Joannes Plusiadenus, or Joseph, Bishop of Methone, after his Episcopal Consecration

JOANNES PLUSIADENUS, OR, POST-EPISCOPAL CAREER, JOSEPH, BISHOP OF METHONI: A NOTICE (Fabricius, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, ed. Harles, Vol. XI, p. 458.)

JOANNES PLUSIADENUS, OR, POST-EPISCOPAL CAREER, JOSEPH, BISHOP OF METHONI

^A Joannes Plusiadenus, archpriest, not long after the Council of Florence held in the year 1439, composed a *Dialogue concerning the differences between the Greeks and the Latins* and in favor of the Council of Florence. Allatius mentions many things from it in *De consensu*, p. 617, 753 et seq., 1106 et seq., and concerning Purgatory, p. 27, 78, etc. Leo Allatius published the complete text in Greek and Latin from a codex of the Ambrosian Library in Volume I of his *Graecia Orthodoxa*, p. 583–654. The interlocutors are: Pius, or the Catholic; Manuel Mongus; the Rhacendyta; the Bulgarians; the tax collector; Joannes Damascenus; and one of the twelve priests who had embraced the union, Joannes Plusiadenus, in the presence of the auditor Georgius Phalierus, as attested by Joannes Tzurdunes and the dicæocrites Antonius Sagredo. It begins: *Ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ φόβος ἔγκειται* (Fabricius). Cf. H. Wharton, *Supplement to Cave's Historia Literaria Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum*, p. 167, ad ann. 1450, who opines that Joannes Plusiadenus is distinct from Joseph of Methoni; Oudin, however, thinks otherwise in his *Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiae*, Vol. III, p. 2422 sq., ad ann. 1440, by whom he is called Joseph, Bishop of Methoni. Joannes Plusiadenus's unpublished epistle *De charitate* is in the Paris public library, codex 2500, no. 10. The *Canon of the Council of Florence* is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, Codex Baroccian. 145; at Turin in the royal codex, codex 186, and in the same codex there is a *Synaxarium*. See the *Catalogus codicum Graecorum Taurinensium*, p. 273 sqq., where the canon and hymn on the eighth synod held at Florence is [found], [edited] with a Latin version. And p. 277 sqq., the *Synaxarium* [relating] what was done in the year 1439, [which] first came to light [in] Florence in the library of the Monastery of the Annunciata; Joseph, Bishop of Methoni, asserts that he wrote the *Apologia* against the book of Marcus of Ephesus; see Montfaucon, *Diarium Italicum*, p. 365 (Harl).

^B This same bishop, afterwards of Methoni, after assuming the episcopacy, took to himself the name Joseph, as Allatius notes, p. 933, *De consensu*, and at the end of Volume I of *Graecia Orthodoxa*, testifying that under the name of Joseph Plusiadenus, Bishop of Methoni, there exist sermons for the days of the Lenten fast, written in the common dialect of the Greeks and filled with testimonies of the Latin Fathers. Of this Joseph of Methoni, the *Apologeticus* for the Council of Florence against Marcus of Ephesus is often published with Caryophyllus's version at the end of the acts of that synod, as in the last volume of the Binii edition of the Councils, p. 667; and Labbe, Vol. XIII, p. 677; and Hardouin, Vol. IX, p. 549. It begins: *Ὁ αἰδέσιμος οὗτος ἀνήρ*. On page 555, 559, he cites the historian Georgius Aristinus; and on pp. 558, 559, 563, [he cites] Marcus of Ephesus, narrating that he was confuted by Julian, Cardinal of S. Sabina, and also on p. 578 by brother Joannes. Pages 570, 575, 582, 599, 594, he argues against Marcus. He [argues that] Marcus drew his mutual arguments from Photius, Psellus, Phurnius, Camaterus, Moschamparus, Bulgarius, Nicolaus of Methoni, Panaretus, Cabasilas and Palamas, and similar schismatics. He praises Simeon Metaphrastes the New Theologian, p. 574, and Tarasius of Constantinople's Epistle to the bishops of the East, as well as Anastasius Sinaita's Sermon on the true dogmas of the faith, and on p. 583, Scholarius's three Orations for ecclesiastical union to confirm the opinion of Isidore, Primate of Russia, and Bessarion, p. 587. But the *Apologia* for the five chapters of the Council of Florence, which he saw [as stated there; however, it exists, but [was] published falsely under the name of Gennadius, in Latin, Dillingen 1581, 8, [and] in Greek ^C

OF JOHN, ARCHPRIEST PLOUSIADENOS

A Disputation held between a certain Pious one, a Publican, a Tattered-One, and one of the twelve Pro-Union Priests, in the presence of three others there: namely an Auditor, a Witness, and a Judge-of-Justice, CONCERNING THE DIFFERENCE THAT EXISTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND LATINS, AND ALSO CONCERNING THE HOLY AND SACRED SYNOD HELD AT FLORENCE.

PREFACE

^A The fear of God resides in every human soul, and it proclaims the orthodox faith with head uncovered and freely. For this reason, not only those who are students of the Word and those who apply themselves to these disciplines, but even the unlearned and those who are simple in all matters, ought to proclaim it in both word and deed, and to defend it, and even to contend unto blood for the sake of the faith, if only they prefer the heavenly kingdom to those of the earth, and the eternal to the temporal, and the incorruptible to the corruptible. ^B Just as now it happened that a certain unlearned layman—pious, however—entered into a conversation with a certain publican, who held opinions contrary to the Synod. For when both had spoken sufficiently, and were gradually mounting to higher concepts, the publican, being at a loss, called upon a certain tattered fellow to fight on his side. But the Pious one, hearing and defending himself, and gradually becoming perplexed by his arguments, called upon one of the twelve pro-union Priests; and thus, in the presence of these two and three other persons, they discussed and concluded the dialogue. ^C

The Persons of this Dissertation

Pius, Manuel Mongus. Rhacendyta, Bulgares. Publicanus, Joannes Damasenus. Dicaeocrita, Antonius Sagredus. Catholicus, Joannes Prêtre Plusiadenus. Auditor, Georgius Phalierus. Testis, Joannes Tzurdunes.

Pius preludes. ^A On one of the days, sitting in my shop at about an hour and a half past the beginning of the day, I heard the herald of the authorities shouting in a loud voice by the column of the Church of Saint Mark, in the usual and customary place, and a multitude of people running together to hear. I ^B, hearing only the sound, stood watching. When the proclamation was finished, a certain man came to my shop, where he was accustomed to sit and collect taxes—for he was a Tax Collector—and I asked him, "What does this new proclamation mean, that such a large crowd of people is standing and listening? Tell me."

Tax Collector. The twelve priests who have been upsetting the island and the whole city are the cause of it. Pius. How so? Tax Collector. They have adopted Latin sentiments and are forcing others to think as the Latins do. Pius. What is this? Tell me quickly. Tax Collector. Our fathers and teachers, having perceived their perversion, have instructed the sheep of Christ not to commune with them, not to enter their churches, and not to use them as priests at all. ^C Those who learned this accused them before the authorities. The authorities have now decreed for them, through the herald, to appear before the authorities within eight days; otherwise, the authorities will pass judgment upon them. Pius. Who are these men? Tax Collector. Macrogenes, Asprogenes, and Matzamurdes. Pius. I should like to know what it was they taught, for which the authorities are acting against them. Tax Collector. They were teaching that we should avoid these twelve Latinizing priests, as men who have abandoned our faith and united themselves with the Latins. Pius. I cannot understand what you are saying at all. Tax Collector. Are you not from this city? Pius. I certainly am; I was raised in it. Tax Collector. How is it, then, that you do not know about events that are known to everyone? Pius. I do not know any priests who have abandoned the faith of the Greeks to become Latins. You, however, are speaking to me of Latinizers and people who have abandoned our faith, and suggesting that they are acting in league with the ^D Latins.

^A I do not understand what this is meant to signify.

*Publican:* I will tell you everything most accurately. It is more than five hundred years since we were separated from the Latins themselves. But now, a synod has recently been convened in the city of Florence, at which many were present, including the Emperor, the Patriarch, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and cross-bearers. In this [synod] they reached an agreement and affirmed that the Latins hold the same faith as we do. We, however, say that they did not act justly or truthfully. These people, therefore, by embracing what was done there, have become deserters of the Orthodox faith.

*Pius:* Now, as it appears, I am being led regarding the understanding of what has been said in part. But before I inquire into the matters in that synod one by one, I ask you a small question: Did these twelve carry out this synod, or were there others greater than them?

*Publican:* There were others incomparably greater than them. ^B

*Pius:* And do you reproach only these for having submitted themselves to them, or those as well?

*Publican:* Both these and those.

*Pius:* This is what I said in the beginning, that I cannot understand what you are telling me.

*Publican:* For what reason?

*Pius:* Because you are complaining not only about these twelve, but about the entire universal synod. And who are you, indeed, to reproach the universal synod?

*Publican:* My fathers assert these things.

*Pius:* I myself, too, anxiously desire to know those fathers, and to be instructed by them, and to learn what is more becoming: to adhere to, approach, and be united with the Church, or to be separated from it.

*Publican:* We shall certainly bring [them].

*Pius:* You would do me a great favor if you were to bring him here yourself.

*Publican:* I will bring him tomorrow morning.

*Auditor:* We did as we had once agreed. In the morning we met at the shop, ^C and sitting there, we were awaiting the Publican, that he might arrive with the Father as he had promised. And behold, around the second hour of the day he arrives, and with him a certain Man-in-Rags, large of body and handsome in appearance, but with eyes not entirely sound. Coming into the middle of the shop, he sat down, and having turned with a grave ^D countenance toward Pius, he began to speak as follows:

*Man-in-Rags:* What is it that you are hesitant about, among the things related to you yesterday by brother Publican against these twelve unholy priests? For these wretches neither know nor understand, and therefore they have been united with the Latins, having lost their ancestral mindset. Question me as well, and I will provide you with a sufficient defense on whatever points you are in doubt.

*Pius:* Yesterday I heard brother Publican condemning twelve priests, and today [I hear it] from you. For you say that they are Latin-minded and deniers of the Orthodox faith, because they submitted themselves to the holy synod. I wish, therefore, to learn from you if this…

^A causes them to be considered outside the Orthodox faith, because they united themselves to the synod that was held a little while ago in Florence?

Rhac: And most certainly so; they are enemies and aliens to piety and to the true and ancestral dogma, and he who communicates with them is excommunicated.

Pius: Being a simple man, I ask you, let our discourse be conducted by way of question and answer. For I am not able to sustain long speeches, nor can I listen to them.

Rhac: Say what you wish, and I shall answer in everything. For you rightly said that the discussion should be concluded in brief words.

Pius: I ask: For what reason do you call them enemies of the Orthodox faith?

Rhac: Because they rejected the Orthodox faith and united themselves with the Latins.

Pius: What is the Orthodox faith, I desire to learn.

Rhac: Our religion and confession, the one of the Greeks.

Pius: And what is the alien faith?

Rhac: The one of the Latins.

Pius: So the Latins are not Orthodox?

Rhac: Not at all.

Pius: And did they become heterodox only now, or did they lose the faith long ago?

Rhac: Five hundred years ago.

Pius: And if five hundred years ago, as you say, the Latins lost the faith, why did our people, being Orthodox, not instruct and confirm them? For our common master, yours and theirs, says: "Lift up your brother who has fallen."

Rhac: You speak well; but they would not.

Pius: I am perplexed at this.

Auditor: Explain this, what is meant by "they would not"?

Rhac: The Greeks called the Latins to teach them and to strengthen them in the faith. But they did not deign, nor did they wish to listen.

Pius: Show me quickly when they called them and they did not obey. For I fear lest the contrary is the case. ^B

Rhac: Often. But they did not wish to.

Pius: I do not wish to hear empty words, but a true proof.

Rhac: This is how I too hear it from many who say so.

Pius: I do not wish to hear from the many, but from the teachers of the Church.

Rhac: You have spoken well. And we, listening to the teachers, were severed from the Latins. ^C

Pius: Now you have come to what I desire.

Rhac: What do you want?

Pius: Count out for me by name the teachers whom you listened to and by whom you were severed from the Latins.

Rhac: We have Photius first against the Latins. ^D

who wrote a book; after him many good men, the philosopher Michael Psellus, Nilus Cabasilas, Nicolaus of Methone, Nilus of Rhodes, a certain Moschampar, the philosopher Phurnes, Kamateros the noble, a certain monk from Calabria named Barlaam, the wise Palamas, Theophylact of Bulgaria, another Matthew of Bulgaria, and many others, whom I do not enumerate ^A so as not to draw out my remarks. Pius: And are all these whom you have enumerated from before the schism, or after the schism? Rhac: They are all after the schism. Pius: I do not accept these as teachers. Ac: And with good reason. Rhac: Why so? Pius: Because they are after the schism and the great strife, and they wrote moved by malice against their brethren. ^B Rhac: And what other teachers do you wish for? Pius: The teachers from before the schism—Basil, Athanasius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Cyril, Epiphanius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Anastasius, Damascenus, Maximus, Studites, Tarasius, and the rest of the company whom the Church of God glorifies as teachers and saints; furthermore, indeed, Augustine, Gregory the Dialogist, Ambrose, Jerome, Leo, and others of the same conduct and holiness. But I do not accept those whom you have listed, of whom the Church has named no one a saint. ^C Therefore, I trust in these and glorify them as saints and hold them as teachers. From these, then, if you are able, show me whether the Latins are not orthodox, and whether our own people ever summoned them and they refused. Since I know the exact opposite. For they were always calling our people to peace and concord. And witness to this is Nicolaus the First, the greatest high priest of Rome, who, after many embassies, since they would not listen, even appeared in person at Constantinople, stirring them up and beseeching them to come to an examination of the dogmas. But they, being once addicted to stubbornness and empty persuasion, and driven by wickedness, not only would not listen, but even did many absurd things to him, and impudently reviled him, and ^D treated him outrageously before sending him away, as they ought not to have done—things which we have judged ought to be covered in silence for the sake of the honor of the race. Ac: Come then, let us crown the Pious one: for his present discourse is bright and splendid. Dicaeocrites: Let him be crowned now, but with the flowers of piety. Rhac: I shall speak more brightly and concisely. Pius: Answer in sequence with our discourse. Rhac: Those whom you have enumerated are indeed teachers of the Church and are enrolled in the catalogue of the saints; and I cannot reject them...

but since they lived before the schism, how should one have called them to the correctness of doctrines?

Pius: So the Latins were orthodox before the schism.

Rhac: I confess that they were orthodox. For I cannot deny this. You have even anticipated me by enumerating Latin saints, such as Augustine, Gregory the Dialogist, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo the Great. But they all flourished before the schism, and at that time there was no controversy or diversity of faith between the Greeks and the Latins. After this, when the schism arose, they fell into alien doctrines and were no longer willing to be united with us. ^B

Pius: Again, as I said before, I will press the point: Why did our people not bring them back to the right path? For you said that before the schism they were united with us, and were orthodox along with us, and that ecumenical councils took place, which both Greeks and Latins together would fill and conduct, and both would drive out the heretics and subject them to anathema. And those heretics were called enemies of both Greeks and Latins. But now, as you say, the Latins, having fallen into alien doctrines, do not wish to be united with us. Tell me quickly, how is this to be shown?

Rhac: I have nothing else to show you, except that it has been five hundred years since we were rent from them, and we are still separated today.

Aud: This argument does not seem just; indeed, it is unproven.

Pius: For no one will deny that the schism occurred many years ago; but the long span of years is not enough to convince people that the Latins are heretics. ^C

Rhac: On the contrary, it is very sufficient. For in these five hundred years there have not been lacking wise men and orators, and patriarchs, and emperors who were champions of the schism and the separation for no other reason, if I conjecture rightly, than that they condemned them as heretics.

Pius: Nor does this prove the Latins to be heretics.

Rhac: Do you ask for stronger arguments than these?

Pius: Let the judge who is present for our discussion decide.

Dic: A universal council ought to have been convened, as was done in the case of every heresy, and there—after various debates and a definition had been set forth, and an opinion rendered against them—only then were they to be shunned as heretics. It does not seem just, but rather impious and inhumane, to cast off brethren of the same faith without an adjudicating catholic and universal council. ^D

Rhac: But councils did indeed take place.

Pius: Where, pray tell?

Rhac: In the city of Lyons, which is also called the eighth.

^A

Pius. What was done in it? Rhac. That synod declared the Latins to be heretics. Aud. Where do you get that from? Rhac. The Acts of that synod testify to it. Pius. The Acts of that synod assert the complete opposite of what you say. Rhac. But they corrupted the Acts. Aud. This statement is harsh and absurd. Pius. Are they not to be found among us? Rhac. They are found, but corrupted. Aud. And how can that be demonstrated? Pius. And what was the nature of that corruption? Rhac. That the Latins think rightly. Aud. O great wonder! And who could possibly be persuaded that they do not think rightly? Pius. For if that synod condemned the Latins, the action, as it was performed, ought to be among us. Rhac. I already told you that the books which contained that action of the synod were adulterated. Aud. The same things are repeated. Whoever asserts this is a simpleton, or rather a fool and a blockhead. Pius. A very great doubt persists in my mind concerning this. Rhac. What is this doubt? Pius. That all the books were adulterated, and that not one sound or complete copy is found among them. Rhac. Do not be surprised. For when they saw themselves condemned by the synod, they adulterated the books, so that the judgment rendered against them would not appear. ^B

Pius. Did I not tell you that I am held in the greatest admiration because of this? Rhac. But speak, what is it that excites your admiration? Pius. You say the Latins adulterated the books? Rhac. I said so, and so it is. Pius. Even if I were to concede to you that the Latins adulterated the books, all of those which were written in their own language, I still do not understand how they could have corrupted those written in our own dialect. Rhac. They corrupted them in this way: some they corrupted by themselves, since they knew our language, and others through certain Greeks who were of the same mind as them, who at that time, in that synod, had given their assent to the Latins. Pius. Furthermore, doubt begets doubt. Rhac. What is that? Pius. First, that you say they adulterated the books—some by themselves, some through Greeks who agreed with them. How, then, did these Greeks come to be Latin-minded? Second, that the force and cruelty of the adulteration was such that not a single book could be found, neither among the emperors ^C nor among the patriarchs, who ought to have kept them as a witness to the truth, testifying to what is true. My ears cannot bear to hear this. Rhac. Who knows if there is not preserved even a single book, shouting aloud what I say?

