ANNO DOMINI MCXVII PETRUS CHRYSOLANUS ARCHBISHOP OF MILAN. HISTORICAL NOTICE ON PETRUS CHRYSOLANUS
(Fabricius, Biblioth. med. et inf. Lat. I, 436).
Chrysolanus, called by Trithemius in chapter 397 *De Script. Eccles.* (by Baronius and Cange, Chrysolanus; by Ughelli in volume III, page 126, and Allatius, Petrus Grosolanus; by others Arisolanus, Grysolanus, or even Proculanus), was elevated from Bishop of Savona to Archbishop of Milan in the year 1102, but was deposed in the year 1112 on a charge of simony. Pope Paschal II sent him as an exile to Constantinople to Alexius Comnenus, in order to bring the Greeks to embrace Roman rites, where he wrote *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit* to the Emperor Alexius. And when John Phurnes, the Prior of Mount Ganos, Nicholas of Methone, and Eustratius, Metropolitan of Nicaea, had replied to him from the Greek side, he opposed a disputation on the same subject to John Phurnes. It is uncertain whether he himself wrote in Greek or rather in Latin, but they exist in Greek, apparently translated from Latin, in the library of the Most Christian King. See Allatius, *De consensu utriusque Ecclesiae*, II, 10, page 626 ff., and Baronius under the year 1116, no. 7 ff., where he relates the *Disputation to the Emperor Alexius*, or a summary and argument of it, from the Latin version of Federicus Metius, Bishop of Termoli. Trithemius notes that this Chrysolanus also wrote a book *On the Holy Trinity*, and Epistles and Sermons and various other treatises, though he had not seen them himself. Chrysolanus died at Rome in the year 1117.
PETRUS CHRYSOLANUS, ARCHBISHOP OF MILAN: ORATION ON THE HOLY SPIRIT TO EMPEROR ALEXIUS COMNENUS
A Oration of Peter, Bishop of Milan, to the Emperor, the Lord Alexius Comnenus, proving that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
1. Hear and understand what I say to you, by divine inspiration, most wise and most patient, powerful and most mild Emperor Alexius; and do not look at me, though I am the last of all the servants of God, but rather look to Him whose cause is at stake, namely the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Emperor of emperors, and greater than all emperors, through whom kings reign and the makers of laws decree what is just. It is for His sake and on His behalf that I, His servant, though unworthy and useless, speak with you, so that you may not allow any insult to be offered to Him in your kingdom, lest He Himself should exact from you grave and, as is fitting for emperors, appropriate penalties in His own kingdom. For does not he who says that Christ the Lord is not equal to the Father offer an insult to the Son of God? Since the Apostle affirms of Him: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phil. II, 6). Behold how the Son considers Himself equal to God the Father. But whoever says that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son assumes that the Son is not equal to the Father. For how will the Son be equal to the Father, unless He possesses glory equal to the Father? For it is the glory of the Father that the Spirit of the Father proceeds from both the Father and the Son, which, if it were not found likewise in the Son—that the Spirit of the Father proceeds also from the Son—it would be clearly manifest that the glory of the Father is far greater than the glory of the Son. If, therefore, the glory of the Father is greater, and the glory of the Son is lesser, it surely follows that the glory of the Father and the Son is not equal. But if the glory of the Father and the Son is not equal, then neither will the power be equal, nor would there be one Deity, nor one Majesty. B
2. But for what reason is it not granted to the Son of God that His Spirit proceeds from Him, while we confess that the Holy Spirit is sent and given by Him? The Holy Spirit, therefore, is the Spirit of the Son, and is the mission of the Son, and the gift of the Son, just as the same Spirit is the mission of the Father and the gift of the Father. To the perfection of faith, therefore, it pertains that whoever believes that the Holy Spirit is equally sent and given by the Father and the Son, from both, should also believe that the Spirit...
A it is given, that he who believes this should also believe that the Spirit of the Father and of the Son proceeds equally from both. And whoever believes the former but does not believe the latter, is not perfectly faithful.
