sent as reapers. Why, then, when you should be bringing forth fruit, do you bring forth thorns? And tares instead of wheat? Nor is it difficult for a person, even late in life, to become good and virtuous through repentance. But would that you were only useless, and not, as I fear, offering yourself as a vessel of depraved corruption! Recognize, however, even now at last, you who are completely immersed in this mortal life, that there are things which are gathered and stored in barns that shall never be broken down, and are deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven: and there are those things which are cut down, alas, and cast out, and destined to be consumed and burned by the outer and endless fire.EPISTLE LXXXVIII
To Metrophanes the monk and hesychast from Sicily. C Great indeed is the sorrow which is felt for the Church of God; for evil is poured out over the whole world: but greater yet is the resulting joy. For beneath the sun your struggles and virtues are admired, and recounted by all tongues; and your contests are nothing else. Your trophies, and that manifold happiness, proclaim you worthy, you who suffer for the sake of Christ.EPISTLE LXXXIX
D To Arsenius the monk, presbyter and anchorite. There was a time for writing, as now there is for silence, when peace and tranquility were diffused throughout the entire commonwealth; when virtue, which is now held up to mockery, was an object of admiration; and when piety possessed its own force. When truth (oh! whither have you now fled) dwelt most freely with both eyes and tongues; when the civil state refreshed itself with modest pleasures; and when the philosophical life, directed toward the imitation of holy men, was worthy of emulation.A For it was considered worthy of imitation: the priestly and episcopal order was illustrious, not so much by its holy insignia as by its virtuous actions, and it showed those who were to be recognized as its followers. But what I write now are laments, in which Jeremiah has anticipated us. For our present circumstances are by no means more tolerable than those were: shall I write of sighs? But what are these, and what are they worth against such a torrent of evils? The rivulets of tears, with one evil following another, have so exhausted themselves that the very fountains have dried up; holy things are profaned, sacred things are trampled underfoot, and the Holy Spirit (O impious lips and even more wicked souls!) is assailed and mocked with trivial blasphemies. B Deserts, mountains, caves, and the ends of the earth now scarcely keep safe the priests of God and the bishops who were previously held in harsher chains and exiles; and I do not pursue these things further. For truly, the overhanging fear of threats does not allow us to deplore all that by which we are constricted (and yet, as in such evils, some solace was sought). I write these things which you know very well, both having perceived them by sight and by hearing: but I, taught by experience and suffering with Christ, write these things: stand before God, rendering the Creator placated toward his creature; raise your holy hands to him, who once stretched out his own on the cross as if in supplication: the nails, the spear, the blood, the death, the burial, through which we are saved. C You have that by which you may obtain from the merciful One an alleviation of persecutions, constancy for those vexed for the sake of piety, the torn flocks, the pastors who, in parts unknown, hide where they may in the world: the Church of God cut into pieces and torn apart: for it is divided by the fear of God and human fear. For the divine oracle cannot lie; it says: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Bear these things before you—or rather, you know yourself the means by which you will prevail; for those whose heart is pure, inasmuch as it is possible for man to see God, behold him—and those who look more closely understand more rightly how he is rendered more placated. Call upon the Mediatrix of intercession, the Virgin Mother of the Word; invoke her, represent to her the great and inexplicable weakness of our nature: she understands our tragedy; she knows how to pity a kindred nature. D You may take up the choirs of martyrs; they have full freedom of approach, and from the contemplation of what they endured for Christ, they wish to aid others who suffer for him. But unity of suffering yields in itself a consolation, and is an invitation to aid those who suffer similar things: all things facilitate intercession: prayer is joined with good hope, only your constant and continued prayer is lacking, and fervor in supplicating.
EPISTLE XC
To Nicephorus, a philosopher engaging in the monastic life.Everything was excellent, and the language did not limp at all in its syntax or in other grammatical accuracies.
Nor was there any defect in the rhetorical laws, nor was anything usually applied lacking; but neither did one err here to such an extent that the writings would claim attention more impudently than they deserved. These things, as you requested, I have corrected and sent to you, having brought them to completion. May you, in these matters as in others, show yourself illustrious and worthy of praise. Farewell.
EPISTLE XCI
*To Nicephorus, a philosopher and monk.*The corporal love, those who are worldly depict as winged: they depict the divine love as well, as many as have fashioned its intelligible beauty into pure souls; yet the former do so with dyes and the blossom of colors, the latter with virtues and more illustrious deeds. Both parties, therefore, testify by what they depict, that love is endowed with wonderful speed, and is a tyrant over purpose, and a despiser of the laws by which it is delayed. Know, therefore, O man sacred to God, that we are vehemently oppressed by this tyrant, who compels the will, and incites us to demand your presence before the proper time. Farewell.
EPISTLE XCII
*To Athanasius, a monk and anchorite.*Since, in imitation of B Christ, our true God, you have crucified yourself to the world and to the ruler of the world, I have sent you a cross as a safeguard of your crucifixion.
EPISTLE XCIII
*To Arsenius, a monk and anchorite.*To what end do I write? Prayer has vanished, the virtue of men has vanished; freedom before God is taken away; life is empty of men who draw down providence from heaven to earth. Justice (how should I say it? For I would certainly not wish to say it) is dormant; iniquity takes on great spirit; there is no shame regarding laws, either divine or human. As for those men possessed of that ancient virtue, such as have not been overtaken by bonds, prisons, and sentences of exile, who have shut themselves away in mountains and caves, and who, as though by some accidental discovery, have stumbled upon the common calamity—they are indeed removed from the turbulent storms of the world, but they take no care nor concern for those who are submerged in the salt sea and are tossed about by the waves. For they do not lift up propitiating hands to God D nor do they say with Moses, "If you will forgive, forgive," along with that subsequent language full of affection and miraculous boldness; nor do they implore a release from the inescapable evils by which those endowed with the same nature are continuously consumed. If I speak falsely, it is for you to refute me, while it is my part to change my opinion, to be suffused with shame, and to recognize shame as the mediator of eternal joy.
LETTER XCIV
A TO NICEPHORUS THE PHILOSOPHER, WHO HAS EMBRACED THE MONASTIC LIFE.I do not know the source of your grievance, but I know that, as if asked in a dream, you requested I provide you with rhetorical opportunities or precepts, whether those which are expressed by the tongue or those represented in books. I know, moreover, that I gave a similar assent, and that, having been asked in common terms, simply and indefinitely, I gave my agreement. However, since you added nothing to the matter, nor even what was necessary for me to be present for the matter at hand—so that the tongue might have the faculty to say what needed to be said—nor did you put forward anything that concurred with a particular and definite inquiry, nor even in a common and more general way; and since you did not explicitly state which books you had need of, which writings of the rhetoricians you desired, or whose artificial textures of artifice you sought, how do you think I could extend the resonance of your voice, separated as we are by such a great distance, to reach your ears, unless you think I could recount the myths of Stentor, or that, not speaking at great length, I am concealing something? On the other hand, you accuse me, as you must, because I did not send you an immense heap of books gathered from here and there, not in vain. Ignorance of the matter sought—that is, both of the art itself and of the books pertaining to it—would certainly have driven me to the necessity of gathering all B the books written on every art. If your pain had its origin here, it does not concern me at all; but if it be something else, you must forgive me, best of men, who, by reason of the long duration of time and the additional bitterness of disease, could not repel the creeping oblivion. But farewell in soul and body, and do not so easily surrender to the shadows of grievances which you yourself cast, nor seek relief from your pain from anyone else, for it has no origin other than in your own suspicions, which I judge were not legitimately born. Farewell.
LETTER XCV
TO ARSENIUS THE MONK AND ANACHORETE, AFTER THERE HAD BEEN SENT TO HIM THOSE WHO, HAVING DEPARTED FROM BULGARIA, DESIRED TO ENTER THE MONASTIC LIFE.If I were also seeing at that time with the eyes with which I once saw (for your letter sang this of me, and declared that grace which, otherwise, I would not willingly admit), I would not offer the conviction of my own obscure ignorance. But if I was in any way seeing, why did I show myself a blind leader to those C who were hastening to the light of truth? This is not the action of one who sees, I think, but rather something far different, and, what is more serious, it pertains to one who blinds those who desire to see, and causes those who wished to tread the path of virtue with straight feet to wander far from the truth on a long track. If, therefore, the hymn is not entirely a dream, and a gift of the stage, I would have opposed those who stood in need of guidance; and if the sentence proceeded from an incorrupt judgment, and if rectitude directed the mind—and not love, for which justice was held as a laughingstock, nor bowels that, by the affection of a paternal instinct, [had melted] into an irrational D partiality...
A send are irrational. Let it go then, wherever that which happens contrary to dignity may wish to go, and let wonder itself flee from wonder. Let there be something customary, so that the consistent sequence of actions may be imitated; we grant your beatitude nothing that could drive one to astonishment or that exceeds moderation. Rather, it is most pleasing to us that we have such brothers, who have emerged from the waves of this life and, through you, desire to be led into the harbor of tranquility and the philosophical life. Disease—if, however, I must call it disease and not rather the vestibule of death—seized me, acute and unexpected. But through your prayers it has relaxed somewhat from its severity, God having granted me life again from above, for the sake of repentance, may it be so, as I have desired. Wherefore I still remain alive, although the remnants of that evil B still cause me, in my little body, to be poorly.
EPISTLE XCVI.
To Nicephorus, philosopher and monk.
While I was hesitating and uncertain, and anxious about my own affairs (for what belongs to my blood is mine, whether I wish it or not), and about all the sufferings that constrain one's friends, there came a comfort (behold the novelty!)—a friend hanging upon the outcome of manifold calamities. Come therefore, as you requested; come with all speed; partly, perhaps, (though one must say it with God’s help) you will find deliverance from the things that distress you; and partly, by your C friendly presence, you will lighten our own heavy-laden grief.
EPISTLE XCVII.
To the same.
The winter had passed, and—as if on purpose, by dispelling the causes of your slowness—the wintry weather was succeeded by a clear sky. Yet again, winter let loose its snows and showers of thoughts upon us with a crash. What then has happened? Did something unexpected occur? Or some obstacle? Or could such great eagerness and ardor for a return have rested without some great necessity? With such cares and tempests of thought we were tossed, even when the sky was clear. D For the "mode" (τρόπος), I know not whence, peered out at you, perhaps from poetic nimbleness; for it drew along with it certain verses of the liberty practiced by poets, as if swelling with the loftiness of the genre, and wishing to show us how much it is its own master and authority. But yet this "mode" has not yet obtained sufficient liberty to enter in to us (who are of more rustic character), it being a kind of mask of a pretext rather than having a true cause whence it might be manifested. And I do not yet add that if the winter prevented it, the mode of the matter is in vain; but if an unknown mode of returning hindered it, the violence of the winter...
A subsided, and the serene smile laughed with the day. My friend was present, yet nowhere did he show a gloomy or sullen face—unless perhaps his apology peeked out from behind the scenes, and his noble character presented itself as a participant in the winter's dance. For even if they made us a spectacle of joy in this way, it was entirely because when another person is grieved, and truly able to prevent an arrival by diverting the cause of the matter away from themselves, he signified a relief and a freedom. Yet he gave us pure joy to rejoice, having learned from your letter that you are recovering more easily from your illnesses, and that you have now departed, so far as we are concerned, from any such thing in its entirety. And the learning of the manner B is now inquired after.
LETTER XCVIII. To Nicephorus the philosopher, who has embraced the monastic life.
You are fearful regarding friendship, and yet more fearful regarding my disposition. But see how much I have trusted in you, in that I have not spared you even when you were trembling; rather, I have sown other seeds of timidity, reproaching and chiding your timid nature. But act like a man, be strong, and know us to be not such as you think. But since the present time is not sufficient for you to be confirmed in the opinion that the time to come will reveal—if I may say so with God's help—by refuting your timidity in deed and work; as for the labor you expended in praising the holy martyr, having examined it according to your request, we have found it to be a genuine offspring of the Asian seed (if one may say so, C not even using the name of the Muses, but at the same time employing the Asian style). I see no errors, unless perhaps in syntax, and I have marked that only very rarely. And if in the beauty of the language and words this one thing needed to be added to make it worthy of praise, yet even so, it has combined the beauty of the work with the beauty of what is kindred to it.
LETTER XCIX. To the same.
Just as you cannot deny your pusillanimity, so you cannot deny that I was sufficiently well persuaded of you even before you sent this sweet letter. For the passion itself is so manifest that it cannot remain hidden from one wishing to observe it. But how it is possible that pusillanimity in the cultivation of friendship D can be referred to in both directions—namely, to adverse fortune and to the imitation of the saints—I am not yet able to grasp by conjecture. I confess I am a miserable man, and for this reason I am more fearful in friendship; but the band of the saints is affected in the same way. From pusillanimity neither sweetness nor pleasure distills, nor does anything that by its nature delights, which is, through inconsistency, less graceful; for if you are struggling against adverse fortune, you will not be able to imitate the saints. But if in those things in which you are fearful and trembling, the choir of the saints sustains you, where are your habitual misfortunes? And if this is misfortune, what could be good fortune? By
A you feel trepidation, do you count yourself among the choirs of the saints, where the unhappiness of your life consists? But if you do include this unhappiness, why do you call it happiness?
