EXPLANATION OF GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, REGARDING THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AT FLORENCE, THAT IT WAS LEGITIMATELY ASSEMBLED, AND A DEFENSE OF THE FIVE CHAPTERS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN ITS DECREE.
A PROOEMIUM.
The great mystery of religion, when investigated with a pure mind and sincere disposition, unfolds and opens the eyes of the soul and of the body, and makes them clearer than the rays of the sun. And just as those rays, shining down from above upon the earth, illuminate not only level paths but also the hidden and dark corners, so too the eyes of the intellect, gripped by the truth and not darkened by the prejudices of distorted things, not only perceive—led by divine aid—those things in Scripture which are straight and easily understood, but also precisely distinguish those things which lie in the depth of word and meaning, and bring them forth into the light, and make them understood; just as Wisdom says, "All things are straight to those who understand, and right to those who find knowledge," and there is nothing crooked or perverse in them.
We, therefore, wishing to make our own opinion manifest to all, trust in the truth and commit ourselves to the piety of the dogma. We exhort you, too, not to search out our words with craftiness and envy, but with a pure mind and conscience. For we are not speaking about small matters, O friends, but about great and divine ones; even if the messenger is weak and infirm, as he proposes the ecclesiastical concor-
concord and peace which has come to pass in our days, which many before us longed to see and did not see. What then? "Since I have not known literature, I shall enter into the powers of the Lord." And I, with David, shall cry out: "And my tongue shall meditate on his righteousness." A But even if some do contend against us, saying that we do not embrace the synod at Florence according to divine zeal, but that we are being transformed by longing for temporary glory, and that it is on account of gifts and promises that we embrace this, and they hurl many things, both spoken and unspoken, against us—O your patience, O King of all! The folly of the multitude takes no measure, but also casts out blasphemous words against God, slandering our faith and God, as if we were heathens—yet they shall not persuade us to keep silent B by this. We look to Him, the all-seeing eye, and gaze towards that impartial judgment seat, where the charge cast at us so foolishly here will do us no harm. For there is no need of accusers there, just as the structure of those who gratuitously favor us will be of no help; for there is no need of advocates there. Looking, then, to that infallible judgment seat, we care nothing for the slanders; but rather we shall proclaim our glory with bare head and boldness. This alone I wish everyone to know concerning us: that everything which has been done or said by us, even the present things, has been done for the establishment C of ecclesiastical peace, and not for the setting aside of any of our customs and dogmas. But whoever has come to this ecclesiastical peace and has accepted the decree of the synod of Florence, thinking that he has condemned our customs and dogmas, and having decided that the Roman Church holds a more pious creed than the Eastern and our own, and not rather having known to bestow the same honor upon both as being one Church and proclaiming one faith and piety, let him fall from the kingdom of Christ and be aligned with the traitor Judas and his associates and the crucifiers of the Savior. For our Church proclaims the same faith D which the Roman Church confesses and holds, and she has never glorified the Spirit as from the Father alone, nor has proclaimed it from the pulpit, nor has she mocked the sacrifice through unleavened bread—far from it—nor does she in any way deny the purgation of souls; nor does she reject the fruition of the saints; furthermore, she does not cast aside the high priest of Rome as not being the head of the whole Church, as shall be shown when we render an account for each point. But these things were uttered and committed to writing by certain men who are contentious and love disputes. To them the folly of the multitude follows, pouring out insults and slanders against the Roman Church and us who piously follow her.
A But we embrace that dreaded oath heretofore pronounced as if it were the very foundation of the argument, and we take up the argument; for we hold fast to this council as being thoroughly in accord with divine zeal and as the truth. And we do not embrace it for the sake of human glory, nor yet for the sake of gifts, as they themselves say, but we hold fast to it firmly because it is the glory of Christ and of the teachers of the Church. But they, suffering from ignorance and wickedness, dare to say that what was done at the council is not the glory and the mind of the teachers of the Church.
But the opposite of all this is true; the holy teachers appear to thunder more loudly than a shout when they theologize these things. And we, having learned such faith and doctrine from them, confess it, and preaching it, we defend it; and we pray to keep it undefiled until our last breath, and we pray to suffer and die along with it, and to stand with it in the judgment before our Savior Christ God, and to be sent eternally with it to where God grants—He who beholds all things, and nothing is hidden from Him. And it was because we were looking not to men, but to God, that we thought we ought to embrace this peace and union of the Church. If it does not seem so to some, it is of no concern to us; for we are doing what we are obligated to do. But what do you say, you who do not cherish the holy council? That its decree is not according to the mind of the teachers? But we will demonstrate the contrary, not from our own mind, lest we appear to be saying absurdities (for who could persuade you of anything if he brought forward only his own arguments?), but from the divine Fathers and teachers of the Church themselves—not only of the West, but also of the East, whose words even the netherworld would respect, as being illuminated by the divine and principle-initiating Spirit. B And first, they bring five charges against us; or rather, not against us, but against the Church. For the Church, in its decree, cries out with all its strength, like Stentor. First, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son; and this the Son Himself has received from the Father. "For all things," He says, "that the Father has, He gave to the Son in begetting Him, except that of being the Father." Second, that the sacrifice through unleavened or leavened bread is one and the same; and that the most holy body of Christ is accomplished in both parts. Third, that the souls of those who die in repentance are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments and are aided by the intercessions of the living faithful; and this, because they were not able to make satisfaction for their sins beforehand. Fourth, that the saints are in the glory of God as far as their souls are concerned, and they see God face to face, and rejoice in the contemplation of Him; and again, it cries out that sinners go into hell, and just as blessedness makes the former to rejoice, so too does fire consume the latter from the day of their departure. Fifth, that the Pope, that is, the supreme hierarch of the apostolic see in Rome, is the head of the whole Church, the successor of the blessed Peter, C the prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ. D Yet the adversaries of the Church reproach the Church, claiming that she has held beliefs which are not true, and that by the decree she has promulgated, she has arrogated these things to herself in apostolic and red letters. But as for us, being attacked by them, it is neither fitting nor possible for us to act as the Church’s advocate, since she has with her a strong advocate, Christ Jesus and His...
A unerring promise, which she firmly holds, namely, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and that He will be with her even unto the consummation of this world; and that she is an immovable rock, into which those who stumble shall perish—without which there is no hope of salvation. Since, therefore, she has the Bridegroom Himself with her, she has no need of advocates. But we have more need of them, being accused by them as having done wrong by receiving the union with the Latins, and because they reproach us as if we were ignorant, and condemn us as lost, and—woe is us!—lament us and turn away from us as heretics.
Forced by these things, therefore, we write this B so as to show ourselves to be innocent and blameless of their reproach and calumny, and—by the grace of God—orthodox; and rather, that they themselves are guilty of a more severe punishment and sentence than that which they rashly and arrogantly C pass upon us. And first, we shall seek the divine grace from God, as we cannot say anything unless He first opens our mouth; for He is the one who said, "Without Me you can do nothing." Then, as far as the smallness of our mind allows, we shall answer the charges brought against us, not by employing syllogisms—for they indeed say correctly that our faith does not consist in syllogisms, nor are we able to accomplish such things—but by using the testimonies of the holy doctors of the Church. Leaving others aside, therefore, I shall begin with the first theologian, our Lord Jesus Christ, regarding the first of the points for which we are blamed by them: that the Holy Spirit does not have D existence from the Son, but from the Father alone. Thus, indeed, they speak, and (as they say) teach most correctly, and think truly. But because we also say that He proceeds from the Son, they say that we are adversaries to the saints and to Christ Himself, who says, "Who proceeds from the Father." By asserting this, these men think they are justified; but we, with charity and peace, God helping us, will show that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, just as surely as He does from the Father; not acting with abusive anger, but as disciples of Him who says, "Pursue peace, and do not be angry at those things you say."
1117 PRO CONC. FLORENT. CAP. I. DE SPIRITU SANCTO. 1118
CHAPTER ONE
That the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, and not from the Father only, as those who do not accept the Synod say.
AWe must therefore begin with Him who first revealed this theology to us; for He, in the Gospel according to John, in the seventeenth chapter, says these things to His disciples: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." B Have you anything to say in response to this, you who hold the contrary view? Yes, they say, He receives knowledge, words, a reception; He hears from the Son, just as the Son receives wisdom from the Father, and so on. And we say the same; but since it is not permitted to conceive many things in God, lest we think him composite, we say that He receives one thing: the essence, which is wise and good and all else. And for this reason, if He receives wisdom, He receives nothing other than His very being. The Holy Spirit will therefore hear, that is, He will hear from Him from whom He proceeds; that hearing is knowing, and that knowing is being. Since therefore He is not of Himself, but from Him from whom He proceeds, that hearing is knowing, and the knowing is being. Since therefore He is not from themselves, but from whom He proceeds, from whom is to Him the essence, from Him is the knowledge; from Him therefore also the hearing, which is nothing other than essence. Always, therefore, does the Holy Spirit hear, because He always knows and will know; and for these reasons He has heard, and hears, and will hear. For, as we have already said, this is to Him the hearing which is the knowing; and the knowing to Him is that which is the being. He has heard, therefore, and hears, and will hear from Him from whom He is; but from Him He is, from whom He proceeds. But lest some should be able to say that in the pronoun "mine," in the phrase "He shall receive of mine," the Father is meant, further down in the same chapter He adds, saying: "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I unto you, that he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." C When, however, He said: "All things that the Father hath are mine," He closed every mouth wishing to exclude the Son also from being the cause of the existence of the most holy Spirit. That it is true that all things which the Father has, the Son also has, He Himself testifies when He says: "Father, all things that are thine are mine, and mine thine." And John, the shining star of Damascus, says: "All things whatsoever the Father hath, He delivered to the Son in begetting Him, except being the Father." Therefore, if the Father (inasmuch as He is Father) produces... D
the Spirit, and the Son communicated with the Father in this way, the Spirit would be the Son, and the Son, together with the Father, would be two fathers of the Spirit. And in this way the Son does not communicate with the Father in the existence of the Spirit. B But now the Father does not produce the Spirit in this way; but as a producer, and it is not opposed to the Son to also be the cause of the Spirit. For if the Father has all things that He has, the Son also has them, and there is nothing remaining to the Father that the Son does not have; and the Father has the production of the Spirit: therefore the Son also has this. From this, it is finally shown explicitly that the Spirit is not only from the Father, but also from the Son. And of this fact the entire scripture of the teachers is a witness, and the all-great Cyril, excellently interpreting this whole passage and the aforementioned words; and see attentively the things being said. "For behold, behold, the Spirit of Truth, that is, of Himself, having called Him the Paraclete, he says that He proceeds from the Father. For just as the Spirit is proper to the Son, naturally existing in Him and proceeding through Him, so also is He [proper] to the Father." And to those for whom the Spirit is common, for them the things of the essence would not be divided either. For let us not be swayed by the words of certain men who, on account of ignorance, are accustomed to think and speak impiously about religion, whatever it is forbidden to conceive, as if the Son were fulfilling some ministering role, and were administering the Spirit of the Father to creation; for since some have not feared to say this foolishly, it is more consistent to believe that because He is His own (just as He is also of God and the Father), He therefore sends Him to His holy disciples for sanctification.
Do you hear, you who contradict, this admirable and great Father, I mean Cyril? C How, he says, as He is proper to the Son, not by way of ministering, but naturally existing in Him and proceeding through Him, so also it happens in the Father. If, therefore, the Spirit is in the same way the Son’s and the Father’s, it occurs to us to understand that He also proceeds from the Son. Since this saint says that in whatever way the Spirit belongs to the Son and proceeds through Him, in the same way He also proceeds from the Father. And you must not think that the Son, while fulfilling some ministering duty, sends the Spirit from the Father to creation, but [does so] naturally. For if the Son sent the Spirit ministerially and not naturally, then the Father would also have the Spirit ministerially, and not naturally; since in whatever way He is understood as being the Son’s, He is also understood as being the Father’s according to this saint. And he says the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, since the Father and the Son are not of a divided essence. If, therefore, He is common, in the same way that He is said to be the Father’s, in that same way He is also said to be the Son’s. D So if it is said of the Father that He proceeds from Him (for we cannot understand anything else), and the Spirit is also said to be the Son’s, therefore He also proceeds from Him. But if anyone says that it is said to be the Son’s according to consubstantiality, and not according to cause, I would say that we, too, would say, "The Father and the Son [are the causes] of the Spirit," since...
A the three persons are of one essence; but this is not said. Damascus crushes your nostrils in the eighth chapter of the *Theological* [writings]: "The Son," he says, "we neither call the Spirit, nor do we say [he is] from the Spirit." And Gregory of Nyssa, in the third homily on the "Our Father," covers your eyes: "The Son," he says, "is not and is not called the Spirit, nor is this relative sequence reversible; but the Spirit is called the Son’s, because he receives from him, and proceeds from him, and is from him just as also from the Father." B Therefore, this holy Cyril says: "He is his own, just as [he is] of God and the Father." In what way is he the Father’s own? Because from him he has his being and proceeds. You must understand this same thing, that he also proceeds from the Son, since he is his own, just as [he is] of the Father. And after a few words, this same saint says in the same explanation: "We call the Paraclete the Son's own, that is, the holy Spirit, and not one entering in from without, nor anything adventitious in him, as happens in those who receive holiness and are brought into being from non-existence; but [he is] consubstantial with him, assuredly, as also with the Father: 'For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears.' When, therefore, he comes, that is the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth." Observe, however, how vigilant the voice is; see the sobriety of the word. For having previously said that the Paraclete would come to them, he called him the Spirit of truth, that is to say, his own; for he himself is the truth. C But in order that the disciples might know that his advent was not alien or strange to him, but that he promises to bestow himself in another way, he calls the Paraclete the Spirit of truth, that is to say, his own. For the holy Spirit is not considered to be alien to the essence of the Only-Begotten. He proceeds indeed naturally from it, being nothing else than himself, so far as identity of nature is concerned, even if he is considered as subsisting in his own way. And after other things: "When, therefore," he says, "he comes, he will not speak from himself; but neither will he introduce for you a strange teaching. For he will not introduce arbitrary laws. Since he is the Spirit, and is as it were my mind, he will speak all the things that are in me." And after a few words: "Since the Spirit is entirely of my essence, and is as it were my mind, it is not possible that he should say the things that are to come, unless he is entirely in me and proceeds through me." On that [verse], *He will glorify me, for he will receive of mine, and will declare it to you.* D "The Paraclete therefore glorifies the Son, that is, his own Spirit, being all-powerful and all-knowing. But how does he glorify [him]? For the things which his Spirit knows and can do, how could he himself not know, or how could he not be able? And if, just as he himself says, the Spirit receives from him, although being all-powerful and accomplishing all things, how would he himself not have the power over all things?" And after a few words: "Since he is consubstantial with the Son, and proceeds from him in a manner befitting God, having all his most perfect operation and power over all things, for this reason he says, 'He will receive of mine.'" And after other things: "It will therefore be entirely irreprehensible, and placed beyond all reproach, if his Spirit is said to receive something from the Only-Begotten; for proceeding naturally from him, as his own,
with all that he has, he is perfectly said to receive his own. A And after a few words: "And this also naturally belongs to me; for this reason I said, 'Because he shall receive of mine, and shall declare it to you.' Let no one be disturbed when he hears the name of 'receiving' in these matters; but let him rather consider that, since all things concerning God are indeed spoken in a manner suited to us, they are not understood in that way, but above our capacity. Therefore, we say that the Spirit receives from the Father and from the Son their own things, not as if they did not at some time have the wisdom and power inherent in them, and only then had it when it is understood that he receives; for the Spirit is always wise and powerful; or rather, he is wisdom and power itself, not by any participation, but by nature." And after other things: B "Since, therefore, the Son is the fruit and image of the hypostasis of him who begat him, he leads with him all things that he has by nature. For this reason he says, 'All things that the Father has are mine.' For this reason I said to you, that he shall receive of mine, and shall declare it to you: namely, the Spirit, who is through him and in him; through whom he himself inhabits the saints; for his Spirit is not something other than him; although he is understood as being in himself and properly Spirit: for the Spirit is Spirit, and not the Son."
You have heard the sentiments of this great Father, or rather, I should say, the objections and sharp arrows against those who do not confess that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son? Since he says that he proceeds in part through him, and in part that he proceeds from him just as he does from the Father: and again, naturally inherent in him; and that he comes forth, flows, and proceeds through him and from him, and is understood as being in him, and in God, and in the Father. C What else is discerned but the most open truth, that the Spirit is from the Son, and from him, and through him, as this holy man says in many places? Whence, therefore, will you be able to show that the Spirit is from the Father alone, when all the saints, as we shall show in a little while, say most concordantly, and all decree that he proceeds also from the Son? Therefore, be persuaded by us, who counsel well; or rather, not by us, but by the truth; and do not rebuke us in an obstinate way, as if we were unknowing or ignorant, and for this reason subject to the synod. For we have seen all the saints, and being persuaded by their words and having followed them, we have been united to the Latins; or rather, not to the Latins, but to the unshakable and true faith of Peter, and to the sound doctrine of those theologians and divinely-inspired men who distinguished themselves in this synod; D to whom the archbishop of Ephesus, being at a loss and unable to answer what was proposed by them, having grown fearful, avoided, turning away from brother John who was debating with him, [claiming]: "Bring the Ephesian here that we may hear his answers, which he issued in a certain session, avoiding the synod." The Synod
sent and summoned him to enter, but he feigned illness. And again, when a meeting was held, brother John said, "Let the Ephesian come here, let him come; for it is not right that he should speak, while we do not hear those who answer him." And again the Synod sent and summoned him, but he did not obey the call to come. Wherefore, A having canonically summoned him and he not having obeyed, the Synod passed judgment. But he persisted, contradicting not openly, but in corners; wherefore he was shown to be an enemy to the holy Synod. And if he did sometimes proceed to disputations, he did not accept the utterances of the saints, calling the ancient, divine and holy books of the teachers corrupted and spurious. But he himself has been destroyed; and that mouth which raved against the holy Synod, how it was destroyed for him and filled with shame at the hour of his bitter dissolution, those who have learned to speak the truth know well.
We, however, having the aforementioned utterances of the great Cyril regarding the text, "He shall receive of mine," and hearing this holy Synod theologizing the same things in the definition set forth by it, and being confirmed by this, that the Spirit has His being also from the Son, we have joined ourselves to the Synod. For Christ saying that "He shall receive of mine," indicated nothing else to us than that He also proceeds from Him; for we cannot conceive of it in any other way. For from whom the Spirit receives, from Him He also has His being. And from whom He has His being, from Him He also proceeds; He receives also from the Son and has His being from Him, as the holy and divine Basil makes clear; therefore He also proceeds from Him.
This way, then, we desired to state the other utterances of the saints clearly, and then to explain them; but because two things were proposed to us—the one, that having promised to deliver the discourse briefly, we might have extended it to infinite length; the other, that the things said by us on our own account might appear unbelievable to our opponents if we were to weave them together by explaining them more broadly—it seemed appropriate to us for this reason to set forth only the utterances of the saints separately, to refute those who wish to contradict the holy Synod, and to stabilize and confirm those who piously follow it, by saying a few things of our own regarding each utterance. B
II. "Every word," says the holy Gospel, "shall stand on the testimony of two or three witnesses." Will you, therefore, be persuaded by the many witnesses who bear witness to this? I do not think so, moved as you are by false persuasion and prejudice, mixed with wickedness. For this reason, in place of the three which Christ enumerated, I shall add thirteen, so that you may not be able henceforth to contradict, or at least to speak against us. For immediately, the great Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth homily on the "Our Father," the beginning of which is, "He who [observes] the shadow of things to come," says the following: "For the only-begotten Son is called [Son] of the Father by the holy Scripture; and up to this point, the Word establishes His peculiarity. But the Holy Spirit..."
is also said to be of the Father, and is demonstrated to be also of the Son. 'If anyone,' it says, 'does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.' A Do you hear that He is also attested to be of the Son? For if some of those accustomed to impiety, who easily contrive things against their own salvation, have erased the 'of' from certain books, using an iron stylus, yet there are found some books which cry out against the audacity of those who corrupted the books. Where, then, is he who says, 'From the Father alone,' that Ephesian, that man who stands in league with those before him? Let them come forward, and let them show us whence they got this teaching; from Christ or from the saints? For Christ and the saints clearly oppose these men. Christ, then, says, 'He will take of mine.' B The saints demonstrate from the holy Scripture that the Spirit is of the Son. For if this saint, in saying 'of the Son,' is speaking the truth, then the Ephesian is lying, as are those before him, in saying 'from him alone'; for the 'from him alone' is refuted by the saying 'also of the Son.' That the Spirit takes from the Son and has existence [from Him], the great Basil will testify in the third of his Antirrhetics against Eunomius, which begins, 'Having with difficulty finally been sated with blasphemies against the Only-Begotten.' In this treatise he says, 'For what necessity is there, if the Spirit is third in rank and order, that He should also be third in nature? For while He is secondary in rank to the Son, having his existence from Him, and receiving from Him, and announcing to us, and, in sum, being dependent upon that Cause, the discourse of piety delivers this.' C Do you hear this heavenly Father? He says, 'Having existence from Him, and receiving from Him.' Do you see how everything corresponds to our understanding, in agreement with the utterances of St. Cyril; and that it is the same thing to say 'to receive from the Son' and 'to have existence from the same'? And where is he who says 'From [the Father] alone'? For if the Spirit receives from the Son, and has existence from Him, as this saint says, then [it is] not from the Father alone, but it is clear that [it is] also from the Son. Therefore, you unjustly accuse us, O friends and brothers. But the brother of this great Father, I mean Gregory of Nyssa, in the first book of his Antirrhetics against the same Eunomius, which begins, 'It was not, as it seems, the will to benefit all,' D says these things: 'In the same way as the hypostasis is contemplated beforehand by the principle of cause, the same principle holds also concerning the Spirit, having a distinction only in the order according to cause and caused. For as the Son is joined to the Father, and, having his existence from Him, does not fall behind in existence, so also the Holy Spirit is joined to the Only-Begotten; the hypostasis of the Spirit being contemplated beforehand solely by a conceptual distinction according to the principle of cause.' I say that even this saint agrees with what has been said before, and wishing to set forth the distinction of the divine persons, distinguishes them by cause alone. 'In the same way as,' he says,
the Father is considered before the Son by the logic of cause, in the same way the Son is considered before the Spirit by the logic of cause. To say this is the same as saying: the Son is from the Father alone, as the Father is considered prior to the Son. For whom else could He have as considered prior? But the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, as the Father, clearly, and the Son are considered prior to Him; and thus it is truly concluded that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, even if it displeases you. For the fact that the hypostasis of the Father is considered prior to the hypostasis of the Son, and this by the logic of cause, and the hypostasis of the Son prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit by the logic of cause, signifies nothing else than that the Father alone is the cause of the Son, and the Son, having received this also from the Father as He has His other natural goods, is Himself also a cause of the Holy Spirit. A And thus the Father and the Son, both together, are one cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit. For this reason this saint also says: 'For just as the Son is joined to the Father by the logic of cause, by [our] way of thinking, and by the sole [consideration of the Father's] being considered prior to His hypostasis; and thus we speak truly when we say the Spirit [is] also from the Son.' But in the practical [acts] of the first synod, it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is proper to the Son, and gushes forth from Him. Do you hear? 'From Him,' he says, 'gushing forth,' as from a fountain, clearly from the hypostasis of the Son, and that He is His own. B Let us understand, brothers, what he wishes to signify, and let us not wish to oppose the teachers. If anyone were to say that He is called proper to the Son because of consubstantiality, let him consider that the Son would then also be called [the Son] of the Spirit because of consubstantiality; but this is absurd even to think. The teachers say that the Son is not, nor is He called, [the Son] of the Spirit; but the Spirit [is called] the Spirit of the Son, and rightly so. Cyril, the high priest of the Alexandrians, in the letter to Nestorius, which begins: 'Our Savior clearly saying, He who loves father or mother more than me,' says: 'And if the Spirit is in His own hypostasis, and is indeed understood in Himself as He is Spirit, and not the Son, yet He is not alien to Him. For He is named the Spirit of Truth; and Christ is the Truth; and He flows forth from Him, just as indeed [He proceeds] from God and Father.' C Do you hear, 'He flows forth,' he says, 'just as also from the Father'? But, 'He flows forth,' he says, the saint said, 'not, He proceeds.' But we answer them immediately that the same master explains what 'flows forth' denotes, according to his own meaning, in his Exposition of the divine Symbol, where he says: 'Having finished their discourse on Christ, the thrice-blessed Fathers make mention of the Holy Spirit; for they said we must believe in Him, just as indeed in the Father and the Son, for He is consubstantial to them. And He flows forth, that is, He proceeds as from a fountain, from God and Father; D and is exhibited to the creature through the Son. He breathed, therefore, into the apostles themselves, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit.' He is of God, and is God, the Spirit, and not alien to any supreme substance; but 'from it, and in it, and His own.' This, therefore, is the right and most unerring faith or confession of the holy Fathers. Do you see what 'flows forth' signifies according to Saint Cyril, and what it is to flow forth and to proceed? By what path, then, do you altogether
A dare to say, "It is one thing to flow forth, and another to proceed," and thus slander this holy man and us? Be reconciled, I beg you, brothers, be reconciled. The same divine Cyril, in his commentary on the prophet Joel, concerning the passage, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," 14 speaks thus: "For the Son is God and from God by nature, for He has been begotten of God and the Father, and the Spirit is His own and is in Him and from Him, just as indeed He is perceived in God and the Father Himself." Consider it here, beloved; He says He is "His own." And the Spirit is from Him, just as He is from the Father. The same author, in the B *Antirrhetikos* against Palladius, in the questions and answers discourse, near the beginning, says: "The Spirit is not mutable; or if He were ill with the disease of mutability, this defect would be ascribed to the divine nature itself, since He belongs even to God and the Father, and indeed to the Son, as being the Spirit essentially from both—that is, the Spirit flowing forth from the Father through the Son." Have you heard here "essentially from both," that is, from the Father through the Son? What else can this be understood to mean, other than that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son? But you, in your boastfulness, will say that "from the Father and from the Son" is not written, but simply that "we confess from the Father through the Son," but C that "from the Father and from the Son" is by no means said, because the preposition "through" does not signify the cause. Some have said this to our very faces. O the presumption! Which does not allow you to see the congruity. Cannot we, by the word "through," understand the cause, where the holy evangelist John says, "All things were made through Him?" 15 Who would ever deny that here the word "through" signifies cause, and that through it the Son is understood to be the cause of creation? That the word "through" is identical in intention with "from" is demonstrated when Basil and Chrysostom explain what was said in Genesis by Adam: "I have acquired a man through God;" 16 which is the same as saying, "from God." Hence, the former, in his D chapter-by-chapter treatise to Amphilochius, clarifies it thus and says: "And indeed, regarding the meanings indicated by one another, the word 'through' often interchanges with 'from,' when the one takes on the significance of the other; as in 'I have acquired a man through God,' which is equivalent to saying 'from God.'" The latter, in his fifty-third homily on Matthew, says: "For Scripture is accustomed to use 'through whom' to say 'from whom,' just as when it says, 'I have acquired a man through God,' not putting forward a second cause, but rather the first." And again: "Is not the declaration of them from God?" And blessed Cyril, in his letter to Nestorius, which begins, "Some, as I hear, are babbling," says: "It is necessary to confess that He was born according to the flesh from a woman." And a little later: "He was begotten according to us from a woman." And quite often in the same epistle he is found using these prepositions indiscriminately, as if they were indifferent and signified the same thing, namely "through" and "from." The Apostle Paul says to the Galatians: "God sent forth His Son, made from a woman." 17 And again, the same man elsewhere: "One God and Father, in-"
from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things." Are we not, therefore, able to understand in these words one creator and maker of all things, and one cause—the three persons, as they are one God? And shall we not declare the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit to be one cause, by means of these prepositions, "from," "through," and "in"? The "from" [is referred] to the Father, as the initial [cause]; the "through" to the Son, as the creating [cause]; the "in" to the Spirit, as the perfecting [cause]. Most certainly. For we do not say "the through" of the Father, nor "the from" of the Son, so that we may not take away the initial cause from the Father and give it to the Son; but we preserve this for the Father. And when we have said "from the Father," then the "through" follows in turn, which signifies mediation, for "through" is joined to "from." So when we say "from the Father," we understand at that time that the divine Spirit proceeds through the mediation of the Son. That the diction "through" signifies the same cause as "from," and that they are of the same power among themselves, is manifest from this.
III.
B Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, having come to the holy third synod after its conclusion, with John, the Patriarch of Antioch, who had brought six and twenty bishops with him, seeing that the synod was now finished, that Nestorius had been condemned, and that Cyril had prevailed, was troubled; and he criticized Cyril regarding the twelve chapters which he had previously issued against Nestorius. He, therefore, being a disciple of that man, launched an attack against the great Cyril, as if to aid his own master. And in the ninth chapter, where Cyril says: "The Son, having as His own, and essentially innate in Him, the Holy Spirit, wrought the divine signs," C Theodoret replies: "If, as Cyril said, [the Spirit is] of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, we shall confess this and shall accept the statement as pious. But if [it be claimed] that He has His existence from the Son or through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious." Do you hear how Theodoret feared both "from" and "through" regarding the procession of the Spirit? Therefore he says with trembling, "if [it be] from the Son or through the Son." And reasonably did he fear there where there was no reason for fear, just as you do. For since he was denying altogether that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, just as you do, he accepts neither "from the Son" nor "through the Son"; whereas you, even against your will, confess "through the Son," but you cannot D bear to hear "from the Son," for according to Theodoret it signifies the same thing. But that you confess "through the Son," Damascene, in the thirty-eighth chapter of his Theology...