3. But perhaps such a person will say: I fear lest the glory of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, might receive some detriment and diminution if the Holy Spirit were shown to proceed from the Son in the same way as from the Father. Far be it! For the glory of the Son is the glory of the Father, just as the glory of the Father is the glory of the Son. For the Father never seeks any singular glory apart from the Son, nor does the Son seek a glory apart from the Father, except for that by which the Father is Father, and the Son is Son; for if it were common, it would not be singular. The singular glory of the Father, therefore, is that by which He is the Father; but rather, it is in a certain way also the glory of the Son, since the Father is glorified more in this, that He is His Son. And what we say concerning the glory of the Father and of the Son, we faithfully believe also concerning the glory of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For the glory of the Spirit is the glory of the Son; for they do not have between them any singular glory intervening, except that He is such, from whom the Spirit proceeds, and the latter is such, who proceeds from the Son. Similarly, we speak and believe concerning the glory of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. For the glory of the Father is the glory of the Spirit, and the glory of the Spirit is the glory of the Father. Nevertheless, they have this singleness B between them, that the Father is such, from whom the Spirit proceeds, and the Spirit is such, who proceeds from the Father.
[δ] 4. In order that these things may be seen most fully, we thus append and shall briefly examine the matters stated above. It has been shown, therefore, above, that the Father has two, as it were, singular glories: one in relation to the Son, and one in relation to the Holy Spirit; and the Son has two, one in relation to the Father, and one in relation to the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit similarly has two, one in relation to the Father, and one in relation to the Son. Therefore, whoever says: The Spirit proceeds from the Father, and does not also proceed from the Son, leaves two glories to the Father Himself, but takes away one from the Son, and one from the Holy Spirit; against whom the Catholic faith stands and openly opposes, which confirms that the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is equal. For the glory is equal for the Trinity in the Trinity and in the unity, and for the Trinity in all other things, with the property of the Father remaining intact in every way in the Father, C and the property of the Son in the Son, and the property of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Spirit. For no one could presume to say anything concerning the Father by which He would appear to be begotten or proceeding, nor concerning the Son by which He would appear to be proceeding or a begetter, nor concerning the Holy Spirit, by which He would appear to be a begetter or begotten. D
A 5. Behold then, most wise and most clement emperor, that by the things written above, with the assistance of God, we have demonstrated how there is equal glory in the three, and a singular glory in each, without any confusion of generation and procession. We have demonstrated, moreover, that whoever says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son brings no detriment to the glory of the Holy Spirit; but rather, he who says that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son withdraws something from the glory of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and this person sins against the Son and against the Holy Spirit; and it will not be forgiven him in this present age, nor in the one to come (Matth. XII), unless, led to repentance, he believes and confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. For this is known, that just as in this Trinity there is nothing greater or lesser, so in it nothing is to be understood as prior or posterior, since the whole Trinity is of equal honor and is coeternal. For neither was the Father before the Son, nor were the Father or the Son before the Holy Spirit; B similarly, neither is the Father greater than the Son, nor are the Father or the Son greater than the Holy Spirit, because in the Trinity the Father is in every way of equal glory with the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit and the Son are in every way of equal glory with the Father. Hence, it is impossible for it to be understood otherwise, unless it be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and at the same time from the Son.
6. But someone says: "In the Gospel it is found that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and it is not found that he also proceeds from the Son." I do not wish to pass over this manner of questioning in silence, but rather to inquire diligently, that I myself might learn, if by any means, with God teaching, I might be able to find without any doubt what a faithful man ought to think regarding this matter. The Truth says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Greek adds and says: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone." The Latin also adds and says: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son." The Greek, therefore, makes an addition, and the Latin makes an addition, because in the aforementioned words of the Gospel there is found neither "from alone," nor "from the Son." C If, then, that which the Greek says is true, then that which the Latin says would without doubt be false. But from the words that are in the Gospel, neither the Greek dissents nor the Latin; rather, the Greek dissents from that addition which the Latin adds. Do you, therefore, most wise king, ascend kindly to the tribunal of your heart, and sitting as a judge on the throne of your mind, judge a just judgment (Joan. VII), and do not, as is usually the custom, cherish the Greeks as if they were your own private possession. For familiarity often causes judges to turn away from the truth. Lay down, therefore, the arguments of both, and let there not be with you a weight and a weight, or a measure and a measure; for both are abominable before God (Deut. XXV). Hear, therefore, with an ingenuous heart why the Greek adds that term, "alone," and for what reason the Latin in turn adds "and from the Son," namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds; D and where you see that the addition is made with reason, there let your mind find rest, and unite yourself to that; but where you see an addition that does not share in
reason, then, adhering to reason, separate yourself from that addition. I wish to set forth the thesis A of the Greek and the thesis of the Latin, so that both theses having been viewed by you, the truth may be able to be judged by you in the matter of both additions.