Paul, you say, that winged man caught up on high; Peter, in whom the foundations of faith are laid; the whole multitude of the other saints are my arguments for timidity. Alas, my evils, who can represent for me so many images of my own unhappiness! Truly, I feel fear in matters that others do not grasp. Why, if one who chooses to imitate the vital life were to propound riddles or the enigmas of the Sphinx, would it not be better and nobler to withdraw from declaring them than to utter such things? Holy fear, which you pronounce to be the foundation of every virtue, led Paul and his associates B from hence to the unfading crowns. But you, I know not how, refer your fear to standard misfortunes, as if you were some Ulysses, or another yet more unhappy than he. You ought not in the least to judge it fitting that Saint Paul be brought forward as a doctor and example of such fear. It would have been meet, if indeed you wished to imitate him, that you should be affected with joy, and turning your gaze to the crowns, you should by no means lament unhappiness; pusillanimity lays hold of and agitates you. What have you in common with Paul? Reprove yourself; withdraw from this passion. "Nay," you say, "I have Paul here as my forerunner." Rejoice then in the imitation; exult in your struggles; do not, however, play the woman by palpitating over your unhappiness, so that you mix and confound everything, or by the sharing of words, C join together under the same nature things that are separated from one another by many parasangs, so that pusillanimity may adorn itself and render itself glorious with a fair countenance. Indeed, what do divine fear and the pusillanimity that offends against friendship—or the burden of misfortunes weighed against the reason of right actions—have in common with one another? Why do you so assert this? Truly, call upon Paul, whose words are: *I fear, lest having preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.* (I Cor. ix, 27)
What does this mean? They say the boundaries of the Mysians and Phrygians are set apart. For we are not terrified regarding the Dominical promises, as if our Paul, through fear, were losing heart; he was not distressed regarding the friendship, nor did he fear that someone, by a kind of pirate’s craft and trickery, would snatch away D the priceless pearl and leave it despoiled for all. These are those masks that pretend to the gravity of timidity. Of none of these was he afraid; on the contrary, he was confident and resolute, if any man ever was, regarding those wondrous promises; he was firm, plain, and entirely unshaken in cherishing the friendship of the Lord: he desired that the utility be displayed to all. He called the Jews to a share of the treasure; he called the Gentiles, all the barbarians, princes, subjects, yea, if you will, robbers, pirates, and the entire human nature he invited to the participation of the pearl. And not simply so, but striving and running and suffering all things, so that he might by all means deem someone worthy of the beauty and the vision from above. Wherefore, also, he said with great confidence: *I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: as to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice.* But in these things he was such, dauntless and steadfast; yet what did he fear? Lest he himself should be seen to fall short of what was necessary to be brought to the promises. By
A exactly this, worrying, he said: "So I run, not as uncertainly; so I fight, not as one beating the air, but I buffet my body and bring it into bondage, lest by any means, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." He did not, however, hesitate in his promise, nor was he anxious regarding his desire. He did not fear the snatching away of the pearl, but rather that he himself might do something unworthy of it, or something lacking, or something not in accordance with a settled mind. This is one way of being afraid, and another is that which concerns rewards. The former is praiseworthy, the latter is blameworthy; the one belongs to those who are steadfast, the other to those who are wavering; the one leads away from the prizes, the other helps to prepare them. The latter belongs to Paul, the former to us. "But," you say, "I love, so that I may not say more than any other person would—just as any other might, I fear the pirates in life, lest they deprive me of enjoying friendship; lest they lie in wait for my pearl." What are you saying, man? Are you making your friends into pearls, not from the better perspective, so that you might marvel at their beauty B and, illuminated by the scintillations of the brightness found in friendship, might rejoice and revel in the better hopes? But rather, so that it may be easy for you, on the one hand, to feign a betrayal as if regarding inanimate objects, and the incursions and robberies of thieves; and on the other hand, so that you might be able to hide your insult with a fabrication, and under the veil of a religious modesty of contempt, to hunt for the reputation of veneration, while at the same time biting at your friends more heavily and bitterly. For the manner in which, I do not say pearls, but friends are to me causes for fear, is that I see the power over them, and the sway of the will, all swallowed up by the wreckers of ships, and those lying in wait, and the shipwrecks. C But reproach, good and noble man, proceeding with art, though it may be hidden, perhaps also with some understanding, bursting open the swelling of the soul, and soothing and calming it—yet when it becomes exposed, it brings together many absurdities to the same result: a heavy character, pretending to praise while censuring; shame for things that the one hiding did not escape. And I pass over the greater part. And yet, if it were necessary to reproach, what is the artifice of hiding? But if it were necessary to remain hidden, it would have been better not to have come to insult at all in the beginning. The one who hides an insult within the pearl, and does not have the art to remain hidden, I know not how he will avoid falling short of what he intends. For he did not escape the shame of having insulted, and the stage (to say nothing more) is convicted of having been spread in vain. Do you wish your friends to be pearls, D so that the white and bright [aspect] of love might be diffused into the blackness of enmity? Nor should the integrity of your disposition, which is uniform and pure from every side, be shattered into unequal corners by a feigned mind. But you are afraid that your most precious possession might be snatched away. A friend is not by nature an inanimate or immovable thing; such a use of the example comes from the worse side; and he who says he fears the snatching away is plotting against the utility of the image. But you fear that it might be a snatching away for those lying in wait. And why do you not say it simply? But I fear lest, after I myself have departed...
A from those who lie in wait, one might forget the friendship, the toils, and the struggles which we have endured for Christ and His Church. Thus, he who speaks and reveals the cause of his anxiety also achieves his own purpose without contrivance, and most easily corrects the cause, and demonstrates that he trusts in Him whom he calls upon. But he who sets up a stage, and then acts a drama within it, wearing the mask of blasphemy, instead of presenting the stage to others, he unwittingly wraps a labyrinth around himself, from which, as you see even now, it is not possible to escape; but from whatever side one might attempt to look out, the construction of the labyrinth meets him from every direction. For, apart from what has been said, if you are now fearful for our friendship, why do you not cast it away, which through your whole life is agitating and mocking you? But if you are courageous, why do you not take security from the present for the things that are to come? But you do not rejoice in what you have, and you groan over what you suspect, as if you were caught by them; or rather, someone else might blame you (for I myself would not claim so) as one who, by the things you fear regarding the future, acknowledges in deed, if not in word, that not even your present circumstances are firm. But we, O friend, as we speak, simply and clearly consider them. I do not permit you to betray the pearl; but do not consider it easily betrayed; for this is a betrayal further and deeper than that B other one. Do not betray your pearl, but do not suppose it to be senseless and immobile, nor ready for the enemy to seize; do not fear for the friendship; it is an insult entirely, either of the one who fears, or of those for whom we fear. For the fact that it is inanimate exempts the pearl from blame; but as long as a man remains a man, and is master of his own inclination toward both sides, nothing exempts him, and the Lord is the judge of both. What else? Do not think that the saints understood this fear—do not you, O excellent one, nor go away pure of blame on account of it; nor that you will attain crowns with them. Thus we conduct ourselves toward you; so it is proper for you to conduct yourself toward us; is there need for reproach? Reproach purely. C Demand nothing, nor apply it with artifice; have we given pretexts for fear? Show them; you cannot speak; nor in the presence of enemies, cast reproach upon us; and one might see ten thousand things emerging from your letters, but perhaps these are more than is according to the laws of a letter. For the rest, play the man in your friendship, and extend it, and direct it; and cast the pirates and those lying in wait, and any other evil race, away into the sea of shame and sink them; but draw yourself up from there, carrying your most brilliant pearl brilliantly; and even if every eye turns toward it, either envying or enjoying its beauty, consider it to be lying entirely with you. These things I have written, both playing D and being serious; playing, that you might know that even for us, who are outperformed by those who flourish in rhetoric, there is a peak of defense, and a word that dissolves sophistries; but being serious, that you might no longer be a coward regarding those things...
in which it is necessary to play the man. But the deposit (and you, on the other hand, cowardice) is both preserved and shall be preserved. C
LETTER C. To the same.
I have not spoken prodigiously, bearing a stage and a theater under my arm; rather, I have stood for the truth with a just freedom of speech. I have not armed myself with missiles, bows, and battle-lines against friends—nor, indeed, against enemies—nor have I dreamed of foes and shields like those who fight against the air; but I have spoken freely on behalf of friends. If you wish, furthermore, that Lazarus be delivered from the ulcer that vexes him, so that he may be superior to that which troubles him, turning back every onset of the waves onto the heads of the pirates, and may henceforth sail the sea of life without fear—behold, how I do not plot against you by this example, nor do I subvert the intention of the one who used it, by citing the rich man, his unquenchable thirst, that chasm, the fire, and the torment. For it is not from the worse part—though you have rightly taken it into your hands—but it is taken in the better sense. I think that the freedom of speech and the liberty of tongue that I have practiced have not been in vain, if I have attained to my dearest friend (as you also write, filling us with joy and gladness), who has driven far away from himself the cowardice that was evilly pressing upon him, and has instead chosen for himself a courage congruent and kindred to his ways and virtuous deeds; who has overwhelmed those pirates in the deep by the very machinations and arts of their own wickedness, but has himself risen above every surge of evil winds, being lifted on high by fair hopes. Yet these examples are by no means brought forward by us with an evil mind, but I have devised a rationale so that they might not be misused. What is that? That no one, taking a fountain and a river as an example from a pure nature (by which you think you can support your own slip), should then fear that D veneration should slip away from him, or lament as if it were drawn off through rivulets by others and should disappear; nor should he fear that at some time he might give handle to those who lie in wait to applaud themselves for theft, who plot that they might take away; nor should he neglect those who lie in wait, whose wish it is to defraud lovers of their just enjoyment. We have spoken these things with a senile counsel according to the truth, and not for the sake of showing off, nor have we discoursed as young men are wont to do. Wherefore, we have not exhorted you to renounce the friendship (far be it that any weight of rhetoric should ruin our great simplicity), but to cast off and throw away that which is wont to mock friends and to stir them up; that—
A that part of itself has departed, and has left behind [them]—to bear no vain burden for that [person] who merely smiles with words, but in deed prepares gloom and dejection along with the enemy. As for the rest, just as you asked, the wings of friendship have snatched them away, and the chambers of providence cherish them, and I reclaim my own affairs; and I no longer have need of medicine, nor of any cure, nor of anyone’s pity, indeed, nor of any intercession. For I possess the one I desired, who is superior to every illness, and who has nobly shaken off, just as I prayed, the very trace of the malady, the slight cowardice, as I would have wished.
EPISTLE CI.
