Prolegomena

EDITOR'S NOTE

Euthymius, a truly excellent interpreter of Scripture, flourished in the time of Alexius Comnenus and is praised by Anna Comnena in book xv of the *Alexiad*. However, he labored under the prejudices of the Greeks regarding the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit; but in this controversy, he contributed nothing new, simply copying Photius in most respects. An encomium on the holy apostle Hierotheus is ascribed to him, which has not yet been printed in type but is preserved in manuscript in Russia, as testified by Matthaei in his *Notitia codicum Mosquensium*, p. 114, no. 31. If we may trust Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopolus in his *Praenotiones Mystagogicae*, Euthymius wrote a golden booklet *On the Precepts of the Apostle*, the twelfth precept of which he praises. A monody on the death of Eustathius of Thessalonica is also attributed by some to him, but falsely. This monody was pronounced by Euthymius, Metropolitan of Patras, a very close friend of Eustathius, and was recently edited by Theoph. Luc. Frid. Tafel in his most learned *Dissertation on the Territory of Thessalonica*, p. 368, Berlin 1836. Allatius also writes about Euthymius Zigabeno in *De Consensu*, book II, ch. 10, no. 5. Furthermore, J.-A. Fabricius and Nicolaus Fogginius write abundantly about the works and person of Euthymius, whose commentaries we subjoin here. J.-B. M.

ON EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENO

EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS, or, as in some codices, Zigadenus (a), a Greek monk in the monastery of the Mother of God ^A *tēs Peribleptou* in Constantinople, renowned in the times of Alexius Comnenus, with whom he was in favor, and still surviving after his death in A.D. 1118. On him, see the *Alexiad* of Comnena, book xv, and among more recent authors, Allatius II, 10, 5, *De Consensu utriusque Ecclesiae*. His writings are these: 1. *Panoplia dogmatica* of the orthodox faith, or *Armory of Dogmas*, composed by order of Alexius Comnenus from the writings of the Fathers and divided into XXVIII titles. It is praised by Anna Comnena in the *Alexiad*, book xv, p. 490, and by Nicetas Choniates in his *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, who repeats much from it. Petrus Franciscus Zinus of Verona translated it into Latin.

(a) *Zigadēnos*, in the Coislin codices CIV (cf. Montfauc., *Bibl. Coisl.*, p. 178) and a certain Moscow manuscript, is written consistently in the edition published at Tergoviste in Wallachia and elsewhere, which pleases the celebrated Matthaei in his preface to vol. I of Euthymius' *Commentary on the Four Gospels*, p. 7 sq. Consult besides, on this Euthymius, G. Cave, *Hist. lit. SS. E.*, vol. II, p. 198; L. El. du Pin, *Nouvelle Bibliothèque*, etc., vol. IX, p. 197; Cas. Oudin, *Comm. de SS. eccl.*, vol. II, p. 979; R. Ceillier, *Hist. gén. des Aut. E.*, vol. XXI, p. 533; our own Fabricius, *De scriptoribus de veritate religionis Christianae*, p. 121; Hamberger, *Z. N.*, vol. IV, p. 79 sqq.; Saxius, *Onom.* II, p. 216, and those whom he cites, and what I have noted in my *Introductio in historiam L. G.* II, 2, p. 307 sq. If Euthymius Zigabenus is the author of the Monody on the death of Eustathius, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who died perhaps after A.D. 1194, and if no other Eustathius, perhaps Eustathius, Patriarch of Constantinople in A.D. 1019 (see Pagi, *Crit. Baron.*, a. 1019), is to be understood, it would follow—though this seems hardly probable—that our Euthymius was still alive in A.D. 1194. Yet Michael Choniates, who is said to have written a monody on the same Eustathius, lived at the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century. The matter, therefore, at least concerning which Eustathius is to be understood, seems doubtful to me. ^B Consult what is noted at the end of the section on other Euthymiuses. Yet, not long after I had committed my own doubt to paper, I found that Nicolaus Fogginius as well, in his commentary on Euthymius and his writings and doctrine, etc., prefaced to a fragment of Euthymius Zigabenus’ book of invective against the Bogomils (extracted from a Vatican codex and translated from Greek into Latin, in *Anecdota litteraria, ex mss. codd. erutis*, vol. IV, Rome 1783, Mai 8, p. 1-46, § V, p. 8 sqq.), had doubted whether the aforementioned Monody should be ascribed to our Euthymius, at least not professing to affirm it with others, nor daring to deny it alone, and he is primarily occupied with defining the age of Eustathius. ^C The same man, p. 13 sqq., deals with the errors of the Bogomils and the arguments of Euthymius. Harl.