^A Aud. Now the Father hesitates, as I gather from his own words. Pius. If it were so, it would certainly have appeared. But to say, "Who knows?" is ambiguous and uncertain. From ambiguous and uncertain things, no true conclusion can be drawn. By this remark of yours, you bring me into suspicion. Rhac. What do you suspect? Pius. I suspect exactly the opposite of what you are saying. For if the proceedings of that synod had been against the Latins, the Greeks would have kept the books, as if they were golden necklaces, keeping them in their bosom to show to future generations, to prove that they had been separated from them not without cause. But since no book of that synod against the Latins appears among the Greeks, while it is found among the Latins—and indeed even among the Greeks—and it screams aloud that that action was in favor of the Latins, it causes me great suspicion, and all the more so because you yourself previously said that some of the Greeks in that synod were Latin-minded. ^B Rhac. I told you, and I will tell you again, that in that synod the Latins prevailed, and persuaded the Greeks both to receive and to think their own thoughts. But when the synod was concluded, the greater part—the Greeks, that is—was split off again. Pius. I cannot reconcile the things said by you; for they seem to me to be contrary to each other. A little while ago you said that the action of that synod was against the Latins; but being refuted by me, in that no book has ever been found testifying to this, you turned to saying that the Latins prevailed in it and persuaded our people to accept their own views. And again you say that after the dissolution of the synod, they were split again, and some few remained holding the thoughts of the Latins. Behold, therefore, you also call the Greeks "Latin-minded." Explain to me, then, what your current statements mean, for they are openly contrary to one another. Rhac. It was done thus, and thus I tell it to you. Dic. The truth must be told, and not things of one's own desire, which can be neither demonstrated, and appear hateful to men. Pius. You say that some Greeks remained holding the thoughts of the Latins. Rhac. It is so. Pius. In this it is a wonder that the Greeks, having abandoned the Greeks, remained holding the thoughts of the Latins, ^C if the action was against the Latins, as you previously said, even though they are stubborn in their own opinion, and superstitious. For no one is kindly disposed toward things against himself, but thinks in favor of the synod. For if it had been in favor of the Greeks, the Greeks would not have been split from them, but they would have been split from these. But it is shown all the more by this argument that the action of that synod was in favor of the Latins; for this reason the Greeks were split from them, not wishing to be united to them, nor to accept the vote of the synod. ^D Dic. The speech of Pius is plausible to follow...

^A bearing the refutation. For a synod now took place in Florence, as the Greeks say,

for the Latins,

^A accepted the things of the Latins. Therefore, because of this, I am filled with the greatest wonder.

Rhac. Why does this seem surprising to you?

Pius. I am indeed very astonished, since I cannot reconcile your statements.

Dic. And in truth, there is a most significant contradiction in them.

Rhac. What contradiction do you see in my statements? Is it not as I said?

Pius. Consider the confusion and discrepancies in your words. First you said that the Council of Lyons was against the Latins, and that out of the Greeks, the majority held the mind of the ^B Latins, who also had corrupted the books, so that the judgment passed against them in the synod might not be found. Then you said that another synod was held at Constantinople, which thought and acted exactly the same as the one at Lyons, and that in it some Greeks remained who were "Latin-minded." And finally, you confessed that the one held in our days in Florence also proclaimed the same things as those before it, and that a great multitude of the Greeks remained holding to that synod, which glorified the things of the Latins. See, then, how I am moved to wonder at your claims, because they do not conclude to the truth. For you said that the Council of Lyons was against the Latins, and the one at Constantinople said the same as that one—then, not being able to hide the truth, like a lamp under a bushel, because it is manifest to all ^C (for it happened in our own days and is known to all), you confessed, though unwillingly, that this one held in Florence also said the same as those before it. Therefore, from your own words, we conclude that you have said nothing true. For if now in Florence things were done for the Latins, as is openly manifest, and you have already said that this one did the same as the one at Lyons and the one at Constantinople, it necessarily follows, according to what you have conceded, that those also were for the Latins. For this reason, both then and now, the sensible ones among the Greeks persisted in the truth, confessing it along with the synods and the Latins.

Rhac. They persisted, you said truly of some, but not in the confession of the right faith, but confirmed in the opinion of the Latins, which they proclaim with open head; and for this reason, we call them indubitably "Latin-minded."

Aud. O the boldness! Indeed!

Pius. I pity your boldness; nor am I less astonished at this than at the other things you have said.

Rhac. What is it that you wonder at? Speak.

Pius. I hear from you that you call "Latin-minded" the entire Church of the Greeks, that is to say the Eastern [Church], and the emperors, and the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, cross-bearers, and the rest, and not just those twelve. If, therefore, the entire Eastern Church thought the same as the Latins, and those twelve whom you accuse, [held] the things of the East...

and of your Church, even if you are unwilling, how do you call them heterodox and Latin-minded, when they have thought the things of the Eastern Church—and of yours, even if you are unwilling? ^A

Rhac. The entire Eastern Church, as you say, thought the things of the synod and of the Latins. And the twelve thought just as she did. Therefore, we call them Latin-minded.

Eul. It is not right, by fair reasoning, to call the twelve priests alone Latin-minded, but rather the entire Eastern Church herself, since she was the first to think the things of the Latins; and [it would be right] to call *them* Latin-minded after that, as having followed her.

Rhac. You speak well. For we also accuse her as having acted impiously, and them, as having blindly followed her. Whence we call both that [Church] and them Latin-minded.

Dic. May you be propitious to me, God, as I hear such words full of impiety.

Eul. Do you not then also accuse the Eastern Church as having been Latin-minded?

Rhac. Yes, we accuse her, just as you heard a moment ago. Since she accepted the things of the Latins, and confirmed [their] dogmas.

Acr. The Father discusses with conviction. ^B

Eul. If, therefore, the Eastern Church cherished the things of the Latins, according to you, she became one with the Western, and no one will gainsay this. For this is what the Creed also demands, that there must be one Catholic Church. But if the two have become one in both glory and mind, and this one Church, proclaimed as one from both languages, has gone astray and become heterodox, according to you, what other Church is there that is orthodox, which you follow? And through which does she teach you the faith? Where then has remained the faith and religion of the Greeks? To which Church do you pay reverence, submission, and piety? And from which do you receive baptism and the sacraments?

Rhac. In whatever man the orthodox faith remains, to him I give submission and reverence piously, and I hold him to be teacher and Church. ^C

Acr. This has not been heard of until even now.

Eul. And who has remained in the faith of the Greeks, to whom you render piety?

Rhac. I told you, that only the archbishop of Ephesus remained in the orthodox faith, to whom I submit myself, and whom I have as a teacher.

Eul. I told you also, that one ought not to follow the one, but the many. First, because one man does not make a Church; then, because that man was superstitious and unhinged in his mind.

Rhac. Do not slander that divine man. For he thought more [rightly] than the others. ^D

Acr. No one who is sensible would say this.

Eul. More than the entire synod?

Dic. They would say so most deservedly. ^A

Rhac. Not at all. Those who follow Arius would say so most unjustly. For this man is not like him.

Eul. How so?

Rhac. Because that man vomited forth a heresy of his own devising, whereas this man was defending the things which the Greeks had understood long before.

Eul. But where ought the things which the Greeks and the Latins had understood of old to have been judged, if not in an ecumenical synod?

Dic. By a principle of just reason, judgment ought not to have taken place elsewhere, but in an ecumenical synod. For it is called ecumenical for this reason: because ecumenical grievances or disputes are examined and judged in it. ^B

Rhac. Well said. It ought to have been judged in the synod; however, the Latins, having treated the Greeks with gifts, and having corrupted them, miserably blinded as they were, afterwards rendered judgment just as it pleased them.

Acr. I shall close my ears so as not to hear such things.

Eul. You are adding questions upon questions to me now.

Rhac. What are you questioning?

Eul. Did not the Latins and the Greeks come together for the sake of the faith of Christ?

Rhac. Indeed they did.

Eul. How then did it come about that some were buying, and others were selling the faith? What is this? Is this not impiety rather than piety? ^C

Dic. Undoubtedly it is impiety, and of the greatest kind.

Rhac. For this reason we do not submit to it, as we consider it most impious on account of its dogmas, and we shun the Fathers who were in it, as those who betrayed the faith for the sake of gifts. And we act rightly, in considering him who did not communicate in that lawless opinion to be the Church, and in contending against the [synod] itself as a synagogue, and not a synod. We have the divine Maximus as an example of this. For after the fourth synod, the Monothelites gathered a synod and publicly proclaimed their own heresy, and—alas for such folly!—they declared it to be ecumenical to all, and having almost entirely coerced the whole East under their own impiety, they force this divine man to agree with their heresy. "All," they say, "the Church of Christ is in agreement; do you alone boast to be more prudent than all the others?" ^D But he, gathering to himself and embracing two of his disciples who alone were present with him, while all the others had fallen into the heresy, declared: "We are the Church of Christ." And we know that Stephen of the sixth synod, which took place in Constantinople, said and did the opposite, and in no way wished to be persuaded by it. Whence he suffered unbearable dangers, and, by finally resisting it, was crowned with martyrdom; so that if anyone should see the Church entangled in frauds, he will rightly say,

^A that he alone constitutes the Church according to Maximus, and cause others not to be persuaded by that one, according to the Confessor himself and the divine Stephen.

Eul. Those surrounding Arius, Eunomius, and Nestorius, Eutyches and Dioscorus, and simply all the enemies of the ecumenical synods, will say the same thing—that the Fathers of the synod acted impiously, so as to establish their own dogma. And where shall we place the Church and faith of Christ, if the ecumenical synods have been led astray? This is not so; it is not. For an ecumenical synod cannot be led astray. Rather, it is a heresy to say this. For if the Confessor and divine Maximus said that he alone, together with his two disciples, was the Church, he said it well and praiseworthily. For that divine man did not think that he himself was the Church, even if he seems to have said it boldly. But he showed clearly, by embracing his two disciples and saying, "We are the Church of Christ," that the confession of the holy and ecumenical fourth synod and that of the Roman Church is in us, and remains in us, and that we submit to it in all things, and persist in its decrees. And he shows this by saying, ^B "Send to Rome to receive pardon; for I, being a mere monk, cannot absolve you from heresy." Furthermore, he was struggling not on behalf of a national synod, but on behalf of the universal, holy, and great fourth synod, against which the heretics were gathering many national and particular synods. The divine Stephen, however, in contradicting that synod, acted justly and piously, since that was not an ecumenical synod, but a national one, and one that was most godless and impious. For it was gathered against the saints. When all in it had bowed down, he did not obey, but resisted, and refuted them, as their assembly was neither holy nor ecumenical. "How," he says, "do you dare to call your synod ecumenical, at which the presiding officer of Rome did not consent?" But as for this one, namely, the one held in Florence, no one can say that it is not ecumenical. For the Pope was there, and the Emperor, and the patriarchs, and the entire world through representatives; ^C for this reason we say it is unerring. For it is possible for a national synod to be led astray and deceived by heresy, as was the aforementioned one of the divine Stephen, and the one formerly in Ephesus called the Robber Synod, and many others gathered against the consubstantial. But an ecumenical one can in no way be led astray, as has been said many times. If then it is so, how, with this being ecumenical, is the Church found to have been deceived, which has never been led astray?

Rac. If at other times it was not led astray, as you say, but now it appears to have been led astray: first, because our own [representatives], having been persuaded there by promises and honors, and having received significant gifts, were united and signed

^A And after their return to Constantinople, their opinion became openly manifest to everyone, whatever it was. For one of them would say, "I was carried away there and submitted to Latinism, and now I repent, for I did wrongly." Another would say, "It is my hand that signed; cut it off, because it signed wickedly." And in this way, the majority of them spoke. Therefore, it is not lawful for us to accept a synod which corrupted holy men with gifts and, moreover, even constrained them by force to sign; and especially when those who signed there speak the opposite to it here. And the [Bishop] of Ephesus not only did not sign, but, having come to Constantinople, he issued letters and chapters against the synod and the Latins themselves. How, then, shall we embrace a synod which those who agreed to it themselves reject?

PIUS: I will also explain this to you most clearly, and I will recount the matter to you with all truth; for if you are scandalized because the Fathers signed after receiving gifts, you must not be disturbed in your mind. For the Fathers did not receive the coins—which you call gifts—only at the end of the synod; for if someone wishes to speak justly and rightly, he would not call them gifts, but rather [provision] for their food; for they did not have the wherewithal to make the expenses to go to Italy from the sunrise of the East. For they were poor. Or do we not know that the bishoprics and metropolises of the whole East are most destitute? For our people were putting forward this pretext: "We do not have the expenses from our own resources, for we are poor, to go to Italy." ^B Therefore that famous and, in truth, blessed and divine man—Eugenius, that is, the high priest of elder Rome—spent his entire revenue, and not only that, but also his silver and gold vessels, on this work, and finally he gave his mitre as a pledge to the Florentines, having received a loan from them of forty thousand gold pieces, and that most holy man became a debtor so that none of the Greeks might murmur because of his rations. But they, while the gold pieces were still in their hands, spoke against him—the ungrateful ones—just as they still do even now. For some go there seeking alms, and first the Pope has mercy on them, then the cardinals; but upon leaving there, they most shamelessly pour out insults and revilings against them. ^C Why, then, tell me, was such great and such expenditure laid out beforehand, and why did he sustain such a loss? For the sake of what? So that he might gain some earthly thing? Or so that he might obtain a greater dignity? Or so that the Greeks might make him greater than he was?

R[NAC]: Yes, for this reason he called the Greeks, so that they might securely establish him, because he was being sufficiently troubled by the antipope, and a synod against him was being held at Basel. And if our people had not gone, ^D being condemned

^A by that synod, he would have remained stripped of his dignity, and lived deprived of his high priesthood; therefore, being driven by necessity, he called the Greeks to come to him, so that by means of the Greeks he might be confirmed, and might overthrow the synod assembled against him at Basel, and defeat his enemies.

Eulogius. This is not true, that he called them for this reason. For before the synod at Basel and the movement of the antipope, the affairs of the synod were already in motion, and envoys were succeeding one another from both sides in both parties. Therefore, this has neither strength nor truth. But as for how the matter of the antipope came about, I will tell you clearly. This antipope indeed wished to become such, but he did not succeed, because those who knew accurately that it is not good to split and divide the Church of Christ would not allow it. Listen, then, to how these things were done. Certain of the cardinals found fault with the pope of that time on certain points—not concerning heresy, far from it, but concerning certain ecclesiastical matters. Therefore, not being able to lodge a complaint against him in Rome, on his throne and in his authority, they went out to the regions of Francia, and gathering there, called upon him to depart, but he did not wish to depart. They threatened him that, if he did not go, they would appoint another pope. A schism arose over this, and strife, and contention, as men are accustomed to do, and they began to distribute ecclesiastical offices. And one of them indeed wished to become an antipope over this, but by their wisdom and understanding they were dissuaded again, and they ridiculed him for wishing to become an antipope. Because they knew it was not just, nor indeed holy, to rend and divide the Church. Did he therefore call the Greeks so that they might help him? For what reason? Because of their wealth? But how? For it was they who were being fed by him. Because of their wisdom? But Italy has more wise men than the whole East has simple folk. They themselves alone made the schism, and they ^B themselves alone made the peace, and without the Greeks. The high priest of Rome knew one thing, and this he said to the synod in Basel: that the great wound must first be healed and cured, which is the defection of the Greeks from the Roman Church, and that a great heresy is festering among them, not to confess the procession of the Holy Spirit ^C also from the Son. "Come, therefore, since matters are at a turning point, that we may heal such a great and significant nation. For I cannot bear to behold its destruction. Then, afterwards, we shall look to our own affairs." And so it came to pass. And all were persuaded, and they returned from the synod in Basel to the one in Ferrara, and paid homage to the pope, and received forgiveness from him. Thus do those who honor the Church; thus do those who desire their own salvation act, and not as you do, who have become autonomous, and have appointed yourselves patriarchs and archbishops, and have seized the dignities of the Church—I mean to say patriarchal and archiepiscopal ^D, while being mere priests and hieromonks; and you depose

^A one another and exclude one another from the sacred rites. Why did Eugenius summon the Greeks, not on account of an antipope, as is said, but that he might unite the Church in peace, bind together those that were sundered, and join together the members of the Lord’s body that had been scattered, bringing them into one body? For this reason he also sent his own funds with great promptitude of soul and with joy. And immediately, before they departed from their own houses, each one received the stipend appointed for him; and in this way he sustained them from the very departure from the City until the end. And at his own expense the Emperor, and the patriarch, and the rest of the clergy came to Italy; and not only this, but even two thousand armed men were hired with his money, to protect the return of the Emperor to Constantinople, through his funds. And they were not immediately united upon arriving, but both sides struggled for two constant years; and contest succeeded contest, and discussion succeeded discussion, and those in charge of the disputations did not rest, but pondering arguments in their minds they spent their nights and days sleeplessly, and each strove to defend his own side until the work was completed, and they were united with joy, for the sake of the truth and not for the sake of gifts; and they yielded to the dogma, being unable to gainsay it, so brightly did it shine, and they signed, rejoicing with all readiness and not by force, as you say. And when the liturgy had taken place, the definition was read, and our archbishops, being vested in their archieratic vestments, ^B were all present there, and an oath having been given and received over the already consecrated body of the Lord, they swore that they would so think and believe for the future; all, from both sides, willingly professed it, so to believe and think, and embraced one another with tears and infinite joy, as this long-standing schism happened upon its remedy, and Greeks and Latins were proclaimed as orthodox Christians in this [union]. And the definition spread throughout the whole world, written in Greek and in Latin. And he whom you mention, the [Bishop] of Ephesus, was present there, himself also vested in his archieratic vestment with the others, and both sides offered hymns and doxologies to God, who had again joined together the members of His mystical body, which had been rent asunder for so long a time. And the heaven rejoiced on that day, and the earth exulted with joy, and the angels shared the joy with men. How then, brothers, do you turn such and so great a joy into grief and dejection? Rhac. Have you not heard that those very persons who signed there, when they came to Constantinople, said the contrary, and how the [Bishop] of Ephesus was not persuaded, and did not sign, but rather, having turned away, wrote against the Latins? Since, therefore, he who was one of those who were debating did not sign, how shall we give our assent to this synod? Furthermore, even those who signed have regrets, as having done wrong to sign, and for this reason they stretched out their hands for cutting, and were advocates for the [Bishop] of Ephesus and were calling him blessed ^C and ^D

and praised him, because he had not ^A submitted to Latinism. Thus they gave us an opportunity to imagine that that synod was fictitious, and its decree likewise. For this reason, we grant neither submission nor reverence to it; rather, we shun it and drive it away.