A To Eusebia, a nun and abbess, of consolation on the death of her sister.If death began with us, and we were the first in our race to experience it, it would be reasonable for us B to be troubled by the incident as by something unexpected and novel. But since, from the time humans have existed, we have been divided between life and death, and the penalty is ancestral; and there is no one who will live and not see death, why do we count a universal debt as a private loss? And why do we lament as if demanded to pay a new extortion? And since it is not possible to be otherwise, nor does nature understand any other law, why are we exceedingly amazed as if at something paradoxical? And why do we surrender ourselves C unholily, not according to the laws of the Spirit, to be totally submerged in grief? And do we not notice, while mourning the death of kinsmen, that we are preparing death for ourselves through our lamentation? And yet, if death is grievous, why do we hasten it for ourselves? And why do we rise up against the law of the Creator, so as to anticipate it? But if it is good and saving, why do we mourn the departed beyond all measure, contrary to the judgment of the Master? D “My sister,” she says, “has left me, my only solace after God, the relief of sorrows, the dissolver of bitterness, the primary subject of my joys.” And what of this? Both father and mother have left you, and other kinsmen, and the race extending back to Adam. And you, in turn, will leave others, and it is impossible to find a person whom many have not left. A sister has left a sister; but she has found the parents who preceded her. She has left a sister, but she has departed to the common Master and Father; she has migrated to that D commonwealth to which we, too, are journeying. Then, you reckon that she has left you; but do you not consider whom she has attained? And you groan because you do not see her body; but do you not rejoice to perceive that her soul has found a more unimpeded union with you? And you take it hard that she has been released from corruptible things, but you do not deem it a great thing that she enjoys incorruptible ones. How, then, did she leave you? If she had retreated into non-existence, if she had gone under another authority and dominion, then I would admit that she had truly left us. But if she is guarded by the same hand of the Creator, and has the same Lord ruling and providing—
if the same dwelling place and manner of life is prepared for both—even if the one A now enjoys a life free from turmoil, while we are still tossed about on the waves—how has she abandoned us? If we are not both being steered toward the same harbor of rest; if we are not traversing the same path; if the same end does not await us, then it would be right to reason that she has abandoned us; then it would be a tragedy to mourn the separation. But if all that anyone decides and accomplishes is directed toward that one home, why do we beat our breasts in vain? Why do we murmur against the law of nature, because man, being mortal by nature, serves death, and because he has passed through this present life with equal measure to his father, mother, and the rest of the race? Why was it necessary for nature to be overturned for our sake alone, and for the boundaries of creation to be confounded? For what has ever come forth through generation that does not eventually merge back through dissolution and death? B I omit the flowering and beautiful plants, which delight not only our eyes but our other senses as well. I pass over the beauty of vegetation and the herds of all kinds of animals. All these things pass away with time, and find that their generation is simply the prelude to their dissolution. But consider with me the well-ordered choir of the stars, how they adorn the firmament, decorating the heavens with brighter colors; how they light the night with torches, tempering its gloom with the rays they emit, and providing a grateful spectacle to those who see them. Look again at the moon, how, having borrowed its light from the sun, it illuminates the air for free, bestowing its gift far and wide, striving as it were to set one day before the next. But all these things look to their own end, acknowledge their debt, and hasten to accomplish their dissolution. Is not the sun itself wonderful in aspect, truly admirable for its beauty? What else can one say of it, but that as a giant it exults to run its course from one end of heaven to the other C (Ps. XVIII, 6), unfolding itself in a certain orderly, though supernatural, course in the middle of the world, revealing itself as if in a theater? Striking everything with its rays, it endues some things with life, nurtures others, and binds together in itself all things below the moon according to the edict of their condition. And yet, meanwhile, as it carries out this task through such vast and long distances, it does not grow old, nor does it suffer any failure or diminution of its beauty; it does not grow weary in its course, nor does it do anything for which it should be called to dissolution; and yet, such as it is, so great, it does not escape its end, but submits to the natural decrees. For all things are transformed, and there is nothing that comes into being through generation D that does not look toward immortality before its death. What then? If all these things are reshaped and transformed, and do not murmur at the end of their condition, but bear the good pleasure of their Maker with an equable mind, shall we—who struggle in vain—not be hesitant to provoke the Divine against us? And with so many examples before our eyes, shall we not be brought to our senses by any of them? But shall we surrender ourselves to all that passion and the wicked one suggest? The Creator has taken the creature to Himself; and you do not endure it that He should release from labors
A and anxieties that spring up everywhere in life; and you are vexed that she should rise up; and you lament such grace? He grants immortality, and you, as though she no longer existed, fall into wailing! And where are these things worthy of your virtue? But let us recover ourselves; let us recognize our nature; let us recognize the Creator; let us consider the abyss of the Master's love for mankind. He gave death as a corrective measure, but by His own death He fashioned it into a gate of immortality. It was a decree of wrath and indignation, yet it reveals the supreme goodness of the Judge; but this understanding transcends the paths of human reasoning. For He dissolves by death the nature that had been shattered by the ancestral transgression, but this dissolution becomes the prelude to our recreation. He separates the soul from the body, and this separation is found to be the beginning of a brighter and more divine union. For it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. B The Creator takes up the handiwork of His own hands, draws it to Himself, separates it from human eyes, but settles it under the lightning and radiance of the angels. Where are lamentations in this, where are tears? How far is mourning removed from these things! Revolving these things and keeping them in your meditation, and before all these things taking this into your memory—that from infancy you were attached to God, and were joined to the incorruptible and immortal Bridegroom, Christ, having renounced parents and brothers and every kinship, and having pledged your whole life and existence to Him alone—do not insult your profession with wailings, nor darken that grace with mourning, nor exchange the joy of the angels then for your present gloom. For if, when they now rejoice in receiving a virginal soul, superior to human passions, to fill the place and state of the demons who fell from it, you should turn this into a pretext for sorrow, see whether you are not wickedly insulting your former righteous deeds by these later ones. C No one who is burning with love for the Bridegroom abandons her desire to become devoted to mourning. And forgetting that she embraces Him, she looks around at deaths and investigates them curiously, and is vehemently afflicted by them, drowning her desire in passion and handing over her joy, bound in chains, to sorrow. If, indeed, the one who had passed away—or rather, if she had been one of those who lived carelessly and not piously—perhaps there might have been some excuse for groaning and tears; although our Lord and Savior, the fountain of love for mankind, did not set a law even in regard to them that those choosing to follow Him should turn back. "Leave," He said, "the dead to bury their own dead; but do you follow Me." Since, however, that virginal and blessed vessel was among those who lived piously and in a manner pleasing to God, and who kept their faith pure towards Him, how can we not stand in awe of the Master’s voice? How can we not find in it the complete dissolution of all gloom? D "He who believes in Me, even if he die, shall live"; by death
he has found immortal life; through dissolution he has gained the indissoluble tabernacle. Again, the common Savior of men and Bridegroom of those who are saved said: "Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?" Do you hear what He says? Do not condemn yourself, through your mourning, to a separation from such a Bridegroom, nor pass a sentence against yourself which, if another dared to bring against you, you would not have endured the insult, but would have declared him an enemy, a foe, and every kind of evil person. Do not, by mourning that glory which she now enjoys, make yourself worthy of mourning. "They cannot mourn, who are with the bridegroom." What is more terrible than this voice, or rather, this divine testimony? Do you mourn? You have departed from the Bridegroom. Do you lament? You insult the bridal chamber. You act like the many and the vulgar; you fall out of the nuptial chamber. But let us no longer mourn as dead one who lives in God; nor, by those things through which B we think we show her affection, let us dishonor her even more. Mourning is an insult to those who dwell in the heavenly bridal chamber; and tears are a reproach to their blessed state, for those who doubt their fruition, who doubt the resurrection—to say nothing of those who deny it. Consider all these things, and having looked upon them with a sober judgment, cast away mourning, put off the passion, the sighs, and the tears. You will accomplish this by attending to the things we have mentioned, and above all, if you withdraw yourself completely from all other things, and turn yourself entirely to that blessed and ever-enduring love of Christ, that most pure and immaculate Bridegroom, C and do not cease, thus turned, to yearn for Him.
FRANCISCO SCORSO'S ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING EPISTLE. (From the preface to the works of Theophanes Kerameus). "I possess among my records, collected by Father Octavio Caetano, an epistle of Photius sent to Theophanes the monk, written in Greek by the hand of Father Jacques Sirmond and translated into Latin by him, obtained, as I judge, from the library of Cardinal Sirletti, now of the Duke of Altemps."
EPISTLE CII. To Theophanes the monk. D (Published by Francisco Scorso in the Preface to the Works of Theophanes Kerameus, folio, Paris, 1644).
If the letters of our humility please you, receive them again, most desired one, which indeed possess nothing of elegance or eloquence, as you kindly say; but they are without doubt a symbol of charity; and as much as the exchange of letters has been, to that extent should the affection of charity increase. What could be more important than this? But let this now rest in
A this place. Let our discourse proceed to what follows. What is this that I hear has been innovated among you? And who are these newly-appearing dragons, like a Charybdis, swallowing up souls that are not firmly established in the word of truth? You, indeed, did not name them; but we, even before your letter signified it, had vehemently lamented, on account of a single heretical man, or rather one who is in truth a blasphemer against God, who has obtained the office of chartulary there from the Emperor, saying this, that the destruction of most celebrated Sicily has come to pass. This bane is not something concocted from dogmatic learning—for that block of a man is ignorant—but one filled with an impious mindset, and, to speak more truly, one born earlier for impiety, and indeed together with two other kinswomen of his. But the Trinity will put these to flight with divine mouths, through both you and others who defend the truth there. B But let not the heresy that still rages trouble you and those like you in the least. For the evil has not yet been cast out and crushed, nor has the love of the faithful toward God yet been sufficiently proven; and, thirdly, we cannot enter into the abyss of the judgments of God, as to the ways in which He permits His people to be shaken even now by the tempest of unbelief.
Moreover, the conclusion of the discourse is that the elect might become manifest, as Paul, the steward of wisdom, has said. Wherefore we exhort and beseech you not to grow weary, and not to cease from refuting your adversaries out of the inner storehouses of your heart, bringing forth divine teachings and demonstrating clearly from this that Christ is not Christ unless He is circumscribed according to our form. For if He became flesh, then surely He must be circumscribed as flesh. But that which is not circumscribed is not within humanity, but is undoubtedly outside both place and time; it is God naked, whom we speak of and conceive as of incomprehensible and unlimited nature. And it is logically necessary from this, for the sure demonstration of the truth and natural sequence, that Christ be circumscribed and worshipped in an image, since the archetype is manifested in it, just as the God-speaking Dionysius says, and elsewhere, one in the other, except for the difference of substance. C So that he who denies that Christ can be depicted has denied that He became a man. And he who does not worship His image does not worship Him at all, even if he thinks that he is worshiping; for the holy word says: "The faithless confess that they know God, but in their deeds they deny Him." I have indicated these things not as though to you, in your reverence, you were ignorant, but as to one who holds the same opinion, and as if drawing up a drop from a sea of dogmas—when besides there are infinite opinions of the Fathers, together with ancient history—from the very starting point of the evangelical preaching, for the confirmation of our immaculate Christian faith. D
THIRD BOOK OF THE LETTERS OF PHOTIUS. LETTERS TO LAY OFFICIALS AND SECULAR MAGISTRATES.
LETTER I. To John the spatharios and the duke of Philoponesus.
A "Against the stream," as the proverb says, current affairs seem to be flowing: for John, that once-praised, good man, is suddenly not what he was before (for I still have religious scruples about saying otherwise); he is not what he has been, nor what I had wished him to remain, but though he is at this age and approaching the sunset of his life, he has changed. Fine things have flowed away, virtue is dead, and friendship is hidden in the tomb of oblivion; and that friend is not one who speaks from his whole heart and remains loving and guileless throughout the course of his life, but one who, with a deceitful and fickle mind, converses pleasantly and cheerfully in one’s presence and to one’s face, but when he is out of sight, stirs up all sorts of waves by threatening evil. B
LETTER II. To Sergius the Master and Drome Logothete.
We do not consider the things you said to be spoken against us, as you write, but for our benefit; and therefore there was no need to ask for forgiveness for your words. For if what you brought forward is true, you have done me a favor, and not an injury, by undertaking a rebuke of my faults, from which correction is accustomed to result; but if you have brought forward falsehoods, you have benefited me even more, by having accused me falsely; for you have made us pay closer attention and be on our guard, not only so that we may abstain from those deeds which you mentioned, but also so that we may hasten to depart as far as possible from wicked thoughts; for a retribution is stored up by heaven for those who have uttered impious words with the intention of lying. Do not, therefore, blush for your words; so far are we from blaming you for them that we even hold you in gratitude, having recorded them in writing. C
LETTER III. To Basil, patrician and prefect of the city.
Virtue has flowed away, its grace has departed, impiety holds sway, and falsehood grows with budding wings, while the wings and blossoms of truth fall away. From whence, then, has this great Iliad of evils grown strong? It is because, they say, you are in power, and those who are much more worthy to command you are compelled to endure and draw your heavy yoke; and that is a moderate wickedness for them, which does not cut off their life entirely. This is why the city swarms with thieves and executioners everywhere. I, for one, do not proclaim these things about you; but he who in the present time performs those deeds that are celebrated by the mouths and ears of all, he is the one (even if I should remain silent) who is worthy of such titles. But you, if you are doing what they report, hold the action itself in hatred, and be ashamed of the deeds performed, rather than of those who name them. D
For there is no other way to name actions than by their proper names. And for the one who is distressed by these designations, the fleeing of the actions themselves is a much higher priority. But if they are pouring falsehoods upon you, hasten, just as you fled the action, to flee also being found in the vicinity of the action. For the one deserves punishment, the other is not worthy of praise; and fire does not merely harm those who grasp it, but the smoke also stings and darkens the eyes of those who are not standing far from the fire. A
EPIST. IV. To Sergio the Magister and Logothete.
B From enemies come plots, and insults, and pitfalls; from friends comes the duty to defend, and to risk danger, and to restrain the oppressors, as much as one is able. A moderate man, therefore, among enemies is he who keeps himself free from the aforementioned things, and is neither a slanderer, nor deceitful, nor a contriver of plots. And miserable is that friend (if he is to be called a friend at all) who neither defends, nor hazards danger for his friend, nor hastens to restrain those who have set their minds to attack him. For this is what even a moderate man will do among his enemies (as I said). Consider, therefore, in what you say on your own behalf, to which group you assign yourself. "I have not insulted, nor have I been among those who disparage," you will say, "nor have I woven plots against you." I myself, if I were not afraid of being burdensome, would have asserted that even this was not done for the sake of your own ambition and purpose—but because you do not even possess the materials from which these things could be fashioned, not too unseemly and ridiculously, against you. CEPIST. V. To Elias the Protospatharios.
You asked; I conceded; it is done. Give thanks, therefore, to God, the giver and cause of all good things, for being freed from the payment of the most burdensome tax.EPIST. VI. To Theophylactus the Patrician and Strategos of the Armeniacs.
There are three things I know to hate, and I exhort others to hate them in like manner: falsehood, deceit, and the destruction of love. I would be guilty of these three things if I were to ever propose to state anything differently than how it was done and is understood in my heart. I won you as a friend to myself, you being a friend of God, in as much as I could grasp with my pious thoughts; and a faithful friend to our Christ-loving emperors. Nor—because I was convinced of it—did I count you to be otherwise disposed toward us; I was indeed firmly convinced of it then, and, indeed, I am even now D affected in the same way. Why, therefore, am I pleasing and acceptable to your slanderers? I am ashamed to say how I descended to accusing you; for it is not bearable for me even to acquit myself of such a suspicion; but he is an enemy, he is—A a slanderer, that man is altogether evil, who has devised such a great fabrication, and who has striven to render you destitute of friends, and who, having thought to assign us to the furthest region of evildoers, to be a ruler of the unjust—not with his hands, but with his mind (for he is the cause of many evils, while he insults with his hands)—to prize hatred above love, and to hold treachery as a means of escape. At the same time, he brings everything to bear against us (for these things coincide in that person with his desire to do some evil to his friends, which he speaks of), and he who earns laughter from those who know us and our character—nevertheless, he did not fail to have the audacity. Whatever this person may be, free yourself from him; for thus you would be rid of an evil beast, and one who secretly damages and bites both you and your friends, and who, under the pretext of goodwill, stirs up manifold enmities. But if you hide him, I, as if in the sight of God, have given my apology, that I believe and profess you to be a friend of ours, devoted to God and to the most pious emperors, both long ago and now; and this we believe and proclaim. But that evil man, know well, will not lack the wickedness by which he will make your affairs worse. I, for my part, would advise you not to hide the common enemy; and if you disbelieve what I have written, I well know that you will hide him, for you will consider him a friend, and me as babbling at length and talking folly in vain. But if you triumph, you have believed what I prayed for, and it will be to the benefit of both.
EP. VII. To Pantoleon the Protospatharios.