A expressly cries out, and you also sing with a loud voice: "Spirit, bestower of goodness, proceeding from the Father through thee." And in the canon of the Lord Theophanes for Pentecost, in the sixth ode: "For thou art the river of Godhead, proceeding from the Father through the Son." Yet although you chant this, you deny it. But when we hear the saints saying these words in many ways, sometimes indeed "from the Father and the Son," without the article, and sometimes "from the Father and the Son," with the article, and "from the Father through the Son," and "from the Father and from the Son," and essentially from both, and that it proceeds B from both, we understand the preposition "through" to be the cause which Theodoret avoids with fear and trembling. Repent, I beseech you, that you may see. But because Theodoret was condemned, not accepting the procession of the most Holy Spirit also from the Son—nay, his books which he wrote against the holy Cyril were excommunicated—hear the thirteenth chapter from the acts of the fifth ecumenical council: "If anyone defends the impious writings of Theodoret against the right faith of Cyril and his twelve chapters, holding the same views as Theodoret and Nestorius, and defending them and their impiety, and does not anathematize the aforementioned writings, and those who have felt or do feel similarly to these, and all who have written against the right faith of holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and died in such impiety, let him be anathema." Similarly, the holy sixth council, in the ninth chapter, says: C "If anyone does not anathematize the writings of Theodoret against the right faith of holy Cyril, and the letter which is called that of Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his writings; and if anyone does not receive the writings of holy Cyril, and especially those which are written against Theodore, Theodoret, Andrew, and Nestorius, and those who have felt or do feel similarly to them or to any one of them, let him be anathema." Similar things are contained in the fourth ecumenical and the seventh council. But that the preposition "through," when it is said of the Son, denotes the mediation of the procession of the most Holy Spirit from the Father, hear the admirable Gregory of Nyssa speaking in his discourse to Ablabius, the beginning of which is: "It is just for you who are flourishing in every power to contend,"—"Confessing the unchangeableness of the nature, we do not deny D the difference according to cause and originated. In which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other, for we believe the one to be the cause, and the other to be from the cause and from what is from the cause; and again we consider another difference: the one, indeed, is immediately from the First, but the other through him who is immediately from the First. So that the character of the Only-begotten undoubtedly remains in the Son, and the fact that the Spirit is from the Father, not doubting the mediation of the Son, and to himself the...
A nature and deity, nor is anything prior or posterior), we do not deny the difference by which they differ among themselves: for they differ according to cause and caused, and the one is distinguished from the other. We believe, he says, that this is the cause, and that the caused, that is, the Father is the cause, but the Son and the Spirit are from the cause. Nor does he stop here, but immediately adds: "And since the caused," he says, "is from the cause," that is, since the Son and the Spirit are from the cause, namely from the Father, we understand again another difference. For the one, that is, the Son, is proximately and immediately from the First, that is, from the Father: but the Spirit proximately through the Son, yet mediately from the First, namely the Father. Have you perceived here the meaning of the word "through" as a medium, and the distinction of the divine persons which this saint makes? And that we have correctly resolved it? And that the definition of the Only-begotten is best preserved in the Son; nor does this medium take away the natural relation of the Spirit to the Father? Be reconciled, therefore, I beg you, my lords and brothers. B Let also the holy John of Damascus come forward to bear witness with me to the same things regarding the preposition "through," and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. For he, in the thirteenth chapter of his *Theological Chapters*, the beginning of which is: "The Divine, being incomprehensible, is altogether unable to be expressed by a name," says thus: "He himself indeed is Intellect, the Father namely, the abyss of the Son, the begetter of the Son, and through the Son, the producer of the manifesting Spirit." And a little later: "But the Holy Spirit, the manifesting power of the hidden divinity of the Father, proceeds from the Father through the Son, as He himself knows." That indeed the word "through" signifies cause has already been said, nor is it necessary to repeat it. Furthermore, holy Cyril, in his second book *ad Hermiam*, says: "And you will call the Holy Spirit that which flows naturally from the Father through the Son." The same author, in his second book of *Thesaurus*, in the discourse entitled, "That the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son," narrates thus: "Since therefore the Holy Spirit, when He comes into us, shows us to be conformable to God, and proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is evident that He is of the divine essence, substantially in it and proceeding from it." C But some of the cavilling schismatics leap up, and laughing broadly say to us: "What again, O Catholics, will you say to this for us? Or what account will you give, playing the sophist with what is written, when the evangelist says explicitly and clearly that the initiate saw the Spirit like a dove descending upon Christ? Therefore, He was receiving what He did not have. How, then, could the Holy Spirit be thought to proceed from the Son, when He was standing in the Jordan, and the Spirit was descending from above as towards Him, and the paternal voice from above was testifying: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'?"
'? B To these, moreover, I deem it necessary to reply—those who subvert the divine dogmas of the Church and distort the correctness of the Scriptures. Sober up, you who are drunk from persuasion and malice, making Him who is infinite and uncircumscribed a circumscribed man, so that you might be able to behold the brilliant beauty of the truth and cry out with us to the Son: 'Truly You are the Son of God; and all things that Your Father has, as God, You also have; and by Your divine power You encompass all things. By the intercessions of Your Mother, You grant us the Spirit, who is merciful and imparts goodness, proceeding from the Father through You.' And again: 'Being uncircumscribed, my Jesus and Lord, even while standing in the Jordan, You did not leave the paternal throne.' May it never enter my mind to think such a heresy, that He was receiving something He did not have; for all things that the Father has, the Son also has, and nothing exists in the Father that does not exist in the Son, except for fatherhood. For if He were receiving what He did not have, Arius would have spoken truly by saying, 'There was once when He was not.' But even to think this is impious. Therefore, whoever wishes to think correctly should not believe such things, but as the holy Athanasius, great in divine matters, who in the discourse concerning the incarnate dispensation, the beginning of which is: 'Whoever wishes to understand the divine Scriptures captiously,' writes thus: 'Let no one suppose that He was receiving that which He did not have; for He Himself was sending it from above as God, and He Himself was receiving it from below as man; from Him, therefore, it was descending into Him; from His divinity into His humanity.' Do you hear? He says that He Himself was sending it from above as God, and He Himself was receiving it from below as man. And as God He was sending, and as man He was receiving; for He was wholly among those below, and in no way was He absent from those above. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the divinity bodily. Being circumscribed, therefore, by the flesh, He was seen in the Jordan; but being uncircumscribed in His divinity, He did not leave the paternal bosom; whence from it into Him it was descending. Therefore, that which has been brought forward by you is of no use; rather, it seems to make for our case, and brings great detriment to you.
IV. D From where, then, you will be able to show us at all that the Spirit is not from the Son, I do not see in the least. And the great John Chrysostom, in the homily which he makes on the incarnation of the Lord, speaks thus: 'Christ came to us; He gave us the Spirit from Him, and took up our body.' But what does 'from Him' wish to signify, if not that He gave us the Spirit proceeding from Him? Just as the beloved disciple also says, that 'of His Spirit He has given us,' and 'of His fullness have we all received.' And Cyril the Great in his interpretation of the Gospel according to John on the words: 'And'
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete,' A speaks thus: 'For the Son, existing essentially as a partaker of the natural goods of God and the Father, has the Spirit also in this way, in the manner in which the Father is also understood, not adventitious nor from without. For it is silly, or rather insane, to think so; but just as each of us keeps his own spirit within himself, and pours it out from his deepest bowels to the outside—for this is why Christ also breathed it out bodily, showing that just as the Spirit proceeds bodily from the mouth of man, so also it is poured out from the divine essence in a manner befitting God, that which is of it.' Here, one who wishes to see and understand with discernment can perceive, and straightway flee from the evil of the schism and submit to the synod. For the Son, he says, existing as a partaker of the natural goods of God and the Father, not adventitiously, nor from without, nor abusively, but essentially, has also the Spirit, in this manner, as the Father is also understood. If therefore it is a natural good of the Father to proceed the Holy Spirit, and the Son partakes of the natural goods of the Father, not abusively B but naturally and essentially, according to the great Cyril—and you cannot deny it—then the Son also has this: that is to say, to proceed the Holy Spirit, not by way of participation but essentially, in the same manner as the Father proceeds Him essentially. Understand this, I say, understand it. And Symeon the Metaphrast, in the discourse on the life of holy Dionysius the Areopagite, written on the third of October, says these things: 'Those things which are of bodily presence receive their end; but those of the Spirit begin; and my Christ is taken up into the heavens, and returns to the paternal throne, and sends the Spirit proceeding from Him to His disciples for the guidance of the unbelieving nations.' C
V. You have heard, and he says 'His proceeding Spirit,' and this means 'that which proceeds from Him.' But, say the enemies of the truth, it is not placed explicitly, 'proceeding from the Son'; but if it is ever found, it is understood as proceeding from the Father, and from the Son not at all; but rather given and sent through the Son; because to be sent does not allow us to understand 'to proceed.' And consequently, when we hear that the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father, should we not understand that He proceeds from the Father? And the Paraclete, D says Christ, whom the Father will send in my name, shall we not concede that He proceeds from the Father? Most certainly. But because you say that it is not found in the divine Scripture that He also proceeds from the Son, we wish now to demonstrate this explicitly. The great Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, who is also found being called 'of the holy mountain of Sinai'—this is the one of whom the holy sixth synod says: 'We accept the holy Anastasius'—and Theodore Melitenes responded: 'The whole East calls this man of holy memory, who was bishop of Antioch, holy; and he who does not receive him, God shall anathematize; and all
A with one voice said: Amen.' This saint, therefore, in the discourse which is titled 'On the right dogmas of the truth pertaining to us,' which begins, 'On our sound faith,' says as follows: 'By taking the nature of the body as an example, we have demonstrated the connection of divine things through the proportion and likeness of the members: thus also the Spirit of his mouth—that is, the Holy Spirit of God—is spoken of, since the mouth is the Only-Begotten; and the Spirit is again [spoken of as] proceeding from Him and being sent, not only by the Father, but also by the Son.' And a little later: 'And yet the Lord, showing that it exists from Himself, breathing upon the disciples, said: "Receive the Holy Spirit."' Have you heard that He says it is not only from the Father, but also from the Son? Where are those who say 'from the Father alone' and 'that it is not explicitly stated as proceeding from the Son'? Do they not fear to reject so many Fathers, who are holy and great luminaries, and who speak openly even of the Son in many words and syllables? How do they not blush, or rather, how do they not openly contradict such a great assembly of sacred teachers? But what do the new interpreters say? 'The Spirit,' they say, 'proceeds from the Father and is sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son,' and they distinguish, saying that it is one thing to proceed and another thing to be sent; and they assign proceeding to the Father, and being sent to the Son. I would gladly ask them: when we hear that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father, what does this signify? Does it show us anything other than proceeding? Not at all. 'God sent forth' (says the most divine Paul) 'the Spirit of his Son B into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.' Do we not understand here the very subsistence of the Spirit? By no means, say those men, failing to understand that there is one procession of the Spirit, which is handed down in different terms, though they preserve the same sense; just as it happens also in the generation of the Son, when we hear: 'God sent his Son, born of a woman.' The blessed Paul says this to the Galatians. And the Savior Himself says: 'I came out from the Father and have come.' And elsewhere: 'For the Father has sent the Son, the Savior of the world.' And again: 'He sent me to preach the gospel to the poor.' And again: 'For him has God the Father sealed.' And John: 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' All these things demonstrate the generation of the Son from the Father: and we understand this truly and faithfully, just as when He says: 'For neither does the Father judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son. And as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself': for He did not beget Him first and later give Him life and judgment, but in begetting Him, He begat Him as life and judge. Thus likewise concerning the Holy Spirit, when we hear 'Spirit of the Father,' we understand C the Spirit from the Father, and when we hear 'Spirit of the Son,' we perceive the Spirit from the Son. But when we hear that the Spirit proceeds, springs forth, emanates, is sent, goes forth, is delivered, is missioned, is emitted, is subministered, is poured out, D we understand the generation of the Son from the Father. And we understand this truly and faithfully, just as when He says: 'For neither does the Father judge anyone,'
' A but He has given all judgment to the Son. And just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son also to have life in Himself. For He did not beget Him first, and then afterward give Him life and judgment, but in begetting Him, He begat Him as life and as judge. So it is also with the Holy Spirit. When we hear 'Spirit of the Father,' we understand Spirit from the Father; and 'Spirit of the Son,' we conceive as Spirit from the Son. And when we hear that the Spirit pours forth, wells up, springs forth, enters into, proceeds, is given, is sent, is dispatched, is provided, is poured out, is issuing, is flowing—through all these terms, and others of similar import, we understand the procession of the Spirit. This teacher, having thought on this, B places it indifferently for both the Father and the Son, saying that the Spirit is proceeding and being sent, not only from the Father but also from the Son. Consider, I beseech you for the Lord's sake, consider. Let there come forward, then, the herald of the truth and confessor, the great and abundant Athanasius, to bear witness to us of the same things; for he, in his profession of faith, the beginning of which is, 'Whosoever wishes to be saved, it is necessary above all things to hold the Catholic faith,' speaks thus: 'The Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding.' This teacher also says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, not created, not begotten, but proceeding. Having arrived at this point, I am moved strongly to weep, C and to break out into voice with tears and lamentations, and to deplore those who of their own will thus close their eyes against the light and struggle against the truth; and not only against the truth, but they even reject the holy teachers of the Church; and not only reject them, but also insult them. What defense and pity could those who do such things find? O Thy forbearance, Christ King! How are the mouths of the blasphemers not burned? They do not fear to say that the holy Athanasius was drunk and filled with wine when he wrote these things! Truly, he was full of a spiritual chalice of wisdom and grace, springing from the source of the Holy Spirit; but not as these miserable men say. May the Lord be propitious to them and to us; may this shamelessness be taken away from them, and may it be granted to us to stand D at the feet of Athanasius. Be it so. Let the great Epiphanius, Archbishop of Cyprus, also come forward to support us with this opinion; for he, in the discourse called the *Ancoratus*, explains it thus: 'Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and His Spirit. And if Christ is believed to be God from God from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: "which proceeds from the Father," and "he shall receive of mine."' But someone will say: 'Therefore we say there are two sons, and how then is He only-begotten?' Surely, who are you who contradict God? For He calls Him who is from Him the Son, but the Holy Spirit from both: which things, believed by the faithful only by the saints, luminous and given by the Light, possess a luminous power. And again in the same: 'The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the third light from the Father and the Son.' Have you understood that 'from both'? The Spirit of truth is from the Father and from the Son; what does this demonstrate? Observe diligently and understand: for nothing is fortuitous, and of those things which are in continuous flow around these matters, but [it concerns] the soul. Of the same Epiphanius in the same treatise and book: 'Just as no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, so I dare to say that neither [does anyone know] the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom He proceeds and from whom He receives, nor the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, who is from the Father and the Son, and from whom He receives.' But when he says that He is from the Father and from the Son, do you not yet understand that it is a word which is substantive,
and that it signifies the being of Him of whom it is said that He is? A Epiphanius in the same place says thus: "Therefore the Father was always and the Son was always, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not a co-brother, but of the same substance as the Father and the Son; for the Only-Begotten Himself says, 'The Spirit of the Father,' and, 'Who proceeds from the Father,' and, 'He shall receive of mine,' so that He might not be thought distinct from the Father, nor from the Son. You hear," he says, "so that He might not be thought distinct and removed from the Father, nor from the Son, for that reason He is said to proceed from the Father and the Son." And the most holy Maximus, when he interprets what is designated by the prophet Zechariah as the golden lampstand, and its lamps, and the light, writes thus: "The Holy Spirit, just as He is by nature according to essence, so He proceeds ineffably from the Father through the Son, essentially begotten." Do you hear? Even here he says that He proceeds essentially and ineffably from the Father through the Son? This is the same as if he were to say that He proceeds essentially from the Father and the Son, since the expression 'through' signifies the same thing as 'from,' as we have shown. The same author, in his epistle to Marinus, presbyter of Cyprus, whose beginning is: "Enriched according to God by divine law, venerable father, you have neglected human law," says these things: "From the synodal acts of our most holy Pope, the men of the royal city did not lay hold of as many chapters as you wrote, but only two; the one of which is concerning theology, because it also says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; the other concerning the divine incarnation, where he wrote that the Lord was without original sin, as a man." And the expositions of the Roman Fathers have shown that they agree in this: indeed, they also showed that Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in his sacred tract composed on the holy evangelist John, from which they showed that they do not make the Son the principle of the Spirit; for they acknowledged only one principle of the Son and of the Spirit: the Father—of the one, according to generation, of the other, according to procession; but that they might declare the procession through Him; and by this reason they might prove B the conjunction and identity of essence. Do you hear that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, and that the authorities of the Fathers agree among themselves, and as blessed Cyril says the same thing and confirms it in his sacred tract on the evangelist John. But what he says, that they do not make the Son a principle, he shows not at all that it [the Spirit] is not from Him, but rather the opposite. That they do not make Him a 'principal' principle, he says, according to that impious heresy which asserts that the Son is from the Father alone, and the Spirit from the Son alone: and so the Son would be understood as the principal cause of the Spirit; for that reason those divine Fathers avoided saying 'from the Father or the Son,' that is, neither from the Father alone, nor from the Son alone, but from the Father through the Son. Therefore it is found through Him and from Him both to emanate, and to flow, and to proceed; and in this especially, as has been shown elsewhere. The divine Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, in his epistle to the prelates of the East, which begins: of the saints, light-giving, He has light-bearing energy. And again in the same place: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth; the third light, is from the Father and the Son." A Have you understood 'from both'? The Spirit of truth is from the Father and the Son. What does it signify? Pay close attention and consider; for the soul does not deal in these matters with anything idle or fluid. Of the same Epiphanius in the same discourse and book: "For in the same way that no one has known the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, so I dare to say that not even the Spirit [is known] except by the Father and the Son, from whom He proceeds, and from whom He receives; and neither the Son, nor the Father, except by the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, who is from the Father and the Son, and from whom He proceeds, and from whom He receives." But the saying that He is 'from the Father and the Son'—you do not yet know the word 'is,' that it is substantive, and signifies the existence of that of which it is said that He is. The same Epiphanius in the same place says thus: "Therefore the Father was always, and the Son was always; and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son. And furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not a co-brother, but of the same substance as the Father and the Son. For the Only-Begotten Himself says: 'The Spirit of the Father,' and '[the Spirit] which proceeds from the Father [and which] shall receive of mine,' so that He might not be thought to be alien to the Father, nor to the Son." Do you hear? "So that He might not be thought strange and alien," he says, "from the Father, nor from the Son, for this reason He is said to proceed from the Father and the Son." B And the most holy Maximus, in the places where he interprets what the prophet Zechariah meant by the golden lampstand, and the lamp upon it, and the lights, says thus: "For the Holy Spirit, just as He is by nature according to essence, as being essentially begotten from the Father through the Son, proceeds ineffably." Do you hear here too, he says that He proceeds essentially and ineffably from the Father through the Son; and this is the same as saying that He proceeds essentially from the Father and from the Son; since 'through' is equivalent to 'from,' as we have shown. The same author, in the letter to Marinus, presbyter of Cyprus, whose beginning is: "Enriched according to God by divine law, venerable father, you have neglected human law," says these things: "Of the synodal letters of the now most holy Pope, the men of the royal city did not lay hold of as many chapters as you wrote, but only two. The one of which is concerning theology; because," he says, "He said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and on this he produced consonant testimonies of the Roman Fathers; and furthermore also those of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred treatise composed by him on the holy evangelist John. From which they showed themselves not to be making the Son the cause of the Spirit; for they acknowledge one cause of the Son and of the Spirit: the Father—of the one, according to generation
the Procession. But in order to show that the [proceeding] "through him" denotes his springing forth, and in this way to demonstrate the communion and lack of difference of the essence, A listen: does the Holy Spirit also proceed from the Son? And do the sayings of the Fathers agree with this? And does the blessed Cyril also say and confirm this in his holy treatise on the evangelist John? To say that the Son is [not] a cause, does not show that [the Spirit] is not from him, but rather the contrary. He says that he is not a cause in the sense of a primordial cause—clearly, in accordance with that impious heresy which says that the Son is from the Father alone, and the Spirit from the Son alone. And one might think that the Son is the primordial cause of the Spirit. For this reason, those divine Fathers avoided saying "from the Father or the Son." Now this means to say, *neither* from the Father alone, *nor* from the Son alone, but from the Father through the Son. For this reason it is found that [the Spirit] proceeds, flows forth, and originates "through him" and "out of him"; and this has been shown very clearly in this, as well as in other instances. And the divine Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, in his letter to the bishops of the East, the beginning of which is, "With many and great providences," B speaks thus: "And in the Holy Spirit, who is known to be God, proceeding from the Father through the Son." You hear: he says that he proceeds from the Father *through* the Son. That the "through" signifies cause has been said before. And again, the holy Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, the beginning of which is, "The letter of your disposition," speaks thus: "For although the Son is one, who is the living Word, there must be one perfect and full sanctifying life, which is his operation and gift, which is said to proceed from the Father: since it shines forth from the Word who is confessed to be from the Father, and is sent and given; for indeed the Son is sent and given by the Father, and the Son sends the Spirit." You hear that the Holy Spirit is the operation and gift of the Son; and that the Father sends the Son, and the Son [sends] the Spirit. Let another witness, no less than this one, come forward: Cyril the Great, from the Egyptian diocese, with the synod gathered C with him, says: "The Spirit flows from the Father by nature according to his own procession; therefore He also flows by nature from the God-man Christ himself according to his own procession; for God does not give the Spirit to his own Son by measure, but He himself pours Him forth from himself, just as surely as the Father does." This same teacher says the same things to Hermias.
VI.
That the Son is the principle of the Spirit's existence, which is shown by the preposition "through," we have shown clearly in many previous arguments; and now we shall show this more explicitly through our great Father, Gregory of Nyssa. For he, in the first of his *Refutations against Eunomius*, speaking clearly concerning the divine union and distinction of the divine persons, says: "The Spirit, being joined to the Father according to the uncreated, is again separated from Him by the fact that He is not the Father, D just as He [the Father] is not; but from the connection with the Son, according to the fact that both are uncreated and both have their subsistence from the first principle, He is again distinguished by his own property, which is that He is not produced from the Father as the Only-begotten, and that He is made manifest through the Son himself. Again, since creation has come into being through the Only-begotten, lest it be thought that the Spirit has any commonality with it, by the fact that He is manifested through the Son, the Spirit is distinguished from by the unchangeable and unalterable [nature] and by the fact that He is not in need of the goodness of another." In this place the great
A teacher, discussing distinction and divine union, brings forward the Holy Spirit; and, comparing Him both to the Father and to the Son, he finds some things common and unifying among them, and some things proper and distinguishing. For, he says, by being joined to the Father according to the uncreated nature, He is separated back from Him, so that one might not think He is the Father, just as the other is; but [in relation] to the Son, He shares in the uncreated nature through conjoining—for the essence of the Three is one—and furthermore, both are commonly caused by the God of all. Nevertheless, He is distinguished from Him again by these two [points]: by not having subsistence in the way of a monogene, as the Son, but—to speak clearly—by procession. This, then, is in the differing mode of existence, and in the fact that He has appeared through the Son Himself.
Since the creation also has its existence through the Son—"for all things were made through Him," says the Evangelist John—and the Spirit also has appeared through the Son according to the choir of all the teachers, lest anything should be thought common to the Spirit and to the creature in that the one subsists through the Son and the other appears [through Him], having already previously assigned what is common to Him and to that [creature], he [Athanasius], fearing lest someone should deem this communion to be an identity of essence B—by the unchangeable and the changeable, and the unalterable and that which is not so—distinguishes these from one another. He considered it common, according to him, that the one subsists through the Son, and the other appears through the Son. But he found a mode of distinction: that the one is changeable and alterable, while the other is unchangeable and unalterable. And yet, if the Spirit having appeared through the Son did not signify the Son as cause, just as [the fact that] the creature subsists through the Son signifies Him as cause, the distinction between the Spirit and the creature would be easy; for it would have been possible to say that even if both are through the Son, the creation is causally from Him, whereas the other is non-causally. But now he did not say this; for what he did not know to be true, it was not his office to say; but he found another distinction, which he judged to be true and the only one existing. Therefore, the preposition "through," when it is said that the Spirit is manifested "through" the Son, has the same force as when it is said that the creature subsists "through" the Son; and because the Son is said and believed to be the cause of the creature, and the preposition "through" signifies this, therefore the word "through" regarding the Spirit also denotes that the Son is the cause.
But who could ever, keeping the sequence, explain these things delicately point by point, since they extend to infinity? But let the great and momentous Athanasius come forward again to bear witness for us that the Son is the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit. For he, in his first discourse against the Arians, of which the beginning is, "Whatever heresies have devised madness for C themselves against the truth," says such things: "Such things the Lord spoke to the Jews as a man; but to His own disciples, showing His divinity and majesty, and showing Himself no longer less than the Spirit, but greater and equal, He was giving the Spirit and saying, D 'I shall send Him, and He will glorify Me, and whatever He hears He will speak.' "
A You have heard again this great Father, who says that He is no longer less than the Spirit, but greater and equal—equal in accordance with consubstantiality; greater, not in any magnitude or in time—far be it! For there is nothing prior or posterior in the divine Trinity—but because the Spirit has His existence from Him, just as indeed He has it from God and the Father. Where are those who say that the Spirit is from the Father alone, and does not proceed from the Son? Do they not blush to contradict the saints? O, what patience is Yours, Christ o King! In part they hold these men to be saints, and they celebrate their feast, and venerate them, and make images of them, and adorn them with gold; yet in part they deny them, because they say the Spirit is also from the Son, and they shamelessly heap insults upon them. Now they adulterate their books, now they burn them utterly, so that they may not appear. And some they call drunkards; others they say are not saints, because they confess the Spirit is from the Son. And yet, do these men not blush to reproach us, who submit ourselves to the saints and to the teachers of the Church, and who guard their words? Furthermore, they fight against us because we submit to the holy and ecumenical council, and we treasure its decree deep in our hearts as a golden necklace. Truly, they are like the Pharisees, whom Christ our God rebukes, saying: "Woe to you, scribes and B Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven before men; for you do not enter, nor do you allow those who would enter to go in. Therefore you will receive greater judgment." So do these men also; for they, having blinded their eyes through prejudice, do not submit to the Church, and they heap contumelies upon us because we do submit. Moreover, they shamelessly attack us, saying that none of the saints says the Spirit is from the Son. Come to your senses for the Lord's sake, brothers, and see how many saints we show you who say this. Again, the same Athanasius in his letter to Serapion says: "Indeed, while the Father sends the Spirit, the Son, breathing upon them, gives Him to the disciples, since all things that the Father has are the Son's." The all-great Cyril agrees with this in his exposition of the ninth anathema, where he says: "The Word of God, having become man, nevertheless remained God, having all things that the Father has, except only that He is not the Father; and having as His own the Holy Spirit, essentially implanted in Him from Himself, He performed divine signs." Did you hear the "from Himself"? What indeed does he wish to signify, if not that it is from Him that He proceeds, and that He possesses all things that the Father has? Understand, you men of God, understand! And Saint Hilary, in the sermon that is read after Pentecost, C on the feast of the holy Trinity, says this: "We believe in the holy Trinity, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one omnipotent God, of one essence, of one substance, of one power, the creator of all creatures, out of 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." Now, as I believe, this authority solves every D
A doubt. Since this saint says that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son, he has left no cause for those who seek occasions to argue. Hearken, therefore, and understand, you who prefer your salvation to all other things, what it is that he means to signify by "the Holy Spirit proceeding equally from the Father and the Son." Observe, Christian, and do not so maliciously and recklessly cast aside blasphemous words against those who know. For the ignorant are not only unstudious to learn, but they even insult those who are eager to learn. I omit to mention their most shameful and blasphemous phrases, preserving the dignity of my own words everywhere, for the honor of the race. B Furthermore, the great Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: "The Spirit sustains such an order and nature toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father; but we see no other order and nature of the Son toward the Father than that he is from him, and that he has him as his cause." C This, then, is the order that this saint wishes the Spirit to have toward the Son; and for this reason, it is proper to say and to understand that the Spirit is from the Son. Consistent with this, the heavenly-minded, divine Basil, in the seventeenth chapter of his work to Amphilochius, speaks thus: "As, therefore, the Son has a relation to the Father, so also does the Spirit have to the Son, according to the sequence of the word handed down in baptism." And if the Spirit is coordinated with the Son, and the Son with the Father, then clearly the Spirit is also with the Father. D Cyril, the great light of the Alexandrians, in his sixth book against Hermias, says thus: "In this we know that he is in us, from the Spirit which he gave us; for each one has acquired him as an inhabitant and one who remains with him—him who is naturally and truly God—not receiving a Spirit that is something foreign or divided in essence from him, but one that is from him, and in him, and is his own." And in the seventh [book] again, to the same Hermias, he says: "For, liberating from sin him who was burdened by it, he afterwards anoints him with his own Spirit, which he himself, as the Word, pours forth from God the Father, and from his own nature causes to spring up for us; and by way of the economy of the incarnation, as if establishing a common thing for the sake of the union, he breathes even as a man does, physically—for he breathed upon the apostles, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'—according to the words of John; but he does so from himself, just as the Father also pours him forth." What clearer or more sincere argument could be found among those who do not wish to contend or to embrace schism? For this greatest father says in the sixth book: "From him, in him, and his own"; and in the seventh, "He gives the Spirit not by measure, according to the words of John, but he himself pours him forth from himself, just as the Father does." If, therefore, the Son produces the Spirit just as the Father does, why do you doubt any further? For if, because the saint says "pours forth," it does not mean "produces" or "brings forth" or "sends out," but only "pours forth," he means the very same thing, brothers, as if he said "brings forth," especially since he applies this very word to the Father; for he says, "He pours him forth just as the Father does," and consequently, the Father also pours forth the Spirit. If, therefore, the Father pours him forth, and we ought to understand this as nothing other than [producing],
that the Father proceeds him—meaning that the Son also pours him forth just as the Father does—then the Son also proceeds him—meaning he produces him—just as the Father does. For when we hear simply of "the Spirit of the Father," we understand nothing other than that he proceeds from the Father. It follows, therefore, that when we hear this concerning the Son, "the Spirit of the Son," we must necessarily understand that he also proceeds from the Son. And in this way we speak the truth and are in agreement with the saints, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But this has been clearly demonstrated; and this explanation sends forth its rays like the sun, against which those who have the eyes of owls, being unable to look, stumble up and down.