Pius: This did not happen only at the Council of Florence, but also in those which preceded it. For many, after the conclusion of synods, would break away due to the impulses of certain opponents and would speak things contrary to their own professions and signatures. Yet, because of this, the authority of that synod was not in the least diminished, nor was its definition rejected. And indeed, that the [Bishop] of Ephesus did not sign is not surprising. One swallow, as the proverb goes, does not make a spring; one counts for nothing. The vote of the majority prevails. Yet know this, that it was strictly required by the Church that he give an account of why he dissented from the synod and resisted it, not wishing to sign. Upon hearing this, he ran in haste to the ^B Emperor and, with tears, suggested to him, saying: "Lord Emperor, the synod demands that I render an account as to why I do not sign. Your Sacred Majesty knows very well that until yesterday I spoke against it and fought bravely. Now, to suddenly sign at the same time those things which I have fiercely opposed makes me, being an old man and a high priest, ashamed. Do not insult my grey hairs, and [let me not] appear to the Italians as foolish and ignorant. Take care, Lord Emperor, to provide an apology for me. Let a little time pass. I consider it a great shame to hand over my signature here." ^C Whereupon the Emperor, having petitioned the synod on his behalf, said, "Leave him to me, and I shall make him sign at Constantinople." They came, therefore, to Constantinople, and the Emperor found his Empress dead, and he was in mourning; and there was no Patriarch in the Church. The [Bishop] of Ephesus saw the multitude praising him for not having signed, and the crowds were worshipping him as if he were Moses or Aaron, and were acclaiming him and calling him a saint. He found what he desired and longed for—that he himself be glorified by the common people more than the synod—and he persisted in this. ^D And being spurred on, he wrote against both the synod and the Latins. For there he was sought out by Fra Giovanni for discussion, but he, fearing the struggle, and furthermore being unable to speak against the evident facts, ran away; and being there in corners, he would write and speak, with no one to refute him. Likewise, the others [who had come], having arrived and seeing the common people so stirred up against the Latins, and hearing themselves, the "Latin-minded," being shamelessly called "Azymites" by the crowd, and heard that they were not considered high priests, nor even Christians at all, would say ironically to their fellow citizens: "Why do you rage against us so because we signed? We did wrong. Behold our hands, which signed there; cut them off!" This they said to silence the fury of the common multitude that was being shamelessly stirred up against them.

Even if they really did say it—which I do not believe—it is not at all surprising. For even in the great and first council, the one at Nicaea, after its conclusion by the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, seven men yielded to the opinion of Arius, and both spoke and wrote against the council; and they stirred up more than thirty local councils, which anathematized the great council. But the council did not thereby suffer any diminution, nor was it abolished; rather, it remained and remains to this day, fortified by the signatures of those very men and of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers. And to this present hour, the Church proclaims them, not the men themselves, but their confession, and calls them God-bearing and holy, even those who broke away from it. For, as has been said often, the Church, after the conclusion of the council, does not care what any [individual] says, or does, or ^A desires. For there, in the assembly, it receives everyone’s confession, which is also written down in heaven, from whence it is unlawful to erase it. But when one goes out from the assembly, whatever he may do—[contrary to] what he confessed there—he cannot revoke it. Whence, if these men also use as a pretext that they were united and signed because of gifts, and honors, and violence, they speak unjustly and not the truth. For they forced no one to sign, but all, as has been said, united and signed with joy. Moreover, the man from Ephesus had to give an account [of his actions] there, where John was summoned. Thus, it is unjust for you to accuse the council, claiming it was deceived and that it caused those holy men to sign through gifts. For it was not so; it was not; nor did things happen there in that way.

^B Rhac. So it happened, therefore, the bishop of Ephesus did not wish to be united with them. Pius. For the same reason, Arius did not wish to be united with the holy and great first council; Eunomius with the second; Nestorius with the third; Dioscorus with the fourth, and the adversaries of those that followed thereafter. Dic. The aforementioned matters are mere words. Rhac. But those were heretics, while this one is pious and orthodox. Aud. It is truly a wonder how no other person devoted to the faith of Christ was found in that entire sacred assembly except the one from Ephesus alone, but [you imply] that the emperor, and the patriarch, and all that entire congregation of holy men cast off Christianity, sold the faith of Christ, and delivered their souls to the devil. For this is entirely absurd and most impious, and I cannot bear to hear it. Pius. Let us leave the foolish and insensitive conclusion of this absurdity for the listeners to examine and judge. But do you now tell me, what was done there [relative to the faith]? Rhac. The Latins say that "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son," but we say "from the Father alone." ^C Secondly, the Latins say, "The body of Christ is made with unleavened bread," but we reject unleavened bread as Judaic.

^A Thirdly, the Latins say, "Souls are purged after death, and they call their purification 'purgatory.'" We by no means say this. Fourthly, the Latins say, "When the souls of the saints depart from this life, they immediately ascend into heaven and dwell with God and the holy angels." We by no means grant this, until the resurrection and judgment. Fifthly, the Latins say, "The Pope is the head of the Church of Christ and father of all Christians." We, however, reckon him as one of the patriarchs, and that only if he is orthodox. When the synod had determined these things, all submitted to its definition, including these twelve priests.

Dic. The things set forth by the synod are most just and spoken with reason; those who maintain the contrary are suffering from a most deadly disease.

Pius. I would have wished to have knowledge of the account of these points which you have enumerated in detail, but since I am unskilled and unlearned, I wish that one of these twelve priests, whom you slander as holding opinions alien to1 yours, were present here to discuss these things with you. Having heard both sides, I myself would be able to discern which of you speaks the truth.

Rhac. Would that one of them were here.

Testis. Let us see if there is anyone.

Aud. Behold, one of the elders from among them is wandering through the marketplace.

Rhac. Move quickly. Call him to us.

Aud. Sir elder, come to us.

Catholicus. Let us go where you wish, for the sake of what is good and true.

Aud. Let us enter into this workshop.

Testis. I myself, getting up, yielded my stool to the Catholic, who, sitting down, said to us all with reverence:

Cathol. For what reason have you summoned me? What do you desire to learn from me?

Pius. With this Father, I have discussed much concerning the difference between the Greeks and the Latins, as much as my understanding allowed and my mind served me. Now, however, because the discussion has arrived at the dogmas, I am unable to answer or to question concerning these things, being an unskilled person who has not even learned letters; therefore, I summoned you to ask and answer.

Cath. Which of the points of the sacred decree is that which is turned into controversy, or is doubted by you as being untrue?

Rhac. The entire decree contains no truth within it.

Cath. Therefore, all five points are called into question by you?

Rhac. And most strongly called into question by us.

Cath. Speak, then, what you wish, and we shall answer regarding each one.

^A Rhac. Regarding the first point of the decree, which says that the Spirit is from the Son, we have the greatest doubt; nay, we deny it entirely and reject it as impious.

Aud. O your judgments, Christ our King! How do you endure such impudence?

Cath. Do you reject the expression “from the Son” as impious?

Rhac. Yes, absolutely.

Cath. I would like to know what this impiety is.

Rhac. We call this heresy an impiety.

Cath. Then do you hold as heretics those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son?

Rhac. Yes, we hold them as heretics.

Dic. May Jesus Christ be merciful to us, who listen to such impieties. And do you consider the saints who openly declare that the Holy Spirit is also “from the Son” to be heretics? Let lying lips be put to silence and let every mouth be stopped that speaks iniquity against the saints.

Rhac. Do not come at us so fiercely, O Just Judge. For we do not call the saints heretics, but those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. ^B

Cath. O the folly! And if there are found saints who say “from the Son,” are they not included with the heretics, since you consider all who say “from the Son” to be heretics?

Rhac. But no one among the Fathers is found saying “and from the Son.”

Witness. Many of the saints say this, both Eastern and Western.

Cath. And if I show you saints of the Church saying this, what would you say?

Rhac. I too will confess it.

Cath. Let the Witness have what has been said well noted.

Witness. I have written, and I will write it well, do not doubt it, for the memory of those to come.

Rhac. It has already been said, and for the argument to turn back is among the impossible. Show me, therefore, the saint of the Eastern Church whom you promised, and I also shall agree.

Cath. What you say pleases me. I will show you quickly. ^C

Rhac. Remember well what I said: not through Westerners, but rather through Easterners, and our own.

Cath. Do you doubt the Westerners, whether they are saints? And who would have the courage to say this, having their mind and faculties intact? For the Church has glorified them as holy and God-bearing Fathers. If, therefore, we concede this, we will overturn our entire faith, and neither Church, nor saints, nor priesthood, nor altar, nor in short, any faith of Christians will survive. But since these things are absurd and utterly unbecoming, for this reason we call the Church of God infallible, and we honor and venerate her holy teachers as holy Fathers. Nevertheless, ^D

^A for the sake of greater clarity on your part, I will pass over the Western saints and doctors, and I shall adduce the Eastern teachers and saints who say this.

*Aud.* Cure the soul of the Father, master. Show him what is proposed through the Eastern saints.

*Rhac.* Sir elder, let us not waste time in vain. Speak more briefly about what we proposed. And let the Witness take good note of what has been said. For I am convinced that you will show me no one among the saints who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

*Wit.* Do you not see me holding the pen in my right hand and the book in my left, effectively recording what has been said?

*Cath.* For immediately, the great pillar of the Church, the truly divine and holy Athanasius, in the Profession of his faith, which he set forth before Pope Liberius—whose beginning is, “Whoever wishes to be saved”—says: ^B “The Holy Spirit, he says, is from the Father and the Son, not made, not created, nor begotten, but proceeding.” What have you to say to this? Is this man not a saint and a doctor of the Church?

*Rhac.* I hold him to be a saint and a doctor, provided I am not in doubt that this statement is truly his.

*Cath.* And how could this statement of such a doctor not be authentic, when he repeats the very same thing frequently in his other discourses?

*Rhac.* Where?

*Cath.* In the book which he wrote against the Arians, he asserts this in many places, but most especially where he says: “And these things, indeed, the Lord said to the Jews as a man; but to the disciples, demonstrating His own Godhead and majesty, not showing Himself to be lesser than the Spirit, but greater and equal, He was indeed manifesting the Spirit and saying: ‘I will send Him, and He will glorify Me.’ You have known, therefore, what He wishes to imply by saying He is greater and equal to the Spirit; equal in essence, for there is nothing greater or lesser among the three persons in essence and divinity, but supreme equality: greater, because He has his being from Him.” ^C

*Rhac.* I have never seen this statement. But list for me also other doctors.

*Aud.* Do you but listen, and cast away the vain and empty opinion previously seized by your mind. For among other evils with which you have filled mankind, this is also one: a refusal to listen to any of the Catholics discoursing about these things, but rather closing your ears so that, having not cast away your wicked suspicion, you might not come to repentance. But you, since you ask to learn, listen to the Catholic.

*Cath.* The great Basil, in the third book against Eunomius, says: “For what necessity is there, if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, that He should be third ^D

also in nature? For the word of piety hands down that He is second to the Son in dignity, having His being from Him, and receiving from Him, and announcing to us, and being altogether dependent upon that Cause; but that He should be used as third in nature, we have neither been taught by the holy Scriptures, nor is it possible to deduce it as a consequence.”

Rhac. In this it is not shown explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but only that He has His being from Him, and receives from Him.

Cath. You do not yet grasp what is meant by "being." For what else does “having one’s being from Him” mean in divine matters, if not that He proceeds from Him?

Rhac. I desire to know clearly some one of the holy teachers who says plainly that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.

Cath. The names for the existence ^B of the All-Holy Spirit are many, and they are declared in various terms, and the teachers use them as they please, one thus and another in another way. When, therefore, you hear that the Holy Spirit “issues from the Son,” “is poured forth,” “gushes,” “leaps forth,” “springs,” “is,” “exists,” “has His being,” “receives,” “is given from the Son,” “out of Him,” “through Him,” “through the Son,” “shines forth,” “is sent,” “is dispatched,” you should understand nothing else but that He proceeds from the Son.

Rhac. Even if it is as you say, I still wish to hear some holy man saying: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Cath. I shall endeavor to show you this, too.

Testis. Truly this is the faith, true and blameless, of the Savior Christ, which works ^C miraculously in those who believe in Him purely and piously. For He says: “He who believes in Me, the works that I do, he also will do, and greater works than these shall he do”; and again: “I will give you speech and wisdom in your mouth to overthrow the adversaries,” saying this to those who were about to struggle for His sake. Here I see the greatest of miracles, even if you, Father, do not see what I myself witness.

Rhac. What is this?

Testis. For I am taught by experience itself that the priests of the union—even if they have not tasted of dialectic or philosophy—dispute, reason, speak wisely, and handle theological matters in the best possible way; ^D while you, who in your minds oppose this, are unable to say anything, and at the very least, not even things that are already written. From this I conclude that the faith of Christ is not in you. For this reason, the word of Jesus promised to you does not work in you, but in those who have embraced the union, it works to the highest degree.

Dic. Come, follow, Lord Elder; keep the method you have. Proceed with your discourse in order.

Cath. The most holy Gregory of Nyssa, in his fourth homily on the *Our Father*, at the very beginning says this:

"The Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is also attested to be from the Son." ^A *Rhac.* Not even in this do I see it stated explicitly, in the way that I would wish.

*Cath.* Pay close attention, and consider what it means to be said to be "from the Father." When we hear "the Spirit from the Father" in this simple way, I ask, what does it signify?

*Rhac.* We can understand nothing else but that He proceeds from the Father.

*Cath.* You have spoken rightly. For it is impossible to express it otherwise. If, when we hear "the Spirit from the Father" simply, you grant that it is understood as proceeding, when we hear this same thing regarding the Son, what else can we understand but that He proceeds from the Son?

*Rhac.* Nevertheless, I strongly desire to be shown one of the saints who explicitly confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.

*Cath.* When I hear the names already mentioned, I understand this very thing. For I know that the generation of the Son from the Father is signified in different ^B terms that mean the same thing. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to bring forward a saint who states this explicitly.

*Rhac.* Show me quickly.

*Cath.* The great Anastasius, who is called "of the Holy Mountain of Sinai," says in his discourse, whose title is "On our sound faith," as follows: "Taking the nature of the body as an example, we have represented the mutual coherence of the Divine through the proportion and assimilation of the members. Hence, He is called the Spirit of His mouth, the mouth of the Only-Begotten, and the Spirit again proceeding from Him, and sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son." See, the Father most clearly says that ^C the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. What do you have to say to this? Honestly, nothing.

*Dic.* This passage most clearly satisfies the question.

*Rhac.* Show me, by God, another saint saying the same thing.

*Aud.* Show the Father, O elder lord, another saint testifying similarly.

*Cath.* Saint Hilary, in his discourse after Pentecost, says: "We believe in the Holy Trinity, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God almighty, of one essence, of one existence, of one authority, the creator of all creatures, from whom are all things, through ^D whom are all things, in whom are all things: the Father from Himself and not from another, the Son begotten of the Father, true God, but not two lights, but one light; the Holy Spirit proceeding equally from the Father and the Son."

*Test.* I shall inscribe this sentence in letters of gold, because it heals even hearts of stone.

*Dic.* You would do well. For this saint, by this passage, saying, "The Holy Spirit"

^A also proceeds from the Father and the Son, removes every pretext from those who seek pretexts.

*Rhac.* Your words, O venerable elder, are great and terrible, and sufficient to dispel the cloud of my thoughts. But still, in order for the discussion to be fully satisfied, show me another saint who declares the same things as these.

*Aud.* He who is not persuaded by these, will not be persuaded even if one were to say ten thousand other things.

*Cath.* The blessed Cyril, in his interpretation of the prophet Joel, says: "For in so far as He is God, and the Son by nature is from God, having indeed been born of God and the Father, He is His own and is in Him, and the Spirit is from Him; just as, indeed, He is also understood from Him, even the God and Father." ^B Now, that clause, "just as, indeed, also from the Father," what does it signify, but that, just as He proceeds from the Father, so also He proceeds from the Son?

*Dic.* This reasoning will be judged just by those of sound mind.

*Rhac.* Is there anyone else among the teachers who speaks thus?

*Cath.* All the Eastern and Western saints say the same thing.

*Rhac.* I have neither seen nor ever heard such things; only those of a certain Cabasilas, Psellus, Nicolaus of Methone, Panaretus, and others; and now I have heard the Ephesian who says the contrary to these, which you ^C say to me.

*Aud.* And whom is it right to follow: the holy teachers of the Church, or those who wrote after the schism and [after] many contentions and quarrels?

*Rhac.* The teachers, without doubt.

*Cath.* What do you think now? Are those who say the Spirit [proceeds] from the Son heretics?

*Rhac.* As I have just heard, I would by no means say this.

*Cath.* Why then do you fight us at all? For if it has been demonstrated clearly that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son and from the Son, in the irrefutable and wise instructions of our holy Fathers and teachers, and thereupon we, recognizing that the doctrine proclaimed in the Symbol of faith by the Roman Church ^D agrees with this, have necessarily and reverently and gladly received the peace and union of the Churches, and have preferred concord and friendship with the Romans, what absurd thing have we committed? Whence has it come to you, brothers, to treat those of the same nation and the same genus, and I might say, even of the same blood as you, as heathens and foreigners, and you do not cease to pile up curses, and blasphemies, and accusations one after another against us every day? This is perfectly true. For no one, whoever he might be, could deny it. Indeed, in the taverns, in the streets, in the marketplaces, through all people and everywhere, the discipline of the Unionist priests is being dragged through the mud, and the

^A honor of them is unjustly slandered and disparaged. O the forbearance of you, Christ the King! You are not satisfied with merely saying these things to us, but you also shamelessly insult the faith and our God, regarding us as heathens. We for our part endure this in silence, and commit everything to the all-seeing God; for He Himself sees and inspects all things from above, and will measure out justice to each one.

