Nilus Cabasilas

to the refutations against the Cabasilas, and to the chapters of the blessed Thomas on the procession of the Holy Spirit. ^A By Demetrius Chrysoloras, a brief discourse against the Latins, from those which Nilus, Archbishop of Thessalonica, composed. Also a dialogue of the same author, refuting the discourse which Demetrius Cydones wrote against the Lord Nilus Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonica.

OF NILUS, ARCHBISHOP OF THESSALONICA

TWO BOOKS

ON THE CAUSES OF THE DISSENSIONS IN THE CHURCH, AND ON THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE.

BOOK ONE,

I believe that for me, about to converse with the Latins, it is necessary to discover such an opening for the discourse as may contain within itself a reasonable basis. This is to contemplate the cause for which this schism of the Churches first arose and has flourished to such a degree that there is not even cause to hope for an end, unless God should extend a helping hand. ^B We see indeed that doctors, and others who have some end set before them in their works, do not decide upon the mode of treatment before the nature of the causes has become clear. For once the cause is removed, one may indeed hope well for peace; but while it remains, all labor is undertaken in vain. Therefore, the cause of this schism, as I surely suppose, is not the loftiness of the dogma, surpassing human comprehension. For all other matters, too, just as many as have caused trouble for the Church at various times, are like this. Neither, then, is this the cause of the schism, nor by much… ^{C D} [index: entries preserved]

^A less is the speech of Scripture itself [the cause], as if it were concise and not clearly declaring concerning that which is in dispute. For to accuse Scripture is the same as to accuse God. But God is without fault. Yet anyone who has intelligence would say that it is a matter of those who choose [to be at fault]. Moreover, men—those who come from both nations, the Italian and the Greek—both wise and good, do not allow us to blame a shortage of men, and to attribute the causes of the schism to this. ^B But neither is that the case which the Latins claim, that we wish to arrogate the primacy to ourselves, nor that we refuse to be shown to be second after the authority of the Romans, and at the same time, because of this, jump away from peace. For we have never disputed with the Roman Church about the primacy, nor is the point of discussion now about the second place. But neither have we been so ignorant ^C of the ancient custom, or the decrees of the Fathers, in which the Church of Rome is proclaimed the oldest of all Churches. Besides, it is not even fair that what we deny should be leveled against us, and that the certain demonstration of this matter should be hidden under this pretext. What, then, is truly the cause of this dissension? It is that the matter in question is not confirmed by a common ecumenical synod, and that the resolution does not proceed according to the ancient custom of the Fathers in such matters; but that the Romans wish themselves to sit as masters of the matter in question, and to hold others in the rank of disciples, ^D obeying their word. But the decrees of the Fathers do not have it so. The acts of the Fathers, remaining as written records, are a sufficient witness for this argument, and they make both the discourse and the investigation concerning the common matters of faith a common one. It is altogether absurd that the fathers, not having examples, should perceive the better course of their own accord, while we, having them, do not understand it so.

And when the struggle first began, perhaps there was pardon for those who were ignorant, as if the customs of the Fathers were not necessary in such matters, as it was possible for the dispute to be resolved in another way; but with so many years having flowed by, not to have observed that one and only path that leads to peace, and not to wish to go by way of that through which our fathers came—how is this not to be thoroughly rejecting peace? But, they say, the Pope is high priest, and shepherd, and father, and exe-

the prince of priests, and pastor, and father, to whom it is permitted to convoke a universal synod, and privately, apart from others, to determine ecclesiastical matters. But there was also Pope Julius, and Damasus, and Celestine, and Leo, and Agathon, to whose distinguished piety the Fathers bore witness: yet they never spoke these things, but assembling together with other brothers, with the help of the good Spirit, they both established dogmas and made peace for the Churches. But if dogmas were established in this one way, and today this is by no means done, who would doubt that the whole cause of the dissension is lodged in this one thing? In us, certainly, the blame for this matter does not reside. But what is said, that the convocation of a general council and the ordering of ecclesiastical matters in that council pertain to the Pope, is nothing other than to say that the Pope, ^B assembling with others, deliberates about ecclesiastical matters. But if the Pope’s tribunal were sufficient for deciding these things, the gathering of the holy Fathers would be altogether superfluous and unnecessary. But the matter is not so. By no means. As long as the Holy Spirit speaks through those blessed ones. For we see that Pope Agathon, and the divine Celestine, and Leo, and others, did indeed privately convoke a synod about the matters in question at the time; yet in such a way that what had been discussed there particularly was referred to a universal synod, and they demanded that the truth be established by a common sentence. Otherwise, if the Pope were to convoke a synod privately, and it were necessary for the rest to assent to his decrees, with no one contradicting, an ecumenical tribunal would be plainly superfluous. But if there are many, or rather, countless who contradict, how would it be just to reject the remedy by which alone salvation can be obtained? Furthermore, if only some from among the common crowd of men were to dissent, their argument might have some pretext, and so it might be deemed unfair to make so much of certain persons that for their sake we should wish to shake the whole world. But now, when the heads ^C of the world almost disagree among themselves, would it not be very absurd to decide and determine about the universal faith otherwise than together with the whole world, when the Fathers themselves proclaim this at that time both by words and by deeds? Moreover, this also seems absurd, that when a universal synod has sometimes been convoked, not only because of the cause of the faith, but also for the sake of discipline and ecclesiastical order, in which ecclesiastical matters are accustomed to be judged, now, when the business of the faith is at stake, men deem it not necessary that a universal synod should assemble. But if the Latins should again and again inculcate the same things, objecting to us the authority of the Pope, we shall say this, that to do these things is rather to destroy his authority. But to remain ^D [in the ancient customs of a serious man, and one who preserves his own. And it is added to the...]

performing of just things, this much: for it is just to consider what would have resulted if this controversy had been discussed by a common vote, and what has resulted from the Latins using their own autonomy. In the former way, the Church would have enjoyed peace and would have been relieved of all tumults, since no one would have easily dared to contradict what had been commonly decreed. For even if some of the ancients came to such a pitch of madness, yet they were very few, and for a short time, and appearing only briefly, they ^B perished. But when the peace of the Church is disturbed, he himself also loses what is owed to him, inasmuch as he is deprived of the primacy of the four patriarchal thrones. With matters in this state, there is peace nowhere; and while many remedies are devised, and many discussions and so many embassies [are held], the disease yet remains, and will remain forever, as long as the Latins persist in their purpose.

The pope had authority in ecclesiastical matters. I too say so. Therefore, let him not contradict the laws of the Fathers. They confirmed the things of the Church by an ecumenical tribunal. Each needed the assistance of others, for they were aware of human frailty. Let the pope also obey their laws; and let him not confirm a dogma before he has discussed it with the others. But if he has received his authority not from the Fathers, but from the apostles, let him listen to Paul saying ^C: "Now, I have not used this power, lest we give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ"; and elsewhere concerning the power [which] the Lord gave us for edification, and not for destruction. Therefore, if he himself also has power, let him not use it in matters where the Gospel does not progress, so that, according to Paul, he too may run, showing himself in all things an apostolic man; or let him use it, indeed, but for edification, and not for destruction. As for the present case, whether the matter tends toward edification or toward the opposite, I think it escapes no one. Read also, whoever wishes, the canon concerning these divine apostles, the thirty-fourth ^D [canon].

Nilus says, therefore, that if peace were spread through the whole Church, the pope himself would also enjoy what is due to him, whereas now, because of that dissension, the whole Church being disturbed, he must lack the primacy of the four patriarchal seats, which would rightly be due to him upon the restoration of affairs and the establishing of the peace of the Churches. This is the meaning of this passage.

Nilus of Constantinople, a most elegant and most eloquent writer, said: We have observed much about the notion of this word in the writings of more recent Greece, which we willingly omit here. For we are not writing commentaries. This number the interpreter recognized, nor was he mistaken.

^A Bishops of individual nations ought to know who among them is the first, and to regard him as the head, and to do nothing curious without his opinion; but for each to do only those things which pertain to his own parish and the regions under it. But neither shall he do anything without the opinion of all. For thus there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You have heard what the law proclaims with an open voice: it is not permitted to the bishops of the nations to decide anything without the opinion of him who is first, nor in the same manner for him who is first, if those who are subject to him do not agree. Why so? Because, if this is not done, concord is dissolved, and hatreds, schisms, and quarrels are introduced; and what is most grave, the honor due to the Divine Being is taken away.

Since, therefore, our affairs ^B are in a pitiable state, I urge you not to pass lightly over that clause, "For thus there will be concord." For that saying was not spoken rashly or by chance by the disciples of truth; but knowing that truth is discovered and peace is reconciled by debating and inquiring together, they thus brought forth the law. Whether or not concord has been dissolved because a dogma was established without the knowledge of the other universal bishops, consider, I pray, by the Lord. Who indeed are those who hold this for settled, before a common discussion about it, not even this is unknown to anyone. For the primacy which the Roman bishop holds over the other universal bishops is not equal ^C to that which the bishop of a single nation holds over those under him. For there, the primacy is of order only, and consists more in words than in reality; since in most matters, equality is observed. But in those who hold the primacy of a nation, it is not so, but there is equality in words, yet primacy in reality. Therefore, the divine apostles did not say these things and establish them as a rule and limit, while they themselves acted otherwise, usurping the authority to dictate laws. But blessed Paul, although he had Christ speaking in him, and was called a vessel of election, nevertheless refers himself to the apostles who were before him, and communicates the Gospel to them, lest in any way he should run, or had run, in vain. Furthermore, that leader of the sacred college of twelve, I mean the divine ^D Peter, the coryphaeus of the apostles, even suffers himself to be corrected by Paul, and being reproved, he is silent; and although he could say, more justly than the Pope, "What has been done by me, the declared coryphaeus of the sacred college, is law for others," he said no such thing; but rather he welcomed the reproof with an even mind, and does not contradict the things that seemed right to Paul. For what does the blessed Paul say, writing to the Galatians? "When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was condemned." And again, "But when I saw that they were not walking straightforwardly toward the truth, I said to Peter..." [index: entries preserved]

before all: 'If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize? We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from the Gentiles; knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, unless through faith in Jesus Christ.'" ^A Since the debate regarding circumcision was reawakened because the law of Moses had prevailed, and a question was proposed in the Church by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem—desiring to learn what ought to be done—Paul and Barnabas, along with some others, ministered to these inquiries. But when they were in Jerusalem, Peter did not seize the primacy for himself, nor did he say, "It is permitted to me to regulate such matters." Rather, the apostles were gathered, and the elders were gathered, in order to examine this issue. And Peter did not drive the apostles away, seeking thereby to procure the primacy for himself; nor did the apostles drive away the elders who were in Jerusalem. For they were not taught such things by Christ, nor to seek the primacy in such a way; but even when the latest matters were revealed regarding what must be done, those who were first remained silent. ^B And here is the sign: for when the apostles and elders were gathered, and a great debate had arisen about the matter, Peter indeed began the speech, but the divine James took up the word after him, and all—Peter himself, the apostles, and the elders—obeyed the words of James. So did those blessed men love Christ; so did they care equally for the truth and for ecclesiastical peace. Then, while the apostles continued in this way to seek the truth, they also established a law concerning these things; but you, by doing the opposite of what they did, can blame others rather than yourselves for such a grave dissension. And how could this stand to reason?

"And how could this stand to reason?" What, therefore, do I say? And you see how simply and justly I speak. If a general synod had decreed what one ought to believe concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, that is what ^C should be held, and one should not dissolve the common dogmas. Anyone who thought otherwise than what was defined would certainly be subject to the punishments pronounced there. But if, by common consent, it decided regarding the matter proposed, the established Creed of the holy Fathers ought to be read, and one ought to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but whether He proceeds from the Father alone or also from the Son, one should not deem either to be the Lord until the Holy Spirit Himself, through a common assembly, declares concerning Himself whether He proceeds from the Father alone or indeed also from the Son. But they say that the doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is ancient in the Church. But they say that the doctrine concerning which you dispute is ancient in the Church,

^A But, they say, the dogma about which you are disputing is ancient in the Church, and has been handed down by the apostles and the Scriptures; and it is not just to assemble an ecumenical council for this reason. First of all, this is what is being investigated: whether it was handed down by the apostles, whether it was handed down by the Scriptures? And one ought not to lay down as conceded the very things that are being investigated. Furthermore, who does not know that the fact that the Son is coessential with the Father, and the Spirit with the Father and the Son, and all the other things that were established by ecumenical acts, were also ancient, and were apostolic and prophetic traditions—or rather, the utterances of the Holy Spirit? Yet even so, when there were ^B ecumenical councils in the Church, it was necessary for the truth to be sought, and once found, to be proclaimed, so that every pretext might be removed from those who contradict it. But in the ecumenical councils, they say, there was no intention for the truth to be sought, but they gathered so that they might confirm it; so that even now, it is not just for the dogma to be called into doubt, but for it to be established. How do you say this? If indeed no universal Church contradicts it, or if only one or a few do, I agree. But if, when there are five universal Churches, one contradicts the others, is it not just for them all to assemble, and for the dogma to be established after thousands of prayers and such great investigation? ^C Furthermore, what is the purpose of those things read in councils, the matters proposed, the objections, and the solutions given to them? Is it not so that the truth may be found? But how could it be found if it were not sought for first? Read also the Acts of the First Council. For you will encounter philosophers there who contradict others at great length; then, once the truth is demonstrated, they desist from all strife. But what, they say, are the four Churches? For we are occupied with one only, the Church in Constantinople. The other three are words only, empty of reality, since they live under the Barbarians and possess no one at all to inquire about the truth, inasmuch as wisdom has no place there whatsoever. This is not, O good sir, what the principle of justice demands; nor, because they have been surrendered by ^D divine judgment, should we immediately consider them to be despised, as long as we understand that temptations are the lot of Christians. Furthermore, such Churches were under the Barbarians even at the time of the seventh council, and yet they were not deprived of their rights for this reason; but when the universal metropolitans were not present themselves, each sedes was represented by their vicars, and Pope Adrian praised and approved of these acts. Regarding the wisdom to be found in those Churches, we must amend our view.

I ask: of what wisdom is the discourse, of our own spiritual one, or of that from without? If from without, so be it, and it makes no difference to the argument; for we were not guided by it toward the truth, lest the cross of Christ be made void. But if it is about the spiritual one, which is ours, the statement is not true. And many who have spurned the world in those places are witnesses to this, looking only to heaven; and many even resisting impiety unto the shedding of blood, and supporting the Church continually with blood, not with words. ^A That this is done not without great exercise in the Scriptures, there is no need for words. In the sixth synod, Pope Agathon, bewailing the Church that was in Rome, writing to the Roman emperors, says the following: "We send these our fellow-servants, N. and N."; then he immediately adds: "For by men living in the midst of the nations, and obtaining their food from bodily labor with great distraction of spirit, how can the full knowledge of the Scriptures be found? Except that we observe, in simplicity of heart and without doubt, the faith delivered by the Fathers, according to the canons from the holy predecessors and the five holy synods, which are established; ^B and we desire and labor to hold this one excellent thing forever, that nothing beyond what is canonically defined be noted, nor exchanged, nor added, but that these be guarded inviolate in words and meanings." But if those men also, being called to a common hearing, said the same things as the blessed Agathon, would they not be saying things just and consistent with the Gospel of Christ? ^C But if the Pope, because he is not perfectly endowed with the knowledge of the Scriptures, and because he knows simply what pertains to the faith, and because he has this excellent quality of neither changing nor adding anything, neither in words nor in meaning, and not only has this quality but prays to have it until the end—if, nevertheless, because of these things he is not deprived of his rights, how is it just for other Churches to be defrauded of their rights because of these same things? For either he also, if they do; or they do not, if he does not. For one and the same law of justice holds throughout all things, ^D even if things be otherwise elsewhere. But they say: "Men of the madness of Arius once sprang upon the Roman Church, who, depriving the Son of the paternal substance, said other things too against their own head; and indeed, from the fact that the Son does not proceed from the Spirit, they gathered the conclusion of lawlessness." Because of these things, the Church, doing well, then judged it a sovereign dogma and added it to the creed. If the Church does this as an economy, let it be granted. And indeed, that the economy was temporary and, now that the cloud has passed, one should no longer use clever arguments. Although it is not permitted simply to use economy, nor to heal evil with evil. But if they consider it true, and it is right to apply the cause to another, and the dogma being true, it was not right to dissolve the argument of the opponents in this way. For if, because the Son possesses the "proceeding" and is of the same substance as the Father, the Spirit is then alienated from the paternal substance, being deprived of the procession. But indeed, if they said the things I said concerning the Father of the Son, they also said concerning the Father of the Spirit, that since He is only causative, He is less than the paternal substance—what indeed would you say to them? These are subterfuges, O men, and a flight from the truth. Otherwise, how is it not entirely terrible that, for the sake of those men, one chooses to solve things even badly, and to move the unmoved, when it would have satisfied the refutation that they were driven out by all the synods as impious? While we, saying things moderate and true, and using the laws of the apostles, who do not allow the things of the Church to be shaped privately, nor to be made into any argument whatsoever, but to flaunt the authority of the Pope against us like a bugbear. And indeed, from the not-proceeding of the Spirit from the Son, the…

^A conclusion of iniquity was gathered. Wherefore, if, because the Son has the power to produce, he is of the same substance as the Father, the Spirit is alienated from the paternal substance, being deprived of this procession. The conclusion of iniquity. How is it right to divert the cause to others? As for the copies of letters to the King of the Romans, or those to our Church, and the letters from us to them casting off the synod, let the present suffice. ^B

OF THE SAME, ON THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. BOOK II.

^D [index: entries preserved]

^A never at any time deviated from the path of truth in any part of error." And that on account of this he also received the primacy from the apostles, and has obtained this desire. And his primacy has this logic in relation to other catholic sees, which indeed that of Constantinople also has in relation to the hierarchs under it. And that it is permitted to him alone to assemble an ecumenical council when he wishes. And that it is not lawful for ecclesiastical matters to be regulated without his opinion. And that he, while judging everyone, is judged by no one, neither in dogmas nor in other customs. And that the Pope is not a bishop of a certain city—Rome, for instance, or any other—just as there is a particular shepherd for each city, but is simply and absolutely "the Bishop," a thing which is not to be seen in others. Because of this, he does not even call himself "Bishop of Rome" in what he writes. And that only the throne of the Pope has had the right to be called "the Apostolic Throne." For in Rome the blessed Peter spent a long time, and therein he ended his life. And that the Pope has received all the things mentioned above from Peter and the other apostles, and that it is necessary for all to obey him, and for no one to contradict him, when he commands. These things, indeed, the Latins say on behalf of their own Church. But as for me, not being at a loss for words ^B regarding these matters, I am at a loss as to whom I shall address the words. For if to the Latins, how is it possible for me to contradict them, and for them to sit as judges of the things being said by me? But if to the Greeks, the Latins would say it is neither just nor moderate that they be granted to have as judges those whom they consider enemies in ecclesiastical matters. Yet for all that, it is not right to pass over the truth in silence; but rather to speak with boldness, putting forward a good hope; and to pray that those who shall encounter this writing may hold nothing as prior to the truth. For perhaps there will be benefit from these words to those seeking it. Let us speak, then.

Concerning the authority of the blessed Peter, and how he was established as the exarch of the other apostles, and how much was owed to him by the consent of the holy chorus—this I do not think should be inquired into at the present time; let it be, however, as much as anyone might wish. ^C I do not say, however, that the Pope received from the blessed Peter the right to be the first of the other bishops. For there being two things to be considered regarding the Pope: that he is the Bishop of Rome, as the councils testify, and furthermore, that he is the first of the other bishops—the former he has received from Peter, the being Bishop of Rome; the latter, however, from the holy Fathers and from the pious emperors, a long time afterward, because it was just that ecclesiastical matters should also be ordered, and much more so than political ones. And that these things are true, I shall provide you witnesses, not two or three, nor even twice as many, but six hundred and thirty, and these holy Fathers. Read the canon of the holy and universal fourth ^D

^A synod, numbered the twenty-eighth, which says: “Following in all things the definitions of the holy Fathers, and recognizing the canon recently read of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops who were gathered under the emperor of pious memory, the great Theodosius, in the royal city of Constantinople, new Rome, we also define and vote the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. For the Fathers rightfully granted privileges to the throne of older Rome because that city was the imperial city; and moved by the same reasoning, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops awarded equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome, judging it reasonable that the city which is honored by the empire and the senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the elder royal city, should also be magnified in ecclesiastical matters just as that one is, while being second after it.”

What do we learn from these things? What else but that the primacy over other Churches was given to the pope not by the apostles, but by the Fathers, and this precisely because the city of Rome ruled over the other cities? If, indeed, the pope holds the primacy because that city was the head of the empire, he certainly did not obtain it by the title of being the successor of Peter. But if he has this from the Fathers, then it is not from the apostles. Read also the one hundred and thirty-first ^B Novel of Justinian, that you may see the truth in every respect consistent: “We ordain,” it says, “according to the decrees of the holy synods, that the most holy bishop of the elder Rome is the first of all priests, but that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, new Rome, holds the second place after the throne of the elder Rome, and is to be preferred in honor before all others.” Do you hear clearly that the pope is the first of all priests? “It is,” he says, “a decree of the holy synods.” But if it is a decree of the holy synods, by what arrangement did the pope receive the primacy of the priesthood from Peter?

What then, someone might say, is the pope not the successor of Peter in a general sense? He is indeed, but in that capacity in which he is a bishop—a claim which every one of the bishops can make for himself who has been ordained by him; for there are many who have received this benefit through his hands. And every one of the priests is ^C indeed, by this reasoning, a successor of that apostle from whom he received the priesthood through tradition. By this reasoning, therefore, many are successors of Peter and of the other apostles; but in other respects, by no means. For Peter was both an apostle and the prince of the apostles. But the pope is neither an apostle (for the apostles did not ordain apostles, but pastors and teachers), and much less is he the prince of the apostles. And Peter was the teacher of the whole world; he heard the command to preach the Gospel to all creation…

^A. But the Pope is and is called the Bishop of Rome. And Peter indeed ordains one person in Antioch, another in Alexandria, and another elsewhere; but to the Bishop of Rome, these things are not permitted. Peter ordains a bishop of Rome, but the Pope of Rome does not appoint another pope. And Peter simply heard, “Whatever you loose or bind shall be loosed or bound in the heavens.” ^B But the Lord, transferring this grace to the Pope of Rome, did not speak simply or absolutely, but said, “You shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what in turn ought to be loosed.” Moreover, the words that Peter spoke were the utterances of the Holy Spirit; but where are these things shared by the Pope? It follows, therefore, that the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of Peter in all things, but only in those things which we have mentioned, just as every one of those who have been ordained by him [is his successor]: so that he may clearly bind and loose, so that he may baptize, so that he may teach, so that he may convert those who have been dragged away from the truth, and perform the other works by which a hierarch is characterized.

That it is impossible for the Pope to fall away from orthodox dogmas—this actually exceeds even the succession of Peter. For that apostle did stumble and fall, however vehemently he might have asserted that he would not permit this. ^C But I ask this also: Can the Pope be subject to falsehood, love of money, vainglory, and other forbidden things, or is he entirely immune from them? If he is immune from them, so that these things cannot fall upon him, let them say so. But if this is a vain thing to say (for he also errs in many things, as his own conscience testifies, being a man), it is manifest indeed that, since he sins in these things, he can also make shipwreck concerning the faith. The blessed Paul testifies to this, writing to Timothy: “Holding faith and a good conscience, which some by rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith.” ^D Do you see how one who is not healthy regarding his conscience can also be sick in the faith? But if the Pope is not in all respects of a healthy conscience, and it is possible for such a one to be sick regarding the faith, then it is a falsehood that it is impossible for the Pope to fall away from orthodox dogmas. And is not this very act of sinning against one’s conscience a species of impiety and defection from God? “For,” says Paul, “they confess God with their words, but by their deeds they deny Him.” 16 How then can it be that the Pope might deny God by his deeds, but in no way by his words? Moreover, Honorius, Bishop of Rome, departed from the orthodox dogmas and was publicly denounced by the holy and ecumenical Sixth Synod. But that these things are true, read this testimony:

From the sixteenth session of the Acts of the ecumenical Sixth Synod.

The holy synod said:

Next, after the favorable acclamation of the sovereigns was made, they subjoin these things immediately: ^A “Anathema to Theodore the Pharanite, heretic; anathema to Sergius, heretic; anathema to Pyrrhus, heretic; anathema to all who give support to the heretics.” Read also another testimony from the same Acts.

From the address by which the holy synod exhorts the king.