B VII. But it seems fair to me, since we have fulfilled our promise by producing thirty-three testimonies of the Oriental saints to prove that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son, that we should make mention of the Western saints as well, and bring forward two or three testimonies from each, to prove that the Western and Oriental doctors are in agreement and that there is no ambiguity among them. And first, let the most renowned among the saints, the Father and doctor of the Church, Gregory—I mean the Dialogist—come forth to testify along with the Oriental doctors. For the Oriental Church also holds him for a saint and celebrates his commemoration every year with praise, and this you cannot deny. For in one of his treatises, after many other things, he writes: "Whence also the Truth himself, in order to increase faith in his disciples, said: 'If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you.' For since it is established that the Paraclete, the Spirit, always proceeds from the Father and the Son, why does the Son say that he will depart so that he may come, he who never departs from the Son? But because the disciples, seeing the Lord in the flesh, were also thirsting to see him spiritually, it is rightly said to them, 'If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come,' as if it were openly being said: If I do not remove my body, I do not show what the love of the Spirit is; and unless you cease to see me carnally, you will never know how to love me spiritually." The same teacher, in the first book of his *Morals*, chapter eight, explains it thus: "The days of the feast pass away in the world when the mysteries of the preaching are fulfilled. And when the feasts were finished, Job offered holocausts for his children; because Christ the Redeemer prayed to the Father for the apostles returning from their preaching. He is said well to sanctify by sending, because while he bestows the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from himself, on the hearts of the disciples,
A he cleansed whatever fault could have existed in them.” The same author in the thirty-second volume of his Morals, in the second chapter, speaks as follows: “The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in proverbs. For he asserts that he will announce piously concerning the Father, because through the Father there was manifested at that time the form of his majesty, and he shows how he himself is not unequal to the one who begets him; and how the Spirit proceeds from both, coeternal with each. For then we shall see openly how this which proceeds, from whom it springs, is in no way inferior, [and] how that which is brought forward through procession is not surpassed by those who bring it forward. Openly then we shall see how in a divisible manner they are three, and in an indivisible manner the three are one.” B Idem in his explicit confession of faith, as all supreme pontiffs do when they confess that faith at their assumption: “I believe in God the Father almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one essence, the Father unbegotten, the Son only-begotten, and the Holy Spirit neither begotten nor unbegotten, but coeternal proceeding from the Father and the Son.” Likewise, in the Gospel according to John, in the homily on these words, “When it was evening on that day, the first of the week,” which begins: “As the Father has sent me, I also send you,” a little after he says: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father.” For if being sent ought to be understood merely as being incarnated, C the Holy Spirit would undoubtedly in no way be said to be sent, who was never incarnated. But his sending is his very procession, by which he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, just as the Spirit is said to be sent because he proceeds, so too it is not unfitting for the Son to be said to be sent, because he is begotten. Damasus, the most holy president of Rome, who lived at the time of the second Council of Constantinople, in that confession of the Catholic faith which this pope sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch: “We believe in one true God, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; creator of visible and invisible things, through whom all things were created in heaven and on earth. This one God, and this one Trinity of the divine name; the Father not being the Son, but having a Son, who cannot be the Father; the Son not being the Father, but being by nature the Son of God. But the Spirit, the Paraclete, is neither the Father nor the Son; but [is] from the Father and the Son D proceeding.” Therefore, the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Paraclete not begotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son
A Hormisdas, the most holy Pope, in his letter to the Emperor Justin against the blasphemies of Nestorius and Eutyches, speaks thus: “We worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the distinguished, yet indivisible, incomprehensible, and unutterable substance of the Trinity. There, even if reason admits a number of persons, unity nevertheless does not cast off the substance. It is so, however, that we maintain for each divine person his own proper characteristics; and neither do we deny, through the persons, the unity of the Godhead, nor do we transfer to the substance that which is proper to the persons. Great, holy, and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; an indivisible Trinity. And it is further known that it is proper to the Father to beget the Son; proper to the Son of God to be begotten from the Father equal to the Father; and proper to the Holy Spirit to B proceed from the Father and the Son, under one substance of the Godhead.” Leo the most holy, and himself the supreme pontiff of elder Rome, in his first sermon on Pentecost, the beginning of which is, “The festival of this day, most beloved brethren,” speaks thus: “For in the divine Trinity there is nothing unlike, nothing unequal; and all things that can be understood regarding that substance are not distinguished by power, nor by glory, nor by eternity. And while in the properties of the persons one is the Father, another is the Son, and another is the Holy Spirit, yet there is not another Godhead nor a different nature: since, while the Son is indeed the Only-begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, He is not as any of the creatures which are of the Father and the Son, but as living with both, and as existing eternally from them, which is what the Father and the Son are.”
The divine Ambrose, to whom the holy Basil wrote, saying, C “Come, O man of God, for you have not received or learned the Gospel of Christ from men, but the Lord Himself has transferred you from the judges to the seat of the apostles”—this man, in the first book of his work *On the Holy Spirit*, chapter ten, writes to the Emperor Gratian: “But neither, when the Son goes forth from the Father, does He depart from place, or is as a body separated from a body. For He is not included in the Father as in a body, since He is not a body. The Holy Spirit also, when He proceedeth from the Father and from the Son, is not separated from the Father, is not separated from the Son. For in what way can He be separated from the Father, who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is altogether a token of His eternity and expresses the unity of the Godhead.”
Augustine, that most divine man, that most sublime intellect, demonstrates this most powerfully in many of his discourses. Furthermore, D also writing to Orosius, and holding discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is, “Our Lord Jesus Christ showed how He was to depart,” he says many excellent things therein; among many other things he treats of this: “Here, then, one might perhaps ask whether the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. For the Son is the Son of the Father alone; and the Father is the Father of the Son alone; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of only one of these, but of both. You have the Lord Himself who says: ‘It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you’; you have also the Apostle: ‘God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ And after a few words he says: Since, therefore, as there is one Father, and one
Lord, that is to say the Son, so also there is one Holy Spirit, who is undoubtedly of both; and after a few words: Many other testimonies exist by which it is clearly shown that the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, which in the Trinity is called the Holy Spirit. B And going on, he says: Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son? Since the Spirit himself is also of the Son. For if he did not proceed from him, he would not, after the resurrection, appearing to his disciples, have breathed on them saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” For what else was indicated by that breathing, if not that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him? And after a few words he says: If, therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, for what reason did the Son say he proceeds from the Father? By all means, in the manner in which he is accustomed to refer his own things to the Father, from whom he himself also is. Whence also that saying of his: “My doctrine is not mine, but of the Father who sent me.” C If, therefore, his doctrine is understood even here, although he said that it was not his own but the Father’s, why is it not even more necessary to understand that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him? Whereas he said he proceeds from the Father in such a way as not to say that he does not proceed from me; for from whom the Son has his being God (for he is God from God), from him he has entirely that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from him. And after a few words he says: The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creation, but proceeds from both together, even if the Father gave this to the Son, so that, just as from himself, so also through him he proceeds. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, since the Father is life and the Son is life; D and for this reason, just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave [the Spirit] to have life proceeding also from him, just as he proceeds from himself. The most divine Jerome, in his treatise on the Trinity, says thus: “The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is worshipped as equal in all things to the Father and the Son, and is coeternal.” Of the same to Saint Damasus, Bishop of Rome, on the Catholic faith: “We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, and in the Holy Spirit God; not three gods, but we worship and confess the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one God. Not thus one God as if solitary, nor that the same person who is Father is himself the Son, but the Father is he who begat, and the Son is he who was begotten; the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten, not created, not made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, coeternal, equal, and co-worker with the Father and the Son. For it is written: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were established,’ that is, by the Son of God, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power.” Likewise the most divine Augustine in the book to Peter on faith
in chapter 11, says: A “Hold most firmly, and doubt in no way, that this same Holy Spirit is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding from the Father and the Son. For the Son says: ‘When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father,’ where he taught that the Spirit is his own, because he himself is the truth. The prophetic and apostolic teaching also hands down to us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. For Isaiah says concerning the Son: ‘He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked;’ of whom the Apostle also says: ‘Whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth.’
The same author in the twentieth chapter of the fourth book of *De Trinitate*, which begins: ‘But if according to this he is said to be sent by the Father,’ after many other things says: B ‘And just as for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God is for him to proceed from the Father, so to be sent is for him to be known as proceeding from the Father; nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son. Neither is the same Spirit called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son in vain, nor do I see what else he wished to signify when, breathing into the face of his disciples, he said: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” For that bodily breath was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, proceeding with the sensation of bodily touch from the mouth, but a demonstration by a fitting sign that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. For who would be so demented as to say that the Spirit whom he gave by breathing was one, and another whom he sent after the ascension?’
The same author in the seventeenth chapter of the fifteenth book of *De Trinitate*, which begins: ‘Enough has been said concerning the Father and the Son,’ according to the beginning says: C ‘That the Holy Spirit according to the Holy Scriptures is neither the Father’s alone, nor the Son’s alone, but of both;’ and after some things: ‘For so also the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and altogether all are one God. And yet it is not in vain that in this Trinity the Word of God is called only the Son, nor is the gift of God called anything but the Holy Spirit, nor is God the Father called the one from whom the Word is begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. I have added “principally,” however, because the Holy Spirit is also found to proceed from the Son. But the Father gave even this to the Son, not when he already existed and did not yet have it, but whatever he gave to the only-begotten Word, he gave in begetting him. D So, therefore, he begat him, that from him also the common gift would proceed, and the Holy Spirit would be the Spirit of both.’
The same author in the twentieth chapter of the same book, which begins: ‘Then in that highest Trinity,’ says thus: ‘Wherefore, he who can understand without time the generation of the Son from the Father, let him understand without time the procession of the Holy Spirit from both. And he who can understand in that which the Son says, “As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself,” that he did not give life to the Son when he already existed without life, but so begat him without time that the life which the Father gave the Son in begetting him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it, let him understand; and just as the Father
A has within himself that from him the Holy Spirit might proceed, so he has given it also to the Son, that from him the same Holy Spirit might proceed, and both without time; and so it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as [it is] to be understood that he who proceeds [proceeds] also from the Son: [that he is] of the Father and of the Son. For if whatever the Son has, he has from the Father, he certainly has from the Father also that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. B The same [author] in the book on the Catholic Faith, which he also calls the *Dioptra*: "Grant me in this way, in which I journey with you as guide, understanding and inspiration, and teach me by your grace how it is necessary to believe in you blamelessly, that I may think of you as one God eternally, and believe you to be in-comprehensibly Trinity in persons: Father unbegotten, Son begotten of the Father, and Holy Spirit proceeding from both and remaining in both." The same [author] in the same book: "This faith I confess through you, and from you, and in you, O blessed and praised and glorious Trinity, O true and supreme eternal Unity, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, God, Lord, Paraclete, charity, grace, consolation, true light, light from light, true illumination, living life, life from the living, life-giver of the living, fountain, river, channel; one from none, one from one, one from both. From one all things; through one, in one. From none, the Father; from the other, the Father, namely, the Son; from both the Holy Spirit, that is, from the Father and the Son. True begetter, truth begotten; love of both, the Holy Spirit. Unity, one equal greatness, equal glory, one and the same essence." The same [author] in the same book of the *Dioptra*: C "Since, therefore, the Father is always, and that he always possesses the Son is undoubted, I believe also that you, O Holy Spirit, are true God, not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding ineffably from the Father and the Son, and substantially remaining in the Father and in the Son. Thus, therefore, you proceed from both, so as to remain inseparably in each, and thus in all things to be equal and co-eternal and consubstantial with God and Father and with the Son, so that you can in no way differ from those from whom you proceed, neither in power, nor in will, nor in eternity, nor in essence, nor be cut off from them. Therefore, [I believe] the Father eternal without generation; the Son eternal with generation; the Holy Spirit eternal with procession. The whole Father in the Son and in the Holy Spirit; the whole Son in the Father and in the Spirit; the whole Spirit remaining in the Father and in the Son. D Father and Son and Holy
A Spirit, one God Almighty in authority and in one kingdom and majesty; and both then and now and always reigning everywhere, I believe with my heart and confess with my tongue and love with my mind. The same person in his work on the Catholic faith: “For who before us has reached the ends of the ages, to hear and to know such things, concerning the Trinity B and the oneness of persons, and of the essence? Concerning you, God Father, that you are from no one, so that for this reason you are called unbegotten; and concerning your Son, that he is begotten from you, but is not from himself; and concerning your Holy Spirit, that he proceeds, and is not from himself, but from you and from your Son: whose Spirit he also is.” The same author in the same work: “For the remaining part, who in this has a transparent and pure heart and bosom, like crystal, so that he could enter into the mysteries of your Trinity; how the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons, yet one nature? How, Father, you are called unbegotten; but your Son is begotten; and the Holy Spirit, neither unbegotten, nor begotten, but proceeding? How, indeed, the Son is begotten, and yet does not proceed; and the Holy Spirit proceeds, and is not begotten? How the one is not from himself, but from you; and yet you are not posterior to him, he being from you; and the Holy Spirit, how he proceeds from you and from your Son, yet is not cut off from you, he from whom he proceeds?” And after a little: “How the Son who is from you, C O God Father, not being posterior to you, and how the Spirit of both of you, proceeding by procession, from you who lead him forth, is not separated; and how the one is distinctly three; and the three, indistinguishably are one?” The same author in his book of Soliloquies: “I have known you as the true God, one Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding equally from both, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father and the Son, the Paraclete and our advocate, who descended upon the same God and our Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a dove, and appeared upon the apostles in tongues of fire, who also, from the beginning, have taught all the saints and elect of God by the gift of your grace; and opened the mouths of the prophets, that they might recount the wonders of the kingdom of God: who by all the saints of God, with the Father and the Son, are worshipped and glorified together: among whom I too, the son of your handmaid, with all my heart praise your name, because you have enlightened me. You are the true light, D the truthful light, the fire of God, and the master of spirits, who by your anointing teach us all truth, O Spirit of truth, without whom it is impossible to please God, since you yourself are God from God, and light proceeding from light, from the Father of lights ineffably through his Son our Lord Jesus Christ.” The same author in the same work: “There is one God the Father, who alone essentially begat from himself one Son: and one Son, who alone was essentially begotten from the one Father: and one Holy Spirit, who alone essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The same author in the same chapter: “For neither in that Trinity will something be the property of the Father alone, because he himself is not begotten, but because he alone begat the Son; nor the property of the Son alone, because he himself did not beget, but was begotten from the substance of the Father; nor the property of the Holy Spirit, because he himself is neither begotten, nor did he beget, but proceeds solely from the Father and the Son.” The same author to Orosius: “That the Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten, which the faith that is confessed manifests: for if we say unbegotten, we shall be seen to assert two Fathers; if begotten, they will accuse us of believing in two Sons; but as that which is in the confessed faith holds, he is neither unbegotten, nor begotten, but proceeds from both.”
A proceeding from the Father and the Son.” The same author in the same chapter: “For neither in that Trinity would it be personal to the Father alone that he himself is not begotten; but that he begat one Son; nor personal to the Son alone, that he himself did not beget, but was begotten from the substance of the Father; nor personal to the Holy Spirit, that he was neither begotten, nor did he beget, but only proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The same author to Orosius: “The holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten, as the confessed faith holds. For if we say unbegotten, we shall seem to maintain two Fathers; if begotten, they will accuse us of believing in two Sons. But as the confessed faith holds, he is neither unbegotten nor begotten, but proceeds from both, that is, from the Father and the Son. And that I may demonstrate this by the testimonies of the Lord Himself, our Christ, instructing His disciples, hear: ‘When He comes,’ He says, ‘the Advocate whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.’ And again, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself after His resurrection, to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him just as from the Father, breathed upon His disciples and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore there is one Spirit of the Father and of the Son, one Spirit of both.” B The same author in the second book against Maximus: “You ask me, if the Son is from the substance of the Father, is the Holy Spirit also from the substance of the Father? Why then is the one a Son, and the other not a Son? Behold, I answer, whether you grasp it or not: the Son is from the Father; the Holy Spirit is from the Father. But the former is begotten; the latter proceeds. Therefore the former is the Son of the Father, from whom He was begotten; but the latter is the Spirit of both, because He proceeds from both. But for this reason I say of the former, the Son is from the Father; while the Spirit proceeds, because the Father is the principal source of his procession; who begat such a Son and in begetting Him gave to Him that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him also. For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from Him also, He would not have said to the disciples, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’; and He was giving this by breathing, that by signifying He also proceeded from Himself, He was openly bestowing it. Since, therefore, if He were begotten, He would doubtlessly be begotten not only from the Father, not only from the Son, but from both, He would undeniably be called the Son of both. And for this reason, C because the Son of both can in no wise exist, He ought not to have been begotten of both.” The same author in the same work: “Let it suffice us, therefore, that the Son is not from Himself, but from Him of whom He was begotten. The Holy Spirit is not from Himself, but from Him from whom He proceeds. And since He proceeds from both, as we have already demonstrated, whence He is said to be the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; and the rest.” The same author in the same book, on how the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit: “Therefore, as much as D
A the Father possesses of goodness, so much has He given to the Son. And because the Son is Son by nature B and not by grace, he gave to him who is being begotten, not to one in need; and the Fullness, the source of goodness, begat a source of goodness. And for this reason, He did not cast away within Himself that which He received, nor did the One who gave it diminish it within Himself. For neither does unchangeableness have a place from which it might decrease, nor does fullness have a place from which it might increase. And what else is this goodness, if not life-giving life? And from this, since the source begat a source, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills. The Son Himself said this, not I. Whence it is aptly said to God and Father, ‘For with Thee is the fountain of life.’ And who is this fountain of life with the Father, if not He of whom it is said, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and this was in the beginning with God’? Concerning whom it is also said a little later: ‘And the life was the light of men.’ This source is the source of life; and this light is light from light. Whence, after it is said, ‘With Thee is the fountain of life,’ it is forthwith joined, ‘And in Thy light we shall see light’; that is to say, in Thy Son, the Holy Spirit; whom also thou hast confessed in the first part to be the illuminator of our company. C Therefore, a source from a source, the Son is from the Father; and both together are one source; light from light; the Son is from the Father; and both together are one light. Just as God is from God, and both together, of course, are one God. And all this is not without the Spirit of both, from this fountain of life.” The same author, in the fifth book on the Trinity, in the fourth chapter, says: “If, therefore, also that which is given has its beginning from Him from whom it is given, for it received from nowhere else that which proceeds from Him, it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two beginnings, but just as the Father and the Son are one God, and relatively to the creature one Creator and one Lord, so relatively to the Holy Spirit, one beginning. But towards the creature, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one beginning, as one Creator and one Lord.” This blessed Father theologizes these same and similar things in the following [books] and in many other discourses and books. And who would be sufficient to gather all that he says on this subject? But these things are sufficient to soften any soul and to persuade it to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, just as He does from the Father.
II. D “But perhaps some one of the adversaries will say that there is no need for us to cling to this man, nor yet to follow his words, seeing that he is a Western doctor and a Latin, even if you have burdened our ears with the multitude of his writings.” To these it must be replied: If his works had not been approved by an ecumenical council, what you say would be well-grounded; but since an ecumenical council commands that these be kept, and that too with curses and anathema, you do not speak well. And that this is so, hear from the Acts of the holy and ecumenical Sixth Council: “We accept as consistent in all things with all the holy Fathers and teachers of the holy Church of God—Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Augustine, Theophilus, Cyril, John of Constantinople, Leo, Proclus—and everything written by them concerning the right faith and for the condemnation of heretics.” Similarly, the Seventh [Council] also [says]: “To those who reject the utterances of the holy Fathers, [which were] promulgated for the establishing of the dogmas of the Church of God—those of Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochius, the divine Leo, most holy archbishop of ancient Rome,
Augustine, and the rest; furthermore, also the acts of the ecumenical councils, I mean the fourth and the sixth, let him be anathema. Do you hear how he is subjected to anathema, who does not receive the utterances of Augustine? Do not, therefore, henceforth hesitate to hold Augustine as a saint and teacher, whose glory is great in the Church of God. You know, therefore, how the Western teachers also agree in all things with the Eastern, as if the same Spirit had spoken in them; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and is given, and is sent, and is dispatched, and is poured forth, and flows in, and goes forth, and bubbles up, and springs up, and breathes: B all of which signify His eternal proceeding from the Father at the same time as from the Son. And the Westerns cry out more clearly than the Easterns, saying explicitly that He is proceeding from both, that is to say, from the Father and the Son, and they do not differ among themselves, but agree most beautifully and most enthusiastically. And you cannot set them aside, when the councils cry out openly to those who do not receive their utterances, "Let him be anathema." From where then do you have it to show that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, when all the teachers cry out that He is also from the Son, and the rest, so that I may not speak of each one? Believe therefore these teachers, and obey us who counsel you rightly.
IX
9.
These things, then, having been set forth by us and collected from the divine and holy teachers of the Church, we deemed it worth the effort to add also some other things out of what is available to us, which we ourselves, through hearing from many and examining within ourselves, have discovered, being persuaded by which we have submitted ourselves to this holy council. Hear then, you also. That the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, the Son Himself says, calling Him the Spirit of truth; and He Himself is the truth. The great Paul also says this in many places: "God," he says, "sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts"; and, "If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." This word alone, brothers, suffices to prove the whole. For the being called the Spirit of the Son denotes nothing else than that He is from Him. D For what some say, avoiding the truth, that the Spirit being called the Spirit of the Son signifies consubstantiality, is a spider's web. For if He were called His Spirit because of consubstantiality, for this very same reason the Son would also be called of the Spirit, and the Father, of the Son and of the Spirit; but you would find this nowhere. It follows, therefore, that that which is sent forth is of the Father who sends forth and produces; for it is not right to conceive of any other thing. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit either proceeds from the Father alone, or not from the Father alone; for there is no middle ground between contradictories. But He does not proceed from the Father alone; and if not from the Father alone, then He proceeds also from the Son. And that He does not proceed from the Father alone is clear from this: first, because nowhere...
A has it been found said, either by the divine Scripture or by the teachers. But what has not been said by any of the saints, no one should dare to speak. Furthermore, the projecting energy of the Father being essential, is not accomplished as primary and immediate, but through the primary one, which has been shown to be the begetting and the generation. Wherefore it is necessary that the Son also share in this energy, and that the Holy Spirit proceed through Him. Furthermore, it is commonly confessed by all the teachers that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. If then He proceeds from Him, He proceeds by all means naturally; for there is nothing in God that is against nature, nor acquired. For it is characteristic of creatures not to proceed from God by nature. If, therefore, the Spirit proceeds from the Son by nature, and natural procession in divine matters can occur in two ways—either by generation or by procession—and He does not proceed from Him by generation (for if so, the Spirit would be the Son of the Son), He proceeds, therefore, by procession. Thus, the procession of the Spirit from the Son would be as of one proceeding from Him. Furthermore, that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and of the Son, all teachers proclaim, both Eastern and Western; but whatever is in the Trinity from the essence of someone, is also from his hypostasis. The Holy Spirit, therefore, being said to be from the essence of the Son, is also from His hypostasis. And if anyone should dare to say that these things were spoken because of the consubstantiality, and in order that the Spirit might be shown to be of the same essence as the Father and the Son, this is B true indeed; but the truer it is, the more it supports us. For thus the Spirit is more consubstantial to the Father and the Son, as proceeding from their essence and from them, that is to say, proceeding. For if it merely denotes consubstantiality simply, as they themselves wish, then the Father would have to be said to be from the essence of the Son and of the Spirit, and the Son from the essence of the Spirit. But this no one has dared to say until now, nor will they dare, if they wish to be Christians. Furthermore, by the great Basil and most of the saints, the Son is called the image C of the Father, and the Spirit the image of the Son; and the Son is the energy of the Father, and the Spirit the energy of the Son; and the Son is the Word of the Father, and the Spirit the utterance of the Son; and the Son is the fragrance of the Father, and the Spirit the fragrance of the Son. But the Son is called all those things of the Father as being from the Father; therefore, the Holy Spirit also is called these things of the Son, as being from the Son. Furthermore, if the Spirit were not from the Son, He would not be personally distinguished from Him; but this is absurd to say, for thus the Trinity would be defined as a duality. The Spirit is, therefore, from the Son, if He is to be distinguished from Him personally. Furthermore, Christ says to the disciples: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you,” and, “If I go away, I will send Him to you.” For to be sent, in regard to God, signifies being from a cause. And a witness is the divine Chrysostom D to the Arians, who doubted how He who sends and He who is sent are of the same essence, in the 39th Homily, when he says: “Again you transpose the discourse to human terms, and do not understand that all these things are said for no other reason than that we may know the cause, and not fall into the disease of Sabellius: but the Spirit is sent from the Son, and from Him
A also it is. Further, whatever is of someone by nature and from him, is said to be of him; and the Holy Spirit is of the Son, and truly by nature; for the Holy Spirit is not by nature, nor as a slave, but the Holy Spirit—as Holy Spirit—is a divine person in the Trinity, from the Son. Further, the Holy Spirit is relative; and it is clear that He is called the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son; and He is referred to as one breathing forth or projecting; and the Father and the Son are those who breathe forth, hence the Spirit is of the Father and the Son, as those who breathe forth and project Him. Further, the Holy Spirit receives from the Son, for He says, "He shall take of mine," and what He receives is His essence; for His essence is not one thing, and that which He receives another, for that would be composite; but He is in the highest degree of simplicity, as God; therefore He receives His essence and His being even from the Son. There are also many other testimonies of the Holy Scripture; such as, "Whom I will send to you from the Father," and such as, "He shall take of mine and shall announce it to you," and "Whatever He hears He shall speak," and "My Spirit and the Father's, whom I will send, in whom you shall be strengthened," and other similar things, of which we have explained part at length, and have omitted part due to the length. But for the showing of this conclusion, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, although there are many things which could be adduced, let these suffice for the present.
X.
Since they also bring forward certain contradictions against those who hold this truth, we shall reply to them also as best we can, dissolving their sophisms according to the doctrine handed down by the teachers. First they say, How is it that the Lord, when saying B the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, did not add Himself? But neither did He deny Himself, we shall reply, just as He does in other cases; for that perhaps would have been more forced, even if it were not sufficient to prove what they intend; for indeed He Himself regarding that day and hour says, "No one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son, except the Father alone," and again, "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me, the Father," and, "No one has known the Son except the Father." And yet we, doing well, believe the contrary; and [we believe] that He knows that day and hour as clearly as the Father, and that He knows Himself in the same way as the Father [knows Him], and we hold His teaching to be more His own than anything else. If, therefore, regarding things He clearly denied, we praiseworthily believe the opposite, why shall we not piously believe here what He did not deny? Furthermore, they think that the Father and the Son are C either joined into one person if anyone should say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, or if not that, that they nevertheless are two
consequences to follow, or two causes; which is itself A no less absurd than the former. As for the claim of coalescence, we answer thus: if we were to posit the act of procession as the personal or hypostatic property of the Father’s person, then that absurdity would indeed follow, and the Son would truly be one person with the Father, sharing in that which is constitutive of him. But since the constitutive property of the Father’s person is declared to be paternity and begetting, whereas procession is a property or mark that follows upon the person once constituted, what is the necessity that he who shares with him in this property—which is not constitutive of his person—should also be one person with him? B Just as the Son, while sharing with the Father in the fact that the Spirit is his, as also the Father’s, and that he is sent from him just as from the Father, nevertheless does not share in his person, because the fact that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, or is sent from him, is not constitutive of the Father’s person; so too, sharing with the Father in the procession does not mean he coalesces into one person with him, because procession is not constitutive of the Father’s person. Therefore, until one demonstrates that procession is constitutive of the Father’s person, one cannot demonstrate a coalescence of the persons. If it seems a wonder that two hypostases can be one principle and not coalesce, it would be a greater wonder that the three hypostases are one principle and do not coalesce. C Then they reproach us with "dyarchy," saying: "Those who make the Father and the Son the principle of the Spirit cannot escape dyarchy." But, first of all, those Latins who are accused by them do not dare to call it a dyarchy, or a first and second principle, or one principle consisting of two. Rather, they subject those who think such things to anathema. And if one were to ask them if they call the Son too a principle of the Holy Spirit, they would say: "Yes; and if you ask about the Father, yes." But if one were to add to this, "Therefore you call the Spirit two principles," they reply "Not at all. You are the one who concludes this; we ourselves do not add this word, 'two'." Furthermore, when we, along with Gregory the Theologian, speak of "principle from principle," do we conceive of two principles? And when we say "God from God," do we conceive of two Gods? Certainly not. D The divine Augustine, moreover, says that the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but both are one principle of him: and they do not produce the Holy Spirit in that they are two, nor are they two principles of the Holy Spirit: just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle of it, the Trinity, God. Furthermore, because they create by one and the same numerical power, proceeding from one and the same common deity, for this reason it is rightly said that there is one God and one Author, and not three. This is sufficient to declare to those who doubt concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son: for because the Father and the Son produce the Spirit together by one and the same power, and because the Son receives from the Father this causative power of procession, therefore, properly and truly, he is one cause and one
source of the procession of the Spirit. Thus, the argument brought against us by those who accuse us of B dual-causality is in no way reasonable. But they say: "The procession from the Father is perfect, and that from the Son is vain; or if that from the Son is necessary, that from the Father is imperfect." But let those who say these things be interrogated in turn by us: whether the creation of the world from the Father is perfect, or not? If it is perfect, why are the Son and the Spirit also causes? If it is imperfect, and for this reason the Son and the Spirit are introduced, let them consider what they are saying. But, I think, the production of existing things from the Father is perfect, and the energy of the Son and of the Spirit toward their procession is one and the same in number; and it is not one energy for Him and another for them; for then these childish questions would have place. Thus, then, it is also in the case before us: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect and more than perfect, and the procession of the same from the Son is also one and the same in number; it is not one and another, nor differently and differently, nor yet at one time from the Father and at another from the Son, but at once and the same, likewise; both producing it by one and the same power in number.
Then they parade the words of the divine John, I mean the Damascene, up and down, as if it were irrefutable; that blessed man saying: "We do not say the Spirit is from the Son." And we do not deny that the holy man says this; but neither do we have any doubt at all regarding this. For that divine Teacher said this, not because it is not, but because it is not said, on account of the heretics. He says something similar to this in the seventy-seventh chapter: "We do not call the holy Virgin C Christotokos." In another of his discourses, he says: "Therefore we proclaim the holy Virgin as Theotokos, since she gave birth in the flesh to Him who was properly and truly God from her, for we know her as Christotokos, for she gave birth to Christ. But because the God-damaged Nestorius used this expression to destroy the term by which we express that she gave birth to God, we do not call her Christotokos, but we name her by the more excellent term."
XI.