Rhac. Terrible are the things you have just spoken, most pious one; for I trembled upon hearing them, and my soul was humbled, perceiving the irrefutable nature of your argument, since the things you have uttered are true; and I think that no one will answer you with anything to the contrary in these matters.

Dic. So then, you unjustly reproach those twelve, or rather not those twelve, but the universal council. ^B For whenever you reproach them and revile them, and call them Latin-minded and heterodox, you reproach the whole Church together with all the saints, as having been Latin-minded and having held heterodox opinions.

Rhac. May God be gracious to me for the sake of the blasphemy with which I had shamelessly slandered the saints. Since, therefore, I have been fully satisfied by you on this point, I am very desirous to be satisfied in like manner regarding the remaining articles of the decree.

Cath. State also about the others, whatever you wish, and we shall provide an apology.

Rhac. To say in the decree that the body of Christ becomes such undoubtedly through both leavened and unleavened bread, and that both are one, confuses my mind, ^C for how can that be one which is brought about in varying and different ways, namely, this through unleavened bread, and that through leavened?

Cath. What is it that confuses you, that the one contains leaven and the other does not? And what is that? Is not both bread made from flour?

Rhac. Both are bread, I cannot deny it; but the one is perfect bread because it has leaven, and the other is imperfect because it lacks it. Therefore, it ought to be made through the perfect, not through the imperfect.

Cath. If it were the accidents of the bread that were changed into the body of Christ, you would argue correctly; ^D but since it is the substance which is changed into the body of the Lord, and not the species, you deceive yourself in asserting such things. For the Lord changes into His body not the species or the accidents, but the substance itself, which is the nutritive power of the bread, which exists not only in leavened bread, but even in that which is unleavened, through the power of His words.

Rhac. I confess and accept that the substance of the bread is that which is changed into the body of the Lord; but it seems that the substance of the bread is stronger in the leavened than in the unleavened, so that the leavened is more to be chosen than the unleavened.

Cath. By this reasoning we will attribute impotence to the words of the Lord, in that they do not possess their power unless leavened bread is present, and the matter—that which is

more powerful than all things, acts—could anyone ever assert that the words of the Lord, by which the heaven has been made firm and the earth has been founded, possess power in all other things, but are impotent in this? This is a most great blasphemy, which no one has ever heard. But let that which is blasphemous be far away. For the word of the Lord transforms, and changes both the one and the other into His body. And thus must everyone who wishes to attain salvation believe without ambiguity. ^A

Rhac. We hear the holy apostles saying: "Do not accept the unleavened bread of the Jews." Therefore, they prescribe that, as being unclean, these must be avoided.

Cath. This has been well decreed by the holy apostles, that we should not accept the unleavened bread of the Jews. For they are unclean, since they offer them unlawfully, clearly now after the coming of Christ. For indeed, we ourselves do not accept the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor the gifts of their festival, nor blood-sacrifice, and the rest. But that the unleavened bread itself is unclean is not concluded from this. Therefore, even leavened bread would be unclean, because the Lord says: "See and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." And the blessed Paul also says: "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump." And in another place: "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness." ^B Therefore, according to you, leaven itself ought to be avoided as unclean, since Paul blames it, calling it the leaven of malice and wickedness. But one must not investigate the letter maliciously, but search the mind with love of truth and piety. The Latins, therefore, do not make unleavened bread with the intent of the Jews, so that we should avoid them, but because it is pure and fine, like the body of the Lord, as we have discussed more completely in the second chapter of the definition; and let whoever wishes search that, and he will find all doubts resolved.

Testis. In that chapter all these things are well and carefully explained, and they have no contradiction.

Rhac. As I see and hear, those who were before us separated us in vain from the communion of the Latins.

Dic. And truly in vain.

Rhac. How was there no fear of the Lord in them to divide and rend the flock of Christ into divisions and schisms? ^D

Aud. How is it that you also had no fear of the Lord nor reverence, but were separating yourself from the Church, and driving others to do the same?

Rhac. I, being a layman, felt just as I had been taught by them.

Dic. Let us not, therefore, accuse the Jews, since they hold the same things as their fathers held.

Rhac. Let us leave this, as it has been sufficiently spoken of. Let us come also to the third.

Aud. This must first receive a decision, then we shall begin the other.

^A Dic. Since he is silent, he leaves this as something assuredly irrefutable. Moreover, not wishing to hold out against this any longer, he agrees to the Catholic decision. For this is the custom among those who are debating, not to be silent on some point; but having kept silent, he indicates that he has been defeated, and does not wish to speak further about that matter.

Cath. Say, reverend Father, what you call into doubt, and I shall answer you.

Rhac. How does the synod prove that souls are purified after death?

Cath. It proves and demonstrates it with reason, just as it does the other things.

Rhac. Come, tell me, from where does it demonstrate this?

Cath. First, from our own example, which we ourselves perform; then from the testimonies of the holy teachers of the Church, and from the very nature of the matter.

Rhac. Set forth for me our own example, which we ourselves perform.

Cath. Are you still unaware of what the offerings, kollyva, candles, oil, psalmodies, commemorations, and the making of memorials for the dead in the most holy sacrifices signify?

Rhac. Is that what you mean, which the Latins call Purgatory, and we call "purifying place" (Kathartyrion)?

Cath. That is it, and nothing else.

Rhac. You asserted that the synod also proves this by the testimonies of the teachers of the Church; show this to me.

Cath. Read the third chapter of the decree; for there we have spoken of it sufficiently, and regarding this you will be fully satisfied.

Rhac. Let us proceed now to the fourth.

Cath. If you have any doubt about this, speak out.

Rhac. Upon what reasoning, since the general resurrection has not yet taken place, have the just and the sinners received—according to you, or rather, according to the decree of this synod—what they deserve?

Cath. Concerning this also, one must think in the same way as you already well know regarding the others. The Church of God holds that the souls of the saints dwell with God and the holy angels immediately as they depart from this life, being provided with many arguments and evidences in this matter, as in the others. ^B

Rhac. If the souls of the just now dwell in heaven and receive, as you say, it is superfluous for the judgment to take place and for the Judge to sit upon the throne.

Cath. If we were to say that the saints had received perfectly, in both soul and body, then this absurdity would justly follow; but we do not say this, but rather that now they receive perfectly as souls alone, according to the holy John Damascene who says, "And they have received the perfect crown in the heavens." This, therefore, is not said concerning the bodies, but concerning the souls. But at the judgment, the souls and the bodies ^D together will rejoice in the glory.

^A

Dic. Most true and most just is this speech. ^A

Rhac. I have understood what you say, and I am persuaded, for many *Idiomela* and *Troparia* of the Canons are found demonstrating this, and from many other places testimonies can be taken concerning the fruition of the saints. Nevertheless, I am still at a loss as to how this can be, that the soul should possess it now without the body.

Cath. You must not be at a loss where there is no cause for hesitation. For it is plain to all, even to the blind, that the soul is more precious than the body, and its mistress; for it was made to the image of God, and therefore is immortal; but the body is a servant of the soul and an instrument used by it at will, and it is called mortal, and so it is. Therefore, the soul, as immortal, receives, inasmuch as it is mistress and more precious than the body; but the body, being mortal, has not yet risen, nor has it received. In the resurrection, therefore, the soul shall clothe itself in this immortal and incorruptible *body*, as the blessed Paul hands down, and so it also, with the soul, shall rejoice in glory. For example: a king, having opened a theater, proposes gifts and crowns to those competing, for which many gather, running among themselves and contending with others in the stadium. The equestrian victor, having received the prize, puts the horse to rest, and he himself, crowned as victor, rejoices together with the king. ^B When the theater is closed, the victor mounts his horse, beautifully adorned, and receives a double crown, and sets up a trophy, and goes around the city with his horse, through whom he achieved victory, laden with joy and delight. Thus also the soul, having overcome the devil in the struggle of this temporary life together with the body, lays the body in the earth, and it itself flies to heaven, and crowned, rejoices with the Lord: afterwards, when this age is dissolved, and the common and universal resurrection of all has been attained, the soul shall clothe itself in the adorned body, which is to say, incorruptible and immortal (the words are those of the great Paul); and it shall receive a double crown, and with the body, through which it wounded and defeated the adversary, it shall be filled with joys. ^C

Aud. This example is enough to persuade anyone.

Rhac. You speak well and admirably. But the words of Paul still afford me a difficulty: "All these, having been perfected through faith, did not receive the promise," etc. ^D

Cath. We have also treated this accurately in the fourth chapter of the decree near the end; and let him who seeks understanding of similar things go there, and I think he will be abundantly satisfied.

Rhac. Tell me, I beg you, do not flag in your zeal, regarding the final chapter of the decree. By what reasoning do you declare the Roman pontiff to be the head of the whole Church, and do not consider him as one of the patriarchs?

Cath. I am astonished that you have asked such a question about a matter so clear and patent.

^A Rhac. Do not be surprised, best of priests, that I ask to learn about this as well, as I have about the others. Dic. It is right to hear the Father concerning what he asks. Cath. We, reverend Father, consider the Roman pontiff as one of the patriarchs, not as two or three. Nevertheless, a primacy must be conceded in the Church of God, lest if it be removed, confusion should arise; for where there is no leader, there is no order. Wherefore the Savior, desiring His Church to endure in order, decreed Peter to be the first of the apostles themselves, and that his successors should possess that same primacy, to care for and govern the Church; otherwise, confusion rather than unity would be found in the Church of God. Rhac. Let this be so; I acknowledge and accept it. But that he must be the one who regulates the whole Church and legislates the faith, I still doubt. Cath. This he received from the mouth of the Savior. For the Savior said to him: "Peter, feed my sheep," and also: "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," and again: "Simon, Simon, often has Satan desired to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned, strengthen your brothers." From these he received the authority to strengthen, to examine, to direct, and to correct matters of faith. ^B Rhac. Concerning this, enough has been said for now. Dic. The Father is satisfied with this as well. Rhac. Still one thing troubles me and leads me into suspicion, but I think this should be reserved by me in silence. Dic. It is not right to keep silent; doubts must be spoken aloud. Cath. Nay, Father, speak boldly of what you doubt, that in this too, as in the others, a remedy may be suggested. For a physician cannot bring medicine to a sick person unless the sufferer first, having removed his garments, shows him the wound, so that having seen it and recognized the ailment, he may apply to it the appropriate medicine and plaster, and swiftly grant health to the one who is suffering. Rhac. But I am afraid lest I offend you and cast you into anger, O man of God. ^{C D} Cath. Catholics are never troubled when they engage in discourse; rather, they rejoice when they reveal the truth to all. Cath. I shall never be pained, even if a word should sting me; rather, I shall become all the more joyous hearing your heart's thoughts, so that I may heal you by answering your doubts, and deliver you from your ignorance and the aversion you harbor toward us. Rhac. I for my part wished to consign this to silence: when

you yourself command me to speak, I beg you, listen, even if what is said should appear harsh to you. ^A Cath. Speak, venerable Father, speak. Rhac. Why did you not say these things before, when not only were you opposed to the synod, but you were also abusive toward the Latins, just as you yourself shamelessly committed an insult upon the patriarch’s cowl? Or how is it that all those who were before us did not know this? Were they ignorant, and have you now become so learned? Were they infidels, and have you now perceived their infidelity? How is it that these things never existed, unless it is because you twelve are now saying these things? Or have you only now opened your eyes and understood these things, having been blind and in darkness before? These are the things that disturb both the many and myself: that all who were before us are now condemned by you as ignorant, blind, and faithless, as having been led astray and ignorant of the faith, since you say things different from what they thought and taught. ^B Aud. This speech of the Father is cleverly crafted, and it requires an excellent response. Cath. It is as you say, that we did not say these things before, and that we were abusive toward the Latins, and I especially, if anyone else was, have dared to do this. The reason is at hand: we did not know, for we were as infants. Hence I, too, ignorantly assailed the most divine patriarch with insults; but I obtained pardon from him. That those before us did not know these things, however, we do not say that they suffered this from ignorance, or infidelity, or error, or other such things; for we shall by no means say this. Rather, the great and more excellent among them did know, and held this opinion among themselves, even if some, out of deference to their own persuasion, said and wrote the opposite. But the majority did not know, not because they were led astray and faithless, but because doctrines were not being examined, and both sides kept peace, a synod not having been held for a long time. ^C But now that this one has been assembled, and a powerful debate has taken place, all have been enlightened by divine grace. They preached everywhere. Those who desired their salvation heard, and were convinced by this. And they themselves are preaching, as is fitting, so that they may not be swallowed up by the depths again, as they were before. Those, therefore, who wish to obscure the love and peace of the Church again do not endure to hear, and they say whatever they say. But if one should say, why did we not accept or preach this from the beginning of the synod, let that person know that at the time of the synod we were still mere boys, not yet ten years old, and we did not understand these things. And if, as we advanced in age, we were not taught, it is nothing surprising. For the new and vain prejudice which we held from our ancestors did not allow us to listen, nor did we deign to learn. Furthermore, we did not wish to apply ourselves to the Acts of the holy synod. But now, having attained mature age, it did not seem good to us to persist in the same evils, nor to waste our time on empty talk, vain speech, and lies, and to fight in vain and to no purpose against our brethren. ^D

for whom Christ poured out His blood, unless we first hear from them and know if they, too, think rightly. ^A Hence, having diligently and with great delight pored over the sacred Commentaries—that is, the Acts of the council—and having consulted other teachers who bear witness to the same, we have yielded to the truth. For it is neither just nor pious, reverend Father, when one seeks salvation and the light has been shown, for him to close his eyes; rather, one should embrace the truth with joy once it has appeared. Therefore, we too, having seen the truth demonstrated through the sacred synod, have piously accepted and received it, and we now say what we previously did not know or understand, and we proclaim nothing other than what we have learned from the sacred synod, which has been the salvation of our own souls.

Rhac. It would have been better had it never been convened, since it has caused a great scandal rather than peace in the whole world.

Cath. I would never say that; I would rather say it brought peace and salvation, and did not cause scandal. For who could be scandalized by this work of divine union?

Rhac. Latins and Greeks are arming themselves against one another and fighting; the Latins ^B fight the Greeks and openly cry out that they are schismatics and heretics, and the Greeks rage against the Greeks, and they stir up a very great persecution among one another. Therefore it would have been better had it never been celebrated.

Testis. The monks were the cause of these things—the most ignorant and foolish kind of men.

Dic. Those who love scandals are indeed scandalized, but those who seek the truth are never scandalized. For how would those be scandalized who were formerly called heretics by the Greeks? Furthermore, they do not take up arms against the Greeks—far from it! Rather, they desire and pray to be with them in concord and peace. They are justly saddened, however, against the Greeks, because even after the judgment of the sacred synod they do not cease to call them heretics and heterodox. But the Greeks, as you say, rage against other Greeks; indeed, those who refuse the union rage and fight against those who accept it. They call them Latins and heretics for no other reason than that they submitted themselves to the synod and call the Latins Christians. ^C

Rhac. For this reason I say that it would have been better had it never been convened.

Dic. What you say is neither just nor pious.

Cath. You hear the Lord saying that the whole world is not worth a single human soul, and you say it would have been better had it not been convened? Do you not know that, the synod having taken place, we learned the truth which we did not know before? Do you not know how many souls escaped from the schism and the division? Do you not know how they were redeemed

from the obstinacy and the fighting with which we raged against our brothers? If that had not happened, we would remain in the same condemnation in which those were who of old divided the Church and broke it into factions. Hence it was better for it to have been forced, with God providing this for our sake, lest having lost our souls, we should become heirs of eternal punishment.

Rhac. To my questioning, most excellent priest, I see that I have been sufficiently satisfied, and I find that I have received an answer. My spirit, from that vast and ceaseless fighting against the Latins, has finally found rest. But, O man of God, you and those with you who are pious, most divine, and true priests, forgive me and grant pardon for all I have ever blurted out against you with abusive language. For you are witnesses of God, and you are blessed. You are reviled for the sake of the true faith, and you will receive your rewards from God the remunerator.

Dic. I, having gladly heard you and having attentively considered the words of both of you, wished indeed to give my vote to him who possesses the truth, who is the priest of the holy union. But since you yourself, having set aside your obstinacy and your empty and vain prejudice, give your vote—or rather, are also convinced—glory be to God, who has led you to the light of truth.

Cath. I give thanks to God, the giver of peace, who has been your guide and has given you prudence, so that, having laid aside your obstinacy, you might hear us and recognize the truth. I will recall to memory that we brought you here a concise answer to the chapters. But since we have composed a special work on these matters and have given sufficient account for each one, whoever wishes may apply his mind to those things; and I believe that with God he will be delivered from his distress. But regarding the fact that you seek forgiveness from us for all the ways you reviled us, may the Lord blot out your error both now and in the age to come. For we, having once given ourselves over to the subjection of the Church of Christ, care ^B little for mockery and insults, mindful of our Lord when He says, "If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." And again, "Alas for my weakness! The brood of vipers called Him a Samaritan and possessed by a demon, who was healing those possessed by demons." If, therefore, they insulted and reviled Him whom heaven and earth fear, and all that is in heaven and on earth, and whom those who had been benefited by Him, He nevertheless endured—why should we, humble and sinful, not endure? We endure, therefore, the mockery and insults, hoping to be deemed worthy of those beatitudes, both that which says, "Blessed are you when they shall revile you and persecute you," and that which says, "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven." ^D We also beg of you to set aside your obstinacy and vain prejudice, and, having stilled your arrogance, to unite yourselves to the Church of God. For thus

both arrive at the unity of the faith and be united to the Church of God, so that we may both attain to the unity of the faith, and be numbered among the choirs of the saints, together with all those who from the ages have been well-pleasing to God. Amen.