“But the novel vanities of words, and their inventors, we cast far away from the ecclesiastical enclosures, and we justly subject them to anathema. Such are those whom we declare: Theodore the Pharanite, Sergius, and Paul; and at the same time Pyrrhus and Peter, who presided at Constantinople. Furthermore, Cyrus, the bishop of the Alexandrians, and together with them, Honorius, who was bishop of the city of Rome. But if Honorius is bishop of Rome, and is also a heretic, it is therefore possible for a pope to fall from the rectitude of dogmas. ^B Yet the word of the Lord, which He spoke concerning the Church, namely that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, was not rendered void by him erring in regard to the faith. For piety and the integrity of religion can be firmly preserved, and indeed is preserved, in the other bishops. But it is manifest from these things that it does not befit the Church of Rome either, that the Church should be considered as built upon this Petrine rock. For it is something harsh and heavy, and not far removed from Jewish pettiness, to circumscribe the Church to Rome. But Christ indeed built the Church; He built it, however, upon Peter’s confession of God, and upon all who shall be guardians of that same confession. ^C But if the blessed Agathon affirms that his Church has never strayed from the way of truth, it is nothing to be wondered at. We would wish, however, that the one who says such things should not draw matters to words, but rather accommodate words to matters; and that he should consider in his own mind the tropes of *oikonomia*—which the saints use when a question is instituted concerning some useful and necessary matter—and that because this Church rarely strays from the truth in matters of faith, the blessed Agathon was induced to write such things. Otherwise, how will you interpret that: ‘All have turned aside; together they have become useless; there is no one who does good, there is not even one’? ^D Furthermore, when he said that the Church of the Romans had not deviated from the way of truth, he spoke of past time; he did not include the future. But what is most important, these things were said by Agathon before the Sixth Synod. Nor should it seem a cause for wonder if a synod of many saints understood what...

had happened to be unknown to one. But that these things are so, read the letter of Pope Leo, who succeeded Agathon closely, and embraced the Sixth Synod. ^A From the end of the Acts of the Sixth Synod, from the letter of Pope Leo to the emperors of the Romans: "In like manner, we anathematize the authors of the new error, that is to say, Theodore, bishop of Pharan, and Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of the Church of Constantinople, usurpers rather than overseers; and not least Honorius, who did not illuminate this apostolic Church with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but exposed it, which was immaculate, to a base and profane betrayal." But to say that the relationship of the Pope to the Constantinopolitan is the same as his relationship to the Caesarean, or to any other of the bishops who are under him, how is this not entirely harsh? ^B For the Roman bishop is called first in relation to the Constantinopolitan, as the latter occupies the second rank; but the Constantinopolitan is by no means primary in relation to the Caesarean in the same way, as if the latter held the second place. Rather, the one of the city of Constantine is first among those under him, as a unit and not coordinated with the others; but the Caesarean is not called second, but is likewise first, except that he is coordinated with others and has a second and third after him. But that the primacy of the Pope is coordinated and not loose and exempt is clear. Read also the thirty-sixth canon of the Sixth Synod, which says: ^C "Renewing what was decreed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who gathered in this royal city protected by God, and the six hundred and thirty who gathered in Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall enjoy the same prerogatives of honor as the see of Elder Rome, and shall be magnified in ecclesiastical matters just as that one is, being second after it; after which, let the see of the great city of the Alexandrians be numbered, then that of the Antiochians, and after this the see of the city of the Jerusalemites." If, however, because you are first in the numbering, you therefore seize lordship, grant this same thing to the Constantinopolitan also; for he too is placed before the Alexandrian. ^D And let the Alexandrian in the same way have the Antiochian under him; and let this one in turn dictate to the see of Jerusalem. But what is all this, if not purely tumult? But if, when the Constantinopolitan ordains the Caesarean and those after him, the Roman does not ordain the Constantinopolitan, nor any other of the general patriarchs, how can those who say that the Roman is first in relation to the Constantinopolitan by the same reasoning as this one is in relation to the prelates under him be speaking the truth? Read, moreover, the sixth canon of the holy and universal synod.

so that you may know how it was judged that the bishop of Rome should preside over one part of the world, the bishop of Alexandria over another, and the bishop of Antioch over another, and that it is not permitted for one to leap upon the things of another. It says: "Let the ancient customs prevail, those in Egypt, and Libya, and the Pentapolis; so that the bishop of Alexandria may have the authority over all these. Since this is also customary for the bishop in Rome. Likewise, also in Antioch and in other provinces, let the prerogatives be preserved to the Churches." Do you hear how the canon thinks it right to cherish the ancient decrees of the Fathers, which granted prerogatives to each of the churches? As, for instance, that nations should be subject to the bishop of Alexandria, and others to the bishop of Antioch—those, clearly, who inhabit Syria and both Cilicias, and Coele-Syria, and Mesopotamia—and that this was given to the Roman bishop, namely, to preside over the Westerners. The bishop of Aelia, as the seventh ^B canon of the same synod decrees, presides over the cities that are situated in Palestine, Phoenicia, and Arabia. But under the see of Constantinople, as the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth synod says, are the dioceses of Asia, and as many as are of Pontus and Thrace. If, therefore, each person is content with his own, he preserves the established order. But if any one, while retaining his own, looks with unjust eyes upon someone else's parishes, this man cannot but violate the ancient customs of the Fathers. Yet the canon does not mean this, but says: "Let the ancient customs prevail." Moreover, if the regions of the earth had been distributed to each of the universal bishops, and nothing had been definitively assigned to the throne of Rome, but the canon had merely said that he had received the primacy, it would have been likely, of course, to imagine that the whole world was subject to him, and that the universal bishops administered his affairs, ^C just like the hierarchies under the patriarch of Constantinople. But if that was allotted to the Roman, that to the Alexandrian, and this to the bishop of Constantinople, by no means shall the Roman bishop be thought to be above them, any more than they are above the Roman. But if, because he has the appeal in ecclesiastical matters, you therefore deem him a master, then since the bishop of Constantinople also has this, by the same reasoning, let the other metropolitan sees be subject to him. But neither for that reason does the bishop of Constantinople usurp jurisdiction over them; nor is the pope, on account of that prerogative, justly able to disturb the churches of other patriarchs. Read the ninth canon of the universal fourth synod, so that you may see that the see of Constantinople also has the right of appeal. For it says: "If any cleric has a dispute with another cleric, let him not abandon his own bishop, and flock to secular ^D tribunals."

but first let him test his case before his own bishop, or at least let the dispute be settled by the judgment of the bishop with the consent of both parties. But if any one acts contrary to this, let him be subject to canonical penalties. If, however, a cleric has a dispute with his own or another bishop, let him be judged by the synod of the province. But if a bishop or cleric should have a dispute with the metropolitan of the same province, let him reach the exarch of the diocese, or the see of the royal city of Constantinople, and let him be judged before it." ^B The seventeenth canon of the same synod decrees the same thing. And the twenty-eighth canon of the same synod, and the thirty-sixth of the Sixth [Ecumenical Synod], while deeming both sees worthy of the same prerogatives, clearly assign the right of appeal also to the see of Constantinople.

That the pope judges all, but is judged by no one, is false and inconsistent with apostolic tradition. For Paul shares the Gospel with others, lest he run or might have run in vain, and likewise Peter endures being rebuked by Paul. How, then, can the Roman pope, like a tyrant, admit no censor of his life, when he otherwise prides himself on being the successor of Peter? That this is also false, as far as dogmas are concerned, is testified by Honorius, who, having been judged by the Sixth Synod, was delivered to anathema—not even death excusing the man. But as regards the conduct of life and actions, he is subject to all the same laws to which individual bishops are bound, since he is counted among the bishops. Moreover, there are many such laws, some established by the apostles, some by general councils. ^C Indeed, it is also evident that he was specifically rebuked by the blessed Fathers. Read the thirteenth canon of the holy and general Sixth Synod, which says: "Since we have known that it has been handed down in the Church of the Romans as a rule that those who are to be ordained deacons or presbyters should profess that they will no longer consort with their wives, we, insisting upon the ancient canon of apostolic discipline and order, desire the lawful marriages of sacred men to be valid from this time forth, in no way dissolving their union with their wives." Then, further pursuing and explaining what was said, the canon adds: "If, therefore, any one shall presume, contrary to the apostolic canons, to deprive any of those who have received sacred orders—that is to say, presbyters or deacons—of the union and association with his wife, let him be deposed." ^D Likewise, the fifty-fifth canon of the same holy and ecumenical synod says: "Since we have learned that in the city of Rome, during the holy fast of Lent, they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical tradition handed down; it has seemed good to the holy synod that the canon which says, 'If any cleric be found fasting on a holy Sunday or Saturday, except for one solitary Saturday, let him be deposed,' should be held firmly and unshakeably even in the Church of Rome."

or on the Sabbath, save for one only, let him be deposed; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated.” ^A That the bishop of Rome, just as in matters of dogma, so too in other practices, is reckoned among those who are judged if he should be found attempting anything contrary to the established decrees, is manifest from what has been said.

That he is not of a higher order than the episcopal, is evident from the things said. For how could he be corrected by those of an inferior order if he were of a higher one? It is also evident that the Fathers call him the bishop of Rome, as is clear from the very letters written to him. Furthermore, he is ordained by bishops. This would not happen if he were greater than a bishop. For no one can bestow upon another what he does not possess in the first place. But truly, to say this is to dissolve the order. Now the blessed Dionysius, who lived in the times of the apostles, or rather, having been a hearer of some of them, and for others having stood as guide and teacher, ^B is seen to divide the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy into deacons, priests, and bishops; and we cannot conceive or imagine from his writings any dignity greater than the episcopal. Nor was he ignorant of any greater one that might exist, nor did he omit it on purpose, since he professed to write about the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy.

“But let these things be so,” they say. “How was it just to make mention of the canons of the sixth synod, when the sixth synod, which discoursed concerning the two wills in Christ, made no mention of canons?” In the first place, O good man, even if this synod were not firm and ratified, our proposition is nevertheless proven. For if there is no dignity higher than the episcopal, and no bishop is greater than another bishop, in so far as he is a bishop (for Dionysius says that all bishops are of the same order and dignity): it is manifest that the Pope also is a bishop, and is reduced to one order with the others, and is subject to all the laws to which the rest of the race of bishops is subject. So many, indeed, are the laws which pertain to bishops, and so great has been the concern of the ecumenical councils for them—councils which cannot be contradicted—that they cannot easily all be enumerated. But that the canons which we cited above are called, and are, the canons of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod, and are held as firm and valid, no one is ignorant of who is even moderately versed in ecclesiastical affairs. For since the fifth and sixth synods ^C published no canons, the synod which says these things, having been assembled immediately after the sixth (and it is ecumenical itself), supplied their defect. And just as those, discoursing on dogmas, spoke no word concerning canons, so this one, in its treatment of dogmas— ^D [This is a] false reading and corrupt punctuation; for the text here suffers from these two defects, and deceived the learned interpreter, who translated it thus: "It is manifest also from the history of Basil which has Gortynes, who is a bishop in Crete, [as] his place in the synod at Rome." It is entirely wrong. ... which reading the most distinguished Servinus also noted from his own [copy], but he himself reads [it] excellently. But we think that it should be retained, and we distinguish it thus: That it is also ecumenical is manifest from the history, as it holds Basil the bishop of Gortyna in Crete [as representing] the whole of the Church in the synod at Rome...

^A holding its place; it is clear also from the fact that it speaks continuously of itself, calling itself ecumenical. For such a large choir of Fathers would not have endured being caught in such an obvious lie. But furthermore, the holy and ecumenical seventh synod says in its first canon as follows: "We embrace with joy the divine canons, and we confirm the entire and unshakable conduct of them, which were set forth by the trumpets of the Spirit, and those who were gathered locally for the publication of such dogmas, and our holy Fathers. For all of them, illuminated by one and the same Spirit, decreed what was useful. And those whom they consign to anathema, we also anathematize; and those whom they consign to excommunication, we also excommunicate; and those whom they consign to deposition, we also depose; and those whom they consign to other penalties, we likewise punish. For the disposition of the pious should be free from the love of money, and content with what is present, as the divine apostle Paul, who ascended to the third heaven and heard ineffable words, expressly cries out." ^B If this holy synod mentions the canons of the all-lauded apostles, and of the six holy and ecumenical synods, but the sixth synod, strictly so called, did not concern itself with canons at all, how is it not manifest that it is speaking about the canons of this synod, or [that it] appears to be fulfilling what was lacking in the sixth?

And that those who disregard canonized ordinances should be given over to anathema, how is this not exceedingly terrible, and able to pierce even a heart of stone? Moreover, even the Bishop of Rome himself held these canons to be valid, as long as peace and concord flourished among the Churches, so that Pope Hadrian ^C, writing to Tarasius, praised him highly because he persisted in the observance of the canonized decrees of this holy synod. Read from the Acts of the seventh synod, from the letter of Pope Hadrian to Tarasius of Constantinople, these words: "We found in the aforementioned synodical letter of Your Holiness, after the fullness of the faith ^D from the confession of the sacred symbol, and of all the six holy synods, and concerning the holy and venerable images, a matter truly worthy of praise and veneration in a wonderful way; in which it is also contained that 'I accept those things which were decreed by the holy sixth synod, with all that which was lawfully and divinely pronounced by its canons; in which it is mentioned that in some depictions of the holy images, the Lamb is sculpted being pointed at by the finger of the Forerunner, who was accepted in the type of grace, prefiguring for us through the law the true Lamb, Christ our God.'"

^A We therefore embrace the ancient types and shadows as symbols and lineaments of the truth handed down to the Church, and we prize grace and truth itself, having received it as the fulfillment of the law, so that perfection and fulfillment may be depicted before the eyes of all by the art of painting, namely, the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, according to his human form. And from now on, we decree that in images the Lamb be set up in the place of the old one, contemplating through it the height of the humility of the Word of God, and being led by the hand to the memory of his life in the flesh, and of his passion, and of his saving death, and of the redemption which the world won from this. That this canon, therefore, also has its authority from the blessed Hadrian, and that the synod of which we now speak is the eighty-second ^B by number, the books will bear witness to the argument. But it is very absurd for the Latins not only to be hostile to the ecumenical councils, over which they themselves presided, and whose dignity has reached even to heaven, but also to be at variance among themselves; and now to call such canons by Pope Hadrian worthy of praise and embrace, but now to agree with Innocent, or some other, in rejecting these same ones. But if anyone says that the Pope is not subject to the laws and statutes of the Fathers, he is not to be tolerated by any reasoning. For what reason? Because he himself received his prerogative from the Fathers; and it is not at all to be tolerated that he should set at naught those by whom he was raised up and through whom he appears to be great. Furthermore, one who is so disposed can even reject himself, if he himself is the one who lays down laws. The blessed Paul calls himself a transgressor ^C if he brings his mind to rebuild what he has destroyed. But if it has been demonstrated that the Pope is subject to the censure of the Fathers in dogmas just as in conduct, how is he not subject to the laws laid down by the Fathers? Or how, finally, is it equitable that others should revere him as a father, who contemns so many holy Fathers? As for those who say that the Pope is not of any defined place, but is simply and absolutely bishop: how does this not struggle against manifest truth? For it has been demonstrated above that he is of the same order with other bishops. Next, as often as there is mention of him in ecumenical councils, as indeed often occurs, they call him the Bishop of Rome. How then will the Bishop of Rome not be the bishop of a certain and circumscribed place, ^D unless perhaps someone might wish to deny that Rome is a circumscribed place? But if, because in his own letters he does not call himself the Bishop of Rome, but simply Bishop, and for that reason...

^A he does not think himself to be a bishop of a certain place, we are not ignorant that he uses words showing great humility to snatch at great things. Indeed, this speech makes for our side, if we had wished to overthrow his dignity. For since he calls himself bishop (which is indeed a most common title) and not pope, ecumenical, or supreme pontiff, or with other titles by which men usually flatter him, it is an argument of one humbling himself. But neither would we act justly if, on account of these, we wished to overthrow him by them. But he, hoping from these things to exalt himself, does nothing other than if he were attempting to weave a rope from sand. ^B Yet, if because of these the Pope is great, let Cyril also obtain the same things for these reasons, and indeed much more justly than he, since this title is also attributed to him by others. Behold the testimony for you: "Theodosius, glorious triumpher, ever-Augustus, to Cyril the bishop." Do you see how he does not add of what place he is bishop? Furthermore, if anyone even being a bishop, in those things which he writes, does not even add the name of bishop, but only makes mention of his own name, and omits other things, is he therefore not a bishop? But if he inscribes himself only as bishop, let him flee [the idea of] circumscription, and may he be the bishop of the whole universal world? But if he even omits this, may he be even above such a thing? But how are these not ^C similar to riddles? That there are also many inscriptions of this kind is manifest. For example: "To the most holy and God-beloved Father Celestine, Cyril, greeting in the Lord." And again: "To the most reverend and God-beloved fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril, greeting in the Lord," and you might find many of this kind.

But neither, as they claim, does the Roman see alone possess the appellation of "apostolic." For this title is common also to other catholic brethren. This is manifest from the eleventh action of the Acts of the Sixth Synod: "Constantine, the most pious archdeacon of the most holy catholic and apostolic Church of God that is here." Likewise, from the subscriptions ^D of the same Acts and decree: "Petrus, presbyter and vicar of the apostolic see of the great city of the Alexandrians. Georgius, the least of presbyters, holding the place of Theodorus, [son] of Theophylactus, presbyter and vicar of the apostolic see of the holy city of Christ our God, Jerusalem, I have subscribed." Likewise from the first action of the Acts of the Seventh Synod, the beginning of which is: "In the name of the Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our true God, the reign of our most pious and Christ-loving masters." Then, after it listed those sent from Rome, and those from Constantinople, it expressly subjoins in this manner: "of John and Thomas, the most reverend presbyters, monks, and vicars of the apostolic sees which are in the Eastern diocese." You will find this same thing immediately in the beginnings of all the Acts of the Seventh Synod: and again in the determined subscriptions of the same, he calls it the great city of the Alexandrians. It is false, therefore,

^A that this is found in the principles of all the Acts of the Seventh Synod; and again from the subscriptions of the definition of the same synod: "John, by the mercy of God, presbyter and patriarchal assessor, holding the place of the three apostolic sees, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, following the dogmas of the Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, define and have subscribed. Thomas, by the mercy of God, presbyter and superior of the monastery of our holy Father Arsenius, which is situated in Egypt above Babylon, holding the place of the three apostolic sees, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, following the paternal dogmas and the tradition of the Catholic Church, define and have subscribed." This you will also find in all their subscriptions. You have heard how each of the catholic sees is called an apostolic seat? So that if anyone wishes to weigh the rights, or even deems all of them worthy of the same things as the Roman see on account of these facts, I do not know against whom they will have the primacy; or why, because of these things, the Roman see should have preference over the others, so long as that which is common has no room to become proper and peculiar. But the blessed Chrysostom says that each bishop sits on the throne of Christ, just as the legal priests sat on the throne of Moses: and he asserts that they are endowed with greater dignity than are angels and archangels, writing elsewhere again. So that it is no great thing that the Roman see should receive its appellation from the apostles, when individual bishops sit on the throne of Christ, and possess a greater dignity than angels themselves, ^B being clothed with a greater dignity than that of the angels.

^C But for them to say that it is permitted to him alone to convoke an ecumenical council, namely to the Pope, how is this not to be judged as contrary to the manifest truth? Or rather, how is it not shameful for a bishop ambitiously to covet those things in which it is fitting for the king himself to glory? And I do not say these things to condemn the pusillanimity of kings (for their affairs indeed proceed rightly), but because the good of the Church, despising things that appear to us, strives for those things which are in the heavens. But that you may understand that the power of indicting councils is given to kings rather than to bishops, read these things:

From the Acts of the holy and ecumenical First Council.

^D "The holy and great synod, to the holy and great Church of the Alexandrians by the grace of God, and to the beloved brothers in Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Libya, and throughout the whole world, and to the orthodox clergy and peoples: we who have been gathered in Nicaea, and who celebrate the holy and great synod, the bishops, wish you health in the Lord. Since by the grace of God and the divine...

^A grace and the protection of the most pious King Constantine, who gathered us from various cities and provinces, etc.»

Item, from the Acts of the third ecumenical council:

«To the most pious and God-beloved Theodosius and Valentinian, victors, triumphers, ever Augusti, the holy synod, which by the grace of God and the annotation of your power has been gathered in the metropolis of the Ephesians.»

From the end of the Acts of the holy and ecumenical fourth council.

The subscription of the letter of the holy synod:

«The holy and great and ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and the decree of our most pious and most Christian kings has been gathered at the metropolis of Chalcedon, of the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the Romans, Leo.»

That the convening of an ecumenical council pertains to the kings is openly clear from those things which have been read. But the blessed Leo, bishop of Rome, writing to King Theodosius, requests as a great kindness that it be granted to him by the king to be able to gather a private synod in Italy. But he would certainly not have asked this, if he already possessed that right. Read also this testimony:

From the Acts of the fourth synod, from the letter of Leo, Bishop of Rome, ^B to the King of the Romans.

«All the Churches of our regions, and all the bishops, supplicate your clemency with tears, according to the petition of the libellus of Bishop Flavian, that you may command a private or particular synod to be held in Italy.»

If, however, because Peter ended his life in Rome, you for that reason deem the Roman see "Great," then surely the see of Jerusalem will be greater and more worthy, since our Savior Jesus Christ suffered his life-giving death there.

But if the magnitude of the honor which the Roman see obtained from the blessed Fathers troubles you: consider it done for the sake of preserving order. ^C But order has great value among the saints; for by it both heavenly and earthly things stand and are held together. Furthermore, the apostolic law also urges them, commanding that we should lead one another in honor. Indeed, the Lord himself provided an example of humility to his disciples; washing their feet like a minister. And other exceptional things which he performed, while providing for our salvation in the flesh, abundantly exhort us to the study of humility. But if the blessed Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: «I am your servant for Christ’s sake;» and the Pope calls himself the servant of the servants of God, which the inscriptions of his letters also attest; what is so great if he also enjoys such honor, because he received it from the Fathers, to be the first? ^D

^A But, they say, ecclesiastical ^A canons cannot be established without the pope. Rightly so. But it is not permitted for the pope to do so without the others, so long as he certainly obeys the apostolic laws. Read the thirty-fourth canon of the apostles, which is as follows: "The bishops of every nation ought to know who among them is the first, and to account him as their head, and to do nothing new or of great worth without his judgment; but each one should only do those things which pertain to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But neither let him do anything without the judgment of all. For thus there will be harmony, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." If, however, anyone wishes to contradict the canons of the blessed apostles, calling them spurious and in no way consistent with the apostolic spirit, let him suffer himself to be taught by the holy Fathers. By which ones? Of the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh synods. For the first of these synods, in its fifth canon, makes mention of two apostolic canons, namely the twelfth and the thirty-second; and in the fifteenth canon of the same synod, it makes mention likewise of the fifteenth apostolic canon. ^B The third synod, writing to King Theodosius, makes mention of the seventy-fourth apostolic canon, by which it used to depose Nestorius. The fourth synod similarly used the same canon to depose Dioscorus. But again, this same fourth synod, in its fifth canon, regarding the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth apostolic canons, says in express terms: "Concerning bishops and clergy migrating from city to city, it has seemed good that the canons established concerning these by the holy apostles and Fathers should retain their force." The canons of the sixth synod also recount the number of the apostolic canons. ^C From the second canon of the sixth synod: "It has also seemed good to this holy synod, most beautifully and excellently, that the eighty-five canons accepted and ratified by our holy and blessed Fathers before us, and indeed handed down to us by name in the name of the holy and glorious apostles, should remain from this time forth firm and valid for the healing of souls and the curing of maladies." The seventh synod, in its first canon, enumerating the laws of the Church, sets before all others the canons set forth by the apostles, wishing that that saying of Moses should hold good in all things: that it is not permitted to add anything to them, nor to remove anything. ^D Shall we, therefore, reject those who are approved by so many and such great men, and deem them spurious, and condemn them as useless? In what way, then, can these things be tolerated? The sum of what has been said is this: So long as the pope preserves the order, and stands with the truth; he is not removed from his first and proper principate, and is the head of the Church, and the supreme pontiff, and the successor of Peter and the rest of the apostles; and all are to obey him

and all men ought to obey him, and there is naught that detracts from his honor. If, however, once he has departed from the truth, he is unwilling to return to it, he shall be liable to the punishments of the condemned. These things have been said according to my small power—and they are in agreement with the truth. If not, let medicine be applied to one who does not wish to be sick. I, for my part, stand also with those whose care it is to sing: "Take not the word of truth out of my mouth."

CONFUTATION OF NILUS THE THESSALONICIAN ON THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, BY JO. MATTHAEUS CARYOPHYLLUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ICONIUM.

TO THE MOST BLESSED FATHER URBAN VIII, SUPREME PASTOR OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

The unassailable citadel of the apostolic height, ^B Most Blessed Father, ambitious vanity has attempted to weaken, principally by three engines of war: first, it saw fit that a city rivaling the city of old be honored with new glories, since ancient, and from this it came to pass that the honor of the one was the diminution of many, and the newly introduced order overturned the ancient order, exactly when Damasus was gracing the throne of Peter with the holiness of his innocent life and with zeal for the sacred Muses. Then, the new city, having been puffed up, was raised to such a point—like the two-headed eagle of the emperors—that two cities also appeared, visible as equal in power in divine affairs, Leo being the first man of noble soul to preside over the apostolic see; ^C through whose labors the eternal city both quelled the wars of souls and compressed the impetuous onslaughts of the Barbarians. Finally, the boldness having culminated and brought about dissension, the apostolic sublimity was attacked with many writings, while Nicholas I was steering the bark of Peter, who, in order to repress such great impudence, rightly...

received his labors. Who is so dull that he would not say that the sweat spent on behalf of Peter and the ancient sovereignty of Rome is owed to the most music-loving pontiff, to the quencher of wars, to the chaser away of schism, Urban VIII? Receive, most blessed Father, the gift which is offered of your own accord and deservedly conferred—this Nilus who is brought here in triumph, and who is rightfully expelled for those lies invented against your see, following the example of his ancestors. Thus, you will be a Damasus as a tamer for the barbarians occupying Thrace; a Leo for those who love wars, terrifying them with your leonine roar; and for those who follow schism, a Nicholas, a most valiant victor, both by that most placid gentleness of your mind and by the never-to-perish works of a magnanimous heart. ^A Your Beatitude’s most humble servant, the Archbishop of Iconium. ^B

TO THE CANDID READER AND THE STUDIOUS OF ORTHODOX TRUTH

were struggling, in order to demolish the divinely-established supreme authority of the pope and to make the Church a five-headed hydra, and to reduce the much-celebrated pre-eminence of the apostolic throne to a mere name of primacy, and a bare shadow of superior honor. ^A This was the cause of the schism. Hence arose the disputes about dogmas, and the pretext concerning the addition made to the Creed. Nor were these men, who were most experienced in histories, and who were themselves authors of many histories, ashamed to lay a foundation for their own faith that was so manifestly false. For if Photius was the first to object to the Latins regarding the addition, it is certain that at that time the Creed was being recited by the Romans with what they call the addition. ^B And if Photius did cast the seeds of the schism, yet he still did not have the majority persuaded, but the Eastern Church was still maintaining reverence and concord toward the pope, as the Acts of the eighth ecumenical council at Constantinople testify. How, then, is it not manifest and most evident that the cause of the schism was something else, and not what they call the addition? Their defenders themselves teach what the true cause of the schism is, contending rather for that which more sharply pierced the center of their heart, and for the sake of which they were inventing sophistic arguments about dogmas; for, of those points which were most disputed, there was much disagreement among them concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; some imagining that a duality of principles was being introduced, and dreaming that the dogma was blasphemous, while others, having respect for the open testimonies of the teachers, were not so bold, but were asserting that the addition was made to the Creed with audacity. ^C Some, indeed, would not even express a certain opinion, but said the cause of the schism was that the pope was unwilling to allow the examination of the dogma by an ecumenical council. Then, when ecumenical councils were held, they put forward pretexts and evasions, saying that the Latins had used force, or that they had bought the victory with gifts and promises. But regarding the primacy and authority of the pope, they all, with one mind, in one language, and with one voice, describe it, saying that the Catholic Church is subject to a pentarchy; and that of this five-member body, the pope holds the first place only in order—that is to say, in the mentioning of names, in the chairs when they assemble, and in signatures when necessary—but that in terms of authority, they are all of the same rank and equal in power. ^D They say that this is the case while the pope is orthodox, but now that he, according to them, is teaching perversely, the order also ceases. They rely upon such vanity of speech, so that they might not appear to be schismatics without reason, having taken their principles from those more ancient, but having themselves increased them because of the spirit of contention innate within them. Of their number is this Nilus, the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, who wrote very sophistically and deceitfully regarding the causes of the division of the Churches; he also wrote a booklet about the primacy of the pope—which both other most learned men and we ourselves have examined—as well as certain other compositions against the Latins.

^A Under the name of the Latins, he disturbs the evangelical sanction and the orthodoxy handed down from the most ancient times, because of his hatred for the Latins, stitching together things in which all those of the same gang repeat one another. For the simpler sort, he produces a show of wisdom; but for the intelligent, he brings amazement, as they reflect on what that wise race has descended into, and to what it has turned. ^B Our purpose, however, since we are debating with a Greek man—it being their habit to boast that they do not follow human reasoning, but synodical decrees—is not to collect everything that could be gathered from authors regarding such a vast subject (a task many learned men have already accomplished with distinction), but to set forth only those points from which Nilus derives his arguments and through which he does violence to the truth; to dismantle his machines by the same means, and to oppose his compendious attack with a compendious defense; and finally to set against his fictitious synodical dictates the actual voices of the synods, so that it may be plain to all that the truth is naked. And if falsehood deceives by brevity of speech, all the more does the truth shine forth through brevity of speech.