[IA'.] You see how he acknowledges the holy Virgin as Christotokos, yet he does not say it, not because she did not give birth to Christ, but because it is not said. For of things, some are not but are said; some are, but are not said; some neither are nor are said; some are both and are said. For just as he declared most clearly here, because of Nestorius and his followers, we do not say "Christotokos," not because she is not, so also because of Eunomius, who said the Spirit is from the Son alone: "We do not say," he says, "the Spirit is from the Son." For if he knew that it was not, he would have spoken about this as he also speaks about the Son; but we say neither that the Son is of the Spirit, nor indeed from the Spirit. Otherwise, the preposition "from" in the Greek language denotes the pre-originating cause; such as to be the Son, or to be the cause of the world, or of the Holy Spirit, it is notA that the Fathers designate by "from" in His case, so that a pro-originating cause might not be suspected; but rather they use "through," as indicating an order. For this reason, even the blessed one, when saying "through the Son," looking rather to the order, places the "from" upon the Father, so that he may signify to us the Father as the one pro-originating cause of both the Godhead and creation.
Then they bring forward the saying of the divine Dionysius, who says, "The Father is the sole fountain of the trans-substantial Godhead," boasting how the Son could even be shown to be a fountain of the Holy Spirit, if the saint said that the Father alone is the fountain. But in this, let them first accuse the teachers of the Church, Athanasius and Basil, who clearly call the Son the fountain of the Holy Spirit. For the holy Athanasius, in his work against the Arians, explaining that Psalmic verse, "For with Thee is the fountain of life," says: "He knew, he means, the Father, manifestly, having with Himself the Son, the fountain of the Holy Spirit." And Basil, in his second book against Eunomius, says: "What then, we, how by confessing the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son, shall we escape a contradiction in the very being? What shall we say? That from the good Father, the Son is good, and from the unbegotten light, the eternal light shone forth; and from true life, the life-giving fountain flowed forth; and from the power which is of itself, God’s power was drawn forth." And again the same says, "The Son is a fountain of life," he says; for David says to the Father, "For with Thee is the fountain of life," and another prophet speaks concerning the Jews: "Me they have forsaken, the fountain of living water." And "living water" is the name for the Holy Spirit. B And then, not even we say that the Son is a primary fountain, or that He has existence as a fountain of Himself, but from the Father. For the Father is the sole fountain of the trans-substantial Godhead, because He does not proceed from another fountain. For neither does He have existence as a fountain from any other. For as regards the Father, there is no cause for His being a fountain; but as regards the Son, the Father is that cause. And the Father is a fountain both as begetter and as producer, while the Son, as producer only. Hence, the Father is the fountain of the whole Godhead that wells forth, simply; but the Son, of that of the Spirit alone. And the Father is not a fountain in relation to one thing, while being from a fountain in relation to another; but the Son is a fountain in relation to the Spirit, and from a fountain in relation to the Father. And thus, for us, this also is rightly understood, just as the rest. C
XII. Epilogue of the First Chapter.
We, therefore, persuaded by these arguments, have yielded to the truth, wishing a long farewell to those who speak in a spirit of strife and contention; well knowing that there will be no hope of salvation for us from elsewhere, save by being united to the truth and following the better things. We ask, moreover, that you too, with the same charity with which we have written these things, attend to and understand them, as we have set them forth. There are also other things which those who set themselves against the truth say; but there is nothing in them worthy of note. D Much more and better things are said by those who maintain it. And we, too, could have said many other necessary things to advocate for the truth and to rebut the absurdities which have been concluded by them against us, but we consider it sufficient to treat these [points].
A Unless someone should prefer to litigate and contend rashly. Behold, therefore, it has been shown and demonstrated, as far as our powers have permitted, clearly and manifestly at the same time, that the all-holy Spirit, who is worshipped by us, proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son; and that He has His existence from the Son, just as from the Father, through the already produced testimonies and decrees of the saints; some explicitly crying out that He is from the Father and from the Son, others from the Father and the Son, others again from the Father through the Son, and others from the Father by the Son, and from the Father and the Son, and from both essentially, and from both; and that He is from the Son and gushing forth from the Son, and proceeding through Him, and flows forth from Him, and the Spirit is from Him, and flowing naturally from Him, and breathing from Him, and the Son sends the Spirit; all of which show the existence of the all-holy Spirit from the Father at the same time and from the Son.
You can no longer, therefore, henceforth reproach us, saying that we submitted to this holy synod out of ignorance and lack of learning; but rather, knowing accurately the utterances of the saints, and how great is the danger for him who does not wish to follow the dogmas of the Fathers, and that he who does not follow the ecumenical synod is ostracized, we submitted to the synod having acted well. This ecumenical, holy, and great synod, therefore, having been gathered in the city of Florence by divine nod and the care of the most blessed Pope Eugenius and the pious Emperor of the Romans, John Palaiologos, and gifted with great luminaries and illustrious theologians, having weighed the sayings of the ancient Fathers before it, and having approved them as was right, brought forth a decree full of piety; and the five articles which it legislated and handed down to us, it did not introduce as something new or heterodox, nor did it put them forward on its own, but having theologized from the testimonies of holy Scripture and very many usages of the holy teachers of the Church, both Eastern and Western together, it handed them down; and we have kept, and do keep, and shall keep them, struggling even unto blood and death for these, as being orthodox and acclaimed by the voices of the Fathers.
D Since, therefore, the first of the things accused by you has been removed, and indeed the most important, the things following it are destroyed along with it; just as, when the head is removed from the body, the whole body remains dead; and it was not necessary for us to give an account for the rest, since with the first these also perished. But in order that this work of ours may be ready as an apology for everyone who wishes to obey the Church, and for those who accuse us that we joined ourselves to the Latins out of ignorance, come let us render the appropriate account for the rest also, so that through all things it may appear that you disparage us unjustly, and that we seek the truth and pursue peace, and we do not wish to heap up offerings together with the eternal fire; but we reject them, that we may be delivered as pious men from that fire, and that we may not hear from the Judge saying, "Depart from me,
For you loved the glory of men more than the glory that is mine; I do not know you. Wherefore, it is better for us to follow and accompany Him and His Church, than the reasonings of obstinate men, who are testified to by the Holy Scripture as being vain and empty.
DEMONSTRATION OF THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE ITEMS IN THE DEFINITION OF THE SYNOD
Concerning, clearly, the mystical and holy rite, how the body of Christ and God is celebrated in an orthodox and true manner both by unleavened and leavened bread.
A 1. We now come to the second chapter of the definition to offer a suitable defense; in which you accuse us, saying that those who follow the Church profess things that do not exist, concerning which the definition of the holy synod speaks word for word as follows:
Text of the definition.
"Item, that in unleavened or leavened wheat bread, the body of Christ is truly celebrated; and that priests in either should celebrate this same body of the Lord, each clearly according to the custom of his own Church, whether Eastern or Western."In these words, the confession of the Catholic faith is openly demonstrated, which considers it to be of no import if the body of the Lord is celebrated in leavened or unleavened bread, but looks only to the presence of the matter, the priest, the place, the intent, and the words; it determines that these are the only things necessary for the celebration of the mystery—not only for its existence and coming to be, but also for its well-being; and it is thought that if any of these should be missing, it is hindered from becoming body and blood.
But some say in addition to this, that because the Latins do not have the leaven set before them, they celebrate a dead sacrifice and follow Judaism by offering unleavened bread. We entreat you, therefore, even in this matter, to hear our words with patience, and to examine them with a pure conscience, and not with craftiness or vain prejudice, so that you may be able to know the truth, and not contend in vain and to no purpose, and shamelessly accuse us of holding B absurd and impious views, C as we hold what is right and true; since indeed those who
think rightly and truly submit themselves to the decision of the ecumenical council, which has never erred. Furthermore, we firmly embrace and integrally hold and possess the traditions of the divine and holy Fathers; and we preach their pious dogmas and writings, nor do we corrupt their books, nor do we speak from our own mind, nor do we approve of our own judgment, nor do we deprave their sayings, as we shall declare in the progress of the discourse. All things, however, which we say, we draw from the sacred Scriptures and not from ourselves, in order that it may be shown in all respects that we seek peace and truth, and that we do not wish to divide the one Christ, so as to call one a Greek and the other a Latin, nor do we call the mystery of the New Testament—that is, the holy sacrifice—double, so as to divide the body of the Lord into two, calling one leavened and the other unleavened. Instead, we confess that each of these is the body of Christ, and we preach it as the body of Christ, considering it one and the same, even if it is celebrated in a varied way among both parts. That you unjustly reproach the Roman Church, which celebrates in unleavened bread, and A us, who confess that it is the true body of Christ, we come, trusting in God, to show in a few words.
II.
And first of all we ask you, O men, whence have you received this—that it is necessary to sacrifice with leavened bread, and not with unleavened—from Christ, who first instituted and handed down this mystery, or from the apostles, or from the holy doctors of the Church who afterwards succeeded them? Show us whence you have received this; but you will not be able, even with much labor. For no one of the doctors has dared until this day to say so; but all say simply that the sacrifice must be celebrated in bread and wine. Chiefly, before all, the evangelists and the blessed Paul. B The evangelists say, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup," and the blessed Paul says, "I received (he says) from the Lord, that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread." And the blessed James, the first hierarch of Jerusalem, speaks thus: "The great High Priest and our teacher, Christ the God, in that night in which he was led to his passion, took bread." And after them, the divine and holy Basil says, "Having taken bread into his holy and immaculate hands." And that golden-tongued one, John the Great, says, "Having taken bread." And not to mention each individually, absolutely all the Fathers of the sacred list assert this; C from which it is shown that they do not reject unleavened bread, for in this term they knew that both were accurately understood. For this reason, the Church does not think there is any
difference between leavened and unleavened, provided it be of wheat and bread. For this reason, she also legislates, saying that one must not offer anything else for sacrifice, but only bread of wheat, according to the word of the Lord, who likens himself to wheat: A “Unless the grain of wheat,” he says, “having fallen into the earth dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit.” So also Christ, having died, rescued all from Hades. And also the produce of the vine, because of the word of the same: “I am the true vine”; and, “From now on I will not drink from this produce of the vine,” B signifying his resurrection. From this, therefore, it is shown clearly that we are not able to offer barley, nor spelt, nor any other of the seeds; just as some do not make wine from anything else, like strong drink or honey or milk, but from the vine according to the Lord’s own voice. It remains, therefore, for us to show what it was that the Lord did when he handed down this mystery, whether unleavened or leavened; since it does not appear that any of the teachers says clearly what it was, as we have demonstrated. For you indeed say that it was leavened, having received this from none of the saints. But we, saying it was unleavened, speak having taken the grounds from the teachers. C That this is so is clear; for in the first place the evangelist Matthew says, in the twenty-sixth chapter: “On the first day of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, ‘Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?’ But he said, ‘Go into the city to such a man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I am keeping the Passover with my disciples at your house.” And the disciples did as Jesus commanded them, and prepared the Passover.’” The divine evangelist Mark also says: D “And on the first day of the Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples say to him, ‘Lord, where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’ And he sends two of his disciples, and says to them: ‘Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, “The Teacher says, Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” And he will show you a large upper room furnished; there prepare the Passover for us to eat.’ And they went away and prepared the Passover.” Luke the most rhetorical evangelist says thus: “Now the feast of the Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was drawing near.” And after a little: “Now the day of the Unleavened Bread arrived, in which it was necessary for the Passover to be sacrificed; and he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go, prepare the Passover for us that we may eat,’ and they went away and prepared the Passover.” See therefore accurately, how they approach, and what they ask. “Where do you want,” they say, “us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?” For on that evening it was necessary for them to eat, as the evangelists say: one, “On the first of the Unleavened Bread”; another, “And on the first day of the Unleavened Bread…”
…” A in which it was necessary for the Passover to be sacrificed. What is this, "the first day of Unleavened Bread," which all three evangelists unanimously recount? This, the golden-tongued one clarifies for us. For he says in his eighty-first homily on Matthew, that by "the first of the Unleavened Bread" he means the day before the Unleavened Bread; for the Jews are accustomed to count always from the evening, and he mentions this, on which evening the Passover was about to be sacrificed. For on the fifth day of the week they approached. And this, one man calls "the day before the Unleavened Bread," speaking of the time at which they approached; but the other says, "And the day of Unleavened Bread came, in which it was necessary for the Passover to be sacrificed." By saying this "came," he means it was near, it was at the doors, clearly remembering that evening; for they began from the evening. Therefore, each one adds, saying, "When the Passover was being sacrificed."
III.
B You have, then, that he calls this day "before the Unleavened Bread," on which, in the evening, the Passover was about to be sacrificed. And it appears clearly that it was the time of the Passover; therefore, both the evangelists—one says, "When evening had come, he reclined with the twelve"; and another, "And when evening had come, he comes with the twelve"; and another, "And when the hour had come, he reclined, and the twelve apostles with him." For this reason they approach the Teacher with haste, because it was at the doors, as if saying, "The hour has drawn near in which the law enjoins that leaven be banished from us; therefore, tell us where this preparation will take place; for its hour is present." And He, seeing them anxious about the preparation of the Passover, and that its time was at hand, sent them, saying, "Go into the city," and the rest, "and prepare for us the Passover." C We must therefore consider precisely: they ask to prepare the Passover, but He explains to them where they will prepare the Passover. What, then, is the point of inquiry? What was this Passover with the article attached? For He does not say "Prepare Passover," but "the Passover." What was this which they and He Himself become anxious to prepare? And how were the Jews bound to do this? And where was the Passover ordained? Hear what the Lord says concerning this Passover to Moses in Exodus: “This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first to you among the months of the year. Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: On the tenth of this month, let each one take a sheep according to their houses. But if the number be D small, so as to be insufficient for a sheep, he shall take his neighbor who is joined to his house, according to the number of souls which can suffice for the eating of the lamb. The lamb shall be without blemish, a male, a year old; according to which rite you shall take the kid, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it toward evening. And they shall take of its blood, and put it upon both doorposts, and upon the lintels of the houses, in which they shall eat it. And they shall eat these meats roasted with fire, and unleavened bread with bitter herbs.” And a little later: “And thus you shall eat it: your loins girt, and you shall have sandals on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat…”it with haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.” You know, then, what the Passover is: to take a spotless lamb, a yearling, from the tenth of the month, and to keep and guard it until the fourteenth; and on the fourteenth of the month toward evening, to sacrifice it—and the rest—and to eat it roasted with fire, and you shall eat it with unleavened bread upon bitter herbs; and these things with haste, for it is the Lord’s Passover. A This is that legal Passover which the Law commanded the sons of Israel to perform. If, therefore, these things are so, and some speak about the Passover, and another expounds it, what kind of Passover were the disciples seeking to prepare? The legal one, which was customary for them, or some other new one? For being Jews, they celebrated the same Passover which signified the crossing of the Red Sea—for “Passover” is interpreted as “crossing.” On this account, they were asking to prepare that which they were accustomed to perform. And Christ is witnessed by the Scripture as the Maker and Fulfiller of the Law. For He Himself says on His own behalf, “I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it”; and again, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif to pass away from the Law.” How, then, was He to act otherwise than in accordance with the Law? Since He was the fulfiller of the Law, He performed the Passover that had been ordained by the Law and previously delivered by Him on the mountain to Moses, who B saw the face of God, as the Law commanded. And if one were to say this, he would not be wrong: that the apostles, as we have said, being Jews and keeping the Law as was fitting, if they had known Him to be doing something else contrary to the Law, would not have followed Him nor eaten the Passover with Him; but they knew precisely that He kept the Law until the end. For this reason, they were eager to follow Him. That He kept the Law, let them hear the golden-mouthed John, in the eighty-first homily on the evangelist Matthew, saying: “For what reason did He perform the Passover? Showing through everything up to the last day that He is not contrary to the Law; and that He might not be contrary to the Law, He performed the Passover.” C It is shown, therefore, accurately from this that they prepared the legal Passover, as another of the evangelists testifies: “And it was the Passover and the Unleavened Bread.” It has been demonstrated, therefore, accurately from this, that they prepared the legal Passover, as another of the evangelists says: “And it was the Passover and the Unleavened Bread.”
What, then, is the question? What do we wish to prove from this, having spent so many words? The faithful man ought to be rid of all wickedness; one who desires his own salvation ought to drive out from his heart all contentiousness, strife, and foolish presumption. It is that our Savior performed the Passover at the time ordained by the Law; and He neither did it prematurely, as some wish, nor deferred it, but at its own proper time and at the ordained hour; and the evangelist Luke is a witness of this, D saying: “And when the hour had come, He reclined with the twelve.” For he did not say, “When the day had come,” for another day had not passed beyond
A the day on which they sacrificed the Pascha, but “When the hour had come.” It is manifest that the hour of that Paschal day was that which he calls the day of Unleavened Bread. You have, then, that it was the season of the Pascha, in which our Lord and God Jesus Christ ate this. And that “He reclined with the twelve” provides us with no doubt or questioning whatever. Nor indeed do we wish to demonstrate from this that a different meal is one thing, and the Pascha another; but that it was the season of Unleavened Bread, in which the Unleavened Bread began to be eaten for seven days, during which no leavened bread ought to be found. For once the Pascha has begun, the Unleavened Bread begins; and once the Unleavened Bread has begun, no one could keep leaven in his house, because the law expressly forbade this.
And after they ate the lamb, standing and with haste, and doing other things as written in His tradition, they reclined and ate other dishes, and the law did not forbid them to sit; for they celebrated the Pascha standing, as has been said many times; B but this having been accomplished, they reclined and ate. For they did not eat standing for all seven days, but only on the first day; afterward, they sat and ate. From this it is shown that after the eating of the Pascha, the Savior reclined with His disciples, desiring to eat supper. And the golden tongue of John shall bear witness with me on this point; for he says in his exposition of the Gospel, as if being asked, “Why, if they were eating the Pascha, did they eat it contrary to the law? For it was not fitting to eat it while reclining.” But they did not recline while eating the Pascha, but after eating it they were dining. And after supper, taking bread, He gave thanks and said, “Take, eat; this is My body. Do this in My remembrance.” Likewise the cup after supper, saying, “Drink from this, all of you.” If therefore, as the evangelist says, He delivered the mystery after supper, where then was any leaven? For indeed it was the Pascha and the Unleavened Bread; and when these had entered, no leaven was found C for seven days.
That this is true, let us hear what the law says: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. But from the first day, you shall remove leaven from your houses. Everyone who eats leaven, that soul shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day until the seventh day. And the first day shall be called holy; and the seventh day shall be called a holy convocation for you. No servile work shall you do in them, except what shall be done for the needs of any soul; this alone shall be done for you, and you shall keep this commandment. For on this day I shall lead your host out of the land of Egypt. And you shall observe this day for your generations, an everlasting ordinance. Beginning on the fourteenth day of the first month, in the evening you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day D of the same month, in the evening; seven days
no leaven shall be found in your houses; everyone who eats what is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the assembly of the children of Israel. Both in the sojourners and the natives of the land, you shall eat nothing leavened; in every dwelling place of yours you shall eat unleavened bread." A You have heard that beginning from the Passover from the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, until the twenty-first, leaven was not to be found in the house of any of them. But the Lord, after eating the Passover in a standing position, as has been said many times, and having fulfilled everything according to the law, after this reclined and said: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." Then he joined in the supper with the apostles; for it was a supper. And after the supper, having taken the bread, he gave thanks. And by saying this after the supper, he removed every pretext from those seeking pretexts. For if he had said it before the supper, he would have left a shadow of assistance to those wishing to contend, saying that he performed the mystery before the supper, at the hour of the removing of leaven. And for this reason, it is nothing strange if Christ also took leavened bread and performed the mystery. But he said it after the supper. For the leaven had gone away at the hour of the Passover, and was nowhere to be found from the third hour of that day, when toward evening the Passover was sacrificed; for thus the Jews do even until today. But he took bread; from where? From the table at which they were eating. And what were they eating? Unleavened bread. And having taken the bread that happened to be at that table, he handed over B the mystery. And what was it? Unleavened bread. For it ought not to have been anything else, since the legal Passover was being celebrated, and it was the days of Unleavened Bread. For when the days of Unleavened Bread have begun, leavened things have no place according to the law.
IV.
But what do those who think the opposite say? "This was not the legal Passover; everything ought to have been roasted by fire and unleavened, but in this there were broth, and breads, and bowls, and wine; so this was not it." Saying these things, they seem to think that Passover and supper are one and the same. But it is not; for Passover is one thing, and supper is another, as has been said. For in the Passover (as has been explained by us many times already, even if they have not understood) everything ought to be roasted by fire, which they used to eat standing; and Christ did this before the supper, then he reclined at the supper, and they ate broths and whatever else they liked. That our Master Christ did indeed celebrate the legal Passover then, the golden-tongued Chrysostom will testify to this in the aforementioned homily on the evangelist Matthew; for he says: "After the consumption of the legal Passover, he hands over the mystery." This is also said by John of Damascus C in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Theological (work), the beginning of which is: "The good and all-good and super-good God," after some other things he says: "In the upper room, therefore, of holy and glorious Sion, having eaten the ancient Passover with his disciples, and having fulfilled the entire old Testament, he washes the feet of the disciples." Do you hear that Christ ate the ancient Passover? How do you say that this was not the legal one? For I do not know if there is one thing that is the ancient Passover and another that is the legal one. D But if someone says that, even if the Passover was prepared, it was not according to
the ancient pattern—that is, so as to have unleavened bread and lambs and bitter herbs and the rest—because those things had to cease, let them know, first of all, that Christ was not obligated to do anything other than what the law prescribed, lest he appear to be a transgressor of the law. Next, the one who prepared it was Zebedee, and he, being a Jew, would not have done anything other than what the law commanded. And if they say that he did not deliver the mystery at the time of the Passover and that it could have been leavened [bread], the golden tongue does not allow them [to say so]. For he says in the same homily on [the Gospel according to] Matthew: "Why is it that at the time of the Passover, and not on another day, [after] he took bread he broke it and performed the mysteries? So that we might learn from every side that he was the lawgiver even of the Old [Covenant], and that the things in it had been sketched out beforehand for this very reason: so that where the type is, he might add the truth."
But if they say that the Lord did not eat the legal Passover that year, because of his saying, "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer," B priding themselves [on the idea] that what he had eaten at another time was not desirable to him, but that it was something else, something new, that he desired: the same Chrysostom, and no one else, will provide the answer to this as well. For in that same homily he says: "After eating the legal Passover, he delivers the mystery, saying: 'Take, eat,' and the rest; because henceforth the legal things had to cease, and the head of the legal feasts, and he passes over to another, most awesome table of the New [Covenant]." Do you hear that after eating the legal Passover he delivered the mystery, which clearly means that he also ate the legal Passover; and after dining he delivered the mystery? How then was he obligated to still keep leavened [bread], when the [Feast of] Unleavened Bread had already begun?
And the [statement], "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you," has this meaning: that in that year, when the salvation of the world was about to come to pass, and the mysteries were to be delivered, and the rest were to be dissolved through his death, thus, according to his own will, the cross was in his mind, so that he had nothing else in his mind but to die for the salvation of all.
C If someone should say that when the holy Chrysostom says, "He passes over to another, most awesome table," he signifies by this the leavened [bread], so that he might put an end to the things offered according to the law, let them understand that the "passing over to another table" is not spoken of because of the unleavened bread—because the unleavened bread was neither a sacrifice, nor did the Jews treat it as a sacrifice, and it was necessary for these things to cease (let them ask the Jews about this, and learn)—but [because] they would no longer make the sacrifice of flesh and blood on a carnal table. "For as often as," he says, "you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim my death, you confess my resurrection." For this reason it is called a "different, most awesome table": because awesome mysteries are performed on it—the body and blood of the Master, that is, and not the sacrifice of calves and the blood of bulls and goats. For that [former] table, through the sacrifice of the lamb and the calf, D [brought] a memorial...
A of the crossing through the Red Sea, and of their freedom from bondage in Egypt. But this divine and holy table brings to remembrance of the saving Lamb, the Son of God, who takes away the sin of the world; who led us not out of Egypt to the earthly Jerusalem, but from death to life, and from earth to heaven, granting the forgiveness of our sins. And of this, the same Chrysostom is witness, explaining this very thing in the same homily; for he says: "The disciples were not troubled, hearing him say: 'This is my body,' because he had discoursed with them about this many times before, as John says in various places." He speaks then of the cause of the passion, being the forgiveness of sins. And he calls it the blood of the New Covenant, as containing the New Covenant. For just as the Old had sheep and calves, so this has the blood of the Master. And he shows from this that he is still about to die; therefore he makes mention of a Covenant. And he reminds them also of the Old, because that also had been dedicated through blood. And again he says the cause of the death, "Which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Teaching what? He said, "Do this in my remembrance; B just as that," he says, "you were doing in remembrance of the miracles in Egypt, so also do this in mine. That blood was shed for the salvation of the firstborn, this for the remission of sins." And just as Moses says, "This shall be for you an eternal memorial," so also he, "In my remembrance, until I come; for I deliver a Pascha, through which I am about to make you spiritual." Do you hear what this means, C [the reference] to "another, most awesome table"? Because those things were fleshly and belonged to that table, but these are spiritual; those were visible, these are invisible and undefiled mysteries, even if they are handled by the hands of priests on account of his supreme goodness. And [he says] that those were not mysteries, but types only; because that which was seen by the eyes, that alone existed. But these are mysteries and not a type, but the very truth itself. And because the visible form is one thing, and that which is understood in them is another. For in the visible bread is contained the true body of the Lord, which is to the angels themselves both an object of wonder and precious. Therefore it is called most awesome, and another table; and not because of [the use of] unleavened or leavened bread—for Christ Jesus had no concern then D about leavened or unleavened, but only about bread, simply, so that he might deliver his mystery. Consider, brethren, consider. But you could never [understand], unless you yourselves also believe. "If you do not believe," he says, "you will not understand," because we also, having believed, understood, and we say these things which you see and hear. For we say whatever we say not from instruction, but from faith. But so that you may know that the Lord, having come, did not put an end to all things of the old law, but tamed some things, increased others, cut off others, and transformed others into a different form, let us add these things.
V. For the old law contained four things,
A judicial, mystical, moral, and shadowy. As for the judicial, He tempered it; for when the law commanded that she who was caught in adultery, and those who were convicted of adultery, be stoned, the Lord said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And again, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," and the rest; but the Lord says, "Whoever shall strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." As for the moral laws, the Lord increased them, which are His commandments and precepts: "Do not steal; do not do this or that." Which the divine apostles, having as a foundation, illuminated the world through evangelical teaching; where they say: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world, because the world passes away, and its glory," and the rest, so that I need not enumerate each one individually. As for the typical or mystical—for both signify one thing—the Lord cut them off: namely, circumcision, the Sabbath, animal sacrifices, the Pascha, and the lamb. B Those that were shadowy, the Lord transformed into another form, forming the truth instead of the shadow: instead of the burning bush, the Virgin who was not consumed; instead of the pillar of fire, the Sun of righteousness Himself; instead of Moses, Christ; instead of the rod, the cross; instead of the ark, His immaculate Church; instead of the passing of the Red Sea, the Pascha in which the new was typified; and when this came, He caused that to cease; instead of the lamb, Christ; instead of the blood, the Savior's blood; instead of the cloud and fire, the holy baptism. But what need is there to enumerate everything, since everyone knows perfectly well that our Savior was not a destroyer of the law, but a fulfiller? Therefore, you have from these things that he who says it is not about the unleavened bread, that He caused the things offered according to the law to cease, is right; but it is about the sacrifice of lambs, kids, sheep, and oxen, which signified and typified the true Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world; and that one being sacrificed, those things which typified Him ceased; for the unleavened bread was neither a sacrifice, nor did the Savior cause it to cease. But if anyone says that it was a shadow, we shall reply that Christ transformed it, willing that His body be made in it. C Having explained these things as much as is sufficient, let us return to where we digressed: that it was not possible for leavened bread to be present at that table at a time when the days of Unleavened Bread had already begun; for if Judas had known that the Master had eaten leavened bread, he would not have found a greater cause for betrayal than the transgression of the law, when He kept leavened bread on the day of Unleavened Bread; for he was seeking a cause and an opportunity to betray Him to the Jews. Moreover, they would not have said to Pilate, when he asked them what evil He had done, "We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God," but they would indeed have said thus (which also was a reasonable and just cause), that He is a transgressor of our law. "Our law commands one Pascha, but He did another; the law commands that after the Pascha leavened bread not be found anywhere, but He was found keeping leavened bread during the days of Unleavened Bread, which the law openly D commands to be removed from the dwellings of the children of Israel."
A At this, however, they did not speak out. For what reason? Because they had nothing to say. If, then, when many false witnesses had come testifying to other crimes, and furthermore [bringing charges] that were false, the testimony of whom was not consistent, why did they not mention this, or bring forward testimony that, without doubt, threatens the most shameful death to those who transgress? I am therefore quite astonished at how the Jews, diligently searching for a cause, did not find one, even though they had labored much, nor did Judas. And now our brothers provide a cause and most just pretext for Judas, as well as for the Jews. For when those men were questioned by Pilate as to what cause they brought against the just man, they could say nothing other than that He called Himself God and the Son of God; and though many false witnesses had come to testify to this, they did not find [this particular charge]. But now these men openly make Christ a transgressor, and they most admirably—willingly or unwillingly—justify His having been condemned by the Jews. These men are truly worthy of tears and pity, who say such things.
Moreover, even if it were fermented according to your intention, not even so could you justly accuse the Roman Church because it sacrifices with unleavened bread, just as it does not reproach the Eastern Church if it sacrifices with leavened bread. And yet, since it is the head of the Church, it could have accused and condemned those who do not do as it does; for it knows firmly that Christ sacrificed in unleavened bread when He dined in the upper room together with His disciples, and in like manner commanded them to do so in His remembrance. B But as to how fermentation was forbidden during those seven days of the Pasch, let us hear again the Father Chrysostom, in [his commentary on] the First Epistle to the Corinthians; for he says: "We have previously explained why leaven is cast out from all bounds. What, then, does this enigma signify? That the faithful should depart from all wickedness: for just as he, in whom old leaven is found, dies by death, so too with us, where malice is found. For no great punishment is established in the shadow, but in us [it is] not much greater. For if they so purge their homes that they search anxiously even in the holes of mice, much more does it behoove us to examine our soul." Since, therefore, they search anxiously in the holes of mice, much more would they have been solicitous to discover whether Christ had made use of leaven on that night, so as to be against the law. C But the golden-mouthed divine John, in his eighty-first homily on the Gospel of Matthew, says that: "Until the final day, so that He might not seem to be contrary to the law, He celebrated the Pasch. The final day, however, was when He was affixed to the cross, on which with a great voice He said, 'It is finished.' Things are finished, namely, understanding all things that the prophets and the law prescribed and said." But if He had not done this, as these people say, He would be shown to be more contrary to the law, not by celebrating the legal Pasch according to the law, but by keeping leavened bread; especially when Judas was then present, and was seeking a way to betray Him, so as to betray Him to the Jews. But this is by no means the case; rather, D as the author of the law was to be fulfilled and observed, as He said...