JOSEPH, THE MOST GOD-BELOVED BISHOP OF METHONI: Apology towards the booklet of Lord Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, in which he sets out his own opinion, which he held regarding the holy and sacred Council of Florence.

PROOEMIUM.

^A This venerable man, wishing to thrust those called by the name of Christ into the ranks of the schismatics, and thence to separate them from the society of the pious and to estrange them utterly from the sacred council, has published his own opinion like a certain tome; and, sending it to Christians everywhere, he admonishes and commands them not to accept the ecumenical council, but rather to adhere to his own words, inasmuch as he is one of those who took part in the disputes of that same holy council; and that whereas others were led by brilliant promises and honors to consent, he himself in no wise agreed with them; and that they, having received gifts in their hands, were united, but he neither received gifts, nor defiled his hands with gold. ^B

Since, therefore, this exhortation of his has recently come even to us, it is truly worthy to examine whether he speaks the truth, and whether, saying such things, he agrees with the holy ones. And if he holds to the truth, we too shall stand with him, accusing the Latins, and we shall be like-minded with him for all time; but if he should be shown to be far from the truth and to pronounce things entirely alien to the theology of the holy ones, it is both fitting and at the same time salutary to reject him as an impostor and a false teacher, and to cast away his words as being harmful to our souls. ^C But once this has been demonstrated...

it will be necessary that both he and all those who affirm contrary things with him be joined to the holy and catholic Church of God. But let no one wonder if we undertake to refute so boldly the words of a man so learned and great; rather, one ought to wonder all the more when you see him, having been convicted by us, to be just as he is, and shown to be putting forward weak and false arguments. For if we are inexperienced in wisdom, we are at least orthodox by the grace of God. For He who said, "When you are brought before wise men and governors, do not be afraid; for I will give you power which all your adversaries will not be able to gainsay," ^A can Himself illuminate us—He who also showed fishermen, though unlettered, to be theologians and orators—and can give sufficient power to defeat this man. Therefore, do not look to the eminence of the man and our own lowliness, but to the truth of both, and to who it is that agrees with the theologians of the Church; for to him who speaks the truth, it is necessary to give credence. Therefore, so that we may not seem to be saying superfluous things in our introduction, come, let us bring forward what has been said by him, and let us examine these things accurately, word for word, so that the truth may be manifest to all. ^B

OF EPHESUS

"I, by reason of the command and the need of the Church of Christ, having accepted the office of the episcopacy—which so greatly exceeds my state and my powers—followed the ecumenical patriarch and the emperor given by God to the synod in Italy."

RESPONSE

"All of us who have given our name to Christ, by reason of the need and the command of the Church of Christ, ought not only to accept meanwhile with reverence the office of the episcopacy, which, as you said, truly exceeds our state and powers, as it is a dignity of the greatest honor; but also to undergo death, and to offer up whatever other thing is necessary—wealth, body, and the very soul—for the Church of Christ; ^C and to follow the leaders granted to us by God, the patriarchs and emperors, not only to Italy (which still remains under the dominion of Christians) but even to the extreme parts of the world, where unbelievers dwell, so that the preaching of the Cross may not be made void, and the confession of the true faith may not be undermined by the assault of contumacious heretics: in this matter also imitating those ancient and celebrated and blessed men who readily poured out their blood for the Church of Christ our God. Wherefore, if you also followed, you did what you ought; ^D and would that you had also completed the work as you ought. But let us see what follows."

EPHES.

RESP.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A he: “Bring the Ephesian to us, as we shall show presently.” But you were unwilling to meet us, terrified by the refutations. And then indeed you could not defend yourself, but now, having become alone, you say these things, striving meanwhile to deceive the simpler folk. But there was no need for them to change their doctrine or institution, either from you or from your followers. For where genuine wisdom is taught, and makes those who are its lovers perfect, it is not lawful to disturb an established and faithful doctrine. But that learned and perfect men are to be found in Italy—men in no part inferior to those blessed men whom antiquity brought forth—no one, so long as he is not filled with wickedness, would deny. And if this is the case in Italy, how much more so in the Roman Church, in which neither infidelity nor foul doctrine has ever remained? Greatness and majesty did they manifest to you, as wise and noble men, counting the honor toward one another according to the divine Apostle ^B (Rom. xii, 10); but not for this reason should they have appeared ignorant of true customs and doctrines, as though they were eager to learn from you—you who are not only the most unlearned, but also by far inferior to that wisdom which appears to be among you. But leaving these things aside, let us pass on to the accusations, in which more serious matters will not be lacking for us to say.

EPHESIUS

RESPONDENS

EPHESIUS

RESPONDENS

to sit on his own throne, you were angry and did not wish to discourse. Consequently, those who desire good order prepare these things before the time, so that we may not, as we said, have confusion at the time. Yet you Greeks and Latins came together ^A when the time was at hand. So when all who ought to be present had come, as I said, and had arranged their seats, and had chosen those who were to speak, they began the work; for not even before, as you say, did the synod have peace, but you were examining daily concerning the purgatorial fire, the unleavened bread, and other matters; where you yourself confessed that all things were right except for the addition from the Creed, which you said with boldness ought to be expelled, but would be put in a separate decree; you conceded this point then, you yourself.

EPHESUS. On the subject of the addition which was made in the Creed, to first hold a disputation.

APOLOGIST.

EPHESUS.

APOLOGIST.

^A present, have not ceased moving every stone against the Latins, and vomiting up both sayable and unspeakable things against them. And neither the fear of God, nor long-standing contention, nor an ecumenical council, nor the truth itself has been able to persuade you. Furthermore, they responded to you through the Archbishop of Rhodes, showing those things which you said to be false: that the Church of Rome was by no means the cause of the division and conflict, nor was the addition. For the addition was inserted into the Creed not only before the schism of the churches, but even before the ecumenical councils—I mean the Seventh and the Sixth—as the Confessor Maximus testifies in his letter to Marinus, the priest of Cyprus. And not only before those, as has been said, but immediately after the Second Council in the time of Pope Damasus, as the historian George Aristinus asserts. Thus, from this you are shown to be stating nothing of truth; indeed, neither has the addition been the cause of the splitting of the churches. For if the schism is after the Seventh Council, and much later than it, but the addition occurred from the time of the Second, and the churches were united until the Seventh, and did not blame one another for this, how has the addition become the cause of the division? Rather, it is shown from this that the Easterners accepted this clarification, since they agreed with the added phrase in the Creed, including the "and the Son."

EPHE.

RESP.

^A in it we dogmatize the holy Trinity, and we confess the Son of God incarnate in it, and crucified, and buried, and that he rose again, and will come again at the end of the ages to judge the whole world. We also believe with open faith in the Holy Spirit, consubstantial and co-throned with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets; furthermore, we piously and openly profess one Church and one baptism, and we proclaim with a loud voice the resurrection of the dead to all. What innovation, then, have we made in this? What deceit is in it? Truly, none. You ought not, then, O wise man, to utter such foolish words, at which even infants might shamefully laugh at you. But that the Latins added the phrase "from the Son" (Filioque), clarifying the holy Creed, you call an alteration; we shall clarify, a little later—where you also will speak about glory—very well whether the phrase is pious or not. And if indeed we show it to be not pious, these things you have said will hold true, and the curses must fall upon the Latins who altered the Creed. But if we shall manifest this to be pious, then we shall show the Latins ^B to be necessarily free from curses and anathema, and we shall demonstrate to the sensible that all the curses and anathemas have turned back upon you and your head. But now let us look further.

EPHESIAN

ANSWER

EPHESIAN

ANSWER

and since you were unable to gainsay them, you passed the disputation on to others. And then the prelate of Nicaea took up the struggle, [intending] to dispute with our brother Andrew, the archbishop of Rhodes, at which time he himself put forward even stronger arguments on behalf of the Greeks concerning the addition; for their intent was directed toward the truth, and not, as you assert, toward vainglorious display. For they were not debating as the Latins and the opposing party [were], but as Christians they were searching for the truth, and were seeking it out with unremitted zeal. ^B This is clearly manifest from the words of the most blessed Pope, which he used toward our men, saying: "I am amazed that you are negligent and put off the sessions; for I do not cease to encourage you toward the investigation of the truth, but you are more sluggish. The second year is passing since the synod began to be held, and not yet have twenty-five sessions taken place; come together, therefore, to dispute, for in this way and in no other will the truth be found; come and cast off your hesitation." That blessed man was indeed grieving at the negligence of our men, because they would not convene for the sessions. Moreover, they were speaking and defending themselves, not as you, calumniating all, affirm—intending to seem to have something to say and to preoccupy the ears of their own people (for this is far from their mind and knowledge)—nor, again, did they speak last to put an end to the sessions and thereby seem to have dissolved everything that was being objected to by you; rather, they responded for the sake of defense, since you were initially putting yourselves forward as accusers; ^C it remained, therefore, that they were of necessity obliged to render an account.

EPHESUS

RESPONSE

^A dogma; but the truth is not an addition, but an explication, as has often been said. As for your exhortation that we should speak as we used to speak in the beginning, when there was no schism among us, this is immediately refuted by the facts: for the schism occurred one hundred years after the seventh synod, in the time of Michael the Emperor and Photius the Patriarch, whereas the Roman Church was chanting the Creed after the second synod just as it chants it today, as George Aristenus testifies, as we have said. Maximus, too, who lived before the sixth synod, bears witness to this in his letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, stating that the Roman Church holds this view, writing thus: "The Constantinopolitans took note of the synodical letters of the most holy Pope Martin, who now presides, not of all the chapters you have written, but only of two; one of which concerns theology, in which they say that he stated that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, and the others, that I may not recount them one by one." ^B Therefore, what you call an addition was not the cause of the schism, but the Roman Church was reciting the Creed just as it recites it today; and we, that is, the Greeks, were reciting it as we do now, and there was no schism among us. The Latins, therefore, can also use the same words to you: Let us return to those times when we were united, and we were reciting the Creed in the same way that we recite it now, and you were likewise speaking as you speak now, and we were of one mind; and you were not complaining about us, nor we about you. I wonder, indeed, how the ecumenical synods did not reprove us, if they knew us to be blaspheming, as you now say and charge us with doing: I mean the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, and the seventh; nor did you yourselves ^C start to accuse us until after Photius. Let us therefore come together, and let us say what we were saying before the schism, and we shall be found both saying the same things; and the schism will be removed, and peace and concord will follow; and thus, God willing, we shall be united.

h EPHESUS h

In saying these things, we seemed to be singing to deaf ears, or boiling a stone, or sowing upon rocks, or writing upon water, or whatever else the proverbs say ^D to express the impossible.

h ANSWER h

The Latins can also answer you with proverbs: "An Ethiopian does not become white"; and "We speak to the shore," for you are deaf; and "A headless fable," for you speak imperfectly; and whatever else the proverbs say concerning the disobedient and arrogant; for the disobedient will never be persuaded. So too it seems to you that you should remain in the schism and the separation, in error and in wickedness, and so you have remained, and will remain in it even after death. But those who desire their own salvation do not act thus, nor do they close their ears or their eyes, but they hear and see and wish to understand that

^A even having been deceived by your own conceit, you thought yourself wiser and more learned than the whole synod; which is a proof of extreme folly, that one man should excel the whole inhabited world. If you compare man with man, that is indeed credible; but that one man should be superior to the whole Church gathered together is absolutely impossible. Otherwise, Arius, Eunomius, and the other enemies of the ecumenical synods will say this very same thing; but that cannot be. Wherefore, you too ought to have recognized the truth, to have listened to the many, to have set aside dissension, stubbornness, that vain and preconceived opinion, and perversity of mind, and to have been united with the decision of the many, or rather with the decision of the Church.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A you most clearly that that divine throne has the authority to examine and correct matters concerning the faith. Wherefore they were not desirous, as you say, to transition to the examination of the dogma in order to obscure the daring deed against the Symbol, but to show you that the phrase "and from the Son," which was placed in the Symbol, is pious and is the opinion of the teachers and of the Church, and that you accuse and fight against them in vain; for this reason they were eager to turn to the examination of this matter.

EPHES. But our side did not tolerate this, and in no way allowed the examination to be held regarding the dogma unless the addition were first corrected.

RESP. Truly our side did not tolerate for the question of the second problem to be agitated, fearing ^B the struggle and trembling lest they suffer the same things as in the second. For you had divided the question into two parts: one was that nothing should be added to the Symbol, not even a word nor a syllable; and the other, that the addition which had been made to the Symbol was neither pious nor true—and you put forth your arguments. But while the Latins, having appeared courageous concerning the first point and having demonstrated the truth, showed that the definitions and decrees opposing them were no obstacle to them—for if otherwise, the Fathers of the second synod would surely have been under anathema, having published a different Symbol than that which the first had previously delivered—your side, having been defeated in this, feared to enter into the second struggle; for they said: if, in that which seemed to them to be stronger, ^C the Latins rendered such strong and robust defenses, what shall we say when they show us the holy Fathers in agreement with the dogma? For this reason they were immovable toward the examination, and they rushed to flee from it. Nevertheless, they appointed you as their defender; but you, indeed, in order to avoid the discussion of the dogma, while certainly assenting covertly to the dogma of the Latins, said: "That even if the dogma, when examined, be found to be true, we certainly cannot admit this phrase into the Symbol, because we revere our Fathers." You were fighting, therefore, against the truth, just like the man who contended over the shadow of an ass; and you said that the correction should be made in such a way: "Let this addition be cast out from the Symbol, and let it be placed in a separate decree." Whereupon something ridiculous ^D was affixed to our nation by your saying these things. For if the phrase "and from the Son" is blasphemous, why do you seek for it to be placed in a separate decree? Just as Julian, the most wise cardinal, said to you. For when you had said: "We cannot accept this phrase in the Symbol of the faith, as it is blasphemous, but we shall place it in a separate decree, just as those of old did with the phrase 'Ever-virgin' in the 'Only-begotten Son'," the cardinal replied: "Let this phrase first be examined, venerable Father, whether it is true, or false and blasphemous. And if indeed it shall be demonstrated to be blasphemous, let it be held neither in the Symbol, nor

elsewhere; for blasphemies must nowhere be spoken. But if it is pious, why [should it be] less in the Symbol than elsewhere? Rather, one ought to confess the truth in the Symbol." On hearing these things, a trembling seized you and those with you regarding proceeding to the examination ^A of the dogma, and you hurried to flee, longing for a departure from there.

EPHES. Even if they had remained in this objection to the end, they would have done well to have departed from there, had they not been persuaded again by some, who brought forward the argument that it was unseemly to depart without having spoken anything concerning the dogma. They accepted the transition, both that which moved from the addition to the dogma, and that which moved from Ferrara to Florence.

RESP. Some imprudently indeed wished to persist in that intention with which they had begun to insist, and to be separated, and to depart from there, of whom you were the leader. But those who were eager for their own salvation, recognizing ^B how great is the danger of heresy in those who separate themselves from the Church, they—stricken with fear of this wickedness—wished not to be afflicted with the disease; but with great willingness, they permitted both the dogma to be questioned and the truth to be clarified, so that they might embrace it. Wherefore, having persuaded others also to acquiesce to fairness, they admitted the disquisition of the second problem; they admitted also that the move be made from Ferrara to Florence, since Eugenius of blessed memory, the most holy Roman pontiff, no longer had [the means] at Ferrara, nor was he finding [a way] to give to you each your stipend; and notifying the Florentines to lend him forty thousand gold pieces, he sent them his miter as a pledge. They, having received the pledge, counted out the money; and they promised that they would give as much again as a gift, if he would transfer the synod to their city, so that, forsooth, their republic might be honored by this, if the definition were to be made therein. This, therefore, was the cause why they transferred themselves from Ferrara to Florence.

EPHES. ^C When we arrived there, we undertook the disputation concerning the dogma, the Latins bringing forward statements, some from certain apocryphal and unknown books, and others from those that were forged and corrupted, in which they asserted that their own opinion was established. Consequently, I again engaged with them, and by confuting the absurdity of their opinion, and by clearly demonstrating the books to be forged, I accomplished nothing toward persuasion, except that my time was ^D consumed in vain and fruitlessly.

RESP. The first to [speak] concerning the dogma was that John, a man of the highest intellect in theology, and adorned with the dignity of master in the institute of Saint Dominic, who began the disputation. "Having received," he said, "the blessing of the most blessed Father, I shall conduct the investigation with you concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit." When he brought forth texts not from certain apocryphal and unknown books, nor from forged

manuscripts, as you say—unless perhaps you understand the books of Basil the Great and Athanasius, as well as those of Epiphanius and the holy Cyril, to be apocryphal, from which John brought forth texts in the name of the Latins, by which he strove to demonstrate the truth of the dogma. For those holy men did not wish to establish this dogma through Latin teachers, but through Eastern Fathers, so that you would have nothing to say to the contrary, which is indeed what has happened. But you, unable to bear the truth, called the books of the teachers corrupt and forged; at which time great ignominy was cast upon you by the entire synod, and especially by the leaders of inner Francia, who, having heard that you were calling the books of the Eastern teachers corrupt, cried out with a loud voice: ^B "This man is a cursed heretic! Let him be eternally excommunicated, for he rejects the teachers; and if he does not trust his own Eastern teachers, what would he say about our own, the Western ones?" When confusion thus arose, you departed, having accomplished nothing. At the following session, when those men had advanced an argument from the words of the great Cyril, you denied entirely that the saint spoke thus. And when John brought forward Epiphanius in agreement with Cyril, you called those texts forged as well. Then that profound and exalted theologian, constrained, brought forth a text of the great Basil from his books against Eunomius, agreeing with what had been previously presented; but you called this forged too. Thus, by calling corrupt all the books that were produced, you were held to be utterly foolish by everyone; at which time you even sent the minister of the prelate of Nicomedeia to bring the book of the holy Basil which contains that statement: "For what necessity is there, etc." But he, moved either by his own malice or prompted by you, wished to hide the truth, and having taken the book, he came to the window, intending to scrape out that statement, and having marked the page where the sentiment was found, he sought a knife with which to erase it. But the Spirit of Truth did not permit this to happen, that the truth ^C might not be extinguished; he stirs up a sudden gust of wind, through which it came to pass that the page containing the statement was turned, and another presented itself; he, in his haste, erased one in place of the other. Then, with a swift step, having returned to the synod, he went boldly to convince the Latins. But as his father opened the book and saw the complete sentence, looking askance at the minister, he pointed out the fact, and he, trembling, cried out: "So help me, Lord, may your blessing profit me; I erased it, but how it is whole again, I do not know." When the sentence was thus found to be intact, you withdrew in confusion; and are you not now ashamed to say that the dogma of the Latins was proven absurd by you? You ought to have been ashamed to utter these things. For you were not writing to the ignorant, or to desert regions of the earth where there would be no one who, being privy to the facts, might chance upon your letters. For the Acts bear witness to the truth, that you shouted nothing else than: "The book presented is apocryphal." They brought a text of Cyril, you called it corrupt; they provided one of Basil, you said: "It is forged"; and in this consisted the substance of your reply.