^A (a) Venice 1555 fol., Lyons 1556 8vo, Paris 1580 8vo, and vol. XIX of the *Bibliotheca Patrum* Lyons 1677 fol. Petavius produced passages in Greek in *Dogmata theologica*, vol. I, pp. 125, 170, 172, 174, 175, 261, 293, 301, 368, 372, etc., Paris edition; Cotelerius in the notes to vol. I of *Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*, Du Cange in the *Glossarium Graecum*, etc. The work exists in Greek in manuscript in the Bodleian, in Florence, and in other libraries, and several times in the Imperial Library in Vienna, of which Lambecius, vol. V, p. 51 sqq., thinks one codex was written in the very age of Euthymius ^B (b). Concerning another, containing only excerpts, see III, p. 168; concerning the third and fourth, V, p. 52. He testifies that the codex in the Royal Library of Paris, 2399, differs from the Zini version, and that another, more recent codex in the Jesuit college in Paris conforms more closely to this. A Greek writer apud Allatius, *De consensu utriusque Ecclesiae*, p. 643, relates that Euthymius was assisted in the arrangement of the *Panoplia* by John Furnus, who denies that any credence should be given to that wretched little Greek. FABR. I shall subjoin a notice of other codices. The *Panoplia dogmatica* is in the Paris public library in seven manuscripts, though it is complete in only a few. In the Coislin library, codex CXXV, which to Montfaucon in *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 200, seems to have been written in the author's own age. Montfaucon, ibid. p. 349 sqq., brought to light from codex CCLXX the narrative of Photius concerning the Manichaeans, collated with the Colbert codex CDXLIV, of which he also observes that a large part is held in the *Panoplia* of Euthymius, title XX. From the life of St. Euthymius in a certain collection of moral matters, in codex Coislin CXII, and in the ascetic [writings] of various codices CXVIII, according to Montfaucon, ^C *loc. cit.*, p. 486, and concerning soul and death, according to Pluer, *Itinerarium per Hispanias*, p. 168. In Italy, at Florence in the Laurentian library, codex X, plut. 6, *Panoplia*, etc. At the beginning, in praise of the work, certain senary verses are prefixed with some interlinear scholia, and Bandini made them public domain in *Catalogus codicum Graecorum Laurentianorum* I, p. 115. The *Panoplia* itself is divided there into two books, of which the former comprises XI titles, the latter XIII, which Bandini has related more copiously. To chapter I of the second book is inscribed first the title *Concerning the Holy Spirit*, then the name of the sacred writer and the passage from which the explanation of this first title begins. After chapter XIII, against the Saracens, is read the *Paratitlos* of Photius, etc., but some things are wanting at the end. In codex XVI, n. 21, plut. 9, it is attributed to the *Apologia contradictoria de Sancto Spiritu*, [which] a Greek writer apud Allatius, cited by Fabricius, revealed to be John Furnus, by whom Euthymius was assisted in the arrangement of the *Panoplia*. See Bandini, *Diario Italico*, p. 13. In the same Montfaucon's *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum*, several *Panoplia* codices are named. At Rome in the Vatican library among the codices of the former Queen of Sweden, n. DCCCLXXXXII ^D (c). In the library of Cardinal Ottoboni. At Venice in the Grimmian library; at Modena in the Ducal library. At Munich in the Bavarian electoral codices CIX and CX. See Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum* cit. I, p. 32. D. 485. B. – 478. B. and in several other places. At Turin in the Royal library, codex CXCI, *Panoplia*, but not complete; in codex CC, n. 25, *Epistola invectiva adversus Armenios Theopatianos*, and n. 32, *Epistola confutans haereses Fundagiagitarum*, or of the Bogomils, and also of the Armenians, etc. See the *Catalogus codicum Graecorum Taurinensium*, pp. 285 and 299. *Zigabenou hoplotheke dogmaton* (sic) with two other titles in codex LX of the Nani collection in Venice. See the *Catalogus codicum Graecorum Nani*, p. 67. At Augsburg there is in a Greek codex the *Panoplia dogmatica* (but whose author it is, is not added), containing excerpts from the writings of Gregory Nazianzen and John Damascene, demonstrations and opinions concerning one God and the divinity of the Word, with an index by Reiser in his *Catalogus*, p. 22. Under the guidance of the compiler of the *Catalogus codicum Angliae*, etc., there is Euthymius's *Panoplia* in the Bodleian library, MMMMMMMMDCCVII, an apograph among the codices of J. Fell. In Cambridge, n. CCXCI in Trinity College, Euthymian Greek, but the name of the work is not added in the catalogue. Likewise in vol. II, p. 84, among the Norfolk codices, n. MMMCCCCXXXIV and MMMCCCCXXXV, some things of Euthymius Zigabenus. In Dublin in the library of Trinity College, n. 419, *Panoplia*, Greek, parchment, folio. The same in Leiden in the public library among the Vossian codices. See *Catalogus Bibliothecae Leidensis*, p. 401, 4. First to be noted are two Moscow codices of the *Panoplia dogmatica*, about which the celebrated Matthaei, professor at Wittenberg, discourses skillfully and copiously, observes the difference from the printed edition, and from them gave scholia added and many other supplements to his edition of the *Panoplia Tergobystana* in the preface to Euthymius's *Commentary*, etc., vol. I, p. 9 sqq. In the second codex many things are omitted which are read in the edition, [and] many have likewise been added, [which] the future editor...

must treat with greater care. He possesses three titles which are absent in most codices, namely titles XIX, XX, and XXVIII, the last of which is *Against the Saracens*, already published separately. But title XIX, *Against the Agnoetae*, and XX, *Against Origen*, were published by Matthaei, *loc. cit.*, p. 20 *sqq.* Add Jablonski in *Thesaurus epistolarum Lacrozii* I, p. 184 and 195, and Wolf, in vol. II, p. 6, 27 and 66. HARL.

Michael Eneman, a Swede, returning from the East, and having died in his homeland not long after the year 1714, as I hear, brought back with him among other things and communicated to me a volume, which he had received as a gift from Chrysanthus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (who succeeded Dositheus, just as Dositheus succeeded Nectarius), printed with this title: *The Dogmatic Panoply of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, containing in summary what was written by the blessed and God-bearing Fathers, set in order and harmonized by the monk Euthymius Zigabenus (always so spelled, not Zigabenos), for the overthrow and destruction of the most impious dogmas and teachings of the godless heresiarchs who have raved evilly against their sacred theology, dedicated to the most pious, most high, and God-crowned lord and sovereign of all Ungro-Wallachia, lord John Constantine Bassaraba, Voivode of Brancovan, [and] to his most illustrious and most wise son, lord Stephen, Voivode of Brancovan, by the most holy and most learned Metropolitan of Dristra, lord Athanasius, at whose expense they are now first printed by the most holy, most learned, and divinely-appointed Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia, lord Anthimus the Iberian. By the care and correction of Metrophanes, hieromonk, [a student] of Gregorios of Dodona. In the most holy metropolis in the Ungro-Wallachian Tîrgoviște, in the year from the Nativity 1710. In the month of May.* In folio, 1710, pages 108. The dedicatory preface of Athanasius to Stephen is prefixed.

Chrysanthus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, supplied from a Viennese manuscript what was lacking in the oriental manuscripts, namely, *Iambic Verses addressed to the Emperor Alexius*, [and a] *Prologue with encomia*. He observed, conversely, that in the Viennese manuscript the title and entire chapter [No.] 43, *Of Photius the Patriarch, against those of Old Rome*, were missing, which exists in all oriental codices. The same Chrysanthus was the instigator for Athanasius to publish this *Panoply*; but he omitted, for fear of the Turks, not only the chapter against the Saracens, but also certain things concerning the Holy Trinity in the very first titles, fearing, forsooth, that there might be those who would seize an opportunity therefrom to accuse the Greeks, as they did in the case of Cyril Lucaris.

After the iambic verses on Alexius Comnenus follows the Prologue, to which these verses are prefixed: The work of Euthymius, the solitary monk, A panoply of the dogmas of Zigabenus, Fashioned for Alexius of the Comnenian race, A faithful king against the return of the faithless.

*Latin Edition.* Part 1. Tit. 1. Title 1: *A syllogistic proof that God is one, and that He also has a Word consubstantial with Himself, and likewise a Spirit, which are the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the catechetical discourse of Nyssen.* Tit. 2. 2. *On the Father and Son and Holy Spirit; a theology at once distinct and united.* 3. *Concerning God, generally. It is clear that he who says "God," or "Godhead," or "the Divine," simply and indeterminately, manifested the three hypostases of the one Godhead by their catholic appellation.* 4. *On the incomprehensibility of the divine nature.* 5. *On the names of God.* 6. *On the divine creation.* 7. *On the divine incarnation.* 8. *Against the Hebrews, from the book attributed to Nyssen, entitled "Theognosia."* 9. *Against Simon of Samaria, and Marcion of Pontus, and the Persian Manes and the Manichaeans.* 10. *Against the Sabellians, by Saint Cyril.* Part 2. Tit. 12. 12. *Against the Pneumatomachi.* (In the codex of the Jesuit college in Paris and in Zinus’ Latin version, this title is inscribed: *On the Holy Spirit, by the great Athanasius, from the discourse on the incarnate epiphany of Christ.*) Missing 13. *Of the Patriarch Photius against those of Old Rome, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son.* (It exists also in various European manuscripts, such as the Baroccian codex 85 [in which it is attributed to Photius] and 101 [in which it is ascribed to Euthymius Zigabenus], and in the codex of the King of France and the Jesuit college in Paris, although in Zinus’ Latin version this chapter has been omitted. The passage is produced in Greek by Ussher, *De symbolis*, p. 25, from a codex brought from Greece; other passages by Petavius, *Dogm. theol.* V, to note II.)