A all things; and necessarily there were unleavened breads, and He provided unleavened bread. What then do you want? We ask: was that which Christ provided unleavened, or leavened? If it was unleavened, then our argument is against you; but if it was leavened, you are declaring Christ to be a transgressor of the law, even if you do not wish to, because He kept leavened bread on the day of Unleavened Bread.
VI.
But what does Xanthopulus say? That He did it on the preceding day. This, to those who are of sound mind, will be judged as foolish and senseless; for if He had done it on the preceding day, He would not have done it in the proper time; and if He did not do it in the proper time or hour, Christ is of necessity shown to be a transgressor of the law. For the law commands that the Passover be sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the month B toward evening. And if, as you say, He did it one day earlier, He is seen to have done it on the thirteenth. And if on the thirteenth, He is shown to be acting in opposition to the commandment of the law, which commands it to be done on the fourteenth. And if in opposition, then He is necessarily a transgressor. It remains, therefore, that you must believe that He did not anticipate the time, but performed it in the proper time. Furthermore, if the law says that the Passover ought to be celebrated in the evening, and Christ performed it when evening had come, He did not transgress, according to the evangelist Luke, who says: "And when the hour had come, He reclined." For if He had performed it in the middle of the day, one could say that He had anticipated either the time or the hour; and on that account it would have been leavened. But it did not happen so. Furthermore, the disciples, as has often been said, being Jews, could not have acted otherwise than at the appointed time. He performed it, therefore, on the day stipulated by the law, and when there was Unleavened Bread, as the divinely-inspired Luke said, that is, on the first day of Unleavened Bread, on which it was necessary for the Passover to be sacrificed. How, then, did He anticipate it, if on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples approached C asking, "Where dost Thou wish that we prepare the Passover for Thee?" For it has been shown that they were preparing legal Passover then, and they performed it at the appointed time; for anyone who acts either before or after transgresses. So, according to you, Christ also transgresses, since He anticipated the time. But no one of sound mind will ever perceive this, or say so; rather, everyone will say that He acted in the time and according to the law. The golden-tongued one will bear witness to this. But the Jews, who dare everything, transgressed the time. For this great Father says in the eighty-fourth homily on the Gospel according to John, concerning the words: "They lead Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium." Why did they lead Him there, where all were gathered? So that they might do everything with the consent of the high priests; for he was the high priest at that time, and all were waiting for him; and thus they spent the night wakeful and vigilant for this purpose; for they had not yet eaten the Passover, he says, but were keeping vigil for this very reason. For having said that "it is morning," D John subjoined, "They did not enterA into the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." What, then, is to be said? That they ate it on a different day, and broke the Law because of the desire they had regarding this slaughter. For Christ would not have transgressed the time of the Passover by eating it toward evening; but those men, who dared everything and trampled upon countless laws—since they were boiling with rage and, having often attempted to kill Him, were unable, they then took Him unexpectedly and chose to omit the Passover, in order to satisfy their murderous desire. Do you hear that they indeed transgressed the time and the Law, while Christ did not transgress? Where are those who say that He performed it beforehand?
These things being so, and being demonstrated B clearly thus, that Christ delivered the unleavened bread to His holy disciples on the day of Unleavened Bread—for I think, I think, that if it were not then the day of Unleavened Bread, He would have delivered the mystery in leavened bread, wishing to deliver it by all means and making no account of leavened or unleavened, as He knew the matter and substance of bread to be of wheat—how shall we accuse those who perform the sacrifice with unleavened bread? Or how shall we oppose it, when the holy synod commands in its decree that the body of Christ is perfected in both ways, both in unleavened and in leavened bread? Which the holy Church truly received from the holy apostles. For the holy apostles, when it was not the time of Unleavened Bread, being at home and breaking bread, were performing C the sacrifice, and it does not appear anywhere that they asked for unleavened bread. And again, in the days of Unleavened Bread, when leavened bread was not to be found in Jerusalem, they were not performing the sacrifice by asking for leavened bread. For they knew accurately that it is sufficient for this purpose that it be of wheat. For it was not because they lacked a little leaven that all the things being celebrated were idle, and especially the words of the Savior, which transform the bread and wine with water into His body and blood. But even this, those who do not follow the synod deny; and they are not persuaded to believe as the Church ordains, that in that Lordly utterance which says, "Take, eat, this is my body, and this is my blood," the mystery is perfected; but after these things, in saying, they say, "And make this bread the precious body of thy Christ," D not understanding that this mystery of the holy rite was delivered by Christ; and He did not say other words than these alone: "Take, eat," and "Drink, all of you." And He did not say "make," nor the other things that we say. For these words alone have power; but all the other things that we indeed say when praying, these are said for our own sake, in order that we might be deemed worthy to partake of such blood and to touch such a body. For just as in the delivery of the saving baptism, He said no other words than, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and these words remained the form of the mystery, for upon their being uttered the baptism is perfected, and the rest that we say we say on our own behalf, and on behalf of the one being baptized, and on behalf of the sponsor, just so also here the Lord says to the disciples, "Take, eat, etc., do this in my remembrance": and He said nothing else,
and these are the words A that transform the bread into the body of Christ, and the wine into blood. This will be confirmed to me again by John, who is golden-tongued, in his homily on the mystic supper of the Savior and on the tradition of the mysteries; in which, also against the Jews, the beginning of the discourse is: "Few," he says, "are the things necessary today." In this homily, after many things, he says: "Christ Himself is present, adorning this table. For He who adorned that table is the one who also adorns this one now. For it is not a man who is the one bringing it about that the things set forth become the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. Standing merely to fulfill a role, the priest is there and offers the prayer, uttering those words; but the grace and the power is of God, who accomplishes all things. 'This is my body,' He says; this is the word that transforms the things set forth. And just as that voice which said, 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth,' was uttered indeed once, but for all time it becomes an act, empowering our nature B toward the procreation of children: so too this voice, once uttered by that divine tongue—that 'This is my body'—at every table in the churches, the power of that word, down to the present day and until His coming, produces the perfected sacrifice." If, therefore, this word transforms into the body and blood of Christ the things set forth, and produces awesome mysteries, yet they cannot be perfect on account of not having a little leaven, it would indeed be a marvel; and this, when Christ performed the mystery with this material, as has been proven before.
VII.
In order that they may understand what things are necessary for this mystery, and what is necessary for the sacrifice, so that they may not labor in searching about unleavened or leavened bread, we shall add these things also. Five things must be in the sacrifice. C First, the material: bread from wheat, and wine, that is to say, from the vine. Second, the words of Christ: that "This is my body," and "This is my blood." Third, the priest; for no unordained person will ever perform a sacrifice; that is, one not having the rank of the priesthood. Fourth, knowledge; that is, the priest must have his intention set beforehand upon the gifts set forth, and not direct his mind elsewhere. Fifth, the altar, that is, a table consecrated by a bishop. For these things are necessary and the only ones, even if the last is not as necessary as the others. But if all these things are useless on account of not having a little D leaven, it would be the greatest of marvels; that the altar, and the intention, and the priest, and the material, and especially the most critical part, the words of Christ, which transform the things set forth into body and blood, through which the heaven was fixed, the earth was founded, and all things consist, are able to accomplish nothing without the leaven—this is not a discovery of a sound mind, but of a mind full of all senselessness. And how do you not charge yourselves
A with regard to the wine, I wonder, that we often offer red, or white, or sweet, or austere, but only regarding the bread? For just as he said, "from the fruit of the vine," and did not distinguish white or red, so also regarding the bread: having said "bread," he did not distinguish leavened or unleavened, or white or dark, or sweet or sour; therefore the Church embraces both indiscriminately. For the holy synod, seeing accurately that both are bread, celebrates the divine mysteries doubtlessly; and it does not blame the one or the other—and this all the more, as has been demonstrated before, since Christ performed it with unleavened bread. Therefore you unjustly reproach the ecumenical synod, which thus commanded; and you unjustly slander and disparage us, who cherish and acknowledge the same.
And B if I should also make mention of Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, it occurs to me to laugh quite heartily; for he strove with ambition to write the synaxaries that are now found in the Triodion; but being moved by the impulse of the wickedness of the schism, he wrote also concerning the subject before us, great and marvelous things. But that these were not read in Constantinople, everyone knows; and I need not proceed any further. Only in this city did certain people place them in the Triodion as they are found. But that they are highly irrational, whoever wishes may read what he has said, and he will find him contradicting himself in many things. What then is his terrible C pronouncement, which, as it seems to him, is irrefutable? On Great Thursday, at the tradition of the mysteries, after many other things, he says: "See how he calls his body bread, but not unleavened bread; let those who offer unleavened bread in the sacrifice be ashamed." This, as though it were spoken by him in a most terrible way, his followers cast up and down, and he seems to be saying something; but he says nothing, as will be shown. For even we, being disciples of him who said, "Pursue peace," do not insult him, as he insults us; but the response only, which we shall bring forward against his words, will be reckoned as an insult; for he who thinks himself a teacher is convicted by us, who are not learned. Therefore we say that he, while dealing with himself to write against the catholic Church, having slipped quite fittingly, fell headlong into a precipitous pit. For having said, "See how he calls his body bread, not unleavened bread," he forgot that even the unleavened is called bread. For it seemed to him that when anyone says "bread," one must understand the leavened; but he cannot prove this, because in many places of Scripture, the unleavened also is called bread. For the holy Scripture D says: "And taking the unleavened breads." And still in Exodus: "You shall take one bullock from the herd, and two rams without blemish, and unleavened breads mingled with oil, and unleavened cakes anointed with oil; you shall make them of fine wheat flour, and you shall place them upon one basket." And after a few words: "And you shall take one loaf of bread of oil, and one cake from the basket of the unleavened [breads] that are set—
A and Theodoret, in his exposition of the prophet Daniel, says: "Bread is termed both fermented and unleavened." Do you see how even unleavened bread is called bread? How have you forgotten this, good Nicephorus? You were rightly called Nicephorus for having defeated the common men sitting in the marketplace, not those who sit on high and are participants in the Word. But perhaps someone will say: "This is, in fact, in our favor; for where the adjective is placed, there the thing itself is known. Where bread is set with the adjective—that is, 'unleavened'—then it is understood as unleavened; but where the adjective is not placed, that is, 'unleavened,' then necessarily it is understood as fermented." Here, then, Christ, having named nothing other than simply "bread," explicitly stated that it is fermented. Therefore, it is well written in Xanthopulus that he calls his body bread, but not unleavened bread. But we shall easily demonstrate the contrary: that when bread is spoken of simply, without an adjective, it is found to be unleavened, and you will not be able to escape the rebuttal, as it is most evident. The day of the resurrection of the Lord was the third day of the legal Passover, as the evangelist says, conversing with Jesus: "And now, above all these things, this is the third day since these things happened." B On this day, therefore, two of his disciples were going to a village, which was sixty stadia away from Jerusalem, named Emmaus. And a little later he says: "And they constrained him," namely Jesus, "saying, Stay with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. And when he had consented to their prayer, he went in to remain with them. And it came to pass, as he reclined with them, he took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave it to them." And after a few words: "And they recognized him," he says, "in the breaking of the bread." What proof, clearer or purer than this, could be offered to those who do not wish to contend or embrace scandal? Divine Luke speaks simply of bread here, neither fermented nor unleavened. What, therefore, was it? Let us consider, and let us not close our eyes so to the most manifest things; for just as he was known to them in the breaking of the bread, so he will be known to us if we wish to examine it. C For we are not so devoid of understanding as not to see the truth. For even if we have not indulged in the discourses of philosophers and rhetoricians, we have gained nature herself as a teacher, who is most able to discern the true, and to refute the false, and to distinguish the better from the worse. What, therefore, shall we say? It was fermented. Away with that! How so? It was the third day of the legal Passover, and those walking with Jesus—Cleopas and Luke—could not have been carrying anything but unleavened bread, coming from the city of Jerusalem. "Seven days," says the law, "you shall eat unleavened bread, and by no means fermented bread." For it adds: "Whoever eats fermented bread, that soul shall be destroyed from Israel." D If, therefore, these things are true, how could leaven have been found there, with the law forbidding it to be made from the fourteenth day until the twenty-first—
the soul of that person shall be cut off from the assembly of the children of Israel.” If these things are true, how could leavened bread be found there, when the law commands that it not be found at all from the fourteenth day until the twenty-first day of the month? Therefore, it was unleavened. For if it were leavened, those men also acted unlawfully by offering leaven on the day of Unleavened Bread; and Christ would be shown to be a transgressor by breaking leaven and giving it to them. If it were unleavened, just as it indeed was, you reproach us in vain; for Christ, being a fulfiller of the law, would not have broken it if He had known that it was leavened, since He would have been doing this on days forbidden by the law. But those men still held to Jewish customs, and they kept the law as they ought, not only then, but also after the resurrection and the Lord's ascension. Thus, it follows from all these things that what was broken by Jesus and given to the two disciples was unleavened. [H] B
VIII.
If, however, someone foolishly says that they were outside of Jerusalem and were therefore able to eat leavened bread, let him consider that the law says: “In all your dwelling-places for the sojourners and natives of the land, you shall eat unleavened bread, and not leaven; whoever eats it shall be cut off from Israel.” For just as at the supper in the evening of the mystery, He took that unleavened bread and broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat,” so too did He act here. For this reason they recognized Him, remembering what was done at that time; as if quietly meditating to themselves, “It is the Teacher, He who on the previous day broke the bread in such a manner and gave it to the brothers.” But when they wished to touch Him, He vanished from them. But how are we to understand the loaves of the presence, about which Christ speaks in the twenty-fourth chapter of the evangelist Mark? For He says to the Jews who were rebuking the apostles for plucking the ears of grain, “Have you not read what David did when he had need and he and those with him were hungry? How he entered into the house of God under Abiathar the high priest and ate the loaves of the presence, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests alone, and gave them also to those who were with him?” We ask you, therefore: were these loaves of the presence leavened, or were they unleavened? If they were leavened, we too, according to you, are Judaizing by making sacrifice with leavened loaves; but if they were unleavened, then unleavened loaves are also called "loaves." Furthermore, if those loaves of the presence were leavened, Christ ought to have brought the sacrifice performed through leaven to an end, as it was old and legal, so that we might not do the same as the Jews, and He should have taught that it be done with unleavened bread. But if they were unleavened, then the unleavened bread is also called "bread." It has therefore been sufficiently shown, good Nicephorus, that even the unleavened is called "bread," and is, and is understood as such, without the adjective. So that no one who is sound of mind could say that we cannot understand "unleavened" when Christ performed the sacrifice, because the evangelist speaks without the adjective of Christ taking "bread" on the day of Unleavened Bread and at the time of the Passover. Therefore, as has been shown, it was unleavened, and we understand it as unleavenedA. That minor argument of yours, that He calls His body bread and not unleavened bread, as you think, has been sufficiently refuted. As for the phrase, "Let those be ashamed who offer in sacrifice unleavened bread," we do not wish to reverse this, but rather we say to those who did not know what that was, or—more likely—to those who did know but, through persuasion and vain preconception, thought and said something else, that the shame should be turned away from them. This is what we believe without doubt; and those who are corruptors of books and who, through persuasion and malice, write against the Roman Church, will never be able to attain salvation; rather, they will be ashamed on the day of judgment, as being enemies of the truth. Some, however, in a manner entirely without logic and incorrectly, and therefore—if I may say so—foolishly and shamelessly, bring forward the objection that even if there were days of Unleavened Bread as you say, and no leavened bread ought to have been found, yet since He was God, He could have made the unleavened bread leavened: for nothing is impossible to almighty God B. All confess that nothing is impossible to Him who can do all things; and that He could not only make leavened bread from unleavened, but could even make stones themselves into bread. But I cannot see for what reason He would have wished to decree that His body should be constituted with leavened rather than unleavened bread; explain to me this necessity, if you know it; but you will never be able to. I do not know, furthermore, whether He would have forbidden that bread lacking leaven should be His body and blood, or if He would have wished to render His own divine words of consecration invalid. But neither heretics nor those alien to the Christian religion will ever think or say this.
That the Church of God considers there to be no difference between unleavened and leavened bread has already been shown by many excellent arguments. Now it will be demonstrated in what way the Roman Church makes use of unleavened bread, and the Eastern Church of leavened, through the blessed Gregory the Dialogist, a most holy man who lived before the schism of the Churches, and whose commemoration our Church also celebrates every year with praises. For he C best provides the reasons for both leavened and unleavened, and says that the Western Church from of old used unleavened bread, and the Eastern Church leavened, and that both rightly and laudably did so for various reasons; for he says: "It is wont to disturb many that in the Church some offer unleavened breads, and some leavened. For the Church of Rome offers unleavened breads, because the Lord took on flesh without any mingling; but other churches offer leavened, because the Word of the Father was clothed in flesh, and is true God and true man. For the leaven is mingled with D the dough, and the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Living One, is made. But whether it is constituted in unleavened or in leavened, we receive the body of our Lord and Savior." Have you heard how this great Father thinks there is no difference between leavened and unleavened? And that beyond doubt the body of the Lord is constituted in both ways; and that this has long since prevailed in the churches; for the Roman
A in speaking of the Oriental, as he himself explained what is now set before us, says that the use of unleavened bread is for the sincerity and purity of the body of the Lord, because it is untouched and incapable of any stain; and he says that leavened bread is used because of the union of the divinity and the humanity in His own hypostasis. And with good reason; for just as the unleavened is most delicate and most pure, because it is made without leaven (for leaven is used in Scripture for sin), so also the body of the Lord, being most pure and incapable of any sin, is ministered through unleavened bread. And just as leavened bread is made into bread through leaven and assumes a thicker substance, so too the body of the Lord, through the admixture of human flesh, B is indicated by the leaven, as being one hypostasis of divinity and humanity. And thus through leavened and unleavened, the body of the Lord is constituted without doubt; and to those who believe, it is a saving communion.
IX.
Lo, the second of your charges against us has been well refuted, and we have shown how ignorantly you accuse us, and how perversely you slander the ecumenical synod, which believes that the body of Christ is celebrated in unleavened bread no less than in leavened, the Lord’s body being one, and not divided into two, as you—who do not follow the synod, unwillingly or willingly, even if not by writing, yet by disbelieving what is said—conclude; and for this reason you do not escape falling into heresy. For Christ says that His Church can never be deceived, C since He promised to be with it for ever. If therefore Christ is true, one must believe His promise also to be true; for He says, <"And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age," [Matt. xxviii, 20]> and we believe that He is thus with His Church for ever, and that He will never abandon it. But if, according to you, He promised to remain with it for ever, but abandoned it and allowed it to be deceived, of necessity He is a liar; and if He is a liar, He is not God. And see into what absurdity you fall by calling Christ a liar, for this surpasses all iniquity and blasphemy. But He was with it, and is, and shall be, and will remain for the entire age; D even if they who think and act contrary to Christ’s Church are torn apart. We, however, follow and accompany it, since it is impossible for it ever to preach error; but rather it preaches truth and orthodoxy, as one possessing with it its bridegroom, Jesus Christ. By submitting ourselves to it, therefore, we are inside the saving ark, through which we shall return from this vain life to the eternal and blessed life. You have therefore, you who are orthodox, a sufficiently clear defense of the things that have been said. Abide by these, for they are nothing other than what the lights of the Church command; and do not follow in the footsteps of those who speak and write from a vice of disputing and contending.
ever hold to, nor agree with, because they do not those things out of divine zeal, but only to deceive and destroy the simpler ones, that they might themselves fall together with them into the precipice of impiety. A
PROOF OF THE THIRD CHAPTER OF THOSE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE SYNOD
That the souls of those who die in penitence are cleansed after death.DEMONSTRATION OF THE THIRD CHAPTER OF THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE DECREE OF THE SYNOD
That is, that the souls of those who die in penitence are purified after death.1. It is time, therefore, to discuss also the third chapter which is contained in the decree. But what is it? The purification of souls after death, which is called *kathartirion* among the Greeks, but *purgatorium* among the Latins. The tenor of which, from the divine and sacred decree, is as follows: "Furthermore we decree, if those who have truly repented have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction for their commissions and omissions by worthy fruits of penitence, their souls are B purified after death by purgatorial punishments. And that they may be relieved of such punishments, the suffrages of the faithful avail them, to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers and alms, and other offices of piety which the faithful have been accustomed to perform for other faithful people according to the institutions of the Church."
This the followers of the schismatic sects stubbornly deny, not understanding it at all, nor what the teachers feel about this matter; delighting rather in despair and false persuasion, and living in ignorance. And neither do they wish to come to a debate, whether moved by malice or by hatred toward the Latins, or because they have nothing truly worthy of mention to say; but they repeatedly object to us certain empty and futile things containing nothing sound, which we, as cold and utterly incoherent, reject. For if we were to bring forth what they claim into the light, they would appear ridiculous to those possessed of reason. Wherefore we do not wish to publish these things, as they are of our same race and of the same order as we. Come, let us see what answer and remedy we C might provide for the present chapter. D
A Let us bring into the midst the divinely-inspired and most great John of Damascus. After him, we shall also set in order the remaining company of the teachers who shone forth to us from the East, that they may bear witness in agreement with him. For this blessed man—in his work on the mystical consideration of the dead—set forth for examination precisely that which those who now rebel against the holy synod deny and reject, having very well clarified it, as though some, it seems, at that time were questioning this; and by writing a whole treatise, he stopped their unbridled mouths. And if anyone with an open mind reads what is contained therein, he will be sufficiently astonished and will no longer call the examination into doubt. But before we begin to bring forward his all-wise words and testimonies, let us divide our discourse as if in a court of law; and let us easily set forth to those who wish to see the truth, in order, the testimonies which that divine man set forth in passing; remembering him who said: “That which often escaped the perfect, a child found; and what escaped the wise, he met with among simple folk; and what escaped the teachers, their students remembered.” We do not dare to claim this for ourselves, but, just as one collecting the gleanings left after the vintage, and the ears of grain left behind after the harvest on account of their great abundance, and every fruit left forgotten on the trees after the picking, B so will we welcome those who wish to see—with Jesus Christ working with us and confirming the discourse through clear proofs—and will offer them our discourse.
We therefore decree that all who have departed this life go into three general parts or classes, C a thing which we shall demonstrate most nobly, for it is not right to speak otherwise. One, and the first, is the assembly of the God-bearing and holy men: these are the apostles, martyrs, hierarchs, ascetics, the holy, and the righteous. These, after being baptized, fell into no stain of sin whatever, but rather exercised themselves in purity and temperance, and prepared their own bodies as pure houses of the Spirit; these who hated this visible world and longed only for heavenly things. Whence they also received the place of rest which they had prepared for themselves. But if, even after baptism, some fell into a stain of sin, then while still living, or after putting off the body, having been cleansed, they are received into the heavenly habitation, according to the divine and holy decree of the synod. We add likewise those who were saved by the benefit of their virtues before baptism, the first Fathers, D prophets, patriarchs, and righteous ones; whom Christ, having come and having broken the unbreakable bonds of Hades, led up to paradise and deemed worthy to enjoy it. A second class is that of the intermediate ones, namely, those who died in repentance and who surrendered their spirits in confession and contrition of heart, but who did not have the opportunity to make satisfaction for the sins they had committed and neglected, on account of their—as often happens—sudden and instantaneous passing; we say that these are in purgatory; which
A they could not achieve while living, the living help them in the way of restoration, according to the one who says: "Perhaps this too may have some benefit," through holy prayers, and alms, and sacrifices, and other works of piety; as is very well written in the divine and holy decree. We also establish a third and final class: of those who have departed from this life in mortal sins, and did not acquire any fruit of repentance in the present life, whose souls immediately descend into Hades, though the holy decree implies that they are to be punished with unequal torments. And indeed, regarding the first section, which is the order of those who are being saved, or is said to be the enjoyment of the just, you will find the defense in the fourth chapter of the decree; for which we proposed to make a defense, intending to perform this as a separate treatise, and for this reason there is no need for many words here, as we shall defend it sufficiently there, God willing.
II. B It follows that we must speak here regarding the second and third class. And as for the third, there is no argument for us to undertake, since neither the Church nor the saints wish to make mention of those who have fallen into that state; and they believe in general that there is no salvation for them, as they have departed from here in despair and without repentance. For one ought not to be anxious about them, nor labor, nor pray, nor offer sacrifices, nor give alms, nor do the other things established for those who have faithfully fallen asleep and performed repentance with fervent tears; since they passed from here in despair C rather than in repentance. And just as for the first class, which is in Paradise and with Christ, one ought not to offer sacrifices for the remission of their sins, since they have sufficiently made satisfaction here and are now enjoying unspeakable goods, so too, for these who are in the punishment of Hades, one must not offer sacrifice for the remission of sins. But the "new theologians" do not wish for this either; for they do not wish for the saints to be in the kingdom of heaven, nor for the sinners to be in punishment. But although it was not our purpose to speak of this here, but only concerning the purgatory D which is the third chapter of the decree, yet so that we do not appear to some to lack the ability to respond to this, we shall add a few things. For to souls that depart from here without the fruit of repentance, there is no benefit after death. For the Prophet also indicated this when he said: "In Hades, however, who will confess to you?" And again: "There is no repentance after death," the holy Epiphanius says, calling death the complete condemnation of the unrighteous, as is shown in the rich man who is being burned in the flame, who seeks a drop of water and cannot obtain it—that is, seeking a drop of repentance and not finding it. And rightly so; in winter he did not sow,
the summer he did not reap. Understand the winter here as the present life, which is entangled A with sins; and the summer as the future life, and the requital for deeds. For here in this winter is repentance; there is the summer, that is, the enjoyment. And elsewhere again the Prophet says: God, he says, has shut them out. It is evident that for one who has not repented here, it is impossible to repent after the departure from here; for when the assembly is dismissed and the door of the bridal chamber is closed, neither does repentance avail, nor do tears help, as is shown in the parable of the five virgins. When those women said, “Lord, Lord, open to us,” the Bridegroom Christ answered, “I do not know you.” For once the soul has departed from the body, it neither weeps nor can it repent, since the physical organs through which repentance is demonstrated have ceased. One must be vigilant beforehand; one must prepare for the departure; for in that hour, in that moment, in that instant of time in which the soul struggles to depart from the body and from the present life—for that time is fearsome, and the struggle is great, and the negotiation is difficult—there is a fear that the departing soul might be found B thinking of these base and temporary things. For if it departs not in sufficient repentance, and true confession, and contrition of heart, holding the memory of the present life, of this fleeting life, of the much-sought-after treasure, of wife at once and children, sparing all these, and continuously reaching its mind out toward them, the underworld immediately takes it, and gloomy darkness; and it is condemned to punishment, and the fire burns it. This will be testified to by the overseer of God’s Church, Gregory the Dialogist, in the book of the Dialogues, in the chapter where Peter his archdeacon holds discourse with him: “I see that my inquiry has now been sufficiently satisfied. But this is what still stirs the soul with questions: for since it was said above that the souls of the saints are in heaven, it remains without doubt that the souls of the wicked must also be believed to be nowhere else but in hell. And I am ignorant of what the truth has to say about this matter, for human judgment does not hold that the souls of the sinful can be punished before the day of judgment.” Gregory: “If you have believed, by the assurance of the holy gathering, that the souls of the saints are in heaven, it is necessary that you also believe absolutely that the souls of the unjust are in hell; for from the requital of the deepest justice, from which the just are glorified, it is necessary that the unjust also be wholly judged. For just as blessedness gladdens those there, so must one believe that fire consumes the unjust from the day of their departure.” C Do you hear that the fire consumes the souls of the unjust, that is to say, of the sinful and unrepentant, from the day of their departure? It is evident, therefore, to those who do not wish to be contentious, that just as the kingdom of heaven receives the saints after the departure from here, so also the habitation of hell receives the desperate; where they are punished D and wait for the final day, so that afterwards, clothed in their bodies, they may receive [index: entries preserved] eternal pains.
This will be confirmed also by the blessed Maximus, writing to the chamberlain, who says: “For who, O beloved, stained with the filth of sins, does not fear the supervision of the holy angels by whom, in accordance with the divine decree, enduring the end of the present life, he is forced out of the body with anger and against his will? Who, knowing his own conscience to be stained, does not fear the most cruel and muddy meeting of wicked demons—each of whom, after death, drags the wretched soul to himself in the air without sparing, and by the conviction of these things, [brings] a miserable despair of the hope for future good things? After the judgment and accounting which occurs in the air with the spirits of wickedness, there follows a descent into Hades and a dwelling there; where there is deep darkness and the deepest silence, and the souls condemned to that place, having no other food, [feed upon] the bitterest groanings, and the most pungent tears, and the dejection over [their] terrible state, expecting nothing else through all eternity but the just retribution resulting from the just verdict. This constant grief and pain is established for them by the hope of the resurrection, the day of Christ’s fearful coming, the most terrible presentation, and the examination of everything done in life; during which those standing at the right hand of Christ will receive the promises of unspeakable goods, but those who have obtained the position on the left will receive the eternal fire, and the outer darkness, and the sleepless worm, and the gnashing of teeth, and the perpetual weeping, and endless shame.” Do you hear from this holy doctor that, after the judgment and accounting held in the air with the spirits of wickedness, a descent into Hades awaits sinners? How do you not believe these tremendous words? For if He who does not wish sinners to be in punishment, neither would He permit Judas to be in punishment now; but this is in no way true, nor in any way possible.