Then, when they asked you to produce the truth, you sought for a delay to go to Constantinople to find it. Such were the brave words of yours and the strength of your argument, which in truth it is shameful to recount. Therefore, enough on this. ^A

EPHES. For as one saying succeeded another, and argument begat argument, as is standard in such matters, the truth was not enabled to demonstrate its own strength; rather, those men vomited much ink before themselves, and obscured it with their long-windedness.

RESP. Since you claimed that the words of the great Athanasius were corrupt, it was necessary to bring forward for you the words of other holy men, and they were brought from Epiphanius and Cyril. But you called those also apocryphal, unknown, and corrupted. Wherefore, argument begetting argument, as is always accustomed to happen in such matters, proceeded to infinity. And on your part, there was always one brave thing you repeated: "This is corrupted, that is forged; this is unknown, that is apocryphal." But the Latins who were debating with you were indignant, and in wonder they said: "Reverend Father of Ephesus, all the books of your holy men that we show, you call them corrupted, ^B and they are Greek. If, therefore, the Greek codices are corrupted and spurious, and we do not wish to present Latin ones—so that all suspicion may be absent—from where shall we demonstrate the truth, that you might be convinced? Show the truth yourself, Reverend Father." But since you had nothing else to say except that they were corrupted and spurious, it was necessary for them, by the words of the doctor that followed, to reconcile the mind and to extend long arguments for the proof and explanation of the saying. The Latins, however, did not vomit ink in their responses while searching for the truth; rather, it was you who always spoke and wrote with insults, and had poison on your lips, for which reason you were also condemned as being superstitious. ^C

EPHES. Until, having given up hope again, exhausted by my customary infirmity, and seeing the fruitlessness of the arguments, I directed a long speech to them, as much as I was able, in which I set forth with very many irrefutable testimonies the truth of our dogma: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son. ^D

RESP. It is true what you say, that you were destitute of hope: because you were unable to speak against the noble syllogisms of brother John, when he, in turn, questioned you by means of syllogisms regarding that saying of the great Basil: "For we do not receive anything from the Spirit, as we receive the Spirit from the Son." In this utterance, he showed you to be ignorant of sacred theology, while he was instructing you, as one would a student, on how the procession of the all-holy Spirit must be understood; for the Acts are like a mirror, and testify to the truth. Nor indeed did you see his words—

^A I mean the barrenness in those words of his, but rather, power and strength. The weakness you had from habit, we have already mentioned, and will mention again shortly, so that everyone might know who it was. But because you were unable to look upon the power and strength of John's words, you wished to run away, cowardly shrinking from the rigor of the discussion. And you extended your speech—a long one indeed, but one bearing no fruit of discussion—but rather, taking everything from Cabasilas and Palamas and the schismatics of their party, you set forth naked sayings of the Gospel, thinking that from them you would show that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son; which you indeed set out to show in an admitted way, but you did not show it, nor did those sayings serve your purpose at all. For to say, "Who proceeds from the Father" ^B does not just fail to support your argument, but openly contradicts it. For he does not say, "Who proceeds from the Father alone," or "from the Father and not from the Son." And to say, "When the Paraclete comes, whom the Father will send," gives you no strength; for he does not say, "Whom the Father alone will send," or "Whom the Son does not send." And as for what Paul says, "We have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God," it does not support your intention; for he does not say, "the Spirit of the Father alone, and not of the Son," but, "the Spirit," he says, "who is from God," and God is the Father and the Son. By what sayings, therefore, did you show in the council that the Spirit is from the Father alone, as you boast here? From the ones already mentioned? But they do not say "from the Father alone," but simply "proceeding from the Father," and the Latins will agree with these words also. For this is the whole sense of that argument which you extended. But the defenders of the truth will say that these testimonies ^C do not contradict those who say that He proceeds also from the Son. For if they had said, "Who is from the Father and not from the Son," or "The Spirit is from the Father alone, and not also from the Son," or "The Father alone brings forth [produces] the Spirit, but not also the Son," and other things like that, you would have a shadow of a reason to wrangle and contend. But even if they had said "from the Father alone," it would not be sufficient for what you desire; for it is possible to know this same thing from other evangelical utterances. For the Savior says: "Concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only my Father" ^D and again: "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me." In these, therefore, he clearly denied that he himself knows, unless it be the Father alone; and that his teaching is not his, but the Father's. Yet we correctly and laudably believe the exact opposite, and we say that he knows that day and hour just as the Father does, and we hold that his doctrine is also his; if therefore we believe the opposite of those things which he visibly denied, and hold this with right faith, why should we not here, where he added no negation, believe that the Holy Spirit is also from him, when this very thing is verified by other holy

^A scriptural texts which the Savior sets before us? For He says somewhere: "When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you." This is that Comforter whom the Father sends forth; if, therefore, the Father sends him forth and the Son sends him, what difference is there between being sent and being sent forth from him? And again: "When he comes, he will lead you into all truth. He will glorify me, for he will take from what is mine and proclaim it to you; for all that the Father has is mine." For this reason I said that "he takes from what is mine." And elsewhere: He breathed and said to the disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit." All these things show that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Whence, then, and from what texts have you shown that the Spirit is from the Father alone? From the doctors of the Church? And how is it possible for the same ones to say that he is from the Father alone, and also from the Father and the Son? ^B For if they said so, they would contradict themselves, saying certain things in certain places and others elsewhere. For it behooves them to say [it is] either from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son; but no one of the holy ones has said "from the Father alone," except for the heretic Nestorius, while all the teachers of the Church explicitly proclaim the production [to be] also from the Son. For immediately the great pillar of the Church, the truly great and holy Athanasius, says in his profession of faith: "The Holy Spirit is not created or made ^C or begotten from the Father and the Son, but is proceeding." The same man, in his discourse on the incarnation of the Lord, has this: "Let no one have the suspicion that he [the Son] received what he did not have; for he was himself sending him from above as God, and he was himself receiving him from below as man; from himself, therefore, he descended into him, from his divinity into his humanity."

The most divine Basil says in the third book *Against Eunomius*: "For what necessity compels that, because the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, he must also be third in nature? For the word of piety hands down that he is second in dignity to the Son, having his being from him, and receiving from him and proclaiming it to us, and entirely hanging from that cause." ^D His brother, the divine Gregory of Nyssa, teaches the same thing in many of his discourses, but especially in his third homily *On the Lord’s Prayer*, where he explains clearly, saying: "For the only-begotten Son is named by the holy Scripture as from the Father, and the definition of his property in the sacred Scriptures stops there; but the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is also attested to be from the Son: 'For if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person is not his,' says the divine Apostle."

The blessed Cyril also, the light of the Church of the Alexandrians, in his letter to Nestorius, the beginning of which is: "When our Savior clearly declares: Whoever..."

"who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me," has this: "Even if the Spirit has a proper subsistence, by which it is understood in itself as Spirit and not as Son, nevertheless it is not alien to the Son. For it is called the Spirit of truth, and truth is Christ; and it is poured forth from him, just as indeed it is from God the Father." Moreover, that word "poured forth" is placed by the teacher in place of the word "proceeds," as he himself says in the exposition of the Creed in these words: "And it is poured forth, that is, it proceeds." ^A The same person, in his commentaries on the prophet Joel, explaining those words: "I will pour out of my Spirit," has this: "For indeed the Son is God and is by nature from God; for he has been begotten of God the Father, and the Spirit is his own, and in him, and from him, just as indeed it is understood also of God the Father." ^B The same person, in the commentaries in which he refutes Palladius, speaks thus: "The Spirit is subject to no mutability; for if it were to labor under the evil of mutability, this stain would be cast upon the divine nature itself, since the Spirit is of God the Father and of the Son himself, who substantiates it from both, that is, it is poured forth from the Father through the Son." ^C The same person, in the exposition of the ninth anathema, says: "Having as his own the Holy Spirit, which is from him and is substantially implanted in him, the Son worked divine miracles." The blessed Chrysostom also, in the homily on the incarnation of the Lord, says: "Christ came to us, gave us the Spirit which is from him, and assumed our body." What, then, does that "which is from him" mean, if not that the Spirit which proceeds from him has been given to us? Furthermore, Simeon the New Theologian, who is also called the Metaphrast, on the fifth of the Ides of October, where he writes the life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, speaks thus: "The duties of the bodily advent reach their end, and those of the Spirit begin; and my Christ is carried up into the heavens and returns to the fatherly throne, and sends the Spirit which proceeds from him to the disciples as a guide to the unbelieving nations." Thus he speaks in harmony with the great father Chrysostom, while he says, "the Spirit which proceeds from him." ^D The blessed Epiphanius, archbishop of Cyprus, likewise says: "Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and his Spirit. But if Christ is believed to be God from God [born] of the Father, the Spirit also [is believed to be] from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: 'Who proceeds from the Father, and thus he shall receive of mine.'" And in the *Ancoratus*: "Just as no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father; so I dare to say, neither the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom it proceeds and from whom it receives, and neither [does anyone know] the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, who teaches all things and truly glorifies, who is from the Father and the Son." And a little further on: "The Spirit, moreover, is breathed forth from the Father and the Son."

^A Likewise, the blessed Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his epistle to the prelates of the East, which begins: "By many and great means of Providence," has this: "And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and who is himself recognized as God."

And St. Hilary, in his sermon after Pentecost, says thus: "We believe in the Holy Trinity, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one omnipotent God, of one substance, of one essence, of one power, the creator of all creatures; from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things; the Father from himself, not from another; the Son begotten of the Father, true God from true God, true light from true light, yet not two lights but one light; the Holy Spirit proceeding equally from the Father and the Son."

To this add Anastasius of the holy mountain of Sinai, in the sermon entitled, *Concerning the right dogmas of the truth which we believe*, the beginning of which is such: "Of those things which pertain to our blameless faith, he left written thus: 'From that which is characteristic of the body, having taken an example, we have declared how, in divine things, one thing is in another by proportion and the adumbration of members. For in this way, the spirit of his mouth, that is to say of God, is called the Holy Spirit, since the Unigenitus is the mouth.' And again: 'The Spirit, who proceeds and is sent from him, not from the Father alone, but also from the Son.' ^B And after a few words: 'And thus the Lord, that he might show from whom the Holy Spirit exists, breathing upon the disciples said: Receive the Holy Spirit.'"

The holy Damascene also, in the thirteenth chapter of the *Divine Things*, has these words: "The manifestative power of the hidden divinity of the Father is from the Father, proceeding through the Son, as he knows." And a little before: "He therefore is the mind, the abyss of the Word, the begetter of the Word, and through the Word, the producer of the manifestative Spirit." But regarding the "from the Son," we do not say [that] the Spirit [is]—which the same doctor says in the eighth chapter, lest anyone should doubt; we have already solved this in the first chapter of the definition, while we were writing an apology for the five chapters.

^D Again, the blessed Cyril, in the second book to Hermias, says thus: "But you shall call the Holy Spirit he who is poured forth naturally from the Father through the Son." That the preposition "through" is equivalent to "from," and has the same force as that one, we shall show you after a little while. Now, therefore, what have you to say to these things? Are not those who have been brought forward saints and doctors of the Church? ^C If, therefore, all these, by different words and expressions in their own writings, confess and teach that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, whence do you have it, from that place of holy Scripture, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone?

^A Show us, which of the teachers says "from the Father alone"? Which of the saints? Which of the synods has said this? Why have you become vain, and why do you strive also to deceive others? Do you not fear the Lord, who is going to judge the living and the dead? How have you denied Him not to be consubstantial, and co-throned, and co-powerful with the Father, and co-eternal, and possessing everything that the Father possesses, save only being the Father? For He Himself says: "All things that the Father has are mine"; and again: "You, Father, are in me, and I in you"; and: "All things mine are yours, and yours are mine"; and in the prayer, speaking of the disciples, He says: "Give to them, that they may be one, as we are one." If, therefore, the Son is one with the Father, how does the Spirit proceed from the Father alone, He who proceeds indivisibly from the Father and the Son? These things it behooved you to look into, and not at the writings of Cabasilas, and Palamas, and Phurnis, and Camaterus, and Moschamparis, and others—that I might not name them one by one—by listening to whom you became a schismatic and an enemy of the truth; and when, in the synod, you brought forward not the sayings of the saints, but theirs, you were put to shame, when those teachers of the Church were brought forward against you, and not being able to look up, you fled, ashamed; and now are you not ashamed to say that you demonstrated there that the Spirit is from the Father alone? You indeed proposed to demonstrate it, when the prelates of further France drove you out with the sound of their feet and their voices, calling you a heretic and accursed in a loud voice, but you demonstrated it in no way, but only uttered naked sayings: "Who proceeds from the Father," and the like; to which we have already responded, nor is there reason to speak further.

EPHESIUS

RESP.

it is fitting that we agree as you do; the saying of the great Basil had not yet reached its end, and you brought into the midst other premises and other topics external to the subject at hand, teaching, as it seems, the listeners. ^A Speak, therefore, at as great a length as you yourself wish; since I do not have it in my power to set you a law, but the most serene emperor does. Nevertheless, I shall myself observe the dignity and the order of the discussions, and I shall never reply to what you say until you have offered an apology according to the order of the cited testimonies, in the manner in which we began the discussion, so that once one has been clarified, we may begin the other. Having heard these things, therefore, a certain stupor seized you, and you were constrained to come to the questioning and answering of the testimonies; and immediately, after saying a few things, you shouted, "Saecula saeculorum," which is to say, "I do not wish to speak further; I have reached the end." Wherefore also the most blessed Pope said: "It is just, since you have said what you wished, that you should also hear the apologies, and the final points of John the Provincial." As you were unwilling to reply, but had said only a few words, distorted and corrupt and external to the subject, the assembly was dissolved, and you no longer wished to gather. ^B Yet the dogma of the Latins, which you call new and forbidden, you have neither shown nor will ever show, neither you nor someone else more learned or more eloquent than you; for this dogma is not new, since from the second synod it has existed and been chanted in the Roman Church; nor is it Latin or Greek, for faith is not divided into parts, but is Christian; for all the teachers, Greeks and Latins, think the same thing; unless you wish to appear so absurd as to call even the eastern saints and teachers Latins.

EPHESUS

THE REPLY

^A but you did not wish to, pretending that you were detained by a severe illness. When your fellow citizens understood the natural illness which you had, they kept silent. The Latins alone, with no one provided for the defense, said that there was no need for an apology to be made by our side, because the discourse of the Latins was an answer to the things you had objected.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A And further on the text: *When it was evening on that day*, he says: *When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father*. For if sending were to be understood only as becoming incarnate, the Holy Spirit, who was never incarnate, would undoubtedly in no way be said to be sent. But this mission of His is His procession, by which He proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The divine Ambrose, in the first book of his *On the Holy Spirit* to the Emperor Gratian (cap. 10), says this: "But neither when He departs from the Father does He withdraw from a place, and as it were become separated from body by body; nor, when He is in the Father, is He included as if in a body, like a body. Also, the Holy Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father, nor is He separated from the Son. For in what way can He be separated from the Father, being the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly a proof of eternity and expresses the unity of the Godhead."

^B The most divine Augustine, writing to Orosius in a sermon (cap. 10), the beginning of which is, "Our Lord Jesus Christ manifested that He would thus come [depart]," speaking on this subject in many places, has this also: "Why, therefore, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, since He is the Spirit of the Son as well? For if He did not proceed from Him, He would not, after His resurrection, when showing Himself to the disciples, have breathed on them, saying: *Receive the Holy Spirit*."

And a little later: "But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son to sanctify the creature, but proceeds from both together; although the Father has given this to the Son, that, just as He proceeds from Him, He should so proceed from Him also. ^C For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, since the Father is life and the Son is life; and for this reason, just as the Father has life in Himself, so He also gave to the Son to have life in Himself, and so He gave that life should proceed from Him also, just as it proceeds from Himself."

The same, from the book *On Faith to Peter* (cap. 11): "Believe most firmly, and doubt in no way, that the same Holy Spirit, who is one Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. For the Son says: *When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father*; by which He taught that the Spirit is His own, since He Himself is the truth. ^D Prophetic and apostolic teaching also commends to us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. For Isaiah says of the Son: *He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the spirit of His lips He shall slay the wicked one*. Of whom the Apostle also says: *Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the Spirit of His mouth*."

^A And what need is there to recount everything which the Western Doctors of the Church say? We consider even these things sufficient for the demonstration of the truth, and capable of persuading a soul not steeped in obstinacy and prejudice, as thine was, venerable Ephesian; for thou hast never wished to understand the truth and to be united with these saints and doctors, but hast preferred to be with Palamas and Cabasilas and the rest, who ended their lives in misery. But as for thy saying that they showed, through their own doctors, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father, I wonder greatly if thou dost not consider them doctors whom the councils have set forth to all Christians, and who agree with themselves and with the Oriental doctors, and especially ^B in dogmas regarding the faith.

EPHES. In the second session, they were perverting rather than refuting what had been said by me, and were setting forth the opinions of our doctors as being, as it seemed to them, contrary to us.