^A Tit. 15. 14. Against the Nestorians. 15. Against the Monophysites, whose archimandrite (was the) heresiarch. 16. Against the Aphthartodocetae. 17. Against those who say: "The Word of God suffered impassibly." 18. Against Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, patriarchs of Constantinople, defining one will and energy in Christ, who are also called Monothelites. FABR.—In the Caesarean codex 77, n. 81, there are various excerpts from Euthymius’s *Panoplia*. From these, Lambecius (Comm. III, p. 420 sqq.) has excerpted longer passages at times, thus: 1. Against the Agnoetae, from Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, *Orat. 11 De Filio*; this title is missing in the Greek edition but has been published by the illustrious Matthaei. 2. Against various errors of Origen; this is also absent from the Greek edition and has been published by Matthaei, 1. mem. The Muscovite codex, however, is at least in the beginning more complete than the Viennese one. 3. Title 18, against Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul; from which Lambecius published a long Greek passage. There follow titles 19, 20, 21 (of which Lambecius also published a longer Greek passage), 23, 24, and 25. HARL.

19. Against the Iconoclasts. In the Ducaean edition by Guil. Morelli, Paris 1562, this chapter exists in the *Auctarium* tom. I, p. 725, and in the *Bibl. Patrum* tom. XI, Paris 1654. This chapter was composed by [him]; Greek manuscripts exist in the Joannean library of this city of Hamburg. FABR.—In the Parisian codex 770, n. 4, of the public library, there are titles against the Armenians, Paulicians, Massalians, Bogomils, and Saracens. HARL.

22. Concerning the Cross, concerning holy baptism, and concerning the partaking of the Lord’s body and blood. ^B ... [This] has been published in Greek and Latin by Cotelier, tom. 1 of *Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*, pp. 302–307, and by Mich. le Quien, tom. I of the *Works of John Damascene*, p. 94 seq. Compare the various readings of the Baroccian codex in John Christoph. Wolf’s *Historia Bogomilorum*, p. 12 seq. Fellus, Bishop of Oxford, had caused this to be described from an older codex, and the aforementioned Wolf published it and illustrated it with learned annotations in his *Historia Bogomilorum*, Witeb. 1712, 4 FABR.—There is also among the Vossian codices of the public library at Leiden (p. 392, n. 30) a fragment different from this, which I have already shown above was published by Fogginius. HARL.

deest. A parasitic title of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, from his letter to Michael, the ruler of Bulgaria, concerning the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Tit. 25. Title XXVIII against the Saracens appeared in Greek from the Palatine codex, with the version of J. Jacob Beurer, professor at Freiburg, and the notes of Frid. Sylburg, in Sylburg’s *Saracenica*, Heidelberg, apud Commelinum 1595, 8. The same title also exists in Greek and Latin in the *Auctarium bibl. Patrum* by Ducas, tom. II, p. 292, Paris 1624, fol., and in the *Bibl. Patrum*, Paris 1654, tom. XII [v. Lambec. Comm. III, p. 424, exc. IX. Matthaei, 1. 1. praef. p. XX].

(Among Fabricius it followed with an Index of the authors from whom Euthymius’s *Panoplia* was composed; but it will obtain a more appropriate place in the following volume after the *Panoplia* itself.)

II. Against the adherents of old Rome, that is, the Italians, twelve chapters, demonstrating that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son (ex Filio). Manuscripts in the royal library of Paris. See Allatius, *De consensu*, p. 642; Nicolius or Arnaldus in *Perpetuitate fidei Ecclesiae catholicae de S. Eucharistia*, tom. I, chap. 12, p. 167; but also Rich. Simon, tom. III, *Bibl. critica*, p. 98 seq., who denies that this writing in the royal codex 2995 differs from those things which Euthymius discusses on this subject in the Greek codices of the *Panoplia* under title 43. Fabr. Fogginius agrees (1. cit. p. 10 sq.) and mentions cod. Paris. n. 1231, cod. 1371, n. 21, and cod. 2782, n. 5; likewise Vatican. 1079, p. 189; cod. 1180, p. 438, and cod. 1217, p. 199. Also copious is the information concerning the ms. Vatican Palatine codex 361, in which Euthymius contends that Christ celebrated the legal pasch with his disciples on the great Thursday, and he suspects that the booklet was excerpted from the *Panoplia*. See also the note to n. II, and the same short work appears to be that which exists in the Wheler codex. Euthymius’s *Oratio de tempore Paschatis*: Greek in *Cat. cod. Angl. etc.*, II, p. 358, n. 9123. Add above in the index of titles, to tit. 13. There are places from that short work in Nicetas Choniates’ *Sylloge of opinions and sects, and the history of the men who instituted them*, etc. ^C ... Florent. in cod. Laur. 24, plut. 9, V. Bandini *Cat. cod. Gr.* I, p. 433.—Venice in cod. 503, bibl. D. Marci, Euthymius Zigabenus *De processione Spiritus sancti*. Inc. *El mon men to pneuma, etc.* V. *Cat. cod. Marc.* p. 265. HARL.

III. Refutation and triumph over the impious and multiform sect of the execrable Massalians, who are also called Phundaitae and Bogomils and Euchites and Enthusiasts and Encratites and Marcionites. Victory and triumph over the impious...

15 Anathemas opposed to their heresy. Edited in Greek from the Vienna codex ^A 67, n. 82, wherein it is read as an appendix to the Panoplia, with a Latin version and notes added by Jacobus Tollius in his *Insignia itineris Italici*, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1696, 4, pp. 106–125. The first three anathemas had been published in Greek by Lambecius III, p. 171 [p. 424, ed. Kollar, with notes by Lambecius, who in note 4 on anathema 1, notes as a singular point that Peter or Lyco-Peter is declared as the first one of the heresy of the Massalians]. Those three anathemas were translated into Latin by Cotelerius, *Monumenta ecclesiae graecae*, vol. 1, p. 737. See above at n. 1 concerning this codex. Add the catalogue of Greek codices in Turin, p. 297, 8, cod. CC. Harl.

IV. Various epistles which survive in manuscript, such as those against the Phundaitae (alias Phundagingitae) or Bogomils, sent to his fatherland from Constantinople, Lambec. V, pp. 58 and 134. It begins: *Boúlomai hymâs, adelphoi mou...* and another invective against the Armenian Theopaschites, *id.* V, p. 127. It begins: *Epeidêper Eutykhês kai Dioskoros*. Fabr. *sen.* in Kollar’s ed. V, p. 85, col. 213, n. 8, where see note by Kollar. Then p. 256 in cod. 247, (which contains a *syntagma* of miscellaneous tracts concerning the errors of the Massalians or Bogomils and others), n. 14. Then p. 284, n. 1, cod. 148; Lambecius notes that this manuscript differs from the aforementioned cod. 213 not only on account of many various readings, but is also much fuller and more copious. Finally, p. 269, n. 28, cod. 247. It is also in the Turin codex 200, n. 31. See the catalogue of Greek codices in Turin, p. 299. Harl.

V. ^B

Disputation with a Saracen philosopher on the faith, held in the city of Melitene in Cappadocia

VI.

Lamentation at the tomb of the most holy Lord Eustathius of Thessalonica, after some days since his death

VII.