AGAINST NILUS OF THESSALONICA ON THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE: A REFUTATION

NILUS (Cap. I)

The Latins assert that the Pope, since he is Peter’s successor, has also received from him all his authority. But I say that the Pope has not received his primacy from Peter. For since two things are considered in the Pope—namely, that he is the Bishop of Rome and the first of the other bishops—the former he has from Peter; but the latter, he has from the blessed Fathers and the pious emperors, many years later. And that these things are true, read the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth general council: "Everywhere following the constitutions of the holy Fathers..." ^C From which it is evident that the Pope does not

^A have his primacy from the apostles, but from the Fathers, because Rome is the queen of cities. »

CONFUTATION. If to bring forward spurious, supposititious, and utterly rejected canons seems sufficient to you, excellent sir, for the passing of judgment in a matter so grave and affecting the salvation of the soul, then the testimony which you have brought forward has vanished, and your statement has been dissipated like a spider’s web. You ought also to have read by what machinations, by what art, and by whom the canon brought forward by you was stitched together: first indeed by the Pope's legates contradicting it, then by the Eastern bishops not all consenting, and by the Pope himself vehemently disapproving of it. There were six hundred and thirty Fathers of the synod; but those who seem to have signed the canon voluntarily are not numbered as many above two hundred. How, therefore, could this be a canon of the fourth synod? But I, through the witnesses brought forward by you, will prove most clearly that it was the common and unanimous confession of the six hundred and thirty Fathers, and consequently the sense and dogma of the whole Eastern Church, that only the Pope, as successor of Peter, possesses ecumenical authority, not from the Fathers, not from the emperors, but from Christ himself.

Writing then to Pope Leo, the fourth holy synod, and making a report of those things which were lawfully done concerning the dogma of the faith, says regarding Dioscorus: ^B "And those who were of the mind of the shepherds he cut off, and he placed over the sheep those who showed themselves to be wolves; and in addition to all these things, he even extended his madness against him to whom the custody of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior, we mean your Holiness, and he plotted excommunication against the one who strove to unite the body of the Church." You, therefore, Nilus, say that the Pope received his primacy not from Peter, but from the blessed Fathers and the pious emperors; but the holy synod says that the custody of the vine was entrusted to the Pope by the Savior.

You say that the Pope is bishop of Rome from Peter, but the first of bishops from the Fathers and emperors: but the holy synod says that it is writing to the most blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo, and it acknowledges him to be the same, the bishop of Rome, and established by the Savior through Peter as the keeper of the vine.

You say that the Pope is first according to that falsely-named canon, because Rome is the queen of cities. But the holy ^C synod, on account of the entrustment of the vine, calls the Pope in its letter both the vertex and the head leading the members. So that since the canon is invalid, as being full of falsehood and innovation, and not even approved by the Pope, though the Fathers of the synod struggled for it in whatever way; indeed, it is rather rejected and condemned ^D

^A by the Pope, or rather, cast out and spurned; but since the letter reveals the sincere and pure intent of the whole holy synod, how is it that you, leaving aside what is clear and manifest, introduce from perverse teaching whatever you fancy?

If, however, the holy synod ^B truly held that the primacy of the Pope was from the Fathers, why did the Fathers themselves, who constituted an ecumenical synod (a condition certainly lacking in those who, according to you, brought the primacy to the Pope, since the Pope had always held the primacy even before the first Nicene synod, as that same first synod confesses in its sixth canon)—why, I ask, did they not use their own authority to honor the Constantinopolitan throne, just as the ancients of old (according to you) honored the Roman, but instead begged the Pope to approve their canon? You say, Nilus, that the primacy of the Pope is hung upon the authority of the Fathers; but the holy synod cries out through its letter that the privileges of Constantinople are hung upon the authority of the Pope. Thus you overturn the order, and you lay a sophistic foundation for your treatise on the primacy of the Pope, from which follow many great absurdities; and you slander the holy Fathers, claiming that they issued a canon declaring that the primacy was conceded to the see of senior Rome by the Fathers. For if this were the case, they would be fighting against themselves. But since this is entirely impossible, either the canon is false or the letter is; but the consent of the synod—which would have accepted the canon if it had been approved by the Pope—indicates that the letter is not false, while the dissension declares that the canon is not valid. You are therefore caught having laid an invalid foundation for your structure, bolstered by a false canon. ^C

Do not say that the custody of the vineyard entrusted by the Savior is something common to bishops, according to the dictum of Paul in the Acts: "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops." For the holy synod, when it had narrated in the letter the many things done wrongly by Dioscorus—that by deposing Flavian of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and by severing those who held the right views, he had set wolves over the sheep—having said these things about the other bishops, it added what pertains to the Pope, not naming him, but using a circumlocution: "And in addition to all these things, it says, he even extended his fury against him to whom the custody of the vineyard has been entrusted by the Savior." And by using this circumlocution it amplifies ^D and more expressively designates the audacity of Dioscorus, and it is astonished at the impious deed. Thus, that which was said by way of distinction cannot be common to the bishops whom the Holy Spirit places by common providence; but the Pope, by the testimony of the holy synod, is established as the universal guardian of the Church by a special law of Christ. Otherwise, in having also deposed Flavian, Dioscorus would have seemed to have committed the same crime; now, however, the holy

^A synod calls his attempt against Constantinople and the other bishops an act of tyranny, but it cries out that his terrible transgression against the Pope is a violation of the ordinance of the Savior. If, then, even a small deviation from the truth at the beginning grows subsequently into something immeasurable, how many roots of logical fallacies, how many foundations of sophistry will such a great distortion of the truth at your very starting point be, O Nilus? And so you add:

NILUS

REFUTATION

says Justinian, who in that Novel accepts the dogmas of the holy four synods as divine Scripture; but indeed Cyril also, in the third, as will be said below, and the Fathers of the fourth synod acknowledge the Pope as judge of the Church and guardian of the vine set by the Savior. ^A Their decree therefore concerning the Pope does not have the force of a ruling law, but rather the development and clarification of a dogma pertaining to faith. Second, you err in that, wishing to show that the primacy of the Pope was not from the beginning confirmed by imperial decree, you have had recourse to Justinian with truly contentious malice. Yet your Photius, the prince and leader of the schism, used to refer this to Aurelian, and was not so sordid an estimator of the Pope. Others, however, of those who think as you do, attribute this to Constantine the Great, all of them obscuring the truth, but most of all you, who, having read the synodical acts, have undoubtedly also come across the epistles of the emperors prefixed to the third synod, in which the reverence of the emperors toward the see of Peter shines in a wonderful way; so that what you say—that Justinian was the first among emperors to decree the primacy of the Pope—is complete nonsense. We say, therefore, that the holy Fathers by their decrees by no means gave, but rather testified to, the primacy of the Pope; and that the pious emperors, especially Justinian, did not found, but faithfully set forth, the primacy of the Pope.

NILUS (Chapter III)

What then? Is the Pope in no way the successor of Peter? He is indeed, but as a bishop—something which also every one of the bishops consecrated by him possesses. For every hierarch, as far as this is concerned, is the successor of that apostle from whom he received the priesthood by succession. For this reason Peter has many successors, as do the other apostles; but as to other things, not at all. For Peter is both apostle and prince of the apostles; but the Pope is neither apostle nor coryphaeus of the apostles. ^C Peter is teacher of the whole world; the Pope is bishop of Rome. Peter ordained such-and-such a bishop in Antioch, another in Alexandria, and others elsewhere; but it is not permitted for the Roman [bishop] to do these things. Peter designates the Roman bishop; the Pope does not designate another Pope. To Peter it was simply said: "Whatever you shall loose or bind, it shall be bound or loosed in the heavens." But when he was transferring the grace to the Roman bishop, he did not use an unqualified utterance, but said: "You shall bind what it is proper to bind, and you shall loose what is fitting." The things which Peter said are the voices of the Holy Spirit:

^A *who can say this of the pope? The pope is not, therefore, in all things the successor of Peter, but only in those in which any of the bishops ordained by Peter is also a successor.*

REFUTATION

You weave together many things, you confuse many things, and, heaping up many distinctions, you say there is only one thing—and that a particular one—that is common to Peter and his successors. Then, passing over that which is most opportune and most principal in this matter, you show yourself to be a teacher of confusion and disorder. You call the pope a successor of Peter in his capacity as a bishop, just as each of the bishops ordained by him is [a successor]; but you bring forward no proof for this position of yours; rather, you behave like one who declares and legislates with authority. We shall oppose to you, therefore, not our own words, but the voices of the holy fourth synod, from the letter it sent to the pope: "For what is more sublime for bringing joy than the faith ^B which you yourself have preserved for us like a golden chain let down by the command of the Lawgiver, having been established as the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter for all? Whence we also, having used you as a leader for our benefit, have shown to the children of the Church the inheritance of the truth." In these things, the holy synod calls the pope the guardian of the golden chain of faith, and the interpreter of the voice of Peter, and says that the faith in the pope is the inheritance of the truth. And further down, concerning the assembly of the bishops of their holy synod, the Fathers write: "In which you indeed, as the head, led the members, showing benevolence to those who held your rank." In these things, the holy synod confesses the pope to be the head, and the other bishops to be the members. ^C And there were present at that synod Anatolius of Constantinople, and Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem. And further down: "And in addition to all these things, he extended his madness even against him to whom the custody of the vine was entrusted by the Savior, we mean, against your holiness." In these things, the holy synod calls the Church the vine in an evangelical sense, and says the pope is the vinedresser, having received the vinedressing from the Savior Christ. And further down: "Being persuaded that the apostolic ray has its seat among you, and that you have often, in your customary care, extended it also to the Church in Constantinople, because it is your custom to enrich those joined to you abundantly with the portion of your own goods." And further down: "Knowing that every achievement done by the children redounds to the Fathers who own them; we entreat you, therefore, honor our judgment with your decrees; and just as we have brought to the head our consensus in these good things, ^D so too let the summit fulfill for its children that which is proper." In these things, the holy synod confesses that the apostolic ray is established in the pope and has often been spread out even to Constantinople; and that the pope is such a head of the Church that from him depend honor and privile-

- ^A ges, whence, O Nilus, did you derive the paradoxical assertion that the pope is a successor of Peter just like any other hierarch ordained by Peter? That the pope is a successor of Peter, insofar as he is bishop of Rome, you yourself agree; but that which you omitted, which is common to Peter and the pope and most vital—and which most concerns our subject—is what the fourth synod teaches, and which the remaining holy councils, which the Greeks receive, bear witness to, as we shall say. This is the pastoral authority over the sheep of Christ, which that synod explained in various ways through those expressions. But you, bypassing the vital and essential aspect of succession, count up things that are not vital and are least essential; for it is not necessary for the logic of succession that all things which existed in the predecessor be observed in the successor, but only those in which the rationale of succession consists. For example: Constantius succeeded to the Roman Empire after Constantine the Great, ^B yet there is no need that, through this succession, Constantius should have seen the sign of the cross in the heavens, or elevated Byzantium into the city of Constantine, or taken care to celebrate the first of the ecumenical synods. And the pope, similarly, succeeds Peter as bishop of Rome, as guardian of the vineyard, and as head governing the members; but it is not necessary on that account for the pope to be an apostle, or the prince of the apostles, or himself to consecrate the patriarchs in person, or to designate another pope, or to write canonical books; for these do not pertain to the rationale of succession. Rather, in place of being an apostle he is called apostolic, and he is a universal teacher as the head governing all, and the interpreter of the faith for all, having authority from the Savior in Peter to bind and loose all things, ^C as one constituted guardian of the vineyard by the Savior. Therefore, through synodical voices we have it that the pope is Peter's successor, not only as he is the bishop of Rome, but also as he is the prelate of the universal Church of Christ, and its guardian and head.

NILUS (Chapter IV).

That it is impossible for the pope to fall away from the right doctrines, this is actually something beyond the succession of Peter; for he himself certainly did stumble. And I ask this also: can the pope be less than the sins of falsehood, avarice, vainglory, and other wrongdoings, or is he actually superior even to these? But if it is not even lawful to speak this, for he too sins much through a faltering conscience, since he is a man, it is clear that by sinning in these things he can also suffer shipwreck regarding the faith; for this is what Paul says to Timothy: “Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having cast away concerning the faith have made shipwreck.” ^D Moreover, does not a lapse of conscience itself constitute a kind of abne-

abnegation of God? For God, says Paul, they confess in words, but in their deeds they deny Him. How, then, is it possible for the Pope to deny God in deeds, but in no wise in words? ^A

REFUTATION

First: Peter has fallen; therefore, the Pope can also fall. Second: He who can sin through a lapse of conscience can also make shipwreck of the faith, according to the blessed Paul. But the Pope, being a man, is not entirely immune to a lapse of conscience; therefore, he can also suffer shipwreck of the faith. Third: To sin through a lapse of conscience is a kind of infidelity, according to Paul; but it is possible for the Pope to sin in conscience; therefore, he can suffer from this kind of infidelity, namely through evil works. But if he can deny God by his works, he can do so by his words as well; therefore, it is false that it is impossible for the Pope to fall away from the true dogmas. ^B

To these sophisms of yours, the holy fourth synod replies in its letter to Pope Leo. Concerning the first, where it says that Leo preserved the faith like a golden chain handed down, having become for all an interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter, and that the synod showed this inheritance of faith to the children of the Church, using the Pope as a good guide and author. Peter indeed has fallen, but Christ says to him: “And thou, once you have turned, strengthen thy brethren.” If the holy synod showed the faith to the children of the Church through the voice of the Pope, then the Pope, according to the holy synod, is the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter who strengthens the brethren and the children of the Church. If this is so, the Pope as Pope is the interpreter and successor of Peter, not ^C insofar as he has fallen through human frailty, but insofar as he strengthens his brethren by the confession of the true faith. In this respect, it was impossible for Peter ever to fall, since it is impossible for the Truth to lie. Therefore, since Peter is considered in two ways—both as a mere man, and as one strengthening his brethren by the command of Christ—and the Pope succeeds Peter according to the holy synod in this second way, your sophism is dissolved: “Peter has fallen, therefore the Pope has also fallen.” For just as it is impossible, after the command and the prayers of Christ, that Peter’s faith should fail, and that he should fall, so too is it impossible for the Pope to fall. ^D

The second sophism is full of every absurdity. The blessed Paul says to Timothy that some, having cast away a good conscience, have made shipwreck of the faith; therefore, the Pope, being able to cast away his conscience, can also make shipwreck of the faith. Do you not see, O admirable one, that the Apostle is speaking against those who wish to teach a foreign doctrine?

^A For these truly, by their own depravity, have cast away both their conscience and their faith. But concerning the Pope, the holy Fathers of the fourth synod say that, having preserved the faith by succession, he became for all the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter, which the Pope held as a heritage of truth. Where, then, does your objection have room—an objection that, from our native human weakness, tries to import weakness into the divine power of Christ, from whom the holy Fathers say the faith is drawn down like a golden chain, so that it becomes the voice of Peter, and the Pope is the interpreter of the voice of Peter, and the heir of the truth? The Pope can err in his own private and human actions; this is a human failing. Therefore, he can also err in the faith; this is an insult extending to the Savior Christ. And the enthymeme is lame, because the "Pope" is taken one way in the antecedent and another way in the consequent: in the former, as a man acting; in the latter, as Pope and interpreter of the voice of Peter. Just as if I were to say: Hippocrates can slip through an error of conscience, therefore he can also [slip] in the art of medicine. For in the antecedent he is taken as a man, but in the latter he is understood as a craftsman; ^B and terms must not be taken equivocally.

Your third sophism tends to the same point, though more cunningly and obscurely. According to Paul, a species of the denial of God is to err through a lapse of conscience; but the Pope can err through a lapse of conscience, therefore he can be guilty of this species of the denial of God. Then, [arguing] from the greater to the less: the species of denial by a lapse of conscience is committed by doing something, but it is a greater thing to sin in deed than in word; therefore, he who can sin in deed can also [sin] in word; the Pope can sin in deed, therefore also in word; it is not, therefore, impossible for the Pope to err in the faith.

But what you call a species of the denial of God is common to all works that are done contrary to right reason; whereas denial of God by words is an act of infidelity and a special sin, and ^C is by so much the greater as faith is greater, inasmuch as it is the foundation of the virtues. You deceive, therefore, O admirable one, with a double sophism: first, as we have already said, because this consequence is invalid: "The Pope can err contrary to right reason in some moral action of his, therefore also in the faith." For it has been shown that this is false, because the Pope stands in a different relation to moral actions than he does to the dogmas of the faith. For of his own actions he is the principle, but of the dogmas he is the guardian under Christ, as being the heir of Peter. Second, because you have made the greater less, and the less greater. You say it is a greater thing to deny by deed than by word, which, in the present matter, is openly false. A thief denies by deed, but he who renounces Christ denies by word; is theft, therefore, greater than apostasy? God forbid. Therefore, he who can do the lesser by denying through deed, does not for that reason have the power...

to do the greater by denying God through word. Rather, if you were to apply this reasoning to the Pope, he is able ^A to do the lesser insofar as he shares in human nature, but he is unable in any way to do the greater insofar as he is the heir and guardian of the faith of Peter. But that two things are to be considered regarding the Pope who is one—this you yourself would also admit, having posited two things at the beginning regarding the Pope: that he is the bishop of Rome from Peter, and that he is the first of the other bishops according to the Fathers. Just as you, therefore, having received the teaching from Photius, admit two disparate things in the one Pope—one particular, the other universal; one left by inheritance, the other added; one on account of the region, the other on account of the order—so we too, following the evangelical, apostolic, and synodical dogmas, consider two things in the Pope: that he is a man, himself also encompassed by our own infirmity, and that he is, furthermore, the interpreter of the voice of Peter and the heir of his faith. And since these two things are different and disparate, the strength of your arguments collapses, passing from one to the other, and attributing the fallibility of humanity to the infallibility of the dignity. You sin entirely against that rule which the Philosopher teaches ^B in the book *On Interpretation*: "So-and-so is good, and a cobbler, but not for that reason a good cobbler"; for to be a cobbler and to be good are conjoined by accident. You, however, Nilus, argue thus: "The man of Rome is fallible, he is also Pope, therefore the Pope is fallible." You sin, then, both against the philosophical rule and against the holy Fathers; I mean not only of the fourth synod in the things it says when writing to the Pope, and in the *Prosphoneticus* to the Emperor Marcian, but also by contradicting the holy Fathers of the sixth synod. For the fourth synod in the *Prosphoneticus* says: "Wherefore God provided for us an untainted defender against error, and prepared the Pope of the Roman Church for victory." The holy synod calls the Pope "untainted by error," and itself explains in what sense it used the word "untainted," as not having been tainted, or as not being able to be tainted. For in the letter to the Pope it addresses him as the guardian of the faith, and whatever else has been said. Yet it is not possible that the holy synod ^C assigned this title to Leo, the forty-sixth bishop of Rome after Peter, by some private prerogative—just as with being the interpreter and heir of the faith of Peter—but rather because he was the Pope at that time. But if it gave it as to the Pope, then every Pope is untainted by error and the guardian of the faith, and so on. If, therefore, these things apply to every Pope, the synod said "untainted [by error]," not "not tainted"; otherwise, with one Pope tainted, both the guardianship and the inheritance of the faith of Peter would cease. The Fathers of the sixth synod make this clear in the *Prosphoneticus* to the Emperor ^D Constantine, where, looking at the matters concerning the Pope with a pure eye and without the suggestion of anyone, and paraphrasing the word "untainted," they said concerning

^A Pope Damasus: "And Damasus, the adamant of the faith, who is not wounded by the attacks and onsets of heterodox opinions." For "not wounded" is the same as "unable to be wounded," just as we say things that are apparent and not apparent, meaning those unable to appear; and what is said concerning the divine communion—that it is eaten and not consumed, meaning it cannot be consumed—so we also say the sun is not darkened, and darkness is not illuminated. And in the letter to Pope Agatho, the same Fathers say: "Whence we also, as to the first bishop of the universal Church, entrust what must be done, as you stand upon the firm rock of the faith." For what else do the Fathers say through these words, if not that because the Pope is the bishop of the first see, he stands upon the firm rock of the faith? If, therefore, the Pope has this as the bishop of the first see, then certainly every Pope has this. To these ^B Emperor Constantine Pogonatus gives witness in his sacred rescript to Pope Leo, according to the acts of the Sixth Synod, in which he says: "And glory be to God who does glorious things, who has preserved the faith among you untainted. For how was He not going to do this upon that rock, upon which He Himself founded the Church, and foretold that it would never succumb to the gates of Hades, that is, to the snares of heretics? From which, as if from the heavenly vaults, the word of true confession shone forth, and illuminated the souls of those who love Christ, and rekindled the orthodoxy that had grown cold."

From these words you have two things, Nilus: first, that the Roman see, because of its founder, Christ, is not undermined by the machinations of heretics, which is equivalent to saying it cannot be ^C undermined. For having posited a necessary antecedent, the consequent also holds a necessity. But it is necessary that Christ’s prediction be true; therefore, it is also necessary by supposition that the see of Peter is not conquerable by heresies. This, by the logic of equivalents, is nothing else than that it is impossible for the Pope to err in faith. The second is that the Roman see is that of which that emperor wrote, addressing Leo II after the sixth synod: "The faith," he says, "was preserved in it untainted." Now this Leo was the eleventh after Honorius, whom you slander as having been a Monothelite heretic. For you say:

NILUS (Chapter V)

REFUTATION

^A was he not going to do what he did on that rock upon which he himself founded the Church?" If, therefore, the reason why the faith of Leo the Second was preserved untainted is that the Roman see is the rock upon which God founded the Church, on what grounds can the emperor be said to praise the faith of Leo alone as untainted? You argued above ^B from the novella of the emperor Justinian—though you interpreted it poorly—why then did you not also gather the true opinion regarding Honorius from the truly imperial words of Pogonatus? You say: Honorius strayed from the correct dogmas and was for this reason condemned by the Sixth Synod. But that Honorius did not stray from the correct dogmas is witnessed, first of all, by the excellent confessor Maximus in his dialogue with the heretic Pyrrhus, as was noted by us in the thirteenth action of the Sixth Synod in the Roman edition of the General Councils. His words are these:

"Pyrrhus. What have you to say about Honorius, who, writing to my predecessor, openly dogmatized one will of our Lord Jesus Christ? Maximus. Who will be a trustworthy interpreter of that letter? He who composed it from the person of Honorius, and is still living, and—among his other good qualities—is also conspicuous in that he illumined the whole West with the dogmas of piety, or the Constantinopolitans, who speak what is dear to themselves? Pyrrhus. He who composed it. Maximus. That same person, therefore, writing again to the divine Constantine, who was emperor, from the person of the holy Pope John concerning that letter, said: 'We spoke of one will in the Lord, not of his divinity and humanity, but of his humanity alone. For when Sergius had written, affirming that some speak of two contrary wills in Christ, we wrote back that Christ did not have ^C two contrary wills, I mean of flesh and spirit, as we have after the fall, but only one, which naturally characterizes his humanity. And a clear proof of this is that mention was made of members and of flesh, which cannot be attributed to his divinity.'

Having written these things before the Sixth Synod, this great Father, having interpreted the true mind of Honorius, has also the very letters of that man, which are brought forward in the Sixth Synod and most clearly testify to the orthodoxy of the writer. ^D For since the Constantinopolitans, as the same Saint Maximus says in his letter to Marinus, had found fault with two things in the synodical letters of the Pope—one regarding the divine, in that the Pope had said that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son; the other regarding the divine incarnation, in that the Pope had written that the Lord was as a man without original sin—Honorius, knowing these things, in order to exclude original sin from the divine incarnation, writing to Constantinople to Sergius regarding the question, says: 'Whence we also confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our nature was unmistakably assumed by the divinity, not the fault in it.' If Honorius had labored under the heresy of the Monothelites,

^A he would have said: 'We confess one will,' because he had one and only the divine will. But now he refers the unity of the will only to the exclusion of original sin from the humanity; what heresy is there in this? And explaining this further, he adds: 'For because he was conceived without sin of the Holy Spirit, therefore the birth from the holy Virgin is also without sin, having experienced no contagion of a corrupted nature.' How could one more clearly set forth the purpose of Honorius, that he did not dogmatize one will in Christ according to the perverse notion of the Monothelites, so as to speak of one will of the divine and human nature, but only of the human nature, for the sake of refuting those who placed original sin in Christ? And again, in what he says further down: 'For another law in the members, or a different or contrary will, did not exist in the Savior, since he was born above the law of human nature.' And in this way he immediately denies a different, that is to say, a contrary, will in Christ: 'So that,' he says, 'each one may not prefer their own will, but rather that of the Lord in all things.' Thus, therefore, having denied according to this meaning two contrary wills in the humanity of Christ, ^B he says further down of the two natures of Christ and of the wills perfectly operative of their own things: 'For that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God, is one and the same, perfectly operative of divine and human things, the holy Scriptures clearly demonstrate.' Do you see that he posits one operative, and perfectly operative in two natures, which are the properties of either? And this very thing is preached by the definition of the sixth synod. Now as it pertains to the enumeration of operations, Honorius and the Easterners were not of the same sense. For just as Honorius understood the two wills differently than the Easterners, so too, equally, with the operations. For the Monothelite Easterners said it was impossible for two wills to exist in Christ at once and in the same way, whether contrary or similar; ^C but Honorius confessed that the two natures of Christ perfectly operate divine and human things; and he taught that there was one will, by which he denied in Christ a will contrary to the flesh arising from sin. It was thus that he held—orthodxly—both one and two wills: two similar wills, the divine and the human, that is to say, not contrary; and one human will, because he was conceived without sin and was incapable of original sin. Therefore, just as the sense of Honorius and the Easterners concerning the wills was different, so too was it different concerning the operations. For the Easterners attributed operation to the divinity, and passions to the flesh, so that the divinity indeed moved, while the flesh was moved, and there resulted a certain new, virile operation of Christ God. Wherefore they also posited one [operation], the flesh, of course, having no operation of its own. But Honorius, in his former epistle to Sergius, in the twelfth session of the sixth synod, says: 'Truly, on account of the works ^D of divinity and humanity, whether one or two are to be said or

should be considered, whether one or two operations should be spoken or thought of, these things do not pertain to us, but we leave them to the grammarians; for we have not received from the holy Scriptures that our Lord Jesus Christ and his holy Spirit have one or two operations, but we know him to have operated in many ways. For there are divisions of operations. But if there are many divisions of operations, and God works all these in all members of the complete body, how much more can these be most fully adapted to our head, Christ the Lord? For if in others, that is to say in his own members, the Spirit of Christ works in many ways, how much more it behooves us to confess [him]—him alone, the mediator of God and men—to have operated—most fully and most perfectly, and in many ways and ineffably—by the communion of his dual nature? And further down: “Simply and truly confessing our Lord Jesus Christ as one and the same operating in the divine and human nature.” Do you see how great the difference is? The Monothelites dogmatized that Christ’s humanity only suffers and does not operate. But Honorius, up and down, confesses that [the humanity] operates in Christ. The Monothelites spoke of one operation in kind, which they called theandric. ^B But Honorius, having suspected that the controversy was about the number of operations, says that these things are to be left to the grammarians, who dispute about singular and plural numbers; then, diametrically opposed to the Monothelites, he says that the humanity of Christ was not devoid of operations, but had operated in many ways and most fully. For if the holy Spirit operates in the members in many ways, how much more must we confess of Christ, our head, that he operates most fully and most perfectly through the communion of both natures?