C As you verge toward the sunset of your life, you propel yourself into the insolent audacities of those over whom blood boils. Or rather, to speak more truly, you show the deeds of robbers to be milder. For you spend whole days and entire nights in butchering men, and you do not omit even the slightest amount of time to wickedly boast of the punishments of those whom you hold for punishment. Perhaps you are ambitious to enter into a contest with some Phalaris, or Dionysius, or those who have a more famous name for barbarous cruelty. And you do not deem life to be worth living if you merely make yourself their equal, unless you surpass them by many parasangs. But indeed, a boy enters into competition with men. For without those things which were otherwise magnificently performed by those tyrants, tyranny does not seem to you to be tyranny, although you have strained with all your might to achieve this, and the time for perpetrating similar things is not far off. The laws, indeed, by whose benefit D commonwealths live, are not yet dead, nor will the eye of justice tolerate these things for much longer. For since those thieves who commit brigandage in the mountains suffer a punishment worthy of their merits, it is not just that those who operate with much more impudence in the cities by means of homicides, although they have acted more wickedly, should live more tranquilly.
A
EP. VIII. TO LEON THE SPATHARIOS, SURNAMED DRAKON
Many wolves in spirit have come to us, wearing the fleece of sheep, and covering their inner wickedness with an outward appearance. But most of these escaped notice only for a short time; for time exposed their artifice, and showed that the wrapping of the hide was not only devised to no purpose, but—which they least desired—actually revealed the double iniquity present in them: that which was being hidden, and that which was hiding it. Your magnificence, as it seems, having long pondered and artfully constructed this, prudently concealed the beast, and you did not cast off the hide until you fell upon a lamb; having seized it, you stripped it off and declared yourself a beast. And you tore to pieces what was offered, as far as pertained to your part, to such an extent that not even the most savage beasts would devour in public. Nevertheless, we rejoice in this: that the hidden wickedness B occupied us before we girded ourselves to punish a merely suspected malice; for while suspicion may often stray in many things, it is not so in the smallest; and if this has escaped notice, it will not, in the end, escape punishment. I write these things, not that you may be converted (for you will be converted even if you are unwilling), but that you may clearly understand that you did not escape our notice from the beginning, but that you have experienced our mercy as a collaborator. For the rest, I pray that you may be well in soul rather than in body, and that by repentance you may wipe away the imprinted stigmata, and that you may put off, not the sheep, but the beast completely, so that you may not be called to account or to render an reckoning, neither in this age nor in the future.
EP. IX. TO JOHN THE SPATHARIOS, CHRYSOCHERES
We did not write that you might marvel, but that you might be strengthened in those things in which you were wavering. If, however, you offer admiration as a pledge of your being strengthened, I gladly accept it. For we do not bring forth what we say of ourselves, but from those sources from which we have drawn from the life-giving fountain; which promises to pour forth in abundance the waters of salvation to those who approach with the thirst of faith. C
EP. X. TO LEON, FORMER LOGOTHETE, MADIAM
It is indeed a blessing to have friends in the time of temptations, and those who provide the useful need of friendship. But those who do not appear as such are not useless to the one who has loved them; rather, in as much as they have fallen short of friendship, by so much do they demonstrate that the virtue of the one who loved is highly admirable, in that he loved even such as these nonetheless. D
VARIÆ LECTIONES.
A Yet even as they were thus, he loved them, and did not perform everything with a view to recompense; rather, he knew how to love also gratuitously, and to imitate the Father who is in heaven, by whom even enemies were not turned away. You could not, therefore, yourself break our law of love, even if you should appear ungrateful, as report has it, and a traitor to friendship. For even through the very things by which you act ungratefully, we have—as you can see—procured for ourselves opportunities whereby, not even so shall we be led to hate you. But you, consider the opinion men have regarding you; or rather, before that, consider your own conscience and the judgment that will one day come from thence.
EPISTLE XI.
To Alexander the Count.
Alexander the Macedonian, who raised the kingdom of Macedon to the heights of power, seemed on that day to have abdicated his rule, on which he showed that he had benefited no one. Such a thing very rarely happened to him, inasmuch as he applied every effort toward benefiting men. But if it did happen at times that he performed no such service, he would say with sorrow: "Today I have not reigned." And he was indeed a pagan, and a king among pagans, and a man drunk with pleasure, luxury, and success, who had made gods similar to himself the overseers of his actions. But you are a Christian, living among Christians, and—inasmuch as you act according to the laws—existing with imperial authority, yet you are frequently overwhelmed by the tossing waves of life's course, even amidst sacred services themselves, and among priests, and that while you do not deny that you honor temperance and virtue, and while you hold that one cannot deceive that one true God who is the overseer of all actions. B What follows from this, I am loath to say. This, however, I affirm: that there is no one among those subject to your rule who, instead of some benefit or kindness that he might wish to acknowledge, does not lament unheard-of punishments inflicted or unexpected loss brought upon him. One man laments and recounts one notable wicked deed of your right hand, worthy of a tragic stage; but whereas Alexander once said with sorrow, "Today I have not reigned," you, as it seems, will not let a day pass by you in which you would not have the courage to say, "Today I have not acted the tyrant."
EPISTLE XII.
To Basil the Quaestor.
If, when you judged those contending with one another, you used the standard of justice, the pallor of gold would not cause you to blush with greater shame than the people who offer it to you. C
EPISTLE XIII.
To John the Patrician and Sacellarius.
You are worthy of noble proclamation of praise for the things that you do among upright and honest men. Nor should you be unaware that…
by how much the glory in these things is high and admirable, by so much does it require care and diligence to be preserved and kept intact. For many are the weapons hurled against those who flourish in good repute by the snares of the demons; nor are men who pour out the virus of their envy, excited by a certain itch, much inferior to them. But you, yielding nothing in the course of virtue, and girding yourself for the same conflicts you have already faced with a moderate and humble disposition of spirit, have rendered those weapons vain; and, moreover, you have brought those who hurled them into a state of extreme desperation and shame; and you have seen to it that the envy was retorted upon its very authors with greater bitterness. You will demonstrate that the fable A told of the viper holds true among them; for you will show that it is by no means others, but their very parents, that they devour and destroy—so fine a progeny is envy. You, however, for this reason consider yourself worthy of a more illustrious proclamation and publication.
EPISTLE XIV
To John, Patrician and Sacellarius, regarding the Angurii.
There are those who compare you to Attis, calling you a Gallus: these are the Greek sophists. Our own sharper-witted men, who also know the "Androgynous" and so name it, declare that you should be confined to the women’s quarters. Whence, then, did it happen that, leaping over the boundaries on both sides, you have thrust yourself into the sacred mysteries of the Church of God, turning everything upside down? And you seek to plant that which is barren and useless in your own corrupt nature into the most fruitful and prolific Church of Christ, with great impudence. But you ought to understand most clearly that, by the things you do most impudently, you have openly declared that you belong to hell and the gates of hell. That you are, furthermore, weaker than those gates, we—and with us the countless and holy flock of Christ—make manifest, though it be to our own grief. But C when Christ, who is Truth itself, has confirmed to us that that architect of all evils, together with his own gates (of which you are perhaps one, having surrendered to him your entire mouth, tongue, and voice), and all his army, are powerless and effect nothing against the Church, how long will you not desist, being uninstructed, and continue to hurl the weapons of your folly into the heavens with such great insensibility? By which you stir up laughter and mockery among the demons who assist you, while causing grief to the saints at your destruction; and you make your own kind now more than ever before an object of hatred, detestation, and ill-fame for its wickedness.
EPISTLE XV
To Anastasius, the tax collector.
There is no passage open to you through the door into the kingdom, because the love of money has blocked it against you. That D
A wall of partition, however, if you pull it down through love for the poor, the dwelling place destined for alms will receive you all the more quickly.
EPISTLE XVI To the same. Money-grasping and humanity do not know how to associate with one another. A merciful man is far removed from the hatred of brothers, which is what the wealthy suffer from. For this reason, a great chasm is fixed between hell and the kingdom.
EPISTLE XVII To the same. B You are emptying out your wealth, and I rejoice greatly because I see the kingdom of heaven being built up for you. But may those passions which formerly possessed your wealth also be emptied out in you, so that not only may the royal bridal chamber be yours, but the bridegroom himself may also come forth beautifully adorned.
EPISTLE XVIII To Galaton, the secretary.
The lie of your noble friend is, I think, an archetype, and not one constructed in imitation of others. For he could not be persuaded that he ought to be compared to the poets, even those most fond of fiction—not to mention comic or tragic poets; and much less to those who have set forth the deeds of heroes in the corresponding meter [i.e., the heroic, or dactylic hexameter]. But since he surpasses all poets in extemporaneous inventions, and does so with a supercilious air, there is need, if some historian or prose writer is to be brought to mind, of setting against him some strenuous weaver of lies, so that they may enter into a great and doubtful contest. Who, then, will this person be? Certainly he will not deign to dwell among Greeks, nor yet among barbarians. But it is necessary that you search out a land unknown to men, or rather one that exists nowhere at all, and some nameless race; and from there let a stranger arrive, and with a certain terrifying C loftiness, as an expositor of secrets, let him preside over the telling of fables. Perhaps, when you were attending the schools of the disciplines as a boy or a youth, you heard of some Timocles, or rather Clonthaconthlon the Ophician (for, as it seems, we must also invent monstrous names), who invented the nature, the polity, the battles, the victories, the life-spans, the ages, and the happiness of those Ophicians of his—not of humans only, but also of plants, of animals, of the sea, of the earth, and of the air—and who lied hyperbolically and pursued his narrative prodigiously. Certainly, if that noble friend of yours were to descend into a contest of lying with that man, he would plunge the judges and the distributors of prizes for such contests into the greatest difficulty as to which of the two they should adjudge the winner. Therefore, let the wide-open grave of lies (for it is better both to depict it from true wisdom and to brand it
A it publicly, that miserable man) be kept as far away from you as possible, together with the stench exhaled by it. For if we are commanded to spare neither a right eye nor a hand (which the right hand of friends can be understood to be—those who are able partly to see what is to our advantage, and partly to cooperate and be eager to assist in all things which are useful for life, even where there is danger of being carried away into vices), what do you think ought to be done with one that is putrefied, and not just now, but always useless, having been cut off long ago, and never having been a member, but one that wounded many of the members from the very beginning?
EPIST. XIX. To John the Spatharios.
B It is best to be placed beyond all suspicion of evil. But if that does not happen, it is best to be suspected and examined, yet found not guilty. But the man who has undergone judgment and has been found guilty, even if he does not yet pay another penalty, has in any case already paid the most grievous one, namely, that he has been found to be a wicked man, and is considered worthy of being subjected to punishment. Act, therefore—since it is no longer easy for you to dispel the suspicion—not so that you may not pay the penalty, but so that you may not be convicted of having justly deserved it.
EPIST. XX. To Michael the Patrician and Sacellarius.
C If you love, you are acting unjustly; if you do not love, you are acting even more unjustly. The former holds because you neglect those you love when they are in calamities; the latter, because you do not love even those who love you. Thus, that man who was once yours, and is now also our common friend, partly by lovingly rebuking you, and partly by using me as an advocate and intercessor, declares and protests this by the testimony given.
EPIST. XXI. To Arsenios the Monk.
D Many who lived with fame among the Greeks, and those among us who flourished with the praise of virtue, bore witness through their deeds that virtue is an impregnable and most useful thing. And if the present time almost cries out with a loud voice that there is nothing weaker and more dangerous than it (for every virtue is lamented and pelted with mud, while every wickedness is admired and embraced), do not be surprised. For virtue is truly—and this is the very flower of the first virtue—to embrace it even when it is involved in dangers and afflictions and is surpassed by wickedness. But the time, in crying out the opposite, clearly exposes the excess of its own depravity and madness; and as for the serious, it proclaims their admirable and unconquerable nature more clearly than any argument.
A
EP. XXII. To John, patrician and Duke of Greece.
If you love, you are weak; if you do not love, you are unjust. If you love and are not weak, you certainly neglect your friends when they are suffering injustice. I, for my part, pray that you may neither fall into such calamities and necessities, nor—should you fall into them and require it—fail to obtain the same good-will and assistance that you provide to your friends. But do you, at any rate, call to mind the oracle of the Lord, which declares: *With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.*
EP. XXIII. To Bardas, patrician and Duke of Macedonia.
Rule with affection and desire from others rather than through fear; for it is impossible that such fear should not turn to hatred, whereas the former seeks out the good-will of subjects by every path. The difference between the two is evident in every necessary action and encounter. But if the opinion that something humble, abject, and contemptible might spring from this enters your thoughts and makes you more reluctant to adopt this counsel, oppose it instead with your established and stable character, your determined judgment, and your refusal to pay heed to flatterers and jesters, setting against them a dignified composure. Furthermore, know that those subject to your command will prefer a gentle sense of shame to a military cloak, and that you will appear to them more illustrious when clothed in the former. By this allure, you will lead those subject to you wherever you wish, much more effectively and with more constant duration than those who, because of an arrogant brow and harshness of character, assume great airs for themselves. B
EP. XXIV. To John, patrician and sacellarius among the Angurii.
It seems to me that the saying handed down from of old is truly correct and wise: that many have indeed climbed that tree which is called tyranny, but no one has climbed down again; rather, they all fall headlong. If this is so, why do you yourself swell up and exult, when you have not yet climbed onto the branches of this tree—burdensome and tumid as you are—but are foolishly riding upon its very leaves?
EP. XXV. To Tarasius, my brother.