Commentary on all the Psalms of David, and on the ten canticles of the Holy Scripture

(a) Are they from *Funda*, a town in Italy? Heum. See above at n. 1. Against Kollar, ad Lamb. V, p. 85, where he discusses learnedly and at length the origin of the words Bogomili, Massaliani, and Phundagingitae, or in other codices, Phundaitae; he derives the name *Phundaitae* from the more recent Latin word *Funda*, written in Greek *phounda*, which signifies a money-bag or purse; thus these heretics were called Phundaitae and Saccophori, because on account of the austere poverty which they openly professed, they collected stipends in sacks and purses. Cotelerius preceded him in a note to *Monum. graec.* I, p. 144. Harl.

(b) It exists also in the same library according to the catalogue of the manuscripts of England, etc., in cod. Barocc. n. CXCIV, n. 253, among the manuscripts of Thomas Roe, among the Bodleian codices n. MMCMXLII. In Oxford, in Magdalen College, cod. VI, or n. 2431, where indeed in part II of the catalogue, p. 71, this note is added: "Thus Euthymius on the Psalms, but it is wrongly inscribed by the librarian, as it is the exposition of Theodoret." Among the Wheler codices, n. 9123 tom. II, p. 358. In the Leiden library among the Vossian codices: a very old exemplar, but poorly preserved, and in another collection of various works, *something* of Euthymius on the Psalms, Gr. See the *Catalogue of the Leiden library*, p. 395, n. 73 and p. 397 n. 50. In the Coislin library, cod. XI and CIV. See Montfauc. *Bibl. Coislin.*, pp. 58 and 178. Rome, in the Vatican library, Euth. Zigab. on the 150 Psalms. In the Ottobonian library. Munich, in the Bavarian library. See Montfauc. *Bibl. bibl. mss* I, pp. 13, 186, 588 and 589. Venice, in the library of St. Mark, cod. XVIII. Turin, in the royal library, cod. CIII, on Psalms 9–146. Attached to this codex is a small lexicon of formulas of speech occurring in the Psalms, (*lexeis tôn Psalmôn kata stoikheion*), which, though not previously published, the author of the *Catalogue of Greek codices of Turin*, p. 190, has transcribed in its entirety... ^C seqq. Florence, in the Laurentian codex II, plot. 9. Commentary on the Psalms: a proemium precedes it, which Bandinus took care to be printed in the *Catalogue of Greek Laurentian codices* I, p. 389. There follows an interpretation of the Psalter, and almost all the verses of the Psalms, which Euthymius explained, are distinguished by red characters from the interpretation in the margin, almost until the beginning of the codex. The interpretation of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa on certain places in the Psalms has been added by the same scribe in red letters. There follow Euthymius’s 10 narrations on the canticles. And these canticles in most codices are joined to the Psalms: so also Matthaei found them in codices 196 and 197, Moscow. See his note to the preface of Hentenius p. 75, prolegg. to vol. I of Euthymius Zigabenus’s Commentary, etc. In Vienna in the Imperial Library, cod. XXXVI. Euthymius’s preface to the Commentary on the Psalms; but it is neither full nor complete, but so contracted at the whim of some anonymous person, that it has neither head nor feet. More regarding this codex was observed by Kollar, *Supplement to Lambecius’s Commentary*, p. 265 seqq. Concerning the three Moscow codices, the famous Matthaei discusses them intelligently and extensively in the frequently-cited preface, p. 25 seqq. The first of them contains also, besides the Psalms and canticles with the Commentary of Euthymius, 1 (*On the fact that God is incomprehensible*), 2 (a collection of necessary dogmatic chapters from various Fathers): 3 (*Against the adherents of Old Rome, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son*) and the famous Matthaei observes in a note, these can also be read in the codices of the Synod library, in-8, CCCLII, with the inscription: *Euthymion monachou tou Zygabênou kephalai 12. Eis to ek monou tou Patros ekporeuesthai to Pneuma*. Add. Foggin. l.c. seqq. 4 principal chapters from the orations of Chrysostom and other Fathers: ^D concerning the divine incarnation...

^A in the Parisian libraries several times, and in the Coislinian as well. It was also in the Bigotian and in the library of Isaac Vossius, from whose codex Stephan le Moyne published the preface to the Psalms, worthy of reading, in Greek and Latin in *Variis sacris*, pp. 150-210; but missing gaps here and there, which Colomesius writes in his *Paralipomena to Cave* that he had filled in from the manuscript codices of Patrick Young and Christian Ravius, with one exception. Richard Simon attests that he did the same from the royal Paris manuscript 2400 (tom. I, *Bibl. selectæ*, p. 48). Pearson, in the edition of his *Exposition of the Creed*, p. 420, produces a passage in Greek from Euthymius’s commentary on the Psalms. The Latin version by Philip Sul, Bishop of Brugnato, published after the author’s death by Paulino Turchio, of the Order of Preachers (and dedicated to Pope Clement VII), first appeared at Verona in 1530 ^B in folio; and Gesner is mistaken in writing that Euthymius was printed at Verona only concerning seven Psalms, since it saw the light at Verona in that year concerning all the Psalms and the canticles of the Bible. It was reprinted thereafter frequently at Paris in 1543, 1547, 1560, [and 1562. See Hamberger, *loc. cit.*, p. 82] 8vo; Venice, 1568, 8vo; Lyon, 1573, [1575, ap. Hamberger] 8vo; and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Lyon edition, tom. XIX.

VIII. *Commentary on the four Gospels*, selected not without judgment from Chrysostom and other ancient Fathers. This excellent work also has not yet seen the light in Greek ^C, although learned men affirm this... ^D The third codex has shorter scholia, and the same Matthew edited scholia on the first ten Psalms in *Lectiones Mosquenses* (Leipzig, 1779, 8vo, vol. II, p. 41). Moreover, the anonymous author—whether he is Euthymius himself or another who condensed more copious scholia after him—gave an interpretation of two odes from the Gospel of Luke after the Gospel of Luke in the edition of Euthymius’s *Commentary* (tom. II, p. 680 sqq.) with the text and initial note; "a slightly different or more copious interpretation," he says, "in the name of Euthymius Zigabenus," which is read in Latin in the *Bibliotheca maxima Patrum*, Lyon, vol. XIX, p. 473 sqq. Finally, in the preface (p. xxv sqq.), by way of a specimen, he added the interpretation of Psalm 109, along with the first [Psalm] and the fiftieth, of those three codices, and compared them with the Venetian edition of Theophylact (1763, tom. IV), where the *Commentary on the Psalms* was first edited in Greek (cf. Ernesti, *Theol. Biblioth.*, tom. V, p. 788). Euthymius, on p. 29, at the words of David *εἶπον τῶν σῶν*, refers to his own *Commentary on the Gospels*, from which passage (and other similar passages in the *Commentary on the Psalms*) the distinguished Matthäi rightly concluded that Euthymius is the author of the *Commentary on the Gospels* and that this was written by him before the *Commentary on the Psalms*.