Things similar to these, Honorius reiterates at the end of his first epistle, and throughout his entire second epistle, which is found in the thirteenth act, not wishing it to be said that there is "one" or "two" operations, but one Christ at work and active in both natures; from which it is most clearly inferred that the terms "one" and "two" operations were taken equivocally—otherwise indeed and impiously by the Orientals, but otherwise and piously by Honorius—and that this equivocation became the cause for the Orientals of numbering Honorius among the heretical Monothelites, ^C although he was a man worthy of much praise and most alien to the blasphemy of the Monothelites. For they indeed asserted one will in Christ, namely the divine, but he [Honorius] asserted one will of the humanity of Christ; they asserted that the humanity of Christ was devoid of operation, he asserted that it operated in many ways; they [asserted] one will and one operation; he [asserted] one who operates the properties of his divinity and the properties of his humanity. They could not in any way bear to hear of two wills and two operations; he, however, approved of neither one, because of the Eutychians, nor two, because of the Nestorians, but [confessed] one who perfectly operates the properties belonging to the natures: which confession, full of orthodoxy, if at that time

^A the Orientals had not rejected as heretical, the later theologians of Constantinople would never have invented a monstrous dogma out of the words of the sixth synod, rightly put forth by it. For when the sixth synod piously stated that there are two natural wills and two natural operations in the one Christ, those later men imagined that the operations were to be distinguished from their subjects in the same way, and just as in human things nature is one thing and the operation of nature another, so also in divine things the essence is one thing and the divine operation another—having wrongly grasped the words of the sixth synod, which had correctly established two natural operations. Yet those who do not hold this view are called blasphemers by them, as can be seen in their synodicon, which they read on the first Sunday of Lent. ^B It is falsely, therefore, that you say, Nilus, that Honorius erred in the faith. But if you ask, why then was he condemned by the synod? We say he was condemned, but by a headless synod—that is to say, only by the Orientals, with the pope's legates contributing nothing to this. And this is clearly proven from the letter of Pope Agatho in act IV of the sixth synod. For the pope, suspecting what happened later, and knowing what holy Maximus says, as has been stated, in his Dialogue, and because it was common talk that the Constantinopolitans were counting Honorius among the Monothelites, says two things that pertain to this in his letter to the emperors: "Wherefore we have given license, or authority, to our legates before your serene empire, so that they may simply satisfy [the inquiry] in accordance with that which has been enjoined upon them, so that they may presume to add, diminish, or change absolutely nothing." And further down: "This spiritual mother of your serene empire, the apostolic Church of Christ, ^C which through the grace of God almighty will be proven never to have erred from the path of apostolic tradition, nor has it fallen, depraved by heretical novelties; but it remains unblemished, just as it received from the beginning of the Christian faith from its authors, the apostles of Christ, the chief men, until the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord Savior Himself, which He made to the chief of His disciples in the Gospels, saying: 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan has asked to sift you, as one sifts wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren'." (This same thing the synodical suggestion of the bishops, after the pope's letter, contains in explicit words.) And further down: "Whence also my predecessors of apostolic memory, instructed by the doctrines of the Lord, from the time that the prelates ^D of the Church of Constantinople attempted to introduce a heretical novelty into the immaculate Church of Christ, never ceased to exhort them and to move them by exhortation, that they should at least abstain from the error of the perverse heretical dogma by remaining silent."

^A In these matters, the blessed Pope Agatho says that he gave the legates permission to answer simply regarding the faith, and to dare nothing else; he says that no Roman pontiff has erred regarding the faith. Then, by exhorting them at least to be silent, he characterizes Honorius. Therefore, when the Orientals were condemning Honorius, did they have the assent of the Pope's legates, or did they not? We have what we sought. If they had it, they had it unlawfully, for the Pope had given them no such permission; for how could the Pope have given such permission to anathematize Honorius, who expressly asserts that no Roman pontiff has erred regarding the faith? And in characterizing him, he praises Honorius, who had been pope ten reigns before Agatho. Thus, then, it is clearly evident that Honorius was condemned only by the Orientals.

^A Just as the fourth synod, because it had established its canon concerning the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople without the Pope, accomplished nothing, so also the sixth synod, when it condemned Honorius without the Pope on account of those misunderstood equivocations, accomplished nothing. Wherefore, Honorius is neither a heretic, nor was he properly condemned by the synod; but he is most orthodox, and the anathema does not touch him. For the great Pope Leo cries out in his own epistles, in the third part of the Council of Chalcedon, and especially in that to Pulcheria Augusta: "We make void the agreements of bishops which are contrary to the canons, and by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter, we utterly rescind them by a general definition."

NILUS (Cap. VI). ^C "But if Honorius, Bishop of Rome, is a heretic, the Pope can therefore fall from the right dogmas. The word of the Lord, which He spoke concerning the Church, that the gates of Hades should not be able to prevail against it, would not, therefore, fall if the Pope's faith failed; for it is possible that the faith be preserved in the remaining bishops. It is clear from these [points] that it by no means befits the Church of Rome that the Church should have been built upon that rock. For this is burdensome, and not far from the pettiness of the Jewish, to circumscribe the Church by the city of Rome. But Christ built the Church upon the confession of Peter, and upon all those who will be guardians of this confession." ^D

CONFUTATIO. Whatever you bring forward is vain, having been propped up on a false foundation. For if Honorius radiates the beams of orthodoxy and was condemned unjustly by the Orientals for equivocations—they having wished to interpret the words of Honorius in a different sense than that in which they were written by him—you have in no way proven that the Pope, as Pope, can err in the faith; for if he were to err, the word of the Lord would have collapsed and the promise would have failed, which the holy Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus deny, as we have explained above. But as for the remaining bishops [cont...]

even if they happen to possess the true confession, they do not for that reason possess the promise of an unerring [faith] ^B by nature.

Therefore, from the true confession of bishops, one cannot obtain the certainty, firmness, and infallible rectitude of faith, except from that one alone in whom the synods testify that Peter speaks. Thus Cyril, although he held and taught the true confession, did not dare to separate himself from the communion of Nestorius unless he had first written to Pope Celestine: "We are not," he says, "to be separated from the communion of Nestorius before we make these things known to your piety." Whence this, if not because Cyril trusted more in the infallibility of the faith of the See of Peter than in the proofs with which he was pressing Nestorius?

Thus, the holy fourth synod, when it had written a definition of faith, because it seemed less complete, wove the true definition of the orthodox faith from the words of the epistle of Pope Leo, which it called the pillar of orthodoxy. And the Fathers of the sixth synod confess that they have refuted the heresies from the reading of the epistle of the Pope, and when they have confirmed the faith, they use these words to Pope Agatho: "The splendor of the orthodox faith, which we have clearly preached with you, we beseech your paternal holiness to seal again through your honorable rescripts." ^D For why do they ask to be confirmed in those things which the ecumenical synod has approved? For they do not ask to have the Pope as an assenting party, but as one who seals and grants authority to the orthodoxy; just as Cyril also asserts in his letter to Acacius of Melitene that Pope Xystus confirmed the matters of the third synod.

From these things, the snares of your arguments vanish. For if the Pope has erred in faith, the promise of Christ is false; and when there is any controversy regarding the faith, it is uncertain which bishop’s [confession] is true and orthodox

It is also clear that the promise of Christ pertains to the Church of Rome, because the bishop of Rome is the heir of Peter’s faith; and this is not a benefit of Jewish lowliness, but of the divine legislation of Christ, so that when a question arises regarding the faith, the universal Church may have Peter speaking through the Pope, in whom it is impossible to err; otherwise, everyone would lay claim to infallibility, attributing to himself the theology of Peter, and the order of the Church would be confusion and disorder. This is what happened when Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople were struggling with each other over the faith; for if both had not run to Celestine, the Roman bishop, all would have been full of turmoil and confusion. And [the same happened] when Eutyches ^B was contending with the man among the saints, Flavian of Constantinople, regarding orthodoxy.

NILUS (Cap. VII). «But if blessed Agatho says that his Church has never turned aside from the path of truth, it is nothing to be wondered at; for we shall claim that things ought not to be forced to fit words, but rather words should be adapted to things. It is necessary also to consider the modes of economy which the saints employ when a question ^C arises about some necessary matter, and that it is rarely that the Church of Rome falls away from the truth in matters of faith. Or how will you explain the text: "All have turned aside; together they have become useless; there is no one who does good, there is not even one"? Furthermore, Agatho spoke of the past, and did not exclude the future, and most importantly, he said these things before the Sixth Synod. It is not to be wondered at that a synod of many saints perceived what one [man] was ignorant of. And that these things are true will be clear if one reads the letter of Pope Leo, who succeeded Agatho, to the Emperor of the Romans: "Likewise, we anathematize Honorius, who did not attempt to cleanse this apostolic Church with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but forsook it to be stained by profane treachery."»

REFUTATION. You put forward to us a noble defense ^D for your counter-objection, that Agatho wrote according to economy. But that for you "economy" dissolves into falsehood, the first things you say reveal: that one ought to adapt words to things, and not the other way around. And what else is it not to adapt words to things, but to lie openly? Thus, according to you, Agatho possesses two opposites: he is both blessed and writes falsehoods. Such are the saints, O Nilus, whom you fashion for us. Then you say that the Church of Rome falls away from the truth rarely, but nevertheless it does fall away; and you bring forward the text of the Psalm as proof: "All have turned aside," a text said either against the Jews, or against the Gentiles, or against all men generally because of the failings of human weakness, yet you, in your customary futility, drag it down to [the sphere of] faith, and [you undermine] the most certain...

^A rule of faith given by the Savior to Peter and his successors. Thus, in your excessive eagerness to disparage the throne of Peter, you fall into the most grievous blasphemies. For if the phrase "All have turned aside" must be understood according to your mind, then the holy synods and the apostles themselves—being human when they handed down the things of the faith—also turned aside. But if this is an intolerable blasphemy, and you receive both the apostles and the holy synods as having spoken under the dictation of the Holy Spirit and as infallible teachers of the faith, why do you insult the throne of Peter—which possesses immunity from error regarding the faith—as if it possessed this by its own power and not by the promise of the Savior, as the Acts of the synods testify?

As for what you say, that Agatho spoke of the past but did not preclude the future, you are entirely mistaken: for Agatho was the tenth after Honorius. Then you bring forward the letter of Pope Leo at the end of the Sixth Synod, which anathematizes Honorius. And you have not perceived that Leo is plainly fighting against himself, if those things were true. For first he says: "Therefore, having reviewed the series of the synodal acts, and having examined with careful diligence all that ^B was done, we found that the same things which the legates of the Apostolic See had narrated, agreed with the written records."

This is how the letter of the pope, translated into Greek, stands; if it existed now in the form in which it was written by the pope in Latin, intact and incorrupt, many frauds which customary audacity has inserted would certainly be refuted. But even after so many deceits, the truth, which is never overcome, makes itself apparent. Pope Leo says that he went through the accounts of the synodal acts and found that what he read agreed with the testimony of the legates. Then, further down, he expressly praises the letter of Agatho, which is inserted in the acts of the Sixth Synod. How, then, when the letter of Agatho explicitly declares that no pope has erred in the faith, does Leo, the successor of Agatho, both praise the letter and state things contrary to it? How does Leo, the successor of Agatho, anathematize by name Honorius, whom Agatho clears of the calumnies of heretics? ^C Who, then, believes this? But it is an ancient custom among certain Orientals to corrupt the acts of the synods.

A witness to this fact is the most celebrated Cyril in his letter to Acacius of Melitene, after the Acts of the Third Synod. "For," he says, "there came to me the most religious bishop Paul of Emesa; then he asked me very earnestly if I agreed with the things written by the thrice-blessed Father Athanasius to Epictetus of Corinth. But I replied that I would indeed accept it, provided that the writing existed among you incorrupt; for many things in it have been depraved by the enemies of the truth." And soon after: "And so, Paul, having taken ^D ancient copies and having compared them with those which he brought with him, found these to have been adulterated."_

^A And he says the very same thing in the letter to John of Antioch. And in the fourth synod, Pope Leo, writing to the Empress Pulcheria, chided Anatolius of Constantinople because he was bringing forward a forged canon regarding the privileges of Constantinople, entitled the third, of the second synod. And in the seventh, the letter of Pope Hadrian to the emperors Constantine and Irene suffered many excisions by the Orientals.

Secondly, even if we were to grant as true what is not—that Honorius was anathematized by Leo in those terms which you bring forward—it is clear that Honorius was anathematized not as a heretic, but on the grounds that he had permitted heresy to arise. This would be a charge of negligence and carelessness, not of heresy; so that your entire structure falls; for you have not proved what you wished, namely, that it is not impossible for the pope to fall into error regarding the faith.

NILUS (Chapter VIII)

CONFUTATION

^B of Constantinople and Theophanes of Antioch: ^C as the successor of the chair of the most eminent Prince of the Apostles, he is superior to him who was considered orthodox there, because he accepted the letter of the Pope, as that holy synod testifies in the letter to Agatho. By the Seventh Synod, the Pope is superior to the Constantinopolitan as the eye of the whole body, pointing out to the whole body the straight path of truth, as Tarasius of Constantinople confesses in the letter to Pope Hadrian at the end of that synod. With so many and such great prerogatives, as the sun shines before the stars, the Pope excels the Patriarch of Constantinople by the sanction of Christ the Lord, by the testimonies of the General Councils, and by deeds proving the truth; but he—the latter—began to take precedence over the Caesarean and his suffragan bishops by virtue of non-legitimate canons: the third of the Second Synod, which Saint Leo the Pope testifies in his letter to the Augusta Pulcheria and in the letter to Anatolius did not reach the knowledge of the Apostolic See, and even if it was signed by the Fathers, it remained of no force; the twenty-eighth of the Fourth Synod, which the same Pope Leo, not swayed by the entreaties of the Orientals, rejected; and the thirty-sixth of the Quinisext, which, established by a synod that was not legitimate, as will be shown, has no force at all. Especially since there is no harmony between these canons; for the canon of the synod decrees that the Constantinopolitan is to be honored after the Roman; the other canons indeed claim to decree the same, but they do not decree the same thing; rather, they award equal honors to the Roman and the Constantinopolitan. And since, furthermore, the Constantinopolitan gradually grew and usurped limited authority through those suppositions—namely, to consecrate only the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses—how is it, O Nilus, that you are indignant against those by whom it is said that the Pope stands in the same relation to the Constantinopolitan as that one does to the Caesarean, even though they have not spoken rightly? For they ought to have said, not that he shares that same relation, but that the Constantinopolitan is much further inferior to the Pope than the Caesarean is to the Constantinopolitan, since the Pope has authority over the Constantinopolitan divinely bestowed, inasmuch as he is a pastor appointed by God and the keeper of the vineyard. But the one of Constantinople, by machinations—as Pope Leo cries out in his letters—seized things that were not his own, and that only for the sake of ordaining. But you, interpreting the disparity of the proportion according to your own mind, posit things which you have received neither from the councils nor from the Catholic teachers, but which are the inventions of the idle talk of schismatics. ^D

Order of Precedence of the Patriarchs

1. Caesarean. 2. Ephesian. 3. Heraclean. And so on.

These things, which you accept as irrefutable doctrine—as if the entire difference between the patriarchs consisted only in one taking precedence over another—are what you say when you argue that the Pope is indeed first, but that he is coordinate with the patriarchs, not absolute, since he has a second and a third patriarch; while the Constantinopolitan patriarch has under him not patriarchs, but metropolitans, among whom there is a first and a second metropolitan. Thus, you claim that the primacy of the Pope with respect to the Constantinopolitan is coordinate, as being second, while the primacy of the Constantinopolitan with respect to the Caesarean, who is the first metropolitan, is as a unity. With this ridiculous notion, you cast terrors upon the simpler sort, so that when they hear that the Pope is coordinate and not outside the order, while the Constantinopolitan is an exceptional unity, quite solemnly outside the order, the common people might in this way marvel at the greatness of the Constantinopolitan.

How many-fold, then, do you err? First, you take as granted that the five are called patriarchs equally, which is false. For until the fourth synod, such an appellation was not in use; and in the third action of that synod, there are found suppliant libelli with the following inscription: "To the most holy and most blessed universal archbishop and patriarch of great Rome, Leo, ^B and the holy and ecumenical synod." Indeed, everywhere in the Acts all are called bishops or archbishops. If, therefore, you had written, O Nilus, during those times when arrogance and ambition had not yet united the five patriarchs under this common appellation, how would you have philosophized about "coordinate primacy" and "unity"? For since only the Pope then held the title of patriarch, and the rest were content with the appellation of bishop or archbishop, where would the coordination of the first and second patriarch be? Unless you say that even then there would be coordination; for the Pope would be the first bishop, then the second and the third. But this makes all bishops coordinate with the Pope—both the Constantinopolitan and the rest—and leaves no room for the "unity" which you assign to the Constantinopolitan. ^C The enumeration of the coordinate ones would then be thus: 1. The Roman; 2. The Constantinopolitan (let us suppose it to be so); 3. The Alexandrian; 4. The Antiochene; 5. The Hierosolymitan. Then, in the province of Constantinople, the first would be the bishop of Byzantium, the second the Caesarean; and so in order, each of the five bishops would be first of those under him, and no one would be an "unordered unity," and the Pope would hold the primacy not merely by the order of precedence, as you say, but by that apostolic authority which the synods acknowledge and teach.

Second, you err because, even if we were to grant that the five are called patriarchs, the community ^D of the appellation does not carry with it a community of equality, which is what you... that same apostolic authority, which they confess

take for granted. For just as the community of the name “bishop” or “archbishop” does not bring with it equality between the Pope and the one of Constantinople, so too does the appellation of “patriarch.” But you, in deducing an equality of dignity from a community of appellation, say that the primacy of the Pope is “co-ordinate,” whereas you ought to conclude that it is co-ordinate in appellation, but not co-ordinate in power. And for this reason, although the Pope is co-ordinate in appellation, he is nonetheless a unity with respect to all in power. But the Constantinopolitan, since ^A he is the second patriarch and is co-ordinate in appellation with the Pope, is not a unity in power with respect to those under him, but is such a unity as the other patriarchs and metropolitans are with respect to their suffragan bishops—unities, that is, in that they sit first, and enjoy certain privileges, but not in the way that the Pope is a unity, as the successor of Peter in pastoral authority.

Third,” you err, because that which the Pope possesses singularly, you make common; and that which a patriarch has in common, you constitute as singular. It is singular in the Pope that he is a patriarch and has patriarchs subject to him; but it is common to all patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops to be unities with respect to those who are in any way subject to them; for not all patriarchs are ^B subject to all patriarchs, nor metropolitans to metropolitans, nor bishops to bishops. Since, therefore, you propose the argument in this way: “The Constantinopolitan stands in relation to the Pope as the Caesarean does to him; but the Caesarean is subject to the power of the Constantinopolitan, therefore the former is subject to the power of the Pope”: you distort the major premise—which is not true—with your false understanding, and you understand the minor premise according to the new rules of the schismatics, and consequently you conclude wrongly from false principles. If one is to conclude correctly, the argument must be formed thus: “The Constantinopolitan is much more subject to the Pope than the Caesarean is to him; but the Caesarean, according to the Greeks, is subject to the power of the Constantinopolitan; therefore, the former is much more so to the Pope.” ^C Unless, perhaps, this is what the “co-ordination” of the Pope and the “unity” of the Constantinopolitan mean to you—what certain madmen have said—that since, according to the pseudocanon which you advance, the patriarch of Constantinople has equal honors with the Pope, he would have even this advantage, that he is an exempt unity, while the Pope remains co-ordinate; if this is what you understand, then your Constantinopolitan will be even more exalted than Peter. For Peter, though he is the first of the apostles, has both a second and a third, so that, according to you, he is co-ordinate and not a unity, such as you pretend the Constantinopolitan to be. But to assert these things is manifest madness.

NILUS (Ch. IX)

If, however, because the Pope is first in ^D numbering, for that reason you also snatch dominion, then grant this same thing to the Constantinopolitan, for he too is reckoned as prior to the Alexandrian. Similarly, the Alexandrian has under him the one of Antioch; and this one, too, let him be the definer of the throne of Jerusalem...

And how are these things not purely a disturbance? ^A

CONFUTATION

You would be saying something if pre-enumeration were the source of lordship; but since lordship is the cause of pre-enumeration, what is your sophism worth? The fourth synod acknowledges one head of the Church, and one guardian of the vineyard established by the Savior, approving and rejecting what is done correctly and what otherwise. This is the reason for the Pope's pre-enumeration. The other patriarchs have a bare pre-enumeration and sub-enumeration; as if we were to say: the head is pre-enumerated to the chest, and the chest to the belly, and the belly to the thighs, but not by an equal reasoning. For the head is pre-enumerated as the principal member, not only in order and position, but also in power and dignity; whereas the other members are pre-enumerated and sub-enumerated in difference of order and position, but not in the power and dignity of the head. What disturbance, then, arises from this, when this is the order of nature, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy has received this same order from the author of nature? ^B

NILUS (Ch. X)

Moreover, if the Constantinopolitan consecrates the Caesarean, and those after him, but the Roman consecrates neither the Constantinopolitan nor any of the principal bishops, how is it true to say that the Roman is first with respect to the Constantinopolitan, just as this one himself is with respect to the hierarchs under him? ^C

CONFUTATION

What consecration do you speak of? That which is performed by the hand of the hierarch himself, just as Pope Agapetus consecrated Menas the patriarch after expelling the heretic Anthimus, as the Emperor Justinian says in Novella 42? Or do you mean the consecration or ordination of which the first synod decrees in canon 6: "If anyone has become a bishop without the decision of the metropolitan, the great synod has decreed that such a one ought not to be a bishop"? If you say the first manner is necessary so that the primacy may be preserved, you speak of a ridiculous thing, as if you were to say that no one could reign except over those whom the king himself has begotten. And the Fathers of the fourth synod were not consecrated by the Pope, whom nevertheless they acknowledged as their head and the moderator of the canons, when they were concerned with honoring the Constantinopolitan above the rest of the Eastern sees. For consecration differs greatly from jurisdiction: consecration imitates the power of begetting, while jurisdiction instructs the priestly totality. Thus, the Roman bishop judged, acquitted, and repelled all the Eastern patriarchs and prelates by apostolic authority, as has been shown in part and will be shown, even though they were not consecrated by him. But if you understand ordination in the second manner, as that, namely, should not be done without the decision of the greater bishop, you are again pronouncing on a falsely grounded foundation. For where do you have...

that the patriarchs were ordained without the decision of the Pope? Pope Leo cries out in his epistles to Marcian and Pulcheria, part of the Council of Chalcedon, that Anatolius obtained the Constantinopolitan episcopate with his favorable assent. Pope Adrian cries out, in the second act of the seventh council, ^B especially in those authentic Latin letters which Anastasius the Librarian provides in their entirety, that he would never have consented to the installation of Tarasius the patriarch—since he attained the episcopacy of Constantinople directly from the lay state—had he not known him to be in sympathy with orthodoxy against the Iconoclasts. Why say more? From what did the huge schism which, alas, ravages the Eastern Church take its origin, if not because Photius, not bearing the rebukes of the Roman pontiffs who were curbing the excessive impulses of his ambition and not receiving him as a legitimate patriarch, himself broke the reins of obedience, sowed the seeds of defection and a new primacy in the Church, and planted the error of a disastrous schism? It is vain, therefore, Nilus, for you to bring forth your paradox, that his own subjects are more under the Constantinopolitan than he himself is under the Roman. For when it has been proven that the Pope is the master of the consecration of the Constantinopolitan (who, if he ever had legitimate primacy among his own, obtained this from the Pope; just as, after the times of Leo, he obtained the second rank from the Pope, as Pope Adrian testifies in his authentic letters in the acts of the seventh council: for this, he says, was done by the authority of the apostolic see; yet he does not permit him to be called oecumenical, for he declares this to be the mark of heretical madness): since it has been ^C proven, therefore, that the Pope is the master of the consecration of the prelates of Constantinople, from this whole dispute the contrary necessarily follows, namely, that the Pope presides over the Constantinopolitan much more than the latter over his own. ^D Adrian of Rome in his authentic letter according to the second act of the seventh council, in which he says he is numbered second, the apostolic see having granted this—he does not, however, permit him to be called oecumenical, for he says this is of heretical madness. The Pope having therefore been shown to be the master of the ordinations of Constantinople, it necessarily follows from what we have sufficiently said that the opposite is true: that the Pope is much more set over Constantinople than that one is over those under him.

NILUS (CHAP. XI)

^A Excellent indeed is the genius of this man! The canon of the first synod mentions four sees, in which it especially wishes the ancient customs to continue; but you add a fifth see, that of Constantinople; and from the first synod you leap to the fourth, and among the ancient customs of the apostolic sees you count those of Constantinople, bringing forth a spurious, unapproved, and worthless canon.

Then, you have cut off the beginning of the genuine canon, as is evident from the sixteenth act of the fourth synod. For the canon read there by the Romans runs thus: "The Church of Rome has always held the primacy. Egypt therefore also has it, so that the bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all Egyptians, since this is also the custom for the Roman bishop," and so forth. But read by the Orientals, it runs thus: "Let the ancient customs prevail, those in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these, since this is also the custom ^B for the bishop in Rome." Thus, with the true canon truncated, one must admire the fact that the primacy of Rome has been mutilated, and an addition made regarding Constantinople. And it is with such deceits that you combat the Pope, and establish your much-admired orthodoxy.

You say those words of the canon, "Since this is also the custom for the bishop in Rome," signify this: "Since it has been given to the Pope to rule over the Occidentals." But this—besides the fact that the words of the synod do not signify that authority over the Occidentals was given to the Pope at that time, but rather presuppose an ancient one—is not to interpret, but to force the words. For it does not say, "Just as is the custom in the West," but, "Since this is the custom." As the pronoun "this" is demonstrative, if it points to a thing, it signifies its presence, as when we say, "This is my body." If ^C the thing is not present, it is necessary that the force of the demonstration be directed either to what immediately precedes or to what immediately follows. For instance, in the first canon of the same first synod, the Fathers say: "But as this is manifest, that it is said concerning those who do this on purpose and who castrate themselves," certainly the pronoun "this" demonstrates what immediately follows. And in canon five: "Let it be inquired, they say, lest they have been excommunicated out of indignation, or contention, or some such annoyance of the bishop. In order, therefore, that this may receive the proper examination, it has seemed good in the matter,"—this pronoun signifies what immediately precedes. And in the eighth canon concerning the Cathari: "Before all things, they say, it behooves them to confess this in writing, that they will agree to and follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church,"—here the word "this" refers to what ^D immediately follows. How then, when the sixth canon says: "That the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these: since this is also the custom for the Roman bishop,"

does this pronoun, "this," not refer to anything preceding, or to anything following, as its nature would require, but rather, as you maintain, point to something else that is mentioned neither before nor after? For this is to interpret perversely and to distort the meanings of words. But if, omitting these distortions, you follow the naked sense of the Fathers, you will discover that their intention is that ancient customs be preserved: let them be preserved at Alexandria, just as this is also the custom for the Roman bishop. But there is no custom of the Roman bishop more ancient than that which the prince of the apostles, Peter, introduced; for Peter introduced the custom at Antioch, where he first held his seat, and then established Evodius; he introduced the custom at Alexandria, by establishing there the evangelist Mark. He commands, therefore, that these customs be observed, and that the dioceses already divided be not confounded, since the Roman see has always held the primacy indefinitely, in such a way that particular customs depend upon the custom of the Roman Church. ^B

This sense is both plain and consistent with the truth of the matter. But let us assume that the meaning of the words is what you wish: let Alexandria have its own, since the Roman bishop has the Western parts. There are two things here that differ from one another: that the dioceses and the climates of the earth are distributed, and that in these dioceses there is no subordination. The canon asserts the first; you add the second. We have it from the canon that the provinces are distributed; but that they are so divided that there is no subjection of them to one another, the canon does not say, but you add it. If one were to say that the members of the body are diverse, and that their functions are diverse, he speaks the truth; but he does not for that reason deny that the heart, which is one member, is that from which life flows into the whole body. If one were to say that the Roman empire is divided into many provinces, he speaks the truth; but he does not for that reason deny that there is one royal city in which the emperor sits, which is at once a part of the empire and the head of the empire. ^C The nations were also divided by Peter from the beginning for convenient administration, being subject to various patriarchs; but even in these there is a metropolis of common religion and orthodoxy, to which all are subject, the Roman see. If the canon of the first synod had that meaning which you claim, surely the subsequent ecumenical synods would not have taught the contrary; they would not have shown by words and deeds that the authority of the patriarchs was limited, and the authority of the Pope unlimited throughout the entire world. And so that this may become clear, it shall be proved by induction.