RESP. ^C In this second session, after thy flight, Brother John once again held forth on divine matters, and again shouted with a loud voice: "Bring the Ephesian here; for I wish to refute what he has said." And the synod again sent a messenger to summon thee. But those who were sent, searching for thee, found thee raving and shrieking with inarticulate sounds. And when they called thee to come to the synod, thou didst answer: "I cannot come; for this night the cardinals came, having removed the roof of the dwelling, and they struck my body with fiery rods; the cardinals killed me, and now they summon ^D me to come to the synod? I cannot. Do you not even see the wounds yourselves?" And thou didst display thy limbs, saying: "See how I am all black and blue from the beating?" But they, understanding the malady from which thou wast suffering, returned and announced to the holy synod that thou couldst not come, for thou wert infirm. Whence Brother John again said: "I wished the Ephesian to be here, and to be present with us in this session; but as it seems, defeated, he has despaired. Therefore, come, let me make the response to you." And bringing forward the sayings of the Oriental doctors, which we also set forth earlier, and many other things—for we had only put forward a few—he proved nobly and more clearly than the sun that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son; and he refuted manfully what had previously been said by thee, and cast them to the ground as false and perverse, and utterly alien to the theology and mind of the saints. And he set forth the usage of our doctors, contrary to those things spoken by thee, but truly consonant with the truth; not in the sense in which thou, by understanding perversely, didst expound them, but as they themselves wrote and as their right mind held; leaving thee where he cast thee down, a corpse worthy of laughter, from whence thou wert not at all able to rise.

^A EPHES. Since I remained silent, none of ours any longer dared to oppose them, partly because the leaders judged that this was necessary, and partly because all were hesitant to engage in the contest, fearing lest they should fall into strife and turmoil. They, reckoning our silence as a windfall suddenly offered to them, challenged our people to battle just like fugitives; and when we did not respond at all, they applauded as if they were victors, and as if they had the truth on their side.

RESP. They applauded not as victors, but as those free from the blame which you were casting upon them by way of calumny. For you and those who agree with you held the Latins to be heretics because they say that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, and you accused them and called them transgressors and corrupters of the Creed. They, however, having brought forward teachers both Eastern and Western who support their dogma, or rather the truth, applauded because they are in no way rash corrupters of the Creed, nor heretics, but proclaimers of the truth, since the truth had already shone forth through the teachers of the Church. Our people, furthermore, challenged them if they wished to speak against the testimonies of the teachers. Our people, then, did not dare to oppose such manifest things, nor did they wish to stand against them at all—not as being hesitant or afraid, as you say, but as considering it folly to speak against the truth, which was shown so clearly by both Eastern and Western teachers. ^B You, however, remained silent with craft, not as one desiring to be silent, but as one who was not able to contradict; for who, when debating in the stadium, chooses to be silent of his own accord? For silence at once indicates victory. Therefore, the one debating must always speak until he either conquers or is conquered. But you, when you could no longer speak, practiced an involuntary silence, feigning illness, and in this way you avoided the contest, clearly to save your honor, so that you would not be defeated before the synod; for, having shame before your eyes, you did not wish to attend the synod.

EPHES. This they were always going to do, being so thoroughly prepared to contradict everything that is said, and to attribute the victory to themselves.

RESP. Those who have the truth with them are always prepared to speak against falsehood. We, too, are now ready and prepared to stand against the enemies of the peace that has been initiated. Therefore, the Latins were then, and are now, and will always be prepared—not to speak against that which is well said, but to refute steadfastly that which is said wrongly and falsely, and to drive it away as something execrable; not as if attributing the name of victory to themselves, but as fulfilling their duty—that is to say, driving away falsehood from the truth so that it might not obscure it. As for you, affirming the Spirit ^D to be from the Father alone, and [affirming] this from no doctor...

teacher, but from your own [belly] thoughts, they could not remain silent, but said: "Until it was [demonstrated] most clearly that [He is] also from the Son"—and thus they drove away falsehood from the truth.

EPHES.

RESP.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A and is equivalent to the power of the particle "from," and that the Son is the cause of all things? That "through" [διὰ] is intended to be the same as "from" [ἐκ], Basil and Chrysostom desired to show, explaining what is said in Genesis by Adam: "I have acquired a man through God"—for it is obviously ^B the same as saying, "from God." Whence the one, in his main treatise to Amphilochius, clarifies the matter thus, saying: "Already, even in those things signified by one another, 'through' and 'from' often interchange, when the one takes on the meaning of the other; for example, 'I have acquired a man of God,' which is equivalent to saying, 'from God.'" And the other, in his fifty-third homily on Matthew, says: "For Scripture knows, in place of this word 'from anyone,' to use the word 'through anyone'; as when it says: 'I have acquired a man through God'—not positing this as a secondary cause, but rather as the primary one. And again: 'Is not his interpretation 'from God'?'" The blessed Cyril also, in his letter to Nestorius, which begins, "They slander, as I hear, some people," says: "It is necessary to confess that He was also born according to the flesh through a woman." And a little later: "He was born, like us, from a woman." And you would frequently find in his same letter that he uses these prepositions interchangeably, using "through" at one time and "from" at another, as though they were indifferently equivalent. And Paul also, to the Galatians, says: "God sent forth His Son, born from a woman" (Galatians iv, 4). And the blessed Damascene, in his odes to the Theotokos, ^C sometimes says: "We acknowledge God incarnate from thee"; and the same author elsewhere: "From thee, chaste one, the ineffably incarnate One proceeded." At other times he sings: "Through thee, O Virgin, God conversed with men," and, "Through thee, O Virgin, the Savior arrived." That it is indeed true that the prepositions "from" and "through" are equivalent and possess the same force, is evident from this. For Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, finds fault with many of the twelve chapters of the great Cyril which that holy man had previously set forth against Nestorius. And when in the ninth anathema Cyril says: "The Son, having His own Holy Spirit—who is from Him and substantially implanted in Him—wrought divine miracles," Theodoret objects thus: "If Cyril spoke as of someone of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, we shall willingly agree and accept the expression as pious; but if he speaks thus, that the Spirit [has] existence from the Son, or through the Son, we shall reject it as blasphemous and impious." Behold, ^D Theodoret clearly shrank from saying both "through" and "from" regarding the procession of the Spirit from the Son. For he, denying entirely that the Spirit is from the Son, just as you deny it, admitted neither "from the Son" nor "through the Son." You, however, admit "through the Son," but you cannot even bear to hear "from the Son." But, O friend, according to Theodoret it signifies the same thing. That you acknowledge [the Spirit] is through the Son, the Damascene, in chapters eight and thirteen (1) [evidences] through...

the Son." And you yourselves sing with a loud voice: "The Spirit, bestower of goodness, proceeding from the Father through thee, O Christ." And in the canon of Pentecost you have: "For thou art the river of divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son." But even if you sing this, you do not know that the word "through" is intended [to mean] the same as "from"; for Theodoret, who is greater than you, knew that "through" is equivalent to "from," and for this reason he rejects both of these prepositions. Since, therefore, these prepositions agree according to the things said, the great Prelate of Nicaea, Bessarion, philosophizes rightly on this, and attributes the cause of the Spirit to the Son through the preposition "through." And you rail in vain both against him who asserted that peace should be embraced, and against him who argued that "through" and "from" mean the same thing, ^B when you ought to have embraced the one who spoke of peace.

OF EPHESUS

Thus, little by little, Latinism broke out, and they began to treat of the manner of reconciling peace, and to curiously investigate certain sayings through which a peace might be made—sayings possessing a double meaning, and which could be drawn into either opinion like a buskin. For it seemed that this contributed much to their purpose, in that our side might more easily be drawn in through them, and it was hoped that the adversaries would admit them without any examination.

RESPONSE

Thus, little by little, Christianity began to shine forth; for previously it was obscured by the affliction of the schism, and henceforth the hierarchs of Christ, burning with divine zeal, labored to recover the ancient bond of peace, so that the body of the Church might not remain divided, and that the Church of Christ, the immaculate bride, might not weep bitterly over the division of her own children, but should rather rejoice, as is fitting, to see her own children united to one another. For this reason they labored to show that the sayings of the saints agree with one another, not curiously, as you say, but piously and ^C sincerely explaining them. Having seen, therefore, and having well understood these sayings, [showing] that they speak the same things as the teachers of the West, they were eagerly united to the Church of Christ, not through some "midway" point—away with such an absurdity!—nor did they think that the sayings of the saints held a middle ground between both opinions, nor did they have such a notion as to be united through a "midway" of certain sayings, so that the Latins might admit them without examination, and that through them a fabricated union might be established; this was far from their thought. For what "midway" will there be between truth and falsehood? And what fellowship has light with darkness? For either that which is "from the Father alone" is true, and that which is "from the Son" is false; or that which is "from the Son" is true, and that which is "from the Father alone" is false, as they are immediate contraries; for it is not permitted for both to stand together. What "midway," then, can the sayings provide—or [is it] what you call a "buskin"? For you are a buskin, and you had the notion of a buskin, being neither cold nor ^D

^A [77*] hot; and for this reason God, according to John in the Apocalypse, has loathed you and vomited you out; for the double-sided footwear, which is the buskin, is useless for either foot. You, therefore, being similar in this word and conception of yours, have appeared useless to the clear-sighted in both parties. But those holy and divine men, having carefully investigated the sayings, in which it is clearly asserted that the Spirit is from the Son, and that which is "out of" the Father alone is entirely rejected, accepted the saints and their expressions as genuine; and consequently they rightly occupied themselves with reconciling peace, piously and reverently.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A that the document might be explained to them. But if they did not wish the document to be explained, let them accept our own, which contained the true meaning of the teachers, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. And that this is true, we have shown earlier through the Eastern and Western saints, and there is no need to repeat the same things about this.

EPHES.

RESP.

EPHES.

^A who previously contended with me, and then afterwards, following one another in succession, rushed forward boldly with their sophisms, they thus asked the synod what opinion they held regarding those aforementioned passages, and whether they made the Son the cause of the Spirit.

**RESP.** This synod was held privately and in secret, with only our Orientals gathered, presiding, as you say, the Emperor and the Patriarch, and in brief, all the prelates of the East having been assembled. This synod the renowned Emperor himself convened in the Patriarch’s residence, because he was ill—not that "Latinism" might break forth, that is, as you indeed think, impiety, but that he might call piety into the light; for the Latins are not impious, but pious. In this synod, the Emperor delivered a speech to you all, reproaching you, as it were, for sloth, because you were neglecting the divine work of completing the peace and were wasting time idly in a foreign land, saying:

“My lords and prelates, why do we stay so long in Italy, and why do we not hasten to see the end of this business? See and give your mind to it more attentively, ^B lest this good thing escape us unawares. As for me, being Emperor by the grace of God who anointed me, I do not have to render as great an account to God as you do; for the duty of the Emperor is to defend the decree of the synod. You are the shepherds of the Church; all Christians look to you as guides of their souls; you are to render an account to God for their souls. Therefore, watch carefully; consider what is just and pleasing to God. Two paths are proposed to us here, and two dangerous precipices: that of conjunction and that of dissension. If the conjunction is good and orthodox, there is a danger that we might be deceived and reject it; and there also looms the danger in dissension, if we are not rightfully disjoined. Wherefore, you must weigh what is better and what is advantageous. Give judgments that do not harm your souls; for the union of the Churches is holy, provided that it is done with piety; the disjunction, on the other hand, is and is called a horrific thing. So, if we do not unite piously, we shall harm our souls; if, however, we are disjoined unjustly, we shall fall into the same state again. Therefore, consider what ought to be done. You know what a great evil the schism of the Churches has brought; for from the time it arose until now, the Greeks have considered the Latins as dogs, and the Latins likewise the Greeks. I think, therefore, that whoever, for the sake of currying favor with men, ^C opposes the pious union of the Church, will have a worse lot than Judas himself. But you, venerable Fathers, consider what is just, keeping the fear of God before your eyes. Do not desire, for the sake of the fleeting glory of one party or the other, to harm your own souls and the blood of the remaining Christians, who look to you as their shepherds and leaders.”

Hearing these things, all the prelates with one voice said: “Whoever shall prove an obstacle, preventing the pious union of Christians, let him be subject to anathema.” And thus each one gave his opinion, as it seemed right to each, with the holy Patriarch first starting. But one of those who were present at the synod, endowed with sanctity ^D

^A and virtue, said: "It is right to harmonize the statements of our holy fathers, since they are in agreement; for the same Spirit spoke in them, and there is no contradiction, and [it is right] for us to be united with the Church of the Romans." And you answered him, saying that the Latins are not only schismatics, but also heretics; wherefore it is not at all proper to be united with them, unless they cast out the addition from the Creed, and confess the Creed as we do also. When the Bishop of Nicaea heard this, he retorted to you: "And are those, therefore, who say that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son, heretics?" And you immediately answered: "Yes." And he said: "God be merciful to me; and are the saints who say this also heretics? Let the lips that speak against the saints be silenced." And then he brought forth the arguments of the Eastern doctors, and read to the whole ^B synod what you had neither seen nor known, for only those things written by Cabasilas and Palamas were known to you. But the Fathers, having inspected the opinions of the Eastern doctors, and having read also the statements of the Westerns, and finding them in agreement with those, they were all convinced by the truth that had appeared; for it is not right, once light has been shown, to close one’s eyes. And thus they gave their opinions in agreement, according to the Greeks indeed [calling the Son] a cause, but according to the Latins a principle of the production of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father.

EPHES.

They, for their part, responded that they did not doubt concerning the statements, that they were genuine [words] of the doctors, since the letter of holy Maximus provided faith in them; but the greater part ^C of them absolutely refused to attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Son, for so they understood the wise Maximus to define it.

RESP.

They no longer doubted about the statements, since it was now certain that they agreed among themselves, as being genuine [words] of the doctors; and because they perceived that this opinion had long flourished in the Roman Church. For Saint Maximus, who lived before the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, testifies that the Roman Church at that time sang in this way; and, speaking in harmony, he brings forward the Roman Fathers, and furthermore Cyril of Alexandria. But what you object as most valid is that which Maximus says: that those Fathers did not demonstrate it to be affirmed by them that the Son is a cause, but rather it was intended to denote that [the Spirit] proceeds through Him: for this, you say, even these men now, fearing, have agreed with the statements themselves according to Maximus, but the greater part of them have ^D absolutely refused to attribute the cause to the Son. But we shall reply to these points also in a few words: the statement of the venerable Maximus is understood in this way: he does not himself think the Son to be the principal and primordial cause of the Spirit, or a principle without principle, or a cause without a cause; for this belongs to the Father alone, and not to the Son, inasmuch as whatever the Son has, He has received it from the Father, from whom also He is.

For we too are able, following the great Theologian ^A Gregory, to say: A cause from a cause, light from light, God from God; as he himself says, The beginning from the beginning. Therefore, if the Son is also called a cause, it is not as a cause from Himself, but from the Father as the primal cause, yet through the Son and from the Son as through the Son. And this is what Maximus says: they did not show themselves to be making the Son an original cause of the Spirit, but intended to declare that it proceeds through Him. These, therefore, having understood it in this sense, to attribute to the Son the non-pre-initiating cause, acted rightly and piously. For we do not call the Son an original or pre-initiating cause of the Spirit, but from the Father as the first beginning, unoriginate and original, and from the Son and through the Son, as through Him from the Father. And thus we believe, and thus we boldly preach.

EPHESIAN.

RESPONDENT.

EPHESIAN.

corrupt, and at the same time thirsted for secession from it; although his own debt in the face of death compelled him to it. ^A

RESP. The holy patriarch first gave his verdict, that the Eastern saints agree with the Westerners; the other divinely inspired men followed him. If he were alive, you would neither say nor do such things; nor would you dare to call him corrupt if you saw even his shadow. For he desired the holy union of the Church, not for any fear, nor for glory, nor thirsting for a departure from here, but because he saw the reality of what many patriarchs before him had desired to see, yet did not see. For he saw the peace of the Church, the members of the Lord’s body united, and he rejoiced in the Spirit and signed with reverence, confessing the Holy Spirit also from the Son, the purification of souls, and that the Roman pontiff is the head of all priests. And thus, bending his knees, he prayed, and lifting his hands to heaven, he gave thanks to God, and thus rendered up his holy soul. But you, who shamelessly slander him and those with him, did not do so, but breathed your last along with the filth of the latrine; the whole city bears witness to this. Thus, the divine justice knows how to balance each one according to his own faith, as it did of old with ^B Arius, who derived his name from madness; for he sent his bowels downwards, while you sent your filth upwards.

EPHES. I, for my part, having my opinion and confession of faith written down—for it had been decreed beforehand that everyone should deliver his opinion in writing—when I saw them already being carried with great inclination of mind toward conciliating peace, and those who stood with me before having just collapsed to the others, and no mention at all being made of writings, I myself also held back the document, so that by not provoking them to anger, I might not cast myself into an imminent danger.

RESP. It had indeed been agreed beforehand that each should deliver his own confession, in writing of course, before the sayings of the saints had been seen; but once they were known and they agreed with them, there was no need to give written confessions, ^D since the saints through their own sayings make all things clear. For this reason, no one gave an opinion in writing there, but a few did so by word of mouth, beginning with the emperor and the first four or five, while the others, being unlearned, gave their opinion only on the sayings of the saints. But you, having your confession written down, full of heresies and empty talk, feared to give it, lest instead of honor you incur mockery; and you saw those who previously lay pitifully with you in the abyss of Hades, rising up bravely, sobering up from the schism, coming reverently to the bond of peace, and hastening with zeal toward the holy union; and you could not bear it.

^A Patres et magistros Ecclesiæ, te vero esse alienum, et hostem eorum. EPHESUS. I did, however, freely declare my own opinion with boldness, that the sayings of the Western and Eastern Fathers could not otherwise be reconciled than according to the exposition of the epistle of the venerable Maximus; namely, by saying that the Son is not the cause of the Spirit; noting, moreover, that matter concerning the addition, which, because of the reasons adduced, was neither rightly done nor reasonably applied. After this, they did their own business and applied themselves to writing the definition and the rest of the things pertaining to unity.