[The text continues, beginning with: *...ins lucem aspexit cura studioque cel. Matthæi. In- scriptum autem est opus diu desideratum...*]

PROLEGOMENA

^A (d) Elias du Pin, and others. Joannes Hentenius translated it into Latin from an excellent codex of the library of the Monastery of the Theotokos of Guadalupe, of the Order of St. Jerome in the kingdom of Castile; Zino was more accurate, and Saul was the translator, whose version appeared first at Louvain in 1544, (e) reprinted in folio at Paris, 1547, 1560, 1602, 1608, and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, vol. XIX, edition of Lyon. Richard Simon, in *History of the New Testament*, book I, chap. 29, testifies that he examined two Greek manuscript codices of this Commentary, furnished with similar scholia to those which Hentenius found in his own. In the second of these, the Mazarinian, though written by a more recent hand, it is attributed to Nicetas: which is no more credible than the conjecture of those who wished to ascribe it to Oecumenius, or Ammonius—I know not to whom—or to Theophylact. Simon produces several places in Greek from this Commentary, here and in book I, p. 120, 145, and book III, p. 84, and he values it very highly, agreeing with Maldonado, who, on Matthew XVII, 8, observed that Euthymius is most diligent in observing the properties of words. Among the writers from whom the golden chain of Thomas Aquinas on the Gospels was collected, the name of Euthymius is added in some more recent editions; it is wanting in the older ones and in the Roman edition of 1670. See Simon, *History of the New Testament*, book II, p. 409 and 473.

IX. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul, likewise diligently collected from Chrysostom and other Fathers, which Gesner once wrote was preserved in Greek in a manuscript at Rome. [See note to no. 8.] Allatius, p. 196, in *De interstitiis ordinum apud Graecos*, cites some things from Euthymius’ commentary on the Epistle to Timothy. In a Viennese manuscript codex of the first book of the *Panoplia Euthymiana*, there follows a Hypothesis on the Epistle to the Romans, perhaps the one which Euthymius had prefixed to his own commentaries on Paul.

X. Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, which Cave noted, citing Simler, existed in Greek as a manuscript in the library of Joannes Sambucus.

^B That collection is wrongly called a catena by Mill and others, but more correctly called Euthymius’ commentary, since there is a nexus in Euthymius, who had made a continuous work out of several parts, notes the learned Matthaei in his preface, p. 123, note g. Add Fabricius, below in this volume, p. 787, 16 of the old edition, who in section 47 also treats of Thomas Aquinas’ *Catena Aurea* on the four Gospels. The Taurinensian royal codex XLIII seems to conspire with the Barocci codex XXVIII, as far as one can conjecture from the beginning of the individual Gospels; nowhere indeed is the author’s name added, but the compiler of the catena in the Greek Taurinensian codices, who on p. 149 sq. reviews that codex copiously, teaches that it should be ascribed to Euthymius. HARL.

(d) In the new Basel edition of 1745, vol. II, p. 199, where Cave discourses more fully on Euthymius, his writings, codices, and editions, this has been corrected. HARL.

(e) Regarding what Hentenius had written in the admonition: “When, some months ago [n. in the year 1543, on the sixth day before the Ides of August, as is understood from his preface], we were publishing these commentaries, and had nothing certain to divine concerning the author, we followed the judgment of others more than our own, and foretold that to some it seemed the author was Oecumenius,” which however Matthaei denies (ad h. l. in the preface, p. 74, note c). — But now, having found the same author for the Psalms of David and for the Canticles, we are most certain that we have already published it for the second time; we chose to indicate to the studious reader that the author of these commentaries is Euthymius Zigabenos (sic), in those copies which had not yet been dispersed, rather than to keep him in suspense any longer. Anno 1544, Nones of February, from this Hamberger (l. c. p. 85) concludes that it is probable: 1) that some copies were issued either without any indication of the author’s name on the front of the book, or with the addition of the name of Oecumenius, 2) and that those were noted in the inscription in the year 1543. But the learned Matthaei doubts this, in note e to Hentenius’ admonition, p. 75, thinking that the word *excusum* (printed), is ambiguous and refers rather to the commentary on the Psalms, and that because in the index of the edition of the commentaries on the four Gospels of the year 1544 it is written, “This book has never before been printed in either Greek or Latin,” and at the end of the admonition, in those copies which had not yet been dispersed, he thinks this is the *editio princeps*, with only the index changed. — In the Vatican codex DCCCXX, p. 301, Euthymius’ *Eulogy for the Veneration of the All-Holy Theotokos, and for the Dedication of her Holy Coffin in the Chalkoprateia* occurs, according to Fogginius (l. c. p. 7, sq.), where he is verbose concerning the Chalkoprateia and the sacred coffers, or caskets. For thus they were called—both the coffer in which the burial garment and codices of the Blessed Mary were contained, and the building in which those relics were deposited. HARL.

TO JOANNES CHRISTOPHORUS AMADUTIUS, NICOLAUS FOGGINIUS SENDS GREETINGS.

I. Behold, most distinguished sir, a Greek work (a) which, among my papers described from a manuscript codex, though mutilated, yet seemed appropriate for you to insert into the fourth volume of the *Anecdota*, the publication of which you diligently undertake for the good of the literary republic. I described that many years ago from the Vatican codex 840, which was once the property of Antonius Augustinus, Archbishop of Tarragona; and because while I was translating it into Latin,

(a) That is, the book against the Bogomils, which we reprint in this edition. ED. PATA.

I made many annotations, both concerning the author of the Opusculum and concerning the things which are read in that same Opusculum; these annotations also I send to you, which you may use as it pleases you most.

And so, I had first noted that Euthymius Zygabenus, the author of the Opusculum, lived a monastic life at Constantinople in the monastery of Peribleptos, and that he was illustrious for his reputation for learning from the time of Alexius I Comnenus, to whom he was most acceptable, and by whose command he composed the work inscribed:

Panoplia Dogmatica of the Orthodox Faith against all Heretics, woven together from the writings of the Fathers.

III. Besides the Panoplia, Euthymius also digested many other works, especially on the Holy Scriptures. Philippus Saulus, Bishop of Brugnato, rendered into Latin the Commentary on all the Psalms and the Canticles of Holy Scripture, and after his death Paulinus Turchius of the Order of Preachers published this version at Verona in the year 1530, which was later reprinted many times, always, however, without the Greek text (a). Stephanus Moynius (7) alone published in Greek and Latin the preface, in which the author disputes most diligently concerning the nature, use, purpose, the manifold genre of the Psalms, their obscurity, and the various Greek versions. He also wrote a Commentary on the four Gospels, compiled from Chrysostom and other Fathers, from which Richard Simon published certain passages in Greek (8): and which we possess complete only in the Latin version of Joannes Hentenius, published at Louvain in the year 1544, and thereafter reprinted again and again in various places. The Greek text of this Commentary exists in the Vatican codex 665, albeit incomplete, because it contains only the two prior evangelists, Matthew and Mark. Whether a certain explanation on the Canticle of Zacharias, which is found described under the name of Euthymius in the Vatican codex 669, is part of the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, or rather another separate little work, is not now certain to me. Item, Euthymius studiously collected from the Fathers a Commentary on the Epistles of Paul, the Greek codex of which is preserved in the same Vatican library, marked number 636. This has been published neither in Greek nor Latin, unless you except a few things which Leo Allatius (9) perhaps cites from the same codex from the Commentary on the Epistle to Timothy. Finally, he had also adorned the Catholic Epistles with his Commentary, according to the testimony of William Cave (10), but no Greek codex of it is known to me.