The Fathers of the second ecumenical synod, as Theodoret narrates in the fifth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, after the general council was celebrated in Constantinople, as most of them gathered again in Constantinople in the following summer, and having received a synodical letter from those in the West calling them to Rome, replied that they could not do this at that particular time; but that they had gathered in Constantinople by virtue of the letters, sent in the previous year ^D

by the West to the emperor Theodosius; and, furthermore, that they did not bring a partial concurrence from the bishops who had remained in the provinces, and [could not do so] because of the shortness of the time limit set. ^A From these things, I speak thus: The Oriental Fathers gathered in Constantinople by virtue of the Pope's letters; but surely this is an authority reaching beyond the Western regions. Therefore, the Pope has authority even outside the West. Before the holy third synod, Cyril wrote to Pope Celestine concerning the hollow-minded Nestorius, in the chapter before the Acts, chapter 14: "Since the ancient custom of the Churches persuades us to communicate with your holiness regarding matters so necessary, in which the correctness of the faith is also shaken, I write again out of necessity." In these things Cyril says that he writes out of necessity to the Pope according to the ancient custom of the Churches, whenever the correctness of the faith is endangered. From this I say: It was the custom of the Churches, when the faith was shaken, to write to the Pope; therefore, the Pope is the guardian of the faith, and the Churches acknowledged him as the corrector of heresies springing up in all parts of the world; therefore, he also possesses authority outside the West. And at the end of the epistle, Cyril writes: "We shall not openly and publicly abstain from his communion before we have made these things known to your piety. Do not, therefore, disdain to determine what seems good; and [declare] whether it is necessary to communicate with him, or whether one should openly and freely proclaim that no one communicates with one who thinks and teaches such things. Furthermore, the decision of your piety must be made manifest by letters to the most reverend bishops of Macedonia, and to all those ^C in the East." If Cyril, being Patriarch of Alexandria, does not dare to separate himself from communion with a heretic without the command of the Pope, from whom he requests that what seems good should be determined and his decision made known to all in the East, therefore the Pope has authority over the patriarchs and over the entire East. And Celestine, answering the words of Cyril, says: "Having therefore taken up the authority of our see, and using our place and office with authority, you shall execute this decision with precise severity; namely, that if he does not anathematize his wicked doctrines in written confession within an interval of ten days, your holiness shall immediately make provision for that Church." How could it be expressed in clearer words that the Pope is the judge and ^D sole arbiter of all the patriarchs? What of the fact that, from this authority delegated to Cyril, the successors, the patriarchs of Alexandria, took up boastful titles and curious appellations, calling themselves popes and patriarchs and judges of the world? So great was the opinion and majesty of the Pope long ago among the Orientals, which you now so far

^A extenuate. The same Celestinus writes to Nestorius, pronouncing his sentence with authority, and threatening excommunication. How, therefore, did the Pope threaten and decree these things, if he had no authority over the patriarchs? Or how did he dare to appoint Cyril as his own representative, and to set a deadline of days, and to do whatever pertains to a judge and overseer against the Patriarch of Constantinople? And how, in the second proceeding of this third synod, did Pope Celestinus, writing to the holy synod, say: "We have sent, for our solicitude, the bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and our presbyter Philippus, who shall be present at what is being done, and shall execute the things previously ordained by us." "The things ordained by us," he says, "they shall execute." With an ecumenical synod present, the Pope says that the legates will execute the things ordained by him, although the synod was gathered for this very purpose. And all the most reverend bishops cried out together: "This is a just judgment: the whole synod gives thanks to Celestinus." And Firmus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, having spoken, said that after the time appointed for Nestorius had elapsed, the sentence which the apostolic see of Celestinus had sent was put into execution. Then, also, Philippus the presbyter, the Pope’s legate, how would he have dared to say to the synod: "We give thanks to the holy synod, because, when the letters of our blessed Pope were read to you, you holy members offered [them] to the holy head with your holy voices and your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, and of the apostles, is blessed Peter." And this same Philippus in the third proceeding [said]: "There is no doubt," he says, "nay, it is known to all ages, that the most blessed Peter, the prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ; and to him was given the authority of binding and loosing sins; who up to now and forever lives and judges in his successors." And the holy synod received him saying these things and sealed his words with their own confession, writing to the Pope in a report concerning John of Antioch, who had condemned the renowned Cyril with an iniquitous deposition: "But that we might overcome the rashness of John with long-suffering, we have reserved (his deposition) to the judgment of your piety." And below: "Therefore let your Holiness be stirred with fitting indignation. For if it be permitted to those who wish it to heap insults even upon the greater ^D sees, and to pass such iniquitous sentences, contrary to the prescriptions of the canons, against those over whom they have no jurisdiction, ecclesiastical affairs will fall into extreme confusion." The synod provokes the indignation of the Pope, because the Antiochene had iniquitously deposed Cyril, a bishop of a greater see. In what way, therefore, can it be said that that synod did not acknowledge a universal authority in the Pope, if it left the judgment to him and reluctantly

has maintained, and, not bearing for the bishop of Antioch to become judge of the bishop of Alexandria, requests the Pope to judge the patriarchs and not allow the affairs of the Church to descend into utter confusion?

^A The holy fourth synod bears witness with many and great testimonies to the universal authority of the Pope. For immediately in its introduction, Paschasinus the bishop, legate of the Pope, standing in the midst of the council with those with him, said: "We have instructions from the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, in which he has deigned to command that Dioscorus should not sit in the council; but if he attempts to do so, let him be cast out."

What authority do these words designate, and what kind of head is the Pope described as in these things? Is he head only in order of precedence and sitting in the first seat, or also in authority? And are these words for the sake of ^B honorable treatment, or [expressions] of absolute power? Then, when the attending officials inquired the reason, the Pope's legate answered: "Dioscorus has usurped the person of a judge, which he did not possess, and he dared to hold a synod without having obtained permission from the apostolic see, which has never been done, nor is it lawful to occur."

If Dioscorus knew the canon of the first council—that it distributes the climates of the earth to the patriarchs so that each one should be content with his own and not cast iniquitous eyes upon others' dioceses—why did he not speak against this, being a most arrogant man, and having the officials even favoring him, but was instead compelled to sit in the place of the accused on account of the Pope's mandate? For he who previously dared the greatest and intolerable crime, for which alone he has been condemned by the holy synod ^C—as Anatolius of Constantinople says in the fifth act, namely, having dictated excommunication against the Pope—how would he not have dared to shout out if he did not acknowledge the power of the Pope, and to reject the boldness which the legates were using? For it was not, indeed, a time for honorable treatment, but the struggle was concerning crimes, concerning the throne, and concerning the faith.

And Theodoret, in the first act of this same synod, having long ago been deprived of his bishopric, had the Egyptian bishops opposing and not admitting that he should sit with the holy synod. But the most glorious officials and the senate said: "Let the most reverend Theodoret also enter to participate in the synod, since ^D the most holy archbishop Leo has restored his bishopric to him." And again: "The most reverend Bishop Theodoret, having been restored to his own place by the most holy archbishop of the renowned city of Rome, has entered."

The same things are also contained in the eighth act. How, then, if the Pope had no authority in the East, did he restore Theodoret, and why was he seated in the order of bishops by the sole authority of the Pope before the whole synod had brought forth its vote concerning him? How is it that the screaming Egyptians, crying out, "He has been deposed by all the synod," did not say...

"What power does the Pope have over an Eastern bishop deposed by a synod which they consider ecumenical?" And that statement recorded in the fifth session: "Those who dissent are Nestorians; let those who dissent go to Rome"; is this not a notable testimony to the universal authority of the Pope? ^B

Cyril said that, as the faith was in danger, he was writing to the Pope of necessity. The bishops of the fourth synod say that heretics are to be sent to Rome, for which reason the third synod also left the deposition of John of Antioch to the Pope; and the sixth synod transmitted Macarius of Antioch and his fellow heretics to the Pope, as Emperor Constantine Pogonatus writes in his letter to Pope Leo. Why so? Unless for the reason which the fourth synod asserts, that the Pope is the keeper of the vineyard, and has the power of judging regarding the faith and the priests, as Emperor Valentinian says in his letter to Emperor Theodosius. Otherwise, how could the legates of the Pope have dared, in the presence of this most numerous synod, to call the Pope "archbishop of all the churches," as in the fourth session? And in the subscription of the definition, to call him "apostolic [bishop] of the universal Church, and bishop of all Churches"? — especially at that time when the zeal for extolling the see of Constantinople was thriving. ^C

The testimony of the sixth synod is also not light; for if the Constantinopolitans at that time were styling themselves ecumenical, assuming this monstrous title for themselves, yet the Fathers of this synod—among whom was George of Constantinople—while making mention of the Pope and the assembly of bishops, used these words in the *Prosphoneticus* addressed to the emperor: "The most pontifical prelate of the elder Rome and of the apostolic citadel, and we the least." The legates of the Pope, explaining this, subscribed to the *Prosphoneticus* thus: "Theodorus, Georgius, Joannes, holding the place of the most blessed and ecumenical Pope," etc. For the fact that all the bishops called themselves the least, but the Pope the most pontifical prelate, and then for him to be inscribed as ecumenical, is to confess a very great difference between the Pope and the patriarchs. And what of the fact that in the letters to Pope Agatho this synod says: "The greatest of maladies," it says, "require greater remedies. Therefore Christ, the power truly creating and governing all things, gave as a wise physician your God-honored Holiness, which might both drive away the contagion of heretical depravity with the healthy medicines of orthodoxy, and grant the strength of health to the members of the Church." ^D

He calls the Pope the physician of the greatest malady that had broken out, granting health to the members of the Church. For why, when those things were recited in that synod of Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, who [labored] much against

the Monothelites, do the ^A Fathers attribute the medicinal power for the members of the Church only to the letters of the Pope? For the holy Fathers, teaching in harmony in their own writings what the fourth synod said, call the Pope the guardian of the vineyard established by the Savior; the sixth [synod] expresses this same thing, calling him the wise physician given by Christ to expel the disease of heretical corruption and to bestow health upon the members of the Church. How, then, could these not be testimony to the universal oversight of the Pope? And the Emperor Constantine, writing to Pope Leo, uses this title: "To the most blessed archbishop of the ancient and glorious city of Rome, and ecumenical Pope." And he joins the two: being bishop of Rome, and the ecumenical Pope.

^B That the Pope is ecumenical, not only in rank and place of sitting, as you say, but in power and authority, the emperor declares below in the things he says: "We have gathered together the sheep of Christ into one flock, to be pastured by the one and only good shepherd; with whom you too have been bidden to pasture, and to lay down your life for the sheep. Therefore, act manfully and be strong, and gird yourself with the sword of the Word, and stand firm as a champion of piety, and strive to cut off every heretical hearing and doctrine, just as Peter of old, having struck with the sword, took away the organ of Jewish hearing. Raise the axe of the Spirit, and every tree bringing forth the fruit of heresy ^C either transplant through instruction, or excise with canonical censures, and consign it to the fire of the coming Gehenna." Let the Pope, he says, raise the axe against every tree bringing forth the fruit of heresy, and either transplant it through the instruction of his teaching, or excise it with canonical censures with authority. The emperor, therefore, and Constantinople, at that time, possessed the Pope not merely as ruler of the West, as the moderns say, but as one restricted by no limits of authority throughout the world, and as an ecumenical chief shepherd, through whom Peter spoke, as this same emperor says in the letter to the synod of the Apostolic See. Then the emperor seals the letter, saying: "We further urge your ^D most holy summit that you send as soon as possible the apocrisiarius whom you are accustomed to designate, so that he may reside in our imperial and God-preserved city; and in matters that arise, whether dogmatic or canonical, and simply in all ecclesiastical affairs, [he may] represent the person of Your Holiness."

If, therefore, the Pope pastures with Christ the Shepherd, and it was the custom for an apocrisiarius of the Pope to reside in Constantinople—representing his person in all ecclesiastical affairs (this is nothing other than to govern ecclesiastical matters, as is evident from the Life and many letters of Saint Gregory the Dialogist)—how then do you say, Nilus, that the nations were distributed

to the patriarchs, so that each is content with his own, and there is no subordination? This same thing is equally evident from the Acts of the Seventh Synod. Leo the Isaurian, the iconoclast emperor, wrote to Pope Gregory II concerning the convocation of an ecumenical synod, as we have said, and it is to be seen in that Pope’s letters to Leo before the first session. And the Pope replied: "You have written that a universal council should be convened: and this matter seemed useless to us. Take it that you have been heard by us, and that the bishops from the whole world have been gathered," etc. ^B If the iconoclast had not acknowledged in the Pope a general authority, how could he have requested from the Pope the convocation of a general synod? For how could an ecumenical synod be brought about through the Pope, if the Pope did not possess ecumenical authority? And why, too, did Tarasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, write to Pope Hadrian: "And after the letters of your Holiness were read before all, we all sat together in a common circle, enjoying spiritual feasts as if at a royal banquet, which Christ was preparing for the guests through your letters; and just as an eye shows the right path of truth to the whole body, you have shown it to us." For what else is it for the eye to be of the whole body, pointing out the path of truth, than for the Pope to be the guardian of the faith, and an invulnerable champion against error, and for Peter to be speaking in him? ^C If therefore he is the leader of the faith of the whole body, then he is also the leader of the faith of the patriarchs. And the patriarchs stand in relation to the Pope as those needing a leader to a leader, and as governed to a governor. And it is clear from all these things that either the holy synods were deceived—which in fact and word approved and acknowledged in the Pope the general authority of Peter—or you are in error, who interpret the sixth canon of the first synod badly and perversely. But the former is impossible; therefore the latter is necessarily true.

When indeed you infer that if the regions of the earth had been distributed to each of the principal bishops, and nothing had been assigned specifically to the Roman see, but the canon said only that the primacy over others was given to him, it could rightly be affirmed that the whole orb of the earth was subject to him, and that the principal bishops were administering what is his, just as those subject to the Constantinopolitan administer what is his. But if that is attributed to the Roman, and another to the Alexandrian, and this to the Constantinopolitan, the Roman is no more under them than they are under the Roman, as far as this is concerned. ^D These things do not stand in the way of the truth at all; for the fact that the Pope has reserved a portion for himself does not abolish the undefined principle of subordination, just as from the fact that the heart is one specific member, it is not abolished that it is the general principle of life for all the limbs. For which reason the Pope in the acts of the synods is called both the Roman bishop and ecumenical. But you, with cunning sophistry...

take the definite and the indefinite not in relation to different things, but in relation to one and the same thing; just as if someone were to say, "The heart is a definite limb, therefore it is not indefinite," when in fact, while it is definite to itself, it is indeterminate to the other limbs. Thus, you take as false that nothing is assigned to the Pope definitely, as if we should say that the entire world is subject to him; for this is not what is required, but rather the opposite is necessary. For in order that the Pope may hold the place of the head in the Church, which the holy synods affirm, it is necessary that this definite limb, the head, consists of definite particles and has the principle of authority in an indeterminate manner ^B towards the other limbs; from which it follows necessarily that all are subject to the Roman bishop, not just as those who are under the Constantinopolitan are subject to him, but much more, as we have said before.

NILUS (Ch. XII) If, however, because he has the appeals in ecclesiastical matters, you therefore claim him to be lord, then since the Constantinopolitan also has them, let the other sees likewise be subject to him. But neither is the one of Constantinople established as judge of those sees for this reason, nor would the Pope be justified for this reason in troubling the provinces of the other patriarchs. Read the ninth canon of the fourth synod, so that you may know that appeals also pertain to the throne of Constantinople.

CONFUTATION This comparison, that "the Pope has ecclesiastical appeals, and the Constantinopolitan has them too," is full of sophistry and is therefore the source of many absurdities. First of all, the ninth canon of the fourth synod which you cite is not free from suspicion. For Pope Leo in his epistles, which are found in the third part of the fourth synod, most clearly asserts that that ecumenical congregation of priests was convened ^C solely for the extirpation of heresies, and not for the enactment of canons. Second, you presuppose that the appeals to the Pope and to the Constantinopolitan do not differ in any way, and you deeply injure the truth. The Pope has had appeals from the beginning, from the very rise of the evangelical preaching. The synod at Antioch against Paul of Samosata is a witness; for when he had been deposed and was unwilling to depart, as Eusebius relates in Book VII of his *History*, the Emperor Aurelian, to whom the synod appealed, responded that the episcopate should be given to him whom the Roman bishop had adjudged; and Eusebius calls this judgment of the emperor most fair. Yet it would certainly not be most fair unless the Pope were the fitting judge of a synodical verdict. Dionysius of Alexandria ^D is a witness, as Saint Athanasius narrates in those things which he wrote for his defense and in his epistle regarding the synods of Ariminum and Seleucia. For this Dionysius, having been accused, wrote his apology to the Pope, and this was before the synod of Nicaea.

^A Witness is the great Athanasius before the Synod of Sardica, from which the modern Orientals assert that the right of appeals was granted to the Pope; having fled the persecutions of the Arians, and having arrived at Rome, he committed his own affairs to the Church, as he himself writes in his Apology to Constantius. And in his second apology, the great Athanasius brings forth for his own defense a letter of Pope Julius, which contains the following regarding appeals: "For not only Athanasius and Marcellus, the bishops, have come to Rome, complaining that they have suffered injustice, but very many other bishops also from Thrace, from Coelesyria, from Phoenicia, and from Palestine. And not a few presbyters—some indeed from Alexandria, and others from other parts—have come to the synod here." Witness is Eutyches the archimandrite, as is evident in the first act of the Fourth Synod, and in the epistles ^B of Pope Leo to Flavian of holy memory and to the Emperor Theodosius, which are attached to the synod; for having been deposed and subjected to excommunication by Flavian of holy memory and the synod with him, before the Fourth General Council was convened, Eutyches offered a petition of appeal to the Pope. Witness is also Flavian himself of holy memory, who, when deposed by Dioscorus, appealed himself before the Fourth Council, as is evident in its first act, and in the epistle of Valentinian to Theodosius before the Acts of the Fourth Synod.

In this manner does the Pope possess appeals; but the Bishop of Constantinople, according to you, holds them by the ninth canon of the Fourth Synod; thus they differ as the recent differs from the most ancient; furthermore, they differ as the limited from the unlimited. For to the Constantinopolitan, those appeals were given by the synod which could be brought from the dioceses granted to him—Asia, Pontus, and Thrace; for it is accepted among the Greeks that those who are subject to other patriarchs do not appeal to the Constantinopolitan, but rather appeals are referred to the one of Rome, as has been proven, both by the patriarchs and by the universal Church; so that the other patriarchs are indeed after the Constantinopolitan, but not under the Constantinopolitan, whereas all are both after the Roman and under the Roman. ^C Do you see how much you err in your argument? You say, "The Pope has appeals of ecclesiastics, the Bishop of Constantinople has them also; therefore, if the Constantinopolitan is not on account of this the judge of others, neither will the Pope be." The conclusion does not follow, because the Constantinopolitan is the judge of those subject to him, not of those numbered after him; and of those whose judge he is, those also he has the appeals, and conversely; for it is convertible. But the Pope, since he has the appeals of all, is also the judge of all, and from this difference the imposture of the sophism is removed. But concerning the twenty-eighth canon of the Fourth Synod, and the thirty-sixth of the Quinisext, which you cite, we shall say nothing. For that canon of the Fourth Synod, which established the same honors for the Pope and the Constantinopolitan, has long since been refuted; ^D and...

^A in like manner, the canon of the Quinisext Council shall be rebutted when the discourse comes to that synod.

NILUS. ^B That he himself, while judging all men, is judged by no one, is both false and contrary to the customs of the Apostles. For if Paul confers the Gospel with others, lest he should run or have run in vain, and again Peter suffers himself to be rebuked by Paul, how shall this man, as if he were a tyrant, lead a life subject to no judge? That such a thing is false is manifest. Regarding dogmas, Honorius is the witness, who, having been judged by the Sixth Synod, was handed over to the anathema; and regarding other conduct, it is certain that he is bound by all the laws to which every bishop is subject, since he is counted among the bishops. There are many such laws, some published by the Apostles, others by the Ecumenical Councils; and, in particular, he appears to be rebuked by the blessed Fathers. Read the 13th canon of the Quinisext Council concerning the marriage of those in holy orders, and the 55th concerning the Sabbath.

CONFUTATION. ^C You speak, indeed, of things consistent with your own principles, but things alien to the truth and already rejected. For if, according to you, the Pope has the primacy by the favor of the Fathers, and is a successor of Peter no differently than any other bishop from among those whom Peter consecrated, and can err in the faith, and is first only in order, and has a defined diocese: it is surely consonant with reason that he should be judged like the others, and be exempt from no privilege.

But if all that has been said is nonsense, and full of falsity and novelty, then certainly the things you now infer are empty songs. Paul confers the Gospel, Peter suffers himself to be rebuked, therefore the Pope also must be subject to judgment. Do you not perceive the absurdity of the syllogism? It is one thing to confer and to be rebuked, and another to be judged: the former belong to charity and friendship, the latter to authority. But if for Peter to be rebuked seems to you to imply a diminution of his primacy, hear the excellent doctor, Gregory the Great, in his 18th homily on Ezekiel: «Peter, he says, yielded even to a lesser brother in agreement, and in the same matter became the follower of his inferior, even so that he might go before in this: that he who was first in the height of the apostolate, might be first in humility.»

^D But if you do not wish the Pope to be judged at all, but rather rebuked by his fellow patriarchs, just as the Apostle was by his co-apostle, you ought to remember the sayings and confessions of the Fathers in the synods, that the Pope is the eye and the summit and the father of all bishops, whereas they are co-apostles. And the analogy is limping. Celestine rebuked Nestorius in the Third Synod, and was not being rebuked; Leo rebuked Dioscorus in the Fourth, and he was being rebuked—

^A indeed, the synod approved; but it detested the insolence of Dioscorus against the Pope with horror. Pope Agatho in the Sixth Synod wrote that his apostolic predecessors had admonished, besought, and rebuked the Orientals so that they might be healed. And Pope Adrian in the Seventh rebuked Tarasius of Constantinople because he had been ordained patriarch from the lay order, and was being styled ecumenical unjustly. But you overturn the evangelical order, and wish the Pope not only not to be rebuked, but even to be judged. And you bring up Honorius, as one having been judged and condemned after death by the Sixth Synod. And you call the work that the headless Orientals performed the work of the Sixth Synod. And you do not see that this was not dared for the first time by the Fathers of the Sixth Synod; for thus the Fathers of the Second Synod had written a clandestine canon ^B concerning the honor of the Constantinopolitan bishop without the Pope; thus the Fathers of the Fourth, as has been related; thus, later on, the Orientals alone, having celebrated the Quinisext Synod, planted the root of schism. In sum, whatever the Orientals did in councils secretly without the Pope is not to be attributed to sacred synods, but to the artful machinations of certain men. Wherefore Pope Leo complains much in the Fourth Synod. The malice of those who received his words with a bad interpretation and spoke what was in their own hearts—as the great Maximus says in the dialogue we cited above—judged and condemned Honorius. For they could not bear for four Constantinopolitan patriarchs to be anathematized as heretical Monothelites, and for the Roman Honorius not to be included.

Concerning your other position, that the Pope, since he is a bishop, is subject to all the laws to which every bishop is subject: this is indeed not unworthy of your teaching. ^C But you would surely never say that the patriarch of Constantinople is subject to the laws of the hierarchs under him, among whom he is first as a monad, and not as one coordinated, as you say. For how could he be not coordinated and be subordinate? But you pronounce very grandly that the Pope is subject to all the laws to which any bishop is subject. And if he is subject to all the laws to which every bishop is subject, then, by your account, the Pope will be of the same order as the bishops who are suffragans of Caesarea. But what is it to say this other than to be insane? But if it is true that the Constantinopolitan is much more subject to the Pope than the hierarchs under him are to him, ^D and the Constantinopolitan is not subject to the laws of his own bishops, surely then the Pope is not subject to the laws of all bishops everywhere. Whence he is not subject to those laws to which each of the bishops is subject, since each of the bishops is subject to the laws of the Apostles and the Fathers; but the Pope, as the chief of shepherds, is subject to no laws of shepherds, if the decisions of the synods concerning the Pope, which we have brought forward, are true. Then you also say that the Pope appears to be specifically rebuked—

by the Quinisext synod; and you bring forward its thirteenth canon concerning the marriage of those in holy orders, and the fifty-fifth concerning the Sabbath; and you seem, O Nilus, to act like those who appoint their adversaries as judges and witnesses. ^A Yet in such matters one should bring forward what is commonly agreed upon, not what has been enacted unlawfully by one party alone. The Quinisext synod, having enacted its canons without the apostolic throne, became the source and root of the schism, with Justinian Rhinotmetus forcing the issue; for when it cast aside reverence for antiquity, it showed itself to be a teacher of much innovation. How therefore will its thirteenth canon harmonize with the third of the holy first synod? “The great synod,” it says, “has absolutely forbidden a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon, or any member of the clergy at all, to possess a ^B *subintroducta* woman, except perhaps a mother, or a sister, or an aunt; or those persons alone who escape all suspicion.” The Greeks interpret this canon as applying to those in holy orders who live in celibacy, and they offer pretexts for their sins; but Basil the Great hands down the true meaning, writing to Gregory the presbyter: “Neither are we the first, nor are we the only ones, O Gregory, who have made a law forbidding women to dwell with men; but read the canon published by our holy Fathers in the synod of Nicaea, which manifestly forbids women to be subintroduced. ^C But celibacy has this excellent quality, that a person abstains from cohabitation with women. But if someone professes celibacy in name only, but in reality does what those who live with women do, he certainly pursues virginity under a specious title, but does not restrain himself from the foulness of pleasure.”

In these things the great Father wishes for it to be the same thing not to have a woman subintroduced and to observe celibacy. And that which the holy synod says, “to a bishop, [or] priest, [or] deacon,” the great Basil paraphrases into, ^D “not to cohabit with men,” and the words, “or to any member of the clergy at all,” he himself interprets by stating: “As if someone, while professing it in name, in deed does the things of those who cohabit with women.” So that the meaning of the canon according to Basil the Great is this: “The great synod has absolutely forbidden those who profess the priesthood to cohabit with women, seeing they are bound to observe celibacy.” But according to the interpreters among the Greeks, the meaning is this: “The holy synod has absolutely forbidden the celibate among the priests to cohabit with women; for they ought to avoid clandestine dealings with women.”

Since there are such diverse interpretations, certainly Basil the Great is more worthy of belief, excelling in holiness, antiquity, and wisdom, especially as he has also as witnesses for him Eusebius of Pamphilus and the holy Epiphanius. Furthermore, Eusebius was present at the first synod, and declares the meaning of the enacted canon in the first book of his *Evangelical Demonstration*, saying: “The Scripture, it says, requires the bishop to be the husband of one wife. But for those also who serve in the priesthood, and are occupied with the worship of God, it is fitting henceforth to abstain from the companionship of wives.”