Behold, it has been clearly shown that those who die without repentance are snatched away to punishment, awaiting that, once clothed in their bodies, they may be punished in both together, at which time [their punishment] is properly called perfect, and it is an endless punishment. There is no need, therefore, to say more about this, as what has been said is sufficient; and if the opponent is not persuaded by these things, neither will he be persuaded by however much more one might say. And concerning this class, sufficient has been said, nor is it necessary to proceed further. It remains, therefore, for us to speak about the second class, for whom prayers are offered and pious works are performed; for those who are placed in this class are purified after death, and this is the purification of souls which we contend to demonstrate. In that fearful hour of passing, therefore, in which the soul is separated from the body, and the most natural bond is severed by the divine will, those souls which are found in true repentance, and [have] abstention from sins...
and do not care or think at all about the present age, but in an absolute manner turn their whole mind entirely toward the place whither they are going, considering all present things as refuse, so that they may win only the bridegroom whom they desire through repentance, and may meet the fearful Judge in the clouds—these enjoy great profit after death. For they were found in repentance, and in repentance they are judged; just as those who are found in despair are condemned. And this is that which we hear threatened by the Judge: "In whatever state I find you, there will I judge you."
III.
It remains, then, henceforth to hear the testimonies which we promised to set forth for you. And B first let there come forward the aforementioned divine and holy John, the great eye of the East, who shone forth from Damascus. For this man, in the sermon he wrote concerning those who have fallen asleep in the faith, which has the title: "On the manner in which the sacrifices and good deeds performed on their behalf aid them," and for which the beginning of the discourse is: "The sweet things of food," after many other things, says also this: "That the disciples and divine apostles of the Savior, who were participants and eyewitnesses of the mysteries of the Word, who traveled around the circuit of the world while they lived, ordained that a commemoration for those who have faithfully fallen asleep should be made during the fearful, immaculate, and life-giving mysteries; which indeed the apostolic and catholic Church of Christ God C firmly and most incontestably holds from end to end, from that time until now and until the end of the world, not having decreed this without reason, nor frivolously, nor rashly, nor as it happened. For Christ’s unerring religion has received nothing that is useless, and has held it unshaken for an age; but all things are profitable and God-pleasing, and most conducive to salvation." You hear that the Church of God has not received anything tainted with error, or useless; but all things are God-pleasing and most conducive to salvation, and sources of the greatest salvation.
After him, the great and profound Dionysius in divine matters, he too in his mystical contemplation concerning the dead, says such things: "For the divine hierophant, the minister of divine justification, would never have sought D things not most dear to God, and which He had not divinely promised to bestow; wherefore he does not offer these prayers for the uninitiated—that is, the unillumined—dead." And again: "Therefore, the divine hierophant asks for things pleasing to God, and which will certainly be granted." And again: "The prayer, indeed, asks of the Godhead's goodness to remit all the sins committed by the departed due to human weakness, and to place him in the land of the living, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place where pain, sorrow, and sighing have fled away; the Godhead's goodness overlooking the stains that come to the departed—"
(As the sacred scriptures teach: "For no one is clean from filth.")
You see, you who contradict, in what way he confirms that prayers offered on behalf of those who have died faithful are profitable
After him, again, the one named for theology, the golden-tongued Gregory, in his funeral oration for his brother Caesarius, says regarding his own mother: "A proclamation worthy of all to hear was voiced, and a mother’s suffering is emptied by a good and holy promise: to give all to the child as a funeral offering for that person." And after other things: "Such, then, are the things from us. And we have rendered some, and others we shall render, the tributes and memorials offered throughout the year." A You see how this great luminary of the Church affirms it, by calling the offerings which are accepted on behalf of those who have fallen asleep beautiful and holy, and confirms the annual commemorations. Where is that wretched gathering of miserable men, which attempts to remove from the midst those things which the doctors and luminaries of the Church, having received everything from the holy apostles, handed down with much labor and study? But that wicked gathering of certain foolish, fickle, unlearned, and dark schismatics, who have confounded and disturbed all our islands, preach that commemorations for the faithful departed ought to be omitted, and that no memory of the saints or sacrifices or holy assemblies or festivals should be celebrated, nor should one sing together with the pious priests, but that we should be separated from one another and flee from them as from the face of a serpent. B But to their own disgrace and refutation, let there come forward the golden in deed and name, John, lover of poverty and guide and teacher of repentance, who in his divine exposition on the Philippians and Galatians says thus: "For if the Greeks burn up with those who have departed the things that were theirs, how much more does it behoove the faithful to share their own with the faithful? Not so that these things, like those, may turn into ash, but that you may clothe him with greater glory. And if the deceased was a sinner, that you may loose his sins; but if a righteous man, that it may become an addition of reward and recompense." And in another homily: "Let us think again," he says, "how we may be of benefit to the departed, let us offer them the help that we can, I mean alms and offerings; for this matter brings them utility, great profit, and advantage. For not rashly and fortuitously have these things been instituted, and handed down to the Church of God by His most wise disciples, that the priest should pour out prayers at the fearful mysteries on behalf of those who have fallen asleep in the faith; for they know that from this there is great profit and much advantage to them." C You hear the soul and tongue of the Golden one, I mean the divine John, that if the impious do things on behalf of the impious, how much more do we, the faithful, owe it to do this on behalf of the faithful? And not that these things are for destruction, as those are, but that we may add greater glory to the one who has fallen asleep; and if he is a sinner, we cleanse his sins and loos
loosen him from his bond; and we lead him out of darkness, and we redeem him from the tears and groanings of A Hades. And if he be righteous, we do not loosen him from darkness, nor do we set him free from bonds, nor do we cleanse his sins, but we bestow upon him an intensification of glory; and [we show] that we procure for them great benefit and profit. Where are those who say that there is no cleansing of souls after death? Behold, Chrysostom asserts it, and they have no counter-argument.
But also the all-wise Gregory of Nyssa, as if contending with these, says: "Nothing has been handed down by the heralds and disciples of Christ without consideration or without profit, but it is a matter full of utility and acceptable to God"—namely, the commemoration which is held at the divine and all-resplendent mystical sacrifice for those who have fallen asleep in the right faith. Do you hear this Father as well, that the Church does nothing without reason, but all things with reason, and by the tradition of the holy apostles; and that making mention in the sacred rites for those who have faithfully fallen asleep is exceedingly beneficial and acceptable to God? For the soul-loving and kind and all-merciful God desires the salvation of all. For the saying of the prophet, that “You shall render to each according to his works,” and, “Each shall reap what he has sown,” and what follows these, has been spoken concerning the coming of the Creator, and the fearful judgment of that time, and the termination of this world. For then there is no longer a time for help; but every intercession is ineffectual. For the festival having dissolved, there is no longer any market for business. For where are the poor then? Where are the liturgies? Where are the psalmodies? Where are the [acts of] charity? Therefore, before that hour, let us help one another, and let us offer the gifts of brotherly love to Christ our God, the lover of brothers, men, and souls; for the Lord, being a lover of us, accepts [them] very gladly, and desires that we ask. He B truly, as a munificent giver, will exhibit those things which are requested for the salvation of another, and at that time He is most fully inclined toward us, not only when one struggles for his own soul alone, but also when he works eagerly for his neighbor.
IV.
And what does the history regarding Macarius reveal, when he questioned the dry skull as to whether the dead have any feeling when one prays for them? Did not the dry bone answer that they feel great relief and respite when a commemoration is made for them? Moreover, among the lives of the holy elders, along with many others, I have also found this: "Which of those God-bearing men, having a disciple living in negligence, and having reached the end of life sluggishly in this state, did not the all-merciful and soul-loving Lord, after the elder had asked with tears, show [to him]—like the rich man in the case of Lazarus—trapped in the flame up to his neck? And as the holy man labored much from then on, and with tears entreated God, He showed him once again [the disciple] up to the waist. Then, adding prayers to prayers and increasing [his petition] more intensely, He showed to the elder in a vision [the disciple] entirely free and released from the fire: for he was being punished on account of the sin of negligence, and therefore such a sin is easily C atoned." And who could recount in order the testimonies of these things, which in the holy- D
lives A include divine revelations, clearly demonstrating that even after death, prayers and liturgies and alms performed on their behalf greatly benefit the departed? For nothing of what is lent to God is ever lost; rather, the lover of goodness repays it with great interest. Now, therefore, is the time for rendering aid; now we also have the saints with us as fellow-intercessors for those who have fallen asleep, and as supplicants on their behalf. For in the time to come there is no intercession, when the dissolution of the assembly shall arrive; and there is no hope of aid; now is the time for business and exchange, a time for labor and repentance. And blessed is he who has not been softened by hope and prayer; but more blessed is he who has struggled both for himself and for his neighbor. For this greatly pleases and gladdens the all-merciful Lord: that each one should hasten to the aid of his neighbor; this the merciful One desires and wills, so that we may all benefit one another, both while living and after death. B For this reason, He gave us, through the holy apostles and the divine Fathers after them, [the command] to perform bloodless sacrifices for those who have gone before, and third-day, and ninth-day, and fortieth-day rites, and annual memorials, and services. These things, without any dispute, the catholic and apostolic Church, and her God-gathered and most pious people, hold unshakably and clearly understood. Only those who follow the schismatics and their impure assembly do not accept these. Therefore, they have stopped these, and have decreed that gatherings should not take place, nor should one pray for those who have gone before, as if there were no benefit at all after death. Enough of these matters. It is necessary, however, to mention other histories, for the healing of the faithful, and for the shame of those who do not accept the cleansing and benefit of souls after death.
Magnus, therefore, and great Athanasius, in his most elegant C discourse on those who have fallen asleep, says these things: "Even if he who has been perfected in piety has been laid to rest in the air, do not refuse to apply tapers and oil to his tomb, calling upon Christ the God. For these are acceptable to God and bring forth much compensation from Him. For oil and wax are a whole burnt offering; but the bloodless sacrifice is an atonement, and kindness toward the poor is an addition to every good reward." Do you hear that a whole burnt offering and an atonement and every other good and saving thing is accomplished for the dead when we pray for them? Then again, John, the golden-tongued and golden-flowing, says: "If you did not manage, while in this life, to arrange everything regarding your soul, even at the end of your life, command your own people to send your possessions D after you after death, and to give you aid through good works—I mean alms—and offerings, and from there you might reconcile to yourself the Redeemer; for these are acceptable to Him, as also is the offering." You have perceived, then, what the golden-tongued one says? That if you have not forestalled [the time of your death] to be reconciled during your life—
and to be cleansed through repentance and good works, and to become wholly of the upper lot, even if in the end of your life you have repented, give instructions to your own [household] that they offer sacrifices, oblations, and alms on your behalf; and thus they will benefit you: for these things are indeed acceptable to God. If, therefore, that which is offered on behalf of the deceased is acceptable, it is consequently beneficial; for no one would dare say that what is acceptable to God is useless. And the same [author], A again: "Write," he says, "in your testament, along with your children and kinsmen, the Lord also as a co-heir: let the Judge’s name be contained in the will, nor pass the poor by into oblivion: for I shall be the surety for them." But what value do all these things have if there is no aid for souls after death, as you think? And for what reason did the saints hand these things down? Are they deceived? Let us not be so insane as to say that; but they are highly beneficial, and pleasing and acceptable to God; B for He wills that all should be saved; and He desires the salvation of all and provides for it conveniently in every way; and in every manner He stirs up some toward the benefit of others, that, as a lover of mankind, He might even in this way save some by all means. Hearing these things, one of the adversaries, rejoicing greatly and raising his eyebrow, will say that once it is posited that they are cleansed after death, then all will be saved, and no one will fail. And if someone was not a saint during his life, he is therefore saved after death, through what you call cleansing. Very well, and would that we too could say this. This is what the C lover of mankind, and lover of souls, and lover of good, the Lord, thirsts for and desires; and in this He rejoices and is glad, that no one should fall short of His gifts. For did He come upon the earth merely to save the heavenly intelligences? And by taking flesh incorruptibly from the ever-virgin Mother of God, Mary, did He become a mortal man and taste death? Did He prepare the rewards and crowns for them? Will He say to the angels: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you"? It is not so, it is not; no one is so foolish as to say this; but He did everything for the sake of man. For this reason He also wills that all should be saved. For who among us, having prepared D a feast and called his friends, does not wish for all to come and enjoy his goods? Or why would he have labored to prepare the banquet, if not for his friends? But if all, or some, do not come, the friend possesses great indignation. If, therefore, these things are customary among us mortals, one might much more think so in the case of the all-good and all-merciful, the lavish and abundant bestower of riches and most pious God; who wills that all should be saved and enjoy His divine gladness and delight. Let everyone, therefore, consider this: that we do not say these things are to be done for all the deceased, as has often been said, and now we say it more precisely. For the saints there is no need; for the desperate and doomed it is useless. It follows that it is for those who did not succeed in satisfying [the debt of justice] beforehand; just as it happens to all who possess only a small portion of leaven for completing the virtue; and who do not take care to bake bread from it beforehand, willing indeed, but not able to complete it, led either by indolence or sloth, or by procrastination from day to day ->
Yet, having been snatched away beyond expectation, the just Judge and Lord will not forget him; but will raise up his kin for his sake, and will direct their minds and draw their hearts and incline their souls toward his relief and help; and stirred by God, and moved by the Lord of their hearts, they shall hasten to satisfy the shortcomings of the departed, just as has happened in many cases.
A V. A witness to this fact is Emperor Trajan and the Iconoclast Theophilus, the one saved by the prayer of the blessed Gregory of Rome, the Dialogist, and the other by that of the God-bearing and holy men, and of the Empress. For these would never have been saved had they not themselves possessed some virtue which the righteousness of God was unwilling should perish, or if not virtue, at least confession. For neither the prayers of holy men, nor the zeal of the Empress for Theophilus would have prevailed, had he not first confessed his own sin, asserting that it was right for the holy icons to be honored and worshipped. For the man was indeed very virtuous, but because he was sick with the heresy of the Iconoclasts, as the history concerning him reveals, his mouth was stretched open excessively, so that his inward parts were visible. Afterwards, having even shown by deed that the veneration of the venerable icons is holy—as he took hold of an *encolpion* belonging to one of those present and kissed it reverently—shortly thereafter, snatched away, he was cast down to the tribunals there. For his sake, earnest prayers having been offered by those God-bearing and holy men, and by the Empress herself, pardon was granted to him. For the Empress saw in a dream Theophilus bound, being dragged by an immense multitude, moving before and behind him; and before him, various kinds of instruments of torture were being carried; she seemed to follow those who were leading him away, until, having arrived before a certain terrible Judge, they set Theophilus before him. Falling down, therefore, at the feet of that terrible Judge, the Empress besought him earnestly with tears for her husband. To whom the terrible Judge said: "O woman, great is thy faith; for thy sake, and for the sake of the prayer of my priests, I grant pardon to thy husband." Then he said to the attendants, "Release him, and give him to his wife." Similarly, the holy Patriarch, having written down the names of all the heretics, and of Theophilus himself, placed them beneath the holy table. And on the same night in which the Empress had seen the vision, he too saw a divine angel entering the great temple, who said to him: "O Bishop, thy prayer has been heard; and Theophilus has attained pardon." Having awakened, therefore, he reaches the holy table; and having taken up the paper written a little while before, he found, O
A name abolished. From this passage, therefore, the dogma of purgatory is openly demonstrated; for if he had been a saint, he would not have gone on bound like a condemned man: but if he had been utterly desperate and deprived of the fruit of repentance, he would not have obtained pardon. Thus, since he belonged to the middle class and was found in a state of repentance, he was helped by the prayers of God-bearing and holy men. But concerning the desperate, even if you were to give the whole world, as has often been said, it will not help him at all.
A witness to this is the aforementioned holy John Damascene, in the discourse mentioned before, where he says: "But he who has lived a wicked life, altogether entangled in thorns and sprinkled with the filth of pollutions, and has never looked into his own conscience, but instead has fearlessly and indifferently defiled himself with the pollutions of pleasures, following all the desires of the flesh, entirely despising the care of the soul, and sensing nothing but the flesh, and—being caught in these thoughts—has departed from life, to this man no one shall extend a hand; but it will be dealt with him in such a way that he cannot be helped at all by wife, or children, or brothers, or relatives, or friends, because God does B not have him in measure." You see how this holy man said that he who prays for such people is insane, as they are placed outside the measure of God? Concerning these it is written: "In hell there is no repentance" (Ps. vi, 6), and the rest. Regarding the middle class, that is, those who die in a state of repentance, to be solicitous for them is a very profitable and truly useful thing. We do not, therefore, provide occasions and excuses for the living not to give alms, but to reserve them for after death; for this is absurd and profane, and alien to the divine law. Rather, it is a most excellent thing, pleasing to God and altogether acceptable, for every religious and Christ-loving man to be such, and to purify himself by manifold good works, abstaining from all impurity, and holding fast to the luminous commandments of God, so that when he has reached the end of life, he may say to the Lord with confidence: "My heart is ready" (Ps. lvi, 8). And thus he will joyfully be C met by the diligent angels who are his guides. But this is what few do, and rarely, according to the word of the Lord; for "Few," he says, "are those who are being saved." Having it, therefore, for certain, that it is very difficult for many to be found in the first order, we necessarily introduce the second order, insisting upon the footsteps of the Apostles and the Fathers, since the departed are helped by the goodness of God; and brotherly love is increased; and the hope of the resurrection is confirmed; and the gathering at the holy temples is more fervently increased; and beneficence towards the poor is widened. See in how many ways the matter is gainful and useful; and in how many ways the help of the departed becomes an occasion for the D reconciliation of all. Those who do not want this, nor embrace it, overturn the ecclesiastical order and reject and hinder the sacrifices for the dead, which were not devised by the teachers in vain. But far be it that this
be thought or accepted by any of the faithful at all; rather, as we believe it to be very beneficial, let us not cease to constantly make memorials for the departed, brethren; because they possess great A relief and help from us, when we assist them through prayer, supplication, along with almsgiving and every other benefaction. Therefore, the divine and holy apostles also command this to us in their Constitutions, where they say: "Let the third day of the departed be celebrated in psalms and prayers, for the sake of Him who rose after three days; and the ninth in memory of the surviving and the departed; and the fortieth according to the ancient custom, for so did the people mourn for Moses; and the annual for their memorial. And let something be given from their possessions to the poor, in their memory." We say these things with regard to the pious. But concerning the impious, even if you were to give the whole world to the poor, you will benefit him nothing; for to whom the Divinity was an enemy while he was living, it is B evident that It is so also when he has departed. For there is no injustice with God, for the Lord is just and loves justice; and let a man see his own work, and You will render to each according to his works.
Do you hear how the holy apostles legislate for the offering of sacrifices and supplications for the faithfully departed? This is what we have often said: it is for those who have repented here with a pure and contrite heart, but have not arrived at fulfilling the canons given to them; we pray for these who have departed; for these we appease the Divinity, and we beseech and entreat. From this, relief and benefit is given to them. And this is what the Church of God in her own definition calls Purgatory, in which souls are cleansed after death through the assistance of the living C faithful, through prayers and supplications being offered constantly for them. That one would think of this for the saints, no one who is of sound mind would imagine, nor for the impious, nor even for the unrepentant Christians. For sinful and unrepentant Christians will suffer the same thing that even those who have not known the true God, Jesus Christ, will suffer; and these even much worse than those. "For he who did not know," says the Gospel, "the will of his Lord, but did things worthy of stripes, will be beaten with few; but he who knew the will of his Lord, and did not prepare, nor did according to His will, will be beaten with many." For it is regarding these that you heard the holy apostles saying, "These we say for the pious, that is, for those who have repented; but concerning the impious, not even if you give the things of the world for them, will you benefit them." The same also does John, whose tongue is of gold, D say: "No one," he says, "upon departing from here without having dissolved his sins, having gone there,
A will be able to escape the judgment upon these matters. But just as those from these prisons are brought before the tribunal with their chains, so also all souls, when they depart from here unrepentant, wrapped in the various coils of their sins, are brought to the fearful tribunal. Do you see? See here, how souls departing from here unprepared have no help after death; but just as they depart, that is, with the burdens of their sins, they are brought to the fearful tribunal. But those who have repented, and have appeased God with warm tears, are greatly helped by the holy sacrifices and rites performed on their behalf.
VI.
The follower of the new buffoons says: "There is no benefit to the departed, nor any help. For this reason, they have also abandoned their commemorations; but if there is any, let us leave it, they say, to the mercy of God." But we will say to them: "What is the meaning of the forty-day commemorations? The commemorations on every Sabbath? The offerings, and the annual memorials and rites for the departed? For what reason? For whom? And why are they performed? For if you say it is for the saints, your argument is false; the refutation will be manifest and ready for you, and right on its heels Gregory the Dialogist, in his book of Dialogues, says to Peter: B "The souls of the perfected saints, as soon as they depart the confines of this flesh, are received into the dwellings of the heavenly kingdom, standing in light more manifest than light itself." If, therefore, they are in the heavenly dwellings and with Christ, there is no need to offer oblations, cakes, and sacrifices for their sins to God. But if you would say it is for those held in Hades, that is not true either; indeed, you yourself would not say this unless you were completely insane; for if not, the rich man would have obtained a drop of water while being burned in the flame. But this is not so, it is not so. Therefore, you will confess, against your will and unwillingly, that these things are done for those in the middle state. But for whom? For the faithful, for those who have repented; for those whom we have often mentioned. For what reason and why? So that you may appease the Divine on their behalf; and what they themselves were not able to accomplish while they lived, you may fulfill for them. The adversary says: "Not for this, but this was established for the sake of the priests, so that they too might live, by receiving alms and offerings." O the mania! O the folly! Or, to speak more properly, O the impudence and blasphemy! Does the immaculate bride of God, the Church, C which is above all blame, preach errors of the merciful and true God? May the deceitful lips which speak against the Church of God be made mute. For the Church did not decree these things to take place so that the priests might live—for even to imagine this is impious and completely foolish—but it has been ordained for the benefit of the departed, as has often been said. And there is no need to be wordy. D I will mention one or two testimonies, which I have reserved to the last, and then I will reply to the objections proposed by you, and thus bring my discourse to an end. Gregory the Dialogist, leader of the Church of God, whom we mentioned earlier, says thus in said book of Dialogues: "I ask of you, most blessed Father, what thing can be..."
of benefit to the souls of the departed after death?” Gregory: “If faults after death are not unpardonable, the holy oblation of the saving Sacrifice can greatly assist souls.” Do you hear that souls are helped after death? It is necessary, therefore, to know which ones. No person of sound mind would say this of the souls of the saints; but neither [would they say it] of those of the damned. It follows that this profit, cleansing, and assistance comes to those who have died in repentance. For neither confession alone nor repentance is sufficient to bring a man into the kingdom of heaven, as some ignorant and foolish people often suggest to us; but it is also necessary to make satisfaction for the sins that have been committed, both by deed and by omission. For repentance and fervent confession are a means for a man to find the way to salvation. But if he is overtaken and departs from this life and age, he is redeemed from the eternal damnation which he would have surely suffered had he not repented; however, he does not become an heir to the delights and joy of paradise unless he has sufficiently cleansed himself and shown himself worthy of that inheritance. Whence the Lord God, a lover of souls and a lover of goodness, being concerned for the salvation of all and wishing all to be saved, grants to the man who has repented with all his heart for the sins he knows himself to have committed, but who has not been able to make satisfaction in the present life, the punishment of purgation, so that, having been cleansed by that temporary and purgatorial fire, he may be delivered from the eternal and unending fire. And he is not only delivered from condemnation, but also becomes acceptable for the heavenly dwelling, according to the oracle: “As gold in the furnace he tried them, and as a whole burnt offering he accepted them.”
C And the same Gregory provides an example of this cleansing in the same passage, continuing with the same discourse to the same Peter. He says: “Whence, Peter, even these souls of the dead have sometimes been seen seeking this benefit; just as the aforementioned Felix, the Bishop, related that he had heard it from a certain presbyter, a man of most reverent life, who lived until two years ago and dwelt in the diocese of the city of Centumcellae, and was presiding over the church of the blessed John, which is situated in the place called Tauriana. This same presbyter, therefore, D used to bathe in the same place where the hot waters are, as often as bodily necessity required it. On a certain day, when he had gone in, he found a certain man, known to him, standing ready for his service, who would remove the footwear from his feet, take up his garments, and, when he came out of the baths, provide him with a towel, and perform every service with great respect. When this happened frequently, the same presbyter, on one occasion as he was going to the baths, reasoned within himself and said: ‘I must appear ungrateful to that man who is accustomed to serve me so sincerely in my bathing; I must bring him something as a gift.’ Taking two offerings, therefore, he set out. And he, as soon as he arrived...
A at the place, found the man again; and, according to his custom, he performed the liturgy in every respect. But when he had bathed and put on his clothes, and was already about to leave, he offered to the man who had served him the oblations he was carrying with him, as a token of blessing, and begged him to accept them out of love. But he, grieving and distressed, replied, saying: “Why do you give these things to me, Father? This bread is holy, and I cannot eat it. For I, whom you see, was once the master of this place; but because of my sins, I was condemned here after death. But if you wish to grant me any favor, offer this bread on my behalf to Almighty God, and pray for my sins. And you may know that you have been heard if, when you come to bathe, you do not find me here.” Having said these things, he vanished. And he who was seen to be a man, by vanishing, made it clear that he was a spirit. The same presbyter then afflicted himself intensely for a week of days in tears for his sake, offering the saving sacrifice to God every day; and after this, having returned to the baths, he did not find him there at all for the future. B
VII.
From this, therefore, it is shown how much the offering of the sacred sacrifice contributes to souls, when even the spirits of the dead themselves ask for it from the living, and indicate by signs that through it they are redeemed from their sins. Where is the legislation of the ignorant and unperceptive, who are miserably growing old, who do not want to bring offerings for the dead, but instead to give to those who are in prison and not to the priests? Since the spirit of the deceased was not concerned with any solicitude for those detained in prison, so that alms might be given to them, but begged the priest, with tears, to offer the sacrifice to God. For it is indeed a good and God-pleasing work to give alms C to those in prison, and to engage in other pious works; and no one is so foolish as to argue the contrary. But above all things excels the holy sacrifice offered for the dead to God. The blessed Father and teacher adds this and other similar examples, worthy of mention, in the same narrative, while he explains the purification of souls after death, which, because of their length, we do not set down here, but refer the reader to that place. And if anyone should examine that book diligently, I am confident that he would free himself from every spirit of contention and strife. For souls that depart from this world without having completed their satisfaction D are condemned to punishments and fire—not a burning fire, but a purifying one; and not eternal, but temporary—so that in that partial punishment and that fire they may be purified from their sins, for which they were unable to provide complete satisfaction in this present life. It is beneficial to them, in order that they may be delivered from the tears and groaning of [the place of] punishment, and that the time they were destined to remain there according to the measure of their sins may be shortened, that sacrifices and other good and pious works are offered on their behalf, according to the divine and sacred decree. And just as if someone were for six months or a year in a prison
rem damnaretur, A a judge, moved by the prayers of those close to him, can shorten the time, release him from prison, and grant him leave to depart: thus also the souls of certain ones, condemned on account of their own negligence, are redeemed from punishments by the prayers of priests and the pious works of their kin, and the merciful God, lover of goodness, makes them participants in His heavenly kingdom. This same thing the blessed John Damascene sings as if in the person of the deceased, praying: "I am an image of Thy ineffable glory, and though I bear the marks of my sins, B have mercy on Thy creature, O Lord. And out of Thy compassion, cleanse me, and grant me my longed-for fatherland, again making me a citizen of Paradise." Similarly, at the invitatory for Matins on Saturday, in the third verse of the seventh ode of the canon for the dead in the second tone, he says: "Great and immense is the abyss of Thy compassion, and boundless is Thy love for mankind. Grant forgiveness of sins to those who have passed on to Thee, and by Thy grace show them cleansed." You know those words: "cleanse by Thy compassion," and "show them cleansed." Wherefore does the dead one exclaim this? Is it not so that he may be cleansed by that fire of purification? And why do we in turn pray for the dead? Surely, that He may show them cleansed on the day of retribution. The doctor, borrowing this from the blessed Paul, says: "Each man's work, of what sort it is, the fire shall test; for it will be revealed in fire, and whose work shall remain which he has built up, he shall receive a reward." We can also, in our own opinion, understand these words in this way, even if others have interpreted them differently: that he "whose work shall remain"—that is, remains untouched by the fire, because it was brightened by deeds here—shall receive a reward. And this is the work of the righteous. For the righteous shall pass through that fire, and no one will contradict it, C as the golden-mouthed John testifies in the fourth homily on the Gospel according to Matthew: "For the saints," he says, "will pass through the fire of this river and will suffer no harm; nay, rather, they will appear cheerful. For how should they suffer anything, if they have perfectly cleansed themselves here?" But he "whose work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss"; that is, whoever has light and slight sins, they will be consumed like straw and hay, since the fire easily eats them up. For the blessed Paul, hinting at this, was saying: "And if anyone builds upon this foundation wood, hay, straw"; as if to say, whoever departs from this world having venial sins, like straw and hay and wood, the fire will easily devour them, and he will suffer loss; that is to say, he will be punished for a time, D and will appear bright and radiant. For how should they suffer, if they have already cleansed themselves perfectly here? But he whose work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss; that is, whoever has light and slight sins, they will be burned up like straw and grass; since the fire eats them up easily. For the blessed Paul, hinting at this, said: "And if anyone builds upon this foundation wood, hay, straw"; as if to say: whoever departs from here having forgivable sins, like straw and grass and wood, the fire will easily devour them, and he will suffer loss; that is, for a time
he will be punished; but his work, as something worthy of destruction, is being consumed and destroyed; yet he himself will be saved, in this way, as through fire. If you say this, you will not be wrong; for he whose work remains—that is, whoever departs from here having deadly sins—his work will remain as something heavy, like iron or stone, which fire does not easily consume; and he will receive the reward of his work, eternal punishment. But he whose work will be burned up, he himself will be saved as through fire. Just as gold, when it is mixed with some matter alien to its nature, becomes clearly evident, and being diminished of its original brilliance, becomes useless; but when it is tested by fire, that vice is burned away and given over to destruction, while the gold regains its former brilliance. So too the soul, through the fire of purification, casting off the filth by which it had become soiled out of negligence and sloth, returns again to its former brilliance and nobility. B And the heaven-revealer and holy Basil will confirm these words of mine in his exposition of the blessed prophet Isaiah, in the statement which stands as follows: "For the Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse the blood of Jerusalem from their midst, in a spirit of judgment and in a spirit of burning." The Word clearly declares the same things to John, saying concerning the Lord, that "He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." And concerning himself, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance." Since, therefore, the Lord has joined both—that which is from water unto repentance, and that which is from the Spirit unto regeneration—and the Word hints at both baptisms, it may be that there are three conceptions of baptism: the cleansing of filth, the regeneration through the Spirit, and the trial through the fire of discernment. Thus, the cleansing is intended for the putting away of sin here; but the "spirit of judgment and spirit of burning" is intended for the trial through fire in the world to come. Sins C committed through ignorance, being as it were a kind of filth, obscuring the surface of the soul and damaging its natural beauty, are in need of the cleansing of washing; but sins unto death, of those who sin willingly after having received the knowledge, are called blood, and are in need of the judgment of burning. Since he who confesses wishes both to be washed and to be cleansed, and says that iniquity needs washing and sin needs cleansing, saying: "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin," those who are entirely untaught in divine doctrines, having sinned before learning the Word, as if defiled by filth, stand in need of the cleansing that comes through water; but those who, after having received the Life, plot against themselves, being guilty of blood, stand in need of the cleansing that comes through fire. It is also possible D to interpret it more simply: that those sins which are, as it were, upon the surface and do not lurk within, are in a way similar to filth; while those deep and interior things committed out of a vicious habit in those who sin are compared to blood. Therefore, it is said that the blood is to be purged from the midst of sinners through the burning of the Spirit: "And iniquity shall be burned up as by fire." The change has a certain appearance of benefit, because iniquity shall be burned up as by fire. For it has been established by the goodness of the Lord that the matter prepared for iniquity is to be destroyed for the benefit of men. Prophet: "And as dry grass it shall be devoured by fire, and shall be burned in the thickets of the wood." Basil: "How is the soul submerged in earthly affections? Even as grass are the affections of the soul."
