George the Cypriot, Patriarch of Constantinople

YEAR OF OUR LORD 1280. GEORGIUS CYPRIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. NOTICE

(Leo Allat. *De Georgiis*, n. LXXIII, in Fabricius, old ed., vol. X, p. 805.)

Georgius Cyprius, later called Gregorius, was patriarch of Constantinople after having been a deacon of that Church. Gregoras in his *History* and others refer to him sometimes as Georgius and sometimes as Gregorius. Pachymeres, book VII, writing of the Arsenites, says: "They acknowledged, for the time being, Gregory as patriarch. For this was his name, and that monastic name [taken] from George." They acknowledged him as patriarch, for that was the name he had assumed from George when he took the monastic habit. ^A Initially, he felt in favor of the Latins together with Veccus, Meliteniota, and Metochita; Gregoras writes of Veccus, book V: "He both spoke, and wrote, and taught dogmas, having as collaborators and assistants in this struggle the archdeacons of the imperial clergy, Meliteniota and Metochita, and furthermore Georgius of Cyprus." And he says: "And in speaking, and writing, and setting forth dogmas, his helpers in this contest were the archdeacons of the imperial clergy, Meliteniota and Metochita, and in addition Georgius Cyprius." Pachymeres, book V, shows that Georgius also defended the cause of the Latins: "Then, therefore, when these two had been seated and honored with a chair as fellow-workers with the emperor—namely the archdeacon Meliteniota and the protoapostolarius Cyprius—the rhetor Olobolus stood awaiting permission from the emperor." Thus, when they had sat down and were honored with a chair as if they were supporters of the emperor—Archdeacon Meliteniota and the protoapostolarius Cyprius—the rhetor Olobolus stood expecting leave from the emperor. ^B The same author, in book VII, chapter 34, reports that he was born among the Italians and, having grown up, set himself among the Greeks. "What have you suffered," he said—meaning Veccus—"that you surround me, born and bred among the Romans and of Roman stock, with frequent insults, and then flee? Yet a man born and bred among the Italians—and not only this, but one who has crept in among you with those very garments and that language—you welcome with praise?" "What have you suffered," he said, "that you harass me, born among the Romans and of Roman stock, and an adult, with repeated insults, and later [drive me to] flight; but a man born among the Italians, and an adult, and one who has not only done these things but has crept in among you in these very clothes and this language, you welcome with praise?" Later, attaching himself to the Greeks after the death of Joseph Galesiota, although Veccus himself was still alive and was speaking his defense before the synod, he was thrust into the patriarchal throne through force, wickedness, and even the envy of Georgius himself (a). By the just judgment of God, he was hated not only by his enemies but even by his closest friends, upon whom he had conferred everything important in the Church. And since he could not bear the injury, he resigned (b) and took refuge in the monastery of the Mother of God, called the Hodegon, and not long after died near the monastery of divine Andrew. He was a man of very sharp wit, eloquent, fluent, and I might almost say imbued with all the disciplines. Georgius Pachymeres, book VII, on Andronikos the Elder: "He is chosen for patriarch, Georgius of Cyprus, a man steeped in learning, and bearing the seal of Patriarch Joseph—the note of the protoapostolarius brought into the palace. By this means, he seemed to conciliate the Josephites through the seal, and the Arsenites by not allowing the things decreed by Joseph regarding the Church to take place." He thus chooses as patriarch Georgius Cyprius, a man nurtured in sermon-writing, and appointed by Patriarch Joseph, decorated in the palace with the dignity of protoapostolarius: in this he also seemed to conciliate the Josephites through the ordination he had received, and the Arsenites too, because he did not allow the things prescribed by Joseph regarding the Church to be carried out in practice. ^C Gregoras, book VI: "And at that time there was a man distinguished in learning, Georgius of Cyprus, who was counted among the imperial clergy, a man who, by his natural skill and more perfect diligence, brought back to the light that noble depth of Greece and that Attic-izing language of old, which for a long time had been hidden in the depths of oblivion, and granted it, as it were, a rebirth. The emperor desired and longed to raise him to the patriarchal throne, as he had just changed his monastic habit; however, he wished for him to receive the laying-on-of-hands from none of all those who had partaken in the innovation of the faith, but he kept himself as one uncommuned, so that he was in danger... ^D

(a) A.D. 1283. (b) A.D. 1289.

of delay regarding his zeal. He was, however, promoted by the emperor after the votes and the due testimonies, and he had received the pastoral staff upon the imperial dais from the hand of the emperor, according to the custom which had long prevailed. And he was discharging and administering certain of the patriarchal rights which did not require the priesthood.

At that time, Georgius Cyprius was a man of signal eloquence, from the imperial clergy's college; he, by the dexterity of his genius and singular study, brought to light the rhythms of Greek literature and that Attic tongue long since submerged in the whirlpool of oblivion, and recalled it as if from the dead. Although he had not long before adopted the monastic habit, the emperor held it in mind and was eager to raise him to the patriarchal throne; yet he did not wish hands to be laid upon him by any of those who had embraced that new dogma, lest there be a danger that the matter might be delayed too long. He was nonetheless designated by the emperor after the due suffrages and testimonies; and he received the pastoral staff on the imperial dais, offered to him by the emperor according to old custom. Therefore, intent upon affairs, he was administering the patriarchal rights which had nothing connected with the priesthood. Regarding his patriarchate, Pachymeres says, lib. VII: *He chooses to the patriarchate Georgius from Cyprus, a man nurtured in eloquence, ordained by the patriarch Joseph, and distinguished with the dignity of protapostolarius in the palace.* In this, he seemed, by virtue of his ordination, to be reconciling the Josephites to himself; but the Arsenites, because he did not allow to be done in the Church what Joseph had ordained. And Ephraemius in the *Chronicle*:

Again Joseph recovers the throne; Upon his departing from life and the throne, A certain wise man, Gregorius from Cyprus, The midwife of the discourse of the wise, the hearth of the Muses, Was elevated to the throne of the patriarchs; Who, having been a runaway from his fatherland and paternal home, While yet a child, by a love of education and learning, Coming, he dwells at the city of Constantine. And giving himself to learnings and labors, He reached a great depth of education. Then, becoming known to the emperor, And enrolled in the clergy of the palace, He appeared as High Priest of Constantinople, Having been perfected in the life of monks, as is the custom.

Again Joseph recovers the throne; and when he had laid aside life and throne, a certain wise man, Gregorius from Cyprus, an alumnus of learned discourses and a sanctuary of the Muses, is raised to the patriarchal throne, who from his first age, an exile from his fatherland and paternal home, burning with a love of learning and mathematics, betook himself to the city of Constantine; where, devoted to disciplines and labors, he reached a great pinnacle of wisdom. At last he became known to the emperor, and, admitted into the clergy of the palace, he is made prelate of Constantinople, having first, according to custom, assumed the monastic habit. Hence, the remarkable negligence of Georgius Phranza, lib. I, cap. 7, is to be noted, who in the series of patriarchs does not place this Georgius, but writes: *A certain monk named Athanasius replaced Veccus the patriarch, who had been driven from his see.* It is no wonder that this escaped a man intent on secular business, not much given to ecclesiastical matters, and, moreover, broken by misfortunes and ill health.

That he was most addicted to the writings of Aristotle and Plato, and that he did not waste his oil or labor in cultivating them, Joannes Veccus relates, *Orat. prima ad Constantinum*: "How you boast of the Aristotelian and of the great Plato." Or by what reason do you vaunt yourself as Aristotelian, and especially on account of Plato. "Unless perhaps," he says, "some one persuading himself by Aristotelian dogmas, of the sort that your own discourses show you to be." Unless one relies on Aristotelian tenets, such as your commentaries demonstrate you to be.

Pachymeres concerning his death, lib. VII Hist., cap. 16: *Things being in this state, the one who had served as patriarch, Gregorius, worn down by a long-standing disease, and as some said, also through neglect out of pusillanimity, not long after departs from life. And they were allowing him to be buried with chantings, as is fitting, but not as high priest, for the one in power, even as he himself thought he was retaining the priesthood, was sending messages refusing it, and he kept directing his own cousin, who was the Raulina, not to perform any such thing, which indeed came to pass.*

These things being as they were, Gregorius, who had been patriarch before, worn out by a long illness, or as some said, because he saw that he was being held in contempt, out of pusillanimity not long after ends his life, and they allowed his funeral rites to be performed with hymns, as was proper, but not as for a pontiff; for the emperor, thinking he claimed the pontificate for himself, kept sending messengers forbidding it, and had commanded his niece, who was Raulena, that she should attempt nothing to the contrary, which was done. And he had said concerning the same, supra cap. IX: *And indeed he betakes himself, bearing his own person, to the little monastery of the Aristenes, lying somewhere near the church of St. Andrew, which is in the Krisis, for there the protovestiarissa Raulena was gathering and cherishing the great ones on her own account.* And in the Aristenes monastery, situated not far from the monastery of St. Andrew which is in the Krisis; for there, the protovestiarissa Raulena, fostering him from her own means, had received him most opulently. He wrote for the most part in every sort of the sciences.

1. His works are published, *Encomium on the Sea, or on the universal nature of the waters.* In Greek by Bonaventura Vulcanius with the treatise of Aristotle *De Mundo*, at Leiden by Raphelengius, 1591, in 8vo. Robertus Constantinus makes mention of him in his *Bibliotheca*.

2. *Proverbs* translated into Latin by Petrus Pantinus at Leiden by Elzevir, 1619, in 4to. Gesner says that they exist in the Vatican library. But he is mistaken, while he doubts whether they are the same that Aldus printed long ago with the Greek *Fables of Aesop*. For they are different, fewer, more truncated, and perhaps of no great value. Robertus Constantinus in his *Bibliotheca* made [the name] Cyrus with remarkable negligence, *Gregorius Cyrus Greek Proverbs*. His *Greek Sentences* [were published] separately in octavo at Cologne in the year 1536. The Gesnerian Epitome, which hands down the same, that the works of Gregorius were translated into Latin by Bonaventura Vulcanius, if it does not deceive us. They are unpublished.

An Encomium on Georgius Acropolita the logothete was possessed by the Dousas, from which they published a fragment with Georgius Acropolita (c-d). Would that they had published the whole! The Fables are found in the Bavarian library, codex 66. Two hundred and three Epistles (e), written partly before he took up the burden of the patriarchate, and partly after its care was committed to him, are in the library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 69. And they were in the Lolliana, and at Munich in Bavaria, but without titles. In the Ambrosian library 166 are read.

Encomium on St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

The Description and Encomium of the city of Constantinople. Theodorus Dousa, in his Notes to the Chronicle of Georgius the logothete, reports that Bonaventura Vulcanius had it among his treasures.

An oration by Cyprius, Patriarch of Constantinople, on St. Georgius the martyr, on Dionysius the Areopagite, on Marina the martyr, on St. Euthymius, Bishop of Madytus, and on the Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus. (In the Palatina, codex 372; Freherus in Chronologia, year 1283.) There are also panegyrical declamations by a certain Theodulus, and by Cyprius, on this Andronicus. (Namely, the elder Palaeologus, in the Palatina library.) Likewise on the Emperor Michael. (Robertus Constantinus in the Bibliotheca.) Regarding the life of Patriarch Gregorius, and 166 epistles in the Ambrosian library, although a little above in the same Index it is read: "Selected Epistles of Gregorius Cyprius." Also another copy. Item, Epistles regarding his life numbering 166. Is this work on his life distinct from the Epistles, or does he express his life in the Epistles themselves? This is still uncertain to me.

The Tome of the holy synod of Georgius Cyprius against Joannes Beccus, or the Column of Orthodoxy. On measures. On faith. On the predicaments. I read this inscription in the Greek Catalogue of the Vatican library; nor do I know enough if all are to be referred to the same author. (Gesnerus.) Possevinus reports from the same that he wrote a book against Joannes Beccus, which is inscribed the holy synod, or the Tome, or the Column of Orthodoxy. On measures. On faith. On the predicaments. And this indeed was the Latin version, but his Greek Sentences were printed at Cologne in the year 1536. To tell the truth, I extract myself poorly from the words of Possevinus. But what were we noting about the writing of this author? He wrote much in theological controversies, not only with Beccus, but with others also, by whom he was accused of heresy, until he was sated. Gregoras: "For it seemed to him that exile, and the carrying off of friends and kinsmen, was not enough punishment for Beccus, but by words, and writings, and dogmas, and by countering the arguments and dogmas of his opponents with syllogisms; while he was fighting against him and his things, he did not notice that he himself was being wounded by others. And in these things he was himself caught, by those which he used to seize others; just as if one shooting at an enemy and foe, he did not notice that he himself was being shot at more seasonally in the side by those of the same race. For some of the archpriests and the clergy seized upon him as if he were blaspheming, and advised him to shift some of the words so that it might be harmless and free from reproach. However, the advice did not seem sound and unsuspected to him, but that it held a lurking and creeping envy. Therefore he stood his ground, and was provoked to counter-arguments and proofs of proofs, and weaving word upon word he continued for a long time to block the mouths of those accusing him, as it seemed, and to support—as far as he could—and to confirm the strength of his own words."

For, not thinking it punishment enough for Beccus that he was an exile from his friends and torn from his kin, he struck him from afar with words and writings also, and refuted his writings and decrees, and collected contrary problems and dogmas. But while he attacks him and his followers, imprudently he himself is wounded by others; and is caught in those traps in which he was catching others; no otherwise than if someone, throwing missiles at enemies, should himself receive a graver wound from his own side from an oblique angle. For some of the bishops and priests reproached him as a blasphemer, and warned him that, by changing some words, he might change the danger and reproach. That admonition did not seem sincere to him, but to proceed from hidden envy. Hence he urged the matter, and was sharpened to contradict, and heaped proof upon proof and argument upon argument, by which he might both muzzle the mouths of his accusers, as he thought, and defend his own opinion with all his might. Therefore, vexed by the objections not only of enemies but even of friends, Gregorius convened a synod at Constantinople, by which he might purge himself of false accusations, and, with the errors of others detected, the truth which he himself professed as the norm of faith and dogmas might be handed down to the rest; thinking that this could not be done except in writing, he set forth a synodic Tome. Which, because of the matters of faith handed down in it as sincere, and contaminated by no falsehood, as he himself thought—but too confidently and impudently, though involved in many errors and tainted with blasphemies—he entitled the Column of Orthodoxy, just as the Epistle of the supreme pontiff Leo, and the Fathers of Chalcedon; but with what a different endeavor! And when he was vehemently inveighing against Beccus himself, he called it the synodic Tome against Beccus. And this is the work so much confused by Gesner and Possevinus, not different from the Tome promulgated in a full synod against Beccus, of which mention is made in the Gesnerian Epitome. And the fact that he wrote other things against Beccus is indicated by his own sermons against the same.

in the 4th manuscript of the Imperial Library at Vienna. Epitome Gesneriana. Whatever Georgius had committed to writing against Beccus, Beccus himself, with no less heat of spirit, nay rather with masculine eloquence, strove to refute everywhere, and especially in four books to Constantine, of which this is the beginning: "I am already suffering, and I have determined for myself a definition against those who speak against the truth." Regarding the *Tomus* of Georgius Cyprius, and how Beccus wrote against him, Pachymeres, lib. vi, cap. 1, says more. And that on this same occasion Cyprius poured forth many things against the Latins and the catholic truth, Georgius Scholarius, who was of the schism, is a witness among others, in his preface on the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins. For when he was treating of those writers who had sharpened their pens against the Latins, after a judgment approved by the ancients, he adds: "Of all those later ones, better and more capable, and commensurate with the magnitude of this subject, were especially the inspired Nilus and the holy Theophanes; and after them, the holy Gregories, who were namesakes and accurate followers, also wrote." And of all the later ones, the divine Nilus and the holy Theophanes indeed wrote better and more sufficiently and quite congruously for the dignity of this subject: after them, the sacred Gregories who share the name, and their most faithful associates, wrote. One was Gregorius Palamas, who hurled many things against the Latins; the other was this Gregorius Cyprius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who cultivated that role until his last breath. Item, Joannes Beccus, orat. 3, to Constantine: "You know how some of these, placing themselves under the leader Cyprius, among other things say against the pious dogma, and malign the procession as an equivocation." You know some of those who follow the leader Cyprius, among other things which they bellow against the pious dogma, condemn the procession as equivocal.

At Scoriac in the Royal Library, there is read: *Gregorii patriarchæ Constantinopolitani Cyprii Apologia in Epistolam Marci Ephesii*, VI, num. 14, not without, I think, an error of the transcriber. For how could Cyprius, under Andronicus the Elder, respond to Marcus Ephesius, an overseer under Joannes Palæologus, who was at least one hundred and thirty years younger? Wherefore that "of Cyprius" (*tou Kypriou*) must be deleted and "of the Protosyncellus" substituted (f); for he wrote against Marcus Ephesius and responded to his calumnies against the Roman Church, as appears from the work now edited after the Council of Florence.

There is preserved with me the *Life and conduct, and the partial narration of the miracles of our holy and God-bearing Father Lazarus, who practiced asceticism on Mount Galesius, written by the most holy patriarch, Lord Gregorius*. The Life and res gestae, and the peculiar narrative of the miracles of our holy and God-bearing Father Lazarus, who cultivated an ascetic life on Mount Galesius, described by the most holy patriarch, Lord Gregorius. Which will be none other than the Cyprius. For after the empire of Romanus Argyrophylus, under whom Lazarus flourished, up until the captured city, besides Gregorius the Protosyncellus, to whom it can in no way be referred, no other Gregorius administered the patriarchate. Baronius, *Annalium* year 960, not alien to this opinion, called Georgius the author of the Life: "At this time in the East there flourished St. Lazarus, a monk on Mount Galesius near Ephesus, whose life Georgius the patriarch wrote." The writing is sufficiently elegant, and accurate, and rare.

LIFE OF GEORGE, OR GREGORY CYPRIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

LIFE

WHICH NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME COMES TO LIGHT IN GREEK FROM A LEIDEN CODEX, WITH A LATIN TRANSLATION AND NOTES; TO WHICH ARE ADDED TWO HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC DISSERTATIONS, TOGETHER WITH A LETTER OF THE SAME CYPRIUS TO A FRIEND, AND MOSCHAMPERES, EXCHARTOPHYLAX, TO HIM, BY WHICH THE BYZANTINE HISTORY OF GEORGE PACHYMERES IS ILLUSTRATED; BY FATHER JO. FRANC. BERN. M. DE RUBEIS, OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS. (Venice, 1753, printed by Jo. Bapt. Pasquali, by permission and privilege of the superiors.)

TO THE READER

Accept, benevolent reader, in few words, the occasion and the proposed intention of this work now coming to light, such as it is. When the volumes of the *Byzantine History* had begun to be reprinted in Venice in the year 1729, in order that this new edition might have some value, nothing was omitted through the diligence of him who had undertaken its care, so that works or minor treatises, if any might exist which were still unpublished and related to the same subject, might be added to it with advantage. Letters were sent to learned men and friends both within and outside Italy, by which they were urged to contribute, out of their kindness, their own offerings, as it were, to the expansion of this new edition. Very many letters and minor works of varied subject matter, which George, or Gregory Cyprius—famous for his learning and conspicuous for the dignity of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—had written in the thirteenth century of the Christian era, were sent from Leiden, contained in two handwritten volumes, of which one comprises the Greek text, and the other a Latin version put together by an anonymous person of that place. I should have thought that the friend who was thus consulting for the Venetian edition had before his eyes the note of Peter Lambeck, a most famous man, concerning a similar codex in the Imperial Library [of Vienna], reviewed in book eight of the *Bibliotheca*: "They are indeed most worthy," he says, "all those letters (of Gregory Cyprius), to be brought to light, in Greek and Latin, as an excellent supplement to the *Corpus Historiae Byzantinae*, and that most especially for the *History of the Empire of Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder* by George Pachymeres, since it can be illustrated in almost countless places by the benefit of these letters (and indeed also of the minor works)." This same observation exists in Daniel Nessel in the *Catalogus*, Part V, number CI. The final hand was at last placed upon the Venetian edition, but without the letters or minor works of Cyprius having found a place in it according to one’s wishes, for perhaps the very reason which we shall soon disclose. It happened some years later that the copy of the Leiden codex which had been transmitted, and which had been lying neglected, was given to me as a remarkable gift: and immediately the intention took root in my mind that the lucubrations of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which learned men were desiring, might come to light, either all of them or the greater part. But the Latin version which had been transmitted hindered me from becoming fully satisfied in my desires, seeing it was found to be quite crude and less consonant with the Greek text, indeed certainly repugnant to it; which perhaps may have been the cause that the mentioned lucubrations of Cyprius did not obtain a place in the Venetian edition of the *Byzantine History*. Deceived in my principal hope, I nonetheless judged that it would be no waste of effort if I were to present at least a light specimen of that codex

namely, by indicating individually all the letters and minor works contained therein, and by bringing to light, for the first time, with a new Latin translation, two letters and a single minor work. Among the works, that which has been selected stands first, inscribed by Cyprius himself *On His Own Affairs*; this is because it exists in a mutilated state in the Imperial Viennese codex, and also because it sets forth with the greatest diligence the fatherland, birth, lineage, and character of this illustrious man, who was famous for his varied fate; his early studies, and his journeys undertaken to attain excellence in learning; his ecclesiastical offices, and his sovereign sacred dignity in the royal city; and the various roles he played in it, alongside the adversities he faced during the concord then initiated between the two Churches. Finally and most importantly, it gives me cause to illustrate, with no small benefit as I believe, the Pachymerian history of the emperors Michael Palaiologos and his son Andronikos. I refer to that part of the history written by Pachymeres which concerns the affairs of the Churches—whether these be the matters transacted under Michael Palaiologos regarding the discussion of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son, and the union of both Churches begun at the ecumenical Council of Lyons, and the same union later broken and overturned under his successor Andronikos; or whether they touch upon the succession of the patriarchs who, on account of the varying zeal of parties, were promoted to the throne of the Church and cast down from it. Indeed, the two dissertations—historical and dogmatic—which constitute the chief part of this work have been carefully prepared and enriched with two letters, now edited for the first time in Greek and Latin. The weightiest arguments in favor of the Catholic dogma, indicated by Pachymeres—a man who was, it must be admitted, a schismatic—yet which were sometimes disregarded due to the heat of the schism, are here most validly vindicated. Furthermore, numerous chronological difficulties occurring in his History regarding the succession of the patriarchs of the royal city, which were not so successfully resolved by the most learned interpreter Petrus Possinus and other very expert men after him, are recalled for new examination and, perhaps, are resolved with greater success (the word spoken without envy!). This, therefore, kind Reader, was the occasion given to me for working out this short study, and this the purpose I had in mind in composing it. Receive my labors and efforts, however meager, with your customary kindness: and if they have brought any benefit, defend them with your sense of fairness.

OF THE MOST WISE AND MOST ELOQUENT PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, GREGORY CYPRIUS: A SERMON OF PARTICULAR HISTORY, CONTAINING HIS OWN AFFAIRS

^A Cyprus was the fatherland of him who composed this book. His fathers and grandfathers, and his entire line of progenitors, held the first rank in wealth and in the country, until the time when the Greek people there were fated to serve the Latin Barbarians. But after they succumbed to servitude, they also became partakers in the common calamity, possessing a moderate [status] and being held in honor; they possessed those things which did not list them among the poor, the commoners, and the base, nor did they place them among the powerful and the most wealthy.

^A He was born, therefore, on the island and raised by his parents until he had to go to the teachers of grammar or primary letters. When he no longer had need of their instruction, he had passed his ninth year entirely. And since he appeared to be naturally gifted for studies, and it seemed he would be done an injustice if he were not applied to these, he was sent to the city of the Kallinikiseis for the sake of higher education, a city thought to abound in men much more learned than his original preceptors, even if, in truth, it did not abound in any such men at all. For it was to be heard from the elders explaining it that sixty years had passed since the dominion of the island had been transferred to men of another tongue, and through all that time no one had appeared who taught anything beyond those usual and humble rudiments of letters; whether any of those called wise had lived there before this was unknown to them, and they could not say. Whence, as there was not even there anything worthy of his nature to practice, he made a "second voyage," as they say, and went to the schools of the Romans, where grammar was taught in the native language of the Latins. ^B He spent no long time in these, and he seemed to possess the shadow of grammar, rather than the art itself. The cause was the brevity of the time, and the voice of the masters being foreign and spurious, a language understood by the youth only with great and much labor, without which it was not even possible to attempt the study of the art. Thus it happened that he had to undergo a double labor instead of a single one: on the one hand, seeking to learn the words themselves and what they signified, and on the other, to grasp the concepts of the art underlying the words. For the same reason, he did not take in anything worth mentioning of the Aristotelian logic that was taught there, except for what pertained to an introduction to the subject, and even this in a somewhat obscure way. ^C For it is difficult for those who do not understand the words themselves to grasp deeply the meaning of what is said. But when he saw that he was not progressing according to his desire, and because he had been allotted a rather impetuous nature, which could not endure toiling—for he had to either grasp everything or neglect the study entirely, and he was unwilling to be further exhausted and miserable—he returned to his ancestral home at fifteen years of age. ^D For the rest, he cared only for hunting and similar diversions; yet he desired letters, but was constrained by the fact that he did not have them in the Greek tongue, through which that study would have been very easy for him. And so, not being permitted to remain quiet because of this desire, he became both troublesome and vexatious to his parents, seeking for provisions from their goods to undertake the journey, and wishing to be sent out of his fatherland and sent to Nikaia for his studies, where fame proclaimed that, for one dwelling there, on account of the abundance of wise men, it was as if one were seeing the ancient Athens. His parents, bound to the boy by the ties of nature and a stronger necessity, declared that they would not under any circumstances let him go; and

^A they were rather prepared, should anyone wish to take his life, to allow it, than to endure of their own accord that their son be sent away into foreign lands at such an age. There was, therefore, dissension on both sides. And because of this impasse, a period of two years was consumed, until the young man, perceiving that his parents would always prevail if he carried on open arguments with them, feigned that he had abandoned his resolve, and that he would lead a quiet life, and follow whatever his parents, being his masters, commanded him. Having feigned this, and having rested for a short time in this pretense, so that he might strengthen their opinion of his staying, he slipped away without the knowledge of any of his household or relatives, departed from his homeland, boarded a ship, and, having had a favorable wind for his voyage, was brought on the third day to Ptolemais in Palestine. ^B And from thence, by a second voyage, difficult and very dangerous, he came to Anaea in Asia, and from there to Ephesus. There, having learned that Blemmydes dwelt in the vicinity—a man who was said to be not only the wisest among the Greeks of our time, but of all men—he was carried by an intense desire to set out and visit him, so that he might see him. Yet the Ephesian men hindered his impulse, saying, what was indeed the truth, that the philosopher would not only disdain to see him—being a young, foreign, and poor man—but that the choir of wise men around him would not permit him to approach the monastery. For they added, speaking of [Blemmydes] himself, that the man was difficult, rigid, and haughty, and cared little for simplicity; that the place was inaccessible, and the students themselves showed themselves difficult to those approaching, inasmuch as they had received this as the first of all lessons from their most wise master. Thus, from the very beginning, he was thwarted in his desire, and this seemed not to be a good omen for the future. After he was frustrated in his hope, departing from Ephesus, he came to Nicaea, the metropolis of the Bithynians, over the course of six ^C months, and these almost entirely winter months, amid great miseries and other shortages of necessary things. He spent so much time in the intervening period not because the journey was very long or required such time to accomplish, but because, having arrived beforehand at the camp of the king, he went to some of the powerful men there, so that he might procure provisions for himself that would suffice for his livelihood for the entire time of his study; and not having found these, he spent the aforementioned time. Having crossed the Hellespont along with the army, he followed the camp at his leisure through Thrace and arrived at Byzantium, where at that time the king was hurrying to besiege the city, and to fight against it, and even to ravage it if he could. But it pleased him [the youth] to retire to Nicaea, since he had his mind set upon the wonderful excellence of learning which was there, that lovable fountain to which he had panted to travel even from Cyprus. But how differently this turned out! For apart from grammar and ^D poetry, and these being superficial, he found that the wise men of that place knew how to teach nothing else. For what kind of glory is it, indeed, to hear them discourse on rhetoric

but not know what these things are, or even if they exist at all? And so, sorrows and regrets besieged him on this account. And they did so most justly; for if he had left his fatherland, disregarded the affection of his parents, ignored their tears, crossed seas that were vast, difficult, and full of dangers, traversed so many lands, and once and for all held his life of no account, was he then, in return for all these things, to receive such a magnificent reward as to become an expert in the declension of nouns, the formation and inflection of verbs, and in how the daughter of Tyndareus was snatched away, and how the city of Priam fell in a long war fought for the sake of a woman, and how the sons of Oedipus, madly raging against one another, perished by each other's hands, and all the rest of what the choir of poets fashions and invents by a kind of license of their art, looking for the most part to pleasure, but caring little for the truth? ^B Such were the thoughts about returning to his homeland that grievously troubled him. And although he saw that returning at once would be advantageous for his affairs, it was at that time most difficult. For it was necessary to travel on foot as far as the city of Anaea. Moreover, he lacked the funds necessary for a journey by land and sea—indeed, not even enough for a meager and poor sustenance for three days—and no one from outside was providing him with supplies or assisting him with the expense. These straits, therefore, held him and kept him in Nicaea as if in shackles. But not long after this, God took the great city of Byzantium away from the Latins and restored it to the Greeks. And when the emperor understood that Acropolites, ^C who at that time excelled all others in learning, was distressed that the squalor of letters prevailed in the minds of men, and, moved by compassion for this state of affairs, wished to provide his own help as a man, he freed him from civil duties and allowed him to assist whoever wished; and he himself showed that he was prepared for all those who desired to hear him as a teacher. He interpreted the labyrinths of Aristotle—for so I name his more obscure sayings and complexities, with which he wraps his teachings and makes himself difficult to understand. He also explained whatever Euclid and Nicomachus had contemplated, of whom the former instructs geometricians, and Nicomachus arithmeticians. And not a few ^D flowed to him, drawn by the love of learning. This one, too, the youngest of the choir, made haste, not permitting himself to be surpassed in the attainment of the sciences by any of his elders. When, therefore, the syllogistic and analytic arts had been sufficiently expounded by the master, as it came into his mind to instruct the pupils in rhetoric before he began to raise them to any of the other Aristotelian steps, here the opposite of what had previously appeared regarding this one, who was the best among the others, became evident. For in the exercises in which they had to show the capacity of their intellect by writing, everyone was superior to him, while he himself proved to be behind no one. The cause of this thing, perhaps, was

that, being ^A excessively fond of Peripatetic philosophy and having devoted himself to it, and venerating Aristotle as he did no other philosopher, he took little care to master rhetoric or to be considered a writer of prose; and so, for this reason, it was not his concern to deliver polished speeches or to play the rhetorician. Nor did it concern him, for as long as his fellow students remained quiet and had not yet openly taken to mocking him or disparaging him as inept in such matters. But when they were stirred up, and the reproach became glaring as the rumor spread far and wide, he could not endure this insolence, or rather the contempt, being as he was most jealous of his own honor. ^B To this study he devoted himself entirely, appointing as teachers for himself—not those whom the others had, because they corrupted all that is beautiful in rhetoric, as well as the grace of diction itself, and the Attic quality, and the solemnity, and what is truly Greek—but the most illustrious of the ancient rhetoricians, and, so to speak, the discoverers and fathers of the art itself. In a short time, he became a different man, no longer mocked as before, nor despised by those with whom he lived, as he exercised himself in speeches and composed them: so that to many he seemed sufficient as a model to be emulated in place of any other. If, however, this author managed to produce anything truly worthy of praise and emulation regarding eloquence, this document—for so I call the book that is at hand—will show those who wish to examine it. As to why he did not increase the number of his works, others say one cause and others another; for each says what he wishes; but those who knew him well say that he used to say that the time of leisure was truly very short. He commenced his studies when he was in his twenty-sixth year; but he ceased when he was thirty-three years of age (23).

Postmodum vero ^C Postmodum vero hujusmodi opera elucubrare prohibuerunt partim de vita timores, quos illi et aliis multis intulerunt circa dogmata innovatio, et qui supervenit Ecclesiae turbo, partim animi cura, in quas modo dictis timoribus solutis, pertractus et traditus est: secum reputans mirum fore, si vitam negotiis vacuam vivere posset, qualem philosopho, eique libero, convenire diceres. Ad summum patriarcharum conscendit thronum, seu, quod verius est dicere, pertractus est: haec enim omnia praeter ejus consilium circa ipsum peracta sunt. ^D Et in tempora incidit dubia ex schismaticorum furore, et difficilia, qualia nunquam fuere, quibus metus omnis relaxatio cuique data, plerosque magnis malis affecit, suam singulis voluptatem, et gloriam, et beneplacitum quaerentibus pro eo, quod utile Deoque gratum est: et Ecclesiam omni tremore et perturbatione implevit, omnibus in ea imperare cupientibus, nemine autem se submittere, ac divinis parere legibus; ita ut verius esset illud Platonis dicentis, non omnibus expedire libertatem, utile vero esse aliquibus servire et vivere sub timore ad senectutem usque,

^A saying that freedom is advantageous, but that for some, slavery is beneficial, and to live in fear until old age and death. Thus, having been thrust into the midst of such a state of confusion, and having fallen from a happy and blessed life into government—as if into some other kind of misfortune—and having submitted to unavoidable necessities, into which, when a soul descends, it could not, as I believe, produce noble discourses any more than a man, even if he were most capable of running, could run with his feet firmly shackled in iron; he reluctantly ceased from composing discourses. And this is the reason why not many of his sermons are extant. Add to this the various diseases of the body, and especially those of the head, which troubled him and brought him into a most difficult state, and his drinking of water from childhood, since from birth he had an aversion to the use of wine, and the ^B toils spent on transcribing the works of the ancient sages. For the man was both poor and most desirous of books; and he wrote quite neatly, being endowed with an excellent hand for it. And since he could not possess what he held dearest with money, he acquired them through his own sweat. Thus, he became a copyist of books such as almost no one else among those who love liberal letters has ever been. And the reason why his orations were not all of the same level of study and diligence is, I think, obvious. For what we see in the mechanical arts, the same must be considered in this matter as well: for growing time in practice reveals that later works are better than the preceding ones. Thus, the work of writers and orators in old age is nobler than that of their youth. For this reason, of the works lying before us (which are contained in this volume), those that are approved should be ascribed to the strength of his mature years; those, however, that are not such must be attributed to his youth and the lack of practice. As regards the form of his oratory, whether it was judged to be the best by him or otherwise, it is everywhere, as it were, pugnacious and competitive. He cares for a variety of figures; he cares for distinction, sublimity, gravity, intensity, and that which is befitting in the emotions, with a certain harmony and a not ignoble combination of words. ^C But I will not say more, lest I drag out my speech too long and seem to favor the man as much as I favor myself. For I consider him to be my own self, and I call him so because of our total union, which allows me to say and think this securely. If, therefore, anyone brings forward something good about him, or indeed the opposite, I say that both the mockery and the praise are directed at my own self; so that for me, who am thus disposed toward him, it is fitting to be silent. This little book, however, as I said before, will clearly show the father to its readers: hence, as to the rest, ^D he must be approached directly. Just as he (the book) will provide the means for judgment, so too must the verdict be rendered regarding what has been said thus far.

12 HISTORICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL, AND CRITICAL NOTES ON THE PRECEDING LIFE OF GEORGIUS, OR GREGORIUS CYPRIUS

(1) *Gregorii*. By this name he was called when ^A he put on the monastic habit, before he was promoted to the patriarchal throne of the royal city; but he was named Georgius in the sacred waters of baptism. Pachymeres, in *Andronicus Palaeologus*, book 1, chapter 22, says thus: "This name of Gregorius had settled upon the Cypriot, changed from Georgius, when he assumed the monastic profession in preparation for the patriarchate."

(2) *Res suas continens: τὰ καθ' ἑαυτόν*. Leo Allatius also, in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*, refers thus to Robert Constantin, no. 166. Allatius adds: "As to whether this work on his life is different from his *Epistolae*, or whether he expresses his own life in the Epistles themselves? It is still uncertain to me." Now, however, it is certain that the Life of this Georgius, or Gregorius Cyprius, is distinct from his *Epistolae*, as is evident from our manuscript and from the Vindobonensis [manuscript] cited by Nessel. In the *Catalogus bibliothecae Caesareae* (or Vindobonensis), part 5, he lists codex 101: "Epistles, one hundred and ninety-one, with a preface by an uncertain contemporary author, whose name is ignored due to the loss of a few pages, containing a Life, or rather a eulogy of him." This preface is preserved in its entirety in our codex, or rather a discourse *On his own life*, placed before several short works and very many letters collected in one volume. No doubt can be entertained that Georgius, or Gregorius Cyprius, is the author of this discourse himself: indeed, it is titled *On his own life*, or *On matters pertaining to himself*. At the end of ^C the short work, these things appear concerning the author: "lest I seem to gratify the man as much as myself; for I esteem that man to be myself, and I call him so because of the supreme union between us." Gregorius himself, who was writing the life of himself, and wished to hide the author in some way, at length manifestly betrays his own self.

(3) *Ad insula. Hence he was called the Cypriot.* The city or place in the island where he was born appears nowhere. In the Greek text we read: 13 "Cyprus was the fatherland of him who compiled and arranged the book." By "the book," understand the volume in which Georgius collected his several short works and his very many letters all at once. As regards the collection of his *Epistolae*, the same Georgius has this in a letter to the Great Logothete, which is numbered 155 in the codex: "I entrust ^A my own letters, gathering them one from here and one from there, as I am able, to be elegantly copied, wishing to have them collected in a little book." This volume, which I use, and every individual thing it contains, ought to be diligently reviewed below.

(4) *Patres vero et avi, etc.* These words, joined with others which follow—as we shall note later—seem to indicate sufficiently that the Cypriot was of an illustrious family, and a Greek man, and born of Greek parents. Leo Allatius, in *De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis perpetua consensione*, book 2, chapter 15, no. 12, calls Georgius Cyprius a Latin writing against the Latins. He mentions this one thing in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*, that he was born and raised among the Italians and afterwards joined the Greeks. But again, in Hottinger, chapter 19, page 478, he asserts that he was born of Latin parents. William Cave, in his *Historia Litteraria* for the year 1284, Casimir Oudin in his *Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, vol. III, for the year 1280, and Michael Lequien in his *Oriens Christianus*, vol. I, among the patriarchs of Constantinople, all relate without hesitation that he was born of Latin parents in Cyprus. I am not aware of any substantiated evidence for this matter. Joannes Beccus, exiled from the patriarchate of the royal city and sent to Prusa, spoke thus against Georgius, or Gregorius, in Pachymeres, *Andronicus*, book 1, chapter 34: "You turn away from me, a Roman (or Greek) man, born of the citizens of the New Rome (Constantinople): meanwhile, you venerate as patriarch a man ^C born and raised among the Italians (or Latins)." Petrus Possinus renders these words thus: "A Cypriot newcomer, born of Latins in that island under Latin dominion." But, among the Latins, the interpretation is truer. His birth and upbringing in Cyprus, an island under Latin dominion, gave rise to the rumor that he was born of Latin parents. Nicephorus Gregoras notes, in book VII, chapter 1, no. 7, that common suspicions originated from that source, saying that he, "born twenty years, had betaken himself to Roman customs from Cyprus, and... had given ground to the common people to suspect that the order of reader was conferred upon him 14 by the Latins." The Greek text, *χειροθεσίαν παρὰ Λατίνων ἐδέξατο*, is rendered "by the Latins," as a different construction, with the genitive in Gregoras and the dative in Pachymeres, proves.

(5) *Servire Barbaris Latinis. It is known to everyone that other peoples were accustomed to be called barbarians by the Greeks...*

Consult Ducange on that Latin term. By "Italians" understand the Latins who dwelt on the island of Cyprus under the Lusignan kings. Montfaucon, in his *Diarium Italicum* (p. 14), reviewing a codex of Leo the Wise containing the words *katà Italōn*, translates it as "against the Italians," that is, "against the Latins," as Antonius Maria Salvinius noted in the margin of that same *Diarium* which he was using. See the *Symbolæ litterariæ* published at Florence, vol. VI, opusc. vi, p. 44. The beginning of the Cypriot kingdom is recounted by William of Nangis in his *Chronicle* (in Dacherius, *Spicilegium*, vol. III, folio, ad annum 1191) in these words: "Richard, King of England, journeying from Sicily with rafts and galleys after the King of France, came to Cyprus; and finding there a certain pseudo-emperor ruling the island, he captured him: and with Cyprus thus subjugated, he fortified it with his own people." And at the year 1192: "Richard, King of England, sold the island of Cyprus to Guy (Lusignan), formerly King of Jerusalem: which king was established there." Nicetas Choniates, in the second book of his *Annals* (at the end), calls the pseudo-emperor who was ruling Cyprus Isaac Comnenus. Who that man was, and when he took the island, the same annalist relates in book 1: "There was," he says, "a certain most noble man named Isaac, nephew of the sebastocrator Isaac—whom we have said was the brother of Manuel—by his daughter. Having been appointed by his elder uncle Manuel over Armenia and neighboring regions of the Roman domain and over Tarsus, after a battle joined with the hostile Armenians, he was captured, and when Manuel (the emperor) had already died (in the year 1180), he was placed in custody. After he had been there for a long time... [and] finally ransomed, he had the benefit of a return to his homeland, with Andronicus's help in his ransom (who began to manage the empire alone in 1183 and died, having been killed, in 1185). Isaac, since he was unwilling to yield to Andronicus and return to his homeland... but preferred to rule than to lack an empire... occupied Cyprus with a large force, and at the beginning posed as a legitimate praetor sent by the emperor, displaying imperial letters which he himself had composed: but not long after, he declared himself a tyrant." Thus this island, which Emperor Andronicus and his successor Isaac Angelus could not snatch from the tyrant, was subjugated by Richard, King of England, in 1191, and the Lusignan kings held it, having bought it for themselves. Neophytus the priest, monk, and recluse recounts the various calamities which befell the island of Cyprus in Cotelerius, *Monumenta Ecclesiæ Græcæ*, vol. II, pag. 457. Almericus succeeded Guy of Lusignan, the first King of Cyprus, in the year 1194. Him followed in 1205, Hugh I; in 1218, Henry I; in 1253, Hugh II; in 1267, Hugh...; whom it is sufficient to have enumerated in this place. ^A ...had spent his time in the rudiments of grammar in, as it seems, the schools of the Latins, as must be said below. When he had completed his ninth year, he was sent elsewhere to cultivate his noble and keen intellect, of which he had given proofs. That this happened in about the year 1250, and therefore... ^B ...that we should say he was born in about the year 1241. Henry I was ruling the island. (7) *He is sent to the city of Callinicus.* In the Greek text we read: *eis tēn Kallinikideōn*. This Greek word does not appear in the geographical lexicons which I have been able to leaf through. I think Nicosia is meant, which is also named Leucosia: the civil metropolis of the island under the Lusignan kings; and likewise the ecclesiastical one, with the archbishopric having been transferred from Salamis to Famagusta, and from there to Nicosia. Consult Lequien in *Oriens Christianus*, vol. III, page 1202. Durandus was the first to hold this archiepiscopal see; then in the year 1211, either Durandus himself was legitimately elected again, or a certain Anonymous; in 1213, Eustorgius; in 1240, Elias; and in 1250 or the following year, Hugh. While Hugh was sitting, a decree was issued by Pope Alexander IV in the year 1260, by which it was notified: after the death or resignation of the Greek archbishop of Germanos, no Greek metropolitan was hereafter to be ordained in his place: and there were to be only four sees of the Greek rite: Soli in the diocese of Nicosia, Arsinoe in Paphos, Carpasia in Famagusta, and Lefkara in Limassol. At the time when Georgius arrived at Nicosia, Elias or Hugh held the ecclesiastical metropolis. Henricus Hilarius, in his notes and additions to Philip of Cyprus's *Chronicle of the Greek Church*, notes that Georgius had sailed from Cyprus to Italy for the sake of his studies, and afterwards returned to Greece. He was without doubt captured by an error, not understanding those words which he read as being said by John Beccus, namely that Cyprius *par' Italoîs*, among the Italians, that is to say the Latins, had grown up. See also note 16 below. ^C ...from the time when the dominion of the island had passed to men of another tongue. For Richard, King of England, subjugated it in the year 1191: and Guy of Lusignan established a kingdom there in the following year. Hence the sixtieth year, which is numbered in this place from the time the island was subjugated by the Latins, coincides with the year 1250 of the vulgar era. Cyprius was then nine years of age: whence he had his birth in about the year 1241. 16 (9) On the second navigation, so to say, he went to the schools of the Romans, where grammar was taught, in the native tongue of the Latins. *Paideutēria Rhōmaiōn*, schools of the "Romaioi," or Romans. It is known that the Greeks themselves, especially the Constantinopolitans, were more frequently called "Romaioi" and Romans after the new Rome, Constantinople. Did Cyprius, therefore, consign himself to the education of the Greeks at Nicosia? What follows openly refutes this. Schools are mentioned in which grammar was taught *katà tēn patrion Latinōn phōnēn*, according to the native tongue of the Latins. The cause of the middling, or almost non-existent, progress in these gymnasia is added: *tōn didaskalōn phōnē allothroous, kai nothos*, the voice of the teachers was strange, and foreign, or spurious. Hence the greatest difficulty of learning is exposed, since it was necessary first to understand the words, and then what things were *subject* to those words. I have no doubt that Latin...

^A schools were frequented because there were no Greek ones, which compelled George the Cypriot to attend them. In this sense, John Beccus, in the passage cited above in note 4, stated: that he was born and grew up "among the Italians" (*παρ’ Ἰταλοῖς*). Charles Du Cange, in his *Glossary of Mediaeval and Low Greek* (in the entry *Ῥωμαῖοι*), notes that this signifies Latin in the Greek-Latin glossaries; and further that, in Justinian’s Novella XXI, chapter 1, § 2, the Latin tongue is called Roman; and that even in the time of Justinian himself, it had not yet become common for Greeks—or especially Byzantines—to be called by the received appellation of "Romans." In the life of the Cypriot, the Latins who inhabited the island could rightly be called Romans. Gregoras, writing about the Cypriot himself, employs this word in that sense in Book VI, chapter 1, number 7: "They were contending," he says, "that when he was twenty years old, *Κυπρόθεν τοῖς Ῥωμαίων ἐπιδημήσας ἤθεσι, καὶ Λατινικῶν ἠθῶν ἔστιν ἃ ἐπαγόμενος*, having departed from Cyprus for Roman customs, and bringing with him some Latin habits, he had betook himself to the Romans and was led to the institutions of the Latins."

(10) It seemed to be a matter of grammar, and not of mastery of the art itself. The cause was . . . the foreign and spurious voice of the masters. These points sufficiently indicate that he was a Greek man and spoke Greek, as he could only with great difficulty understand the native language of the Latin masters, and therefore could not master the disciplines taught in that kind of language.

(11) ... had been turned. He had attended Aristotelian logic in the Latin schools with almost no benefit, being among those who do not understand the words in which the subjects are taught, *τῶν φωνῶν αὐτῶν ὡς ἐλάχιστα ἐπαΐοντες*. Because he was disgusted by this study, and hoping for no better instruction in literature, he returned to his homeland in his fifteenth year, around the year of the vulgar era 1255.

(12) He was held by a desire for the liberal arts: *Λόγων δὲ ἐπεθύμει μέν*. With these words begins the fragmentary Viennese pamphlet in Nessel, part 5, codex 101. See note 2.

(13) ... could be permitted. Thus far [we have given] the first and slight specimens of the learning and elegance in writing that he later acquired. He gained more ample progress from the reading of the ancient rhetoricians (as is narrated below), and from the art of his inventors and fathers. He acquired a grace of diction, and an ^C Atticism, and a charm, and that which is truly Grecian. Nicephorus Gregoras celebrates him with praises for these ornaments (Lib. VI, cap. 1, no. 5), as one who, through the dexterity of his genius and singular study, brought to light—and as if recalled from the dead—the elegant measures of Greek literature and that Attic language which had already been submerged for a long time in the whirlpool of oblivion.

(14) ... to set out for the schools. He planned a journey to Nicaea in Bithynia. From the seat which the Greek emperors and the patriarchs of Constantinople had occupied there after Constantinople was captured by the Latins in 1204, he easily persuaded himself that the city abounded in very learned ^B men and masters. But he was hindered from undertaking the journey by precarious financial circumstances and the excessive love of his parents.

(15) That George left Cyprus at the age of twenty is narrated by Gregoras, lib. VI, cap. 1, no. 7. Ephraemius of Constantinople, who is cited by Allatius in his *Diatriba de Georgiis* and by Banduri in book VI of his *Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae*, volume II, had this departure from his fatherland under his eyes and says: "An exile from his fatherland and paternal home from his earliest age, burning with a love of learning and mathematics, he (finally) betook himself to the city of Constantine." John Beccus also describes this departure and his subsequent travels in the following words in *Græcia Orthodoxa*, volume II, oration 1, no. 1: "This plague, wandering and roaming the sea before, finally turned toward us." After Jerusalem was lost to the Latins in 1187, the seat of the kings of Jerusalem was Ptolemais, also called Acon, known to the Italians as Acri and to the French as Saint-Jean-d'Acre. The Saracens seized it from the Christians in 1291. The Cypriot traveled to this place on his first voyage. Since, according to Gregoras, he was twenty years old, it must be said that this happened in the year of the vulgar era 1260. At that time, Florentius the bishop was administering the sacred rites there. See Lequien in *Oriens Christianus*, vol. III, col. 1335.

(16) Into the East ... and then he arrived in Ephesus. Stephanus of Byzantium, in *De urbibus et populis*: "Anaea ... a city of Caria, in the region of Samos." It is remarked in the notes that this was once a city mentioned by Thucydides. Does the Cypriot therefore indicate the place where Anaea once was?

(17) In the vicinity living, Blemmydas ... all know him as a man most celebrated among the Greeks, deeply versed in all disciplines, and most addicted to the Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son. The author of the *Life* which we are illustrating testifies that he lived in a monastery in the neighborhood of Ephesus, *ἐν γειτόνων οἰκῶν*. Let others discuss more diligently whether this should be called the same monastery that was erected and consecrated by him to *Θεῷ τῷ ὄντι*, "to God who is," which is mentioned by Pachymeres in his book on Michael Palaeologus, v, chapter 2.

(18) Departing from Ephesus. What Pachymeres narrates in book II, chapter 24, is similar: It seemed opportune to the emperor (Michael Palaeologus), after crossing the Hellespont, to betake himself to the recently captured Selybria (a city of Thrace, thirty-five miles from Byzantium to the west); and there, from a close distance, to take counsel and form plans for the taking of the city (Constantinople). And in chapter 20: Having collected many and various troops into one, he attacked Galata (a suburb of Constantinople). It would not be a waste of effort to cite the words of George Acropolita in number 83: "The Emperor (Michael Palaeologus), as spring was approaching, travels toward Constantinople ... he was attacking the town of Galata." And in number 84: "He crossed the Hellespont ... since."

when the excess of summer had passed, and the season of autumn had also elapsed... he departed from there. These events occurred in the year 1260, and also at the beginning of the year 1261. Georgius Cyprius testifies that he was present at these military disturbances: but having left the royal camps, he returned to Nicaea, to which he had been driven from Cyprus, so that he might devote himself there to the study of letters. (19) He did not find at Nicaea the teachers whom he was seeking: so that he began to think of returning to his homeland, as is narrated below. (20) Then, not long after this time, God, taking the city of Byzantium from the Latins, restores it to the Greeks. Georgius Acropolita assigns the epoch of the city’s recovery most accurately: the twenty-fifth day of the month of July, the fourth indiction, and the year from the creation of the world 6769 ^A. This is the year 1261 of the vulgar era, marked by the aforementioned fourth indiction. Not a few Greek codices in the possession of Jean Boivin, in his notes to book iv of Nicephorus Gregoras, exhibit the preceding year, 1260: but others are listed by this same Boivin in the same place, agreeing with Acropolita. Another codex, which the most learned man himself mentions, confirms the epoch, where the solemn entry of Michael Palaeologus into the recovered city is linked to the 15th day of the month of August in the year 6769, 1261 of the vulgar era. Adhering to these, Spondanus reports the Latin writers: William of Nangis, a monk of Padua, the continuator of Paris, and Marino Sanudo, nicknamed Torsello. However, in establishing this epoch, it is surprising that there were such varied opinions among writers, who define the year as either 1259, or 1260, or even 1262. Seth Calvisius establishes this (latter) year in his chronological work. Michael Lequien, in the section on Arsenius, who was patriarch of Constantinople for a second time, refers to the chronicles concerning the solemn entry into the royal city; the month of August, the 15th day, the 4th indiction, and the year 6769, and adds these words, meaning the year of Christ 1262. But it may be an error of the typesetters, another mistake of whom lies in the years of the world 6769. Nay, even in the work of Pantaleon Justinianus, the Latin patriarch, he cites the year 1261, in which (he says) the royal city was recovered by the Greeks, according to the more precise chronologers. Truly, this epoch of the year 1262, which we have noted as being defined by some along with Spondanus, could perhaps have arisen from that method which some chronologers hand down for connecting the years of the Constantinopolitan era with the years of the vulgar era. On this matter, allow me to treat it a little more fully. William Beveridge, in his *Chronological Institutions*, book ii, chapter 11, teaches as follows: No. 9: The civil era of the Greeks is that which numbers 5508 completed years from the foundations of the world to the Nativity of Christ. No. 10: The year 5509 of this era began in the first year of the Christian era, from the Kalends of September. No. 11: Given a year of this era, subtract 5508: the remainder is the year of the Christian era, during which ^B the year (from the Kalends of September of the same era) began. He clarifies the matter with an example: if I wish to know into what year of Christ, for example, the year of the world 6428 falls, from 6428 I subtract 5508, the remainder is 920. Therefore, in the year of Christ 920, this year of the world 6428 began from the Kalends of September. Furthermore, if you divide 6428 by 15, the remainder is eight: therefore the indiction will be the eighth. If, therefore, according to this rule, you subtract 5508 years from the proposed year 6769, in which Constantinople was recovered, the remainder 1261 is the year of the vulgar era, during which it ought to be said that that year 6769 began from the Kalends of September. But since the royal city was taken in the month of July, that must be transferred entirely to the following year of the vulgar era, 1262, to which belongs the month of July of the Greek year, which began from the Kalends of September in the year 1261. The matter does not stand thus. Riccioli, in book ii of his *Chronology*, chapter 2, among the canons for the use of tables, canon II, hands down a more accurate and true rule: "If the years are fewer than 5509, subtract them from these, and you will have the years before Christ, starting from the Kalends of September of the preceding year. For example: let the years of the Constantinopolitan world be 5508; subtract these from 5509, there will remain 1 year before the epoch of Christ, starting, however, from the Kalends of September of the year before the epoch of Christ, from which the year 5509 began, which will run for its last eight months with the previous eight months of the first year of the era of Christ. But if the given years are 5509 or more, subtract 5508 from them, and you will have the years of Christ running from the Kalends of January to the Kalends of the following September. For example: let the year of the world 5509 be given; subtract 5508 from them, there remains the first year of Christ, concurrent with the year of the world 5509, until the first day of September: for from then on it runs with the year 5510." Therefore, from the year 6769, in which the Greek writers report Constantinople was taken, subtract 5508 years. You indeed have the year of Christ, or of the vulgar era, 1261, concurrent indeed with the Constantinopolitan year 6769, until the first day of September, from which point it will run with the year 6770. Therefore, the year 6769 began from the Kalends of September in the preceding Julian year 1260, and the month of July of the Constantinopolitan year 6769, in which the royal city was recovered, belongs to the Julian year 1261. The fourth indiction, by which the Constantinopolitan year 6769 was marked and by which the year of the vulgar era 1261 is also marked, removes all doubt ^D. Yet this same fourth indiction, according to the Roman or pontifical custom, begins from the Kalends of January of the same year 1261; it had, however, begun according to the custom of the Greeks from the Kalends of September of the preceding year 1260. From these, therefore, the Constantinopolitan year 6769 also takes its beginning with its fourth indiction, which the year 6769 itself, when divided by 15, yields, with no addition or subtraction made, and it is finally from these same Kalends of September of the Julian year 1260 that the new year of the Incarnation 1261 begins among the Greeks.

^A This same method was preserved by the Russians, whom, however, Christian Wolff observes in his *Elementa matheseos universæ*, vol. IV, in the *Elements of Chronology*, chapter 5, no. 193, to have received the Julian calendar for some time, and still today to commence the year from the Kalends of January.

What I affirm, I read as expressed in most clear words in Pagi ad annum 1143, where, dealing with the year of the death of John Comnenus, he thus speaks at no. 9: "Codinus, or whatever the author of the Chronicle annexed to him is, shows that he died in the year of the world, namely 6651, which begins from the Kalends of September of the preceding year of Christ (1142). From this same year 6651, having subtracted 5508 years, one obtains the year of the vulgar Julian era 1143; whence the year 6651 of Constantinople does not begin from the Kalends of September of the same year 1143, but had begun from the Kalends of September of the previous year 1142, and from the same had also taken its beginning the sixth indiction, and the year of the Incarnation 1143 itself, according to the custom of the Greeks." This connection of years, finally, is most evidently placed before the eyes by the beginning of the following table, which is set forth in the same work of Pagi, the *Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period*.

[Table omitted as per instructions]

22 It was possible to arrange the years in the table in such a way that even at a glance the eyes of those looking at them realize that of the given Constantinopolitan years—whether they be of the world or of the Incarnation—their first four months (of which September is the first) agree with the alternative Dionysian year, as do the eight subsequent months; in which way you also see the indictions arranged, computed in the manner of the Greeks. But why, one might ask, are all these things—otherwise trivial and vulgar—once again as it were warmed over? Assuredly, so that I may more confidently assert that the rules established by Beveridge must either be rejected or corrected in some way; and likewise so that, with all due respect saved for most learned men, I may give my opinion concerning their calculations which are discordant with ours.

Montfaucon, in his *Palæographia Græca*, book I, chapter 6, reviews very many old Greek manuscript codices and provides the chronological notes that occur in them. Page 45: "It was completed in the year 6494 (this is 986 of Christ). Month of November, 27. Weekday, the sixth." The most learned man added the words enclosed in lines. I say that the year 985 should be announced, and this is gathered from the day 27 of November, the sixth weekday. The year 986 has the solar cycle 15 and the Dominical letter C, which in the calendar shows the 27th day of November to be a Saturday: but the solar cycle 15 and the Dominical letter D in the year 985 refer to that same 27th day of November as a Friday. ^C

Page 52: "Month of November, 7th, fifth weekday..." Page 58: "On the 20th of November, Friday, in the year 6634 (that is 1126 of Christ), in the fourth indiction." Again, the fourth indiction exhibits the year 1126, begun in the manner of the Greeks from the Kalends of September of the previous year 1125. But the Dominical letter D of the year 1125, not C of the year 1126, indicates the Friday alongside the 20th of November.

Page 61: "Ετελειώθη δὲ ἐν ἔτει τῷ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου ςχος', ἰνδ. α', ἡλίου κύκλῳ ιβ', σελήνης ς', εἰς τὰς ιη' τοῦ Δεκεμβρίου, ἡμέρᾳ ε'." Completed, however, in the year from the creation of the world 6676 (1168 of Christ), indiction 1, solar cycle 10, lunar cycle 7, in the month of December on a Friday, and also the fifth weekday is to be enumerated, and finally there are to be added 14 days of December. First of all, in the month of December of the Julian year 1168, the Constantinopolitan year 6677 was already running from the preceding September, which Sethus Calvisius also notes for that same year: "The Constantinopolitan year 6677 begins on the Kalends of October (read September)." Consult Pagi in the *Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period*, 23, from no. 70 and no. 95. Therefore, the Constantinopolitan year 6676 had begun on the Kalends of September of the Julian year 1167, and was running...

in December of the same year. This is confirmed by the first indiction, which according to the custom of the Greeks had begun its commencement with the new year from the same Kalends of September of the year 1167. ^A There is added the proof from the fifth weekday, which in the year, not 1168, but 1167, fell on the 14th of December. The year 1168, marked by the Dominical letter GF, meant that the 12th day of December was a Thursday. In the preceding year 1167, the Dominical letter A was running, which connects Thursday with the 14th of December. Finally, the Dionysian year 1168 and the Constantinopolitan year 6676 have the cycle of the sun, the former the first and the latter the twelfth, and the same Dominical letter GF from the Kalends of January: and in the preceding year the Dionysian cycle of the sun was XXVIII and the Constantinopolitan was XI with the Dominical letter A. On this matter, examine the Table of solar and lunar cycles in the mundane era of the Greeks in Pagi, in his Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period, and consult number 70.

Not a few similar examples occur in the same place in Montfaucon. I admit, however, that there are some which seem to oppose this. Page 20: Year 6558 (of Christ 1050), month of October 25, fifth weekday. The aforesaid Julian year 1050 was affected by the Dominical letter G, which transfers the fifth weekday to the 23rd of October of the same year 1050. But perhaps the error lies in the weekday, or in the day: just as the indiction 12, lvd. ιβ', which is read in the Greek text, labors under a defect: for the year 1050 was running the 3rd indiction, not the 12th. Or perhaps the scribe, according to his own bent, counted the year 6558 from the Kalends of January: which we have noted with Wolf occurs even today among the Russians. ^B From this little dissertation, no little advantage is to be obtained in the following Dissertation I, chapter 1, no. 4, in establishing a certain notable epoch, which Pachymeres expresses, and which Possinus, Bandurius, and the Bollandists wrongly understand. Other difficulties of chronicles will occur, which, once our method of calculating is applied, will vanish.

... freed him from civil cares: and he showed himself ready for all who would wish to hear him as a teacher. Understand the most celebrated man, George Acropolita, concerning whom Allatius treats more broadly in his *Diatribe on the Georges*. ^C He had great influence in the imperial court, and was Great Logothete, managing the administration of the republic along with the emperor. Jacobus Goar declares this dignity in his notes to Codinus. Germanus III, Patriarch of Constantinople, who ascended to the throne of the Church in the year 1266 or the following, and held it for a short time, in order that Holobolus, public professor of mathematics, might be substituted for Acropolita, is induced to have entreated the Emperor Michael in these words, according to Pachymeres, book V, chapter 14: "Acropolita, and George the Great Logothete, having long been engaged by your command (Augustus) in the delivering of disciplines, after having sweated at this work for many years, at length, his strength broken, is fading. Grant therefore to our prayers, permitting your indulgence and grace toward Holobolus."

Many years, therefore, Acropolita had directed schools at Constantinople. He is also the one who wrote the History of his own time, from which we have hitherto given not a few excerpts. Among the Epistles of the Cypriot we read [one] inscribed, "To Acropolita, his teacher." ^D Before another from the Aristotelian degrees, etc. Observe the method that Acropolita maintained in delivering his disciplines. He taught first the Syllogistics and Analytics of Aristotle, then Rhetoric, and next the deeper Aristotelian Metaphysics, and lessons on [the] Physics.

... his twenty-sixth [year], and placed an end to them when he was reaching his thirty-third. Therefore, about the year of Christ 1264, George surrendered himself to the discipline of Acropolita. In the year 1273, he left off literary exercises. See notes (6) and (8) and (11) and (16).

These things signify the concord of the Churches promoted by Michael Palaeologus, initiated in the year 1274 in the Council of Lyons, and the factions having arisen thence in the Constantinopolitan Church. The same words, *tū dogmatos kinetomia*, the schismatic Gregoras uses in book VI, chapter 4, no. 5. The Cypriot was devoted to the Emperor Michael: upon whose death he either changed his opinion, or what he had kept hidden in his mind, having laid aside his simulation, he made manifest. On this matter in the following Dissertation.

... he was dragged and handed over. The emperor was urging most vehemently, partly by threats, partly by exiles, ecclesiastical men and others to enter into the concord of the Churches, and to consent to the one initiated. Read Pachymeres, book V, from chapter 11. Hence the anxieties and cares in George Cyprius; which later, upon Andronicus seizing the empire in 1282, were resolved. But then the Cypriot was affected by other anxieties of mind, being adorned with the patriarchal dignity.

... ascended ... He fell also into times doubtful from the fury of the schismatics, and difficult. Andronicus, the second Emperor of this name, also called the Senior with respect to Andronicus III his grandson, promoted George Cyprius to the patriarchal dignity. The year of Christ was 1285. Pachymeres, in *Andronicus*, book I, chapter 14, announces the month of March, in which Cyprius made his monastic profession, with the new name of Gregory assumed, and he appointed the celebrated feast of Palms, on which he was ordained patriarch. The year of the common era 1283—that is intended—was running with the cycle of the sun IV, Dominical letter C, and Golden number 11. Hence holy Easter fell on the 18th of April: and on the eleventh day of the same month Palm Sunday had dawned. Those times are called doubtful from the fury of the schismatics, and difficult. Forasmuch as patriarchs were deposed and promoted according to the partiality of factions: John Beccus [being] unjustly deposed, John...

^A Joseph having been substituted a second time: the factions, which were called those of the Arsenites and the Josephites, were vigorous: most grave men defended the Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit with all their might, while others rejected it. Those who are termed schismatics in the passage cited above by the schismatic writer are to be understood as those distinguished men who adhered to the union established with the Latins. Pachymeres treats these matters in a more extensive discourse.

^A [The Emperor Andronicus] gave permission to John Beccus, and to his followers, Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites, that they might easily understand, so that they might render an account of their faith in the colloquy which was held in the year 1284 in the Alexiac Triclinium. Consult Pachymeres, book I, chapter 34 and the following. For then, with all fear as it were relaxed, many writings were edited against Gregory Cyprius in favor of the Catholic dogma. These things are narrated more diligently in the following Dissertation. In the year previous, in the synod which was celebrated under Joseph when he was patriarch again, the adversaries of Beccus had been accused, as Pachymeres testifies in the cited book, chapter 8, of a scandal having arisen, as they said, from the untimely ventilation of questions which it would have been better to leave unexamined. The same historian enumerates several works worked out by Beccus in the following chapter 9.

^B [Invited] to compose orations: and this is the reason why not many of his sermons exist. Understand the literary productions of the oratorical genre, Orations, Declamations, Chrias, Fables, and similar things, recounted by Allatius, Cave, Oudin, Fabricius, and others. We will enumerate below those which are contained in our volume.

^C [Bad health] of the head. Pachymeres perhaps indicates this bad health of Cyprius, who, in book II, chapter 17, reporting his death, says he was exhausted by sickness of mind; *καὶ νόσῳ πολυημέρῳ*, and by a disease or infirmity of many days. § 26 Concerning the pain in his head, from which he suffered, mention often occurs in his letters.

^D [Labors] spent in transcribing the lucubrations of the ancients. From them, as we have praised, it is evident from not a few letters what vehement ardor he was carried by toward ancient codices. He used to take care that they be given to him by other learned men on loan for the sake of transcribing them. "For I account myself [to be the man]." These things manifest Cyprius as the author of the Sermon. See note (2).

^D [He will show] his father properly to the readers. That little book is the one which the first words of this Life indicate: "Ei, who composed this book, [his] father..." See note (3). Doubtless Cyprius collected in one volume several written opuscula, and very many epistles: to all of which he had prefixed the Sermon concerning his Life, illustrated thus far by our annotations. We are reminded at this place that from these very epistles and opuscula those things which are contained in the Life can be confirmed.

A similar volume is kept by the Imperial library at Vienna. It shall not be a waste of labor to review more diligently what lucubrations are contained in our [collection].

1. *Λόγος τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν περιέχων*. A discourse containing his own affairs, which we have illustrated with notes. It is mutilated in the Vienna codex. See note (2) and (13).

2. In the holy great martyr and triumphant George. It begins: *Ἔθος τοῦτο τῶν λόγων*. It was edited in Greek printing, the Encomium, by the Continuators of the Bollandists, volume III of April, page XXV at the end, and in Latin, page 123.

3. In Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. It begins: *Ἡ μὲν πρόθεσις τῷ λόγῳ δικαία*.

4. In Saint Euthymius, bishop of the Madytorians in the Thracian diocese. Consult Le Quien in *Oriens Christianus*, volume I, col. 1141. It begins, *Ἐπιτιμῶν δικαίως*.

5. In Saint Marina the martyr. It begins, *τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἅμα*.

6. Of the same, a royal [discourse], or concerning the king. It begins, *Καινὸν οὐδὲν, θειότατε βασιλεῦ*.

7. To the king, lord Andronicus Palaeologus. It begins, *Ἐχρῆν μὲν ὡς ἀληθῶς, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ*.

8. Antirretic discourse against the blasphemies of Beccus. It begins, *Οὐκ ἔγωγε θαυμάζω*. John Beccus refutes the new [heresies] which Cyprius levels in his oration, which exists in Allatius, volume II of *Graecia Orthodoxa*, page 252. On this matter, in the following Dissertation.

9. A treatise beginning, *Ἔσχε μὲν ἡ ἐπισυμβᾶσα*. It exists edited in Banduri, volume II, among the notes to the *Antiquities of Constantinople*, book VIII, on Gregory Cyprius. In this place it is inscribed *Ἔκθεσις τοῦ τόμου τῆς πίστεως*; in our volume, *Τόμος περὶ ἀσεβείας*.

10. A treatise beginning, *Τὸν μὲν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ οἱ Ἰταλοί*. "The Italians indeed claim the Son of God..."

11. Another beginning, *Μὴ ὁ νόμος ἡμῶν κρίνει*. Edited in Banduri in the cited place as the *Ὁμολογία*, the Confession of the same Gregory. We must speak with a broader pen concerning these lucubrations in the following Dissertation.

12. Antirretic of the most wise Great Logothete Muzalon against the blasphemies of Beccus. It begins, *Οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι παθὼν*. Michael Palaeologus had promoted him to the dignity of Great Logothete in place of the deceased Acropolita. Led by hatred against Michael himself and the patriarch Beccus, he persuades Andronicus of the restoration of the schism. See Pachymeres in *Andronicus*, book I, chapters 1, 2, and 8, where the historian narrates that the little book previously given by Muzalon in favor of the Catholic dogma had, at his own order, been cast into the fire. His name was Theodore.

13. Cypriote Chrias. It begins, *Σωκράτους μὲν ἐπαινέτην*.

14. Meditation, *Φιλαργύρου παῖς τοῦ πατρός*. Son of a covetous father.

15. *Polydyates* (popular) by a scholar who was besieged by the Athenians, they ate each other. The Athenians...

accuse them of impropriety (whose colony was Potidaea). The Athenians defended. It begins, "Men, Lacedaemonians." ^A 16. *Philosopher*, when he had ascended the acropolis, and had persuaded the tyrant to resign the principate, etc. 17. *Enconium of the sea*, or on the universal nature of water. A short work in Greek published by Vulcanius. 18. *Epistles*, which he had written before he had obtained the patriarchal dignity. 1. To the Neocaesarean. 2. To the Grand Logothete Acropolita. 3. To the monk Jasites. 4. To the same. 5. To the Meliteniota. 6. To the Neocaesarean. 7. To Lord Demetrius of Thessalonica. 8. To the venerable mystic Lord John. 9. To the governor of Ephesus, Lord Isaac. ^B 10. To John the physician. 11. To the same. 12. To the Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 13. To the same. 14. To Stauracius, the Chartophylax of Thessalonica. 15. To Theognostus. 16. To the Neocaesarean. 28. To the Scutariota. 29. To the Neocaesarean, Lord Manuel, prefect of Crete. 30. To the same. 31. To the same. 32. To the same. 33. To Pedasimus the chartophylax. 34. To the Neocaesarean. 35. To the Bishop of Priene, in Caria under the Ephesian metropolitan. 36. To the logothete Acropolita. 37. To the Neocaesarean. 38. To one of his fellow students. 39. To the same. 40. To the Quaestor, Lord Nicephorus Chumnus (alt. Cumenus). 41. To the Neocaesarean. 42. To the same. 43. To the same. 44. To the same. 45. To the deacon Callistus. 46. To himself, as though written by another. 47. To the Neocaesarean. 48. To himself. 49... 52. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 53. To the Grand Logothete. 54. Without name. 55. Without name. 56. To the Neocaesarean and Chumnus. 57. To the Scutariota. 61. To the Neocaesarean. 62. To the Saponopolita. 63. To the same. 64. To the same. 65. To the Meliteniota. 66. To the Neocaesarean. 71. To the monk Jasites. 72. To the Meliteniota. 73. To the monk Lord Methodius. 74. To the monk of Coresa, Agathon. 75. To the Meliteniota. 76. To Stauracius. 77. To the same. 78. To Georgius Marmarus. 79. To Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 80. To the Saponopolita. 81. To Xiphilinus. 82. To the chartophylax of Thessalonica and Stauracius. 83. To Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 84. To the monk Theodosius. 85. To the same. 86. To the Saponopolita. 87. To the Neocaesarean. 88. To the Meliteniota. 89. To the monk of Coresa, Agathon, and the Neocaesarean. 90. To the Meliteniota. 91. To his homilist, to Lord Theodorus Muzalon, the grand logothete of the *genikon* (public treasury), and others. 92. To the rhetor Holobolus. 93. To the prefect of petitions. 94. To the same. 95. To the same. 96. To the rhetor Holobolus. 97. To the Meliteniota. 98. To the prefect of petitions. 101. To the same. 102. To Phacrasas John. 103. To the Meliteniota. 106. To Stauracius. 107. To Theognostus. 108. To the prefect of petitions. 109. To the Grand Logothete. 110. To the Meliteniota. 111. To the Grand Logothete Acropolita. 113. To the monk Jasites. 114. To Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 115. To the Grand Logothete, written and given during the time of the patriarchate. 115. To the Grand Logothete. 116. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 117. To the patriarch of the same. 118. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 119. To the patriarch of the same. 120. To Calo-Joannes and Daniel. 122. To the rhetor Holobolus. 128. To the same. 129. To the same. 130. To the same. 131. To the Sebastocrator Lord John. 132. To the King. 133. To the King. 134. To the same. 135. To the Grand Logothete. 136. To the same. 137. To the same. 138. To the same. 139. To the Grand Logothete. 140. To the same. 141. To the same, to the protovestiary for the consul again. 142. To the King. 143. To the same. 144. To the Grand Logothete. 145. To the same. 146. To the King. 147. To the monk Athanasius Lependrenus. 148. To the same, while still cultivating peace. 149. To the Grand Logothete. 150. To the same. 151. To the same. 152. To the monk. 153. To the Grand Logothete. 154. To the same. 155. To the same. 156. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 157. To the patriarch of the same. 158. To the protovestiary and his sister. 159. To the Grand Logothete. 160. To the same. 161. To the protosebast and protovestiary. 162. To the same. 163. To the same. 164. To the same. 165. To the same. 166. To the same. 167. To the physician Theognostus. 168. To the protovestiary. 169. To the logothete of the public treasury, Acropolita. 170. To the Grand Logothete. 171. To a certain famous monk. 172. To the Grand Logothete. 173. To the same. 174. To the same. 175. To the same. 181. To the same. 182. To the same. 183. To the patriarch for the protovestiary. 184. To the same for Oenarotus. 185. To the same. 186. To the same. 187. To the Raulaena. 188. To the same. 189. To the same. 190. To the same. 191. To the same. 192. To the same. 193. To the same. 194. To the same. 195. To the same. 196. To the same. Regarding her, who was the protovestiarissa, more is in Pachymeres in *Andronicus*. 197. To Lord Constantine Galesiotes. 198. Without name. 199. To the Grand Logothete. 200. Without name. 201. Without name. 202. Without name. 203. Without name. 204. To the protosebast and protovestiary, and the Grand Logothete. 205. Without name, but to the same. 206. To the physician Theognostus. 207. To the grand oeconomus Gemostus, and his son. 208. To the Raulaena. ^D Lambecius and Nesselius in the Vienna codex count only 191 epistles. Casimir Oudin notes that many more are preserved in other libraries. 20. *Ἀπόφασις*, sententia. It seems to be a certain synodical decree. 21. From the holy Nilus. Fragment. 22. To a certain friend. He promises that he will abdicate the throne after having received testimony of his innocence. We shall give the entire epistle in Greek and Latin in the following dissertation.

24. ^A *Renunciation*, or the Bill of abdication of the throne, given by Gregory. It exists in Greek and Latin in Pachymeres, at the cited place, chapter 9.

FIRST DISSERTATION

HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC

On the principal deeds of Georgius, or Gregorius Cyprius, and on the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son.

[§] 31 CAPUT I. *Notes on certain patriarchs who preceded Gregorius Cyprius. The year is examined in which Arsenius was deposed as patriarch for the second time; likewise the year in which Germanus assumed and abdicated the dignity: Possinus, Bandurius, and Cuperus are corrected. Also the year of the elevation of Joseph Galesiotes to the patriarchal see. The factions of the Arsenites and the Josephites.*

I. Theodorus Lascaris, whom the Greeks call emperor, departed this mortal life in the year of the vulgar era 1259, toward the autumn, as Pachymeres says in book 1, chapter 13 of *Michael Palaeologus*, that is, in the month of August. His son, Joannes IV Lascaris, received the paternal empire, having barely reached his sixth, or eighth, or at the very least ninth year of age, according to the varying chronology of the writers. The tutors for the underage prince were Georgius Muzalo, the protovestiarius, and Arsenius, surnamed Autorianus, who had held the patriarchal see from the year 1255. Consult Pachymeres, who discusses this more broadly at the cited place, chapter 15. Goarus, in the notes to chapter 2 of Georgius Codinus Curopalates, number 19, translates "protovestiarius" as Master of the Royal Chamber.

Contentions erupted concerning the guardianship of the prince. ^B Georgius and Theodorus Muzalo were slaughtered by the army, which had been incited to sedition; and Michael Palaeologus was declared tutor to the boy prince, who possessed the dignity of Constable, or Conestable, that is, Count of the Imperial Stable. See Goarus at the cited place, number 2, and Pachymeres chapters 17 and 21, and the following, 22. Then he, adorned with the title of Grand Duke and proclaimed Despot, as the aforementioned historian narrates in chapters 23 and 27, began to conceive greater things in his mind, namely, to covet the highest honor of the empire. He obtained the matter according to his wishes, being saluted emperor 32 or colleague of the boy emperor in the year 1260, on the very Kalends of January, as Pachymeres testifies in book II, chapter 4. The coronation of the two Augusti was imminent, following the pacts confirmed by Michael's oath: but with the pacts violated, ^C the lone Michael, having passed over and disregarded the boy, received the crown. These matters, narrated very widely by Pachymeres in chapters 7 and 8, were better to have been shortened in a summary.

Arsenius the patriarch, whether thinking himself deceived by the reversal of the boy Augustus's coronation (the words are Pachymeres' in book II, cap. 15), and bearing it indignantly that the heir to the empire was despised and almost reduced to the common rank, that all things were governed at the nod of one Palaeologus: or whether, conscious that he had been negligent... or on account of some other hidden grief... proceeded to the gate of the city of Nicaea (where the patriarchs resided with the emperors after Constantinople was captured by the Latins); and he betook himself to the monastery of Paschasius, situated opportunely for quiet rest. These things occurred in the year 1260. Petrus Possinus, in book III of his *Observations on Pachymeres*, chapter 5, number 2, defines the month as April of that year. Anselmus Bandurius, in *Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae* book 1, fixes that year to begin; Guilielmus Cuperus agrees with the calculations of Possinus in the *Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople*, which appears in the volume of August among the *Acta Sanctorum*.

^D In place of Arsenius, who was by no means deposed according to the formulas of law, they substituted Nicephorus, the second of this name, who was then administering the Ephesian metropolis. According to Pachymeres, chapter 22, Nicephorus seemed to many to be an intruder into the patriarchal throne, not so much because he was translated from the Ephesian see, but because he had been translated while the legitimate patriarch was still living. That he did not preside over the patriarchate for a full year is clearly noted by Georgius Acropolita in his *History* at number 84. Possinus, Bandurius, and Cuperus assign his death to the month of November of that same year, 1260.

The emperor is entreated for the restitution of Arsenius: but it is not immediately granted. Meanwhile, in the following year, 1261, Michael recovers the Royal City of Constantinople, stripped from the Latins, on the 25th day of July, and enters it on the 15th day of August, following the triumphal chariot on foot. Pachymeres narrates the event...

Meres in Book II, Chapter 31: Arsenius is again declared patriarch. Hear the words of Acropolites, number 88: "But when the patriarch (Arsenius), being about to enter Constantinople after an excursion of several days (since the solemn imperial entry), was persuaded by speeches and entreaties, the emperor entered the sacred palace to entrust it to the pontiff... There the emperor, holding the hand of the patriarch, said: 'Take your throne, lord, and enjoy the chair from which you have strayed for so long.'" This solemn new reinstatement of the patriarch Arsenius appears to have been completed in the same month of August of the year 1261. Arsenius, moved by those honors from the emperor: the revenues of the Church were increased, and the salaries of sacred ministers were largely bestowed. From this, certainly, Arsenius was led (as Pachymeres says in Book III, Chapter 2) to crown the munificent giver, without any mention being made or memory signified of the ward John. ^B The most unhappy ward John, at the command of the emperor Michael, was blinded and enclosed in the fortress of Dacibyza, where he was to be kept forever. An impious crime, committed in the same year 1261, on the most holy day (as Pachymeres says in Chapter 10), and the most festive, the nativity of Christ our Savior. Grieving over this terrible crime, the patriarch Arsenius, having called a synod at the beginning of the year 1262, declared openly, and having rebuked the sin of Michael Augustus with deserved severity; by the formula of a legitimate judgment pronounced, he duly severed him by spiritual excommunication from the communion of the faithful of Christ. Pachymeres has this in Chapter 14. How Possinus delays this excommunication of the emperor until the year 1263, as if the bitter news of the crime committed had not reached the ears of the patriarch until after a year, I do not sufficiently understand.

II. In vain, over a long space of time, was the release of the bond by which Augustus was held, sought by him. Hence, toward the beginning of April, during the time of the solemn fast (the words are those of Pachymeres, Book IV, Chapter 3), while the festival which they commonly call the Akathistos was being celebrated, a document full of accusations was handed to the emperor against the patriarch Arsenius, at night after the end of the hymnody. Possinus brings this forward in his *Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis*, in which these things are held: "Akathistos is celebrated on the Saturday of the fifth week of the Quadragesima." From this festive day, he thus initiates his calculations to investigate the year in Book III of his *Observationes Chronologicae*, Chapter 5, number 5: "We said in the Glossary, under the word Akathistos, that that feast was accustomed to be celebrated on the Saturday of the fifth week of the spring fast of forty days, sixteen days before Easter. But since, as is manifest, the Saturday of the fifth week of the Quadragesima did not fall in the beginning of April (as indicated by Pachymeres) in every year, it appears that the character of the year we seek is contained in these words." The order of events expanded in the *Synopsis* leads us to the year of Christ 1266. For this year was of the Julian period 5979, the solar cycle 15, the lunar cycle 11. By the most certain indication of these cycles, we have that Easter in that year was April 18. Whence ^C not without the greatest trepidation, which the authority of most learned men instills, am I compelled to oppose the same. The year of the common era 1266, and of the Julian Period 5979, marked by the solar cycle 15 and the Dominical letter C, was indeed running, but by no means with the lunar cycle 11, but the 13th, from the eleventh day of March: and the full moon fell on the 24th day of the same month, a Wednesday: and the holy Easter was celebrated on the 28th of March. This is evidenced—and I provide calculations to support the weight of authority—by the Tables of years which are published in Ducange's *Glossary of Middle and Low Latinity*, v. *Annus*, and in Pagi's *Breviarium historico-chronologico-critico Romanorum pontificum*, and others. I add Calvisius in his *Opus Chronologicum* for the same year 1266, and also Cuperus at the cited location, number 988. Possinus relies upon a false hypothesis, I claim, when he asserts that Easter in the year 1266 fell on the 18th of April. For according to all other chronologists, and from astronomical calculation, it is established that in that year 1266, Easter was celebrated on the 28th of March. From this, indeed, it is finally effected that the feast of the Akathistos is sought in vain in that same year among the days of April, *istamenou*, the beginning. By that Greek word, Beveregius notes in Book I of his *Institutiones Chronologicae*, Chapter 13, number 5, that it is accustomed to mean among the Greeks the first part of the month, comprising the first ten days. Consult Dufresne in his notes on Anna Comnena's Book I of the *Alexiad*, where he mentions certain Latin writers who in their chronicles take a month "standing" for a month "ending," the Author of the Chronicle of Bari, the Anonymous one in the series of the Counts of Capua, Romualdus of Salerno, and others. The chronic character derived from that same Akathistos feast would fit most aptly in the following year, 1267, in which holy Easter was celebrated on the 17th of April, with the Dominical letter B current; for thus that feast fell on the 2nd of the same April, *istamenou*. But Possinus himself rejects this year: and from it arguments pull us back, which we shall give below. The year 1265 must be rejected, in which the Eastern and Western Christians celebrated Easter on the 5th of April; but the preceding year 1264 fits entirely. The solar cycle was running 13, and the Dominical letter FE, and the lunar cycle 11, whence the full moon fell on the 15th of April, a Tuesday, and holy Easter on the 20th of the same month. Therefore, the feast of the Akathistos was celebrated on the 5th of the same ^D April, on the Saturday of the fifth week of the Quadragesimal fast. Truly, the Greeks keep this fast for seven weeks, and it begins on the Monday of our Quinquagesima, which in that same year 1264 was the third day of March: and so the week of the...

^A fifth week ends on the Saturday, the fifth day of April. See the *Hemerologia* of the Greeks. The written accusation against Patriarch Arsenius was therefore presented while the festival they commonly call the *Acathistus* was being celebrated; it was at night, after the conclusion of the hymnody, on the 5th of April in the year 1264. It was so called, indeed, because the people, for the sake of the city being saved three times by the aid of the blessed Virgin, remained standing throughout the entire night without sitting, while the songs of thanksgiving were being chanted at the Matins of the fifth week of the fasts. Consult Ducange in his *Greek Glossary*. Combefis published a historical account of this matter in print after his *History of the Monothelites*, page 805. A synod was convened to discuss the business of the patriarch: a day was appointed according to the legal formulas, a sentence of deposition was passed, and Arsenius, having been deposed, was ordered to leave into exile; this occurred around the final night of Pyanepsion, in the month of May, in that same year 1264. Read more on this in Pachymeres, book IV, in the cited chapter 8, where Possinus, in his *Chronological Observations*, book I, chapter 1, and chapter 5, number 6, notes that in place of the word *Pyanetionos* one should restore the word *Pyanepsionos*. For Pachymeres is accustomed to call the month of May by this word most consistently; and in the Barberini codex, which he himself used, in the margin alongside that word *Pyanetionos* is written *Maiou* in an ancient hand. Banduri embraces the settlement of the deposition of Arsenius in the year 1264: "However," he says, "Possinus may speak."

^B Banduri, who binds the deposition of Arsenius to the year 1264, defers the succession of Germanus to the year 1267 and the month of June of that same year. Possinus had assigned the year 1266 to the deposition of Arsenius: and he relates that Germanus could have been substituted in that same year, or more properly in the following year, 1267, accumulating various arguments for either opinion. But he declares, in the cited place, chapter 6, number 1, that it is certain that he finally resigned the patriarchate in that same year 1267, on the 14th of September. Cuperus, tangled in chronological difficulties, says (number 992): "About the other year I define nothing absolutely: but I fix the beginning of Germanus to the year of Christ 1266 or 1267." But that the abdication (number 993) took place in the year of Christ 1267 will be established later from the beginning of his successor.

The authority of Nicephorus Gregoras has compelled most learned men to refer the abdication of Germanus to the year 1267. He narrates, book IV, chapter 8, number 4, that the patriarchal see was abandoned by Germanus, and Joseph Galesiotes was elevated to it. Then, at number 2, he notes that during this time the moon obscured the sun on the 25th day of May. That this solar eclipse occurred on that very day, the 25th of May in the year 1267, is demonstrated by astronomers, Seth Calvisius, and James Grantanus, and ^C John Baptist Riccioli, in Possinus, *Chronological Observations*, book III, chapter 7. Hence Possinus institutes his argument there in the cited chapter: "Gregoras describes a completely remarkable and dreadful solar eclipse seen at Constantinople, a little before Germanus was removed from office, and Joseph was being chosen to be substituted in his place. Wherefore, if we can demonstrate, by the reliability of tables and astronomical calculations, that such a notable eclipse of the sun... occurred in that year (1267), no one fails to see that a great support will thereby accrue to our reasonings." Indeed, no support can accrue to the opinion of Possinus, who affixes the resignation of Germanus to the year 1267, unless it is first certainly and clearly demonstrated that that eclipse of the sun, which happened on the 25th of May, was seen at Constantinople a little before Germanus was deposed. But indeed, Gregoras does not assert this at all. Rather, he narrates: 1, that Germanus abdicated the dignity: which, Pachymeres reports, was abdicated by him on the 14th of September; 2, that Joseph Galesiotes was substituted in his place, namely on the 28th of September, 37, by the same witness Pachymeres, as must be said below; 3, that absolution was granted to the emperor by the new patriarch on the appointed day, which Pachymeres establishes as the second of February, in book IV, chapter 25. Having narrated these things, "at this time," or "around this time," says Gregoras, "the moon obscured the sun on the 25th day of May." Who, therefore, does not see that the solar eclipse refers to what could have happened after the abdication of Germanus and the inauguration of Joseph? I hold it as certain that this is how the matter stands, since Germanus both abdicated the patriarchate and Joseph attained it as the year 1266 was waning, as ^D (the month of Maimakterion, on the feast of the Holy Spirit, in the month of June, on the feast of the Holy Spirit, by concordant suffrages, he was declared patriarch. These things seem to me to have taken place within a short space of a few days, though they seem to have required a long time to Possinus and Banduri. This Germanus is numbered third in the series of 36 patriarchs of the royal city. But that he was finally compelled to abdicate the dignity he had attained in the month of September, Pachymeres himself narrates in chapter 21, saying: "September, *Gamélion*, had begun, and the venerable feast of the Cross, which we call the Exaltation, was being celebrated." In it, having been vested for the last time in sacred vestments, and having duly performed the sacred liturgy of that day, he withdrew in the evening toward dusk. Writers differ concerning the year in which these things happened.)

^A However, there is no obstacle to regarding Germanus III as having been elected patriarch in the month of June, on the feast of the Holy Spirit, in the year 1264, the year in which Arsenius was removed from the throne by the sentence of the bishops in the month of May. For in that year, the sacred Pascha fell on April 20, and Pentecost on June 8. The sacred feast of Pentecost is celebrated for three days, and the Greeks call it an *aphiperon trimeron*. Therefore, the feast of the Holy Spirit which Pachymeres mentions may perhaps be understood as the first, second, or third day. From this, the space of as many days as seem sufficient for all the things Pachymeres narrates to have been performed elapsed after the deposition of Arsenius.

The restriction of Germanus’s rule to the very short space of three months, from June to September 14, is thought by Cuperus difficult to understand because of the many things that Pachymeres narrates from chapter 13 to chapter 21. That at least one full year and some months on top of it must be reckoned is proven by the very grave difficulty which Cuperus himself proposes at number 991 and leaves insoluble: “After Pachymeres explained at length how the people were hostile to Patriarch Germanus, and the emperor himself was secretly urging his abdication, in book IV, chapter 18, he appends the following: ‘But the emperor... egregiously persisted in the simulation of fostering and protecting him... Standing [the feast of the Palms], the feast of Palms, when a solemn procession through the city was customary... he sent [to Germanus the emperor] a large quantity of copper and silver coin... which he ordered to be scattered among the people.’ The Greeks celebrate the feast of Palms annually with us toward the end of Lent, as Leo Allatius testifies in his *Dissertation on the Sundays and Weeks of the Greeks*, no. 20, where he also notes that it was customary at that time for emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople to distribute certain gifts to the people. But how did Patriarch Germanus, ^B at the time of the feast of Palms, scatter coins among the populace, if he held the see of Constantinople only from the feast of Pentecost until almost the middle of September of the same year 1267, a period of three months and some days? Who will find in that space of time the feast of Palms, which in the Greek Church, just as in the Latin, is not celebrated long before Pascha?”

Might Cuperus satisfy this stated difficulty? His words are: “I see no loophole here, unless someone can show that in Pachymeres the Greek name of the month *Maimakterion* is sometimes used to signify May, or declares openly that the month of June was erroneously written there for the month of May. Under that hypothesis, both testimonies of Pachymeres could be reconciled with each other. For if Germanus [sat in the chair of Constantinople] from Pentecost of the year 1266 (when it fell in the month of May) until the middle of September of the year 1267, already within that span of the patriarchate in the year of Christ 1267 would occur the festival of Palms, on which that patriarch could scatter money. However, concerning either year nothing is absolutely defined... until a more skillful hand is applied to untying this knot.”

That I might be able to apply a more skillful hand, I would be bold to say. Yet anyone could say that June was written for May gratis, since no ancient codex occurs which might supply a different reading. To guess that the Greek name *Maimakterion* could sometimes signify May in Pachymeres would be a weaker conjecture, which the most constant usage of that same historian, who names the months of the year according to his own custom, overthrows: 1. *Hekatombaion*, January. 2. *Anthesterion*, February. 3. *Chronios*, March. 4. *Boedromion*, April. 5. *Pyanepsion*, May. 6. [...], June. 7. *Anthesterion* [sic], July. 8. *Gamelion*, September. 9. *Elaphebolion*, October. 10. *Mounychion*, November. 11. *Skirophorion*, December. The Pachymerian name for the month of August does not appear at all in the work. Possinus illustrates each of these names in his *Observations*, book III, chapter 1.

And so I see no knot here, neither one to be cut nor one to be solved. For our chronology, just as it refers the inauguration of Patriarch Germanus to the year 1264 and to Pentecost, which in that year was celebrated in the month of June: so it shows two feasts of Palms, the first in the year 1265, and the second in the year 1266, in which he dispensed money received from the emperor to the people. One difficulty remains concerning the year in which Germanus himself abdicated the patriarchate, and Joseph Galesiotes obtained it: which, if I prove it must be defined ^C as the year 1266 of the vulgar era, the chronology of the patriarchs established thus far will be safe. But come now.

IV. We have heard Pachymeres narrating in book IV, chapter 21, that Germanus withdrew to his cells in the month of September, on the feast of the venerable cross, which we call Exaltation, on the fourteenth day. He continues to weave the history in chapter 23: “Germanus being removed from the see, the emperor sought a suitable man to be placed on the patriarchal throne, and elevated to the patriarchate Joseph, the prefect of Galesios, approved by the just number of votes, on the twenty-eighth day of the month of *Skirophorion*, in the tenth indiction, of the year 6775.” He was ordained on the Calends of January, and he duly received the episcopal ordination.

Possinus, in book III, cited chapter 6, no. 2, speaks thus: “The year of the era of the world of the Greeks is reduced to the vulgar era of our Christ by the subtraction of 5808. Therefore, that was the year of Christ 1267, but of the Julian period 5980. Which number divided by fifteen ^D indicates the indiction, the characteristic of that year...

^A tenth, as Pachymeres has noted. Wherefore there can be no doubt that the patriarchate of Joseph Galesiotes proceeds from the Kalends of January of the year of Christ 1268. Similar are the things which Cuperus writes at no. 997: "The year of the world 6775, according to the later Greeks, and the indiction 10 with both months here expressed (December and January) most certainly designate the end of the year of Christ 1267 and the beginning of the year 1268." To this, Bandurius further consents: "Joseph succeeded to the patriarchate on the twenty-eighth day of the month of December of the year of Christ 1267, and was soon ordained on the Kalends of January... and on the 2nd of February of the year 1268 he released the emperor from the anathema." Lequien has the same in the *Oriens Christianus*, Constantinople patriarchs, volume I.

Again, although I am hesitant on account of the authority of very learned men, I nevertheless assert that their calculations are flawed, having become more confident through the clear truth of the matter. Given the year of Constantinople 6775, and subtracting the years 5508, the year of Christ 1267 is obtained concurrently (as Ricciolius says), from the Kalends of January until the Kalends of September of the following (of the same year 1267). Thus, the year 6775 had begun from the Kalends of September of the preceding year 1266, and had its end on the last day of August of the year 1267, and the year 6776 began from the following Kalends of September of the same year 1267. Therefore, the 14th day of September, on which Germanus abdicated the patriarchate, and the twenty-eighth day of December of the year 6775, on which the emperor promoted Joseph to the patriarchate, ^C noted by Pachymeres, pertain to the Julian year of the common era, not 1267, but 1266, and the Kalends of January, on which he was initiated with sacred pontifical ordination, begin the Julian year of the common era, not 1268, but 1267. We have confirmed this rule, which is most certain, with arguments and examples among the notes to the *Life of Georgius Cyprius*, namely note (21).

Pagius in his *Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period*, no. 63, advises that in joining the mundane years of the Greeks with the Dionysian years (or with the Julian years of the common era), a method is easier and to be preferred above all others, which is taken from the indiction. Pachymeres notes that that year 6775 was truly marked by the tenth indiction. But indeed the tenth indiction, calculated in the pontifical or Roman manner, affects the entire year 1267, ^D from the Kalends of January to the Kalends of January exclusive of the year 1268, on which the eleventh indiction begins. But the same tenth indiction, if it is calculated in the manner of the Greeks, took its beginning from the Kalends of September of the preceding year 1266, and from the Kalends of September of the year 1267 another indiction begins, namely the eleventh. Again, the year of Constantinople 6775 divided by 15, with no addition or subtraction made, returns the indiction with which it begins from the Kalends of September. It indeed returns the tenth indiction, which in the manner of the Greeks had begun from the Kalends of September of the year 1266. These things ^B are all beyond doubt peremptory. By the authority of Sethus Calvisius, it may be permissible to confirm the same. He notes to the year 1268: "(In this year) begins the year of Constantinople 6777 on the 1st of October." It should be read, on the 1st of September, as we observed in the note (21) mentioned above. And so the year 6776 began in the year 1267, and the year 6775 began in the year 1266, and thus September and December of the year 6775 pertain to the year of the common era 1266. But that we must eventually say that Possinus finally acknowledged and approved this rule and method, having become more skilled, will be said below in chapter 5, no. 6.

With this calculation established, our chronography flows most correctly. In the year 1266, on the 14th of September, Germanus left the throne. In the same year 1266, on the 28th of December, Joseph was promoted to the patriarchal throne. In the year 1267, on the Kalends of January, he received his sacred pontifical ordination. In the same year 1267, on the 2nd of February, the emperor was released from the anathema by Joseph; and finally in the same year 1267 occurred the eclipse of the sun noted by Nicephorus Gregoras on the 25th of May. With the method of computing the mundane years of the Greeks applied less accurately, it was necessary for the most learned men to err, according to the human condition.

V. A faction was active in the Church of Constantinople, called the Arsenians, who revered Arsenius, deposed twice from the patriarchal throne, as the legitimate patriarch, and rejected others who had been substituted. Recall the words of Pachymeres, which we described at no. 3. With Joseph Galesiotes elevated to the patriarchal seat, another faction prevailed, that of the Josephites, who stood for this same Joseph against Arsenius. It is enough to have hinted a few things about this schism, so that the things to be said below might be understood more easily.

CHAPTER II.

Georgius Cyprius ordained reader by the patriarch Joseph, and enrolled in the palace clergy, with the title of protoapostolarius. The emperor Michael Palaeologus takes care to establish the union of both Churches, Latin and Greek. The state of the controversy concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, or through the Son. The time of the controversy. Cyprius provides his service to the emperor with others against the patriarch Joseph and John Beccus the chartophylax.

I. Georgius Acropolita, the grand logothete, managed public schools. Georgius Cyprius, having been entrusted to his instruction and most highly cultivated by his own labor, due to the total strength of talent in which he excelled, reached the summit of wisdom, as Ephraemius of Constantinople says. See notes 21, 22, and 23. With the strength of the failing Acropolita broken, the rhetor Holobolus was substituted, with the patriarch Germanus acting. Pachymeres narrates the matter in book IV, chapter 15. That Cyprius had correspondence with him is clear from the letters which exist in our transcription of the Leidensis codex.

The same Pachymeres, treating of the patriarchal dignity conferred upon ^A Cyprius under the Emperor Andronicus in book I, chapter 14, says: "Giorgios from Cyprus is elected to the patriarchate, a man nurtured in eloquence, and bearing the seal of the patriarch Joseph, which is the dignity brought into the palace of the [i/h]Protoapostolarius." Possinus translates these words thus: "He chooses, therefore, Georgios, born in Cyprus, a man nurtured in doctrines, whom he might commend, the benediction having been received from Patriarch Joseph by the Josephites: for indeed, he had marked him out publicly by a certain character of his approval and favor—while Joseph was alive—for the function of primary ecclesiast of the palatine congregation, with the customary formula of blessing for such an occasion, publicly delegated to him." 42 This interpretation of Possinus indicates solely that Joseph designated Cyprius as the primary ecclesiast, or preacher, in the sacred palatine church. Hence, the most learned man in the *Glossarium*, at the word σφραγίς, speaks thus: "I have translated here σφραγίδα as 'benediction.' For I understood the sign of the cross expressed by the hand by Patriarch Joseph upon this Georgios, with the pronunciation of a certain formula of words, by which he, having been elected to the office of the first ecclesiast of the palatine congregation (for this is what [i/h]πρωτοαποστολάριος sounds like), had been duly sent to perform that ministry." Georgios did not stand among the simple readers or "apostolaries." Ephraemius the Constantinopolitan narrates in Allatius and Banduri: "Then, having become well-acquainted with the crowned one, and having been enrolled in the clergy of the palace," he finally became known to the emperor himself as Cyprius, having been inscribed into the clergy of the palace. I would gladly understand this emperor to be Michael Palaeologus, who had Cyprius ordained as reader or 43 "apostolary" by Joseph, inscribed him into the palatine clergy, and called him "Protoapostolary." Possinus understands "primary ecclesiast of the palatine congregation" as preacher. I would understand it as the reader of the Epistles and Prophets in the sacred palatine church. Codinus, in ^B *De officiis Palatii Constantinopolitani*, chapter vi, treating of the Feasts, which are accustomed to be celebrated in the Palace, and first of the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord, says thus in no. 14: "The archdeacon reads the Psalms of the Hours: the Protoapostolary reads the Prophecy and the Apostle: the protopope first reads from the Gospels, the other priests the rest." In his notes to this passage, Jacobus Gretserus has these things: "Protoapostolary. You see here also the name of Grecian ambition: because among those who publicly read the apostle Paul, that is, among the 'Apostolaries,' they wanted to have a 'Protoapostolary.'" Therefore, the office of "Ecclesiast," who expounded either the Apostle or the Gospels, appears to be different from this office. Codinus, in chapter 1, in the third Quinarium, mentions a [i/h]διδάσκαλον τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου, "Doctor of the Gospel," who interprets it, and a [i/h]διδάσκαλον τοῦ Ἀποστόλου, "Doctor of the Apostle," who is its interpreter. Here, however, as Ducange notes in the *Glossarium Graecum*: [i/h]διδάσκειν is properly to have a sermon to the people in Church; and such preachers were chosen by the bishop from the order of priests. Setting aside this version, which seems too paraphrastic and contrived for the genius, the Greek words of Pachymeres signify precisely and truly ^C that the Emperor Andronicus had chosen Georgios Cyprius, a man nurtured in speeches, into the patriarchate, and that he had been ordained by Patriarch Joseph and adorned in the palace with the dignity of Protoapostolary. This same version is that of Leo Allatius in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*.

I would consider that in those words, "ordained by Patriarch Joseph," [i/h]σφραγίδα τοῦ πατριάρχου Ἰωσὴφ φέροντα, there is signified the ordination by which Joseph initiated Cyprius as a reader. Hence, I have understood that word, [i/h]σφραγίδα, not as a mere benediction, but as that imposition of hands by which readers were initiated among the Greeks. Explaining the same word, Jo. Caspar Suicerus notes that "the imposition of hands is designated, which took place at an ordination, and was called a 'consignation'; because they would then impose a hand on the head, and perform the sign of the cross on the head of the one being consecrated." The observations of Isaac Habert favor this, in his book ^D on the *Pontificale Ecclesiae Graecae*. He teaches, indeed (observ. II, part iv, on the Liturgy of the orders), that it was not customary among the Greeks for anyone to be marked with the tonsure before the order of readers; that this tonsure was called the [i/h]σφραγὶς τῆς ἐπικουρίδος; that readers were ordained through the imposition of hands; that the apostolic book—that is, the one containing the epistles of the apostle Paul—was also delivered to them; and that their main duty, finally, resided in the public reading of the Apostle and other parts of Holy Scripture before the people in the holy synaxis. Hence, the office that Cyprius performed in the palatine clergy is clear. Ephraemius records that he was inscribed to this by the emperor; however, I would not deny that he was sent by Patriarch Joseph with a certain formula of benediction used for duly discharging that office. If these things are so, Spondanus should be abandoned at the year 1283, no. 7, and Gulielmus Cave, saying that Cyprius was ordained reader by the Latins. Nicephorus Gregoras also opposes them, and opens the occasion for this suspicion in book VI, chapter i, no. 7. On that pretext, he says, some were opposed to Cyprius because, being twenty years old, he had betaken himself from Cyprus to Roman customs, and by bringing with him certain rites of the Latins, he had given the mob a chance to suspect that the order of reader had been conferred upon him by the Latins; whether some malevolent person had spread this beforehand, or the wickedness of zealots had fabricated it after the fact. At what year, finally, Joseph initiated Cyprius as reader, no chronological note occurs which would sufficiently indicate it.

^A Pachymeres mentions both works in his 6th book, chapter 28: "There fell by chance," he says, "into the hands of Beccus (as the Emperor Michael was forwarding them) the things which the most wise Blemmida had written to the Emperor Theodore... and to Jacob of Bulgaria." Deserving of high esteem, a man most adorned in literature and character, whom the aforementioned Theodore Lascaris had had as his own tutor, he had chosen him for the throne of Constantinople in the year 1255, according to Gregoras: a most splendid office which he himself refused to accept. He finally died in the year 1272. The aforementioned Pachymeres celebrates his praises in the most ample terms in book 5, chapter 2.

Thealdus, the Viscomte of Piacenza, Archdeacon of Liège, a holy and religious man, while dwelling in Syria for the service of Christ, heard the news of his election to the Roman Pontificate, which took place in that same year of 1271, on the 23rd of August, whilst he was traveling from Syria to Rome for this purpose (these are the words of Pachymeres, book 5, chapter 14). He deemed it in his interest to send certain men to the Emperor with letters, who would declare that he burned with a huge desire for the procurement of peace for the Churches and for the establishing of a firm concord between them. For Thealdus himself, later called Gregory X in the pontificate, had already heard what had begun to be moved by him (the Emperor) concerning this matter: and what the Emperor had already taken care to have announced to his (Gregory's) predecessor, Pope Clement, concerning this affair.

^A The proposal for establishing peace, put forward by Thealdus, was most willingly accepted by the Emperor. Pachymeres, in the cited book 5, chapter 14, offers no other reason than his pusillanimity. For, struck with fear of the preparations of Charles, he says, he applied his mind to this counsel of procuring peace, for he would never have entertained thoughts of such a thing (had this not existed). By Charles of Anjou, understand the King of Sicily, whom Urban IV, with other princes of the Roman name, and also by preaching a crusade, had incited with great zeal against Michael, the destroyer of the Latin Constantinopolitan Empire. Hence in the year 1262, and again in the year 1264, legates were sent by that same Emperor to Urban, to seek the union of the Greeks with the Latins. Hence, too, it was dealt with under Clement IV: and finally, he accepted the exhortations of Thealdus, who had been elected to the Roman Pontificate; he was induced by his own concern for his affairs, but also by the inclination of his mind.

Understand that the Supreme Pontiff Clement IV was elected in the year 1265, and most especially his predecessor Urban IV, as is evident from his letters given in the year 1263 and the following year, 1264. Wading, Raynald, and Laurentius Cozza, who treats this matter most diligently in his *Historia Polemica de Græcorum Schismate*, refer to them. Indeed, matters began to be moved regarding this business with even more ardent vows under John Ducas, called Vatatzes, who had assumed the Eastern Empire in the year 1222: and he held his see at Nicaea in Bithynia, Constantinople having been captured by the Latins. The most celebrated man, Nicephorus Blemmida, was living at this time, who wrote many things in favor of the Catholic dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit. ^C Spondanus notes that his most elegant work on this was begun in the year 1233, but Casimir Oudin, in his *Elogium Blemmidæ* to the year 1250, thinks that it should be deferred to the year 1261, or rather the following years under Michael Palaeologus. Without doubt the renegade man is mistaken, and most ignorantly abuses the authority of Nicephorus Gregoras, who most explicitly says in book 5, chapter 2, number 6: "The thought came to the Emperor" (who in the year 1273 and the beginning of the following year was holding John Beccus captive, who opposed the union of the Churches) "that the same matter had been agitated by the Latins twenty-five years ago (and thus before the year 1248), under the rule of John Ducas: and that at that time there existed a learned man, Nicephorus Blemmida, most skilled in divine letters, ^D who, when the matter of constituting peace was held, brought forward these words: 'That he had betaken himself to leisure, had begun to collect from the Holy Scripture many testimonies which seemed to confirm the dogma of the Latins, and had later also written about them.'" It is now clear that Blemmida had labored for the dogma of the Latins under John Ducas Vatatzes. But he also published writings, even if secretly (says Gregoras), to avoid the suspicion of many, διὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ὑπόληψιν. But how could that have been done secretly by him, when he directed his writings to Theodore Lascaris the younger, who had assumed the paternal empire in the year 1255, and to Jacob, Archbishop of Bulgaria? These two Orations directed to them are extant in *Græcia Orthodoxa*, volume I, and in Raynald, volume XIII of the *Annales*, at the end.