IV. To these books, which attest to the sacred erudition of Euthymius, others are added, from which his talent and eloquence shine forth. For he published a certain disputation concerning faith held with a Saracen philosopher in the city of Melitene in Cappadocia, which

the Greek Vatican codex 952 (11) contains, and which, according to Lambecius (12), is also preserved in the Greek codex of the Viennese library. Furthermore, under the same name there occurs in the Vatican codex 820 a work titled:

Encomium on the Veneration of the All-Holy Theotokos, and on the Dedication of her Holy Shrine in the Chalcoprateia

^B V. Whether or not the Monody, or funeral oration at the tomb of the most holy Archbishop of Thessalonica, Lord Eustathius, recited a few days after his death and described under his name in the Bodleian codex, should be attributed to our Euthymius, I would dare neither to affirm along with others nor to deny alone. If it truly pertains to him, it is understood from it that Euthymius died at a very advanced age. For since he undertook to write the Panoplia by order of Alexius I in the year 1118, it is easy to persuade oneself that he was then at least in the first bloom of youth. But because Eustathius, in the year 1194, held an address to the people in the temple of St. Demetrius the Martyr, the Miroblyte, ^C let us concede, if you will, that he died in this very year, then Euthymius could hardly have composed his funeral eulogy unless he were nearly one hundred years old. Indeed, he would certainly have exceeded one hundred years if we were to credit Alexander Politus (17), who thinks that Eustathius survived the passing of Xiphilin in the year 1198, because he himself is mentioned by John, Bishop of Citrus, in the response he gave to Constantine Cabasilas concerning the order to be observed in ecclesiastical offices. For when the *protecdicus* or judge, previously counted among the lesser offices in criminal cases of clerics, had been elevated to a higher rank by John Xiphilin, and this had aroused the criticism of some, in that response John, Bishop of Citrus, says that it was excellently established by Xiphilin, and that the authority of Eustathius had added to that innovation, as he had greatly recommended it. But this does not prove, as Politus thought, that Eustathius survived Xiphilin and reached the times of that Bishop John; but rather that he gave his assent to Xiphilin while he decided that this should be done. Indeed, this seems, in fact, to be able to be drawn from the words of John himself; for when he mentions Eustathius, he prefixes to them the words *tou en hagiois* ("of the saints"), which indicate that he had already passed away, since they were accustomed to address good and holy men resting in the peace of Christ in that manner.

^D VI. Thus far we have pursued the praises of Euthymius, but we must admit that he adhered to the schism of the Greeks: which is especially evident from the booklet entitled: *Against the citizens of ancient Rome, that is, the Italians, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.* Leo Allatius (18) had contended at length to prove the orthodoxy of Euthymius, but being warned by John Aubert that he had found a booklet of this kind in the Parisian library, he confessed that there was no longer any room for his defense. Allatius had arrived at that opinion because he had found nothing in the published Zinus version of the Panoplia that was contrary to the catholic faith.

^A Yet in the Greek codex we praised above, [the one belonging to] Michael Eneman, there exists a title XI, which is excerpted from Photius and written entirely against the Latins who assert the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The same is found also in another manuscript codex of the Panoplia, which exists in the Royal Library in Paris, number 1231; and from this it is evident that the aforementioned book is nothing other than title XI of the Panoplia, described separately, both in the two royal codices (19), one of which came into the hands of Aubert, and in the three Vatican [codices] (20), all of which contain certain miscellanies of various excerpts. Bigot had noted this long ago, as is testified by a letter which Saingiorius published in the *Bibliotheca critica* (21). Furthermore, we have another of Euthymius’s shorter works in the Vatican Palatine manuscript codex 361, in which he contends that Christ celebrated the legal Passover with his disciples on Maundy Thursday; and from this it is understood that he had undertaken not only the defense of the errors of Photius, but also [of] the errors into which Michael Cerularius fell. Whether this book also was excerpted from the Panoplia, I do not dare to affirm with certainty, as I do not have the complete Greek text of the Panoplia at hand. Nevertheless, I vehemently suspect it to be so, from the fact that the Greek writer cited by Leo Allatius (22) recounts that Alexius Comnenus had commanded Zigabeno and John Furnus to compile a dogmatic Panoplia against heresies by gathering passages from all the divine scriptures—ἐκ πάντων τῶν θείων βιβλίων λόγους ἐρανισάμενοι κατὰ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὴν δογματικὴν Πανοπλίαν συνέταξαν—and against the Italians themselves on account of the addition to the holy Creed and the unleavened bread. Since Euthymius wrote concerning unleavened bread in the Panoplia, Leo Allatius (23) certainly asserted in vain that Euthymius could not be accused of error on this head, because he had been pursuing a matter of indifference (*adiaphoron*). For since he wrote the Panoplia to refute heretical questions, it can immediately and manifestly be argued that he had attacked the opinion and the rite of the Latins in such a way that he accused the former of heresy, and rejected the latter as not only illicit, but also as invalid and null; in which [matter] Michael Cerularius and his followers especially wandered from the right faith, and for which reason above all Pope Leo IX had refuted and condemned them.

VII. Now, however, to approach more directly the short work that is currently to be published: Euthymius ^B composed ^C it against the Bogomils, whose heresy he also attacked in another unique short work, which Jacobus Tollius (24) published, having been edited and illustrated with learned notes from a Vienna codex in which it is read as an appendix to the Panoplia. It is entitled: *Victoria, or triumph over the impious sect of the Massalians*, because in it the errors of the Bogomils are not discussed and refuted by logical arguments, but are individually anathematized as ones already refuted. Lambecius (25) had already described that Vienna codex, and had published the first three anathemas by way of a specimen. The same Lambecius (26) informs us that he also found in the Vienna library some letters written against the Phundagiagitae, or Bogomils, and sent from the monastery of the Peribleptos to their homeland, the title of which Tollius quotes in Greek along with a Latin version, in which he translated the words τῆς μονῆς τῆς Περιβλέπτου as "of the illustrious monastery Peribleptos"; but he would certainly have translated it more correctly as "of the monastery of Peribleptos," leaving this Greek term intact, because it is as it were the surname of that monastery, which they used as an epithet of the Virgin Theotokos, to whom this monastery was dedicated, so that it might be distinguished from other monasteries and temples which were in Constantinople sacred to the same Theotokos.

VIII. Who the Bogomils were and what their errors were, it is not necessary to set forth here, since they become sufficiently known from what Euthymius narrates in this book alone. The Bogomils were called [Bogomils] from the word *Bog*, which in the Bulgarian language signifies God, and the word *omitui*, by which term among the same [people] it is expressed to show mercy, as if they were those who implored the mercy of God (27). The same Bogomils are also called Phundagiagitae, or Phundaitae, from this, as Cotelerius (28) conjectures, because they carried purses (*marsupia*) to collect alms: for *phounda* is found among Greek writers of a later age to indicate a purse. Furthermore, they were distinguished by other names as well, for they were called Massalians, and Euchites, and Enthusiasts, and Encratites, and Marcionites, as is evident from the same Euthymius: all of which names of the Bogomils Tollius (29) expounded very prolixly and learnedly in his annotations. But above the rest, the name which Euthymius asserts in this short work that the Bogomils attributed to themselves is worthy of note, namely "Christopolites," or citizens of Christ; for they rejoiced to be called by this name, by which they showed a special love of Christ for them, so that they could more easily lead the simpler [folk] ^D into their errors (30). And for that same reason, they also...