sprouting from the disposition of the flesh, spreading by one means or another, and generating one thing upon another. For as grass is the most prolific of plants, and its generation nowhere ceases, but the end of its first sprouting becomes the beginning of the next, such is the nature of sins; it succeeds itself, and fornication begets fornication; and the habit of falsehood becomes the mother of lies; and he who has practiced these things among the young grows bold and easily commits injustice, for the preceding sin becomes an occasion for sin. If, therefore, we bare our sin through confession, we have made it dry grass, worthy of being devoured by the cleansing fire; and this burns in the thickets of the wood." And a little later: "If, therefore, our sin does not become like dry grass, it will not be devoured by the fire, nor will it be burned." And again: "‘Through the fury of the anger of the Lord’—the whole earth has been burned together—he shows that earthly things are given over to the punitive fire for the benefit of the soul, as the Lord also intimates, saying: ‘I have come to cast fire upon the earth, and what do I wish if it be already kindled?’" The Prophetic word: "And the people shall be as those burned by fire." Basil: "He does not threaten destruction, but intimates purification according to that which is said by the Apostle: ‘If anyone’s work is burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.’" Do you hear this great Father, how iniquity is washed away and put aside here, and in the world to come is tested by fire and purified? And that this punitive fire has been ordained by the good Master for the benefit of the soul, and that the prepared matter of sin is made to disappear and is burned up like dry grass if it be laid bare through confession; but if it be not bared, is it not devoured by the cleansing fire? And that he does not threaten destruction, but intimates purification? Saying these things, this blessed man adds that apostolic saying: "But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire," for "shall be saved" signifies salvation, according to right reason, and not perdition, as some wish. B C
VIII. D H'.
If, therefore, all the things said before and the sayings of the great Basil are false, then what is called purgatory by the Latins is also false; but if they are true, as indeed they are, then the holy decree speaks well and truly, and the Latins think and opine praiseworthily and rightly, and we have been justly and sinlessly united to the holy Church of God; and we do well and piously in keeping the union and the bond
A of peace and concord. We wished, therefore, to add other testimonies and sayings of the saints to this premise; but he who is not persuaded by these will not be persuaded by others, not even by as many as we might mention. For this reason, we deem what has been said sufficient, addressing our discourse to discreet men who are eager to learn, who seek their own salvation, and who, as far as possible, understand the truth briefly and embrace it willingly, not bringing forward whatever comes to hand out of a spirit of litigation and contention, as those do who, through the depravity of their souls and the dullness of their minds, cast aside the truth incessantly and shamelessly. C And these things, then, are thus. Let us turn our discourse to the matters you raise as objections. For those who contend against these things say, first, that it suffices for a man on the final day of his pilgrimage, with repentance accompanied by tears and a fervent confession, so that he may be saved and carried off into the kingdom of heaven. And they offer as an example a certain thief who, having been pricked with remorse in one night with tears, immediately died; and when the angels arrived and found nothing else but B the tears shed a little earlier, while the demons were crying out that nothing good was in him, the holy angels placed the cloth moistened with tears on the scales of the balance, and thus put the demons to shame through the mercy of God. They also bring in the example of the harlot, and other things similar to these, not understanding, O men, that these things are on our side; and we likewise say that those shed tears saved him and freed him from eternal punishment, which he would have undoubtedly incurred had he not shown that repentance and those tears; but he would not have been carried into the kingdom of heaven, had he not been made worthy through the purgatorial fire. These are they who are cleansed in the purgatory, who showed fervent repentance and departed with a contrite heart; for there is no respect of persons with God. Therefore, it is necessary for him who desires to see God to restore his soul to the ancient beauty which Adam possessed in paradise before the disobedience and the condemnation. For this reason, He also settled him there, being sinless. But having slipped and sinned, he was driven out of it. Those, then, who wish to inhabit paradise must be cleansed in such a way that no stain or blemish of sin remains in them. For repentance alone does not suffice. For if it sufficed, the living would not practice the canons given to those who have departed; but just as penances are given to the living by spiritual Fathers when they confess, in order to cleanse the stains that have tainted their souls, and so that they may acquire virtue for the attainment of the heavenly life, so also for those who repent at the end of life, and confess with fervent tears, and immediately depart, the purgatorial fire is given as a penance, in which the soul is afflicted and melted, remembering the time it lost while remaining in the most shameful deeds. D And it shortens the time, and relieves the pain
A for the supplication and the offering and the prayer, as has been said many times. But let the unbeliever hear this from us: how does he chant with a loud voice, "Deliver your servant from the tears and groanings in Hades, O Savior"? For the saints neither groan nor weep, nor are they even in Hades. And those in despair and the impious, they do weep in Hades and are punished, but it is not necessary to make memorials for them, as it is useless. And this we have said many times.
It follows that these are the ones of whom we are speaking—those who have died in repentance but have not made satisfaction—whom we do not say belong among the impious and the desperate in the dark and gloomy place of punishment, and that they weep in vain and lament to no purpose. But they are in the midst of the place of purgation, in the place where they are partially pained and groan at how they were willingly deprived of good things, and did not obtain them immediately after the dissolution of their bodies. For those whom we beg to be delivered from darkness, and to be loosened from the bonds that hold them in, which are grievous, and to emerge from that prison—it is to them that we apply the words of the prophet Malachi, who says, "As fire in a crucible, and as the herb of fullers, God will wash and cleanse some." B But that eternal fire cleanses no one, nor does it wash them. If, therefore, the saints are in no need of washing or cleansing (for they are blameless), and those who are in Hades—the impious and the unrepentant—will never be washed or cleansed, for they are desperate, who then are they whom God will wash and cleanse, according to the prophet? But these are the ones whom we call the "middle" ones. Moreover, if those who sin are forgiven by confession alone—that which is made at the end of life—then everything that the Church has ordained to be done after death is superfluous.
They bring forward a second objection against us, saying: If it is necessary to help the one who has fallen asleep, and if there is any aid at all for those who have others to benefit them, what of those who have no one? Who will pray for them? And to this, a quick solution shall be given: that even these have two who aid them—here, the Church, and there, the purgatorial fire, which has been prepared for those who repent. Still you are void of understanding, and have not known that the Church of Christ always prays for those who have fallen asleep, and makes mention of souls every Saturday? And furthermore, twice in the year she keeps a festival for the remembrance D of souls—in the Saturday before the Meatfare, I say, and in that before Pentecost. And this is done so that she may include all together, even those who might not have received care from their own relatives, perhaps as having none, so that they too, in common with everyone, may obtain this.
Then they bring forward a third and more violent point, boasting greatly and lifting their eyebrows: "Be it so," they say, "that souls are currently being cleansed until the new resurrection; and there is a time in which they might be tested by the pain and the groanings and tears in Hades, just as you say; and after having been cleansed, they become participants in the dwelling of the heavens."
A On the day of the change, according to blessed Paul, there will be found those who are still alive, who will not precede those who have fallen asleep in rising, because in the twinkling of an eye and in an atom of time the living shall be changed, and the dead shall be raised. Where, then, is there time in the twinkling of an eye to be tested and to suffer? And where are the liturgies and alms and the rest? Since the time is short, the struggle is brought to an end, the crowns are given, and each receives according to what he has done. What, then, will you say to these things, you who cherish the synod in Florence and bravely proclaim it, assigning times to those who are being cleansed in that unpleasant and dark place? What defense B would you offer against this? Pray, lend your ear to this matter with gentleness of spirit. For the Lord is just and loves justice, and He is always mindful of the salvation of men.
Those who die now in true repentance, as has often been said, He sends to the purgatory, assigning to each the time in which he should be cleansed according to the proportion of his offenses. But for those at that final time, He works out salvation in many ways and by many methods. First, He will give a trial beyond comprehension, namely, the temptation of the Antichrist, who, according to the holy Scriptures, will cause great affliction even to the chosen servants of God. But their endurance will save them, according to the word of the Lord, that he who endures to the end, he will be saved. And those who reach the end of their lives, He will save in another way, assigning to them a punishment of purgatorial fire C more bitter in a single moment of time than if it were spread over a hundred years.
For example, take the case of an authority who, for one and the same offense, seizes two men: one of whom he condemns to one year in prison and then releases; but the other, by a different and more bitter punishment than imprisonment, he subjects within a single hour to the torments of ten punishments and then releases. Tell me, then, which of the two suffered the more bitter penalty? The one who spent a year in chains, or he who was tortured for a short fraction of an hour? It is evident that the latter did. So, too, in that hour and in the twinkling of an eye, the Lord of hosts, who can do all things, is also able to do this, by giving a sharp punishment in an indivisible moment of time to those then found at that hour in repentance D and in a state of cleansing, who had not yet been able to make satisfaction. If a human authority can do this, the Lord of hosts cannot? But these points have already been explained by me, and well and sufficiently in my judgment. We have not written these things in a spirit of contentious demonstration, but wishing, so far as it is possible, to act as advocates for the truth. But he who will not give faith to these things, not even if one should rise from the dead, according to what is written, would be persuaded.
But you, orthodox reader, now have sufficiently the demonstrations and testimonies of the third chapter, which we have collected from the holy Scriptures, the theologians, and the doctors of the Church, and have set forth as far as was possible for us. From these we have clearly proven that souls receive great benefit after death. Remain in these things; abide in these things. For it cannot be otherwise than as the luminaries of the Church teach.
PROOF OF THE FOURTH CHAPTER OF THOSE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE DECREE OF THE SYNOD. Concerning the fruition of the saints.
A 1. The fourth chapter of the decree, which they accuse of being dangerous and alien to the orthodox faith—namely, that the saints are in the glory of God and rejoice in the vision of Him, and in so far as they are souls, they perfectly participate in that divine fruition—is accepted by some, namely, from the number of the schismatics (for I call those schismatics who do not follow the holy synod), while others deny it. Regarding those who confess it, there is no place for dispute; but against those who doubt or assert the contrary, it is necessary for us to reason with every effort and to respond vigorously, so that this also, along with the others, may be fortified, and so that those who wish to perceive the distinction of this matter may recognize the truth. Having recognized it, they will see the madness of the schismatics and how, without any reason at all, they oppose the synod and the saints who openly establish this opinion in their theological books. B Keeping, therefore, the sequence of the things we previously set forth, let us begin again to respond to this with clarity. I beseech you, therefore, to listen attentively to what is soon to be said, that every obstacle which might impede concord may be removed from the midst, and the truth, being implanted in the souls of all, may bring forth fruit of peace and love, and that strife and contention may cease, and concord and love may follow. Whence, therefore, shall I take the beginning, or whence shall I start, brothers? From every side I see the divine Scriptures, the holy Gospel, and the teachers of the Church openly contradicting the things brought forward by you. But you, out of your own thoughts, conclude nothing necessary, except that before the common resurrection, the saints and sinners do not receive the rewards or punishments which they deserve: that, truly, brothers, as learned men judge, has no force. But that the just and the sinners receive their due from the day of their departure, will be shown, God granting us the word in the opening of our mouth. But beginning C in order, it is fitting that in this place as well, we should set forth our discourse as if in a court of law; so that this dogma may shine forth brighter and purer than the sun, examined accurately by questioning and answering.
A We ask you, therefore, brothers, for what reason do you not wish the saints to receive their reward in the present? If you say it is because the resurrection has not yet come, this does not compel the conclusion that the saints do not receive it, for God is always just, both now and on the day of the resurrection. If, then, He is just—as indeed He is, for it is written, "The Lord is righteous, and He loves righteousness" (Ps. X, 8)—and the saints gave up their souls for the sake of Him who is truly righteous, so that they might rest with the righteous God, then it follows truly that they are with God. Since such ones after death are firmly righteous, and you yourself, while praying, chant, saying: "Give them rest, where the righteous find rest." But if they do not rest with the righteous God, their righteousness is called into doubt, a thing which even to you is not pleasing.
"By no means," they say, "do the righteous receive their reward now, nor do they participate in bliss at all; but they hope to receive it in due time, and in this they rejoice and exult." But this would be similar to those who are thirsty and scorched, when they seat themselves by some spring, consumed by thirst, and seeing the water near them, and longing to be filled with the water, to cool the burning and the heat from their labor and misery, yet they are held back by some invisible thing and cannot drink; and thus they are burned all the more by the sight of the water, and their thirst increases the more, and, as is natural, it burns them terribly. But at this even nursing infants would laugh, if the thirsty man is delighted by the hope of drink, even while he partakes not of the water. B For my part, your argument concludes that the saints are not only not delighted, but rather [they are] grieved and tormented vehemently.
Let us consider whether the matter stands thus. The highest good, as the saints and theologians perceive, is God alone. And [in Him] is joy, exultation, desire, and appetite. Whoever, therefore, are deprived of the Good, they are without doubt deprived of joy and exultation. Yet if the saints are deprived, they are saddened; if they are saddened, they are tormented, and against this no one will argue. It follows, therefore, according to you, that the saints are tormented: but that is clearly absurd, if they are tormented in the present, when in the body and in this temporary life they have labored much, so that there they might remain without distress and find rest.
But what further do the enemies of the truth add? "We confess that the saints are in a certain place and find rest, but the ineffable goods, 'which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come into the heart of man' (1 Cor. II, 9), they have not yet received." At this it occurs to me even to laugh vehemently: that the souls of the saints, seeing God face to face, and standing by the Trinity and the throne of God directly, do not yet partake of the ineffable goods. O the lack of perception! What do you consider to be ineffable goods closer and greater than the vision of God? Consider what you are saying, for it is a very great blasphemy. For if they see God face to face, C which no one would ever deny, yet there are other goods that they do not see, then those [latter] are greater than the vision of God. If they see Him, but do not see the others. But this not even the demons would ever say. What? Did not the blessed Paul also say, "I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ"? If D
therefore he desired to be dissolved so as to be with Christ, but now after the dissolution A he is not with the one desired, then he is grieved and suffers, and the divine herald of the truth was speaking a falsehood. But both of these things are absurd. For if we wish to demonstrate these absurdities through syllogisms, we shall show those who do not confess the fruition of the saints to be worse than all heretics, and deniers of the incarnate dispensation of the Lord. For He became man and endured the cross and death, in order that He might grant to the just who have been asleep from the ages, clearly, the heavenly manner of life and fruition. And thus we believe that He has given to them and gives daily to those who live sincerely and serve Him piously. But if according to you He has not given it, then neither was Christ God, to whom He was not incarnate. And thus, finally, according to our word, we are able to show that they are deniers of the incarnate dispensation of our Lord and God Jesus Christ the Savior.
III. C But since we seek peace on all sides, and wish to draw you with all charity and to offend you in no way at all, come now, having more dutifully applied the teachers of the Church, let us begin our discourse and bring into the middle the things which the saints rightly put forth concerning this opinion, so that you may clearly know that all the just, in so far as they are souls, are in the glory of God and see God face to face and rejoice in the vision of Him; for there is no other fruition of the saints than the vision of God. And first, that which Christ said to the holy apostles let it come into the middle: "I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there you may be also." And again, conversing with God and the Father, He says thus: "Father, those whom Thou hast given me, I will that where I am, they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which Thou hast given me, because Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." What does this saying signify? For He addressed this to the disciples: "Where I am," He says, "there you may be with me." If therefore they are not with Him, what shall we say? I leave it to you to say this. I fear God, and I am cautious of calling Him a liar, because I have learned to speak the truth. Then again, the golden-tongued John, in the sermon whose title is, "That it behooves one to weep for sinners, and that liturgies offered for the dead greatly benefit them," whose beginning is, "Death, brethren, is among the indifferent things," speaks thus: "We rejoice over the just, not only while they are living, but also when they have departed. Those—the sinners, clearly—even while being here, are the most pitiable of all;
A and therefore are they worthy of tears. But the just, whether here or there, are with the King, and there even more intimately; not through a glass, not through faith, but face to face." And Gregory the Theologian, at the end of his discourse on Saint Cyprian, says: "And the radiance of the Holy Trinity, of which he is now a participant." And Gregory of Nyssa speaks more extensively regarding such things in his speech on his sister Macrina. Further, the Metaphrast, in the life of Saint Joannicius, towards the end of the discourse, says as follows: "And the divine Joannicius departed in spirit to Him whom he loved, accompanied by choirs of angels, while in body he is laid to rest in a tomb." B Methodius, who shone with a brilliant life among the patriarchs, departed eight months after his passing, on the fourteenth day of June. What, then, were the things that occurred after the decease of this wonderful Joannicius? The strengthening of weakened limbs, and men being delivered from evil spirits, merely by approaching his tomb. And how could Joannicius be deprived of this glory after death, he whose passing a pillar of fire marked upon Mount Olympus? He whom angels preceded, opening for him the gates of paradise, and guiding him to the blessedness beyond, so that he might appear clearly before the face of the Lord and dwell with the angelic orders, by whom the blessed Trinity is glorified and exalted now and unto the endless ages of ages. Amen. C You see, you who contradict, that angels preceded him, and they themselves opened the gates of heaven, and guided him to the celestial blessedness; how, then, do you dare to contradict so many doctors of the Church? The aforementioned divine Gregory the Dialogist, the high priest of elder Rome, in the fourth book of the Dialogues, in his replies to his archdeacon Peter concerning this matter, says the following: "Peter: What you say pleases me. But I wish to know if now, before the resurrection of the bodies, the souls of the just can be received into heaven." Gregory: "This we can neither affirm of all the just, nor again entirely deny; for there are souls of certain just ones which are separated from the celestial kingdom by certain mansions; in which pain of delay, what else is signaled, except that they lacked something of perfect justice? And yet, it is clearer than light that the souls of the perfect depart immediately D from the confines of this flesh and are received into the dwellings of the celestial kingdom, which the Truth Himself testifies by saying: 'Wherever the body shall be, there shall the eagles be gathered together'; because where our Redeemer Himself is in the body, there, without a doubt, are the souls of the just gathered." And Paul: "I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ." He, therefore, who denies that Christ is in heaven, also denies what is said concerning the dissolution of his own body and the habitation of the celestial fatherland: "We know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, but eternal in heavens." You know, therefore, or have heard, what this saint says, namely that when the saints first depart from this life, specifically the souls of the perfect just, they are taken to the celestial seats and mansions. By which A...
existing there, they shall without doubt be assembled. And Paul also desired to depart and be with Christ. Whoever therefore does not disbelieve that Christ exists in the heavens, will not deny that the soul of Paul also exists in the heaven. For he himself, speaking concerning the dissolution of the body and the habitation in the heavenly fatherland, says: "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." Do you know then, or have you heard what this saint says, namely that immediately when the saints, that is, the souls of the perfected just, depart from this life, they dwell in the celestial seats and mansions? From where then did that good man of Ephesus find it possible to say that until the general resurrection, the souls of the just ought not to receive this? For he, being a learned man, ought not have opposed himself so openly to those things which have been stated by the teachers of the Church; nay, he even contradicts himself. For in his letter which was sent to those everywhere on earth and in the islands, where he denies absolutely the fruition of the saints, he says: "And we do not say that the saints are already receiving B the kingdom prepared for them and the ineffable goods, nor that the sinners have already fallen into gehenna; but that they await the proper lot of each; and that this is a matter for the time to come, after the resurrection and the judgment." In this, as you see, he openly denies the fruition of the saints; but in the discourse which he composed for the commemoration of the holy Elijah, he openly confesses that the saints receive this, where he says: "But I, for my part, consider it necessary and true that it is permitted to him, just as also to the souls of the saints, to dwell wheresoever he wishes according to the time, and to frequent his own temples, and to visit those in need at any time; yet I would not say that for these reasons they are deprived of the heavens, and of the illuminations there, and of the standing in the presence of the Master with the angels; for he who surpassed almost everyone would have fared worse, if, because he was wearing flesh, he had stood apart from communion with them, and from the face-to-face vision of God, which he enjoyed also throughout his entire life C beyond all measure." The hymn sung to him by the Church also bears witness to my argument, which says: "Prophet and herald of Christ, you are never separated from the throne of magnificence; and you are always present with every infirm person, ministering in the highest, blessing the inhabited world, glorified everywhere." Behold, in this he strongly and clearly insists that the saints enjoy the face-to-face vision of God; and he says that the holy Elijah, even while in the body, was deemed worthy of such a vision, which is even more than what justice requires. If therefore there is some other prepared kingdom and ineffable good besides the face-to-face vision of God, let him show it to us; for that would be greater than the vision of God Himself. But no teacher of the Church has ever said, even to this day, that there is something greater for fruition than the vision of God. And as to what the great Gregory says, that there are the souls of certain just men which are separated D from the heavenly kingdom in certain mansions, and that there are the souls of the perfected just, he shows that there are also souls of certain just men who are not perfect. But if anyone doubts where these are, we have sufficiently answered concerning this in the third chapter of the definition, where we spoke concerning the purification of the souls, and there is no need here to repeat things once said. But let us return again to where we departed.
A I am amazed therefore and I wonder how there are some so negligent of the truth of the faith, that not only do they not wish to learn, so that being converted they may be saved, but they have also become manifest corrupters of those things which are written in the books of the holy teachers; and they neither understand correctly, nor wish to hear the opinion which the teachers hold concerning this common confession of Christians. But drawing only a small drop from them, they mix up difficulties up and down from their own mind, thinking that they are bringing forward something excellent for the subversion of the truth, which matters, before these present times, the teachers had already dissolved by their discourses and writings; from which these new dogmatizers are quickly refuted: for it was their duty to see and consider what the saints say, and to acquiesce in their words. But if they had not found a remedy in the things stated by the saints, in which they find a difficulty, then at last it would have been permitted to them to bring forward their doubts (if indeed they could); yet it was not fitting to doubt concerning matters already discussed and clarified. B But what is this wondrous question of theirs, which they bring before us, and about which they boast in a marvelous way? "O Catholics, if, as you say, the souls of the just now receive (their reward) before the resurrection, then the resurrection and the judgment, and the sitting upon the throne, and the constitution of the judgment, are superfluous. And what will they receive then, if they have received it now?" To these we answer: We are Catholics and we wish to be called Catholics, even if you put forward this name to us in irony, and consider it an insult; for believing in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, we are, and are called, Catholics; and those who are not called Catholics, or those who do not follow her, we call schismatics, and, I think, justly. Therefore, to your question we say that if your question were new, we would have brought forward an answer according to our strength; but since what you are doing, others before you have done, there is no need, regarding those matters which the teachers have touched upon and provided answers for as was fitting, for us to answer so boldly and with an unabashed face. C But what they published, that same thing we also shall add. For Peter, the aforementioned archdeacon of the Great Church, as has been set forth by us before, put this question which you now propose to the great pontiff Gregory the Dialogist, and he himself put it to him. For he writes thus in the same book of the Dialogues, book iv, chapter 25: Peter’s interrogation: "If therefore the souls of the just are now in heaven, what is it that they are going to receive on the day of judgment for the retribution of their justice?" Gregory’s response: "This surely grows for them in the judgment, that now they will enjoy the beatitude of the souls only, but afterward that of the bodies also, so that they may rejoice in the very flesh in which they endured pains and tortures for the Lord. For because of this double glory of theirs, it is written in the land for them: 'They shall possess double.' [Isa. LXI, 7]" D Hence also even before the day of the resurrection it is written concerning the souls of the saints:
A "That there was given to them each a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet a little time, until the measure of their fellow-servants and their brethren should be fulfilled." [Apoc. VI, 11] Those therefore who have received from one robe, shall receive double robes in the judgment, because they will rejoice in glory lately for the souls alone, but then for souls and bodies together. Have you heard your own admirable doubt and questioning? How another before you presented this same question along with others to this great Father and doctor of the Church, and how he received the apology? How then do you still remain in the malady of schism, while you see the saints explicitly contradicting you? Furthermore, the great Athanasius, when he asks himself about this same matter, answers thus: Question: "Where, then, are we to say that the souls of men who have departed are now?" Answer: "The question is strange and terrible, and hidden from men; for God has not permitted any of those who are there to return to us to explain where or how the souls that have departed from us are. Nevertheless, as we learn from the Scriptures, the souls of sinners are in Hades, beneath all the earth and sea, as the Psalm says: 'They have placed me in the lower pit, in darkness and in the shadow of death.' [Ps. LXXXVII, 7] And as it is written in Job: 'Into a dark and gloomy land, into a land of eternal darkness, where there is no light, B nor is the life of mortals to be seen.' [Job X, 21-22] But the souls of the righteous, after the coming of Christ, as we learn from the thief who hung on the cross, are in paradise. For Christ our God did not open paradise for the soul of the holy thief alone, but for all the souls of the saints thereafter." Do you see how you contradict? Yet if you knew what you sing with a loud voice, you would not at all hesitate that you too believe this very thing. But it occurs to me to say something, even if it seems harsh to you: truly, there is a great absurdity in your ears. You sing these things with a loud voice, but you understand nothing; or rather, you neglect them. For to read and not to understand, as one of the wise men said, is to neglect, since all the books [of the Church] contain this, and Damascene and Theophanes, the authors of the Paracletice, proclaim it with a loud voice: that the souls of the saints are in heaven. C We must, therefore, owe you great thanks that you did not burn, nor destroy, nor erase these things by some artifice from the books, as those before you did in the discourses and books written concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Yet even for them such conduct did not turn out to be of any use; for the books still remain, which testify to the audacity of the evildoers, and among you they are preserved very beautifully, D and are sung daily with melodic modulation: the menstrua, the triodia, the sermons, the metaphrases, the quinquagenaria, the versiculi, the troparia, the idiomela, the contacia, the oeci, the synaxaria, the exapostilaria: and not to enumerate each one...
in a word, the whole of the writings of our Church holds this glory. For the theologians and teachers of the Church, as well as the poets and melodists, having considered this with high intellect, have defined it as such, as if all, having drawn from a single cup full of wisdom, drink deeply. For this reason, they do not disagree, nor do they contradict one another, nor is there any contradiction among them.
[E'] V.