In Rome, Thealdus, called Gregory X, received the pontifical tiara on the 27th of March, 1272. At the very beginning of his pontificate, on the Kalends of April, he proclaimed a general council to be celebrated at Lyons. From Orvieto, on the 24th of October, he sent legates to the Emperor of the Greeks and to Patriarch Joseph, who would invite them to the union and desire that they attend the council, or at least send men of great authority. Wading and the collectors of the councils refer to these letters. Among these papal legates, Pachymeres, in book 5, chapter 11, mentions one John Parastron, who, in a *Tractatus de pace* sent to the Latins, and having removed the scandal of the addition to the Creed (that is, of what was being demanded of the Greeks)—namely the word usurpation, which the Greeks had on their lips—at the same time the Greeks would not spurn the arguments which the Latins alleged for the addition: but for the rest, the dogma itself would be common to all. The Emperor's work, efforts, and care to induce his own Greeks toward peace, we shall narrate below.

III. The genuine status of the controversy which was then being agitated must be exposed. 46〗 Those who clung to the Photian schism, once introduced and re-established by Michael Cerularius, denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son: they did, however, admit that He is given and sent by the Son, and that He proceeds through the Son from the Father, from

the largition of temporal gifts. ^A

The controversy having been stirred up again in this age, there was a dispute regarding the eternal, substantial, and hypostatic procession of the Spirit, not only from the Father, but also from the Son, or through the Son. The Latins, as well as very learned men among the Greeks, explained this origin of the Holy Spirit as follows. The eternal Father, the principle without principle, has all things from Himself, with the exception of the personal property of paternity, namely, the divinity and its attributes, and accordingly also the power of spirating, or active spiration, which He communicates to the Son by begetting Him. Therefore, just as the Father and the Son are two supposita who have one divinity, so they are two supposita who possess one power of spirating, or active spiration. Just as, in turn, the Father ^B and the Son, by reason of the unity of the divinity, although they are two supposita, are nonetheless one God, so by reason of the unity of the power of spirating, or spiration, although they are two supposita, they are nonetheless the one principle of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, because the power of spirating is in the Father, so it must be said that He proceeds from the Son as well, because one and the same power of spirating, communicated to Him by the Father, is found in the Son. Whether, therefore, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and from the Son, or from the Father through the Son, these propositions must be understood as equivalent, signifying the power of spirating the Holy Spirit, which is one and the same, residing in the Father and in the Son.

But since this same power resides in the Father from Himself, and resides in the Son as communicated by the Father, or since it resides in the Father as a principle without principle and resides in the Son as a principle from a principle, for this reason two things are to be distinguished in the Father and the Son: namely, the power of spirating itself, which both possess, and the manner of possessing it, which resides in the Father from Himself and resides in the Son as communicated by the Father. These voices—both "from the Father and the Son," and "from the Father through the Son"—signify this power inherent in the Father and the Son, in the former from Himself, in the latter from the Father; but the latter ones also seem apt for expressing the communication of that same power, which the Son receives from the Father by being born.

This doctrine is sufficiently indicated by the divine utterances. ^D The words are those of John the Evangelist, chapter xvi, vers. 13: "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will teach you all truth; for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak." Vers. 15. "He will glorify me, because He will receive from what is mine (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ), and will announce it to you. All things whatsoever the Father has, are mine: therefore I said to you, that He will receive from what is mine." And chapter xvii, vers. 10: "And all mine are yours, and yours are mine." Having discussed the tradition of the ancient Fathers from the beginning of the Church, theologians elicit the genuine meaning, explaining that whatever the Father has, the Son also has, with the sole exception of the relation of paternity, by which the Father is opposed to the Son and distinguished from Him, and therefore among all other things, it has its place in the spiration of power. But the Son says: "The Spirit will receive from what is mine." What, indeed, will He receive from the Son? Clearly, knowledge: "For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak." How, however, does He receive knowledge? By receiving, indeed, nature or essence from Him.

Do not respond that the Holy Spirit receives knowledge from the Son, because He teaches nothing contrary to what the Son has taught. Observe that it is also said: "He will not speak from Himself": which is to indicate openly that knowledge is communicated to the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. Do not further interpret "from what is mine" as "from my treasury, which is the Father." As if the Son were saying: "From there the Spirit will receive, from where I also received." You are most mistaken. For the treasury of knowledge is not the person of the Father precisely as a person, but the divine essence which is in the Father. But truly this resides in the Father from Himself, and it also resides in the Son, communicated by the Father: whence the Holy Spirit, who receives from this treasury, receives from the Father and from the Son.

The Son says again: "He will receive from mine"; because the Spirit, proceeding from the Son, does not receive the whole of that which is in the Son—for He did not receive filiation, but essence, from which, and by filiation, in our mode of conceiving, the Son is constituted. Which the Son Himself indicates: "All things which the Father has," He says, "are mine: therefore I said to you, that He will receive from mine," that is, He will receive those things which are common to me and the Father. ^C Jesus Christ had said, John chapter xv, vers. 26: "The Spirit, the Paraclete, whom I will send from the Father, proceeds from the Father." But He says in chapter xvi, vers. 14: "He (the Spirit of truth) will receive from what is mine." That there is no contradiction between these two sayings, He teaches in the following verse, 15: "All things whatsoever the Father has," He says, "are mine; therefore I said that He will receive from what is mine." Hence it is established without doubt that it is the same thing for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and to receive from those things which are the Son's, as for Him to proceed from both, after receiving the divine nature from both, and all those things that are communicated and are not relatively opposed. Although this reception of the Holy Spirit is eternal and from eternity, it is said, however, that "He will receive" from Him, because it includes all differences of times ^D and expresses various times in the Scriptures, as the matter demands. It is treated here of the Holy Spirit, as a legate to be sent to the disciples by the Father and the Son: whence if the largition of gifts is considered, which were afterward to be poured out upon the disciples, the Holy Spirit will certainly receive those things which He had received substantially by proceeding from both in His eternal procession. In this sense it is said more frequently in the Scriptures: the Holy Spirit is given and sent by the Son; and it is already clear that His temporal mission relies upon His eternal procession from the Father and the Son, and it will be stated more fully below. And it also becomes known: that it is the same thing for the Spirit to proceed from the Son as it is to be given and to be sent by Him.

Why, then, do we not say (lest the difficulty be anticipated) that the Son produces the Holy Spirit through the Father, just as it is accustomed to be said in created things, that a king acts through a minister, and a minister acts through a king? For in both cases the particle "through" is accepted in an active sense. The reasoning for the distinction is readily available in St. Thomas, 1 part, q. 36, art. 3, ad 4, derived both from the unity of power which exists in both, the Father and the Son, and also from the order which is observed between the Father and the Son, not with regard to power (which is one in the Father of Himself, and in the Son from the Father), but only with regard to the persons (which are two). Petavius, in Book 11 of *De sanctissima Trinitate*, chapter 8, against the Socinians, excellently illustrates and most strongly defends the above points which we have indicated from the Holy Scriptures. ^B

Entirely similar are the things which we hear Jesus Christ teaching about the Holy Spirit, while having respect to the Father and to Himself; indeed, He affirms the same concerning Himself, signifying His own eternal generation from the Father, and, consequently, His mission. For He says in John, chapter 8, verse 26: "He who sent me is true; and what I heard from Him, these things I speak in the world." And verse 28: "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things." And chapter 14, verse 49: "I have not spoken from myself; but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak." And chapter 15, verse 15: "All things that I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you." These teachings of Jesus Christ surely prove that He is God from God, eternally generated by the Father, having had nature and wisdom and all other attributes communicated to Him through generation; and finally, though eternally generated, set to assume humanity in time, and to teach humans the mysteries of divine wisdom. Since things entirely similar have been said about the Holy Spirit, regarding His proceeding from the Father, not speaking from Himself, [and] receiving from the Son—because all things that are the Father’s are also the Son’s, except for the relation of paternity—it must be concluded by necessary reasoning that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [as] true God, about to bestow the gifts of grace upon men in time. Here, this is enough on this point.

IV. This is indeed the genuine rationale of the dogma regarding which too sharp disputes have been stirred up between Latins and Greeks, with decrees of faith having been published more frequently in councils on behalf of the Latins, and union established with the Greeks, but with dissensions also being renewed by them. The dispute, in truth, has been acted out in various times. The first mention of this controversy seems to occur in Hilary in Book 8 of *De Trinitate*, which he had finished in exile before the year 360. For he says thus, no. 20: "Nor do I now quarrel with the liberty (al. liberty) of understanding, whether they think the Paraclete Spirit is from the Father or from the Son: for the Lord has not left the matter in uncertainty." His mind is clear: that it is not uncertain to him that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, although in book 2, no. 4, where he calls the Son the giver and author of the Holy Spirit, he does not wish to quarrel about the mode of locution. Consult the book himself, 2, num. 4, where he calls the Son the giver and author of the Holy Spirit. ^C

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Euphratesia, seems to have pressed the dispute more sharply. For in his ninth Anathema, which Cyril of Alexandria had transmitted with others in the year 430 from the Alexandrian council to Nestorius, he claimed: that the Holy Spirit, through whom Jesus Christ performed divine signs, was the property of the same (Jesus Christ). Responding to these words in his book on Cyril’s Anathematisms to John of Antioch with too much captiousness, Theodoret says: "But if he said that the Spirit is proper to the Son, of the same nature as He is, and proceeding from the Father, we shall confess it together and accept this expression as pious: but if ὡς ἐξ Υἱοῦ, καὶ δι' οὗ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, as having existence from the Son or through the Son, we reject this as blasphemous and impious." However, lest you be caught by the words of Theodoret, which appear harsher, let it be noted in advance that Theodoret denied that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Son or through the Son for that reason; because he thought the impious comments of the Macedonians and Apollinarians were expressed in those words. He reveals this mind of his in the Letter to the monasteries, which is read in the fifth session, in the fifth ecumenical synod. For he says that the fruit of the seeds of Apollinarius is in the Cyrillian sentence: who, having brought forward the example of the sun, the ray, and the splendor which is emitted from the sun through the ray, asserted that the Holy Spirit is "great," the Son "greater," and the Father "greatest"; and just as the Son was "lesser" than the Father because He was born of the Father, so also the Holy Spirit would be "lesser" than the Son because He proceeds from the Son. On this matter more careful action must be taken, ch. 8, num. 5.

50 There were Monothelites who first attacked the meaning of the dogma with which we are dealing. They denied the eternal and substantial procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son or through the Son, and they understood His procession, asserted everywhere by the Fathers of all ages "through the Son," as temporal; that is, that He would make Himself known to men through the Son, and bestow spiritual gifts. Michael Lequien proves the matter in Dissertation I Damascenica, no. 48, from the confession of Macarius of Antioch, the heretical Monothelite. It stands in the Acts of the sixth ecumenical council celebrated in the year 681, in action 8, where these things are held concerning the Holy Spirit: Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ δι' Υἱοῦ πεφηνός, δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, "And in the Holy Spirit [who is] proceeding from the Father, and shining forth or manifested through the Son, for the sake of men." ^D We know that the dispute was also stirred up by the Monothelites from St. Maximus, who says this in his letter to Marinus the priest: "The Constantinopolitans, namely the Monothelites, blamed the Latins because they said that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son." But the Latins brought forward proofs from the consonance of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexan-

Alexandria regarding his sacred work which he did upon the holy evangelist John: from which they showed that they did not make the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit for no reason. For they recognize one cause of both the Son and the Spirit, namely the Father: of the one according to generation, and of the other according to ^A *ekporeusis*, that is, procession: "But that they might declare the 'through him' [proceeding], and in this way demonstrate the continuity and immutability of the substance; but that they might insinuate that he proceeds through him: and by this (locution) demonstrate the communion of substance, and the indivisibility." Observe that Cyril sentiments accord with the Latins, when he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, so that by this locution the communion of substance might be demonstrated. We shall furnish the outstanding testimonies of the Alexandrian Father below. The question, therefore, was about the natural and eternal ^B procession of the Holy Spirit. Note again that the Father is said to be the cause of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—of the former by generation, and of the latter by procession: a cause, to be sure, that is primary and original, which has from itself the power of begetting the Son and of spirating the Holy Spirit: and in that sense, the Son is not the cause of the Holy Spirit. Observe, finally, that the Holy Spirit is nonetheless understood to proceed from the Father, even so that he proceeds through the Son, the power of spiration being communicated to the Son by the Father, and the Son coalescing into one principle with the Father.

Saint Maximus’s thought was explained in the same way by Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his letter to John the Deacon, in volume XII of the *Bibliotheca Patrum Lugdunensis*. "He ^C reveals that they in vain complain against us, the Greeks: since we do not call the Son the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, as they suppose (a cause, that is, or principle, to whom the power of spirating is inherent from himself), but rather the unity of substance of the Father and the Son (and the unity of the power of spirating in both): not being ignorant (nay, understanding most correctly), that just as he proceeds from the Father, we confess him to proceed from the Son, understanding the mission (read *emission*), that is, the procession." That word, *emission*, when restored in the text of Anastasius, renders the Bibliothecarius immune to the censure by which Petavius harshly labels him, in book V *De Trinitate*, chap. 17, no. 11. Consult Combefis in volume II of the Works of Saint Maximus, ^D p. 69; and Lequien in his *Dissertatio Damascenica* I, no. 10, and in the *Panoplia contra schisma Græcorum*, 13th century, chapter 4, no. 16; in which place also, according to the keenness of the intellect in which he excelled, he observes that this word *emission* is used in a passive, not an active sense, so that an *emergence* and *emanation* might be signified; and the Son himself is understood as a kind of medium, from whom and through whom the Spirit emerges and emanates. That this is the genuine doctrine of Cyril, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and other Fathers is to be said in its proper place. Anastasius proceeds: "Piously interpreting, and teaching those skilled in both languages toward peace, while he instructs both us and the Greeks (Maximus): that he proceeds in one way ^A and according to another way the Holy Spirit does not proceed." He does not proceed from the Son as from a principle without a principle, having from himself the power of spirating; he proceeds from him as from a principle from a principle, receiving power from the Father through generation.

The Iconoclasts began to attack this dogma more sharply and in open warfare, especially under the empire of Constantine Copronymus, as the eighth century was waning. When they themselves were accused of heresy by the Westerners, to repay them in kind, they called the Westerners heretics, asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Then indeed, and from that time on, the procession from the Father through the Son, which is asserted by ^B innumerable testimonies of the Fathers, was and is understood everywhere—contrary to Photius, Michael Cerularius, and the other schismatics—concerning the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, and his temporal manifestation through the granting of spiritual gifts. This, therefore, became the pivot of the contentions under John Ducas Vatatzes, and especially under Michael Palaeologus: whether the Spirit substantially proceeds from the Father through the Son: which dogma being admitted, it was a necessary consequence that it was the same thing as for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and from the Son.

V. This substantial, eternal, and hypostatic production of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son was promoted by the ^C emperor, so that finally the peace of the Churches might be initiated. Most learned Greek men offered their service to the Augustus: Theodore Meliteniota, George Metochita, the rhetor also Holobolus, and George Cyprius: to whom later John Beccus, the most noble defender of the Catholic dogma, joined himself. "On a certain day (these are the words of Pachymeres in book V, chap. 12), when there had gathered (in the year 1273) at the emperor’s presence the patriarch (Joseph), the bishops, and some of the clergy; the emperor discoursed quite urgently with them about the matter of peace... He added that there was no danger in agreeing with what the Latins desired, demonstrating it with many arguments. For he had those who would suggest to him a wealth of such arguments, authors eager for this peace: the ^D archdeacon Meliteniota, the protoapostolarius George Cyprius, and, less ardently and more superficially, the rhetor of the Church, Holobolus." Observe that Cyprius in this year 1273 was already enrolled in the palace clergy, called the protoapostolarius, and defender of the dogma of the Latins.

The patriarch Joseph was waiting for the chartophylax to refute the claims made in favor of the Latins. This man is John Beccus, who had obtained this dignity in the year 1264, as Pachymeres himself testifies in book III, chapter 24. See the offices and duties of his dignity in Goar’s [Notes] to the first chapter of Codinus. He was ordered finally: "Some," he said, "are heretics, even if they are not explicitly called so, and the Italians must be relegated to this class." That free remark added great confidence to the patriarch Joseph, but it struck the emperor. But the archdeacon (Meliteniota) and the protoapostolarius (Cyprius), to his face...

^A vehemently resisted. Hence, Beccus himself was consigned to prison.

The emperor continued his effort. A treatise, inscribed with his name, was sent to the Church, in which he attempted to demonstrate, from various histories and testimonies, that there was no stain of heresy in the Latins. Learned men concentrated their study and labour upon this (as Pachymeres says, lib. v, cap. 14), the first and most powerful of whom were the aforementioned archdeacon and the protoapostolarius. Therefore, Georgius Cyprius persisted in the study of peace, and defended the Catholic dogma. Whether this was a sincere persuasion of the mind, or a simulation, is not so easy to tell. If it was a simulation, he maintained it for a long time; eventually he changed his opinion, or abandoned the simulation.

Patriarch Joseph convened a synod, so that it might be decided what ought to be done regarding the emperor's document. The emperor’s own sister, Eulogia, was also present—whom it is better to mention, inasmuch as she persuaded her brother that the peace he had initiated would be violated by his successor, Andronicus. The matter being discussed in the synod, the emperor received a rebuff to his desires.

53 CHAPTER III

I. To Joannes Beccus, while he was detained in prison, the writings of Nicephorus Blemmida were transmitted by order of the emperor. We discussed these in the previous chapter, num. II. After he had read these through with great sagacity (these are the words of Gregoras, book v, chapter 2, num. 6), he requested the books of the holy ones from which Blemmida had collected these testimonies. When the emperor had most willingly provided him with a copy of them, he was thereafter occupied in reading, weighing, and word-for-word comparing them. And so, in a short time, he gathered that heap of testimonies which could fill entire volumes. And he who had long vehemently opposed the Latins, having changed his opinion, made the ambiguous victory (or transferred it to them).

Pachymeres, in the cited book, cap. 16, recounts similar things; if one is to give credence to a schismatic writer, it seemed to Beccus that the sum of the sin of the Latins consisted in the addition of one word to the Creed. I must deal with this matter more diligently in the following dissertation. As regards the dogma itself, Beccus held it for certain that the Churches agreed. The Historian relates some testimonies of the Fathers, by which he might confirm what Beccus himself was saying. By chance, there occurs a passage of Saint Cyril in book 1 *De adoratione in spiritu et veritate*: "The Spirit is in no way mutable... since He is of God, and of the Father, and of the Son, He who ^B *ousiodōs ex amphoin, ēgoun ek Patros di’ Huiou procheomenon*, who substantially from both, indeed from the Father through the Son, the Spirit proceeds."

The temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, or the bestowal of gifts and charisms, cannot be called *ousiodōs*, substantial. Therefore, Cyril is speaking of the eternal and hypostatic procession, through which the Holy Spirit receives His substance from the Father and from the Son, as equally immutable as the substance of the Father and of the Son. Thus, indeed, *ousiodōs* He proceeds from both, or is poured forth, so that He proceeds from the Father and flows forth through the Son, with the power of breathing or pouring forth being communicated to the Son by the Father, in begetting Him.

54 There was added the testimony of Saint Maximus in the *Epistle to Rufinus* (to Marinus the presbyter): where the Latins showed that they did not say the Only-Begotten is the principle (or cause) of the Spirit, but intended to signify that He proceeds through Him, and by that reasoning established the cohesion of an inseparable substance. Therefore, it was the same for the Latins, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, and that He Himself proceeds from the Father through the Son. By this procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, the inseparable cohesion of the same Holy Spirit with both of the substance was again explained: and so, it concerned His substantial and eternal procession to existence. Consider more attentively what we explained at length in the previous chapter, num. 3. I add Georgius Metochita. He adhered to Emperor Michael Palaeologus. A fragment from his book V *De processione Spiritus sancti* is found in Combefis, after the *Historia Monothelitarum*, where it stands as follows: "Because all things which are in the Son... even the Spirit Himself, whom they teach is from Him (the Son) and through Him, are from the Father, as from the root and first cause; and by no means are they from the Son in such a way that He is not the root, nor the first cause at all... according to these things, indeed, (Maximus) aptly and congruously taught that the Son is not the cause, and the rest of the divine doctors frequently refer the cause to the Father: not so that they might take away the divine procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and through the Son... Wherefore, there is a proper reason, according to which the Son is not the cause: and again a proper reason, according to which the Holy Spirit is from both, that is, from the Father through the Son (because, indeed, the Son has from the Father that He is the producer of the Holy Spirit)." Saint Augustine hands down this entire doctrine, and explains it most elegantly, in book IV *De Trinitate*, cap. 27, and in *Tractatus 99 in Joannem*, num. 8, in which latter place he says thus: "Why did the Son say, 'He proceeds from the Father' (the Holy Spirit)? Why, do you think, except as He is accustomed to refer to Him both what is His own, and that from which He Himself is? Hence that is what 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 the Holy Spirit to be understood there as proceeding from Him, where He says thus, 'He proceeds from the Father,' so that He did not say, 'He does not proceed from Me'? But from whom the Son has that He is God—for He is God from God—from Him, indeed, He has that the Spirit also proceeds from Him.

And this ^A is enough for now. There are 55 other testimonies of the Fathers of the Greek nation, equally solid and illustrious, which, given the occasion provided by Pachymeres, are to be brought forward and illustrated below.

II. Patriarch Joseph was uncertain. The monk Job Jasites confirmed him in his obstinacy. Pachymeres relates the matter in book V, chapter 16. Yet he was induced to enter into this agreement with the Emperor: That he should leave the patriarchal palace (chapter 17) and reside in the Peribleptos monastery. But if any matter should hinder the legates (chosen for the council) from completing their task, he would return to the patriarchal residence. If, however, the undertaking were brought to completion according to their intention, he would then indeed resign his honor and yield his place to another. Concerning the monastery of men, entitled

The Peribleptos

The patriarch therefore moved on the eleventh day of the month of Hecatombaeon, of the second indiction, of the year 6782, which corresponds to January 11, of the year of the vulgar era 1274, marked by the second indiction.

The assignment of months made by a most learned and great man does not, however, accord well with the History of Pachymeres. For how could the voyage of the legates, which is said to have begun at the beginning of the month of August, be reconciled with the shipwreck, which is said to have occurred shortly after the voyage began, on the fifth day of the Great Week, which indeed immediately precedes holy Easter? That neither is ^B the month of Cronius the same for Pachymeres as Hecatombaeon, nor is this the same as August, has already been demonstrated securely and clearly by Petrus Possinus in his work on the Emperor Michael Palaeologus, in the *Chronological Observations*, book II, chapter 1. For it is first established that Pachymeres, contrary to the custom and usage of others, whether ancient or modern, made innovations in the naming of the months; and furthermore, it is evident to those who use the marginal annotations of the codices as a torch, that Hecatombaeon is the same as January, and Cronius the same as March. And these very names, written in Greek letters in the same margins, are read thus: Ιανουαρίου and Μαρτίου. With this knowledge of the months in Pachymeres established, and the usage understood, all things agree well with the history. See above, chapter 1, number 3.

III. Pachymeres records in the same chapter 17 the legates sent to the council by the Emperor Michael: Germanus, who had been patriarch and had abdicated the dignity in the year 1266; and Theophanes, bishop of Nicaea; and likewise from among the senatorial men, the grand logothete Acropolites; Panaretus, president of the vestiary; and the grand interpreter Berrhaeotes. To these, other ecclesiastical men had joined themselves. Their journey is described by Pachymeres in chapter 21, as having begun ^C at an inappropriate time, namely around the beginning of March—for it was the beginning of the month of Cronius. They were cast about by a terrible storm on the very day of the Great Thursday, the fifth day of the Great Week; and some of their companions suffered a miserable shipwreck. The year was 1274, marked by the Dominical letter G and the lunar cycle 2. The fourteenth day of the Paschal moon, reckoned from March 12, fell on Sunday, March 25; hence the sacred Easter was delayed until April 1. Therefore, in that year, the fifth day of the Great or Holy Week was March 29.

Dionysius Petavius, in *De Trinitate*, book V, has these things to say about these months of Hecatombaeon and Cronius, which Pachymeres names, in chapter 4, number 9: "The legates, departing Constantinople at the beginning of the month of August (for so I interpret the month of Cronius in Pachymeres), in an untimely season of the year, suffered shipwreck... Pachymeres reports that these things happened in the year of the world 6782, of the second indiction, on the eleventh of Hecatombaeon; which year ought to be 1274 of Christ, and the eleventh day of August or July, when..."

IV. The first session of the Council of Lyons had been held in that same year 1274, on May 7, in the church of Saint John. The second session had been called for the twenty-eighth of the same month. Before that, the pontiff received letters from the legates whom he had sent to Constantinople, announcing that they were already close at hand and had the legates of the Greeks in their company. Hence, the session was delayed until the seventh day of June. In the same month, on the 24th, the pontifical nuncios returning from Constantinople, and the Greek apocrisiarii sent to the council, arrived at Lyons.

Letters were presented to the Supreme Pontiff, which Michael Palaeologus Augustus and his son Andronicus—whom his father had named collegue of the empire in the year 1272—and many other Greek prelates of the Churches had given. Together, all assembled on June 29, the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, for the divine mysteries. Then, during the solemnities of the Mass, the Creed was recited in Latin; and in Greek by Germanus, former patriarch, with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The letters given by the Greeks were read publicly and openly on the sixth day of July. In those that the Emperor had written, the profession of faith is contained with the procession of the Holy Spirit ^D ἐκ Πατρὸς Υἱοῦ τε. But he truly asked the Supreme Pontiff that the Greek Church should recite the holy creed just as it had been saying it before the schism down to the present day.

The Papal nuncios plead for the inclusion of the phrase, and the *Filioque*, to be added to the Creed.

1. According to the agreements reached with Patriarch Joseph, it was decided by the concurring vote of the Fathers that the See of Constantinople was vacant. (I use the words of Pachymeres in book V, chapter 22.) Therefore, on the eleventh day of the month of January (*Hekatombaion*) (in the year of Christ 1275), sacred rites first began to be performed without the customary mention of Joseph as patriarch: and he himself migrated from the Peribleptos monastery to the Laura near Anaphum (a suburb of Byzantium by the shore of the Pontus). Furthermore, on the sixteenth day of that same month, while Nicholas of Chalcedon presided over the sacred rites in the sacred palace chapel, an Epistle was pronounced in a dual language, as they call it... The Holy Gospel was also recited with a similar differentiation ^B of languages, in Greek no less than in Latin. And thus, in its own place, a solemn mention was made of the Pope through the deacon; and Gregory was proclaimed Supreme Pontiff of the Apostolic Church and universal Pope.

Finally, the definition of the faith was issued in these words: ^A "With a faithful and devout profession we confess that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spritings, but by a single spiring. This the most holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has hitherto professed, preached, and taught; this it firmly holds, preaches, professes, and teaches. This the unchangeable and true sentiment of the orthodox Fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike, maintains. But because some, through ignorance of the irrefragable truth of the premise, have fallen into various errors, we, desiring to preclude the path to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reject all who shall have presumed to deny that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son: or also to assert with rash audacity that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles, and not as from one." This faith the Greek envoys confirmed with an oath. Possinus in his Notes to book I of Pachymeres, regarding Emperor Andronicus, chapters 8 and 9, provides the Greek text of the definition from Manuel Calecas.

V. Observe that two errors are condemned in this same definition of faith: both that of those who deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that of those who assert that He proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles. The Latins imputed the first error to the Greeks, and in this, without doubt, the Greeks were involved—and would that they were not involved in it today! The Greeks imputed the second to the Latins: though it can never be proven that they at any time held it. Gregory X, with the approval of the sacred council, deemed it proper for the sake of his cause to proscribe both errors, whether those who taught both were erroneous, or whether the latter rested upon mere suspicion. It seemed that the concord to be established between Latins and Greeks demanded this.

The Emperor’s envoys, having spent the spring and the following summer there (the words are Pachymeres, book V, chapter 21), led the legates—who had been joined to them as mutual companions by the Pope—to Constantinople in the late autumn. Those three seasons of the year, spring, summer, and autumn, which the emperor’s envoys passed on their mission, refute the interpretation of the Pachymerian months ^D of the most learned Petavius, concerning which we have spoken above. The papal letters, dated the fifth of the Kalends of August in the third year, are present in the Collections of councils, addressed to Emperor Michael, to Andronicus his colleague, and to the Greek prelates.

58 CHAPTER IV. Joseph the patriarch abdicates the see: and John Beccus is chosen. Many writings were published by him in favor of the Catholic dogma, while he still professed the right faith, or while he dissembled it to Gregory Cyprius. Emperor Michael, his colleague Andronicus, and Patriarch Beccus profess faith and obedience to the Roman Pontiff by an oath taken. Accusations are brought against Beccus; and the right of *stauropegion* is taken from him by the emperor.

Serious action was taken regarding the election of the new patriarch. John Beccus is raised to the throne. Pachymeres provides the chronological notes in chapter 24: the twenty-sixth day of the month of May, *Panemos*, the feast of the Nicaean Fathers. And on the second of June, *Matzoukarion*, the Sunday next following, on the illustrious day of the Holy Spirit... he was duly inaugurated as patriarch. The year of the common era was 1275, running with the Dominical letter F, and the lunar cycle III. Hence, holy Easter fell on the 14th of April, and Pentecost on the 2nd of June. This was, in fact, the Sunday that followed the preceding one, which dawned on the 26th of May. Tillemont, in the *History of the Council of Nicaea*, in Monuments volume VI, art. 20, notes that among the Greeks a special ^C Commemoration of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers of the first Nicaean synod was accustomed to be held either on the 29th of May or on the Sunday preceding Pentecost: among the Syrians in the month of July, and among the Egyptians on the 5th of November. 59 These things confirm again, and prove, that the month *Panemos* among Pachymeres is none other than May.

II. In Nicephorus Gregoras, book V, chapter 2, number 7, the words are: Beccus, having ascended the patriarchal throne, was all things to the emperor: both tongue, and hand, and the pen of a swift writer, both in speaking, and in writing, and in expounding dogmas: his companions and helpers in this struggle were Meliteniotes and Metochites, archdeacons of the imperial clergy, and George Cyprius. You have here a defender of the Catholic dogma, whatever his state of mind may have been.

Beccus had entered into a pact with Xiphilinus, a grave man and then the great *oeconomus* of the Church, that he would by no means ever devote his labor to writing commentaries for the dogma against the schismatics, lest the contentions already stirred up should become more bitter. Pachymeres has this in chapter 28: This he used to say at that time, whenever he would take into his hands the commentaries of the authors who still clung to the schism. Which, however, when he then read, noticing their much corruption and deceit, he would sometimes be seized by an impulse to refute them.

^A Yet he was restrained from doing so for the reason I mentioned. Driven at last to the limit, however, he was compelled to come to the test of disputing in writing against those who held contrary opinions. Hence, many writings by Beccus appeared at this time and thereafter, which bibliographers have recorded. Some are extant, published by Allatius in his *Graecia Orthodoxa*, volumes I and II.

It may be permitted to summarize briefly his *Epigraphai*, or *Prescriptions* on the sayings and opinions of the holy Fathers, which he had collected himself. The first presents the Fathers saying that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and others that He is through the Son: by which it is proven that the prepositions *from* and *through* have equal force. In the second, the testimonies of the Fathers are collected, which demonstrate continuously and immediately that the Son is from the Father; whence it is inferred that the Holy Spirit is through the Son. Opinions are gathered in the third which call the Son the image of the Father, and the Holy Spirit the image of the Son: the latter being the face and operation of the Father, the former the operation and face of the Son. The fourth contains testimonies by which it is stated that the Spirit is conjoined to the Father through the Son; and order is established in the Trinity. Scriptural testimonies, explained by the Fathers, are contained in the fifth *Epigrapha*. The sixth exhibits opinions which demonstrate equivalence, whether one says the Spirit proceeds from the Father or receives from the Son. In the seventh, those sayings are set forth which decide that the Holy Spirit proceeds from, is poured forth from, and is sent from the Father, in those passages where it had to be said that He proceeds from the Father. The eighth treats of those who, hearing that the Holy Spirit is from the Father (and from the Son, or through the Son), emanates, and goes forth, do not enunciate that the divine nature of the Spirit emanates and flows from the divine essence and nature of the Son, but that it is a spiritual gift coming to the worthy. Testimonies are collected in the ninth, in which the Holy Spirit is called the quality, odor, breath, and spirit of the essence of the Father and the Son: and likewise that the Father is the fount of the Spirit, and the Son is the fount of the Spirit; the tenth offers opinions which state that what belongs to the Father passes over into the Son, excepting paternity. The eleventh, indeed, contains those in which, just as the Son is called proper to the Father, so the Holy Spirit is to the Son. The twelfth acts against those who, hearing that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, contend that one thing is from essence, and another from hypostasis. Finally, the thirteenth acts against those who dare to say: that the Spirit’s emanating, going forth, shining forth, and appearing from the Son does not indicate Him to be substantially and in His own hypostasis from the Son, but rather the distribution from Him of spiritual gifts. A work indeed worthy of cedar wood. This same work, which appears in this volume, the great Petavius uses for arguments, confirms, and illustrates in book VIII of his *De Trinitate*.

III. For the confirmation of the union with the Latin Church, Innocent V had designated legates to Emperor Michael, Andronicus, and Patriarch John in the year 1276. John XX, called XXI, ordered them to go to Constantinople in the year 1276, having been elected on the 15th of September and having died on the 17th of the Kalends of June in the following year, 1277. Nicolaus III succeeded him on the 25th of November: while he was sitting [on the throne], Greek legates arrived with letters from the emperors Michael and Andronicus and from Patriarch John Beccus: by which was ratified whatever had been sought by them in the business of peace. Laurentius Cozza reports these from Bzovius and Raynaldus, part IV, regarding the schism of the Greeks, chapter 33, from number 4416. They were dated in the month of April, in the fifth indiction, in the year six thousand seven hundred eighty-five, namely 1277 of Christ. In the one which Patriarch ^B Beccus had written, a profession of faith is contained. Regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, he said thus: "The Holy Spirit pours forth (which is indeed the same), and proceeds, just as from a fount, God and Father: He pours forth also from the Son Himself, just as from a fount, just as indeed from God and the Father Himself." But although the Father is the fount of the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the fount of the Spirit, nevertheless the Father and the Son are not two founts of the Spirit. For the faithful and pious intelligence holds one fount of the Spirit, the Father and the Son. And for this reason the lights and doctors of the Church have theologized the Holy Spirit as common to the Father and the Son. For just as the Spirit is naturally from the substance of the Father: so also ^C He is naturally from the substance of the Son; just as He exists according to the substance of the Son, and (thus) is proper to the essence of the Father, and does not proceed into being outside this. For the Son, being essentially a communicator of the natural goods of God and the Father, has the Spirit. For the completion of the work, Nicolaus III sent new legates to Constantinople with letters in the year 1278. What instruction was given to them by the apostolic see is to be told in the following number.

IV. The spirit of Patriarch Beccus, raised up in promoting and confirming the business of peace, had stirred up the minds of many against himself. The emperor himself (I use the words of Pachymeres, book VI, chapter 10) was eager to find a way to blunt the edge of the excessive zeal of the patriarch, by which he had long been offended. "And so, four years having passed since John was preeminent in the honor of the patriarchate, in the month of February, *κατὰ μῆνα Ἀπρίλιον* (?), of the seventh indiction, grave accusations were fabricated against him by certain ones from the clergy: accusations that were indeed mendacious and clearly vain, yet not of such a kind that the emperor would be reluctant to accept them." The year 1279 affects the seventh indiction. On the 2nd day of the month of June of this year, four full years of the patriarchate were completed; but in the preceding month of February, the accusations against Beccus were brought.

Emperor Michael attempted to diminish the patriarchal rights, which are called *stauropegiou*, by issuing a Novella, by which it was decreed that whatever places of any kind whatsoever, or monasteries subject to the patriarch, were considered as such, henceforth should be subject to the bishops of whose dioceses they properly were, by ordinary law. Regarding this *stauropegion*

which is the planting of a cross that precedes them, churches—and especially monasteries—are founded; and for that reason they are entirely subject to their governance, free from the power of the ordinary bishop. That this right was taken away from the patriarchs by Michael, and subsequently returned solely to the Bishop of Constantinople in all the provinces of his patriarchate, is proven by learned men from Matthew Blastares at letter П, chapter 3, who lived and wrote in the year 1335.

V. In the same year, 1279, envoys arrived at Constantinople, whom Nicholas III had sent the previous year. In the instructions which they had received from the Apostolic See, these things are also contained: "Concerning the fact that the said emperor requests in his aforementioned letters that the Church of the Greeks recite the holy Creed, as it used to say it before the schism, the response must be that the unity of faith does not permit diversity in its professions... and especially in the chanting of the Creed... And therefore the same Roman Church has deliberated, and wills that it be chanted uniformly with that addition, 'Filioque,' both by the Latins and by the Greeks."

The legates, discharging their duty, seriously warned the emperor and the Greeks that it would be a suitable pledge of the peace concluded if they too would pronounce the Creed just as the Latins did. ^B Pachymeres narrates these things in book VI, chapter 14. The emperor summoned the bishops and the entire clergy, whom he assured most firmly that he would never permit anything to be inserted into the Creed. Among other things, these points are contained in his address at the cited chapter 15: "Since, however, some of our own, to whom indeed discord is dear, moved by I know not what cause, gathered at Pera with the friars (the papist brother-legates) and said that this peace was nothing but mockery and fraud; and by this imprudent statement they gave the Latins an opportunity to seek something more, so that it might be established by an experiment sufficiently certain that the matter was being performed seriously and truly: from whence this embassy, which we are about to hear, was born, the principal purpose of which I have discovered to be the demanding of this thing from us which I have just mentioned... I solemnly promise, profess, and most truly swear an inflexible rigor even to the exclusion of one iota, or one apex. Be certain of this, for which I give you my most full assurance."

CHAPTER V

…The accusation of the patriarch had been agitated (chapter 13): and nothing was being accomplished... In the month of March, around the middle of the Lenten fast, the month of Cronius, the middle of the fast, he ordered me, the writer of this history (Pachymeres), to write up his letter of resignation: which when he had offered to the emperor, with the latter feigning not to accept it, he immediately withdrew and hid himself in the monastery of Pammakaristos. In the year 1279, holy Easter was celebrated on the 2nd of April, as gathered from the Dominical letter A, and the lunar cycle VI. Hence the patriarch's retreat occurred in the month of March, around the middle of the Lenten fast.

The Emperor thought he would do something most pleasing to the papal legates, who were staying in the royal city, if he restored the patriarch to the function of his free power. "He acted, therefore, with Beccus (as Pachymeres says, chapter 17), asking again and again that he pardon the injury (done by his accusers). He did not refuse: and having assented, already by the efforts of all, on the sixth day of the month of August, the month of Metageitnion, of the same (seventh) indiction, he was led with a splendid escort of senators and nobles of the Church, and was again conducted into the patriarchal palace with solemn rite." The year of the vulgar era 1279 was passing.

II. Labor was expended on completing and writing out a document so that the mandates of the supreme pontiff, announced by the legates, might be satisfied. An error lies in the Greek text of Pachymeres, where Urban is read for Nicholas. In that document, the zeal and primary care, as Pachymeres reports in the cited chapter 17, was "that in the expression of the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, there should be gathered in a huge number various expressions of our Fathers (the Greeks), collected from everywhere, saying: that the Holy Spirit is poured forth from the Son, is given, beams forth, shines, and similar things; by accumulating which they acted secretly, so that they might as it were overwhelm the word 'proceeding' which is customary for the Latins: and when it was covered by the pretext of those other words, they might silently abrogate it." Pachymeres himself reveals the fraud of the tract, although he is addicted to the schism.

...their summary, which Pachymeres indicates in book VI, chapter 23, he narrates more broadly in *Andronicus*, book I, chapter 9. It must be explained by me more diligently.

(1) "For he who reads that holy work attentively, has often observed it to be said in most of these: 'The Holy Spirit proceeds (*procheisthai*), beams forth, is granted, is sent forth (*proienai*) from the Father through the Son,' that is, poured forth from the Father through the Son, beams forth, is granted, proceeds." Ecclesiastical writers have generally called the emanations of the divine persons, the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the Father, effulgences and exsplendescences.

^A so that they are now in vain who endeavor to reject the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, or through the Son. Beccus explains this most extensively in his *Epigrapha* 13. Saint Basil, in book II *Against Eunomius*, no. 25, says that the opinion is common to all Christians, namely that the Son is φῶς εἶναι γεννητὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτός, light begotten from the unbegotten light, ἀπολάμψαντα, resplendent. Saint Cyril, in the *Thesaurus*, page 49, Paris edition, 1638: "No one in his right mind would say that the generative essence of God suffers loss or efflux, since the one and only Son ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐκλάμψαν, shines forth from it." The Studite in one of the *Graduals*: "The Holy Spirit... who shone forth simultaneously from the Father, ἐκ Πατρὸς συνεκλάμψαν." Having indicated these few things, we shall provide more below.

(2) "That he also finds this confirmed by St. Maximus, and then also by the supreme Theologian Damascene; consonant with whom he clearly discerns that the great Tarasius, with the entire seventh synod, further discoursed in his confession of faith to the Oriental patriarchs. We weight the passage of Maximus in chapter 2, no. 2. Take the testimonies of Damascene. In the book *On the Orthodox Faith*, chapter 11: "For He (the Father) is the begetter of the Word, καὶ διὰ λόγου προβολέως ἐκφαντορικοῦ Πνεύματος, and the producer of the Spirit through the Word who manifests (enunciates, shines forth)." And likewise, the Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' ὡς δι' αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. "Not as from him, but as proceeding from the Father through him; for the Father is the sole cause." Not as from him, but proceeding from the Father through him. For the Father alone is the author: in that sense, to be sure, in which he alone is the Father, from whom all ουσίᾳ, and τὸ εἶναι, that is, all being, flows, both uncreated and created. It flows therefore from the Father into the Son, as nature does, so also the power of breathing; and from this power, which is one in the Father and in the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately: and with the expression of the persons having been accomplished, he proceeds from the Father through the Son.

That this procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is eternal, the mentioned words sufficiently prove; and another passage in the *Dialogue against the Manichaeans*, no. 5, articulates it most distinctly. "The Father always has his Word begotten from himself, καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον. And through his Word he has his Spirit proceeding from himself."

There are similar things which Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, professed in his confession of faith, in the proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea, celebrated in the year 787. He says: "We believe... and in the Holy Spirit, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δι' Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, proceeding from the Father through the Son, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ὄντα καὶ γνωριζόμενον, and that he is God and is known." Whoever contends that in these places there is discussion of the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit by the concession of gifts, would be bereft of his senses. Beccus used the notable testimony of Damascene more frequently: concerning which we must still treat below.

(3) "He finds in addition that Photius himself ^B to admit: Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome [had] taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, with the addition 'from the Son'. But the exception of Photius, that those Fathers approved the addition to the Romans, not as to the Greeks, seemed to Beccus excessively weak." Petavius, in book VII, cited chapter 8, very clearly sets forth this part, which explains the mind of the Latin Fathers. The ecumenical synods, or even those celebrated in the East itself, refute the exception of Photius, which profess that the Latin Fathers, and especially Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, and Gregory, attribute much to themselves: and which define dogmas, decreeing also from their authority.

(4) "And now he indeed finds Athanasius saying: 'But it was not possible for the Spirit to be known in the order of the Trinity, not as existing progressively from God through the Son; but efficiently, or productively, as they speak.' Now the Great Basil: he teaches, to be sure, according to true doctrine, that the Spirit is indeed later in origin than the Son. The testimony of Athanasius exists in the *Refutation of the hypocrisy of Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata*. Montfaucon lists this work among the doubtful. I offer a clearer interpretation of the cited passage: 'But it would be impossible for the Spirit to be glorified by the glory of the Trinity, μὴ προδικῶς ἂν ἐκ Θεοῦ δι' Υἱοῦ, ἀλλὰ ποιητικῶς ἐκ Θεοῦ γεγονός, ὡς λέγουσι, if he were not by procession from God through the Son, and if the thing were effected by God, as they themselves say.' This passage concerns the eternal production of the Holy Spirit.

He brings forward two other genuine passages of Athanasius. The first is read in the book *On Human Nature assumed by the Word*, or *On the Incarnation*, no. 9. "He (David) knew, παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸν Υἱὸν, τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, that the Son is with God the Father, the fountain of the Holy Spirit." The second is held in oration 3 *Against the Arians*, no. 24: "For, as has been said, he (the Son) gives to the Spirit: and whatever the Spirit has, he has it from the Word, καὶ ὅσα ἔχει τὸ Πνεῦμα, ταῦτα παρὰ τοῦ Λόγου ἔχει." "Therefore, whatever the Holy Spirit has (this is Petavius's remark), he received it from the Son. But he has, in the first place, nature and existence. For this word of the Word (τοῦ Λόγου), when it signifies person and hypostasis, ^C clearly demonstrates that he flows from the very person of the Son, and that the Holy Spirit exists: and not only from the essence of God itself, which is in the Son, as the Greeks foolishly prattle. But neither can the word 'receiving' be distorted in any other way; but that it is understood that that which is ουσίῶδες to the Holy Spirit is communicated and derived to him from the Word. For Athanasius did not say (ibid. before the words related) that the Holy Spirit receives from the Word whatsoever he has; but that he *has* from him whatsoever he has. But the external gifts and χαρίσματα, which could in some way be said to be brought forth by the Son, that is, from the essence as from a common fountain, the Holy Spirit does not have (unless most eminently in the divine essence propagated into him); but he has (properly) only those things which dwell in him, and are divine and ουσίώδη (substantial)."

^A It is worth the labor to transcribe the more prolix text of Basil. This is how he has it in Book I against Eunomius, num. 1: "Why is it necessary, if he is third in dignity, that the Holy Spirit should also be third by nature?" ^B Thus the Eunomians used to conclude. Perhaps the discourse of piety indeed maintains that he is second in dignity from the Son (as one who has his existence from him, and receives from him, and announces to us, and entirely depends on that cause). ^C (But we have been taught neither by the Holy Scriptures, nor can it be consequently gathered from the aforementioned, to usurp a 'third' nature. For although the Son is indeed second in order from the Father, because he is from him: and in dignity, because the Father is to him the principle and cause of existence... yet he is not second in nature, because the divinity is one in both; in the same way the Holy Spirit, although he is posterior to the Son in order and dignity, ^B yet this must be granted by us, he will not have it in such a way as if he were of an alien nature.) Both in the time of John Beccus and at the Council of Florence, some codices were brought forward in which the words that are enclosed in parentheses were absent; truly, there were others that were marked on both sides with asterisks. Beccus treats this matter in Book I, to Theodorus, Bishop of Sugdæa, and in a broader discourse in Chapter 1 on the procession of the Holy Spirit: where he holds the truest and most sincere codices, which have the words enclosed in parentheses, and do not have the others marked with asterisks. Petavius fights excellently for these codices in Book VI, chapter 3, number 14. Ludovicus Vallée, prefect of the library of Saint Geneviève, edited this in the Parisian press in the year 1721: a summary of which is exhibited by the monks of Saint Maur in Volume II of the Works of Basil, in the Preface, § 4.

Why did that parenthesis not belong to Basil? He says in Book I, against Eunomius, num. 20: "We, however, say that the Son is placed before the Father according to the relation of causes, τῶν αἰτίων σχέσιν." He says again in the book On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, chapter 17, num. 43: "As the Son is to the Father, so the Spirit is to the Son: (namely, κατὰ τὴν τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν)." Now, indeed, those words of Basil—as one who has his existence from him, and announces to us—declare both modes of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son: the temporal mission, that is, and the posterior terms; and the prior ones, the eternal emission for existence.

A similar sentiment occurs in Cyril in the *Thesaurus*, page 358: "It is necessary to confess that the Spirit is of the substance of the Son. For as ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχον, existing naturally from him, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κτίσιν παρ' αὐτοῦ πεμπόμενον, and being sent into the creature by him, he works renovation, being the plenitude and complement of the Holy Trinity. But if this is so, then the Spirit is God, and from God, and no creature." In which place, the Holy Spirit is naturally said to exist from the Son: and this existence is distinguished from the mission into the creature; lest the cavil of the Greeks have a place. That result proves this most of all ^A which is brought in from elsewhere. "For it proves (says Petavius, Book VII, chapter 3, num. 8) that the Holy Spirit is God, and from God; because he exists from the Son. For he expressed no mention of the Father there. Such, therefore, must be that existence, and that procession; so that through it, and by its power, he has that whereby he is God; that is, he receives from him from whom he exists, the nature and divinity of God communicated. Therefore, the Spirit arises entirely from the Son, and the Holy Spirit is third in order."

In the place of Basil, that word 'dignity', by which (and not only in order) the Holy Spirit is called second from the Son, is not to be passed over: ^B for it should not terrify anyone, as if there were a diminution of divinity in the same Holy Spirit. Since in the Son (the words are those of Petavius) Basil admits both, and τάξεως καὶ ἀξιώματος: and interprets both thus, that the Son is second in order from the Father, because he arises from him: but in dignity, because he is the principle and cause of existence to him. These are the Greek words: 'O Υἱὸς τάξει μὲν δεύτερος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὅτι ἀπ' ἐκείνου, καὶ ἀξιώματι, ὅτι ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία, τῷ εἶναι αὐτοῦ Πατέρα. Therefore, eventually, even if Basil had expressed nothing else (as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned); and even if those words closed in parentheses were deleted: it would suffice for the authority of the Latin dogma that he numbered the Holy Spirit τάξει in order and ἀξιώματι in dignity, second from the Son; since his origin is shown from this one by that one.

(5) Elsewhere Myssenus finds him speaking firmly of the opinions to be held regarding God: "That one should believe in him that one thing is the cause, another is from the cause. Then we understand another difference of that which exists from the cause: so that one thing is from the first without a medium, another is through that which is from the first without a medium." A most brilliant testimony is set forth in the Epistle to Ablavius. You have it: first, that there is no other difference in the persons of the most holy Trinity than that one is the principle, the other is from the principle: Τὸ μὲν αἴτιον εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου. Since, therefore, the Spirit cannot be said to be the principle of the Son, it is necessary that the Son be the principle of the Holy Spirit. Observe again: something is "continually" (or without a medium) from the first, another is through that which is "continually" from the first: Τὸ μὲν γὰρ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου. The Son is produced in one way by the Father: by this one, however, the Spirit, with the Son interposed, or through the Son.

It would be impiety if anyone were to contend that only the Son is produced proximately by the Father: and that the Holy Spirit is then poured forth proximately from the Son alone. They are heretics who thought, as Augustine notes in *Tractate C on John*, num. 4: that the Holy Spirit is lesser than the Son: as if the Son receives from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Son, by certain degrees of natures. Petavius declares the genuine sense in the cited Book VII, chapter 11, num. 15: "But because the Father gives origin to the Son before the Holy Spirit: and the Son must necessarily be interposed between the Father and the Holy Spirit; without whom, because

were it not a person (as one who exists through paternity and relation to the Son) nor did it produce the Holy Spirit, since it would have no proper function of personhood. For as regards the very action of emitting the Spirit, it is as proximately and immediately 69 from the Father as from the Son, since it is unique to both.” Saint Thomas summarizes everything in a brief, clear, and firm statement, 1 p. q. 36, art. 3, ad 4: “Order is not considered between the Father and the Son with regard to power, but only with regard to the subsistents: and therefore it is said that the Father breathes through the Son.”

Gregory of Nyssa proceeds to explain: “Furthermore, when we speak of a cause and that which is from a cause, by no means do we signify by these names a nature; but we show only that difference ^B which is according to the mode of existing, κατὰ τὸ πῶς εἶναι διαφοράν.” These things openly prove that the Holy Spirit is not said to be from the Son, or to exist through the Son, as if it were the same thing as its being from the essence of the Son; but that it is from the person of the Son, and through the person of the Son, as if from a cause or principle: and that from or through Him, it receives the divine nature along with its existence. These latter two terms, cause and principle, suggest the observation made by Saint Thomas: that the Latins used the word “cause” too sparingly in place of “principle” and the origin of the procession, but that both meant the same to the Greeks. Consult Aquinas in Opusculum I, against the errors of the Greeks, chapter 1.

(6) “He also catches Epiphanius in many books, and often in each one affirming the same thing.” Innumerable and most clear are the testimonies of Epiphanius. Take a few. In the *Ancoratus*, n. 67: “But now since Christ is believed to be from the Father, namely God from God: and the Spirit ἐκ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, from Christ; παρ’ ἀμφοτέρων, or from both: just as Christ himself says, who proceeds from the Father, καὶ οὗτος ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται, ‘And he will take from mine.’ Where those words, ‘from mine,’ refer to the person of the Word, not the Father.” Ibidem, num. 71, he calls the Son τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, he who is from Him (the Father): but the Holy Spirit, τὸ παρ’ ἀμφοτέρων, he who is from both... Listen, as to how the Father is truly the father of the Son, and the whole is light: and the Son is truly the son of the Father, light from light: and finally the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, φῶς τρίτον παρὰ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, a third light from the Father and the Son. Who would deny that this passage concerns the production of the substance and person of the Holy Spirit?

I shall not omit other distinguished sentiments in the same *Ancoratus*. Num. 8 he says: “God is therefore in the Father, is in the Son, is in the Holy Spirit: who is equally from God, and is God. For the Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Father and the Son: not by any composition, just as in us soul and body are joined: but ἐν μέσῳ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τρίτον τῇ ὀνομασίᾳ; midway between the Father and the Son, from the Father and the Son, third in name.” I refer to the words that are had in num. 73: “Therefore if He proceeds from the Father: and ‘from mine,’ says the Lord, ^A he receives: just as no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father. So I dare to say: nor does anyone know the Spirit except the Father and the Son, παρ’ οὗ ἐκπορεύεται, καὶ παρ’ οὗ λαμβάνει, from whom He proceeds, and from whom He receives. And no one knows the Son and the Father, except the Holy Spirit; who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, 70 who testifies concerning the Son, ὁ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐκ Υἱοῦ, who is from the Father and from the Son.” Patriarch Beccus gathered together these and many other most brilliant sentiments from Epiphanius, and our theologians bring them forward, being entirely opposed to the Greek invention regarding the diffusion of gifts and charisms.

(7) Instructed and fortified by these authorities of the Fathers, and many others which appear in the *Epigraphai*, the Patriarch Beccus showed the eternal and substantial procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son: and he concluded that in this matter the words “and” and “from” are equivalent. This he also said was expressly taught (as Pachymeres records in the cited place), in the Work whose name is *Sacra Hoplotheca*, or *Sacred Armamentarium*: which book is accustomed to be considered among the authentic ones, and those truly declaring the doctrine of the Church. According to the zeal of his own party, Pachymeres added these latter words. Receive the judgment regarding the author and his work of the Patriarch Beccus in the *Refutations*, which exist in *Graecia orthodoxa*, volume II: “A book under the empire of King Manuel (from the year 1145 to the year 1180), assuming the person of Manuel, one Andronicus, then acting in the office of drungarius of the watch (or prefect of the watch), by the surname Camaterus, a man not undistinguished in wisdom, composed: in which that man, not prudently, initiated a struggle, nor worthily of the dignity of his own wisdom; whether he followed his own private judgment, or the commands of the ruler, or the opportunity of the time, or something else, which is not yet clear to me.”

In that part of the book which concerns the Holy Spirit, all the inventiveness of the opposing Greeks is comprehended in five fabricated principles of dogmas, no one of which (they are the words of Beccus) can anyone ever find asserted by anyone, though he weary himself by unfolding the commentaries of the divine Fathers. The often-praised patriarch reports them there: “First therefore asserting: that it is the Father's own property to produce the Spirit. But active spiration, since it is not opposed to either the Father or the Son, is common to both. It is accustomed to be called a property, because it is not common to the three persons, since it belongs only to the Father and the Son. Truly it is not a personal property, because it does not constitute a person, but affects two constituted persons, and refers to a third. Second: whatever is asserted about the Trinity, is either of one, or of three. 71 These things that have been noted prove that to be utterly false. Active spiration, just as it is not opposed to paternity and filiation, so it is opposed to passive spiration; whence active spiration is not of one, is not of three, but is of two persons. Third: whatever is asserted about the divine persons, is either personal or natural. And yet it is already evident that active spiration is not strictly a natural thing

nor is it personal; yet it is something proper, which although it pertains to two persons, the Father and the Son—inasmuch as it is opposed neither to paternity nor to filiation—is not common to the three, namely, to the Holy Spirit also, to whom, of course, it is relatively opposed. The Angelic Doctor offers this objection in *Quaestiones de Potentia*, q. 10, art. 4, and solves it in ad 7, by distinguishing the proper: one ^A kind which is simply and absolutely so, and pertains only to one, just as "risible" to man; another which is not simply so, but is in relation to something; as if one were to say that being "rational" is proper to man in comparison to a horse, although it pertains to another as well, namely, to an angel. Therefore, the two persons, Father and Son, are constituted by their singular property (which is called property simply and absolutely), and these are ἡ πατρότης καὶ υἱότης, paternity and filiation, by which the complete and mutually distinct hypostases of the Father and the Son exist. But to these things already established, there is added another, which is the property of spirating: and it follows and modifies the divine essence, and power, and operation, as it is in the Father and in the Son, or as it is in the Father, and from the Father in the Son: and thus finally it happens that one principle is made from both, and one προβολεύς, spirator; yet not one person. Hence that consequence is refuted, by which they deduce that the Holy Spirit would be the author of his own procession; because He himself also has the same essence, and power, and operation with the Father and the Son; since it does not belong precisely to the operation, or power, or essence, insofar as it is essence, to produce the Holy Spirit: but to the essence, insofar as it is affected by paternity and filiation, with which the property of spirating is complex. Which property of spirating, although it does not differ in reality from paternity and filiation, as Aquinas excellently notes in *Compendio theologiae*, ch. 65, these do, however, differ according to the objects to which they are referred; for by paternity the Father is referred to the Son, and by common spiration to the Holy Spirit: and similarly the Son by filiation indeed to the Father, but by common spiration to the Holy Spirit. The Greeks already have enough, as to how this can come to be, that although the Father and the Son are two persons, they nevertheless have a unique and singular added property, in which they agree, and in which they are one and the same.

The fourth assertion is what Camaterus insinuates: that the Father, [which proceeds] from himself as it were by cause, produces it by reason of person, but not by reason of nature. Distinguish the principle, which produces: and the reason, or power, by which it produces it. The person of the Father produces the Holy Spirit by spirative power: by which, since it is in the Son, communicated from the Father, He also produces the Holy Spirit. There are therefore two persons, or two supposita, which produce the Holy Spirit by one power: and so they are one principle. The fifth, finally, which decrees: that the Spirit is from the Father contiguously and immediately. Indeed, we have heard Gregory of Nyssa teaching the opposite. Recall his distinguished testimony.

IV. By such an indication of opinions, which ^B Beccus brought forth from the store of the ancient Fathers to plead his cause, Pachymeres wove an excellent apology for the same cause. Yet, because of the disease of schism from which he suffered, barely understanding what he was writing: he says that Beccus had not indeed provided a contemptible place for the accusation against himself: as if, forsooth, that double principle and the Latin one, or the double cause of the Holy Spirit, were admitted. «A not light, nor common error did it seem, besides the power of principle and cause, which is recognized by all in the Father, with respect to the Holy Spirit; also to attribute to the Son the reason of principle and cause toward the same Spirit.» That consequence, ineptly brought forward by the adversaries, Beccus struck down with an argument drawn from the Greeks themselves, which Pachymeres himself adduces: "Do not you also say," he asks, "and confess that it is rightly said, that the Father is perfect God, and likewise that the Son is perfect God, and finally that the Paraclete is perfect God and is Himself God? Whether, therefore, because from this it is seen to be inferred that there are three gods, shall we stain theology with that false and detestable corollary? The unity and identity of the divine essence, which is in the three divine persons, even though they be three, causes them to be one God. There is a like example in those which are called operations *ad extra*. The creator of the world is the Father, but the Son also is creator of the world, and the Holy Spirit is creator of the world: but because the omnipotence, by which the world is created, is one and the same in the three persons, there are not three creators of the world, but one creator. For truly there is also one active spiration common to the Father and the Son: and so the two divine supposita of the Father and the Son are one cause, or one principle of the Holy Spirit."

These unshaken documents of Christian doctrine Pachymeres writes, artfully devised for the subterfuge of the crime by Beccus. He adds also, to the same end, the decree of faith, usually read in the Church on the day which is called Ὀρθοδοξίας, of Orthodoxy (namely the first Sunday ^C of Lent), increased by the same patriarch by three chapters with three anathemas: «Against him who, as a dogma of faith, would assert that the Son is the cause of the Spirit: Against him who would say that the Son is with the Father the co-cause of the Spirit: Against him who knowingly would communicate, and would not refuse to join himself to any who thus speak and believe.» These things Beccus said, these things he wrote, (says Pachymeres), adding also this: "if anyone shall contend that the preposition διὰ, 'through,' implies the notion of a cause, that will have been bold in speaking and thinking."

There is no subterfuge of crime, nor any species of subterfuge that lies in these anathemas. Rather, by these the catholic truth of one and the same active spiration existing in the Father and the Son is most accurately expressed. Hence the Father and the Son are indeed two ^D supposita: but one cause, and one principle of the Holy Spirit. In which sense the word διὰ among the Greeks, and *per* among the Latins, since it indicates active spiration, one and the same communicated to the Son by the Father, in begetting Him, does not indicate any reason of cause, or of principle, which pertains to the Son

^A VI. Patriarch Beccus proceeded to teach these things openly and in public, and to champion them in his writings with an unconquered and steadfast spirit, while the Emperor Michael was still living. The latter met his death, as Pachymeres testifies in his work on the same Michael, Book VI, chapter 36, on the eleventh day of December, a Friday... in the year 6791. Subtracting 5508, the remaining number is 1283. Unquestionably, we have the year 1283 of the vulgar era, which coincides with the Constantinopolitan year 6791, having begun in the month of September of the preceding year, 1282. Therefore, the Emperor died in that same year, 1282, in the month of December. That notable year proceeded under the solar cycle III, and the Dominical letter D, which indicates that Friday, or the sixth day of the week, fell on the eleventh of December. Nicephorus Gregoras (Book V, chapter 7, no. 6) and George Phranza the protovestiarius (in his Chronicle, Book I, chapter 6) define this same year of the world 6791 as the one in which Michael died.

From that day of the Parasceve, or Friday, which Pachymeres notes, Peter Possinus presents a difficulty in his chronological work, chapter 9. He reveals that he had not sufficiently understood the method of reducing the Constantinopolitan years of the Greeks to the vulgar Julian years. His words are (no. 2): "The year of the world of the Greeks is 6791, which is 1283 of Christ, that is, the year 5996 of the Julian period, in which the solar cycle was IV, the golden number XI, the indiction likewise 11; furthermore, the solar cycle IV indicates the Dominical letter C, which, since it marks the twelfth day of December, must necessarily have made the eleventh day ^B a Saturday, not a Friday." Yet Pachymeres records it as a matter of the greatest certainty and common knowledge that it was a Friday in that year (the year of Michael's death). Therefore, it must be that Michael Palaeologus died in the year 1282 of Christ, in which the solar cycle III provided the index letter D for the Dominical [letter]. For this letter, affecting the thirteenth day of December, demonstrates that the third day back, namely the eleventh, was a Friday. What, then, shall we say? That the Greek historians erred in the year of Michael's death, and indicated 6791 instead of 6790? Lest we be forced to say this, a twofold explanation is available for this perplexity. Either the people and the historians, considering that the year 6790 was already waning and trailing only a few remaining days of December, deemed that his death should be marked under the year 6791, which was about to follow and in which his death became known, neglecting a distinction of no significance for civil accounting. Or (which I judge more probable), the Greeks calculated the beginning of the years of the world and of their era, as well as their indiction, from September: wherefore, according to them, the year of the world 6791 had already begun in the third month, while the last month, December, of the year of Christ 1282 was passing. Thus, Pachymeres, Gregoras, and Phrantzes truly said that Michael died in the year 6791. ^C This latter solution is not improbable, or rather plausible; but it is most true, as is gathered from the method of converting the Constantinopolitan years of the Greeks into the Julian years of the vulgar era, which Possinus finally understood well in his Book of Chronological Observations on the History of Andronicus, chapter 1, no. 4: "For the years of the Greek era," he says, "to be reduced to our vulgar era, in a perpetual method, the whole number of 5580 must be removed from them. By such a subtraction, the year will be found." But in these matters, one must diligently observe the discrepancy of the beginning of the years. For the Greeks begin their years from September, as they do the indiction: we, however, from the Kalends of January. And so, when by the method just indicated we find that a year of the Greeks, for example 6829, corresponds to the year of Christ 1321, it must be understood that this refers only to the greater part of the year, not that one perfectly matches the other. For they coincide only in eight months, the first of which is January. For from this month the years of Christ (the vulgar Julian) take their beginning, whereas the year of the Greek era—which is believed (and said) to correspond to such a year of Christ—had already begun from the Kalends of the previous September (of the year 1320). It is strange that, in the use of this rule, which he finally knew very well, Possinus showed himself less accurate and less practiced, and had fallen into errors which do not seem worthy of pardon, as we have already noted.

VII. Andronicus assumed the Empire alone. He anxiously questioned within himself whether he should rescind the acts recently established regarding the peace of the Churches. Pachymeres narrates in his work on Andronicus, Book I, chapter 2, that Eulogius gave him the advice so that he, declaring himself openly in public, might show that he had been dragged against his will by his father's authority to approve them; and that now he wished to condemn them, and to hold as if it had never happened what he had wrongly done. He consented to this opinion, and violated the peace. Therefore, as the anniversary day of the Nativity of Christ the Lord dawned (the 25th of December, 1282), when by custom the Augustus should go forth for that feast and the mystical sacrifice be celebrated in the sacred palace chapel with solemn rite, neither of these things was done: and the true reason for the omission of the mystical oblation was that the name of the patriarch, whom the new Augustus wished to depose, might not be recited among the sacred things in the palace. These are the words of Pachymeres, chapter 3.

Patriarch Beccus knew of the Emperor's machinations. The Augustus ordered that his own counsel be announced to him—not out of contempt or hatred for the patriarch himself, but out of danger to the state, and the sheer necessity of consolidating the new principate. And so, although Beccus was innocent, and furthermore had already grown weary of the patriarchal honor (the words of the historian are in chapter 4), on the day after the feast (the 26th of December, 1282), he left the patriarchate and betook himself to the monastery of Panachrantos.

Chapter VI.

1. Insisting on the narrative of Pachymeres, chapter 5, he says: "On the thirtieth day of the same month (December of the year 1282), towards evening, Joseph, almost lifeless, was placed upon a litter; with many accompanying him on both sides, and vying with one another in acclaiming his ^A auspicious return, with hymns and the applause of men, amid the increasing ringing of bronze bells, he was carried back to the patriarchal palace." But then, on the fifth day of the month of January (year 1283), with the feast of the Theophany impending, clerical men were received into the communion of this same Joseph, as Pachymeres says in chapter 7. A synod was summoned without delay, the same author noting in chapter 8 that the Grand Logothete (Theodorus) Muzalo was present; present also was Georgius Cyprius, and the rhetor Holobolus; and furthermore holding a seat was the monk Theodosius Saponopulus, who had passed from the rank of the emperor's protonotaries into the monastic life: and finally many others were present. In the transcript of the Lugduno-Batavensis manuscript, which I possess, there exist many letters of Cyprius written to this Saponopulus and to Muzalo. Accusations were brought against Beccus, and against others who, with him, were the primary authors of the union of the two Churches. Beccus himself was summoned to the synod, and was eventually sent as an exile to Prusa in Bithynia.

II. During these times Georgius Cyprius, either having changed his opinion or certainly having cast off his dissimulation, began to oppose the Catholic dogma and the patriarch Beccus. In the aforementioned Lugduno-Batavensis manuscript, there exists his [i]Sermo antirrheticus contra Becci blasphemias[/i]—an Antirrhetic Discourse against the blasphemies of Beccus. In the Vindobonensis manuscript these words are added: "Published by him by the vote of God unto ascending the patriarchal throne," that is, published by himself before he ascended the throne of Constantinople by the grace of God. Worthy of note are the words of Gregoras in book VI, chapter 2, no. 2: "As worms are born in moist wood, so also in ambitious minds the stimuli of emulation and envy arise among the common professors of an art, especially in the kind in which they labor the most: thus the vivid force of intellect and eloquence which was in Beccus troubled the patriarch Gregory; and it seemed to him intolerable that he—the only one ^B of the Greeks of that age who was celebrated, and hoping himself to be celebrated also among the learned patriarchs—should be surpassed by the eloquence of the former (Beccus) in debates, and thus be defrauded of such great honor." For this reason, his relegation ^C did but little to advance the cause. These things happened in the year 1284, with Cyprius himself, now patriarch, promoting the relegation of Beccus to the fortress of Saint Gregory. But this same envy of Cyprius, with which he is reported to have been moved against Beccus when he was initiated as patriarch, seems to have been what moved him, even before he reached that dignity, to test the powers of his own eloquence—in which he overly trusted—against a distinguished rival in the [i]Antirrhetic Discourse[/i] which we have mentioned. It begins: "I, for my part, do not wonder, my friend." The discourse is directed to a friend, whom he calls Demetrius near the end. The words are: "These things to you, my friend Demetrius, have been composed extemporaneously regarding the matters proposed, brief indeed, as time is pressing." Among the letters written by Cyprius before he was patriarch, a Thessalonician Demetrius occurs, and likewise a monk named Demetrius. Those words which are read at the beginning seem to reveal the reason for writing the pamphlet: "I shall not give others a just opportunity to attack me," (meaning Cyprius himself). In his work he was wholly concerned with drawing to his own side the sentences of the holy Fathers—especially Cyril, and Nyssen, and Basil—which Beccus was opposing, and with attenuating with those obscurations the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son which we have related were mentioned by Pachymeres; he opposed to them those terms used by the Fathers: [i]phanerōsin, anadeixin, chorēgian, pempseis tou Pneumatos para tou Huiou[/i]—that is, the manifestation, the showing forth, the provision, the mission of the Spirit from the Son.

III. For a long time this little work escaped John Beccus. As soon as it became known to him, he refuted it with an oration which is displayed in the second tome of [i]Graecia Orthodoxa[/i], and which is inscribed as the second [oration] against the [i]Tomus[/i] of Cyprius and his new heresies. Regarding Theodorus, to whom the first oration is said to be dedicated, Beccus thus admonishes in no. 1: "What occurred first, those things we refuted first (in the oration which is numbered as the first); but what in the second [oration] have come to our knowledge, these we reject in this later contradiction." And below: "But the new dogmas which he himself... belches forth, entirely alien to the Church of God, we shall bring forward, cutting them out from the oration (the [i]Antirrheticus[/i], to be sure, of which we are now speaking) which he first composed in opposition to us." In this oration of Beccus, those things which Cyprius holds in the [i]Antirrhetic Discourse[/i] are refuted in their entirety, with the same order of the assertions of Cyprius himself being preserved, and with the very words being transcribed which are read in the aforementioned sermon. That [i]Tomus[/i], which we shall relate below was compiled by Cyprius at the command of the Emperor Andronicus, primarily looked to the testimonies of Saint John of Damascus which Beccus had opposed, and to their reconciliation: regarding which matter ^D nothing at all occurs in the [i]Antirrhetic Discourse[/i], nor in the passages excerpted by Beccus and refuted in that second oration. Hence it seems to be proven that the aforementioned oration is wrongly inscribed [as pertaining] to the [i]Tomus[/i].

DISSARTATION I.

Cyprius. This anonymous translator, whose Latin version was transmitted to us from Leyden—had he known [the original], he would certainly have fashioned a more refined Latin translation of the *Antirrhetic Discourse* with the help of Allatius. But even the very learned Allatius, had he been permitted to examine this Discourse, would have judged with more diligent scrutiny that second oration ^A which he published.

IV. I bring forward the principal assertions of Georgius Cyprius, which are contained in the *Antirrhetic Discourse*, together with the refutations of Beccus. To these I add observations, drawn for the most part from the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas.

(1) The Holy Spirit, when He is said to be from the essence of the Father, is rightly and piously said also to be from the essence of the Son: for it is one [essence], and as it is essence, it admits of no division. And because it is one thing that it is affirmed that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father, and asserted that He exists from the essence of the Son. ^B Yet, for that reason, the Spirit will not be from the hypostasis of the Son, although He is assertively said to be from the essence and hypostasis of the Father. "It would, therefore, be more pious," in your judgment (the words are Beccus's), "if the Spirit were said to be also from His own proper essence." For if this were truly demonstrated, it would truly persuade the auditor that the Spirit is said to be from the essence of both, for no other reason than the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son. But why, I ask, do you say that He is said to be from the essence of the Father and from His hypostasis? Yet [why] will He not be said to be from the essence of the Son [and] from His hypostasis? The Nicene Fathers, dealing with the Son against the Arians, expressed both in the Creed: that the Son is from the Father and from the substance of the Father. And whoever says the one, also says the other, and vice-versa. Why, therefore, should the same reasoning not apply to the Holy Spirit, whom the Fathers teach to be from the Son and through the Son, and to be from the substance 79 or essence of the Son? The Fathers asserted this of the Son with one voice, that they might show the Son to be true God, in no way made by God from things that do not exist: this also ought to be said of the Holy Spirit, so that He may be asserted to be one God with the Father and the Son. This [is affirmed] especially on the grounds that the thing is one, and in the Father and in the Son is the most simple essence and hypostasis: so that the person is nothing other than the essence subsisting; whence no person can exist from the essence unless it be from the same person whose [the] essence is. St. Thomas, in *Contra Gentiles*, book IV, chapter 24, number 3, refutes this objection of the Greeks, saying: "John XVI, the Son says of the Holy Spirit: *He will glorify me, because He will receive of mine, and will announce it to you.* But it cannot be said that He receives that which is the Son's, yet [receives it] not from the Son: as, for instance, if it were said that He receives the divine essence, which is the Son's, from the Father. For it is added: *All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine: therefore I said to you, that He shall receive of mine.* If, therefore, all things that are the Father's are also the Son's, it follows that the authority of the Father, according to which He is the principle of the Holy Spirit, exists also in the Son. Just as, therefore, the Holy Spirit receives from that which is the Father's, from the Father: so He receives from that which is the Son's, from the Son (that is to say, the divine nature by both)." ^C The same things are contained in Opusculum 1 against the errors of the Greeks.

(2) "Although (Cyprius says) we divide the divine hypostasis from the essence, we do not divide the essence from the hypostasis by a fleshly and gross division; nor do we exhibit a proper existence for one separated from the other. We separate them only by that reasoning by which things that are not apt to be separated by their nature [are separated]. Yes, indeed. But if this difference is only a distinction of thought: 'How, therefore, can the procession of the Holy Spirit from the essence of the Son exist, if He proceeds from the essence without the hypostasis?' For the person or hypostasis of the Son is nothing other than the essence subsisting in the Son, or affected with respect to filiation: which filiation, by active spiration, is referred to the Holy Spirit." See chapter 5, number 3 (7).

(3) "What if you refer the cause to the essence, and not to the hypostasis; how, rather, will the Father be the cause of the two [Persons], or will they themselves not also be mutually the cause of themselves and of the Father, since they are absolutely one in essence?" To this we respond first: if one does not defer the cause to the essence, whence will the consubstantiality of those [Persons] that are from the cause be gathered from elsewhere?... No necessity compels us, on account of the essence, which is similar in all of these three, to also make common the fecundity of the paternal essence of the cause: since the properties of the persons are believed to be in each 80 according to the essence, if there is no accident in them, nor one coming from without, and that which is similar in all things to the essence is not lost. St. Thomas illustrates this matter wonderfully in 1, dist. xi, question 1, art. 3: "The Father and the Son breathe the Holy Spirit, in that they are one in spirating power. But the spirating power signifies something intermediate between the essence and the property: in that it signifies the essence under the aspect of a property. For thus the notional act (whether generation or active spiration) proceeds from the essence: not as from an agent (what acts), but as from that by which it is acted upon. For generation does not proceed from the essence as it is essence, but as it is paternity. And if these two, namely the essence and the paternity, differed in the divine, generation would proceed from both; but [it proceeds] immediately from the paternity, and from the essence as from the first principle. I say similarly that spiration proceeds from the essence, not as from a breather, but as from the principle of spiration: in that it has the character of some notion that is common to the Father and the Son, which is called common spiration. And thus the spirating power signifies the essence under the aspect of such a property. And therefore I say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son: in that they are one in essence and in some notion, namely, the common spiration." Thus, indeed, Beccus understood and explained this matter in the cited location.

(4) "There are many things signifying that which subsists from something, and follows the essence..." He also notes from the *Consubstantial* a manifestation, and as it were an exhibition: by which reasoning ^D [italic note: alt-version omitted]

we say that the Lord assumed a nature from us, or is consubstantial with us. But what, in truth, would more aptly represent (manifest, show) an essential production from something, if not that (namely) this, that ^A this naturally exists from that, and essentially? Moreover, if it is common to the Father and the Son for the Holy Spirit to be manifested and shown from both; why would it not also be common to both that the Holy Spirit should subsist and exist from both? Or if you refer the notion of subsisting and existing only to the Father; why do you not also attribute the notion of showing and manifesting ^B solely to the Son? But you will not concede this... Finally, the manifestation and exhibition of the Lord, made from our nature, altogether implies His existence according to man... If, therefore, these things are so, then the manifestation and exhibition of the Spirit from the Son will also represent His existence from the Son. In the previous chapter, number 3 (1), we indicated some testimonies of the Fathers, by which the emanations of the Divine persons are called effulgences, super-splendencies, namely exhibitions, and manifestations. Hence the very frequent 81 opinions of the Fathers, which call both the Word and the Holy Spirit lights, images, seals, characters, and faces: the Son, certainly, of the Father, and the Holy Spirit of the Son. Saint Thomas declares the genuine sense of this in *Opusculum I, against the errors of the Greeks*.

(5) Concerning the Father, Cyril writes, *the Spirit proceeds as if from a mouth and a fountain.* These indeed are the things which further demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. ^C "For if the Spirit proceeds from the mouth of the Father, and the Father is the mouth; it remains manifest that He has existence from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit, who is said to be the Spirit of the mouth of God, also has existence from the Son... But if, because the Father is the fountain of the Spirit, therefore the Spirit is from the Father: why is He not also from the Son, when the same Scriptures (and Fathers) proclaim the Son to be the fountain of the same Spirit?" The testimonies of Cyril, praised by Cyprian, are at hand. For in his book *On the Gospel of John*, at the 38th comma of the seventh chapter, he teaches that Christ is the fountain, and interprets the Holy Spirit as the water: and he notes in *Dialogue VII, on the Holy Trinity*, that this must be referred to the nature of the same Holy Spirit. Petavius, in book VII, chapter 4, enumerates other Fathers who are to be added to these, who declare the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son with words that exhibit the eruption of water flowing from a fountain: such as *ἀναβλύζειν* [to bubble up], *προχεῖσθαι* [to pour forth], *προϊέναι* [to go forth], to gush, to pour out, to proceed. Consult other, very many opinions in the same Petavius, chapter 5, in which the Holy Spirit is called the odor, vapor, and quality of the substance of the Son, and likewise the breath and exhalation of the mouth; and, finally, His operation. Long before, Saint Thomas saw and weighed ^D all these things in *Opusculum contra Græcos*.

(6) Nyssenus does not propose to despoil the Father of the procession of the Spirit: indeed, he would despoil Him, if he were to mutate it into the Son. No mutation has a place here, which would be by division: for the Scriptures persuade that whatever is said to be from the Father through the Son, is and is said to be from one God. The spirative power, which is in the Father, is communicated by the Father to the Son, remaining one and the same in both.

(7) "But if the Spirit proceeding from the Son did not proceed from the Father: but rather were generated, if the Son also, from whom the Spirit is, is generated from the Father. I do not yet understand how these things contribute to the truth. For what prevents us from saying against opponents: If the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, He would not proceed from the Father, but rather be generated?" Thomas presents the difficulty, *Quest. 10, de potentia, art. 4, num. 2*. "If the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit, He either has this from Himself, or from another. He does not have it from Himself: for it does not befit the Son, insofar as He is the Son, to be a principle, but rather from a principle. But if He has it from the Father, it is necessary that He be a principle in this way, just as the Father is. But the Father is a principle by generation: therefore the Son will be a principle of the Holy Spirit by generation." Receive the excellent response of Thomas to {the objection} that He emits the Holy Spirit from Himself: whence it also befits Him in the same way, as it does the Father. "But the Father is not the principle of a divine person for one alone, but for two: namely by generation and by spiration. Whence it cannot be concluded that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit by generation: but it is a fallacy resulting; and especially since the Father himself is not even the principle of the Holy Spirit by generation."

(8) "He brings forth the appellation of the Spirit after the Son; and because of the relative appellations of Father and Son, admitting no medium between themselves: [The Son] has been called contiguous and through the contiguous [the Holy Spirit] by the saint (Nyssenus, in the *Epistle to Ablabius*) ... not because of a consequential existence. For Nyssenus, in establishing such things (namely, that the divine persons differ from one another by nothing else, except by the reason of cause or principle, and of that which is from the principle; and again of that which is proximately from the first, and of that which is through that which is proximately from the first), thus separating the Father from the Son by cause (or by reason of cause, and that which is by cause): subsequently the Son from the Spirit, because the latter is contiguous, and through that which is contiguous is the former; it manifests clearly the consequence of existence, not only the construction of names." Aquinas, weighing the words of Nyssenus in his *Opusculum contra Græcos*: "It is clear, therefore," he says, "that by the first difference the Holy Spirit and the Son are distinguished from the Father: by the second, however, the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son; because, namely, the Son proceeds from the Father not through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit through the Son." But so that no error may creep in, the doctrine of the same Thomas must be held before the eyes in *I, dist. 12, quest. 1, artic. 3*: "It must be said, that every medium is distinguished in some way from those between which it is said to be a medium. But when, in Spiration, the Father and the Son are two who breathe, insofar as they are one in power

^A regarding the breathing, we can speak of the act of spiration through a comparison with the breathers themselves, or with the principle of breathing, as a power of which there is spiration. If, however, we consider the principle itself, namely the spirative power, since the Father and the Son are not distinguished in this, the spiration cannot be said to be from the Father through the Son. But if we consider the breathers themselves, who are distinct, and in this respect provide a 83 subject for spiration, then there is a mediation there, according to the order of nature that exists there; because the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is simultaneously from the Father and from the Son. But why has the Nyssen, why have other Fathers said more frequently that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, or through him who is proximately from the First? Aquinas provides the often-stated reason in the same place at 1: "By the fact," he says, "that it is said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, authority is designated in the Father with respect to the Son: because the Son has from the Father that he breathes the Holy Spirit." Yet from this no mediation is posited, except on the part of the supposits, which are distinguished by the fact that the one is from the other: by reason of which there is authority in the one with respect to the other.

(9) But this: "Not existence itself, but the emission or effulsion of the Spirit through the Son in speech (by that which is contiguous)," as he teaches (Gregory Nyssenus). I, indeed, would never shy away from acknowledging the effulsion, or emission, of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, provided that it notes a natural existence. But if he (Cyprius) understands will and counsel, just as are the supplies, missions, gifts, and whatever else is produced by the same for the overthrow of [the true] existence; let those follow to whom these things are pleasing. It has already been noted often that the emanations of the divine persons, certainly with regard to existence, are called effulsions and emissions. For whatever person proceeds expresses and manifests the person from whom it proceeds. In which sense the Holy Spirit is called the image of the Son. It is established, however (these are the words of Saint Thomas in the cited opusculum), that an image is derived from that of which it is the image. From this, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son, it follows that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. Someone might say, however, that He is the image of the Son insofar as He is assimilated to the Son according to some affect which He produces, just as the Son is; or because He is from the Father, just as is the Son. But this is excluded by the authorities of the saints, who say the Holy Spirit is the natural image of the Son. For the Holy Spirit cannot be called the natural image of the Son unless insofar as He is assimilated to the Son according to nature, receiving nature from the Son. For it is always necessary that the form of the image should come from the form of that of which it is the image. The ancient Fathers, who call the Holy Spirit the sincere, most exact, natural image of the Son, and likewise of the Father—likeness, assimilation—are reviewed by Saint Thomas in the same place in chapter 10, in which place he also declares the genuine sense: "We can say, in ^B regarding the Holy Spirit being the image of the Father and of the Son; so that by image nothing else is understood 84 than one existing from another, and bearing His likeness. But if by image is understood something existing from another, and having from the very reason of its origin that it bears the likeness of Him from whom it exists, in as much as it is from another, as the Son is begotten, like a conceived word; and thus only the Son is called image..." But this is verified in the Spirit of God because of the unity of the divine essence and its simplicity: from which it is necessary that whatever is in God, is God. And truly it is sufficient that no notion of image can be accommodated to the Holy Spirit, unless He receives nature and existence from Him whose image He is.

(10) These are the main points in the *Antirrhetikos* of Georgios Cyprius, which Patriarch John Beccus evaluates and refutes in his cited oration. It is permitted to add some other things which Cyprius discusses in the same place. I bring forward this first point: that the Holy Spirit proceeds perfect from the Father. Why must the Son also be added? Thomas brilliantly resolves this difficulty, which is often put forward. He says thus in I dist. 14, quæst. 4, art. 1 ad 9: "It must be said that the Father perfectly breathes the Holy Spirit. But because all the perfection of the Father is communicated to the Son, which does not conflict with His proper character (since no reason distinguishes between them, except the relation of origin), it is necessary that, just as He communicates to Him the perfection of divinity, so also the perfection of spirating. Whence it is not because of the imperfection of the Father that the Son breathes, but because of the ^C perfection of the Son, who has the whole perfection of the Father." Similar things are found in quæst. 10, *de potentia*, art. 4 ad 20, and I. P. quæst. 3, art. 12 ad 6.

(11) Multiple locutions of the Fathers, in which the procession of the Holy Spirit is expressed, Cyprius orders to be interpreted everywhere as such that the consubstantiality of the Spirit is indeed understood with the Son just as with the Father, but there is one origin from the Father: in which manner two brothers are called consubstantial, whose one, however, does not arise from the other. Furthermore, the opinion of Basil seems to be in epistles 52, to the Canonesses: that those things are not called consubstantial which have the relation of brothers among themselves, as some imagine; but with a cause, and that which has existence from a cause, they are of the same nature, and are called consubstantial. Theologians do not agree in explaining the sense of this testimony. Petavius, lib. VII, cap. 4, num. 12, explains the words of Basil thus: that he considers those to be properly consubstantial which are joined by a relationship of origin; but others less properly, as two brothers. The monks of Saint Maur, in the *Preface* to volume III, § 5, num. 1, think that this holy Father does not deny in that place that, as he asserts elsewhere, men are consubstantial among themselves: but that he is only refuting those who ^D apply the notion of consubstantial so properly to things joined by fraternal kinship among themselves, that it could not be adapted to divine things. With either sense allowed, the weight of the argument stands unconquered. Consult what is discussed more broadly in the same place, § 4, num. 3.

^A It is the most holy Trinity that effects an act by a common operation; but by reason of this, the person who is sent obtains a special presence; e.g., the person of the Son, with humanity assumed, and the person of the Holy Spirit in the soul through grace, as must be discussed a little more fully below. To refer this mission entirely to an external work is a most absurd thing, since the holy Scriptures teach everywhere that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent. Insofar, therefore, as mission is referred to a divine person, it is eternal; and insofar as it is referred to an external work, it is called temporal; whence Christ said for the future time: *I will send the Holy Spirit to you.* That former consideration of mission is not a command, in the way servants are sent by masters; it is not counsel, or anything of the sort, in the way the sick are sent by a physician to take medicine, or in the way those who are to be taught are sent by wise men to a lecture; it will, therefore, be a natural production, in the way trees are said to send out roots and emit flowers. In this sense, the Son is sent from the Father from eternity with respect to His incarnation, because He is born from eternity, assuming the nature of man at the appointed time; and for the Holy Spirit to be sent by the Father and the Son is nothing other than for Him to proceed from both, effecting some external work in time. In a word, mission is nothing other than the eternal production and communication of nature, in which it is the case that in time some external work appears, which is ascribed as peculiar to the sent person. We use the words of the most learned Petavius. This is indeed the true and proper notion of mission, by which only the Son and the Holy Spirit are said in divine utterances to be sent; and the Father is nowhere read to have been sent, as Augustine says, *De Trinitate*, book II, chapter 5. Hence the most blessed Cyril and Basil set forth the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit as following from the eternal procession. The latter says in book I, *Adversus Eunomium*, num. 1: "As one who (the Spirit) has His being from Him (namely, the Son), and receives from Him: and announces to us." He says in the *Thesaurus*, p. 358: "Being naturally from Him (the Son) (the Spirit), and sent by Him into the creature."

V. But even by the very temporal mission of the same (Spirit), which the Greeks abuse too much, the eternal and substantial origin, or procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, or through the Son, is demonstrated. In this temporal mission, distinguish the person who is said to be sent, and the term, or the work, and the created gift by reason of which the sent person begins to exist in a new way in those to whom He is sent. ^{B C}

§ 87 But if, finally, the notion of mission is attached solely to an external work; or if in a mission that is considered as a single thing, which is the effect and is the principle, by reason of which some person is said to be sent; this is, in the first place, an improper and far too broadly taken definition of mission: and furthermore, it sufficiently indicates that proper one which we have explained; since in this improper mission, too, the Father is nowhere read to have been sent, but the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be sent. Why, indeed? Because the Father is from no one, whereas the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from another. In which sense the Son, when He assumed flesh, is said to be sent not by the Father alone, but also by the Holy Spirit; because He (the Spirit) together with the Father, nay, and with the Son, elaborated that external work: and otherwise the Son is the person proceeding. In which sense also the Fathers did not hesitate to speak so as to say that the Son is sent by Himself, and also the Holy Spirit is sent by Himself. But mission from...

the Holy Spirit is taken by the Greeks solely as the bestowal of gifts, or solely as the efficiency of an external work, and they undoubtedly evade the Scriptures, which teach passim that the Son—that is, the person of the Son—is sent by the Father; and that the Holy Spirit—that is, His person—is sent by the Father and by the Son. Moreover, no convenient or solid reasoning has ever been available to them by which they might declare why, in divine utterances and the whole tradition of the Fathers, only a person proceeding from another is said to be sent. Dionysius Petavius teaches all these things extensively in his eighth book, *De Trinitate*, and Thomas Aquinas does so with a brief statement in the first part of his *Summa Theologica*, question 44, article 8.

Receive and understand that mission of the divine persons strictly so-called hence: God is in all things and is present intimately by essence, presence, and power; and God the Son has this from God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit has it from the Father and the Son. Through the bestowal of charisms there arises a new mode of presence, as it were, which is more or less special according to the presence of the given charism. Hence, the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and by the Son, is said in a new way to be absolutely and simply present and to dwell in those who receive the grace of the sanctifying charism; but also in a new way through faith He is in faithful sinners, and through love in penitents, in a relative sense, as they say, and imperfectly. But ^A indeed, even with the Holy Spirit Himself who is sent, the Father and the Son also share the same new presence and indwelling by reason of the granted gift, which the most holy Trinity works entirely *ad extra*. But again, in the aforesaid indwelling, especially through sanctifying grace, theologians—frequently, as Sylvius in the first part of Saint Thomas’s work and Petavius in the aforementioned place clearly discuss—teach that in just men something is also found that is proper to the person of the Holy Spirit, as a certain special application of His substance to the soul of the just.

This mission, strictly so-called and in which is comprised in a chief way the divine person who is sent—the production or procession from another—John Beccus defended with most valid arguments in his own time against his countrymen, and confirmed with the testimonies of many Fathers in his *Epigraphai*, or *Sententia*, ^B chapter 8, refuting those who, when they heard that the Holy Spirit also emanates and proceeds from the Son, foolishly babbled that it was not the divine nature of the Spirit that arose and emanated from the divine substance and nature of the Son, but a certain spiritual gift of His that supervenes upon those who are worthy. Gregory Palamas later disputed against these things: but Bessarion refuted him at length at the Synod of Florence, session 25, chapter 8. I extract a few, and those excellent and most learned, remarks: “What, then, do you understand when you hear that the Spirit is sent by the Son? For it is clear that you understand His person even against your will: for grace that does not subsist of itself is not sent... But this very thing which is sent is the divine nature, ^C subsisting and the person of the Spirit, who completes the Trinity. For Christ says that He will send that same Spirit who proceeds from the Father: he says neither that He will send another, nor that the Father will send another. For, He says, ‘When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father.’ And grammarians themselves could grasp this: ‘When the Paraclete comes, who proceeds from the Father, whom I will send to you,’ so that it may be clear that the same one who proceeds from the Father is to be sent by Him. If, therefore, the person of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Son also sends Him. But if the Son sends grace that is not at all subsistent, then not the Spirit, but grace, would proceed from the Father.”

Bessarion offers these things most clearly. Petavius adds strength to these in his work *De sanctissima Trinitate*, in the aforementioned place, chapter 5, number 19: “For it is most absurd,” he says, “to use the word ‘Spirit’ so ambiguously in the same thought, that joined to one verb it signifies the person Himself: while related to the other, it signifies quality and grace; that this could be used properly and at the same time tropically. For when the name of the Holy Spirit properly and by itself signifies His divine substance and person, and it is not permitted to interpret it otherwise in most places: in the rest, which are very numerous, where He is said to be poured out, or to come to us, and to dwell in us, to think that the same Holy Spirit is taken figuratively and improperly is a thing full of danger; lest what you safely permit yourself in these testimonies of Scripture, heretics might by their own right demand be granted in others. But in the one, coherent ^D thought, which the most learned Bessarion reports from the Gospel of John, there is a sense of absurdity, and the strength of the argument is greater. Hence, indeed, to the Greeks demanding where in the Scriptures the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found, it ought safely to be replied that they must undoubtedly express those passages which teach that the Spirit receives from the Son, and is sent and given by the Son. See chapter 9, number 8 (10).

VI. Let us finally call to examination the passage, difficult in appearance, which the Greeks bring forward under the name of John Chrysostom, as if it were consistent with their commentary. It is taken from a certain homily on the Holy Spirit, which appears in the Parisian edition of Montfaucon, volume III, among the spurious works. The author says at number 7: “He shall receive of mine: of those things which the Lord the man has supplied to me, He will take for Himself who gave, who came upon me, and remained in me, who anointed me, who sanctified me, who led me into the desert, who led me back victorious... He shall receive of mine, and will declare it to you.” In order to show that He did not make mention of the Holy Spirit, but of His gifts; after He said, “He shall receive of mine,” He adds: “All things whatsoever the Father has, are mine; I received them from the Holy Spirit. Therefore I said, ‘He shall receive of mine’: because God sanctified the flesh by the Holy Spirit, and the Father sent the gift of the Spirit into the flesh of Christ. But grace came, and all gifts were bestowed upon Christ.” Truly (the Greeks say), the authority of Chrysostom openly demonstrates that it is said according to the humanity of the Lord,

as though His divine flesh had become the receptacle of the Spirit on account of spiritual gifts: and thus the name of Holy Spirit is accepted, not to indicate the nature of the Holy Spirit, but to indicate spiritual gifts, in whatever place of the Scriptures the Spirit is found emanating, flowing, and proceeding from the Son.

Fronto Ducaeus, Savilius, Petavius, and Montfaucon order this homily to be rejected among the spurious works; for its author is entirely meager, and uses a constricted style of speaking, so that no one has ever seemed more unlike Chrysostom. Photius, in his *Bibliotheca*, codex 277, deemed it the genuine fruit, and Beccus raised no doubt in chapter 11, *Concerning the Holy Spirit* in Allatius's *Graecia Orthodoxa*, tome I. Does Chrysostom, then, or whoever the author of this homily is, favor the interpretation of the Greeks? Indeed, Beccus finds many things in it that are opposed to them. And first, the author's doctrine appears concerning the names of the Holy Spirit, of which some signify the nature of the Holy Spirit, and others indicate His gifts, which are called spirits. He collects this doctrine, dealt with far and wide, into these words in number 5: “I repeat, therefore, the names of an ineffable nature: the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit who is from God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit who raised Christ, the Spirit of life, the Spirit of truth. Then the gifts: the spirit of virtue, the spirit of charity, the spirit of temperance, the spirit of promise, the spirit of faith, the spirit of revelation, the spirit of adoption of the sons of God.” This is what he says, and this is not the place for us to subject it to the most accurate examination. But now, where are those (says Beccus) who contend that the Holy Spirit is not denoted by nature, but always [means] spiritual gifts, whenever the Holy Spirit is found in any part of Holy Scripture to emanate and be poured forth from the Son? Beyond doubt, Christ uses the name of an ineffable nature, whether when He says: “When the Spirit of truth comes... He will glorify me because He will receive of mine, and will announce it to you.... If I do not go, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send Him to you... When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father”; or also when He says: “Receive the Holy Spirit”; or when the Apostle Paul brings forward equivalent words: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us.... Your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have in you.” The names of the ineffable nature are applied, and therefore, according to the author's mind, it is not merely about the giving of gifts in these places, but about the very person of the Holy Spirit.

The Macedonians supposed the Holy Spirit to be inferior to the Son, because it is said in divine discourses that He does not speak from Himself and that He receives from the Son: an argument which the author of the homily refutes with the words related above. He introduces a peculiar interpretation: in that passage, he says, there is no mention made of a nature which the Holy Spirit might receive, but of gifts, of which the human Dominic, Jesus Christ, was full, and from which the Holy Spirit, receiving, distributes to others. Indeed, that chorus of holy Fathers understood those words of the divine nature which the Holy Spirit receives from the Son, and is equal to Him and to the Father, from whom He proceeds. Yet let the interpretation of the author of the homily ^B have its place: which, in the first place, by no means excludes the mission of the person of the Holy Spirit from the Son: and then also distinguishes the sent Holy Spirit from the gifts that are supplied. John Beccus performs all this in the cited place. These things are collected in brief. And 1º, in that place, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who receives; nor can such an absurd mode of speech fall upon Jesus Christ, as to say “He receives of mine” [meaning] a spiritual gift. 2º They were forcing the strength of the word “He will receive,” as if they were heretics of slender intellect: as if the Holy Spirit were borrowing from the gifts of Christ, which He would then supply to others; for these things cannot be asserted of a Divine Person. 3º But they are fundamentally mistaken: for the Holy Spirit, who receives from the gifts of Christ, is the one who anointed and sanctified the human Dominic, and made Him as it were the receptacle of all gifts, of which men were to be participants. 4º But now, the Holy Spirit gave His gifts so fully to the human Dominic that He Himself even came upon Him and remained in Him: and therefore, by an equal reasoning, the Holy Spirit taking [them] from the gifts of Christ and distributing them to others is to be said to come upon them and to remain in them, to whom, of course, He is sent by the Father and by the Son. The mission of the Holy Spirit could not be set forth more clearly than we have called it "properly so-called."

Photius, in the cited codex 277, deems worthy of notice in this homily: “That Chrysostom says: the mission makes neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit lesser than the Father: because the Father Himself is also sent by the Spirit and by the Son. He says in these words (n. 12): ‘If I show you that the Creator of heaven and earth was sent by the Spirit and the Son, what will you do, etc.’” Photius evidently noted the passage so as to add color to his own commentary. Dionysius Petavius’s most true admonition is in book VIII, *On the most Holy Trinity*, chapter 1, n. 14: “That the Father is sent is nowhere read in the Scriptures, and most rarely in the books of the holy Fathers, if indeed it is read: nay, rather, ancient theologians deny in express and explicit words that He is sent. Whence in no way, nor even improperly, should it be used that the Father is sent by Himself or by another; however much He may have afforded an opportunity of seeing Himself externally under some image and appearance, which is disputed among theologians.” Yet this author of the homily, who is not Chrysostom, has used this mode of speech. It is to be understood as entirely improper regarding the mission; nor is any detriment inflicted upon the proper mission of the Son and Holy Spirit, and upon His eternal procession from the Father and the Son, which is comprehended in that very mission itself. Petavius adds in the same place, excellently and truly, that Photius is wrong in his opinion; and that the Creator of heaven and earth, who is said to be sent, is not understood to be the Father, but certainly the Son, and Himself according to his...

flesh, that is, Christ. Moreover, that author was acting against the Macedonians, whose impious invention it was that the Holy Spirit is given and sent by the Father as one inferior to Him. In order to refute this as an argument, he admits a mission in which the one sent or commissioned is inferior to the one sending: and he refers this to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, not to the person of the Holy Spirit Himself. It was not his intent in that place to teach, by reason of the gift bestowed, that the divine person of the Holy Spirit is also given and sent, as if from the Father and also from the Son, or through the Son proceeding, being in any case in all things equal.

92 CHAPTER VII.

I. In the year 1283, the patriarch Joseph departed this life, consumed by disease and age, as the month of March began, as Pachymeres says in *Andronicus*, book 1, chapter 13. The faction of the Arseniani raised its head; and it was acting against the Josephites. Andronicus, deciding to take a middle path, so that he would neither sadden the Arseniani (the historian's words are in chapter 14) nor, however, fail to embrace the Josephites, chose as patriarch George, who originated from Cyprus, a man endowed with learning, ordained by the patriarch Joseph, and a protoapostolarius in the Palace church.

Nicephorus Gregoras narrates these affairs in these words, lib. vi, chapter 1, no. 5: "There was then a man of distinguished eloquence from the college of the imperial clergy, George the Cypriot... The emperor had it in mind, and was striving, to raise this man, who had not long ago donned the monastic habit, to the patriarchal throne: yet he wanted the hands to be laid upon him by no one among those who had participated in the dogmatic novelty (he calls the Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the union of the Churches then begun, by this name); but by someone who had kept himself pure from their communion ... He was, however, designated by the emperor after due votes and testimonies: and he received the pastoral staff, offered by the prince himself on the imperial dais in the ancient manner. And from that time he was occupied in administering affairs which, although they pertained to the patriarchal office, did not require the priesthood." Lequien examines this former custom, by which the patriarchs of Constantinople were promoted by the emperors, most diligently in *Oriens Christianus*, tome 1, chapter 17, from number 7. Once the decree of designation was read, the pallium and a case full of the relics of the saints to be hung around the neck were sent to the patriarch-elect. Then he himself would receive from the hands of the emperor the golden pastoral staff, which jewels and pearls adorned: and he was led at last with solemn pomp into the patriarchal basilica. 93 Lequien cites the entire ceremony from George Phrantzes, and Codinus, and Simeon of Thessalonica.

13. The Cypriot had been initiated by no sacred consecration other than that by which readers are initiated. It happened, however, as Gregoras attests, ibid. no. 6, that the bishop of Mozyle, and likewise the bishop of Debrus in Macedonia, had arrived in Constantinople: both of whom had always held a mind alien to the communion of those who had willingly subjected themselves to the dogmatic novelties. Pachymeres calls the bishop of Cozyles from the Western parts, chapter 14, namely, perhaps the bishop of Acheloos under the metropolis of Naupactus, as Lequien conjectures, tome II, in the province of ancient Epirus, no. 13. The same Mozylenus therefore (I use the words of Gregoras), at the exhortation of Gregory the Cypriot, inaugurates a certain monk Germanus as metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace: for he has the right, by ancient privilege, of consecrating the patriarch of Constantinople. He, therefore, from a reader first consecrated the Cypriot as deacon and priest, and afterwards as patriarch, with those two bishops, Mozylenus and Debrenus, as assistants. Lequien discusses the aforementioned ancient right of the bishop of Heraclea in the place cited, chapter 4, no. 4.

I record the more diligent history of Pachymeres from the same fourteenth chapter. And first, the bishop of Cozyles, in the month of March (of the year 1283), introduces the Cypriot with a few others into the monastery named after the Prodromos and the Petra: where he institutes him as a monk from a layman with the customary ceremonies, and soon ordains him deacon from a reader. In that ceremony of monastic profession, the same Pachymeres, in chapter 22, notes that he had been called Gregory: for he says that the name Gregory had settled upon the Cypriot, changed from George, when he undertook the monastic profession in preparation for the patriarchate. Then, indeed, he was declared patriarch by the emperor, and the pastoral staff was given to him. Finally, Germanus, metropolitan of Heraclea, ordained a little earlier, initiated him into the priesthood: and on the famous feast of Palms, with the bishop of Cozyles and the bishop of Debrus cooperating, he ordained him patriarch. The year 1283, marked in the cycle of the sun as 4, had the Dominical letter C, and the golden number 11. Hence holy Pascha fell on the 18th of April: and Palm Sunday had shone on the eleventh day of the same month.

II. On the Monday of the week which they call *Diakainesimos* [New Week], immediately following the *Anastastimon* [Resurrection] day, the day of the Resurrection, an imperial edict is promulgated. Understand by the week which follows the day of Pascha, so called on account of the renewal of the human race through the resurrection of Christ. See Charles du Cange. More things were determined by that imperial decree. A synod also was convoked, as Pachymeres attests, chapter 17, to be celebrated in the Blachernae. 94 The church of the Blachernae was sacred under the title of the Mother of God. Du Cange investigates and establishes its site in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, book iv, § 2, no. 6. In this synod, the bishops who had consented to the union of the Churches were deposed from their rank.

^A At the beginning of the month of May of the same year 1283, Pachymeres reports (chapter 18) that drops of blood had distilled from the sky. The Augustus sets out for the East to compose the troubles stirred up by the Arsenians. He orders all the inhabitants of Adramyttium in Asian Mysia to gather, where, he says, the emperor had generously provided for the needs of all for food throughout the winter (Pachymeres, chapter 21). A synod was held in that place, with Patriarch Cyprius present. The emperor remained there on the appointed days of every week throughout Lent. Meetings with the bishops about the trial by fire were also held on Holy Saturday, the vigil of Easter. Possinus counts this as the year 1283; but the aforementioned facts—which occurred on the Monday of Easter week in the year 1283—prove it to be the following year, 1284. For drops of blood falling from the sky in the month of May, the entire winter spent at Adramyttium, and there the many meetings held with the bishops throughout Lent. Therefore, the agreement for this convention—about throwing the papers into the fire as a test—happened on Holy Saturday of the year 1284. This year counted the solar cycle as 5, the Dominical letter BA, and the golden number 12, by which Easter is fixed on April 9; and the eighth day preceding it was Holy Saturday. ^B Returning to the city (Constantinople), the emperor by no means slept (the historian says, chapter 30) regarding the business of reconciling those of the Church who had separated themselves from it. Various signs were issued, by which the emperor, moved more vehemently, pressed for peace between the Arsenians and the Josephites. By now, indeed, the ashes of Arsenius, once patriarch, had been translated to the royal city (chapter 31); also the beginning of the disasters of the Christians in Syria (chapter 32); ^C the taking of Tripoli, and the taking of Ptolemais, reports Pachymeres, foretelling the disasters of the following years. But according to Marino Sanuto, called Torsello (in his book 3, part 11, chapter 19), the siege of the fortress of Margat under the Babylonian Sultan occurred in the year 1285, on the 27th of April, and its loss followed a month later. Finally, the emperor’s second wedding is celebrated with Irene, the daughter of the Marquis of Montferrat (chapter 33). ^D 96 Then, indeed, John Beccus was summoned from Prusa with his associates, Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochita, the archdeacons, that they might render an account of their faith. A colloquy was therefore proclaimed in a synod of ecclesiastics, which was held in the Alexiac Triclinium. Patriarch Gregory was present. Alexander’s Athanasius was also there, who, perhaps being ill at that time, was carried in a bed. The entire order of prelates came together: neither the clergy were absent, nor most of the monks, nor the most choice of the laity. The emperor presided over these, having the leading dignitaries about him. Among the first stood out the logothete (Muzalo). Possinus refers this synod to the month of May or June of the year 1284. The various events that Pachymeres narrates as having been interspersed suggest the following year.