^A claimed to be living a monastic life, and on the outside simulated such great appearance of sanctity that they seemed to be worshippers of every perfection. Anna Comnena (31), an eyewitness, describes this way of life of theirs vividly and elegantly, though there is no room to cite her words here at present.

IX. It is better to inquire how the impious dogmas of the Bogomils infected the monks of the Peribleptos. Indeed, I am of the opinion that the Bogomils coalesced into a certain kind of college, in which they feigned to profess the monastic rule of life. The reason why I suspect this should be the opinion is provided, first, by the name "Christopolites," which they gave to their society; and then by the narrative of Anna Comnena (32), who writes that Basil, the author of this new sect, had joined to himself twelve disciples, whom he had named apostles, after the example of Manes. For from this narrative the opinion immediately arises that they did not live a common life with other monks, but had entered into a society only among themselves; all the more so since it is asserted by the same Anna that certain female disciples were also mixed in with them. But indeed, after the heresy and hypocrisy of the Bogomils were at length exposed, and Basil had been burned in the Hippodrome of the royal city by the order of Alexios Komnenos, this impious society was dissolved and dispersed, and its errors were condemned. Yet, as we see happening every day, if at any time some error has settled into the mind of someone, the mind is not easily drawn away from it, and so it happened with the Bogomils. For twenty-six years after their heresy had been condemned, a certain monk named Niphon had already begun to revive it, having drawn not a few into his own way of thinking. When this was reported to Manuel Komnenos, the grandson of Alexios through his son John, who was then reigning, he ordered a synod to be convened in Constantinople so that Niphon’s case could be discussed. That synod was gathered in the year 1144, on the day before the Ides of October, in the Thomaïtes or patriarchal triclinium, presided over by the Patriarch Michael Oxitas and the Emperor Manuel Komnenos, with many bishops and nobles sitting in attendance. Once Niphon had been summoned and questioned about his opinions, since they discovered he had unsound beliefs, they decreed that he should be relegated for a time to the Peribleptos monastery, warning the abbot and the other monks that they should neither hold conversation with him themselves, nor permit any access to him to anyone living outside the monastery. The matter, however, did not turn out as intended. For Niphon, seizing the opportunity, little by little began to set up conversations with certain monks of the Peribleptos, and to pour the virus of his heresy into them; for which reason the Fathers of the same synod, lest that plague should devour the minds of the monks, ^B forced Niphon to be removed from the monastery and, interdicted from fire and water, to be sent into further exile. Leo Allatius (33) published in Greek and Latin both of the synodal decrees by which these acts and determinations were established. Wherefore, not unjustly, as I judge, one can conjecture that it was then for the first time, through the association with Niphon, that some monks of the Peribleptos embraced the errors of the Bogomils.

X. By what reasoning, however, Euthymios detected the depravity of these monks and learned of their delusions, he himself proceeds to explain at greater length in this little book. And here I would wish you to note that Euthymios, in order to know the whole matter better, imitated Alexios Komnenos, who received Basil kindly in the palace, feigning that it was dear to his own heart to learn his dogmas, so that he might more confidently vomit forth the venom of his impiety (34). Moreover, the principal dogma of the Bogomils was derived entirely from the doctrine of Manes; for they asserted two principles, one of which was good, the other evil. They adorned the evil principle with the name of God and worshipped it with divine honors, as Euthymios hints in this little book, and asserts more clearly in the *Panoplia* (35), where he says that the Bogomils believed the demon to be older and more excellent than the Son Word, as being the Firstborn. Here Beausobre, in his history of the Manichaeans (36) which he compiled, attacks Euthymios and asserts with too much impudence that he attributed such impiety to the Bogomils out of evil intent. For, as he himself says, no one will be persuaded that a Christian sect, which refused to pay any veneration to the cross and images, believed Satan to be more excellent than the Word. But indeed the whole sophism of Beausobre collapses if we observe that the Manichaeans, of whom the Bogomils were a germ, denied worship to the cross, the Mother of God, and images because they impiously rejected it as idolatry. For this sacrilegious sect asserted that Christ could not have been begotten by the Virgin Mary, nor could he have been born, because if he had been truly begotten and born, he could not have been bound to flesh except through the chains of Satan. From this same principle they also maintained that Christ's death was not real, but fallacious and feigned. Much more has been gathered on this matter against Beausobre himself by that most learned man, Augustinus Antonius Georgius, in his *Alphabetum Tibetanum* (37). From these things, however, everyone easily understands that this pseudo-Christian sect did not have to venerate the Mother of God, nor the cross, in any way, because Christ had neither put on flesh in the Virgin, nor had he truly died on the wood of the cross. They held the same view even concerning the saints reigning with Christ in the heavens, whom they likewise abhorred as inventions of idolaters. By contrast, however, who does not see that they had such great reverence for Satan for this reason, that he was considered as God among them, and was endowed with such power, that

^A they attributed to him the workmanship of this very world and the creation of man? The cunning Calvinist certainly denied that the Manichaeans ever honored the prince of darkness with the name of God, but how undeservedly he did so, the praised Georgius (38) has sufficiently taught.

XI. It is now time to set forth the chief argument of Beausobre, by which he strives to demonstrate that the Bogomils, while they said that Satan was older in birth than the Word, thought rightly in the faith, and that Euthymius had deliberately perverted the sense of this opinion, so that he might thereby fabricate such a great slander against them. There are, he says, two opinions which some ancient Catholic writers have followed: the first, namely, that the divine Word had His own proper hypostasis only from the creation of the world; the second, that Satan and the angels existed for many ages before this visible world. Therefore, since it pleased the Bogomils to establish the creation of the angels before the world, and since the divine Word began to have His own proper hypostasis at the creation of the world, he concludes from this that they were able to affirm, without heresy, that Satan was older in birth than the Word. However, this delirium of a Calvinist man, which at first glance might perhaps deceive the simpler-minded, is of no strength at all if we examine it a little. And, to start with what could be affirmed without any injury to religion, I will readily concede to him that the angels were indeed created many ages before this visible world. But as regards the second opinion, which he confidently pushes forward as Catholic, it must be noted that by those ancient Catholic writers he wished to designate especially Tatian and Athenagoras, as if it were their opinion, as Petavius (39) also believed, that the divine Word did not have a proper hypostasis before the creation of the world. But although these ancient Fathers may have spoken somewhat obscurely about the generation of the Word, they nevertheless never said anything that could harm His divinity, eternity, and personality. And in truth, as far as Tatian is concerned, he indeed says that in the beginning the Word was in the Father, certainly as in a consubstantial Person, with whom He sustained all things; in which words he manifests His divinity and eternity. But while he adds that the Word proceeded from the Father when He went forth to the creation of the world, he understands that God, through the Son, created all things instructed by all the paternal ideas and attributes. And although he posited a necessary connection between the progression of the Word and the creation of things, nevertheless, according to this same Tatian, the Word so proceeded from the Father in the creation of things that He was not severed and separated from Him, because if He had been severed, the Father would have a wordless (*alogos*) nature. Therefore, it is asserted quite falsely that Tatian thought the divine Word had a proper hypostasis at the creation of the world: for he only asserts that that Word, which from eternity sustained all things in the Father, then at the creation of things proceeded from the Father, because all things were made through Him. For nearly the same reason Athenagoras also discoursed on the divinity of the Word. For he says that God, since He is eternal mind, had the Word from eternity in Himself, as being by nature rational from eternity: and that this Word proceeded, so that He might be the idea and operation of all created things. It is certain, however, that Athenagoras wished to teach only this in these words, that all things were created through the Word, since the Son can in some way be called God's reason, mind, wisdom, and operative power, which first went forth externally at the creation of things. St. Augustine also approved this opinion, when he explains that text of John, *In the beginning was the Word*: "In this place," he says (40), "we better interpret the Word as signifying not only the relation to the Father, but also the operative power toward those things which were made through the Word." The Word therefore had His own proper and distinct hypostasis from eternity while He sustained all things with the Father, but at the creation of things He appeared in a certain sense, because all things were made through the Word. To these points, to let the unhappy craftiness of Beausobre shine forth more clearly, it is worth noting that even if we admitted this error, that the Word had a proper hypostasis from the creation of things, and also the opinion that the angels were created before the world, it would in no way follow that Satan was prior to this hypostasis; for then the Word would have had a hypostasis not at the creation of the world, but at the creation of the angels, because He would then have gone forth outside the Father: and therefore the hypostasis of the Word would have always preceded the creation of the angels.