RESPONSE. By your speech, indeed, you spewed out heresies and blasphemies before the emperor and the patriarch and the whole Eastern assembly, when you called the Latins schismatics and heretics; whereat all mocked you, having heard such words. For what synod ever called the Latins heretics? How is it that you did not dare to say this in front of the Latins? It is because you could not prove it. But when you also impudently shouted that the Spirit is from the Father alone, the Fathers, hearing this, were crushed, and looking at one another, they covered their ears; and having brought forth books and the sayings of the saints, they showed the truth; having seen which, you were seized by blindness. And when you also foolishly pronounced that you would never share communion with the Latins unless they expunged from the Creed that which they added, because those who say the Spirit is also from the Son are heretics, you heard: "Let the lips that speak against the saints be made dumb; for the saints of the Church say this"; and you were ashamed and were silent. The rest of the Fathers, however, having agreed with the sayings of the Eastern and Western Fathers according to the sense of the venerable Maximus, were joined first to the saints, then to one another; and then they looked also to the agreement of the definition, as was fitting, and did the remaining things that made for peace, so that this divine and holy work might have an end in the concord and union of Christians.

EPHESUS. But I, having separated myself from them from that time, have devoted myself to my own studies, so that I might remain joined to my holy Fathers and teachers, and I make my own opinion clear to all through this writing of mine; so that it may be permitted to anyone who wishes to test whether I, rejoicing in sound dogmas, or some who are perverted, did not accept the union that came about. ^D

RESPONSE. And you, indeed, having separated yourself from the Fathers of the sacred synod, are also separated from the holy flock of Christ; being separated, therefore, from the sheepfold of Christ, you are outside the saving ark; and he who is outside the ship must needs be tormented by the waves of wicked heresy. For everyone who is separated from an ecumenical synod shows himself to be an enemy, and to the enemies of the ecumenical [...]

^A synod no other name is given than that they are called heretics. We, however, that we may not suffer from this incurable disease, and become heretics and enemies of this Church of Christ, submit ourselves to this holy and sacred synod, and we remain in unity. And while you, having occupied yourself with follies, and with empty appearances of glory, and with the honors of common men, and reveling in these day by day, have cast forth blasphemous words against the holy and sacred synod, we, having occupied ourselves with the sayings of the saints, honor it, and we defend it day by day. How, therefore, your shameless mouth, which spoke iniquity against the heights and blasphemy, was filled with filth at the time of your bitter departure from this life, is known to those who have learned to speak the truth. And you, as you say, have joined yourself to your holy Fathers and teachers, to Photius the first schismatic, or rather the author and craftsman of the schism and the division, to Cabasilas, Palamas, Camateros, Phurnios, Psellos, Moschampar, ^B the Bulgarian, Nicholas of Methone, Panaretos, and the others who after the schism and much contention inveighed against the Roman Church, and who ignorantly and shamelessly trifled that the Spirit is from the Father alone, thinking in all things just as the senseless Nestorius, for he too attributed the production of the Spirit to the Father alone. Thus you are separated, firstly, from all the holy and divine Fathers who have shone forth in the general councils, and secondly, from all those who, leaving behind the sacred monuments of the writers, have taught clearly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; and who, while they spoke on divine matters, manifestly handed down that He proceeds through the Son, and from the Son, and from both, and the rest; these indeed are Hilary, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory the Dialogist, Gregory the Theologian, the ^C great Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, Leo the Great, Maximus, Anastasius, Tarasius, Damascenus, and others. We, however, separate ourselves entirely from those to whom you have adhered, and we desire to have and will have no communion with them; but we reverently join ourselves to those from whom you yourself have separated. And may you indeed, at the second coming of Christ, be numbered among those who said that the Spirit is from the Father alone; but for us, may it happen that we be in the order of those who, treating of divine things, confess the Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son. And just as you, being here an enemy of the synod and the Roman Church, will be found there its enemy, so we, being here friends and obedient to the catholic Church ^D of Christ and to the general synod, pray that we may also be found such there. Furthermore, this opinion of yours, which you make known to all, we have already, by the grace of God, refuted, partly by disproving the absurdities that are in it, and partly by demonstrating that the things you say are false through the testimonies of the doctors of the Church: so that it may be permitted to anyone to weigh whether you speak true or false things, and that it may be made known to all, that you, following the perverse dogmas of your forementioned teachers, have been unwilling to receive the orthodox, irreprehensible, true, undisturbed, and holy unity;

1093 REFUTATION OF MARK OF EPHESUS.

1098 ...that we accept and approve the dogmas which it sanctioned and promulgated as true and pious, not as perverse, as you yourself babble; and we confess the holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be one principality, one kingdom, one power, one divinity, one will and operation: the Father from no one, unbegotten, lacking a beginning, omnipotent; the Son begotten from the Father alone, coeternal and co-omnipotent with the Father; the Holy Spirit likewise co-temporal, co-eternal, consubstantial, and co-omnipotent, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding eternally and equally from both as from one principle and one producer. Thus we believe, thus we preach, thus we confess, and thus it is our prayer to feel until the last breath of life as we depart from this life; and at the tremendous coming of the Savior, when He shall come to judge the world, to meet Him as He comes in the clouds with this confession. For to Him is due glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[Greek text follows, repeating the content above:]

...having followed, you did not wish to accept the orthodox, and blameless, and true, and unclouded, and holy union, which we venerate and with reverence praise as having dogmatized the truth; and we cherish and accept the things proclaimed therein, not as distorted, as you babble, but as right and sound; confessing the holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one beginning, one kingdom, one power, one divinity, one will and operation; the Father from no one, unbegotten, without beginning, omnipotent; the Son begotten from the Father alone, co-beginning, co-powerful; the Holy Spirit co-beginning, co-eternal, consubstantial, co-powerful, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, eternally proceeding equally from both as from one beginning and one producer. Thus we believe, thus we preach, thus we confess, and thus we pray that we may remain until the last breath as we depart from the present life; and at the terrible presence of the Savior, when He shall come to judge the inhabited world, to meet Him as He comes in the clouds with this confession. For to Him is due glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CANON ON THE EIGHTH SYNOD HELD IN FLORENCE POEM BY THE PRIEST JOHN PLOUSIADENOS Whose acrostich is: With gentle words I, John, celebrate the synod.

^A From the ends of the earth, gathered together today by divine Spirit in the illustrious city of the Florentines, the sacred teachers have driven far away the falsehood of the dual-principle and the abominable dogma of the commingling. Clearly led from above by Christ the King, they appeared like unbreakable columns, the presidents of the Church, the soldiers of Christ, opponents of impiety and teachers of piety. Piously, O faithful, let us come together, and with faithful applause let us extol with hymns this illustrious and holy synod, magnifying Jesus Christ who brought all into agreement in the same faith. You, O chaste Virgin, Mother of Jesus, who fittingly join the separated, you exist as Lady, offspring of David, Theotokos Mary, splendor of angels and rejoicing of earth-born men. ^B Divinely gathered, the sacred synod and all the teachers of the Church have joined in union, O Christ, for your divine flock, which you strengthened with your own blood, O Master. The crown of all the Fathers today, and all the elite of the theologians, have assembled together, and having gathered here in the western parts, they quickly dispersed all the darkness of division. Towers of piety, defenders of the churches, and shepherds of the whole world, and teachers of theology, the divine—

^A today declare of the Spirit, who proceeds piously from the Father and the Son.

Deliver from all necessity and temptation all who call upon thy divine Name, O Lady, and who piously venerate and magnify thee, truly as the Theotokos, and thy most holy Son.

You have received from Christ the power to excise and repel from His flock all heresies and schisms by the strength of the Spirit, O God-bearing Fathers, who have come together; wherefore we rightly magnify you.

Florence became a new Sion, gathering the Fathers from everywhere unto itself, and with godly wisdom it sent forth the sacred decree to all parts of the earth, proclaiming the orthodox faith, having composed it with much theology and wisdom.

The sacred and highly venerable assembly of the Fathers clearly dissolved all the difficulty of the impious, and set forth the divine dogma of the Trinity, with a right confession and wise understanding of the holy Symbol of the faith.

^B That we might theologize about Thy divinity in an orthodox manner, by divine nod Thou didst gather all the leaders of the churches in Florence, and removed all scandals from the midst; through them Thou hast apportioned peace and concord to all.

Thou hast appeared, O Virgin, as the glory of mortals and the exultation of angels, having given birth in the flesh to Christ, the King of all and Creator of all creation. Therefore, O Mother-Virgin, through thee do we who are saved bless thy Offspring without ceasing.

We faithfully honor this venerable and holy synod that was sacredly assembled in the Spirit in Florence, and which directed the churches, previously divided incurably, into unity.

The word of the Savior, spoken of old sacredly to Peter, has truly been fulfilled: "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren in thy unity." For I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith might not fail.

Now the glorious protector of Rome, Eugenius, has gathered all in Florence, holding the faith unshaken, and having strengthened all and guided them toward it, he has fulfilled the word of the Savior.

^C Coming together in faith, we all bless thee, who art without any blemish, who hast miraculously joined the separated parts, O Virgin, to thy venerable Offspring, and even now hast well bestowed peace upon the churches.

O Most High King, Overseer of all and Creator; for this present work is truly Thine, O Almighty One, to have joined, my Savior, the two parts that were far and long ago separated, in the most beautiful way.

Now the joyful day of the Lord has shone forth brightly, in which the choir of the Fathers has composed the divine decree of peace as a bond of society, and in an orthodox manner it rejoices with godly wisdom.

The opinions of the heretics, and wickedness, and all division of those who theologize have been taken away, cast out from under foot and ^D vanished, of

those who have assembled in the unity of the true and divine faith. ^A

Come, ye believers, let us sing to the most chaste Mother of the Lord, the light-bearing cloud, the heavenly ladder, the golden bridal chamber, the tabernacle grander than the Highest, in which the Word became flesh.

The assembly of the Fathers appeared, gathered from the ends of the earth at Florence, like an army equipped with weapons against the adversaries, and with noble spirit it has cast down their arrogance.

By the nod of the Lord, God-bearing Fathers gathered from everywhere to unite those who had previously been wickedly divided, and singing, they pay a divine hymn to the Master.

The decree of the synod has gone forth, and immediately the barking adversaries have surrendered their spirit; and it clearly teaches us the dogma to worship the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and from the Son. ^B

The divine synod makes the same pronouncement on both sides: the sacred and holy mystery of the Body of the Lord is performed paradoxically either with unleavened bread or with leavened.

Deliver from dangers, Mother of God, those who praise thy Offspring, O All-Holy, and with all their soul they cry out to thee the hymn and the ode they sing to thee forever....

Today, the all-holy synod in Florence has shone forth from the ends to the extremities of the earth, teaching the faithful the enjoyment of souls that now exists for those who have served the Savior willingly and sufficiently in the present life, and who sing eternally to Him, the Bridegroom of souls. ^C

In order that the middle wall, the worst of schisms, might be dissolved, and the parched separation might vanish, the light-bearing celebration of unity has now dawned, and glorifying the purifying punishment of souls, it teaches those who faithfully accept the decree of the synod as a volume of truth.

Deliver from famine, sedition, and dangers thy servants who with all their soul honor the holy and true teacher, successor of Peter, leader of the Church, guide and shepherd of the world, and divine leader of all priests, as thou hast promised.....

How wondrous are thy works, O omnipotent Jesus, for thou hast given those who worship God to see in a truly marvelous way the mystery of the holy union! For even before us, other wise men and patriarchs desired this with vehement desire, but did not attain it. But we, who have seen it, shall glorify thee, O our Savior. ^D

That He might join, O All-Holy, all heavenly things with earthly things, the Only-Begotten from the Father before the ages took on flesh and dwelt in thy womb, O pure Virgin-Mother. He appeared as man, and being born of thee in these last times, He was called the Only-Begotten, without changing and without confusion.

O Creator of all things, and maker of visible and invisible things, and Lord of all flesh, we offer glory to thee, O King, our repentance and our salvation.

seeking and desiring us to be faithful in harmony and to live peacefully with one another.

^A Ascend to the height of the sacred and holy throne, O blessed ones, clothed piously in the sacred chrism; and teach the faithful the true word of piety, O God-inspired Fathers; wherefore we honor you with pious minds and extol you.

Now, divine hierarchs, you have received from Christ the rewards worthy of your labors, for which you struggled greatly upon the earth with pious intent, and, having put aside the shadow of the flesh, you dwell with the angels, dancing ceaselessly around the throne of the King of kings.

With a purified mind, the Fathers have today clearly set forth the pious decree, adorned on all sides with sacred and orthodox dogmas. Let those who are schismatic be ashamed, for they refuse to accord this [decree] the honor it deserves, nor do they confess it, as the synod proclaimed.

Brighter than the sun, the celebration of the divine synod has shone forth, illuminating all the earth, which had been obscured by the darkness of heresy and the wickedness of the former schism, removing that error and inciting all toward the unity of the faith.

Sequitur tanquam hymni appendix,

Synaxarium of the holy and ecumenical synod, or a brief narrative of what was done in the Council of Florence, by the same John Plusiadenos, as can be gathered from the Synaxarion itself.

It is of this kind:

This holy and great synod took place in the year 1439 from the Incarnation of the Lord, in the days of John Palaiologos, the last emperor of the Romans, and of Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The chief pontiff of elder Rome, the great Eugenius, gathered it—a man who was, if ever any other, filled with the divine spirit of the blessed, and a great and divine hierarch, breathing with all his soul for the union of the Church of Christ, [seeking] to condemn those who deny that the Son of God possesses all the natural properties of the Father. For those who deny that the Son proceeds the Spirit, deny also that He possesses the natural properties of the Father. For this, indeed, is a natural property of the Father, to proceed the Spirit; furthermore, [to condemn] those who ignorantly prattle that what is offered in unleavened bread is not the body of Christ; and also [to condemn] those who piously deny that the souls of those who have fallen asleep in repentance can be helped after death by suffrages, or be purified; ^D and furthermore, [to condemn] those who [deny] that the souls of the saints do not yet enjoy [full] fruition, insofar as they are currently souls. Furthermore, [it was gathered] against those who are unwilling to bow their heads and render to the high priest of Rome the reverence and obedience which was granted and established from above and by the ancient tradition in the sacred canons. The aforementioned holy synod was thus convened in Ferrara and Florence, noteworthy cities of Italy. There were present at it many, both excellent and good, shining forth in wisdom and virtue from both sides. For more than eight hundred men filled this sacred assembly; on the part of the Italians, the great Eugenius of holy memory, the supreme high priest of Rome, with all his...

^A sacred Church—namely, with cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, hieromonks, monks, priests, and deacons, numbering more than six hundred, besides the legates and the other princes of Italy. On the part of the Orientals, the serene Emperor of the Romans, John Palaiologos, and Joseph, the most prudent and ^B imposing patriarch, with his entire Church—archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical men adorned with the insignia of the cross, abbots, priests, hieromonks, and monks; furthermore, the Emperor’s senate also, consisting of many noble men; for the imperial retinue, as was fitting, graced him as well. The time for the discussion came, and all gathered at the discussion to see the difference. They were over two hundred in number, apart from the princes. For they differed ^C on but five heads: the procession of the Holy Spirit, the matter of unleavened and leavened bread, the purgatorial fire, the blessedness of the souls of the saints, and the authority of the Pope. Hearing this, the [Metropolitan] of Ephesus, who himself had also been chosen for the discussion, said: "The discussion will not be about everything, since we do not differ about everything simply; but let the inquiry and the struggle be on one point alone: that concerning ^D the procession of the Holy Spirit. For it is about this doctrine that I wish to know; as for all other matters, the effort of a single hour suffices." Hence, the discussion began even on this point. And the struggle was prepared; and each one kept watch over this and strove to contend for his side. The synod therefore began to discuss on the ninth day of April, in the year from Christ 1438. And they discussed for fourteen months, until the sixth of July, 1439; and the sides had no rest, but both contended with great zeal; and struggle succeeded struggle, and discussion followed discussion, until Marcus of Ephesus, unable to speak against things that were already manifest, and fearing to contend further in the discussion, fled. But the other Fathers, beginning from the sacred patriarch himself and the most great lord the Emperor, all agreed in the unity of the faith. For having investigated the sacred teachers of the Church, and finding them in agreement with the doctrine, they deemed it just to be united to the Church of God, outside of which there is no hope of salvation, rather than to remain longer in separation and schism, in which there is no salvation. They were united, therefore, as in that doctrine, so also in the remaining heads. For, having established all things through the testimonies of the teachers of the Church, they proclaimed a joyful decree to the Church, saying: "Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad." Having thus completed the decree, they therein clarify the procession of the all-holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and that the sacrifice via unleavened bread is one and the same as that which is performed with leavened, and the purification of souls, and the enjoyment of the saints, and the supreme high priest of the

Rome to be the successor of the blessed Peter, according to the ^A definition. Having marked this with apostolic and red letters, they sent it to all the world; and all established and confessed it; and agreed and celebrated the liturgy together with the high priest of Rome. And he himself, the one from Ephesus, agreed in the reading of the decree. Yet he did not wish to sign it, pretending a request for time. For he was ashamed to contradict it so vehemently. The liturgy therefore being completed, the decree was read in the great Church of Florence in Latin and Greek; and both parties gave an oath upon the body of Christ, that they would adhere to it, just as the decree provides. And thus the council reached its end. But having returned to Constantinople, he confused and disturbed all the East by writing and saying things contrary to the decrees of the synod. Yet the Church of Rome did not neglect to give care to this as well. It sent the bishop of Coron, a man instructed in all wisdom and an excellent theologian, to Constantinople, to dispute with the one from Ephesus, so that he might not have it to say that he could not speak in Italy because of some fear; but even there, having held one and a second discussion by order of the emperor, he avoided the discussion. For where he was sought out, he did not wish to discuss, but in private and in corners he was disturbing the whole city, and furthermore the islands as well; and from that time until now the plague caused by him has destroyed many, and especially this famous island. But he indeed received the reward of his own superstition ^B and arrogance, justly deserving of his own blasphemy and shamelessness; for being one man, he fought against the ecumenical synod; for at the hour of his dissolution, he ended his life in misery. But his imitators and followers, praying to meet a similar end to his—O the judgments of yours, Christ the King!—we see them day by day departing from this life in exactly this way. We, however, having turned away from his words, have been united to the holy Church of God, and we pray that we might remain in it until the end. Through the intercessions of your God-bearing Fathers, O our God, have mercy on us. ^C