III. I report the chief heads of the colloquy, which concern the dogma of the procession, from the same Pachymeres' 33rd chapter (1). When Patriarch Gregory inquired what they thought about the dogma, the archdeacons replied: "We find in the authentic writings that the Holy Spirit..."

^A is provided, given, sent forth, and proceeds from the Father through the Son," and that "it is provided, given, sent, and proceeds from the Father through the Son." Sometimes, they added, the Fathers also speak of "procession." But the great John Damascene says that the Father is the producer (*proboleus*) through the Word, the demonstrative Spirit (*logou ekphantorikou pneumatos*), and in the name "producer" we recognize the notion of an active principle (or cause, *to aitio*).

We do not, therefore, call the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit in His procession from the Father; nor do we call Him a "co-cause," for we anathematize and reject anyone who speaks in this way. But we call the Father the cause of the Holy Spirit through the Son, since the term *proboleus* implies the meaning of an active principle (or cause). It is clearly evident that "the Father is the cause of the Holy Spirit through the Son" is the same as saying that the Father and the Son are one and the same cause, on account of the one power of spiration which the Father has from Himself and which is communicated to the Son by the Father. See Chapter 5, number 3 (2), and number 4.

(2) The great logothete Muzalo retorted that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit in the processional derivation from the Father. The archdeacons said that it is not so. "For," they argued, "do we not say, by way of example, that the Father is perfect God, the Son likewise is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is also perfect God? Hence, who does not see that this implies—which we reject—a trinity of gods? Because of the unity of Divinity, which exists identically in the three persons, the three persons are one God. And in the same way, because of the unity of the spirating power, which is in the Father from Himself and is one and the same, communicated by the Father to the Son, the Father and Son ^B are the one cause of the Holy Spirit." Consult the statement cited at number 4.

(3) Georgius Monschampar, who was at that time the Chartophylax of the Church, affirmed that the testimony of the Damascene that had been brought forward was spurious and supposititious. The great logothete opposed Monschampar: "This statement," he said, "which you reject as apocryphal, exists clearly and syllabically in the sacred *Hoplotheca*, a book, as you know, of authority beyond any exception, with the name of the great Damascene clearly attached to it as its author." We have already noted that this work was composed by Andronicus Camaterus.

(4) "I admit," says the logothete Muzalo, "the testimony, and I acknowledge that it is truly of the holy Damascene. However, I will not agree that the Spirit draws His origin from the Father through the Word and the Son. For to say this would be to speak more boldly than those who affirm: 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.' Because in this Latin expression, the communion of the preposition *ex* (from), applied equally to the Father and the Son, tends more to establish the equality of the hypostases between them, and if it does not entirely dilute the odium of audacity, it certainly serves to soften it greatly. In the other interpretation, however, while the Spirit is asserted to proceed from the Father through the Son, that diversity of prepositions introduces a certain harsh-sounding emphasis of differentiation... as if signaling that the Father is the active principle of the Holy Spirit and the Son is another active principle of the same."

The archdeacons: "Why do you address these matters to us? ^C You think you are relieving the great Father's opinion from the suspicion of error... but why are we accused of heresy? The Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Confessor taught the same things." The Nyssen, in his letter to Ablavius, teaches that the Son is from the Father *prosechos* (directly), continuously and without an intermediary; but the Holy Spirit is through the Son, who is continuously from the Father. The words of Cyril are in book 1 of *De adoratione*: "Substantially from both, namely from the Father through the Son, flows the Spirit." Finally, Saint Maximus, in his letter to Marinus: "Through the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father."

There is no difficulty here, whether the preposition is "from" (*ex*) or "through" (*per*). The former indicates the production of the Holy Spirit, which is equal, or rather, the producer through the Word is the demonstrative Spirit. As for the latter, *per*, it does not indicate an order in power or efficiency, because of the oneness in the Father and Son, but an order between the persons of the Father and the Son, who are distinct and provide the subject (*suppositum*) for the spiration; that is to say, the Son has from the Father that He should breathe the Holy Spirit. Consult Saint Thomas in *I dist. 12, quaest. 1, artic. 3*, and *I p. quaest. 36, art. 2*. Or even the same particle, *per*, expresses more clearly the spirating power that is in the Father, one and the same, communicated to the Son by the Father.

(5) Beccus used to explain Catholic doctrine with examples familiar to the Fathers: of the sun, the ray, and the light, or of an eye, a fountain, water, and a river. For the splendor or light comes from the sun through the ray, and a river flows from a fountain through the stream. Patriarch Gregory was calumniating this exposition: as if Beccus did not confess that the Holy Spirit is continuous with the Father, just as the Son is; for, he argued, he was teaching that the Son is indeed continuous with the Father, but that the Spirit is distant by a certain local separation. Beccus refuted that calumny, saying: "Gregory Nyssen says of the Son that He is continuously from the Father, but of the Spirit, that He is through Him who is continuously from the Father. You introduce local distances or the intervening spaces of time, an absurdity entirely. ^D For verily, the Son being generated from the Father, when it is merely heard, provides the mind with some sort of image of an efflux, inferring a distance of local progression. But the imagination is corrected when it is added: 'generated indivisibly and indistinctly'; truly indeed signifying that the Son is from the Father in such a way that He is simultaneously in the Father. Thus it is permitted to me to reason about the Spirit also. Or rather, let the discourse be referred to the similarity brought up above: we call the ray *from* the sun, and yet we do not think that the ray is something cut off from the sun. We also call the light *through* the ray from the sun, and we understand the mediation, and we do not deny that the light is continued to the sun through the mediation of the ray." But the most learned Beccus had warned: "These types of images of the processions of the blessed Trinity are indeed crude, as they cannot be represented by any likeness; and by their appearance, the nature of the divine Triad is hinted at, as much as human capacity allows."

^A Saint Thomas declares this doctrine in few but very clear words, in I dist. 12, q. 1, art. 3: "If we consider the principle itself, namely the spirative power (or divine nature with the property of spiration), since the Father and the Son do not differ in this (but are one), it cannot be said that the spiration is from the Father through the Son (but the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and from the Son). But if we consider the spirators themselves, who are distinct, and according to this provide a suppositum for the spiration: thus there is mediation there, according to the order of nature; because the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit at once from the Father and the Son." The things which are held to 1 are the same: "By the fact that it is said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, authority is designated in the Father with respect to the Son: because the Son has from the Father that he 99 may spire the Holy Spirit. From this, however, no mediation is posited, except on the part of the supposita which are distinguished by this, that one is from the other; by reason of which there is authority in one with respect to the other."

But what this authority confers upon the Father; what even is the difference between the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, and between a river flowing from a fountain through a stream; and finally what is the use of the terms among the Greeks: Aquinas clarifies all things in the same place, art. 2, ad 3: "The Holy Spirit is said to be principally from the Father; because in the Father is the authority of spiration, from whom the Son also has the spirative virtue: and not on account of any order, or degree of priority and posteriority of the Father and the Son. ^C Similarly, also for the same reason is he said properly to proceed from the Father: especially since this preposition, *a* (from), among the Greeks denotes a relationship to the first origin. Whence among them it is not said that a lake is from a stream, but from a fountain: and from there it is also, that they do not concede that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, but from the Father. Nevertheless, it is not to be said that he does not also properly proceed from the Son, who with the Father is one principle of the Holy Spirit: but a stream and a fountain are not one principle of a lake: but indeed two, of which one depends on the other; and they have a distinct, if there is any, efficiency." By the Greeks mentioned by Aquinas, understand the holy Fathers and other defenders of the Catholic dogma.

^D (6) These are the principal things which were discussed concerning the dogma in the colloquy. It is permitted to exhibit here some part of the Testament, which Beccus drew up in the year 1298 when he was nearing death, so that the opinion of the opposing Greeks concerning the Holy Spirit may be splendidly revealed. Possinus records it in its entirety in his *Observations* on the third book, chapter 29. "In this they hallucinate, those with whom I have a controversy, that being pressed by the force of arguments drawn from authentic testimonies of the Scriptures and the Fathers, in an inescapable way, and no path of evading it being shown, because it had to be confessed and held as a certain dogma that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son [was true]. Elsewhere, however, when they thought themselves constrained by an equal evidence of theological arguments to affirm that the hypostatic property of the person of the Father was the original active spiration: they could not concur with that consortium of the Son with the Father in spirating. Hence they were abstracted into the frivolous cavil of a vain distinction, by which they utterly deny that procession and existence are the same. They confess indeed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; yet they forbid it to be said that the Spirit exists through the Son. 100 They pretend that the active spiration passes through the Son, as if through a medium, and an inanimate instrument cooperating in nothing; so that by that reason the proceeding Spirit is understood as a certain consequence to the Son, by thought alone, to which nothing exists in reality." From here, however, finally, they referred the procession taken for efficiency to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit through the concession of gifts and charisms. But if the same efficiency through the Son should also be understood as eternal, Georgius Cyprius interpreted this in such a way as to introduce a new heresy, about which we must deal later. We examine and illustrate the praised testament of Beccus with more careful attention in the tenth and final chapter.

IV. The Emperor was bearing it very ill that the meeting had turned out far differently than he had hoped. The monastery of Cosmidion received Joannes Beccus and his associates, kept under secure guard. It is the same as the monastery of saints Cosmas and Damian, which stood outside the city to the shore of the strait. Consult Ducange in *Cpoli Christiana* § 15, num. 10. But finally, those whom he had tried in vain with both threats and flatteries, the Emperor orders to be carried by ship to the fortress, situated to the right of one entering the Astacenian gulf, which takes its name from Saint Gregory.

CHAPTER VIII

1. To his adversaries (these are words of Pachymeris, lib. II, cap. 1), Beccus left the keen care of investigating by what reason the dictum of the Damascene Father could be explained (so he thought) as orthodox, so that they would neither seem to assent to the exposition of Beccus, and yet themselves escape the suspicions with which their doctrine labored among the learned, due to the apparent conflict with the opinion of such high authority. "They themselves observed that it is not said by the Damascene, explaining theology, that the Spirit proceeds *from* the Son, but *through* the Son and the Word. 101 They added also, that the words of the saint in the same place read *from the Son, however, we do not say the Spirit.* Hence they inferred that the prepositions *from* and *through* were not equipollent. They judged it to their own advantage to use only..."

that phrase which negated the Spirit being from the Son; and they sought an exposition by which they might soften the remaining, previous words and restore them to concord. Thus, the province of writing a Tome on this matter was assigned to Gregory the Cypriot.

The Cypriot performed the task imposed upon him, and the Tome, having been edited, was read publicly in the Church. Possinus thinks this occurred in the year of Christ 1288. Nothing prevents it from having actually occurred in the previous year, 1287, or even the year before that. The many apologetic writings published by the Cypriot, which we will soon enumerate, seem to demand such a timeline. Once the Tome had been read, the emperor subscribed it in red ink, then the patriarch, and then the ecclesiastical prelates in order. There were many churchmen who openly refused their subscription.

^B II. Pachymeres narrates the cause in the same place: "For there was, among other things in the Tome which was being forced upon them to sign, a certain exposition of the previously mentioned opinion of the divine Damascene, running as follows: 'If, however, the Father of the Holy Spirit should be found by the supreme Theologian Damascene to be called the *producer through the Word*, this locution does not clearly intend to signify the *procession into existence* of the Holy Spirit, but [rather his] *eternal shining forth*.' But as to what this might mean, they said they could not fathom it at all; and they asked to be shown the distinction between *procession* and *eternal shining forth*, so that they might reject one of these terms and embrace the other. For now it appeared clearly to them that these words were mutually equipollent, and that 'procession into existence' signified nothing more or less than 'procession into eternal shining forth.'"

Note that the interpretation of those who understood the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son either as the temporal concession of gifts and charisms, or certainly as an active procession passing through the Word as if through a medium, without any of its efficiency, appeared to the Cypriot to be inaccurate and false. For the mind of the Damascene and the Fathers was clearly that the procession of the Holy Spirit, by which he is said to proceed from the Father through the Word, is eternal. It was also manifest that this procession through the Word sufficiently indicated the efficiency of the Word toward the Holy Spirit; which the Cypriot interpreted not as *existence*, but as *eternal shining forth*; even though, in truth, the eternal shining forth of the Holy Spirit would be nothing other than his existence from the Father through the Son.

^C 102 III. The Tome fell into the hands of Beccus, who was held in prison. He criticized many things in that same Tome (I use the words of Pachymeres, chap. 2), but he especially blamed the exposition of the Damascene's opinion provided therein. His first oration on the Tome of the Cypriot and his new heresies stands in volume II of *Orthodox Greece*. He cites the new interpretation of the Cypriot in his own words, no. 5. "For although," he says, "it is asserted by some saints that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, this expression signifies a progress into an eternal effusion, not purely into being. And I, for one, cannot understand (replies Beccus) by what reason he distinguishes effusion into eternity from a pure progress into being. 2. Gregory of Nyssa, declaring the difference of cause, or principle, of the two persons, determines it to be nothing else than that this one [is caused] contiguously, while the other [is caused] through that which is contiguous to the first: whence I do not grasp what other shining forth of the Spirit through the Son into eternity there could be, except for the progress of his very hypostasis from the Father through the Son. 3. Was the Only-begotten merely an administrator of this effusion of the Spirit from the Father through himself? 4. But if the Spirit naturally shines forth through the Son, it is the same as saying he proceeds through the Son." These and many other things Beccus opposed.

Another opinion of the Cypriot was inept, which is had in no. 10: "but through the Son, and from the Son naturally to exist; but not through the Son and from the Son to have existence, which the Fathers who enunciated this, confessed. O the keen acumen of those asserting such things!... I, who am not so curious, but rude and dull, take that *naturally to exist from the Son* for *existence from the Son*; and I predicate the preposition *from* in place of the preposition *through*, as tradition, mandated in writings, resounds, always receiving [it] from the Son; not two causes of the Spirit, but the Father as cause through the Son." But these contain a native interpretation of the other passage, where the Damascene says that he does not say the Spirit is from the Son: namely, as from a cause distinct from the Father. More diligently on this matter below.

^D When the most learned Francis Combefis perhaps had these things before his eyes, he notes quite frequently in the second part of the *Novissimum Auctarium* that John Beccus condemned the Palamite heresy. For an insane delirium had prevailed, by which the eternal action of God and a certain sempiternal divine light were distinguished from the divine essence; and this was said to be communicated to created minds, while the essence itself remained utterly incommunicable and invisible. This seems to be that *shining forth* into which the Cypriot taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through 103 the Son, not into existence. This, therefore, is the impious dogma of Palamas, condemned by John Beccus in a certain Tome, which the lauded Combefis notes in his *Observations on the book of Manuel Calecas: On Essence and Operation*. I bring forward the very true observation of Michael Le Quien in his first Damascene dissertation, no. 50: that the Cypriot indeed anticipated Palamas, and Beccus refuted the erratic dogma prefigured by that man; but that John, the patriarch of Constantinople who first condemned Gregory Palamas, was either from Sozopolis around the year of Christ 1294, or certainly from Glycys around the year 1316.

That the Cypriot fell into this absurdity, his own interpretation of the Damascene's passage, already cited, makes sufficiently evident. There is added another statement of his in his Tome, which, taken from there, is reported by Beccus in the cited oration, no. 14: "It is nothing new, nor alien to the usage of the Scriptures, if one equivocally calls the spiritual gift..."

^A of the Holy Spirit to be named; and the action sometimes seems to mix into itself the name of the agent, as the splendor of the sun and the light [often imply] of the sun." By these very words (says Lequien in the cited place), he signified the eternal action of God, which is common to the three persons, to be sometimes called the Holy Spirit: and that this efficiency of eternal light, common to the three persons, is itself called the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. The same Lequien adduces, in the same place, another fragment of a work completed by Cyprius: namely, "Divine grace, and splendor, and the operation ^A [that is] coeternal to the Son: and it flows from him, just as also from the Father, and from the Paraclete himself." We shall explain more diligently below the enormous inventions which the Greeks, pressed by the authority of the Fathers, were forging.

The commentary of John Beccus, creeping through the city of Constantinople (I use the words of Pachymeres, chapter 2 cited), was avidly read by many, and it fixed its sting in most. To the accusation of this Tome, the bishop of Quinquecclesiae and Georgius Moschampar, who had resigned from the office of chartophylax, having already been turned against Cyprius by certain minor grievances, applied their minds. The accusations against the doctrine of the Tome, set forth by Beccus, were passed over, lest they seem to agree with Beccus. Therefore, they devised another way of impugning the Tome, which Pachymeres reports, chapter 3: blaming, namely, that while the word ^B *productor* [producer] was properly used by the Fathers to signify the active principle, [G] [aitian], of the Holy Spirit, just as the word *Genitor* [Begetter] is used by them to designate the active principle, [G] [aitian], of the Only-begotten Word; yet the writer of the Tome had referred the meaning of the word ^B *productor* to a simple *splendor*, and not ^C to the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the true active principle. Expressing which emanation by the word *procession*, and distinguishing *procession* from *splendor*, he doubtlessly took away from the word *productor* the notion attributed to it by the Fathers, namely of an emanation as if from an active principle; which they contended was nothing less than a defection from the faith of Catholic doctrine.

This provided an opportunity for the heresy to be attributed to Cyprius by a booklet of a certain monk, Marcus, in which it was taught, as Pachymeres says, chapter 4, even more clearly than in the patriarch's tome, that damnable restriction of the notion in the word *productor*; by which the meaning of an active principle is excluded from it, contrary to the manifest authority of the Fathers. That work, as it had been elaborated, was offered to Patriarch Gregory: who, running through it, as he was wont to do with the small writings of his disciples; corrected with his own hand certain things in this [work] also which were less approved by him, and thus rendered it amended. Hence the impious error, found in that work of Marcus, was also ascribed to Gregory.

IV. Hence, spurs were applied to the patriarch, so that he himself might correct what needed to be corrected in his *Tome*. He contended obstinately that there was nothing in the *Tome* that was corrupted or that required a sponge. That *Tome* is displayed in the Vindobonensis codex 259, no. 3, listed by ^D Beccus in book 5 of his *Commentaries*, under this title: *Tomus synodicus, sive columna orthodoxiae* [The Synodic Tome, or Column of Orthodoxy]. It begins: *Exse men he episymbesa pro mikrou tarache te kai zale te Ecclesia* [The disturbance and storm that recently befell the Church indeed...]. It has, indeed, the disturbance and storm of the Church supervening. From these words also begins the work published entire by Banduri in Greek in his *Notes on book VIII of the Antiquities of Constantinople*, which is inscribed: *Exethesis tou Tomou tes pisteos kata tou Bekkou* [Exposition of the Tome of faith against Beccus]. Finally, it stands before us without a title in a copy of a Lugduno-Batavensis codex, num. 9.

However, although the patriarch wished to leave his *Tome* untouched, he nevertheless published not a few apologetic writings. Against the work of the monk Marcus, and the errors which were pinned upon him, he wrote a *Confession*, and likewise an *Apology for the Tome*, and also an *Epistle to Emperor Andronicus*; which, edited in Greek, exist in Banduri at the cited place. After the abdication from the patriarchate made by Gregory, which we shall narrate in the following chapter, the correction of the *Tome* completed by him was attempted with vain effort. Concerning this matter, many assemblies were gathered, reports Pachymeres, chapter 11, but by the continuous altercations of many days, ending in no agreement on the correction of that writing, finally all decided that the explanation of the place of Damascenus should be entirely removed: deeming it better that that testimony be left unexposed than that, by exposing it, they be led into danger. Gregory himself, however, in his *Apology*, attacked the new interpretation of certain ones who, in that saying of Damascenus, *Manifesting the Spirit through the Word the producer Father*, took those words *dia logou, di' Yiou* [through the Word, through the Son] as if it were the same as *syn to logo* [with the Word], *meta tou Yiou* [with the Son], *hama to Yio* [together with the Son]. Truly, besides the exposition of Beccus, which offers the dogma of the Latins, no other more sincere interpretation occurred. Consult these same things diligently annotated in Banduri, who candidly confesses that he was taught by Michael Lequien.

V. With more diligent care, that notable place of Damascenus must be illustrated, which we heard Pachymeres noting that the adversaries had opposed to Beccus, num. 1. It is read, indeed, in book 1 *De fide orthodoxa*, chapter 8, at the end: "It is worth knowing that we do not say that the Father is from anyone, but we call him Father of the Son. Likewise, we do not call the Son cause or Father, but rather, that he is from the Father, and is the Son of the Father. Finally, we call the Holy Spirit both from the Father and Spirit of the Father: but indeed we do not say that he is from the Son, yet we call him the Spirit of the Son... Nay, we confess that he is manifested to us through the Son, and is imparted... Just as from the sun, indeed, there is both a ray and a splendor; for he himself is the fountain of the ray and of the splendor: but through the ray the splendor is communicated to us." By the same example, the ancient Fathers, as well as John Beccus and others who are his allies in the Catholic dogma, have made use of

that the Holy Spirit proceeds substantially and hypostatically from the Father through the Son, or from the Father and the Son, has been noted ^A already quite frequently. But there is no doubt that the Greeks also used that example against their opponents; and Saint Thomas himself, in his own name, opposes it in *De potentia*, quest. 10, art. 4, no. 22: "The Son is the ray of the Father; but the Holy Spirit is the splendor. The splendor, however, is not from the ray: therefore the Holy Spirit is not from the Son." Receive the solution to 22: I say that the splendor is from the ray, since it is nothing other than the repercussion of the ray upon a bright body. Therefore, the splendor has from the ray not only that it is communicated to us, but it also has from the ray that which it is. But since the virtue of the ray, by which the splendor is produced, comes from the sun, therefore both the splendor and the ray are said to proceed from the sun as from the principle and primary cause. By similar reasoning, if it is permitted to measure divine things by our own measure, the Holy Spirit, although He proceeds from the Son who breathes Him forth, is nevertheless said to proceed in a peculiar way from the Father, because the Son has from the Father the virtue by which He breathes forth the Holy Spirit. Hence, in a twofold sense, it can be said in the catholic way that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son: first, that He is not from Him as from a cause which has from itself the virtue of breathing; then, that He is not from Him as from a cause or co-cause distinct from the Father. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not only manifested and given to us by temporal mission from the Son and through the Son, but also has His eternal and substantial ^C emission, or procession, from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son.

But why does Damascene put forth one efficiency of the Son in the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, mentioning one manifestation of the same and the concession of gifts through the Son? Nay, when he calls the Spirit the Spirit belonging to the Son, he sufficiently indicates His eternal origin from the Son regarding His existence. But when he brings into our mention a more explicit manifestation of the same Spirit through the Son, he was looking to that "procatarctic" and primordial virtue which is accustomed to be attributed to the Son in a peculiar way regarding works ad extra. On this matter, Damascene himself deals with it in the same place, chapter 12, in the Lequien edition, under the title *On the Divine Names*. For he says: "Not to say much, there is no other reason, wisdom, power, or will of the Father besides the Son, who is the sole power of the Father, ^D the *procatarctic* (primordial) virtue of the creation of all things." Having initiated this comparison to created things, the Holy Spirit is called in the same place the "consumer" (consummator) of the creation of all things, the *telestic* (perfecting) virtue. The Father, however, is the fountain of all goodness, and the source of the good hidden in Himself. Such designations of the persons, when they are compared to created things themselves, bring forth other things, and Saint Basil, in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, chapter 16, no. 38, brings them forth in a diverse manner: "In the creation of these, however," he says, "consider the *procatarctic*, the primary cause, the Father; the *demiurgic*, the creative, the Son; the *teleiotic*, the perfecting, the Holy Spirit."

Damascene declares his mind clearly in the cited passage: "The Father is the mind, the abyss of reason, the begetter of the Word, and through the Word the producer of the *ekphantoric* (manifesting) Spirit." The Son is a perfect person from a perfect person, as He Himself knows, and is called the Son. And finally, the Holy Spirit is ^A the power and the manifestation of the hidden divinity of the Father, the *ekphantoric* (manifesting) power of the hidden divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son. Thus it also comes about that the Holy Spirit is the consumer of all creation. Observe: 1. In these words which we have transcribed, it is a matter of the mutual respect of the persons *ad intra*. 2. And thus it follows that the substantial and hypostatic production of the Holy Spirit is expressed by those words: "The Father is the producer of the Spirit through the Word," and also by those: "proceeding from the Father through the Son." 3. By those words, "of the *ekphantoric* Spirit," or "of the *ekphantoric* virtue or power," the manifestation made to us and the concession of gifts is not signified, but certainly the existence of the Holy Spirit, who, just as He proceeds from the Father through the Son, so does He manifest, express, declare, and represent the hidden divinity of the Father, which He receives from Him through the Son. 4. Finally, from this substantial manifestation *ad intra*, another follows, made in the temporal mission: whence from the fact that the Holy Spirit is power proceeding from the Father through the Son, the announcer of His hidden divinity, Damascene concludes that He is *ad extra* the consumer of all creation.

Other words which are subjoined reveal this mind of his: "The Father is the fountain and author of both the Son and the Holy Spirit: yet the Father of the Son alone, and the producer of the Holy Spirit. But the Son is the Son of the Father, and from the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as He who proceeds from the Father... Indeed, He is also called the Spirit of the Son, not as if from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father." For the Father alone is the *aitios*, the cause and author. The Father alone, indeed, is that cause from which all being flows, as much the uncreated as the created. According to this notion, the Holy Spirit does not proceed as if from the Son, since He Himself has from the Father that He should breathe forth the Holy Spirit, but He proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the Father Himself communicates to the Son the virtue which He (the Father) has, and the Son, through this communication, is not a cause of the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father, but one cause with the Father.

This notable passage of Damascene was rejected as spurious by Georgius Moschampar, the chartophylax.

^A In the conversation about which we spoke in chapter 7, no. III, the great logothete Muzalo, by the authority of Andronicus Camaterus, who had inserted the entirety of it into his *Hoplotheca*, proved that it was sincere and genuine. But why should it be rejected as having been attributed to the holy Damascene as to a parent, when he has the same and equal doctrine in other works that are undoubtedly genuine? In the *Dialogue against the Manichaeans*, no. 5, it is thus: “The Father always has His Word begotten from Him [καὶ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον], and through His Word He had His Spirit proceeding from Him.” Be a fool who denies that in these words the eternal, substantial, and hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is expressed. In his *Epistle to Jordan the Archimandrite on the Trisagion Hymn*, no. 28, he says: “Proceeding indeed from the Father through the Son and Word, yet not in the manner of filiation.” Such a work would not be an exception if this procession through the Son were to be referred to the temporal mission and the distribution of gifts.

^B The manifestation of the same through the Word has its place in His origin: the origin of the Holy Spirit is attributed to the Father, who is the hidden fountain of the whole Godhead. The manifestation of Him, and the same natural [manifestation] like a splendor, is attributed to the Son, because the divine nature is communicated to the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.

Damascene proceeds to hand down his theology in the same place: “The Son is referred to the Father, and is from the Father, because He is from the Father: and the Holy Spirit is referred to the Father, and is from the Father, because He is from Him, not in the manner of filiation, but of procession. And likewise the Holy Spirit is the Son’s, but is not from the Son. Yet He is to the Son, because He emanates through Him, and from Him: and He is not from the Son, because the Father is the one cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.” These final words declare the meaning of the whole sentiment. The Father is the one cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, for this reason: that in the Father, as in a fountain which is not from another, the spirative power of the Holy Spirit is found. This is, indeed, one and the same in the Son also: but communicated from the Father. Hence the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father, as from a fountain: in which way He does not have it from the Son. But since the spirative power resides in the Son, having been communicated from the Father: therefore the Holy Spirit is said to emanate through the Son, and from the Son, [but] He is not said to be [from the Son]; although that emanation is toward existence. In which sense also it can not ineptly be said that a splendor or a river is not from a ray or a brook, but is a splendor from the sun and a river from the fountain: and nevertheless that the splendor emanates through the ray, and even from the ray; and the river emanates through the brook, and even from the brook; with the power of the sun and of the fountain communicated to the ray and the brook. ^C Damascene brings forward these examples in the same place, the greatest difference of which from the emanation of the Holy Spirit is taken from the active principle, which is one, communicated from the Father to the Son: it is different in the sun and the ray, and in the fountain and the brook. Therefore, the Church Fathers have explained this matter, which is most remote from human understanding, in different words, yet with one sentiment.

A more difficult passage of the same Damascene seems to be that which is held in his *Homily on Holy Saturday*, no. 4: “The Holy Spirit is of God and the Father, as proceeding from Him: who is also said to be of the Son, as one who is manifested through Him, and is imparted to created things, [ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔχον τὴν ὕπαρξιν], not however having existence from Him.” We have already weighed a similar sentiment of his, taken from the eighth chapter of the first book of *De fide orthodoxa*. And first, indeed, Damascene refers the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit to the Son in a certain peculiar way, so that he may declare the power to impart gifts belonging to the Son in that same mission. Then he denies that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Son: but those many places must be understood, by which he most openly teaches that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. Indeed, he denies that the Spirit has existence from the Son, because the Son is not a cause distinct from the Father; and because the Son has from the Father that He should breathe the Holy Spirit. The final reason is added from the error inherited from Apollinarius and the Arians, who especially dumped the production of the Holy Spirit onto the Son: and they used to say that He was lesser than the Son, being procreated from the Son, just as they said the Son was lesser than the Father, being born from Him. ^D Fearing this impiety, the doctors of the middle ages, especially the Greeks, denied that the Spirit exists from the Son in such a way that they nevertheless most constantly taught that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. That this is the genuine meaning is proven by the same Damascene’s *Exposition of the Faith*, which Michael Lequien exhibits in his own edition, translated from the Arabic. These things are held, no. 2: “The Father is without beginning; and the Son is from the Father through filiation: and the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, not through filiation, but through procession.” The most apt example is that which is added: “The Word is begotten by the intellect: but the Spirit also arises from the intellect, who is manifested through the Word, which emanates from its hidden fountain, explaining its own natural splendor. From the Father arises the Spirit: but this has a place in His origin, the manifestation of the same through the Word. The origin of the Holy Spirit is attributed to the Father, who is the hidden fountain of the whole Godhead. The manifestation of the same, and the same natural [manifestation] like a splendor, is attributed to the Son, because the divine nature is communicated to the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.”

VI. Saint Thomas brings forward the first testimony of Damascene, which we have until now illustrated to the best of our ability, among the objections of the Greeks in his *Commentary on the Sentences*, in his *Quaestiones disputatae*, and in the first part of the *Summa Theologica*. In the former place, namely in I, dist. XI, q. 1, a. 1, he uses this solution to the third: “It must be said that Damascene is not believed in this part: because he is said to have been at that time in which the controversy over this question began between the Greeks and the Latins. Yet he does not deny that He is from the Son, but he says that he does not concede that He is from the Son, because among them it was still a matter of doubt.” Before the end of the seventh century Damascene is said to have been born, and he lived his life beyond the year of Christ 754: at which time the procession of the Holy Spirit...

^A from the Father and the Son, asserted by the Latins, was being impugned and attacked by the Iconoclasts.

Another solution of Thomas, *Quaest. 10, De potentia*, art. 4, ad 24: "It must be said that it was the position of the Nestorians that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son. Hence in a certain Creed of the Nestorians condemned in the first Synod of Ephesus it is said thus: 'We do not consider the Holy Spirit to be of the Son, nor to have received essence through the Son.' For this reason Cyril, against Nestorius in the aforementioned Epistle (the *Synodica ad Nestorium*, mentioned by Thomas at 15), posited that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. But Theodoret, in a certain Epistle to John of Antioch, says thus: 'The Holy Spirit is not from the Son, nor does He have subsistence through the Son: but He is proceeding from the Father, the Spirit of the Son, because He is declared to be consubstantial with Him.' These words, however, the aforementioned Theodoret ascribes to Cyril, as if they were said by him in the epistle which he wrote to John of Antioch; although in that epistle this is not read, but it is stated thus: 'The Spirit of God the Father proceeds from Him: but He is also from the Son, not being alien according to the principle of one essence.' But Damascene subsequently followed this opinion of Theodoret, although the dogmas of the same Theodoret were condemned at the Fifth Synod. Hence, in this, one must not stand by the opinion of Damascene."

Finally, *Part I, Quaest. 36, art. 2, ad 3*: "It must be said that the claim that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son was first introduced by the Nestorians, as is evident in a certain Nestorian Creed condemned at the Ephesine Synod. And the Nestorian Theodoret followed this error, and many after him, among whom was Damascene: hence in this, one must not stand by his opinion. Although it is said by some: that just as Damascene does not confess that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son, so also he does not deny it by the force of those words."

Aquinas seems less fair to Damascene. Observe that in the time Aquinas lived, when most of the writings of the holy Fathers were still hidden, it was not possible for him to see or to examine more diligently ^D the testimonies of Damascene by which the Holy Spirit is said to emanate through the Son and from the Son; and that the Father is his producer through the Son, and that He [the Spirit] always has Himself with Him, proceeding from Him through the Son. Such clear sentiments are nowhere to be found in the mentioned *Opera* of Thomas: and therefore in his *Opusculum contra errores Graecorum*, in the chapter where the Fathers who said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son are listed, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, and Gregory Nyssen are cited, with Damascene omitted. It is no wonder, therefore, that the doctrine of the same Damascene, which in certain other places seems to be rendered less accurately, was suspect to Aquinas. Yet, because of the keenness of intellect in which he excelled, he saw and noted ^A that by the force of the words which Damascene used, the procession of the Holy Spirit even from the Son was not denied.

VII.

And yet the words of the decree indicate the errors concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, not others. Also at that time flourished the commentaries of Eunomius and Apollinarius: whose specific line of reasoning in the Trinity was that they declared the Son to be lesser than the Father, as being born of Him, and the Holy Spirit to be lesser than the Son, as being begotten of Him or through Him, just as that one [Eunomius/Apollinarius] would argue—and he would take the Spirit away from the Father, and attribute Him solely to the Only-Begotten, and then reject Him, along with the Son, among the creatures, as witnessed by Basil in *Contra Eunomium*, book II, no. 34. Hence, the Ephesine Fathers are silent regarding that proposition which denies that the Holy Spirit has subsistence through the Son: for they knew well that it could have been inserted into the Creed for the purpose of rejecting Eunomius and Apollinarius.

The Constantinopolitan Fathers, who had condemned the impious error in the year 381, preferred to define the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father: and thus to teach that He is true God, just as the Nicene Fathers had taught that the Son is true God and consubstantial with the Father, as being born and begotten of the Father. Not only as proceeding from the Father, so as to show the Holy Spirit to be true God, but also from the Son and through the Son, either by express declaration or by ^B equipollent words, did the Fathers of the Church, given the occasion, teach in a Catholic sense far different from the Eunomian and Apollinarist one: and this

definition, that He is not, as the execrable heretics wish, created from God through the Son, but because He is of the same substance as the Father and the Son, proceeding indeed from the Father according to evangelical doctrine, but His grace is supplied to those who are worthy through the Son. We acknowledge that in this passage Theodoret, who was discoursing with great accuracy, wrote according to the conditions of the time—when the question of the procession of the Spirit was not being debated—and that his mind was clearly directed primarily to denying that the Holy Spirit was made by the Son, or had His existence through the Son, in accordance with the execrable heresy of Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius, who maintained that the Holy Spirit was a creature of a creature, that is, created by the Son himself, as Augustine says in his book *On Heresies*, regarding the Arians.

Finally, other words of Theodoret are brought forward in his *Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians*, chapter 3, verse 12: ^B "He changes the name of God into the name of the Father to exclude the procession from the Son: but He himself, who proceeds from the Father, has taught us the hidden mysteries." These words are not found in the edition of Garnier, where we read thus: "He shows that the Holy Spirit is not a part of created things, but has His substance from God... But He himself, who proceeds from the Father, etc." It is not yet established, therefore, that Theodoret openly denied the procession of the Spirit from both.

Lastly, Aquinas refutes him, as if he had attributed certain words to Cyril as if written by him, when he had written other words that were far different. In his *Epistle to John of Antioch*, Theodoret says that he had read the Egyptian letters sent by Cyril, and that in them it was found written that the Holy Spirit does not have His existence from the Son, or through the Son; but that He proceeds from the Father, and is called the Spirit of the Son because He is consubstantial. These words are not equal to those in the same Cyril’s *Epistle to John* sent through Paul, bishop of Emesa, in which we read: "For the Fathers themselves did not speak," he says, "but the Spirit of God and the Father Himself. Who does indeed proceed from Him, and yet on that account is not, ^C according to the nature of His essence, alien to the Son." Cyril confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; he did not explicitly express His procession from the Son, but he does nevertheless profess that He is not alien to the Son. Theodoret reported these things as if Cyril, in order to finally initiate peace, ^D denied the procession of the Spirit from the Son or through the Son, which you must understand to be according to the delirium he had attributed to him—the one devised by Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius. It is most likely that this, and no other, was the only controversy agitated between them. Notwithstanding this, however, and notwithstanding the heretical sense which the words "through the Son" were able to object to the mind, and the reproof made to Cyril by Theodoret, the Greek Fathers for the most part continued to confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, just as the Latins also taught that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son. The Greeks used the word "per" (through), so that the unity of the spirating power, which is in the Father, should not be left in uncertainty, as Hilarius professed in his 8th book *De Trinitate*, number 20. In the ninth anathema among others, which Cyril of Alexandria had sent to John of Antioch from the Alexandrian Council in the year 430, he taught that the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son. Theodoret attacks these words in his *Reprehension of the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril*, or in his *Epistle to John, Bishop of Antioch*: "But if," he says, "one should say that the Spirit is proper to the Son, inasmuch as He is of the same nature as He, and proceeding from the Father, we shall confess this simultaneously and accept the utterance as pious. But if He should have His existence as if from the Son, or through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious." That Theodoret erred, Saint Thomas notes, and learned men whom we have praised agree. Others think that Theodoret, because of the heat with which he labored to attack Cyril, imposed a Eunomian and Apollinarist sense upon Cyril’s sayings. Nor did he only attack the words of the anathema, but even the explanation of that same anathema, pronounced in the Ephesian Synod: "Although the only-begotten Word of God," he says, "became man, He remained God, having all things in common with the Father except for fatherhood alone: and having the Holy Spirit, who is from Him, and who is essentially in Him, as His own." Cyril taught these things in that *Explanation* against the objections of the Orientals, to which Theodoret, being overly angry, was attaching a heretical sense. We learn that things are so from Theodoret himself in his *Epistle to the Monasteries*, saying: "(He is) blaspheming also against the Holy Spirit, while saying that He does not proceed from the Father himself according to the voice of the Lord: but that He is from the Son. This is truly the fruit of the seed of Apollinarius, but it approaches the malignant culture of Macedonius (and Eunomius)." Theodoret was therefore imposing a Eunomian and Apollinarist sense upon Cyril; and he was refuting him on this title, as if he had taught that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and not also from the Father. The brought-forth words rebut this iniquitous censure, in which the same Spirit is said to have everything in common with the Father except for fatherhood alone: and there are numberless testimonies in the same Cyril’s works concerning the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.

Learned men seem to gather for themselves that Theodoret did not stand within these limits, but that he completely denied the procession of the Spirit from the Son, or through the Son, from the same testimony in the *Epistle to the Monasteries*, which in some codices is found written thus: "He blasphemes even against the Holy Spirit, while he does not assert that He proceeds from the Father alone." But that phrase lacks the exclusion "alone," (as is found in) the same epistle published by Garnier in his *Auctarium* to the book of Theodoret’s *Epistles*, and the fragment of the same epistle in the 5th Oecumenical Synod, 5th collation.

Contrary to the faith of Theodoret himself, words are also usually opposed which are found in the *Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans*, chapter 8, number 11: "He taught us in these words one nature of divinity; (He) called Him both the Spirit and (the Spirit) of God, and of Christ." Not as it is created from God through the Son, as the execrable heretics wish: but because He is of the same substance as the Father and the Son: He proceeds indeed from the Father according to evangelical doctrine, but His grace is provided to those who are worthy through the Son. In which place we admit that Theodoret is commenting with great care, (though) adjusted to the condition of the time, in which the procession of the Spirit was not being debated; and it is plainly evident that he directed his mind especially to this, that he might deny that the Holy Spirit was made by the Son, or had existence through the Son, according to the execrable heresy of Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius, who wished that the Holy Spirit be a creature of a creature, that is, created by the Son himself, as Augustine says, in his book *De Haeresibus*, regarding the Arians.

Finally, other words of Theodoret are brought forward in the *Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians*, chapter 3, ^B verse 12: "The name of God is changed into the name of the Father to exclude the procession from the Son: but He himself, who proceeds from the Father, has taught us the hidden mysteries." These words are not held in the edition of Garnier, where we read thus: "He shows that the Holy Spirit is not a part of created things: but has His substance from God... But He himself, who proceeds from the Father, etc." Therefore, it is not yet established that Theodoret openly denied the procession of the Spirit from both.

This, lastly, Aquinas refutes, as if he had affixed certain words to Cyril, as if written by him, when he has written others that are far different. In his *Epistle to John of Antioch* Theodoret says that he had read the Egyptian letters, given by Cyril: and that in them it is found to be said that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son, or through the Son; but that He proceeds from the Father, and is called proper to the Son, because He is consubstantial. The words which are read in the same Cyril’s epistle sent through Paul, bishop of Emesa, are not on a par: "For the Fathers themselves did not speak (he says), but the Spirit of God Himself, and of the Father. Who proceeds, indeed, from Him: but is not on that account, according to the reason of His essence, alien to the Son." Cyril confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father: he did not explicitly express His procession from the Son: but yet he does profess that He is not alien to the Son. Theodoret related these things as if Cyril, so that he might finally initiate peace, [CD] denied the procession of the Spirit from the Son or through the Son: which you must understand according to the delirium that he had affixed to him, devised by Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius. It is most likely that this was the only controversy agitated between them, and no other. Nevertheless, with that heretical sense, which the words "through the Son" were able to object to the mind, not standing in the way, and without the reproof made to Cyril by Theodoret, the Greek Fathers for the most part continued to confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son: just as the Latins also taught that He proceeds from the Father, and from the Son. The Greeks used the word "through," so that the unity of the spirating power, which is in the Father, ^D and which from the Father flows into the Son...

might be most clearly known to be from Him alone; if the Son did not receive it from Him, so that from Him the Holy Spirit also proceeded.

In the use of the preposition, the Latins stood firm, holding it for certain: that just as the Father and the Son are one God, and in relation to the creature are one Creator and one Lord, (as Augustine says, *De Trinitate*, book V, chap. 14,) so in relation to the Holy Spirit they are one principle: but in relation to the creature, the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are one principle, just as they are one Creator and one Lord.

VIII. It will not have been a waste of effort to present in a final place, as a summarized collection, the complete Catholic doctrine, which we have explained thus far in separated parts. It will be to our advantage if we adapt this summary to the objects against which Photius, in the latter part of the ninth century, boasted with excessive confidence that he would win a victory. Indeed, since John Beccus dealt with this most clearly in his oration on the union of the Churches, from § 36, it will be better to transcribe his words and refutations. ^B He (1) objects in epistle 2, in the edition of Richard Montagu: "If the Spirit is simple, yet proceeds from the Father and the Son, they will be considered altogether one person, and thus a Sabellian, or rather a Semi-Sabellian, contraction will be introduced." "We know in the common opinion of our Church," (Beccus replies), "that the Spirit is said to proceed, to flow, to come forth from the Father and the Son: and that His simplicity is preserved, and no contraction of the Father and the Son is hinted at from this. This is an open demonstration that what seems absurd to you does not follow, if Romans teach that He proceeds from the Father and the Son." The Father and the Son, though two persons, possess one power of spiration: whence they are one most simple principle of the Holy Spirit. In which way also the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one principle of every effect toward the outside, because of the unity of power and faculty.

(2) "If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son: He will be entirely twofold, and composite." "What do you say here, my man? ... Even if 115 He exists from the Father and the Son naturally, and essentially, and in hypostasis, He nevertheless does not lose His own simplicity." For He is essentially simple: and furthermore, His simple hypostasis proceeds from two persons, who are nothing other than one principle. ^C "...where will that much-vaunted 'one principate' be? ...where you are caught, asserting two principles in the blessed Trinity? Not showing this, you are openly revealed reasoning and concluding from hatred, not from truth." What, indeed, is more inconsiderate, when the Latin Fathers openly profess that the Son is from the Father, and has all things from Him: and receives this very thing from the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him just as from the Father. If the Son did not proceed from the Father; if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from Him, but from the Son—then for the Latins, the Father would not be the first principle, the first cause, or the Monarch; to Him [the Son and Spirit] the Father would be both a contiguous producer and a remote one, because of the production of the latter from the Son. "Are there not also other things that your Church openly confesses? For if you invent contiguous and remote productions because the Latin says the Spirit is produced from the Father and the Son: it will then be convenient for you to imagine contiguous and remote flows, emissions, and supplies, because all these are asserted to be from the Father and the Son." In the procession of the Holy Spirit from both, there is no mediation of power, but of persons.

(5) "If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect: it is therefore superfluous from the Son. What will you answer to those asking, if the supply of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect; it will therefore be superfluous from the Son." But it is indubitable that the supply of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect, and yet not superfluous from the Son, because of the perfection which He has from the Father. Perfect, and most perfect, is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father: but the procession of the same from the Son is so far from being rejected because of that, that it is rather confirmed by it. For according to the Scriptures, and the Greek Fathers, all things of the Father are common to the Son, except the privilege of being unbegotten, and of begetting the Son. But the procession of the Holy Spirit differs both from the unbegotten state and from the generation of the Son. Therefore, it ought to be common to the Son. Would not the creation of the world be perfect, which would proceed from the Father alone? Why, then, is it attributed also to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit? Surely, all things are common to the three divine hypostases except for paternity, and the filiation by which the Son is from the Father, and the procession 116 by which the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and from the Son; who has all things in common with the Father except paternity.

(6) "If the Son indeed produces, but the Spirit is void of production; He would be of a lesser faculty than the Son." But neither does the Spirit send or pour forth either Himself or another Spirit, just as the Son is said to send and pour forth the Spirit. Will He therefore be for that reason of a lesser faculty than the Son? In one word, the whole divine fecundity toward the inside is in a certain way fulfilled in the Holy Spirit. But understand the mission mentioned by Beccus as strictly spoken.

(7) "He has the same production: the Son, and the Father; the property of production was common to them. And how will the common be a property?" "I say further: by what reason does it seem most absurd to you that there is something common to the Father and the Son, considered properly in them alone, which is not common to the Spirit? For there is indeed something common to the Father and the Son, which is not common to the Spirit. And that which is common not to one, but to two persons, is called and is common: but that which is considered properly in them, and of which the Spirit is not a participant, is called their property, so that by it they are dis-

- ^A tinguished. For since the Word is common to the Son and to the Spirit, and since it is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit that they are not without origin, it is easy to find the difference, which is in their properties. Direct your attention to this testimony of the Father, a theologian, and consider how he called it the property of two persons only, because they are from a cause, and how he represented it as being common to those same two persons, indeed not without origin. (8) If the Holy Spirit and the Son are from one cause, the Son, however, in turn produces the Spirit, and the Spirit will also produce the Son. For the Father brought them both forth equal in dignity. But it is manifest that the Son and the Spirit are not produced from the Father equal in dignity only, but that they are poured forth, that they proceed, and that they shine forth equal in dignity. And the Church confesses that the Spirit is poured forth from the Son, who is poured forth from the Father with equal dignity, and that He shines forth from the Son, who shines forth from the Father with equal dignity to Him; ^B yet it does not admit that the Son is poured forth, proceeds, and shines forth from the Spirit, because both are from the Father with equal dignity. What else is more hostile than Photius? For this reason the Son cannot be from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is from the Son: just as the Father cannot be from the Son, because the Son is from the Father. But if, on the contrary, the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, what would prevent the Son from being begotten by the Holy Spirit? For all things of the Father are common to the Holy Spirit, except that very power by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

(9) If the production of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, then the Holy Spirit will certainly be a participant in that, too. For all things that are common to the Father and the Son are also referred back to the Holy Spirit. Hence He will be at once cause and effect. This proposition: "All things that are common to the Father and the Son will also be common with the Holy Spirit," belongs to none of those Fathers who have handed down the theological matters of our Church... Those who more attentively unravel the divine Scriptures acknowledge certain things inherent in the Father and the Son, and common also to the Spirit: goods, at least, which naturally subsist in them, such as justice, goodness, wisdom, and the like. They acknowledge also other things that are naturally in the Father and the Son, and are not in the Spirit: not that the Spirit is not of the same nature as the Father and the Son, but because the natural properties of the Father as Father, and the Son as Son, are not common to the Spirit... Therefore, that the Spirit is held at once and together by the Father and from the Son is a natural good of the Father and the Son, but as their natural property. It does not follow, therefore, that because the Son communicates with the Father, in that the Spirit is from both, the Spirit will communicate with them in such a way that He Himself is from Himself. Again, that God is King and Creator, which Photius alleges, are things common to the three persons, because they are relative and not absolute. But to be breathed, and to breathe, are relative, not absolute.

(10) The Spirit proceeds from the Son. From whence did you receive this statement? From what Gospels do you have this word? From what synod is this blasphemous word? These things Photius said, struck by madness. He pretended to attack only the Latins: but with the same arguments he assailed all the Greeks as well, whose testimonies we have brought forward. They indeed affirm that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son, is sent by the Son, goes forth from the Son, and is given by the Son. They say that these are not the same thing as proceeding from the Son. But the whole of this is to proceed from the Son, as Thomassinus says, *On the Most Holy Trinity*, chapter 31, number 9. For just as the Son receives by being born from the Father, so the Spirit receives, is sent, goes forth, and is given by proceeding from the Father and the Son. For He does not receive subsequently, but immediately in being born or in proceeding, whatever He receives, and He has whatever He has, the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the fount of their origin. In vain, therefore, is Photius when he asks from what Gospels we have that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For we have it from those from whom we have ^C what was said by Christ Himself concerning the Holy Spirit: *He will receive of mine*. For He does not receive except by proceeding; just as the Son does not receive from the Father except by being born. Whence also the Father alone receives nothing from anyone, because He is from no one: He is sent by no one, because He is born of no one, and He proceeds from no one. Joannes Beccus, in the oration cited at number 57, brings forth the testimony of Epiphanius, who interprets those words of the Gospel, *He will receive of mine*, in the same way in the *Ancoratus*: "If, however, Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, (ἐκ τοῦ Χριστοῦ), or from both, (ἢ παρ' ἀμφοτέρων), as Christ says, who proceeds from the Father, and this one will receive of mine (καὶ οὗτος ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λήψεται), or will receive from the Son." Finally, that other words of the Scriptures and the Fathers—that the Spirit is sent by the Son, is given, is poured forth, is supplied—are to be restricted to created gifts, and not extended to the very person of the Holy Spirit, is absurd and insane. See chapter 6, number IV (12).

(11) Finally, Photius proceeds in this manner: What, I ask, will be added to the Spirit by that procession from the Son; since the paternal procession is sufficient for the essence? What if we ask Photius (these are the words of Thomassinus); what is added to a creature by creation through the Son and the Holy Spirit, when creation through the Father would have been sufficient? Will he say that all things are common to the divine hypostases except the relations by which they are distinguished one from the other? We shall answer for our part, that all things from the Scriptures and the holy Fathers are common to the Father and the Son except paternity and filiation, by which the Father is distinguished from the Son: because no one can be Father to himself, no one can be Son to himself. Thence it is ^D clearly gathered that the power of producing the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son; since this has nothing to do with paternity and filiation. Thus he. Truly, the same things, which are the chief arguments of Photius

^A have we refuted, and they are also read in his epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia, published in Latin by Baronius, at the year 883, no. 5, and in Latin and Greek by Combefis in the latest *Auctarium*.

CHAPTER IX.

1. Gregorius Cyprius, Patriarch, when he refused to amend his Tome, because it was discovered that he had openly erred; and because his obstinacy brought a stain upon the Church, he underwent the indignation of many. Nay, more, for these reasons (I use the words of Pachymeres, book 11, on Andronicus, chapter 5), the emperor's zeal, which had previously burned for him, was growing cold. Induced also by his persuasion, the Patriarch of Alexandria was the author of the plan for Gregorius to voluntarily abdicate the patriarchal dignity. He took the advice given with difficulty: but broken in spirit, and distrusting his own affairs (as the historian proceeds to relate, chapter 6), one Lord's Day, having finished his homily to the people, he complained that many had risen up against him: and he indicated that he wished to yield. He had heard that the Arsenians were boasting that they would embrace peace if Gregorius were removed from the midst: whence he judged it to his advantage to withdraw for a time, with the sole intention of exploring what they were going to do. And he declared openly that, if they did not stand by what they had promised him, and ceased to disturb the Church, he would return, and indeed as one angry and an avenger. ^B

II. In this place he remained fully occupied (Pachymeres, witness chapter 7) in writing out refutations of the accusations that were being brought against the Tome he had published. We have reviewed these works of his in chapter 8, no. 4. Among these things, the emperor was troubled by the scruple of whether the sacred rites, which might be celebrated with the public commemoration of Patriarch Gregorius, would contribute to his sanctification. Hence his name was passed over in silence in the *Synaxaria*. This Pachymeres has in chapter 6, and he proceeds to relate in the following chapter that Gregorius had requested of the bishops and the Augustus a testimonial, armed with all the weight of authority, to fully protect his faith, by which they would bear witness that they had clearly discovered that Patriarch Gregorius had never wavered in orthodox dogma: and that, upon receiving it, he in turn would give a duly written resignation of the throne.

III. The Pachymerian History is in perfect harmony with an epistle of the same Cyprius given to a friend, which now for the first time comes to light from our transcript of the Leiden-Batavian codex, in Greek and in Latin. ^C

An Epistle of Georgius Cyprius to a Friend.

^A MOVING their tongues, and so that their false and vain words might not be confirmed by my withdrawal (since I seemed to many as if convicted and reproved by my own conscience in yielding the throne), I restrained myself from the aforementioned resolve, and again took up the office as if anew. Yet not contentiously, nor as if taken with repentance, so that I might not cast away such height and greatness of glory; but as one standing in the name of my own piety, the subject matter of which is preserved in me—by the grace of Christ—so pure and incorrupt as even in the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. Nevertheless, even today, once again for the sake of peace and the salvation of the many, if those who have most unjustly spoken against my orthodoxy would feel remorse for these false accusations, and would be willing to write these things to your piety and confess them, nothing further is required (for the speech is true, and there is no falsehood in it), nothing further is required for me to ascend at once to the greatest temple of God, and to commend the people gathered for the assembly to the Lord, and to call for another to be summoned to the throne and to be installed, who, with the help of God, may make them peaceable toward the Church and concordant with one another. Thus, therefore, we have the intent to act again, if the men who have falsely accused us are willing to fulfill our request, which is both most just and at the same time most easy. Otherwise, it is impossible to permit others to preside over the Church. For I shall strive by all means, and I shall stand in the way and prevent, if anyone desires to leap upon the throne against my will... ^B

Month of May, second indiction, year 6799, patriarch Lord Gregory.

Those Greek words, "to the monastery of the Hodegetria," when that anonymous interpreter, whose Latin translation was sent to Venice with the Greek text from Leiden, rendered it, as we read in our transcript, as "the dwelling of the leaders of the way [ducum viæ]," he seems to have been ignorant of the most celebrated Constantinopolitan monastery of the Mother of God, the Hodegorum: so named because the Greek emperors, about to undertake an expedition against enemies, were accustomed first to entreat the Mother of God that she might be the companion, or rather the leader, of their way. Consult Ducange in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, lib. IV, sect. 2, num. 24. Hence that sacred house was also called the Mother of God Hodegetria.

The year 6799 is the year of Christ 1291. Those letters in the manuscript present a mutilated word, which seems to have been written, or this is: of the second indiction. But this second indiction does not agree with the Constantinopolitan year 6799, which divided by 15 results in the fourth indiction, by which the common year of Christ 1291 was also designated. Therefore, correct the year expressed in the code to 6797, 6797, of Christ 1289, with which the second indiction agrees. Now conclude that Gregory still held the patriarchal see at the end of May of the same year.

IV. It was debated whether a testimony regarding his orthodoxy should be written, as the patriarch requested. Pachymeres, in chapter 7, reports the canonical judgment concerning the case and faith of Gregory, at first permitted by the Emperor and the free votes of the synod, then suspended and denied. Therefore, his request was called into deliberation. ^D The bishops of Ephesus and Cyzicus could not sustain (the historian's words are in chapter 8) declaring him orthodox: because they said that this was nothing less than confirming on the patriarchal throne one whom all wanted to be cast down from it. For who would not see that, once the stain of perverse doctrine—which alone was alleged as the reason for his deposition—was cleansed away, he would persist by the best right in the power he had long since received? The other party favored him: "For what harm would there be," they said, "in consoling Gregory by giving him the testimony he requested; since it was sufficiently clear that the scandal of the many had arisen not so much from his Tome, as from the writing of the monk Mark." This had been the opinion of the Bishop of Philadelphia, Theo-

^Aleptus, who preferred to weave the entire offense out of the monk Mark’s book alone, rather than to proceed against Gregory himself as guilty of a new heresy and to acknowledge it in the Tome handed down. See chapter 8, number 4.

The opinion and faction of Theoleptus prevailed. A letter was soon sent to Gregory in which the Diploma he had demanded was promised, provided that he furnish firm security for abdicating the patriarchate. In the Vienna codex, it is inscribed: 'Proclamation of his piety by those who promised him.' In our copy of the Leiden codex we read: *to Moschamper*, i.e., of Moschamper. The letter, indeed, is that which Georgios Moschamper, the exchartophylax, transmitted to the patriarch. Lambecius and Oudin published it in Greek to supplement Pachymeres’ *History*; we add the Latin version here.

The Epistle of Moschamper

Blessed be our God, because we have never held an evil opinion regarding our master the patriarch, Lord Gregory, as if he were a blasphemer, just as some of the uninitiated have imagined. We recognize him as most orthodox and most pious. We only entreat that he yield the patriarchal throne for the sake of the peace of all men. And since he seeks from us for his piety that a written proclamation be made, and he immediately assents to yield the throne, we also seek that some security first be given by him. And if this comes to pass, we all shall immediately, in the name of Christ, be ready, in writing and unwritten, publicly and privately, to proclaim him, as he was at all times, most pious and most orthodox, but also to rebuke those who speak against him foolishly and ignorantly.

Gregory was therefore summoned by those sent by the emperor for this very purpose of giving a promise of abdication (the words are Pachymeres, chapter 8). Being not at all prompt to compose this in writing, he confirmed with every asseveration of words before God: that they would not publish a document in which they would assert his honor as incorrupt in the dogma of the faith, before he himself had in turn duly given a written document of the abdication of the patriarchate. ^C The assembly convened at the Great Palace, in the presence of the emperor, in the presence of the entire senate, and with the clergy and monks also present. Gregory himself was there. Then, indeed, Theoleptus declared in the name of all: That the patriarch whom they saw before them was clearly blameless regarding the faith and was orthodox; but whatever public offense had existed concerning him, and the secession that had followed from this, all of it was to be imputed to the *Commentary* of Mark, which had been the sole origin and primary cause of the storms aroused on that occasion. Since the patriarch had now openly rejected that *Commentary*, no reason remained to doubt his upright faith and unoffended doctrine; wherefore they all held and professed him to be right-thinking and indeed orthodox. Thus, in truth, did he mock those whom Theoleptus wished to be mocked.

V. Gregory gave thanks to the Augustus and to the entire assembly. He departed and wrote the document of abdication, which is preserved in our Leiden codex. Pachymeres offers it in Greek, chapter 9, the Latin version of which, adorned by Possinus, is this: "I did not ascend to the patriarchal throne, and into this lofty dignity of the principal priesthood, by my own strivings, nor by the canvassing of my friends: but I ascended as God alone knows. But after this had been done, and ^D six years have now passed and gone, I have remained in this sacred ministry; I have referred all my deeds and spoken words to the end of bringing back those who had suffered scandal and who were severed from the Church, to peace, and of uniting them. But this effort of mine was taken in a contrary sense to what I had intended: so that some cried out that that desired peace would never succeed unless I left the patriarchate and departed from the midst. I did not endure to linger in the place, seeing the Church thus committed to hostile factions, but judging it more desirable, I preferred to see those who were previously offended and at odds, united with the Church, rather than to persist in possession and enjoy the honor of so illustrious a principate. Therefore, for the sake of attaining their peace in God, and the cessation of scandals for the souls of those who were suffering harm, I make a cession of the throne and of the patriarchal principate, though not of the priesthood. For this, God having mercy on me, I shall keep for myself for as much of my life as remains. Since it is for the sake of the peace of the many, and for their reconciliation with the Church, that I make such a cession: I am not conscious of having done anything that would bar me from the priesthood. Wherefore, for the rest, it is allowed, with God’s good pleasure, to elect another patriarch, who may be elevated to this patriarchal throne and to the principate of the priesthood: who with God’s help, as regularly...

ordained patriarch, might be able to gather into one and hold together the divided parts of the Church. Would that this might come to pass, implored by the mercies of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, by the prayers of our most pure Lady the Virgin and Mother of God, and of all the saints. The document was written by the patriarch’s own hand, but it was not confirmed by his signature. This is the first thing that Pachymeres criticizes in that same place. Furthermore, since the Cypriot alleges nothing else for why he thought he should yield his place, except the hope of reconciling the dissenting parties in this way (the historian mentions other points of criticism), he astutely reserved for himself the right to the see, intact, in case (as he expected would altogether come to pass) the factional struggles did not quiet down after his departure. For why, he who had explicitly declared that he was not renouncing the priesthood—of which he had deserved to be deprived for no fault—would he not contend that a return to the see was legitimately open to him? But the emperor, and especially Theoleptus who was stirring up everything at that time, accepted the letter of abdication, such as it was, as most sufficient.

^C These words are to be noted: *ἔτος ἕκτον ἤδη καὶ πρός*, "the sixth year, and what is running over." We noted in chapter 7, number 1, that Gregory Cyprius had ascended the patriarchal throne in the year 1283, in the month of March, and was initiated by sacred ordination in the same year, on the eleventh day of April, Palm Sunday. Therefore, the sixth year of his tenure reached its completion in the month of March or April of the year 1289. With the sixth year still running on, Gregory was holding his see; and the letter of his which we described under number 3 makes it most certain for us that in the month of May of that same year, 1289, he had held discussions about his abdication. Therefore, Gregory could have delivered the letter of abdication either at the end of that same month of May, or at the beginning or passing of June. Petrus Possinus, in his chronological book in the *Observations*, chapter 2, number 5, having established his calculations, says: "His abdication ought to be assigned to the year of Christ 1289, after the middle of April." Indeed, the letter described under number 5 proves that he held the patriarchal see throughout the entire month of April and part of May. Let us grant, then (Possinus continues), that the abdication of the Cypriot and his withdrawal to the monastery of Aristine happened in the month of May or June of the year of the birth of Christ just mentioned, 1289. I say that it could have happened; yet that another later month cannot be certainly rejected, what must be said immediately will sufficiently show.

VI. With the letter of abdication given, the Cypriot retired to the small monastery of Aristine, contiguous to the monastery of Saint Andrew in Crisi, following in the choice of such a place the proximity of the protovestiaria Raoulena, who was dwelling in that monastery of Saint Andrew: by whom Gregory was kindly cherished, she generously supplying from her own what he needed. Pachymeres narrates these things in chapter 10. Regarding both this monastery of Saint Andrew and the nearby ^A small monastery of Aristine, Ducange writes in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, book IV, sect. 5, no. 5, and section 7, no. 8. There exist in our codex several letters sent to the protovestiaria Raoulena by Gregory Cyprius.

Having finished with these cares, the emperor announced an assembly once and again, and many times, in which the efforts of many were applied, with fruitless result, to the correction of the *Tomos* edited by Gregory. Recall what was said in the previous chapter, number 4. The factions were split into the Arsenian party and were in an uproar: their concord was sought through the gathering of frequent synods: "They insisted that a declaration be made that Joseph had been neither a true nor legitimate patriarch. They demanded, furthermore, that the dogma of the Church be condemned in which it is affirmed that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." They sought many other things, showing an inextricable perplexity and the greatest difficulty. They were dismissed and rejected. The election of a new patriarch was being discussed. Three were elected by common suffrage, one of whom was to be preferred to the others. Athanasius, a monk on Mount Ganos, who was then staying in Constantinople, pleased the Augustus. He consented and accepted the vocation. Various things were spread among the common people, which were said on the one hand to his disparagement, and on the other to his praise. All these things were seriously weighed. He was finally promoted ^D 127 by Andronicus to be patriarch; he betook himself to the divine temple on the fourteenth day of October: and a little later he was ordained. Pachymeres narrates all these things in chapters 11, 12, 13, and 14 and 15. In these altercations and disquisitions, Possinus in the cited place notes that two or three months must have elapsed. May it be permitted to make a remark on the learned man: whereby, however, it is entirely concluded that the abdication of Gregory Cyprius ought not to be so tied to the month of May or June that it cannot be referred to the end of June itself, or the beginning of July. It is not, however, permitted to define the month of the abdication.

It was not granted to the Cypriot to live longer: for, exhausted by a languor of many days—I use the words of Pachymeres in chapter 17—and as some said, consumed by a sickness of the soul, because he perceived himself to be despised today who had once been so honored, he ceased to live a little later. He himself testifies to the weak and grave condition of his body in his *Life*. See note 32.

CHAPTER X

^A It is a more frequent error that the Holy Spirit is considered to be given through the temporal bestowal of gifts: and that this is from the Son, and through the Son, just as it is from the Father, and from the Holy Spirit himself. Some Acts in the Council of Florence, and the Decree of union.

1. We bring our dissertation, which is partly historical and partly dogmatic, to an end, having collected at the same time the opinions of the Greeks concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, and having represented them as if in a single view. The demand of the Arsenians, which Pachymeres reports among other things in book II, frequently cited in Andronicus chapter 12, occurs as most worthy of remark: *To abolish also that dogma of the Church*, 128 *that he proceeds from the Father through the Son*; the dogma of the Church is abolished, by which the Holy Spirit is affirmed to proceed from the Father through the Son. So much, indeed, were the adverse Greeks vexed by the equivalence of the words "from" and "through" that, lest they be compelled to confess "from the Son," not a few of them most audaciously denied even "through the Son."

This fiction, conceived by the Arsenians, was not new, but had long since been fashioned by those who were in error. Nicephorus Blemmida teaches this matter in an oration offered to Theodore Ducas Lascaris, who assumed the empire of the Greeks in the year 1255 at Nicaea in Bithynia. It is extant in Allatius, *De Graecia orthodoxa*, volume I. He has these things, number 2: "It is not long ago that some, suffering from ridiculous or rather most miserable feelings, while they wished to remove it entirely from the Son, together with that, they took away 'through the Son' [as well]: ^C and they perverted the documents of so many Fathers, if any handle for deception was afforded (referring the same to the temporal bestowal of charisms); but if none appeared, then they rejected those which did not agree with many others (or seemed to them not to agree)."

They rejected, therefore, those documents of the Fathers in which the words *dià Yioû*, "through the Son," could in no way be severed from the eternal, substantial, and hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. This fiction, in the time of the patriarchs Beccus and Cyprius and the Emperor Andronicus, the Arsenians revived, demanding that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son be abolished: which, indeed, the clear testimonies of the Greek Church Fathers confirm—John Damascene, Saint Maximus the martyr, Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, the author of the refutation of the hypocrisy of Meletius, and Eusebius of Samosata. Having passed over very many others, led by the occasion provided by the History of Pachymeres, we have praised these Fathers in the previous chapters and have expounded and vindicated their opinions.

II. Referring to the demand of the Arsenians, Pachymeres says that they demanded that the dogma of the Church be abolished. Therefore, he held as the dogma of the Church that the procession of the Holy Spirit was understood in such a way that he proceeds from the Father through the Son. But the schismatic man, being what he was, understood that dogma of the Church only in some erroneous sense. John Beccus reveals this, in book IV, to Constantine, no. 3: "The adversaries say that the procession of the Holy Spirit can be spoken of both 'from the Son' and 'through the Son'; but in that meaning of *dià Yioû* [through the Son], as if he passes through the Son. For they are the formers of this diction, too, not that the Son is united with the Father in the cause of the Spirit... But separating the Son from the Father, 129 so that the Father and the Son are not reputed to be two causes of the Spirit—which no discourse of piety has ever admitted—most maliciously and very impiously, they form this 'passing through' into which the unfortunate are precipitated into Arianism: (as if) the Son, through this, is thought to pass through in the procession of the Spirit, as a minister of the Father, or a servile instrument (without true efficiency)."

How the adverse Greeks fell into this impiety, Beccus explains more diligently in his *Testament*. Passing over the interpretation of Possinus, I use that which is more pressing and literal, which Raynaldus reports was adorned by Allatius for the year 1284, and Allatius himself published in book II of *De perpetua consensione Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis*, chapter 15, no. 8, and in volume I of *Graecia Orthodoxa*: "For they, who are straitened by the examination of the Scriptures, are compelled to affirm that the procession 'through the Son' is the opinion of the Fathers: nor, walking correctly in the homonymy of the procession, constrained by the Scriptures, do they declare (or state) the hypostatic property of the Father as the procession (though it is not such, however). Therefore, while claiming with too much shamelessness that the Spirit has *tèn hýpaxin*, an existence, from the Father alone, they are refuted by the strength of every necessary demonstration against the procession itself (which they otherwise confess to be 'through the Son'): since it is the same thing to say that the existence, which, as they themselves say, the Holy Spirit has from the Father alone, ^D *organikôs dièkon dià Yioû*, passes through the Son instrumentally. (And they are also refuted because) they constitute the Holy Spirit as the proper [Spirit] of the Son in words only, but in reality, he is alien to him: since there is no reason that could persuade that what is not from him is proper to the Son (for the effect is not attributed to the instrument, but to the cause). These two absurd and impious sayings, therefore, (are): the instrumental ministry of the Son to the Father in the procession of the Spirit, *organikè hypèresia Yioû tòi Patòi*, and the alienation of the Spirit from the Son. For these are Arian fictions."

I have no doubt that Gregory Cyprius, who tried to evade the text of Damascene in any manner possible, fell into this error. For these words of his: "The Father is the producer of the enunciatory or manifesting Spirit through the word," he expounded in the *Tomus*: "that the Fathers taught that the Spirit exists naturally through the Son, and from the Son; not, however, that he has his existence through the Son, and from the Son." He denied that the Holy Spirit

had any active force in the Son for the existence of the Holy Spirit: but he said that it was from the Son, and through the Son, because the Son was said to provide a certain instrumental ministry in His procession, as if the spirative power of the Father passed through Him. This is that dogma of the Church—or rather, that iniquitous invention—which, it seems to me, Pachymeres, along with other Greeks, perhaps held regarding the eternal and substantial procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son; whence he offers himself as an adversary to the Arsenians, who had demanded that the procession of Him from the Father through the Son be abolished. Cyprius Gregorius did not stand in this heresy, and it has already been said, and remains to be said below, how he devised another way to interpret the testimony of the Damascene, and to cast a veil over his own meaning.

Even though there may be homonymy in the word "proceeding" and similar terms, and they are not always taken in the same sense; yet, wherever they are spoken of concerning the Spirit, when that same Spirit is referred to the Son, they mean nothing other than when He is compared to the Father. For we have cited the testimonies of many of the ancient Fathers, and many more could be provided, in which it is stated that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and proceeds through Him; or that He proceeds from both, Father and Son; or that He is substantially from both, that is, poured forth from the Father through the Son. Consult Petavius, *De Trinitate*, book VII, chapter 18, number 5.

III. Referring to the substantial procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, it pleased some to understand these things as if they denoted the same thing, and simultaneously, or at one and the same time with the Son. Cyprius Gregorius himself opposed these erring ones in his *Apologia*, which we reviewed in chapter 8, number 4. Joannes Beccus, in his fourth book to Constantine, number 4, refutes this fabricated interpretation: "For if the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son is the same as His proceeding from the Father at the same time with the Son; by what reason does the Son have a part in His procession? ... What curious investigation of grammatical art (will have established) the transumption of these prepositions? No example of this matter can ever be found among the profane; but neither among us, who cultivate a more divine philosophy, is there anyone who teaches that the preposition 'through' should be accepted in place of 'with,' just as (on the contrary) you will find the mutual acceptance of one for the other—'from' and 'through'—among Basil, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, men who were indeed great. If that be granted (nevertheless, one must grant the Catholic dogma to the adversaries). For the expression, 'Producer through the Word,' of which the divine Damascene is the author, confirms the Father with the Son as the cause in this way; and thus it will have confirmed the union of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit. Hence, indeed (the aforementioned 131 union of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Holy Spirit not being admitted), an absurdity would follow for all the greatest: namely, that the Son also proceeds. For if the Holy Spirit proceeds with the Son, it cannot be that the Son also is not proceeding, and is not said to be so: just as if someone were to say that the Son is generated with the Spirit, he would be confirming that the Spirit Himself is generated, and is understood and called such." Petavius declares the force of the two prepositions, *dia* (through) and *ek* (from), most extensively in the cited book VII, chapter 17, from number 2.

The objection of Gabriel Severus of Philadelphia can be reduced to this place, which must not be passed over. "If the preposition 'through' (he says) had the same force and meaning in the divine persons which 'from' has, it would be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Father, and from the Son; but this has never appeared, nor been heard, neither from Divine Scripture nor from the holy Fathers. Therefore, the preposition 'through,' in the divine persons, does not have the same meaning and power which the preposition 'from' has; but there is a great difference between them." These things are taken from Joseph Bryennius in his 10th oration *On the Trinity*. Leo Allatius most lucidly refutes this objection in his *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae*, chapter 64.

I bring forward these few things. And first, that the preposition "through" has a place in the Father and the Son, and signifies the active force or efficiency of both, Cyril of Alexandria teaches most eloquently—having omitted others of the ancient Fathers for the sake of brevity—in his first book on the Gospel of John, chapter 5; concerning those words, "All things were made through him" (*di' autou*), he says thus: "But if they think that that *di' hou*, 'through whom,' said of the Son, makes His substance fall short of equality and natural likeness with the Father; so that He is a minister rather than a Creator: let the insane return to themselves, and come forth into the midst to answer us, what we are to think about the Father Himself, and whom we are to suspect Him to be; since it is evident that those words, 'through whom,' are accommodated by Divine Scripture to the Father Himself also. For 'God is faithful' (he says, 1 Cor. 1), *di' hou*, 'through whom' you were called into the fellowship of His Son. And (at Eph. 1) 'through the will of His will' (*di' thelematos Theou*). And (at Gal. 4) 'So you are no longer a slave, but a son: but if a son, also an heir *di' Theou*,' through God." Indeed, all these things are referred to the person of God and the Father; nor should anyone have come to such a degree of madness that he would want the name and reality of a ministry to be said of the majesty of God and the Father Himself; from the fact that even that *di' hou*, 'through whom,' is said of Him Himself: "You see the particle 'through' (these are the words of Allatius), attributed to God the Father, and not only to the Son: nor does the Father fall short of His natural dignity because of this." Severus will say 132 that these things are spoken of operations *ad extra*. What then? Therefore, does the Father then lose being the first and unoriginated cause of things, so that it cannot be affirmed of Him, "from God," and "from the Father"? Not at all. For even then, the preposition "from" is no less suitable to Him. It is only concluded that in the divine persons, both prepositions, "from" and "through," have the same meaning and the same force.

^A Moreover, does Cyril not teach us regarding this very eternal and substantial procession, that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally through the Father and through the Son, when he writes in his *On the True Faith*, Vol. V, part 2, page 172: "Vivification itself (he says), or resuscitation, is not to be referred to the nature of the body itself, even though that was proper to the Word begotten of God, but rather to that supreme power, that is, to that nature which exceeds every creature, just as in the person of God the Father, from whom the Son proceeds, being in all things equal to Him and consubstantial; and the vivifying Spirit also proceeds from both." It is clearly manifest that the preposition "through," when applied to the Father, has the same meaning as the preposition "from," and likewise, in Cyril’s passage, it has a meaning appropriate to the Son.

Why, therefore, did the Fathers not say that the Spirit is from the Son through the Father? Obviously, lest the Father be understood as intermediate between the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as the Son is intermediate between the Father and the Holy Spirit; whence it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through Him. Recall the distinguished doctrine of Gregory of Nyssa in his epistle ^B to Ablavius, chapter 5, number (5), illustrated: namely, that in God there is one thing that is the cause, and another that is from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, there is one thing that is without medium from the First, and another that is through that which is without medium from the First. Add the often-cited documents of Saint Thomas, who teaches: "Having regard to the active principle, or the power of spirating, the Holy Spirit is immediately from the Father and from the Son, or through both; but having regard to the two persons, Father and Son, in whom there exists one spirating power, the place of mediation is held, by which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed, not from the Son and Father, nor through the Father from the Son; but from the Father through the Son, or from the Father and from the Son."

IV. Gregory Cyprius did not stop in that error, by which he referred the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son to a certain instrumental ministry of the Son himself. Moreover, he interpreted, or rather corrupted, the testimonies of the holy Fathers, especially of John of Damascus, regarding the procession of the same Holy Spirit through the Son, not to existence, but to eternal radiance. We gave his words from the volume in chapter 8, number 2. "If, indeed," he says, "it is found in the highest theologian, Damascene, that the Father is called 'producer through the Word' [διὰ Λόγου προ- βουλεύς], that wording does not plainly wish to signify the *existence* [εἰς τὸ εἶναι] of the Holy Spirit, but His *eternal radiance* [εἰς ἀΐδιον ἔκφανσιν]." He devised this eternal radiance, distinct ^C from the Divinity; and even though it was common to the three divine persons, he called it by the name of Holy Spirit: "Since it is nothing new," he says, "nor foreign to the use of the Scriptures, that a spiritual gift be equivoqually called 'Holy Spirit,' and that action sometimes claims for itself the name of the agent, just as the splendor or light of the sun often claims for itself the name of the sun."

That wicked fabrication was nothing else but the pre-formed heresy of Gregory Palamas, as we noted in the cited chapter 8, numbers 2 and 3. On this account, John Beccus accused Cyprius of a new heresy. Pachymeres himself, in his own name and that of other schismatics, said that he by no means grasped what Cyprius intended; and he sought that the distinction between procession and eternal radiance be shown to him. For it was known and established that the emanations of the divine persons were more frequently called by the Fathers "radiances" and "effulgences," as being those by which the divine nature is propagated from the Father in the Son, and from the Father and Son into the Holy Spirit. ^D

V. Indeed, too hard-pressed and agitated by the disputations of John Beccus, Gregory Cyprius was forging new heresies, bearing a mind most stubbornly alien to the confession of the Catholic dogma. But before these contests, he adhered to the common error of the Greeks, referring the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, or through the Son, to the temporal mission, which he understood as the pure and simple bestowal or gift of graces. In that *Antirrhetic* sermon against Beccus, which we noted at chapter 6, number 2, as having been written by Cyprius before he attained the dignity of the patriarchate, he is entirely occupied with establishing the procession of the Spirit from the Son, or through the Son, in His temporal manifestation, revelation, presentation, and mission; and he argues that the name of the Holy Spirit should be understood as for the gift poured out, for the grace given, for the operation ad extra, which are common to the most holy Trinity.

The lightness of this interpretation, its falsity and absurdity, were known even to Gregory Cyprius himself, who, constrained by Beccus's disputations, withdrew from it; and he was compelled to introduce new heresies, either of an instrumental ministry which the Son performs in the eternal procession, or of a certain eternal radiance, distinct from the Divinity, 134 which is produced from the Son, as from the Father and the Holy Spirit. We have called the first authors of this interpretation Monothelites, who said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and shines through the Son, namely to men. Similar words occur in the genuine short *Exposition of Faith* of Gregory Neocaesariensis: "One Holy Spirit, having existence from God: and having appeared through the Son [καὶ διὰ Υἱοῦ πεφηνώς], namely to men [δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις], being He who appeared through the Son, namely to men." Lequien holds this as a certain place in his *Damascene Dissertation* 1, number 48, with those words added, namely, "to men." Rufinus, in his Latin translation of Eusebius, book VII, chapter 25, relates that whole Exposition without the addition: "and who appeared through the Son." It is the same as "proceeds through the Son," just as the image of the Son [εἰκὼν τοῦ Υἱοῦ], as the Thaumaturge says in that same place, in which shines forth

^A the ignorance of the author, or an interpolating hand, is sufficiently evident. Whatever the writer of that oration may have been, those words, "from the Father alone," can certainly indicate the cause which the Greeks call *procatarctic* [procatarctikēn]; and they do not exclude the Son as a cause, who is one and the same with the Father. But those words at the end too, "who appeared through the Son," undoubtedly signify the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Son, or through the Son; since in divine matters, "to appear," "to shine forth," and "to sparkle" are just as if we were to say the Son is generated from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I add the notable observation of Aquinas: by which the silence of Holy Scripture, finally objected by the Greeks, is weighed. For thus he says (I p., q. 36, art. 2, ad 1): "We ought not to say of God that which is not found in Holy Scripture, either by words or by sense. Although it is not found in Holy Scripture by words, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; it is found, however, as to the sense, and especially where the Son says in John xvi, speaking of the Holy Spirit: 'He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine.' It must also be held as a rule in Holy Scripture that what is said of the Father ought to be understood of the Son, even if an exclusive expression is added; except only in those things in which the Father and the Son are distinguished according to opposite relations. For when the Lord says in Matthew: '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 ^B he proceeds from the Father alone: the Son is not excluded ^C thereby. Because as regards this, which is to be the principle of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son are not opposed: but only as regards this, that this one is Father, and that one is Son." We have already given more extensive details above.

VI. Various errors, which the Greeks of the Middle Ages devised concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, or through the Son, have also drawn the Greeks of later times and recent ones into their camp. There is a notable passage, among the Acts of the Greek-Latin Council of Florence, session 22. Marcus of Ephesus was reading the text of Basil from his homily on baptism, or on the Holy Spirit, in this way: "For we do not receive anything from the Spirit, ὥσπερ παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα, as the Spirit from the Son." John of Montenegro, prefect of the province of Lombardy of the Order of Preachers, contended that the word Πνεῦμα [Spirit] should be taken in the nominative case, and that the text itself should be so translated into Latin: "as the Spirit from the Son." I omit treating more accurately of the genuine Latin version; since the most recent editor, Julian Garnier, has relegated that homily among the works falsely ascribed to Basil.

In order to reject the sense in which the Ephesian understood the text with a stronger arm, the same John asked: Whether he asserted that the Holy Spirit himself is communicated to men, or only his gifts? Marcus replied: That gifts are granted, which are not subsistent by themselves, ^D as are the Son and the Spirit. John insisted: Does this Spirit, who is given from the Son, create...

a creature; or are even His gifts and operations created, or is the Spirit Himself the Creator The Ephesian fell silent. Then indeed the emperor, fearing lest the conversation should be enriched, as it were, into another dogma (namely, into the question περὶ κτιστοῦ, καὶ ἀκτίστου, ^A concerning the created and the uncreated), ordered this disputation to be omitted. Michael Lequien's observation in his *Panoplia against the Schism of the Greeks* in the 13th century, ch. 3, no. 12 and ch. 4, no. 20, is most true: that into this same error, some recent Greeks—namely Cyprius, Gregorius, and later Gregorius Palamas—also strayed. They taught an absurdity concerning an eternal radiance outside of God, or a certain sempiternal Light distinct from the divine essence; and, calling this by the name of the Holy Spirit, they argued that it—and not the very Person of the Holy Spirit—proceeds from the Son, or through the Son, thereby evading the eternal procession of the same Spirit, which the Fathers taught, with a most absurd fiction. In another error, the Greeks stood and frequently persist, in that they likewise characterize the temporal gifts of the Holy Spirit by the name of that same divine Spirit, and they believe that this temporal bestowal of gifts is to be understood, figuratively and improperly, as the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, or through the Son, which has been perpetually handed down by the Fathers. Silence ^C was therefore imposed by the Greek emperor. For he feared lest by new dissensions the union should be deferred or hindered: or lest, by the speakers supporting Marcus of Ephesus, it should openly appear that the Ephesian and many of his own had returned to the absurd fictions of both Gregories, Cyprius and Palamas.

Finally, the Synod of Florence issued a definition in the twenty-fifth session, whereby concord was established between both Churches, the Western and the Eastern. The Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is declared in these words: "The Latins and Greeks meeting in this holy ecumenical synod have used great diligence with one another, so that, among other things, that article also on the divine procession of the Holy Spirit might be discussed with the greatest care and assiduous inquiry. With the testimonies from the divine Scriptures and many authorities of the holy doctors, Eastern and Western, having been brought forward—some saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, some indeed that He proceeds from the Father through the Son—and ^D all looking to the same understanding under diverse terms: the Greeks indeed asserted that the fact that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is not brought forward with this intent, that they exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they therefore refrained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins, however, affirmed that they do not say this with the intent that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son so as to exclude the Father, who is the fountain and principle of the whole deity, namely of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or that the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is not held by the Son from the Father: or that they posit two principles or two spirations; but that they assert there is only one principle and one unique spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have hitherto maintained. And when from all these one and the same sense of truth is elicited, finally they agreed and concurred unanimously, in the same sense and with the same mind, upon the union for the hereafter-written holy and God-pleasing faith. In the name, therefore, of the holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this holy universal synod, we define that this truth of faith is to be believed and received by all Christians, and thus let all confess: that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son eternally; and He has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son; and He proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and by a single spiration. Declaring that that which the holy doctors and Fathers say—that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son—tends to this understanding: that by this it may be signified that the Son is also, according to the Greeks a cause, but according to the Latins the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just as is the Father. And since all things that are the Father’s, the Father Himself gave to His only-begotten Son in begetting Him, except that He is the Father: this very thing, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has eternally from the Father, from whom He is also eternally begotten."

The manifold errors by which the Greeks were troubled were suppressed in silence: for the true dogma of faith concerning the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, contrary to all errors, the ecumenical synod has defined.

SECOND DISSERTATION: HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC

On the addition of the word "Filioque" to the Creed: and on the vain pretext of schism taken from it by the Greeks.

^A139 CHAPTER I. The judgment of John Beccus, Patriarch of Constantinople, regarding the addition of the word "Filioque," is weighed against Georgius Pachymeres. Such additions are defended by the example of the Creed which is called the Apostles', and which was in use in the Churches of the West and the East. And likewise the Constantinopolitan Creed, which is the Nicene augmented by additions, accepted by some Churches through usage, and not by others.

1. The ecumenical Synod of Florence, in the decree of union, having established the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, subjects it to this definition: "We define, furthermore, that the explanation of those words, 'and the Son' (Filioque), for the sake of declaring the truth, and under the necessity that then existed, has been lawfully and reasonably added." The Florentine Fathers teach that by that word, "Filioque," no addition was properly brought into the Constantinopolitan Creed; and that in the same, which we call an addition, there is contained a most apt and most true exposition of the article by which we profess to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Greeks, beginning at the end of the eighth century, started to accuse the Latins of being guilty because of that addition, under the influence of the sect of the Iconoclasts: and from this, the later schismatics took a pretext for schism which is utterly vain.

John Beccus, whom we saw in the previous dissertation as a strenuous defender of the Catholic dogma, is exhibited by Georgius Pachymeres, once and again, as a censurer of the aforementioned addition. For thus he says in *Michael Palaeologus*, book V, chapter 16: "Among these things, Beccus, having read the books, observed many things which would show the agreement of the Churches to be much more easily reached than he had thought: for since it was established from that fact, that the sum of the sin of the Latins consisted at last in the addition of one word to the Creed." This is Possinus' version. The Greek text has: ^B "that the Italians, perhaps, dared nothing more than to add it to the Creed." He recognized that they were accused of the crime of audacity. More serious are those things which the same Pachymeres has in *Andronicus*, book I, chapter 9: "He (Beccus) was striving to persuade that he only wished to purge the crime: that it was not proper to the Latins, concerning which he admitted that they themselves had lapsed by the addition to the Creed, sinning most gravely against discipline; but nevertheless not straying from the faith." In the Greek text we read: ^C *But not in the daring to add the word to the Creed.* That such was the way Beccus spoke in the *Disputations*, which were held in his time with the Greeks who opposed him, Possinus cannot bring himself to believe in his Notes: and he thinks that perhaps some concession, as is wont to happen, was admitted in the heat of dispute for the sake of the dogma, and that it is reported by the schismatic historian as being more amplified than was just.

Beccus opens his genuine mind in his own works. In oration 2, on his unjust deposition, in Allatius' *Graecia orthodoxa*, volume II, he reports those words from the epistle of Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, to Michael Cerularius—which Cotelerius published in its entirety in print: "If the Latins are corrected regarding the addition to the Creed, I would have demanded nothing further." But Beccus says in the same place, no. 4: "I certainly think that he (Peter of Antioch), regarding what seemed ^D a crime in the addition, would have overlooked it with little effort, if he had foreseen that the spirit of peace was contained, even in a small degree, in him to whom he was writing the letter (Michael Cerularius)." Peter, showing too much indulgence to the angry Cerularius, proposed the addition to the Creed to be corrected, which he himself would have easily disregarded, as Beccus testifies.

In his own *Apology*, he mentions the ancient controversy which arose around the middle of the fourth century concerning one or three hypostases in God, and concludes that it was composed for the sole reason that the dissension was about words, not about the truth of the mystery. Beccus uses this example, and says, no. 4: "For my part, I think that there is no need for more words to demonstrate that we have undertaken the defense of the Roman Church not wrongly, but safely, neglecting the discrepancy in the terms, and seizing upon the concord which exists in the meaning, for the sake of peace." But he who said these things could in no way have known the greatest crime in the addition, "Filioque," which Pachymeres narrates as being censured by the same Beccus. More lucid are the things he discusses a little below: "We also, when we defend the Roman Church, just as much defend that we might bring those who from the beginning to these present times recite in the Creed of the faith that the Son proceeds from the Father, to recite that he proceeds from the Father and the Son . . . yielding the whole matter of peace not to the phrasing, but to the meaning."

141 Hence, without a doubt, it happened that in the ecumenical synod of Lyons, held in the year 1274, Germanus, the legate of emperor Michael Palaeologus, and formerly patriarch of Constantinople, deemed that his own conscience was bound by the constraint of no crime.

as well as those other Greek bishops who were with him, repeatedly reciting the Creed in a loud voice, openly and in public, during the solemnities of the Mass with those words, "who proceeds from the Father and the Son." It is worthwhile to weave the history of this addition, to demonstrate its immunity from every blemish, and to refute the pretext for schism vainly taken from it, while most diligently observing the chronological series of events. I place Beccus's sentiment first: "For the rest, meanwhile, I know (as he says in his second oration, On his Unjust Deposition, no. 6) that some take offense at the addition in the Creed; not because it stains the purity of piety, but because, however it was done, it has brought about a grave and dangerous offense. And if anyone examines the matter more deeply and curiously, he will find that this ^B addition was never the cause and origin of the offense, but among other causes of offense from time to time and from changing circumstances, arising at different times and in various courses and disturbances of events, he will find this addition to be, as it were, the miscarriage of a conflict, rashly thrown out." I proceed to the matter itself.

II. There occurs the common Creed of the apostles, which the Catholic Church in the West and in the East used before the Nicene Synod. The Roman Church, for many centuries, preserved that intact as it proceeded from the beginning, and as it was augmented by no word explaining the true faith. It is: "I believe in God the Father almighty. And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord. Who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. ^C Crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father. Thence he is to come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh." We shall provide, below with the annotations, a comparison of this with the Creed of the Church of Aquileia and the common Eastern Creed.

Other churches in Italy used a similar formula. Peter Chrysologus brings forward the Ravenna version in the sermons he gave on the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God the Father almighty. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. Who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified, and buried. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father. Thence he is to come to judge the living ^D and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, and the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting." You see the last two phrases added. Maximus, bishop of Turin, displays the formula of his church in his *Homily on the Teaching of the Creed*; namely: "I believe in God the Father almighty. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. Who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. Under Pontius Pilate he was crucified, and buried. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father. Thence he is to come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh."

The Aquileian additions are three, and they are manifest. Receive Rufinus's observations. He says first: "It is added, 'invisible and impassible.' For it must be known that among us (and the Orientals) those words were added because of the heresy of Sabellius: indeed, that which is called Patripassian by our side; that is, which says that the Father himself was born of the Virgin, and was made visible, or affirms that he suffered in the flesh. In order, therefore, that such impiety regarding the Father might be excluded, our ancestors seem to have added these, and to have said that the Father is invisible and impassible." Another observation of that most learned man: "In the Creed of the Roman Church, the addition 'he descended into hell' is not held, but neither is that expression held in the churches of the East; yet the force of the word seems to be in it, because it is said that he was buried." Finally, he notes: "The faith of the Creed is taught by the Church of Aquileia with a sufficiently cautious and provident addition; which, in that which is handed down by others as 'the resurrection of the flesh,' hands it down with one pronoun added: 'the resurrection of *this* flesh.'" Regarding these three additions, we have written at greater length in our *Monuments of the Church of Aquileia*, chapter VII, no. 4.

In the same *Exposition of the Creed* adorned by Rufinus, which appears among the works of Saint Cyprian, edited by Etienne Baluze and one of the monks of the Congregation of Saint Maur, certain words are set forth in a different way: namely, "I believe in God the Father almighty [143] and in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord and in the Holy Spirit." To the words "in God the Father almighty," a note is appended: "Three manuscript codices with (the editions of) Rembolt, Erasmus, and Morellius are thus; and thus in the following articles, and in Jesus Christ, etc." Pamelius put the accusative in these places, both because he found it so in the Froben edition and in two other ancient editions, and because the three [Creeds] in Jerome have it so, and Jerome himself is so everywhere in his *Dialogue against the Luciferians*, with one place excepted, and so also is Augustine everywhere. But Pamelius's reasons prove indeed that it is customary to say "I believe in God" in most Creeds: but they by no means prove that it existed so also in the Creed of the Church of Aquileia. Indeed, the more common the accusative was in the Creeds, the less it proves...

that scribes, whether out of negligence or by design, placed the ablative in this Creed. But it is not at all surprising if, when they found the ablative, offended by the novelty, they inserted the accusative. Wherefore, those codices in which one reads *Credo in Deo*, etc., and *in Christo*, etc., and *in Spiritu sancto*, seem to me to preserve more accurately the custom of the Church of Aquileia than those which usurp the accusative. However, this method of pronouncing the Creed does not seem to have been adopted by this Church without a purpose: but so that the distinction of the three divine persons might be clearer from the following articles, "the holy Church," etc. I fear that the method of pronouncing the Creed which the most diligent annotator introduces never actually flourished in the Church of Aquileia. Rufinus, in the same place, ^B n. 36, derives a clearer distinction of the three divine persons from other articles from another source: "the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of this flesh." He did not say: *In the holy Church*, nor *into the remission of sins*, nor *into the resurrection of the flesh*. For if he had added the preposition *in*, it would have had one and the same force as the preceding ones. Now, however, in those words where faith is set in order concerning the divinity, it is said: *in God the Father*, and *in Jesus Christ his Son*, and *in the Holy Spirit*; whereas in the others, where there is no discourse about the divinity, but about creatures and mysteries, the preposition *in* is not added, so that one does not say *in the holy Church*, but that the holy Church is to be believed, not as in God, but as a Church gathered by God: and that the remission of sins is to be believed, not *in* the remission of sins: and the resurrection of the flesh, not *in* the resurrection of the flesh. Therefore by this syllable of the preposition, the Creator is separated from creatures, and divine things are separated from human things. This is the most potent argument of Rufinus, which he himself brings forward alone, even though the divine persons are pronounced using the accusative case.

The complete African Creed, increased by more words, which was in force in his time, Augustine himself presents in sermon 212, and in the three following ones which he delivered on the Tradition of the Creed, and also in the book *De fide et Symbolo*, and in the sermon on the Creed to the catechumens. It is this: "I believe in God the Father almighty. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father. From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, ^C life everlasting." These five added words are enumerated.

^D Meanwhile, regarding the Aquileian additions (which pertains most to our subject), no one charged them with a crime. They moved no litigation against them, which other Churches did not equally embrace; nor did the Roman Church itself, of which Aquileia professed itself the daughter, prescribe that they be rejected. For why should unity be violated, when there was one and the same faith for all, even if some expressed it with a few words and others with more? For these were merely clearer declarations of the common true faith; which in some places appeared necessary, so that they might be inserted into the common Creed, to drive far from the minds of the faithful the heresies arising at the time. We learn from Cyprian and Augustine that in the African Church, by the same intent, the simpler formulas of the Creeds flourished first, and more augmented ones were later put into use. The former, in his epistle to Magnus, 69 in the Oxford edition, and 76 according to Pamelius, has these words: "If anyone opposes that, and says: That Novatian holds the same law that the Catholic Church holds, and baptizes with the same Creed as we do, and acknowledges the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same Holy Spirit... let anyone who thinks this should be opposed know that there is not for us and for the schismatics one law of the Creed, nor the same interrogation. For when they say, 'Do you believe the remission of sins, and eternal life by the holy Church?', they lie in the interrogation, since they do not have the Church." He writes the same in epistle 70 in these words: "For when we say, 'Do you believe in eternal life, and the remission of sins through the holy Church?'..." The Roman Creed lacked the addition of "life everlasting." Hence Rufinus says that the sermon which pronounces the resurrection of the flesh concludes the sum of all perfection with succinct brevity. Indeed, that a clearer exposition of the Resurrection itself than those words, "Life everlasting," is brought forward, Augustine teaches in his sermon, or book I *De Symbolo ad catechumenos*, n. 16: "Lest anyone should think the future resurrection of the flesh is like that of Lazarus; so that we may know it is not so, it was added: *Into life everlasting*." In which passage, note the preposition *in*, affixed in some Churches to the divine persons just as in the other articles.

The ancient form of the Creed of the Spanish Churches, which the forefathers had handed down, is recited by Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and Beatus his priest, in book 1, *Adversus Elipandum archiepiscopum Toletanum*, completed in the year of Christ 785: "Let us rise, therefore, with the apostles themselves, and recite the Creed of our faith, which they handed down to us in a brief compendium... I believe in God the Father almighty. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our God, and our Lord. Who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again alive from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the remission of all sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and life everlasting. Amen." The Church

^A in the West used this innocuously, either as a simpler or more expanded formula of the Apostles' Creed. The custom of the Churches of the East was similar. That the Creed in more frequent use there was the one Rufinus exhibits in the cited passage: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only Son. Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried. The third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh." Receive my observations on Rufinus: 1. Almost all the Churches of the East hand it down thus: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty." And again in the following phrase, "And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord," they hand it down thus: "And in one our Lord Jesus Christ his only Son." Professing, that is, one God and one 146 Lord according to the authority of the Apostle Paul: but we shall repeat this in the following places. 2. It is certainly to be known that in the Roman Church's Creed the addition "He descended into hell" is not present, but neither is that expression present in the Creed of the Eastern Church. We use the Baluze edition. Observe those words: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty," and also those: "and in Jesus Christ his only Son," which are said to be handed down by almost all Churches of the East. Now I conclude that the phrasing of that manner, if it ever prevailed, was ^B wrongly said by the annotator to be peculiar to the Aquileian Church. I conclude, furthermore, that the truer reading is, "in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit," since the Greek Creeds have εἰς Θεὸν, εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.

Rufinus teaches that this was the common form of the Creed, not for all, but for almost all the Churches of the East. It lacks an addition that Marcellus of Ancyra offered to Pope Julius ^D of Rome, found in Epiphanius, heresy 72, number 3: "I believe in God almighty. And in Christ Jesus, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, begotten of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried. And the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. Whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting." Which two final words do not appear in the common Oriental Creed.

As for the peculiar formula of the Alexandrian Church, James Ussher in his Dissertation on the Creeds judged it to be the one which Arius and Euzoius, the presbyter, and that deacon of the same Church, offered to the Emperor Constantine. Socrates, book 1, chapter 26, and Sozomen, book 2, chapter 27, record it: "We believe in one God the Father almighty. And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was made (al. begotten) of him before all ages, God the Word, through whom all things were made, which are in heaven and which are on earth. Who descended and was incarnate. Who suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and is to come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. In the resurrection of the flesh, and the life of the world to come. And in one catholic Church of God, which stretches from the first ends of the earth to the last." I, for one, would not doubt that this formula of faith was drafted by Arius, and that he assumed into it certain additions from the Nicene Creed, which had already been published, though not all of them—those, of course, which more clearly refuted his heresy.

147 It seems that the common Oriental Creed used in the Church of Jerusalem can be gathered from Rufinus, who, having held his seat there for so many years, would certainly have noted discrepancies if there had been any. No one is unaware that the Liturgy of James the brother of the Lord, who administered that Church, has not reached us in its genuine form. But that the liturgical work which goes under the title of James is entirely supposititious and an altogether spurious offspring, the heterodox indeed contend, but they by no means prove it, as Eusebius Renaudotius says, volume I of the Liturgies, in the Dissertation, chapter 4. No prudent man would say that the words of the Creed which are handed down there were interpolated: namely, "I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And the rest of the Creed of faith." It is a pity that these have been lost. But what they were is indicated a little above: "Then are read most fully the holy oracles of the Old Testament, and of the Prophets: and the Incarnation of the Son of God is demonstrated, the Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, the Ascension into heaven, and furthermore his second coming with glory." In these, no one fails to see the common Oriental Creed.

I offer another Jerusalem formula, which Antonius Augustinus Tuttée, collected from the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem, submitted to the fifth Catechesis: "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God: who was begotten of the Father, true God before all ages, through whom all things were made. Who came in the flesh, and was made man, of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. Crucified, and buried. He rose the third day. And ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father. And is to come in glory to judge the living and the dead: of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in one holy Spirit the Paraclete, who spoke in the prophets. And in one baptism

^A for repentance, for the remission of sins. And in one holy catholic Church. And in the resurrection of the flesh, and in life everlasting. Casimir Oudin, in his *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, volume I, believes this formula was taken from the Creed which the Fathers of Constantinople adopted in the year 381. Hence he introduces the Catecheses supposed to belong to Cyril of Jerusalem. Or, a comparison of even a part of this Creed with the Nicene and Constantinopolitan [Creeds], of which we shall treat below, shows most clearly that the aforementioned formula can be called ancient, being the one that was in use in the Church of Jerusalem, augmented with certain words taken from the Nicene Creed. Consult the aforementioned most learned editor.

^B 148 With the unity of the Churches intact, it was permitted for each of these and their presiding bishops, according to the circumstances of the times, either for the sake of greater explanation or because of emerging heresies, to augment with certain words the Creed of the apostles, which they had received from the beginning. Finally, it arrived at the formula which flourishes even today. The sermons 240, 241, and 242, which are found in the Appendix to the genuine sermons of Augustine in the edition of the monks of Saint Maur, present it intact: "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting." The praised editors reject these sermons as belonging to Augustine; they conjecture the author to be one who composed the sermons supposed to be by Eusebius of Emesa, or Caesarius of Arles, or Eucherius of Lyon, or Faustus of Riez. They lived in the fifth century of the Church: whence the age of the aforementioned Creed formula becomes known.

The Roman Church retained the untainted, original, shorter form. Rufinus provides a worthier and fuller account of its honor and truth in his *Exposition*: "I think it should be noted," he says, "that in different Churches some things are found to be added in these words (of the Creed); however, in the Church of the city of Rome, this is not found to have happened. ^C Which I believe is for this reason, that neither did any heresy take its origin there; and the ancient custom is kept there, that those who are about to receive the grace of baptism recite the Creed publicly, that is, heard by the people of the faithful; and generally the audience does not admit the addition of even one word by those who had preceded them in the faith." Thus, indeed, in the age of Rufinus, the Roman Church had not departed from its original discipline: which, however, in the following age, eventually embraced the final formula, which we have described, as it had already become common among other Churches. At what time, [it is] unknown.

As for how it admitted such words as 'One,' which was proper to the Oriental Creed, it never added [them]. Vigilius of Thapsus, a bishop in the African province of Byzacena, a writer of the sixth century, deals with this matter in book I *Against Eutyches*: where, chastising the rashness of someone who had dared to carp at those words of Saint Leo to Flavian, "The universality of the faithful professes to believe in 149 God the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord," on the grounds that he did not say, "In one God," and, "In one Jesus Christ," he has this: "But Rome, even before the Nicene synod gathered, from the times of the apostles until now, and under Celestine of blessed memory... the Creed is delivered to the faithful." Whether the Apostles' Creed was recited with fewer or more words, the peace of the Churches always remained whole and inviolate in the West and the East.

III. The Nicene Creed, being constructed with more words to illustrate and protect the right faith more clearly, gave occasion to the heresies that had emerged in the first three centuries of the Church. Gelasius of Cyzicus enumerates these in his volume of the *Acts of the Nicene Council*, book II, chapter 26: "This is the faith," he says, "which our holy orthodox Fathers the bishops set forth at Nicaea, primarily indeed against Arius, who blasphemed and said that the Son of God was a creature; and against Sabellius, and Photinus, and Paul of Samosata, and the Manichaean, and Valentinus, and Marcion, and against every heresy that has arisen in the catholic and apostolic Church." Hear the formula: "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, born of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. Who suffered, and rose again the third day. And ascended into heaven. And shall come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." The remaining articles are understood. The words, *He descended into hell*, are not there: which at that age both the Roman and Oriental Creeds lacked. The Nicene synod was celebrated in the year 325 of the common era.

Many Churches left behind the peculiar formulas they had hitherto used in the collation of baptism, adopting the Nicene. Others received only a few words, with which they augmented their own Creed: indeed, others added many expressions to the Nicene Creed, and others finally remained in their ancient formula; all the while professing the Nicene faith in heart and with their mouth. The Roman Church retained the Apostles' Creed in baptism and

^A augmented it with certain Nicene expressions, as we noted above. I believe that the Antiochene Church was still using a formula of this kind in the middle of the fifth century. Cassianus brings this forward in book VI of *De Incarnatione Domini*, chapter 3, where he refutes the heresy of Nestorius, saying: "Now let us come to the faith and power of the Antiochene Creed: in which, since he (Nestorius) himself was baptized and reborn, he ought to be refuted by his own professions." The text, therefore, and the faith of the Antiochene Creed is this: "I believe in one and only true God, the Father almighty, creator of all visible and invisible creatures. And in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, and firstborn of every creature, born of him before all ages, and not made, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father, through whom the ages were framed and all things were made. Who for us came, and was born of Mary the Virgin. And was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried. And on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge the living and the dead. And the rest." Alard Gazet seeks the authors of this formula in his Notes. We believe it has no other origin than what we have indicated. Similar creeds of formulas flourished in other Churches.

There were some in the Council of Sardica, which chronologists more frequently note was celebrated in the year 347, who maintained that something ought to be added to the Nicene Creed. Saint Athanasius mentions this event and the decree of the synod opposing it in *De Synodis* of the year 362: "Although certain men," he says, "wished to ascribe to the Nicene Council some things as if they were lacking (though they were orthodox), and contended sharply for this; yet the holy synod which gathered at Sardica took it ill, and decreed: That nothing further should be written concerning the faith, and they declared that they were content with the Nicene faith; because it was lacking in nothing, and was full of piety; and that another profession of faith should not be published, lest that which was written at Nicaea be thought imperfect; or that an opportunity be provided for those who frequently wish to define and write about the faith."

^C Should the Greeks oppose this to us in defense of their cause against the word *Filioque* added to the Creed? Let them know that that Sardican decree was no impediment to a more prolix formula being published in the Eastern Church for use in baptism. Epiphanius sets it forth in the *Ancoratus*, no. 120: "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages: 151 that is, from the substance of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, which are in heaven and on earth; who for us men, ^A and for our salvation descended from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of Mary the Virgin, and was made man. He was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried. And he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have 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. And in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Epiphanius nonetheless calls this, although it is augmented with additions: "A formula of faith handed down by the holy apostles and prescribed in the Church in the holy city by all the holy bishops, who were more than three hundred and ten (that is, the Nicenes)." Why should it not be called apostolic and Nicene, since it brings in only added words by which the articles are declared more clearly? An argument is elicited from here which slays the Greeks and favors the Romans and Westerners.

