and having taken the disciples aside, he arranges these final things for them, as if they were his last will and testament. He reveals to them the higher truths regarding the Father, and his own relationship to Him, and that of his kindred Spirit, which indeed has its procession from the Father, and— 971 from both, that he is sent equally; and below, when he introduces Christ speaking such things: "The Spirit is indeed mine, for I am the Truth, but He has His substance from the Father." One must read cautiously, on account of those adversative particles by which he seems to reject error, yet he is not to be called a schismatic, much less a heretic. First, because the dogma had not yet been declared and defined; and indeed, a proposition which is erroneous or heretical after the definition of a council is not to be judged as such for a time preceding that definition, as our Suarez teaches (lib. 3, *De Angelis*, cap. 3). Nor, indeed, must the first point be conceded, for our author here not only does not dispute against the opinion of the Latins, as Theophylact does—who likewise wrote after Photius in chapter 1 of John, for which reason he is deservedly noted as a schismatic by Bellarmine in his work *De Script. Eccles.*—but he also has no exclusive or negative word concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Moreover, he speaks in the manner in which the Greeks of that time, before the Council of Florence, spoke—indeed, in the exact same manner as Euthymius, who is nevertheless nowhere called a schismatic by Bellarmine. Euthymius speaks thus in the 15th chapter of John: "See, however, that the Son indeed sends Him, as being of the same honor as the Father, but that He does this from the Father, as proceeding from Him. He proceeds, therefore, from the Father as from His substance; therefore He also knows all things that are the Father’s, just as the Son does." And indeed, the doctrine of that same most eminent writer, delivered in this very matter (*lib. 1 De Christo, controv. 22 gen., cap. 28*), is most true, where he has it thus: "It must be noted that it was not always necessary to believe that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son; for before the question arose and was defined, it was sufficient to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, in which it was also included that He proceeds from the Son; nor was there a need to ask whether He proceeds from the Son or not; for we are not bound to know all things, but we are bound never to assert errors positively." Thus Bellarmine, from whom I maintain that this author of ours is in no way to be called a schismatic, since he speaks in the manner used by the Greeks, and does not positively assert an error. But why do I seek this author's excuse at such length, when in the very decree of Eugenius IV, made after the council, the Greeks are excused and are said to have been united with the Latins, even though they asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father: "The Greeks indeed asserted that what they say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not bring forward with this intent, so as to exclude the Son, but because it 972 seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations; for this reason, they refrained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." Thus Eugenius IV. The same excuse or explanation is brought forward by Gregory Protosyncellus in his *Apology for the Council of Florence* against the Epistle of Mark of Ephesus, from which I have these few words: "For the phrase 'from the Father' does not signify 'from the Father alone'; for he who names the Father, at the same time understands also the Son," etc. This he confirms from many Greek Fathers, whom read in his work; nay, the Greeks themselves who spoke in this way are called orthodox by that same Gregory; namely, as is explained in the notes added to that same *Apology* in the same volume of the *Concilia*. Because the Greeks, since they supposed that two principles were being posited by the Latins, held their union in suspicion—not that they excluded the Son from the principle of the Holy Spirit, as may be seen in the definition of the Council of Florence (the same as the decree cited by us above), and because they were prepared to be corrected by the Church. Thus in that place. And indeed, he is to be held in the number of these.
Petrus καθίσταται; Θύρα μὲν αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ εἰπών· «Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα·» οἱ κλεῖς δὲ ταύτης τῆς θύρας ἡ πίστις, ἣν ἐγχειρίζει τῷ κορυφαίῳ ὁ Κύριος· καὶ τάχα τούτῳ τῷ κλείθρῳ ἡ ἀσματίζουσα νύμφη διήνοιγε, ποθοῦσα τὸν καλὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν ὑποδέξασθαι, ταύτῃ τοι καὶ ἔλεγεν· «Ἐπὶ θύραις τοῦ κλείθρου ἤνοιξα ἐγὼ τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ μου.» Δίδωσιν οὖν Πέτρῳ καὶ τοῖς κατ' ἐκεῖνον τὰς κλεῖς, ὡς ἂν μὲν τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς ἄβατος ἡ θύρα εἴη τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας, καὶ ἄδυτος· τοῖς δὲ πιστοῖς εὐεπίβατος, ὡς βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἀπόφασιν· «Εἴ τις οὐ γεννηθῇ δι' ὕδατος, καὶ Πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.» Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐναντίοι τῆς πίστεως καὶ πολέμιοι πύλαι ᾅδου ἐκλήθησαν, ὁ δὲ Δεσπότης Ἐμμανουήλ, θύρα καὶ πύλη τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. Διὸ καὶ προτροπὰδην πᾶσι βοᾷ· «Δι' ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ, σωθήσεται,» καὶ, «Εἰσέλθετε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης,» τὰς πλατείας καὶ εἰς ᾅδου φερούσας ἐκκλίναντες. B Ἀλλ' οἱ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἀπάτης τὴν τρύγα ἔξω ῥοφήσαντες, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ὑγιοῦς ἡμῶν πίστεως πολλὰς δυσφημίας, ὥς τινα βόρβορον ἐρευξάμενοι, πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ληρήμασι καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν ἐθρασύνθησαν, πῶς ὁ Πέτρος ἀξιωθεὶς τοιούτου μακαρισμοῦ, καὶ μαρτυρηθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δεδέχθαι τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν, καὶ τὰς κλεῖς εἰληφὼς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Πάθους καιρὸν τρίτον ἠρνήσατο τὸν διδάσκαλον, φαύλης παιδίσκης τοῦτον μορμολυξάσης, ὡς βρεφύλλιον; Ταῦτά φασιν οἱ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μαχόμενοι· ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ὡς βέλη νηπίων τὰς τοιαύτας πληγὰς τῶν ἐναντίων ἡγούμενοι, οὕτω ταύτας ἀποκρουόμεθα. Φαμὲν γὰρ, ὡς οἰκονομία ἦν ἐκ Θεοῦ παραχώρησις τῆς τοῦ Πέτρου ἀρνήσεως. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἄλλους συμφοιτητὰς ἐκαυχήσατο συναποθανεῖν τῷ μυσταγωγῷ, οὐ πάνυ περισκεψάμενος τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἀσθένειαν· καίτοι τοῦ Κυρίου διαβεβαιοῦντος, ὡς «πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε·» διὰ τοῦτο ἔδει καὶ αὐτὸν ἐλεγχθῆναι ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἦν, δειλίᾳ σαρκικῇ ὑποκείμενος, καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου δειχθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἐπαληθεύοντα, καὶ τὴν ἄρνησιν προμηνύσαντα. Τοῦτο πέπονθε καὶ Δαβὶδ ὁ προφήτης καὶ βασιλεύς. Τῆς πρεπούσης γὰρ ἐκστὰς καταστάσεως, τὴν ὑπερήφανον ἐκείνην ἀφῆκε φωνήν, «Οὐ μὴ σαλευθῶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.» Διὰ τοῦτο μικρὸν ἐγκαταλειφθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτὸν σκεπούσης θείας δυνάμεως, ἡδονῆς ῥυπαρᾶς ἥττων ἐγένετο, τὸ τῆς μοιχείας ὑποστὰς κακόν. C καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, καὶ ὅτι ἥξει πάλιν Ἠλίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, δίδωσιν οὖν Πέτρῳ, καὶ τοῖς κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὰς κλεῖς.