^C And the divine Epiphanius at the end of the third book against heresies: “The crown, he says, of all these, and the mother and parent, is the holy priesthood; which is for the most part placed in virgins; but if not in virgins, it is placed in monks. But if there are none from the monks suitable for the ministry, those are assumed who are continent from their own wives, or widowers after a first marriage.”

And in the second book against heresies, in the one against the Cathars: “In truth, he says, the holy preaching of God, after the coming of Christ, does not admit those who, having lost their wife, pass on to second marriage, because of the excellence of the sacerdotal honor. And this the holy Church of God keeps most cautiously and exactly. Nay, not even one who is still begetting children, being the husband of one wife, does she admit; but she receives as deacon, and presbyter, and bishop, and subdeacon, him who has refrained from one, or remained a widower, especially where the ecclesiastical canons are in full force. But you will surely say to me that in some places priests, and deacons, and subdeacons still beget children. This proceeds not from the canon, but from the sloth of the human mind, which sometimes steals in; and because of the multitude, when ministers do not easily suffice: for the Church, always looking to what is more decent, and well-disposed by the Holy Spirit, has ordained that religious worship should be offered to God with distracting cares set aside, and that spiritual functions should be performed with a most chaste conscience.”

Thus interpreting, the holy Fathers Basil and Epiphanius, and Eusebius attesting—who was present at the first synod—how does the Quinisext synod in its 13th canon, while calling the marriages of priests an exact rite of apostolic ordination, not contradict the holy teachers? And by contradicting them, how does it rebuke the Pope, who truly observes the apostolic custom?

^D The fifty-fifth canon also concerning the Sabbath, with what temerity it abounds! Being asked once, the divine Ambrose, by the blessed Augustine, while he was still among the catechumens, whether one ought to fast on the Sabbath, he answered: “When I am at Milan, I do not fast on the Sabbath; when I am at Rome, I fast on the Sabbath.” This is stated by the blessed Augustine in his 88th epistle, where he philosophizes most beautifully on this subject. For to signify, he says, the rest of Christ in the sepulcher, the Orientals thought that the fast should be relaxed; but the Romans, that it should be fasted. Moreover, he says, in the apostolic writings no precept is to be found concerning this; but the Quinisext synod dreamed this up. Ambrose also, if he had known an apostolic canon to exist on this matter, would not have said to Augustine that different customs were to be observed according to the variety of places; for apostolic canons bind everywhere. And in the 118th epistle he says there are three in the new people

^A of the Christians: first, those things which we have written in the canonical books; second, those which we have not by writing but by tradition, and are commonly kept by all—such as the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ, the Passion, and the like; third, those which vary according to place, as he says, is the fasting on the Sabbath; for some fast, and others do not, and similar things. These third things, he says, are of free observance, and that person acts best who, he says, observes in these matters the custom of the Church in which he happens to be. Then again, he brings forward the statement of Ambrose and his precept: "To whatever Church you happen to come, keep its customs, if you wish to be neither a cause of scandal to anyone, nor to have anyone be a scandal to you." "But I," says Augustine, "thinking much upon this precept in my own mind, hold it as if it were received from a heavenly oracle."

And in the 19th epistle: "Whether," he says, "if any holy man of the East comes to Rome and fasts on the Sabbath, except for that one day of the Paschal vigil, is he to be blamed? If you affirm it, you will condemn not only the Roman Church but also many churches near it and those further away."

^B Peter of Alexandria, the hieromartyr, also says that the fast of the fourth and sixth days is not a law of apostolic canon, but a tradition consistent with reason. And yet, among the Greeks, there is the 69th apostolic canon concerning this, just as there is also what the great Basil says in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, chapter *On Unwritten Dogmas*: "The triple immersion in baptism," although the Orientals have the 50th apostolic canon regarding this. Therefore, either the great Basil was ignorant of the canon—which is most incredible—or it is evident that not all the canons which circulate under the name of the apostles are apostolic, but that many spurious ones have surreptitiously been numbered among the genuine ones.

Saint Jerome, in his epistle to Lucinius: "You ask," he says, "concerning the Sabbath, whether one should fast. Hippolytus and various other writers have written about this; but I advise you that ecclesiastical traditions, especially those which do not offend the faith, should be observed just as they have been handed down by the ancients; nor ought the custom of some be subverted by the contrary custom of others." ^C Cassian also testifies to this in his writing concerning the canonical order of daily prayers and psalms; he writes concerning the Sabbath how, on account of the apostles' vigil on the evening of the Preparation, at the time of the saving Passion, as the Sabbath dawned, a custom prevailed among the Orientals to keep vigil through that night, and after the labors of the all-night service, to break the fast on the Sabbath and on Sunday. "For not," he says, "is this breaking of the fast to be reckoned as a communion with Jewish festivity; how could it be? Rather, it is for the relaxation and relief of the body, which, through all the weeks of the year, having been worn out by fasting on five days in each week, and on two days...

^A it has been refreshed, it easily fails. Nor does any apostolic canon make mention of the Sabbath. Whence it is necessary to say one of two things: either that such and so great men labored under ignorance, though they were more ancient and therefore more skilled in antiquity, or that the Quinisext Synod, which issued the canon concerning the Sabbath and the other canons through which it presumed to place laws upon the Roman Church, did nothing else but concern itself with innovations and the beginnings of schism. To wish, by such canons, to reprimand the Pope and to subject him to canons of this sort is to flatter oneself and to spew forth the poison of hatred against the Pope. Therefore, if it is the case that the Pope, by divine law, is the guardian and physician of the Church and the eye of the whole body—a metaphor that is the same as being a governor and shepherd—and since a shepherd is not shepherded, therefore neither is a judge judged. And if he is a judge, he is not therefore a tyrant because he is not judged; you rashly compare the Pope to a tyrant, he who, having been established as judge by God, also ^B has it from God that he should not be judged.

NILUS (Cap. XIV). That the Pope is not of a greater order than the episcopal is evident from what has been said; for how would he be corrected by inferiors? And the Fathers call him the Bishop of Rome, and he is consecrated by bishops. Also the blessed Dionysius, who was in the time of the apostles, divided the ecclesiastical hierarchy into ministers, priests, and bishops; nor is it permitted to conceive of a dignity greater than the episcopal from his words. ^C

CONFUTATION. This is fighting with shadows, O best of men. For who ever said that the Pope is of a greater order than the episcopal? Or, according to you, is the Constantinopolitan of a greater order than the episcopal? If, therefore, that man, although he is a bishop, nevertheless has hierarchs under him, by what reasoning do you deny to the Pope, when he is a bishop, that primacy to which the holy synods bear witness? When the third synod was being held, the Roman bishop was Celestine, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch. John deposed Cyril; Cyril took it ill that, although he was of a worthier see, he had been deposed by John. The synod wrote to the Pope, ^D asking him to take action against John, lest, as they say, the affairs of the Church should descend into total confusion. Concerning all of which has been said above. How, therefore, did bishop contend with bishop in judgment before a bishop? Or perhaps Cyril and the entire holy synod were ignorant of the order of bishops? Therefore, it is not required for the fullness of the ecclesiastical hierarchy that the First See be of a greater sacerdotal order, but of greater dignity and authority. This is what that title denotes among the Fathers of the Sixth Synod, "Most Pontifical Prelate," and the titles of the Emperor Pogonatus, "Oecumenical Chief Shepherd,"

and six hundred others. For this reason also the Bishop of Rome is called by the holy Fathers, and is consecrated by bishops. And the blessed Dionysius, having promised to discourse on all parts of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, left nothing out; yet not for this reason is the Pope subject to the correction of bishops, which you take as proven, nor is that authority to be denied him which all the synods affirm, calling him the head, and the eye, and the oecumenical bishop of all the Churches. ^A

NILUS (Cap. XV). "But how," they say, "is it right to make mention of the canons of the Sixth Synod, when the Sixth by no means issued canons?" Because the synod which did issue the canons, which was held immediately after the Sixth, is itself also oecumenical, filling the deficit of the Fifth and Sixth. That it is oecumenical is evident also from history, having Basil, Bishop of Gortyna, taking the place of the entire Roman synod; it is evident also from the fact that it speaks of itself continually, and calls itself oecumenical. ^B

CONFUTATION. In order to prove that the Pope is rightly criticized, as being one of the number of bishops, and subject to all laws to which the rest of the bishops are subject, you assert that that which is called the Quinisext is both legitimate and oecumenical. And that it is a legitimate synod, this you have assumed as certain; but that it is oecumenical, you prove by the fact that Basil the Cretan was in it, holding the place of the entire Roman synod; and because it calls itself oecumenical. Being such, therefore, its canons also, issued against the Pope, are valid. But it is not difficult to demonstrate that it is neither legitimate nor oecumenical. ^C

Dioscorus was accused at the beginning of the gathering of the Fourth Synod, by command of Pope Leo, by his legates, because he had usurped the person of judge, which he did not possess; and dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, which has never happened nor is it allowed to happen. To this Dioscorus did not dare to answer, but was compelled by the senators to sit in the place of the accused. ^D

In the sixth act of the Seventh Synod these words are held: "How is the synod of the Iconoclasts great and oecumenical, which did not have the cooperation of the Pope of that time, or his priests, neither through his legates, nor through an encyclical letter, as the law of councils demands?" You also, below, receive that celebrated canon, of which the histories make mention: "It is not lawful to issue rules concerning ecclesiastical matters without the Pope." If these things are true and well-established, and Basil of Gortyna in the Quinisext produced no letter testifying to his representation of the Roman synod, how could a gathering of bishops made without the authority of the Apostolic See, and which dared to subject the Church to its rules...

be an ecumenical synod? And how could it be plausible that, with the pope's representative present, canons could have been issued against the pope? And if the pope's representatives showed such indignation when the order of the Eastern patriarchs was changed at the Fourth Synod, how could they have allowed the See of Peter to be so resplendently insulted ^B at the Quinisext Synod?

And how, if the person holding the place of the pope was indeed present at the Quinisext, did he not instruct the Eastern bishops when, in writing their thirteenth canon, they said: "Those assembled at Carthage, having concern for the decorum of the life of the ministers, stated that subdeacons, deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their wives according to their own statutes" (and regarding the phrase "according to their own statutes," the Orientals explained this as meaning "at certain times"; as if the Carthaginians were saying that those serving at the altar, at the time of their handling of the holy things, must be continent, but outside of that time, they were by no means to be denied intercourse with their legitimate wives); how, I say, did he not instruct them concerning the rights of the Roman Church, asserting that their interpretation of the words did not agree with the sense of the Carthaginians, who command those of the sacred order to abstain according to their own statutes, or prior statutes—that is, perpetually? ^C For this is manifest from the words of the Second Council of Carthage, chapter 2: "Bishop Aurelius said: When in the previous council it was treated concerning continence and the regulation of chastity, these three grades were by a certain enrollment bound to chastity through their consecration, I mean bishops, presbyters, and deacons; so it pleased, as befits most holy prelates, and indeed Levites, but also those who serve the divine mysteries, to be continent in all things; so that they might simply be able to obtain what they ask of God, that we too might observe what the apostles taught and antiquity itself preserved. All the bishops said: It pleases us that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, or those who handle the sacraments, being keepers of modesty, should abstain even from their wives. It was said by all: It pleases us that in all things and by all who serve the altar, modesty should be kept." And the Fathers of the Fifth Council of Carthage, in the third chapter, say: "Furthermore, they say, when it was reported concerning the incontinence of certain clerics, even though they were with their own wives, it pleased [the council] that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should, according to the prior statutes, abstain even from their wives. But if they do not do this, they should be removed from their ecclesiastical office." ^D How, therefore, did the pope's representative not contradict these points, and not expose the dissonance of their meanings? How did he not contradict the thirty-sixth canon regarding the equality of honor of the pope and of Constantinople...

and leave undiscussed the fifty-fifth canon concerning the Sabbath, and the sixty-seventh concerning abstinence from blood and things strangled? And who, seeing the signatures of those canons so disposed—that the first signature is that of the Emperor Justinian ^A Rhinotmetus, and that the place for the Pope to sign was left afterward—could recognize these as marks of an ecumenical council? The representation of those who are sent to each ecumenical council by the Pope with specific mandates differs greatly, O noble sir, from the representation of those legates whom the Greeks, by a certain common custom, used to represent the person of the Pope, such as the bishops of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Gortyna. These occupied the place, so to speak, of executors, and were called Exarchs in their own respective provinces, having particular jurisdiction over certain internal ecclesiastical affairs, as if they were heirs by succession to this ministry. But those ^B sent by the Pope or by his synod to ecumenical councils supplied the presence of the Pope, sat before the patriarchs, and for the most part judged in matters of dogma, and this they did until a decision was rendered on the issue in question. Such men the Pope used to appoint from Rome from his own side. For indeed, in the third council, when Pope Celestine had entrusted the duty of legation to Cyril, he nevertheless also sent his own legates from Rome. What, then, are the marks of an ecumenical council in the Quinisext? From where did it enter your mind to invent such a pretext, that the Quinisext filled the deficiency of the fifth and sixth, as if it were not permitted to celebrate a general council without the publication of canons? ^C When, however, Pope Saint Gregory the Great, in his one hundred and ninety-fifth epistle to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, asserts that the canons of the second council were neither seen nor received by the Church of Rome, and Pope Saint Leo in his letters, in the third part of the acts of the fourth council, clearly affirms that it was gathered solely for the extinguishing of heresy and the confirmation of the catholic faith. From where, then, comes the need for a supplement, which the first authors of the schism contrived?

If, however, you say the Quinisext is ecumenical because it designates itself by this title, hear this: "You bear witness to yourself." For how is it ecumenical, when in its second canon, having enumerated the canons of general and ^D local synods, as well as the eastern holy Fathers and teachers, it mentions not one Roman pontiff or western doctor, even though the holy general fifth synod says at the end of the third session: "Beyond these, we follow in all things the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril,

^A Leontius, Proclus; and we receive everything they have set forth concerning the true faith and the condemnation of heretics. We receive also the other holy and orthodox Fathers, who in the holy Church of God have preached the right faith irreprehensibly until the end of their lives.»

If the ecumenical synod thinks and writes in this way, how can the Quinisext be ecumenical, which acknowledges only Eastern doctors and forbids anyone from receiving other canons? By no right, therefore, can it be called ecumenical, or a synod legitimate in all respects, according to the canons of the synods.

NILUS (Cap. XVI). «The holy and ecumenical seventh synod also says the following in its first canon: “We gladly embrace the divine canons, and we maintain their entire and unshaken ordinance, whether they were set forth by the trumpets of the Spirit, the Apostles, or by the six ecumenical synods, and by those assembled locally.”» Since it makes mention of the canons of the six general councils, but the sixth synod, strictly speaking, issued no canons, is it not manifest that it speaks of the canons of this synod, which appears to have supplied the deficiency of the sixth?

CONFUTATION. You argue a third point, wishing to prove that the Quinisext is ecumenical. The seventh synod embraces the canons of the six general councils. But the sixth synod, strictly speaking, issued no canons; therefore, it understands these to be the canons of the Quinisext. But if you took pleasure in ^B truth and hated falsehood, you would have read in the fourth act of the seventh synod that some were disturbed when they heard of the canons of the sixth synod. To them Patriarch Tarasius replied that the holy and great sixth synod was celebrated under Constantine, and after four or five years the very same Fathers, assembling under Justinian, the son of Constantine, issued the canons. For those, he said, who signed under Constantine are the same ones who signed under Justinian.

Tarasius said these things to confirm the canons of the Quinisext, among which the eighty-second deals with the image of the Savior, so that he might be able to prove against the Iconoclasts the use of sacred images. This was the objective of Tarasius when he praised the canons of the Quinisext; and when he was composing the canons of the seventh, in the first ^C he said that he received the canons of the six general synods, so that he might include those of the Quinisext with the intention that we have mentioned.

However, he says two things that are inconsistent: one, that the Quinisext was celebrated four or five years after the sixth synod, which is impossible. For if the final act of the sixth synod was performed in the tenth indiction, and the Quinisext in its third canon says it issued its canons after the fourth indiction, then ten years have passed in total, not five. The second is that those ^D

[GREEK COLUMN] τοὺς αὐτοὺς λέγει ὑπογεγραφέναι τῇ ς' συνόδῳ καὶ τῇ πενθέκτῃ· ὅπερ οὐκ ἀληθὲς ἐκ τῶν ὑπογραφῶν ἐλέγχεται· δῆλον γὰρ τῷ βουλομένῳ συμβάλλειν, ὅτι τὸ πλεῖστον μέρος τῶν ὑπογραψάντων διαφέρει, ἐξ ὧν ἀληθῆ πάντως εὑρίσκεται, ἃ γράφει ὁ Βιβλιοθηκάριος ᾿Αναστάσιος ἐν τῷ προσφωνητικῷ πρὸς Ἰωάννην ὄγδον τὸν πάππαν, καταβαλλόμενος προοίμιον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἑρμηνείᾳ τῆς ζ' συνόδου· λέγει δὲ ταῦτα· ^A « Ἰστέον ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ζ' συνόδῳ προσεῖναι τινα ἔκ τε τῶν ἀποστολικῶν, καὶ τῶν τῆς ς' οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου κανόνων καὶ ῥήσεων, ἃ παρ' ἡμῖν, δηλαδὴ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις, οὔτε διερμηνευθέντα φέρεται, οὔτε ἀπόδεκτά ἐστι. Περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν κανόνων ἴσμεν σαφῶς ἐνίους τὴν τῶν τοιούτων κανόνων παραδοχὴν μὴ ῥᾳδίως ποιεῖσθαι. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ προκάτοχός σου πάππας ὁ μακαριώτατος Στέφανος τούτων οὐ πλείους ἢ πεντήκοντα δεκτέους ἐξ και συνοδικῶς ἀπεφήνατο, εἰ καὶ ἀρχιερέων Ῥώμης θεσμοί τινες ἐκ τῶν κανόνων ἐκείνων παρειλῆφθαι δοκοῦσιν. ^B Ὅθεν δὴ θεσπίσματι τῆς ἀποστολικῆς σου ἀξίας οὐ μόνον ἐκείνους τοὺς ν' δέχεται ἡ Ἐκκλησία, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τῶν ἀρχιερέων Ῥώμης ἅπαντας, οἷα δὲ σαλπίγγων τοῦ Πνεύματος· ναὶ μὴν καὶ τοὺς ἁπάντων καθόλου τῶν ἐκκρίτων Πατέρων, καὶ τοὺς τῶν ἱερῶν συνόδων κανόνας καὶ διδάγματα, ἐκεῖνα δηλαδὴ μόνα, ἐν οἷς οὐδὲν ἔνεστι τῇ ὀρθοδοξίᾳ μὴ σύμφωνον, καὶ τῇ ὀρθότητι τῶν ἠθῶν ὑπεναντίον, ἢ τοῖς δόγμασι τῆς Ῥωμαϊκῆς κἂν ὁτιοῦν ἀντιφερόμενον· μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ σφοδρῶς μαχόμενα τοῖς ἐξ ἐναντίας, τουτέστι τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς. Τοὺς τοίνυν κανόνας, οὓς φασιν οἱ Γραικοὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἔκτης ἐκδοθῆναι συνόδου ^C ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὁ κορυφαῖος δέχεται θρόνος ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ἑβδόμῃ συνόδῳ, ὥστε μηδαμῶς τὸ παράπαν ἐκείνους στέργειν, οἳ τοῖς προτέροις κανόσι καὶ διαταγαῖς τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ θρόνου τούτου ἀρχιερέων, ἢ γοῦν τῇ σεμνότητι τῶν ἠθῶν εἰσιν ἀντικείμενοι, εἰ καὶ παρὰ Λατίνοις μέχρι τοῦδε σύμπαντες ἄγνωστοι παντελῶς διατελοῦσιν ὄντες, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡρμηνεύθησαν· ἀλλ' οὐδὲ εὕρηνται ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς πατριαρχικοῖς θρόνοις, καίπερ Ἑλλάδι χρωμένοις φωνῇ, τοῖς ἐκείνων ἀρχείοις ἐγκείμενοι· ὅτι μηδεὶς αὐτῶν ὅτε ἐξεδίδοντο, ἢ συνεκδιδούς, ἢ συμφωνῶν, ἢ παρὼν ὅλως ἐτύγχανε. Καίτοι διαβεβαιοῦνται οἱ Γραικοὶ, τοὺς κανόνας τούτους ἐκτεθεῖσθαι ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν Πατέρων, ^D οἱ τὴν ἔκτην σύνοδον συνεκρότουν· ἀλλὰ τοῦτο δεῖξαι σαφέσι τεκμηρίοις οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν. » Ὁρᾷς ὅτι σύμφωνα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ γράφει ὁ ἑρμηνεὺς ᾿Αναστάσιος; Ὅτε γοῦν ἐπιχειρεῖς, ὅτι ἡ ζ' σύνοδος μέμνηται κανόνων τῶν ἐξ οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων, ἄρα καὶ τῶν τῆς πενθέκτης, ἡ γὰρ κυρίως ς' κανόνας οὐ συνέγραψεν· ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ ἔνθεσμα· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐσκόπει Ταράσιος ὁ τοὺς κανόνας τῆς ζ' συνόδου ὑπαγορεύσας, τὸ τοὺς κανόνας τῆς πενθέκτης νομισθῆναι γνησίους πρὸς τὸ ἀπελέγξαι τοὺς Εικονομάχους· ὥστε τῶν ἀνατολικῶν ἦν ἡ τοιαύτη οἰκονομία. Ὁ δὲ ἀποστολικὸς θρόνος τούτους οὔτε ἐπεγίνωσκεν, οὔτε εἶχε κανόνας, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐδέξατο ἐν τῇ ζ' συνόδῳ, ὅσον ἐπιδοκι-

[LATIN COLUMN] the same, he says, to have subscribed to the sixth synod and the Quinisext; which is proven to be untrue from the subscriptions; for it is evident for anyone wishing to compare them, that the greater part of those who subscribed are not the same. Leo the Isaurian also wrote to Gregory II, saying: "Why, in the six councils, is nothing said about images?" and the Pope replied that nothing had been said. Which the Pope would not have acknowledged, nor would the Emperor have objected, if the Quinisext were held to be legitimate. From which are found to be true those things which Anastasius the Librarian writes in the preface to his interpretation of the seventh synod to John VIII: "Indeed, it is to be noted that certain things are found in this synod from the canons and pronouncements of the apostles and of the sixth ecumenical synod, which, among us, have not been interpreted, nor are they held or accepted. For concerning the apostolic canons, we know clearly that some have not lightly given their consent to the admission of such canons. But also your predecessor, the blessed Pope Stephen, did not synodically promulgate that more than fifty of these were to be received, although certain decrees of the pontiffs seem to have been assumed from those same canons. Hence, by the decree of your apostolic dignity, the Church receives not only those fifty canons alone, but all those of the Roman pontiffs, as being trumpets of the Holy Spirit, because it admits the rules and institutions of all credible Fathers and holy councils altogether, provided only that they do not conflict with right faith or good morals, nor contradict the decrees of the Roman See in any way; but rather that they powerfully impugn the adversaries, that is, the heretics. Therefore, the rules which the Greeks claim were issued by the sixth synod, the principal See accepts in this seventh synod in such a way that those which are found to be contrary to previous canons or decrees of the holy pontiffs of this See, or certainly to good morals, are in no wise accepted; even though they have hitherto remained entirely unknown to the Latins, for they have not been interpreted, nor are they found in the archives of other patriarchal sees, even though they use the Greek tongue: surely because no one was either publishing, or consenting to, or at least present when they were issued. Although the Greeks affirm that those same Fathers who were present at the sixth synod published those canons; but they cannot prove this with certain evidence." Do you see that the interpreter Anastasius writes in accordance with the truth? When, therefore, you argue: "The seventh synod makes mention of the canons of the six general councils; therefore also of the Quinisext, since that which was truly the sixth published no canons," you speak what is true, but not what is necessary or legally conclusive. For Tarasius, who drafted the canons of the seventh synod, intended this: namely, that the canons of the Quinisext be held for legitimate, so that he might be able to refute the Iconoclasts. Thus, this was a contrivance of the Orientals; but indeed the apostolic see neither recognized them nor held them for canons, but accepted them in the seventh synod only insofar as it approved—

^A—the meaning contained in the eighty-second canon, through which iconoclasm is branded. Therefore, to put forward such arguments, O Nilus, to prove the Quinisext council to be ecumenical is the same as, while the case is being heard, to introduce Greeks against Latins as accusers, witnesses, and judges.

NILUS (Cap. XVII).

^B Truly, the Bishop of Rome also held those canons to be valid while the peace of the Churches flourished, to such an extent that Pope Adrian, writing to Tarasius, marveled that he held the canons and decrees of this holy synod. Read these things in the acts of the seventh synod, from the letter of Pope Adrian to Tarasius of Constantinople: "We have also found in the aforementioned synodical letter of Your Holiness, after the fullness of the faith and the confession of the sacred Symbol, and of all the six holy synods, and regarding the sacred and venerable characters, a miracle worthy of praise and veneration contained therein: that I also receive the same six holy synods with all the rules that were rightfully and divinely promulgated by them, among which is contained the eighty-second canon concerning the venerable images." That, therefore, this canon was also ratified by the blessed Adrian himself, the exhibited codices will testify. But it is too absurd that the Latins should not only be enemies of the ecumenical synods, of which they themselves were the leaders, but also that they should contend among themselves; and at one time indeed calling these canons by Pope Adrian "a miracle worthy of praise," but at another time, such as Innocent or anyone else, rejecting the same. ^C

CONFUTATION.

You argue fourthly for the Quinisext: Pope Adrian, writing to Tarasius, holds the eighty-second canon of the Quinisext to be valid; therefore that synod is legitimate and to be numbered among the ecumenical ones. But you are clearly mistaken, and the cause of your error is a perverse interpretation. For the words of Tarasius, which the pope praises, do not explicitly concern the sixth synod as the Greek translation contains; for it is written in Greek thus: "Because I also receive the same holy sixth synod with all its canons." But the Latin text has: "Because I also receive the same six holy synods with their canons." Thus, neither did Tarasius explicitly place the sixth synod, nor does the pope, in referring to his words, but by correcting the words of Tarasius—for he had said: "I receive the six holy synods with their canons"—the pope reports it thus: "After the confession of the sacred Symbol and of the six synods, we also find regarding ^D the sacred images." Therefore, the pope does not praise Tarasius as one holding the decrees of the Quinisext, as you say, but as a cultivator of all the holy synods and of the correct faith concerning the sacred images. This correct faith, however, concerning the images was contained in the eighty-second canon of the Quinisext and the pope praises the correct faith, but does not ratify the so-called canon as a canon. And this is clear from what he adds after the extension of the canon. For in this, he says, by the testimony of the orthodox faith, "the meddlesomeness of the wicked and the prattling of the heretics was repelled by the..."