He brings forward yet another more prolix one in the same place, no. 121, where the incarnation of the divine Word is explained in clearer language. Omitting the rest, which are the same as in the Nicene Creed, I bring this forward: "And was made man: that is, he assumed a perfect man, soul, body, mind, and whatever else a man is, except sin: not from a virile seed, nor so that he existed only in a man, but he transferred that flesh into himself, and united it into one holy singularity: not in the manner in which he inspired the prophets, and spoke in them, and brought about something, but he willed to be a perfect man: for the Word was made flesh; nor did he experience any change, or convert his divinity into the nature of man, but he joined the divinity into one holy perfection. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, not two: the same God, the same Lord, and the same King. He who suffered in the flesh, and rose again: and ascended into heaven with the same body: and sat down gloriously at the right hand of the Father: and with the same body he shall come with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who spoke 152 in the law, and preached through the prophets: descended at the Jordan, spoke in the apostles, and dwells in the saints. Thus, therefore, do we believe in him: that the Spirit is holy, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Paraclete, uncreated, proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son." These last words are to be noted, which are equivalent to the particle *Filioque*. The Greek text has: *'Εκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβανόμενον*. (Al. *λαμβάνεται*).

Also worthy of note are the words which Epiphanius had previously placed there: "But since in our age other heresies have emerged one after another, that is

during the times of the emperors Valentinian and Valens, of whom the tenth year is now current, and the sixth of Gratian, and since the tyrant Diocletian the ninetieth: for this reason, both you and we ourselves, and all orthodox bishops, and to say it in one word the entire Catholic Church, against those who repeatedly emerge with heresies, and in accordance with the formula of faith of the holy Fathers set forth a little earlier, especially for those who are to be initiated by baptism, we say that they should profess and say in this manner: We believe, etc." ^A Collect two points: the aforesaid formulas of faith were in use in some churches of the East before the year 373, in which the tenth year of Valentinian and Valens, and the sixth of Gratian began; and that the Fathers of the Greek tongue judged it lawful for themselves to increase the Nicene formula of the Creed with more explanatory words on account of emerging heresies. Why would the same power, according to the circumstances of the times, and because of emerging heresies, not be suitable for the Churches of the West?

The heresy of the Anomoeans had indeed emerged, with Aetius and Eunomius as its authors, who, as Theodoret testifies in book IV of *Heretical Fables*, used to say: that the Son is indeed the first creature of the Father, and preeminent; but that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son before other works. The very words of Eunomius are found in Saint Basil, book II, against the same heretic, no. 33: "The Son is a creature of the Unbegotten: but the Paraclete is of the Only-begotten." Saint Augustine calls this the heresy of the Arians, no. 49, who do not wish the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be of one and the same nature and substance, or essence: but argue that the Son is a creature, and the Holy Spirit is a creature of a creature, that is, created by the Son himself. Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, denied that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, though he confessed Him to be like Him in all things: but he persisted in blaspheming the Holy Spirit (these are the words of Theodoret in the cited place), just as Arius and Eunomius did. Whence those who were of his sect were named Pneumatomachi.

Pope Damasus condemns the heresy in the Roman synod celebrated in the year 379 ^B: "We anathematize Arius, and Eunomius, who with equal impiety, though in different language, assert that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures. We anathematize the Macedonians, who, coming from the stock of Arius, did not change their wickedness, but their name... If anyone shall not have said that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly of the Father, even as the Son is of the divine substance, let him be anathema... If anyone shall have said that the Holy Spirit is a creature, or made through the Son, let him be anathema." The Eastern Fathers likewise condemned the heresy in the year 381, assembled in the Constantinopolitan synod. In Canon 1 they hold as follows: "The faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who gathered at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be violated: but it is to remain firm and stable. And every heresy must be anathematized, and especially that of the Eunomians, or Anomoeans, and the Arians, or Eudoxians, and the Macedonians, or Pneu- ^C matomachi, who resist the Holy Spirit." That was sufficient. But that the Catholic faith might more easily be known to all, and might adhere more firmly to the minds of all, those Constantinopolitan Fathers judged it more advisable to propose to the Churches a formula of the Creed more prolix than the Nicene: and they adopted it, which is the Epiphanian one described earlier above; with those words also added, "God from God"; with others omitted, namely, "and those in heaven, and those on earth"; and also those words, "that is, out of the substance of the Father," which are covered in the other word, "consubstantial."

In the following year, 382, the Fathers gathered again in the royal city, and gave a Synodal letter to Pope Damasus and the other bishops of the West. Among other things, they have this: "What therefore pertains to the faith, which we openly preach, is in sum of this kind (which has been stated above). Concerning which you will be able to satisfy your minds more fully if you deign to look at the Tome of the synod of Antioch, and that which was published in the previous year (381) at Constantinople by the universal synod. In which we have explained more fully the confession of faith: and we have written out the sentence of anathema against the newly-invented heresies." By the last words they understand the Canons published: but by the confession of faith, which they say is explained more fully, they indicate the Creed which is popularly called Constantinopolitan: and that Tome contains the Creed of the synod of Antioch, described earlier from Cassian, which the Antiochene Fathers transmitted, placed at their own facility, to the Constantinopolitan synod. But finally it is clearly evident that the Nicene Creed was increased by certain words, with the approval of the Constantinopolitan synod, on account of those heresies of the Eunomians and Macedonians which had emerged, by the power which the Greek Fathers possessed, and which—no wise man will deny—the Churches in the West, and especially the Roman one, neither lacked then nor lack now.

CHAPTER II.

...and the Son, were added to the Creed, namely the Constantinopolitan one, by the Roman Pope Damasus and by the Constantinopolitan synod itself. Leo Allatius, in his work against Hottinger, chapter 20, reports some Greeks who, led by the authority of Alexius Aristenus, the *chartophylax* of the Constantinopolitan Church in the twelfth century, attribute the addition to Pope Damasus. They are entirely mistaken. It is a question of fact. For the ancient monuments of this age are silent on the matter.

^A It contains no mention of the "Filioque," in the Symbol which we call Constantinopolitan, either in the collections of the councils, or as quoted by Epiphanius in the *Ancoratus*: and this is handed down as the one thing which the Eunomians denied, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Pope Damasus proposed this one faith in a Roman synod in the year 379, saying, "Anathema to him who does not say that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly of the Father; and likewise to him who says that the Holy Spirit is a creature, or made through the Son."

The Symbol of Damasus is published among the works of Saint Jerome. We read there: "The Holy Spirit, not begotten, nor unbegotten: neither created, nor made: but proceeding from the Father and the Son, coeternal and coequal with the Father and the Son."

It is wrongly argued that this authority supports Alexius Aristenus: for it concerns the addition of the word "Filioque" to the Constantinopolitan Symbol. But again, the same Symbol is read in the fiftieth of the Latin Orations of Gregory Nazianzen: and likewise in sermon 235 among the Augustinian appendices, and in the codex of the Canons of the Roman Church which Quesnel published. In the sermon cited in Augustine we read thus: "But proceeding from the Father and the Son, the Spirit of the Father and the Son." The Latin oration of Nazianzen for the fiftieth day and the thirty-ninth chapter of the aforementioned codex contain only the latter, not the former words. The same Symbol was formerly inserted into the works of Athanasius: whence it is already sufficiently clear that it cannot be called a genuine work of Damasus. Chiffletius wished to attribute it to Vigilius of Thapsus, and Quesnel thinks it should be attributed, in dissertation 14 of his edition of the works of Saint Leo, to Gregory, a Spaniard by nationality, of the province of Baetica, Bishop of Elvira, who flourished around the year 370.

^B II. Although, however, at the time of Pope Damasus and the Council of Constantinople, the particle "Filioque" was not added to the Constantinopolitan Symbol, the Fathers of the Church nevertheless everywhere hand it down, either expressing the particle itself—"from the Son," or "through the Son"—or using terms that are equivalent. I say equivalent terms, which occur in the aforementioned formula of faith, whoever its author may be: "the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son"; and likewise those which are found in the longer second version of Epiphanius, "the Spirit from the Son, just as from the Father." And I myself, because [he is] proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son. There stands also among the Latin Acts of the Council of Florence, in collation 21, the Confession of the Catholic Faith, which is said to have been sent by Pope Damasus to Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch: where the Holy Spirit is twice asserted to proceed from the Father and the Son. It is the same as the Rule of Faith, which, having been edited by the command of Leo the Great, was used by the Spanish bishops, as must be said in the following chapter, no. 4.

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, was composing his books on the Trinity before the rise of the Macedonian heresy, as Peter Constantius thinks: and he said in book VIII, no. 20, that he did not in this [matter] wish to deny the freedom of understanding whether they think the Spirit the Paraclete is from the Father or from the Son (that is, he was unwilling to dispute a little about the manner of speaking); [and] that he seemed to himself not to have left this matter in uncertainty for the Lord. He refers to the words of Jesus Christ from John, chapter 14, 15: "He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you." Then indeed he constructs an argument: "He receives therefore from the Son," he says, "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 be thought that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, certainly it will be considered that to receive from the Son is one and the same as to receive from the Father. For the Lord himself ^C says: "Because he shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you." This which he shall receive (whether it is power, or virtue, or doctrine), the Son said is to be received from Himself, and again this very thing signifies that it is to be received from the Father. For when He says: "All things whatsoever the Father hath, are His"; and therefore that He said that it was to be received from His own, He also teaches that they are to be received from the Father, yet received from Him; because all things that are the Father's, are His." To Hilary it was the same that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, as it was that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son. With the dispute over the words set aside, he says it cannot be denied that the Holy Spirit receives doctrine, virtue, power, and even His very existence from both the Father and the Son: which is the very dogma of the Catholic faith, expressed in the terminology of "procession from both."

To those writers with whom Hilary does not wish to have a dispute about words, Rusticus, a deacon of the Roman Church, perhaps looked, ^D writing about the middle of the sixth century in his *Disputation against the Acephali*: "The Father," he says, "begat, and was not begotten, and is not from someone else, just as others are from Him. The Son truly was begotten, and begat nothing coeternal. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father: nothing coeternal proceeds, or is begotten from Him." But some of the Ancients added this also to the properties: that just as the Holy Spirit did not beget the sempiternal Son with the Father, so neither does He proceed. "That the Spirit indeed did not beget sempiternally, I profess: for we have not said there are two Fathers. Whether, however, He proceeds from the Son in the same way as He does from the Father, I have not fully satisfied myself." Those Ancients whom he recalls confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, [and] denied that He proceeds from the Son. The dispute was about the word, because they believed that the Spirit receives from the Son. Rusticus does not dare to deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. He was uncertain whether this word, which is used in relation to the Father, ought to be used in relation to the Son. This is the first interpretation of the obscure passage. Another refers Rusticus's doubt to the mode of procession: whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same way as from the Father. A distinction is needed:

for although the Spirit proceeds from both, if one considers the power of spiration, which is one in both, it cannot be said to proceed in the same way, because the Father does not have this—the power to spirate the Holy Spirit—from another, whereas the Son has it from the Father. Yet whatever this difficulty may ultimately be, Rusticus could have recognized his doubt as empty, since in his own age writers taught simply and absolutely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, such as Gennadius in his book 157 *On Dogmas*; Avitus of Vienne, *On the Divinity of the Holy Spirit*; Fulgentius in his book *On Faith*; Paschasius the Deacon in Book 1 *On the Holy Spirit*, and others.

The same expressions—"from the Father and the Son," or "from the Father through the Son"—were used by Latin and Greek writers before and after the Council of Constantinople, defending the divinity of the same Holy Spirit against the Eunomians and Macedonians. In the previous dissertation, we provided and illustrated the testimonies of Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria. We have brought forth his most clear opinions. I set forth the one contained in his letter from the Alexandrian synod to Nestorius, which was read in the ecumenical Council of Ephesus: "Although the Spirit exists in His own subsistence, and His property is understood in person, according to that which He is the Spirit, and not the Son: nevertheless, He is not alien (to the Son). For from Him (the Son, Jesus Christ) the Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth: and Christ is the Truth: καὶ προχεῖται παρ' αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, and He proceeds through Him, just as certainly as He does from God and the Father." We have narrated the disputes moved in this matter by Theodoret, who was excessively moved in his heart against Cyril.

^C III. Meanwhile, in the East, churches used different Creeds in baptism: some the simple Nicene, others the Constantinopolitan, and others the Nicene augmented with certain words. We have noted that the Jerusalem Creed was of this kind during the time of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, as was the Antiochene, in which Cassian said Nestorius had been baptized, and which he condemned at the Council of Ephesus. To this class, I refer the Creed of the Church of Philadelphia, which appears in that same Ephesian synod, offered in the 6th action by the presbyter Charisius: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father. Who for us and for our salvation descended from heaven, and was incarnate, and was born of the holy Virgin, and was made man. He was crucified for us, and died. He rose again the third day. He ascended into heaven. And he is coming again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. And in the holy catholic Church. In the resurrection of the dead. In life eternal." ^D Nestorius used the Nicene Creed, but in it, he proposed a depraved part, which concerns the confession of the incarnation. The Nestorian explanation of this depraved Creed was brought forward at the same time by Charisius, which many who were deceived had subscribed. What the defect of the depraved article on the incarnation might be can be gathered from the same exposition. "Regarding the incarnation," he said, "one must know that the Lord God the Word assumed a man perfect according to nature, consisting of human flesh and a rational soul... whom, existing according to our nature and as a man similar to us, He joined to Himself by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin... in a certain inexplicable way... We say, therefore, that the one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made, is, first and especially, the Word of God, whom we conceive in our mind to be by essence God the Son and Lord; at the same time, however, we also encompass in our mind that which was assumed, that is, Jesus of Nazareth." In this way, clearly, Nestorius presented his impious error regarding a double person in Jesus Christ, hidden in the wrappings of words.

The Ephesian synod, celebrated in the year 431, detested the deed of Nestorius, who had deceived simple believers by proposing a corrupted and depraved Creed; and it issued decrees in these words: "These things therefore having been read, the holy synod has decreed that it is permitted to no one to produce, or write, or compose any other faith besides the one defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. But those who shall have dared either to compose another faith, or to produce or offer it to those wanting to be converted to the acknowledgement of the truth; these indeed, if they be bishops or clerics, it decrees to be aliens from the episcopate and the clerics from the clerical office: if, however, they be laymen, to be subject to anathema." Then it condemns the formula and exposition of the Nestorian Creed.

IV. By prohibiting that it be permitted for anyone to produce, or write, or compose another faith besides the one defined by the Nicene Fathers, the Greeks wage war against the Latins by the Ephesian decree, because they added the word *Filioque* to the Constantinopolitan Creed. Let them wage the battle as they wish: the most certain defeat threatens them. For the holy synod first decreed that it is permitted for no one to produce, or write, or compose another faith besides the one defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if we stick to the words, it would not even be permitted to produce the Constantinopolitan Creed. It does not escape me that the same Constantinopolitan Creed has been called Nicene, especially after the Council of Chalcedon: but in that Ephesian decree, it is undoubtedly concerned with the Nicene formula, which, as an abridgment augmented by certain words—not all that are contained in the Constantinopolitan Creed—many churches used in baptism.

In the documents offered by the Philadelphian presbyter Charisius, a depraved Creed was contained, along with its Nestorian exposition. The Ephesian Fathers condemned both by a special decree. Also other...

forms of the Creed flourished in the Churches at that same age, which differed verbally from the simple Nicene [Creed] and from the more prolix Constantinopolitan [Creed]. We have mentioned the Jerusalemite and the Antiochene [Creeds]: that others existed and were received by usage, there is no doubt. That the Ephesian Fathers left the use of these same [creeds] free in the Churches, and did not forbid that they be produced, the Council of Chalcedon proves in the fifth session, in the definition of the faith: where the Nicene Creed is said to shine forth above the others, and it is decreed that the Constantinopolitan Creed ought to be observed, and finally other legitimate formulas of the Churches are confirmed. The words are: “We decree, therefore, that we also, guarding the order and all the formulas which have been established concerning the faith by the holy synod formerly held at Ephesus: [the exposition of the faith] of the holy and most blessed three hundred and eighteen Fathers, who were gathered in Nicaea in the times of the pious-memory Emperor Constantine, shines forth indeed as recta and immaculate; but that those things which were decreed at Constantinople by the most holy one hundred and fifty Fathers are also to be observed, for the purpose of expelling the heresies which had sprouted at that time, and for the confirmation of our same catholic and apostolic faith.” ^B These final words declare the genuine meaning of the Ephesian Decree: namely, that those formulas of the Creeds are especially condemned in which something is diminished, or changed, or added which is alien to the true faith. The Latin doctors proved this with invincible arguments at the Council of Florence. Consult the Acts and the inserted disputations.

V. But that every handle might be snatched away from depraved men for corrupting the Creed by diminutions, additions, and mutations, I would not wish to deny that the Ephesian Fathers forbade by their decree that new formulas of later creeds should be forged. Cyril of Alexandria seems to declare this meaning of his decree in his letter to Acacius of Melitene. He wrote this, given the occasion of a certain more explicit profession of faith, which the Oriental bishops had composed for the purpose of washing away the stain of Nestorianism that had been cast upon them. But when Nestorian men were refuting that same profession under the pretext of the Ephesian Decree, Cyril vindicates it, because those Orientals professed their faith, adding nothing to the Creed, but offering a necessary declaration outside of the Creed.

I bring forward the entire passage. For they (the men of the Nestorian faction) wished that all those things which I had published in letters, or tomes, or books, be abolished: and that they [the Orientals] should agree only with the faith which had been issued by our holy Fathers at Nicaea. They were rejecting the dogmas declared by Cyril in his letters and tomes, as if he had crossed the boundaries of the Nicene Creed. This was another complaint against him. I understand, however, that they are also objecting this to us: namely, that we have received an exposition of the faith, *καινὸν, ἦτοι Σύμβολον καινὸν*, or a new Symbol; as if we had spurned that old, venerable (Nicene) one. He had received the exposition of the faith transmitted by the Orientals. He replies: We say the truth, that we have neither demanded a new exposition of the faith from anyone, nor admitted one innovated by others. He denies that a new Creed, or a Creed innovated by additions, was transmitted to him. For the divine Scripture, and the prudence of the holy Fathers, and the (Nicene) Symbol of the faith, aptly and rightly arranged for all correct dogmas, suffices for us. He narrates what the Oriental bishops had done and what they had transmitted. But because the most holy Oriental bishops were dissenting from us when at Ephesus, and for that reason were held as if caught in the snares of the blasphemies of Nestorius, they were suspected: so that they might free themselves from that crime, and might satisfy the lovers of the blameless faith in all things, and show themselves to be void of Nestorian impiety, *πεποίηνται τὴν ἀπολογίαν*, they composed an apology. In it they gave a right exposition of the faith. And that, indeed, quite prudently. So far is this act of theirs from appearing worthy of any note or reproach at all. For what if Nestorius himself, at that time when he was proposed by us all that he ought to condemn his own dogmas and embrace the truth, had exhibited—*ἔγγραφον ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁμολογίαν*—a written confession concerning these matters (since indeed he would have increased the Nicene Creed with some clearer explanation), who was going to say that he—*πίστεως ἡμῖν καινοτομῆσαι σύμβολον*—had written for us a new symbol of the faith? Why then do they rashly attack with reproaches the most holy bishops of Phoenicia, calling their consensus *Ἔκθεσιν Συμβόλου καινήν*, a new exposition of the Symbol, which they published usefully and necessarily, so that, to be sure, they might clear themselves?

^C 161 Cyril brings forward the Ephesian decree which ^D declares the following: For the holy and ecumenical synod, he says, which had met at Ephesus, necessarily provided that it was not fitting—*πίστεως ἔκθεσιν ἑτέραν*—to introduce another exposition of the faith into the Churches of God beyond that which already existed: which our most blessed Fathers had defined having spoken by the Holy Spirit (at Nicaea). It seems to have become sufficiently known that Cyril understood the Ephesian decree in such a way that it was not permitted to publish a new Creed hereafter, or to innovate the Nicene one itself, increased by additions. But yet that they (the Orientals), having seemed to dissent from this (faith of the Nicene Creed), and having been brought into suspicion because they did not think rightly... would they have freed themselves from this ignominious note by silence, or rather by full satisfaction and the declaration of their own opinion? Which

is certainly understood as distinct from the Nicene Symbol. He who wishes to do this *xaɩvoupyɛῖ μὲν οὐδέν*, does nothing new: *οὐδὲ πίστεως ἔκθεσιν ὁρᾶται καινοτομῶν*, nor is he seen to innovate in the exposition of the faith.

This interpretation of the Ephesian decree and of the mind of Cyril is confirmed both by the declaration of the Orientals itself, inserted into the letters of John of Antioch, and by the most eloquent opinion of the same John. Epistles of this kind are extant among the works of Cyril, Vol. V, part ii, and part iv of the Council of Ephesus, chapter 20: "Concerning the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, how we should think and speak, and concerning the Incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, it is necessary—*οὐκ ἐπὶ προσθήκῃ*, not by way of addition, but as a form of full satisfaction (or as a species of confirmation)—that we speak briefly, just as we have absorbed from the beginning from the divine scriptures and the traditions of the holy Fathers: *οὐδὲν τὸ σύνολον προστιθέντες τῇ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ ἐκτεθείσῃ πίστει*, adding absolutely nothing to the faith exposed by the holy Fathers in Nicaea. For that, as we have said before, is abundantly sufficient for every knowledge of piety and for the refutation of every heretical, perverse doctrine... Our Exposition, however, runs in this manner: We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, to be perfect God and perfect man consisting of a rational soul and body: begotten of the Father before the ages according to divinity, but in the last times the same one, for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary according to humanity." Cyril therefore judged that the Nicene Symbol, whether you look at the formula of the faith or the faith itself contained in the formula, should be kept intact according to the Ephesian law. But mark that the Alexandrian prelate himself did not judge as illicit other confessions or expositions of faith, distinct from the Nicene Symbol, by which the Nicene faith itself might be more clearly set forth. That is truly a most valid argument, which we shall use below against the Greeks.

Gather from this that the simple Nicene formula was retained in the Alexandrian Church: and that the Constantinopolitan Symbol was not received in this age. The Eutychians, however, abused the Nicene Symbol: and their deceit is revealed by Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, in act 1 of the same Council of Chalcedon. His words are: "Deceitfully (Eutyches) put forward the council of the holy Fathers which was held in Nicaea. For he accepted the Additions by the holy Fathers (the Nicenes), because of the perverse intellect of Apollinaris, and Valentinus, and Macedonius, and those who are like them. And it was added in the Symbol of the holy Fathers (at Constantinople): 'Who descended, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.' But Eutyches omitted this, just as an Apollinarist. For Apollinaris also accepts the holy council which was held in Nicaea; understanding the words according to his own perversity: and he avoided 'of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,' so that he might not confess the union of the flesh at all. For the holy Fathers who gathered in Nicaea said, 'that he was incarnate.' But the holy Fathers who were after them explained (at Constantinople), saying: 'Of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.'" We read in the Acts that the Egyptians favoring Eutyches cried out: "Let no one accept an addition, let no one accept a diminution. Let those things which were established in Nicaea be held."

Understand "exposition of the faith" in this place as intending either a Symbol in some way new and distinct from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, or one which adds anything to those same two Symbols, or two formulas of the same Symbol. The Fathers prescribed both formulas to be read in the same action, and confirmed them by the one acclamation of all. But Carosus, and Dorotheus, and other archimandrites and monks, who defended the cause of Eutyches and Dioscorus, contended that one formula of the Nicene ^B faith was sufficient: and they refused to subscribe to the Constantinopolitan Symbol, and to embrace the epistle of Leo to Flavian: and they rejected any addition that could be made to the Nicene Symbol, adhering to the Ephesian decree. In their petition offered to the holy synod in action 4, these things are contained: "The most pious emperor... promised us that only the exposition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers would be confirmed: and that nothing else should be moved or done before this... But for a more complete proof, that we think nothing contrary to the Symbol of the faith... we have submitted the Symbol itself; and the definition which confirmed this, promulgated by the holy and universal synod which condemned Nestorius." Carosus again posited this to the judges and the senate: "I know the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who gathered at Nicaea, in which also I was baptized: for I know no other faith." And Dorotheus: "I remain in the faith of the holy Fathers of the three hundred and eighteen who gathered at Nicaea, in which I was baptized: and in the constitution of those who, at Ephesus, condemned Nestorius."

VI. But now, regarding the sense of the Ephesian decree, which the Greeks themselves desire: let them finally, divested of their prejudices, concede even themselves what can in no way be denied: that this matter pertains to a head of ecclesiastical discipline, which, according to the circumstances of the times and urgent necessity, undergoes variation. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon provides a notable example, which without doubt departed from the rigor of the Ephesian law. I shall deal with this matter at greater length. Led by reverence for the Ephesian decree, the Chalcedonian Fathers thought they should for a time refrain from writing any Exposition that might, concerning the article of the Incarnation of the Son of God, in any way declare the Nicene and Constantinopolitan faith with newly added words. Hence, at the beginning of the second action, celebrated in the year 451, the bishops replied with one voice to the judges and the very ample senate: "No one makes another exposition... we do not make an exposition in writing." The rule is, which proclaims that those things which have been set forth are sufficient. The rule wills that another exposition not be made. The statutes of the Fathers were valid.

^A And the addition of the Constantinopolitan Creed was rejected; but this much is certain, that the Constantinopolitan formula had not yet become prevalent among them.

Finally, having perceived the subtle nature of these people, the Chalcedonian Fathers themselves, who for a long time had denied that any definition could be attached to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan formulas, finally concluded that they were not so bound by the Ephesian law as to be unable to use the power of explaining the faith concerning the incarnate Word with a special appendix. In the fifth session, they ordered that first the Nicene Creed, and then the Constantinopolitan Creed, be recited. They said indeed: "This wise and saving Symbol of divine grace (the Nicene and Constantinopolitan) was indeed sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of piety. But the present holy, great and universal synod... wishing to close off every machination (of the heretics) against the truth, has before all things decreed that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers remain entire and inviolate." It confirms the doctrine which, concerning the substance of the Holy Spirit, was handed down by the hundred and fifty Fathers later gathered in the royal city 164 on account of those who resisted the Holy Spirit: which they made known to all, not as if something were missing from the former, adding: but declaring their own understanding of the Holy Spirit with the testimonies of the Scriptures. It also receives against Nestorius and Eutyches the Epistles of Cyril and Leo the Great. Adhering to which holy Fathers at last, it explains more diligently the article of the Incarnation, teaching: "One and the same Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Deity, and the same perfect in humanity, etc." This Appendix to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed was established by the Chalcedonian Fathers. This is without doubt a certain relaxation of the Ephesian decree, which pertains to ecclesiastical discipline. Finally, this method of procedure of the Council of Chalcedon breaks the troublesome attempts of the Greeks, who fight against the Latins with the rigor of this same Ephesian law.

It would be worthwhile, however, to note at this place that the aforementioned Chalcedonian Appendix, and others established in other councils against emerging errors, never had a place in the public recitation of the Constantinopolitan Symbol, whether in baptism or in the Liturgy, as we shall say in the following chapter; lest a profession of faith longer than due be handed over to those being baptized, or be read during the solemnities of the Mass: since the Nicene faith, increased by the Constantinopolitan additions, had always been held to be sufficient in itself for the full knowledge and confirmation of piety.

Therefore, every sensible person can see that the difficulty, if any can be taken from the Ephesian decree, has been solved and crushed. This matter is most confirmed by the Constantinopolitan Symbol itself, which only the Council of Chalcedon brought into the common use of the whole Church. Recall what was said above in number 4, that the Ephesian synod confirmed the Nicene ^B formula of faith, and inhibited another faith from being established, so that it did not reject other orthodox ones, which were received by custom in particular Churches. The Alexandrian Church used the simple Nicene. The Antiochian and Philadelphian churches used the Nicene increased by certain words: and that the Constantinopolitan had flourished in others is clearly gathered from the words of Diogenes of Cyzicus cited already. Hence it is clear that the same Constantinopolitan formula had by no means attained such authority before the Council of Chalcedon that it alone was in use in any of the particular Churches. But then, without doubt, it happened that the Eastern orthodox Churches, setting aside the individual formulas which they had been using for freedom, gradually began to use the Constantinopolitan in the administration of baptism; and this same Symbol, nevertheless, remained accustomed to being called Nicene in ecclesiastical monuments, since in truth it is the Nicene, augmented by certain words both for the sake of clarity and on account of emerging heresies. From which, then, it finally appears that the rigor of the Ephesian law, by which it was forbidden for a faith other than the simple Nicene to be brought forward, or written down, or composed ^C, had been relaxed.

Marcus of Ephesus, in the fifth session of the Council of Florence, saw this and attempted to forestall the argument: "For it was ordained," he said, "by the Ephesian Fathers, that no one thenceforth should have the license to change the Nicene Symbol in any way: which is the same as saying the Constantinopolitan; for it is contained in it by virtue, and both were held as one." This interpretation is contradicted by the Ephesian Acts. For we read that the simple Nicene Symbol was recited in the fourth session. The synodal letter of Cyril from the Alexandrian synod given to Nestorius is read there, where the same simple Nicene formula is set forth, and the Nicene faith is mentioned as one in the acclamations of the Fathers, set forth in the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. Again, in the sixth session, the Nicene faith is recited openly: the Charisian is brought forward, which differs from the Nicene by certain added words; and finally, the corrupted Nestorian Symbol is added. Constantinopolitan additions appear nowhere; and the Ephesian Fathers issued a decree, by which it is prescribed that no one is allowed to bring forward, or write down, or compose another faith than that defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. ^D I gladly admit that the Constantinopolitan formula can be called Nicene: but the Ephesian synod had that one before its eyes without doubt, not this one. I also admit that the Ephesian Fathers by their decree did not reject the Constantinopolitan formula, and other orthodox ones received by custom in the Oriental Churches: but from that, an argument is taken against Marcus of Ephesus and his Greeks, who interpret the Ephesian law so rigidly and abuse it. Finally, I say that it was done by the authority of the Council of Chalcedon that the Constantinopolitan Symbol, with the Nicene passed over, and other particular ones passed over, was brought into common use...

and that it is from the rigor of the Ephesian law ^A that one should recede.

VII. That later ecumenical councils, particular churches, and the bishops of the churches had no doubt that this authority belonged to them, in that which is the head of ecclesiastical discipline, I offer certain professions of faith which were issued in the manner of a Symbol, and which can be called the same Nicene and Constantinopolitan Symbol, yet increased by additions. Of this sort is the Exposition of faith, praised above, which the Orientals offered to Cyril of Alexandria. Of this sort must be termed that formula which is read in the sixth ecumenical council, celebrated in the year 680, in action 4, in the second epistle of Pope Agatho, in these words: *Believing in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, etc.* Peter, bishop of Nicomedia, and George, a presbyter and monk, offered a book of their faith in action 10. This book of theirs, indeed, is the very Constantinopolitan Symbol, with additions against the Monothelite heresy. It begins: *I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, etc.* This Symbol was accepted with no one protesting; nay, the most pious emperor Constantine (Pogonatus) and the holy council ordered that they offer the books of their own faith, which they had promised, while making oath.

In the seventh ecumenical council, Nicaea II, held in the year 787, Basil of Ancyra and other bishops with him, previously polluted by the heresy of the Iconoclasts, ^C profess the orthodox faith in action 1 by an offered formula, which contains the Constantinopolitan Symbol and many other additions. It begins: *I believe and confess in one God the Father almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, etc.* Similar are the formulas of faith held in action 3, offered by Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and by Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem, which increase the common Constantinopolitan formula by many additions. To these I add the present-day custom of the Greeks, which is kept in the consecration of a bishop. And first, he himself says the holy Symbol with a clear voice in this manner: *I believe in one Father almighty*; namely, the Constantinopolitan. Then he pronounces another book of faith in the manner of a Symbol, which begins: *I believe in one God distinct in three persons, etc.* And finally he reads a third profession, which is the Constantinopolitan Symbol itself, enriched with many additions. Consult the Euchologion and examine it. We shall state below, as the *Liber diurnus* of the Roman pontiffs published by Garnier makes known, that such formulas were in use at Rome and in the West for the ordination of bishops and of the Roman pontiff.

The argument can be repeated against the Greeks. By its decree the Ephesian council forbids that another faith, besides the Nicene, be produced, or written down, or composed. But yet, so many formulas brought forward exhibit a Symbol that is other than the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, namely by many more additions ^D. As pertains to the origin of the Holy Spirit, the addition read in the praised Tarasian Symbol in the ecumenical council of Nicaea II, action 3, is most worthy of observation: *And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and the giver of life, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δι' Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, proceeding from the Father through the Son, and that he is and is recognized as the same God.* This is the addition of the Latins, *Filioque*: which Roman pontiffs of that previous age and this age were already expressing in professions of faith outside the Constantinopolitan Symbol, as is to be related below.

CHAPTER III

The ecumenical council of Chalcedon and later councils forbid that another faith—one, that is, which opposes the right orthodox faith—be produced or written down. After that same Council of Chalcedon, the Constantinopolitan Symbol was wont to be called the Nicene everywhere. The Eastern Orthodox churches made it a part of their Liturgies. The rule of faith, which is found added to the Council of Toledo, is set forth. In the ecumenical council, the particle *Filioque* was not added to the Symbol; but the Fathers used it everywhere outside the Symbol.

The decrees forbidding a different faith, just as the Ephesian council did, were also held by later ecumenical councils; and they understood as a "different" faith that which opposes the right faith. The sense is one that does not exclude the addition of the word *Filioque*, and removes the charge brought against the Latins. The ecumenical council of Chalcedon in action 5 decreed that the Nicene Symbol remain entire and inviolate; it also confirms the Constantinopolitan Symbol; and it adds an Appendix, by which it declares the article concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ against the Eutychians. Then, indeed, it issues the decree in these words: *These therefore, having been disposed by us with every exact care and diligence on all sides, the holy and universal council defines: that it is permitted to no one to produce, or to write down, or to compose, [-] or to think, or to teach others another faith. Those, however, who dare to compose another faith, etc.* Did the Chalcedonian Fathers, then, understand "another faith" in such a way that they forbade any formula of a Symbol whatsoever which differed from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, even by one or a few words added? They reject this sense by so many...

^A Symbol formulas. I would not deny that the synod could forbid any words from being lessened or added, being prompted by the intention to ward off all errors which unskilled, or imprudent, or erring men might bring in by adding or subtracting: but it is now established that the primary intention was to forbid those subtractions and additions which would weaken the right orthodox faith.

The same decision is seen to be most prudent in later synods. In the sixth ecumenical synod, there is present in action 4 a letter of Pope Agatho, where, not far from the beginning, these things are contained: "Those which have been regularly defined by the holy and apostolic predecessors, and by the venerable five councils, we preserve with simplicity of heart, and without ambiguity from the faith handed down by the Fathers: wishing and studying to always have this as the one and primary good: that nothing of those things which have been regularly defined be diminished, nothing changed, or added; but that the same be preserved unharmed in words and senses." This letter is followed in the same place by another of the same Agatho given from the Roman synod, in which a profession of faith after the manner of a Symbol is inserted, consistent with the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Symbols and the definition of Chalcedon, though enriched with many and wordy additions. ^C The synodal definition issued against the Monothelites is read in action 18. The Nicene and Constantinopolitan Symbols are recited; and these, the Fathers say, suffice for a perfect knowledge of the orthodox faith. Nevertheless, they explain the mystery of the incarnation, as far as it concerns the twofold will and operation in Christ, in a long Appendix. And they finally define: "That it is permitted to no one to produce, or write, or compose, or even otherwise to teach any other faith." Understand "other faith" as that which is not the right orthodox faith, but the invention of erring men contrary to the aforesaid definition. Meanwhile, the Fathers in this synod were compelled in actions 4 and 10 to receive and approve professions of faith, issued after the manner of a Symbol, ^D which differ in words from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan formula of faith.

Various Symbols of this kind, which were read in the second Nicene synod and were approved, we have already mentioned. The seventh action contains the definition of faith against the Iconoclasts: namely the Constantinopolitan Symbol, anathemas against heresies—the Arian, Macedonian, Nestorian, Eutychian, and Monothelite—and finally an Appendix against the Iconoclasts: "Those, therefore," the Fathers say, "who dare to think otherwise, or to teach, or according to wicked heretics to spurn ecclesiastical traditions, and to devise any novelty whatever, or to cast away anything of those things which are of the Church ^A decreed, etc. You see clearly now the counsel of the synod and the Church: that whoever contends that this stands in the way of the added particle, *and the Son*, let him be insane.

II. That the Constantinopolitan Symbol was brought into the common use of the Church by the authority of the ecumenical synod of Chalcedon, there is no doubt. Recall what was said in the previous chapter, number 5. Allow me to add some observations. The origin of the Constantinopolitan Symbol is to be referred to some particular Church and to private writers, in the time intervening between the first Nicene synod and the first Constantinopolitan. Epiphanius was the first to publish it: and those hundred and fifty Fathers who celebrated the synod at Constantinople in the year 381 against Macedonius embraced it. Baronius judges that this synod was general, as it were, convoked by the authority of the supreme pontiff Damasus. Others think that the authority of an ecumenical synod accrued to it *ex post facto*, as they say: either by Pope Damasus confirming it, as is pleasing to some; or at least by Leo the Great in the synod of Chalcedon; or certainly by the first Constantinopolitan synod itself, receiving and approving it along with the decrees of faith and the aforesaid Symbol.

Christianus Lupus discusses either opinion in Volume I, in his Scholia to the same synod, chapter 4; and in Volume V, in his Scholia to the *Dictatus* of Gregory VII, canon 21, question 3. There is nowhere any mention of letters of confirmation which Damasus might have given: but neither is there any mention of the same Constantinopolitan synod, and the Symbol issued in it, in the ecumenical synod of Ephesus. The bishops in the conventicle which Dioscorus celebrated at Ephesus in the case of Eutyches testified that that synod and that Symbol were unknown to them. Evoptius of Cyzicus, along with his comprovincial bishops, denies in a letter which is present in the encyclical codex that the Eutychians could have been ignorant of this: and at the same time he indicates 170 the manner in which that Constantinopolitan synod and its symbol obtained authority in the Church. The words are: "This synod... the truth has indeed confirmed above all others: and the same has received strength by so long a time." However the matter may be, it is made certain and established that the same Constantinopolitan Symbol, no sooner than after the synod of Chalcedon, began to be received by the common use of the Churches: and that the synod also, which the hundred and fifty Fathers celebrated in the Royal City in the year 381, began to be counted everywhere among the ecumenical ones.

Indeed, such authority and reverence accrued to the aforesaid Symbol that it began to be called absolutely the Nicene. In the Constantinopolitan synod which was celebrated in the year 536 under Mennas, there exists in action 5 a synodical letter of another Constantinopolitan council celebrated in the year 518 to their patriarch John, where these things are contained: "The third chapter was contained in the petition, that for the greater authority of the Scriptures, the holy and great synod of three hundred and eighteen Fathers gathered in Nicaea, who [set forth] the holy Symbol of the faith

in which we were baptized and [in which] we baptize: and [that] those which were gathered in Constantinople under Nectarius of holy memory, and confirmed the aforementioned holy Symbol of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, be set down in the sacred diptychs.” It is evident that the Constantinopolitan Symbol, although augmented with additions, is called the Nicene Symbol, as having been confirmed in the synod of the royal city. Similar are the things which the monks there write in their epistle: We petition, they say, that [the acts of the holy synods] gathered from time to time for the faith, be placed in the sacred books: that is, the Nicene, which proclaimed the holy Symbol in which we were baptized and [in which] we baptize: and the Constantinopolitan, which confirmed it: and the Ephesian, which likewise confirmed [it], and also the Chalcedonian, which similarly signed [it]. The same words are repeated more frequently in the booklet which is referred to in the cited place and is entitled, *How the synods were proclaimed*; and finally they are found in the Rescript, which is appended, of John of Jerusalem and the bishops who are under him, to John of Constantinople. These things, indeed, prove everything: that the Church, which, without any ^B fault, having left the simple form of the Nicene Symbol, brought the Constantinopolitan Symbol, augmented with additions, into common use, possessed equal power so that it could also augment the very formula of the Constantinopolitan Symbol for the circumstances of the times, and as necessity compelled.

III. Eutyches, in the synod of Chalcedon, most pertinaciously rejected the Constantinopolitan additions, and the Eutychians, or Monophysites, continued to reject them. Recall the things said in the previous chapter, number 5. Petrus Fullo the Antiochene and Timotheus the Constantinopolitan, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, clearly showed ^C that they made the simple Nicene Symbol a part of the sacred Liturgy. The reader Theodorus, in book II, reports: that Petrus Fullo, or the Knapheus, when he had regained the Antiochene episcopate, devised that the Symbol should be recited in every gathering. That it was the Nicene is proven by these other words of the same Theodorus: Timotheus (bishop of Constantinople) ordered the Symbol of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers to be recited in every gathering, in hatred, of course, of Macedonius, as if he did not accept that Symbol. That the second incursion of the Knapheus into the Antiochene see pertains to the year 476 is taught by Le Quien in *Oriens Christianus*, the continuators of Bollandus, volume IV of July, and Antonius Pagius. Macedonius, the second of this name, having been driven into exile in the year 511, the Monophysite Timotheus was substituted into the Constantinopolitan see, and he ruled that Church for seven years. The author of the new rites introduced into the Antiochene Church was Petrus Fullo: and it pleased Timotheus to imitate him in the Church of the royal city.

Weighing those words, *in hatred of Macedonius*, Natalis Alexander appears to himself to conclude: that the place refers to the Constantinopolitan Symbol, even though it is called [the symbol] of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers; ^D indeed understanding, of course, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which was condemned in the Constantinopolitan synod. Thus he says in dissertation 37, art. 1, at the end. The learned man is mistaken. It is Macedonius the second, not the first, who attacked the divinity of the Holy Spirit: but [the one of] this name [who was] the second, the immediate predecessor of Timotheus himself, famous for his profession of the catholic faith established in the Council of Chalcedon. For this reason, having been driven into exile by the Emperor Anastasius in the year 511, Timotheus himself, a heretic and opponent of the synod of Chalcedon, was substituted [in his place]. The most evil man did many things, according to the witness of Theodorus the Lector, against Macedonius himself: and among other things, he ordered the Symbol of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers (the Nicene) to be recited in every gathering, in hatred of the acts of Macedonius (the predecessor), as if he did not accept that Symbol (namely, the Nicene).

Furthermore, against the rite which the heretical Monophysites had introduced by a perverse design, the orthodox opposed a rite in which they openly and publicly, in the sacred Liturgy, proclaimed the right and catholic faith of the Lord's incarnation, employing the Constantinopolitan Symbol, which they [the heretics] rejected. An ecclesiastical monument, which pertains to the year 518, is at hand: by which it is most evident that it was already then in use among the orthodox that the Symbol of the faith be recited in the divine Liturgy. 172 In the booklet mentioned above, *How the synods were proclaimed (or promulgated)*, written in the year 518, while Justin the elder, a catholic, was reigning after Anastasius, these words are found near the end: *After the reading of the holy Gospel, when the Mass was celebrated according to custom, and with the doors closed, and the holy Symbol (τοῦ ἁγίου μαθήματος) having been recited according to custom, (κατὰ τὸ σύνθητες,) when they came to the Diptychs, etc.* That the Symbol of the faith was already read and recited by the orthodox in the year 518 according to custom, clearly appears.

But that was the Constantinopolitan Symbol. Monuments which we adduced in the number above from the council under Mennas sufficiently indicate this. Added to this is the most shining confirmation from the Chronicle of the abbot John Biclarensis the Lusitanian, who flourished in the sixth century. The words are: *[The Emperor] of the Romans LIII, Justin Junior for eleven years. Which Justin, in the first year of his reign (Christ 566), destroyed those things which had been invented against the synod of Chalcedon, and introduced the Symbol of the 150 Fathers gathered at Constantinople, and received in the synod of Chalcedon, to be chanted by the people in every catholic Church before the Lord's Prayer is said.* That those things which pertain to Justin the elder, and were done in the year 518, the deceived Biclarensis attributed to Justin Junior, and referred to the year 566, we have shown in a more extensive discourse in our dissertation on the faith of the author of the works which are commonly called the Areopagitica, chapter 13. This ninth dissertation is enumerated among those which we published collected together, *On the deeds and writings and doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas*. The common use into which the Constantinopolitan Symbol with its Additions was brought

by its authority in the Church, let the Greeks see, and weigh it more attentively.

IV. To the question of the particle, *Filioque*, the following points pertain more closely. To the Synod of Toledo ^A which is reported in the *Collections of Councils* as belonging to the year 400, a Rule of faith is submitted against all heresies, and most especially against the Priscillianists. It is said to have been made by the bishops of Tarragona, Carthage, Lusitania, and Baetica, and transmitted with the command of Pope Leo of the city of Rome to Balconius, bishop of Galicia. The formula is issued in the manner of a Creed, and begins: *We believe in one God, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, etc.* Concerning this same Holy Spirit, these things are held: *And that the Spirit is the Paraclete, who is neither the Father himself nor the Son: but proceeding from the Father and the Son.*

Saint Leo the Great ascended the Roman see in the year 400; whence that Rule cannot be attributed to the first Synod of Toledo. A general Hispanic council is referred to the year 447, summoned by the persuasion of Pope Leo ^B in the case of the Priscillianists. The collectors of the councils note that apart from the rule of faith mentioned above, nothing else exists. Hence, however, it appears that this was issued in that synod. We learn this fact, and the place of the synod, with certainty from the Synod of Braga of the year 563: "Lucretius the bishop said: ... I believe it is known to the fraternity of your blessedness, that at the time when the most wicked poisons of the Priscillianist sect were creeping through these regions, the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome, Leo ... ^C through Turibius, a notary of his see, directed his writings to the synod of Galicia against the impious sect of Priscillian. By whose command also the bishops of Tarragona and Carthage, and also the Lusitanians and Baeticians, having held a council among themselves, and having drafted a Rule of faith against the Priscillianist heresy along with certain chapters, directed it to Balconius, the prelate at that time of this Church of Braga." The aforementioned command of Leo the Great is read in his letter at Quesnel's 14, pertaining to the year 447, directed to Turibius, bishop of Astorga, which concludes with these words: "We have therefore given letters to our brothers and fellow-bishops of Tarragona, Carthage, Lusitania, and Galicia: and we have indicted to them the counsel of a general synod. It will pertain to the solicitude of your love that the authority of our ordination be conveyed to the bishops of the aforementioned provinces. If, however, anything should stand in the way — which God forbid! — of a general council being able to be held, let the priests of Galicia at least convene as one." This same Rule of faith, which the aforementioned bishops published while convening among themselves, is shown in its entirety by sermon 129, among those of a temporal nature which Augustine edited. It exists in the Parisian edition of the monks of Saint Maur in the appendix, number 233, and in the *Code of Canons of the Roman Church*, number 40, under the title *Of Augustine's little book on the Catholic faith against all heresies*. In the latter, the Holy Spirit is said to be proceeding from the Father: in the former, from the Father and the Son.

That this is the genuine reading can be conjectured from ^D the praised epistle of Leo the Great, who, handing down the true faith against the Priscillianists to the Spanish bishops, says, in chapter 1: "Therefore, by the first chapter it is demonstrated how impiously they think of the divine Trinity; since they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as if the same God is now named Father, now Son, now Holy Spirit: and there is not one who generated, another who was generated, another who proceeded from both." From this rule of faith, finally, in the following century, the churches of Spain transferred the word *Filioque* into the Constantinopolitan Symbol itself, as must be said in the following chapter.

V. Manuel Calecas narrates that in the seventh century the entire Western Church read the addition in the same Constantinopolitan Symbol. He was by nation a Greek, who flourished in learning at Constantinople before the year 1400, and there gave his name to the Order of Preachers in the monastery recently erected at Pera. Burning with zeal for the salvation of his own people, he wrote many things by which he might recall them from their errors. Concerning the time of the aforementioned Addition, he holds thus in book V of *Against the Greeks*: "For blessed Maximus also indicates in his Epistle to Marinus: that this addition was not added when the schism of the churches was made, but long before, and perhaps before his own times. But it was at that time when the sixth synod was assembled. Therefore, in urgent matters, when this plague was gradually and bit by bit infecting certain ones of the Western Church, the synod properly added to the Symbol that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son: to which the authority of the Roman Pontiff would have sufficed, which also corroborates the other synods."

The Fathers began to celebrate the sixth ecumenical synod in the year 680. Long before, namely in the year 662, Maximus had migrated from this life: but he himself had impelled Pope Martin in the year 649 to celebrate the Lateran Council against the Monothelites: and he was present there. Calecas continues his oration there against the Greeks: "Nor indeed is it to be wondered that the Roman bishop, having called a council of Western bishops, decreed that. For if individual provinces have often celebrated councils, and their authority has not been derogated: much more surely could he do this with all the bishops around him, who is the first pastor, and the Father of the whole Church... If anyone should ask what is the reason: since this addition is ancient, why was it not also inserted by the Orientals into the Symbol: first indeed, with due subjection and reverence rendered to the Roman Pontiff and his Church, they were thought to differ nothing from this (from the omission of the particle *Filioque*), nor to think anything contrary. Secondly, it was not necessary, having a right and proper understanding of the Son and the Holy Spirit, to read the Symbol with the addition, etc. ... If anyone should object that it behooved the Greeks also to be called, and to communicate to the Synod concerning the opinion of all: first indeed, because the matter was entirely well-known (since, namely, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the [original-script column: see facsimile]).

Father and the Son, or through the Son, was already in that age in the mouth of the Greek and Latin Fathers), it was not necessary to impose upon everyone the burden of convening for this, etc. . . . For if (at last) they consider the addition impious: why, in the times of Saint Maximus and before him, when the whole Western Church read the Creed in this way, did the entire East not refute this impiety, nor was it cut off from the Roman Church? But they did not do this. Indeed, by convening the Sixth and Seventh Synods, they clearly proved this addition to be pious: and they did not take it heavily because they were not invited. "Bona mista malis" (I willingly admit), Calecas offers. ^B

In this chronology of the addition, John Beccus seems to agree, in Oration 2 on his unjust deposition, no. 6: "Just as we find," he says, "the first principle of the contradiction regarding the addition in the age of Saint Maximus." The father of the Annals, Baronius, at the year 680, no. 32, speaks thus: "In that which is written by the holy Synod (the Roman one under Pope Agatho) in the synodal letter (which is read in session 6 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod), the mendacious stylus of the scribes wrought a falsity. For when it was read there: 'We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father and the Son'; having erased the name 'and the Son' [Filioque], it was left as 'proceeding from the Father' only. Such an imposture of the Greeks was detected in the Council of Florence by Julian, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, in the dispute which he had against the Greeks."

Baronius narrates these things deceived. In the Council of Florence, session 5, after other definitions of faith established in the previous age, that which the Fathers set forth in the Seventh Synod (or Second Nicaean Ecumenical) is also cited. In the Acts these things are held: "When that definition was read by us, another ancient manuscript codex was produced by the Latins, in which the same definition of this synod was contained. And it was found that where the divinity of the Holy Spirit is treated, the words 'and from the Son' were added to 'proceeding from the Father'." Hence the controversy was stirred up between the Greeks and the Latins. Julian, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, addressed the Emperor with these words: "Most serene Emperor, the Creed produced by us in the Seventh Synod is written in a most ancient codex: and it is impossible to suspect that any change has been made in it." The matter was therefore regarding the Constantinopolitan Creed, which is read as inserted into the definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, not the Sixth. On this matter, again, in the following chapter. Furthermore, the definition of the Sixth Synod lacks that addition in the Collections of councils.

That the Constantinopolitan Creed was augmented by that word in the age of Saint Maximus the Confessor, I would not admit. It is certainly established from his epistle to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, that the Constantinopolitan Monothelites had faulted the Roman Pontiff in this matter: because he said that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Maximus himself dismisses this imputed crime with these words: "And ^C at first indeed, they brought forward the agreement of the Latin Fathers (the Romans, whom Maximus used to consult), and moreover also that of Cyril of Alexandria (bearing testimony). These things evince, according to the mind of Maximus, and the authority in the mouth and writings of the Latin Fathers, that the procession of the Holy Spirit is expressed as being from the Father and the Son, and that the Greek Fathers also agree; yet, that the particle 'and the Son' is not read as added in the Constantinopolitan Creed. Maximus was reporting a very true matter. We described the text of Saint Leo the Great above, from the Epistle to Turibius of Astorga, given in the year 447: 'The Holy Spirit,' he says, 'who proceeds from both.' The Spanish bishops inserted consonant words into their Rule of faith in the same year: 'But,' he says, 'proceeding from the Father and the Son.' In the year 521, Pope Hormisdas had written a decretal epistle to Justin the Elder Augustus, which is numbered 79 in the Collections of councils, and in it these things are held, which were by no means faulted by the Greek emperor and other Greeks: 'It is proper to the Holy Spirit that He should proceed from the Father and the Son under one substance of the Deity.' Also in the profession of faith which Saint Gregory the Great had issued in the year 590, in the solemn rite of his inauguration, these things are held in John the Deacon in his Life: 'But the Holy Spirit, neither begotten nor unbegotten, but co-eternal, proceeding from the Father and the Son.'

Calecas inveighs [against the idea] that the Roman Pontiff had convened the Synod, and reports that the addition to the Constantinopolitan Creed was made in it. In the cited place from his book IV *Against the Greeks*, he names this synod, saying: "Wherefore Damasus, who was then Roman bishop, having convened a council, added to the Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son." Certain ecclesiastical documents, which we examined in the previous chapter, no. 1, stand in contradiction. ^D

CAPUT IV.

The Churches of the Spains in the sixth century received the addition to the Constantinopolitan Creed: and they began to sing it during the solemnities of the Masses. In the eighth century, it was also done by the Gallican Churches: the cause and occasion is exhibited, and the defenses of Paulinus of Aquileia are brought forward. The definition of the Second Nicaean Ecumenical council is examined; and certain assertions of Baronius are refuted. The Roman Church proves itself alien to the same Addition: the acts of the collation with Leo III are illustrated. Indeed, neither was the Creed at this age sung or read in the Liturgy in the same Roman Church.

The Churches, for the circumstances of the times, added the particle "and the Son" against heresies to the Constantinopolitan Creed: which they also made a part of the sacred Liturgy. The first present is the Third Synod of Toledo, celebrated in the year 589: in which the Goths, having abjured the perfidy of the Arian heresy, profess the orthodox faith. King Reccared opens the synod with a broad speech. He professes the dogmas of the faith, and among other things that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and is of one substance with the Father and the Son. The Nicaean formula of the Creed is recited. The Constantinopolitan Creed is added.

Litanies, in which the addition is read: *We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father and the Son, to be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets.* In Canon 3, an anathema is pronounced against whoever does not believe, or has not believed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and does not say that He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and co-equal. These things teach us of the Arians, who had subjected the Spains to their yoke; they had brought thither impious inventions which they had learned in the East against the most holy Trinity, and had shaken the Catholic faith with many invectives and errors. They professed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone: which the Spanish Fathers considered to be an impious dogma.

Regarding these matters, the constitutions read: "For the reverence of the most holy faith, and for the sake of strengthening the invalid minds of men, by the counsel of our most pious and most glorious Lord King Reccared, the holy synod has decreed that throughout all the churches of Spain, or Gallacia (or Gaul, specifically Narbonensis), according to the form of the Oriental churches, of the Council of Constantinople, that is, of the 150 bishops, the Symbol of faith should be recited: so that before the Lord's Prayer is said, it may be sung by the people with a clear voice, so that the true faith may have manifest testimony." Understand the Symbol as having been augmented by the particle *and the Son* (*Filioque*). The Spanish synods of later times retained and propagated this addition: Toletana VIII in the year 655; Emeritensis in the year 666; Bracarensis II in the year 675; Toletana XII, in the year 681; XIII, in the year 683; XV, in the year 688; and XVII, in the year 694. Besides the Constantinopolitan Symbol, others are extant which are longer, like a formula of the Symbol, with the addition, in the Synod of Toletana XI, in the year 675, and in Toletana XVI, in the year 693. To these I add the formula which is read in the English general council, or the Council of Hatfield in the year 680, of which mention is made by Bede, Book I of the *History of the English People*, chapter 17.

It is very likely that the Gallican churches, given this occasion, augmented the Constantinopolitan Symbol with the particle *and the Son*. I gather this from the Synod of Friuli under Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, which some say was celebrated in the year 791, while others more correctly say in the year 796. The Symbol of Constantinople is read inserted into the acts with the addition. Paulinus defends the addition with these words: "I know that it has been decreed in certain synodal leaves... especially on account of the fraudulent and fictitious perfidy of Nestorius or Eutyches, that it is not permitted for anyone to teach or compose a Symbol of another faith. But far be it from us, and far be it from every faithful heart, to compose or teach a Symbol or faith other than, or in another way than, they instituted it! But according to their sense, perhaps those things which, on account of brevity, are less than becomingly understood by the simple or the unlearned, we have decreed to hand down as to be explained, and to retain the text of the Symbol itself... Indeed, it is not a matter of faith to add to or subtract from those things which have been well and healthfully promulgated by the holy Fathers, to think rightly according to their sense, and in explaining to supplement their subtle genius; but to add or to subtract is to cunningly feel otherwise, through crafty evasion, than they did, contrary to their sacrosanct sense: and with a confused style to compose a perverse dogma... For of many Catholic men and worshippers of the churches of God, the venerable work composed of the holy faith is read, resonating in other words and with a different pen, but it is proven that they smell of the same sense, the same understanding of genius, and in accordance with one document of firm assertion of an inviolate faith."

^B Furthermore, against the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the Iconoclasts waged a bitter war under the empire, especially, of Constantine Copronymus, who was born in the year of Christ 719, and in the following year was called emperor. He began to reign alone in the year 741, after the death of his father, Leo the Isaurian, whose impiety against the holy images he possessed as an inheritance. The Greeks, who were branded as heretics by the Westerners, accused the Westerners themselves of the same crime—as if to pay back like for like—regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, which they asserted was from the Father and from the Son. Hence, frequent synods were celebrated and disputations held on this matter.

The first synod that is found is that of Gentilly, celebrated under Pippin, King of the Franks, in the year 767. The legation of Constantine, Emperor of the Greeks, to the king gave the occasion. Paul, the Supreme Pontiff, having been admonished about this matter, sent letters to the same Frankish king, which are held in the *Codex Carolinus* ^C at number 26, the words of which are: "The Christianity of your Excellency has directed us, signifying concern about our envoys, and yours, and those of the Greeks who have returned from the royal city, that they are detained among you. Meanwhile, that you may, having aggregated your priests and nobles, be able to conjecture or perform: what should be answered regarding those things which have been directed to you. And indeed, we must not expect to be answered by you on this matter otherwise than what is known to pertain to the exaltation of your sacrosanct spiritual Mother, the Roman Church, and to the Orthodox Faith." The other head of the legation concerned the regions of Italy attributed by Pippin to the Roman Church. The other concerned the dogma of the procession from the Father and the Son. Ado of Vienne in his *Chronicle* says: "A synod was held in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 767, and the question was ventilated between the Greeks and the Romans regarding the Trinity: and whether 179 the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father; and regarding the images of the saints, whether they were to be formed or painted in the churches." The Annals of the Franks designate the place as the villa of Gentilly. In the *Annals of St. Bertin*, these things are held: "Pippin celebrated Easter in Gentilly in the year of the Lord 767. Then he held a great synod in the aforementioned villa between the Romans and the Greeks concerning the holy Trinity, or concerning the images of the saints."

They provide most ample confirmation, which pertains to the synod of Aachen celebrated in the year 809. Indeed, it is known 181 that it had already become the custom in the Gallican churches, and elsewhere, for the Constantinopolitan symbol, augmented by the addition, to be sung during the solemnities of the Mass. Eginhard, in his *Life of Charlemagne*, says the following: "The Emperor, having returned from the Ardennes to Aachen, in the month of November, held a council concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit: a question which a certain monk named John had first stirred up at Jerusalem." The occasion for this controversy (these are the words of Mabillon in his first preface to the fourth century of the Order of Saint Benedict, § 2) was sought from the custom of the Gauls who, having added the word *Filioque* to the Constantinopolitan Symbol, incurred the reproach of certain people, especially of John, a monk of Jerusalem. For he, having been sent to Gaul to Charlemagne in the aforementioned year, stirred up a controversy on this matter, which was referred to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff.

The formulas of the faith are indicated, which are distinct from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Symbols, more frequently edited by the churches and ecclesiastical men, and mentioned by us above. The Nicene Formula itself is also expressed, which the Constantinopolitan Fathers supplied by adding some words. For if the venerable series of the Nicene symbol is reviewed, nothing else concerning the Holy Spirit can be found promulgated in it except in this way: "And in the Holy Spirit," they say. What is it, therefore, to say, "And in the Holy Spirit"? How is so brief a profession of theirs to be understood , unless it is clearly given to be understood that the religious devotion of their minds was toward the complete faith: that they believed in the Holy Spirit, just as they believed in the Father and the Son, as is probable? In the same way later, the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, who testified that the faith of the Nicene council remained inviolate forever, nonetheless supplied, as if expounding their meaning: "And in the Holy Spirit we confess that we believe, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father, to be adored and glorified with the Father and the Son." For these things, and the rest that follow, are not held in the sacred dogma of the Nicene Symbol. But also afterward, for the sake of those heretics, to wit, who whisper that the Holy Spirit is of the Father alone, and proceeds from the Father alone, it was added: "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." And yet these holy Fathers are not to be blamed as if they had added anything or diminished anything from the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers; because they did not have different thoughts counter to their meaning, but strove to supply what was lacking in their immaculate intellect with sound teachings. They had learned, therefore, the one hundred and fifty (Fathers) who brought forward "proceeding from the Father," since the Evangelist testifies that the only-begotten Son promised the Spirit from himself to the disciples: "The Spirit who proceeds from the Father." They had, indeed, read the following (Fathers) who added: "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son," that same truth in the Gospel. Which truth, indeed, Paulinus clearly demonstrates with evangelical sayings.

Arguments against the Greeks are very valid. These same things were used by the Fathers in the Florentine synod, and we have collected the same in summary in chapter 2, number 4, and in chapter 3, number 1, as the words of Paulinus persuade us that the particle *Filioque* had already been added to the Constantinopolitan symbol in the age of Paulinus in the churches of the Italian kingdom, which Charlemagne moderated, and in the Gallican churches. The time and the occasion: "Afterward, for the sake of those heretics, to wit, who whisper that the Holy Spirit is of the Father alone, and proceeds from the Father alone, it was added: 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.'" The Arians in Spain were denying this in the sixth century: dissenters in the seventh century stirred up the Monothelites of Constantinople: and in the following, the eighth, open war broke out under the Iconoclasts. Hence we know for certain that that word was added in Spain in the sixth century: and it is very likely that the same was done in the Gallican (churches).

Michael Lequien relates the true occasion in his first Damascene Dissertation from certain unpublished letters, which he himself had received from Stephen Baluze, and which he later published in *Miscellanea*, volume VII. Foreign monks, living on the Mount of Olives, write to Pope Leo III: "We make known to you our tribulation, which we suffer here. John, who was from the monastery of Saint Sabas... was raised up against us, saying that the Franks, who are on the Mount of Olives, are heretics: and he said to us because 'All you Franks are heretics'... On the holy day of the Lord (after the Nativity of the Lord), the priests were gathered with the clergy and people, and they asked us how we believed the Symbol. We, however, saying that we believe such as the holy Roman Church; we said, and we say, in our own language, which you do not say in Greek. And in the *Gloria Patri* you do not say 'as it was in the beginning'; and in the *Gloria in excelsis* you do not say 'You alone are the Most High'; and the *Pater noster* you say in another way; and in the Symbol we say more than you, 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.' Hence this John, an enemy of his own soul, says this saying (that he proceeds from the Father and the Son) is why we are heretics." Therefore, that monk John had not stirred up crowds in the Gauls, but at Jerusalem against the Latin monks of the Mount of Olives, who therefore seek and implore the protection and help of the highest Roman Pontiff.

They say in truth: "I, Leo, your servant (one of the same monks of the Mount of Olives, as below in the subscriptions), while I was at your holy feet (at Rome), and at the pious feet of the Lord Charles, most pious emperor, and your son, we heard in 182 his Chapel that it is said in the Symbol of the faith, 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.' And in the homily of Saint Gregory, which your son, the lord Ca-

- rolus the Emperor gave, in the parable of the Octaves of Easter, where he said, "But his mission is that very procession, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." And in the Rule of Saint Benedict, which your son, the lord Karolus, gave to us, which has the faith written regarding the holy and inseparable Trinity, it is said: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son." And in the Dialogue, which your Holiness has deigned to give to us, it says the same. And in the faith of Saint Athanasius it says it in the same way. ^A With these documents the Latin monks defended the particle *Filioque*, which they read inserted into the Constantinopolitan Symbol, and which they chanted; and they testify that it had been customary to say it in that same Symbol in the chapel of the Emperor Karolus Magnus.

They earnestly beseech the Supreme Pontiff: "That you might deign (they say), as much in Greek as in Latin regarding the holy Fathers who composed the Symbol, to inquire into this phrase, where it is said, 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.' And in Greek they do not say it, as we do: but they say, 'Who proceeds from the Father'; and they laugh at this grave phrase, which we say in Latin. And deign to command the lord Karolus, the Emperor, your son, because we heard this phrase in his chapel: 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.'" We read the signatories of the letter: Dominicus, Theodorus, Arimundus, Gregorius, Joannes, Leo, and the entire congregation from the holy mount of Olivet. We learn first that the Constantinopolitan Symbol was accustomed to be chanted in the royal chapel of Karolus Magnus augmented by the particle, *Filioque*: that those monks on the Mount of Olivet had been ignorant of the origin of this addition, and had kept the Gallican custom in their own monastery; and thus, long before the Council of Aachen, that the Constantinopolitan Symbol had been augmented with that word in the Gallican churches.

The letter which Leo III had received from the monks, he transmitted to Karolus Magnus. He also appended a confession of faith to be carried to those same monks: all these things are contained in the aforementioned Baluze: "To the most pious and serene victor and triumpher, the son and lover of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, Karolus Augustus, Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God... In the present year, the monks who dwell on the holy Mount of Olivet sent us a letter ^D containing the contention of faith which they had among themselves. We have sent them the Symbol of the orthodox faith, so that all might hold to this our holy, catholic, and 183 apostolic Church, the correct and inviolate faith; which letter we have indeed sent to be read by your imperial power." Then he commends the monks more strenuously to Karolus. What he calls the Symbol of the orthodox faith is read as being appended in the same place. It is not the Constantinopolitan Symbol, but another formula, which explains the articles of the aforementioned Symbol more broadly. It begins: "We believe in the holy Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, etc."; and in it the Holy Spirit is called full God, proceeding from the Father and the Son. Note that nothing is mentioned there regarding the addition to the Constantinopolitan Symbol.

However, a synod was held at Aachen by Karolus Magnus concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Then legates were sent to Rome so that the question raised might be resolved, as Eginardus says. Baronius, at the year 809, num. 53, thinks: That it was not a matter of a treatise on whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son: but that those four syllables, *Filioque*, had been added at that time among both the Spaniards and the Gauls; and whether it was rightly done that the Symbol thus augmented should be chanted in the Church. Indeed, Cointius, and Pagius, and other learned men, hold it as certain that the question was raised by the Greeks regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit itself, whether it proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, and that it was discussed. The Roman Church, instructed by Evangelical documents and fortified by the traditions of the Fathers, always taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from both. That it had not yet received that addition to the Constantinopolitan Symbol, what we have argued thus far surely proves. Whether it approved and received it at that age, will be said below.

III. In the year 787, the second Nicaean and seventh ecumenical synod was convened and celebrated. Action 7 contains the definition of faith issued against the Iconoclasts, in which the Constantinopolitan Symbol is read as being inserted. The Greek text has only these words: *Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον*, proceeding from the Father. The Latin version, which stands alongside, has it thus: "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." A note is appended in the Collections of councils by Labbe and Hardouin, that that word is omitted in the Joly codex, and in another which Hardouin calls our own. There exists another Latin version of this seventh synod in the aforementioned Labbe, which he himself calls the vulgate and ancient: but Hardouin notes that it is wrongly so called, since its author was Gybertus Longolius, who first published it at Cologne in the year 1540. In this, those words are found in the cited place: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

184 In the Latin Acts of the Council of Florence, which Horatius Justinianus collected, arranged, and illustrated with notes, these things are found in collation 6: "When the Symbol of the seventh synod was being read, the cardinal (Julian) produced a very ancient Latin book, where in the Symbol of that council there was, *Filioque*. And he added, that as is had from the Chronica Martiniana, that doctrine had been explained in that council." Julian said again: "Because the Symbol of the seventh council read by them (the Greeks) does not have the doctrine, *Filioque*; and we have it with that word: it seems that it should be read according to our custom, just as we have it." The Greco-Latin Acts in session 5 agree: "But when that definition (of the seventh synod) was being recited by us (the Greeks), another ancient codex from the Latins was brought forward."

manuscript, in which the same definition of this synod was contained. And it was found, where it deals with the divinity of the Holy Spirit, in these words: "Proceeding from the Father," was added "and from the Son," just as they say. And they had much discussion about this matter, showing us a book as if it were ancient; and boasting of it, and comparing it with our codex... We, therefore, answered nothing to this, as was not permitted at the time. We only exhorted them (as they themselves requested) to recite such an exposition just as it was written in the book."

Martinus Polonus, whose authority Cardinal Julian used, says in his *Chronicon*: "In the 8th year of the reign of these (Constantine and Irene) the second synod was held at Nicaea, where there were three hundred and fifty Fathers: in which it was affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." These things seem to indicate the aforementioned addition of the word *Filioque*. Baronius adds, at the year 787, number 58, that it is held in the ancient translation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius written to Pope John VIII, and in the Greek text. But in the Council of Florence at the quoted passage there was no dealing with a Greek text having the addition, but rather with a very ancient Latin book. As far as the translation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius pertains, Petrus Pithoeus in his *Historia Controversiæ veteris de processione Spiritus sancti*, which exists at the end of the *Codex Canonum veteris Ecclesiæ Romanæ*, bears testimony against Baronius: "Anastasius, librarian of the Holy Roman Church," he says, "who lived at almost the same time, shortly after John VIII translated the same synod (Nicaea) into Latin, and the most ancient codex in our possession contains nothing of the kind."

The author of the *Annales* fights for the addition with another argument. He says, number 39: "Furthermore, that book called *Capitulare adversus Nicænam synodum*, sent by Charlemagne to Pope Adrian (1) 185 (which is the same work as the books called *Libri Carolini*), teaches what the genuine reading of its text (in the Constantinopolitan Creed) was, as it is censured by the author (book 3, chapter 3) because Tarasius is thought not to think correctly, who confesses the Holy Spirit not from the Father and the Son according to the faith of the Nicene (or rather, the interpolated Constantinopolitan) Creed, but rather as proceeding from the Father through the Son. If, therefore, this very thing had been written in the profession of faith of the whole synod, as it is held in this seventh session, namely, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, then certainly not one Tarasius would have been called into crime by the adversary, but the whole synod itself, which he so bitterly impugned." ^A The Constantinopolitan Creed, which is contained in this ^B Nicene definition, does not have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. In the Greek text it is read "the same Spirit proceeding from the Father": and the Latin version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius exhibited the same, no more words, as Pithoeus testifies. Why then did the adversary, under the name of Charlemagne, reproach the definition of the universal synod? ^C But to the Greeks, who reject the procession from both, the words of Tarasius brought forward are most adverse: since to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is the same as saying He proceeds from the Father and the Son, as has been demonstrated by the unconquered testimonies of the Fathers in the previous dissertation. Pope Adrian I, in his letter to King Charles, which stands in Labbe after the Latin Acts of the same Nicene synod, vindicates the words of Tarasius against the adversary by gathering many testimonies of the holy Fathers. If these are considered attentively (notes Lequien, *Dissertatione I Damascenica* no. 12), they for the most part state nothing else ^D except that the Holy Spirit is granted to men by the Father through the Son. But we examined many things in the previous dissertation which prove the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, or from the Father through the Son. Those things which declare that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son, or from the Father through the Son, also prove this. For when in the Mission properly so-called, two things concur, some external production of the effect, by reason of which the person who is sent is said to inhabit specifically, but also the eternal procession of the same sent person? Therefore, 186 since the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son, He proceeds in like manner from both.

There are certain words in the letters sent by Leo III to Charlemagne, and published as we noted by Baluze, which are most worthy of attention: "They brought from Jerusalem (monks of the Mount of Olives sent to the same Leo) a letter for us from Thomas, Patriarch of Jerusalem: which reading, we found that we should commend them (the monks) to your piety through our request-letter." These things most openly prove that Thomas, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and his Greek presbyters, did not in the least consent to the accusation leveled by John, a Greek monk of the monastery of Saint Sabas, against the Latins because of the confession of the procession from both, and its addition to the Creed. Lequien deals with Patriarch Thomas with a broad and clear pen in his *Oriens Christianus*, volume III.

IV. We have seen the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son agitated in the Synod of Aachen held in the month of November in the year 809. Legates, Bernhar, Bishop of Worms, and Adelhard, Abbot of Corbie, were sent to the Supreme Pontiff Leo III by Charles...

^A the Great, so that this same question might at last be defined, as Eginhard relates in his Chronicle, and the other annalists agree. There exists an epistle addressed to the Pontiff himself by Charles the Great in Labbe’s collection of councils, which begins: "The question which has recently arisen concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit has long been most diligently ventilated by the holy Fathers." Further testimonies of the Fathers are recounted. The Acts exist in the same place and in Baronius, under the year 809, no. 51 of the Collation which the Legates held with Leo. The first act concerned the dogma of the faith: then the question was introduced concerning the reading, or the chanting, of the Constantinopolitan Creed during the solemnities of the Mass, and especially with the addition of the word *Filioque*. The title is: "Reason, which was held concerning the Creed of the faith in the secretarium of the holy apostle Peter between the most holy and co-evangelical lord Leo, Pope of the city of Rome, and Bernhar and Jesse, bishops, and Adelhard, abbot, envoys of the lord Emperor Charles, through the second indiction." Among the lauded annalists, no mention of Bishop Jesse is introduced. The second indiction casts suspicion. For it is said that this Collation was written or published by Smaragdus, abbot of Saint-Michel-sur-Meuse, who had undoubtedly noted the month of November 187 of the year 809 according to the custom of the ^A third indiction. Finally, it must be added that the aforementioned legation, dispatched by Charles the Great after the same month of November, could not so easily have been completed before the year 810, and the third indiction. Hence, learned men consider that the title was added by some dabbler, while in no way doubting the sincerity of the Collation.

In the first place, the testimonies of the Fathers were read by the aforementioned envoys in order, and most diligently listened to by the apostolic lord. He indeed says: "I so believe, I so hold, with these authors and the authors of the holy Scriptures. If anyone wishes to think or to teach otherwise concerning this matter, I defend [or forbid it]; and if he has not been converted and does not wish to hold according to this sense, I utterly cast out him who thinks the contrary." In the *Liber Diurnus* of the Roman pontiffs, there are three professions of faith which the Roman pontiffs themselves issued at their ordination in this age and in the following century, and in the second [profession] these things are contained: "He declares the Spirit of God to receive from His own," and by breathing upon the disciples, he announces: "Receive the Holy Spirit," as proceeding from Himself. In the third, however: "The Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son." This was Leo’s faith.

Then, an occasion having been given by certain words of theirs—which had come out in the course of conversation rather than by disputation—the Collation proceeded to the question of the chant of the interpolated Constantinopolitan Creed during the solemnities of the Mass. The Acts teach us three things: 1. That in the Roman Church the chanting of the Creed during the solemnities of the Mass had not yet obtained, nor the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed. 2. That Pope Leo endured the addition, made by the Gallican Churches, with great reluctance. 3. He also indicated the manner ^B of removing the addition, namely, after it had been omitted first in the Regal palace, and then in other Churches.

Let it be permitted to examine the Collation itself more diligently. The legates institute a discussion concerning the addition to the Creed, after the faith of the Roman Church concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son had been expounded by Leo III: "If, therefore, it is so," they say, "why is it not permitted to chant it, or to teach by chanting?" "Indeed, it is permitted to teach, to chant," the pontiff replies, "and to teach by chanting. But it is illicit in forbidden things: it is not permitted to insert [it], neither by writing nor by chanting." The sense is that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son must be held and taught, whether it be done by chanting, or by reading, or by writing; but that it is among things forbidden to be inserted into the Creed. The legates understood the causes and laws of the prohibition which the Roman Church was guarding: because they who founded the same Creed did not insert it; and the subsequent principal councils—the fourth, Chalcedon; the fifth and sixth, Constantinopolitan—prohibited adding anything new beyond the Creed, and 188 removing, adding, or changing anything in the old ones. It is surprising that mention of the decree was not inserted in the third ecumenical council of Ephesus! The Roman Church, most tenacious of antiquity, observed the rigor of a law of this kind. "But because it is good to believe this," the legates say, "it would be as good today to chant it, as it would have been at that time, had it been inserted by them." "Truly it is good to believe it, and very good," these are the words of the pontiff, "as it is such a great sacrament of faith which it is not permitted not to believe... I do not dare to say that [the founders of the Creed, or the ecumenical councils which confirmed the Creed] did not do well, had they done [or added the particle *Filioque*]: surely knowing... they had weighed why they omitted it." ^C

The legates show the nature of the time and the weakness of the brethren, and the instruction necessary for such a great mystery: "Whence," they say, "it seemed better to us to instruct so many by chanting rather than to leave the unlearned in silence. For if your paternity knew how many thousands there are today who know this [in Gaul, in the kingdom of Italy, in Germany], because it is chanted, who would never have known it if it were not chanted: perhaps you would hold with us, and would agree that it be chanted even with your consent." Who would not see the instruction necessary for this mystery and others? "But," the pontiff remarks, "are all such mystical sacraments of the faith—without which anyone who is able to arrive at this cannot be a Catholic—to be inserted into creeds? And for the sake of the grasp of the less intelligent, are they to be added as each one pleases? Multiple means are patent by which the faithful can be instructed outside the formula of the Creed: in dogmatic books, in Catechisms, in Homilies." "Does not," the legates reply, "the license to chant that very Creed in the Church come from you? Has not that custom of chanting proceeded to us from here?" The Pontiff: "I gave the license to chant: but not..."

by commanding, but as I said before, by permitting; because I am not ignorant that it could be, as it was then, useful to those in need." The Pontiff desired that the addition be removed, and prescribed a way which he thought more cautious: that, namely, the singing of the Creed itself might gradually be discontinued and omitted, first in the palace, and then in the rest of the Churches. The legates therefore said: "As I see, ^B it is decreed by your paternity that first, that which is in question, concerning the aforesaid Creed, should be removed (the addition): and then at last it might be learned by anyone lawfully and freely, whether by chanting, or by handing it down (the same addition outside the Creed), and be taught." The Pontiff: "It is without doubt so decreed on our part: so also we urge in every way that your side may assent." The legates: "With these things removed which you wish, it is good that the same Creed be chanted (during the solemnities of the Mass)." The Pontiff: "Good indeed." The legates: "If we proceed to chant the Creed in the Liturgy, and we omit the addition of the word *Filioque*; this discourse will be condemned by all, as if it were against the faith. What counsel, then, will you give?" The Pontiff: "If I had been asked before the Creed was chanted in this way (with the addition), I would have answered that it should not be inserted. But now (which I say not by affirming, but by treating together with you), as much as occurs to my mind, it seems to me that both can be done: that gradually in the palace (because in our holy Church it is not chanted), the custom of chanting the same Creed might be discontinued... if it is put away by you, it will be put away by everyone. ^C

We have declared about the times of the synod of Gentilly celebrated around the year 767. Afterwards, the faculty of chanting was made for them in the Liturgy, with the Addition, when they began to chant the aforesaid Church's [Creed]... ^D The error of Felix and Elipandus concerning the adoptive filiation of Christ was condemned in the year 792, in the synod of Ratisbon, and especially in the year 794, in the fuller council of Frankfurt, at which the bishops of Gaul and Germany were present, and likewise those of the Italian kingdom. Leo III, therefore, who began to rule the Roman Church in the following year, 795, could have granted the faculty so that the Constantinopolitan Creed should be chanted in the same provinces during the solemnities of the Mass. This rite the Churches of Spain had already long embraced. Perhaps prelates had introduced it into some Gallican churches a long time before: but in the age of Leo, the same rite spread more widely and frequently. These words of Strabo are very probable: yet when he narrates that the rite came from the Greeks to the Romans, it is understood that he meant the Roman Church. From this, however, it seems to be concluded that it was permitted by the supreme pontiff with the intention that the natural divine filiation of Jesus Christ, which Felix and Elipandus were attacking, should be proclaimed openly and publicly in the chanting of the Creed during the solemnities of the Mass: and that he had not even thought of the Addition of the word *Filioque*. The legates said that they had heard others, prior to themselves, chanting the addition in those parts. Perhaps they understood those parts to be in the kingdom of Italy: concerning which matter, it is not possible to discourse more diligently as it is sufficiently obscure. It is certainly by no means allowed to understand the Roman Church, as we are proceeding to show.

That the Gallican Churches interpolated the Creed is known. Many things appear: 1. The Roman Church, most tenacious of antiquity, observed the rigor of the Ephesian law; nor did it allow the Constantinopolitan Creed in any way to be interpolated. 2. The same Creed was neither privately nor publicly written, read, or chanted by it with the addition. 3. Moreover, it had not yet admitted the chant of the Creed without the addition into its Liturgy. 4. Now, the Pope knew well that these were chapters of ecclesiastical discipline: whence he had then permitted the chant of the Creed to the Gallican churches during the solemnities of the Mass: and also he persuaded them that the addition introduced by them be removed, not by affirming or commanding; but by treating and providing counsel. V. The Gallican Churches do not seem to have departed from their custom: the Roman Church stuck to antiquity and the rigor of the law. Learned men think this is to be understood regarding the added word, *Filioque*: otherwise regarding the public recitation of the Creed in the Liturgical Office. Mabillon had said in his *De Liturgia Gallicana*, book 1, chapter 2, number 6, [that] the Creed after the Gospel…

^A was in no way sung by the Romans until the times of the Emperor Henry of blessed memory, that is, according to the witness of Berno, Abbot of Reichenau. These words of the aforementioned [author] are found in chapter 2 of those matters pertaining to the Mass: "The Creed after the Gospel until these times of the Emperor Henry of blessed memory (and the eleventh century had begun) was in no way sung. Being asked by the same (Henry) why they did so [and] I myself standing there, I heard them give a response of this kind: namely, that the Roman Church had never been infected by the dregs of any heresy: but that according to the doctrine of Saint Peter, it remained unshaken in the solidity of the Catholic faith: and therefore, for those who could at one time be stained by some heresy, it was more necessary to frequent that Creed by singing it more often."

The most learned man seems to have abandoned this opinion in his *Commentary on the Roman Order*, chapter 5, number 3, where he says: "Truly, long before that time, it was the custom for the Creed to be sung in the pontifical Mass, as the second booklet concerning the Roman Order makes clear." We shall call this Order, and others, to examination below. Edmund Martène goes over entirely to this opinion in *De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus*, book 1, chapter 4, article 3, number 11, and in the Preface to volumes IV and V of his *Amplissima Collectio*. François Pagi, in his *Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs*, volume II, under Benedict VIII, number 8, preferred to agree with the illustrious monk rather than follow the sentiment of his uncle, Antoine Pagi. Yet they do not follow the same path. Mabillon, in order to uphold the authority of Berno, which seems to conflict [with this], thinks that the recitation of the Creed was omitted by the Romans in the Mass from the ninth century to the eleventh, and then resumed. Mabillon neither provides any solid reason for this conjecture, nor could he ever have provided one. ^B

"We, however," says Martène in the place first cited, "admit the authority of Berno, and nevertheless we assert that the recitation of the Creed in the Mass exists in the Roman Church much longer than these authors (Baronius, Bona, Menard, and others) imagine. For in the first place, their prejudices are obstructed by the ancient Roman Orders, II, V and VI, from those published by Mabillon in volume II of his *Museum Italicum*. And lest anyone suspect that some interpolation has crept into these, Amalarius the Abbot removes all suspicion in his *Ecloga* on the Roman Order, published by Baluze in the *Appendix to the Capitularies of the Kings of the Franks*, in which he treats of the Creed." In Roman Order II, these words are held, pag. 46: "After the Gospel, the candles are extinguished in their place and by the Bishop, *Credo in unum Deum*, is sung." In Order V, pag. 66: "Having read the Gospel, the bishop says: *Pax tibi*: and lifts up [his voice]: *Credo in unum Deum*." In Order VI, pag. 75: "Let him begin to sing in a high voice: *Credo in unum Deum*." We gather the antiquity of the second Order from Amalarius of Metz, a writer of the ninth century, who wrote the praised *Ecloga* on that same Order; ^C and in it he deals with the *Credo in Deum*, or the Creed, which was recited in pontifical Mass.

Martène proceeds to plead his cause: "Then Walafrid in his book *De rebus Ecclesiasticis*, chapter 22, after he brought forward the reasons why the Greeks sang the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Mass, rather than the Nicene, adds: 'It is believed that this custom came to the Romans from them.' To this is added the testimony of Pope Leo III, which is greater than any exception, in the aforementioned Collation with the legates of the Council of Aachen. For when the legates pressed the supreme pontiff to permit the Gallican churches to sing the Creed with that addition which makes mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, just as from the Father, the pontiff replied that it was sufficient to sing it in the way in which the holy Roman Church holds the singing and celebration of these holy mysteries. To these I add the authority of Pope John VIII (who was raised to the supreme pontificate in the year 872) in epistle 247, to Svatopluk, Count of Moravia, where he has these words: 'We have questioned Methodius, your venerable archbishop, in the presence of our brothers the bishops, whether he believed the Creed of the orthodox faith and sang it during the sacred solemnities of the Mass, just as it is firmly established that the holy Roman Church holds [it], and [as it was] proclaimed by the holy Fathers in the holy and universal synods according to the evangelical authority of Christ our God, and handed down.' He, however, professed that he held and sang [it] according to the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, as the holy Roman Church teaches, and as it has been handed down by the Fathers." From all these things it is concluded that throughout the ninth century the Creed was said in the Mass among the Romans.

What, therefore, shall we say to the testimony of Berno? That this custom was omitted at Rome in the tenth century (with Mabillon)? This response could be tolerated somehow, if we did not have a more solid solution to this difficulty from elsewhere. For if we examine Berno's words with the careful consideration of the mind, he does not absolutely deny that the Creed was said among the Romans in the Mass, but [only that it was] sung, because in truth, as in other churches, it was not sung with solemn modulation, but was only recited. ^D I offer as witness to this response Leo III, in the aforementioned Collation with the legates of the Council of Aachen: "But that which you assert," says the Pontiff, "that you sing the Creed thus because you heard others in those parts who were before you singing it, what is that to us? For we do not ourselves sing the same, but we read it: and by reading we teach, nor yet by reading or teaching do we presume to add anything by inserting anything into that same Creed."

193 These arguments of the most famous man do not seem to me so robust that they ought to be held as a more solid solution for the testimony gathered from Berno. Martène himself, in the place cited, admits that the word *cantari* [to be sung], which Berno himself uses, is used by most authors for *recitari* [to be recited].

^A Since he relates, therefore, that up to the times of Henry I the Romans did not sing the Creed, he could certainly have denied the simple recitation of the same Creed among them. Without doubt he denied this, as the nature of Roman custom, which he adduces, evinces: namely, that the Roman Church, he says, had never been infected by the filth of any heresy, but remained unshaken in the Catholic faith according to the doctrine of St. Peter; and therefore it was the less necessary to repeat that Creed by singing it frequently, since they could never have been stained by any heresy. Either there is no weight in the aforementioned reason, or it certainly rejects the simple recitation of the Creed just as much as it does the recitation with chanting and modulation. Mabillon himself also teaches, in the preface to the 2nd century of the Order of St. Benedict, no. 36, where he notes that "to sing the mass" is not to perform the sacred offices with a modulated voice, but to recite them; consult the same author in his *Disquisitio de cursu Gallicano*, and Ducange under the words *Cantare* and *Decantare*.

The words you oppose make no difficulty. They are: "But because you assert that you sing these things because you have heard those before you in these parts singing them, what is that to us? For we do not sing the same, but we read it. And I presume to teach by reading, yet not to add anything to the same Creed by reading or teaching by inserting it." The matter at issue in this place is the Addition which the Gallican and German Churches, and the Italian [churches] in the kingdom of Charles, were singing together with the Creed. Leo testifies that the same (the addition, that is) was not sung at Rome, but read. If, therefore, this reading of the Creed in the Liturgy ought to be understood [in this way], then it would necessarily have to be admitted that the Creed was read and recited in the mass at Rome with the addition. For it was read at Rome, as you say, what was sung elsewhere; but the addition was sung elsewhere with the Creed; therefore the same thing was read at Rome, which is entirely repugnant to the words of Leo in the *Collatio*. ^B The genuine meaning of the words is: that neither the Creed, nor the addition with the Creed, was accustomed to be sung or publicly read during the solemnities of the Mass at Rome; that, however, that addition, or the doctrine concerning the procession from the Father and the Son, was read, and taught, and handed down to the faithful outside the Creed in writings, in catechisms, and in sermons. These words which follow bring out this meaning: "And to teach by reading, yet not to add anything to the same Creed by reading, or by teaching, by inserting it." Other words which the Pontiff adds in the same place confirm this meaning: "What we recognize as lacking from the aforementioned Creeds, the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, we do not presume to insert, as has been said, but we take care to provide [them] at opportune places and times, to which it is fitting." This is that reading of the *Filioque* addition of which the Pontiff speaks: namely, outside the Creed, in the Catechisms, which were held at opportune places and times.

To yourself and your solution, you bring forward Leo in the *Collatio* held with the legates of the Council of Aachen. Nay, the Supreme Pontiff refutes your solution, which you call [a solution], in the same *Collatio*. After much discussion, the legates said: "With those things removed which you wish, it is good that the same Creed be sung, with the Addition, that is, removed." Leo replies: "Good indeed; yet not by commanding, but, as we said before, by permitting." These things signify without any ambiguity that the Creed was not yet accustomed to be recited at Rome, even without the addition; but that this was permitted to the Gallican churches. For why, if Pope Leo had read it himself in the Liturgy, would he only have permitted the Gallican churches to sing it? No solid reason appears. The legates continue: "But because, as you say, it is good to sing the same Creed, if the word (*Filioque*) is removed, will the same word be condemned by everyone as if it were against the faith? What counsel, therefore, will you give?" Weigh the method which the Pontiff suggests, so that the addition may be removed from the Creed without any offense. He gives the counsel, namely, that the singing of the Creed in the mass be omitted, first in the Palace, then gradually in other churches. ^C Weigh his words: "So it seems to me that it can be done in both ways, and the addition removed, and the offense of the faithful avoided: That the custom of singing the same Creed be gradually omitted in the palace, because it is not sung in our holy Church." Leo was persuading the Roman Church as an example, so that the Creed might first be omitted in the palace during the office of the mass. You reply that the Pontiff was persuading [them] that the *singing* of the Creed be omitted, not its *recitation*. I shall reply that the counsel was suggested by the Pontiff for avoiding the offense which the preterition of the particle *Filioque* could have generated; this offense could have happened whether the Creed were sung without the addition, or were only recited.

Against your opinion, you think those words of the Pontiff are peremptory: "It is enough (he says, as you refer) to chant the Creed (namely, without the addition), ^D 195 as the holy Roman Church holds in the sacrosanct mysteries." It is worth the effort to show the whole text: "I gave permission to sing: but not to add, diminish, or change anything by singing. And to speak more expressively, because you force me, as long as it was sufficient for you in this, as the holy Roman Church holds in the singing and celebrating of the sacrosanct mysteries in this manner, it was never necessary to labor in such things yourself, or to give others an occasion for laboring." The Pontiff says that he had given permission to the Gallican Churches, or rather that it was permitted to them by him (the word which he uses below), that they themselves should sing the Creed during the solemnities of the Mass. Therefore, the Roman Church did not chant it

^A nor at any time—whether it had been allowed up to these times of the Emperor Henry of divine memory (the eleventh century having then begun, that is to say)—did the Romans sing it in any manner.

In this conflict of writers, you might ask, why does the authority of the more ancient Amalarius not prevail? Why, I ask, should the authority of the Micrologus, and especially of Berno, who bear witness to the state of affairs in their own time, have to yield? For the latter testifies that it was not until the age of Henry I that the Romans began to chant or read the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Liturgy: and he, in his commentary expounding the Roman Order, makes no mention of the Creed being chanted or spoken. A solution that is derived from the interpolation introduced into the Order removes all contradiction: provided, however, that this is rightly understood. Namely, the Roman Order, in that part which offers the chanting of the Creed, was interpolated at a later age, when the Roman Church received that rite in the eleventh century. Amalarius, however, who in the ninth century was expounding the Order, discusses the rite of the Creed not as he read it in that same Order, but as he knew it to be in use ^B by other churches—Hispanic, Gallican, Germanic, and Italian in the kingdom of Italy. The first part depends on the other. I hold this to be most certain: for the reason that Amalarius everywhere and constantly puts forward the words of the Roman Order in his *Ecloga*, and subsequently explains them; but where he deals with the Creed, he does not have a single word that is taken from that Order itself.

Let it be permitted to set the specimen of each, both the Order and the *Ecloga*, before one’s eyes, so that what I claim may appear most brilliantly. In the Order the words are: "The Deacon himself stands facing the south... After the Gospel is read, the candles ^C in their place are extinguished. And by the bishop, the *Credo in unum Deum* is chanted... Then the bishop greets the people, saying, 'The Lord be with you'... The Offertory is chanted... Then comes the subdeacon, carrying on his right arm the paten, and on the left the chalice," etc. Let us consider Amalarius, who is expounding these things, more attentively: "The deacon, pronouncing the words of the Gospel, stands facing the south: for he speaks to those of whom Paul was speaking," etc. The former are the words of the Roman Order; the words which follow ^D contain Amalarius's exposition: "After the Gospel is read, the candles are extinguished: by the candles, the doctors of the Church are signified," etc. The words follow in the Order: "And by the bishop, the *Credo in unum Deum* is chanted." These are not found in Amalarius, who nonetheless says thus: "Of the *Credo in Deum*. After Christ has spoken to his people, it is right that they (the people) should profess their belief more sweetly and intently," etc. Who does not see that Amalarius found nothing in the Roman Order about the Creed, and that whatever is in the *Ecloga* he added of his own accord? Hence he follows: "After the Gospel is read (and indeed not 'after the Creed is read or chanted'), the subdeacon comes carrying on his left arm the chalice... The Lord Jesus himself is

^A represented as the one who brings the first words of the order of service into order, or rather, the other words of Amalarius explaining the order. One would have to be blind not to see that the discourse regarding the Creed was introduced by Amalarius himself, of which there is no mention in the Ordo: and therefore, the Ordo itself was interpolated in a later age with those added words, 'And by the bishop the Credo in unum Deum is chanted.'

Observe in the Ecloga those words which are had: 'After the Gospel is read, the subdeacon comes carrying on his left arm the chalice': which sufficiently indicate that in the genuine Ordo no recitation of the Creed was prescribed after the Gospel. Now conclude that the argument for the recitation of the Creed among the Romans in the ninth and eighth centuries, taken from the Ordines—whether from those which Mabillon published, or from others published by Hittorp—is of the slightest weight, and has no force, since these Ordines were interpolated in a later age. I finally resolve this matter with the words of Joseph Maria Thomasius, among his Scholia on the Gregorian Antiphonary: 'The Roman Ordo,' he says, 'was not circulated in ancient times in the manner in which it is edited among us. For it was contained in separate booklets, by which the more important Offices throughout the year were explained... Moreover, that Roman Ordo, edited by Hittorp, is rather a hodgepodge of diverse rites according to various customs: so that in such a variety, to distinguish the older and more genuine Roman rites without the help of those booklets is almost impossible.' But 198 even the booklets themselves, which Mabillon published, must be examined with a more diligent critique, lest we attribute to the Roman Church of that age rites which it had by no means yet received: regarding which matter I shall still have to speak below in the following chapter.

CHAPTER V

I. For a long time, there was silence regarding the dissensions that had been stirred up concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, whether against the very origin of the third divine person from the Father and the Son, or against the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed. The Roman Church stood unmoved in the faith of the dogma, together with all the Churches of the West, fortified by the perennial tradition of the Fathers, and even the Greeks: that other Churches had received the addition, the same Roman Church had not yet admitted throughout the ninth century. The Photian disputes prove this fact.

The Roman Church, in the synod celebrated in the year 863, proscribed Photius at the hands of Nicholas I, as if he were an unjust and violent invader, and one who governed the Constantinopolitan Church, desirous of vengeance and stirred by bile, throwing many calumnies against the Roman Church which he could concoct with a deranged mind. He contains them all in that Encyclical Epistle which he sent to the archiepiscopal thrones obtaining throughout the East, in the second edition of Montagu. Baronius also reports this whole document in Latin, at the year 863, n. 34. He renews the schism against the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and he disapproves of, condemns, and execrates the addition of that word *Filioque* to the Creed. These are the words, which I provide according to the Latin version of Montagu: "Besides the mentioned absurdities, they attempted to adulterate the holy and sacred Creed, which is confirmed by the calculations of all the ecumenical councils, and holds irresistible force, with spurious meanings and 199 extraneous words (which was the height of their audacity). O diabolical machinations! They were concocting that the Holy Spirit proceeds in a new way not from the Father alone, but also from the Son." He reprobates the dogma with the lightest and most futile arguments, the chief of which is refuted by law in dissertation 1, chapter 8, num. 7.

When Photius wrote these things, he had in view the Bulgarians who had recently converted to the faith: and he accused without doubt those things which he had heard were being done among those same Bulgarians, instituted by Latin priests and bishops in the Catholic faith. The words which Photius had set down there do not permit one to doubt: 'The barbarian race of the Bulgarians, both hateful and hostile to Christ, is converted to such gentleness and knowledge of God, that, departing from their ancestral and diabolical orgies, and shaking off the error of pagan superstition, they passed over, contrary to all expectation, into the Christian faith. But O wicked, God-envious counsel and beginning!... For not yet had that race for two years embraced the right religion of the Christians (by the work of the Greeks) when certain impious and execrable men... having arisen from the western parts... were attempting to lead them craftily away from the healthy and pure dogmas and the uncorrupted faith of the Christians, and to corrupt them. In the first place, they were illicitly leading them to the fasts of the Sabbaths, contrary to the canons of the Church... They were attempting to adulterate the holy and sacred Creed with spurious meanings and extraneous words.' He fights most ignorantly against the dogma of the procession, and adds: 'These bishops (from the Western parts) were disseminating this impiety of darkness together with other illicit and illegitimate things among the Bulgarian race. The fame of these things reached our ears.' Photius accuses the Latin bishops and priests who were instructing the Bulgarians in the faith concerning the added word *Filioque* to the Creed: nor, however, would I dare to deny that he himself concluded from that, that said addition had prevailed among other Western Churches, and also the Roman one. But he soon put aside this suspicion regarding the Roman one.

The praised Latin catechizers of the Bulgarians, as if

to recognize them by face is best. The Annals of ^A Bertin, for the year 866, state thus: "The King of the Bulgarians, who in the previous year... had meditated on becoming a Christian, received holy baptism... Sending to Louis, King of Germany, who was joined to him by a treaty of peace, he requested a bishop and presbyters... Louis, however, sending to Charles his brother, in the ministry of clerics, requested from his brother sacred vessels and sacred vestments and books. Whence Charles, receiving from the bishops of his kingdom no small sum, sent it to him to direct the King of the Bulgarians." It is certain that clerics were sent into Bulgaria from either the Gallican or Germanic Churches. Anastasius the Librarian also mentions that Roman bishops were sent there in the *Life of Nicholas*, saying: "Having received the embassy of Michael, King of the people of the Bulgarians, in the month of August, in the fourteenth indiction, he decided that Paul of Populonia, and Formosus of Portus, bishops of great holiness... should go to preach to that nation." I add the words of the Annals of Fulda, which are worthy of observation, for the year 866 and the following: "Legates of the Bulgarians came to Ratisbon to the King, saying: 'Their king with no small number of his people has been converted to Christ,' and at the same time requesting that the King not delay in sending suitable preachers of the Christian religion to them. King Louis, acceding to the petitions of the Bulgarians, destined for the aforementioned nation Ermenric, the bishop, with presbyters and deacons, to ^B propagate the Catholic faith." But when they had arrived there, the bishops sent by the Roman Pontiff had already at that time filled all that land with preaching and baptizing; wherefore these, having received license from the King, returned to their own land.

The Latin bishops and clerics who were instructing the Bulgarians in the Catholic faith were most gravely rebuked by Photius for the doctrine handed down regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, and for the addition of that word *Filioque* to the Creed. For they were Gallican clerics, or Germans sent into Bulgaria by Louis, King of Germany, and brother of Charles, called the Bald, King of Western Francia and later Emperor. There were also others, whom Nicholas I, the Supreme Pontiff, had sent into that same region. Let no wonder arise that those Germans or Gallicans had handed down the Constantinopolitan Creed to the Bulgarians, as they themselves had it, interpolated with the addition of the word *Filioque*. It was easy for the bishops sent by Nicholas to consent to this addition: both because almost all the Churches of the West had received it, and because it was most consistent that the Bulgarians should believe this more explicitly, whose faith the Photian schismatics were endeavoring to corrupt.

From these letters of Photius, however, Natalis Alexander, in his *Century IV, Dissertation 38, Article 3*, was moved too lightly, and thought that this addition had been made in the Roman Church in the times of Nicholas I. This epoch is not confirmed, nor is it indicated by the words which the same author produces from Ratramnus of Corbie in his book *Against the Greeks*, written in the time of Photius: "Since the Arian madness was rising again," he says, "and wishing to confirm that it is not of the right faith to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; because this might seem to be blasphemous, since the Father would be proclaimed to be of two, that is, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; the doctors of the Church, decreeing that this blasphemy also should be repelled, added to the Creed: that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, lest, if it were said that He proceeds only from the Father, the Son might be slighted, nor would the Spirit be called the Spirit of the Son." He does not say that the word *Filioque* was added to the Creed by the Roman Church, but by the doctors of the Church, among whom it has not been given to us to find others until now, except the Spanish, Gallican, Germanic, and Italians in the kingdom of Italy.

The Supreme Pontiff Nicholas, in a letter in the year 867, in the month of October, the first indiction starting from the preceding September, given to Hincmar and the other bishops in the kingdom of Charles, relates that the Roman Church was rebuked by Photius concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, no mention of an addition to the Creed having been brought up. "He endeavors," he says, "to rebuke our Church, as well as every one in general that uses the Latin tongue, because we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, whereas they themselves affirm that He proceeds only from the Father." Acceding to the wishes of the Pontiff and the bishops of Gaul, Aeneas, who ruled the Parisian Church, published a book against the calumnies of Photius and the Greeks: and concerning the matter of which we are treating, he has only this in the preface: "He (Photius) brings to Roman ears: Why do we profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and not from the Father alone?" What is more? That Photius himself sufficiently indicates in his treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit that the addition to the Creed had not yet been received in the Roman Church in the age of Pope Nicholas; from which Leo Allatius produces a fragment in *Exercise XIV on Creyghton*, page 231. But neither did he cut or harm the dreadful creed (the Symbol), which was accustomed to be carried about in the mouths of all, weaving its own sentence (about the procession from both) as a covering (as Nicholas claims).

John, the Supreme Pontiff, who is called the Eighth of this name, confirms Photius restored to the Constantinopolitan see in the year 879. Lest he himself be thought to have lacerated the Roman Church with injury, he forged a letter under the name of this same John as if written to himself: and in it he shows the Pontiff removed from every addition, and ready to urge its expunction among those who had admitted the same into the Creeds. Yet this fiction of Photius proves that the Creed had not yet thrived interpolated among the Romans in that age. Baronius refers to the mentioned letters in the year 879, no. 54. The words are: "Your fraternity also knows that when recently there came to us he who was sent by you, and consulted us concerning the holy Creed, he found us to preserve it unshakeable, just as it was handed down to us from the beginning; and that we have neither added anything, nor taken away."

^A And once read, he handed it down to the Westerners to be praised and preached as the divine and holy Trinity. And he did this not by word and command alone, but truly by certain auxiliary tablets, as if they were inscriptions, in the manner of columns, which he inscribed and affixed to the doors of the Church... so that there might never be a way... to introduce a cause of the Spirit other than the Father, namely the Son. The opinion concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was not introduced by the Westerners in the age of Photius: rather, it is a dogma of the Catholic faith, fortified by the authority of the Scriptures and by the perennial tradition of the Fathers. Leo III kept the Creed without addition, as he had received it from his forebears; and he bore it with a heavy heart that the Creed, with that word added, was chanted by the Gallican bishops; yet he never censured them, or the Spaniards, or the Italians in the kingdom of Italy as corrupters of our inviolate rule of faith. The matter pertains to ecclesiastical discipline, and it pleased the Pontiff that the rigor of the law, which the Roman Church followed, should flourish among others as well.

Since we know well that a grave condemnation awaits those who dare to do such things. Therefore, we signify to your Reverence again, so that we may satisfy you concerning this addition to the Creed, namely "from the Son": that not only do we not say this, but we also condemn those who in the beginning dared to say this, as if they were transgressors of the divine word... We strive with all our might that our remaining bishops should have the same opinion as we do... It seemed suitable to my reason that no one should be violently coerced by us to remove that addition, which he knows he himself has added to the Creed: but rather to admonish men of this sort with some mildness, and gradually to revoke them from their blasphemy. ^B Photius strengthens this with his comment: that the word *Filioque* was not yet received in the Creed by the Roman Church, and at the same time he stirs up odium against Pope John, while he depicts him as if he were blasphemous, rejecting the addition. The Roman Church, most tenacious of antiquity and rigor, did not admit the addition to the Creed; it professed most constantly the faith of the procession also from the Son, and defended it; and thus it tolerated that addition in other Churches which had received it, since it pertained to ecclesiastical discipline, and it never condemned them for transgression against the divine word. The Constantinopolitan conventicle celebrated in that same year 879, as is rumored, is in harmony with the forged Photian epistle: but that this was likewise forged by Photius himself, or certainly falsified, Allatius demonstrates invincibly in a singular work. Recall the collation of the legates of the Council of Aachen with Pope Leo III in the preceding chapter, numbers 4 and 5. ^C Photius plays the same game in his epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia, in which he answers another letter as if it had been given to him by him. Baronius records it in Latin, at the year 883, number 5; Combefis in the *Auctarium novissimum*, page 527, records it in Latin and Greek. We dealt with it at greater length in the *Monumenta Ecclesiæ Aquileiensis*, chapter 50, number 5, and we cast suspicion on the fraud of Photius, that most crafty man. However the matter may stand, he portrays the Roman pontiffs as so alien to the addition that he makes them defenders of the procession from the Father alone; and he indicates that other bishops of the Latin Church were at that time professors of the procession from the Father and the Son, and the authors of the addition. Indeed, it is gathered from this that the Roman Church at that age, by Photius's own testimony, did not recite the Creed with the word *Filioque*. I record the words of Photius: "It has reached our ears that some of the Westerners introduce a new dogma, that the divine and most holy Spirit proceeds not only from God the Father, but also ^D from the Son." (Thus, naturally, speaks the most mendacious man.) Leo, the Roman pontiff, both the elder (II) and again he who followed him, Leo the younger (III)... He, a fervent emulator of piety, so that the inviolate rule of our faith might in no way be corrupted by a barbaric idiom, [wished it to be read] in the Greek language, just as it had been dictated from the beginning...

Concerning the aforementioned auxiliary tablets, Anastasius the Librarian provides more certain information in the *Life of Leo III*, number 410, in the edition of Francesco Blanchini: "He truly (he says), for the love and caution of the orthodox faith, made two silver shields, both inscribed with the Creed, one indeed in Greek letters, and the other in Latin." Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, whom Baronius praises at the year 809, number 62, tells this matter in these words in the first book of the *Sentences*, distinction 11: "The Greeks add to their assertion of their opinion... that Leo III left inscribed at Rome (the Creed) on a silver plate, placed behind the altar of blessed Paul (nay, in the Basilica of Saint Peter), for posterity: for the love, as he himself says, and caution of the orthodox faith. In which Creed, in the procession of the Spirit, only the Father is commemorated." Do not understand this "caution of the orthodox faith" as if Pope Leo believed the procession from the Father and the Son to be dissonant to the Catholic dogma. Nay rather, in the Collation with the legates of the synod of Aachen, he professed: "So I feel the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," he says; "thus I hold with all the authors and the authorities of sacred Scripture. If any should wish to feel or teach otherwise concerning this matter, I forbid it. And unless he shall have been converted, and wished to hold according to this sense, I utterly reject him who feels the contrary." ^D Let Photius know that he is utterly rejected, and let the Photian Greeks know that they are utterly rejected by Leo III himself, whom they oppose to us as if he were favorable to them. In that sense Anastasius expressed this caution of the orthodox faith, so that it was Leo's intent that it was free for no one to add anything to the Creed, or to diminish anything from it; lest by such additions or diminutions anything should creep in, or be taken away, that would injure and corrupt the orthodox faith.