7. The Greek says: "I rightly believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from another; and since it was not added there 'from the Son,' or 'from some other,' for this reason I do not wish to posit 'from another' but to understand it from the Father alone. For if the Truth had understood it to be from another, it would certainly have said that it is from another." To these things I, defending the Latin, respond: "It is not necessary in this place to understand, for this reason, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, because only the name of the Father is placed there; for in many places and sentences B of the Holy Scripture, only the name of the Father is placed, and yet not for this reason is the Father understood alone, so that the Son might not also be fittingly understood therein, just as in those words of the Gospel: *For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you* (Matth. x). Behold how the Truth, with only the name of the Father being placed, says these two things: namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that the Spirit is of your Father that speaks in you [even though the same Truth says to the same disciples: *For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist* (Luc. xxi). By mouth and wisdom, it is evident that the same evangelist, in the Acts of the Apostles, when he says of Stephen, *they could not resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke* (Act. vi), makes it plain that he meant nothing but the Spirit, which the believers were to receive. Therefore, the same Spirit of the Father and of the Son is said to be given by the Father and by the Son, and not by the Father C alone, even though it said *the Spirit of your Father*.] Ought we then to understand the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of your Father and not of the Son, just as the Greek understands it, saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from the Son? But if the Spirit of the Father is not the Spirit of the Son, what then is that which the Apostle says: *God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts* (Gal. iv); and again: *If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his* (Rom. viii)? Does the Truth say 'Spirit of the Father,' and will it not be the truth what the Apostle of the Truth says, the 'Spirit of the Son' and the 'Spirit of Christ'? But if both are true in this place, both what the Truth says, 'Spirit of the Father,' and what the Truth is silent about, 'Spirit of the Son,' for what reason are both not similarly true in that other place D more especially, where the Truth says the Spirit proceeds from the Father? I set forth two other examples from the Gospel, in which only the name of the Father is placed, yet the Father alone, without the Son, is not understood. That *in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand* (Deut. xix), the Lord Jesus said to his disciples in the Gospel: *If you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences* (Matth. vi).
Another location also says: *Whoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother* A (Matth. xii). Behold, in these two places the name of the Father alone is set down. Yet the Catholic faith does not suffer that the Father alone be understood in them without the Son, since the name is set down in the will of the Father alone, but the Father is never understood alone; the will of the Father is the will of the Son, and the remission of sins, which is from the Father, is the same also from the Son. Similarly, when it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, if perhaps the name of the Father alone is set down, the faith of Christians does not tolerate nor suffer that the Father alone be understood without the Son.
8. This, however, is to be understood: that sometimes the name of the Father alone is set down, and the Father alone is understood, as in the Gospel: *The voice of the Father was heard: This is my beloved Son* (Matth. iii). Behold, in this place the Greek can say that the voice of the Father is to be understood, not the voice of the Son; for the voice was heard from the Father, not from the Son. Nevertheless, he cannot say this from the text itself, because not only is the name of the Father articulated, but rather [it is understood] from this very fact, that this voice is such that it refers to the Father alone: *This is my Son*. Diligently, therefore, it must be observed in every proposition and signification where the name of the Father only is set down, what is the nature of that which is proposed. For if it is such as to refer only to the Father, B both the Greek, and the Latin, and every Christian ought to understand it of the Father alone. But if what is proposed is such that it refers to the Father and to the Son together, the Christian man ought not in that place to separate the Father from the Son, or the Son from the Father, but to understand both the Father and the Son together. In this proposition and signification, indeed, which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, both the Greek and the Latin must consider whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is attributed to the Father alone, or to the Father and the Son together. From that very simple signification, therefore, no one can clearly understand whether he ought to understand the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son. If, therefore, the Greek wishes that we understand it there as from the Father alone, it is necessary that he bring forward some authority, or show some congruent reason, through which we ought to believe this. But if he cannot demonstrate any authority or testimony concerning this, it is manifest that he ought not to understand it there as proceeding from the Father alone. Therefore, that cause which we mentioned above for the Greek is not a reasonable one, unless perhaps another may be more congruously adduced. C D