XII. Euthymius records other tenets of the Bogomil sect in this little book, and there is no need to discuss them individually. Perhaps Euthymius had refuted that distinction, but in the Vatican manuscript only the arguments remain by which he urges the Bogomils on that which pertains to the resurrection of the dead. But in order to prove that it will certainly come to pass, he opposes first the Nicene symbol of faith, firm in the authority of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers; then the Council of Chalcedon, to whose authority, in order to gain more trust, he describes a certain miracle performed by God through St. Euphemia the martyr, in whose basilica the Fathers of this council were gathered by the Emperor Marcian. Many writers mention the same miracle, but some relate that it happened at the time of the council itself, others that it happened only after the council was brought to a conclusion. Michael Glycas (41) and Zonaras (42) followed the latter opinion: for they write that when the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus mocked the decrees of the council, and said that its authority did not rely upon the truth, but upon the power of the emperor, and thus tried to stabilize the depravity of their opinion…

^A Anatolius the patriarch, having summoned the adversaries, proposed that each party should inscribe the symbol of its own faith in a document, and that both documents should be deposited in the reliquary of St. Euphemia, so that this glorious martyr might provide judgment and testimony regarding the truth of the orthodox faith. Since this plan pleased the heretics as well, the stone that closed the reliquary was removed, two documents were placed upon the chest of the holy martyr, and then the reliquary was not only closed again, but also secured and sealed with the seals of both parties. Three days later, when they had gathered, the emperor also being present, the reliquary was opened; the document of the heretics had been cast down to the feet of the martyr, but the other was found in her right hand. However, that we should not immediately bestow our full faith upon this narration of Zonaras and Glycas is prevented by the silence of Evagrius and others who have written about the Council of Chalcedon; for it certainly seems less than probable that an event so miraculous and so worthy of record should only have become known so many centuries after the council.

But beyond doubt, the opinion of Theodore the ^B Bestes and of Constantine the bishop [(43)], which Euthymius has also embraced, is far more abhorrent to the truth, claiming as they do that this miracle was performed during the time of the council itself. For as Baronius [(44)] excellently remarks, if this test of faith had been attempted by the Fathers of the council, the acts, which were diligently recorded at the time, would by no means have been silent about so great a miracle. Furthermore, it is added that the Fathers in ecumenical councils never sought the truth of dogma from miracles, whereas they were accustomed to seek, propose, affirm, and stabilize it primarily from the divine Scriptures, ancient traditions of the Church, and finally from the assertions of the holy Fathers. Therefore, I willingly assent to the learned men who have opined that this miracle was entirely fabricated in later centuries, and that this pious fable flowed from a misunderstanding of the acts of the council themselves. For the Fathers of Chalcedon, after the conclusion of the council, in order to show that all things which had been happily accomplished in the council were to be referred to the patronage and auspices of St. Euphemia, spoke thus in their letter sent to Pope St. Leo [(45)]: "For it was God who wrought, and Euphemia, whom the council adorned with the beauty of victory, who as if receiving your own confession of faith, the definition from us, offered it to her bridegroom through the most pious emperor, and to the friend of Christ, the Augusta, calming all the perturbation of the adversaries, yet strengthening ^C the confession of the truth, as if a friend, and subscribing with hand and tongue to the decrees of all for the sake of demonstration." Furthermore, it should be observed that the ancient painters, in order to express this very patronage of the martyr Euphemia towards the council, sometimes depicted her in paintings holding a scroll in her hand, as if offering the profession of faith of the Chalcedonian Fathers to God; and indeed it seems very probable that such paintings as these provided the argument for those of a later age to invent that miracle of the Greeks.

XIII. Nor is the other matter which Euthymius immediately adds, the miracle of St. Basil, any less false, even though he asserts it to be manifest to all. The summary of it is this: When the Arians, relying on the power of the emperor Valens, had expelled the Catholics from the Nicene church with military force, the orthodox people ran to St. Basil with great clamor, exposing the injury done by the emperor, for which cause he approached the emperor Valens and rebuked him so freely for violation of the law with such eloquence that the emperor committed the judgment of the matter to St. Basil himself. St. Basil therefore returned to Nicaea and confirmed ^D a pact with the Arians, that with the church doors closed and sealed, whichever people found them opened by their own accord after three days, that side should take possession of the church. But when the Arians had spent three days and nights in prayer, yet had gone as supplicants to the church in vain, then Basil entered the temple of the martyr St. Diomedes outside the city to pray, and having completed a night vigil, led the people back to the city; and when he had approached the church, its closed and sealed doors were immediately opened as if struck by a violent breeze, and were dashed against the walls. This is the history which Euthymius does not hesitate to bring forward as certain and unshakable, but which truly rests upon an overly fragile foundation. The Greek writer who first mentions this miracle is the author of the *Life of St. Basil*, which appeared in the eighth, or rather, the ninth century. There were indeed some who easily attributed this *Life* to St. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, the person most familiar to Basil himself, because it is found described in manuscript codices under the name of Amphilochius, and because we know for certain that St. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, left a certain encomium of St. Basil to posterity. Yet this encomium has reached us, and it differs from this *Life* both in style and in substance. Wherefore it is the common opinion of critics that the writer of the *Life of St. Basil* lived a long time after the age of the holy doctor, and that he did not describe things seen by himself, but things scattered among the common people without selection, and perhaps assumed for himself the name of Amphilochius to gain authority and faith for his work. Francis Combefis opposed this common judgment, and he too sought to defend this *Life of St. Basil* as belonging to St. Amphilochius the bishop; yet he was forced to confess himself that it had been interpolated by the monks through whose hands it passed in the course of time, and mixed and augmented with popular traditions—or, if you prefer, with wonderful narrations fabricated for the sake of ornamentation. The Greek text of this *Life* was rendered into Latin by Ursus, a subdeacon of the Holy Roman Church, contemporary with Anastasius the Librarian; and