II. From the middle of the ninth century: the Creed of Constantinople having been interpolated…

^A there remained sparks of the discord which Photius had kindled among the Greeks, and the fire would break out whenever opportunities were given. That the procession of the Holy Spirit was a subject of dispute at the beginning of the tenth century is taught to us by Heriveus, Archbishop of Reims; in a provincial council held at Trosly in the year 909, chapter 14, these things are found: "The holy Apostolic See has made known (signified) to us that the errors and blasphemies of a certain Photius still flourish in the parts of the Orient against the Holy Spirit, whom he blasphemes by saying that He proceeds not from the Son, but from the Father only. We exhort your brotherhood, so that—in accordance with the admonition of the master of the Roman See (Sergius)—each of us, having examined the opinions of the Catholic Fathers, might bring forth sharp arrows from the quivers of Divine Scripture, powerful for the piercing of the beast of this reborn monster, and for the crushing of the head of the most wicked serpent."

The Constantinopolitan See was governed in the year 1024 by Eustathius; and John XIX held the supreme pontificate of the Church. The former sought the title of universal patriarch; the latter, with upright spirit, refused it. Hugo, Abbot of Flavigny, has these things in his *Chronicle of Verdun* for that same year, in Labbe’s *Nova Bibliotheca*, volume I: "John (XIX) was ordained. When the Constantinopolitan prelate had requested of him that his own Church, just like the Roman one, be called universal; and by seeking to sway him and the Romans who headed the curia with countless gifts, in such a way that they secretly tried to concede what was being asked: all of Italy was moved most vehemently because of this. But the bishops and abbots of the Gauls endeavored to oppose these things... Thus was the presumption of the Greeks refuted." Baronius recounts the same from Glaber, number 5. Observe that at that time the Church of the royal city of Constantinople was not divided from the Roman Church, without whose consent that prelate did not dare to assume the title of ecumenical patriarch.

^A 205 Cerularius bore the denied title with an unjust mind, as one who succeeded afterward: and he covered over his plan to separate his own Church, and other Oriental ones, from the Roman. He had as associates Leo, Archbishop of Achrida, and Nicetas Stethatos, or Pectoratus, a monk. That the aforementioned title of "ecumenical" was assumed by his own authority, we know from Leo IX in a letter given to Cerularius himself, which Baronius recites under the year 1054, number 12: "How true, and how detestable and lamentable is that sacrilegious usurpation, by which you brag everywhere, both in writing and in word, that you are universal patriarch!" At the beginning, the pretext for the schism did not put forward the dogma of the procession from the Father and the Son, nor the addition of the word "Filioque" to the Creed, but rather other rites of the Roman Church, and especially the use of unleavened bread in the consecration of the Body of the Lord. In the Epistle of Cerularius and Peter of Achrida to John, bishop of Tranum (in Apulia), the calumnies which are brought against the Roman Church concern the use of unleavened bread, and the fast of the Sabbath, and also the eating of strangled things, and the fact that the Alleluia is not sung during Lent. Baronius reports the whole epistle under the year 1055, number 23. Nicetas the monk also had issued a writing in which he accused the Apostolic See regarding unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage of priests. Consult the ^B *Commemoration of the things transacted at Constantinople by the legates of the Apostolic See* in Labbe’s collection of Councils. Hence Wibertus, in his *Life of Leo IX*, as found in Mabillon among the *Acts of the Saints* of the Benedictine order, narrating the dissensions stirred up by these Greeks, in book II, chapter 9, says thus: "At that time arose the heresy of the 'Fermentarians,' which slanders the holy Roman See, and the whole Latin and Occidental Church, for offering the vivifying sacrifice to God with unleavened bread." This calumny was also published in writing by the bishops, Michael of Constantinople, and Leo of Achrida, directed to the bishop of Tranum. ... A legation of the Roman See was directed to the royal city of Constantinople. The legates were Humbert, Cardinal Bishop of Silva Candida; Peter, Archbishop of the Amalphitans; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor. Nicetas the monk returned to his senses; Cerularius remained hardened in his own obstinacy. Anathema was cast upon him, which is set forth in the aforementioned *Commemoration*. In it, among other crimes, it is reported: that, just like the Pneumatomachi or Theomachi, they cut off from the Creed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. These things happened in the year 1054, in the month of July.

Stung by bile, Michael, having gathered a synod of his own, instigates calumnies against the Apostolic See, and began to impugn the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, and especially the ^C interpolation of the Creed. Allatius reports the acts of the synod in his dissertation II, *On the Ecclesiastical Books of the Greeks*, where these things are found, page 172: "To these things, because we do not wish to adulterate the sacrosanct Creed—which has an unshakable and unassailable strength in all synodal and ecumenical decrees—with spurious thoughts and adulterated words, and with excess of audacity; nor do we say, as they do, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but from the Father." He transmits notice of such things in the same year 1054 to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, in a letter which Baronius recites in Latin, number 28; and Cotelerius in Latin and Greek in *Monuments of the Greek Church*, volume II. Among many other things, he levels an accusation concerning the interpolated Creed. "In the holy Creed," he says, "they recite such an addition from an evil and dangerous opinion." It is now clear that the use of the interpolated Creed flourished in the Roman Church in this age.

^D Most worthy of notice are the words spoken by Peter of Antioch in his *Reply*, which stands printed in the aforementioned Cotelerius in Greek and Latin: "But this evil," he says (number 11), "and the worst of evils is this addition to the Creed: 'And in the Holy Spirit,'"

'" ^A proceeding from the Father and the Son (num. 22), so that I might put forward my own opinion: if the additions to the Creed were corrected, I would demand nothing further. John Beccus, weighing this with the candor of his spirit, in his second oration concerning his unjust deposition, number 4, says: "Consider carefully, you who judge these things with an impartial mind, the phrasing: if they have corrected the addition made to the holy Creed. But not if they have blotted out impiety from it, or cast out blasphemy against God from it." The Antiochene was therefore leaving the doctrine concerning the procession from the Son untouched. But you say that the evil, and the worst of evils, is the very addition to the Creed. It is better to hear Beccus on the same point: "I clearly believe that he [Peter of Antioch], regarding what appeared to be a transgression in the addition, would have neglected it with little difficulty: if he had foreseen that even the slightest spirit of peace was contained in him [Michael Cerularius] to whom he was sending the letters." And I conclude this—not incorrectly—from those things which in another part of the Epistle (num. 14) he sets out in these words: "For it is good that we, being inclined toward equity, and especially where neither God nor the faith is placed in danger (such as was the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, which is asserted by the Latins in the case of the Antiochene), should always incline toward peace and brotherly love."

III. In this period of time, which runs from the Photian schism to Michael Cerularius, the restorer of the schism, the era ^B of the admission and reception of the Creed with the interpolation in the Roman Church must be more diligently examined. And first, the authority of Berno, Abbot of Reichenau, places beyond doubt that the Constantinopolitan Creed began to be chanted at Rome during the solemnities of the Mass in the year 1014, while Benedict VIII held the apostolic see and Henry I was emperor. He was present at Rome at the coronation of Henry himself, celebrated in that same year, 1014. In the booklet which he composed concerning certain matters pertaining to the office of the Mass, he has these things in chapter 2: "The Romans, up to the times of the Emperor Henry of blessed memory, in no way chanted it. But, being asked by him why they acted in such a manner, I, who was standing by, heard them respond as follows: namely, that the Roman Church had never been infected by the dregs of any heresy, but had remained ^C unshaken in the solidity of the Catholic faith according to the teaching of Saint Peter, and therefore it was less necessary for them to frequently chant that Creed, as those who could at one time or another have been stained by some heresy. But the lord emperor did not desist until, with the consent of all, he persuaded the lord Apostolic Benedict that they should chant it at the public Mass. But whether they still observe this custom, we cannot affirm, because we do not have certainty of it." Berno died in the year 1045.

Was, therefore, this given occasion, on which the supreme pontiff Benedict VIII agreed with the common consent that the Constantinopolitan Creed should be chanted during the solemnities of the Mass, when the addition of the word *Filioque* was also admitted? It seems most probable. For why, before this, although the Spanish Church, and from the eighth century the Gallican, Germanic, and Italian churches in the kingdom of Italy, had been publicly reciting or chanting the same Creed in the Liturgy, had the Roman Church never ^D received this custom? It is clearly because [the Romans replied to the Emperor Henry] the Roman Church had never been infected by the dregs of any heresy, but had remained unshaken in the solidity of the Catholic faith. Yet this reasoning rejects not only the chanting of the Creed, which had been the custom previously, but with better right, the interpolation of the Creed. Rufinus also, in his own time, was giving this reason why other Churches recited the apostolic Creed with certain additions, while the Roman Church kept it undefiled without them: "Which I believe is because," he says, "no heresy took its beginning there." And so, when at last he decided that the request of the Emperor Henry ought to be granted, with the consent of all, and with the chanting of the Constantinopolitan Creed received during the solemnities of the Mass, Benedict VIII seems to have also received the Creed 208 with the interpolation which the other Churches of the whole West had already embraced and publicly professed in the chanting of the Creed.

IV. On this matter, however, the opinions of writers vary and still flourish, which it is better to report and weigh. Saint Thomas, Part I, question 36, article 2, ad 2, says: "Later, upon the arising of the error of some, in a certain council gathered in the West, it was expressed [that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son] by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority ancient councils were also gathered and confirmed." He writes similar things *Contra Gentiles*, book IV, chapter 25: "The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is implicitly contained in the Constantinopolitan synod in the fact that it is said there that He proceeds from the Father: because what is understood concerning the Father must also be understood concerning the Son. And for adding this, the authority of the Roman pontiff suffices, by which it is also found that ancient councils were confirmed." The Western council which Aquinas mentions, gathered by the Roman pontiff, remains hidden. But why indeed, for the Western council, can one not understand the request of the Emperor Henry, and especially the consent of all; with which having been obtained, Benedict VIII allowed the Creed to be chanted publicly in the Mass, as the Spanish and Gallican and Germanic and Italian churches in the kingdom of Italy chanted it, with the interpolation of the word *Filioque*?

Hugo Eterianus, in the work which he dedicated to the Roman pontiff Alexander III, *On the heresies which the Greeks charge against the Latins*, book III, chapter 16, has these things: "The prelate of the older Rome is to be reproached with no calumny because, for the sake of interpretation, he appended—I mean the word that the Spirit proceeds from the Son—with the consent of many holy bishops and most learned cardinals having been obtained." These words seem to me to indicate that consensus of all: which having been obtained, Benedict VIII yielded to the request of the Emperor Henry im-

in consenting, ^A as the Abbot Berno of Reichenau testifies.

Humbert, Cardinal and Bishop of Silva Candida, along with his companions, in the sentence of excommunication issued against Michael Cerularius, accuses him and his fellow Greeks because they have cut away the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Creed. It would seem, indeed, that he held the opinion of those who believed that the words "and the Son" had been added to the Creed before the Monothelite heresy, and perhaps at the Synod of Constantinople against Macedonius. But how could it be that the same Cardinal and Bishop of Silva Candida, asserting the aforementioned in the year 1054, was unaware of what we have established occurred forty years earlier under the Emperor Henry? Yet Humbert, a monk of the Median monastery ^B in the diocese of Toul in Lorraine, used to sing the interpolated Creed, and heard it sung in the provinces according to the custom prevailing from ancient times, and he was ignorant of its true origin. Preoccupied by the common opinion that was current among his own people, he had set out for Rome and was created Cardinal and Bishop of Silva Candida by Pope Leo IX. Because Cerularius had stirred up a schism on account of a once-received opinion, he thought the Greeks had removed the particle "and the Son" from the Creed, whom he knew to be the fiercest enemies of the procession from both. In a man otherwise most learned, a more accurate investigation into this matter is sought in vain.

^C Andreas, Bishop of Rhodes, exhibits a less accurate knowledge of the times when the Roman Church admitted the interpolation, in the Acts of the Greek-Latin Council of Florence, 7th session: "It was added out of necessity because of certain Nestorians, who were disseminating throughout the Western Church that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son Himself, nor does He receive His own [essence] from Him." (Which he himself gathers from the Nestorian Creed and the dispute between Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria.) For this reason the Roman Church was compelled, when it saw a great danger looming: for it was already being sung in the Gauls and in Spain. Everything is confused. Yet some light shines through in the final words, which sufficiently indicate that the Roman Church did not receive that added explanation until long after the custom of singing the Creed in the Mass ^D had been introduced by the Spanish churches in the sixth and seventh centuries, and by the Gallican churches in the eighth and ninth.

The Greeks themselves have no more accurate information to offer: "An anonymous Greek author (these are the words of Baronius, to the year 883, no. 55), who among other Greek monuments is kept in the Vallicellana library, records that this was first done by Pope Christopher: and he affirms that up to that time all the Roman pontiffs who preceded him had asserted, in their own profession of faith, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father without any addition." And he says after listing the preceding pontiffs: "But those who followed him, Formosus, Boniface, Stephen, Romanus, Theodore, John, Benedict, Leo, the successors of this new kind of doctrine of Formosus, were themselves discordant in everything: for he secretly asserted that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, although in the letter sent to the patriarchal sees he made mention only of the Father." Among whom, after Pope Christopher of Rome was created, he dared to say in the confession of faith which he sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople, namely in the Creed, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. For which reason, later, he, this same Christopher, was struck from the diptychs by Patriarch Sergius, who preceded Cerularius.

If we believe the anonymous Greek, the Roman pontiffs neither held the dogma of the procession from both, nor interpolated the Creed, up to Formosus, who sat from the year 891 until the year 896. Truly, this was the Formosus who introduced the new doctrine, if the anonymous author is to be trusted, and he secretly asserted that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Those who held the Roman see up to Christopher did not agree with him. This man seized the pontificate in the year 903, around the end of November, and was deposed in the following year around the beginning of the month of June by Sergius, the third of this name. It is said that he himself, Christopher, interpolated the Creed by adding the word "and the Son," for which reason he was struck from the diptychs by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius. So much for him.

The fabricated story is full of cracks everywhere. Formosus was not the first to introduce the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: which we have already shown, by the tradition of all centuries, and supported by the authority of all the Fathers of both the Greek and Latin tongues, that all the preceding Roman pontiffs held. This faith, received from the ancients, was that of Christopher and of Sergius his successor, who warned Herveus, Archbishop of Reims, and his synod of Trosly celebrated in the year 909, so that each of us (these are the words of Herveus himself), having examined the opinions of the Catholic Fathers, might bring forth sharp arrows from the quivers of the Divine Scripture, powerful for the piercing of the blasphemies of a certain Photius, prevailing in the parts of the Orient against the Holy Spirit—he who blasphemes that it does not proceed from the Son, but only from the Father. But that he professed this faith openly and publicly before Christopher the pontiff, with the Creed interpolated, no ancient approved monument indicates: nor, indeed, can these things which are narrated be attributed to the same Christopher, as Baronius says: for he was an invader of the Apostolic See, and soon deposed from the see, having held it for a very short time and tumultuously. Finally, who could bear the anachronism of the anonymous Greek who asserts that Christopher, the Roman pontiff, was struck from the sacred diptychs by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, the predecessor of Michael Cerularius, who was raised to the same see of the imperial city in the year 999, and thus a full century after Christopher? What of the fact that Peter of Antioch in his Letter to Michael Cerularius, in Cotelier’s *Monumenta Ecclesiæ Græcæ*, volume II, no. 5, testifies

that he had found, 45 years ago, under the patriarch of blessed memory, the lord 211 Sergius, that the aforementioned Pope (John XVII or XVIII) was commemorated in the holy Mass along with the other patriarchs.

The aforementioned mandate or admonition of Pope Sergius III, by which he urged the Gallican bishops gathered in the diocese of Troyes to vindicate strongly against the Greeks the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, gave occasion for Gerhard Johann Vossius, in his third dissertation *De tribus Symbolis*, n. 41, to conjecture that the word *Filioque* had been added to the Creed by that same Sergius. "I offer this judgment," he says, "rather timidly, because I can praise no prior author." He could indeed have vehemently exhorted those Gallican prelates to defend the dogma of the faith without having made any accession to the Creed himself. The opinion that seems more probable at last is that which refers the admission of the addition in the Roman Church to the time when Benedict VIII consented to the public chanting of the Creed during the solemnities of the Mass. Recall what was said in n. 3.

V. Furthermore, it is worth acknowledging (the words are those of Michel Lequien in his *Panoplia* against the schism of the Greeks in the 12th century, chapter 4, n. 24) that although it was only at the beginning of the 11th century, under Pope Benedict VIII, that the Creed began to be chanted in Rome at Mass, nonetheless, for a long time before this, the Constantinopolitan Creed was accustomed to be recited in the church upon the chosen catechumens on the fourth Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent and on Holy Saturday—in Greek for males, but in Latin for females, as is found in the other *Ordines Romani* which were printed in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* (specifically the Lyons edition, volume XIII, p. 677). Truly, in the Greek Creed it reads without addition concerning the Holy Spirit: *τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον*; but in the Latin, *qui ex Patre Filioque procedit*. This difference could be attributed to the carelessness of Latin copyists, unless perhaps they deemed that the Creed of the Greeks, as it was published by the Fathers of the second synod, ought to be preserved pure from every addition, while they did not in the least doubt that its Latin translation could be increased by one little word. This, however, will have been done a long time after the times of Leo III. Although I should by no means overlook that this *Ordo Romanus* appears to be adapted to the uses and customs of the Gallican Church. From these observations of a very learned man, it is sufficiently proven that there is nothing in an *Ordo* of this kind of solid authority that would prove an ancient accession of the word *Filioque* to the Creed in the Roman Church.

I would add further that the Constantinopolitan Creed itself was not customarily handed down to the elect in the Roman Church, but rather the simple and pure, universally known, Apostolic Creed. That this can be gathered from the following brief text, 212 which in the same *Ordo* presents an exposition of the Creed, seems to me evident; in it, only the words of that same Apostolic Creed appear to be indicated:

The summary of the Creed

I would not deny that this exposition could have been adapted to the Constantinopolitan Creed, but I would not doubt that the simple Apostolic Creed is rather indicated by it. A codex is preserved in the archives of the chapter of Cividale, in which is contained the ancient rite of performing the scrutinies of the catechumens. The age of this is slightly indicated by these words: "The pontiff ought to be present at this mystery, as it seemed to me to be the case for Luponus, pontiff of the holy Church of Aquileia." Two patriarchs, called by the name of Lupus or Luponus, are listed in the Aquileian catalogues. The first succeeded Teutimarus after the year 855 and ruled the Church under King and Emperor Louis II. The second sat in the year 944, under King Hugh and his son Lothair. Which one referred to in our codex ought to be called Lupus—or rather, the first or the second—is not certain. But it is certain that the rite ^B of the Scrutinies is exhibited in the codex, which was in use among the Aquileians in the ninth or tenth century. Moreover, the codex teaches that the Apostolic Creed was handed down to the chosen catechumens: and to this same Creed the aforementioned explanation is conjoined. Accept the part of this rite which follows.

The preface of the Creed begins.

Amen (it is the Apostolic Creed, which is also explained in its integrity). The explanation of the Creed follows.

I believe in God the Father almighty. If you have believed, do not doubt. Do not turn belief into perfidy. Do not join vice to virtue. You have said: I believe in God the Father. In one God you have confessed the whole Trinity. And in Jesus Christ. Jesus is called Savior, Christ is called Anointed, in a mystical sense. He is called Savior, because He made Himself the Savior of His own creature. Just as kings are anointed with oil, so He is infused with the fullness of divinity. ^A And in His only Son our Lord. Because others received being sons and being lords by grace; but He, because He is the Son, because He is the Lord, possesses this by nature. Who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. The Virgin and the Holy Spirit are a commerce of virtue, a heavenly companionship of exalted majesty. Therefore, what the Virgin generates is divine, not human. The world does not grasp it, reason does not contain it; faith knows it, the investigator of the world does not. It is said: Crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried. You have heard the name of the judge, so that you might not be ignorant of the time of the persecution. You have heard "crucified," that you may know life returned through the tree. You have heard "buried," so that you do not suspect His death to have been perfunctory. To have fled death is of fear; to have overcome it is of virtue. The third day He rose again living from the dead. Because what He suffered belongs to the flesh alone; that He rose again is the glory of the whole Trinity. He ascended into heaven. Carrying us, not bearing Himself back, He who did not depart from heaven. He sits at the right hand of the Father. Holding everything that is of power and honor. Thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. Whom He shall either send to glory or condemn to punishment. I believe in the Holy Spirit. Just as we believe in God the Father, so we believe in the Holy Spirit. How shall the Holy Spirit be thought to be lesser in divinity? Let us realize that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are manifested by words, not divided in substance; and let us acknowledge them as perfect in persons, not diminished in order. The holy Catholic Church. Because she herself is the body of Christ, and Christ Himself is her head. In the holy Church, therefore, we confess1 Christ. ^B The forgiveness of sins. He who believes that the kingdom of heaven is given to him, how can he not believe that his sins are forgiven him? Heaven receives the innocent, not the guilty. For we believe that all sins are to be forgiven us; since unless we are holy, we cannot possess holy things. The resurrection of the flesh. Therefore our flesh shall rise again, so that that which was a partaker either of virtue, or of crime, may be able to be a partaker either of reward or of punishment. We believe also in life everlasting. Because man then begins to live, when he knows not that he shall die.

*The deacon announces again: Sign yourselves all, and say the Creed. And they shall say the Creed, as above.* I believe in God. (The simple Apostolic Creed always occurs.) *And the presbyter treats of it in these words:* Therefore the rationale of this Creed is connected with all brevity, etc. *Likewise the deacon shall say: Sign yourselves all, and hear the Creed (the simple Apostolic Creed). And they shall say: I believe in God. And the presbyter treats of it in these words:* ...from the words: This is the summary of our faith, most beloved. These are the words of the Creed, etc. The explanation is the same as it is read in the Roman Order: which exhibits a summary collected from the aforementioned explanation of the Apostolic Creed, not the Constantinopolitan.

Besides the Roman Orders, another published by Hittorp, and another by Mabillon, no. 7, in which the Constantinopolitan Creed is read as having been handed down to the catechumens; the Creed also appears in Greek and Latin in the Gelasian Sacramentary, no. 35, in Muratori’s *Liturgia Romana veteri*, volume I. But that brief explanation occurs there, which rather indicates the apostolic Creed; and in both, moreover, in Greek and Latin, the word *Filioque* is missing. Joseph Maria Thomasius, who first published that Gelasian Sacramentary, holds for certain that there is a manuscript in France: and I should not doubt that it was interpolated there in the manner of some Gallican Church. I follow Christian Lupus, who in his dissertation on the Apostolic and Nicene Creed, chapter 3, question 3, has this: “I answer that Orders of this kind are not truly and purely Roman, but transformed by many additions of the Franks... Therefore they are not older than Charlemagne. For under his empire or the kingdom of the Franks, bishops began to sing the Creed at Mass, and they themselves inserted that Hispanic (of the word *Filioque*) addition. Nor, however, did they baptize with that Creed.” It shines forth from the words of this kind of Order there, ^C which are held even in the Aquileian rite: "Therefore, with attentive minds, learn the Creed: and that which, as we have received, we hand down to you, do not inscribe on any material which can perish, but on the pages of your heart." But what is this Creed? The sacrament of the Evangelical Creed inspired by the Lord, instituted by the apostles. Of which the words are few indeed, but the mysteries great. For the Holy Spirit, who dictated these things to the teachers of the Church, established the saving faith with such eloquence and such brevity, that what must be believed by you, and always professed, can neither escape the understanding nor tire the memory. The apostolic Creed is praised openly, and it is affirmed that all are baptized in it. (It is to be noted) that the Constantinopolitan Creed is not commanded to be recited ^D by the catechumens themselves, but over them (in the aforementioned Orders) by the acolyte. Which rite is neither apostolic, nor Roman, nor ancient among the Gauls; but was newly indicted by the bishops of the Franks of great Charles. For the same causes for which they wished it to be sung at Mass, they wished this Creed to be recited over the catechumens.

Now, verily, it seems most likely, and almost certain to me, that the Roman Church never, at any time, used either the Constantinopolitan Creed or the addition of the word *Filioque* in the administration of baptism; that was nonetheless done in some Churches in Gaul and Germany. Edmund Martène, *De Antiquis Ecclesiæ ritibus*, book 1, chapter 1...

11, number 10, teaches that it is noted in the Salzburg Pontifical and in the very ancient Reims codex of the year 900, as well as in the first order of the Scrutiny of the Gellone codex. Finally, regarding the Eastern Church, the observation of Lupus in the place cited, question 1, is that the Constantinopolitan Symbol began to be handed down for the baptism of candidates immediately after the Nicene Council, and immediately after the Constantinopolitan Council. What he discusses there with copious erudition should be read.

Chapter VI. VANUS GRAECORUM SCISSIONIS AB ECCLESIA ROMANA EX ADDITAMENTO VOCIS, FILIOQUE, PRAETEXTUS DESUMPTUS. OBJECTA REFUTANTUR.

1. Regarding the addition of the word *Filioque*, which we have historically recounted until now, Cerularius took a pretext by which he might introduce and strengthen a schism between both Churches, Latin and Greek. We revealed the true cause in the previous chapter, namely, both the censure and condemnation of the title by which he called himself Ecumenical Patriarch, and the anathema laid upon him by the papal legates. Stung with bile, he sought vengeance, the name of the Roman pontiff having been struck from the sacred diptychs. In an encyclical epistle, he urged Peter of Antioch and other patriarchs to do the same. This is available in Baronius at the year 1054, number 28, and in Cotelerius, both in Greek and Latin, in *Monumentis Ecclesiæ Græcæ*, volume 1. He himself was ashamed of his own plan: hence, inventing a fiction, he says in number 9 that a rumor had reached his ears ^A that Peter himself remembered the Pope (of Rome) in the sacred diptychs, as did the Alexandrian and Jerusalem prelates (although this was done not at all in the Constantinopolitan Church). For you know, he says, that from the time of the holy and ecumenical Sixth Synod and thereafter, the mention of the Pope in the sacred diptychs, at least in our holy churches, had been excised: for the reason that Vigilius, the Pope at Rome at that time, would not come to that synod, nor pronounce anathema upon the writings of Theodoret and the epistle of Ibas; and from that time even to the present, the Pope has been cut off from our most holy and Catholic Church. In order to convince them of this schismatic act, he again enumerates errors—either entirely fabricated or most certainly false—which he had previously imputed to the Roman Church: and he adds, now for the first time in number 12, the addition to the holy Symbol.

The Patriarch of Antioch could not bear the ignorance and the invented fictions ^B of Cerularius regarding the excision of the Pope's name from the diptychs. His words in the letter in Baronius and Cotelerius, number 4, are: "Vigilius lived at the time of the Fifth Synod, in which matters pertaining to Origen were agitated, and Evagrius, Didymus, and others, Peter, Severus, Zoara, as well as the writings of Theodoret, but not at the time of the Sixth Synod." Between these synods intervened 129 years (from the year of Christ 533 to the year 662). 217 However, it happened that for a short time Vigilius was removed from the *Relation* because of the tension he had with the most holy Patriarch Mennas, and because he had deposed him: until again, peace having been established between them, the pontiffs were reconciled. But in the times of the holy Sixth Synod, the Pope was the holy Agatho, a man venerable and wise in divine things. Read the acts of this sixth council, which are accustomed to be recited on the Sunday following the exaltation of the venerable and precious cross, and you will find said Agatho being gloriously praised by that holy synod. In the *Typicon*, which is called that of Saint Sabas, these matters are contained in chapter 12, according to Du Cange in the *Glossarium mediæ et infimæ Græcitatis*: "On Sunday after the Exaltation, the *Synodicon* of the Sixth Synod is read." To these things, I also am a witness greater than any exception, as are many others with me of those who excel in the Church of Antioch, that under the lord John (III, according to the continuators of Bollandus and Lequien, at the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh), the Roman Pope himself, also named John (XVIII), was mentioned in the sacred diptychs. That word "of Antioch" is missing in Baronius: but it is read in the Greek text and a more corrected Latin version in Cotelerius. ^C Deceived, Baronius thought that that John was the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he numbered him between Sisinnius and Sergius: but Pagi judged that this man had two names, at the year 1019, being himself also deceived. The Greek text of Peter of Antioch, published by Cotelerius, shows the true history: "Further, having entered Constantinople forty-five years ago (namely, in the year 1009 of the common era), I found mentioned in the holy mass, with other patriarchs, the aforementioned Pope (the Roman John XVIII) under the lord Sergius (the second of this name) of holy memory, the Patriarch (of Constantinople)." Thus you have refuted the most blatant lies which Cerularius was stirring up in order to give a pretext for his schism.

Let it be allowed to some later Greeks that Sergius of Constantinople (after the year 1009, that is) had struck the name of the Roman pontiff from the sacred diptychs. But first, the cause of the introduced schism must be sought: then, it must be inquired whether the same schism endured. Euthymius Zigabenus, in the Greek text of the *Panoplia* according to Lequien, in the first Damascene dissertation, number 25, writes that the Constantinopolitan Symbol, with no addition of interpolation, was sent by the Roman pontiffs to the patriarchs of the East up to the times of Sergius: so that he might insinuate, namely, that the discord began under the same Sergius of Constantinople because of the addition of the word *Filioque*. This cause of the 218 schism, if any certainly existed, was ignored by Nicetas Nicænus the chartophylax, who in Allatius, *De synodo Photiana*, chapter 10, says thus: "Under Sergius... the schism is said to have been renewed: but for what reason, I do not know; it seems, however, to be because of the sees." Another anonymous Greek writes similar things in the same Allatius: that he did not know whether Sergius broke away from the Romans because of errors, or because of the sees.

and the subreption of privileges. But this much we concede, that the schism of Sergius did not last long: from which it came about that an anonymous Greek author of a booklet *On the Translations of Bishops* asserts in the aforementioned Allatius that seventeen patriarchs, who succeeded Photius down to Cerularius, were in communion with the Italians, *had the Italians as communicants*; namely, Ignatius again, Stephen I, Antony II, Nicholas I, Euthymius I, Nicholas again, Stephen II, Tryphon, Theophylact, Polyeuctus, Basil I, Antony III, Nicholas II, Sisinnius II, Sergius II, Eustathius, Alexius. You may examine their deeds and chronology in the Continuators of Bollandus, and in Michel Le Quien and Anselm Banduri.

In this interval of time, there was no occasion for the Church to be torn apart from the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Patriarch Sisinnius is usually accused, who transmitted to the other patriarchs an encyclical letter, which Photius had written to the Latins, full of audacity, with the title merely changed and his own name substituted. In it, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was attacked with most inept arguments: and Michael Cerularius rejected it with his followers, for which reason he was also condemned by the papal legates. He himself instigated the schism: and at first he attributed to the Roman Church errors that were far different, and at last he took the addition of the word *Filioque* as a pretext.

There were certain men at the Council of Sardica, which is said to have been celebrated in the year 347, who demanded that some things, as if they were lacking, be added to the Nicene Council (and Symbol). But that nothing further might be written concerning the faith, and that they were contented with the Nicene faith, the Fathers decreed, as Athanasius testifies in the Alexandrian synod celebrated in the year 362. There were, however, in the Eastern Church most holy prelates who, as the fourth century passed, augmented the Nicene formula with very ample additions against the heresies arising one after another, and they ordered that those who were to be initiated by baptism should profess those interpolated formulas. Saint Epiphanius relates the matter in the *Ancoratus*, numbers 120 and 121, and there he puts forward two formulas of faith, one more prolix than the other, both without doubt Nicene, but increased by more words. We have discussed this matter in the cited location: and it is especially evident that no pretext for a schism between the Churches was taken from this, and that these new formulas were even held to be Nicene, indeed holding the place of the apostolic Symbol, as being increased by additions, consistent with the Nicene and apostolic Symbol. Recount and weigh the notable passage of Epiphanius. ^C

Numerous arguments, which we have set forth in the previous chapters, prove the vanity of the pretext. These are collected together. In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was one Symbol of faith in everyone's mouth and hands, which was called the Apostles'. The Roman Church kept that inviolate, just as it had been handed down from the beginning: and the Eastern bishops increased it with additions, to which the Church of Aquileia in Italy added others. We explained this ancient custom, which held sway in the early time of the Christian Church, in chapter 1, number 2, with the understanding that not even one occasion for schism was either given or accepted between the Eastern and Western Church, nor between the Aquileian and the Roman, and those of Italy.

219 These were obviously additions, which either comprised only a clearer declaration of the common true faith, or provided a profession of dogma against newly arising heresies, which in some places it was deemed necessary to ward off from the minds of the faithful. The first ecumenical Nicene synod, at the beginning of the fourth century, followed this previous custom of the Churches, which augmented the first and second articles of the apostolic Symbol, by which faith is proposed in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus his only Son our Lord, with more words added to explain the faith itself more clearly, and to guard it with that protection against the heresies of Arius, Sabellius, Photinus, Paul of Samosata, Manes, and Marcion, and against every heresy (as Gelasius Cyzicenus says), ^A which had arisen in the Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Eastern Churches adopted this Nicene formula of faith in the administration of baptism: the Western Church stood by the apostolic, simple and briefer one: and the Eastern Churches themselves did not use the Nicene in the same way at all. Could varied customs of this kind, which we indicated in the cited chapter 1, number 3, have disturbed peace and unity? By no means.

220 The decree of Sardica which we have mentioned, understood in the sense that nothing ought to be added rashly to the Nicene formula that might weaken the Nicene faith, possesses a firmness equal to the firmness of the faith itself. If the same decree is understood concerning the formula itself, embracing the Nicene faith, it pertains to ecclesiastical discipline, which is subject to change. Hence some Eastern Churches judged it necessary to augment that same Nicene formula against arising heresies, with the aforementioned two Epiphanian formulas brought in, which were to be handed over to those who were to be baptized. The Epiphanian formula, which is less prolix, with some words excepted, was adopted by the hundred and fifty Fathers of the Eastern Churches gathered in the year 381 in the synod of Constantinople, which afterwards obtained the authority of an ecumenical synod. Hence the Symbol, called the Constantinopolitan, prevailed, with no pretext for schism taken from it.

Indeed, in that era, particular Churches in the East possessed liberty: and some in baptism used the Constantinopolitan Symbol, others the simple Nicene, and others a certain one of their own, which, as far as concerns some words, differed from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, namely the Antiochene, the Hierosolymitan, the Philadelphian, chapter 2. See number 3. ^D

wicked men abused [this] liberty, interpolating particular formulas which they usurped, having introduced errors. Charisius of Philadelphia brought a corrupted symbol of this kind to the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in the year 431. To provide a remedy for the evil, the most holy synod, having passed a decree, ordained: That it is permitted to no one to produce, or to write down, or to compose any other faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. In order to have the legitimate meaning of the decree, note that it was not believed that the Churches were forbidden ^A from using the already-received formulas of faith in baptism, whether the simple Nicene, or the Constantinopolitan, or others differing from both, provided that peace and unity remained intact among them: at which time also the Apostles' Creed was being handed down to catechumens in the West, which, having been augmented in other Churches by some additions at first, the Roman [Church] finally made its own.

Most people understood the "other faith," which the Ephesian decree forbids to be produced, written down, or composed, as being the doctrine contrary to the Nicene faith. Others thought that the formula itself, which is other than the formula of the Nicene faith, was to be understood. No one would say that the former meaning is violated by the addition of the word *Filioque*, or by another similar addition consonant with the true faith, unless he be one who, moved by the vertigo of heresy, stubbornly denies the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, or through the Son. We have pursued heterodox men of this stamp in the first dissertation.

But whether the formula of the Nicene faith, as it was first constructed by the Fathers, should have been kept inviolate thereafter, or whether it was permitted to augment it with certain words 221, either for the sake of a greater declaration, or because of emerging heresies, is entirely a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, provides a distinguished example in favor of the additions which very grave emerging circumstances demand. Recall the cited chapter 2, numbers 4 and 5. With Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, giving the warning, the Fathers realized that the Eutychians were abusing the simple Nicene Creed, and that the Catholic additions which were contained in the Constantinopolitan Symbol were being rejected by them. They considered that there was a need, wishing to close off every machination of the heretics against the truth, to depart from the rigor of the Ephesian law: Decreeing above all that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers (that is, the Nicene) remain whole and inviolate: and confirming the doctrine which was handed down regarding the substance of the Holy Spirit by the Fathers who were gathered later in the ruling city (Constantinople) because of those who were resisting the Holy Spirit. These things are held in the 5th act. The Council of Chalcedon commends the Constantinopolitan Fathers for the additions by which they augmented the Nicene Creed because of those who were resisting the Holy Spirit; and it brings even that Symbol to the use of the whole Christian Church, opposing it to the Eutychians, who, having rejected the Constantinopolitan additions, were using the simple Nicene [Symbol]. The Latin Western Churches have defenses by which they most validly defend that word, *Filioque*, added to the Constantinopolitan Creed, taken even from this place.

The Churches of the East received the Constantinopolitan Creed with the greatest veneration after the Chalcedonian decree: which was also called Nicene. They handed it down in baptism to enlightened catechumens, with the peculiar formulas omitted which they had used up to that time: and they made it a part of the holy Liturgy. The Roman and other Western Churches clung to ancient customs, with the Apostles' Creed being handed down to those being baptized, and with the formula of faith omitted during the solemnities of the Mass. Since there was a varied discipline, whether of the shorter Symbol in the West, or the longer in the East, or one read and sung in the Liturgy, or one omitted, the faith of all and their most firm peace consisted in one thing.

The Council of Chalcedon restored the Ephesian law in the 5th act, defining: that it is permitted to no one to produce, or to write down, or to compose, or to hold, or to teach others another faith. Yet bold men brought in monsters of many heresies, the Monothelites and the Iconoclasts. To restrain them, and so that the Church might be the more certain 222 of the minds of others alien to errors, whether gathered in synods or even outside synods, it kept a method by which it would neither follow the rigor of the Ephesian and Chalcedonian law completely, nor depart from it completely. Namely, the Constantinopolitan Symbol was kept intact in the administration of baptism and in the holy Liturgy: but it was received by usage that, when new errors had to be condemned, or a profession of faith had to be given, either the Constantinopolitan Symbol itself was augmented by additions, or very long professions of faith were constructed in the manner of a Symbol. Such formulas stand out in the sixth ecumenical council of the year 680, in acts 4 and 10, and in the seventh ecumenical council, Nicaea II, of the year 787, in acts 1 and 3. Athanasius in his exposition of the faith, Cyril of Alexandria in that which he inserted into the Synodal Letter given at the Alexandrian council in the year 430, and John of Antioch in that which he sent to Cyril through Paul, bishop of Emesa, in the year 432, had already provided examples of this custom and discipline long before. In a later time, countless formulas in the manner of a Symbol occur in the councils and acts of the Church, by which some might either profess the sincere faith, or others might dispel suspicions that had been cast. Recall what we discussed with a wider pen in chapters 2 and 3. But to what purpose [is] all this? Truly so that it may be known and established that it is wrongly, and with a vain attempt, and certainly with a futile wish, that the rigor of the Ephesian law is opposed by the Greeks against the addition of the particle *Filioque*.

The Roman Church did not use, nor did it ever usurp, the Constantinopolitan Symbol in bap-

baptism, and it had not yet admitted it among the parts of the sacred Liturgy. The Eastern customs were the first to be imitated in the West by the Churches of Spain, which began to sing the same Symbol among the solemnities of the Mass at the end of the sixth century, and at the same time increased it by the added word *Filioque*. The Goths, who subjugated Spain, gave rise to this. From the East, they themselves had brought with them Arian, Macedonian, and Eunomian dogmas: professing the Son to be lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit to be lesser than the Son, and created by the Son. After these impious fictions were abjured under King Reccared, the Nicene formula of faith was accepted, and the Constantinopolitan as well. In order that all might profess the integral faith of the most holy Trinity openly and publicly, the Constantinopolitan Symbol began to be sung during the solemnities of the Mass, ^B and it was increased by that very word *Filioque*. Why should the Churches of Spain not have added to the public Symbol this part of the faith, which the Goths had hitherto denied, so that it might be inscribed more frequently and more deeply in the hearts of the faithful? Long before, in the year 447, Saint Leo the Great had sent a letter to the bishops of Tarragona, Carthage, Lusitania, and Gaul: and in chapter 1, he admonishes them concerning the impiety of those who thought that He who begot is one, He who is begotten is another, and He who proceeded from both is yet another. In the same year, the Spanish Fathers wrote a Rule of faith like a Creed: and they said in the article regarding the Holy Spirit that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Pope Hormisdas had transmitted a decretal letter to the elder Emperor Justin in the year 521, where we read: "It is proper to the Holy Spirit that He proceed from the Father and the Son under one substance of the Godhead." See chapter 3, number 5, and chapter 4, number 1. The Churches of Spain thought it right to transfer this word, *Filioque*, which was already inserted into more prolix formulas of faith, to the Constantinopolitan Symbol, which they sang during the solemnities of the Mass, following the discipline that had seemed more convenient for teaching, defending, and preserving the right faith. Their faith was not another—that is, it was not opposed to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan faith; nor was it a different faith—that is, a formula containing articles of faith that would differ from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan formula: but it was this same one entirely, with the addition of one orthodox word, for the sake of eliminating the heresy of the Arians.

This varied discipline in the West, guarded at the peak of rigor in the Roman Church, and slightly relaxed elsewhere according to the various circumstances of the regions, gave no occasion for schism among them. ^C Great peace was flourishing, and integral communion was thriving. Nay, the Roman Church itself finally admitted the singing of the Constantinopolitan Symbol, and its interpolation, in the eleventh century during the solemnities of the Mass, conforming itself to the customs of others according to the authority it possessed in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. Consult the two previous chapters, 4 and 5. The arguments, however, have already been collected which utterly overturn and put to flight the pretext for the Greeks' schism.

The Monothelites, whose error was propagated far and wide by the Iconoclasts in the East, corrupted the origin of the Holy Spirit with another accusation. They excluded the Son from the fellowship of the spirating power with the Father: and they accused the Latins of heresy for professing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. The question was moved and discussed with the Franks in the year 767, at the synod of Gentilly, and a decree was passed for the dogma of the faith. In order that the Gallican Churches—taking an example from the Spanish—might profess this faith (which was rashly violated by the Greeks) openly and publicly, they made the Constantinopolitan Symbol with the addition a part of the sacred Liturgy. The Greeks charged them with the censure of heresy. ^D The matter finally arrived at the supreme pontiff Leo III. The Roman Church, which kept the deposit of doctrine received from the beginning undefiled, and clung most tenaciously to ancient customs, remained unmoved in that which was a dogma of faith: and in that which regarded ecclesiastical discipline, it permitted the public singing of the Constantinopolitan Symbol among the solemnities of the Mass, and desired that the introduced addition be removed. But the Churches of Spain had received it and kept it in the sixth century of the Christian era, and the Gallican, Germanic, and Italian churches in the kingdom of Italy embraced it in the eighth and ninth centuries, drawing from it a bulwark for defending the right faith against the machinations of the Greeks.

This varying discipline in the West, although guarded at the peak of rigor in the Roman Church, was in other places slightly relaxed according to the varying circumstances of the regions, and gave no occasion for schism among them. 224 Great peace was flourishing, and integral communion was thriving. Nay, the Roman Church itself finally admitted the singing of the Constantinopolitan Symbol, and its interpolation, in the eleventh century during the solemnities of the Mass, conforming itself to the customs of others according to the authority it possessed in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. Consult the two previous chapters, 4 and 5. The arguments, however, have already been collected which utterly overturn and put to flight the pretext for the Greeks' schism.

11. But they accuse this addition of the word *Filioque* as if it were illicit, and they repeat that it is opposed to the decree of the Ephesian synod. They say that Pope Leo III himself, in a conference with Gallican bishops, said: "It is permitted to sing by way of teaching, and to teach by way of singing: but it is illicit to insert it into prohibited texts, neither by writing nor by singing." The Roman Church was indeed clinging to the rigor of the Ephesian law at that time: but it had already learned that the very rigor of the law could be tempered for the various circumstances of the times, as it consisted within the limits of ecclesiastical discipline. He desired that the addition be removed by the Gallican bishops: and he gave counsel concerning the manner, not by affirming, but by discussing. Moreover, even the Eastern Churches themselves had departed from the rigor of that same Ephesian law, for although they used the uninterpolated Constantinopolitan symbol in baptism and in the sacred Liturgy, they always had the custom of constructing other, more prolix formulas, by which the faithful might profess the right faith, or by which the suspect might purge themselves. Hence it was defined in the Council of Florence, with the Greeks consenting: "The explanation of those words, *Filioque*, for the sake of declaring the truth, and because of the imminent necessity at that time, was licitly and rationally added to the Symbol."

Those who continue to harp on the same string—that the Ephesian law, even though it pertains to ecclesiastical discipline, should not have been relaxed in any way unless the authority of a general synod intervened—adhere too much to the letter that kills. The formula

^A of the faith established in the Synod of Nicaea pertains to the Ephesine law; yet, notwithstanding this, there flourished in that age peculiar formulae: the Antiochene, the Hierosolymitan, the Philadelphian, and the Constantinopolitan. The principal goal of the Ephesine law, therefore, shines forth most clearly, to wit: that the hardihood of wicked men might be restrained from devising daily new formulae adverse to the Nicene faith. The Chalcedonian ecumenical synod approved both formulae, the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan; and by that approval it came about that the Eastern churches, abandoning the Nicene, used the Constantinopolitan formula generally in baptism and even in the sacred Liturgy. This was done for the sake of the liberty of their churches, not by the order of any ecumenical synod. Nevertheless, the Ephesine law—and likewise the Chalcedonian—were in some measure observed, because that simple Constantinopolitan [creed] was employed in baptism and during the solemnities of the Mass. But the Easterners deemed it 225 permissible for themselves to produce, transcribe, or compose peculiar formulae, different from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, in which they might profess the true faith with more prolix words, or purge themselves from every suspicion of error. These [formulae] are extant in the sixth and seventh ecumenical synods. Worthy of note is the letter which was sent by Tarasius, bishop of Constantinople, to the other patriarchs, wherein words similar to the addition of the Latins are contained: *And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son.*

The Greeks argued at the Synod of Florence that those formulae of faith were particular, not common. But indeed, if one adheres to the rigor of the words, they are contrary to the Ephesine law; yet bishops, with peace and unity preserved, sent them to one another, and ecumenical synods did not reject them when they were brought to their attention. It seems, therefore, a much lesser offense against the Ephesine law—if it be an offense at all, which it is not—to have augmented the Constantinopolitan Symbol with one word, consonant with the true faith and convenient for the circumstances of the times. But it does away with every offense, the variable nature of discipline which can flourish in the churches, which the sum of the cause of confirming and protecting the faith itself demands. ^B Finally, they say, the matter concerns the Symbol, which is common in the Church; and therefore the Roman pontiff ought not to have added anything to it, the counsel of the other patriarchs being passed over. But in the first centuries of the Church, the Roman Church preserved the Apostles' Creed undefiled, [though] many words had been added by the Orientals because of emerging heresies, without doubt without consulting the Apostolic See. Private bishops in the East augmented the Nicene formula with some additions, and one hundred and fifty Eastern prelates approved it so augmented in the Council of Constantinople, without consulting the Roman pontiff and the other bishops of the West. With no prior counsel with the Westerners, the Nicene Symbol began to be handed down in the East in baptism, leaving aside the Apostolic, and then the Constantinopolitan, leaving aside the Nicene: which was also brought in among the parts of the sacred Liturgy. The Easterners were permitted to do these things, without the Roman See being consulted; yet the Roman See itself never denied them its communion. Why should the Western churches not use the same right? Why did the Greeks make a pretext of schism over one little word consonant with the true faith, which could have been added with equal right according to the circumstances of affairs, and will be able to be added hereafter?

^C At length, the Roman pontiff acceded to the wishes of the Latin bishops, so that in the churches of the West alone the word *Filioque* might be recited in the Symbol; and the Roman Church itself admitted the added word into its own church, abandoning the ancient custom; and by no decree did he bind the Greeks and other Orientals to do the same. In the ecumenical Synod of Lyons, celebrated in the year 1274, the Latins and the Greeks together did indeed sing during the solemnities of the Mass, *Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,* so that they might profess the one concord of both churches in the faith; yet the Roman pontiff did not refuse the Emperor Michael Palaeologus, when he requested that his (the Eastern) Church always recite the Symbol as it had said it before the schism down to the present day. The Greeks also said in the Synod of Florence, in the 25th session, with no Latin opposing: "We do not by any means receive the Addition: but we concede to you that you have it in your churches." The words that follow, I bring forward at last, the very words of the Greeks: "We say: the Symbol explained by you (the Latins) under the pressure of necessity, and that word, *from the Son*, is not another faith, nor any addition (adverse to the faith), but a pious explanation of our Symbol; and both Symbols are pious, and of the same meaning, ^D so that it be recited in the Roman Church as you say, and in the Eastern as we say; and thus let the union be made." May God grant that the Greeks may at last receive the dogma of the faith, unshaken, with a docile mind, and may understand the harmless addition to the Symbol and profess it.

INDEX OF NAMES AND PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE LIFE OF GEORGE CYPRIUS, IN THE NOTES, AND IN THE DISSERTATIONS.

The reader is referred to the bold numbers inserted in the text.

A Acathistus, a feast among the Greeks, 33. Celebrated on the Saturday of the fifth week of Lent, ibid. The faithful stood while singing hymns of thanksgiving at the Morning Office (Matins), 33. Acropolita George, Logothete, teaches disciplines at Constantinople, 25. Legate to the Ecumenical Council of Lyons, 58. Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, writes against Photius, 201. Alexander Natalis, corrected, 171, 200 et seq. Allatius (Leo), who did not see the *Antirrheticus* of Gregory Cyprius against John Beccus, 78. He published the oration of Beccus against the *Antirrheticus*, incorrectly titled, in the *Tomus* of Cyprius, ibid. Amalarius, Abbot, and his *Ecloga* on the Roman Order, 191, 196 et seq. Anastasius the Librarian explains the opinion of Saint Maximus regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, 51. He is himself explained, ibid. His Latin interpretation of the Second Council of Nicaea, 184. Andrew of Rhodes at the Council of Florence, 209. His opinion regarding the addition of the word *Filioque*, ibid. Andronicus, son of Michael Palaeologus, colleague in the empire, 56. Rules alone, 75. Breaks the union of the churches, ibid. After deposing Patriarch John Beccus, he promotes Joseph Galesiotes to the throne again, 76. After him, he confers the dignity upon Gregory Cyprius, 92. His other deeds, 91 et seq. He orders Beccus to be deported to the fortress of Saint Gregory, 100. He commands Cyprius to write a *Tomus* on the faith, 101. He shows himself opposed to him, 119. He ensures that Athanasius, a monk from Mount Ganos, is chosen patriarch, 126. Anonymous Greek, confuses many fables concerning the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 200. Anachronism, 210. Annu mundi (Year of the world) Constantinopolitan, how to reconcile it to the Julian year, 19. *Antirrheticus* sermon of Gregory Cyprius, refuted, 76. Apostolarius, who he is among the Greeks, 12. Apostles’ Creed. See *Symbolum Apostolorum*. Church of Aquileia and its ancient Apostles’ Creed, 142. Whether it pronounced the words "in God the Father, in Christ Jesus, etc." in the ablative case, 146. Rite in baptism, 212. Council of Aachen (Aquisgranensis), 180. A discussion held there concerning the procession from both, 181. Also concerning the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 182, 183. Its legates sent to Rome, 183. Aristenus Alexius, Chartophylax, corrected regarding the time of the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 154. Arsenian faction, 40 et seq. Arsenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 31. Deposed, 32. Restored to the see, ibid. Excommunicates Palaeologus, 33. Accused at the feast of the Acathistus, ibid. Again ousted from the throne, 34. In what year, ibid. et seq. Athanasius, monk from Mount Ganos, chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, 126.

B Baronius Caesar, father of the *Annales*, corrected, 175, 183, 184, 185. Beccus John, Chartophylax, opposed to the union of the churches, 52. Imprisoned, ibid. Having changed his opinion, he argues forcefully for the Catholic dogma, 53. Elected patriarch, 58. His writings for the dogma, 59, 64. His profession of faith, 60. Experiences Emperor Michael as hostile to him, 61. Stripped of the right of stauropegion, ibid. Retires to a monastery and returns to the patriarchal residence, 63. His anathemas vindicated, 72. Removed from the patriarchal throne, he is sent into exile, 76. Writes against the *Antirrheticus* of Gregory Cyprius, 78. Called to a colloquy on the faith with Cyprius and others, 96. Deported to the fortress of Saint Gregory, 100. Refutes the *Tomus* of Patriarch Cyprius, 103. His judgment regarding the word *Filioque* added to the Creed, 139 et seq. Also regarding the time, 175. His testament, 99, 129. Death, 99. Berno of Reichenau (Augiensis), and his opinion on the time when the Romans began to read or sing the Creed during the solemnities of the Mass, 191. His genuine sense, 192, 196. Bessarion, Cardinal, and his solid argumentation against the Greeks, 88. Beveridge William, errs in the computation of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, 19. Biclarensis John, Abbot, relates deeds under Justin the Elder to the Younger, 172. Blachernae Palace/Church, 94. Blemmida Nicephorus, 18. Writes much in favor of the Catholic dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, 44. Designated for the see of Constantinople, 45. Bulgarians converted to the faith, 199. Bishops and clerics sent from the Apostolic See and the kings of the Franks to instruct them, 200. Taught the Creed with the addition of the word *Filioque*, ibid.

C Calecas Manuel, and his opinion on the time when the word *Filioque* was added to the Creed, 174. Corrected, ibid. et seq., 176. Calvisius Sethus correctly computes the worldly years of the Constantinopolitan era, 22, 40. Whose beginning is to be taken not from the month of October, but from September, ibid. Camaterus Andronicus writes the *Hoplotheca*, 70. His refutation, ibid. et seq. "To sing" often taken in the Middle Ages for "to read simply," 193. Caroline Books, as they are called, 185. Their capitulary title also against the Second Council of Nicaea, sent by Charlemagne to Hadrian I, ibid. Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, 45. Cerularius Michael, Patriarch of Constantinople, instigator of the schism, 46. Bears it ill that the title of universal patriarch was denied him by the Roman pontiff, 205. His ignorance, 216. Refuted by Peter of Antioch, 26, 217. Christopher, pope, did not add the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 210. Not erased from the sacred diptychs, ibid. An enormous anachronism of an anonymous Greek, ibid. Chrysostom, Saint John, is not the author of the homily on the Holy Spirit, 89. The sense of the author Germanus, 90. Incorrectly understood by Photius, 91. Clement IV, pope, promotes the union of both churches, 41. Palatine clergy at Constantinople, 41 et seq. Gnapheus (or Fullo) Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, orders the Nicene Creed to be recited in the sacred Liturgy, 171. Collation of the legates of Charlemagne and of the Synod of Aachen with Pope Leo III, concerning the chanting of the word *Filioque* in the Creed, 186. Acts of the same, 186, 187 et seq. Sincere, although the title is flawed, ibid. They are cited and weighed, ibid. et seq. Combefis (Franciscus), corrected, 102, 103. Ecumenical Council, First Nicene, adds words to the Apostles’ Creed against the Arians, 149. Second Constantinopolitan adds words to the Nicene Creed, 152, 153. Third Ephesian forbids another formula of faith to be written or proposed besides the Nicene, 158.

^A The Fourth Council of Chalcedon adds an appendix to the article on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, 162 et seq. Approves various formulas of faith distinct from the Nicene, 164. Receives the Third Constantinopolitan and Sixth Ecumenical [councils], and the professions of faith which are distinct from the Constantinopolitan Creed, 160. And likewise the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second of Nicaea, ibid.

Constantinople captured by the Latins, 17. Snatched from the Latins by Michael Palaeologus, 19, 20. Various epochs among writers, ibid. The Constantinopolitan synod condemns the Macedonians, enemies of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, 153. How and when it obtained the authority of an ecumenical synod, 169, 170. The conciliabulum under Photius, 202.

Cuperus, Guillelmus, refutes Petrus Possinus, 31. Promotes chronological difficulties, which he leaves unresolved, 36, 37. Corrected, 38.

Cyprius, Georgius, or Gregorius, writes the life of himself, 12. Born on the island of Cyprus, ibid. Called Georgius at baptism, ibid. From Greek parents, 13. Sent to schools in Nicosia, 15. Instructed by Latin masters, 16. Returns home, ibid. Sets out for Nicaea, and the various fortunes of his journey, 17, 18. Gives himself to the instruction of Georgius Acropolita after Constantinople was taken by the Greeks, 23, in promoting [the union] of both Churches, 24. Ordained Lector by the patriarch Joseph, and enrolled among the palace clergy, 42. Proceeds to promote the union of the Churches, 45, 52. Having changed his opinion, or having laid aside dissimulation, he opposes Joannes Beccus, 76. Writes an *Antirrheticum* against him, 76, 77. Which is refuted by Beccus, 78 et seq. Is raised to the throne of the Church of Constantinople, 92. By what rite, 92, 93. Having previously become a monk, and called Gregorius, 12, 93. Ordained deacon and priest, and consecrated patriarch, 93. His colloquy with Beccus, and his associate, 96. A task imposed upon him to write a Tome in which he might set forth and reconcile the testimonies of Saint John of Damascus, [concerning the procession], distinct from God, ibid. His Tome criticized by many, and refuted by Beccus, 102. The Palamite heresy prefigured by this same Cyprius, 102, 103. Refuses to correct his Tome, 104. His apologetic writings, 104, 105. Undergoes the indignation of the Emperor Andronicus, ^B [on account of] the demand for his orthodoxy before he yields the throne, criticized by Georgius Pachymeres, 125. Cyprius withdraws into the monastery of Aristina, 126. His Tome is proposed for correction, but with vain effort, ibid. Meets his death, 127. His various rhetorical opuscula, 25, 26. Sacred orations, 26. Writings against the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, 27. Epistles, ibid. et seq.

Cyprus, the island, captured by Richard king of England, 14. Sold to Guy de Lusignan, ibid. Subject to the Latin Lusignan kings, 15.

D Damascenus, S. Joannes, whose doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is examined more diligently, 103 et seq. Damasus, pope, condemns the Anomoeans and Macedonians, enemies of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, 152. Does not add the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 154. Yet he teaches the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, 153. Diacanesima feria, the same as Easter Monday, 93. Diptycha, sacred, 216. That the Roman pontiffs were expunged from them in the Church of Constantinople from the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod until Michael Cerularius is a figment of his, 216 et seq. Dominica Orthodoxiae, as called among the Greeks, is the same as the first Sunday of Lent, 72.

E Ecclesiastes of the palace sermon at Constantinople, 43. Eclipse of the sun at Constantinople, 56. Did not precede the abdication of the patriarch Germanus, but followed it, 36, 37. Ephesine decree, that no other faith besides the Nicene be written or brought forward; in what sense it must be understood, 158. The doctrine of the Nicene faith is understood to be the opposite, 159. The formula can also be understood as that which is other than the formula of the Nicene Creed, 159, 160. The particle *Filioque* added to the Creed does not favor its enemies, 158 et seq. It pertains to ecclesiastical discipline, 163, 170, 190. The relaxation of this same Ephesine law in a manifold manner, 159, 160, 162. Again, the genuine sense of the same law, 166, 179, 180. The Roman Church, most tenacious of antiquity, follows the rigor of the same, 187 et seq., 190.

^C 224 Errors of the Greeks, adverse to the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, 127. First: not only does He not proceed from the Father and from the Son, but not even through the Son, 128. Second: He proceeds through the Son, with the Son providing an instrumental ministry, 128 et seq. Third: He proceeds through the Son, that is, simultaneously with the Son, 130 et seq. Fourth: He proceeds through the Son; not to existence, but to a certain eternal effulgence, 132 et seq. Fifth: He refers the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son, to a temporal mission, or to the bestowal of charisms, 133.

Eterianus, Hugo. See Hugo Eterianus. Eulogia, sister of Emperor Michael, 52. Promotes Schism, 75. Eustathius, patriarch of Constantinople, seeks that the title of universal patriarch be given to him, 204. Effulgence, eternal, distinct from God, introduced by Gregorius Cyprius, and bestowed in the name of the Holy Spirit, 101. Pertains to the Palamite heresy, 132 et seq.

F Feast of the Acathist. See Acathist. Feast of the holy Nicene Fathers, 58. Filioque, the particle. See Vox Filioque. Florentine synod, and its decree of union, 137 et seq. Also the definition concerning the word *Filioque* added to the Creed, 139. An ancient codex brought forth, in which the Creed [exists] with the word *Filioque*, 175, 184. Formosus, pope, incorrectly and falsely accused by the Greeks of novelty of doctrine, 210.

G Galesiota, Josephus, patriarch of Constantinople, [opposes the] emperor, ibid. Opposes the union of the Churches, 52. Confirmed in schism by Job Jasita, 55. Withdraws from the patriarchal residences, ibid. Disapproves of the union established at the Council of Lyons, and abdicates the see, 58. Is recalled to the see by the Emperor Andronicus, 76. Meets his death, 92. Gentiliacensis synod, under Pippin king of the Franks, vindicates the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, 178. The word *Filioque* added to the Creed, 179, 180. Georgius Cyprius. See Cyprius Georgius, or Gregorius. Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, 35. Abdicates his dignity, 36. In what year, ibid. et seq. Legate to the Council of Lyons, 53. Goths, Arians, provide the occasion for the word *Filioque* to be added to the Creed in the Spains, 177. Gregorius, pope X, convokes the Council of Lyons, 45. Which he also celebrates, 46 et seq. See Thealdus.

H Henricus, emperor, persuades Pope Benedict VIII to chant or recite the Creed in the holy Liturgy, 190, 193, 196. Churches of the Spains add the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 177. And make this same Creed a part of the holy liturgy, 177, 178. Holobolus, rhetor, rules the schools at Constantinople after Georgius Acropolita, 41. Hugo Eterianus dedicates his work to Alexander III, where [he treats] of the addition of the word *Filioque*, 208. Humbertus, bishop of Silva Candida, sent to Constantinople as legate against Michael Cerularius and others, 205. Condemns Cerularius himself, ibid. Less learned concerning the time of the addition of the word *Filioque*, 208.

I Iconomachi, heretics, deny and impugn the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and [from the] Son, 50, 178.

J Joannes VIII, pope, and his epistle to the count of Moravia, 192. Its German sense, 195. The epistle which is borne under his name to Photius, forged by Photius himself, 201 et seq. Joannes XX, pope, called XXI, directs legates to Constantinople, 60. Joannes Beccus. See Beccus Joannes. Joannes Ducas Vatatzius, emperor, 44. Joannes Lascaris IV, son of Theodorus, 31. Omitted in the coronation of Michael Palaeologus, 32. Is blinded, and enclosed in a fortress, 33. Joannes, monk of St. Sabas, opposes the Latins ^D

^A in the monastery of Mount Olivet, while reciting the Creed with the addition of the word *Filioque*, 181, 186. The faction of the Josephites, 41. Josephus Galesiota. See Galesiota Josephus.

L Lectors, the manner in which they are ordained among the Greeks, 42. Legates of the Greeks to the Council of Lyons depart from Constantinople in the spring, 55, 57. Legates of the Apostolic See confer with the Emperor Michael Palaeologus so that the word *Filioque* might be added to the Creed, 62. In vain, ibid. Pope Leo III, 181. He receives the embassy of the monks of Mount Olivet, ibid. His letter to Charlemagne, 182, 183. He is displeased that the Creed is sung in the Gallican churches with the addition of the word *Filioque*, 187. He himself had granted the faculty to sing the Creed in the Liturgy, and how, 188 et seq. He relates that not only was it not sung, but that it was not even customary to read the Creed in the Roman Church during the solemnities of the Mass in his time, 192 et seq. He orders the Creed to be inscribed on tablets in Greek and Latin without the addition, 203. Pope Leo IX sends an embassy to Constantinople to Michael Cerularius, 205. The legates strike Cerularius with excommunication, ibid. He himself takes the addition of the word *Filioque* as a pretext for the schism, 206. He writes to Peter of Antioch, ibid. Great Logothete, who he is, 25. The ecumenical Council of Lyons, 45. The legates of the Greeks to it, 55. These recite the Creed with the word *Filioque*, 56. The definition of faith, 57. The same explained, ibid. Lupo, or Lupus, Patriarch of Aquileia, 212. Lusignan kings on the island of Cyprus, 14, 15.

M Mabillon, Joannes, corrected, 181, 191. His opinion regarding the time when the Roman Church began to sing or read the Creed in the liturgy, ibid. Marcus Ephesinus in the Council of Florence, 136. Infected with the Palamite error, ibid. Marcus, a monk, writes a booklet teeming with errors, which Gregory Cyprius in part corrects and approves, 104. Martene, Edmundus, erroneously thinks that the Creed, although not chanted, was nonetheless read in the liturgy in the Roman Church in ancient times, 191 et seq. Melitiniota, Constantinus, fights for the Catholic dogma, 96. Months of the year, how they are named by Pachymeres in his History, 38. The beginnings, the middles, and the ends, 34. Methodius, Archbishop of the Moravians, 192, 195. Metochita, Georgius, fights for the Catholic dogma, 54, 96. Michael Palaeologus, tutor of Joannes IV Lascaris, 31. He is crowned emperor, while the boy Joannes is neglected, ibid. He rescues Constantinople from the Latins, 32. He promotes the union of both Churches, 52. He imprisons the Chartophylax Joannes Beccus, ibid. This man, having become a defender of the Catholic dogma, he promotes to the patriarchate, 58. He shows himself hostile to him, 61. He rejects the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 62. He meets his death, 73. In what year, ibid. et seq. Micrologus explains the Roman Order, 196. Mass of the Presanctified, 93. Mission of the Holy Spirit, 86. The mission of a Divine person, one is properly called, another improperly, 86, 87. The Father is in no way said to be sent, ibid. A proper mission follows the eternal procession of a Divine person from another, ibid. In the mission of the Holy Spirit through sanctifying grace, there is a special application of the Divine person to the soul of a just man, 87. Latin monks of Mount Olivet are harassed by the Greeks on account of the addition of the word *Filioque*, 181. They write to Leo III, ibid. Monastery of St. Andrew, 126. Aristina, ibid. Cosmidium, 100. Hodegorum, 119. The Laura near Anaphus, 58. Panachranta, 63, 75. Paschasius, 32. Peribleptus, 55. Monothelite heretics oppose the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, 50. Mount Olivet. See Latin monks of Mount Olivet. Montenigro, Joannes de, debates with Marcus Ephesinus in the Council of Florence, 136. Montfaucon, Bernardus, less accurately reduces the Constantinopolitan years noted in the codices to the Julian or Dionysian years, 22 et seq. Moschampar, Georgius, defends the genuine testimony of Damascenus, 97. Against Gregory Cyprius, 103. His letter to Cyprius himself, 125. ^B

Muzzalo, the great logothete, opposed to the Catholic dogma, 97.

N Nestorius used the Nicene Creed in a corrupted form, 157. The ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemns it, 158. Nicaea, the seat of the Greek empire after Constantinople was captured by the Latins, 17, 32. Nicene Creed. See Creed. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 32. His death, ibid. Pope Nicholas I and his letter to Hincmar of Rheims, 201. In his age the Creed was not yet augmented by the word *Filioque*, ibid. Pope Nicholas III receives the legates of the Greeks, 60. He sends others to Constantinople, 61, 62. He urges the addition of the word *Filioque*, 62. Nicosia, the seat of the kings of the Lusignan line on the island of Cyprus, 15. The metropolitan see also of the Latin archbishop, ibid. Four seats of bishops of the Greek rite on the island, ibid. Nicosian Latin archbishops on the island of Cyprus, 15.

O Roman Orders, 191. Interpolated in a later age, 196 et seq., 211, 214. Oudinus Casimirus refuted, 44, 147.

P Pachymeres, Georgius, a schismatic, 55, 72. He writes a booklet regarding the resignation of J. Beccus, 63. Corrected, ibid. He finds fault with the anathemas of Beccus, 72 et seq. He confuses the events of many years, 91, 95. He holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son in a heretical sense, 129 et seq. He disapproves of the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 159 et seq. Pagius, Antonius, discourses most accurately on the method of reducing the years of the Constantinopolitan era to the Dionysian, 21. An easy and safe rule, 40. Palamite heresy prefigured by Gregory Cyprius, 102 et seq., 133. Palm Sunday, 37, 38. The consecrated bread for the Mass of the Presanctified, found corrupted in the sacred pyx, 94. In what year, 95. Paschasius the deacon, 156. Rusticus the deacon, ibid. The Patriarch of Constantinople, by what rite he is designated and promoted, 92. He arrogates to himself the title of universal patriarch, 204. Paulinus of Aquileia, patriarch, defends the addition of the word *Filioque* to the Creed, 179. Paul the Roman pontiff, and his letter to Pippin, king of the Franks, 178. Petavius, Dionysius, did not understand the names of the months used by Pachymeres, 55. Peter of Antioch, patriarch, and his letter to Photius, 205. He is a stranger to the schism, ibid. Photius corrected, 91. He has amassed many arguments against the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, which are refuted, 111 et seq. Condemned in a Roman synod. He revives the dissent concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, 198, 199. He persecutes the Latin catechists of the Bulgarians, who deliver the Creed with the addition of the word *Filioque*, ibid. He forges a letter written to him by Pope John VIII, 201. And by the Archbishop of Aquileia, 202. Possinus, Petrus, is less accurate in calculating the year of the deposition of the patriarch Arsenius, 33, 34. Also in the year in which Germanus resigned his dignity, 36 et seq. Also in the year that Josephus Galesiota succeeded, 39, 40. He falsely attributes to Gregory Cyprius the duty of the ecclesiastical sermon in the palace, 42. He is ambivalent regarding the year of Michael Palaeologus’s death, 71. He corrects himself, ibid. Finally, he recognizes and hands down the true method of reducing the Constantinopolitan years of the world to Julian or Dionysian years, ibid. Corrected again, 94, 96. Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, or through the Son, 45. See Errors of the Greeks. The genuine status of the controversy, 46. Sacred Scriptures which teach it, 46 et seq. The first mention of the controversy with St. Hilary, ibid. But then with the Monothelites and the Iconoclasts, 50. The Greek Fathers teach it: Athanasius, 65, 66. Basil, 66, 84, 136. Chrysostom, or another author of the homily on the Holy Spirit, 89. Cyril of Alexandria, 50, 53, 61, 81, 132, 135, 187. Damascenus, 61, 65, 96 et seq., 105. Gregory of Nyssa, 63, 81 et seq. Maximus, 50, 51, 54. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 65. Also the Latin Fathers... ^C

[LATIN COLUMN]

227 GEORGII CYPRII CP. PATRIARCHÆ tini, Avitus Viennensis, 156 et seq. Damasus papa, 154, 155. Gennadius, 156. Gregorius Magnus, 176. Hilarius Pictaviensis, 155, 156. Hispani episcopi, 172, 173. Hormisdas papa, 176. Leo Magnus, 173. Leo III, 187. Professiones fidei, aliæ Symbolum Constantinopolitanum auctum continentes, aliæ instar Symboli editæ. Agathonis papæ in synodo sexta œcumenica, 166, 168. Basilii Ancyrani in synodo septima œcumenica, 166. Gregorii Magni, 176. Leonis II, 182, 183. Orientalium episcoporum ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, 161, 163, 167. Petri Nicomediensis episcopi, 166. Tarasii patriarchæ Constantinopolitani, 166. Theodori Hierosolymitani, ibid. Aliæ in ordinatione episcopi Græci, 166. Et in Libro diurno Romanorum pontificum, 187. Protoapostolarius, quis apud Græcos, 43. Protovestiarius, 31. Protovestiarissa, 126. Ptolemais urbs, 17. Q Quadragesimale jejunium Græci agunt septem hebdomadibus, 35. R Reccaredus rex additionem vocis, Filioque, ad Symbolum in Hispania promovet, 176. Ricciolius J. Baptista, veram et accuratam regulam tradit, annos mundi Constantinopolitanos reducendi ad Julianos, 20. Romana Ecclesia additionem vocis Filioque non recipit, 187 ac deinceps. Romani et Romæi dicti Græci, maxime Constantinopolitani, 16. Latinos non raro ipsi Græci vocant Romanos aut Romæos, ibid. Russi annos ab aliquo tempore computant a Kalendis Januarii, 21. S Sardicense concilium vetat aliam præter Nicænam edi fidei formulam, 150. Quo sensu, 151. Utique Græcis adverso, ibid. Schisma Græcorum sub Michaele Cerulario, et ejus vera causa ambitio, ac de jurisdictione dissidium, 204, 217 et seq. Prætextus, 204 et seq., 218 et seq. Sergius II papa, vocem Filioque non adjecit ad Symbolum, 211. Sergius patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, 216 et seq. Sisinnius patriarcha Constantinop., 217. Stauropegii jus, 61. Symbolum apostolorum Africanum, 144. Ancyranum, 146. Aquileiense, 142, 143. Hierosolymitanum, 147. Hispanicum, 145. Orientale, ibid. Ravennatense, 141. Romanum, 141, 148. Taurinense, 142. Vulgatum, seu commune, 148. Nicænum, 149. In baptismatis administratione usurpatum, ibid. Magis minusque aliquibus vocibus auctum in Ecclesiis, Alexandrina 163; Antiochena, 150; apud Epiphanium, quod postea dictum est Constantinopolitanum, 150, 151; Hierosolymitana, 149; Philadelphiensi, 157. Hæreticis additamentis auctum a Nestorio, 157. Constantinopolitanum, 153. Origo ejus, 151, 158, 161, 165, 170. In usum Ecclesiæ communem, cæteris prætermissis formulis, deductum maxime post syno- 228 dum Chalcedonensem, 164, 169 et seq. Inter partes sacræ Liturgiæ ab Orientalibus orthodoxis, et ab Occidentalibus assumptum, 171, 172, 177. Sæculo nono, Leonis III ætate ac deinceps, Romana in Ecclesia non canebatur in Liturgia Symbolum Constantinopolitanum, 187 et seq. Eoque minus cum additione vocis Filioque, ibid. Imo neque legebatur in eadem Liturgia sine cantu, 191 et seq. Legi aut cani cœptum sæculo undecimo sub Benedicto VIII, 207, 211. An antea traditum catechumenis in Ecclesia Romana, ibid. Aliud est, Symbolum Constantinopolitanum super catechumenos, et per illos recitari in baptismate, 215. T Thealdus vicecomes, postea Gregorius papa X, 43. Michaelem Palæologum hortatur ad unionem Ecclesiarum, 44. Romæ coronatur, e Syria redux, 45. Indicit concilium Lugdunense, ibid. Legatos dirigit Constantinopolim, ibid. Concilium Lugduni celebrat, 56. Theodorus Lascaris III imperator vita decedit, 31. Thomas Hierosolymorum patriarcha favet Latinis monachis montis Oliveti, 186. Timotheus patriarcha Constantinopol. Nicænum Symbolum recitari in Liturgia jubet, 171. Toletana synodus III prima, quæ Symbolum particula, Filioque, auxit Ecclesiæ sæculo sexto cadente, 177. Tomus a Gregorio Cyprio scriptus et reprehensus, 131. Triclinium Alexiacum, 25, 95. Colloquium de fide ibi habitum, ibid. Trosleiana synodus, sub Heriveo Remensi episcopo, de processione Spiritus sancti a Filio, 204. Tyrine, Dominica, eodem atque quinquagesima apud Latinos, 95. Dicta a caseo adhuc permisso apud Græcos, ibid. In ea oblationes paratæ pro missa præsanctificatorum, ibid. V Vossius Gerardus Joannes emendatus, 211. Vox Filioque addita ad Symbolum Constantinopolitanum, 139. Joannis Becci judicium, 140, 141. Mens etiam Petri Antiocheni, ibid. Non addita ad Symbolum tempore Damasi papæ et synodi Constantinopolitanæ, 154. Neque ætate sancti Maximi et synodi sextæ œcumenicæ, 175. Neque lecta in synodo septima œcumenica, 175, 183, 184, 185. Addita vero primum in Ecclesiis Hispanicis sæculo VI cadente, 177. Tum vero in Galicanis et Germanis Ecclesiis, et in regno Italiæ sub Carolo Magno, 178 et seq., 188, 189. Hæc additio vindicata a Paulino Aquileiensi patriarcha, 179, 180. Cum hac additione Symbolum legebant, aut canebant in liturgia monachi Latini montis Oliveti: hinc a Græcis exagitati, 181, 182. Additio eadem nec legebatur, neque canebatur, in Ecclesia Romana, Caroli Magni tempore ac deinceps, 187 et seq. Neque toto Photiano tempore, 198 et seq. Addita vero sæculo undecimo, 204. Benedicto VIII scilicet sedem tenente, et imperante Henrico I, 207 et seq. W Walafridus Strabo Symbolum in liturgia frequentari cœptum refert, post Felicis et Elipandi damnationem, 189, 190. Emendatus, 190, 195.

NOTICE ON THE FOLLOWING WRITINGS OF GEORGE OF CYPRUS

Nicephorus Gregoras perstringit paucis, nec satis enarrat, quæ causa fuerit, qua Georgius, seu Gregorius Cyprius, Byzantino patriarchatu cedere cogeretur. Cuncta vero fuse et ad longum Georgius Pachymeres recitat libro primo et secundo Historiæ Andronici Palæologi: quorum hæc summa est: Convocato propter quasdam de patriarcha Cyprio Joannis Becci expostulationes, episcoporum,

^A clericorum et monachorum, necnon procerum imperii, coram imperatore cœtu seu concilio, cui Gregorius ipse Constantinopolitanus et Athanasius Alexandrinus præerant, accersiti Beccus ejusque socii Constantinus Melitiniota et Georgius Metochita, de Spiritus sancti processione disputaverunt. Cumque præter quemdam Nysseni Gregorii locum, quo Spiritus διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς, per illum qui proxime et contigue est ex Patre procedere dicitur, alterum ex Joanne Damasceno protulissent, quo asseritur Pater διὰ Λόγου προβολεὺς ἐκφαντορικοῦ Πνεύματος, per Verbum esse manifestantis Spiritus productor; hicque genuinus et sincerus esset agnitus, neque de processione alia quam de sempiterna intelligendus veniret, in miras ambages schismatici conclusi sunt. ^B Conventu soluto ne Beccus cum suis vicisse videretur, patriarchæ Gregorio data provincia est libelli condendi, quo Damasceni dictum a Becci et Latinorum sententia alienum ostenderetur, conciliareturque cum istis aliis ejusdem doctoris verbis, 'Εξ δὲ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν, Ex Filio autem Spiritum non dicimus. Scriptus a Cyprio tomus, in ecclesia lectus fuit, quem imperator, et ipse patriarcha, nonnullique alii subscriptionibus suis munierunt; multis tamen refragantibus, qui nec minis nec tormentis adduci potuerunt ut subscriberent. Quorum renitentiæ hæc causa erat, quod in tomo enuntiaretur, priore Damasceni loco significari Patrem esse Spiritus per Verbum productorem, non ut Spiritus per Verbum exsistat, sed ut per illud effulgeat. Verba quippe tomi hæc erant; quæ refert Leo Allatius in Vindiciis Syn. Ephes. cap. 60, ex orat. 4 Josephi Bryennii de Trinitate: Εἰ καὶ γὰρ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ παρὰ τισι τῶν ἁγίων ἐκπορεύεσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἴρηται, τὴν εἰς ἀΐδιον ἔκφανσιν ἡ λέξις ἐνταῦθα, οὐ τὴν εἰς τὸ εἶναι καθαρῶς σημαίνειν βούλεται: Licet enim apud sanctos aliquos per Filium procedere Spiritum sanctum affirmetur, dictum hoc progressum in æternam effulsionem, non ad hoc ut sit, pure et proprie significat: alia libelli ejusdem excerpta post Bryennium Allatius addit in eumdem sensum convenientia. ^C Plura vero legi possunt apud Beccum, qui Cyprii tomum opusculis duobus confutavit, quæ exstant in secundo volumine Græciæ orthodoxæ. Qui patriarchæ tomum improbabant, non capiebant, inquit Pachymeres, quid tandem discriminis esset inter productionem Spiritus sancti ad exsistentiam, et processionem ad sempiternam exsplendescentiam: eo maxime quod Ecclesiæ doctores divinarum personarum Filii et Spiritus sancti emanationes ex Patre seu processiones ἐκφάνσεις, effulgentias, plerumque vocitarent: unde illi concludebant, datam a Gregorio expositionem Latinorum causæ favere magis, quam nocere. Editum igitur contra se tomum, ubi primum Beccus accepit, calamum adversus illum strinxit, ac, præter Byzantinorum spem, qui nihil nisi inconditas furentis animi voces ab eo præstolarentur, solidissima confutatione crucem adversariis fixit, tantamque patriarchæ schismatico conflavit invidiam, ut omnes illum in ipsius Joannis Becci, cujus olim socius fuerat, sententiam conspirasse arbitrarentur. Nec ab re quidem; quippe cum, præter illa quæ post Allatium attuli, alium sensum non reddant altera hæc tomi verba quæ apud Beccum leguntur oratione: Ἀλλὰ δι' Υἱοῦ καὶ ἐξ Υἱοῦ φυσικῶς ὑπάρχειν, οὐμενοῦν δι' Υἱοῦ καὶ ἐξ Υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν οἱ εἰρηκότες Πατέρες τὸ Πνεῦμα ἔφησαν· Patres dixerunt Spiritum per Filium et ex Filio naturaliter exsistere : non item per Filium et ex Filio exsistentiam habere. Quasi vero per Filium et ex Filio exsistere non idem sonet, atque, per Filium et ex Filio exsistentiam habere, etc., vice versa. Quid distinctione ista stolidum magis excogitari possit? Legatur Beccus t. II, Græc. orthod., pag. 252. Alia vero rursum ex eodem tomo pessimæ doctrinæ plena strenuus iste rei catholicæ defensor et patronus carpit, quorum hoc præ cæteris minime prætermittendum censui. Scilicet aiebat Cyprius: Μηδὲν καινὸν εἶναι μηδὲ τῆς τῶν Γραφῶν συνηθείας ἀλλότριον, ἐὰν τὸ πνευματικὸν χάρισμα ἅγιον ὁμωνύμως Πνεῦμα καλεῖται· καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἔστιν ὅτε οἰκειοῦσθαι τὴν τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος κλῆσιν, ὡς ἡ τοῦ Ἡλίου λαμπηδὼν καὶ αὐγὴ πολλάκις τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου· Nihil esse novi, neque a Scriptura consuetudine alienum, ut spirituale donum Spiritus sanctus appelletur: quin imo actionem aliquando sibi nomen agentis asciscere, veluti splendor et radius sol sæpenumero nuncupatur. Quibus verbis significabat æternam Dei actionem, sempiternum lumen divinum, quæ tribus personis communia sunt, Spiritum sanctum quandoque appellari. Id quod explicatius ipse declarat in fragmento alterius, ni fallor, operis Contra Beccum, quod mihi suppeditavit codex Regius 2953, et cujus magnam partem alibi recitavi in dissertatione critico-historica De processione Spiritus sancti. ^D Atqui hæc præambulam Gregorii Palamæ impietatem continebant, divinam operationem, quam θεότητα, Deitatem, appellabat, re a Dei essentia distinctam, Deoque et personis tribus coæternam esse, ipsamque creaturis ratione præditis communicari contendentis. Quocirca Beccus æmuli sui erratum arguit allato capite integro Theodori Abucaræ, quod inter edita vicesimum septimum est, et quo nihil disertius Palamiticæ insaniæ opponi possit. Hanc autem divini luminis et operationis a divina essentia distinctionem tunc primum, cum ante audita non fuisset, auctore Cyprio invectam fuisse his verbis Joannes Beccus testatur: Ὁ δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας, ὥς φησι, γενναῖος ἐκδικητής, συκοφάντας ἡμᾶς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστό

ἀποστό ^A λων ὑβριστὰς, τοὺς οὕτω τὴν θεολογικὴν μετιόντας ὁδὸν, τί ἐν παρ' ἡμῖν κληθείη αὐτὸς ὁ οἴκοθεν καὶ ἀπὸ κοιλίας νέας ἄρτι δογμάτων φωνὰς τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσηγούμενος ἐκκλησίᾳ; But the illustrious champion of the truth, as he calls himself, who labels us as calumniators and insulters of the saints for treating theological matters in this way, what shall he be called by us, seeing that from his own resources, and now for the first time, he comes forward to introduce novel utterances of doctrine into the Church of God from his own belly? I have brought up this testimony of Beccus in passing, in order to prove that he did not by any means condemn Palamas and his errors while he was Patriarch of Constantinople, although our friend Combefis, when he was editing the second part of his most recent *Auctarium*, was persuaded of this. On the contrary, Palamas had preceded Cyprius, and had prefigured his heresy in his writings against Beccus. For which reason that John the Patriarch, by whom Cyparissiotus says Gregory Palamas was first condemned, was either John Glycus, or more likely John Calecas Aprenus, the successor of Esaias, which is entirely consistent with the histories of Cantacuzenus and Nicephorus Gregoras.

The lucubrations of John Beccus against the *Tomus* gave spirit to the adversaries of Gregory, so that they rose up against him with more ardent zeal. The chief among these were John Chilas, Metropolitan of Ephesus, Daniel of Cyzicus, and Theoleptus of Philadelphia, to whom Musalo the Grand Logothete joined himself. Leo Allatius, in his *De Consensu*, book II, chapter 11, col. 513, published a booklet in Greek and Latin which Chilas presented to the Emperor against the *Tomus*. This was the reason that Cyprius wrote an exposition of his *Tomus*, which now appears for the first time from Regius Codex 3442. In that exposition he continues to contend that there is one procession of the divine person of the Holy Spirit to existence, and another to manifestation: the former being indicated by Scripture and the Fathers when the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father; the latter, when from the Father through the Son.

Moreover, he accuses John Beccus of perjury and recites a document which, in order to appease the savage spirits of the mob against him, Beccus had given to Patriarch Joseph and had signed, as though renouncing the dogma of the Latins and approving his own abdication. With what mind Beccus had done this, he himself declared at the beginning of his own disputation—which I have narrated that he held in the council before the Emperor—and which became the cause of all these disturbances.

Furthermore, Theoleptus of Cyzicus objected to Patriarch Gregory that in the *Tomus* were found traces of the impious doctrine of Mark the Monk, who had recently published a book in which the term *probouleus* (producer) was used in an ambiguous sense, as Pachymeres narrates, "just as he himself misuses the term *probouleus*." The same historian records that this Mark was a foreigner, not a Greek, and as far as can be gathered from the inscription of the Confession of Gregory, of which we shall speak presently, he had become a Christian from being a Hebrew, and subsequently a monk. From this is further refuted the error of that man, otherwise most learned, who thought this Mark was the same as Mark of Ephesus, who disputed against the Latins one hundred and fifty years later at the Council of Florence.

Indeed, his error seems to be fostered by the fact that in the index of the Scoriacensi Library it is written: *Gregorii patriarchae Constantinopolitani Cyprii apologia in epistulam Marci Ephesii*. But it was due to the negligence or ignorance of a librarian that the word *Cyprii* (of Cyprius) was inserted, since this work ought to be attributed to Gregory the Protosyncellus, who was the last of the Byzantine patriarchs before the city was taken by the Turks—unless, however, instead of "Mark of Ephesus," it should be written "John of Ephesus," the Chilas who was an adversary of Gregory Cyprius; let this be said by me in passing.

But that Mark the Monk boasted that the small volume he had written was corrected and approved by the Patriarch, with whom he was joined in the closest intimacy. Wherefore it happened that as soon as Mark's book was issued to the public, Gregory Cyprius was considered its author. To repel this accusation, the Patriarch composed the Confession of faith which I have mentioned, by which he execrated the dogmas of Mark. This he also did in another suppliant petition addressed to Emperor Andronicus. Meanwhile, those who stood for Gregory urged Athanasius of Alexandria, with the Emperor's consent, to subscribe to the *Tomus*: which he, however, refused to do, pleading that he did not have enough leisure and ability to examine each of its words, especially since he did not understand the customs and sentiments of the Constantinopolitans.

Moved by this, the Emperor began to moderate his ardor for Cyprius, and although he had first agreed to his request for a public discussion in which he might explain his mind more clearly, he soon changed his mind and refused, fearing that the same thing might happen as in the earlier disputation with Beccus, from which the affairs of the Church had emerged no more peaceful. Nay, more, Andronicus sent those who would demand his abdication from the see. For Cyprius had already moved from the patriarchal house to the Monastery of the Hodegon, where he was occupied in writing books for his defense.

Afterward, however, so that the Patriarch might not be condemned unheard, the Emperor announced a public assembly in which his Confession of faith was read and judged free from all suspicion of heretical doctrine. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan of Ephesus and the Bishop of Cyzicus protested openly that they could in no way enter into communion with a man who for certain reasons had been sprinkled, as it were, with the stain of heresy. Because they pertinaciously adhered to this opinion, and did not yield to the Emperor's warnings and exhortations, both were sent into separate confinement, from which they were not led out until after a few years, and then with great difficulty. But Theoleptus of Philadelphia, pretending that all this offense was taken from the book of Mark alone, ^B

^A finally, since it was not possible to agree on the correction of the text, he altogether removed the explanation, judging it better not to explain the passage at all than to cast it into danger by explaining it. ^B *A producer through the Word of the manifestative Spirit, through the Word, through the Son, with the Word, with the Son, together with the Son.*

EXPOSITION OF THE TOMUS OF FAITH AGAINST BECCUS

The agitation and storm which shortly before afflicted the Church ^C had as its father and leader that very adversary of the salvation of men who is always being assailed by envy, and who never rests from seeking and contriving to hinder it. Yet he also found men—even if not as leaders and primary causes—who were nevertheless ministers and instruments who contributed to it through their own choice, as many as he himself desired. At first, indeed, peace and a certain safe and, supposedly, advantageous arrangement for our own [flock], being not such in truth, was proposed as a goal for the action. And this was offered like a lure to men, drawing them toward what was hidden. It was proposed with promises and most frightful curses, and oaths that their intention was fixed on nothing other than what these very things—accompanied by the safe and harmless, or rather the blameless—declare. Then, after a short time had passed, those curses and oaths were neglected, as if they had served for anything else but that. The very name of peace and arrangement sank as if into the ground, and of that which previously had seemed to them a better undertaking; then, the words and deeds of malice emerged. And someone among us even dared to say that [the Spirit] proceeds also from the Son, just as, indeed, ^D [He proceeds] also from the Father; that the Only-Begotten is also His cause, just as is the Father who begot the Only-Begotten. From thence the agitation takes its beginning, and the great war is henceforth launched against the Church.

That this alien doctrine which lately disturbed us is not new in its origin, and that it has had this [existence] among others—not among us—everyone knows almost well enough, and it is not necessary to teach it again; yet it was brought over here like some foreign contagion, and it flourished for a sufficient time. John Beccus provided it with so much strength to grow, becoming its host and as it were a soil not ill-suited to nourish it, being watered, as I would say, from the evil one and from the torrents of lawlessness, but, as he falsely said, from the holy Books—corruptly unrolling them, and scattering seed from them and committing sacrilege, and at once stealing the sense of the Scripture, and at the same time [the minds] of those who listened to him superficially, or who were looking toward his golden [promises]. But nevertheless, this evil, prevailing and having established itself here, had been in force for nearly the eighth year. So great was the hold that he had on the patriarchal throne, that prize of not good fruit, and in the Church during all this time, by God's permission because of the multitude of all our sins, to which...

we are miserably subject, we irritate the impassible One ^A and endure the most terrible things. But after this, God is entreated on behalf of us, His servants, and looks with mercy, and raises up a king—he who alone seems to live for this purpose, that he might do the things that are pleasing to God—and through him He raises up the Church, just as of old He raised up the fallen and demolished tent of David. And the man who received and fostered wickedness and tares is removed, while the genuine dogma of the Spirit gains boldness, and there is freedom from now on for those who truly wish to transform their God-pleasing conduct upon the foundation of the faith. But it is indeed good and salutary, and a work of a higher dispensation, to provide for the subsequent safety of the Church, and to secure her immovability by all means, so that if any God-hated man should again attempt to shake her, he may be proved vain, being warded off by the firm word of our piety. This would be sufficiently accomplished if two things were to be done by us: first, to declare clearly our own orthodox dogma, and as it were to set it up on high like a pillar of piety, so that it might be manifest to all, seen from afar, and directing the eyes of the soul toward itself; and second, to make known that which is evil and destructive, or rather alien, so that this too, once it becomes manifest, may be turned away from by all who possess what we possess, and [so that they may] abhor it and hasten to flee the danger from it.

We indeed, therefore, confess with the tongue as we also believe with the heart. We believe as we have been taught from of old and from our Fathers. We have been taught and we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, without beginning and unbegotten and without cause, the natural source and cause of the Son and of the Spirit. We believe also in His only-begotten Son, who was begotten of Him timelessly and impassibly as consubstantial with Him, through whom all things came to be. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Him, the Father, who is co-worshipped with the Father and the Son, as co-eternal and co-throned, and consubstantial, and of the same glory, and co-creator of creation. We believe that One of this super-essential and life-giving Trinity, ^D the only-begotten Word, descended from the heavens for us men, and for our salvation was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and became man, that is, became perfect Man while remaining God, and having changed nothing of the divine essence because of the communion with flesh, nor having altered it, but without change having taken up human nature. And in the same [Person] He endured passion and the cross, being free from every passion according to the divine nature, and rose on the third day from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of God the Father. We believe according to the traditions and teachings concerning God and divine things, of the one catholic and 236 ^A apostolic Church. We confess in baptism unto the remission of sins, and we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Furthermore, confessing one hypostasis of the Word who became man, and believing in and proclaiming the same Christ, we know Him in two natures after the incarnation, the things from which and in which and what He is by nature preserved. Consistently also we acknowledge two energies and two wills of the same Christ, each of the natures preserving its own proper will and its own proper energy. We are worshippers relatively, and not worshiping as of God, of the divine and venerable icons, both of Christ Himself and of the all-pure Mother of God, and of all the saints, directing the honor towards them unto the prototypes. But those who think otherwise than this, as being of alien mind, we reject. We reject also the peace that occurred a little while ago, as that which caused an enmity against God for us. Because, as in a fabric of dispensation, it rent and ravaged the Church, persuading her through folly and perversion of mind to incline away from orthodoxy and the sound teaching of the Fathers—those seeking not their own, but God’s glory—and to be destroyed into the precipice of heterodoxy and blasphemy. We renounce the dangerous words spoken by them concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. For having learned that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from God the Word Himself, we confess that He has His existence also from the Father, and that He [the Father] is the cause of His existence essentially, just as the Son also is. But the Son we know and believe to be from the Father, and that He possesses the Father as the cause and natural principle of Himself, but that He has the Spirit which is from the Father as consubstantial and co-natural. Not, however, that He is the cause of the Spirit either alone or together with the Father. For neither is there existence for the all-holy Spirit through the Son and from the Son, as those who misinterpret themselves into destruction and distance from God have understood and decreed. Whom, as not holding the sound faith, but clearly blaspheming, and thinking and saying distorted things, we reject and turn away from our communion, having committed things most terrible and even unbearable to the ear. For being from our race and dogma from of old, and belonging to this Church, they nevertheless rose up against her, and renounced her who spiritually travailed for them and nourished them, and brought upon her the ultimate danger, having appeared as blameworthy children, alien sons who have made lame their own paths; a wicked and perverted generation, not rendering good returns to the Lord God, nor indeed to their mother the Church. For it was necessary to endure every danger for her and for her dogmas, and not to refuse even death itself. But they acted even worse than men who are by nature enemies toward her, having become utterly sick with a melancholy, and having altogether cast off the discernment of enemies and friends. Of whom, as has been said, the...

John Beccus first held this ^A position, since Christ visited his own Church, and he was stirred up against both Him and the evil constitution; and he proceeded purely to an unoriginate state, from which he was about to exact the penalties worthy of his own glibness, having seemingly felt remorse for those things in which he had raved against the Church, having composed a pious confession, and having handed it over to the synod that was correcting his affairs. He had not yet tasted of philanthropy, nor had he tasted of release from his condemnation, before he again returned to his own vomit of blasphemy.

^B But that confession itself must be set forth, so that all who hear it may judge whether he was not condemned justly. It stood, then, in the very wording, as follows: "Since, in the preceding insecure economy of the so-called ecclesiastical peace, in order to lead me along with all others into such peace, it happened that I spoke and wrote concerning ecclesiastical dogmas, in which were found also certain things uttered by me that were discordant with the sacred and divine dogmas, and having an insecure character, which features the divine and holy synod discovered—to wit, my saying that the holy Spirit has the Father and the Son as the cause of His own existence, and that to this the phrase which says the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son leads and carries agreement, whence also two causes of the Spirit appear, and the proximate, and the distant principle is from this implied; and so much so is the Son also a cause of the existence of the Spirit, in so far as it goes there—since all these things are found contained in my own writings and discourses, having been thought and written by me and no one else; and in addition to these, also the saying that the Father and the Son are one cause of the Spirit, from whom, as from one principle and source, it has its being. All these things, and whatever else leads to such an absurdity of dogma, before God and His fearful angels, and furthermore before the divine and holy synod, from the midst of my soul, without any deceit, and shunning the concealing of some things while saying others, I renounce, and I reject, and I cast away, as bearing to the uttermost abyss of the soul. I confess, however, with heart and with mouth, and I think as the holy and catholic Church has confessed from of old, concerning the holy Trinity, the one God, thus: that the Father has His being from no one else, nor from Himself, but is unoriginate and uncaused. The only-begotten Son of God has from the Father his existence by generation, and has the Father as his cause. And the holy Spirit I confess and believe that He has His existence from God and the Father by ^C procession. And the Father, according to the sacred voices of the teachers, is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the phrase 'through the Son proceeding' not at all introducing the Son as being a cause of the Spirit, either by himself, or together with the Father, so that the Son and the Father should appear as one cause and one principle of the Spirit. This is how I think, and I pray until my last breath to be found thinking this, and in all dogmas to be of one mind with the holy catholic Church of God, according to the confessed agreement. And all those who do not think thus, or who will think thus in the future, I hold as excommunicate and cast out, and far from the orthodox faith of Christians. This is the declaration of my confession and faith, through which I also confess to all and protest and clearly set forth how I hold the piety toward God, and how I completely adhere to the evangelical and apostolic and patristic dogmas and teachings. And since, because of the boldness with which I insecurely dared to oppose some of the aforementioned divine dogmas, I was condemned to deposition from the arch-priesthood by the most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, and by the divine and holy synod gathering around him, in which also the most holy pope of Alexandria and patriarch resides, I accept also such deposition, as having occurred lawfully and canonically, and I will be content with such a vote, as just and legal, never attempting to reclaim the priesthood."

Having set forth these things, and having written and signed them with his own hand, no sooner did he receive relief from the court than he once for all transgressed them. And again he composes books, and again there are blasphemies, and again spurious dogmas, and introductions of other ideas which our Fathers did not know. For having striven to show himself superior to the charges of this evil, and though he ought to have done this by repentance alone and the rejection of what he had wickedly composed, he, having ignored the straight path, turns aside from the straight, and falls into a reprobate mind so much the more than before; so as to conjecture that his spirit withdrew from the error for a little while, but ran to him again with greater preparation, having taken with it not seven only, but a whole legion of spirits, and having seized and filled his entire soul's domain. On account of which he is again summoned, and he is demanded for words of this good change. And ^D he is summoned by another, namely the king who is zealous for God Almighty, who—is engaged in the rebuilding of the Church and piety, being as it were a hand to the Highest himself, whom I would gladly call a new Moses and a servant of God in a special sense, freeing the Israel among us from Egypt and slavery—not according to that ancient perceptible one, but from one far more grievous—save that while the king’s hands have the hand of God painted upon them on account of this service, his books bear it written within. And it is not for us to write much about him. But Beccus, being demanded for reasons by the holy synod, since after a little while he was fickle toward them, and like a dog returned to his own vomit.

^A having grasped at repentance, and having, as it is said, put his hand to the plow evangelically, and having agreed to follow the Church, he turned back to things behind and proved unfit for the kingdom of heaven, preferring the blasphemous to the right path. He spoke so little that was gentle, and [did nothing] such as might have constrained him not to appear wicked, so that even then it became clearly manifest that he is violently held in heresy, and that no argument will be able to persuade him to depart from it. Hence, the whole assembly of the pious, having exercised righteous zeal against him and those who are of the same mind as him—just as the Levites of old used against their own brothers, the sons of Israel, who had transgressed—we pronounce the sentence.

α'. To John Beccus and those following him—I mean Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites—since they have sprung from us and were nurtured in our customs and dogmas, and yet did not remain in these, which were innate and familial to them and confirmed through all time from when Christ began to be preached until now; but these, against whom neither the gates of Hades have prevailed nor indeed shall prevail, they disregarded. ^B I know not what they have to accuse them of, or why they should not applaud them, but they introduced instead a belief entirely unknown to their Fathers, neither respecting the precedence of time of those laid down [before them], nor indeed the expositors of these same, who spoke of the things of the Spirit no otherwise than as being filled with the Spirit. Therefore, because these men, having become so corrupted, thought things outlandish and far from those that have been handed down, to the ruin and destruction of the Church; and then, after some time of this madness, they changed, and declared themselves to be under curse in speeches and in writings for ten thousand to see and hear, if they would not henceforth find themselves entirely cherishing the ancestral customs and drawn into nothing foreign to the Church’s way of thinking; yet they did not remain even by their own handwritten signatures on this repentance, but repented [of their repentance] and changed their minds again, and inclined back to their former apostasy, just as if they had obtained a nature that is apostate and faithless to the ancestral terms—to these, having turned away with a wicked turning and having loved the distance from their own Church, which they themselves one day will dare for this reason to break off from, being such as they are, from the wholeness ^C of the orthodox, we do make them excommunicate from the Church of God and the flock.

β'. To the same, who, with those who are with him, are so emboldened against the apostolic confession as to insert into it that which neither the teachers of the Church have handed down nor we have received from them—we, bringing the aforementioned decree and condemnation, cut them off from the wholeness of the orthodox and make them excommunicate from the Church of God and the flock.

γ'. To the same, who say that the Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son, and not otherwise, as if the Son were co-cause of the Spirit's hypostasis and imparted being to the Spirit—from which it follows that the Son is conjoined to the Father as co-cause, and contributes to the existence of the Spirit—and who bring forward as proof of this argument the saying of the divine Damascene, that "the Father is the producer of the manifestative Spirit through the Son," which in no wise conveys this thought, but wishes clearly to set forth the manifestation through the Son of the Spirit who has his existence from the Father; since the same Damascene would not in this very chapter ^D teach that God and Father is the sole cause in the Trinity, and by the word "sole" remove the cause from the other hypostases, nor again in other places say: "We call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son, but we do not say that he is from the Son," for these things cannot agree with one another. However, since these men do not accept terms of the Fathers according to the paternal intention, but to some other [meaning] altogether forbidden by the Fathers themselves, we, bringing the aforementioned decree and condemnation, cut them off from the wholeness of the orthodox and make them excommunicate from the Church of God and the flock.

δ'. To the same, asserting that the Paraclete has his existence from the Father through the Son and from the Son, and again bringing forward as proof of this: "By the Son and from the Son he exists," from the writing of certain ones—which indeed signifies his shining forth and manifestation from there. For the Paraclete is confessedly eternally shining forth and revealed through the Son, just as light [shines] through a ray from the sun; but it also signifies the gift and donation and mission to us—yet it does not [mean] that he has his subsistence through the Son and from the Son, and receives his being through him and from him, since [if so] he would have indeed the Son himself as cause and beginning, just as he has the Father himself—not to say, even more the Son than the Father, if indeed he from whom each is said to have his existence, is believed both to possess [that one] as beginning and cause of being. To these who both think and say such things, we, bringing the aforementioned decree and condemnation, cut them off from the wholeness of the orthodox and make them excommunicate from the Church of God and the flock.

ε'. To the same, asserting that the preposition "through" is everywhere in theology equivalent to "from," and because of this insisting that there is no difference in saying the Spirit proceeds "through the Son" and [proceeds] "from the Son," and hence undoubtedly grant to the Spirit existence and substantiality from the Son; and either they gather [that there is a] dual cause, [or] that one is primary; yet they conjoin the Son to the Father according to this very reason of cause—both of which are beyond all blasphemy. For there is not in the Trinity any other hypostasis besides that of the Father, from which there could be for those who are consubstantial an existence

and being. But according to the common opinion of the Church ^A and of those holy men who have called the Father the root and source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the Father the only source of the divinity and the only cause—for even if the Holy Spirit is said by some of the saints to proceed through the Son, this refers to the eternal manifestation—the expression "through the Son" in this context does not intend to signify the coming forth into being of the Spirit who has his existence from the Father, since that would strip the Father of being the sole cause and the sole source of the divinity, and would also refute the Theologian who says, "All that the Father has, the Son has also, except for causality," and would prove him not to be a true theologian. To those who speak in this way, we inflict the aforementioned vote and condemnation; we cut them off from the community of the Orthodox, and we declare them excommunicated from the Church of God and from her flock.

5. To those who persist in claiming that there is one essence and divinity of the Father and the Son that is the cause of the existence of the Spirit, which no one of sound mind has ever said or appeared to have conceived—for the common essence and nature is not the cause of a hypostasis, since it is never generative nor productive. This common essence exists naturally only in particulars, while the essence with distinguishing characteristics, which clearly, according to the great Maximus, denotes the hypostasis—and indeed also according to the great Basil himself, for he also defines the hypostasis as being that which brings the common and infinite into a particular thing by means of the manifest distinguishing characteristics, and defines it—therefore, that which is of the essence is always presented as a particular, as that which is begotten and that which begets, as that which is brought forth; and of the Father and the Son, the essence is one, and not as a whole a particular; to those who utter such absurd blasphemies, we inflict the aforementioned vote and condemnation; we cut them off from the community of the Orthodox, and we declare them excommunicated from the Church of God and from her flock. ^B

6. For we must ask: are they making the Spirit a cause of something, accepting the same logic of nature as for the Father, and secondly, does this causality proceed into a multitude? For as many hypostases as participate in the nature, so many will participate in the cause. And thirdly, does the common essence and nature become the cause of the hypostasis, which every discourse forbids, and the nature itself with that discourse? To those who think such absurd things, which are alien to the truth, we inflict the aforementioned vote and condemnation; we cut them off from the community of the Orthodox, and we declare them excommunicated from the Church of God and from her flock.

9. To those who say that, just as in the case of creation, the phrase "through the Son" holds the declaration of the pre-initiating cause, but does not thereby separate the Son from being the creator and cause of the creatures that came to be through him, so too in the theology itself, even if the Father is said to be the primordial cause of the Son and the Spirit, and that the Spirit is a cause through the Son, the Son would not be separated from the Father in the procession of the Spirit. They say these things and, unreasonably, they join the Son with the Father as a cause of the Spirit. For even if the Son is the creator of what came to be through him, as is the Father, he is not therefore the cause of the Spirit, because the Father is the one who brings forth the Spirit through him. Nor, again, because the Father is the one who brings forth the Spirit through the Son, is he, therefore, the cause of the Spirit through him. For the phrase "through the Son" here signifies the coming into manifestation and the shining forth, not the procession into being. Otherwise, the absurd consequences that follow from this would be innumerable. Nevertheless, because they say these things senselessly, and because they graft themselves onto the words of the saints, and thereby stir up a swarm of blasphemies, we inflict the aforementioned vote and condemnation; we cut them off from the community of the Orthodox, and we declare them excommunicated ^C from the Church of God and from her flock.

7. To those who dogmatize that the Father and the Son share in the cause of the Spirit, not as two principles and two causes; and that the Son shares with the Father insofar as he is the cause, and from this they introduce a difference in the cause of the Spirit according to the difference and power of these prepositions; and that they think and say that the Father is a cause in one way, as the Word, and the Son in another; and they bring in a number of causes and a multitude for the Spirit—even if they deny this a thousand times—we inflict the aforementioned vote and condemnation; we cut them off from the community of the Orthodox, and we declare them excommunicated from the Church of God and from her flock.

8. To those who contend that the Father is the cause of the Holy Spirit, not by the logic of the hypostasis, but by the logic of the nature, and from this necessarily declare the Son also to be a cause of the Spirit, as he possesses the same logic of nature as the Father, and who do not see how great an absurdity follows from this.