^A fraternal priesthood." The Pope does not say, "By this canon of the sixth synod," but, "By this testimony of the orthodox faith"; for he praises what is contained therein, but not as a canon. And this is exactly what Anastasius the Librarian used to say: that the Apostolic See admits these kinds of canons only insofar as it does not accept those that are contrary to the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, and that they were all unknown to the Latins, because they had not even been translated. They were, therefore, all unknown. However, one of them, the eighty-second, concerning holy images, became known because it was inserted into the seventh synod against the Iconoclasts; and the Pope praises this in his letter to Tarasius, without, however, calling it a canon, but a testimony of the orthodox faith. ^B Therefore, your argument is futile: first, because the words of Tarasius which you bring forward as inserted into the Pope's letter are not correctly translated. For it makes a difference to say, "Those things which were given forth by the same holy sixth synod," as the Greek text reads, and to say, "The same six holy synods," as the Latin text has it; and again, it makes a difference to say, "Promulgated by it," and "Promulgated by them," as is found in the Latin text. Second, because from that commendation of the Pope a legitimate canon is not created; rather, it is merely confirmed that a right faith is contained therein—from which it is not permitted to gather that the canons are legitimate and the Quinisext is oecumenical, but only that it contains not a few canons that are correct and not to be rejected. Therefore, it is not true ^C that the Latins are enemies of the general synods because they do not receive as oecumenical those that are not oecumenical—or rather, that are not even worthy to be called synods at all—nor are the Roman Pontiffs inconsistent with themselves. For that which Hadrian held to be a miracle, worthy of praise and veneration, the other pontiffs also extol with praises. Indeed, the Pope admired the right faith of Tarasius concerning holy images, not the canon as a canon; in this, all the Roman Pontiffs have agreed and do agree. Therefore, to assert that the canons of the Quinisext were held to be valid by the Roman Pontiffs while the peace of the Churches flourished, but were later rejected, is to connect things that do not cohere. ^D For where would you find, before the Constantinopolitan schism, the see of Constantinople made equal to the Pope, as the thirty-sixth canon of the Quinisext—or the third according to the pseudo-canons, and the twenty-eighth of the second and fourth synods—ordains? If the Roman Church has always rejected these canons, even by title alone, as can be seen in the letter of Pope Leo in the fourth part of the fourth synod, how could it have later held as valid the canons of the Quinisext, which consist of the very same wording by which they were rejected? For what peace was there between the Pope and a patriarch who would boast himself equal to the Pope, if Celestine condemned and removed Nestorius the patriarch of Constantinople, Leo removed Dioscorus of Alexandria, Agapetus removed Anthimus of Constantinople, Leo II removed Macarius of Antioch, and Hadrian did not remove Tarasius?

^A Writing to him, Hadrian stated that he would not have accepted his ordination—being suddenly raised from the rank of a layman to the priestly dignity—had he not recognized him as orthodox. How did these things happen, and yet peace held the Churches, and the canons of the Quinisext Council were considered to be in force? These things are impossible, O Nilus. For if the canons were in force, the bishops of Rome would not have had authority over the patriarchs. But if they had it, the canons were not in force; rather, when there was peace, they were invalid. But after the discord, they are—among the Latins—what they have always been: invalid; but among the Orientals, they are in force exclusively, for whom they have also been the greatest cause of the schism.

NILUS (Cap. XVIII). ^B If anyone says that the Pope is not subject to the laws laid down by the Fathers, who could endure this? Why? Because he himself received his primacy from the Fathers. And it is entirely intolerable that those by whom he was raised and appears to be great should be disregarded by him. Moreover, he who has this disposition condemns himself; since he is the one who set the laws. But blessed Paul calls himself a transgressor if he should desire to rebuild the things he destroyed. If, then, it has been shown that he is subject to the judgment of the Fathers in matters of dogma, just as in other things, how is he not subject to the laws laid down by the Fathers? Or how is it just for others to pay heed to him as a Father, when he invalidates so many Fathers?

REFUTATION. ^C You have already said much on this argument, and you take up the topic again, being concerned most of all with how you might debase the Pope. You say it is intolerable to claim that the Pope is not subject to the laws laid down by the Fathers; because, having received his primacy from the Fathers, how can he despise those who glorified him? You say that the Pope, by being so disposed, condemns himself, since he himself is the one who set the laws; you say it has been shown that the Pope is subject to the judgment of the Fathers in dogmas and in other matters, and that it is not just to honor as a Father one who invalidates the Fathers. If, then, your argument is sound, then the one from the contrary will certainly be sound as well. ^D You argue thus: "The Pope has his primacy from the Fathers, therefore he is subject to the laws of the Fathers." But we say: "The Fathers have their privileges and honors from the Pope, therefore the Pope is not subject to the laws of the Fathers, but rather they are subject to the laws of the Pope." The antecedent of your enthymeme has already been proven false by the testimonies of the synods, and now, to strengthen the truth, its falsehood shall indeed be proven.

^A The Fathers of the second synod had drawn up a canon that the Bishop of Constantinople should have the prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome. Yet Theophilus of Alexandria claimed for himself the ordination of the Bishop of Constantinople, and Dioscorus of Alexandria ordained Anatolius of Constantinople; whence it is clear to everyone that that canon, even if it was ever made, remained without force. For this reason, in the fourth synod, the legates of the Pope said that this canon was not correctly cited; and Leo, who was Pope at that time, and the pontiffs after him, never accepted it as legitimate—just as they did not accept the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth synod, which was surreptitiously introduced by some to confirm the former, until, after long-prevailing insistence, as Pope Adrian testifies in the second act of the seventh synod ^B in his letter to the emperors, the see of Constantinople obtained the second place, naturally relegating the other patriarchal sees of the East to a lower position than itself, and moving the boundaries which the Apostles and the first synod had set. And it accomplished this, says Adrian, by the authority of the Apostolic See, so that it might be second by that favor.

If, therefore, Mark at Alexandria and Evodius at Antioch—as Eusebius says in books two and three of his history, and Saint Ignatius the Martyr in his epistle to the Antiochians—presided over the patriarchal sees by the authority of Peter, so that Saint Gregory the Dialogist says in his 101st epistle to Eulogius of Alexandria that Peter raised up three sees and one person held the three; then the see of Constantinople, having thrust them aside, ^C was held as second, and it attained this through the constant insistence of the authority of the Pope. Is it not then manifest that the privileges of the Eastern sees depend upon the authority of the Pope? And is it not manifest that, with Peter having established the Alexandrian as second and the Antiochene as third, and the Pope afterwards granting that Constantinople should be second, Peter and his successors have equal power in shepherding, governing, and ordering ecclesiastical affairs? If, then, it is the prerogative of Constantinople to be second, of Alexandria to be third, and of Antioch to be fourth, and they have these from the Pope, then what you say, Nilus—that the Pope received the primacy from the Fathers—is false. The truth is that the Fathers received their ^D privileges from the Pope. And if, according to you, a person is subject to the laws of those from whom he receives his prerogative, and the Eastern patriarchs have their prerogative of being second, third, and fourth from the Pope, then, according to you, they are necessarily subject to the laws of the Pope. But if you were to say that it is not from the patriarchs whom the Pope honored, but from the ecumenical synods that the prerogative is derived, you are saying things that are in no way consistent. The first synod in its sixth canon commands that ancient customs be observed and that the established privileges of the Churches not be disturbed. If, therefore, the Pope had the primacy

^A before the first synod at Nicaea, how did he receive this privilege from ecumenical synods? The Pope does not, therefore, despise the Fathers by not being subject to their laws; for if he were subject to their laws, he would be a transgressor of the evangelical commandment, by which Peter is ordered to feed, not to be fed; and to be the guardian of the vineyard, not to be subject to the guardians; and to be a physician bestowing health upon the members of the Church, not to be healed himself according to the judgments of synods. But you, when you call the Pope a transgressor because he does not observe the laws which he himself laid down, take for granted what you please, as if the pseudocanons of the Quinisext Council were confirmed by the authority of the Pope. Where, therefore, does the Pope condemn himself, when he condemns things which he never approved? Thus, you have neither shown the Pope to have been legitimately judged and condemned in a matter of dogma, nor to be subject to the judgment of the Fathers in other matters. Wherefore, that which you add as if it were demonstrated has no shadow of truth; for if the Pope is not subject to the laws of the Fathers, it does not follow from this that they are despised by him. ^B

NILUS. (Cap. XIX.)

To say that the Pope is not an bishop of a specific place, but an bishop absolutely, how is this not to be very much at odds with manifest facts? For, in the first place, it has been shown above that he is of the same rank as the other bishops; and in the second place, in all the ecumenical synods he is called Bishop of Rome. But if, because he does not call himself Bishop of Rome in his own letters, but simply "bishop," he should on that account have this same title, then let Cyril have it too; for there are places where he is inscribed simply as "Cyril bishop" (1); and Cyril may have this all the more, inasmuch as such things are attributed to him by others as well. Similarly, if any bishop, when writing, does not add the title of bishop, then let him not be a bishop at all; but if he calls himself only "bishop," let him flee from the designation of a specified place, and let him be the universal bishop of the inhabited world; but if he suppresses even this, let him not be a bishop at all. And how are these things not similar to an enigma? ^C

CONFUTATION.

If it is to be at odds with manifest facts to think and speak about the primacy of the Pope whatever has been said above—namely, that he is both Bishop of Rome and universal bishop—then that saying is fulfilled in you: "Woe to those who call darkness light, and light darkness; who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight." For according to your doctrine, these two are at odds with each other: being Bishop of Rome and universal bishop. But the matter is not so. Athanasius knew himself to be Bishop of Alexandria, and Julius to be the Roman ^D bishop; yet he went up when called to Rome to Julius the bishop, and

^A gave an account of himself. And the Pope, writing to the Antiochene accusers of Athanasius, says many things of great weight which attest his jurisdiction over the Orientals; among other things, however, at the end he says this: "For if in general, as you say, some sin has occurred, it ought, according to the ecclesiastical canon, not to have been judged in such a manner; it ought to have been written to us all, so that what is just might be determined by all. For those suffering were bishops, and these are not ordinary churches that were suffering, but those over which the apostles themselves presided. Why, then, did you not write to us especially concerning the city of the Alexandrians? Or are you ignorant that it was a custom for it to be written to us first, and thus for matters of justice to be determined from here? If, therefore, there was any such suspicion concerning the bishop of that city, one ought to have written to this Church." Then: "For those things which we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, these I also signify to you; and I would not have written, thinking these things to be manifest to all, had not the things that happened troubled us." ^B If it is a teaching of the apostle Peter that it should be written to the Bishop of Rome, so that matters of justice may be determined from there, as the letter which the great Athanasius brings forward in his own defense says, then it is absolutely necessary that the Pope be both the bishop of Rome specifically, and also, absolutely, the ecumenical bishop. Cyril knew Celestine to be the bishop of Rome, yet he does not dare, without license obtained from the Pope, to separate himself from the communion of Nestorius; the entire third synod knew the Pope to be the bishop of Rome, yet it implores the indignation of the Pope against the schismatics, so that they might be chastened by him. What need is there of many words? Enough has been said about this matter, and the acts of the synods are full of it. Therefore, to deny this is to fight against manifest facts; and to assert that the Pope is of the same rank in jurisdiction as the other bishops is to make liars of the Fathers of the councils, who celebrated the excellence of the Pope with so many and various titles. But how can these things apply to Cyril, or to any bishop whatsoever? For if it were read in the acts of the synods that there were some other bishop ^C who both had his own private see and exercised authority over the whole body of the Church, the absurdities you infer would follow; but now, since the Pope is the only such bishop, what need is there to infer things that are not at all congruent? For if some bishop suppresses the name of his dignity, is he not a bishop? And if he simply writes himself 'bishop,' is he the universal bishop of the whole world? For it is not from the appellation being placed or not placed that one who writes is or is not such as he is; nor are things derived from words, but words from things. And so, whether it be Cyril, or any bishop whatsoever, if by chance he does not add of what place he is bishop, he will never be universal; and the Pope, whether he be called simply or as bishop of Rome, always possesses the fact that he is Peter's ^D

^A successor, that is, bishop of Rome and of the whole world.

NILUS (Cap. XX).

But not even alone, as they say, does the Roman see have the right to be called apostolic. It is evident from the eleventh action of the sixth synod, where it is read: "Constantine, the most religious archdeacon of this holy catholic and apostolic Church of God, that is, of Constantinople." Similarly, in the sixth and seventh sessions, every principal see is called apostolic; so that if anyone wishes to weigh what is just, he ought either to deem them all worthy of equal honor with the Roman see due to these things, or the Roman see, on account of these things, ought not to have preeminence over the others, as long as it is not permitted for the common to pass into the private.

CONFUTATION.

If there were not present in the acts of the synods a commonality of designation and at the same time a difference, your statements might have some excuse; but if the difference much more clearly shines forth in them than the commonality, why, O wonderful man, do you suffer such blindness? You will never find the eastern sees called apostolic without an addition, but with a distinction and limitation. Nay, in the more ancient councils they did not claim the title of apostolic for themselves at all; for only the Roman see is called apostolic in the third synod. Certainly, in its second action, Cyril is called simply "of Alexandria," Juvenal "of Jerusalem," while Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip ^B are called legates of the apostolic see; and you will find this thenceforth in that synod, namely, that only the Pope's legates are entitled of the apostolic see, while the oriental sees are expressed simply. In the fourth synod, likewise, the oriental sees are brought forward nakedly, but the Pope's legates are everywhere expressed by the title of apostolic. Therefore, in the first action at the very beginning: "Paschasinus," he says, "legate of the apostolic see, said: We have the mandates of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, etc." Nor will you easily count the repetition of this title in the fourth synod. In the sixth synod also, in action 1, you will find the Orientals written simply, but the Romans thus: ^D "Theodore, and George, and John, holding the place of the holy Pope of the apostolic see of elder Rome;" and this is observed thenceforth up to the eleventh action, in which, after the enumeration of the bishops, there is in Greek what you cite: "Constantine, the most religious archdeacon of this most holy, catholic, and apostolic great Church of God of this place." And you snatch the passage, without examining it, as a testimony, not understanding that it is one thing for a see to be apostolic, and another for a Church to be apostolic; which must by necessity be one and spread everywhere, whereas that the see itself is apostolic [Constantinopolitan], they have never dared to say, nor to subscribe themselves by that title, who by no right call themselves ecumenical patriarchs.

And indeed, the blessed Pope Leo, writing to Marcian Augustus concerning Anatolius of Constantinople and rebuking the man’s immoderate zeal, says: "Let it be sufficient for the aforementioned that, through the aid of your piety and the consent of my favor, he has obtained the episcopate of so great a city. Let him not disdain the royal city, which he cannot make an apostolic see." From this is also refuted the empty ambition of those who say that the first bishop of Byzantium was the first-called Andrew. For if this were so, why did the bishops of Constantinople not frequently arrogate to themselves the title of "apostolic" in the ecumenical councils? And why did they undergo so many struggles, coveting to rise above the other patriarchs?

What, too, of the fact that this very passage which you cite from the eleventh session of the sixth council has manifestly suffered the addition of that term, "apostolic"? For the ancient translator rendered it into Latin thus: "Constantine, the God-beloved deacon of this most holy Church of God." And do not tell me that he was a Latin; for at that time suspicions arising from the Eastern dissension had not yet ^B sprung up, and the truth of the matter attests to the integrity of the translator. For you will never find in the Acts of the councils a patriarch of Constantinople designated as "apostolic," yet you will see the legates of the Pope so called, even in that very eleventh session of the sixth council itself, and thereafter right up to the subscriptions of the definition, in which is subscribed "Peter of the apostolic see of the Alexandrians," and "George, holding the place of the apostolic see of the Hierosolymitans," with the consistent addition, as has been said; but it is seen there for the first time at the end of the sixth council. But the Roman see is from the beginning called "apostolic," and "apostolic of Rome," and absolutely "apostolic" by pre-eminence; this, clearly, the holy councils signifying ^C as meaning that the Pope is both Bishop of Rome and Bishop of the universal Church; but the other apostolic sees are strictly apostolic only, and not also absolutely so; which is also clearly evident in the fourth council. For there they are continually called "apostolic," as in the second session: "Peter and Peter, the God-beloved presbyters and legates of the apostolic chair, said: Let the holy council tell us if it admits the letters of the most holy Pope." And Tarasius the patriarch indicated this same thing in his letter to Pope Adrian, which is included after the Acts of the seventh council, saying: ^D "Your brotherly holiness, therefore, adorned with the highest priesthood, governing the hierarchical order legitimately and according to God's will, possesses widely celebrated glory." For the fact that he says the hierarchical order is governed absolutely by the Pope denotes that the universal Church is governed by apostolic authority, since a little before he calls the Pope the heir of the chair of Peter the apostle; and a manifest proof of this matter is that no patriarch has ever been called

by the title of Apostolic Father, save the Pope alone. In the second act of the Seventh Synod, it says: “Peter and Peter, the God-beloved priests, occupying the place of Adrian, the most holy Pope of Rome, said: ‘We ourselves, having received such letters from our Apostolic Father, have brought them.’” And in the fourth act, in the subscriptions: “Peter, by the mercy of God, archpriest of the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, and filling the place of Adrian, the most holy and apostolic Pope, etc.” And so common was the custom for everyone to call the Pope by this name, that the great Athanasius, in his letter to all those who were practicing the solitary life everywhere, says: “For they did not even spare Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, in the beginning, but extended their fury ^B even to those places; nor were they led by reverence, because it is an apostolic see, and Rome is the metropolis of the Roman empire; nor did they remember that before this, when they wrote to them, they called them apostolic men.”

Since, therefore, there is such a difference, by which the title of ‘apostolic’ is attributed both to the Orientals and to the Pope, how can you say that all ought to be deemed of equal dignity with the Roman see, or that the Roman see does not excel, when it is impossible for a common thing to pass into a private one? What sort of community is it, if the Pope alone formerly possessed this, and then it was with difficulty finally made common to others, being attributed to the Pope in one way, and to the patriarchs in another? And this, indeed, has come about entirely according to some apparent sequence. But from where, and from what sequence, did the Bishop of Constantinople snatch for himself the inscription of ‘oecumenical’? Was it because Constantinople is New Rome? But Pope Leo, writing to the Emperor Marcian, cried out: ^C “Let the city of Constantinople have its glory, as we wish; yet one rule applies to secular matters, and another to divine. Nor, besides that rock which the Lord placed in the foundation, will any construction be stable. He loses what is his own who covets what is not due.” “Another,” he says, “is the rule of secular things, and another of divine.” Therefore, that argument has no validity: “Constantinople has been honored with the empire and the senate, therefore let it have equal privileges with senior Rome.” For the primacy of senior Rome is not founded upon the empire and the senate, as the blessed Leo says, but upon that rock which the Lord placed in the foundation.

But how, moreover, can there possibly be two oecumenical bishops? For what the Librarian Anastasius reports as being answered by the Greeks in their own defense, that the Constantinopolitan is not called oecumenical in such a way that he holds the prelacy of the whole world, but because he presides over a certain part of the world ^D which is called the oecumene by Christians; this, I say, would be the invention of those playing with divine things, not of those treating them seriously.

The Roman pontiffs who struggled most fiercely against that term, Pelagius and Gregory the Dialogist, did not understand the word this way; nor did the patriarchs who first snatched this title for themselves, John the Faster and Cyriacus, interpret it thus. But they inscribed themselves as "oecumenical" while abusing the meaning; and as Gregory the Dialogist writes to Anastasius of Antioch, they provided such a cause that, if we endure this ^B calmly, he says, we corrupt the faith of the universal Church. And there is no place where, in writing about this word—and he gave frequent letters concerning it—he does not condemn it and reject it as profane, as an injury to the universal Church, as a source of great scandals, full of pride, the precursor of the Antichrist, through which faith is lost, as wicked and contradicting the Gospel and the sacred canons; which, as Pope Adrian says in his letters to the emperors, whoever uses and provides assent to, manifests himself to be a stranger to the orthodox faith and a rebel against the Catholic Church.

NILUS (Chapter XXI).

CONFUTATION.

that ^A all bishops possess the throne of Christ, in that they sow the evangelical teaching. But according to the perversity of your interpretation, we have a blasphemous false doctrine, that all bishops possess the same equality of dignity. But truly, what the great Father Chrysostom thought regarding Peter and his successors, you have in his 3rd Homily on the Acts of the Apostles, when he explains those words: "And in those days Peter stood up." "As one fervent," he says, "and as one entrusted by Christ with the care of the sheepfold, and as the first of the company, he always begins to speak first." And below: "Rightly does he manage the matter with authority, as one who had all men committed to him; for to him Christ said: 'And when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren'." And in the 21st Homily: ^B "Just as some general, Peter went about the ranks, inspecting which part was well organized, which was in order, and which was in need of his presence. See him everywhere running about and showing himself first." And below: "And where indeed there was danger and need of a governor's prudence, there was Peter; but where all was tranquil, they acted in common. Thus he did not demand greater honor." And in Homily 88 on John, explaining that text of the final chapter, "But what for this man?", he says: "Since Christ had foretold great things to Peter, and had entrusted the whole world to him." And a little before: "To this Peter was committed the prefect-ship of the brethren." ^C Such are the magnificent words Chrysostom utters regarding Peter. But did he think the same of his successors, as you do, Nilus? Not in the least; for in writing to Pope Innocent, he first lamentably deplores all that he had suffered at the hands of Theophilus of Alexandria; and among other things, he says: "We deemed it necessary to persuade my most honorable lords, the bishops Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus, and Eugenius, to leave their sees and to dare the great sea, and to undertake a long journey, and to hasten to your charity, so that when all has been openly narrated, a remedy may be applied as quickly as possible." And below: "For it was not consistent with law that an Egyptian should be the judge of those living in Thrace." And: "I ask your charity to be stirred up and to sympathize, and to omit nothing until there is an end to these evils." ^D And: "Wherefore, my most esteemed lords, when you have arrived at a knowledge of these matters, show the fortitude that becomes you, and apply diligence so that such great iniquity which has spread in the Churches may be repressed." And: "So that, therefore, such great confusion does not take hold of the whole world under the sun, I ask you to write, that those things which were done so nefariously in our absence, and when we did not refuse judgment, with only the other party present, may be of no force; and those who dared such crimes, when they have been convicted, should be subjected to the censure of the ecclesiastical laws; but to us, who have been caught in no crime, who have not been proved responsible for any wicked act, grant that by your constant letters

^A you may let us enjoy your love, and all other things just as before.” After these things, the holy Father writes that he is most ready to be judged by the Pope, and in no way avoids such a tribunal. He also writes a second letter to the same Pope, giving great thanks for the zeal he has shown, even though the remedy which was needed did not follow. He entreats the Pope, however, not to abandon the cause, for a struggle is set before him, given that nearly the entire world is in turmoil.

From these words of Chrysostom we have three things: that Chrysostom did not submit to being judged by Alexandria; that he appeals to the tribunal of the Pope, so that he might be freed from an unjust judgment; and that, with the universal Church in turmoil, he rouses the Pope to render judgment. What else are these, ^B if not an open confession of an apostolic and universal authority in the Pope, which neither Alexandria nor Constantinople had or has? How, then, is it not to be esteemed a great thing that the Roman [bishop] is called apostolic, when every bishop sits on the throne of Christ? These things do not accord with the mind of Chrysostom and the ancient Eastern Church; but to speak as you do is to adduce the sentences of the Fathers deceitfully, and by denying the primacy to introduce schism. Although, not even then, as you interpret it, do you have what you want. For let it be that all bishops sit upon the throne of Christ; yet it is not necessary that they sit with the honor of equality, just as the legal priests did not all sit equally in the chair of Moses; for the high priest was preeminent among them. It is therefore a great thing ^C for the Roman throne alone to be called, by way of excellence, apostolic, and for the Roman bishop alone to sit upon the throne of Christ in such a way that he is the judge of all bishops.

NILUS (Cap. XXII).

To say, however, that it is permitted to the Pope alone to assemble an ecumenical synod, is this not to oppose things that are most manifest? Or rather, is it not shameful for a priest to be ambitious in that very thing in which even an emperor can boast himself? But so that you may know that this pertains to the emperor rather than to the bishops, read the letter of the first synod to the Church of Alexandria: “Since,” it says, “by the grace of God, and by the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, we have been gathered from different provinces.” Read from the Acts of the third synod its letter to Theodosius and Valentinian, in the sixth session: ^D “The holy synod, it says, by the grace of God and at the command of your majesty gathered in the metropolis of the Ephesians;” and from the end of the acts of the fourth synod: “The holy and great and universal synod, gathered by the grace of God and the decree of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors.” The blessed Leo, also, the Roman bishop, writing to the Emperor Theodosius, asks as a matter of great importance that the emperor would grant that a general synod be held in Italy. He would not have asked for this if the power to grant that belonged to his own jurisdiction.

CONFUTATION

If to oppose manifest truth is to inquire in the Acts of the synods whether there is no inconsistency, then certainly he who does not inquire in this way contradicts the synods. The first synod states that it was gathered by the grace of God and the Emperor Constantine. The holy sixth synod explains this in its Prosphoneticus to the Emperor Constantine: "Arius," it says, "was rising up, a divider and splitter of the Trinity, and immediately Constantine, always Augustus, and Silvester, of most famous memory, gathered the great and illustrious synod at Nicaea." Constantine and Silvester gathered it; therefore, what you say is not true, that these things pertain to emperors and not to bishops.

Concerning the second synod, the same Fathers say again in the Prosphoneticus: "Theodosius and Damasus the Pope gathered the assembly."

Concerning the third and fourth synods: "Again Nestorius, and against him Caelestinus and Cyril; for the former was dividing and splitting Christ, but the latter, standing by the Lord, together with the master of the scepters, cast down the divider. Then," it says, "as the mad insanity of Eutyches was spewing a new fable, the letter of Leo, like the roar of a lion, resounding with great noise from Rome, terrified the archimandrite of that time, a beast, and drove him from the flock of monks."

Concerning the fifth, moreover: "Vigilius," it says, "and Justinian were celebrating the assembly of the fifth synod." ^C

Since the sixth synod asserts these things in such plain words, while the first, the third, and the fourth, which you cite, say that they were gathered by the nod and decree of the emperors, it is necessary either that the holy synods dissent from one another, or that you are not telling the truth when you assert that it belongs to emperors, not priests, to gather ecumenical synods. That the holy synods do not dissent from themselves is clear even of itself; for where there is disagreement, it is necessary that one side or the other be lying. But it is also clear from the writings of the emperors themselves, by which the ecumenical synods were gathered; for they themselves explain how and in what manner they were gathering them, declaring that they did this not by using authority, but as defenders of religion. So that from these facts it is concluded with the best of right that it belongs to the power of the Pope alone, properly speaking, to gather ecumenical synods. ^D Therefore, the Emperor Constantine of blessed memory, in an address to the holy synod concerning peace, as can be seen in the fragments of the first synod, says: "After," he says, "I heard of your dissension, contrary to all expectation, I did not think that what was reported should be put off; but having prayed that a remedy be applied to this matter also through my ministry, I summoned everyone without delay." He says that he summoned the bishops, not having used royal power, not bound by political administration, but having prayed,

to obtain a remedy for the evil through his own service. Whether, therefore, you understand this service to be toward God or toward the Church, the emperor admits the summoning of bishops to have been for him a work of prayer and service, not of power and authority. If, as the Sixth Synod says, Constantine and Silvester gathered the first synod, and Constantine admits that he gathered it through the work of a minister, it remains that Silvester gathered it by the office of a shepherd. For by what other title? If by another title, why is Silvester the Roman said to have summoned it rather than the Alexandrian or the Antiochene? If you say, "Because the Roman is first in rank," the Fourth and Seventh Synods contradict you: the Fourth, where it says at the beginning of the Acts, "Dioscorus dared to hold a synod without having obtained permission from the apostolic see; which has never been done, nor is it permitted to be done." ^A The Seventh [Synod], where it says in the sixth session, "It is the law for synods to have the Roman pope as their cooperator." These things designate a primacy not of mere rank, but of authority. For the fact that leave must be granted and cooperation [must be obtained] from the pope according to the law of synods shows that what is done to the contrary is impious and unlawful; and this is a most manifest argument not of mere rank, but of power and jurisdiction. Indeed, there have been ecumenical synods in which the order of the patriarchs was not observed, such as the third; for the Constantinopolitan and the Antiochene were not present. In the fourth, the Alexandrian was not present. In the sixth, the Antiochene was cast out. But without the pope, a synod has never been held, nor can it be held. But if rank alone bestowed primacy upon the pope, synods could have been held even without the pope and his authority. ^B

Constantine the Great clarifies his own purpose more openly in the things he says and writes to the Churches: "Having gained experience," he says, "from the successful management of common affairs, of how great the grace of divine power is, I have judged this to be my goal before all others: that among the most blessed multitudes of the Catholic Church, one faith, and sincere charity, and piety minded in unison toward the almighty God might be kept. But because this could not be established in a fixed and unshakeable order, unless all the bishops, or at least the greater part of them, coming together into one place, might examine each of the things pertaining to the most holy religion, for this reason a great many were gathered, and I myself, as one from your number, was present with you. For I would not deny that which I take the greatest joy in: that I have been your fellow servant." ^C

Within these [words], Constantine the Great concludes thus: "The success of common affairs has come to me from the grace of God. But I, being emperor, ought to seek the success of common affairs; therefore, I ought to seek to draw down divine grace. Divine grace gives itself if those things are done which are pleasing to God, and God is pleased most of all by the worship of right faith among the peoples. Therefore, this is what I must care for. But because this could not [be brought] to a prosperous [conclusion] ^D

^A without an ecumenical synod, for this reason I have summoned the bishops.