The passion reached its height, and the evil is intensified. Apart from God and the hope that comes from Him, there is no consolation left; plots, threats, and terrors—which have made experience easier—appear on every side. Who shall put an end to these things? Perhaps that very death which they are bringing forth for us will either deprive them of the power to inflict punishments, or it will deliver us from our tribulations. D
LETTER XXVI
A To John the spatharios. You have not caused me pain because you cheated me—and the time is long enough since you have been concealing a serpent lurking under a human form—but because you have shown yourself wicked and an enemy to your friends, serving the times and leaning upon deceit. And if this action does not show you to be wicked, and did not draw you into a zeal for the traitor, to repay a benefactor with evils, know well that even if you have felt glad from our sufferings, for which we are being purified, you yourself will reap something of the good things.LETTER XXVII
B To Constantine the spatharios, who is of Tyrrhenian descent and of perverted morals. The ancient saying concerning the public works of the Tyrrhenians, and those for which they boast, is that performances take place not even among the most profligate of other men without shame. Consider, therefore, how, as you now live in the city of Constantine, you must live in the best manner. For if the citizens perceive you, even in a small way, deviating from the path of right living, seeing the Tyrrhenian smoke, they will suspect even the fire—even if you have not kindled it—of rising into a great flame. You must diligently beware of this, and strive both to be and to appear blameless to all, as the divine oracles command.LETTER XXVIII
C To Leo, who had been a logothete and became a monk, and was afflicted with sorrow by a supposed friend. A man who is sluggish in character, soft towards labors, inconsistent in judgment, mastered by bribes, and a slave to pleasure, would neither accomplish anything noble and good, nor would he turn out to be a great evil. But those who are quick by nature, energetic in enduring all things, contemptuous of wealth and pleasures, and unyielding in carrying out their judgment—if some power is added to them from somewhere, their inclination may result in the greatest good; yet when they incline toward what is base, they become unbearable and inexorable to their friends, their kin, and to everyone. D Therefore, one should not be distressed that we do not always reap the best things from a formerly noble friend, but rather give thanks: not only because we bring back nothing sad, but rather because nothing proceeds from him that is to be numbered among the most sad and troublesome things. But if he should ever turn back, and return to the virtues that are akin to friendship, it may be that the good things that delight us hereafter will cause all those evils and sorrows by which we were previously occupied to vanish.LETTER XXIX
To Basil the praetor. The ancient stories tell that Prometheus’s liver was consumed by an eagle that tore at it; the reason rendered is that, by stealing fire from heaven, he brought upon men the causes of toils and labors. But if the poets were to take youA who have kindled such a pyre of evils against your fatherland, they would not merely rouse against you the kinds of eagles, kites, and hawks to devour your entrails, but they would not cease to set loose leopards, lions, and every manner of beast against your inward parts. But do you consider that, even if the race of poets has run out of ways to fashion such things, the exactness of Christian truth has not failed, threatening a more formidable punishment: unquenchable fire, outer darkness, the gnashing of teeth, and the multitude of worms that it strews beneath sinners. And if the fear of things to come does not yet restrain you in the present, nor turn you back from your disordered and irrational course, then let at least the irremediable suffering of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is handed down in writing, and that common shipwreck of all mankind, the Flood, and the daily works of Providence, reform your soul and your B thoughts toward a sober and wise contemplation.
EPIS. XXX. To Michael, Protospatharios.
The body is afflicted with diseases; the soul with passions; and the entire life is worn out by the insults of men. The quiet of friends is gone; the servants are tortured and bound; kinsmen are divided by the bitterness of threats; there is a removal of necessary things, the looting of books, and the ransacking of sacred houses which we had established as places of expiation, where the chanting was sung, where it was read, and where service to divine things was performed. Hard judgments and harsh decrees have been issued against everyone C generally, so that no one dares to approach us. What need is there to recount the daily inquiries, decisions, and condemnations, in which no witness appears, no judge is present at the tribunal, and no accuser—I will not say against me, but against my friends, my kinsmen, and all my servants—whom the thought of me does not drive them to neglect? But if at last they have ceased their searching of inquiries, it does not happen because of their own will, or because of any virtue of mine, but it comes from the exalted and profound mercy of God, upon which alone we depend and under which we are sustained in life. Being exhausted by such great and many waves of this kind, and in place of kinsmen, friends, servants, and those chanting D the Psalms—in place of all human consolation—what do we have? Soldiers, a guard of tribunes, vicars, and military companies surround us. Therefore, how it is that the soul, being divided by so many scythes of evils, is not snatched away from the body and does not flee, this truly moves me to the greatest bewilderment.
EPIST. XXXI. To John the Patrician and Sacellarius, among the Angurians.
I, for my part, would wish to join to myself a friend, through whom neither any haughty and exalted grace
A be imparted, nor one from whom I might fear that something should be blown upon me from the opposite side, whereby my affairs might be overturned, and those things drawn upon me which I did not even imagine in my dreams. Whence, then, did I fall into this intention? Your actions, you who once loved me, have led me to this. B
EPIST. XXXII. To Baanes, Praepositus and Patrician.
Joseph was once a secret friend and a nocturnal disciple of my Lord and God. But afterwards, having broken the bonds of timidity, he conducted himself more ardently and boldly than those who professed their love openly; and he took down from the wood the Lord’s body, which was hanging in ignominy, and tended to it in whatever way he could. How long, therefore, will you also love me only by night, and not become a son of light and day, so as to utter a voice worthy of the boldness of Joseph? Nor will you merely take a body down from the wood, but rather rescue me from a thousand modes of temptation, of afflictions, of miseries, and from a bitter and daily death. But if friendship with the world and affection towards it do not allow you, in vain have you thought of Joseph as a refuge and an example, and bring him forward as an instance and a model.EPIST. XXXIII. To John the Patrician, and Strategos of Hellas.
Eunomus the Locrian, they say, was renowned for his singing. For thus he used to charm and enchant his listeners. But when one of his strings once snapped, a cicada, having alighted upon the yoke of the cithara, took the place of the broken string, and it was possible for Eunomus to sing again, just as before, in tune. C If, however, you, in place of the cicada and a foreign melody, would mend the string of your friendship with me, which has for I know not what reason snapped, and tighten it, it is possible that our life, brought back to its former integrity, might compose an excellent harmony, and instead of the present tragedy, might strike up a tune of some happiness, which would be sweet and full of delight. And for those who come after, not Eunomus the citharode, or a music-making cicada, a creation of ancient myth, but a high priest of God and a godly friend, both good and sufficient, will serve as a true example and proverb. DEPIST. XXXIV. To Leontius and Galaton, brothers and asecretis.
If you have set aside your preparations for contention, then even now—since you did not do so before—fulfill my instructions and correct the book. For those who take it into their hands will see that it is teeming more with errors than with letters. But if you labor at this conscientiously, you will obtain forgiveness for your previous neglect and oversight; and do not obtain anything further than forgiveness, for, according to right reason, indulgence will be granted to you.EPISTLE XXXV. To Damianus the host.
A There came to me yesterday, just as the lamps were being lit (his distress seemed all the more urgent from the untimeliness of his approach), a needy man, weeping and testifying to his misfortune with a cry loud enough to soften and move even the souls of wild beasts. A tattered tunic covered his life; his face bore the marks of blows from the fists of men, which, more than anything else, beckoned all who saw him to pity and lamentation; to me, more so, because I knew that the sufferings of this poor man were the work of acquaintances. But when I discovered the cause for which he had suffered these unbearable things—that he had paid this penalty in his body because he was unwilling to surrender to them silently and voluntarily the land which, though precarious, nevertheless fostered his hope of life—when this was added as the crowning blow to the rest, I stood utterly confounded, and my soul was afflicted no less than that of the poor man himself (for it is impossible to say 'more'), unless perhaps someone, seeing my grief over you and the wronged man, pronounces it double. Release the poor man, sir, from his calamity, return what you hold unjustly, and heal his wounds with the oil of beneficence. But if you hold the poor man in contempt, then at least erase my grief and my calamity, if not rather your own; for yours is greater than that of the poor man and my own, even if you do not yet, I think, have a full awareness of it.
EPISTLE XXXVI. To Michael, Protospatharios.
B The possession of education serves as the sturdiest staff of life for those in old age, and for one flourishing in the prime of youth, it leads him on to the season of virtue without sorrow. Therefore, imbue your children with wisdom and virtue, so that while still young they may exhibit mature conduct, and so that when they have grown old, they will not be in need of the help of others.
EPISTLE XXXVII. To Niketas, Protospatharios.
D You boast that you were born of noble parents; but I would rather bid you take pride if you were worthy of it through your own virtue, so that you yourself might stand as the founder of your lineage; for the wickedest of men can allege the former, but none save the best can say the latter.
EPISTLE XXXVIII. To Baanes, Praepositos and Patrician.
There was once among the Romans, but also among the Greeks (for why is there any need to mention Christians?), even against the greatest enemies—not to speak of those who had deserved well—a limit and an established measure for doing harm. Why, even the barbarians are accustomed not to exceed the laws of punishment.
they say that many wild beasts, as if out of awe and restraint, spare those who are lying in the most extreme affliction and do not manifest their ferocity toward the prostrate. But now, O most humane one, I am, among A other things, lying in a state of sickness; and my illness requires a physician; and thirty days have been drawn out for this sickness, and many have often requested of you [that you grant me] the presence of a physician. But O, the nature of men, and of Romans—wherever on earth you are—and of the Christian name! You were not moved to pity. Yet I am not even now persuaded to count you together with the barbarians or with wild beasts; but it concerns you to consider why you have devised against me, vile and abject as I am, these foreign punishments, new and never before seen under the sun; and what other appellation you might wish to devise, instead of the title of Christian, or Roman, or Greek, or barbarian—or even of beast—that would correspond to your actions. Know, however, that even if I succumb to my illness, I shall, in being extinguished, carry off a more splendid victory over you; for by receiving my violent death, I shall leave behind an indelible statue B against your sanguinary cruelty, serving in place of a column.
EPISTLE XXXIX.
To Theophilus the Praepositus.
To love those who hate us is a work of virtue, and a divine one; to love those who love us is human and common; but to hate even those who love us is, I think, not even the way of wild beasts. I have shown by my deeds that I love you, not just now, but also in the past, in other matters—for it is not my way, even as it is not to reproach, so it is not to count up favors—and also by writing, by addressing you, and by offering counsel on what is fitting. But if you yourself have hated those who love you, you have, as you see, raised me to a higher rank. You will find, however, what you C will not desire, and one who will treat you in the same way.
LETTER XL.
To Elias the Protospatharios.
Temptations become temptations to those who tempt; but to those who are not tempted, they are the cause of crowns and prizes.
EPISTLE XLI.
To Theophilus the Protospatharios.
You learn to know your friends very quickly, but you unlearn them D much more quickly; but farewell, and do not learn them quickly, nor forget them even more quickly; for the former is a sign of a fickle and overly hasty mind, and the latter is a sign of—not to say anything harsher—an unstable judgment; but when you stand before the tribunal of understanding regarding what must be done, remain firm in those things which you have seemed to learn.
EPISTLE XLII. To Theodotus, spatharocandidatus.
All human things flow away along with time and vanish; but virtue, like that which is inconsumable by fire, iron, and all things to which everything that is generated yields, thus also prevails over time and passions and death itself. If you look more sharply, it revives and flourishes even more through time and death, and it reassumes its own proper splendor and glory in a more admirable and illustrious manner as they pass away—envy having been extinguished for them. Why, therefore, are you so affected toward those things which in a little while will not be, as if they were to endure forever; while you disregard the eternal things, as though they were transient? Are you not, in the phrase of the poet, exchanging gold for bronze? For the sin is indeed small, because each is of a fluid and corruptible nature: but it is an exchange of the incorruptible for the corruptible, of wisdom for folly, of glory for disgrace, and of the kingdom of heaven for Gehenna.
EPISTLE XLIII. To John, patrician and sacellarius, at Angurii.
B It was my duty to face troubles willingly, but you have taught me to do so even unwillingly. And what more remains for you, than that you should be held convicted before the eyes and testimony of all, as you engineer many things even harsher against me, since through daily exercise I have been taught to endure them all with less pain?
EPISTLE XLIV. To Tarasius, patrician, my brother.
A friend has died to us according to the body; but you yourself would not deny that he has left behind a monument to his entire life: his virtue. Shall we, therefore, call anyone blessed at all, if we occupy ourselves with lamenting this man?
EPISTLE XLV. To Manuel, patrician.
D Perhaps you are more confident because of those words which, when I was conspicuously observed in your theater, were spoken by me: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them; for they do not know what they are doing." And that is why you do not cease breathing threats against me. But I, just as I was deemed worthy to offer that blessed prayer at that time, so too do I offer the same vow without ceasing even now. Know, however, O good man, that just as it is ordained for me to requite my revilers with such [prayers], so too is it required of you, since you are a human (not to say a Christian), to withdraw from cruelty, even if late and eventually. If you do not do so, I shall not, even then, cease to pray, so that I may not fall from my adoption from above (for this very thing has stirred me even now to admonish you). It is for you, then...
A to see (lest I wander too far from my prayer) that you may dispose all things for yourself thenceforth in the most convenient manner.
EP. XLVI: To John, Protospatharios and Drungarios of the Fleet.
Haud ita res dura est, si cæcus sit Plutus, It is B not so harsh a thing if Wealth be blind, as the comic Aristophanes brilliantly fashions him; but I consider it altogether intolerable if Justice herself sits blind, having no eyes with which she might look upon those afflicted by injury. But now, through you, endued with the magistracy, since she has been restored to her eyes, let her show Plutus to be not only blind, but also mute: let Justice, even in the cause of a poor man, render a greater sound than in the case of those who, because of gold, were accustomed to drive the sound of all-embracing justice away from this venerable and awe-inspiring tribunal.
EP. XLVII: To Tarasius, my brother.
What need is there to add further words regarding the matter about which I write? If you have seen the man, and have heeded the virtue of the man, I do not know whether I shall seem to have written for his sake because I recommended him by your own upright judgment, or rather to have done you a favor C in that I induced you to show yourself his benefactor—a man who is such and so great, and worthy of your own great humanity.
EP. XLVIII: To Basil, the Quaestor.