10. To those who say that just as the Virgin and Theotokos is called the "source of life," so too the Son is called the "source of life"—the Virgin is so called because she lent ensouled flesh, with a rational and intellectual soul, to the begotten Word, and was the cause of his becoming human after Christ—and that therefore the Son, for those who interpret "life" as the Holy Spirit, should be understood to be called "source of life" according to the logic of causality: to those who make such proofs of the Son sharing with the Father in the existence of the Spirit by means of such inappropriate comparisons and examples; for the only-begotten Word of God is not called "source of life" in the same way as the Virgin is called "source of life," since she is so called because the Life itself was born from her according to humanity, and she was indeed the cause of his divine flesh, whereas the Son is the "source of life" because he became the cause of life for us who were deadened by sin, and just as a stream of this river to those ^D

who believe in it, the Spirit is provided as if from its very source and through him; and this grace itself gushes forth from the Spirit, which is nothing new, nor foreign to the usage of the Scriptures, if it is called the Holy Spirit by homonymy. For the energy of the one who effects the calling is sometimes appropriated to it, just as we do not refuse to call the sun itself often the ray or brightness of the sun. Those who, in this way, are not at all inclined to conclude and harmonize these things, but rather act contentiously, upon them we impose the aforementioned decree and condemnation, we cut them off from the wholeness of the Orthodox, and we pronounce them excommunicate from the Church of God and from the flock.

11. The same men do not interpret the voices of the saints toward the correct purpose of the Church, nor do they heal what seems to be in opposition according to the spiritual traditions and the common suppositions concerning God and divine things, but they force them toward a meaning discordant with what is set before them, or they attend to them as mere words, and [draw] from them a dogma foreign to them; upon them we impose the aforementioned decree and condemnation, we cut them off from the wholeness of the Orthodox, and we pronounce them excommunicate from the Church of God and from their flock.

^A And the doctrines of the men who have been written of and already excommunicated have such blasphemy, such wickedness, and fall so utterly from the ecclesiastical mindset, that even if their father, Beccus, or any other of his disciples, maintains that these are the mind of the saints, he must truly be considered a slanderer and insulter of the saints. For where did the God-bearing men say that God and the Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son? Where did they say that the Comforter has his existence from the Son and through the Son? Or where, again, that the Comforter himself has his existence from the Father and from the Son? Where did they dogmatize that the one essence and divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit? And who, and in which of his treatises, forbade the paternal hypostasis from being the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit? Who also dogmatized that the Father is the cause of the Spirit, not by reason of hypostasis, but by reason of nature? And did not assign this very thing as a property separating the other two hypostases? Who claims that the other things—which he himself, lying, attributes to the Fathers for the abuse of the Fathers—are those of the Fathers? ^B He keeps himself from doing neither of these two evils. For he corrupts both the words themselves and the fact that they are not there. And even if he does use the exact words, he does not embrace the genuine meaning of the words. He does not even look to the purpose to which the Father looked in the words, but rather, arrogantly running past the intention and necessity, and the will itself of the Scripture, he insists obstinately on the letter, and carrying off the shadow instead of the body, he composes books. It is the same as saying that he weaves ropes from sand, and builds from then, I know not what else, unless one were to say a pillar or a trophy, the one as a herald of his folly, the other as a declaration of his struggle which he waged against his own salvation. Therefore, condemning these very dogmas together with their own fathers, we judge that their memorial should be destroyed from the Church with a sound. For they are like thorns and thistles, which have sprung up, by divine sufferance, in the fruitful field of the Church, or like the evil weeds which an enemy man sowed among the pure wheat of the Gospel, having found a convenient time for his malice in the patience of the avenging God. If you will, it is even more like malice; they are the deadly offspring of vipers, and according to the Scripture, the eggs of basilisks, bringing death to every soul that approaches. They are worthy of being saved only to the extent that they should never have come to the birth and knowledge of men at all, which things ought to be destroyed by fire and iron and all possible means by the Church, and not allowed to continue, bringing about the final ruin; and we admonish all the sons of our Church to flee them with haste, and not even to incline their ears to them to hear them as a secondary matter. ^C Nor do we stop the discourse at an admonition, but we add to it, for the sake of the future, something of threat, fear, and security. What then is the threat, since the act that happened a short time ago confounded the Church, utterly ruined it, and—I know not how—named it an economy that could work the opposite? And did not this same [act] introduce the aforementioned strange dogmas, which made John Beccus wealthy as their patron, unsafely and very dangerously? We define this most clearly for all, that if any of the men who are now or will be hereafter, ever dares to renew the act then mentioned—which was well extinguished—or to proclaim on behalf of our Church the dogmas already profitably abolished, or secretly or maliciously to introduce them, or to present a suggestion for thinking these things or praising them, or at all to advocate for the freedom of these things among us again, setting the genuine dogmas of the first Church at naught, and the current [dogmas] of the Church against the spurious and foreign ones, and even the commands brought into the Church for the sake of the economy and act for which these things were introduced—this person, and anyone who might agree to receive those who are from the Roman Church—if they have hitherto remained unchanged in those things for which they were accused by our Church of old, on account of which the schism also occurred between us—and to receive them more and more genuinely than we were accustomed to before, before this fictitious economy and this abominable peace, which is an enemy to the good, him, together with making him excommunicate from the Church, we cut off and alienate from our assembly and communion of the pious, and we submit [him] to the fearful penalty of anathema. ^D Since he is not even excusable among men...

nor taught after such proof of the one who preceded him, nor has he learned to be subservient to the established determinations of the Fathers, nor to be a disciple and obedient to the Church in all things. And we speak and perform these things both for the sake of being free from blame, as we have said, and for the common benefit of the souls of all, as many as now remain under our pious Church.

But do you remain, O true people of God, turning away from and abhorring everything else that is hostile to the truth, and the offspring of Beccus himself. Turning away no less from him, and those whom the discourse mentioned by name above, vomiting forth their blasphemies with him, and keeping them as their own and cherishing them without repentance. And if things are thus, the Paraclete will remain with us, keeping you, not only from the harm caused by such people, but also [keeping you strong] against that caused by the passions, for the participation of eternal goods and the blessedness prepared for the righteous. And may you indeed be and remain thus. But the record, both the vote and the decision, has been issued now by the Church against the deserters and deniers of the Church, but a little later also by the great Judge, if they do not, before the coming of His great and glorious day, reach out and rescue themselves through repentance, tears, and inconsolable grief. For ^A if they are changed, and are taught to look again with the eyes of their soul toward the light of our Mother Church, just as Christ does not cast out the one who comes to Him from outside, but rather turns when he turns, and embraces him—even if he be a prodigal who has devoured his paternal inheritance, or a lost sheep that has leaped away from the saving fold, or any other of those who have become far removed from grace—so also will she gather them and take them as her own, and will again establish them in the portion and rank of children, provided only that they mourn at some time, and suffer themselves what we now suffer. For if we cut them off from us, if we exile them from the Church of the pious, if we submit them to the fearful and great condemnation of excommunication and alienation from the Orthodox, we do not do this as taking pleasure in their suffering, nor as rejoicing at the loss of these men; on the contrary, we even grieve for them, and with distaste do we bear this separation. But what necessity compels us to this action? Certainly it is for two reasons: that they, having been pained and embittered by this, might return through repentance, having condemned their own folly, and have saved themselves for the Church; and that others might be sobered and instructed by this, so as not to dare at any time similar things, nor attempt to act audaciously against those things which are untouchable, nor against the holy things, lest, being emboldened in this way, they meet with the same rewards according to the example. ^B

OF JOHN CHILAS, METROPOLITAN OF EPHESUS, TO THE EMPEROR.

The common faith of the Church knows the procession to be the unchanging property of the existence of the all-holy Spirit, and perceives it as signifying nothing else than His sole natural existence from the Father. To honor or write of this procession, now as signifying His existence in the theology, and now again as His eternal manifestation, or illumination, or revelation, is blasphemous and alien to the apostolic dogmas, and beyond this, worthy of anathema; [for] the common concept and confession of the Fathers acknowledges [only] the Begetter of the Son as the Cause, and again, the Probolion of the all-holy Spirit as the Cause. Moreover, that the Probolion is equivalent to the procession, all acknowledge once and for all. Therefore, whoever does not think thus, but otherwise, dogmatizing and writing that at one time the Proboleus signifies the Cause of the all-holy Spirit—and the probolion His natural existence from the Father—and at another time the former signifies the manifestor, and the latter the eternal manifestation, or illumination, or, in other words, the revelation of the all-holy Spirit, such a person is for us an evident blasphemer and a manifest ^C proclaimer of examples, and for this reason worthy of rejection and loathing. Likewise, that which is again found in relation to the all-holy Spirit [called] the "proceeding" (proodos), and which is representative only of the existence of the all-holy Spirit, the God-bearing Fathers always know and understand, just as, indeed, [they do] the procession itself and the probolion. Those, therefore, who innovate even in this word, and dogmatize and write at the same time that it [the term] is representative in some places of the Holy Scriptures of [His] existence, and in other places of revelation, and manifestation, and illumination, calculate themselves to be corrupters of the right dogmas, and being carried far from the truth, are, because of this, worthy of hatred and aversion in reality. These things the holy Church of God knows from above to think, so to dogmatize, so to teach, so to confess; we too have received from her, from of old and until now, so to think, so to dogmatize, so to teach, and so to confess. If those who are still separated from us up to this day would acknowledge these things—both with their mouth and by their writings—heartily embracing as right those things which we have taken into our hearts, and sending away with anathema, just as we do, those things which are blasphemous, they will be to us from now on true brothers and Orthodox, and they will have with us a complete reconciliation and peace, while we embrace them from the heart; but if not—which may it never happen—in no way, and under no circumstances. ^D

CONFESSION OF THE SAME PATRIARCH, LORD GREGORY, DRAWN UP WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE CLERGY AND CERTAIN ARCHBISHOPS REGARDING THE LETTER OF MARK, WHO WAS FROM THE HEBREWS OR RATHER FROM THE JEWS

"Our law," it is said, "does not judge a man unless it first hears him and discovers what he is doing." But it also allows one to be justified by his own words, just as it allows him to be condemned by them, for the judgment and the justification are in the same Gospels. Therefore, I desire that you who have gathered here, in order to judge me in piety and by the words of the faith, as disciples who wish to be followers of those saving and divine words, listen first of all to these words of mine in the meekness of the spirit, as is owed to all who sit on the throne of judgment, and especially to those who judge such great matters; and then, having reflected that whatever judgment one uses to judge will return upon him, and with whatever measure he measures, it will be measured to him in return, pass your vote upon me. ^A The words about which I ask you to listen with a calm mind, and at the same time with attention, are those concerning the faith itself, which we have long since professed to you and for which we have brought forward no ignoble testimony of their correctness. And we do so now as well, since it has seemed good to some to think differently concerning us, being prejudiced by a superior opinion about us—not that we have changed, far be it, as regards God; for to grant to piety whomsoever one wishes, and then to separate another from it, with such ease that the Gospel and the confession and tradition of the Fathers are not considered the criterion of piety and error, but rather the midpoints of men and friendships! For a pious man might today do something that is pleasing to someone, and another man might, conversely, have caused offense. ^B We present these same words not only because they are of the same faith, but so that this also may become known to all: that it is not now for the first time that we have come to have a right mind, having been brought to our senses by the harassments of certain people, but that we have held it from of old in an ecclesiastical manner, and have always been piously disposed regarding matters of piety, just as the Church, the mother of the faithful, the school of the knowledge of God, has instructed. Therefore, our words of faith stand as they stood of old, when we were heard as being right-thinking by you yourselves, and were praised as pious. And they stand as follows.

I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and of earth, of all things visible and invisible, unoriginate and unbegotten and causeless, the natural beginning and cause of the Son and of the Spirit. ^C I believe also in his consubstantial Son, who was begotten of him timelessly and impassibly, through whom all things were made. I believe also in the all-holy Spirit, who issues from the Father himself, who is worshipped together with the Father and the Son, as co-eternal and co-throned and consubstantial and co-glorious and a co-creator of the creation. I believe in the one Word of this supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity—the only-begotten, who descended from the heavens for us men and for our salvation, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man, that is to say, became perfect man, remaining God, and having changed nothing of his divine essence through the communion with the flesh, nor having altered it, but without change having taken on man, and in him having endured passion and cross and death, he who is free from all passion according to his divine nature; and to have risen on the third day from the dead, and to have ascended into the heavens and sat at the right hand of God and the Father. I believe according to the traditions and instructions concerning God and divine matters of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. ^D

Furthermore, I acknowledge one hypostasis of the God-Word who became man, and I believe in and preach the same Christ; but I know that after the incarnation there are two natures, which preserve that from which and in which and what they naturally are. And it follows that there are two energies of Christ himself, and I maintain two wills, as each of the natures preserves its own proper will and its own active energy. I am a worshipper, relatively but not with the worship of adoration, of the divine and venerable icons, both of Christ himself and of the all-pure Theotokos, and of all the saints, transferring the honor toward them to the prototypes; but those who think otherwise or so I reject as heterodox. I also reject the false peace that has occurred a short while ago, as it is the cause of enmity between us and God. For, as if under the guise of an economy, it has cut and ravaged the Church, persuading, through the silliness and the perversion of minds—of those who seek to establish their own glory and not that of God—asided from orthodoxy and the sound teaching of the Fathers, to slip down into the precipice of error and blasphemy. I renounce the dangerous words spoken by them concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

^A For I have learned that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from God himself, the Word, and I confess that He [the Spirit] possesses His existence from the Father, and that He [the Father] is the cause of His being in essence, just as indeed the Son Himself is. But the Son I know and believe to be from the Father, and that the Father possesses the causality of Himself and the natural principle, and that the Spirit who is from the Father is consubstantial and co-natural; yet I do not hold that He [the Son] is the cause of the Spirit—either alone or together with the Father—because the all-holy Spirit does not possess His existence through the Son or from the Son, as those who force themselves toward destruction and estrangement from God have pondered and dogmatized. I also set aside all the interpretations which the corrupters of such a doctrine, maliciously applying them to the patristic expressions, attempted to show that the things of the saints were in agreement with their own blasphemies. For I think, confess, and have determined to teach, both privately and publicly, just as the Catholic Church has delivered us to think concerning God and divine matters. I turn away from every profane, empty speech—as from a destruction of the soul and an alienation from God—that is or shall be found for the undoing of the sound faith. I accept the seven holy and divine ecumenical councils. I accept also those of the local [councils] which the Church accepted. I accept the sacred decrees of these; and those whose [teachings] they accepted, I accept, and those whom they condemned and cast out, I condemn and cast out. Since a reproach is also cast upon me by some, that I did not uncover the evil of the frivolous document of Mark when it was presented to me, nor did I reject it as blasphemous, I first of all deliver it to anathema, both it and the blasphemies in it. Secondly, I make myself ^B liable to the most loathsome and fearful curses, if I ever suggested to him or to any other person whatsoever to write such things. Furthermore, in writing the Tome, and whatever other things I have written on behalf of the Church and against Bekkos, I am conscious to myself of having fallen into no such thought as those who slander and malign me say—they who clearly harm their own souls by these things, not me. For I, knowing the Holy Spirit to be the completion of the holy Trinity, know Him to be perfect God, just as the Father Himself and the Son Himself, proceeding from God and the Father, and having His being perfect from Him, and [being] consubstantial with God and the Father from whom He proceeds, and with the Son who was ineffably begotten from thence, to whom He is also joined by the Father, and with whom He accompanies, and through whom He has appeared and shone forth and is manifested; proceeding from the Father, and having from thence His perfect existence, and having been initiated into the mystery that the divine and ineffable procession of Him from the Father is the manner of His existence—I have neither conceived an equivocal expression, nor, having written these many things, have I ever written such a thing. Let the document of Mark be an accusation and cause against him who wrote it, not against me, who did not even deign to pay close attention to it, as [I would to] the work of a rustic and uneducated man, so as not to say that it was also given to me at a time when it was not possible for me, surrounded ^C by many and being in a state of turmoil, to turn my attention to it. But all the same, that I consider the mind that holds such things to be altogether to be rejected, I deliver it to anathema, as has been said above.

Since I learn that he also finds fault with the Tome, and most of all with that very thing of mine which he says the expression "through the Son" signifies here—wanting it to mean in the eternal shining forth, and not purely into the being of the Spirit who has His existence from the Father—actually, as for the text placed here in the middle, which he claims to snatch at and push into equivocation, I do not judge even this to be irremediable, nor do I pass over the accusation. Whence, having turned toward him, I say concerning this of mine here, which you accuse and because of which you say I have fallen into the equivocations that are so far removed from the pious and our own mind: I said it very well and piously. Yes, and necessarily. For that which is added, is added not so that you might maliciously and ignorantly suppose that it means something other than the manner of existence of the all-holy Spirit—which neither we nor any other of all men have said—but since Bekkos has understood the "through the Son, the Spirit" wording as the existence of the all-holy Spirit through the Son, digging from thence a pit of blasphemy; whereas we do not understand it that way at all, but we know it to signify, sometimes the eternal manifestation ^D and shining forth through the Son in the eyes of the saints, and at other times the distribution and mission and gift to us. What does the Tome say? Pondering the speech that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, [it says] that the "through the Son" here does not signify—as Bekkos says—the existence of the all-holy Spirit through the Son, since it does not signify it anywhere else—for there is no existence for the Holy Spirit from elsewhere, except from the Father, from whence He proceeds—nor [does it signify] the distribution and mission and gift to us, even if it does signify this elsewhere, but rather His own eternal manifestation through the Son, running together with, and conceived together with, His coming into being from the Father. That such is our mind from the beginning, and [that it is] very far removed from the opinions and doctrines of Mark, is witnessed by all that was published by me many years before the Tome, and that which was [published] after the Tome, in all of which no one will find even a shadow of likeness. Nor does the answer to the difficulty of Bekkos—through which difficulty he drives us—witness to this any the less. For the Holy Spirit seemed either not to be confessed as [proceeding] immediately from the Father—which was his aim and purpose—or the voices of the saints proclaiming Him immediately through the Son were to be scratched out. The contents of the reply are as follows:

(1) We say that the Spirit does not [proceed] immediately [and] entirely through the Son, and through the... marginal: If he speaks regarding the mediation of the Son, [it is] toward that which is immediate; the argument for us concerning such things is brief.

from the Father, and through the Son. And we do not destroy the "through the Son" by saying it immediately, nor do we deny the "immediately" by acknowledging the "through the Son." For we define it as immediate, since the Spirit has His subsistence, and His very being, from the Father Himself, and not from the Son, nor through the Son. For otherwise, the Son ^A would undeniably be the cause of the Paraclete, which is neither pious, nor has any of the saints ever been seen to say or write such a thing. But we say "through the Son" concerning the Spirit, in such a way that our immediate confession is not damaged, since He proceeds and subsists from the Father—from whom the Son also is begotten—and through the Son Himself He comes forth and shines, while still having His being perfectly from the Father Himself; just as the light is said to exist through a ray of the sun, having the sun as its source and cause of being—as its natural principle—yet nevertheless flowing, issuing, and shining through the ray, from which the light does not derive its existence or its essential being; but it comes from it, as has been said, yet it has no principle of being through it or from it, but purely and immediately from the sun, from which comes the ray itself, through which the light appears proceeding.

Besides, my own confession is thus: and just as I have confessed with my lips, so have I believed in my heart; and as I am truthful in these words, being in no way inconsistent with the movements of my inner mind, may it be for the salvation of my soul, and that I may stand blameless before the judgment seat of the Savior, who judges our consciences and will requite each according to his works. But if I am feigning, and the frame of my soul is not in accordance with these words, may I be alienated from Christ and fall from the lot of the elect. And this much I say for myself. But whoever, after this confession of mine so secured, still persists in slandering and defaming me, and does not hold and acknowledge me as a true Christian—always being such in reality—he is truly alienated from piety, he is far from uprightness, and is an enemy of the undefiled faith of Christians; may he also be liable to the curses which I have pronounced upon myself, if my soul's conviction does not correspond to these my words about the faith; and let him be reckoned in the portion of the two false witnesses, who rose up under Caiaphas when Christ was being judged, bearing false testimony against Christ. May they be with those who called Christ, the very Truth, a deceiver—those who have supposed that you say one thing and think another, and who urge others to believe the same—and may no tears, no fasting, no harsh treatment, no melting of the body, no perpetual mourning and pain of soul, nor any manner of repentance whatsoever, be able to deliver him from such a condemnation. But as a harasser of Christians and a slandering accuser, let him be alienated from the portion of the Christians, and be delivered to the endless torments, to pay the penalties for the accusation of Christians for all eternity.

BY THE SAME MOST HOLY PATRIARCH GREGORY, A MOST POWERFUL APOLOGIA AGAINST THE CENSURE OF THE TOME.

I always used to wonder at those men who spoke much about God, as to what purpose the multitude of their words was intended, since it was possible, after saying a few things and thereby manifesting their pious mind, to love silence from then on, as if God alone were the One who does not require words about Himself, being above substance and word and all comprehension; but now, the wonder about those who have theologized in such a way no longer possesses me. For I have been brought to bring forth words for the sake of the multitude, but not out of ambition. For on the one hand, I was moved to such a degree by the contentious opinion of the heretics, who always bring up new contradictions against the right word, one after another like waves upon waves of the sea; and perhaps I was also moved by the malice of other perverse and envious men, who are accustomed always to find fault with the good, and to lay hold of things spoken for piety as if they were not such; so that, there being a necessity to turn and respond to both, the discourse naturally took on length for those speaking about God, wishing to deal sufficiently with both sides. Anyone might see this as having happened precisely in the present case and in our own situation. For having always loved silence regarding words about God, and being satisfied with the things said by the men of the Spirit as if it were not possible for them to have been said otherwise, we have nevertheless come to them against our will, and while not intending to say even a few words at the beginning, we have extended them to a great length, having been led to it by a kind of necessity. And in what manner? First, John Bekkos rose up, speaking and writing perverted things. It was necessary to answer him in every way. It was necessary not to put one's hand to one's mouth, nor to give him room through silence to extend his corruption. For even if the safety of silence is good,

^A we hear, yet the fruit of this silence alone is not without danger. We have therefore met him as best we could, and with God co-operating, we have checked the man in his long-winded absurdity of doctrines with but a few steps.

After Bekkos, another rose up, who also, out of ambition, was compiling books full, I know not why, of little words and phrases. He too turned against us, leveling the accusation that we had dared to lift ourselves up against Bekkos from the start, and that we had not conceded to him alone the power of speech in the entire discussion against him. For this reason, he lashes out at the Tome we published in accordance with the judgment momentarily held by the Church, and blasphemes it as not being well-conceived—a man who had not only been celebrating and praising the things before it, but who had even come to subscribe to it himself, being nothing other than a tome of piety, while no one was dragging him to it or compelling him. The matters regarding Bekkos then, in other writings and indeed in that very Tome, have under God the Savior and Helper reached the fitting end for us. Come, let us now briefly discuss these matters with this man, as one who is capable of understanding, and again with God’s help, we shall prove that his criticisms of the Tome are fitting for himself as the critic, but not for the one against whom they are directed. And I wish to bring the argument back to a certain appropriate starting point, so that it may be clarified at the same time as it proceeds for us along the way.

Bekkos ^B had set out to think the thoughts of the Italians, and following in the wake of their opinion regarding God, he sought to show that both himself and them were holding to nothing absurd at all, nor had they fallen away from orthodoxy. The thoughts of the Italians, to speak in summary, were these: first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; second, that He has His existence from both, that is, from the Father and the Son; and third, another point, that both these persons are one cause of His hypostasis. These very same things were in accordance with the unchanging thought of Bekkos, as well as with the correct thoughts and doctrines of the Church. Wherefore and how the Italians happened upon these things, and which Fathers they took as the source of their dogma, they themselves would know, as well as those who have the leisure to examine their school. But Bekkos, when asked why he had become a voluntary fugitive from the Fathers and had defected to outsiders, and why he had loved to be lost in such a pit of blasphemy, answers by unblushingly and ignorantly dragging the saints into these matters. Which saints? Maximus the wise Confessor, John the Great—that is, the one from Damascus—and Tarasios, whose glory among the high priests is great. For these three, he says, whom the Church has been enriched with as teachers of piety, he himself has also loved to possess for all time. These three, ^C indeed, by stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, miraculously somehow convince me, he says, not to disparage the Italian piety any longer as you do, but rather to prefer and cherish it as the piety of the holy Fathers.

And yet they seem to me to seek to surpass you, too, in wishing that I should guide you well to it, having rid your souls of every doubt. And indeed, the method of this guidance will be well perceived from this point, I think, and will allow me to persuade you all; for you will agree, there being no contradiction from anyone regarding the Holy Spirit, that to "proceed" is to signify nothing other than the mode of His existence. And since it signifies this, you too agree, and you see therefore what follows from this by necessity. Since they say—those who one cannot say have not spoken correctly—that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and "to proceed" is a mode of existence, it is set before everyone to conclude that for those who state that He proceeds through the Son, they are dogmatizing that His existence is through the Son. If then his existence is through the Son, it would clearly also be from the Son—not only because these propositions are understood sometimes to swap places and stand indifferently, with the one taken for the use of the other, ^D but because it is impossible even to conceive of the existence of a perfect person according to nature through some being of the same nature—and indeed, of a perfect person himself—unless it is properly from that one through whom he is also said to have his existence.

And so, he says, we, being guided by the voices of the saints, piously and very justly understand the Italians; and we do not refuse the dogma that is according to them, as if it were the thought of the divine Fathers—by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds, and—to say the same things again for the sake of greater clarity—that He has the existence of His hypostasis from the Son, and that the Son Himself has a cause. For He is a cause, because He has His existence from Him; and He has His existence from Him because also naturally through Him—being perfect through the Perfect, which has been called personal; and He has His existence through Him, because He proceeds through Him, and "to proceed" is undoubtedly a mode of existence. Since, however, it is not holy to establish two causes for the same thing by one and the same reason, the Father and the Son would be the cause of the Spirit—which brings together the unity of the unvarying existence of each.

Bekkos, therefore, justifying himself for having acted lawlessly, and by means of which he thinks he is persuading others when speaking and writing, these things are such, and others like them. But against these, just as it was said a little above, a Tome has been set forth, and it has sufficiently reined in the impetus and corruption of the man brought [forth] intemperately, so that our argument is no longer with him henceforth, but the whole of our remaining task would be with the one who is abusing the Tome.

The other matters, then, this man says, of the Tome, an insolent man filled with ignorance would be, if he were not praising it and confessing that it is in the best possible state; but one thing, however, no longer seems to him to be beyond reproach and unaccusable in other respects, and especially that it is in need of much correction. And this is that, Bekkos having said that the saints say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, there is a necessity according...

^A to those who wish to invalidate, in that tome, all the blasphemies following from it, that the expression "through the Son" here—as you said—does not signify the procession into existence of the Spirit, who has his existence perfect from the Father. For you seem, he says, by saying these things, not to consider that the procession—which from of old until now all have so considered—is an eternal mode of existence. And therefore, having time to charge us with these things, it is allowed me to say that the manner of questioning and answering brought to him was not for any other reason than for the sake of clear refutations and of easily understood proofs. And the beginning of the discourse is this:

"Have you believed, O man, in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?" "I have been baptized, indeed," he says, "into one God in these, into one and the same only." For I do not say that I have known any other God beside this blessed Trinity. "Since you know even this well, answer in the following way to the discourse." "Would you say that only the God and Father is unoriginate, without cause, and unbegotten?" "Or how shall I confess it?" he says. "But as for the Son and the Holy Spirit, are they not without cause?" "Do you say then that they are from some one?" "Yes, from the Father." "Is the ^B Father then the sole cause of these, and the beginning, and the root?" "No other, but the Father." "Is it as a creature?" "Not as a creature." "How then, how?" "As being from his essence, and for that reason of the same nature as him." "And do you say that these are co-eternal with the Father, or is the Father prior in existence?" "Co-eternal, I for my part say. For if they are from him, yet they are with him." "But how is the Spirit so named and believed, and the Son, and yet not both something else, if both are from the same Father?" "Because, he said, the mode of being from the Father is different for each. For we have learned that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but that the Son is begotten. And it is proper to name this processive mode 'being' for the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the other." "Let these things be so, since they have also been well confessed. But come, answer me this also in addition to what has been said: Do you confess that the Son is begotten perfect from the Father, or would you say that someone else is needed for the perfection of the Only-Begotten?" "I would be most absurd if I did not confess him to be perfect altogether." "And as for the Holy Spirit, ^C does it seem to you that he too proceeds from the Father according to the same law of perfection, or how otherwise?" "Not otherwise, but perfectly." "Is not, therefore, the Son and the Spirit equally from the same?" "Why not?" "Is the Son then God?" "God." "And is the Spirit God?" "God." "As the Father?" "If perfect, and from the same essence." "Is God then God and God and God?" "Thus." "Are there then three gods?" "By no means, but one, far more than anything else; or how could it not be so, where there is one nature, essence, power, energy, will, and nothing differing in such things?" "What then? And so that you may not be annoyed by being questioned in return, is the existence of the all-holy Spirit not from the Father just as it is for the Son?" "I have said," he replied, "or rather, from whence else? And from the Son, what do you say it is to him?" "Not existence, I for my part say, since I know that existence according to the Son is also from the Father. And the Father is for this reason the sole cause and sole fountain of the Godhead. And again, he is the beginning and root of the Son and of the Spirit, and all that the Son has, except for the cause. But from him perhaps not at all, but through him." "Is it not then even through him? For the Spirit is a perfect hypostasis, and has perfect being from the Father. But the Son is also perfect. So if there were existence through him for the ^D co-essential and co-natural Spirit, it would then also be from him. But the Son would also be a cause of the Spirit, and we would not piously be able to praise the Father as the sole cause, nor as the sole fountain of the Godhead, nor as the beginning, nor as the root, nor as all those things which belong to him as the sole cause. But in fact, he is not from him. Therefore, he is not through him either. And it seems that there is neither existence from the Son to the Paraclete, nor through the Son; it seems to be from the Word. But if neither is true, so that even the most absurd things will not follow, how indeed can someone, when the voice says the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, not intend to mean the procession into existence of the Spirit, who has his perfect existence from the Father—does he not talk nonsense and is he not thought to speak diametrically opposed to the truth? And would you not yourself be more absurd, not admitting the existence of the Spirit through the Son even as far as the hearing, yet blaming him who says that this voice does not mean the procession into existence of the Spirit through the Son, as though he were uttering what is not proper? You will admit to confessing the existence through the Son for the Spirit precariously, and you will tumble from there into an abyss of blasphemies, or, not admitting it, having feared this very great danger, you will neither confess that one thing nor will you deem it worthy to reproach those you have reproached henceforth. For the one follows the other." "And yes," he says, "you seem most truly to speak in every respect. That the Fathers who said here that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'through the Son' did not intend 'existence' for the Spirit through the Son, is, I think, sufficiently shown. For the same ones said the Father was the sole cause, and root, and fountain, and beginning of the Son and Spirit, and whatever else in a way clarifies that they invalidate the existence of the Spirit from the Son and through the Son, and that the Father is all those things for the Son and the Spirit. And apart from these, those men said that he proceeds 'through the Son'—they who also said it, and we know they said it—but that there is also existence for the Spirit 'through the Son' is not something that one has heard any of them saying. This, then, he said, I will not henceforth agree that the Fathers intended and meant to grant existence to the Spirit from these expressions through the Son. Since it is clear even to children, that they themselves would be warring against themselves and against the truth. Nevertheless, tell me clearly up to this point, what other thing is there remaining besides this...

^A phrases? But before you say what comes to mind, you ought to consider how your own arguments stand, just as you explain that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. You certainly say those things, [implying] that the preposition *dia* ("through") here, instead of *syn* ("with"), will be understood as the preposition *meta* ("after" or "with"), and instead of that [the particle] *hama* ("together") and the adverb *homou* ("at the same time"), so that according to you, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son signifies nothing other than this: that [the Spirit] proceeds from the Father with the Son, or after the Son, or together with the Son. Now, to say this is ridiculous, and in the same measure it is utterly impious, and it brings with it a slip even worse than the blasphemy of Beccus—which, I think, does not require much argument to demonstrate. For it would be ridiculous on account of the strange and foreign and completely unknown usage that you introduce, which neither boys learning grammar know, nor those who use the Greek language simply employ—since you have learned to exchange the preposition *dia* into *syn*, and *meta*, and their cognates. But it is impious, because from such an explanation of yours, even the begotten Son is gathered together with the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father. For it is gathered, since such designations, and as many as are conjunctive and collective, naturally tend to harmonize the majority of underlying persons with the verbs that follow, whether the words that follow are singular or plural. Just as if someone is said to run "with so-and-so," we infer from the expression that both are running, because the preposition, as has been said, brings the nouns under the commonality of the verb. And if you hear that "so-and-so eats with so-and-so," you might understand that both are eating. ^B But if [you say] that "so-and-so philosophizes together with so-and-so," then when you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son, or after the Son, or together with the Son, you could not be saying anything else than that the Son himself also proceeds from the Father just as the Holy Spirit does. Which, as it is a confusion of the divine characteristics, and a source of very great perdition, you could not be so boorish as not to know. Nevertheless, wishing to heal this blasphemous [notion], you shift to a second interpretation, heaping simplicity upon simplicity, and having gathered from outside a swarm of [interpretations] for places of the text that have none, you command us—as if you were some master of the art of rhetoric—to accept the assertion just because it comes from you. I say: "the Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son and after the Son," [meaning] instead of "subsists with the Son and after the Son, and has existence from the Father." But that the Spirit has existence *from* the Son, and subsists with the Son and after the Son and together with the Son—no one is so mad, nor has he become so notorious for impiety, as not to confess [that this is impossible]. For it is most true. It is most true in itself, indeed, but it does not follow from the texts, nor does it appear from your own hypotheses and explanations. Thus, true and completely true as this last statement of yours is, it is nonetheless inconsistent and completely disconnected from the texts.

You are contentious, I know, regarding these points, and you in no way surrender yourself to the truth; yet, for once, end this marvelous contentiousness and consider what [end] it brings. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is, according to you, ^C nothing other than that [the Spirit] subsists from the Father with the Son and after the Son and together with the Son. For you say you are able to use the preposition *dia* ("through") here to mean *syn* ("with"), and similarly *meta* and *hama*. Why, then, do you labor so hard to change the *dia*? Let it be as it is, and let it have whatever power it may have for you. At this point, apply to it those things which you were applying to the others, and you will understand and hate your own ignorance and absurdity at once. For would you not immediately be forced to confess—what you were fleeing from as a blasphemy, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds *through* the Son—that is, that the Holy Spirit has existence with the Son, and after the Son, and together with the Son? Keep the *dia* ("through") immutable for me, and add the equal things to the equal things according to the geometers, and you will see how heavily you sin, by confessing that the Holy Spirit has [its] existence through the Son and subsists [thereby], a thing which you forbade more than anything else to be confessed. Such, then, are your arguments.

But consider, finally, what seems to us [to be the case]. First, I say it is clear to all that, even if one has nothing to say about what the expression signifies to the Fathers, it is sufficient even so to refute Beccus, who is relying on a false primary premise. For the Holy Spirit proceeding *through* the Son does not signify the same thing as the Holy Spirit having its existence *through* the Son. Which [Beccus], having laid as a foundation for his own words, built up the high tower of his blasphemy. And since this does not signify identity, the greatest of his premises is overturned, and the foundation of his syllogisms is likewise taken away, and with it all the absurdities that have followed. And there is no great need to trace out the meaning of the phrase, since it is permissible, even without this, to attain our pious aim, which is the destruction of the fortifications of Beccus. Furthermore, it is possible for you, while seeking this out, to learn from those who were joined to the saints who preceded us in time and who have acquired a great name in theology, regarding the meaning—which is unknown to you—of the words accepted by those who came before and those who came after.

^D Those who were enlightened by the Spirit have said that the Holy Spirit proceeds *through* the Son; but it never occurred to them to say that [the Spirit] has [its] existence *through* the Son. Rather, [they said the Spirit] shines forth, is made manifest, appears, proceeds, is made known, or whatever else they signify by a simple manifestation or a shining forth through the Son—but not existence, which all confess the Holy Spirit has solely from the Father. Do you seek proofs of these things? I am ready to provide them for you. For the great and mighty Basil, in the fourth book of his *Against Eunomius*, says these words verbatim: "The Apostle clearly proclaimed the Spirit to be from God..."

[End of Translation]

and has done so to make manifest that He is from the Son, naming Him the Spirit of the Son." And in his letter to his brother Gregory, treating the subject of the difference between essence and hypostasis, he writes thus: "The Son, who makes known the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, being the only one to have shone forth as Only-begotten from the unbegotten light, possesses no communion with the Father or with the Holy Spirit regarding the distinguishing characteristics; rather, He is known solely by the signs mentioned." You may also find him writing thus to the canonical epistles: "But not even ^B is the Holy Spirit prior to the Only-begotten; for there is nothing intermediate between the Son and the Father. And if it is not from God, but is through Christ, then it does not even exist at all." The brother of the same also speaks in agreement with Basil: "Come," he says, "it possesses much brilliancy beyond all other things." Yet he says nevertheless: "Confessing the unchangeableness of the nature, we do not deny the difference of cause and caused, in which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other: by believing the one to be the Cause, and the other to be from the Cause, and from that which exists from the Cause." Again we conceive of another difference: for the one is immediately from the First, and the other is through that which is immediately from the First. But these things are in the letter to Ablabius, and in the twenty-second chapter of those *Against Eunomius*, and again in the twenty-sixth and in the thirty-sixth of the same. The Holy Spirit, he says, is conjoined to the Son by an uncreated union, and in having the cause of existence from the God of all, He stands apart in His own distinguishing characteristic, in that He does not subsist as Only-begotten from the Father, and in that He has been manifested through Him. And again, ^C the Father is conceived as without beginning, unbegotten, and always Father. From Him, immediately and without interval, the Only-begotten Son is conceived as co-existing with the Father. And through Him and with Him, before any empty or unsubstantial notion can intervene, the Holy Spirit is immediately grasped as conjoined; He does not lag in existence after the Son, so that the Only-begotten might ever be conceived without the Spirit, but He also has His cause of being from the God of all. Whence it is that the Only-begotten Light also exists, and being manifested through the true Light, He is not severed from the Father and the Only-begotten by any interval or difference of nature. And again, from the unbegotten sun we conceive another sun, shining forth together with it generationally in the conception of the first, and being in all ways the same in beauty, power, brilliance, magnitude, and all things whatsoever that are perceived regarding the sun. And again, another such light in the same manner, not cut off from the begotten light by any interval of time, but shining forth through it, while having the cause of His hypostasis from the prototypal light." These, then, are so many things. Gregory the Wonder-worker, and Athanasius with him—the one setting forth the revelation of the faith, "As for other things," ^D says: "one Holy Spirit, possessing existence from God, and manifested through the Son, that is, to men." And in other places: "The Holy Spirit is also perfect, being dispensed from God through the Son to those being adopted as sons." And in others again: "The Father being unbegotten, and the Son being begotten from the Father, but the Spirit being eternally sent forth from the essence of the Son." Athanasius, while writing this in his *Refutation of the Hypocrisy of those around Melitius and the Samosatene*, and also to Serapion: "There," he says, "it was impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the glory of the Trinity, without being known from God through the Son; but here, the Spirit," he says, "being given and sent by the Son, is one, and not many, nor one from many, but the Spirit alone." For the Son, being the living Word, being one, there must be one perfect and full sanctifying and illuminating life, being His energy and gift, which is said to go forth from the Father, since it is acknowledged to shine forth from the Word who is from the Father, and is sent and given. And who could number the sayings of Cyril in confirmation of these things? For he says in his treatise *To Hermias*: "You shall call the Holy Spirit that which flows naturally from God the Father through the Son." And again he says, asking: "Whose own do we say the Holy Spirit is? Whether of God and Father alone, or of the Son Himself? Or in part of each and of both, as from the Father through the Son, because of the identity of essence?" And in the *Expositions on the Evangelist John*: "Even if," he says, "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet He comes through the Son, and is His own." And in the same again: "We believe firmly that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but is consubstantial with Him, and goes forth from the Father through Him." And it would be long to set forth here all the testimonies in succession that teach of the Spirit through the Son; but no one has said that He proceeds through the Son, but rather that He exists and shines forth, and all that has been said. Those who have dared to say that He proceeds through the Son appear to believe they have spoken with the sincerity of their own understanding, and it happens that they yield all to the teachers who have preceded them. Whence they did not wait for other interpreters to understand these words, but they themselves have been quite sufficient for themselves, having left unchanged the distinct language, but having in another way set forth for themselves the paternal and sound sense. This is manifest from their sacred writings. For in his *Chapters*, Maximus the wise says: "One, he says, is God, the begetter of one Son and Father, and the source of the Holy Spirit, an unconfused Monad, and an indivisible Trinity; a mind without beginning, alone the begetter of the essentially beginningless Word, and of alone eternal life, as the source of the Holy Spirit." And in his *Scholia on Dionysius the Great the Areopagite*, he speaks about the incorruptible Trinity, saying concerning Dionysius, concerning the procession of up to three hypostases

^A that God and Father, having been moved—for He alone is the cause ^B who timelessly and lovingly proceeded into the distinction of hypostases, having remained indivisibly and undiminishedly in the wholeness, in an ultra-unified and ultra-extended manner, of His own radiance which has proceeded into existence as a living image, and of the all-holy Spirit worshipfully and supra-eternally proceeding from the Father, as the Lord initiates—was multiplied by goodness into a tri-hypostatic Godhead, the cause and source of all things. But in interpreting the prayer "Our Father," he is understood to say something like this: "The Son and the Holy Spirit subsist together essentially with the Father, being from Him and in Him naturally, beyond cause and reason." Thus Maximus, then.

But the words of the divine John of Damascus are much longer than those of the blessed Maximus, and at the same time clearer. The Holy Spirit, he says, is also from the Father, not begottenly, but processionally. He says these things in the chapter concerning the differentiated and unified theology, and after a little in the same: "At the same time is the Father’s generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit, and all that the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the Father, even their very being." And after other things: "We do not say there are three gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather one God, the Holy Trinity, in which they are referred to one cause ^C of the Son and the Spirit, not being composed or mingled." And after other things again: "One must know that we do not say the Father is from anyone, but we say He is the Father of the Son. We do not call the Son the Father, nor causeless, but we call Him both from the Father and the Son of the Father. And the Holy Spirit we call also from the Father, and we name Him the Spirit of the Father; but we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, but we name Him the Spirit of the Son. 'For if anyone,' the Apostle says, 'does not have the Spirit of Christ.' And we confess that He was manifested and imparted to us through the Son; for He breathed and said to the disciples, 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' just as from the sun come both the ray and the radiance. For He Himself is the source of both the ray and the radiance. Through the ray the radiance is given to us, and this is what illuminates us and is participated in by us. But the Son we do not call the Spirit's, nor indeed from the Spirit."

These things in the chapter mentioned. There follow ^D these, as truly of the same mind—being offspring—the things which he says in the *Treatise on the Divine Names*, and in the *Letter to Jordan*, and still in the discourse bearing the inscription regarding the God-encompassed burial of the Lord. "The Father," he says in the *Divine Names*, "is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. The Father [is Father] only of the Son, and the producer of the Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, and Power, Image, Radiance, Character of the Father and from the Father, but not Son of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without the Spirit. And the Spirit of the Son [is] not as from Him, but as through Him."

For they knew clearly—so that I may also try, with God, to make the statement clearer—Maximus the Great knew, and the divine Tarasius, and further the holy John, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom He subsists, and [who is] the cause ^A of both His hypostasis and His being. But at the same time they knew this to be also manifested, revealed, shining forth, appearing, sounding, and becoming known through the Son; whence you would also find them, if you inquire diligently into their words, sometimes saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but through the Son He is manifested and comes forth, and shines out, and is revealed, and is known; and other times that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son—not as you do, regarding things that are not written, nor can they be understood from there—I mean, by [saying] that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son, so as to attach from this [the idea of] a cause for the Son of the hypostasis of the All-Holy Spirit; but [rather] that, having remembered that He proceeds from the Father and cause—whence He also has His existence—the mode of existence there well carrying [the sense] whence also [is] the existence, at the same time also [that He] comes forth and appears through the Son, and whatever has been theologized by these same men and other God-bearers should be learned; for by the progression of the Spirit from the Father into being—for I will not refrain from repeating the same things many times regarding the same subjects, working towards clarity as much as possible for the pious thought of the Fathers in this progression—the manifestation of the same Spirit running together through the Son [occurs], in the manner in which the progression and manifestation of the light itself [occurs] through the ray, by the shining of light from the sun. But it seems to me to persuade these theologians to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son

^A while simultaneously declaring that the Spirit proceeds and subsists from the Father as from a cause, making plain that the mode of the Spirit's subsistence from the Father is always indicated by the term "proceeds"; and simultaneously presenting that He is made manifest and revealed through the Son, while proceeding from the Father, even if the term "manifestation" is not added here in this place, since the mode denoting the subsistence has filled that place. For just as when we say in other places that the Holy Spirit shines forth and proceeds from the Father through the Son, we wish to confessedly signify the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. Yet the mind, being referred to the pious conception, also holds along with it that the Spirit, shining forth and being revealed through the Son, has His subsistence and the whole cause of His being from the Father, even if the word to "proceed" or to "shine forth" is not significant of the mode of subsistence. Thus, in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, we adjust the power of the meaning of "proceeds" to the Father alone, who is the cause, and we rightly preserve the meaning of the word here according to the theology of the Savior, yet we do not use the phrase "through the Son" for a communion of subsistence; but being guided by the sound teaching of the Fathers, we soundly and safely conceive of this very thing at the same time, which is made clear by those same Fathers in other places: that the Spirit who proceeds from the Father is also made manifest and revealed through the Son, and shines forth and goes forth. And you will understand this even more clearly by attending to the great luminary, Gregory, the shepherd of the Nyssaeans. "Of that which is from a cause," he says, "we conceive of another difference. For he says that the Son is immediately from the First, immediately from the Father." By all means, he says, it is understood through birth, and at the same time the mode of subsistence is understood, even if it is not explicitly added in the words. "But the Spirit," he says, "is also from the First." He insists this is absolutely by way of procession, so that the mode of subsistence is understood here as well, even if it is not attached to the word. "But," he says, "He also says of the Spirit that He is through the First." What, for heaven's sake, does it give you to understand here by "through the First"? Could it be that the Spirit subsists and has His being through the Son? You will not say so; but that He shines forth, as he himself says elsewhere, and is revealed and goes out.

However, observe how to this theologian, regarding all these expressions, which are so diverse, one single theology has been assigned, and the pious mind is not hindered from distinguishing, because, being diverse, it needed to be distinguished; yet the discourse connected them and gathered them into one in the proclamation. For the theological mind {knows} the Son begotten from the Father, and having {His} subsistence. And he has rightly said, "immediately from the First." He also knows the Spirit proceeding from the same Father, and having {His} subsistence. He knows at the same time that this same {Spirit} is through the Son, but not as subsisting and having subsistence through the Son, even if he brought forward the statement thus conjoined, having said "immediately from the First." For these reasons, he did not confuse the mind, nor did he conceive of anything that is not proper, even though he was constrained by the very tightly wrapped nature of the proclamation, but he also judged and distinguished well. And regarding those to whom he heard the Son is from the First, he understood {Him} as from a cause, as well as the mode of His own subsistence. But to those through whom the Spirit is through the Son, he looked immediately to the manifestation, and the shining forth and revelation, and as many things as are similarly said of the Spirit through the Son by other theologians, and by the Nyssaean himself. As then, the power of piety here gives us leave to distinguish, and does not allow us to be carried far from the truth, even if there is an infinite constraint in the words, so also is it worthy to establish the {standard for} the statement that says, "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," and not to be forced to fall into confusion by that which is wrapped in interpretation. For the Spirit proceeds from the Father, having from Him the subsistence and cause of His being. ^B But through the Son, what else will you understand here, even as you have understood it through the "immediately" [or "proximate"] mentioned {above}, under the guidance of truth herself as teacher, and being led by the Nyssaean? And you have thought, surely, not that the Spirit has {His} subsistence and being through the Son, but as shining forth and appearing through Him, justly attributing the cause of these things to the Father alone. Yet it clearly leads to this, which this same Gregory of Nyssa says in other places. "There is no absolute necessity," he says, "that those who serve the image should give a handle to the slanderers in the weakness of the pattern. Shall we not conceive of a ray from the sun, but {rather} another sun, the Son, from the unbegotten sun, appearing together with Him in the way of the First's conception, and having everything in every way the same—in beauty, in power, in brightness, in magnitude, in radiance, and simply in all things that are observed in the sun? And again, the Spirit is another such light in the same manner, not cut off from the begotten light by any interval of time, but shining forth through Him, while having the cause of {His} hypostasis from the prototypal light."

So if these things are held in a manner very much in accordance with the Fathers and piously—and indeed they are truly held—then those who blaspheme that the Holy Spirit has {His} subsistence through the Son, and {who claim this is} entirely alien to the pious Church—where is it just, when hearing it said by some of the saints that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, not to reckon it immediately? {Does it mean} not as the Fathers of this expression give subsistence to the Holy Spirit through the Son, even if the {procession} is taken as a mode of subsistence? For we shall not banish them from the choir of the saints, for having said this, nor shall we mark out their words as not being pious, as some one of those who dares everything through ignorance both to act and to speak has said. ^D But they themselves shall be saints for us, as teachers of piety and of all good things; and looking to the uprightness of their own mind, we shall not reject even their words, guarding the reverence due to the Fathers in all things. Therefore, let them be unalterable...

^A in their own way, if one does not wish to accept the word *ekphansis* (manifestation), as they say, even when they are being examined; unless they wish to signify by the word *ekphaino* (I manifest)—as it is known, that it signifies readily "to make manifest," and not "to exist"—and it is foolish even to think of it signifying something else; yet, perhaps, even mere striplings ^B seeking favor might say that they know one of these words as a first principle. And this first principle is light itself, from which these words are primarily derived. By what skill, then, will someone command us to understand *ekphansis* (manifestation) always as *hyparxis* (existence)? It is true, I know, that some have used one in place of the other; and wishing to speak of *hyparxis*, they have said *ekphansis* for *hyparxis*. But there is a time and place, as is evident—for I shall not refrain from saying the same things repeatedly—when it was permitted for each to be true and for one to exchange the words because of the concurrence of meaning, but not everywhere and always. These men, however—I mean those who have now risen up as word-hunters—conclude things ^C plainly and ignorantly from this, as if they were to argue that because one or two men are white, all men must be white to us; and they did not deign to trust even their own eyes, which do not see everyone as such. But I, in the Tome, have spoken of the *ekphansis* as a manifestation, or whatever you wish that is equivalent to manifestation; not only because these words seem to signify things similarly, but because the authors of the divine dogmas themselves did not disdain to accept and understand the word in this way, even if I myself appear to have apprehended it so at a later time. And I fear that it might be both foolish and utterly ridiculous to bring forward proofs that when they use "manifestation," they wish to signify "manifestation." For if no one else happened to speak of this in such a way, but you had read that—which we have often mentioned—of Maximus regarding the prophetic lampstand of Zechariah, or that which is in the theological utterance, you would never have grumbled on account of this word, provided that you regarded it from the beginning as an unfolding.

"But," they say, "you also said it was eternal." This is now the third complaint against us. But who are you, the one who says this? Do you not say that the *ekphansis* (manifestation), and the *eklampsis* (shining forth), and the *phanerosis* (revelation) of the Spirit through the Son are eternal? And how could you know what you are saying? For it is supplied and given through the Son, and is sent forth, whenever, clearly, those to whom it is sent and supplied and given are disposed to receive it; but it [the Spirit] is manifested and shines forth and is revealed eternally. Let the great Basil persuade you of this; let his brother Gregory also; let the Wonderworker [Gregory] and Athanasius also, and the wise John, from whose utterances we quoted a little above. The Spirit, saith Basil, proceeding from the Father, is known by himself [the Son] and with himself is the Son ^D acknowledged. So, if [the Spirit] is always acknowledged with the Son—from whom he never departs, as you have read—and is always through him, what else does this suppose but that it is eternal? And Gregory, along with the properties properly belonging to the Spirit, distinguishing him from the Father and the Son, also joins to this the fact that he has been manifested and shines forth through the Son. Whence, if the Paraclete never [is stripped] of his own proper properties...

you know apart, nor is it [the Spirit] that which was manifested *through* the Son, as—holy master, king, I beseech your mighty and holy royalty, attend to my present missive. I claim that the most holy archbishops gathered here also hear it in the same manner. Some of the most holy archbishops and my brethren bring against me the charge of the babbling paper of Mark. But I am not conscious of having myself ever uttered blasphemies, or thought them, or suggested to anyone else to write or think them. This paper in no way pertains to me, such that I even subject to anathema all the blasphemies in it—[it] being his own, eternally pertaining to Him, having a mind, will you ever say it is not eternal? And this is even clearer: for the miracle-working [Spirit/Word] clearly showed, teaching that the Spirit goes forth eternally from the essence of the Father *through* the Son. Athanasius and John, also putting forward an image, as far as possible, of the incomprehensible and invisible Trinity, and guiding and leading us through this to the knowledge of the blessed nature, the one showed the sun, the radiance, and the light; the other, the sun, the ray, and the illumination through it. What then, do you think they know the light and the illumination that proceed eternally through the radiance and the ray to be, or is there a time even when [it is] not through it? But when you hear that the Spirit is of the Son as being manifested *through* Him, but not as having His existence *from* Him, what is this about the Spirit Himself? Do you think the Spirit of the Son is temporal and sometimes not eternal? Far be it, I know you will say. But eternally and always. And if the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son eternally, and it has been said of the Son that He is manifested through Him, then the one who said that the Spirit of the Son is manifested through [the Son] also knows that He is manifested eternally through the Son. You will therefore desist, O person, from warring against the Tome henceforth, or will you still release your tongue against it, and continue your slanders, so that you might draw upon yourself the judgments of wise and learned men at once? I do not think, I suppose, that you are so unrefined a man and so blinded in mind as not to be wise yourself, or to seem to begrudge such a [state] to yourself.

A Letter of the Most Holy and Wise Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, Lord Gregory of Cyprus, to the Most Pious and Serene King, Lord Andronicus Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos, sent to him when the insurrection occurred against him by John Cheilas, who had been of Ephesus, and by certain archbishops and clerics, regarding certain utterances of the Tome brought about by that same Patriarch against that Beccos who had been Patriarch of Constantinople and his impious dogmas.

Which utterances that most holy Patriarch, Lord Gregory, interpreted most sagely as being Orthodox and pious, and anathematized the blasphemous letter of Mark, as not having been composed by him according to the pious intent of the Tome, but as being led away toward a dissonant and blasphemous meaning. Whence he also put to shame the most vile John Cheilas, the one who had been of Ephesus, who had risen against him, and he called the rest of the archbishops to repentance, along with the clerics, having composed his own confession in writing.

Most powerful, divinely appointed, crown-bearing, divinely glorious [lord], I say anathema also to all the heresies and blasphemies that have occurred from of old until the present, and that shall occur hereafter. ^A And I wish and I pray to God and to the divine [things], and to the whole mystery of our blameless Christian faith, without which there is no salvation, so to believe, and so to confess, as God commands, as He revealed the knowledge concerning Him to His saints, and as they themselves, having been illuminated from thence, initiated us. And I believe indeed firmly so and I confess, embracing from my whole soul all that is genuine in the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and casting away and turning from what is alien to her. But if, by any weakness of mind, I was not illuminated, nor have I grasped where the intention of the Holy Scriptures lies, I do not love, being overcome by vain pride, to remain in this ignorance; but I seek rather to be delivered from this, as from a most grievous disease of the soul, and I am ready to offer myself for instruction to anyone who is able to teach me, my speech being far from all dissimulation. I add also this: if the writing of the Tome is found to have the same purpose as the babbling paper of Mark—which even someone contentious, I do not know what he gains, claiming transparency for the Tome, by bringing it face to face against a cooking pot likened to heaven or even covering it—if it came into my mind to write and to proclaim the procession of the All-Holy Spirit with a homonymous voice, as those around Beccos, in their first-ever attempts to shift [the doctrine], slandered the first Tome, and then after them others inherited this slander from thence, may I be accursed. ^B If not, let the one who slanders me observe such things, and, abandoning what [his own] eyes show him are there to be read and understood, if he is sowing into strange fantasies and conjectures, in order that he might escape the punishments of the accusers of Christians, as many as the holy canons ^C and the decrees of the Fathers now bring upon them, and as many as the just judgment of the masterly and fearful tribunal will render hereafter. As for me, my holy master and king, as far as I have been removed from the opinions and writings of Mark, both those which were published by me many years before the Tome, and those after the Tome, in all of which no one could find even a shadow of likeness, testify. There is indeed a portion of my writings from olden times, from which Beccos attempted to use the patristic ^D

misinterpreted, and the dogmatic passage written below. The great Logothete knows this, and the one of Philadelphia knows it, and the one of Ephesus—it seems to me—has also transcribed it and kept it by him. In this case, and in all others, let those who desire to understand the clarity of the Tome, ^A viewing our works with an upright doctrine, contemplate these things without passion, and do not—I say—contemplate them in the paper of Mark which does not concern us at all, and let them cease from [misinterpreting them]. May He also have mercy upon them for the sake of the Church that is being evilly torn apart, and for the sake of the perishing souls—for which God, who created them, did not bring them forth, but brought them forth for eternal salvation. Let such a fracturing of our strife, which has the cause of [vainglory], cease, and I beseech you, let it cease. Since the Lord will not delay, we shall [behold] the spectators of such scandals.

OF THE BLESSED GREGORY, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, THE CYPRIOT, ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

I, for my part, noble friend, do not wonder if some uneducated person is carried away by arguments that hold onto what is merely apparent. For even the one who does not wish to be able to conclude through twists of ^B arguments and riddles has a sufficient excuse; but whenever someone who appears to be educated and is robust in intelligence, so as to be powerful enough to regulate others, yet is disposed in no better way than those others toward the discernment of truth and falsehood, this, for me, as regards not appearing evil, would not have an excuse; for it is clearly a sin of judgment, when diligence is needed to transmit the truth. And concerning the others, who are led like sheep behind what is being said, I am grieved; but what can one do about those who voluntarily corrupt their own minds? Let them be carried along. But when you, who are so superior in intelligence and in speeches to the many, say that you genuinely look toward us, having fallen completely into doubt, how could I, not having censured you sufficiently, not afford others grounds to censure me justly? But this will be so for now; it will be so later. For the present, I shall turn to something else. And this shall be for the sake of what was proposed to me by you, through which you testify that you have become doubtful, in order to bring the solution that I have the power to provide.

First, having set forth what was first proposed, [he asks]: what, pray tell, is the logic, that while not setting forth that the essence is lacking in substance, nor again that the substance is lacking in essence, we nevertheless say the all-holy Spirit is from the essence of the Son, but are unwilling to say also from the substance [hypostasis], and while not refusing to declare the same regarding the Father—and adding that [He is] from the essence and from the substance—[we act differently]? And the one from the prefaces is proposed as such.

The most authoritative and easy resolution to this, in regard to this, would come if one were willing to lead the discourse a little higher. Monarchy is honored by us, for there is also one true God; but monarchy ^C is not one that circumscribes a person, for that is Jewish, or Sabellian; but [it denotes] three, which the discourse knows how to call substances [hypostases], so that there is for us the adored Monad in Trinity, with the sameness and equality of honor of the nature, and the unity of the essence, and the identity of the movement and power and energy, and the unity in the harmony and communion toward one; and especially the first and same One as the source of every one, and the only One, but in terms of the properties and substances, the Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The one is the Begetter and Producer, impassibly and timelessly, and of the others, one is the begotten, and the other is the product. Three substances, perfect and super-perfect and existing by themselves, divided by three characteristics, indivisibly and inseparably in the sameness of the essence. One God is the three, because there is one divinity; one essence, nature, and lordship. Whence also there is every necessity, both to keep the confession according to essence in the blessed nature, and to confess the three substances; neither harming the essence by the number of substances, which is atomic and indivisible, nor again, because of this, confounding the triadic character of the substances. For neither would the supreme essence be divided by the characteristics, truly being one and existing primarily, nor indeed would the substances, because of the contraction of essence that they receive, ^D recede into a number less than three. And these things are thus.

Since it is so, it is clear to everyone that if the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Father, it would be well and piously said that [He is] also from the [essence] of the Son. For there is one, and there is no way that the essence could ever receive division. If it were to receive it, it would be multiplied, and how then would the one in it be preserved according to every logic and manner? So that the one might not be destroyed, there is no division according to essence, nor difference, nor multitude. Because it is one, the Spirit, confessed to be from the essence of the Father, is also confessed to exist from the essence of the Son.

^A Yet no one who claims that these things are so will, upon careful consideration, appear to be grasping at the truth, and indeed this would not seem to be some long or enigmatic argument. For the paternal hypostasis is indeed a fountainhead of divinity, and a natural principle and root of the Son and of the Spirit; those things which have their being from thence, the Son by generation, and the Spirit by procession. Because for this reason they also are, according to essence, that which the Father is, and have the same and one account of being, they are said to be from the essence of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father and with each other; with the Father, because they are essentially from him as from a natural principle and cause; but with each other, because those things which are the same as the same thing, are also the same as each other.

^B But just as the Spirit is, and is said to be, consubstantial with the Son, because both are consubstantial with the Father, so perhaps because of the identity of the essence of the Father and the Son, the Spirit, being said to be from the essence of the Father, might piously be said to be from the essence of the Son also. But how one could ever provide an argument that it is from his hypostasis, because it is from his essence, I for one do not see, so long as the hypostasis of the Father is proclaimed among us as the sole fountainhead of the whole divinity and as the divinity that begets God, and the Spirit has been enriched with this, equally with the Son, as a cause. For if it were possible to be "hypostasized" according to the hypostasis just as indeed also according to essence to the Father through the Son, it would be also from the hypostasis of the Son, which also naturally is from the Father. But since it is according to this and this alone that he [the Father] is distinguished, and is—so to speak—dyadic, while all other things are the same, and what is contemplated in the hypostasis as hypostasis finds no place to be contemplated in the whole nature, just as also that which exists in the common nature, this also must necessarily exist in the hypostases—how is it fitting, because the Spirit is from the Father, and there is one essence of the Father and of the Son, that for this reason [the Spirit] should be confessed to be from the Son also? For that it is from the essence of the Son is necessary, because [his essence] is the same as that of the Father; but that it is from the hypostasis, there is no such necessity, for the paternal hypostasis is one thing, and that of the Son is another, and the fact of being a cause likewise belongs to the paternal hypostasis. Whence also it is named by those wise in divine matters as the divinity that begets God, and the fountainhead of divinity, and the sole fountainhead of the whole divinity. And he indeed begets and produces, being in himself perfect and superabundant, and in himself perfect in hypostasis, and superabundant, and in himself subsisting, the Son and the Spirit consubstantially and as of the same nature as himself, since what the Father is in essence, this the Son and the Spirit also are, and the same account of being comes through the Three. And let no one here again tell me the clever point that every essence is hypostatic, and every hypostasis is essential; for it is, and we also proclaim it, but it does not follow from this that we must speak of three essences in God because there are three hypostases; nor again one hypostasis because there is one essence; for to transfer the number of the hypostases to the essence, or ^C to the hypostases that which belongs to the essence, is to lean toward the unity of the essence, nor yet does he escape the opinion of Sabellius, nor does his companion, he who teaches that the Father is the root and fountainhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, escape [the charge of] being without cause, to say nothing of the other apostles and teachers and Christ himself, whom we all dispense with by this one [argument], and in addition to these, that which it was by no means reasonable to perceive in the Father. For we do not confess him to be a principle and cause because we say the Son and Spirit are from his essence; but because he is the natural principle and cause of those who exist essentially from him, impassibly and timelessly, for this reason those [the Son and Spirit] are from his essence. In what way will we then declare also concerning the Son that the Spirit is from his essence? It seems a sort of fallacy, as the argument proceeds thus, by setting up that which does not follow as though it did follow, and by stealing, and not by persuading the hearer. For we say that the Spirit proceeds essentially from the Father, existing from his essence. And that, conversely, the essence of the Father and of the Son is not different, but one and the same, we necessarily confess the Spirit to be from this also. But that [he is] from the essence, and therefore also from the hypostasis, no argument would persuade me to confess, so long as it does not show that essence and hypostasis are one thing according to logic, nor that those things which subsist in the hypostases, these also subsist in the common whole nature of the consubstantial ones, nor does it refute those who have said that the Father alone is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit. And regarding these, perhaps what has been said is sufficient, and let there be added to the faith that the statement that something is from the essence does not necessarily mean it is also from the hypostasis from which it is said to be from the essence. And the man according to Christ is said to be consubstantial with us humans and to be from our essence and nature, but his existence is not from the hypostasis of each of us, but exists from the Virgin mother, from whom he took what is ours. ^D You, however, add the rest of the secrets for me.

The one in the saints, he says, Cyril, they put forward as a witness for the procession of the Spirit from the Son, and he is a strong ally for them in saying those things, that the Spirit is proper to the essence of the Son and not something external in him, and naturally existing from him, having all his power and energy from the essence of the Son, essentially from both, that is to say, flowing from the Father through the Son. What then must be said in response to these things? What? That the great man is not an ally to them, nor is he saying these things on their behalf. And this at least is clear from this: we acknowledge that the Son and the Holy Spirit subsist from God and the Father, neither one creatively, but the one by generation, and the other by procession, having all things according to essence equal to the Father. For this reason we say both are from the essence of the Father. So that whatever is from the Father, as from a natural principle and cause, is confessed to be a sign of the existence thence, of these two, one must necessarily follow as a consequence: either the

Father is not the source, or it is not begotten; and if it is not being begotten and not proceeding from there, even if it is said to have its existence from the Father, you do not grant that the Father possesses a natural principle and cause, ^A nor that it is not begotten and not proceeding thence as distinctive marks of the essence of consubstantial things. For if everything that has its being from the Father has it either as begotten or as proceeding, and it neither is begotten thence nor proceeds, it would not have it at all, as those who know the force of such arguments would rightly say. Therefore, let us look at the divine Cyril as well, and what mark of the Son being from the Father he sets down, not everywhere the birth? Why of the Spirit, not everywhere the process and the proceeding? If, therefore, as it is for you, you, O man of God, answering about him having heard immediately that the Spirit also says it is from the Son, and having its existence thence cleanly, do you not see that these things are incompatible and, if one is rational, he will confess that they do not at all belong together, rather than these things? Why do you align the God-bearer with the empty-worded, and show him to be fighting equally against himself and others? For if he now says the Spirit has its existence perfectly from the Father, but now confesses this same existence also from the Son, while teaching others that all things for the Spirit are from the Father, he himself also proclaims the Son as the cause of the Spirit according to your interpretation. For here there is no clarification of truth or addition, ^B but a contradiction of what was well-established, equal to those contending against the mean.

Yet if it is so, as you yourselves contend, you yourselves are judges of the matter. Is it possible, abandoning others, for you alone to add to Cyril, and how justly, to the one who speaks innovate things and to whom it does not seem to belong? For it will appear both not to belong, if it is necessary for those things which you decree concerning his works to remain certain. "The Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is joined to the Son toward union according to the principle of consubstantiality." This is the voice of Cyril, and you testify to it and say that it indicates the existence of the Comforter perfectly from the Father. Where then is the place for the second? How will it be saved, the "And that the being to the Spirit is also from the Son"? I speak now of your contentions. And if the Only-Begotten is its cause and source, how does it remain Lord, that the Spirit is perfect from the Father, and from the Father alone proceeds, which Cyril says? Do you perceive the disagreement, to which your claim must hold fast? And why do you not clearly call the existence of the Spirit from the Father incomplete, but perfected through the Son, or as something superfluous and wrongly received by the theologians? For you will surely think it is like that, strongly holding to the "from the Son." Or why do you not remove those voices of the great Cyril when someone wisely [speaks] of the existence of the Spirit from God and Father ^C as teaching us, lest you also think the Father to be an enemy of the dogma spoken of in those arguments to you?

The Spirit is from God and Father, but the title also reveals it to be proper to the Son himself. And again, as the Son is by nature from the Father and in the Father, and from him and in him is his own and the Son’s Spirit, that is, the holy one, and seeing that he is from the Father, he is also thought of as the proper Spirit of the Son, and is called his Mind. And in other places: "If the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but comes through the Son, then God and Father possesses his own Spirit both from himself and in himself, and the Son holds this in himself, seeing that he is consubstantial with him." And again in the *Thesaurus*, "Therefore also the Spirit," he said, "is from God," teaching that he has his existence from the Father. And it would be long to bring forth into the middle all his voices concerning this. But what, he says, does "to exist from the Son" mean, and where does it lead, being spoken of? Declare, unless he clearly desires [to show] the existence of the Spirit from the Son. He does not desire this at all, but something else that is evident to you if you are willing. Yet [it is] from the Son. But you think he says this differently, being a teacher of piety. And from where else was the impious Nestorius condemned? "Christ sends the Spirit to sanctify, ^D to vivify, to liberate, to adopt," that is, he works these things with the Spirit, or through the Spirit, or in the Spirit; I do not differ. Does the man become human for me, he accomplishes the divine signs; how does he work, how does he accomplish? Whether as one of those who have grace from above, and of the return of virtue, having received such power? But this and nothing else is the madness and insanity of Nestorius against Christ. But how? As the only-begotten Son of the Father and God by nature, and having the Spirit from the Father as consubstantial and in-grown. That he is the giver, as has been said, and dispenser of the Spirit, and the sanctification from the Spirit, the change of nature toward the immortal, the passage toward the better, is his by nature, as from the Father and his own Spirit. And indeed, attribute this "by essence" to the giver and dispenser of the Spirit, to me, rather than to the Spirit. For Cyril [refers] to him everywhere, refuting Nestorius through him as it were; and indeed, this is how it is: that one said the Lord was a man, but the other, that having assumed the human, truly God, by participation in the Spirit, the former received grace to perform the wonders, but the latter by his own power and nature, which produces sanctification, and not having it from elsewhere to perform the wonders. For the Son indeed as God by nature has the ability to give and to dispense and to send the Holy Spirit, as it is fitting to understand these things. But that which is by essence, to say it paternally and at the same time piously, is neither given, nor sent, nor poured out, nor bestowed, nor dispensed, unless, as has been said, by way of economy and condescension. But why do we not hear Cyril himself concerning this? He says, therefore, he speaking about

the Son, that He is God by nature, and that He Himself gives to those who are worthy the Spirit who proceeds from God ^A the Father, and that He uses Him as His own power. And why is this? Because, he says, He is consubstantial with Him, and whatever is said to be accomplished by God and the Father is entirely by the Son in the Spirit. But lest you hear these terms and think of something alien to the greatness of the Spirit, by applying to Him—placing there the very essence of the Paraclete—the terms of condescension and economy, do you wish also to hear another cause, as to how He is essential? Because, he says, you should understand here not the property that characterizes the hypostasis of the Father, but that which is the natural and genuine property of the nature that subsists with the Word, who is begotten by nature and from Him. Do you still ask why? Because, he says, by the principle of consubstantiality He is joined to the Son for union, and He proceeds from God the Father. And again, that He proceeds, he says, from the Father, yet He is not alien to the Son according to the principle of essence; and again that He proceeds ineffably from the Father, but is dispensed through the Son to the creation. Thus says the great Cyril. And you, hearing that the Spirit is sent, dispensed, poured forth, and given by the Father and the Son, and moreover that He exists and proceeds, do not be borne down, nor collapse, but being firmly held by the lofty and God-befitting conceptions regarding the Spirit, and knowing the Father as the sole source of the Godhead and the cause, understand the theology in a manner appropriate to the persons, neither passing over the times nor the circumstances that prompted the words without examination. Therefore, believe that from the Father He has His natural origin as the source of the Son and the Spirit, being poured forth, dispensed, and existing from such a cause; and from the Son, as consubstantial and of the same nature, as from Him to whom He is joined by the principle of consubstantiality, in whom He rests and is established, and makes His indwelling unchangeable, He proceeds from the Father. Cyril has said that the Spirit exists from the Son, but not by His very being originated from Him—for this is from the Father alone—but through the Spirit being joined to the Son by the Father, and in Him having His radiance and manifestation; for He is made manifest through the Son and shines forth as proceeding from the Father. He exists from the Son, but when we understand Him as being manifested, when He is given, sent, implanted, when He comes to renew the creation. And being given, He thus has the Son; as Giver, and as the one dispensing what is dispensed, and the one sending Him who is sent, these and similar things always being understood regarding the Spirit; instead of [implying] always a favor and condescension, seeing that it could even more properly be said that He Himself gives all things, dispenses all things, and comes, rather than being sent, just as He is also said to work all things, and to breathe as much as, and when, and upon whom He wills, all things being with the Father and the Son, except for the property of being Father and being Son. Do not say then again, that since He exists, he says, from the Son, that for this reason He also has His existence from the Son. ^C For these words do not everywhere and always preserve the same power. Hear Maximos the Great saying: But let not Basil the Great command you to devise some productions and formations in the names concerning God; nor call the Son the source of the Spirit, which no one has said. Nor did Cyril; for if he had known, he would not have made so many qualifications if it were necessary to say [He proceeds] from the Son, as if fearing that someone might take such a suspicion from this: that He is poured forth and dispensed through Him, but that He is His own and does not have His hypostasis from outside, nor is He alien. But He proceeds from the Father, yet He is not alien to the Son, being from both essentially, or being poured forth from the Father through the Son. What, for God's sake, do these distinctions, these qualifications, this interpreting, this healing, this restraint, this correction, seem to you to be? Have they been heaped upon you in vain, signifying nothing, instead of being a clear teaching that one should by no means think the Son to be the cause of the Spirit? I, for one, think so. Or what could have prevented him, just as he knows and announces [Him] from the Father, from saying similarly and openly that He proceeds from the Son, especially when he also knows and names the Father? Or perhaps he knew full well that the statement leads to dualism. And he himself, rightly worshipping and piously teaching the monarchy, avoided that as a cause of perdition. You, however, having contended and continuing so, and having sufficiently sharpened your voice, bring forward your unassailable and strong questions, as you think—but as I say, flimsy and childish ones. And if you ask, "How, he says, does He [proceed] naturally from Him? How does He proceed? How this and that?" I too shall turn the questioning back upon you: "How is the Father the sole and proper cause of the Spirit, if the Son is also? How is He the source? How the only fountain?" He says, "Yes, because He is from the Son as from a source." And He [the Son] is from the Father, and for this reason the Spirit is also from the Father. Well done; your noble discourse on causality arrives at an overflow. But what we ought to say at length regarding these things will be stated afterwards; but now, having placed before them Cyril and some of the chosen ones as if at hand, we shall be rid of such a thing. What do you say, man? Do you have [proofs] from Cyril having somewhere said or written such doctrines? Cyril says to you that the Spirit is from the Son, on account of [proceeding] from the Father. Nay, he ^D confirms the opposite: He proceeds from the Father, [and] is joined to the Son by the principle of consubstantiality in terms of union. And again, He proceeds from the Father; and He is not alien to the Son. And again, He proceeds from the Father; and is dispensed through the Son to the creation. And from the Father alone as if from a mouth, and as from a fountain of the Father. And it would be a long task, bringing all the refutation from him, to slap the sycophants of the same in the face. But how will they evade the things against Theodoret, I mean the defense concerning these? With what machinations and twists of words? Will they not show that it is an accusation against them? For Cyril said, addressing Nestorius, as he himself says, [that the Spirit is] his own

^A to us, as learning from the cause, and receiving from the river to the spring. For this is also one of Athanasius’ examples.

Theodoret, however, finds fault with the word, questioning and saying: “If indeed he said [the Spirit] is the Son’s own, because it is of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, we shall agree; but if [he meant] that it has its existence from the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious.” To this Cyril, since he himself did not teach that the existence of the Spirit is from the Son, and knew that Theodoret was correct in rebuking anyone who thinks this way, neither contended nor passed over it in silence; he made it clear by this that he himself did not accept those who think thus. Yet, that the Spirit is nevertheless the Son’s own, even if he does not have the Son as the principle of his being, but the Father—from whom he also proceeds—he strives vehemently to demonstrate, and he makes the Apostle a witness to his word; and one could say that he is striving ^B together with Theodoret. When the latter, therefore, said: “If indeed he calls the Spirit the Son’s own, as being of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, we shall agree, and we shall receive the expression as pious; but it is not foreign to the Son.” And so much, and even more, Cyril says to them regarding this.

But what of Dionysius the Great, and Athanasius? What of Basil, and his brother Gregory? And how will they endure the Golden-Tongued [Chrysostom], and the greatest Maximus, pressing against them? I will pass over the voice that thundered from heaven, Gregory, and the premise of Theodoret. I will also pass over Nilus, the great man in asceticism and in the wisdom of dogmas. I will also pass by the great knowledge of the one from Damascus, both regarding the Spirit and in human arguments—whom not even they, our opponents I mean, considered worthy of mention. The former, perhaps, because being an ancient theologian, he speaks of things that are lowly and unworthy of the recent theology; and the others because they do not provide them with anything of their own to scrape, not even with the tips of their nails. But all these, in ordered words, in chapters, in hymns, vehemently launch their arrows against them. ^C

But how can one, hearing Basil say, “There is the Father, possessing complete and needy-less existence, the root and spring of the Son and of the Spirit,” and then proceeding to say, “And the Son came forth from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Son is from the Father begottenly, while the Spirit is from God ineffably”—and in other places the Holy Spirit is said to be from God, not as all things have come forth from God, not begottenly as the Son, but as the Spirit of his mouth and the Spirit of Christ, appropriated to him by nature—how can one, hearing him say these things, not mock your sophistry? When you also set aside the others along with those mentioned, and wickedly play with things not meant for play—those of the Fathers—partly passing them by, partly misinterpreting them, and tearing apart the tunic well-woven from above, and wickedly sewing for yourselves—would that it were only for yourselves, or not even for yourselves—a tunic from below, not indeed of linen, according to the ancient saying for the bodies, but a net and a trap for simpler souls, or even by mixing poisons that are meant for salvation into the mental toxins, you pour a cup of death! How can someone, seeing you doing these things, not be grieved, not be stung, not mourn at the desperation? But regarding this dogma of theirs, it shall be spoken of again, God willing; but for now, since they think that the statement calling the Son the power and energy of the Father—and the Spirit, the Spirit of the Son—is on their side, let us discuss this briefly as well. Some of the Fathers do not wish to call the Son or the Spirit an "energy," clearly because the term signifies something that exists in another and not by itself; but others appear to accept the term. They do appear to do so, but not with that signification. For it was not fitting for them to speak about God [in that way], but rather as they might show that every energy of the Father is viewed, according to the unalterable, within the Son and the Spirit, and is fulfilled. For, he says, the Father works through the Son in the Spirit; and again, that they may also ^D know what is joined once and for all and in every way, the joined inseparable from one another. For in the same way that a natural energy of someone is inseparable from the one whose energy it is called, and the nature itself is inseparable from its own energy—for such things are not abandoned by one another, but remain always and are contemplated together—so, indeed, and even more than this and beyond all comprehension, it is entirely impossible for the Word and the Holy Spirit to ever be left behind by the Father, or for the Father to be separated from them. For the Father is ever in the Word and in the Spirit, and the Word and the Spirit are in the Father, and, as Dionysius says, the lights that spring forth from the immaterial and indivisible Good, the interior lights of goodness, [exist] to those who are in him and in them and in one another, co-eternal with the

^A Cause; yet he does not join [the Son] to the Father, nor does he separate [the Son] from the Spirit. What do you think of this, and what will you say? If he clearly cuts off your assertions, whence then [do you claim] the Son is a cause, or the Spirit from him? You might say that he removes some things from the Scriptures and adds others, bringing to himself a rule and not bringing himself to the rule. But now it is not so; rather, the phrasing of the Scripture keeps its place, and the things that are to be understood therefrom — which are not [explicitly] expressed — are indeed understood and set forth. For when Gregory did not accept, but explicitly forbade, calling the Son a cause, or the Spirit from him, those who turn aside from what he clearly proclaimed and embrace what he openly avoided, as if having condemned all things to deep sleep and insensibility, refer the cause of that dogma back to him. Why do you do these things, O you people? Why do you toil in vain, while the truth absolutely prevails, even if we are humbler than you and overcome both in words and in the strength of [your] hands? For this is not at all what Gregory of Nyssa intends, nor is it his objective to deprive the Father, and the procession and the cause of the Spirit. But he would indeed be deprived [of his attributes] if these things were transferred to the Son. For then it would be proceeding proximately from the Son, and it would not proceed from the Father. It would rather be begotten, if indeed the Son—from whom the Spirit also exists—is begotten of the Father. For it is not likely that one would say that the cause of the Spirit is from the Father, while acknowledging the Spirit himself in another way, unless you choose to come to the necessity, according to the argument, of not considering that which is begotten of the Father to be the cause of that which proceeds from there. And it would be begotten not by way of activity, according to what is probable, but by way of potentiality. And do not say to me that "by way of potentiality" has no place here, blaming the co-eternity of existence. For there will be, even if there is no time, that which is proximate and that which is remote, that which is mediate and that which is immediate, brought in along with this new theology. And thus the Father would not project, nor would he even be a cause in the proper sense, since something else having a cause from the Father would not be referred back to him as to the Cause in the proper sense. For that which is by potentiality is not strictly the cause, nor is that which is remote. But that which is [not] the one or the other through another, but [is] by activity and proximately, and through itself all things to the Spirit, belongs to the Son alone. And who could have ^D the cause of such conclusions and dogmas? Is it Gregory, remaining within the apostolic terms, or those who prophesy based upon his [words] and utter strange propositions? Besides this, why is it that the Son is not more justly [conceived] as begetting the Spirit, according to your hypotheses, rather than projecting [him]? For if he is properly Son, and the only Son from the Father—for he is, and he is by nature, I say to your position, the cause of another hypostasis—why do you not say much more logically that, just as the Father is the cause of the Son, so too is the Son the cause of the Spirit, and just as he himself is a caused thing, so too is that which is from him a caused thing? For he must be, according to you, [both] cause and caused: cause, as the Cause [is the source] from whence he has being; but that which is from him caused, [is] according to him a caused thing. ^B For the [Son] is thus also, through these things, evident to have been understood and named by the Fathers as activity and power, and not as the power and activity of some essence, which perhaps those who justify themselves by these [Fathers] thought, or, to put it equally, those who lean upon accidents. For what else [could it be]? Since we acknowledge the unchangeability of the nature, and we do not deny the difference according to cause and caused, in which we perceive alone the differentiation of the one from the other, by believing the one to be the cause, and the other to be from the cause. And of that which exists from a cause, we understand again another difference. For the one is proximately from the First, and the other is through that which is proximately from the First. So that the [fact that the] Only-Begotten [is] of the Son remains indubitable, and that the Spirit is from the Father [is also] not to be doubted; the mediation of the Son preserving [the status of] the Only-Begotten for itself, and not hindering the Spirit from his natural relation to the Father. The phrasing, then, is thus: where here is the Son the cause? Where is the Spirit from the Son? For he is differentiated from the Father, he says, by being caused, and in this he is united to the Spirit, and to him also [being] caused from the Father; he is not, however, the cause of the Spirit, nor is the Spirit from him, so that by those things by which he is differentiated from the Spirit, he might be joined to the Father. For in any way that confusion from differentiation would meet someone saying these things—which he, knowing it not to be right, did well to guard against—having called the Son simply a caused thing, and the Spirit [existing] through him, but not from him, just as if he were constructing the one through the other, and by that which is said and by that which is caused, he differentiates the Son from the Father, [by] the very fact of not being the cause as the Father [is], and the fact that the Spirit is not from him, and by the [fact of] the Spirit [passing] through him, and this same [fact of] not being from him, and not being a cause, but a caused thing. Whence neither did the partition have the Son as [a] cause, nor from him, but as a caused thing and through him; for this was not the dogma of the evangelical teaching nor the supposition of Basil; nor of Gregory the brother, who is no less in the glory of the truth than in body. This my books persuade me, this the sacred constitutions of the holy ones, and the common rule of the Church, unless you call the matter sophistry or envy. For what else [could it be]? If it were permitted to add a few words and say that which is true, they were hiding it, and the blessed ones were offering other [things] for others in [their] teaching, instructing us otherwise than as the recent descent of the Spirit wills, which is found not for the agreement of the Church, but for confusion and cutting and division. For what was, O for God's sake, preventing the Nyssene, while dividing, from manifesting this very theology of yours, from the Cause [naming] the one the cause, and the other merely the caused thing; of the Cause, the one unoriginate and unbegotten, the other from the unoriginate and unbegotten? Verily, it was a great and laborious thing, and [required] much toil for the teacher of the truth to change and transpose, or even to add syllables. Do you not see how he differentiates the Son from the Father by the caused [status] alone, and joins him to the Spirit?

^A Furthermore, Father is Father and Producer in the proper sense; for I will not refrain from frequently dwelling upon these points if both are [so], and properly so. Yet the Father begot, not as a producer, and the begetting is not according to production, nor the production according to begetting. If you grant that a cause for the Spirit by nature exists in the One begotten from the Father, would it not then be more fitting for [the Spirit] to be by begetting rather than by production? If you do not concede this—and rightly so, fearing that you might introduce into the Trinity, in which there is one Father properly and one Son properly, sons from sons and fathers from fathers, the marks of earthly begetting—what is more improper, then, than that you accept confessing the Spirit from the Son? Why do you wish [that the Spirit] be begotten or proceed [from him]? For I truly have nothing to call it, wishing to pay attention to you. But how do you, who do not even tolerate hearing of a "Son from a Son," legislate a "Spirit from a Son," without providing any reason—neither from the inspired Scripture, nor from the stability of doctrine, nor from what is reasonable—when by legislating these things you immediately confirm the charge of ditheism brought against you? And how, he says, do I confirm it, if we gather the Father and the Son into one cause? For the Father is a cause in our teaching, and the Son is also truly [a cause] of the Spirit, but they are one cause and not two. Although this is [stated] as if it were sound, a short reasoned argument would very clearly [prove otherwise]. The Father is, and is called, Creator. The Son is also Creator, for through Him and by Him all things were made. Creator and Creator, yet one Creator. He says this also regarding the cause, and by transferring it from Father and Son, you will rightly find our [assertion of] the one cause and the monarchy. So much for their claims.

^B But regarding these things, one might perhaps have remained silent, having stopped his ears, not deeming it proper [to speak] to men who interpret the existence of the Creator of creation according to the likeness of created things, or to speak to them, or to hear them speak. However, so that no one might think that their argument has strength because of my silence, I say that something must be said in response to this. Everything that comes into being is indeed produced from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, and we believe in one creative principle of existing things. Yet we say that the Father is creator and cause, and the Son likewise, and the Spirit Himself, since Scripture very well teaches us to confess each as creator and cause of existing things, and to join these three godly into one Lord and God by the identity of nature, operation, and power, and furthermore by the will of the one who gathers the uniqueness of the cause. But how is this to be viewed regarding the procession of the Spirit? It has indeed been said that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, but the Son is not called the cause, nor root, nor principle, nor producer. But the Father is all these things for both the Son and the Spirit. If, therefore, the Son is creator specifically and with the Father, but is not a cause specifically nor with the Father, as Scripture says, then he will not be gathered into one [cause] according to the likeness of creator and creator. ^C For it was necessary, before gathering them, to show that the Son is also called a cause in His own right, having made witnesses of either all men or some of all. But it is not possible to show this. But neither will we tolerate terms not found anywhere. Even if no one had called [the Son] the cause of the Spirit—at the same time superabundantly and very dangerously joining [Him] with the Father—would we call [Him] the cause of the Spirit, if it were absolutely necessary that whatever the Son is and is called with the Father, these things must also be said of Him in His own right, being perfect God and perfectly possessing all that He is called in theology? For He is one King with the Father, and one God, and one Creator, and one principle of generated things. Where, then, is He also in His own right the principle and cause of the Spirit, so that He might be so called with the Father, and [so that] they might be gathered into one cause and one principle for fear of polyarchy? It does not exist, nor will it exist, nor will it be gathered, nor will anyone be persuaded by you who say these things, until you find Scripture, which is God-breathed, that persuades [us] otherwise.

But furthermore, regarding the things mentioned, it must be considered [that] the Trinity is one Creator, Cause, and Maker, not because the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another—for indeed these do not make that which is unified in God like the things mentioned. But rather, because the Trinity is one God, shown in every place in will and one operation—the unity that is in these well shows [there is] one cause of creation; for even if the Father is said to know or to will, the Son is also said to operate, and the Spirit to perfect, but the Son and the Spirit also share in the knowledge and will of the Father. And the Father also operates everything that the Son [does] with the Spirit, and [what] is of the Spirit to perfect, this the Father also perfects with the Son, ^D not through a shift in words introducing a difference of causes, but [only] of the distinction of hypostases, which they [the Fathers], even in things very strictly united, make it a work of great care to indicate, wishing to observe the one God, and in the same way to confess the three hypostases. But here, what kind of unity presents the "one" of the cause? Is it of essence? And how, if the Spirit is theologized as one in essence with the Father and the Son, would He not also Himself be productive and causative? But is it the unity of operation, power, and will? But these reveal the Trinity to us as one God, one Creator, Maker, Lord, and King, but they do not reveal [the Son] as one cause of the existence of the Spirit. For [the cause] transcends every operation and will, just as the begetting of the Only-Begotten from the Father [does], and likewise the procession of the Spirit; and it is in no way possible to understand the begetter and producer from these [operations]. So those who place the sending, the giving, and the provision—which are clearly fulfillments of will, secondary to the will—on a parallel level to the Paraclete’s mode of being, just as [they do] with the begetting and the procession itself, as...

^A they demonstrate the unities. From one, however, into another it proceeds, but not because of a lagging behind of the Only-Begotten, nor because of an interwall, nor because it is from the Father in any subordinate person; for it is indeed brought forth as third, yet it is not brought forth in this order by reason of its being, but only by reason of the ordering of the names, as Cyril says. For the voice of the Savior, while listing it as third after the Father and the Son, nonetheless named it, and the appellation of the Spirit does not enforce a conjunction toward another in the same way as that of the Father and the Son, unless one wishes to turn the name of the Father into a projection; for then you would not perceive the Son directly, but the problem itself being brought along. This, however, would never be the case if the being from the Father proceeded to the Son, and from the Son, finally, to the Spirit. And so, the "directly" would be spoken of in some such way as this. But it is necessary to examine [this] both through the "directly" and, in general, through the Son. Yet I shall not use my own words here, or only to a small degree, but rather the very words of the Fathers, so that by reading them from there, one may be well instructed in the meaning of the expression. The Holy Spirit, then, might be said to be from the Father through the Son, both because of the distribution and impartation of His own gifts—for, he says, "The Spirit apportions to each from the Father through the Word"—and it might also be understood as light from the sun, in the radiance, and through the radiance. For this indeed signifies ^B the union of the Spirit with the Son from the Father from eternity; it would also make known the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son—however you may wish to understand this manifestation, whether as the revelation of Him to us through His benefits, or as a sort of shining forth and, so to speak, an indivisible distinction through the Son, in accordance with which we are enlightened to perceive the other Paraclete as the Spirit of truth, as much as possible. But if those who introduce this phrasing into theology had this meaning, another might indeed testify, but the testimony would not be believed—for "no one," one of the opponents will say, "knows the things of the other." But if the Fathers who used the expression bring us testimony, they will make the matter irrefutable to the truth, so that we must henceforth fix our minds on them. ^C Athanasius, then, among the saints, in his third discourse Against the Arians, says these things: "We do not introduce three principles, nor three fathers, since we did not posit the image of three suns, but of a sun, and a radiance, and the light from the sun in the radiance." So you may observe how the great teacher does not teach the existence itself through the Son, but the revelation, and, as has been said, the shining forth, or, as the great Basil said, the "making known." And the same one, in his letter to Serapion: "The Father being the light, and the Son His radiance, it is possible to see the Holy Spirit also in the Son, by whom we are enlightened." And after other things: "The Father being the fountain, and the Son the river, we are said to drink the Holy Spirit." And

^A again: "I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father," whom the world cannot receive, who they are that deny him to be from the Father in Christ. If then it is from the Father in Christ, what could "through the Son" be, if not one of the aforementioned things? For there would not be, again, an existence through the Son, as if the existence from the Father were insufficient or imperfect. But truly, even the illustration from the proposed image—from the sun, he says, in the radiance is light. If then there is an existence of light from the sun in the radiance, and someone says the light is through the radiance, he would not justly say it receives its existence from there; unless someone thinks that the shining from there (since it is entirely connatural with the radiance) constitutes its essence and existence, which is not true. For this is a manifestation rather than an existence. Furthermore, as for the water of the river, if someone thinks it is from the river as if from a *cause* of being, and not rather from the fountain, I would be surprised.

But let us see how the words of the great Athanasius might contribute to the understanding of the matter at hand. He says: "But that one is for us, and no other, the interpreter of his own words. From the Father is the Son, he says, through whom are all things, to whom in any case the Holy Spirit is inseparably co-conceived. For it is not possible to arrive at the conception of the Son without having been previously illuminated by the Spirit. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit, from whom every bestowal of good things flows upon creation, is stated to be of the Son, with whom he is indivisibly grasped, but has his being (whence also he proceeds) dependent on the Father as cause; this has, as a signal identifying his hypostatic property, the being known with and together with the Son, and the subsisting from the Father. But the Son, who alone knows the Spirit proceeding from the Father through himself and with himself, having shone forth uniquely from the unbegotten Light, has no communion regarding the specific character of his distinct properties with either the Father or the Holy Spirit, but is known only by the aforementioned signs. But God over all," and so forth.

Then tell me, from where did you pluck these oracles to show us another existence of the Spirit from the Son, explaining the phrase "of the Son"—not as that great theologian Basil does, but as you wish? And again, having brought "immediately" and "through the immediately" into the midst, if I do not accept the question of Nyssa, if I do not hold him to be a teacher of piety, if it is not most clearly ^B through the Son and from the Son, that he says the Spirit exists here… But, my good man, Gregory of Nyssa, in that he conceived nothing other than this, used the "through"; listen to him saying: "From the unbegotten sun we conceive another sun, shining forth with it generationally at the same time in the conception of the first, and being in all things likewise—in beauty, power, brilliance, magnitude, radiance, and all things whatsoever observed around the sun." And again: "Another, shining forth, is cut off neither by interval nor by difference of nature from the Father or the Only-Begotten." And in the panegyric on the protomartyr Stephen: "Since, therefore, in the light of the Father, he says, that is, in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from there, the Only-Begotten light is beheld, for this reason, having been previously illuminated by the glory of the Spirit," and so forth. Do you see how the teacher is everywhere consistent with himself, teaching the procession and the whole existence of the Spirit to be perfectly from the Father, while saying he shines forth only through the Son, and as it were shines out before [them] just as the light from the ray? But if you do not confess the existence of the Spirit to be complete from the Father, supplement it through the radiance through the Son, so that the dogma might be more solemn and more befitting of God; yet I shall confess the existence from the Father to be complete for the Spirit. For the divinely wise teach me to speak thus, both from other words and from their examples, speaking of mind and word and spirit, sun, ray, and light, fountain, river, and water. And it would be superfluous to mention all things in order, through which it is possible to possess a secure faith concerning this. For this reason, leaving Basil as my sole witness, I shall pass to the things that follow.

That this great luminary of the world nowhere says the Spirit is from the Son, but from the Father and nowhere else—for this is the voice of that very man, and he knows the Father as fountain and root, and as cause of the Son and Spirit—what need is there to speak? ^C I would say: your interpretation of his words I could never accept; but him, and honoring his words, I would not decline, but would raise above my own head. Whence, hearing him say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and has his being and holds the Father as cause, not the Son, I confess these things myself, and I would never cease to confess them. But when he says that he is also of the Son, and proper to the Son, and that through him he shines forth and is manifested and known and sent and distributed to those worthy to receive him, I agree with the teaching, and I bring this "through" immediately to your citadel, and, led by that teacher, I place it wherever it may be. For he says ^D that the Only-Begotten remains in the Son, and that the Spirit being from the Father is not doubted, the mediation of the Son preserving the Only-Begotten for himself, and the Spirit not being excluded from the natural relationship to the Father. "Immediately," he says, with regard to the Son—not that he is the cause, as you say, of the Spirit, but because he is the Only-Begotten Son, he is immediately co-conceived with the Father. For it is not reasonable that, since the being is from the Father both for the Son and for the Spirit, when we wish to arrive at the declaration of the cause and of those from the cause, that we should not rank the Father before the Son; for not even would the power of the appellations ever permit [us] to interpose. But since not according to the succession of being is the Son "immediately" in relation to the Father more than the Spirit, for this reason...

^A he did not hesitate to use the term, since he avoided falling into tautology therein. But if this discourse does not seem concise to some—since they have first shown where Gregory in his own writings, or Basil, whom Gregory follows, have said so much about the Son that they even hinted at him being the cause of the Spirit, and having done this—whether they be one or more of those discourses, let them have the conclusion that prevails. Be it so.

But since indeed he lays hold of the last point as if it were one of the very strong ones, and to which there is no discourse on the part of those who contradict—which holy Athanasius, writing to Serapion, says: "The Spirit," he says, "given and sent by the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from many, but the Spirit himself alone." For the Son, being the living Word, there must be one perfect and full sanctifying and illuminating life, being his energy and gift, which is indeed said to proceed from the Father, since it is acknowledged to shine forth from the Word who is from the Father, and is sent and given. And since they think that the whole is derived from this, let them be asked: on account of which of the things in this statement do they think so much? Is it because he says, "It shines forth and is sent and given"? ^B Indeed, the former words were declared to be of manifestation, and the others of good pleasure and condescension. But perhaps because the Spirit is a gift? And what of that? For behold, the Son also is sanctification, and righteousness, and peace, and redemption according to the Apostle, not as these being his [essential properties], but as having acted [in these ways]. And so the Spirit, in this manner, since every good comes to us from him, and all benefits to men are from God, are his energy and gift, [and] is reasonably called energy and gift. And also of the Son, [he says] that the works of the Spirit are works of the Son, and there is nothing, says Athanasius, which is not perfected through the Word in the Spirit. "But that," he says, "since it shines forth from the Word and is sent and given, for this reason it is said to proceed from the Father." But, O most wise one, the "since" is not taken here causally, but is taken in the sense of a sign, of such a kind ^C as corresponds to what has been said. And it is thus: Since the Father is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit, but to the Father as Father, the Son is immediately conceived along with him according to the nature of those things which are relative, being gathered together by the word, he says, of cause, or of the relation to the Father which is the cause, the Son is conceived prior to the Spirit—but not according to the procession of being, nor by the fact that he is the cause of the Spirit. And it seems to me that he used the discourse of cause here heedlessly, instead of the discourse of relation to the cause, not having feared that he would seem from this to dogmatize that the Son is the cause of the Spirit, because he has everywhere succeeded in firmly confessing the Father as the cause of both. For, relying on that which ^D was already confessed many times, he used the word without hesitation, because that he might not fall into tautology he declined [it] there.

But let not the fact that the Son is conceived prior to the Spirit, according to the account of the cause, which they bring forward having snatched it from the *Antirrhetica* of the Nyssene, disturb anyone at all; for it has been viewed directly as similar also in the case of those things spoken of by way of signs. We say that fire is ignited, because ash is seen, and because clay became a dissolution of moisture. As therefore, that clay or ash is only a sign of fire or of liquid dissolution, not the cause, and those [things] are rather [effects] of these, so also here, the fact of being sent and given by the Son is not the cause of the procession of the Spirit from the Father, but because he proceeds from the Father and is indivisibly joined to the Son, and is co-natural to him and consubstantial, for this reason the Son also dispenses it, and gives, and sends. For if it were not from there, how would he himself dispense [it], or from where having it did he distribute to those worthy? For if all things that the Son has, he has from the Father, and he has to give the Spirit and to send [him], from the

^A Father does he have it. So, that it is not the Son who sends the Spirit [that makes him] the cause of the Spirit’s existence and procession from the Father; but because the Father sets forth the consubstantial Spirit, the Son is said to dispense and send him, having him connatural to himself and inseparably united with him from the Father. To accept these things as "dispensing" and "sending," however, is appropriate for the only immutable and infinite [Being], whom even the world cannot contain. That this mode is customary in Holy Scripture is evident from the following. For all this, say the holy Gospels, came to pass that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled; and, "That the voices of the prophets might be fulfilled"; and, "They could not believe because Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes'"; and, "That the Scripture might be fulfilled." For it is not that so many things were ordained so that the voices of the prophets might be fulfilled, but because they were ordained, those [prophecies] also were fulfilled, the outcome of the deeds having become the cause of their fulfillment, not the other way around. Therefore, neither does it present here for us the "because" as a cause, but it is taken as a proof, so that what is being said—if one does not provide another token of the Spirit’s procession from the Father—may be clearly proved by the fact that he shines forth, is sent, and is given from the Word who was begotten of the Father; whence also the following things tend toward this. For since the whole behavior of the Word is as if to encompass this in a form, you, O "tropici" (for their argument is based on such things), since you believe the Son to be consubstantial with the Father and God, but the Spirit not at all—if the Son is found to have a certain order toward the Father, the Spirit will be found to have the same toward the Son; what then will you say? Might you not justly agree that the Spirit is also consubstantial with the Son and God? Thus, then, the strength of the proposition appearing to subsist upon the manifestation of the Word of God among us and the things which the Holy Spirit has brought about, he brings forward the proofs, making the arguments from the latter, though they are more familiar to us, humble and earthbound as we are. ^B Therefore, he also employs words of economy and condescension, upon which it is not right to pounce immediately, nor to seize and transfer to places where it is not befitting, but one should examine the need and accept them with due discernment. If not, but one clings to the words as if rooted to them, it is time for you to gather how many absurdities will follow for you there. For, he says, if the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father because he is admittedly shining forth, being sent, and being given from the Word who is from the Father, tell me, does the Spirit proceed from the Father because he is an energy and a gift of the Word? And how will the gift ever be consubstantial with the one to whom it is given? How will it be arranged as natural to him? How will the energy have the same definition of essence as that of which it is the energy? And how can it be self-subsistent, if it is only an energy? For the definition of energy does not admit this. And besides these things, what will you name the Father? ^C Whose cause and principle will you declare him to be? Not the proximate one, not the principal one, not the one by himself and through himself, that is, the Son? Where have you found these things in Scripture? And furthermore, if the very substantive essence of the Paraclete is a gift and an energy, and we are participants in the gift to whom the gift and illumination is effectively applied, are we then participants and partakers of the very essence [of the Spirit]? And what truth, then, will he have who says that the divine is participable to us only by energies and illuminations? And as for that of the great Athanasius, that the coming of the Holy Spirit happens by energies and powers, what kind of healing argument will that be? I, for one, think none, if you are telling the truth. These things have been sketched out for you concerning the points proposed—briefly, as time was pressing, for it was necessary to forestall the deviation by saying a few things rather than to rant at length and miss the necessity, and to fall short of the objective. Yet they are sufficient, at least, if you have not longed for the days of man, and looked to vanity and false madness, to stand firm, having been turned around, and to repel the thoughts of doubt. And may it happen, with God concurring, that those [doubts] be repelled, and that you stand firm, rooted in the good, shaken by nothing.

If anyone proposed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, as it has been piously said by some of the saints.

One who wishes to agree with pious reasoning could say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but according to the voice and tradition of the Savior, he is subsistence complete from the Father, and has that One as his principle and cause of being. It has indeed been said by some of the saints that [the Spirit] proceeds through the Son from the Father, and it has been said piously, not that the Spirit’s existence from the Father is incomplete, nor that he had the Son as his cause at all, either solely or with the Father, but that because he subsists from thence, that is to say, from the Father’s essence, as has been said, he perfectly accompanies the Word according to those who have spoken as God-inspired, and he comes through Him and shines forth and appears according to His pre-eternal and eternal shining forth, ^D or whatever else one ought to say more correctly who investigates the holy Scriptures and marks from them the names that are appropriate. Then, as this Word is his own from the Father, the Spirit is ministered and bestowed by Him to the creation as connatural and of equal honor, and he visits the worthy with authority, and breathes where he wishes, and makes new those who receive him, and sanctifies and perfects and deifies according to grace, being God by nature, and complementary to the Godhead in the Trinity. These two parts of the division are certainly safe; but that which I complained of at the beginning of the discourse, that he said, in proposing the breathing, that if anyone does not confess that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, there is every necessity to agree with the other part of the division...

that it proceeds immediately from the Father, but not through the Son. But in truth it does not seem so to me. I think the argument conceals nothing other than this: that if someone were to agree that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, he would immediately admit that it is not immediate from the First, that is to say, from the Father, but only this: that it is through Him who is immediate from the First. This is not sound doctrine, as stated by the most wise Nyssen, and we embrace it, even if someone denies the "immediate" coming from the First. Since ^A even that great Father, having said that the Son exists immediately from the Father, did not say that the all-holy Spirit is not immediate from the Father, but said it is by the immediate from the First—that is, through the Son from the Father. From this he concluded nothing, nor did he say that it is not immediate from the First; if then it is through the immediate, it is from the First. And he who has not dared to say this, nor has any other of the interpreters of the all-holy Spirit in his sophistry—who is so bold and arrogant, either by intellect to conceive or by tongue to utter the word?

I take up again the division, that I may prove clearly what I proposed to show. I proposed that he did not bring this forward well, but as if playing the sophist and driving the one who intended to answer his question into one of the absurdities, he compelled him to answer one of the two propositions. ^B This was either to deny entirely the "through the Son," or, if he could not disbelieve the holy men who speak, to declare that it is "not immediately" from the Father. What necessity does this have from the truth, if not from an absurd and sophistical questioning? For, knowing that both parts of the division are true to him, or rather that both propositions do not even stand against each other, nor is there anything at all opposed or fighting between them, if he were to propose the argument such that it is right to think that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or indeed from the Father through the Son—but he, having framed the problem differently, taking the "immediate" aside from the proposed investigation and inserting it into the proposition, seemed not only to make the parts of his new division differ from one another, but also to be opposite, incompatible, and fighting against ^C the truth. For how not? Since to the one who applies his mind to what is said from both sides, the argument is precipitous on either side, and of necessity he slips one way or the other: for either he will choose to escape the "not immediately" from the Father, and will strike out from the choir of God-bearing men those who say that it proceeds from the Father through the Son, as though it were from the Father immediately, but not through the Son, as his argument says; or, not blaming those who spoke in every way—on the contrary, entirely trusting that they spoke well, if one takes their mind as the mind of the things said—having granted these things and agreed to their dignity of faith, he will not even so escape the danger. For he would be choosing that: "through the Son from the Father is the Spirit, but not immediately from the Father." ^D For it proceeds immediately from the Father, even if it proceeds by the Son from the Father, because at the same time the Son and the all-holy Spirit are from the Father, and are of the same glory, as the great Gregory said in his Theology.

In the first of his *Antirrhetics*, Nyssen says: "The Father truly is without beginning and unbegotten, and is always Father; from Him, however, immediately and indivisibly, the only-begotten Son is co-conceived; and through Him and with Him, before any empty and unsubstantial thought can intervene, the all-holy Spirit is immediately apprehended as joined, not lagging behind in existence after the Son, so that the only-begotten Son is never conceived without the Spirit, but as He has the cause of His being from the God of all, whence the only-begotten is light, and having shone forth through the true Light, he announced that the Son is co-conceived from the Father immediately and indivisibly, and through Him and with Him the all-holy Spirit is apprehended. With Him, he says, even if by Him. If with Him from the Father, from whom He also has the cause of His being, how is He not immediately from the Father with the Son?" Since the Son is immediately from the Father, and thus through Him and with Him is apprehended as joined, before any empty and unsubstantial thought can intervene. And if no empty and unsubstantial thought intervenes, where will the "not immediate" have a place for you? Thus far, then, and I think it has sufficiently been said, how the question is not secure for those putting it forward in this way, what the refutation to them is, and what and whence the proof of the truth is.

And that other thing is inconsistent with him and his own words; for he seems to be permanently in agreement with those who say that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not appearing to be fully in agreement, but rather accepting those who have said "from the Father through the Son," doing well, if after all he rightly takes the mind of those who say these things. But there is a place where he even seems quite at variance with himself. What, then, does he say? Now indeed he has said, near the end of the discourse, that the all-holy Spirit would not be said to proceed from the Son primarily, but from the Father through the Son. "For it is necessary," he says, "to confess the paternal essence as the beginning and cause of both the Son and of His Spirit; for the Father alone is cause, and the Son would not be an original cause." Up to here his argument is perhaps sound, if one does not suspect the original cause, and that: that the all-holy Spirit would not be said to proceed from the Son primarily. For the first [the Father], if it were not conceived by itself, and as it were somehow independent and incomparable, would be conceived by him as the original cause, thus speaking, and as having nothing transcending it, but that the Son is a cause with Him, one with Him, so that two causes might not be thought, he thus fleeing the clearly evil; but [he does] not [flee] the original, for the Father alone is this cause. For the same man also says these things, that it is as from the first cause and beginning of the Father that the all-holy Spirit...