The cause, therefore, and the end of summoning the synod is the happy state of the commonwealth, whose power and administration reside in the emperor. But since it is impossible for the end of spiritual things to be [something] corporal, it is also impossible for the happy state of the commonwealth to be, of itself, the end of the synod. If, therefore, the end of the synod by its nature is one thing, and the emperor is another—whose proper task it is to work towards the end proposed by its nature—such a person is the spiritual shepherd. Therefore, the task of summoning synods will belong to him by nature; and Constantine the Great spoke quite aptly and congruously when he said that the bishops had been summoned through his ministry. For the great luminary, Gregory the Theologian, says in his oration to the ^B Nazianzen citizens who were involved in civic duties and struck with fear, and [to] the governor who was angry: "Will you receive with boldness the word, since the law of Christ subjects you to my power and to my tribunal? For we also rule; and I will add that we rule with a greater and more perfect authority. Or must the spirit yield to the flesh, and heavenly things to earthly?"

If, therefore, the spiritual authority stands in relation to the temporal as spirit to flesh, and the flesh is the instrument of the spirit, it is necessary that the empire also be the instrument of the priesthood; and that the bishops be summoned by emperors in the right of ministry, not of lordship; as an instrument, not as the principal cause; by the office of an inferior, not by the power of a superior. And what else did the emperor signify ^C when, in the assembly of bishops, he refused to sit down except at the last [place], and that only when the bishops had signaled him to do so? And when, on the occasion of the petitions which the bishops had presented accusing one another, he said: "Since God has appointed you as priests and rulers to judge and discern the peoples, and to be gods, as being superior to all men—according to that saying which decerns: 'I have said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High' (Ps. LXXXI, 6); and, 'God stood in the congregation of the gods' (ibid. 4)—it behooves you to direct all your efforts toward divine matters."

How could Constantine the Great have said and done these things if he had assembled the bishops ^D as if using his own authority? But just as the first synod existed as a rule for the subsequent synods, so what Constantine did and said when gathering the synod became a rule for the princes who succeeded him. For there were three things for which the emperors were said to convene synods: the defense of the orthodox faith, the provision of food, and the peaceful state of the commonwealth. Constantine calls this defense a "ministry." Regarding the provision of food, Eusebius narrates in book III of *De Vita Constantini* that he had ordered that the necessary supplies be furnished in abundance to the bishops every day. The peaceful state of the commonwealth and he himself, Constantine...

the same emperor Constantine, in his letters and addresses, and the other emperors, argue for this cause ^A. But to defend, to provide, and to extinguish the divisions and seditions of the people through an assembly of bishops, is not to have the right of lordship and power. For these things differ from each other greatly, just as the work of a judge differs from that of an advocate.

Pope Gregory declaring these things in his former letter to Leo the Isaurian, before the seventh synod, wrote, and the letter is carried before the Acts of the seventh synod: "You know, O emperor, that the dogmas of the holy Church are not of emperors, but of pontiffs." Then: "The counsel of the Christ-loving emperors and the virtue of the pious pontiffs is one, when matters are administered with peace and love." And again in the second letter: "Hear," he says, "O emperor, my humility; cease, and follow the holy Church ^B as you found and received it. These are not the dogmas of emperors, but of pontiffs, because we have the mind of Christ." And when the Iconoclast Leo had written: "I am emperor and priest," the Pope replied: "Indeed, the emperors who were before you demonstrated this by deed and word, who founded and cared for the Churches, together with the pontiffs, inflamed with desire and zeal for Orthodoxy, and investigating the truth of the faith—Constantine the Great, and Theodosius the Great, and Valentinian the Great, and Constantine the father of Justinian, who took part in the sixth synod. These emperors reigned religiously, and together ^C with the pontiffs, in one counsel and purpose, gathered the synods, and investigating the truth of the dogmas, they established and adorned the holy Churches." ^D

See, you have the naked truth, that the dogmas are not the emperors', and that together with the pontiffs the emperors gathered the synods with one counsel, defending, providing, and ensuring peace for the peoples. Theodosius and Valentinian, summoning the Fathers of the third synod, said: "The state of our republic depends on the religion by which God is worshiped." Then: "Established therefore by God to reign, and to be for our subjects a bond of piety and prosperity, we always preserve their natural society undissolved." Then: "Taking care of both as is proper (nor indeed is it possible that he who strives for one should neglect the other), we apply ourselves above all to this, that the state of the Churches be preserved in a manner befitting God and consistent with our times, and that we have from the common concord of all tranquility, and through the peace preserved in ecclesiastical matters, put an end to seditions."

Do you see by what reasoning the emperors profess to contribute to the care of ecclesiastical matters? Because the state of the republic depends on spiritual things, and because it is the proper work of emperors to preserve the republic free from disturbances and seditions, it is necessary for them also to be concerned about religion; for if there is not one faith of all, disturbances and schisms arise among the peoples.

^A They admit, therefore, that it is not by primary right, but because of the necessity of temporal things, that they touch upon spiritual ones. But this is not, as you say, that it is for emperors, not for bishops, to convene an ecumenical synod; rather, on the contrary, it is for emperors by accident, but for bishops by their very nature.

Valentinian and Marcian, writing to Pope Leo concerning the fourth synod, as can be seen in the documents before the Acts of the synod, say: "We considered it just, in our sacred letters, to address Your Holiness first, as one who possesses the primacy in the episcopate of the divine faith." Then: "So that, every impious error having been removed, through this synod which is to be assembled, with you as author, the greatest peace may come about among all the bishops of the Catholic faith." And Pulcheria Augusta, writing to the same Pope Leo in the same manner, says: "And for this reason, may your reverence see fit to signify in whatever way it might appear, so that all the bishops ^B of the whole East, of Thrace and Illyricum, may be able to travel speedily to one city from the Eastern parts."

Do you see what they who assembled the fourth synod write? That the synod is to be convoked by the authority of the Pope, and that he deigns to signify that the bishops should gather into one city. This, therefore, is all that the holy synods imply when they say they are gathered by the grace of God and the decree of the emperors; for the synods do not bestow more upon the emperors than the emperors bestow upon themselves.

As to your objection ^C that the blessed Pope Leo wrote to the Emperor Theodosius and, instead of a great matter, asked that the emperor agree for a general synod to be held in Italy; and that, as you say, he would not have requested that which, if it had been his right, he could have provided for himself—Leo himself clarifies this excellently and dissolves the objection by what he writes in that same epistle: "Having read the letters of your clemency, which you sent some time ago to the See of the blessed Apostle Peter out of love for the Catholic faith, we have taken such great confidence in the defense of truth and peace through you." Then: "For we have learned, not by an uncertain rumor, but from a most faithful narrator of the things that have taken place, our deacon Hilarus, that a great number of priests had gathered at the synod; whose presence, indeed, would have been profitable for consultation ^D and judgment, if he who claimed for himself the position of leader had wished to observe priestly moderation."

The pontiff is speaking about Dioscorus, who had claimed for himself the position of leader, since he had received the primacy and authority from the Emperor Theodosius in the second Ephesian synod, as is evident from the first session of the Council of Chalcedon. Therefore, the Pope, in rebuking this in his letters to Pulcheria and others, shows most manifestedly that if it were the duty of emperors to assemble synods, it would also be theirs to bestow the position of leader in them upon whomsoever they might wish. But Pope Leo rebukes this, saying that Dioscorus had claimed for himself a leading position, even though he had received this from the impera

emperor ^A. It is not, therefore, for emperors to convene ^B synods, except by way of ministerial service; in which manner Dioscorus ought not to have claimed for himself a leading position. The pope then adds: “Because the mystery of the true divinity and of the true humanity in Christ is now impiously opposed by a few, all the churches of our regions, all the priests, entreat your gentleness with groans and tears that, since our own have faithfully protested and Bishop Flavian has given them a petition of appeal, you may command a general synod to be celebrated within Italy.” And at the end of the letter, he declares what kind of thing he asks of the emperor: “Favor the Catholics, according to your custom and that of your parents. Grant freedom to the faith that is to be defended, which, with all due respect for your clemency, no force, no worldly terror will be able to take away. For we are conducting the causes of the Church, and also of your kingdom and salvation, so that you may possess your provinces with peaceful law; defend the unshaken state of the Church against heretics, that your empire also may be defended by the right hand of Christ.”

The pope, therefore, seeks a synod from the emperor as a champion and protector, so that he himself may rule his subjects in peace, not in place of some great matter which was not ^C of his own jurisdiction. That this is entirely true and most certain, and that to seek a synod from the emperor is not an infringement of ecclesiastical power, Leo the Great himself will teach in his letter to the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon: “That your fraternal university, and the hearts of all the faithful, may know that I, not only through the brothers who have acted in my stead, but also through an approval of the conciliar proceedings, have joined my own judgment with yours, in the matter of the faith alone; for the sake of which it has pleased a general council to be gathered, both by the command of Christian princes and by the consent of the Apostolic See.”

Furthermore, the Orientals considered the consent of the Apostolic See so necessary in the celebration of ^D synods that even Leo the Isaurian, as has been said, the Iconoclast, wishing to stabilize the madness of his iconoclasm, wrote to Gregory II that he should command an ecumenical synod to be held. The pope indeed replied: “You wrote that a universal council should be gathered, and that matter has seemed useless to us. Imagine that we had heard you, and that the pontiffs from the whole world had been gathered,” etc.

And you indeed say that Pope Leo requested of Emperor Theodosius, in place of some great matter, that an ecumenical synod should be gathered by his command; but we say that Emperor Leo requested of the pope, in place of some great thing, that an ecumenical synod should be celebrated by his mandate. If, therefore, the pope's consent is necessary, it is false that this [power] belongs to emperors and not to bishops from all over the world, who were gathered.

^A Consider that it belongs to emperors, not bishops, to convene synods. And the fact that they are gathered by imperial decree implies not the granting of power to emperors, but the care, service, and protection of the orthodox faith; which Constantine Pogonatus himself confesses in his sacra to Pope Leo: "For often," he says, "the Church has fallen ill through the onslaught of heresies, but it has received no remedy for orthodoxy other than through the exhortation of pious and Christ-loving emperors, and the consensus and gathering of God-bearing priests."

NILUS (Chap. XXIII) "But if, because Peter ended his life in Rome, you therefore deem the Roman see great, surely the see of Jerusalem will be preferred, since the Savior underwent death-giving resurrection there." ^B

CONFUTATION Not for this very reason, that he ended his life in Rome, but because upon Peter ending his life there, Rome became the see of Peter. You yourself, in what you wrote above, when enumerating the differences between Peter and the bishop of Rome, said that Peter heard simply: "Whatever you shall bind or loose, it shall be bound or loosed in the heavens"; but when he transmitted the grace to the Roman bishop, he did not speak simply, but with a qualifier: "You shall bind what ought to be bound, and again you shall loose what is necessary." You therefore also confess that grace was transmitted by Peter to the Roman bishop, but not of such a kind or degree as he himself possessed. We, however, shall be satisfied to confess ^C such and so great power in him as the ecumenical synods bear witness to.

The third, in which Cyril does not abstain from the communion of Nestorius without having sought permission from the pope; and the pope gives Cyril authority and power to pronounce sentence against Nestorius. In this, it is said of the pope that he bears the care of all the Churches, and the synod implores the pope's indignation against John of Antioch; and in sum, in this [matter], the pope condemns the Constantinopolitan, gives power to the Alexandrian to judge, and is stirred up by the synod as the chastiser of the arrogance of the Antiochene.

The fourth, in which Dioscorus, who had been so insolent as to subject the pope to excommunication, was cast out ^D from the assembly of bishops with whom he sat by the mandate of the pope, and was stripped of his priesthood. In which synod the pope is proclaimed by the Lord as the keeper of the vineyard, and the moderator of the Oriental Churches, and the illuminator of the Constantinopolitan Church, with the apostolic ray residing in Rome. In which the pope rejects the canon written by the Orientals concerning the privileges of the Constantinopolitan, and through the epistle of the sacred synod is recognized as the legislator of the canons; and according to the imperial letters of Galla Placidia to Theodosius, the pope is said to hold that see, in which the principa-

principate of the episcopal value was established by him who was deemed worthy to receive the heavenly keys.

The Sixth Synod, as the Fathers say in the *Prosphoneticus* to the Emperor Constantine: “The most chief of the apostles contended for us; for we had his imitator and successor to the see as our champion.” If, therefore, the pope is the successor of Peter, and such a successor as the general councils testify—that is to say, having the same authority as Peter, as Pope Hadrian ^A clearly asserts in his letters to the emperors in the second act of the Seventh Synod—for the prince of the apostles himself, the blessed Peter, who first presided over the apostolic see, left the height of his apostolic value and pastoral care to his own successors, who are to sit on his most sacred throne in perpetuity; to whom he also conferred and handed down that same authority, just as it was given to him by our Savior, Lord, and God, to his own successor pontiffs by divine command; why do you say that the authority, or grace, was one way in Peter, and another in his successors—in the former simply, in the latter not simply—when the councils teach the contrary? Therefore, the see of Rome is great, because Peter, having ended his life there, left behind the pope as his successor, endowed with equal power. It is not so with the Bishop of Jerusalem: so far is he from enjoying the primacy on account of the Savior’s death there, that even though honored, he was subjected to the metropolis of Caesarea, as the First Synod says in its seventh canon; for the priesthood of Christ ^B cannot have a successor.

NILUS.

CHAPTER XXIV

CONFUTATION. While you employ all engines against the primacy of the pope, you derive it everywhere from the blessed Fathers; and you receive as proven that which pleases you, although the holy councils—whose foundations you and your like boast of resting upon I know not with what face—contradict you. Therefore, positing that the greatness of the pope was received from the Fathers, you say that the series of order also depends thereon. And while you attribute an order to the heavenly and earthly as given by God and natural, you attribute the order in the ecclesiastical hierarchy to the arrangement of the Fathers, ^C when the Savior says: “And upon this rock I will build my Church.” Since, therefore, Christ has built the Church, it is necessary that the ^D

He who laid the rock and the foundation of the ^A Catholic Church should also be the foundation of the structure, according to the words of the Acts of the Third Synod, where Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, said in action 3: “It is known to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ the keys of the kingdom; and to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins; who, up to this present time and always, lives and exercises judgment in his successors.”

Upon this foundation, laid by God, the First Synod ordained that the privileges of the Churches should be preserved according to ancient customs; and after the Roman See, it recognizes that of Alexandria, and the third, that of Antioch; and after them, it wishes the Jerusalem see to be honored, while preserving the dignity ^B of the metropolis. And the Third Synod (act 5), in its Relation to Pope Celestine, says: “Let Your Holiness be reasonably indignant against John of Antioch. For if permission is given to whomsoever wishes to inflict injuries even on the greater sees, the affairs of the Church will fall into extreme confusion.”

In these things, that holy synod recognizes the Pope as the keeper of the order of the Churches, just as the Fourth Synod recognizes the keeper of the vineyard appointed by the Lord. Therefore, the Pope did not receive the magnitude of his honor from the Fathers on account of the order which the Fathers gave to him, but because that which is divine and more excellent is honorable, and because Peter lives and judges in his successors, the magnitude of the Pope’s honor is from the dignity of Peter. Thus, what you say, that the magnitude of the Pope’s honor exists for the sake of preserving order, if rightly understood, is true; but as you understand it, it is false. For you set a naked order, and a primacy ^C of naked order from the Fathers, whereas the holy synods confess an order of jurisdiction in the Pope, and this by the law of Christ: so that the magnitude of the Pope’s honor is for you external, whereas according to the truth it is internal. But it is worthy of admiration how gravley you philosophize about the order and the magnitude of the honor of the Pope, when you have rejected the order according to ancient customs, as the First Synod says, and by many arts have established the Constantinopolitan as second, and then, although you decided he should enjoy the same privileges in the second order as the Pope; from which it came about that you reduced the primacy of the Pope to a prior place of seating and numbering. Afterward, with boldness growing little by little, the Constantinopolitan arrogated to himself the title of “ecumenical,” ^D so that the New Rome might not seem inferior to the ancient Rome, but that, just as the Pope is truly ecumenical, so he might emulate him, who by your doing is his equal. Whence it came about that there is a double principate in the Church, because through you there are two heads. When boldness had reached this point, it seemed good to you to separate from the Pope, thinking that no evil would result from this, because you had the Constantinopolitan as a head equal in power to the Pope. But schism, like a torrent breaking forth with force, has brought much dog-

^Amatic refuse along with it. For, that the undertaking might not appear unreasonable, you devised what is called by you an addition to the Creed, saying that the Latins, by violating what was decreed by the third Synod, as you claim, have become subject to anathema. After this, you also attempted to disparage the very dogma, namely, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; what did you not say, what did you not write? At the same time, you began to mock the fasting on Saturday, putting forward some apostolic canon which had been hidden until that time of conflict, then suddenly emerged, clearly as a forgery and unknown to antiquity. These things were followed by the contention over unleavened bread, with you insisting that the unleavened bread is Jewish and calling the Latins "Azymites." ^B Following upon these, there also arose the denial of, and that of the enjoyment of the saints’ state — for discord kept piling up differences day by day, not only in dogmas but also in the exterior worship of religion. Thus, to you, the daily genuflection and the erecting of sacred statues of the saints appear to be a Latin custom. I pass over the fact that, while you allow divorces of the bond, you disapprove of fourth marriages. And, thinking and behaving in this way, you boast that you have admitted no innovation and preserve antiquity intact. What order, then, is there in these things? Or what magnitude of honor for the Pope is there among you? You have struck him from the diptychs; you do not hold him to be orthodox; and the greatest thing you grant him is that, provided he is a Catholic, he should sit first and be numbered first. But what else are these things than a confusion of order, an assault on the laws of Christ, and a contempt for the Ecumenical Councils? ^C

NILUS (Cap. XXV).

"Is it not permitted," they say, "for ecclesiastical regulations to be given without the Pope?" Certainly. But neither is it permitted for the Pope to act without the others, so long as he wishes to obey the apostolic laws. Read the 34th canon of the Apostles: "The bishops of every nation must know who among them is the first, and account him as a head, and do nothing excessive—that is, pertaining to his province—without his consent. But neither let him do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be harmony, and God will be glorified."

REFUTATION.

The Synod of Antioch says that this canon belongs to the Fathers, not to the Apostles. But let it be so for your sake. However, to take these canons as equivalent, and from the inversion of the second to wish also to invert the first, is a matter of much willful malice. The first ^D wishes the Pope to be the rule of all ecclesiastical matters; the second wishes the parts of the individual Churches to be in agreement and concord. The first says that ecclesiastical matters, which pertain to the perfect state of each Church, must not be reduced to the form of a canon without the Pope; the second commands the provincial bishops to do nothing excessive, that is, as

the Antiochene synod explains, what does not pertain to each man's own diocese: for when such things concern further matters, the metropolitan ought to act with the bishops. How then do you infer from the conversion of the second that the first is also converted, just as if it were permitted to transfer aristocratic rules to royal ones? For these correspond to each other by proportion: it is not permitted to regulate ecclesiastical matters without the Pope, and it is not permitted to introduce a law to cities without the kings. And again these: It behooves the bishops of each nation to administer their own affairs, but to do nothing excessive—that is, outside the diocese—without the metropolitan, nor the metropolitan without the bishops, namely to do anything excessive. And: It behooves those living under an aristocratic government to do nothing of common concern without the consent of all. Just as, therefore, it is not possible from the reciprocation of aristocratic matters to infer a reciprocation in royal power—for neither if it is not permitted for the magistrates to act without the archon, nor for him to act without the magistrates, does it follow that for cities it will not be permitted to enact laws without the king, nor for the king without the cities: but that former conversion is valid, while this one is not at all—in the same way the conversion of the metropolitan to the bishops is valid, since they behave in an aristocratic manner; but the conversion of the Churches to the Pope is not valid. For the king issues laws, and the Pope establishes canons; but the king does not need fellow-legislators, nor the Pope fellow-canons-makers. ^B The Acts of the synods concur with this meaning. Celestine prescribed the rule to Cyril as to what was to be done, and what penalty was to be undergone by Nestorius in the third synod, and not Cyril with the Pope. Wherefore also Firmus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said in the second action of that synod: "Before this, the apostolic and holy see of the most holy bishop Celestine dispatched a vote and a form for the matter; following which we also have executed his form, understanding it to be a canonical and apostolic judgment against Nestorius." And one may read this more than once in the second and third actions. Pope Leo subjected Dioscorus to the rules in the fourth synod, because he had snatched for himself ^C the person of a judge, and had dared to hold a synod without obtaining permission from the Pope. But since Dioscorus had also dared to subject the Pope himself to the rules, and to strike him with excommunication, for this cause alone he was deposed by the fourth synod, as is clear from the fifth act, from the very confession of Anatolius of Constantinople. The same Pope Leo likewise abrogated a rule made by the Orientals, at their request that it be confirmed by the Pope; and the Pope alone was able to invalidate the efforts of all, while they, without the Pope, were unable to make a canon valid. Finally, since the holy synods attribute to the Pope as his own those things in which reciprocation has no place, you flee to it in vain. In the third action of the synod, through Philip, ^D the legate of the apostolic see, the Pope is called the holy head of the holy members: and in the third action the successor of Pe—

Peter, living and judging in his successors. If, therefore, the Pope is, with Peter, both judge and the one who alone possesses this privilege, how is what you say true, that it is not permitted to others without the Pope, yet neither is it permitted to the Pope without the others? It is as if you were to say: "It is not permitted to those who are being judged to pass a sentence without a judge, and neither is it permitted to the judge without those who are judged." In the fourth synod, in the relation directed to the Pope, the Pope is called the guardian of the vineyard established by the Savior, and the Father of the children—that is to say, of all the bishops—and the head of the sons, in the letter of the synod to the Pope, and ^B in the third action, the ecumenical patriarch. What reciprocal relationship does this admit? Unless you say that the guardian requires the assistance of those being guarded in order to guard, and the father becomes the son of his children, and the ecumenical [patriarch] requires ecumenical others, and the head is transformed into some other member. The sixth synod, in its writing to the Pope, calls him a physician bestowing health upon the members of the Church; it calls him one standing upon the firm rock of the faith, confirming and sealing the radiance of the orthodox faith. And in the *sacra* of the emperor Pogonatus, he is called the cutter away of every heretical teaching, the planter of fruitful trees through instructions, and the uprooter of fruitless ones through canonical censures. What, then, is the reciprocal relationship in these things, unless you also say that the physician requires the help of those being cured, and all things become, as the proverb goes, "streams flowing upward to their sources"? The seventh synod, in the letter of Pope Gregory to Leo Isaurus, confesses the Pope to be the lord of the celebration of synods, as has been written previously; and according to the sixth action, it says it is a law for synods to have the Pope as a cooperator. If, therefore, the Pope does not cooperate, according to the seventh synod, the things which are done are not valid councils. And yet it has been shown that many councils have been held without certain patriarchs. It is not true, therefore, that just as it is not allowed for others without the Pope, so neither for the Pope without others; and the canon which you put forward as apostolic does not support your clever arguments.

NILUS (Cap. XXVI). ^D «If, however, anyone should wish to speak against the canons of the blessed apostles, calling them spurious and altogether unworthy of apostolic souls, let him be instructed by the holy Fathers of the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh synods, who make mention of the apostolic canons; and indeed, the canons of the sixth synod state the number of the apostolic laws in the second canon, namely 85.»

CONFUTATION. You would speak well if we were saying that there are no apostolic canons. But we do not say this now; for it is necessary that either the illustrious doctors—Basil the Great, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Peter of Alexandria, and let Cassian also be added—were ignorant of the apostolic writings, and did not know what the apostles [taught] concerning the Sabbath, concerning

Wednesday and Friday, and concerning the three immersions in the divine bath. Either there is a necessity that the canons of the apostles should not be eighty-five, as the Quinisext council asserts, but only fifty, as the Church of Rome judged, as the librarian Anastasius says in his preface to the seventh synod addressed to Pope John VIII, and as we have previously stated; and the canon which you brought forward a little while ago as an apostolic one, the council of Antioch calls, as we said, a canon of the Fathers. It is clear, moreover, from that very Quinisext council in its second canon, and from the first canon of the holy seventh synod, that it makes a very great difference whether one says "apostolic canon" or "canon of the Fathers." So, since the truly apostolic canons remain in their own validity, there is no necessity for there to be as many of them as the Quinisext [council] says, or for the canon you brought forward against us to be such. For even if it were apostolic, it does not remove the supreme dignity of the Pope, for the reason that it is not lawful for others to establish canons without him, and because reciprocity does not have a place in the Pope, nor does the canon, which speaks of particular provinces, wish this, although you twist it to your own meaning.

NILUS (Chap. XXVII) ^C • Finally, the sum of what we have said is this: while the Pope preserves order and stands with the truth, he is the head of the Church, and the supreme pontiff, and the successor of Peter and all the apostles; and all must obey him, and there is nothing that can detract from his honor; but if he is unwilling to return to the truth from which he has departed, he will suffer the penalties of the guilty. •

CONFUTATION A truly splendid crowning statement with which you conclude your argument: "While the Pope preserves order." Which order do you mean? The one you yourselves invented, that he should sit first and be numbered first? Or the one which the ecumenical councils attest? If he ought to preserve this one, just as he does preserve it, it is impossible for him not to stand with the truth. Otherwise, the sayings and testimonies of the synods vanish. And the Pope is indeed altogether the head of the Church and supreme pontiff, not in the way you describe—because he was set up by the Fathers as ^D first by a mere title—but first in power and jurisdiction, established by Him from whom Peter also was, whose successor he is; not according to your new theology, as every one of the bishops is consecrated by him, but as the holy synods teach, he is such that in him, as in a successor, the coryphaeus Peter lives and judges. But as for the notion that all must obey him, I do not understand how you can say this. Above you philosophized as follows: "That the climates of the earth are distributed among the principal bishops; and once these are distributed, the Roman is no more subject to those bishops than they are to the Roman, as regards jurisdiction." And this you were saying, speaking of the Pope as the Pope is—not as you now have him, as someone less orthodox, but as he is considered to be adorned with the right faith—and to [his relations with] those...