I know that at times justice and gold have contended in your soul; but I do not know whether it was because gold felt reverence for us, or because it honored your authority, which from the beginning of your magistracy you have honored by your aversion to accepting gifts. For I know many who have entered upon this path while hunting for greater gains; yet gold departed hence having the lesser part, and justice carried off a splendid victory. But now they say you do everything for money; and I am not persuaded. They say your hands are gold, your tongue is gold, and justice is gold. But just as I am not persuaded, so I also pray that the rumor might be false. The poor man who delivers this letter will show whether the rumor be false, or—which I would not wish—whether it be true.
EP. XLIX: To Alexander, Count.
If you had embraced the sentiment of King Alexander, you would not have fallen into the D insult of Alexander the smith. For he, indeed, would not entertain indiscriminate accusations even against his subjects, as it might happen; but while the accuser spoke, the other...
accused and were to be judged would find a tribunal pure from solitary railing and one not admitting to the tongue’s detractions. And he, not needing accusations, or despairing of being able to find any, showed himself, in place of tongue and hands, against those by whom he had been treated with the greatest benefits. But if the divine Paul, going before us, had not clearly foretold the punishment coming upon you through one who was like you in manner, I would certainly have denounced this same thing to you in these very words.
LETTER L.
To Tarasius the patrician, my brother.If you knew by experience the man for whom I write, you would not hold me B as an intercessor for him, but would use him as an advocate for many others; so much do I trust in your facility and goodness, and in his virtue and dexterity.
LETTER LI.
To Pantoleon the spatharios.An Egyptian woman there was, who was inflamed by a flame conceived from the burgeoning beauty of Joseph. But he, although a boy, was an Israelite, who declined all the approaches and accessions of wanton love. And he stripped Cupid not only of his arrows, with which myths arm him, and of his wings, and of his fire, and of other things with which fables adorn him; but he declared more manifestly that she possessed no substance at all, if men, baited by evil affections, did not embrace and cherish C her. But I fear for you, who are an Israelite according to grace, and have advanced to the very term of your life, lest a barbarian desire—and not that of love, but one possessing a bitter and turbulent lover—should secretly and gradually thrust you into extreme ruin, and lest your life's end be narrated in a way contrary to that of Joseph. An old man loves a barbarian harlot; she is deceived or cast off, but he made his love consist in this, until she, having become averse to the exhausted lover through satiety and importunity, cast him down, precipitating him together with herself into the deep abyss of perdition.
LETTER LII.
To Constantine the notary.Momus certainly (for as I see, alas, it is to be lamented that admonitions from the Divine Oracles are applied in vain at present) is D of a double and conflicting nature. For if he who hurls a calumny brings it forward joined with truth, he afflicts his convicted adversary with sorrow. But if he mendaciously attacks his neighbor, the calumny rebounds from him who is attacked and settles upon him who hurled it; and it turns against himself all those things which he had wickedly woven against the one who had given no room for just reproach. Do you, therefore, who heap calumnies upon him whom the champions of piety see as a genuine lover of virtue, consider what you are about to do; since
with great confidence and power, would turn the accusation back upon the one who unjustly made it, in order to preserve for him the immortal shame that is justly his due, and with good reason.
EPIS. LIII. To John the Patrician.
The friend for whom I intercede, as you have long known, is in danger of his life. But you, as one may see in his case, though he says nothing, stretch out a Lesbian hand. B If you yourself have never suffered such a plight, that is a great thing you say; but—be that as it may—because you have not suffered, you are all the more obligated to be a debtor in showing mercy. For it is naturally a fearful thing to foresee future evils, especially if you have observed those that are wont to befall men. It is not fitting for one who is discharging an embassy to rush headlong into a commemoration of evils, but rather, through affection and zeal for those who are sharers in the same nature, one ought to take precautions for the future. For it is the way of things that misfortunes gaze with more envy and more fiercely upon those who have long enjoyed good fortune than upon those whom they have more frequently struck. And I see nothing that contributes more to the averting of calamities from men than to have been a help to the afflicted. C If, being a man yourself, you have shared in human affairs, call to mind those things which at that time troubled you yourself, and twisted your inward parts, and consumed your life more painfully than death. For I myself remember—unless perhaps the magnitude of the evils has made me dream—that something of this sort (may it never happen again!) once invaded your own happiness: when the dry eye was opened to all things, the inborn moisture having been spent entirely through tears; when hands anticipated words and entreaties offered by the hands; when the face and countenance, cast down before the hands, summoned those who looked on to mercy in many ways—when confusion, dejection, and darkness took possession of you entirely; it is better to leave the rest in silence than to speak of what then befell you. D These very things, I pray (oh, may I never again see you suffering the same things!), recall to your mind temperately (for the memory of past sorrows is often useful); be a savior—just as you prayed might happen to you then (for it is not mine to say what you found)—to him who has now fallen into similar calamities. For know well that you would thereby have paid your debt to me, and you will find the one who is helped a debtor without excuse in whatever you may wish. It is good and useful in life to have many debtors, and to possess those who are grateful for favors.
EPISTLE LIV. To Marianus, Patrician and Domestic of the Schools.
A If anyone has ever prayed to encounter in life such an opportunity whereby he might at once perfect the works of both friendship and justice, he could find none better than the one I now propose to you. The person suffering the injury, on whose behalf I intercede, is not yet known to you; but he possesses a clear right. The one against whom the suit is brought is both a friend to you and poor, and perhaps he is inclined to commit injustice not out of wickedness, but from poverty. You are a judge, a man of good character, and—no less than these—disposed to render both virtues illustrious. You have God, who keeps you in the abundance of wealth; and He will not only keep you, but, as one who is not accustomed to betray the truth, He will increase those riches even more abundantly for you because of your acts of mercy. How might one assist a friend in danger according to the laws of true love? And how might another, becoming an eye of justice for the one who has suffered B injury, extend an auxiliary hand—doing as you have done and proceeding rightly, as we hope (for hope makes me look upon the future as if it were present)—so that by compensating the injured party for his injury, and by freeing the friend from the debt of collection, you settle the matter at home? Observe how this act, to which I exhort you, being a single thing yet representing these two virtues, bears witness to both a wealth of love and an invincible strength of justice. C Its beauty, shining forth in you, will be heralded most famously throughout your whole life, so that it presents you as an archetype and a model worthy of imitation by those who love virtue. Greatest of all, and the head of all the goods that could be named or conceived, is this: that this act will open the heavenly gates for you to enter that pure and blessed bridal chamber of divine and eternal enjoyment, escorting you with great radiance—a radiance of which, how might I myself ever be deemed worthy?
EPISTLE LV. To the same.
You have shown, O most consummate man, how much you honor both friendship and justice, especially when so many generations have passed by in which we have not seen a single sincere act of either. I, for my part, rejoice in the speed and the greatness of this achievement so well performed; and I shall not cease to rejoice with exultation, because before I even ventured by letter to see if I might be bothersome to you, you deigned to grant me so much in the present. D I am so uplifted and carried away by the promptness of your excellent will, and I am so heightened by this truly admirable act—offered without any excuse—that I fear I may provide you with many more such opportunities, through which I shall multiply my own gratitude and render your virtue even more illustrious; and for the reason that I may appear bothersome, I fear lest I be thought, in your own judgment (which is the heaviest matter), to be too sparing of you, which would be grievous to me. But farewell in the Lord, and may you, even in His sight, find many such actions and acquire glory for yourself throughout the course of your life, without my needing to put the matter to the test.
A
EPISTLE LVI. To Theophilus, Aspatharios and Sacellarios.
To initiate an action against injustice is human; not to take revenge is philosophical; but to repay with benefits is already divine, and makes men of earth imitators of the Father who is in heaven. However, to lay violent hands [upon another] unprovoked, since it has no place among the previously mentioned virtues, surely manifests the action of beasts or demons, even if the actor is clothed in a human form. Since there are four characters of action, examine yourself and adapt to your present action the appropriate type; and having contemplated it, you will see—even if another does not point it out to you (alas, for the most shameful of spectacles!)—whose image you have carved for yourself through your own deeds. B
EPISTLE LVII. To Elias, Aspatharios and Drungarios of the Fleet.
One of the sages of Greece might say: "Speed belongs to fortune alone." I would say that if it does not proceed from a divine impulse or the necessity of the times, speed is ill-considered. Therefore, one must reflect upon that which is pressing and not entrust action to rashness. For if it should turn out to be to one’s advantage, just as you will reap the benefits of the result, so too will you win praise for having deliberated. But if the opposite occurs, you will not for that reason be deprived of the merit of having deliberated; and the fact that you did not gain a benefit—which is the greatest consolation in all such matters—is something for which you will not justly blame yourself. C
EPISTLE LVIII. To Sergius, Aspatharios, My Brother.
Unrestrained rebuke falls into these two errors: it does not achieve what it intends, and it falls into what it would not wish. It intends to lead the rebuked person to repentance, but it does not achieve this; rather, the intent is diverted into the opposite, it irritates more, and drives one to desperation. It also gives others grounds to think that the rebuker is not moved by a philanthropic intention or a sympathetic disposition, but, gloating over the failing of his neighbor, is trampling upon him with reproaches. Therefore, most prudently and wisely did both the prophet Nathan to David, and Micaiah to Ahab, present their censures under a mask; at once softening them with gentler words, and at the same time, because the [rebuked] did not know toward what the scenario was tending, they received them as the unbiased judges of the crimes they themselves had committed. For this reason, the former achieved his whole purpose (for he rebuked in admonition a man who was a lover of virtue, even if he had slipped); and the latter, D though he did not achieve as much against such a beast, still achieved much; for he immediately cast him into grief and mourning, and although he turned back to his former impiety shortly after, he nevertheless restrained his desperate and inflated spirit. Do you, therefore, as often as it is necessary, mix kindness with your reproofs, and by approaching the one being admonished under a suitable veil, you will the more effectively accomplish what you strive for.
A
LETTER LIX. To Theophylact the Aspatharius.
I would pray, if it were possible, that you might never fall ill, and never have need of the medical art; but if, because you are human, you must necessarily fall ill, then I pray that you may quickly recover, and repay me with such gifts as these: by rendering great thanks to God, by helping the poor, and by forgiving the debts of those who owe you. For I shall never cease being satisfied or rejoicing in such great gifts as these.
LETTER LX. To Manuel the Patrician.
You will not escape, even if you hide, the unerring eye of God, while you are doing and preparing those things by which you would force me out of this life. For he who, beyond the death ordained by nature, deprives men of life by another way, even if he does not hold a sword in his hand and stain it with blood, is nonetheless a homicide, even though he does not call himself an executioner. But if committing such deeds B makes the heavenly tribunals more implacable, how long will you not extricate yourself from those who so bitterly [dealt with others] there—which I would not wish to happen to you, even if you were to rage against me still more—in vain, however, and without fruit, toward which men are sent from all sides while groaning.
LETTER LXI. To Leontius and Galaton, brothers, the Asecretis.
The Pontus is filled with the fabrications of that good Anatolius (I know not whether he himself invented those fictions or is adopting another’s supposititious offspring as his own); so vehement and so frequent are the winds of his lies! They blow from every side so strongly that the wanderings of the sailors of the Argo, the golden fleece, C the fire-breathing bulls, the multiform dragons, and other such monstrous tales that might be invented henceforth, are no longer mentioned as myths. For the novelty of this recent hyperbole will make those obsolete tales seem almost credible. For not five days ago, nor two, nor indeed not even an hour ago, has anyone reached us—neither of those numbered among the rulers, nor those who obey them; no messenger, no letter-writer, no bringer of good news, no servant of adversaries; nay, even the things now promised have perished along with the previous ones, merely beating the air. And what do I say "promised"? For they were not only promised, but were clearly represented before the eyes D of those pleased by them, however much they were not seen even in dreams. For from the beginning, having been fashioned out of phantasies subsisting nowhere, they also dissolved around those same things; yet, though I do not suppose it will happen, the continuity of the lie will give anyone the power to divine exactly regarding them. But if, contrary to expectation, they should coincide with the truth; all[—] [alt-version omitted]
that was requested to happen for him through you shall be from us for the man. Farewell.
EPISTLE LXII.
B To Arsaber the Aspatharios.The gift, being magnificent and such as would have induced others even without the underlying disposition, prepared me to receive it magnificently. But the disposition—which, even without the gift, set out to do what belongs to its nature—as one that is greater than any other mark of honor, and is minded to be and to be called greater than any benefit, yields to nothing else in primacy. And if these gifts are present, however great they may be, nothing great is added to that [disposition] through them; but if they are absent, it shines forth all the more by its solitude. As the sun, having escaped the cloud, reflects its pure and immaterial rays of friendly greeting—from the recipient—back to you, the sender. Therefore, let not the lack of gifts any longer delay your greeting, but may it, carried by your disposition and bringing your own greetings with it, arrive faster. For there is not, there is not, and there never shall be, among earthly gifts, any more delightful than the joy and gladness produced in us through it.
EPISTLE LXIII.