^A receives the manifestation of the primal and first cause; whenever he says that this is the unbegotten Father in relation to the procession of the all-holy Spirit, I consider his thought to be completely blasphemous. For the statement that “the Father is the sole cause” will not hold, nor did the saint who said this make the distinction that the Father is the sole cause, but rather he showed him to be the sole ^B primal cause and cause of the cause. And that other matter, that he who does not accept this as such is somehow disparaging what the great Gregory said in his Theology—he says, “Everything that the Father has, the Son has, except the cause”—from this it is detected that that too was perhaps not correctly stated. What indeed is that? The idea that it could not be said of the Son [that he is the cause] primarily, but that it could be said at all as from a cause of his. For if it were said that he has his being perfectly from the Father, and that the Father alone is the cause, and that from him it [the Spirit] simultaneously proceeds with the Son according to his own property, and simultaneously comes through him, and shines forth through him and from him, as light from the sun along with the ray, and through the ray, or even from the ray, shining forth and appearing—for I would not depart from this image, and I agree with it, for according to this image it has often been said by the Spirit-bearing men that the all-holy Spirit exists also from the Son, and from his essence proceeds and issues forth and gushes forth and streams forth, and other things that have a similar meaning—but if it were said primarily from the Father as from the primal and first cause, according to the aforementioned interpretation, and thereafter also from the Son as ^C completely a cause, the dogma is entirely foreign and hostile to the truth. For not everything that exists from something already has its existence from that same source; but everything exists most especially from that from which it also obtained its existence.

However, I am investigating another point, and perhaps justly, how, having said that it is necessary to acknowledge the paternal hypostasis as the principle and cause of the Son and of the Spirit—for the Father is the sole cause, and the Son would not be a primal cause, since the Father is the cause to him—he then added: “For we dogmatize one principle, the Father, the unbegotten, both of creation and of the Godhead; of creation, productive; of the Godhead, natural.” But the statement is not at all appropriate to the purpose of what has been said. For the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of the former by generation, of the latter by procession. And both are caused ^D by the Father. And one is not a cause of the other at all, neither alone, nor with the Father. Therefore, the Son does not share at all with the Father in the concept of cause regarding the procession and existence of the Spirit. This is the argument of the truth. These things the conclusion would have rightly contained. But he shifts to the productive cause. And he shifts, I do not know with what intention. But let the blasphemy of the argument be far from us.

It is necessary, therefore, to investigate how he says he dogmatizes the unbegotten Father as one principle both of creation and of the Godhead; productive of creation, natural of the Godhead. If it is in the same sense for both creation and Godhead—I mean what he himself did not distinguish—it would be that, just as in the case of the Godhead no other of the three persons is the principle of the Son and of the Spirit, except the Father alone, so too in the case of creation, the Father is one principle and the sole principle. Alas for the blasphemy! For the statement has removed from the productive cause of creatures the Son and the all-holy Spirit. And how is the Son the Creator? And how is the Comforter a co-creator? And how was everything made through the Word, and without him not one thing was made? How is the Son the maker of the ages? For through him, he says, he also made the ages. And how were the heavens established by the word of the Lord, and by the spirit of his mouth? Or rather, how did the Father, through the Son, in the holy Spirit, establish all the created nature, as much as is visible and as much as is invisible, from whom the Trinity is one creator, and principle? ... this argument, one and the cause through the identity of activity and will and power. If these things are so, and no one else will say otherwise, as one who is a true worshipper of the holy Trinity, it is clear that in the case of theology it is absolute—so that I may speak again in the same way both of the principle in and of itself, and incomparable, the primal and first cause is regarded as absolute, but speaking of the cause that is related to anything other than itself, it is not "first" and "not to be related." But in the case of the created nature and that which is under generation, it is not that one ought to exclude the Son from the productive cause, and the Spirit who is co-creator and perfecter, and say only that the Father is the cause, but [one says] that the Father is also the primal and first cause because the being of the Son and of the Spirit is from him. And all things of the Only-begotten and of the Spirit are referred to this very first cause, another along with him, and with him the Son and the all-holy Spirit, one principle and cause of the production and constitution of things that are. For, as the three are not divided in nature, neither by their

power, nor by their will, nor yet by their energy ^A are those others divided, however many they may be. And here, where all three are and are called cause, it will be piously understood and said, since the "one" does not confuse the persons. But there, if the argument includes with the Father the Son also as a cause in the procession of the holy Spirit, I do not say how it will demonstrate the existence from the Father of the Spirit as incomplete, since the Son is also a cause. I say that it unites the two into one, and it will not be clear whether it is Father and Son, or the Father alone in both, or the Son alone, unless the name of cause and principle should intervene, and it will resolve rather into the Father than into the Son the name of the Father and of the Only-begotten. Therefore, that there is no need to think even in the case of the natural cause—according to which the Son is begottenly from the Father, and the holy Spirit is processionally from God and the Father—that it is necessary to conceive of the Father as the initial and first cause, ^B while also including that the Son is a cause in the existence of the Spirit, in the way, as they say, which shall also be called in the case of the creative cause an initial and first cause for the Father, without alienating the Son and the Spirit from the creative cause of the creatures, the argument has clearly and with truth demonstrated. For where else could there be an initial and first cause of the Only-begotten and of the Spirit, the pre-unoriginate Father and uncaused, if not in that way by which alone they have been indicated? And this is that there is no other one surpassing it; for if there were, that one would be the Father. Not, however, that in this respect it is initial and first, as if any other were set in order with him or together with him by concepts. But let it be, as some of those aliens have thought, that the Son is, even if the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, or the Spirit from the Father through the Son; for thus it would be that the all-holy Spirit would be either as from two causes, Father and Son, or as from one from both, but it brings both into a single blasphemy, even if it is found in the opposites. The Father alone, he says, is cause, even if the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. All things that the Father has, the Son has, except for the cause, the natural cause, that is. For regarding the creative cause, not even those who assert equality of honor of nature dared to speak. But the god-proclaiming Fathers and prophets, having imbibed from the Spirit ^C or having been initiated by the Spirit, handed it down in such clear and manifest names and concepts; who will be so deliberately ruinous to his own soul and salvation as to overlook this, and then, having let go of those and those things which are thoroughly certain as true, to succumb to his mind being carried away by the error of the new teachers?

But it would be conducive to their error if someone, having learned from the holy Gospels and in the symbol of faith that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then, encountering some of the saints who say that it proceeds from the Father through the Son, and flows out essentially and has appeared, or even proceeds and shines forth from both, or truly from the Father through the Son, does not accept the sayings in the correct sense, nor did they partake of the same fullness; that the Father alone is cause; that all things that the Father has, the Son has, except for the cause. For I will not refrain from these divine sayings of theology: that the Son and the all-holy Spirit are referred to one cause, the Father; that the Father is the root and source of the Son and of the Spirit; that the Father is alone unbegotten and alone the source of the deity; and the argument has omitted most things, fearing the immeasurable. But these things all clearly set forth to one desiring to seek the truth without curiosity what concepts the words of the saints contain, when it has been said to them clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, or exists, and shines forth and flows forth and has appeared, and whatever else is of that kind.

And the great Basil clearly interprets these same things themselves, saying thus: "Since the holy Spirit, from whom every dispensing of good things flows out upon creation, is inseparably attached to the Son and is co-comprehended, but has its being dependent upon the cause of the Father, ^D whence it also proceeds, it has this as a sign distinctive of its hypostatic property, the being known with the Son and together with him, and the subsisting from the Father; while the Son, who alone uniquely knows the Spirit that proceeds from the Father through himself and with himself, having shone forth from the unbegotten light, has no communion of marks according to what is proper toward the Father or toward the holy Spirit, but is known by the mentioned signs alone." And holy Gregory of Nyssa: "The holy Spirit, being joined to the Father according to the uncreated, is again separated from Him by the fact of not being Father, just as that one is separated. But by the conjunction with the Son according to the uncreated and in having the cause of existence from the God of all, it departs again by its distinctive property, in that it did not subsist begottenly from the Father and in that it has appeared through the Son himself, and in the things stated above. But the Spirit itself also, having the cause of its being from the God of all, whence the Only-begotten light also is, yet through the true light it shines forth, is cut off neither by interval nor by difference of nature from the Father or from the Only-begotten."

The same one, again writing the life of the namesake and wonder-worker Gregory, and setting forth the revelation of the faith, which the great evangelist John, standing over him, taught him through a vision: and it is, "One God, Father of the living Word, of the subsisting wisdom and power and eternal imprint, perfect begetter of the perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son, one Lord, alone from alone, God from God, imprint and image of the deity, Word without beginning, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power productive of the whole creation, true Son of the true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal, and eternal of eternal. One holy Spirit having existence from God." And no one knew

^A the Father except the Son. And the Trinity is known of Itself alone. But, he says, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has reached the ends of His wisdom?” And if we are ignorant of the wisdom of God, and the angels themselves—who are before us, being beings of a higher and more intellectual contemplation and knowledge—how should we be able to penetrate the very things of God? For this reason, let us stand upon the patristic definitions, and let us not seek anything beyond what has been said by the Fathers. For even they spoke, but not of themselves; rather, they said what they were taught from the inspired Scripture, or what they were initiated into by the all-holy Spirit. And the other things, he says, He made darkness His hiding-place; and who, having gazed upon the surpassing light of His glory, and not even covered by the rock, has surpassed the God-seer Moses, who barely beheld the back parts of God?

Others also object to the word “alone,” and they say, what is novel in the argument if it hands down the Father alone as cause? For the great Athanasius said that the Savior is also the dispenser of the Spirit, not that the Father is not also the dispenser of the Spirit. And the Lord also says in the Gospels concerning that day and hour, that no one knows, not even the angels themselves, except the Father alone—not as though the Son is entirely ignorant, or indeed the all-holy Spirit. And again the Son says to His own Father, “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ.” If the Father is the only true God, how are the Son and the Spirit also God? It is said, they reply, there, that every other knowledge of generated beings ceases, and here, that every heterogenous god may be dismissed. This is well said in these cases, but it is not safe when the argument makes the teaching or theology of the ^B divinely-ruling hypostases concerning these very properties. The Father alone is unbegotten, because the Son is begotten, and the Spirit is proceeding. The Father is the sole source and root of the Son and of the Spirit, because the Son is not a source or root of the Godhead, nor is the all-holy Spirit. For the Father is the beginning of the whole Godhead, one beginning and one cause. The Father being called these things, is distinguished by these titles and by the unbegotten and causeless title from the Son and the Spirit, not from opposing or false gods. For the Father, he says, is causeless and unbegotten, for He is not from anyone, nor does He have His being from Him; but the Son is from the Father in a begotten way. And the all-holy Spirit is indeed also from the Father, but not in a begotten way, but in a proceeding way. And again, the all-holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father, and also the Spirit of the Son, not as from Him, but as proceeding from the Father through Him, for the Father alone is the cause. Alone, in that the Son is not also a cause.

The consistency of what is said is evident. For having said that it is from the Father through the Son, he has removed every suspicion. Even if the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father through the Son, he says, do not at all receive into your mind that the Only-Begotten is the cause of the Comforter regarding the procession of His being, either alone or ^C together with the Father, because the Father alone is the cause. Just as there, the Father, being called alone the root and source of the Son and of the all-holy Spirit, was being distinguished, in the same way here, being called the sole cause of the Son, He is being distinguished; and neither there is there a heterousian, or rather, there is no opposing-godhead at all, nor here is there a heterogenous and alien person. And that which confirms what has been said, also provides, nonetheless, the faith from itself. For it was said also above, whatever the Father has of the Son, except for the cause. For the sake of what other thing has He made this distinction? For none, certainly, than the Son who has all things, whatever the begetting Father has, except for the cause. But a cause of what? Of the creative action; but apart from the aforementioned, the Father does all things through the Word in the holy Spirit, as the great man, the namesake of immortality, said. But it remains to understand [this] not of the natural [being], but of the Son Himself. And this is evident, for He proceeded from the Father, from whence He has been begotten. And it is evident that [this is true] also of the Spirit. For both are from the Father, the one begottenly and the other proceedingly, as the discourse has often said, sanctifying the mind of those who speak or hear by the continuity of memory. But the homonyms of the words at once [appear]: the Son is revealed from the Father, the all-holy Spirit is revealed from the Father, the Son proceeded from the Father, [so too] the all-holy Spirit, the Only-Begotten light shone forth from thence, the Comforter light shone forth from thence, and the existing things, having an eternal manifestation, go forth from the Father, come forth from the Father, shine forth from the Father, and whatever other things Scripture indicates in various ways. ^D With these things being so disposed and said concerning the Father—when one wishes to show that the Son and the all-holy Spirit are from Him and their existence is clearly signified from thence—what is the argument if they are also said of the Son? Since, clearly, the all-holy Spirit has been said by some of the holy ones to proceed from both, that is, from the Father and the Son, or indeed from the Father through the Son, or as having appeared, and shining forth, and proceeding, or even as existing from the essence of both; or again, [as being] from the Father and the Son, not as from the Father, so also being confessed to have [His] existence from the Son.

Let it be, then, from the Father through the Son. First, that which exists from something does not already have existence from there, for it was said above, but that those things which have existence do exist from there, from whence they have received their having-existence. For the water being drawn exists also from the river, and the light exists from the ray; but neither of them has from one of these the cause of its being. For the water is from the source—I mean the source from which it flows having first subsisted—and the light is from the sun, from which it shines forth together with the ray and proceeds through it. But the argument of homonymy sufficed for those who had considered the same point of the aporias, easily to resolve every subsequent dispute. For where the meaning of the words is common and has a different declaration, what labor or what confusion—

^A on each [person] who assumes a right mind, of bringing the appropriate and uncorrupted concept to the purpose of the subjects at hand. For if someone, in saying that both the Son and the all-holy Spirit have appeared, and shine forth, and exist from the pre-originating Father, and all the rest that has already been signified—even if he does not make any distinction, nonetheless, there is no way that one who interprets the words according to the true and unerring assumption of the dogmas nourished by piety does not immediately arouse everything, even to saying that those things distinguish well, namely that these things are from the Father in the Son, yet according to the Son’s own generation from the Father; but these things, and the Paraclete Spirit, are according to the distinctive mode of His own existence from there. It is clear that we speak of Him as proceeding from the Father in that same way. If these things are thus, and the teaching of the truth is clear, what absurdity would follow the argument if, just as we ourselves, saying the same words there and distinguishing the concept—and these things indeed concerning two Persons—that they draw the account from one, the first and the Cause, so also concerning one? If [it is] because [it is] from both or indeed through the one from the other—I mean from the Father and the Son, or indeed from the Father through the Son—the commonality of the expression will not lead [one] astray, but the distinctiveness of the concept will again guide [one] to the right goal. And it will guide, if we follow the piety of the Fathers ^B in all things, and we shall say those things which were said to them, and we shall be silent concerning those things about which it seemed safe to them to be silent. For it seemed [good] to declare the Son in no way the cause of the Spirit; but everywhere they proclaimed the Father as cause, and solely cause, just as of the Only-Begotten, so also of the Paraclete and life-giving Spirit.

For the holy Spirit has appeared and exists and shines forth from the Father as from the Cause; all these things are said of the Father. He has appeared again and exists and shines forth from the Son, or indeed from the Father through the Son, not as if the Son were the cause at all, either alone or with the Father, but because, subsisting from there from the Father’s hypostasis—for I will not depart from these same words, as they are inspired by God—He remains in the Son, and accompanies Him inseparably, and is manifested and shines forth eternally. Then He is granted also to the creation by Him and through Him is communicated from the Father, being Spirit of Father and Son, of the same nature and glory as both. These things, then, we have resolved, if not sufficiently, perhaps moderately, concerning the objections of the opponents. And having obtained a convenient time, we might perhaps resolve them more perfectly, the Paraclete aiding us and strengthening our weakness.

BY THE WISEST AND MOST BLESSED PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, LORD GREGORY THE CYPRIOT: DISCOURSE ON THE HOLY AND GREAT MARTYR AND TROPHY-BEARER GEORGE

SAPIENTISSIMI ET BEATISSIMI PATRIARCHAE CPOLIS DOMNI GREGORII CYPRII LAUDATIO SANCTI MAGNI MARTYRIS ET TRIUMPHATORIS GEORGII (Ex cod. Vatic. in Aprili Bollandiano, tom. III, p. 123-XXV.)

PROLOGUS.

1. It is a custom for those who struggle in speeches, for each one to think their own struggles great, and to deem them worthy of being considered both brilliant and difficult, in order to fabricate for themselves either pardon for failure or the praise of having succeeded therefrom. But as for George— [α']. This is the custom of those who contend in speeches, for each one to think their own struggles great, and to deem them worthy, and to accomplish those that are brilliant and difficult, in order to construct for himself from this either an excuse for his defeat or the praise of having succeeded. But as for George—

^A seeing before me the great name of this athlete, and attempting to raise up a eulogy commensurate with the magnitude of the subject, I do not know if anyone could more justly, when setting his zeal to another subject, preface his work by saying that it is a great labor, which he fears to undertake, and for the undertaking of which he asks to be excused. I, for my part, find the difficulty in this matter so great that I think that by merely touching upon it, I have suffered something similar to those who, through inexperience, desire to sail the sea, but once they have boarded, their desires take an opposite turn, as they learn of the roughness of the deep, the turbulence, the swell, and so many other things that compel one to wish all the more to be far away from it. From this I too would have immediately despaired, had not a necessity, born of a prayer I had previously made, taken hold of me and violently driven me to weave this discourse for the Martyr in this place.

^B 2. But since there is no possibility of escape or flight for me, bound as I am in my own chains, I cry out for the grace of the Martyr, as those who are caught in straits are accustomed to do; both because I am accustomed to call upon him, and because I have always experienced his ready help, but most of all because, since this subject belongs properly to him, we offer this very discourse to him as a gift. For even if, as often as he inspires in me that grace in which he himself is rich before God, he were to endure some things that nature is not capable of bearing, or were to perform things that nature does not know—yet not even then would I hesitate to bring to an end what I have proposed, nor would I cast away my good hope: how much more so now, when it suffices if only he grants us the faculty of speaking, as we trust in his assistance?

CAPUT I. The homeland, parents, voluntary offering, and first torments of Saint George before the tyrant.

^C 3. If it were permitted to me to arrange the discourse as I myself wish, and not according to the law that prevails among the majority, I would not have mentioned his homeland, noting how great and beautiful it is, nor any other of the external things, but would have grasped immediately from the beginning those things that are paramount for his eulogy. For it seems to me to be the work of those who concern themselves with trifles to seek to dwell upon the smallest things when they have the greatest subjects for encomia, and to labor after praise from the least of things, as if the subject could not stand without them, or if it could, it would be less perfect, needing the glory that is with God for the Martyr, as well as that which is from men. For if we intended to make one of these greater by saying more, we would be altogether absurd, not bringing everything forward and seeking everything. But since the former [glory], not being subject to our reason, could not receive any addition from us in any way whatsoever; and the latter, because it is already long since complete in the souls of all, would not need any expositor in order to be received (for just as men do not expect

^A an external teacher of the sun’s light, inasmuch as it is the most brilliant of all lights, so neither for the brilliance of this man, as it surpasses all discourse and thought, will anyone seek to be taught by another). What gain, then, is there in such curiosity, that I should have omitted what I have rightly said, if the discourse were not to serve the ears of others?

4. But if I were to wish to introduce into my discourse ^B the fatherland of such a man, I would introduce heaven, that happy and immutable region, the fatherland, I say, of the angels: for it is not fitting to praise any other for him, who had transferred his own immaculate conversation thither in such a way that he seemed to differ not even a little from the angels. Since, however, almost everyone also seeks that which belongs to earthly sojourning, and they judge that a discourse flowing from that source should thus proceed to what follows—there is, therefore, also this place, which does not easily yield to any other in brilliance, nor is it of such a kind that one could pass over it without great admiration. For as to the region of the Cappadocians, which brought forth this Saint, one might indeed praise it, and rightly so, in that, having obtained a convenient location and being free from the excesses of ^C neighboring regions, it is capable of every kind of generation, bringing forth all the most beautiful double-fruits of the earth, and that not sparingly, but in great abundance, such as contribute to human life. No less justly might one commend it because it has had inhabitants who were Greeks from the beginning, a race of men excelling in the peculiar faculty of speech, and, because of the continuous exercise of this skill, excellently adorning mother nature, even exceeding her own limits. But not even this would one call the most outstanding of all its graces, as compared to the fact that it holds a foundation of piety more solid than the rest, whence it has always abounded in the accustomed harvest of the martyrs and teachers of the truth. For in the former age, when persecutions were raging, it opposed to error no more numerous or illustrious combatants; and later, when the whirlwind of heresies fell upon it, and almost the whole Church was feared to be involved in it, it alone among all and above ^D all, by raising up champions of the common faith, repressed by their means the deluge of the whole universe. Since these things are illustrious, how can they not be fittingly adorning it? Yet the chief of all its praises and the entire ornament of its appearance is that which we have just begun to proclaim.

5. But now, since I am to attribute glory to him who has emulated the parents he had; it is fitting to set forth that his progenitors were indeed noble by birth, but more noble by piety; wealthy in passing riches, but more opulent in those that endure, while by rightly distributing the present they prepared for themselves the future. From these, the father obtained the reward of his conversation according to God, in that he consummated his life by martyrdom: the mother, however, having obtained crowns equal to the man, though bloodless, with the same will indeed that her husband had, but not being admitted to the combat, as they spared the weaker sex—

^A—both left behind examples for their child, providing seeds of piety, of mercy towards the poor, and of resistance against idolatry even unto blood. ^B Having received these, as a sort of paternal inheritance, and having been well cultivated by the husbandry of the Spirit, he not only caused them to spring up and multiply a hundredfold from one, but received a certain capacity for growth that could not be surpassed. For, like a most excellent steward of all that was his own, he transferred everything from the earth to heaven, not even sparing his own body, that it too might bear fruit for God; and such was his way: for it was not only through the purity of chastity, but also through blood, and not without the greatest dangers.

6. He was, in fact, already serving the earthly king and acting as a bodyguard, a young man great to behold and handsome, formidable in combat, courageous, and unconquerable—and this in regard to visible enemies; but against the demons, once he began to have dealings with them, suffering nothing from them, he appeared even more resolute, invincible, and unassailable. Yet he changes his service, and makes his military campaign for Christ instead of Caesar: being already Christ’s from the first, but now more perfectly, for he gave nothing to the world nor to the ruler of the world, but bringing everything, he consecrated it to God, as he did not continue to hide his Christianity, nor to deal craftily in any way, but to make it public and speak openly. ^C Now, the beginnings of this boldness for him—seeing the persecution being carried along like a fierce storm, and taking hold of everyone except for a few, and causing those who were persecuting to treat even piety as a tyranny, and those who were persecutors to contend, as they were masters of bodies, so also of souls, to which God gave the autonomy of free will—he is filled with righteous anger and zeal; and he casts away all that was his own magnanimously, as those who wrestle or compete in the pankration do, or rather—to put it better—transfers it through the hands of the poor to the heavens, leaving to himself only his body, with which he was about to carry through the contest.

7. Then, so that the theater for him might be more magnificent, and the struggle more illustrious, he watched for the day on which it was necessary to celebrate publicly—and it was necessary for Diocletian himself to be present, to keep the festival with the multitude—and like a lion showing everything in advance, in his expression, his determination, his gait, breathing fire, and looking around ^D with a fierce gaze, he enters with an undaunted mind, with a clear voice proclaiming Christ, and mocking the demons. O soul of that man, burning with the zeal of God! O love of God, burning so and moving those who love in such a way! Who was ever so lifted up seeing the madness of the idolaters? Who displayed such wisdom for the time? Who acted so nobly according to reason? There was nothing then to slacken the tension of his mind, nothing that could blunt his keenness: not the horrible threats uttered against those who had chosen to be pious, not

^A the various forms of torture laid before his eyes, not the memory of the torments inflicted upon the saints who had preceded him and which he himself was about to undergo, not their sufferings, nor the deaths by which they had been violently snatched from this present life. He raised his mind above all these things, as if he were stationed outside the body, to begin a noble struggle against the worship of demons. The demons and all the worshippers of demons shuddered at this fortitude of mind; the angels in heaven rejoiced at this, and gazing down from above upon his struggle, they called him blessed; Diocletian also, ashamed and perceiving this boldness as a contempt for himself, was filled with despondency and fury.

8. The events that followed required a power greater than human ^B if the Saint was to be able to carry his struggle through to the end worthily. For who could sufficiently explain in words either the brutality of the tormentors or the fortitude of the Martyr, by which he was braced against dangers and resisted them beyond the measures of nature? The blessed Job is proclaimed as the most noble and most patient of men; but the temptation against which he fought was involuntary (for he was called upon and delivered up). He, however, who endured these things surrendered himself into the hands of the torturers, being found and presenting himself to those who were neither seeking nor asking for him. Moreover, at the very end of his labors, the wound was not inflicted gradually—as if he were being trained for patience through lighter conflicts—but, like a most noble and experienced soldier, he was subjected from the beginning to the greatest dangers, so that an experiment might be made as to whether he was a man or a partaker of a nature common with us.

9. Diocletian, however, had within him a ^C legion of inciting demons, by whom, although they themselves were astonished at the constancy of the Martyr, he was stirred up more furiously to command him to be suspended and to suffer every most dire thing. And whatever he commanded was immediately sent for execution. He was suspended in the sight of all, beaten, lacerated, and finally wounded with a spear through the belly; they did this partly to inflict pain upon the Martyr, but also so that death might follow—for they did not intend to take him out of the midst of them by a death to which only a brief torment was joined. But neither could these things, however vehement ^D they were, cause him sorrow, with God preventing it; and the spear accomplished nothing at all, as if it were repelled and blunted by a firmer material, namely, iron or adamant, perhaps because it reverenced the body of the Martyr, and perhaps because it was condemning the insensibility of the tyrant. For if the iron was, so to speak, afraid to inflict damage, he, possessing a rational soul, was not about to be appeased—just as he was neither appeased nor deterred from his impulse to punish, but on the contrary was even more burdened and fierce in this, as if

^A hindered, so that he would not wish to torment him further; but on the contrary, he applied himself even more intensely and vehemently to it. And thus, his ever-increasing malice provided the Martyr with the occasion for a greater miracle: for it is a thing incurable when nature herself, out of an inherent malignancy, turns against its own benefit if any salutary medicine is applied. And therefore, he strove to crush the Martyr with ever more grievous and heavy punishments; so much so that, not even when the light failed, did he feel shame to "plow upon the Martyr's back," as the Psalmist says.

10. Yet night coming on forced a stop to the undertaking; a thing which Diocletian bore with the greatest difficulty, for he considered it the greatest punishment if that man were to enjoy even a brief respite. Nevertheless, he did not abandon his purpose because of such a time, nor could he endure to delay the tortures (for his savage soul did not suffer him to yield for a moment to the time), but he ordered the Saint to be shut up in prison, and in the most grievous one of all, as being foul and dark and to be likened to the shadow of death. And indeed, this would have been the state of things in this manner, had he not added a second and a third in succession, arranging them as it were like steps of evil. For it would have been a sort of humanity to seem to have divided ^B the punishments until the night had passed. Therefore, he was tortured with his feet bound in the wooden stocks; and a great stone, which machines—to say nothing of hands—could scarcely move, was placed upon his chest as he lay supine, pressing down upon the prostrate body with excessive weight, and forcing it to endure both the crushing of the flesh and the fracture of the bones; although he himself, just as he would not accept any of the impious commands as regards his soul, so also was insuperable as regards his body, suffering no violence at all from it. Indeed, in those contests which are undertaken for the sake of piety, the firmness of the body is seen manifestly to depend upon the nobility of the soul, so that as much as this possesses for itself through a ready will, so much strength it contributes to the body for enduring; or rather, God inspires strength into the soul, the soul into the body, and God into both; for, confirmed by Him, the Saint ^C overcame even this danger.

Chapter II. A supplicio rotæ et vivæ calcis fossa illæsus exit sanctus Georgius.

11. Such were the trials of that night, which I do not think were in any way more tolerable than those of the day; but those which followed as soon as the day dawned were like a tempest at sea, when one wave has held a man, another catches him, and a third impends; for thus those evils were more grievous than the former, both in variety and in the power to harm; so much so that it is my prayer to be able to explain them even moderately in my discourse. He was being led out from custody, he whom they did not even expect to find alive; and since he was found to be living beyond expectation, he appeared altogether impassible. How the tyrant was raging and torn apart, being unable to overcome him by any means; and what speeches he held toward him, now indeed threatening, and now with flattery and ^D

I forbear to say. But as he saw that all his industry was rendered vain, ^B and that he was repulsed and exposed to ridicule, then, as against a most firm and immovable tower, he hoisted that great and chief machine of the devil, the wheel, that is to say. Now this (for it must be told to explain the kind of torment, although this is not easy to explain), I say, was constructed of wood, having the back of the circumference moderately broad, but very wide in the space about the center; it was divided on the inside by four spokes, meeting from summit to summit, and intersecting one another crosswise through the middle on both sides; moreover, an axle, passed through the spokes, projected on both sides, holding the entire circle of the wheel, not to be turned around it, but to be revolved together with it. Finally, two legs were fitted here and there by the craftsman’s art, the top of which, supporting the axle, made it hang suspended in such a way that the wheel could be turned around most rapidly. And in this manner the wheel was composed; but beneath it were spread planks, accurately joined to one another so that they all seemed one single plank in continuity, and strongly fastened to the floor so that they might be entirely immovable, violently fixed with hooks by the craftsman’s industry; then into these were driven sharp spikes, and knives, and swords, and every species of blade, their edges turned toward the circumference of the wheel; which this was meant to touch nearly, but not to touch exactly while it was being turned, unless something was tied on from the outside.

12. That machine was indeed, to those who heard of it, fearful, but to those who saw it, far more terrible; but what need is there to say what it was like for one experiencing it? To me, it seems that many of the bystanders would have fallen down lifeless, from the mere fact that they were compelled to behold such tortures. Yet that noble and, so to speak, adamantine soul did not lose heart; but filled entirely with divine love, applying his mind and soul—and in a certain way even his very senses—to the blessed beauty, and arming himself with the sign of the cross, he invoked with prayers, in the hearing of all, the invincible power of Christ, singing with David in due season: "I will fear no evil, for thou art with me, though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death." ^C Thus, adorned with all grace, he came with a seemly step to the machine, as if not to experience it but only to view it; just as of old Elijah joyfully climbed the chariot of fire, except that the latter had his ascent into heaven, whereas this man was walking to death. Then, he stripped off his garments, was bent over the wheel, and was bound upon it with thin yet strong cords. Then (but O! who could hear without a sense of pain, who could recount without tears?) then, I say, the wheel was brought against the swords, turned more rapidly by the hands of the executioners pushing it and by the machines straining it. Then all the swords together performed their work: all his limbs were cut through, streams of blood flowed, and the wheel, the air, and the floor were irrigated with gore; and the flesh and nerves

and bones were all equally torn and mangled with violence.

^B 13. He himself, like a victim thus being cut to pieces and poured out, uttered no sound, sent forth no groan, nor did he display any other sign of a suffering soul; for when the iron dissolved the structure of his body, he appeared to suffer no more than one held in a deep sleep. Since, however, he was believed on that account to have already died, it is not easy to say how much joy he provided to those who were eager for impiety, who held his death to be a most festive event. And so, as soon as they believed they had sufficiently clear proofs of his death, they hastened in rivalry to the emperor, one outstripping another, saying: "We have conquered, we have prevailed; he is defeated, he is utterly destroyed. He has received a retribution worthy of the insult offered to the best things." And he, in as much as he thirsted for the blood of the martyr more than the rest, was filled with greater joy than the others, and he exulted, unable to contain himself; and as if for some marvelous and incredible victory, proclaiming a festival and sacrifices to the people, he hurried to the shrines and altars, about to offer triumphal hymns to the demons.

^C 14. Thus, that man altogether absurdly rejoiced over such things, though he was not to rejoice for long, nor was he to enjoy this irrational celebration, lest he be put to shame, according to the Prophet, and be cast away from his altars. For while he was engaged in these things, Christ again performed wonders of the mysteries of His cross, and all things were suddenly turned into horror; with storms of clouds, darkness of the air, nocturnal gloom in the middle of the day, an earthquake, roarings of the heavens, and bolts of lightning, which concurred much more terribly than in the Egyptian plagues; and this happened not from the natural order or any accident (as perhaps it appeared to the impious, having their intellect blinded), but by the command of God, who glorifies his own servant with signs and wonders, just as in Egypt with Moses, and Daniel among the Assyrians, and others elsewhere, according to His inscrutable will. ^D Indeed, He even scattered the guards and as many others as were present, worshippers of demons, and by sending an angel of light He comforted the athlete, and at the same time He loosened his bonds, and restored the integrity of his body by healing his wounds, commanding him to present himself to the tyrant, for his astonishment and for a testimony, promising him power and help, both now and in the future.

15. Truly this was a heavy and unbearable report for him, and contrary to the previous news; this dissolved his joys, halted the festivals, and overturned the triumphal and celebratory sacrifices; indeed, because of the magnitude of the miracle, it seemed incredible. For it was truly unreasonable in every respect that after such a dissolution the martyr should still be moving about among the living. But when he was present in person, and was seen, questioned, heard speaking, and touched, he was indeed George in every respect, and

^A proved it by his senses and his replies; then the miracle began to be believed, and many passed over to Christ. Some of them, wishing to remain hidden, were content to believe in their hearts; others did not hesitate even to confess the faith with their mouths, and immediately to speak with boldness—they who were honored with death by the sword, having found this as the reward for such an open confession. Nor could the empress Alexandra, at that time, remain invulnerable to the strangeness of the spectacle; but the miracle touched her too, and, having persuaded her to despise the faith in idols and demons, it moved her toward Christ.

16. Perhaps it was the soul of Pharaoh of old, and that of Diocletian, that was alone capable of being so hardened. And this one even more so, in that the former both acknowledged the power that was scourging him, and turned, and rose early, and asked God that the plagues might cease, until at length he made his mind stubborn; but this one neither turned, nor felt the lordship of a greater one, but, having kindled for himself a certain irrational power for the purpose of torturing—a power which we know holds the nature of fire for burning ^B and the nature of ice for chilling—he could not be restrained even a little, but gave way to his own malice, always looking to tortures, and seeking out, and in truth even inventing, new kinds of punishments. For he was wise in doing evil, but he knew not at all how to do good. And so, a kind of torture is presented that is to be carried out without the work or labor of anyone, but of its own motion; and this was the most grievous of all, such that it cannot be laboured at by anyone with much industry; nor do I know if any other person in all the centuries past has endured such a thing; certainly we have never heard of anything like it. For Jeremiah was thrown into a pit, but it was of mire; Daniel was in a pit, but it was of lions; in a pit this one was, but it was of fire. For it happened to be full of quicklime, which, having ceased to burn the fire just then, had left another fire in it, as much more potent to destroy the bodies of living beings than flame by as much as it had more of material density and solidity intermixed with it. For such things are proved both by reason and experience to be even more burning, ^C since they do not contain a fire that is kindled and burning in passage, but one that is in a way permanent, and clinging to those to which it draws near. Diocletian indeed imitated the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, in regard to the furnace which he kindled for the companions of Azariah, when they refused to worship the creature against the commandment of the Creator. But the tyrant commanded George to be cast in, because, like them, he was drawing near to the living God, and would not attend to mute and senseless statues ^D while clinging to the living One.

17. And he utters the following words of David to God, saying: "Be not far from me, O Lord; for evils have encompassed me, of which there is no number." And he also utters what the children spoke in the midst of the same flame, with a contrite heart and spirit of humility: "Do not deliver us up forever, and deliver us, O Lord, according to thy wonderful works." And he attains what he asked for, and he is not confounded in his expectation; and

^A he is saved, just as he was saved with Jonah, with Jeremiah, and with Daniel, since the same power that kept them unharmed in the belly of the whale, in the pit of mire, and among the lions, was also guarding him. How many new things does God ordain by the ineffable designs of His providence, either glorifying His saints, or confounding the faithless, or calling them to Himself! How many things does He overturn and transform, looking to the salvation of men! He extinguishes fire, He stays the flow of water, or, to speak more truly, He transfers the operation of fire into the operation of water, and conversely, He changes the power of waters into the power of fire; He arms creation for the vengeance of His enemies; but He also transmutes the elements, when it is necessary to make His own servants wonderful; which is exactly what He did now.

18. ^B By now the pit was being closed, having the athlete inside, and it was being sealed, and his course was assumed to be at an end—at least by those who measure things by the succession of nature and do not reckon the power of God. The third day had finally arrived since the Saint had been cast in, and the command was given that the lime be carried out and scattered, lest any of his bones remain: "Lest even this," he said, "later give spirit to some to reject the worship of the gods." Those to whom this was ordered were present, and another great crowd was also present; they were clearing out the lime, they were cleaning the pit, having in mind to accomplish also what was remaining; and then the great miracle becomes manifest. He stood upright, looking upward as in the posture of one praying, unharmed, shining more at that moment than before, as an image of a nature better than human, as if the fire had received him not to destroy him but to refine him. ^C Then what an outcry of the people, praising God as great and the only one, and calling upon the Christ of Georgius! What blows this brought upon the tyrant—I do not mean those that were to follow later, but in the present, because of his shame at his futile efforts! What melancholy and sickness of soul, that one man should overcome him while he was struggling so hard to win, and should frustrate his expectation!

CHAPTER III.

Georgius, shod with burning sandals, refutes the tyrant.

19. ^D For it was a terrible thing for him, since it was also unprecedented, not to be able to persuade, nor to overcome that man's will; but it was more terrible that he was not even able to kill him, and this while having him in his hands, and while subjecting him to the greatest dangers every day. But when he saw his own Gentiles turning to Christ, what are you to say? Was this not more bitter to the man than death, to a man so fiercely inflamed with zeal for idolatry? It was reported that this punishment had not achieved anything either, that he was surviving, and had emerged more beautiful and brighter than himself, like gold from the fire; and that the multitudes were wavering in their ancestral religion. Hence, as if struck by thunder, he stood dazed and speechless; yet, not coming to his senses, he did not remove his indignation, but

^A still had his hand extended, and armed it for new tortures. Moreover, ordering him to be placed before him again, he wished to speak to him, although he had nothing reasonable to say, being destitute of every faculty of right speech. He turned, first of all, to questions that had nothing at all to do with the matter: "Whence," he said, "did you learn so many and such great incantations? You use them to escape the torments which by law and by us are inflicted upon you; and you partly draw the simpler sort into admiration, and in part also lead them astray, preaching a certain Christ as the only God, and having this new and insolent proclamation as a veil for your sorceries."

20. But after the man, whom the works themselves did not make wiser, judged that George could offer no answer, Diocletian threatened to take the test himself, to see whether those things were not portents of the magic art. He spoke: and joining one torture to another, and heaping two punishments together—because he judged it reckless to use them singly—he lit a fire, cast iron sandals into it, and pierced them through with long and sharp nails; and with these, as the most perfect snares of death, he clothed the Martyr. Yet he, not at all terrified by these things (which we find frightening even to hear of alone, though we are so far removed from that experience), nor departing in the least from that confidence which he had shown from the beginning for piety, but rather being subjected to the question, beaten, and struck, returned to the prison more eager than he had arrived; in all these things not for a moment desisting from prayer to God. For in the mere contemplation of Him, who alone is immovable, he checked the alienation of his mind from the torments and the corruption of his nature; and he brought back into order his own self, which was being ^B shaken in disorder and was in danger of failing; thus clearly demonstrating that even if the tyrant, or indeed all men, were to strive to overcome him, they would be refuted, laboring in vain, when the power proceeding from God wished to deliver him.

21. And so matters stood regarding what was done around the Martyr: grievous, indeed, as regards the tortures, and more than grievous—for who would not say they were intolerable even to hear of? But the things that were done for his defense must, on the contrary, have been greater, so that not even a trace of injury might remain on his body after the divine visitation. For if it is not a great thing for me to argue even in this way, malice was able to do still more in those things which pertained to its side; yet it could never harm as much as God could benefit. ^C Diocletian, however, did not stop here, nor did he make this the end of the punishments, although he had set forth all kinds of torments; but, just as those who run around a globe always return to the same starting point, so too did he—since there was nothing left for him to do—not lose heart, but doubling the torments, he returned again to the scourges, adding impiety to impiety ^D and blood to blood. For as this was the one greatest and most necessary of all struggles, that of

^A abstaining from other affairs, however burdensome and drawing him to themselves, he was not regulating public administrations, nor correcting political errors, nor quelling seditions, nor rightly ordering wars, but he gathered himself entirely against the one man, George, consuming in him all his time and every design.

22. But this intentness and concentration of study upon these matters was manifest to those who observed it. For that day he had sent him into the prison, but by night, as was his custom, having meditated iniquity upon his bed, as soon as the day dawned, sitting before the tribunal, with many ^B surrounding him for the reception of those who might arrive, and hedged about with a bodyguard and having the eyes of all fixed upon himself, he ordered George to be present. He was present, performing both his standing, when there was need, and his walking, when it was appropriate; in both he was strong, and not at all hindered by the annoyance of the stocks—a matter which appeared contrary to all expectation at that time. For who would have thought, if he was not entirely deprived of life, that he would ever be able to use himself so freely? But now he did use himself, by the help of God, and Diocletian made the wound greater than he thought he had inflicted. Yet since he was standing there, "Perhaps," he said, "the stocks have brought you some joy and grace? Or what do you say?" To whom George, "How, O Emperor," he said, "would they not bring joy, with which I have commenced the journey to God?"

23. "But this boldness," says Diocletian, "and these magic arts, what do they intend? Will you not ^C bid them farewell, and put away this—or realize, albeit late, how great is the benefit of moderation of soul, and how great the evil that contumacy brings?" "What sort of contumacy," replies George, "do you call it? Or is it perhaps the confidence of defending the truth? But no one would have ever called it this, but justice, and fortitude, and whatever else is most beautiful among the virtues. For it is the greatest virtue to be unwilling to allow falsehood to be brought into the midst when truth is suppressed: and this part George will never be seen to abandon; nor, out of pusillanimity of soul regarding it, to inflict injury upon God, who commands to keep it. For it is ^D absolutely necessary to obey God rather than men. But since you have also mentioned magic art, it is said in the common proverb, that one should yield to children and fishermen from the first cast: but you, where or among whom must you consider yourself, falling into the same stumbling blocks after a thousand experiences? For hearing words about truth, you seek proof through the facts; but having already received this, you leap back to words as if words were the only teachers. Who then will help your contrition? What discourse will refute such great stubbornness of yours? Christ, O Emperor—but why do I say Christ?—the demons do not bear the name of Christ, but they fear and tremble, and having merely heard of Him, they vanish like smoke; yet what pertains to the works of magicians is of the demons

and thus they remain deceptions. But concerning those things which you learned have befallen us, Christ has wrought them: what therefore is there in common between Him ^A and the demons, or with us and them? How is it not clearly the work of men who fight against God and are deranged, to shamelessly attribute to them the power that destroys them?

24. But if these things seem great to you, and for this reason perhaps unacceptable, since you still persist in your unbelief and apply your mind to punishing and tormenting, you shall see even greater things. For what is impossible to Him who calls things that are not as though they were? And why should we who serve Him be afraid? Of wounds? Of death? He heals these in great abundance, and He leads us back from Hades, and grants eternal life. And then, what sort of death will touch us, if He does not permit it? Or by any of the modes you often employ, how shall it be brought upon us? Have we not endured claws, stones, wheels, swords, fires? These are all indeed death-dealing, but through Christ we have repelled them and conquered; and thus through all things our religion has been shown to be sound, and our hope firm. But why do I say these things to you, which are grievous to hear? Move gold to the fire, and you will see gold brought out again; apply us again and again to tortures, and you will see how much the works of Christians surpass the power of magicians and demons.

25. These things Georgius said; ^C but Diocletian, since, according to what is written, truth was not in him and he had pushed away knowledge, neither could he withstand the power of the words—no more than a weak eye can withstand the onset of the sun’s rays—but burning much more in his heart, he rose up in anger. And first, so that he might not appear to be inflicting torments on an innocent man, he called it a crime of a petulant tongue that he would not, at his command, cover over the truth with flattery. Then the Martyr’s mouth is battered, afterward he is suspended, brought back ^D to the beginnings of the torments previously endured: then he is whipped and struck with ox-hide thongs. Streams of blood flowed upon the ground, and flesh was mingled with them; and the most delightful thing in all these, was that Georgius was suffering, but Diocletian was in pain, seeing him remain without pain. For Georgius was cheerful, joyful, and of serene countenance, speaking to God and showing gratitude, as those who have received the greatest benefits are wont to do; but Diocletian was of a bitter and mournful mind, as if the lashes were passing from the one to himself, and a fresher fury surrounded him, since the executioners, as if set against each other, seemed to be devouring one another in turn, while he himself, openly destroying another’s flesh, felt that he was suffering the most dire things. Therefore, bereft of counsel and in despair, he suffered that which comes to dogs, and returned to his own vomit, again calling that which was happening sorcery, and not nobility of soul, nor fortitude, nor the work of divine power, and again arraigning it as the evil arts of magicians.

^A 26. Nor would he have ceased from crying out and asserting these things, had not a man trained to the highest degree in the art of magic been summoned, who proved him to be shouting nonsense and calumniating, even though he had not been called or brought for this purpose. But since what happened to Balaam occurred in a way here also—who, having been summoned by the king of the Moabites to curse the children of Israel, and being quite eager to do so, was compelled by a certain opposing power to bring forth a blessing instead of a curse—so too the magician, coming to convict George and to dissolve his incantations, and dedicating all his effort to this, did exactly the opposite; he demonstrated that George was a man governed by a divine hand, to whom the charge of sorcery could be as little justly imputed as crimes that rejoice in the darkness can justly inherit the light. He demonstrated this, moreover, not by crying out these things in words face-to-face (although he did this later as well), but by deeds, the power of which is far greater than that of words. ^B 27. For he already arrived, and this contest was set before him: to be able to persuade the Martyr, or to kill him; to persuade him to approach the gods of the Greeks instead of Christ, and if he did not persuade him, to kill him, so that he might not become, as he said, an example of infidelity and disobedience to others according to his own example. When these prizes were promised—gifts, and graces, and honors, and everything that, when given by an emperor, is falsely thought to make men happy—he, receiving that he would do this as easily as anything else, turned himself to seeking and preparing poisons, promising to give a proof of his art on the following day, and he departed; the assembly was dissolved, and the prison received the saint once again. The day of fulfilling his promise arrived, and all were immediately present. The poisoner appeared, exulting in two types of potions, as if he would enclose the entire struggle in few words; the Martyr appeared, to be delivered to death, as they put it. Diocletian also arrived, full of great hope, and a large crowd; all were suspended in expectation of the future, as to what outcome these things would have. On one side, therefore, the poison was produced, ^D which was such that he who drank it would become bereft of reason and would offer himself to be led and carried wherever anyone wished; the other, being a vessel of death, was stored as a second potion. But neither did that first one remove him from his senses anywhere, and the lethal one was lethal only until it was drunk. But when it was drunk, it belied its name, having worked no more upon him than upon those who had not drunk it; or rather, to speak more accurately, it caused both stupor and muteness, not in those who had partaken and tasted, but in those who had brought it and persuaded him to taste. For the magician who had prepared the drugs was immediately struck with stupor and was mute; Diocletian was struck with stupor and was in doubt; nor were the populace and those of the senate who happened to be present on that occasion free from wonder and astonishment.

^A

28. ^A And this matter indeed stood thus; and up to this point Diocletian was sharp in his pursuit of the tortures against him. For he had applied all the punishments, with an excess of frenzy, as if they were but one, without providing even the respite of a moment; but when he saw that his own swords were finally exhausted, and the javelins were spent, and that whatsoever had been done had profited no more than if they had been applied against a statue or a shadow, having renounced that way of fighting as if he disapproved of it, he entered upon another: not even then deviating in the least from his savagery, but industriously and maliciously disguising it. For he reasoned within himself that if one applies cruelty to more noble spirits, one renders them by that very fact more confident, but if the words have been tempered by a certain gentleness and lightness, at length he will have them softened and obedient to him; for even iron, they say, is smoothed by oil, however soft the one may be and however hard the other. What then? He assumes a mask of gentleness; he is transformed from the most severe into one honeyed and bland; then, having gazed upon him more benignly than was his custom, and having discarded the ferocity of his voice: "You," he says, "O man, binding difficulties upon difficulties, have brought us to the extreme of desperation. How long, moreover, shall these things last? And when will you have rest? Is it then necessary for us to grow weary through every sort of trouble, causing annoyance to you out of ignorance, while we wish to reconcile others to you? Teach us what that power is which assists you, through which you have escaped so many and so great dangers. Teach us, I say, even if you were unwilling before; and deliver us from our perplexity, and yourself from restlessness and tumult. Or do you suppose that we are to be provoked to anger when we have heard the truth, and that we shall be severe toward you for explaining it? Do not, I beseech you, persuade yourself of this: we shall hear you most clemently and pleasantly; indeed, we shall even show you favor, as far as is right, if you lead us away from inveterate error." ^C And he added—not as if he truly thought this, but with as much lack of malice as was possible—that we might somehow at last be led away from our long wandering toward the proof of the word of truth.

29. But he spoke these things in another way, not in search of the truth; for it had been clear to him for a long time, having been said thousands of times by the Martyr, that the power of Christ is present to those who confess Him to be God; and that it thus makes them stronger than every danger, and capable of performing signs and all manner of miracles in demonstration of the truth. But this was dissimulation and adulation, and a way, if I may speak more ^D appropriately, according to his own judgment, if by any chance, having been sweetened by words, he might be lured into relaxing his resolve and being honored by him as if he were being treated cheerfully; yet he was unaware that he was deceiving himself, attacking with such words the great champion of the truth, with which [even] slaves are coaxed. For how could his wisdom be deceived by such speeches, or such great zeal for religion tolerate anything other than what is fitting to think and speak in this cause? And as for that love with which his soul burned for Christ, how was it likely that he...

it should receive some thought of letting itself be led ^A in any way toward matter? This is evident from what he did, from what he endured, and from what he said then to the tyrant.

30. “How is it,” he says, “O emperor, that you, expecting to hear things newer than those said before or yesterday, always propose the same question about the same things? Yet you shall not hear them, if the Word of truth is one, and simple, and concise, and clear, and if we too know how to honor the truth above all else. We do not speak out of tune, nor are we saying these things to those who inquire now, while corrupting the things that are by adapting them to those people. But if because you yourself ask, what difference would this make to those who always honor it as one and know it to be common to all, so as to persuade them to change it? Not at all, therefore, nor shall we change. ^B But if you truly say that you love the truth, behold from us words of truth, and again and again we shall speak the same discourse: Christ strengthens us, Christ delivers us, Christ works signs through us. If you seek some proof from works, you have already received it before, but it is also possible to receive it again; for we ourselves are ready to suffer everything for your sake. Come then again to the works, and use your hands, and spare nothing, so that you may know again that God is with us, dissipating your counsels against us.”

31. When he had said these things, that man was not wise enough to understand, nor was he seeking God; he was a man bereft of judgment, neither having nor receiving the knowledge of God. Therefore, he also imitates the children ^C of the Jews of old; for those men saw among themselves, and heard from others, Christ performing miracles, signs, and powers; and as though they had seen and heard nothing, they came forward seeking the same things. O senseless ones! You see just now, you saw yesterday, you saw the day before yesterday and long before that the same things, and then you come ending up in the same lack of judgment? Imitating these, Diocletian himself, having frequently received a demonstration of the power of Christ, seeks it again; yet he seeks, not as one who, having received the demonstration, might direct his heart and become faithful (for had he received the former, he would have become so; had he directed it before, would he have continued?)—but he asks merely for the sake of tempting, because, ^D just as those people were a crooked and exasperating generation, a spirit that goes forth and does not return.

32. Hence, passing over all other types of miracles, and turning back to the greatest of all, the resurrection of the dead, he commands that this very thing—and no other—be performed, intending to take the restoration to life, even if accomplished upon only one of the dead of long ago, as a sufficient testimony of the power and divinity of Christ over all things; yet he is ignorant of how little use this would be to him

once the miracle was brought to pass and had filled his soul with despair. For he who had formerly performed those miracles regarding the Martyr would certainly not be powerless regarding this one; even if Diocletian did not reason it this way, nor persuaded himself of it, relying on the impossibility of the command. Therefore, he pointed out a tomb and declared that a man who had been dead for many years was therein, and he ordered him to be raised, saying: ^A “Stand this man up, living, moving, sensing, and doing the other things that we do, and depart, having persuaded us, so that we have nothing further to doubt regarding other things, after that which is greater than all has occurred.” For who would wish to equivocate and resist any longer, having such a manifest argument standing before him? Thus he spoke. But who could worthily explain what followed? Or rather, who could worthily wonder at it? For not even this is easy, since the intellect cannot grasp the magnitude of the event.

33. From there, he lifted up the eyes of his body along with the eyes of his mind to the heavens, and at once he praised and exalted the great works of God so that they might be heard, and at the same time he reminded Him of His own miracles, and especially of the trophy won over death and the resurrection of the dead that comes from Him, and he asked that He might deign to grant completion to this intended miracle. For he was able with confidence both to make such requests and to hope; to make them, indeed, because he had faith that was capable of moving mountains; and to hope, both because of the dangers he had endured for His sake, and because of the infallible promise of Christ, which is firmly given to His faithful: “Whatever you ask, you shall receive.” ^B And indeed, as his prayer so purely contained this, God inclined, and a great sound broke forth from above, such as a hearing could not easily endure, and it astonished everyone with the intensity of its sound. And some invisible power upon this lifted the covering of the tomb, and to those dry bones the spirit of life was given. And upon this, the dead man quickly rose; and at this, there was a shout from all the people, magnifying, praising, glorifying, and confessing Christ to be the true God. The one who had risen from the dead began to lead this confession, and he preached in the ears of all, and performed the apostolic duty; at one moment exhorting them to follow Christ, and at another turning them away from the cult of idols, and urging them to accept him as a worthy witness, he who had cast off bodily darkness and had learned how great is the gain in Christ, and how great the unhappiness of eternal fire, and darkness, and the worm, and every kind of evil that awaits those who join themselves to demons. ^C

34. I know that this miracle is difficult for the ears of the incredulous to accept, for nothing of what is beautiful seems trustworthy to them; but it will easily find acceptance among the pious. For if Christ is truthful, who promised that those who believe in Him would perform greater signs than He Himself did, and Christ performed thousands of such signs, who then among the flock of Christ would doubt this, hearing first of Elijah and

^A? The Gentiles themselves, however much they may babble about their own demons and gods insofar as they are able, nevertheless confess that this power is greater than theirs. This also instilled in the multitudes a greater estimation of the truth of the Christian religion than all other things; it drew very many to Christ, persuading them to approach Him in crowds and without any fixed number, to whom also were immediately given the down payments of the greatest rewards, proposed for such a confession. For who could recount how many miracles followed after these, how many and how long-standing diseases were healed, and how great was the power that exerted itself, surpassing the order of nature? How the blind began to see after receiving the light of the inner eye? How the lame had their feet strengthened? How every kind of malady fled away? And even if you speak of the violent attacks of demons, not even this could endure for a moment against being driven away, if only one approached with faith.

^B 35. But how could one pass over the miracle regarding Glycerius? He was a farmer and was always occupied with the land, which he was at that time plowing with joined oxen. And when one of the yoke-oxen had slipped and died, he—not being unacquainted with the miracles then being wrought by saint George—ran swiftly and, announcing what had happened, begged that his ox also be raised from the dead. Having obtained what he asked, and being very grateful for the benefit, he would have no other conversation than that which was about Christ; and since he would make no end of preaching Him privately and publicly, up and down, he was beheaded by the command of the tyrant, and thus the martyr made his way to Christ. To him was added a second, he who had been raised from the dead, and who, speaking openly, had become a teacher of piety. Finally, a third entered upon the same path of martyrdom, he who had been a sorcerer the day before and earlier, but who was now a herald of Christ, having defected to the faith and renounced the worship of demons as being ruinous. And these are the things which happened regarding the miracle performed on the dead man; some of these things indeed have been handed down to memory, while others have been wrapped in silence to avoid prolixity. But what followed thereafter, it is also necessary to recount.

CAPUT V.

The final victory of George over idols: the endurance of capital punishment.

^C 36. Diocletian, seeing that Christianity was already blazing like a fire, having started from a spark from the martyr, and that it had been accepted by many and was about to be accepted by many more unless someone were to hinder it—which would be a most difficult thing to do—seeing this, I say, he judged that nothing was more urgent for him to do than to remove George from the midst. Yet he feared that he might be frustrated in his purpose, and he dreaded setting about the matter, being made fearful by the experience of former events. On the other hand, he could not bear that he should be allowed to go free; for he was, after all, Diocletian, and

^A regarding himself, believing that otherwise damage would befall him if idols were scorned. Therefore, entering upon a middle path, he shut George in prison, thinking to hinder the frequency of the miracles, since no one would dare to approach the prisoner, and thus the inclination of the multitude toward religion would cease. He was indeed able to put the plan he had conceived into execution—for the saint was handed over to custody—but the tyrant could not bring about that for the sake of which he had done this. For the Word of God, as Paul says, is not bound; nay, rather, the miracles followed even more freely than before, and the number of listeners and the faithful increased daily.

37. Meanwhile it is said, and truly said, that the Martyr received from Christ the signal of his departure to Him. He received it in this way: Christ appeared to him in his sleep, and said many things to him, by which he was filled with great joy and confidence. As He wished to indicate his approaching migration, He adorned the head of the Martyr with certain most splendid crowns, possessing an incomparable beauty—a sign of the glory he was about to receive with Him; and He promised that he would live and reign with Him, since for His sake he was being put to death all the day long, and was accounted as a sheep for the slaughter. So these things are related. ^B But Diocletian, hearing that his plan regarding the Martyr had turned out to be the exact opposite of what he had promised himself, did not persist for long in his intention of keeping him captive; but sitting upon the tribunal, with a large number of senators sitting with him and a great crowd of people standing around, he ordered him to be brought to him.

38. Again, therefore, hypocrisy is assumed, and a pretense of mildness and gentleness; and again, in a servile manner, he shifts to the drama, and, having no other scene to construct (for he could not otherwise), he proceeds—having gone through all kinds of torments and been repelled in all of them, as if dealing with some immortal being. He set up the scene ridiculously, as if he believed all things could be accomplished through it; for he to whom, as if acting against a man with all his power, he had yielded the victory over himself—to this one, as if he were about to act toward a youth, he approaches with blandishments (behold, I beseech you, the wickedness of the man) and with what and how great artifice did he not use? First, therefore, he began to utter praises, by which human ^C minds are most captured; and who could recount how great they were? He extolled his nobility, he admired the grace and beauty of his body, combined with fortitude and nobility of spirit; and then the sharpness of his intellect and the firmness of his prudence. For, he said, not even in extreme old age could one easily find such a man, let alone in a body so delicate and in an age so tender. Secondly, he heaped reproaches upon himself, that he had not felt shame, that he had not pitied him, that he had not treated him mildly or humanely, but had acted like a wild beast, cruelly and savagely. After this, he begged, and asked that he be forgiven for all things, as a father does a son. "For what," he said, "is the use of me telling you how many other things you shall have from me? ^D You shall be in the place of a son to this emperor, and enjoying the honor of..."

[post], after me, no one else will be left to share the excess with us; and to attain to so much, you yourself know how happy and blessed it is deemed among men.

339 39. These were his words, and these were traps—not at all against him against whom they were devised, but against the one who devised them. For he is caught in these, as in his own snares, as the proverb says; and being skilled at doing evil, he is countered in his craft; and as the Psalmist says, "in the works of his own hands" (for it must be adapted thus: "and in his own counsels") "the sinner is taken." And how is this? George seizes upon the words of the tyrant, and meditating on a certain newer method from this point forward to turn against the demons, and finally to set up this most manifest trophy, he pretends to attend to what is being said, putting aside all opposition; and so much so, that he wishes to go immediately with him to the temples, and to hasten on the journey toward the gods. And this perhaps involves some guile and stratagem, but it is not forbidden to deal crookedly with the crooked, nor not to oppose in a crooked manner the one who comes at one sideways. And this is regarding such matters; for indeed every method by which one escapes wickedness is a method of straightforwardness, and every design that one adopts against the demons is a path of virtue, leading without deviation to God.

40. And what need one say of the joy, the applause, and the congratulations of Diocletian and the idolaters at this, and the public proclamations summoning everyone to the sacrifice customary at that time? But when the assembly was full and it was the time for sacrificing, and all were intent upon the Martyr who was about to sacrifice, then suddenly the die was cast, and all that joy and complete festivity were dissolved, and mourning succeeded to joy, so that it appeared that that former pleasure had been clearly nothing but a dream. For the statues could not bear the presence of the Martyr, nor did they endure him as he drew near, but suffered what a shadow does when the sun approaches. He asked if they were gods; and they answered by gesture and voice, saying, "We are not." He commanded them to be sacrificed to, but they did not accept the sacrifices; but moaning and trembling, the demons were slipping away and withdrawing. And these things happened before he had threatened them; but when he began to threaten them, there was no longer any place to stand, but a certain tumultuous noise was raised, and a lamentable sound of gods bewailing, and as in a night battle or a fight of drunken men, they were colliding and being heaped upon one another, statues with statues, and gods with gods, golden with brazen, and both with stone, and with them were mixed the silver and wooden, and they were thrown down together and shattered; and there were together all the riches of the gods and fragments mingled, a brazen right hand by chance joined to a wooden shoulder, and a golden head resting upon wooden legs. Perhaps, however (such was the confusion of the divine members), parts of Mars and Vulcan [were joined] to some one, as we have corrected with a small change.

^A Thus at that time the gods were clattering limb by limb, becoming a miserable spectacle to the idolaters; thus also that chorus was turned into mourning, their objects of worship having been rendered useless.

41. ^B From this it is also clearly demonstrated how hard to escape from and how impossible to wash away is wickedness, once it has taken up residence and occupied a soul, so that the soul is no longer master of its own reins, having abandoned the intellect and become a slave to malice. For how did the Gentiles not turn to Christ, immediately upon learning at that same time both His own transcendent power and the extreme weakness of the demons? How did they not believe? Is this not the most trivial thing, which even an irrational nature could have managed to perform? How, therefore, did they perceive the impotence of the dead idols, and having perceived it, did they not reject them? Were they perhaps insensate or deprived of the use of reason, not knowing those things which were being done before their very eyes? But, as I said, when wickedness held such great dominion over them, no knowledge of the good could profit them, so much were they constricted in bondage to worse things. For it was fitting that all those present at that time should acknowledge the weakness of their error; but they did the exact opposite. Enflamed with zeal because of the prostrated idols, they rose up in vengeance: some were beating George, others were dragging him, and others were inciting one another against him; nor were there lacking those who were ready to tear him with their teeth ^C and they would have done so, had not the command of the tyrant, forestalling them, quieted their impulse, and brought the saint before him, not that he might spare the sufferer, but that he might subject him to greater torments and things graver than death.

42. ^D And there might have been further struggles and a second period of contests, had not God restrained [him], calling His athlete to Himself. But this [will be] a little later; for the present, the tyrant first mocked him as an ingrate, as one who turned his kindness toward him into laughter and a joke; then he called him impious and bold, abstaining from no insult against him. When all these things were in vain, and the Martyr retorted against him the impotence of the idols—and that they were not gods, since they could not endure his presence, adding their lamentation, fall, and destruction, and finally the hardening of his own soul, through which he persisted in being more insensate than stones and wood, although he used his external senses—when the tyrant was most vehemently struck by these reproaches, the gall of dragons was ignited, and the incurable venom of asps, symbols of a heart boiling beyond measure. His aspect, to speak with the divine Nahum, was as lamps of fire and as lightning flashing; his voice, however, was more savage than that of wild beasts, by which he ordered the executioners to be present, to bring torments, shackles, and fetters; fire,

^A a sword, a wheel, and all kinds of tortures he commanded to be displayed.

43. But when all these things had been brought into the open and were about to be put into effect upon the body of the Martyr, God overturned them and rendered them useless. And this He did, not by striking the tyrant with blindness, nor by hurling a thunderbolt upon him from above—punishments of which he was long since deserving—but by leading him to self-recognition through Georgius’s own wife, and by turning all his concerns toward her. For just as when someone is being attacked from many sides, he always turns his hands against those attacking him, so it was with him; but with God secretly goading him from elsewhere, he was immediately, totally drawn away from his original purpose, and began to be entirely occupied with recovering his wife for himself. He indeed applied great effort to this matter; but to everything he did or said, nothing could be of any avail: whatever remedy he applied was an impediment to his persuasion, or rather, it was a spur toward Christ, since all opposing things cooperated for good for the pious woman, just as Paul says concerning those who love God. Therefore, repulsed on this side as well, and carrying away nothing from all that he owed the Martyr except confusion and laughter—defeated in every contest, mocked, and bereft of many of his own household and of his wife herself—he no longer deigned to subject the Martyr to interrogation or even address him. But since the edict regarding his departure had now gone forth, ^B leaving all other matters aside, he pronounced the final sentence against Georgius: namely, that he be beheaded. He pronounced it, however, not so much to be rid of him as of those present, and being utterly despairing out of grief and bitterness of spirit, because he had been unable to overcome the Martyr, he, who had been accustomed to having nearly all men subservient to his every nod.

EPILOGUE

44. In this manner did the struggles of the holy martyr Georgius reach their end: and having struggled in this way, and having thus become a spectacle to angels and men, he departed to be crowned by the umpire, Christ; bearing whose marks and openly displaying them, he became an associate of His passion and was proclaimed a co-heir of His glory. The demons shuddered at his constancy; they were defeated, put to shame, and retreated, ^D to such an extent that they blamed themselves for having originally engaged with one who was invincible; and they also blamed Diocletian, because, having become an instrument for them against the Martyr, he had become, through those very things he had used for their purpose, an instrument of their own ruin and ignominy; and this all the more so, the more he strove to win. The angels were astonished at his patience, that, while being a man surrounded by a material body, and not yet having laid aside this heavy burden, he did not grow weak at the torments, did not fear, did not surrender himself to pains, did not suffer anything in harmony with matter, and was not alienated or diverted from his purpose; he did not waver to one side or the other, he did not look toward the ground, having been fashioned from the dust,

he did not seek his own ^A place, but was wholly fixed upon the contemplation of those things which the angels themselves enjoy, and striving to be assimilated to them, he offered violence to himself, as if he had renounced his nature and the common mass.

45. The choir of the saints admired this man, and surrounding him in their midst, seeing that the deficiency of each of them was filled in this one man, they felt reverence and pronounced him blessed. Abraham recognized in him his own faith, by which he was justified, and his love for God. Job recognized [in him] both the plague and the endurance, ^B and both praised his liberality toward the poor. Moses considered in him love toward his neighbor, but one far more sublime and divine than he himself had possessed: for the Martyr burned with zeal for souls suffering under tyranny, not for bodies occupied with misery in mud and brick; but he scourged with signs not Egypt, but the hearts of the impious; and he plunged not into sea-waters, but into the blood of his own, the invisible Pharaoh with all his power; and he endured other labors and battles, not against the potentates of this earth for a modest inheritance, to lead into it a carnal Israel, but for the heavenly kingdom, against the principalities and powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness. Elias recognized in him a zealot, equal to himself in coarguing impiety; but when he looked at him more closely, he could not fix his gaze upon him. For the Martyr did not flee from the face of his persecutors, nor, being hidden in solitude, did he privately lament the impiety of Israel; ^C but casting himself into the midst of dangers, he endured what was inflicted, presenting his body to them according to the readiness of his spirit. The companions of Azarias, and Daniel, finding in themselves only the confinement in the pit and the fire surrounding them, confessed in him all other things as superior. But what point is there in commemorating the others? The disciples of Christ, who have encompassed the whole world with the Gospel, seeing this great scion of their own confession, so bearing the name of Christ before kings and tyrants, and in the greatest theater and before myriads of men; so confidently preaching, and kindled with such love toward Him whom he preached, as to not in the least hesitate or waver in obeying that love in all things; and because he suffered alone as much as they all had suffered together, they exulted with joy, and as if receiving an increase of their own crowns and blessed ^D gladness from such a fullness, they considered the glory of the disciple to be their own.

46. Thus he appeared, even after such marks of a blessed departure, with the apostles, with the righteous and the prophets, the leader of the choir of the martyrs, gazing upon the primary beauty face to face, no longer in a mirror and in a riddle, [but] living before the Lord. For in him is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah saying: "And his plague shall be cleansed, and he shall live and obtain mercy,"

and is glorified forever. And ^A furthermore: And the Lord shall be for him into an everlasting light, and the days of his mourning shall be completed. Therefore He is found as our mediator and conciliator before God in heaven; and on earth, He clearly provides proofs of His grace and intercession before God. For to whom, while they aspire to virtue, does He not assist, lightening their labor? To whom, when they are in danger, does He not stand by as a helper when invoked? From what distresses does He not rescue, in what circumstances has He been lacking to anyone? A physician in diseases, a pilot in the sea, a champion in wars, a consoler in calamities; in a word, being a common benefactor before God for the whole period of his life, he displays a common solicitude towards us. Because of this, it is possible for one to see that even that text of Scripture is clearly fulfilled in his regard: Kings, seeing him, even if he were proposed in an image, rise up, being conscious in themselves of the great aids obtained through him; nations that did not know him invoke him; and peoples who do not understand him flee to him for the sake of the glory with which the Lord of all has glorified him; for to Him is due glory forever and ever. Amen.

ENCOMIUM OF THE MOST HOLY LORD GREGORY OF CYPRUS, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ON THE EMPEROR LORD MICHAEL PALAIOLOGOS AND NEW CONSTANTINE

Nothing is strange, most divine Emperor, if, being such as I am, and so overcome by perplexity and weakness, I also come ^C to increase the number of your panegyrists. For I have not feignedly acted on this...

nor did I shrink back or lose heart when committing myself to such a contest, which, in truth, even that eloquent Hermes—and if there were anyone else like him—would justly have postponed and hesitated to enter, knowing that I would not be confident enough in myself to show such boldness (for I would truly be overcome ^B by those of superior wisdom). But I have confidently turned to you, who are the most inclined toward compassion among all kings—and I would say, among all men now living. For knowing that you forestall the repentance of the fallen with your indulgence, and that those who tremble in hesitation are won over by the refinement of your character, I spurred myself on and, as much as I was able, took heart, and entered the stadium. Therefore, let no one blame me for irrational impulse or rashness; ^C rather, accepting this undertaking as most reasonable, let one praise the very eagerness and generosity of the intention—which, being great and stirred by a greater benevolence, appears very clearly through minor works, since it is impossible to show by works what I have in my interior intent. For neither speech, nor action, nor anything else of which one can have sensory perception, is sufficient to reveal and fully ^D declare its magnitude. And if David, the king and prophet—I mean the forefather of God, from whom Christ according to the flesh descended—brings forward not only the nature of angels and those of our own rank, nor only the heavenly and super-celestial world; if, I say, he introduces all these things as praising God, but also wills that the hymn should hang on inanimate things as well—not that the Creator is thus worthily proclaimed (for how could He be?), but that he believes the duty is incumbent upon him to celebrate God liturgically through all things: what reason, then, could hinder me, who have learned to think, from singing the praises of my Emperor to the best of my ability? For those who are well-disposed have nothing more ancient than to perform this most holy office. This, indeed, must be acknowledged, that nothing more justly declares the present Panegyric. And since I have decided with myself to follow the custom of athletes at this very moment, in which I shall begin the greatest of contests, I appeal to your humanity, O Emperor, that you might be propitious to me and encourage me as I speak; that you might be indulgent where anything is not said according to its dignity, and where, through inexperience in such a contest, I have hesitated, you might deign to stretch out a reconciling hand. For with this hope I dared to speak from the beginning. For if I am frustrated in my hope, my efforts will be in vain, and I will have traveled a barren path. But why do I stand as a suppliant any longer? For I already see you spontaneously nodding to my petition and promising to listen kindly to my words. I surmise this from your eyes, whose miraculously shining rays stimulate me to speak. Even if one were to show understanding toward those who commit themselves to the compositions concerning this subject—loving the intention rather than condemning the temerity—then he would avoid the opinion of not having done what is just. Therefore, ^C (as the meaning is clearly disturbed by that, for which one should write *οὔκουν* [therefore], as the codices hold).

^A If, O Emperor, I had wished to speak from the very foundation of events, and to describe those causes which the wisdom of God, that foresees all things, laid down from the beginning regarding you, my speech would have extended to too great a length, and I would have seemed to be composing a treatise rather than a panegyric. But since I have proposed to deliver a panegyric to you, I nevertheless hesitate as to where I should begin the task of praising you. For my speech, occupying all matters that pertain to you, just as in a pleasant and fragrant meadow, varied in its vegetation and varied in its bloom—while all things are set forth as having equal honor, and one is in no way inferior to another—hesitates and wavers as to which it should touch upon first, which it should pass over, or to which it should grant space, and it is caught in a strange lack of subjects. And [yet] it shall encompass all things, since it would not have a choice of where to begin regarding your rule; and indeed the abundance of ^B subjects, the bold and daring orator—which I am—still attempts to set forth your fatherland as a beginning, and to rank it first and second among those that are equally honorable. For I am driven by necessity to innovation, and I do things that are not proper, being straitened by my distress. Therefore, your city inherited from your ancestors, O Emperor (for let this be the beginning of my discourse), is celebrated by those who inhabit the continent, and by those who possess the islands washed by the sea, and by every man who considers it queen and calls it by name; and one who has merely heard of the city of Constantine, if such should be the case, immediately perceives the ruling city; so great is its dignity, so great its splendor, that with its name the concept of rule is introduced, and again with the concept of rule, that of the city is introduced, just as those who study such things say that particulars are reversible. For it, too, having been well-fated by its founder as to its future glory, was situated in a beautiful spot of the inhabited world, and there is no more beautiful place under the moon than that of Byzantium, one might well say. ^C For it lies in the middle of the earth, holding the extremities of Europe, and not at all lacking in being called Asia, or rather to say it more accurately, it seems built upon both Asia and Europe, and whatever other portion of the earth there may be, from there it is a beginning. It projects, elongated from the continent into the sea, meeting the dawn like the morning star, and to those coming down to it from the deep, holding out its hand in the guise of a benefactor. The Sea of Azov and the Euxine are squeezed into it through a narrow strait, and bring what they possess as if to the mistress of the city, as a debt. The Hellespont, filling the Aegean and the entire gulf of the sea, begins there, like the veins that go out from the heart ^D to the extremities of the body. Hence the custom has prevailed of counting it equally with the continent and with the islands. Moreover, which is most pleasing of all, it enjoys all the advantages that the continent and the islands offer, but is troubled by none of the disadvantages. The magnitude of the city is as that of the nearby sea. For just as the latter is not in the least confined by the mass of the greatest rivers that flow into it continuously, so our city is not changed by the multitude of its inhabitants, for whom nothing is more esteemed than to provide for you, Emperor, a worthy and most magnificent dwelling. And just as the earth bears all things, so the city counts men of all nations, Greeks and Barbarians, who seek their living in it or [come for] the sake of curiosity. There is found no air sweeter, no air purer than that which they breathe there; for in the summer time...

it brings no distress, for it renders the rays of the sun milder by the breath of the north wind and the zephyr, so that it seems to us that summer exists only in name; nor in the winter is it necessary to seek the recesses and caverns of the earth to escape the bitterness of the season, but one may walk about or ride on horseback with total safety, and do whatever one wishes with great ease, since nothing from the weather offers any hindrance. For in the city the seasons blend mildly with one another, and, flowing into one another, they change imperceptibly, so that they seem to be one and the same through their mingling, and they are moderated by one another, each contributing from its own share to the rest. Thus, then, the city, possessing such seasons, such air, and such a situation—being large in its extent across the land, and large where it cleaves the middle sea, varied and unutterable in its buildings, and moreover brightened beyond all measure by its populace and its citizens who are superior to all others—is by fair vote both the queen of cities and is called such. ^B

This city, O Emperor, being such, and having reached such a height of renown, brought forth your holy ancestors as a fruit most fitting to itself, and having been happily enriched by them as emperors—who, like an ornament, were distinguished and praised—it adorned itself with them, just as we see the earth itself using its own fruits for its proper adornment, not in any way admitting a beauty that is foreign. And to such an extent has the city advanced toward better things through this very ornament, that it appears to have surpassed its own self and to have emerged from an aged state to a new youth, just as we sometimes see happen in individual bodies. For just as our emperors easily surpass those who have attained the pinnacle of honor elsewhere, so too was the fatherland itself enjoying the greatest prosperity on their account; and furthermore, as much as our city stood apart from the other cities (for as it is the queen, all others yield to it), so did our rulers excel their peers and leave behind them an immense weight of historical achievements, aided by fortune as much as by virtue. But what is most to be wondered at is that the inconstancy of fortune, than which nothing is more common, never deserted the emperors, their sons, and their grandsons, but rather magnified them constantly, let alone humbled them. For at the time when the earth was pressed by common calamity, and the fatherland itself was afflicted in various ways, and conditions were being changed from their very foundations, this one family was never deprived of its glory. For Fate willed to distribute all good things to us through you, acting in the manner of a fruit-bearing tree, in which sweet and useful apples grow. But if the scepter also passed for some time from the greater to the lesser, it is no wonder. For for a while your reign lacked your family, only to be prepared afterward for— ^C

recovery, so that, having spent some time [in preparation], it might return to you with greater power and rush forth with brilliance. ^A For this reason, your father is the successor and heir of ancestral happiness, and the paternal inheritance of the family’s goods comes to him with the greatest possible increase; and, if one must speak truthfully, he has shone forth in his deeds even better than the prayers that fathers invoke for their children. If anyone knew that great and mighty Andronikos, he knows whereof I speak, and he will recognize the truth of my words from the deeds of the man. For he brought about many victories against enemies, some of which occurred in the East, others in the Western lands, and many trophies were raised by the irresistible strength of his right hand. His prudence and his extraordinary humanity were his hallmark, by which he was wonderful both in the eyes of kings and those bearing the highest dignities, and wonderful also to the senate, serving as a model of good deeds for them, drawing the multitude itself to act well and inciting them to moral honesty. ^B By this, God also granted you as a companion of life your wonderful mother, a prize of merit—(I know not how else to say it)—and a reward befitting such a man. If one wished to speak the whole matter briefly, and not—as Pindar says—to "temper the tongue with falsehood," one might call her a statue of the feminine sex and a beautiful ornament to the race, standing alone among all women, possessing every form of virtue that is found in the female. Indeed, it was necessary that such a foundation for your lineage be laid, and that you have progenitors: a father whom victory often made known, and a mother who is admired for all the virtues that belong to women, and who eclipses the rest.

But why should I speak at length, detailing the virtues of my parents, when it is possible to know the tree from the fruit and the fountain from the water that flows from it? You, O Emperor, are the truly sweet fruit, saving for the whole race, you who have sprung from them. And what happiness is greater than this? Or what could one boast of more? ^C I believe that your birth alone is sufficient for their praise, and that they are to be admired most of all for this, even if they had achieved nothing else worthy of praise from their own virtue. For those to whom it is permitted to be admired for the more perfect things, have the least need of words to procure praise on account of smaller things.

But having arrived here in my speech, and having already reached the threshold of your own advantages, I feel the weakness of my own powers, similar to those who—

through experience, have engaged with affairs, insofar as the difficulty is understood by me, but when it comes to your own praises, the magnitude of them. For this reason, I am afraid before I clearly peer into what is within, and I am sprinkled with sweat from anxiety, and I am at a loss as to what I may become. For, indeed, one can see those who look at the sky (for they stand wondering at what they see, yet are unable to speak or even to conceive of what is worthy of the things seen), and I myself have truly suffered this same thing. I am seized by speechlessness at the sight of your charisms, and my words escape me even before the attempt; perhaps this is not so much due to the weakness of the speaker as it is to the excess of the things themselves, and the inability to consider that such things can exist by nature, on account of their magnitude. But what is to be done? I must be bold even in my present state, and approach the praises as best I can, for the things themselves quite sufficiently demand indulgence for us; for where something surpasses even the intellect and is in no way contained by the tongue, it creates, I think, an excuse for the speaker, provided he does not fall short of worthiness.

God, therefore, O Emperor, having designated you from above as ruler of His own people, bestowed upon you all things befitting the rule, those of the body, those of the soul, and those of external matters, so that you are in need of nothing, ^B and especially since you hold as lesser all those things which others pursue with such zeal. Nature, therefore, can congratulate itself on those things with which it endowed you in a greater measure. For you excel in the excellence of your form, such that even those who are less handsome than you yourself are would be held in admiration. The harmony of your bodily members and the wondrous order of your parts are beyond reproach; all things respond by such analogy that nothing can be seen in you which contradicts the principles of nature or transgresses the rules of perfect music. Add to this that there is a robustness of form, and whoever sees you will, with Plato, cry out that you exhibit the idea and archetype of beauty. Hence, the eyes of the one observing you can never be satisfied, and to contemplate your countenance is a most delightful spectacle. But if the Sirens, as the poets recount, captivated the ears of their listeners with song, you did not enchant the ears, as they did, but the eyes themselves—a more secure sense; for your bodily form soothed souls more than their singing did; nor, in the end, did you drag those captured by your charms to destruction, as they did, but let them go filled with pleasure and admiration.

^D While you meditated on future things, many who saw clearly like prophets stood by you, because a man who has cast off the bleariness of the mind’s eyes enjoys the presage of future things as if they were present. But why do I say only that prophets are pure to the eyes of your mind? Is not the multitude, who see clearly, celebrating you with a unanimous concentus of hymns, albeit stealthily, which we now see with our eyes? For strong minds express the images of invisible things to the life.

^A And just as the rays of the sun, not yet risen, announce the dawn, so you too, Emperor, gave notice of the most glorious symbols of your reign, foreshadowing the pattern of what was to come. Thus, Emperor, you were an object of admiration from your very boyhood, and everyone who heard you or watched you did so with delight. ^B Yet you made use of no foreign examples, but followed those of your father and your own kin, training your hands for battle and your fingers, as the divine David says, for war: lifting the shield, brandishing the spear, and handling the bow, the arrows, and the sword with great skill; or, to speak more truly, you had no need of a teacher to learn these things, for better than anyone would believe, you accomplished all things through your happy disposition and without any sweat, things which for others constant in much labor and greater sweat.

How, moreover, could anyone sufficiently praise the constancy of your soul, the firmness of your character and intelligence, all of which showed you to be not a youth, but a mature man? Piety, as a ^C heritage and an unloseable treasure of your ancestors, encompassed you from your very swaddling clothes, initiating you under the guidance of your father into every virtue; or, to speak more truly, you had no need of a guide or a teacher. For virtues were not, for you, a matter of book-learning, even though our ancestors considered them to be things to be taught and learned; rather, as if giving birth to them within your soul, at the opportune time and age, you brought them forth individually into the light as a noble and mature offspring. Upon piety, as though upon a foundation, you placed courage, then prudence, along with the modesty and justice in which you excelled. Who would call this a golden, sacred chain, and to the many inaccessible! ^D And truly beautiful is the connection of faith with works, and again the conjunction and fellowship of works with faith, so that nothing is gained if works are dead, unless they be confirmed by the rectitude of dogmas; for indeed it cannot be, it simply cannot be, that there is virtue or that it is called by that name without piety. Nor is the concord and composition of virtues with one another any less beautiful. For prudence was mingled with courage, a bridle, so to speak, and a discipline, which skillfully restrains too great an impetuosity. But to prudence followed the fitting ornament of wisdom, the crown and consummation of it. For how will anyone seem to possess a mind or intellect, if not adorned with wisdom? But if perfection did not seem to be present in these things, not merely of character…

and justice, one might say, it serves as a most fitting upbringing, checking to a great degree the turbulence of movement; and the beauty of temperance accompanied wisdom, serving especially as its seal and preservation. For how will someone appear to possess good judgment and intelligence, if he does not pride himself on temperance? Yet, not even in these would perfection seem to reside, unless uprightness of character ^A also accompanies them and justice follows. Justice, therefore, was present in all things, defining perfection for my emperor and imprinting integrity upon him.

And these things, begun in you from childhood, have remained and grown until the present time; but now, as we recall our discourse to the beginning, we must start a little higher up. You possessed the gifts of the body, and you possessed the gifts of the soul, and in such a way that better could not have fallen to you: as a youth you were perfecting these things and rejecting whatever was more effeminate in the body. But when it was necessary to step into the course of affairs and to know by exposition those things which, even before you had experienced them, you had known through the greatness of your soul (for it was not fitting that you, enriched with knowledge through prudence, should limp in the experiencing of them, like those who possess a general knowledge of things yet err regarding particulars, because they have not been made manifest to them through sense-perception), you spent time in the palaces, ^B arriving well at the knowledge of those things for the governance of which you were destined shortly thereafter.

Indeed, that uncle of yours, the emperor (16), admired you for these things, for you surpassed your peers in beauty and those older than you in strength; and he admired you also for the gifts of your soul, especially for your intelligence and the presence of mind, through which he seemed to surpass all others, though he was prevented from surpassing all by you alone. For you showed yourself to be superior in these things not only to those of your own age, but even to the Homeric elder (17), and to anyone else who excelled in wisdom; for you provided not only thoughts that provoked astonishment, but also a tongue alone among all others that corresponded to what was conceived—flexible and sonorous, as the son of Ariston, Plato, says—and deviating in nothing, so that no one could be compared with you, nor even the elders of the poetry whom Homer, on account of the sonorousness of their voice, compares to cicadas sitting on trees, to speak in the Homeric style, pouring forth their sweet song.

And it was not only from these things which made you known among the princes that you drew the matter and first fruits of praise; but you also achieved admiration through those things which you displayed in war, when, for the accomplishment of opportune tasks through timely and sacred deliberation, you proved more excellent than Themistocles. Not much time had elapsed since the war was at the gates and the situation demanded a defender, and you, a youth, stood out as a certain singular figure among leaders (someone might call you a young Alexander among the Macedonians); ^D and there you revealed your nature to everyone much more clearly than before. For you led the army as

efficiently as possible, lacking nothing that contributes to good generalship. You fought in the front ranks, as if appointed for this alone and paying no attention to the order of the lines, or—to speak more truly—you arranged the phalanxes at the same time as you were fighting, you were present among the cavalry, you drove the infantry into the melee, and you struck the enemy directly at the heart. Just as we learn from Homer ^A of the most warlike of the gods, who would now dash in front of Hector and at other times behind him to strike the Greeks, such were you also, present in war, winged, as it were, and in every way appearing in the clashes and joined with everyone; and, a second Ares, you rushed against the enemy, far more terrible than the one in the poem.

There, even a soldier who felt dread of the battle, forgetting his sluggishness, would look at you and be steadied; he would throw himself entirely into the fray, and would charge close against the enemies; and he who was brave from his own nature would increase his enthusiasm all the more because of you. If perchance someone were wounded, his wound was no impediment to him in fighting; for the mere sight of you was enough for him, in place of every medicine and all consolation. For everyone, observing you in such high spirits, seemed to himself to be healthier and stronger against dangers. For those who are subject to a ruler generally like to fashion their own disposition after his, whether he appears to be faring well or otherwise.

And you remained in all things a fine general then, just as even now, by the good fortune of the Christians, you are Emperor, from the time when your beard first appeared until these recent days, having been involved in the dangers and combats of war. Others indeed indulge in hunting, whether with dogs or on horseback, and in the whole crowd of amusements to which men devote their efforts; you, however, had nothing to do with any of these—lucky if you could enjoy the necessities of life in peace, rather than spending whole nights without sleep. For it is evident that you endured this, or rather, you brought it about (I know not how else to say it), so that the things you had done by day might turn out happily; and the time assigned to all for rest gave your thoughts no cessation. By day you faced the points of spears and joined in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy, and you moved among the very first of those in peril, choosing this above all pleasure: that no enemy should remain, or even be named, against our people.

Nothing was done by you in battle ^D that was improvised, nor was anything done at random or without forethought; rather, there was always some judgment and prior deliberation in what was undertaken. How right it was that those posted in the army should be led by such a mind! For in that way, mishaps never occurred, but the outcome for all decisions was most fortunate. You, O King, did everything this way and overcame everything with ease, for you had as your helper, as Homer would say, an Athena—the wisdom born from your high and lofty mind, which was armed and invincible. If at any point the envy of fortune—as often happens to men—chanced to rob you of part of your victory, you easily restored the losses, and power appeared with you once again. And so you led the army so happily and so skillfully that you urged on the most prompt of your soldiers to do something vigorous, and the most sluggish to...

^A suffer—for you proved yourself most excellent in thought, in counsel, and in action—you made the army under you to be held in high esteem, and thus to victory you added continuous victories, and to trophies you added other trophies.

Thus, indeed, he behaved in war, and left to no one any superiority in vigor. But in times of tranquility and peace, or when it was necessary to deliver opinions on matters that had to be done, did he concede to any of the senate, whether small or great, or did he speak more than all, and attempt to overturn their opinions, as they say, and yet it was observed later that his own counsels did not turn out well for him? Or, when all things went prosperously and better than one could describe, did he himself refuse to confirm his own successful opinions by action, and instead deem it right to substitute another in his place for the deeds? By no means. He was everything himself: a fortunate leader, a skillful warrior, an excellent advisor, a champion of things to be done, a performer of deeds—in short, the only one who perceived all necessary matters and the only one who showed works worthy of the counsels of all. ^B

But since you had justly obtained the praises from us, it was necessary for you to proceed further even to the regions of the rising sun, and for your name to become renowned among the nations, and for you to acquire even a barbarian as a praiser of your excellent virtue, so that in this way your works might seem more worthy of belief by the testimony of strangers (for whatever is domestic falls under suspicion, because there is a danger that it might corrupt the truth, as it is stripped of its connection to kinship). What happens? How from the beginning are these things moved by a wicked and destructive cause, and one that is by no means appropriate for such an end! Envy is ignited against you by those by whom it ought not—a matter truly strange and unworthy of the Christian race. ^C But here it seems to me that what Plato said was expressed very wisely: that evils cannot be altogether absent, since it is necessary that something of the contrary portion be left behind to nourish the good; and also, as the proverb says, we have heard that a bramble grows also in the vineyard. It is no wonder, then, if this passion also found a place among us here, and that envy, which is wondrously cruel, stirred up a high flame, making your virtues, as it were, the rich material and fuel to be consumed. And this is not the only monstrous thing, although it is vehemently monstrous, but the wicked have also sharpened their tongues from then on like swords against you, and have taken counsel, but not a wise one, just as Isaiah and David have rightly branded them; here also "iniquity lied to itself," as the divine Scripture says again, and envy, which brings ruin most wickedly, did not prevail over an innocent man. ^D For God was not going to endure it forever, nor allow envy...

^A to speak freely about everything, lest the things that happened among us appear to be unforeseen—as they are to those who think everything is born by chance—and that the just might unlearn wickedness.

As for the Persians, you subsequently had them—by the nod of the Higher Power—escaping the ambush, and the barbarian land (you all know what I am saying, even if you cannot bear for the one who taught you to speak of it), even it, though naturally hostile, preserved you most excellently. One could call you another Themistocles among the Persians, or what is far more accurate, Aster among the Scythians, as the proverb goes. Yet even there you did not depart from your custom; you did not know how to conceal your spiritedness, or to refrain from deeds, or to show a humbler appearance, or to feign weakness. For ignobility was not loved by you to the degree that you would imitate it; rather, in that land too, you raised trophies in every direction and provided the Persians the means to prosper. You terrified the Massagetae, who were attacking like ^B lightning bolts, and—though no one before you had ever resisted them—you yourself, with greater military science and an excess of courage, stood face to face and fought manfully, and repelled their onslaught most fiercely of all men. And thus finally, both the fatherland and the foreign nation were able to enjoy your noble deeds, and there was hardly anyone among all mankind who had not heard of your fame.

Beyond this, you surpassed even Miltiades at Marathon in your deeds; and Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles—those renowned by whatever standard one might name—you surpassed by a wide margin in intelligence, courage, and patience of soul. And Demosthenes, who performed great feats at Pylos and Sphacteria against the Lacedaemonians, you yourself eclipsed by your own ^C extraordinary excellence. Pausanias the Lacedaemonian (whose glories were the successful battles, the many, many cities captured, the power of the Persians cast down, and the spirit and wisdom by which Sparta revived)—even he is a mere boy if compared to you. Indeed, the history of Thucydides praises Brasidas the Spartan as a great man, considering that the Amphipolitans preferred him to Agnon, his founder; yet it is not right to call his deeds "great" when your own are observed in memory. Scipios, Hannibals, and Epaminondases—the account says these too were noble men and skilled in generalship; yet even their deeds were only amazing until you appeared. Since I would be fond of them if they still counted among the living, and if they did not walk ^D far behind you. Thus, you eclipsed both the wise and the brave, and you raised a trophy of virtue over everyone; to such a degree has time brought us better things in the second place than in the first. These, then, are indeed most fitting to your reign.

^A Prooemia, and testimony of decorum from your works, that you did not enter upon the empire unworthily. For when it was necessary for you to receive from God a reward for so many and such great things, and for the affairs of the Romans to be restored through you (for indeed kingship seems to you to have been granted for both reasons: as a prize of virtue and as a benefit to the whole people), there comes to pass something most exceptional and wonderful, and truly a work of God. The storm of envy passed, that season of detraction; and you, moving from the higher region, arrived among us with a very slow gait, foreshadowing the spring of our salvation, and you took up residence among us here, whom you were about to render, before long, flourishing and fruitful by your splendor. And when you returned to the fatherland with such virtue and benevolence at once, armies and wars again held you, and again you illustrated our affairs with victories. For this was not a time when you could rest from these things: but ^B as if you had received it by your nature always to be involved in crises and to experience dangers in life—whether from us, or from Barbarians, or from any men whatsoever among whom you conversed—struggles presented themselves to you, and, an incredible thing! that which happens to others by chance (for men are not always in danger), this always occurred to you, and not in vain, I think, nor without the Providence which foreknows and orders all things. For it was necessary, it was altogether necessary, for you to have been occupied in many furnaces, that thus you might appear proven and shine brighter than refined gold.

Therefore, when matters stood thus concerning you, he who at that time sat upon the throne of power, ^C yields to nature and departs from fleeting things. But it was necessary for the people, brought into this necessity by the death of their leader, to be visited by a visitation from on high, and to be established in a better state. And He who sees all things does not delay to lift us up, nor does He tarry; but, hastening, He makes the visitation through you, and visits those whom it was necessary to visit with a divine visitation, just as He visited those oppressed by the works of mud and brick through Moses, just as He visited the same people when they were sojourning outside the holy land through Joshua, ^D just as He visited Israel when it was harassed by foreign nations through David. And He makes you king, and anoints your head with the oil of gladness above all the sons of men who share in the same nature, and He declares you, O King, the savior of the Romans and deliverer and guardian, and if any other name of a savior can be given, having ratified the title for you by your very deeds. This, then, was for us the first serenity of cities and restoration of affairs and transformation of our entire life for the better: from here the foundations of our prosperity were laid; God anointed you, your God, with the oil of gladness above your fellows.

^A This having come to pass, it checked the Fortune that was warring against us, like the rush of a torrent. For you appeared as the only one capable of standing against the misfortunes, and no discourse of those who were grieving existed any longer. You stood up, O great light-bearer, and the clouds of the enemy, which had gathered against us, were instantly dissolved, and it is not even known if they had originally existed. Thus your glory has become a common glory for the Romans, and thus all things have well partaken of your fortune.

^B And indeed, the things that one has to say before your reign are brilliant; yet those after your reign are much more beautiful and more conspicuous, and of such sort that they leave no room for hyperbole. And what do I mean by the things before the reign? The noble strategies, the contests against the enemy, the brilliant victories, the glorious trophies, and all other such things that you have performed while struggling, planning, by night, by day, in every time and place. But since you were established upon the scepter, you have surpassed others so much (how might I say it appropriately?) as there is a difference between an emperor and a commander of an army. For you did not tolerate—having been brought to the greatest height of honor by God, and having received the name that is above every name, among men—not to surpass your former deeds by a great interval, and not to augment your dignity and virtues accordingly, so that these might not appear lesser than the position itself. ^C It would therefore be good and highly becoming to touch upon these matters a little, and to take as much pleasure in our common successes as the present discourse will offer, if it cannot offer greater and more perfect things. For it does not even promise this (let no one be resentful), since not only are the voices of all, when proceeding individually, unable to surpass the deeds of the king; but neither, if all had come together into one as if by a signal, would they have spoken so as to preserve the dignity—that which is also worthy of all wonder, that one is not even able to say with the tongue what he himself, while acting, confirms by his deeds. And in testimony of this discourse: many men, both formerly and now, have been clear and good, and skilled in speaking regarding these matters; yet no one has attained to the end of the matters proposed. ^D For the most part, they used words as fittingly as possible, and went through with all accuracy, as far as human power extends, yet no one has appeared capable of fulfilling the worthiness, since the realities are always set higher and compel the words to creep upon the ground. For by as much as those things are difficult to attain, by so much does one’s weakness become evident to the speaker. Aside from these things, O divine crown of those standing by, when I say that the things to be spoken are "few"—comparing them to the whole ocean of virtues—I say them small; since these too, if viewed by themselves, are great, and a small part of them—not to mention everything gathered together—would have sufficed for the praise of one who is most ambitious.

^A However, I fear that you might not have had a satisfying fill of what has been heard—lest anyone think this—but rather that you might not depart having been seized with astonishment, reeling from dizziness, and overcome by sea-sickness and turmoil.

You, therefore, most divine king, as you approached this royal watchtower with such and so great grace, in a manner becomingly earnest, and girded yourself for an empire—which to you was no less zealously sought for than it was an empire by its very nature—you did not think it necessary to desist from labors here, or to use authority as a pretext for an easier life, nor even to do or seek only what was permitted to you. For you judged such things to be of a small spirit and mind; but, having considered matters from the beginning in a most royal way, you perform a work truly of your own wisdom and of the grace from above, which is also most fitting for a king to perform. For having lifted the eye of your soul on high, and having accurately encompassed, as much as was possible, every region which the circles of the Roman dominion encompass, you were not content with these, nor did you say that your fate was contained in them alone, remaining satisfied, as do most of those who have held the empire, because they were not also pressed by neighboring peoples. But you deemed it a danger, and beyond danger, if you did not extend the kingdom as far as possible and attack those who harass the empire. ^{B C} Hence, you look upon the Peloponnese; you look upon Boeotia, that Euboea, Attica, and ancient Greece. From there you shift your eyes to the lands of the Mysians, knowing that there is something of our own among them. You turn your eyes again thence toward Asia. You see the sons of Ishmael reigning most savagely and heavily oppressing the new Israel. You saw that city (though it is ambiguous whether it should have been called a city at that time), presenting the appearance of a Scythian desert; and you recognized it as it was, and upon seeing it, you groaned, reflecting upon the end to which our affairs had come, and [realizing] how we had become a portent to the many, a mockery to those around us, and a proverb among the nations. ^D Hence it was that you did not delay your defense, having immediately suspected the number of those who were to oppose you, nor did you bear to see your inheritance occupied by others any longer, even if the times compelled it to be so as much as possible. But, trusting in God, and simultaneously judging that most affairs are decided not so much by number as by prudence and greatness of soul, you turned your forces against all and renewed the common war, thereby demonstrating to all men three most excellent things: the superiority of wisdom, the excellence of vigor, and what is above all other things, the steadfastness of confidence in God. But how many cities you reduced from that time on—some by the law of war, others immediately making surrender—how you purged the land of Pelops, how you brought Laconia into your dominion and took possession of Achaia, and how you endeavored to make the Italians leave their garrisons like trembling stones, others who have learned it well mention and celebrate. For the rest, the Mysians are for the most part the Bulgarians.

^A For me, however, as I carry about a little cymbal of discourse regarding these matters, to survey such a vast river of affairs seems manifestly a work insolent and full of temerity. Furthermore, for us there are days of joy, and for you, praise throughout all your life; and thus far our affairs remain flourishing, while the affairs of the barbarians are rushing to a precipice, and their straits are increasing; and so they seek to live their lives as if in the night, because they cannot look upon your splendors: you would call them nocturnal beasts, which, not enduring to see the day dawning, retreat into the dense parts of the forest and into hideouts.

And anyone could recognize the truth, if only he would turn his mind to it. ^B Persians, Latins, Mysians, and in addition to these the Scythians, and whatever nations are most warlike—whether each nation individually, or all of them joined together from the east, from the west, by land, by sea, and from every region, attacking—they raided our land with great audacity, and like some incurable plague they clung to it, causing damage. And this evil, stable indeed and strengthened by time, would quickly, had you not received from God the power to restrain it, have brought our affairs to ultimate ruin. These things lasted until you were chosen, and the malady appeared to be gaining strength. But after you appeared, easily putting to flight the vexers who were most to be feared, they could not look you in the face, and their audacity, before your countenance, was as straw to a spark and wind. ^C But concerning that illustrious city in which you reign—and it would be just, having digressed a little, to speak of this; for from thence it will be most clearly seen how much more abundant were the heavenly protections that came to our king, on account of which he also seems to apply himself most easily to doing great things—and that city, which I know not if the sun under heaven sees a more beautiful one, being the seat of kings, and more especially the chosen town of God and holy sanctuary, it happened, according to the law of human fortune, to fall into the hands of the barbarians. ^D And let no one lay any blame upon our fathers, that they had no strength to preserve such a city, which was theirs; for nothing of what befell them, nothing, not even the weakness of its inhabitants, was the cause of the city’s becoming ill-fated. But whoever has brought these thoughts into his mind, reflecting that nothing among men is immovable or firm, and that changes are proper to the mortal race, and that the stability of man is to have nothing stable, and that man is a plaything of God, if it is permissible to speak according to Plato, turned and twisted as it pleases the One who turns him, let him grant pardon to our ancestors, and let him accept that it was necessary that this city should at one time fall; for it is impossible that being human, they should not at some point experience things contrary to their will. Therefore, the queen of cities necessarily yields, and becomes the unneeded prize of barbarian hands, and the eye of the world is injured by blinding, or, as 37 there is also this expression frequent in the Bible.

taken away, and all the inhabitants of the cities, whether on the mainland or in the midst of the sea, are struck dead; and disorder and confusion and innovation, and whatever else is extraordinary, seizes everything; and the heavens from above, I think, send down bloody drops, and the chorus of stars laments, and the moon, in the manner of those who mourn, undergoes darkness, and the morning star emits gloomy rays upon the earth, or rather, I should say, did not emit them at all, moved itself by the ruin of the city. Moreover, the earth soon bellowed, the air as if in sadness was deeply darkened, and the sea surged beyond its custom, as if it could not endure our calamity, striving to migrate to another place than that which it occupies; for it was not endurable that the ornament of the earth should be subject to such a fate, nor did it seem that anything of those things which are customary among men should occur while the city was in such danger. But it had to happen, and a certain necessity, than which they say nothing is more violent, impelled the matter; and indeed it came to pass. And after the city, according to the words of the Psalm, suddenly fell into desolation, ^B and nothing of what was in it remained in the place where it had been, for it had been thrown into a worse state by the perturbation that afflicted it—those temples, more beautiful than which eyes had never seen, nor ears heard, nor indeed could the mind imagine, were brought to the ground; public and popular buildings, which used to feast the spectator's eye with their splendor, were overthrown; the luxuries of baths and the varieties of porticoes that divided the city on all sides, and the enclosures and the appearance of the markets, were brought down to the earth, and nothing remained to be seen but mounds of rubble, which induce one to consider that a city had been here. After things had reached this state, it was your work, ordained from heaven, and your honor, to restore the city first, and to return it to its former state. For it was fitting that one should come into the control of royal affairs, and sit upon the royal throne, who had been predestined for this countless ages before; and at the same time, as I said in my speech a little while ago, that you were the only one anointed with the oil of royal power, such that no other man—this is manifest and secure in truth.

And furthermore, the deeds themselves confirm the truth of my words. For of the kings who existed before you, ^C some inhabited the city, and, abounding in wealth and countless forces and all things that serve for war, they made invasions and incursions and brought some nations into subjection; and indeed, these things were done by those who were most of all puffed up by their works. Others, however, inhabited the same city as they did, but they were not able to act or devise anything whatever, and it was enough for them to be ^D content, [index: entries preserved]

leading them, and this too, if they did not fall from the power they possessed. There were some (this is the third class of those who had seized the queen of cities) who were not even able to preserve this same thing, from whom the head of the empire was snatched away, and certain Barbarians and Assyrians exulted over the new Sion, and we suffered an unworthy ruin. Those who came after them, being men of war, and having waged and won many battles, as if unable to endure ruling in exile, attempted many things for their return, now by military force, now by stratagem, now by endeavor, from land, from sea, from every place and by every manner, yet they were in no way able to accomplish anything worthy of their alacrity. But thine own work, what is it? It is clearly a stupefaction and beyond wonder, such that it has nothing to which it might even be compared. Thou didst recover the city, by arms indeed, but without bloodshed, and the city which the former kings could neither retain for others nor hold themselves ^B, and thou didst seize the city which those others had lost, and contrary to expectation thou givest it to the Romans to enjoy the good things of the queen of cities, from which they had been exiles for a long time.

And not only this, but the city has also admirably resumed its own proper appearance through thy providence, and the surrounding wall has been most gloriously restored, and it is almost as if the queen of cities cries out: "I am the City once again because of thee, adorned with a more splendid beauty than that which I had lost, and wearing on my head the crown which time and the hands of the lawless had cast to the ground." Wherefore, even if there were no other signs, in the queen of cities alone there are thousands of indications of thy magnanimity. But of thy fervor in worshipping God there exist also many other testimonies: divine temples restored everywhere in the land of the Romans, hostels for strangers, nursing provided for the sick, the weak healed, and revenues dedicated ^C to their care, no less than convents and monasteries erected both in cities and in deserts, some of which thou hast entrusted to men consecrated to God and removed from earthly things, and others to women married to Christ for the perfecting of the soul and the maintenance of virginity, who have separated themselves from the world and the things of the world. I omit to speak of the adoptions of orphans, the dowries for poor virgins, the granting of means to those in need of sustenance, and everything else that was distributed for the changing of the life of all those who were afflicted, and how, through thy beneficence, the rivers of thy riches flow more copiously, and how, from this, everyone is stirred to pray to God for thee, for thy providence in preserving the people, for thy solicitude that they might not be infested by the many enemies, and for the long prayers and cares that it might grow and progress toward better things, for the sake of which thou givest no sleep ^D to thine eyes, seeking out our tranquility. And who could recount these things worthily, or what mind is sufficiently vast to properly comprehend,

^A even to express with the tongue, how under thy providence our affairs have come to such a pitch of power that, while the soldiers long for war, they cannot even glimpse one; or if it must be sustained at some time, it is sustained on the land of the enemy, not on our own. Are our ranks not in hostile territory? Do not our armies bear it and drive it according to thy will? Do not the Roman garrisons positioned in the lands of the Barbarians quench their onsets from every side? On account of which they do not consider how they might fight as they did before, but how they might do something to meet with thy benevolence and mercy. And so, one may see the Latins, instead of those proud and arrogant people, besieged and captured and no less humbled, the Scythians submitting, the Mysians surrendering, the Persians and Medes walking to supplication and falling upon their knees with the habit and spirit of slaves, and every nation and race of men falling under thy sway and, as though it were some better blessing, seizing the opportunity of living under thee. ^B For which cause our race, as if using a single mouth, more fervently than the masses speaks of and celebrates this happiness, and prays that thy empire, through which it has attained to this state, may remain for eternity; for it is not by necessity, O King, but by goodwill that it happens to be enslaved, nor does it bow down oppressed by force, but bound by yearning, it serves thy nod. In return for which, power worthy of a king is preserved for thee, both fortified and safe from all guile; for it is not possible, it is not possible, to find an empire more firmly established than an empire founded on love, and love is a sufficiently great guard for a king over his subjects. Therefore, it is no wonder that all things that thou willest are accomplished at thy command much more expeditiously—as the proverb says, than if one were to strike a chord—and if it is necessary for something to be done, it suffices to express the wish, and it is done, in this demonstrating in what manner and with how much love it behooves one to be subject to authority. ^C Thus, O King, most beautifully and most fittingly thou enjoyest their obedience, and they in turn enjoy thy good fortune and all other things which, strengthened from on high, thou art seen doing, saying, acting, deliberating, counselled, and accomplishing daily—for there is no other work for thee than to watch over the well-being of our affairs, nor is there joy apart from the happiness of thy subjects, nor any pleasure after it, and thou proclaimest almost through thy deeds: "This is the virtue of a reigning king, to neglect even his own affairs, if it should be necessary, for the benefit of those who are being ruled."