To Tarasios the Patrician, my brother, a consolation on the death of his daughter.C Where now is Elias? And where is Elisha? Where is Peter, or Paul, or any of those holy and sacred men of their time? For I would not have needed a letter, but catching hold of the feet of one of them—since I do not have the power of their hands—I would not have desisted from doing everything until they had restored the girl alive to her parents. But now, what can I do? For not even in such calamities of our kin does our place of exile lessen the suffering. I am in need of a letter, a letter—woe is me!—to soothe the grief of my brother over the passing of his daughter. For when there were hopes of children, and the marriage was being accused because it did not sooner declare the daughter a mother, nor does a son’s son play and dance in the hands of his grandparents, cooing with his prattling words; but when greater things were hoped for, then even what we had was snatched away. D Woe is me for the deception, the transgression, and the judgment of our ancient forefathers! How did that wicked and crooked serpent creep into Paradise? How did he persuade? Or how, from then until this very day, is that bitter sting of death extended? This plague has passed even to us, swifter than an arrow, more terrifying than a thunderbolt; and the child lies there, having just blossomed in her hour, a terrible and grim sight to the eyes of her parents. At the moment the flower of child-bearing first put itself forth, at the same moment it withered, even to the roots. Nature
stood ready for germination, but the deadly sickle, driven deep into the vitals, harvested the very life of life. What tears, what mourning, what lamentations, what groans shall suffice for such a calamity? The mouth is stopped by that long and fleeing silence; the lips are closed, not as showing gravity, nor as reflecting composed manners, but locked shut in dissolution. But what of the eyes? Alas, this passion surpasses silence and admits no consolation! The eyes (how can I express it?) having emptied out every vital moisture, cast their remnants upon the eyelids; in place of the natural ruddy tint, a dark and deadly color smears the cheeks, despoiling all the beauty of the form. The whole face, finally, as in such a case, offers a sight fearful and terrible to those who look upon it. What jealousy, what injury is it that hurls such darts at us? Where one mourning has passed, another, more vehement, follows; the first seized an infant at the breast, this one a mother soon to be, had not evil death forestalled her. Whence come so many and such great blows? Blows from men, blows from hidden enemies; evils gather on every side, darts are sent against us—against our children. We have become a stage for tragedies, and mourning, grief, sadness, dejection of countenance, and every Fury of evils dance in us. B Clotho, whoever she may be, it seems, leads the chorus against us, intertwining her spindle and unfortunate thread with the deeds of our life, and providing the themes of tragic songs to the bitter dancers. But what has happened to me? Whither am I carried? Since I had set out to write a consolation, I know not how, snatched away along with the mourning, while reason could not prevail against the course of the evil to struggle in the opposite direction, I was carried where I did not wish to go; and intending to begin a discourse of solace, I was swept away toward the tears of those who lament. But I shall return to myself; nor shall I be immersed in the depths of sorrow: for grief has brought many to ruin, not only destroying the body, but lethally wounding the very soul. Let us not gratify our enemies; our dejection brings pleasure to the enemies of those who are afflicted; let us not commit offense against the paternal struggles of fortitude. They beheld the deaths of their children—deaths not of such a kind as ours, God forbid! Their offspring were divided by fire, water, and pit; C most bitter and intolerable exile fell upon them; they were deprived of all friends and kin. In short, nothing was not taken away that might have brought the least bit of solace; and yet, giving thanks, they endured, and yet they worshipped the heavenly Power, because It governs human affairs beyond human comprehension. Let us consider who we are: whence we have sprung—are we not mortals from mortals? Are we not from non-existence, soon to be ourselves what we are not? Where is my father? Where is my mother? Did they not, after having played for a short time on this scene of life—unless the crown of martyrs and of patience adorned them—depart from the theater all the sooner? And kings and tyrants, immortal in their arrogance and pride, have they not been submerged by death along with their powers? All human nature, in whatever way it D
A exists—whether wielding authority or private, whether of elders or of youth, of men or of women—is altogether cut off from life by death; and nothing can escape his blade. There is nothing new, nothing paradoxical, nor have we undergone anything outside the bounds of nature. Being mortal, she came forth from mortal bowels, and having served the mortal life according to the law of nature, she departed to the immortal way of life by that same law of nature. She did not leave children lamenting their orphaning; she did not depart while carrying with her, as a sting more bitter than death, the grief for her offspring; she did not experience a vast array of miseries; she did not seek out death, as many, crushed by unavoidable calamities, have often desired. Dwelling with her parents, she departed from the tempest of temporal things; she departed while being cared for by parental hands; she yielded up her spirit in the hands of those who gave her birth. Her body was laid out, it was committed to the tomb, accompanied by beautiful funereal rites, by piety and modesty, and by the prayers of many who pitied her; she went away to a region from which all sorrow and sighing have been banished. What more could be desired? My grief is turned into the opposite by what was ordered concerning that blessed daughter of yours; I proclaim this departure of hers as a happy one; I change my mourning into glory to God, and my helplessness into thanksgiving, seeing her so happily—in a way one could scarcely pray for—delivered from the present things.
But she did not live a long time; and what does it matter whether our days divide our life into many parts or fewer, when both the many and the few usher us through the same gates of death? No one finds pleasure in things passed; what is to come is not yet; and the present, in which one might place all enjoyment, is altogether momentary. B Thus, both the long and the short time of life, enclosing the perception of pleasant things only in the present, gathers into an equal and similar enjoyment both he who has reached deep old age and he who is flourishing in youth, limiting the sense of each to his present delight, but permitting no one to rejoice in the pleasure either of what has passed or of what is to come. So indifferent a thing is it to continue for a long or a short space. Nay, rather, it is not even indifferent; for if no human being is declared pure from defilement, and this is seen confirmed by deed and word, then even if her life were of one day, surely he who lays aside this earthen tabernacle of life in a more abbreviated time departs from here with fewer defilements of the body. Therefore, he who mourns her death because she was so quickly delivered from the present, because she participated less in things that defile, sheds tears for things that pollute, and counts it among calamities that she is presented more splendidly to the Bridegroom—will you consider this a misfortune? "But," you say, "she departed before her time." May it not be granted to me to hear such a voice—a voice bold to utter, but bolder to conceive. "Before the time," you say? When she was born, why is it not said that she was brought into the light before the time? She was born by the divine nod and at the fitting moment. Shall we ourselves set ourselves up as judges of the time that, departing from here, will return unto the Creator? Did not that Artificer bring her forth in time, that He, not unknowing, might take her unto Himself at the fitting time
From a drop He solidified her into flesh, formed her in the womb, brought her forth into the light, preserved her from infancy to childhood, to maturity, to a perfect age; was none of these at the fitting time? Yet when she exchanges this for an immortal life, is that alone the only thing done at an unfitting time? Far be such blasphemy from a tongue that meditates on piety, far from a temperate mind. It is this which is worthy of long lamentations and many tears, that a man should be overwhelmed by such wickedness of thoughts; not, however, the exchanging of mortal things for immortal ones. Wherefore, one must not mourn for her who has left behind a mortal body, but for him who mortifies his immortal mind—not the one whom the heavenly bridal chamber embraces, but him who has buried his soul in dead hopes. A Yes, he says, but she departed before her parents. But what then? Did someone wish that she, having been previously worn down by the death of her mother and father, should depart in such a state, lashed by so many blows? He who says this exhibits not the bowels of a father, but the disposition of a stepmother; he does not report a father’s or a mother’s love, but rather [the attitude of one] who looks for what will delight himself rather than for what might be pleasing to his daughter, and who, under the guise of the daughter’s desires, meditates on his own comfort. For what is there mournful in looking upon the death of those whom one loves? The daughter has departed from here, free from death; this is not mournful. And why then do we consume ourselves with sadness? If your daughter were present to you, having come to life again, and standing by should join hand to hand, and with a gentle and exhilarating countenance should give kisses and speak to you: "Why do you torment yourself, O father? Why do you lament as if I had departed for evils? Paradise has fallen to my lot to dwell in." Sweet indeed is that spectacle for the eyes to behold, but sweeter still to enjoy; and experience is greater than any faith. B That Paradise is the first and marvelous fatherland of our race, in which of old the handiwork of the Master’s hands, our first parents, before the serpent hissed, lived a blessed and happy life. But now neither that crooked and wicked serpent has any place to creep in, nor to contrive any whispering words; nor is there anyone among us whose mind is not superior to every machine and art. Nor does anyone need to open their eyes, or [feel] any desire to enjoy a greater pleasure. For we are all wise with divine and heavenly wisdom; and we live in abundant and ineffable goods; and our whole life is a festival and a holy assembly. C And, brilliant in brilliant fashion, dwelling in incorruptible and most pure bodies, we see God, as far as it is permitted for a man to see God, and indulging in His ineffable and incomprehensible beauty, we rejoice continuously; and there is no satiety of these things, but the abundance of the luxury becomes an intensification of love, and the power of enjoyment, accompanying that love, produces that truly ineffable and indescribable joy and exultation; to such a degree that an immense love carries me away while I bear these words to you, nor can I report even the smallest part of them. You will come thither someday with my beloved mother, and then you will consider that I have recounted to you but a few things out of many, and minor ones at that, and you will accuse yourself of this sadness, you who deplore me as I dwell in such goods. Truly, most beloved father, from now on send me forth gladly from here, and do not detain me longer, lest you be more troubled, and therefore be more vehemently afflicted. D If
such things, and other things like them, that blessed little daughter were to rehearse, would you not, being moved, put away your lamentation, and would you not send her forth gladly as she departs in joy? But then, if your child should say these things, shall we not be bettered and cast aside our wailing? And if the common Creator and Master cries out: *He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live* 31, and *that which he hath prepared for them that love him, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man* 32, shall we, as if we were unbelievers, be no better off, but wail even more? And where is this good? Where is it just? Where is it near to reasonings that stand on what is fitting or advantageous? Furthermore, does not my bride, in her most becoming modesty, feel ashamed for me-who am overflowing and casting myself into the tears of women and abandoning the masculine condition—that I should neglect the care of female weakness, lest a rational and beneficial compassion dissipate the irrational and useless ones? For if men, by whom women are strengthened, lament no less than women, whence will those women find consolation? Whom shall we propose to be praised and imitated for their steadfastness? To whom shall we look? But do not you endure anything unworthy of yourself or your lineage, or—to speak more fittingly for the time—anything adulterated: let us not carry our grief beyond what is seemly, nor, though we are men, let us bear our passion in a womanly way, when we have many times in many places shown ourselves to be strong. The Maker has taken to Himself His own handiwork; but He has given more than He has taken away: and may those other sons and daughters continue long in life, I pray, and bring joy to their parents. Be grieved for what is past; let those who are present bring us joy; let us give thanks for what He has taken, that we may have a sure enjoyment of those whom He has left us. It is good to have successors for the family line in this life; we have them. It is good to offer firstfruits to the common Creator and Giver of all good things, and we have brought them. Beforehand, it was uncertain which of the children would be counted as firstfruits to God, and which to the succession of the lineage. But now, if we offer these firstfruits with thanksgiving, we shall no longer sway our hopes in uncertainty, but we shall be fixed in a secure state. Never has He received anything without granting something more honorable; He always exchanges the smallest things for the greatest and most unexpected blessings. But if we insult these firstfruits with wailings, as if we were wronged, I shall say nothing harsh, since I do not hope that you will, from now on, clothe yourself in wailings and sorrows and such passions, which are causes of hardship. And may the Divine grant me— He supports me with both hope and advocacy; indeed, He does support me, and grants me the freedom of speech—now that you have turned from sorrow of soul to thanksgiving, I am able to represent many examples, both ancient and recent, which might bring consolation. Nay, to tell the truth, the whole life of men is an example of this, which, when one recalls it in thought, easily drives away all dejection. I will say something even greater, and that is a fearful thing: those to whom it pertains to weep for the departed? I call upon him—I will not say, but upon the herald of the world— that he may announce the heavenly decree with his own voice: *I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others*
which have no hope.* It is A Paul who calls out these things, he who was instructed in the heavenly school, who encompassed the whole world with his preaching, the mouth of Christ, who proclaims that grief for the departed is characteristic of unbelievers, for they extinguish the hope of the resurrection and disbelieve in the power of the mystery according to Christ. Let us therefore cast off grief, lest we become guilty of such great evils, and lest we truly deprive ourselves of our daughter. For now, B the bosom of Abraham warms her, and there, after a little time, we shall behold her joyful and exulting. But if, contrary to the Lord’s decrees, I lament the maiden, I am driven away from that beautiful spectacle. Do you desire to behold the daughter? Cast off grief from yourself; show yourself, through the things for which you give thanks, worthy of the joy hereafter. But if we still indulge in lamentations, we deprive ourselves of the object of our longing. The joy hereafter knows not lamentations, nor does the bridal chamber of exultation and gladness permit a place for those who mourn; nor does it desire to receive those who are cast down by tears, those whom it itself holds as heirs of ineffable joy. The Creator has judged it right to refashion the creature for immortality; I do not begrudge the maiden this happy lot, nor will I murmur against the sentence which I ought to embrace; I will not draw the Lord’s liberality into an argument of ingratitude.
The little son of the great king David was once sick, C and the disease pointed to the grave. He, regarding the sickness as a calamity, lay prostrate and besought the Divine with tears, abstaining from food and all bodily care. But when the child had departed, he immediately put aside his grief. He had prayed before that the fruit of his loins might remain; but after he saw that the Creator had determined the departure, he dared not violate the judge’s sentence through grief; but, showing himself superior to all dejection, he sent forth words of thanksgiving and refreshed himself in the customary manner. It is fitting that we should be affected in this way; if a son, a kinsman, a friend grows sick, if the disease brings forth death: I beseech God to take away the disease, to give and grant to those who desire it, their desire: but if He judges D the translation to be more useful, it is then fitting to give thanks for that dispensation, to be content, and not to violate the judgment of the Creator with grief and groaning. If some demon plots against us and demands Job once more, if God wills to pit the evil one against His servant, if He wishes to test our patience for the conviction of the adversary, if He opens the stadium to the contest so as to put the antagonist to shame and crown the athlete: it is not right to make a plea of virtue an argument for sadness, nor to make the time of crowns a time of lamentations, nor the day of the contest a day of tears; not for the sake of those whom patience has crowned, nor for the sake of the imperishable and splendid crowns themselves; these things are unbecoming to your noble spirit, your sound judgment, and your remaining virtues. Therefore, let us stand manfully; let us stand with confidence, so that as soldiers of the heavenly king we may engage with the enemy. Let us not put to shame the testimony of the Arbiter; nor let us applaud the adversary’s boldness by rendering ourselves soft; nor, if we have acted manfully at the beginning, let us become weak at the end; let us not be strong at provoking the enemy
be proved idle in winning through by patience. The enemy is ready to fall whenever he sees one bearing trials with long-suffering; he departs all the more quickly from the trial, seeing the man established upon the firm rock of endurance. Near is the bestower of crowns, rewarding the combatant with brilliant wreaths in place of his labors, and no longer permits the enemy to attack; rather, he drives him far away. And if he should still seem to be impudent, he scatters his arts and ambushes; he rewards the pains of the sufferer with multiplied happiness and joy. The blessed Job again provides an example of all these things, in whose fruits—just as we have become participants in his blows—we shall also become participants in his joy, glory, and splendor, whether now or in the age without end, through the intercession of our most glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints. Amen. C
LETTER LXIV. To Constantine the notary.