But, having arrived at this point in the discourse, I long to bring into memory something which is clearly the greatest mark of the Emperor's care, and which it would be just to show and recount in every speech and writing. ^D Danger (O, how might I say this and bear it in mind!) danger seized upon learning, and how great a danger! Education was being destroyed—a thing that had never happened from the beginning of time; art and the accuracy of the disciplines had abandoned the human race; ignorance had taken hold of everything, and fortune...

governed all, bereft of reason, and everywhere the seeds of the sciences, and, if I may so call them, the tinder of the disciplines were nowhere to be found. I except one logothete—let no malice be read into this statement—whom one might wish to call Aristotle, or Plato, or by some other similar name. Or, to distinguish more clearly, he is a man one would rightly call Aristotle, since in the study of logic or physics he yields nothing to that master in any respect; yet he is Plato whenever he acts the theologian or expresses the Attic elegance of the Muse—the man in whom alone, to use Plato's own words, every single word is clear, polished, and wrought as if to a standard rule. ^A For he alone survived at that time, or, to speak more truly, was granted to you by God, as if from a storehouse of all other goods. Though he was the latest in time of all those who have ever been wise, he was worthy to be ranked with the very first; as one man, he had gathered together every kind of education, and excelled in all things, so that he could not be compared with anyone in any respect.

When, therefore, you saw that letters were in such a narrow strait and that the most beautiful—and at the same time the most unique—glory of mankind was departing, having almost, like the Justice of Hesiod ^B, flown away from the earth, had you not reached out your right hand; when, therefore, you saw that matters stood thus, you, who were a benefactor to all, could not bear this misfortune. You did not delay in bringing aid, nor did you hesitate to meet the need; but out of zeal for letters you rose up, prompted by a divine impulse, and resisted that blind fortune, and engaged in battle against that disordered trend, striving to cast these down just as thousands of enemy troops, and you became a cautious champion of high philosophy. Then you roused your Mercury, until then silent, to use his tongue, or, as we say, you turned out to be another Moses, drawing forth from the rock rivers of silent wisdom and raining down manna from a lofty mind, satisfying with good things souls that had been starving for a long time—not, indeed, with the hunger for bread nor the thirst for water, which are vulgar, easy to obtain, and crawl upon the ground, but with the parched thirst and hunger for doctrine, which has the same relation to the soul that the soul has to the body. ^C From this, what follows? The expansion of knowledge, the revival, so to speak, of letters, the blooming again of the choir of the learned, the acquisition of disciplines whose names were not even known before; for it was necessary to know a great deal even to possess these. And, to sum it up, everyone was heavy with words and filled with the sciences. And this, O King, is a work, in my opinion, no less than those great ^D deeds by which you tamed princes and struck fear and terror into the lands; for truly...

to strike down a disaster which attacks the soul and strives to render that which is participant in reason into something devoid of it—which is exactly what those enemies perturbing things from without do—is nothing more disgraceful. Thus, by your means, a flood of good things has flowed down among us, and every saving benefit has come to pass, and our prosperity has clearly followed in the train of your fortune.

Wherefore, to anyone who considers with whom it is fitting to compare you, both poverty of thought and difficulty present themselves. For no one of the ancients comes to mind who might justly be compared with you; and if anyone should offer himself, I fear that I would make a completely discordant comparison, not by making it with a greater or an equal, as is fitting, but by making it with an inferior. For I see that all are surpassed by your excellences, just as all the stars are by the sun, and that they consider it an honor for anyone to be ranked first after you. Indeed, I even judge it altogether illicit to bring into the middle of this discussion those Cyrus’s, Darius’s, Alexanders, and Augusti, and any others who ruled over barbarians or Romans and attained to the greatest renown—whatever sort of men they may be. For what communion is there between darkness and the sun, or between luck and reason and providence, or between dreams and truth? Or what virtue could shine in a king if it were not guided by the hands of God? Or what glory, if the knowledge of the Creator be absent?

But if one were to bring into the middle those who have reigned according to the command of God, you alone among them have grasped all the goods that pertain to virtue and to God; but if I look at all the things in which they stumbled and, deviating from justice, tarnished their own virtues, you are as far from them—how shall I fittingly say it?—as the distance between the earth and the moon. You are enriched with the heavenly grace ^B and the power that works great things, and the long-suffering against those who provoke, which belonged to Moses, and with the skill in commanding military forces, governing the people, and the duty of leading the people to the desired land, which belonged to Joshua. You have emulated the meekness of David, or rather, you have possessed it by nature, together with clemency toward those who mocked you; and you have shown yourself no less fearsome to foreign nations than he was, for you have bestowed your genuine gentleness only upon your subjects for their delight. You have embraced the wisdom and the breadth of heart of Solomon, while being averse to the other things of his. And that I may pass over those who preceded grace and come to your namesake, ^C who first reigned among Christians, you possess his same fervor for the worship of God; you conquer your enemies with the cross, and you appear—or rather, you are—invincible in battle; and that you might present a more accurate image, you fortify a city of which he was the founder. And whatever of piety, of charity toward God, and of vigor and justice against dangers, and of excellence in the management and foresight of affairs, was in the great Theodosii and the rest, and in the Justiniani and those who arrived at greatest glory with them, and whatever...

of these was pious and God-loving, and noble in the face of dangers, and held to just ways, and was protective and provident and possessed kindness—all of that ^A you have enriched. And with how much growth! But whatever inclined towards irrational anger and an inhumane character, and untamed ways, and the punishing of us, and the yielding to bribes, and whatever of the opposite faction was slandered, these things you have spat out and cast away from yourself, reckoning them to befit anyone else rather than you.

Talis, king, you have been given to us by God, such you have appeared through experience, as never before had report brought them to us as famous, the sum of virtues, to speak summarily, adorned beyond all others, surpassing both the kings who came before you and those who were most celebrated for the sake of virtue. And indeed you fortify the rule with virtue, with a foundation far stronger and higher than that of the Babylonian. And your subjects, compelled by reverence for your virtue, are led according to your judgment and hasten to your nod, and everything that you wish is shown to be done, since also, that I may liken you, you are disposed toward them as a gentle father. ^B For you know how to rule your own people by virtue, but the barbarians by arms; and you keep toward us a mildness unmixed with the opposite, while you provide for your enemies even to be struck with terror by your very appearance. For which reasons you are twice and thrice and many times blessed, whoever ranks among those placed under you, and as if a child before a father, enjoys the king’s benevolence and grace. But whoever shakes off and strips away your yoke, if he has done this unwillingly, he seems to me a man to be pitied by fortune, and in no way has a prosperous outcome befallen him; but if he does this willingly and kicks against the pricks by design, he is wretched, truly having lost his right sense and by an aberration of mind, and justly would he be unfortunate, closing his eyes to the rays.

But, O king, because your lineage is truly divine, to praise you is the greatest of contests; and if anyone should attempt to complete it, he will find himself chasing things that flee, not unlike those who chase the currents of rivers from behind. For it is in no way possible to see these your noble achievements taking a stand towards progress; but they always progress and extend along with the hours, and escape the mind. And for me having attempted, though unable to accomplish anything, let there be pardon; for anyone would undergo this, considering to attempt the present labor.

Now therefore, here let my prayer, as I intend to cease, close my speech. May He who established and moved this whole from the beginning, God and Lord, knowing how to give life and to put to death, grant that this rule, and my king, and his children, and this city, may flourish ^D without ceasing, so that there may be with us an abundance of good things, and that they may perish, utterly destroyed and rooted out, whoever are of the opposite mind to the king’s will, whether they hold such thoughts now, or should intend to harbor them hereafter.

ENCOMIUM OF THE SAME WRITER UPON THE EMPEROR, LORD ANDRONICUS PALÆOLOGUS

^A It would have been truly fitting, greatest of kings, for one to approach the task of speaking about you who was not so unskilled as I, but one who surpassed in eloquence all those who have ever cultivated the art of oratory; or rather, that even he, when he was just about to proceed to speak, looking upon the magnitude of the subject, would have said, just as I, struck with fear, do, that the contest requires a greater orator than himself; for the undertaking is not of such a kind as to be easily brought to completion unless some divine help from above supervenes. Since, however, the sublimity of the subject, just like heaven, leaves all who gaze upon it equally below itself, our daring—even if we should dare to fall short of the dignity—would not remain unpardonable in the eyes of fair judges, if, after many and very great men who have hitherto treated this subject, we too should make the attempt. Indeed, if your deeds themselves had a voice, no one would surely risk attempting this, but the care of speaking about themselves would be left to them; but if they do not speak at all, yet it remains for us who speak to say something about them, why should we not use our words upon them as far as we are able, and dare to make the attempt? This is so that, having escaped from memory, they may not perish and fade away more quickly, buried in the depths of oblivion, and suffer injustice by being deprived of the speech that is their due—and all the more so because they are found to be worthy of this, being such especially as yours are, O King. ^B Indeed, your life itself would be treated unfairly and suffer loss if these things were not made a monument through speech, and if wonder and honor were not rendered unto it for all time.

Recently, indeed, O King, when I made an attempt at my own faculty of expression, and used to submit to it less significant subjects, which I thought I could easily and at times discuss, I would bring the matter intended to a conclusion readily, ^C

^A catching hold of the proof of one’s strength from there, I congratulated myself as being able to do something; but I was unaware that I was falling into this greatest of struggles, and that I would suffer the contrary to what I then believed, having condemned my own inability, and in place of the joy I had earlier, I had brought upon myself grief. For launching my tongue into the ^B sea of your good qualities, in the hope of bestowing some splendor upon my words, I persisted in this; wherefore I have collapsed into a sea of difficulties, and now I stand in doubt as to where I first began the onset, and what starting point I should grasp, so that I might have sped on a fair course and safely brought the proposal to an end. So if it had been possible from the very beginning to seem to have sufficiently excused one’s helplessness, and not to be condemned for laziness and lack of will, I would have turned back from the speech there, leaving the subsequent parts unattempted, out of fear of damaging them by my own meager speech. But since it is not possible that I should not be judged for these things, nor that I should be heard as not turning the confession of helplessness into a pretext, there is a need ^C to dare, as indeed we have, and it would be the work of God to extend a hand to us as we undertake the speech, and clearly to assist those in need.

The rule of the craft prompts us to lay a foundation for encomia from country and lineage. Therefore, your country, O great king, every speech that comes along—not to mention every historical and geographical one—declares to be the finest of all that men inhabit. For there being three parts, and no more, into which they divide the earth, Libya has been of the least account to the learned, as it offers nothing worthy of mention; but Asia and Europe, ^D long since contending with one another for the primacy, have not yet even now resolved the strife, ruling in turn and being ruled in turn. But your country (I mean your own, O king, over which you rule), grasping both Asia and Europe, and being considered and actually being the beginning of both, I do not know why it should not be admitted to be the best of all, being clearly the beginning and the preeminent part of it. For it was not fitting that he who had received from God supreme dignity should obtain another such country, whose entire glory—and all in which it excels others (for on the one hand, it displays fields that are fruitful and most beautiful and larger than the eye can reach, and on the other hand, provides mountains that reach up to the very ether, and further still, it brings forward perennial river currents and lakes and springs and every kind of discharge of waters, and from these and from the sea which is in the midst, it abundantly provides what is useful for life to the people who are here)—these, and the number of the cities which, since most are both beautiful and great, are an ornament to the region,

and serve as a protection to the land, no one, I think, even if he were to undertake to write its history, or even a very small part of an account, would be sufficiently able to recount. ^A If, however, one were reasonably at a loss for words adequate to these things, what will he say about the great and admirable city which bore thy golden race, O king? Or, since it obtained a position in the middle of the earth, it could reasonably be called its navel, since the boundaries reach to it and depart from it, and it contends against all the cities of the world at once in virtues? For it has obtained a situation the most beautiful of any under heaven and, as we said, the most central, and which especially befits a capital; and it borders on the sea, and that most fruitful and most abundant in providing all things that are of the sea to men. Hence it has straits ^B by which it is almost entirely surrounded, which are most pleasant to sail, most delightful to look upon, and most beneficial to dwell by—you might call them rivers, seeing their narrow bed and the steadiness of their current, and you might name them sea, if you judge by a different sense. There lie the seas: there, to the south, the Aegean, which seems to take its beginning from the Hellespont and the current of the city; and there, to the north and the north wind, the Euxine, which begins from the Maeotis and the Tanais river, and which pours out its whole stream to this very place. Both, as ^C if to a queenly city, bring gifts and convey everything here in ships, with the winds propelling them. And the magnitude of thy city is such that no other city matches it, since it is vast on the continent and vast also in the sea which divides it in the middle, so that it is ambiguous to which [the continent or the sea] it belongs most, as each, as it were, struggles to claim the city for itself, and resists the other vehemently. This, too, may be said regarding Asia: that it is torn away from the city by being cut off by the sea, which, however, neither dissolves its love for it nor turns it away, but it strives to stand near and opposite its beloved. And, exceeding its own magnitude, to those who examine it carefully ^D it presents a triple state; for its first site is subterranean, then it occupies the surface, and finally its altitude above ground persuades one, after the other things for which the city is named, to dare to name it an "aerial city." Now the air which is above its head, being most pure and most pleasant to breathe, is also most healthy; in winter it is not savage nor biting to excess, but harmless and gentle and tolerable to the body; and in summer, not scorching and suffocating, but tempered with a certain coolness, it does not permit the force of the rays, through northern blasts and the breeze of Zephyrus, to dominate entirely; and it is superfluous to mention how the other seasons are mingled, as this is clearly known from the extremes. And you would say that one gifted with such magnitude is beautiful rather than merely great. For while you might be able to express its excellence—the extent to which the city surpasses other cities—it is not lawful to say how much it surpasses them in beauty, and no number or measure of the interval can be found.

^A But such is the city that is the fatherland of the emperor; and I have omitted its great characteristics: the piety of its inhabitants, law-abidingness, justice, humanity, courage, and the other qualities by which it justly girded itself with the empire of the world. And what of the family? It is the most distinguished of the Greeks and Romans here, and has become an addition as well as a radiance to the splendor of the fatherland, increasing its honors from itself, and not as happens with others, using the advantages of the fatherland for their own personal glory. For on the father’s side, the Palaiologoi are the emperor’s ancestors—a family both dedicated to God by piety and every other virtue, and heroic and valiant in other respects, having brought forth great proofs of nobility in martial struggles and in every circumstance. On the mother’s side ^B the family traces back to the Doukai, from whom both kings and those who possessed great power under kings have sprung. The father himself is king, and he received the greatest name of kings, both from the trophies which he raised, many and great, against the enemies, and no less so from the fact that he happened to be your father. This, indeed, showed him to be distinguished, more than the royal power itself, more than the victories, more than any great achievement. For just as Philip, although great, became even greater on account of Alexander, so this too became a crown of boasting for him, and elevated him to the pinnacle of happiness; since, at the very moment of your birth, God signifies it, and the Romans, by His command and because He graciously bestowed upon them what had not been seen before, proclaimed your parents emperors. And the fact that great deeds immediately followed for the father and emperor meant that there was no need for oracle-mongers or any interpreters for the matter, but it was clear from this that God, who from afar was glorifying your kingdom and present affairs, and at the same time turning everyone toward you, ^C honored your birthday with great and favorable signs. For evident defeats of the Italians, such as had never happened before, and the events of that time concerning the Persians, brought the Romans to celebrate a better transformation of their affairs, and also brought them to clearly foresee the present prosperity. And it seems to me that if poets lived in our age and were present at the things which happened then, they would indeed have neglected to celebrate that story of Heracles—that the serpents which approached him when he was just born died—and would have celebrated only the events of your birth, gazing upon them with wonder beyond measure and devoting all their songs to them, ^D because two of the greatest nations were attacking you from your very cradle, attempting to hinder your rule; but, having attacked, they perished utterly, as your auspicious fortune, through a paternal hand, stood against them.

^A To recount in detail the virtues of your ancestors and of the kings who have recently appeared, and to show to all men what manner of man you are and from whom you have sprung, is, I declare, a task proper to writers and to those who compile history. But since the present discourse is not a historical work, leaving that aside, I say only this: that while a great glory has long been associated with your lineage, and while all other things have succumbed to change and lapsed into a worse state, this lineage alone was not subject to change. On the contrary, just as it appears to have advanced in magnitude, so too it appears to have advanced in glory, having become greater than itself in its progress, after the manner of rivers which receive the more increase the further they advance into the land and traverse a greater region. But you, appearing unto us from your very birth as an Ocean of excellence rather than a river, were to such a degree not in need of the tidal wave of ancestral glory for your own honor—even though it is added to you, who are not in need, so that you yourself have placed upon your ancestors a crown of glory and a summit of happiness, by further gracing what was honorable and by displaying what was renowned as more renowned in itself.

For what greater glory could there be for them, what dignity, what more splendid and more magnificent ornament, than that you, a great and truly divine talent, should have come forth from them? Whom God has adorned with all things that befit an empire, so that there is nothing in you that does not clearly appear to reveal a king, even in the delicacy of your youthful body. For just as it is impossible for that which you might separate from light not to be light, so too, in you, O King, there was nothing to be found that one would not describe as being manifestly sovereign and truly royal; and, on account of this, I believe that human nature itself prides itself, now that you have appeared endowed with so many gifts.

^C But to attain with many words the beauty of each of your bodily limbs, their harmony and agreement with one another, and the lovely radiance of your complexion—from which, to you, a beauty that is not feminine, but strictly manly and heroic, was composed—is something no logos will be capable of presenting. But, just as it is necessary for those who have doubts about the great luminary to use eyes and sight, if it be beautiful, to heal their doubt, and not logos, so too is it right to reason concerning this: to pass over words, as being useless in this matter, and to bring the senses of the listeners to produce belief, and to persuade them through themselves to obtain an irrefutable proof. For the beauty which it is now permitted for those who gaze upon the King to see, this is the very same beauty that is present for you now, desiring to learn from whence it was at the beginning; it is not some other beauty, but strictly that same one, having grown along with the other parts of a beautiful body and having settled into what is seen today, as nature augmented it in a similar and equal proportion from the beginning.

Further, the power of this naturally adaptable beauty of the body—

not like that which the children of the Greeks attribute to the lyre of Orpheus, exaggerating the account to the point of myth, nor again like that which they devise for the Sirens. The former was able indeed to soothe wild beasts, and stones and wood, and other inanimate nature, but it made men, and those capable of being soothed, rather more savage and resentful, as the Thracian women showed when they murdered Orpheus himself for that very music. The Sirens, on the other hand, while they conquered the hearers with the sweetness of their song and soothed them, would nevertheless destroy them in the end, as they foolishly paid for their song with their own lives. But the effect of your beauty is to captivate the eyes of all, and through them their souls, and to persuade them to run to you from afar and to be bound by desire, and to marvel at God, the craftsman of the artistry ^A in you.

And indeed, being thus equipped with graces from without, and thus with beauty from the beginning, you displayed the things of the soul to be even more admirable, hidden for a time and restricted by the immaturity of nature, yet shining through even then, as if in a mirror of that which is seen, and not dimly appearing. For the greatness of the soul cannot fully remain at rest, nor serve the appointed times while restricted, but there is [a moment] when, by force, it shakes off what obstructs it, just as the sun—like a summer cloud—shines through to those whose mind is not entirely clouded, and offers clear images of perfection, even before the time of perfection arrives. Therefore, even in your infant movements, it was possible to see the mature also present; and with the toys that time required, diligence was blended; and your lisping was not at all lacking in deep intelligence, but in every movement, steadiness prevailed, and in every activity and deed, prudence won out, with your inner excellences everywhere leaping ahead of your age. ^B Hence, there was no need for a Chiron as a teacher to instruct you in the arts of war, nor for another old man to accompany you, a guide in speaking and a guide in acting, such as Homer says of the Greek Phoenix who sailed with Achilles; for you had a suitable preceptor and teacher: your very own innate nature. It readily established you for the discovery of what was necessary, and readily, in turn, spurred you to pursue and accomplish it. If, however, there was ever need of a teacher, who else was this but the great king and father, whom I would say—and rightly say—surpassed all his contemporaries in magnanimity and keen-wittedness, had you not stood in his way, surpassing [everyone] to the extent that he (how might I say this both moderately and fittingly?) was advanced in age and conversant in life for more days, so that, while others marveled at one thing or another in your youth, some at the strange disposition of your age, filled with grace, which was growing—not only running toward a height, according to Homer ^C, equal [to that of a plant], but also in regard to ^D [the rest of the proportions], as nature, according to what we see, educates you with great diligence and [mastery of] every skill.

^A While others rightly praise and admire the strength and excessive robustness of your body, as a thing beyond nature and attained before its proper age; and while others admire your dexterity in shooting arrows and hurling javelins at wild beasts and at anything requiring it, and others your skill in horsemanship, in brandishing a spear, in using a shield as a defense for your weapons, and in easily striking down an enemy in the ranks of battle—for my part, there is nothing to which I assign greater wonder than to the gift of native wisdom that is in you. For we wonder at the wisdom and equity of Solomon, even when he was a child, and his prudence in untying certain intricate questions; for he was favored with diligent writers beyond all others, who were eager to make, as it were, daily records of all his deeds. But if a tireless writer were present for you, even though you had a body much more delicate than Solomon’s when he judged those cases, he would soon surpass the speeches and opinions of his history, recording deeds that were superior in number and perfection.

Ita quidem se res habebant priusquam ad ^B juven- tutis gradum devenisses: postquam autem illam adeptus eras, denudabatur animi magnanimitas, et rationis robur plane effulgebat, et simul crescebat de te admiratio et animos potissimum invadebat ardens amor, spes Romanorum confirmabantur, et omnis naturæ tristitiam magna futurorum consolabatur exspectatio. Præter his omnibus videbaris humanitatem et viscera misericordiæ induisse; et revera induebas et commovebaris generis calamitatibus, quantum non ipsi qui in illis inciderant; et si accidisset aliquem in pœnas incurrere, cum liberatus erat a damnatione, majore de hoc lætitia affectus et gaudio plenus eras quam ipsi illi sanguine conjuncti.

Hæc Romanorum spes erigebant et amplificabant; ^C hæc et præterea prudentia et mirabilis sapientia quibus maxime omnium tuum genus præditum erat incitabant illos pro te deprecari. Non enim erat ut patri assidens, consilio proposito de bellicis certaminibus aut alia necessitate, seniorum ducum peritiam et sapientium aliunde senatorum prudentiam non superaveris, atque optimam protuleris sententiam, et quæ potissimam rebus publicis consulere potuit. Unde et tropæorum et victoriarum, quas ubique Illyriorum terræ et Peloponnesi et Acarnaniæ et iterum Asiæ et Phrygiæ et versus Mæandrum Cariæ, Romanorum manus patraverunt, regem et patrem tuum, post Deum, dicet aliquis auctorem fuisse; sed tibi potissimum, divinissime rex, non minus quam ^D patri illorum causam ascribet, si hæccine perspiciat: ille dies transigebat deliberando? et tu transigebas; noctes totas præterea consumebat consulendo? tu quoque pernoctabas; negotiis distractus erat? Pariter et eras distractus, et tantum

^A in youth didst thou grant relief, as no one would willingly assign to himself the greatest of miseries and toils.

Nor was your protective care ^B towards the Romans and the inheritance given you by God shown only to this extent, nor did you provide assistance to affairs from afar, sitting merely in the palace; but by setting out—and often setting out—and standing by those in individual need, and especially by those lacking defense, you provided aid with great abundance, and you brought them complete recovery. The region surrounding Philadelphia 9 has many deeds of your providence and presence to recount; Mysia, Maeonia, and upper Lydia have them too, and no less does Ionia and the Asia that surrounds it. For there is no city, no territory, nor any other place that, having enjoyed your presence, did not simultaneously come away having enjoyed some benefit. For whether one saw the neighboring Barbarians put to flight, or slaughtered, or captured, or suffering some similar fate, and celebrated their defeat; or whether some town received you and was delivered from incursions, becoming ^C more fortified and secure than it was before; or whether a soldier was garrisoned in the forts 10 and became more terrifying to those wishing to approach for the sake of plunder; or whether it had some other token of salvation, it everywhere proclaimed your wonderful providence. Indeed, just as shadows behave when the sun approaches, that is precisely what every gathering of Barbarians seemed to experience the moment you drew near: they were scattered and dissolved, unable to endure your presence.

But these things that have been said—testimonia of the King's ^D valor and care—are far from the present time, even if they did not occur many years ago. But concerning the things that are closer and, as it were, before the eyes of the hearers, I could wish that the entire company of poets were present to assist my life, and that, being of one mind and having arranged a single voice, I might permit them to speak of these things. For perhaps they would have shown in some way how to touch upon the nature of the deeds, as each would have offered and contributed their tribute in speaking, since one would have inspired another with something from the grandiloquence of poetic power. But for me, whatever I might do, no small amount of fear arises. For I fear lest, having spoken, I may bear the charge of temerity and folly, and also of ignorance, if with a trifling and earth-creeping discourse I should diminish the dignity of deeds that are preeminent, since it befits one who is lofty to describe a lofty subject, and not one who is otherwise disposed, and who, having dared to speak, speaks to the disgrace of the subject. Again, I fear that by keeping silent, the causes of ingratitude may leap up from another side; for it is truly ingratitude if one is able in any way to speak, and then passes over in silence things that it is a sacrilege to silence. Choosing, therefore, the lesser of these two fears (for great is the evil [...]

^A and great the penalties for this), I shall proceed with my discourse. I shall certainly be pardoned if, while bringing every effort to bear to show my words to be rivals to your deeds, I inadvertently miss the mark.

Now, my king was already ordering affairs in Asia well, and, almost, had ordered them well, when his father and king summoned him to himself and to Europe for the deliberation and execution of matters of the greatest necessity, such as often beset royal power, providing the pretext for the summons. He was summoned, therefore, and that high and great city of the world held him. And then, upon the departure of the king, the Persian race—which surrounds our Asia, a race faithless to God ^B and faithless to those men who truly trust in God—is stirred up. Once puffed up, they gather together; and having gathered, they recover their spirit and take up arms, making now brigandage, now incursions. Since they were vast in number and were attacking from every side, they made themselves as turbulent and wicked as they had ever been in Asia. But you advance against them, and again, O king, more vehement than usual and like the thunderbolts from heaven, stirred by righteous anger, you fall upon them: then they recognize their own destruction, and then, as if to their own undoing, they dared to try your arms. ^C

But I shall pass over in silence many of the things you did in the interval: the counsels, the thoughts, the designs that ceased not by day or by night, the armaments, the preparations for war, the rushings to seek aid, the stratagems, the ambushes, the incursions—now open, now secret, as seemed to contribute to those making the attack—the persuasions for settling the war, and again the exhortations to war, and all the rest that testifies that you have proven yourself the best and most perfect general. Yet I will not shrink from speaking of that great token of your love for us, of your confidence in God, and also of your magnanimity, your vigor, and your stirring example: namely, that you never deserted the soldiers, but yourself led them in the manner of a commander; and, just like a soldier, were present in the fight and in the battle line, and soaked the place of the engagement with the blood ^D of the Persians. This deed of yours was recognized by the region situated between Lydia and Ionia; but another, most renowned, and that not many days after these, was performed in the vicinity of Laodicea; and before these, yet another, no less significant than them, the city of Philadelphia beheld done in its own neighborhood. Caria, on this side of the Maeander, also enjoyed no few of such things; and the central part of Ionia enjoyed many other things, where the great river Cayster, flowing down, nevertheless dyed its swirling waters with Persian blood. And Phrygia, situated towards Olympus—or rather Mysia—having received a great force of Persians, also saw a great victory of the king over them. In a word, upon crossing into Asia and cleansing it of the Barbarians, the king caused it to be defiled in another way, namely, with the gore of the Barbarians. Therefore, these warlike deeds of the king, (and some

^A of which the discourse omits, suspecting their number) are clear proofs of his concern for us. A pledge of this concern is the work regarding the garrisons, by which, having occupied the key locations of the region with a great many of them, he blocked the incursions of the Persians. But before these things, that which most testifies to the king’s concern, and that he wishes to provide every prosperity to the Romans and to work for it with all his might, has (how? I do not know) almost escaped me, though no one else is equal to it—I mean the restoration of the great city of Tralles.

For Tralles ^B was indeed a city situated in a beautiful part of Asia, enjoying a glory greater than that which falls to most cities, and being renowned among them. But it was so long ago, before the time which changes all things—and in changing them, destroyed those as well—and pushed it from the number of cities, tore down its walls, overturned its houses, and left it to be recognized only by its ruins. But until you, O King, the destruction was for Tralles and for time its triumph; now, however, through you, it is once again counted among cities, not because you desired ^C to be called the founder of such a city (for you were never a lover of empty glory, nor did you wish, like those who have no hope, to gain a great name upon the earth), but for the necessity of defending Asia and for its sole utility. Having therefore restored it, and through it provided a brilliant fortification for almost all of Ionia, and having restored a new dignity befitting the city, you granted it a sufficient number of inhabitants, selecting the best of them not from a single city, but from many, not only ^D so that they might guard the city they received, but also the ones they left behind.

The king has thus set forth examples of his other virtues, and continues to set them forth even more perfectly as he advances in time and gathers many powers in God; but what will you say regarding the first and greatest of his virtues, namely, his piety? Can you show its preeminence? Can you say there was ever a more diligent guardian of this good, or a more fervent zealot, or a clearer herald? And who was it that brought you back when you were wandering toward things that are not lawful to mention? Who was it that called you back to Jerusalem, when you were being led away as a captive to Babylon and the Assyrians? And especially, who was it that, when you were being carried by force from the East toward the West and the gloom that is there, caused you to change your course suddenly, and gave you to come back to the light, and granted you to be firmly established in it? Was it not this new Zorobabel, he who loved and honored the truth, and once again showed himself strong, and restored the great Jerusalem, that is to say, the Church? And

^A he who established the tower of your confession, which was being shaken and was in danger of falling to its knees and had all but fallen, and made it stand upright once more, and stretched it, unwavering, toward heaven, and shook off and cast down your arrogant destroyer and consigned his implements to a great fire? [(15)] [(16)] Indeed, we made a covenant, but not by God, and an agreement, but not by His Spirit (as the divine Isaiah says in due season), and for ten successive years we walked contrary to our own judgment, and from that time on we became a fable, a reproach, a mockery, and a derision to those around us. And the covenant (oh, the shame!) was to change good institutions and to transgress the boundaries which our fathers had set—and to what end? So that we might firmly hold the earth, we who were commanded to press toward heaven! ^B Yet, when this did not succeed, it is sufficiently taught that, after God had sent us and humbled us and taught us to seek Him, having bent and chastened us through calamities, there was a second attempt at audacity. For it seemed that they were now acting lawlessly even in vain, in order, as he says, that we might henceforth be purer in worship and irreproachable in adoration. Tell me, who are the followers of the sound faith and the teachers among all the nations? Who are the fathers of the orthodox dogmas? Who were they who provided to those among whom we were forced to migrate not only the accurate knowledge of divine laws, but also the understanding of the sciences, and who ennobled their mind and language through the benefit and companionship of letters? ^C But, furthermore, it seemed so, and according to what was seen, it was done. And do you there look with me upon the king; see how the zeal for the law of the Lord and for the covenant so disregarded consumed him; how, when he could neither bring aid nor repress the plague that was freely spread and invading all souls, he lived his life mournful and sad—even if it did not seem so—so that it seemed that a fire was smoldering in his bowels, and that his very heart was being seized by it. ^D

Against Veccus and the union of that time.

O Israel, let us return to God, let us turn back, let us lay hold of His testament and go forward towards the radiance of His light." Not even a violent stream of water, flowing down a steep incline and afterwards held back by some mechanisms, would be carried along as swiftly once the obstacle was removed and torn away, as the king, who immediately having grasped the opportunity, was swift in urging, saying, and doing these things. For knowing well that this order is best and most beneficial—that those who begin both speech and action should begin from God and find their rest in God—he himself, by laying a pious foundation for his pious imperial rule, removes every stumbling block and scandal from the divine court, and casts aside the stones from the straight and royal path that alone leads to heaven. He brings an unalloyed and pure worship to God, after having put far away those who adulterate it and make it counterfeit ^A.

And in truth, in comparison with this deed of yours, O King, the slaughters of barbarians, the enslavements and thrall of nations, and the victories against every opposing power, are nothing; nor are the plundering, destruction, and razed state of cities, nor again the erections and fortifications of walls and housing—or whatever one might call great among your illustrious deeds—for it surpasses all such things. This is truly a pillar for you that reaches to the heavens, this shows you to be most kingly, because whatever are the deeds of kings, this surpasses them by the royal standard. *That* alone is weighed along with this, since this has been accomplished with that in view, and is accurately measured to match it; that which Constantine the Great, the father of your orthodox kings, appeared to have carried out, combining his kingdom with piety, or rather subjecting it to piety; and he was deemed great, not because of the purple, the diadem, and the empire of the world, but because he had grasped the truth, had inclined toward Christ, and had recognized the one divinity of the Trinity. And of him you, O King, are the true son and heir of truth, walking in the footsteps of his own resolution, having deemed it better and preferred above all other things to live with Christ, as he did, as the head of all good things ^B. His deeds and yours alone come together and coincide, and are fitted exactly into one, so that, in my judgment, it is not fitting to call anyone else the "New Constantine" but you, whose mind and character correspond to his.

And indeed, since piety thus shines brilliantly in the King, it is also worthy to note this wondrous thing: that all the virtues that happen to follow along with this, he makes as it were living and active, and my King appears to be adorned with them. And if you are seeking proofs of compassion, of humanity, and of mercy, do not persist in seeking to take hold of these through words. But go to the prisons, and there learn with your eyes what you seek; see those in bonds released from their chains, see those seated in iron and ^C in poverty and afflicted... ^D

^A sent away into freedom and comforted. See, besides these, the recalls of those in exile, and the returns of those who had been driven into trackless deserts for fear. No longer do the houses of detention press tight, nor do those who flee their homeland live together with wild beasts, nor are the small islands of the Aegean, which no man used to inhabit on account of their discomfort, occupied by men sent down for any kind of condemnation. Observe with me the distributions of wealth and the generous grants—not, in truth, made to sycophants or to men corrupt in any other way, but given to the needy and those worthy to receive them. Observe with me, if indeed you wish to have a proven faith in his justice, that the inhumanity of the publicans and the harshness of the tax-collectors have been abolished. Observe also, if you wish, unjust writings and torn-up libels; no one who writes lawlessly speaks with impunity, no ^B slanderer approaches, and if he should ever dare to, he will not rejoice. No destructive man creeps into a public office, nor does he buy for himself with wealth the right to commit peculation, so that, as the Scripture says, he might make his own profit from public disasters by despoiling the people; for only he dares to approach the king and serve him who, to use the words of the psalm, walks in the way of the blameless, who speaks truth in his heart, and has had no deceit on his tongue, and has not slandered his neighbor. But he who is perverse in his ways, and at the same time acts and speaks unjustly, he did not set straight before his eyes, nor will he ever set straight. Thus through mercy and ^C judgment does the king prepare his own throne and his success; for this reason, the poor people bless him, and the cities of those who were unjustly treated praise him.

That the king, apart from other gifts, also cultivates learning—who is ignorant of this? For he is a burning lover of wisdom, and for this reason a philosopher. Not because of what he says (although he speaks marvelously, revealing the depth of his elder’s judgment with a fluent and unimpeded tongue, at once clearly and precisely), but by those things to which he applies his labor, he shows himself a philosopher, living in wisdom, mastering anger, moderating himself in prosperity, being confident in adversity, showing himself magnanimous in calamities, and judging that he ought to glory in such virtues much more than to boast of his royal power and empire over the world. To make the ^D sinner better, and not to destroy him, was indeed the saying of the Spartan Agesilaus, but it is your work, O King. For you do not love to inflict penalties and loss if anyone has sinned or slipped, but you overcome wickedness by doing good, and you turn the mind with benefits, having removed violence, and you do not restrain it by the fear of punishments. That the people should elect and give a young king who is temperate, magnanimous, grateful, mild, teachable, and valiant, is what the son of Ariston, Plato, demands [to find]...

stating that it is altogether difficult and an impossible task. Yet he himself also says that cities will then cease from evils and experience happiness when kings shall attain to philosophy, or philosophers shall reign. Therefore, O Plato, in addition to the other things you have sought, you also have a king who is truly a philosopher; it is time, then, for happiness to follow the cities. For while all your words are noble and worthy of the name of Plato, there is no one who will grant that any of them partakes of truth more than this one—for either it will never be possible for a city to be happy, or, if it is to be happy, it is absolutely necessary that it perceive its happiness under such a king and leader. For he is a young man, but what old age is better than his youth? Is it not supreme, both in the temperance of his life and in the control he exercises over every movement, and in the fruitful, sufficient, and stable nature of his knowledge, from which also comes ^B a wisdom and prudence regarding deliberations that is effective and complete in its actions? He is teachable and mindful, grasping the thoughts of others quickly, while possessing them securely, and not allowing even the most trivial matter to be lost to forgetfulness—at least as far as things useful and worthy of memory are concerned. But at the same time, he is also mild, and possesses a great share of courage and nobility, things which do not usually coincide in others. For it is difficult to find one who is teachable but not also keen-witted; and to find one who is both this, and once again mild and valiant, moving toward dangers with right judgment both in advancing and in retreating, this is even more difficult. But the king—the Creator having firmly fashioned him in this manner—is, furthermore, magnificent; so that even if someone were to come from afar and had never seen him before, even if he happened to be standing in the midst of a thousand men and no royal insignia denoted him, he would exclaim, having fixed his eyes upon his heroic and divine countenance: "How eximiously does that man resemble a king!" ^C Therefore, if you are looking, as is your custom, for a paradigm and ideal of the best kingdom, look at this one—if he has not been accurately fashioned according to the paradigm; and if you have not yet been able to find it, then establish him as the image, and bid others to look upon him as the archetype of fortunate kings.

These, then, are a few of the many fine qualities of the king, as many as I have been able to grasp in my mind and explain in my discourse; but since "to everyone who has, it shall be given and added," let us see what is given and added to the endowments within the king. And what is it, then? Is it anything other than the spectacle which the eyes cannot get enough of, the pleasant shoot of the wondrous root, that convergence of all graces, that new and great hope for the whole race, this child (24) and king, worthy of the God who ^D gave him, and worthy also of the father who, through God, begat him? His birth is indeed wondrous, having fallen on the most venerable, most radiant, and royal day of all (25), on which the Lord, having effected the dissolution of our condemnation, brought about a great trophy against death, sta-

- ^A tioning those great trophies of His that followed in, together with Christ, and clearly prefiguring from this point the overthrow of His enemies. And the advancement of his age is wonderful and extraordinary, being upright and advancing, and overstepping his years. Furthermore, it is worthy of wonder, the harmonious, firm, and stable symmetry—this of his body—so as to guess that sense has taken the nature of the kingship appropriate to it and is fashioning and bringing to light everything that is noble, imperial, and manly, just as we see lion cubs appearing entirely leonine from their very birth; and this, too, of the state of his soul, which, appearing graceful and bright, joins with it a sense of reflection, such that it is proof of a manly, noble, and unfailing strength of mind. Whence he does not busy himself with everything, nor is he impelled toward all things that are appropriate for children, but he restrains himself, ^B expressing displeasure, as it were, at his own infancy, and through the recognition of that which surpasses his present honor, judging it unworthy of himself to be carried about among children, even if otherwise, on account of his tender age, he is unaccountable and blameless.

But because I wish to say more, I fall into repetition, which is altogether inappropriate for those who praise. For those things which you, O greatest King, induced me to say about you when you were a child, the same things your chosen one—my own King—induces me to say about himself. For since your image is expressive, moving, and vivid, and partaker of excellent natural gifts, I do not know how I would sin if I refer the praises of you, established in an equal degree of infancy, to that son. But indeed, lest we return again to the necessity of recounting what has already been said, such a son has been gifted to you by God, O King, such as you prayed might be given to you; nay, he even exceeds your vows as he progresses in age, performing the royal office with you, being your companion in common cares, an excellent helper in councils, ^C very powerful in war, glorious in virtues, and admired in all affairs; bringing joy from these things to you, his father, and joy to the rest of mankind, and joy to me, the orator, who—if it be allowed to enjoy life sufficiently, even though I am now advanced in age—will permit none of these glorious deeds to pass by without honoring it with praise. And you, to whom no one can be compared (for I have no one whose deeds I might easily compare to yours), yet overcome yourself, by adding virtues upon virtues (if there is anything left that you might still add to your former ones), and glorious deeds upon glorious deeds. Overcome also the fervor of the orators whom time will summon to your side, and will surely bring many, with God assisting at once, and that best faculty of yours for choosing, which provides you with a supply of good orators and other holy men. For there is an abundance of such people, just as there is also of their opposites—I mean of the corrupt and destructive men—the cause of both ^D being the ruler’s own intent, as they say that the altar should suit the temple and be subject to the one who rules. In

soul, and if it is good, it perfects the good, and if, conversely, it is base, it perfects the base. ^A For the altar, as they say, is suited to the temple, and that which begins corresponds to the principle. And overcome the nature of words, proving by deeds that it is not, indeed, a matter of mere speech, according to the ancient saying, that the generating mind has the capacity to embrace and grasp all things; but there is a point where it also fails, not reaching the things set forth for examination. Thus, overcome! And live as long as it is possible for a man to live, with God leading you through the whole of your life, through the easier and better paths, and directing you toward the greater, and from power to power, from glory to glory—that is, from the lesser to the greater.

^B The present manifold and golden book was written by the hand of John Nathanael, who, while distressed by dire poverty, wrote it out through the expense and expenditure of the most noble, celebrated, and handsome lord, Mr. Antony Caliergus, in Gortyna, on the tenth day of the month of Elaphebolion, in the year of the Theogony [1541]. And in codex 2029, p. 65, I found this note: The gift of God and the work of John Nathanael.

GREGORII CYPRII CHRIA

^C I suppose everyone is eager to be a praiser of Socrates, whoever knows—I mean—how far he progressed in wisdom; but I think there is no one who treats him according to his merit. For what would anyone have to say about a man whom the Pythia, in acknowledging him, judged to be not only wiser than others, but alone wise? And rightly so. For while all the rest were intent upon externals and appearances, neglecting the thing itself in all their discourse, he was a student of truth, ^D and did not stop at the visible through mere curiosity, but advanced even to the soul and peered into the hidden depths of the mind, not using sensation, as others do, as a guide for reflection, but using the mind, by which alone an accurate perception of existing things comes to be.

^A And surely the acts and discourses of this Socrates, through which he became the most beautiful archetype of the life of philosophers—and by which he showed those who had attached themselves to him to be better men on both counts, both by his own excellent manner of life and by his philosophizing about divine and human things in a way no one else had—would take too long to recount, and would be beyond our present purpose. Nevertheless, passing these by (for it is not possible to do otherwise), it is my intention to put forward one among all these excellent sayings, which is no uncertain specimen of Socratic wisdom: it is that which he philosophically discussed regarding reason, what kind of thing it is and how great a power it has over the soul as long as it holds its governance.

And what does he say? “For others there are other ornaments: but for the soul, its proper ornament is reason alone, through which it truly shines forth as most beautiful; so that, if it does not admit this ornament, there is a danger that the soul may prove uglier than anything else.” ^B Such are the things Socrates says about reason; and everyone will perceive that they are worthy of the man and his wisdom if he pays attention to what follows.

Reason restrains the impulse of the soul, and the desire for evils is put to flight by reason; and indeed, these are especially transformed into the nature of virtues through reason. For we know that courage arises when reason accompanies the impulse of the soul; and no one would reproach a person who desires something in accordance with reason as being evil. Men are considered just whenever, in the things they do, they apply reason; and one would not call anyone wise except those he knows have most followed reason. Through reason the soul is instructed in knowledge, and we human beings attain through reason alone the knowledge of things that escape the senses; man alone upon the earth possesses the capacity for wonder, and this, of course, is because of reason; and this animal stands above earthly things, led by the hand of reason. Inventions, all arts and crafts, are generated by reason; reason is the mother of wisdom, and every virtue has obtained reason as its progenitor. Evil has no place ^C where reason holds command, and every virtue is introduced through the freedom of reason.

These things, and even more, are accomplished in the soul through reason when it has seized its governance. But if something else rules the soul in its place, how many and how great are the evils! Immediately there is a disturbance within it, and a resurrection of evils, and of the other appetites and desires by which, when it is ensnared, it would not persist in wisdom; for movements contrary to reason and disorderly follow, and nothing becomes worthy or decorous. For since whatever evils are absent when reason is present must necessarily be present if reason does not remain, it is much in the same way ^D as night is the absence of the light that creates day, and as disease flies in when health departs from the body. Seeing all these things, Socrates the son of Sophroniscus taught that reason is the creator of virtuous souls.

For just as in a household where the master is in charge, it is necessary that all things be set in order most appropriately and that the administration be conducted in an orderly fashion, but if he is not there and the servants hold power, everything turns upside down under the rule of the inferior; or if you prefer, consider how, in a body where harmony and the ^A higher reason prevail, the entire constitution of it and its health remains completely sound, but when these are dissolved into asymmetry and a disordering of the temperament, other irregularities occur, and diseases and wasting sicknesses, and all those things that are the offspring of disorder—so, in truth, does reason, when present, know how to refashion the soul toward the better, while when absent, it allows it to go toward the contrary, just as would certainly happen ^B to a ship at sea if a skilled pilot were not present.

Wherefore, also, all who have managed to complete their life well bear witness to the Socratic reason in both their deeds and their words, crying out clearly by both means that they could not have accomplished any of the things that were fitting unless reason had, so to speak, taken them by the hand and led the way, as it was in fact set over them in their whole life. But to pass over others who in both speaking and acting agree with Socrates on this opinion, who does not know Euripides, in the places where he prays or rather wishes never to live, nor for this to come to pass for him at all, unless reason attends his life? By these words, he shows the same opinion that Socrates put forward in other words: that life is not to be desired if reason by its own nature does not so conform the soul toward the better that it might ^C possess it as beautiful, and bring along nothing blameworthy arising from baseness.

And so did Socrates philosophize worthily of himself concerning the present matter; yet he cannot be praised as he deserves by anyone.

INDEX OF THE LETTERS OF GEORGE OF CYPRUS

The sixty-seventh manuscript codex, an ecclesiastical Greek historical work, is an ancient paper manuscript of good quality in quarto; but, through the negligence of those who administered the most august Imperial library before me, it is mutilated by the loss of several leaves at the beginning. It currently consists of one hundred and forty-eight leaves. Contained therein are the works of Georgius Cyprius, who was called Georgius before his monastic profession, and who, at the start ^D of the month of April in the year of Christ 1285, was created patriarch of Constantinople by the Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder, and remained in that dignity until the year of Christ [1289], whereupon he [resigned from the same] around the month of June on account of...

^A various adversities which he voluntarily laid aside, and who died in the very next year, 1290. There are one hundred and ninety-one letters, with a Preface by an uncertain contemporary author—whose name is unknown due to the previously mentioned loss of some folios—containing his Life, or rather his Eulogy; which, being mutilated, begins in this manner: «...he desired words, but turned away as little as possible, etc.» It ends with these words: «And if anyone should testify regarding his character—either one thing or the other—I say that I bring it to my own account, even the mockery, I bring it to my own account and the praise, so that for me, disposed as I am toward him, it would be fitting to be silent. And the booklet, as I said before, will show the father well to those who read it; so that attention must be paid to it henceforth, and as it shall give to judge, so also must the vote be cast regarding the things said.»

Then follow the letters themselves, the first of which is inscribed to the Protosecretary Manuel of Neocaesarea and begins in this manner: «Letters of the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, lord Gregory. I. To the Neocaesarean. Some say that a speech has arrived from across the sea, the work of a man of no small renown in rhetoric from the beginning; they say also that the speech is of a nature to renew and augment ^B the father’s renown, already ancient, not to diminish it. Therefore I do not ask concerning the former, whether it has arrived securely; for it has arrived, etc.» The one hundred and ninety-first is inscribed and begins in this manner: «To one of the archbishops, 191. How those who desire to wage war against the Church and the state of affairs have been disposed, and how their malice increases the errors day by day, is perhaps superfluous to recount at this time, since, etc.»

Truly, all those letters are most worthy to be brought to light in Greek and Latin as an excellent supplement to the Body of Byzantine History, and indeed especially for the sake of the History of Georgius Pachymeres, commissioned by Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder, since it can be illustrated in almost every place by the benefits of these letters. For among them are many to that very Emperor Andronicus; likewise to Georgius Acropolita, whom he calls his teacher or master; to the archdeacon Melideniotes, who was a companion of the ex-patriarch Joannes Beccus in prison; to the rhetor Holobolus, who attended the synod against Beccus; to Theodorus Muzalon, the grand logothete and protovestiary; to Nicephorus Chumnus, the successor of Muzalon; to Theodosius Saponopulus; to Raoulena the protovestiarissa, ^C who fed him—already an ex-patriarch—generously in the monastery; and to many others, whom the aforementioned Pachymeres mentions frequently in his History. I also found there one, namely the sixty-ninth, to that very Gregorius Pachymeres, whose title and beginning is: «To Pachymeres. My most wise lord, I read the speech more than four times; but I understood it not even once, etc.»

For various reasons, it will be worth the effort to exhibit here all the Greek inscriptions of those letters individually along with their beginnings; nor shall I regret this labor, since it may also be of use to me and to others in recognizing and illustrating the sacred and profane history of those times hereafter. Their order, therefore, is as follows:

Index of Epistles

Epistle one: To the Neocaesarean. «Some say a speech, etc.»; second: To the Logothete of the Drome, Acropolita. «The canon, etc.»; third: To the monk Iasites. «My Clement and yours, etc.»; fourth: To the same. «We saw the fish with pleasure, etc.»; fifth: To the Meliteniotes. «My passion, etc.»; sixth: To the Neocaesarean. «For you to be healthy, etc.»; seventh: To Demetrius Veatkus of Thessalonica. «I happened upon you, brother, etc.»; eighth: To the mystic lord Joannes. «Dearest brother, to use a proverb, etc.»; ninth: To the president of Ephesus, lord Isaac. «When I come to memory, etc.»; tenth: To Xiphilinus. «Learn our, etc.»; eleventh: To the Neocaesarean. «Having been heard yesterday, etc.»; twelfth: To the physician, lord Joannes Theognostus. «A cooling of the stomach, etc.»; thirteenth: To the same. «The most necessary things, etc.»; fourteenth: To Stauracius, the chartophylax of Thessalonica. «I pray for you to be healthy, etc.»; fifteenth: To Theognostus. «White is the wine, etc.»; sixteenth: To the Neocaesarean. «To another, indeed, and etc.»; seventeenth: To the same. «You do not come for our sake, etc.»; eighteenth: To the same. «There is no book with us, etc.»; nineteenth: To the same. «If to those toiling in longing one day is a whole life, etc.»; twentieth: To Staurius. «But why are you silent, etc.»; twenty-first: To the same. «And lately, indeed, Georgius, etc.»; twenty-second: To the same. «Learn that this young man is ours, etc.»; twenty-third: To the same. «Mine is he who stands by you, and he comes to you, etc.»; twenty-fourth: To the Neocaesarean. «A whole four months (sic), etc.»; twenty-fifth: To the same. «Your peculiarity, etc.»; twenty-sixth: To the same. «Would that there had not been books of Aristeides for us, etc.»; twenty-seventh: To the Meliteniotes. «You boast of many things, etc.»; twenty-eighth: To Stauracius. «For the sake of nothing else, etc.»; twenty-ninth: To Athanasius Chatzukes. «Most honorable, you asked many times, which you asked, etc.»; thirtieth: To Scutariotes. «Asking now for the book of the Prophets, etc.»; thirty-first: To the Neocaesarean, lord Manuel, the protasecretis. «All, except a few, think you speak the truth in words, etc.»; thirty-second: To the same. «There was a time when speaking, etc.»; thirty-third: The patriarch to his own student, the protasecretis lord Manuel the Neocaesarean, leading a young life, before entering the solitary life. «If indeed according to the promise, etc.»; thirty-fourth: The patriarch to the same, still leading a young life, and before putting on the monastic habit. «How sweet you are, my good fellow, for the coming summer, etc.»; thirty-fifth: To Pediasimus, chartophylax of Achris. «And I know how to honor friendship, etc.»; thirty-sixth: To the Neocaesarean. «A speech to the most wise logothete, etc.»; thirty-seventh: To the bishop of Priene. «When on the one hand master or priest (papas), now on the other hand physician, and a little later than those now, chief physician, etc.»; thirty-eighth: To the Logothete of the Drome, Acropolita. «I had many things, etc.»; thirty-ninth: To the Neocaesarean. «I have no paper, etc.»; fortieth:

^A To one of my students. «I do not blame you regarding the letters, etc.»; forty-first: To the same. «I blamed you, I admit; for let the blame be spoken, etc.»; forty-second: To the learned Lord Nikephoros Choumnos. «When you were setting out with us, etc.»; forty-third: To the Neocaesarean. «It was decided for me to write to you, etc.»; forty-fourth: To the same. «The father of the discourse seems, regarding Aristotle, to be at fault, etc.»; forty-fifth: To the same. «I do not wish to accuse you of anything, etc.»; forty-sixth: To the same. «One of my students once, etc.»; forty-seventh: To Deacon Kallistos. «My most longed-for master, for many days now, as I have been searching for Aristotle’s Ethics, etc.»; forty-eighth: From the same to himself as if from another. «They say that sweet is the prey, etc.»; forty-ninth: To the Neocaesarean. «Why have you come upon this, etc.»; fiftieth: From the same to himself as if from another. «I know my own weakness regarding discourses, I know also your precision regarding these, etc.»; fifty-first: To the Neocaesarean. «What among others, etc.»; fifty-second: To the Logothete of the Postal Service, Pepagomenos. «I used to think that the matters were words of others, etc.»; fifty-third: The Grand Logothete to the Patriarch. «But I was ashamed to show it, etc.»; fifty-fourth: To the Grand Logothete. «I do not judge the discourse as worthy of praise, etc.»; fifty-fifth: To the same. «Accept the discourse, having been read often by us and admired, etc.»; fifty-sixth: To the same. «Having read your discourse, etc.»; ^B fifty-seventh: To the Neocaesarean and to Choumnos. «I know that they are wicked children, etc.»; fifty-eighth: To Skoutariotes. «I wished to say, etc.»; fifty-ninth: To the Neocaesarean. «Having promised to send the book, etc.»; sixtieth: To the Grand Logothete. «Quite recently the bitter news about your beloved one overtook us, etc.»; sixty-first: To the same. «Now the need compels, etc.»; sixty-second: To the Neocaesarean. «Having long intended to write to you, etc.»; sixty-third: To Sapanoples. «These words in hand, etc.»; sixty-fourth: To the same. «Just as I know it to be true, so do I know your words to be trustworthy, etc.»; sixty-fifth: To the same. «It is not far from the passion of the sophists, etc.»; sixty-sixth: To the Meliteniotes. «There was a time when the much-famed imperial corn, etc.»; sixty-seventh: To the Neocaesarean. «Perhaps you are seeking some time to come to us, etc.»; sixty-eighth: To the same. «Before many days, etc.»; sixty-ninth: To Pachymeres. «My most wise master, I read the discourse more than four times, etc.»; seventieth: To the Neocaesarean. «That man seemed to send letters to us, etc.»; seventy-first: To the monk Iasites. «He who hands you the letter, etc.»; seventy-second: To the Meliteniotes. «I pray to God that you yourself may be in health, etc.»; seventy-third: To the monk Lord Methodios. «You ask what the simplicity of the letters to you signifies, etc.»; seventy-fourth: To the Koretes monk Agathon. «We are still burdened with things that are painful, etc.»; seventy-fifth: To the Meliteniotes. «Behold, I have sent you another Aristides book, etc.»; seventy-sixth: To Staurakios. «The time since you [were] for me the reverend head, etc.»; seventy-seventh: To the same. «Up and down your letters, etc.»; seventy-eighth: To Georgios Marmaras. «Since you received the parchments, etc.»; seventy-ninth: To the learned Lord Ioannes the physician. «Are these things good or at least tolerable, etc.»; eightieth: To Sapanoples. «I also praise you for the letter, etc.»; eighty-first: To Xiphilinos. «The book, behold, is now in your hands, etc.»; eighty-second: To the Chartophylax of Thessalonica, Staurakios. «The longing which you profess to have for us, etc.»; eighty-third: To the learned Lord Ioannes the physician. «Most honorable master, I do not think that you are ignorant of my manner, etc.»; eighty-fourth: To the monk Theodosios. «The wine sent to you is thick, etc.»; eighty-fifth: To the same. «That it was necessary immediately after, etc.»; ^C eighty-sixth: To Sapanoples. «If it is necessary for us to hear something from you, etc.»; eighty-seventh: To the Neocaesarean. «As for the time, that it is wintry, you see, etc.»; eighty-eighth: To the Meliteniotes. «Of some new things, that have come to pass, having been heard by me, etc.»; eighty-ninth: To the Koretes monk Agathon and to the Neocaesarean. «Regarding the book which you spoke of today as being with you, etc.»; ninetieth: To the Meliteniotes. «May the archdeacon be in health, let this be the beginning of the letter, etc.»; ninety-first: To his own students, to the Mouse-like Lord Theodoros, Logothete of the Generals, and to the rest. «Men, friends, protégés of Hermes and the Muses, if indeed, etc.»; ninety-second: To the rhetor Holobolos. «A satiety of all things, etc.»; ninety-third: To the one in charge of petitions. «Act as you wish, etc.»; ninety-fourth: To the same. «Your petition regarding the horse had not even one grace [of style], etc.»; ninety-fifth: To the same. «This second thing appeared, etc.»; ninety-sixth: To the rhetor Holobolos. «Whoever does not care for ambition is someone wicked, they say, etc.»; ninety-seventh: To the Meliteniotes. «If you are between sickness and health, etc.»; ninety-eighth: To the one in charge of petitions. «Having risen early today for me, etc.»; ninety-ninth: To Staurakios. «You accuse us of haughtiness, O good man, and, etc.»; centesima: To the monk Lord Methodios. «May you be in health, most honorable in Christ, let the beginning of the letter be from my prayer for you. But what, etc.»; one hundred first: To the same. «We have returned from our time away, etc.»; one hundred second: To Phakrases Ioannes. «I am convinced that many cotton-paper [letters], written only on one side of the pages, have been discarded at your home; but they are useless to you, unless perhaps you say that you keep them for kindling fire, but if you send them to me, etc.»; one hundred third: To the Meliteniotes. «Perhaps you will write, etc.»; one hundred fourth: To Doukaites. «The account that there were errors in the letter, etc.»; one hundred fifth: To one of the students, accusing him as to why he does not write for pleasure. «I do not know how to applaud musical instruments, etc.»; one hundred sixth: To Staurakios. «The one...» ^D

^A to us your Laconian letter; but I am, it seems, a man of many words, and, as Homer might say, unmeasured in speech, etc.; one hundred seventh: To Theognostos. «Would that you were as sharp in action, etc.»; one hundred eighth: To the official in charge of petitions. Noble and good Manuel, may you be well. This is for me both a prayer for your conversation and a preamble. As for what follows, our George, etc.; one hundred ninth: To the most wise Grand Logothete. «I think you have had occasion to see many, etc.»; one hundred tenth: To Melitiniotes. «That the book which was in the purse offered us no use whatsoever, etc.»; one hundred eleventh: To the Grand Logothete Acropolites, Sir George, who also served as his teacher. My lord and teacher, since, being guided by the better, you promised to give the book, etc.; one hundred twelfth: To the Grand Logothete. «Not a few of our friends ask us for the treatise; I mean this one recently composed for us on the great Dionysios, etc.»; one hundred thirteenth: To the monk Iasites. «You know my manner, etc.»; one hundred fourteenth: To Theognostos, Sir John the physician. «I touched no food of any kind yesterday, etc.»; one hundred fifteenth: Letters of the same most holy patriarch, issued in the patriarchate. To the Grand Logothete. «Did you see what John Theologites, of Macedonia and Thrace—according to some others, a census-taker—did to me, etc.»; one hundred sixteenth: The Grand Logothete to the patriarch. «I also confess gratitude to the wretched Theologites, etc.»; one hundred seventeenth: The patriarch to the same. «Regarding the letter of the virtue sent to me yesterday, etc.»; one hundred eighteenth: The Grand Logothete to the patriarch. «I was ashamed for myself upon receiving the letter, because he praised me so greatly, etc.»; one hundred nineteenth: The patriarch to the same. «I wished to begin from the verses of Homer in these letters, etc.»; one hundred twentieth: To the same. «And how many things do you think the Persians are doing and saying in our presence? I cannot bear to even listen to the men, but I suspect, etc.»; one hundred twenty-first: To the monks in Ostreidion, John Cheilas and Daniel. «Eustratios of the abbey, having severed himself from your brotherhood for a cause which he himself knows, has come to us, etc.»; one hundred twenty-second: To the rhetor Holobolos. «May every good thing from God be yours, O most wise and honored one, etc.»; one hundred twenty-third: To the Grand Logothete. «Every day ^B the delay increases for us, etc.»; one hundred twenty-fourth: To the same. «Not to send a letter to the patriarch of Antioch, etc.»; one hundred twenty-fifth: To the same. «The present Yrtakenos, being not a Yrtakenos from the start, but a Cypriot, since it was necessary for him to come to the City, has come also to us, etc.»; one hundred twenty-sixth: To Daniel the Glykys. «You arrived here, etc.»; one hundred twenty-seventh: To the Grand Logothete. «The one who led the monastery in the island of Chios, called the New, etc.»; one hundred twenty-eighth: To the same. «Neither he who left life, Chatzikes, etc.»; one hundred twenty-ninth: To the same. «A certain soldier, Chrysokompas, dwelling in the region of Paraskamandros, having a son from his first wife and living with a second, since, etc.»; one hundred thirtieth: To the same. «Truly there shall be judgment by God against all men in common, etc.»; one hundred thirty-first: To the Sebastokrator Lord John. Most fortunate Sebastokrator, child in the Lord of our lowliness; for we call you by such names, even if the things recently brought about by you, and coming to our ears, do not persuade us to call you so. You ought, being a Christian, and, etc.; one hundred thirty-second: To the emperor. December had the twentieth day, and we meanwhile were taking the royal city, having met with an honorable entry into it; and up to this point our delights advanced, but what followed was full of what disturbances, what tumults, and what dizziness! For we find that the majority were agitated by the letter which Bekkos composed and called an encyclical, and wrote into many copies, and sent out to all, if possible, and we find ^C that those divided into two, etc.; one hundred thirty-third: To the emperor. Strongest, God-crowned, my holy lord emperor, may God hear the voice of your petition, and may He grant all your prayers for salvation, against the intellectual enemy and son of lawlessness, etc.; one hundred thirty-fourth: To the same. «But we, my holy master and most powerful emperor, have not been delivered from the former annoyances, etc.»; one hundred thirty-fifth: To the Grand Logothete. «Concerning this high priest, I have already asked on a former occasion, I know, and now again I ask and I entreat. He himself is a poor man; for as a monk from the beginning, etc.»; one hundred thirty-sixth: To the same. «When we arrived at the city of Constantine, we did not fall into a very grave illness, nor, etc.»; one hundred thirty-seventh: To the emperor. Strongest, God-crowned, holy emperor, may the Lord grant to your life victories against the secretly attacking enemies, trophies against those that are seen, and a multitude of days with unceasing joy, so that if not before, etc.; one hundred thirty-eighth: To the emperor. «I hold the memory of your good deeds, holy lord emperor, more constantly, etc.»; one hundred thirty-ninth: To the Grand Logothete. «That we were asking that it be permitted us some days ago to depart for Byzantium, etc.»; one hundred fortieth: To the same. «Be well and rejoice, O great and wise Logothete, so rich in the approval of all virtue, etc.»; one hundred forty-first: To the protovestiarios... «He who has a daughter of marriageable age and cannot easily provide her with a husband because of poverty; he seems to carry on his head Olympus itself or Parnassus, or one of the great mountains, this one, etc.»; one hundred forty-second: To the emperor. Strongest, my holy lord emperor, other things delight others, but me, that you, having the great ones, are successfully accomplishing them from above; whence, etc.; one hundred forty-third: To the emperor. My holy lord, strongest emperor, against those who oppress the

^A inheritance of yours, or who contemplate oppressing it, may God lay His hand upon them, etc.; one hundred forty-fourth: To the Great Logothete. There are, indeed, in the city of Thessalonica some other monasteries that are under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate, and there is also that one called the Gerontion; but no men dwell therein, only women who are nuns. From this place, not many days ago, a letter came to me bearing the inscription, "All the nuns to the patriarch," and containing also an accusation, as great as you might describe, against the Abbess. How then, etc.; one hundred forty-fifth: To the same. Which your wisdom, I know, has published against the babblings of Beccus or any other argument whatsoever, etc.; one hundred forty-sixth: To the emperor. Indicating, indeed, to your God-ordained emperorship, etc.; one hundred forty-seventh: To the monk Athanasius the Lependrenos. Speeding you to the marvelous mountain, etc.; one hundred forty-eighth: To the same, who is still living in peace. I address you again, most venerable one, etc.; one hundred forty-ninth: To the Great Logothete. Most wise one, be it known to you that the Dorians and Peloponnesians who are in Perinthus have gathered together to Byzantium, etc.; one hundred fiftieth: To the same. The metropolitan of this city of the Iconians, etc.; one hundred fifty-first: To the same. The Pardopoulos family, who dwell in the port of the Peukioi, come to us pitifully, weeping and reporting their own calamities, etc.; one hundred fifty-second: To the monk. We, O divine one, as deemed fitting by God, are assigned to the common cares of the Church, etc.; one hundred fifty-third: To the Great Logothete. Nothing has been declared to us regarding the deceitful conversation of Proteus last evening, etc.; one hundred fifty-fourth: To the same. Will you laugh broadly, having heard that which, etc.; one hundred fifty-fifth: To the same. Having heard, I suppose, what it is that I happen to be doing, you will call the action an ambition, etc.; one hundred fifty-sixth: The Great Logothete to the patriarch. There happens to occur to those who have weak eyesight, etc.; one hundred fifty-seventh: The patriarch to the same. I wished, indeed, to have registered all the pages of the letters, to leave them remaining for the life to come, etc.; one hundred fifty-eighth: To the Protovestiaria, and to her sister, giving consolation. You, perhaps—my lady and daughter in Christ—not unreasonably will consider us friends, and having a kinship in the spirit, etc.; one hundred fifty-ninth: To the Great Logothete. The children of the Persian, etc.; one hundred sixtieth: To the same. Both yesterday and this present day, etc.; one hundred sixty-first: To the Protosebastos and Protovestiarios. This poor man's request is not "Arcadia," as the proverb says, etc.; one hundred sixty-second: To the same. The miserable woman from Karystos, etc.; one hundred sixty-third: To the same. The monastery in Rhodes—which the locals call "Rodine"—those who have arrived from Jerusalem requested to receive it as a dependency, as it is, etc.; one hundred sixty-fourth: To the same. A certain Symeon, a merchant, a Syrian by race, a citizen of Ptolemais in Palestine, my friend—not, however, a very old one, but from the time he arrived in Byzantium, etc.; one hundred sixty-fifth: To the same. That not only towards God [is] the prayer, etc.; one hundred sixty-sixth: Fragkopoulos, he who [has] the residence, etc.; one hundred sixty-seventh: To the physician Theognostus. The one who was, a short time ago, a comet, and now, with a disgraceful shearing, has lost his hair—that scourged and infamous Fragkopoulos, being a prisoner, etc.; one hundred sixty-eighth: To the Protovestiarios. Whether it is true, as some say, or not, etc.; one hundred sixty-ninth: To the Logothete of the Generals, Acropolites. He who once held that book of Aristides, that master Atzounas; now, however, it successfully turns out to be your possession, etc.; one hundred seventieth: To the Great Logothete. A certain person, thinking that it pertains to himself to perform the work of purported rhetorical eloquence, [is] attacking me through frequent letters, as if not having other material for his own words than to subject them to our rebukes, etc.; one hundred seventy-first: To a certain familiar monk. I had the first day of my illness in bed, etc.; one hundred seventy-second: To the Great Logothete. You have heard, I suppose, that George Xiphilinos—a godly man, and one virtuous beyond those of his time—has become patriarch; he has become so, etc.; one hundred seventy-third: To the same. But to me, it brings so much shame, etc.; one hundred seventy-fourth: To the same. Someone said—or rather, spoke against you—in the presence of your perfection, that the prelate of Ainos was doing such and such things, etc.; one hundred seventy-fifth: To the same. The admirable judge of the army, the pansebastos, seems to harbor some old enmity toward the Tropaio-phoros, etc.; one hundred seventy-sixth: To a certain familiar. Most honored one, you are a man and the son of a human father; know, therefore, yourself, and do not think more highly than your nature, which is small, etc.; one hundred seventy-seventh: To the same Great Logothete. It was Wednesday of the present week, etc.; one hundred seventy-eighth: To the bishop of Ephesus (sic). Your holiness has been notified to come here, and it has been notified above—it is perhaps three months since, etc.; one hundred seventy-ninth: To the same. It was necessary, by all means, O divine master, etc.; one hundred eightieth: To the Great Logothete. "It is difficult," says the proverb, "for a dog that has learned to eat leather," but not as much as the long-haired Fragkopoulos, possessed by the manias of love. I did, therefore, [find] a certain virgin, etc.; one hundred eighty-first: To the same. This Dionysius here is an Arcadian from the Peloponnese; [he is] our [man], etc.; one hundred eighty-second: To the same. The admirable one in [the office of] petitions, etc.; one hundred eighty-third: The patriarch to the Protovestiarios. This work of mine has been done just as you see it, completely simple and humble, etc.; one hundred eighty-fourth: To the present youth, both a pauper and our [friend], etc.; one hundred eighty-fifth: To the same. Let [name] be summoned to come here,

and it would be the year, precisely, etc.; one hundred eighty-sixth: To the patriarch—The Lord High Treasurer [Protovestiarios] to the patriarch: Most holy and most divine master, my ecumenical patriarch; I, having learned of the flight of the wicked Theodosius to Athos, etc.; one hundred eighty-seventh: To Raoulaina—I say that some letters are simple and clearly priestly, which are sent to you by us; do you not yet understand the matter up to this point, etc.; one hundred eighty-eighth: To Raoulaina—That I indeed, from the old habit in my homeland, am fond of mulberries as food for myself, etc.; one hundred eighty-ninth: To Raoulaina—Do not think that the mulberries you see being sent to you are sent out of any display of vanity, but, etc.; one hundred ninety: To the most holy patriarch—If it were confirmed by the vote from then on, etc.; one hundred ninety-first: To one of the bishops—As those who wish to war against the Church and the order of things at all times were disposed, etc. Hitherto, therefore, extend the titles and openings of all those letters of Georgios Cyprios; from which, in my opinion, not less of their elegance than of their variety abundantly appears; as well as the manifold utility of their Greek-Latin edition. Certainly, the Reverend Father Petrus Possinus, S.J., who first published in Rome, with the Barberini presses in the years 1666 and 1669, both volumes of the history of Georgios Pachymeres—namely, the empire of Michael Palaiologos and the empire of Andronikos Palaiologos the elder—from the most well-stocked library of the most eminent and learned Cardinal Francesco Barberini, in two folio volumes, with very scholarly observations, if he had had knowledge of and use for these letters, there is no doubt that he could have derived many necessary things from them and have more greatly illuminated the obscurity of such a difficult work. That even Leo Allatius himself, a most curious and worthy investigator of the monuments of more recent Greece, and the chief custodian of the Vatican Library, did not have sufficient awareness of these same letters, he himself indicates clearly enough in his very extensive dissertation on the Georgioses; where, treating the same Georgios, or Gregorios Cyprios, very verbosely, on page 425, he writes thus: "The two hundred and three letters of Gregorios Cyprios, some written before he assumed the burden of the patriarchate, others after that responsibility was entrusted to him, existed in the Library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 69; and they were in Polliana and Munich of Bavaria, but without titles. They are read in the Ambrosian Library—one hundred and sixty-six. Robertus Constantinus in his *Bibliotheca*: 'Of Gregorios, patriarch, on his Life, and one hundred sixty-six letters.' In the Ambrosian Library, although it is read slightly above in the same index, 'Letters of Gregorios Cyprios, selected,' another item is an exemplar: likewise, 'On his Life, one hundred sixty-six letters.' Is this work on his Life different from the Letters, or does it express his Life through the Letters themselves? It is still uncertain to me." These, indeed, are Allatius’s words. What finally remains, which is most noteworthy, is that appended to the above-enumerated letters in the same Imperial [Cesareo] manuscript codex, from folio 146, page 2, up to folio 148, page 2, there is joined, as an appendix, a certain synodal decree of the same patriarch Gregorios Cyprios, whose title and beginning are: "Judgment [Aphairesis]: Our humility, together with the holy assembly of bishops surrounding it, and the priests and deacons, who were manifest as indisputably being persecuted during the time of the ecclesiastical confusion, etc." When this decree is finished, there follows the solemn formula by which his adversaries promised to the same Patriarch Gregorios that he would be declared publicly to be orthodox, and entirely free from every stain and suspicion of heretical doctrine, if he first promised in writing that he would, after having received that public testimony of his innocence, without delay resign from the patriarchal throne. Georgios Pachymeres narrates this whole affair prolixly and accurately in his *History of the Empire of Andronikos Palaiologos the Elder*, in five complete chapters of the second book, namely the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, so that he even inserted word-for-word into the aforementioned ninth chapter the entire formula of abdication composed by Gregorios and handed over to his adversaries; the formula of the adversaries' promise, however, which exists in this Imperial manuscript codex, is omitted there, and therefore, for the sake of supplementing the Pachymerian History, we offer it here in its entirety. It is, therefore, with its own title, as follows: "Declaration [Anakeryxis] of his piety by those who promised him: Blessed is our God, because we have never held an evil opinion regarding our master, the Patriarch Lord Gregorios, as if he were a blasphemer, just as some of the uninitiated have supposed; but we know him to be most orthodox and most pious. We only ask the patriarch to resign the throne for the sake of the peace of men; and since he asks from us that the declaration of his piety be spoken in writing, and he immediately yields to resign the throne, we all are also prepared in the name of Christ, both in writing and without writing, both in public and in private, to proclaim him, just as he was for all time, most pious and most orthodox, and to rebuke those who speak against him ignorantly and foolishly." Hitherto [extends] that formula of promise which, I believe, was composed by Gregorios himself and prescribed to his adversaries, just as the formula of abdication was. Finally, the whole of this codex is closed with this subscription: "The end of the letters of our Father among the saints, Gregorios, Archbishop of Constantinople, the patriarch. And to God be the glory."

GEORGII CYPRII EPISTOLÆ I. EPISTOLA AD AMICUM Vide supra col. 125. II. EPISTOLA AD ANDRONICUM IMP. Vide supra col. 267.

TO THE MOST HOLY PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, LORD GEORGE THE CYPRIOT: ENCOMIUM ON THE SEA, OR ON THE NATURE OF WATER IN GENERAL.

DOMINUS GEORGIUS CYPRIUS: ENCOMIUM ON THE SEA, OR ON THE NATURE OF WATER IN GENERAL.

To admire whatever things are extraordinary and great in nature does not appear to be an arduous task, if one merely wishes to do this by standing silent; for it suffices, upon perceiving them, to turn one's sense toward wonder. But if one also intends to speak and ^A relate something worthy of such things by means of reason, this already seems the most difficult of all tasks. For the nature of the things themselves diminishes the power of language, and by as much as these things cause astonishment in those who encounter them, by that much greater is the impasse that arises for speech, and [the speakers] are by no means able to command it. Therefore, a great deal of pardon would justly be granted to those who dare to speak about these matters, if they fall far short of the merit of the subject, and especially before those who have been educated in such things, inasmuch as they are also more aware than others both of how difficult it is to set one's hand to such tasks, and how the words must needs always ^B be inferior to the realities. Since, therefore,

this is the case, I consider that he who speaks about the sea will also find nothing sufficient to say. For if any of the things that exist deserves to be admired, it is the sea; for it is among the primary elements. And if anyone should grant pardon to those who commit themselves to discourses on this subject, showing more love for their diligence than reproach for their boldness, such a one will surely receive the justification that he has not failed to do what is right. But what and how great the reality of the sea is, and how it is the most excellent of all things in the universe, one who examines ^A it here will clearly understand. Yet it is proper here to conjecture the great from the small and to pursue the truth through the shadows of words.

Now, therefore, all things that are and are not did not in any way receive a beginning of their being before, but the sea immediately existed as well, brought forth together with the very first of things that exist, and having received the primary power. For just as for every thing that comes into being there must be some matter at hand, and then from it the generation is effected, so too we see that the sea came into existence together with the first things, as if to be an element for things that would come to pass thereafter, and in a way a principle ^B of mixture. So that if anyone, in contemplating, admires the order of the universe, the beginning of his admiration should be made from the nature of water. And indeed, since the Creator willed the sea to be the most ancient, it is not unlike the truth that He also assigned to it primacy in magnitude. For the sea is so great that we know of no continent sufficient to serve as its container. Rather, that sea which is within the Pillars of Hercules is indeed so great that, as men saying they are struck with vertigo, they deny they can say anything about that universe and almost apply the account of the infinite to it. As for this, we know it is circumscribed and encompassed by the surrounding land; yet the part that is outside the Pillars of Hercules is greater, appearing to be one that can in no way be compared to that which is among us. And for this reason, no navigation ^C is instituted in it; for the immensity of the water prevents one from knowing where it might be possible to cross, and no one is able to assign its boundaries, if indeed there are any at all. And it has received this magnitude not unreasonably nor without purpose; but because the nature of water was destined to be not only a mother to other things, but also a nurse, and would contribute the most to the production of things made at the beginning of the world, and would lead to the permanence of each thing, in a manner convenient to its nature.

And thus, since it is an object of admiration on account of its magnitude, it ought not less to be admired for its beauty, for it always exhibits it to those ^D who contemplate it as the greatest and most perfect. For the figure of the sea is truly the most beautiful, such as we know the heaven also to have been adorned when it was made. For the Ocean encompasses the whole earth in a circle, and likewise that which is full of water is bound by the earth as in a circle. And its position, as one may conjecture from what has been said, is the mid-

-^A-point of the universe, if indeed the center of the earth has been allotted to the sea. And there is a risk in the argument that the earth should be the center, and the sea; yet the grace and beauty which it exhibits in its very position, and that it is itself like a circle to one contemplating the whole, and displays all forms in its encounter and mixing with the earth, unfolding bays of many shapes, bringing forth from its midst islands both small and great, and creating straits extending to a very great length in narrow places—what speech would suffice to tell this as it deserves? But these things are so based on the description and the position and as far as one may grasp them by sense perception. But by reason, one might argue that the nature of water is as beautiful as it is known to be the principle of the beautiful for other things. For it would not be likely that things which are secondary in existence should participate in something of such a kind, unless those which are first—from which indeed these also were constituted—had participated in it. All rivers and springs, and lakes further, and the streams of nymphs, and whatever flows beneath the earth, all are from the sea and flow back again into the sea; this, as from a mother, that, as into a common receptacle for all moisture. And may this be no obscure sign that this is the one principle of all water. ^B For where we find everything returning and being restored, thence we are persuaded it has taken the first cause of its being. For thus also all things from the earth, resolving into the earth, show that the earth is the first mother unto them. But the sea, with all waters flowing into it, and receiving all through its abundance of size, is seen to be neither greater than it was, nor does it appear any less. For it surely does not receive more from the earth than it gave, and again it gives back exactly as much as it received; and at the same time it does not increase from those things contributed by the earth, since it was not made imperfect, nor was it in need of any addition from the beginning. Truly it is perfect and full, wanting nothing more than everything else. Moreover, besides what has been said, rains and dews and snows, and the clouds which beget these, and all things that first gather in the regions above and then descend from there to the earth, furthermore the natures of winds and every kind of blast, possess their principle from water. And the shoots of plants, and their sproutings and growths, and their flourishing and fruit-bearing [proceed] from water as from matter—for they cannot possibly emerge from the earth otherwise—and since the sea is the mother of all water, and let it be added, of all moisture, it is clear that for these things also no other cause exists ^C than this portion which is the sea. Nor indeed does it possess these as mother of the moist only in the manner mentioned, but also all kinds of animals, since there is not anything of all [things] whatever that does not participate in this naming by participation in moisture. And an evident sign of this is that it simultaneously loses [the power to be an animal] and…

the sea—I speak of all the kinds of fish and swimming creatures—how could anyone worthily wonder at it if they reflected on it? For while other animals, in addition to participating in the fluid, also participate in other primary elements, fish are purely from the sea, being generated, growing, and being nourished in it to the very end—great, indeed, in their multitude, so that if one says their number does not exceed that of terrestrial animals, no one, at least no one who is sufficiently experienced, would say it is less. Furthermore, fish are for the most part useful to the human race, both as food, and it is very evident from their bodies that they are suited to those who must be satisfied by them—a matter which, even if it cannot well be expressed in speech, experience alone teaches. ^B

Nor, indeed, does the utility of water and the sea appear only by reason of the things already mentioned; for it is expedient to affirm both (and I feel no otherwise), and that the sea is worthy of admiration not only for these reasons, but also because we ourselves have used it for the utility of our life. I omit saying how water refreshes the bodies of animals while they drink it and while they are washed by it; and how bread is mixed with it and how there is almost no food unless it is gathered with water; and that we have salt from no other source than that which is concreted from it, and, moreover, how it is as it were the soul of food and participates to the greatest degree in pleasantness, and is altogether acceptable to men; and, beyond these things, that water cleanses filth, washes away stains, and removes pollutions and foul odors—for these things are most manifestly known. ^C And indeed there are other things for which we have need of water; for by what reason could anyone in a short time recount those things for which a whole human life would not be sufficient, if we wished to explain one by one all the things that come to men from the sea? But, as is fitting, we must accept this, and consider the discourse which is instituted concerning these things to be as it were a dark adumbration. And since there are many things which contribute to human life, and not every part of the earth bears everything, nor does every multitude of all useful things originate in the same place, but one part is held by Asia, another by Europe, another by Libya, and yet another region of the earth by another—unless the sea joined the distant continents and men who are from every side were to have trade through it with others who are wheresoever in the lands, although any nation might be sufficiently abundant in a few necessary things, yet most things would be lacking: but now, through the sea, some supply to others what they have need of, ^D and there is a certain wonderful communion for men and abundance of life therefrom; because those things which sustain our life are brought from everywhere through this element, and one should consider that the sea does not make the continents divided nor distant from one another; for I do not agree with those of the ancients who thought this way, but on the contrary, that it unites and

and makes them go into a perfect union, not only because, occupying the middle ground, it is a bond for the extremities, but because it also makes the parts communicate with one another by distribution and exchange. For you might see a Celt or Galatian traveling into the Indian region, and in turn, Indians crossing the sea to their region; for it is not otherwise possible. And Libyans also reside in Europe, having used the sea, and Asia receives those from either land, as this same sea conveys them; wherefore one must not think that the produce of other regions of the earth is of a different nature than that of the continents. Nor does Arabia boast against the land of the Scythians, nor the land of the Ethiopians against Greece, nor indeed one against another; since what seem to be strictly peculiar to each region have, because of the sea, become common to all. And the fact that one finds the same things abundantly everywhere diminishes the value ^B of that which is born in one's own region.

Besides what has been mentioned, countless are the gains for men from the sea, an infinite number of riches and an abundance of other goods, by which one appears more distinguished than one's former self. But these things perhaps will not appear of much importance to those who are more philosophically inclined and whose minds are above the many. Yet the greatest gain of all, and one admired by all alike, is the understanding of things that are far away, which occurs by this means, as well as the precision of affairs, knowledge, and experience. We collect all things a little at a time, associating with many nations ^C and many customs, and always learning new things from encountering new men, cities, laws, and all kinds of affairs, from which we are found to be more experienced and wiser than others, if indeed those who are accustomed to using the sea are experienced. Furthermore, you might see these same men reaching the greatest limits of endurance and courage; because there is nothing that will teach and persuade those who live by the sea to endure courageously whatever comes to pass and to remain sufficiently in the face of dangers. For, as for me, the sea inspires terror even when I stand far off, and from the mere sight of it, with its roar and its fearful and terrible nature; but to dare to embark and to prepare oneself for the surging tides, ^D and for the storms, and for the squalls, and for all the changes of both air and water, this already exceeds every measure of courage and endurance.

And these things, then, are as if from small matters to recognize the excellence of the element; but greater and more perfect things remain for us to say about it, though we are conscious of a hesitation in ourselves to begin a discourse about the most excellent of sublime things. For water is considered a certain principle of the moist nature, and as encompassing and preserving in their state the other elements; since it even contributes to the existence of all those things. For it imparts moisture, and from no other source...

does ^A the air derive its nature except from communion with water; to fire, moreover, the moisture becomes nourishment, and while this remains, it [fire] also remains, and as it is consumed, it is consumed along with it, and when it has completely failed, it fades away. There are also those who have provided for the stars a nourishment from water, for which cause the subsistence of both fire and the stars is in a certain way from water; for from whatever source a thing is nourished, from there it is also believed to have its persistence in being. The earth itself, moreover, and the things that have been made from it, are clearly [derived] from water; for it is not otherwise than by communion with this that it is cold. For if, on the other hand, you were to remove from the earth every bit of moisture, you would see it weak and not subsisting, unable to support other things, but yielding continually to any burdens whatsoever. And it is at hand to recognize this by observing sand, which is indeed earth, if the moisture that binds and holds it together is removed. And surely I do not think that those who said that water is the one and solitary ^B principle of all things were led to say this for any other reason than these [observations], nor was this opinion regarding water taken up without reason. Therefore, there is no cause why anyone should wish to equate things of greater moment with those of lesser, and the first with those that are subsequent; for water so far excels the other elements, which they also say are the first of beings, that it shares what is its own with others, but is itself in no way in need of them. For to the earth indeed (that I may again use the same arguments) it communicates coldness, but receives nothing from it; and to the air [it communicates] of its moisture, but it is not itself in need of the things that are of the air; and for fire it is, to a certain extent, a nutriment. But when it is necessary for water and fire to come together as if to battle, it is altogether necessary that either water be inferior in strength and yield, or that water, being tested by the power of the other, should be completely extinguished ^C and in no way remain among existing things. Such, therefore, is the sea, everywhere and in all things holding sway with much utility. But for us there is no capacity to speak of it according to its dignity, nor even to admire it as is fitting. It is necessary, therefore, for one who perceives the greatness of this matter to embrace silence rather than words, lest the feebleness of discourse should overthrow the greatness of the wonder.

COLLECTION OF PROVERBS

PROVERBS COLLECTED BY THE MOST HOLY PATRIARCH D. GREGORY CYPRIUS ACCORDING TO THE ALPHABET (a)

^A This rope dragged nothing at all. Said of fishermen who drew nothing up. A Venusian oath. Impune. The Market of Cercopes. For the wicked and malicious. For some Cercopes were scoundrels in Ephesus. The old age of an eagle, the youth of a lark. The goods of the Cilicians. For those who do not profit honorably. For a certain traitor, Cilicon by name, having betrayed Miletus to the enemy, came to great wealth. Do not despise a rustic orator. The gardens of Adonis. For things short-lived and untimely. Sometimes one must become different and follow the region. For it is fitting that a man adapt himself to the customs of the cities and places in which he may happen to be. It is said with reference to polypods. Shake another oak. For those who are accustomed to receive requests even from those who refuse to give. You sing as if sailing to Delos. For those who live without care and in a pleasure-loving way. Salt and bean. For those who do not know and ^{B C}

^A pretend that they do, while actually being ignorant. For the soothsayers offer both salt and a bean. To lift the armpit. To feast. It is also said of those who dance in a rustic manner. A goat offering a sword ^B. A tearless war and a sleeping man’s victory. For those who succeed very easily and beyond expectation. A jackdaw always sits by a jackdaw. And, God always leads the like to the like. Amalthea’s horn. Because Zeus gave to his nurse Amalthea—who had reared him by means of a goat—the horn of that same goat, from which would flow out for her whatever she had asked for. You teach an eagle to fly. The dice of Zeus always fall fortunately. For those who are worthily honored. A contest admits no excuse, nor does friendship. An eagle in the clouds. For things hard to capture. A ground grain life [i.e., a life already prepared]. For things that are available without labor. You move the Anagyron. ^C For those who bring evils upon themselves. For a certain hero named Anagyrus used to harass his neighbors. May such enemies always pursue me. For those who are despised and worth nothing. An eagle sees the wood-worm. For those who despise others. There is no saltiness in him. For a disagreeable man. A fox is not corrupted by gifts. For those who are not easily corrupted by bribes. Africa always bears some evil. For those who are always inventing some new evil. The sources of rivers flow upward. For those who speak of opposites. The fornicator always calls the temperate man a fornicator. Fountains of silver speak. For those who appear to be or prosper ^D because of their wealth. "Avoid the greater man," that is, be on your guard; in the Ionic dialect. An Arabian flute-player. Who plays for a drachma, but is stopped for four.

COLLECTION OF PROVERBS

Orc’s helmet ^A. To touch with the tip of the finger. To weep with blood. Used hyperbolically of those who weep excessively. The Graces are naked. That one must do good freely. You are fattening a razor. Used of those who consume much food, but gain no advantage from it. Others labored, but others reaped the benefit. Used of those who, contrary to expectation, inherit the goods of others. The owl sounds one thing, the crow another. Used of those who are not in agreement with one another. To play the fox toward another fox. Used of those who wish to deceive their own kind. To some a tongue, to others molars. Used of the garrulous and the voracious. The cranium of an old man is brittle ^B. Used of those who are of no use for anything. Leucon carries one thing, but Leucon’s donkey another. Used of those whose words and deeds are inconsistent. We drain one, but another flows in. Used of those who labor in vain. I asked for sickles, but they denied me mattocks. As soon as one feels pity, all gratitude dies. Used of the ungrateful. If meat is not present, salted fish must suffice. That one must be content with what is available. We were once what you are. The past year is always better than the one that follows. The man who is fleeing does not stay for the sound of the lyre. Used of those upon whom it is incumbent to do things quickly. The Lydian man had no business, but came and bought trouble for himself ^C. Used of those who invite evils upon themselves. An unfillable jar. To farm the winds. Used of those who labor and obtain no profit from it. Not even the gods fight against necessity. Instead of a perch, a scorpion. Used of those who choose the worse option. A fisherman, once struck, will gain wisdom. A foolish man learns by experience, just as the fisherman, once struck, handles the fish carefully thereafter, once wounded. Some sow, others will reap. When the bear is present, you look for its tracks. Used of things that are perfectly manifest. An eagle is delivered by a scarab ^D. Used of those who suffer damage and injury from those deemed humble; for the scarab destroys the eagle's eggs by rolling them. To an old man, his jaws are his walking-stick.

^A When a man is doing well, he has many friends. When a man is doing poorly, his friends vanish. The fox drives the ox. Used of the crafty and small, who nevertheless overcome great fools. Sometimes the day is a mother, sometimes a stepmother. Used of those who at times have good fortune, and at times bad fortune. Give and take at the same time. When we engage in business with someone untrustworthy. Charcoal has become treasure. Used of those who are disappointed in the success of their hopes. The horse sprang from the slow-footed donkeys. All things are easy for the wise. Used of those who, through prudence, overcome everything. ^B Fight with silver spears, and you shall conquer all. Every hedgehog is prickly. You are skinning a leather bottle. Used of those who do something foolishly. You live the life of a flute-player. Used of those who live off the possessions of others. You shall pay back, pig, the grape-stones. That is, you shall give back what you have eaten. The counsel of evil arrived at supreme Ate. Used of those who suffer things worthy of what they have done. Athos overshadows the flank of the Lemnian ox. From an oar to a platform. Used of those who suddenly attempt very great things. Not feeding yourself, you feed dogs. Used of those who are in poverty themselves, yet boast that they will provide food for others. Having eaten a medimnos of salt. Used of the ungrateful. ^C The carriage pulls the ox. Used of those who act in reverse. Wagon-sized words. Used of grandiloquence. A man is an Euripus; and his soul, and his mind, and his character. Used of those who are very easily swayed. The sow has perished, and the talent, and the jawbone. Friends go to friends uninvited to feast. Similar to this: It is the custom for the good to go to the feasts of the good uninvited. The doors of the Muses are open. Authority reveals the man. The salt has gone back to where it flowed from. Used of things ill-gotten and lost. For a merchant, carrying salt in a ship, when a surge arose, cast the salt into the sea. ^D

^A It is hard to speak many things to the senseless. This could be said of the unlearned. If the lion’s skin does not suffice, put on the fox’s. Used of those who cannot do harm openly and therefore use cunning. You are throwing the javelin with a plow. Used of those who act thoughtlessly. The snare itself seemed about to catch the snare. Here is Rhodes, here is the leap.

A Boeotian intellect. Of the stupid. For this was always cast as a reproach against the Boeotians. A Boeotian custom. Used of those things which are quiet at the beginning, but afterward become turbulent. A Lydian stone. Used of those who are examined in their studies; for the Lydian stone tests gold. ^B Boeotian riddles. Used of things that are obscure and difficult to understand; for the Sphinx was Boeotian. An ox on the tongue. Used of those who allow themselves to be bribed, because the Athenian coin had an ox stamped upon it. The knee is closer than the shin. Used of those who love themselves rather than others. Gray hair comes to him who is always learning. Sweet are apples, if removed from their guard. Used of those who enjoy the property of others without labor. An old woman revels. Used of those who do something at the wrong time. Old wives’ tales. You reproach me with my belly, the most beautiful of all disgraces. For when full it is lighter, but when empty it is heavy. A burden to the earth. Used of the useless. War is sweet to the inexperienced. The old woman by stamping her feet raises much dust. Used of those who, because of their experience, stir up many things. The ring of Gyges. Used of impostors. Naked as a peg. The woman herself leads the war and the woman camps in the field. Used of paradoxical events. Do not trust a woman, not even when she is dead. Ionian laughter. Used of the dissolute; for the Ionians are reproached by this name. ^D An old fox is not caught. An owl to Athens. Used of those who teach others what the teachers themselves know better; because there are many owls at Athens. An old ox is not to be lamented in the house.

^A He will undergo a lawsuit, even if an ass bites a dog. Used of those who are slandered over trifles. Lawsuit begets lawsuit, and harm begets harm. Used of those who are litigious and pile lawsuit upon lawsuit, and of those who are beset by frequent misfortunes. It is shameful to stumble on the same stone twice. Dodonean brass. Used of a talkative person. You must be drawn through a ring. Used of those who have become thin due to sickness or grief. Gifts perusade the gods and venerated kings. The Egyptians weave clever machines. A catch is granted even to the slothful. A second voyage. A bowl does not contain a dolphin. The sleep of Epimenides. Used of those who sleep much; for he slept fifty years. He has prophesied in the cave of Trophonius. Used of those who are gloomy and pallid. You hide in a threshing floor or a secret place. Used of those who are unable to remain hidden. Let him be a quaestor, or, if you like, a dog. Used of those who succeed beyond their merit, and especially of eunuchs. A pillory could be made from any wood. It is said of things that are cheap in appearance, but necessary for use. ^B To old mangers. Used of those who return to what they had previously abandoned. You see three in two. Used of those who see one thing instead of another. To escape and slip away. Used of those animals that escape the hunters. You make an elephant out of a fly. Used of those who overstate petty matters in their speech. You come as a weak man to the weak. Used of those who are affected by similar things. A net catches for the one sleeping. Used of those who succeed in their affairs. Even an ant has bile. Because one must not despise even the small. A non-initiate Hermes. To drink from a broken cup. Used of faithless friends. You hide yourself in honey. Used of those who live in ^C luxury. He puts on the lion's skin. He sleeps the sleep of Endymion. Used of those who indulge too much in sleep. ^D

^A The snare has caught the mouse. Used of those who are quickly caught. I am at a crossroads of syllogisms. Used of those who are in doubt. In light, dark; but in darkness, bright. To fight with dogs in a well. You are skinning what is already skinned. Used of those who toil in vain; it is better used of those who maltreat the afflicted. Later, when he is rich, he does not enjoy lentils. Before, he used to eat everything indiscriminately. You wear out a cloak in summer. Used of those who do not use necessities at the right time. The wind permits neither to sail nor to remain here. Used of those who have fallen into difficult circumstances. An elephant has no concern for a mouse. ^B You have your feet out of the mud. Used of those who are outside of danger. It hangs by a hair. Used of those in danger. Similar to: "It stands on a razor's edge." Noble from the purse. Used of those who are held in honor because of their wealth. A spear upon a spear. They say an old woman said this, while pledging a spear to a tavern-keeper. Goats are free from the plow. Used of those who have been liberated from some burden. You are spitting into your own bosom. That is to say: You do not speak big things. You are beginning the pottery from the jar. Used of those who do not observe the proper order in their studies. To dance in the dark. Used of those who work without witnesses. ^C You shall be saved, by taking merely an onion. Used of those who reap great glory from a small cause. We live not as we wish, but as we are able. Seeking for a side-dish, I lost my tunic. Used of the most unfortunate. Nail drove out nail, and stake drove out stake. Used of those who cure sin with sin. The dog in the manger. Used of those who neither use their own goods themselves, nor allow others to use them. For the dog does not allow the grain to remain in the manger, and he does not let the horse eat it. Once upon a time there were brave Milesians. ^D More stupid than Adonis, son of Praxiteles. For a certain Adonis, son of Praxiteles, died, and being asked by those in Hades what is the most beautiful thing above...

he had left behind, he answered, "The sun, the moon, figs, apples." He was therefore thought stupid for comparing these things to the sun. ^A

The Sacrifice of Heracles

The Aphyē [smelt] to the fire

Anger grows old last

Water from a cave from the sea

A Thasos of good things

Sacred anchor

Equality [is] friendship

Equality breeds no war.

An Iliad of troubles.

I will imitate Hippolytus

You provoke horsemen to the plain

Of a bad crow a bad egg.

Adorn the Sparta you have inherited

A Cadmean victory

A swan song

The crow [and] the scorpion

Cilician goats

To play the Cretan [Cretisare]

Just like nurses you feed badly.

[Annotations] (1) Sacred anchor is called in a ship; which, when maximum danger is imminent, is thrown as the last resort. (2) That equality is the conciliator of friendship and true, Plato says in the sixth book of the Laws. (3) Used for those who are tossed about in the greatest evils. (4) Corax [Crow] was a very prudent man, and one who knew how to accommodate himself to affairs in the best way; being a man who had clearly understood that he could not simultaneously serve a tyrant and please the people. Therefore, having traveled abroad, he composed a work on preambles, narrations, contentions, and epilogues, by which he won the people to himself, and then he stepped forth, shouting and exhorting: if anyone wished to learn the art, he would do so for a fee of 1000 drachmae. Sitias presented himself as his disciple. But when he had learned the art, he denied the payment. On account of this matter, therefore, judges were called into council; and when they had assembled, Corax, using a dilemma, said thus: “If Sitias wins, he is bound to pay the fee; for he owes it. But if he does not win, he must pay in that case as well, for he has been defeated.” To this, Sitias replied: “If I win, I do not have to pay; for I have won. If I do not win, I am not bound to pay; for I do not owe it.” And when the judges were distracted by doubt, they finally exclaimed: “A bad crow, a bad egg.” Either because Corax (the crow) is an animal whose egg is useless for consumption, or because when a crow reaches old age and can no longer feed its own chicks, it gives itself up to them for food, and thus they devour their parent. Whence the proverb. (5) It is a saying about Cleon: that while he offered courtesies to the people with [these] few things, he converted much into his own gain himself. It is used, however, when someone consumes another's money received for the sake of some thing. For, nurses, chewing food, extract it from their own mouth and place it into the mouths of children; whence it happens that they give little to the children, but eat most themselves. ^D

A dog returning to its own vomit. ^A To profit even from the dead. You arrive after the feast. Used of those who miss out on a good thing through their own delay. You have put the finishing touch. Meaning, complete and full. It is carried along with the tide. A crab catches a hare. Used of impossibilities. Empty men deliberate empty things. The mullet fasts. Used of the gluttonous; for it is an insatiable animal. The ram renders pay for its feeding. Used of the ungrateful. For rams strike both the manger and those who reared them. ^B Thripes are an evil thing, and ipes are an evil thing. For both are destructive, and the former eat wood, while the latter eat horn. Lemnian evils. From the women in Lemnos who killed their own husbands. A hare regarding flesh. Used of those who are in danger and struggling; for even that creature runs for the sake of its own flesh. A wolf gaping in vain, or a wolf dancing around a well. Used of those who labor in vain at some task. You seek a wolf's wings. Used of impossibilities. You are weaving flax with flax. Used of those who do or say the same things, or things that are appropriate. A wolf flees an eagle. Used of those things which cannot be escaped. A Lydian chariot. Used of the crudest. And, You run past a Lydian. A white plumb line for a white stone. ^C One thicket does not feed two robins. A Median table. A marrow of honey. Used of things that are exceedingly sweet. Neither honey, nor bees. Used of those who refuse to experience any good thing because of the danger inherent in it. May I not engage in battle against a lion, being a doe. The prey of the Mysians. For the neighboring peoples used to plunder the Mysians. Do not move Camarina. It was a marsh which the oracle forbade to be drained; those who consulted it, however, did not obey the response and brought ruin upon themselves. He will sooner criticize than imitate. Used of the unlearned. Do not entrust a sword to a child. Do not entrust matters to the inexperienced. One swallow does not make a spring, nor one bee honey. ^D He told a story into the ear of a dead man. Used of one who does not listen; and used of the insensitive.

^A You card clouds. Used of impossible things. A nose note: the Latin rendering "Naris" here likely reflects an error in the source manuscript for "Navis", as the Greek "Naus" means a ship asks a stone for mercy. Used of those who are extremely insensitive. A razor on a whetstone. A crooked piece of wood is never straight. Used of those who cannot be corrected. One must not consult for plans by the altar. This means one must deliberate before actions, and not during them; just as those who bring offerings to the sacred places do not deliberate about the offerings after they have performed the sacrifice. A fox not again. The word "caught" is missing. For having once escaped the snares, it is not caught a second time. An ass carries mysteries. Used of those to whom something is entrusted unworthily. Ass's jaws. For a glutton. Where stags cast their horns, the places are difficult to traverse. Used of those who make their professional activities difficult to find. For some are no longer there, and those who are, are bad. “At home the Milesian ways, but not here.” Used of those who display their customs or practices where they are not appropriate, and which have been condemned. For a Milesian, speaking among the Lacedaemonians and praising his own domestic luxuries, heard this saying: “Wine, O children, is truthful.” An ass in straw. Neither rained upon nor sun-scorched. Used of the insensitive. You would not be praised even at a funeral. Used of the most base and worthless men. For they were accustomed to praising the dead at funeral banquets, even if they happened to be the most base of men. A witness fetched from home. Used of those who produce witnesses against themselves. ^B An ass among bees. Used of those who have fallen into trouble. An ass listening to a lyre. Used of the unintelligent. Someone was telling a fable to an ass, but it was just flapping its ears. I have brought back little fruit from much chaff. You speak before a deaf man. He weeps at the grave of his stepmother. Used of those who are acting disingenuously. By many blows the oak is tamed. Used of things that are difficult to grasp. Before you have caught the fish, you are mixing the brine. Used of those who anticipate the proper times. Many are the couches of the male dog. Used of those who are headlong in matters of lust. ^C Often, too, a foolish man has spoken at the right time.

^A Many things fall between the cup and the edge of the lip. You wash the brick. Used of impossible things. The beggar's pouch is not filled. Used of the insatiable. The craftiness of the hydra. Used of the deceitful. Many shall hate you if you love yourself. Fire coming upon a firebrand. The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog one great thing. Many are the thyrsus-bearers, but few are the Bacchants. To kick against the pricks. Wickedness has need only of a pretext. Before the victory you sing the triumphal hymn. Poets tell many lies. The river contends against the sea. Used of the impossible. ^B I have heard the noises of many wild beasts. Sleep comes to the hungry fox. Poverty has gained wisdom. I will move every stone, [I will pull] every rope. Does, when against a lion, join battle. The Rhodian sacrifice. Used of those who blaspheme in sacred places. More talkative than a cliff. Used of babblers. For it makes a sound when struck by the waves. Rhadamanthian judgment. The most just [judgment]. The rose that you have passed by, do not seek again. But the fool learned [the truth] once it was done. More cowardly than the Rheginians. ^C With Athena, move your hand as well. Attagas came together with Numenius. Time is the arbiter of events. Forgiveness for the novice. Used of those who err in their first attempt at something. Sardonic laughter. Laughter that is feigned, and not from a cheerful heart. A Sicilian table, and also a Sybaritic one. The wisdom of a fool. Used of those who speak unintelligently. Looking at you, one might take it as an omen. And the line: "And him the youths both hated and took as an omen."

^A Such as Themistocles never conceived, for he won the glory of wisdom. ^B Typhone multiplicius (More manifold than Typhon). Talenti talenta (Talents of a talent). Used of the very wealthy. Colophonem imposuisti (You have put on the finishing touch). Used of great matters, and of an authoritative vote. What is in the heart of the sober is on the tongue of the drunkard. Fleeing the smoke, he fell into the fire. The ass paid for the dog’s offense. Used when others commit the wrong, but others pay the penalty. To scratch the one who is scratching you. Derived from the metaphor of donkeys, for they scratch one another. Used of those who benefit or harm one another. More silent than the son of Croesus. Why did you not hang yourself, so that you might become a hero at Thebes? For those who killed themselves at Thebes were held in honor. ^B The wall of Hipparchus. For Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus, built a wall around the Pythian temple, compelling the Athenians to pay great sums. You seem to have lost your wits. The plan was indeed God’s, but the deed was mine. For the leaders of the republic used to say this in a witty way, as if to say: God proposed the matter, but I carried it out. He is in need of parsley. Used of those who are dangerously ill, for they are accustomed to crown tombs with parsley. A tragic ape. Used of those who claim a gravity for themselves that they do not possess. Injury begets injury, and reproach begets reproach. Over the shadow of an ass. Used of those who struggle over things of no consequence. ^C

^A Under every stone a scorpion sleeps. Used of the wicked. To jump beyond the trenches. Similar to this: You extend your foot beyond the step. You cast lots over the whole of things. As if to say, you institute a contest concerning everything and put yourself in danger. She brings forth wind-borne things. That is, false and unstable things. You are cutting the Hydra. Used of very difficult matters. A sow washed in a wallowing-place of mud. A sow beneath the club. Used of those who cast themselves into destruction. A Phrygian man, once struck, is better and more serviceable. For Phrygian slaves are thought to be sluggish. Another Phrynondas. Said of the wicked and also of sorcerers.

It is dangerous to let a dog taste the fetal membrane. Money makes the man; but the poor man is never good. Far apart are the borders of the Phrygians and the Mysians. Manifest from the skin. They say that Pherecydes the wise man died of the pedicular disease, and to Pythagoras, who was asking him how he was, he replied while extending his finger: It is manifest from the skin. To be blear-eyed with pots and gourds. Used of those who see poorly. While gilding us, you do not notice. Used of those who are rashly rebuked. For he adds: But now this is an ornament to me. ^{B C}

I wish to entertain as a hero on a shield. Said of those who benefit their friends with their own works. With ears at attention. A mountain was in labor, then it brought forth a mouse. A shooting beyond the mark.

^D concerning which Demosthenes said he would provide a defense, the judges not being sufficiently attentive, "Listen, men, to a charming story." A certain youth had hired an ass from Athens to Delphi; but as noon was approaching, he unloosed the burden and sat in the shadow of the ass; but being repelled by the muleteer, who said that he had not also hired the shadow, he himself came into judgment with the other. Demosthenes descended from the platform at these words. But when the judges asked that they might learn the end of that judgment, he climbed the platform again and said, "Do you wish, good men, to hear about the shadow of an ass, yet when a man is in danger of his life, you do not even sustain hearing our voice?" Having said this, having touched the judges, he saved the defendant.

(1) A saying by a Crotoniate, who, when the trenches were fifty feet wide, first leaped across them. (2) Aristophanes in *Amphiaraus*: You are another Phrynondas, and pure wickedness. (3) Of those who advance from small evils to greater. *Chorion* is called the fetal membrane; when dogs have tasted this, they lie in wait even for infants out of greed. It is, moreover, an apophthegmatic proverb. (4) A reference to those who live luxuriously on account of opulence. (5) The rivers of Myrrha and Siloe are separate.