You were slow in recalling what was sent; slower still in performing what was promised. Therefore, for the forgetting of instructions, some pardon may be granted; but that you have performed none of your promises, if that was a gift of some fervor, points only to negligence.
LETTER LXV. To Nicetas the spatharios, acting regarding private matters for the metropolitans of Cyzicus and Laodicea.
I know that your God-loving soul is moved of its own accord toward the good, and by innate disposition sympathizes with those who suffer the extremest things for Christ. Nevertheless, because I consider it a great thing to glory in your virtues, and I see that it is a debt required of me to sympathize with my fellow-members and brothers, for this reason I move my thoughts before my words, and my words before my hand, and together with them I extend my suppliant hand. I know that these things are sufficient for you; and perhaps you take it very ill that I do not set forth the petition, and you labor because of the admonition of my intercession, lest perhaps, out of forgetfulness of your perfection, I should have been led—you who have so many times…
A appeared without awaiting the necessary exhortation. I am persuaded of these things; but the grief I feel for my fellow athletes and fellow captives causes me to be so disposed, and to extend my intercession even further. For I will speak now: the true priests of God, and the fellow priests of us humble ones, are being consumed by exhaustion from the storm and the sun. Consider for me how long a time has passed since they were compelled, by means of a collection and moneys borrowed at most heavy interest, if nothing else, to provide for themselves—just like the birds of the air—some nesting place, and some small consolation for life; I will say no more. Show yourself to be consistent with yourself, and pour out the longing of your soul toward God—which is within you—to the outside, through compassion for them, and soften the intensity of our grief by relieving their need. It is a release and a ransom for the soul if one brings aid to souls afflicted for Christ. What else do I write, other than that, as one who asks by begging, I give thanks for the petition granted? This is because you have been well mindful of me in other matters, and have fulfilled B—or rather, are fulfilling—the present petition fervently and without any pretense of excuse. May Christ, the Lord of all mercy and consolation, grant you an open ear to every prayer, and may He increase your every desire for good, until He makes you a blessed participant of that kingdom which has no succession.
EPIST. LXVI. To Stauratios, spatharocandidatos and prefect of the island of Cyprus.
The fish known as the *capito* most often spends its life in the marshes. C This fish, as sea-experience confirms, vigorously controls its appetite and maintains a temperate diet in its swimming nature. Hence, it rises up against no animal, nor against those which are the most ready for capture; but to it, its nature is like a herald’s staff toward all the marine race, and its custom is like a treaty and an inviolable oath. And it gives such effort to observing what we have said, that if at any time the force of the winds and the storms of the sea drive it from its accustomed feeding, and hunger—advancing upon it at the same time—leads it away from its home, and
homeland, and the mullet wanders in quest of food; A yet even so, the laws of its homeland are not relaxed for it; but even when it has become a wanderer, and though food may often lie before its eyes, and though hunger may compel it to break the laws, it is neither lured by what appears, nor does it yield to the compelling force. But, as we said, even when the prey lies before its sight, it is self-restrained; and it manifests a philosophy that is innate and stronger than hunger, and the belly, and that which stirs the appetite from without. Therefore, if that which is set before it is still alive, not enduring to destroy one of its own kind, it in no way touches the feast. But if it lies there bereft of life, it consoles and dissolves the violence of hunger with that which no longer exists and feels no pain. The mullet, then, is a fish that does not even touch bodies that lack sensation, unless hunger very greatly assails it and overcomes its nature. But you, who devour living men, whole, with their own assets, and that too while living in luxury (for what need is there for me to speak, when no necessity compels you?)—so impudently and before the eyes of the fatherland itself, you gulp them down, B greedily devouring them without satiety—what excuse will you have in another life, when in this one you cannot even find a place to be compared with the fishes, nor even there find room to avoid being compared with the fishes?
EPISTLE LXVII
That one ought not to be preoccupied with the adversities of life.
A life without sorrow is a good thing for a man, but it is difficult to attain; or rather, to those whose judgment does not proceed from right reason, C it is impossible. Therefore, for those things by which we are delighted, let us give thanks to the Creator and Giver of innocent pleasure; but regarding our troubles, it is within ourselves to find both their cause and the remedy for our healing. For most painful things do not inflict a wound of themselves, but receive from our own judgment the power to strike. Is someone deprived of wealth? What can that deprivation do to cause sorrow? Yet I deem the deprivation a grievous thing; it is clear that I myself am arming that which moves naught against me, so that it may shoot a bitter arrow into me. For while envy, or some common misfortune of the city or fatherland, or another external thing, could force me against my will to be reduced to poverty, none of these things could ever bring me sorrow, unless I myself willed it. D But my dearest children have been taken from my bosom, and those upon whom looking I rejoiced, and upon whom I hung all the hopes of my life, have they suddenly undergone the decree of fate? Neither do they at all know how to strike, especially since they have ministered to the laws of nature as much in their departure as they did in their birth. But I have those who are at the last resting place as if in
A a great surge and swell being distressed, making my own thoughts B, and stirring up in them a sympathy which brings them no benefit, I bring upon myself a wound that brings no relief. But my house has collapsed? What then? If it has overtaken me, it is nothing to me; for I do not even feel it. But if, while many have fallen, I have been stronger than the collapse, why, instead of giving thanks that I have been rescued, do I not cause myself grief by fretting over those who lie inanimate? So it is also with all other things. For what is said by way of these examples, as things common to all, is what life brings about every day, C upward and downward, turning its own many-layered circle. There is, therefore, but one thing among all things in life for which it is necessary to accept heavy sorrow, and to be eager to be freed from it. But all other things, however many may happen, if I judge them to be evil, they press upon me as burdensome; but if I do not turn my attention toward them, none of them has the power to inflict any grief upon me. What, then, is that for which I must be anxious, and not turn towards sorrow? It is to keep the soul D undefiled and invulnerable by the stings of sins; and if any of them should touch it, and the blow should extend to a bruise, to rise up to heal the wound, and to call it back to health. All other things—glory and wealth, beauty and strength, power and the success of affairs—these all roll in the cycles of life.
NOTES
(6) Life. A locus communis concerning the instability of human life, in which the words of Clement of Alexandria seemed to me to be worthy of particular animadversion, because they are mangled, so as to likely be completed here by brackets. Thus the great man begins his book: *Who is the rich man that is saved?* Those who bestow laudatory speeches upon the rich, they appear to me not only deservedly to be flatterers and ungenerous, pretending to grant favors that are not appreciated; but also impious and insidious: impious, indeed, because having set aside the praising and glorifying of the only perfect and good God, from whom are all things and through whom are all things and for whom are all things, they attach divine honor to men who are rolling in an unstable life, and what is the head of the matter, are subject to the judgment of God.(8) Rolling in a circle. [marginal skip: text refers to the previous column's variations].
(9) The soul invulnerable. Nothing is hidden from me regarding my notes being perhaps observations on other authors rather than clarifications of my own. If anyone finds fault with this, he may not read them. On the contrary, I think that in this type of work and in this light of literature, few things need to be declared; but to miss no opportunity of helping those who handle old books, by removing the scruples of errors, I truly place this as a merit. Therefore, the present Note will be on John Calecas in the Sermon held on the Sunday before the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, in Gretser, c. [1371]. And simply [it speaks of how] the devil impelled the Jews universally to assail him, Christ, with calumnies, and to condemn him as a malefactor, and to adjudicate him to death. But even so, he found him invincible and impregnable.
(10) Invulnerable. It does not escape me that most of my notes are observations on other authors, as I said before. [The text continues in the note with critiques of Meursius on the Canticle of Canticles and references to Eucherius]. I am far from despairing of the charisma of intrepidity and of most perfect imperturbability. And he who speaks with God ought to be so pure that he subjects the impulses of his soul to the vacuity of perturbations.
A strength of body, and power of words are more precious, [they are] children playing in life; nay rather, not even children, but a stage of children acting out a play, and if there is anything more deceitful than these.
ANGELO MAI’S ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE ERRORS OF MONTAGU IN EDITING THE EPISTLES OF PHOTIUS
(Spicileg. Rom. vol. X, p. xxiii.)Here I, for my own devotion to the truth, cannot help but take the opportunity to refute some of the errors of the Englishman Montagu in the headings of the epistles of Photius edited by him. 1. And first, I will not quarrel with the editor for having added, on the front of the volume, the title of "Most Holy Patriarch" to Photius in Latin; for it is an epithet of office and dignity rather than of virtue, and indeed very common among the Greeks. I do, however, ask why the Greek ἁγιωτάτου is not also read on the same front of the book? Was it by some forgetfulness, or was it done through a fault of the codex not to be blamed? 2. In the fifth Photian epistle [now the 1st of the third book] as a heading, and often in others, Montagu puts the Greek ἀσπαθάριῳ, and in Latin *aspathario*; and in the scholion to that same epistle he judges that *aspatharius* and *spatharius* are the same. But indeed, who ever heard the word *aspatharius* except in Montagu? But here is the cause of the error. In our Vatican codex of Nicholas, ep. 69, it is written in the heading α' σπαθαρίῳ, with a small line placed over the letter α', to signify, as is customary, the first numeral sign. Therefore David Camulianus is a *protospatharius*, as we have also written in Greek: and that we may not doubt this matter, in the heading of the subsequent epistle to that same David, the title is attributed in the codex not by the numeral letter α', but with the letters written out, πρωτοσπαθαρίῳ. Again, in the letters of Nicholas 84 and 103, it is likewise written in the Vat. codex α' σπαθαρίῳ, with a line placed over the α'. Therefore nothing can be said more clearly against the faulty reading of Montagu, in whose codex, although παθαρίῳ was likewise written, he himself carelessly made one word ἀσπαθαρίῳ: although he was refuted by other places in the same codex, e.g., ep. 110, where πρωτοσπαθαρίῳ was written out clearly. No one, therefore, should introduce the words ἀσπαθάριος or *aspatharius* into lexicons, not even into mixed-barbarous ones. 3. Certainly, to the same Montagu, the reading Φιλοποννήσου and *Philoponnesi* is a solecism, both in Greek and Latin, for Πελοποννήσου and *Peloponnesi*; which error I would have preferred to attribute to the typesetter, had it not also been read thus in the editor's own scholion (the governor or leader of the Peloponnese, στρατηγός, occurs in our letters of Nicholas). 4. Finally, in the same annotation, *Germania* is erroneously written for *Germanicia*, the fatherland of Nestorius (a). 5. Likewise, I would not wish the word Λέοντι to be called *Leonti* in Latin in the headings and in the scholia of Leontius, but rather *Leoni*. 6. (And since I have spoken of the scholia, I would also not wish it to be written on p. 46 by him "of the seventh synods" instead of "of the seven synods"). 7. In the heading of epistle 12 [now 69a of the second book], Montagu writes μονάζοντι ἐπεσόντι, and in Latin *monacho E. collapso*. Yet I judge it should be written μονάζοντι ἐκπεσόντι, *monacho lapso*. Indeed, in the same Photius, p. 119, ep. 68 [now 78 of the second book], παραπεσόντι is read. 8. I see that the heading of epistle 82 [now 29 of the third book], βασιλεῖ πράκτορι, is translated into Latin as *Basilio practori*, for *exactori* or *quaestori*. Why that, I say, especially when Montagu acknowledges the meaning of πράκτορος in his scholion? That same man is indeed called, in epp. 47 [now 12a of the third book] and 154 [now 48a of the third book], κραιστωρ, which in Greek letters is the Latin *quaestor*. 9. In the headings, the word ξενόδοχος is rendered now as *hospes*, now as *hospitalarius*. I would prefer the latter, but I certainly demand consistency from an interpreter. 10. Likewise, in the title of epistle 60 [now 22 of the third book], I would have preferred the translator to have said *Helladis* rather than the too general *Graeciae*. Let *Constantinus* be read in the themes. 11. I do not wish to write after two hundred years to Montagu: otherwise, I do not approve that in his annotations to Photius, p. 46, he does not judge Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as infected with the stain of heresy, against whom the ancient Fathers cried out everywhere, and specifically Saint Cyril of Alexandria in an entire work now perished, of which we have given some fragments and intend to give others hereafter. I grant that they were condemned only after their death; but that does not at all prevent their writings from overflowing, as is sufficiently established, with heretical doctrines. 12. Nor is it permitted for Montagu to openly favor the Iconomachs on p. 97 and p. 118, whom not only Photius hated, but whom the ecumenical synods condemned by solemn decrees. 13. Nor again is it to be endured that Montagu, p. 159, calls the Eighth Ecumenical Synod—in which Photius was deposed and Ignatius was restored—a "robber synod." 14. Nor does he prudently accumulate so many praises for Photius, from whose ambition and violence the great schism, which still persists, took its beginning. 15. Contrariwise, while he burdens Baronius with many insults, he shows himself a stranger not only to fairness, but also to all Christian gentleness. 16. Imprudently also, or rather irately, he pursues the biographies of Anastasius Bibliothecarius with contumelious words and the utmost contempt on p. 244, from which author, however, as scholars everywhere admit, we have the most precious and certain portion of pontifical history.
(a) We have rejected Montagu's notes as tinctured with poison or useless. Edit. Patr.