Whence, then, shall we begin? From the first day of the month of September, in the idiomela of Saint Simeon the Stylite: "Thy holy soul, he says, Father Simeon, rejoices in the company of the angels." And in another: "And dancing with the incorporeal ones in the heavens." B In another again: "And standing with the angels before God." On the twenty-eighth of the same month, of the holy Cyprian: "And now you inhabit paradise, established in all joy." On the first of October, of the holy Romanus: "Having settled within the divine glory with the righteous, you behold that ineffable delight. You see the ceaseless pleasures, you see the beauty of the heavens, which is truly lovable; you see, most blessed one, the dances of the patriarchs." On the twenty-sixth of the same month, of the holy great martyr Demetrius: "Your most divine soul, indeed, and immaculate, O glorious Demetrius, has the heavenly Jerusalem as its dwelling." And again: "Your spirit, wise martyr Demetrius, Christ God has accepted as immaculate into the ultramundane mansions." And elsewhere: "Continually standing before God." And again more clearly: "You have attained a blessed end, standing before Christ; earnestly intercede." And again: "You behold the face of Christ face to face, O Cyril; the mirrors having been truly shattered in truth, you have been united to that divine love of yours." And again: "Remember us, Father Basil, standing before the consubstantial Trinity." C But elsewhere: "And now in the heavens, the mirrors having been shattered, Antony, you purely behold the holy Trinity, interceding directly." And in those concerning the great George, where it says: "And you received from God the crown of your victory," and where it says: "You reign with Christ most brilliantly, having put on the radiant purple of your blood; and being adorned with the scepter of your struggles, and shining with the crown of glory unto infinite ages." And elsewhere: "Today the martyr of Christ, triumphing over error, attains the heavens; and to Him who sits upon the throne of glory, he offers the blood of his slaughter." And in another: "The brilliant champion George, in his glorious struggle, gladdening the powers above, and now rejoicing with them." D And in the ninth ode of the great Paul, on the twenty-ninth of June: "Now Christ is not seen by you in riddles, nor in a mirror; but rather face is seen before face, revealing to you the perfect glory of deification." And in others: "Having suffered for Christ, O athlete martyrs, you have your souls in the hand of God." And again: "Your priests, O Christ, clothed in righteousness, rejoice from eternity, more clearly beholding Your divine beauty." And in others: "Now not in an enigma, Father, not in a mirror do you behold the light of the divinity."
but face to face, O all-wise one, face to face, being deemed worthy of the light that is beyond the mind and the vision of God." And again: A "You dance with the angels, blessed Onesimus, adorned with the crown of martyrdom, you stand beside the bright throne of the Savior." And elsewhere: "The orders of the saints, eternally praising with a loud voice Him who rests among the saints, now enjoy divine food, and rejoice, dancing." And in another: "The saints are filled with the light that is beyond the mind, being clearly satisfied with divine gladness; you are called gods by your proximity to Him, associating with the divine rays and being illuminated by the beams of the ineffable glory." And again: "Let them be praised with sacred melodies, as heirs of the kingdom above, as inhabitants of Paradise." And elsewhere: "Fellow citizens of the angels." And again: "O martyr, by the dyeings of your precious blood you have fashioned for yourself a precious purple; adorned with which, you truly inhabit the kingdoms above, standing B beside the all-sovereign God." But to stand beside the all-sovereign God and to inhabit the kingdoms above truly, what else does it signify by God, than that the saints, as souls, are now enjoying it? In others, moreover: "We shall offer a hymn to the Fathers, who shone forth before the Law and in the Law, and who served the Lord and Master born of the Virgin with an upright mind, and have now attained this unapproachable light." And in another: "Now, O blessed one, intercede with God for your flock." And again: "You longed for the kingdom above, of which you now truly enjoy, O most blessed one." And in another: "Having become above every virtue, Father Anthony, you dwell together with the angels in the kingdom of the heavens." And again: "O herald of God, Athanasius, you who endured dangers and continuous temptations, now have you been deemed worthy of the delights of Paradise. Having come within the divine mansions, having approached the tree of the incorrupt life, as a conqueror of righteousness, adorned with C the crown and diadem of the kingdom above, shining in beauty and excelling in form." And again: "Illuminated now more clearly than by the brightest and most radiant light." And again: "Do you not now see, blessed Eutychius, the glory that you longed for from a child, not in an enigma, but face to face, now that the mirrors of the flesh have been dissolved, O our Father?" And again: "From grievous straits and corruption you have arrived at the wide expanse of Paradise and [its] delights, about to touch the light-like radiance of the saints and to behold the choirs of angels standing by God and calling out unceasingly." And elsewhere: "The earth has indeed now covered your bodies, but heaven, O saints, bears the spirits always, standing by the throne of glory, rejoicing with the angels." And elsewhere: D "And now you dwell in the heavens, O holy one of the martyrs and of the...
saints, you who have worthily received the honors upon earth, O heavenly-minded saints, because you honored the figure of Christ in a relative sense. And now, having cast off the shadow and the covering of the flesh, you see Him face to face, and are accounted worthy of greater things." And elsewhere: "Always intercede for those who praise you and celebrate your festival, standing before the Master, Onesimus, wholly illuminated, wholly resplendent, wholly radiant with the lightning from there." And elsewhere: "Behold, O martyrs, the divine beauty more clearly and more brightly." And again: "Where the ranks of angels, where the multitudes of the righteous rejoice." And in another: "And you have clearly been accounted worthy of the kingdom of heaven, illuminated by the rays of the Trinity, O worthy of admiration." And again: "O Sabbas, most blessed one, equal to the angels, companion of the holy ones, associate of the prophets, co-heir of the martyrs and apostles, now dwelling in the light that does not set, illuminated by whose divine beacons, standing before the highest of those things that are desired, you shine with boldness." Do you hear? He speaks of the "light that does not set"; for God is the light that does not set; and he dwells now with God, and then "the highest of those things that are desired": what does he wish to signify? For the highest of goods, the highest of those things that are desired, the highest of beautiful things, is nothing other than God Himself. And he stands before Him, and dwells with Him; what else does this signify, in the sight of God, but that the saints, now in so far as they are souls, are enjoying this? If you wish to hear other things as well, behold, we say: "And now they enjoy the unapproachable light." And in another: "The choir of the saints has found the fountain of life, and the door to paradise." And again: "And the righteous shine like lights." And elsewhere: "Having passed through earthly contests, the true martyrs have received heavenly crowns." And again: "The victorious martyrs and citizens of heaven, having contended on earth, have endured many tortures and have received the perfect crown in the heavens, that they might intercede for our souls." And again: "Most celebrated martyrs, the earth did not cover you, but heaven received you; the gates of paradise were opened, and having entered, the wood [of life]...
you obtained; intercede with Christ." Where are those who say that the saints, or rather the souls of the saints, are not now in paradise? Do they not hear Damascenus saying: "The gates of paradise were opened for you"? Do they not hear, "having entered"? And do they not recognize, "the wood of life you obtained," and "intercede for us"? If, therefore, they have not obtained it, nor do they intercede, nor do they see Christ, nor do they stand by him, nor do they enjoy the divine light—and to say it in a word, if none of the saints, as they imagine, is now with Christ, then where are those things which we chant? Are they false? Far be it! And where is also [the text], "Spirits and souls of the just praise thee, O Lord," and that, "Clearly, O saints, you see God face to face"? For if they are not now with Christ, they have not obtained it; and if they have not obtained it, neither do they intercede. And if they do not intercede, why do we invoke them? For if they do not intercede now, they will never intercede, for in the future there is no intercession. Do you not hear that: "There is no need for intercession there, the gathering having been dismissed"? The "new theologians" even say: "They receive it partially, and they see God face to face; but the ineffable goods, 'which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man,' they have not yet obtained." For we cannot entirely deny that the saints are now with Christ. O the folly! This, as I consider, is worthy of laughter rather than any defense; for it was shown a little earlier that this absurd little argument is full of every heresy, and there is no need to repeat the same things concerning it.
VI. That this is a heresy must be examined with patience. If the souls of the saints now see God, but do not see the ineffable goods, those goods are undoubtedly greater than God Himself, since they remain unperceived by the saints, while God is seen by them. No one in his right mind would ever say this. But this heresy must be passed over in silence. Furthermore, it must be examined in this way: those ineffable goods, the saints do not see them, either because they are greater or because they are lesser. If, then, because they are lesser, there is no need; for having obtained the greater, they do not care for the lesser. And in fact, they very clearly obtain even this, having obtained the greater. But if they do not obtain them because they are greater, let that blasphemy be removed, that there are some things greater than the vision and enjoyment of God. But it must be shown that the saints also behold those goods, through the testimonies of the Church, from those things which are chanted in her. Let him who does not believe search [the office] on the second day of the month of September, and he will find an idiomelon of Saint Mamas, which has it thus: "As a new plant of olive, thou hast come to the table of God; as a son of those who trod the Lord's path through martyrdom, the Lord has blessed thee; and thou seest the good things of the heaven-bound Sion, delighting in the divine
A rejoicing. What, then, would those who deny this glory say in reply? They are truly like the deaf and senseless viper, stopping their ears; they are like those who hate unity and love schism. For they wish neither to hear, nor to see, nor to understand. The divine Damascene, in the second tone of the Octoechos, says: "O Christ, Giver of Life, Thou didst voluntarily endure the Passion for the sake of mortals, and having descended into Hell as one mighty, Thou didst snatch away those who were awaiting Thy coming there, as if from a fierce beast, and didst grant them to inhabit Paradise instead of Hell." He says these things were written for our healing. Does the Church of Christ lie, then, and sing what is not true, and chant this for the deception and leading astray of souls? And who with a sound mind would say this? Is this holy man also comforting Christ when he says, "O Christ, Giver of Life, Thou didst voluntarily endure for the Passion; and Thou didst descend into Hades for the sake of mortals, and as one mighty, Thou didst snatch away, as if from a fierce beast—that is, from the alien enemy and warrior—those who were awaiting Thy coming there. And instead of that habitation of darkness and the lightless place where they were dwelling, Thou didst grant them to inhabit Paradise"? Does he comfort Christ, or does he speak and believe this as the truth? Truly, one who sees your defenses—or rather, to speak more correctly, your untimely contentions—would be struck with amazement and lose his senses. I for my part cannot listen to words so rotten and inconsistent; I consider them to be the babbling of infants. B And what of when the same man says: "Wondrous is Thy crucifixion, and Thy descent into Hades, O Lover of mankind; for having despoiled it, and having raised up those who were long held in bonds together with Thyself gloriously as God, having opened Paradise, Thou hast deemed them worthy to be released"? You have heard here, too: Thou didst descend, he says, into Hades and didst despoil it, and having raised up the prisoners—that is, the saints from all ages who were sleeping there—together with Thyself, Thou didst open Paradise and didst deem them worthy to partake of it. Furthermore, the God-bearing Anastasius, our Father, called "of the holy Mount Sinai," in the responses which he makes to certain questions piously put to him, resolves the question most clearly; for he declares expressly and most clearly that the souls of the saints are in Paradise, while those of the sinners are in Hell. The question, therefore, and the response are as follows: Question: "Where, then, are we to say that souls exist now, and are they all, perhaps, in the same place?" Response: "Although no one has clearly proclaimed concerning this, nevertheless, from the words of Christ we perceive that the souls of the just are in Paradise, together with the soul of the righteous thief, C just as the divine Antony saw the place of souls and the holy souls to be in Paradise. Likewise also the God-bearing Pambo, and others of the Fathers. Likewise also John of the Ladder says: 'That thief asked for nothing more than to be remembered in His kingdom, and he inherited the whole of Paradise.' Again, the whole Old and New Testament testifies that the souls of sinners are cast away into the prison of Hell, as if into bonds, just as the Lord said concerning that rich man. Similarly, the Prophet David also said, 'Let sinners be turned into Hell;' D for when he says, 'be turned,' he designates the
A fact that their souls currently exist there; then they depart and receive their own bodies, each their own. And then thus the sentence of the Judge goes forth against them, saying: 'Let sinners be turned into Hell.' But the one who is converted, it is manifest that he returns to where he had been.
But let also our most celebratory and truly God-bearing Father, Andrew of Crete, the most worthy shepherd of that place, after all the saints whom we have used as witnesses in this subject of ours, come forward to join in witnessing the same things with us. For he, in one of his marvelous discourses, which he composed most beautifully on the Dormition of our all-holy Lady—the beginning of the discourse is: 'O you who [honor] this sacred and venerable shrine'—just near the beginning, he discusses this matter as follows: 'And indeed, the souls of the saints also pass through that invisible place, but they are not held there; except for those who, through the sloth of their life, have drawn upon themselves death through sin. For those who, as it happens, have subjected themselves to the divine laws and have demonstrated the heavenly polity in the spirit through the flesh, are ushered to light-bearing places befitting such a sacred state of the saints, B which the Lord oversees, and whose eyes, according to the prophecy, look upon them at all times. Their beauty and magnitude, and their state of total blessedness—and I will add, their beauty that is beyond mind—would be known more clearly and loftily by those who are closer to God than we are. And having ended their race there, they have received the rest, for which more also has been prepared by the Providence that wisely conducts all things.'
Did you hear this marvelous and great man, how he says that the souls of the just and the saints, having ended the race of this life, receive the rest? This is the same as saying the promise which He promised to the disciples, saying: 'That where I am, there you may be also;' and [it confirms] that they are ushered to light-bearing places, and approach God, and marvelously receive the earnest of blessedness; or rather, they behold more clearly and loftily the beauty and magnitude, and the beauty that is beyond mind, which is God Himself. Why do you not occupy yourselves with these things, O friends and brothers? But instead, you are occupied only in condemning those who believe and embrace these things, and you take pains every day to constantly blaspheme them.
VII
C That, however, every mouth speaking against us may be stopped and silenced, I will bring forward one and only one testimony, which I have reserved for the final place. This is from the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist, and you cannot deny it. For he says: 'And when He opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been sealed for the Word of God, and for the testimony of the Lamb which they had. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Master, the holy and true,
do you not judge and avenge our blood upon those who dwell upon the earth? And there was given unto them each a white robe; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little time, until their fellow-servants and their brethren, who are to be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. A And after some things: And one of the elders answered, saying to me: These who are arrayed in white robes, who are they, and whence came they? And I said to him, My lord, you know. And he said to me: These are they who come out of the great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple. Do you hear the son of thunder? Who speaks stronger, better, and truer things: this one, or the Ephesian, and the whole company of those who have revolted from the ecumenical synod, or whoever else wishes to contradict them? As I judge, John says better things than this man. For he, having received theology from the breast of the Lord, filled all creation with life-giving waters; but these men, moved by their ignorance and stupidity, have filled the world with noise, confusion, and heresy. Do you not hear how he says that they have washed their robes—that is, they have washed their bodies from sins and have made them white in the blood of the Son of God—and for this reason they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night? What can you answer to this? Nothing, in truth. Believe at last, turn back, repent, rise up, submit yourselves to the truth even as we do, and do not wish to contradict the teachers of the Church so openly or to run against the truth. For we, when we say that the saints stand by God and behold Him purely, say that they enjoy Him; and we do not understand the vision of His face to be one thing, and the fruition to be another. But if you can show us the contrary—namely, that the saints, standing by the Trinity and being deemed worthy of the vision of His face, do not yet enjoy Him, but await a greater fruition of the vision of God Himself—demonstrate it, and we shall be silent. But you can show nothing more than this vision of God face to face. B Do you not perceive that you are provoking the saints and blaspheming against them, when you say that they are not yet with Christ, and do not yet enjoy the vision of Him? For they, being with Christ, intercede for you immediately to the Trinity and are illuminated by His light, and exist in perpetual company with Him; but you, by denying this and saying that the saints will not enjoy Him until the universal resurrection, know that you are greatly troubling them. If you provoke and trouble them—which will be the case—how will they intercede for you, or how will they become mediators for you, when you deny that they are with God and affirm that they are far from God? Speak, answer; but you cannot. There is only one thing that renders many doubtful and makes them think that the doctors are in disagreement, because some say that the saints enjoy Him perfectly, and others imperfectly: for they say that when they speak only of their souls, they enjoy Him perfectly; but when they speak of the whole man, they do not enjoy Him perfectly. In what way, then, when they… C D
do not acknowledge them to be with God, but blasphemously say they are far from God? Speak, answer! But you have nothing. There is only one thing that causes the many to doubt and to think that the saints are in disagreement: that sometimes the teachers say the saints receive it perfectly, and sometimes not perfectly. For when they speak concerning their souls alone, they say they receive it perfectly; but when they speak concerning the whole man, they do not [receive it] perfectly. For how, when the new resurrection has not yet come, can the composite being receive it? Therefore, in so far as they are souls, we say the saints receive it perfectly; but in so far as they were not only souls but also were clothed in bodies, we say that they do not receive it perfectly. For just as the soul is a form in the body, and the whole, which is the body, has not yet risen nor received [the promise], but the soul, being immortal, receives it perfectly. That the composite being is the man, and the composite being struggled, we do not say that the man receives it perfectly as yet. But when we reason from the part to the whole, and consider the more honorable [part], then we say the saints receive it perfectly. That the soul is more honorable and more sovereign than the body is clear even to the blind. For this is what we intended from the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist: that there was given A to them each a white robe, and it was said to them that they should wait yet a little while, which clearly refers to the resurrection of the bodies. Those, therefore, who have received one robe, will receive double robes at the judgment. It is evident, therefore, that the one robe which was given is the enjoyment of the soul, which is also called perfect and is so; the other is the blessedness of the body, which it will receive after the resurrection and the judgment. And since this has been sufficiently said, there is no need to speak further.
VIII.
To the saying of the Apostle, which you bring forward to us as B something noble and irrefutable, and speak of with much boldness, namely, "And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect" (Heb. XI, 39-40), you say that the blessed Paul says that the saints did not receive the promise; to this we shall furnish an answer. We only ask that you hear what is said without disturbance. For we would not have dared to say these things to wise men, knowing accurately that if we know and understand these things, they know them all the more. But to you, who I do not think know these things—and who for this reason contradict—if you knew, you would not contradict the truth, which is so manifest. Since, C therefore, as I think, you have not known at all that which says, "they did not receive the promise of God," we ourselves shall interpret it as far as we are able. For the blessed Paul says this word because of the universal and ecumenical resurrection of the bodies. Which, as Christians, we all believe will happen; but we do not know when these things will be. Except that according to the holy Scriptures, we believe this will happen at the end of the ages, when the whole nature of men shall rise; each bearing the deserts of his own works, whether they be good or evil, according to the holy Gospel. And this is the promise which He promised D to the fathers in the prophets, which is, that He would raise them up.
A For the promise, that is to say the covenant, is spoken of; for the Lord promised that He would raise up the nature of men, while men were disbelieving in the resurrection of the bodies. For if this had happened among the fathers, we would not have come into being; and this is what Paul says: "They who were before us did not receive the resurrection of the bodies, God having provided some better thing for us, that they should not be made perfect without us," that is to say, that they should not rise without us. For if the resurrection of the bodies had happened in them, and they had received their bodies back together with their souls, then the incarnation of the dispensation would never have happened, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor the rest of the choir of the apostles, nor our fathers and teachers, nor the hierarchs and God-bearers, by whom we are enriched today, the holy and divine ones, through whom we are led as if by the hand to the knowledge of God and to our own salvation, nor, indeed, would we have been born, nor those after us; and this is what Paul considers to be the "better thing" for us: that they should not be made perfect without us, but that they should wait until we also come to be; and then, at the same time, we also, together with them, shall be clothed in the resurrection of the bodies; and we shall receive the rewards and the crowns along with them from the One who promised, the Author of the resurrection, and the Perfecter, Jesus. For when the universal resurrection of the bodies has come to pass, there will be no more generation, nor indeed corruption; but both will cease, and no one will be born any longer, nor will any die. For this reason, the resurrection did not happen then. And for what other reason? Because the place of that order which fell from heaven had not yet been filled; for the divine Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, says: "The world above must be filled." Christ commands, "Let us not resist." And the minister says to the Lord: "Lord, it is done as You commanded, and yet there is still room." Since, therefore, this place was not yet filled at that time, the resurrection of the dead did not follow; and this is the promise which Paul speaks of to the Hebrews, that those who were before us have not yet received it, which I think you do not yet understand. But we, having taken up the aforesaid, will show you how it is a promise, and when the Lord God promised this promise, and to whom, and for what cause He promised it; we shall say in what follows: When Israel had despaired of its own salvation, and did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, when they said, "We are cut off, our hope has perished; let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die," then the Lord inspired the prophet to say to the people not to disbelieve the resurrection of the bodies, and to promise them that the Lord would raise up their dry bones, and would clothe them with flesh and sinews and skin, and would give them spirit, and would restore them to Jerusalem. Or "Vision of peace" it both is and is called. Where are these things written? In the prophet Ezekiel, in the thirty-seventh chapter. He says D
The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me in the midst of the plain, and it was full of the bones of men. And He led me round about them A in a circle, and behold, they were very many upon the face of the plain, and behold, they were very dry. And He said to me, "Son of man, shall these bones live?" And I said, "Lord, Lord, Thou knowest them." And He said to me, "Son of man, prophesy over these bones, and thou shalt say to them: These dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord to these bones: Behold, I bring upon you the spirit of life; and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and will stretch skin over you, and I will put My Spirit into you, and ye shall live, and ye shall know that I am the Lord." And I prophesied as He commanded me, and there was a voice when I was prophesying, and behold, a great earthquake, and the bones were brought together, joint to joint. And I looked, and behold, sinews and flesh were growing upon them, and skin was rising up over them from above, but there was no spirit in them. And He said to me, "Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, son of man." And I said to the spirit, "Thus says the Lord God: From the four winds come, o spirit, and breathe into these dead men, and they shall live." And I prophesied as He commanded me, and the spirit of life entered into them, and they lived and stood upon their feet, a great, very great gathering. And He spoke to me, saying, "Son of man, these dry bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are become dry; our hope is lost; we have vanished.' Therefore prophesy, and say to them: Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I open your graves, O My people, and I will give My Spirit into you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. I have spoken, and I will perform, says the Lord."
Have you understood what was called into question by you? And exactly what the statement signifies, most correctly and most truthfully proclaimed by the blessed Paul, but ignored by you: "They did not, B clearly, receive the promise, God having foreseen something better for us, that they should not be made perfect without us." Do you know how this is a promise? And when did God promise this? When Israel did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, because they saw that bodies decay and bones perish—they despaired of their salvation, and said, "Our hope is lost; we have vanished. Our bones are become dry"—that is, we decay. "Where is the resurrection of the dead?" Because our bodies are decaying and becoming dust, for they thought that blessedness was in the present age. Then, He says, God spoke to the prophet because of this. In what context? When they said, "Our bones are become dry: Prophesy over these bones, and speak to them," and so forth. Afterwards He adds: "Prophesy to the spirit." And he prophesied as he was commanded; then, "and ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and lead you into the land of Israel." This is the promise which He promised and C did perform, says the Lord God. D
A that He would raise them up, and give to them—to those who are worthy, that is, and purified—instead of the earthly Jerusalem, the heavenly and eternal one, which they have not yet received, as the blessed Paul says, God having provided some better thing for us, that they should not be made perfect without us; that is to say, that they should not rise without us, nor receive the robe and the brightness of the body, until they might wait for their fellow-servants and brethren to rise. When the universal resurrection has taken place, then the promise of our Savior God will be fulfilled; and all the bodies of men will rise; and the combination, both soul and body, will receive perfection; that is to say, they will completely receive blessedness. To this statement, Luke, the most divine evangelist, will also bear me witness, in those things which he set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, saying to the Jews: "Men and brethren, to you the word of this salvation is sent. For your rulers, not knowing Him, asked Pilate that the just Jesus might be killed. And when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, B taking Him down from the tree, they laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead; who was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you the promise which was made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this to their children, to us, having raised up Jesus." Do you hear? He says the promise made to the fathers; what promise? The resurrection of the dead, clearly. Which God confirmed and manifested to us, the children of those fathers, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; of whose resurrection we are truthful witnesses; for we have seen it with our own eyes, and our hands have handled it. And behold, we declare to you Jesus Christ risen as the firstborn from the dead, for the confirmation of His truthful promise. For He manifested through His own resurrection, having abolished death, that universal and fearful resurrection which He promised to our fathers, as was said before. And He Himself is the One who promised; and in Himself He first willed to demonstrate it, having come to the dead and having arisen from them as the firstborn; which at the end of the ages He will bestow upon all in common. C For this reason, Christ is also called the firstborn of that universal resurrection, as the blessed Paul cries out, in order to show us that He Himself is the Author and Lord and Perfecter of it. For he says: "Christ being risen from the dead, became the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep," so that He Himself might be preeminent in all things, and so that He might show to us that He is the Author, the Lord, and the Perfecter of it. For he says: "Christ, having risen from the dead, became the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, that He Himself might have preeminence in all things among all, and that all things might be subjected to Him." And again: "Christ died, and rose, and lived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living." Furthermore: "He who raised up Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will set us with Him." Moreover: "And we shall be caught up with them in the clouds to meet Christ in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." The same Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, as Luke writes, says, while having a conversation with King Agrippa: "Life indeed D
A of mine, which from the beginning was at Jerusalem, all the Jews know, if they wish to bear witness; that according to the most precise sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee; and now I stand judged in the hope of the promise made by God unto our fathers, unto which our twelve tribes, earnestly serving night and day, hope to attain; concerning which hope I am accused by the Jews, O King Agrippa. Why is it judged incredible among you, if God raises the dead?"
IX.
You have heard here regarding the blessed Paul, how he understands the promise when he explains it to the Hebrews, namely that he designates the resurrection of the bodies. Therefore he says: "If this is the promise which we hope for, why do you judge it incredible, if God raises the dead, since He has promised this?" This is that promise which He promised, that is, the resurrection of the bodies, lest an opportunity be provided to some to say: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"; and that they might believe that there is another age that will follow the present one. It remains, therefore, [to explain] what the blessed Paul says: "They did not receive the promise who existed before us," that is, the resurrection of the bodies, "God having provided something better for us." What is this? Nothing else, except that we might be brought forth and might exist in nature, and that they could not attain perfection before we were born and reached existence. But this, in my opinion, has been rightly explained by us, and it does not hinder the souls of the saints from being with God, as has often been said. Therefore, do not be troublesome to us by saying that the saints have not yet attained this. Wake up, I beseech you, brethren, by the bowels of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us although we were useless sinners and desperate, and who laid down his soul for us: do not, on account of evil persuasion and voluntary malice, cast away your brethren, the domestics of the same faith and orthodox by the grace of God; nor reject Christian, fellow-believers and fellow-tongued, for whom Christ poured out his own blood, that he might save all. But come here and stand with us, that we may with one mouth unanimously believe that the saints, insofar as they are souls, are with God; and let us cry out with one mind to the Lord: "The spirits and souls of the just praise thee, O Lord"; that they D also, being glorified by us, may reciprocally glorify us, and may earnestly intercede for us before the giver of rewards, Jesus Christ our Savior, that he may make us worthy of their fellowship and order. Fiat, Fiat.
APOLOGIA REGARDING THE FIFTH CHAPTER OF THE DECREE OF THE SYNOD
That it was justly and truly said that the Pope is the head of the entire Church of Christ.
A 1. Behold, the fifth and final chapter of the decree comes to receive its defense, just as the preceding ones did. Since, therefore, I have not shrunk from speaking my mind regarding the four previous chapters, it is not right for us to remain silent about this one, nor to fail to provide the due defense. It is reasonable, then, to speak with all readiness about this one as well, so that it may not remain wanting, but rather be numbered with the others, fortified by the clear and theological testimonies of the holy Fathers and teachers, so that our entire pledge may be fulfilled. What, then, is this? The head of the Church, the primacy of the Pope; as the holy decree of the synod cries out explicitly: "Furthermore, we decree that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the entire world, and that he himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the vicar of Christ himself on earth, and the father and teacher of all Christians." Truly, I do not know who could be able to deny this, when Christ and the teachers cry it out clearly, louder than a thunderclap. For Christ, before the time of his own passion, while traveling toward the regions of Caesarea Philippi, asked his disciples, saying: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And observe the precise sense of the theological understanding. For when he asked about the common opinions C of men, the apostles anticipated the answer, saying individually, some that he was John the Baptist, others that he was Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when he asked to learn their own opinion and what belief they held concerning him, in saying, "But who do you say that I am?", then none of the apostles spoke; no one answered. For they were leaders over others, but Peter was the leader even of them, and of the entire world. And they, having explained the opinion of others as leaders of the others, while Peter, being the leader of the apostles, offers the answer for them. For they...
A yielded the primacy to him. Whence also he answers Christ with confidence, saying: "Master, do you ask who we acknowledge you to be? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Consider the confession of Peter as sublime. Wherefore the Savior also says to him: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you." Not human wisdom taught you this, nor have you learned it from men; but my Father who is in heaven has revealed this admirable theology to you. My Father, then, taught you these things. But I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And he did not stop here, but subsequently says: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven." Who, then, being among Christians, will deny these things, unless he would openly cast off Christianity?
II.
But what do those who oppose this object here? Christ said this to all when he says: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." And elsewhere: "Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy." And again: "Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature." And elsewhere: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven." These things we also acknowledge, and we say to them that He established these men in common as teachers C of the world, and gave to them all the grace to forgive sins, since he sent them out to the ends of the world. For it was necessary that they have the power to baptize, to teach, to preach, and to say to all peoples what was necessary. Yet it was useful, or rather necessary, for them to have a head, that there might be order and a head among them, lest they should wander without a head, whence confusion would arise rather than union, from which dissolution and a disturbance of order would follow, because where there is no order, there is dissolution; for confusion of order is the beginning of dissolution. Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, confirms this. For we see worldly principalities being disturbed, torn apart, and abolished when they are not united among themselves: since if two kingdoms contend for primacy, both are destroyed. The Savior also said this: "Every kingdom," he says, "divided against itself shall be desolated." Therefore, Christ said this in common to all (no one will deny this), but separately to Peter: "You are Peter, D and upon this rock I will build my Church," and the rest, lest division arise among us, as we have said.
A If, then, these things are true, as worldly authorities perish and fall into destruction when they are not united, how ought Christ to have left His Church without a head, that it might have confusion and be destroyed out of confusion? But as One who is set above all order, and as He who is Himself the One who established order, He established that His own system—namely, the ecclesiastical—should remain in order. And just as He was on earth the head and Lord and teacher of the disciples, and Father and Shepherd, so, wishing to ascend to the paternal throne, He constituted Peter as overseer and father and teacher to them; and, simply speaking, as His vicar and successor. He shows also in another place, before the passion, that the authority and the primacy were given to Peter, where He says: "Peter, Satan has often desired to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned, strengthen your brothers." Do you hear: "I have prayed for you," and: "You, when once you have turned, strengthen your brothers"? What does "strengthening the brothers" seem to you to be, if not that he is their leader and strengthens them? And in another place the same thing is shown, in the saying: "Simon, go to the sea, and cast a hook, and taking the first fish that comes up to you, opening its mouth, you will find a stater; give this for me and for you." B By this the disciples knew that He had made Peter leader over them. These things, indeed, Christ Himself said before the passion, as has been stated. But after the resurrection, as it seems to John, the son of thunder, who wrote the holy Gospel, Peter, looking upon the most sweet face of the Master, says: "Lord, what is it pleasing to You that I should do?" Jesus asked him three times, "Peter, do you love me?" And in each questioning, He appointed him shepherd, in saying, "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs." He, being grieved at the triple questioning, says with warm tears: "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." By the triple questioning, the Lord healed the triple denial; then He appoints him shepherd and teacher of the inhabited world. And this we shall prove by many words and witnesses. C And not less, John, the great eye of Damascus, in the Life of Barlaam and Josaphat of the Indians, testifies, saying thus: "The enemy devil fled, abashed by the repentance of Peter; but he was chosen leader again, as if ordained teacher of the inhabited world." This also the wise Emperor Leo, in the exapostilaria, says: in one place, that after the divine rising, the Lord, having asked three times, "Peter, do you love me?", appoints him ruler of shepherds of His own sheep; in another, that He gave to Simon the pasturage of the sheep, in return for mutual love, seeking from him the care of feeding; and therefore He said, "Peter, if you love me, feed my lambs." Peter, indeed, understanding that the primacy is something great and needing much virtue, and seeing John, whom Christ loved greatly, who was following, says: "But what of this man?" D
A as if saying, "Me, Lord and Master, you appoint as head of the disciples; but this man, who is loved by you, what do you command him to be?" It was he who asked of Him the seat at His right, and sent his mother before his own request to seek it, that he might sit either at the right or at the left in the glory of the Savior, in which this primacy of the seat is indicated. But if the teachers have understood this concerning an intelligible seat, we can nevertheless interpret it in this way. Yet, so that some might not have a pretext B for arguing that He said this concerning all the disciples—"Whatever you shall loose and whatever you shall bind"—the Lord answers, as if rebuking him: "Peter, if I will him to remain until I come again, what is that to you? You follow me." For "follow me" signifies nothing else than: follow me in this pastoral staff. And just as I, while I was with you, guarded you, being your father and head and teacher, caring and watching over you, so you also be in my place; and follow me in this authority, teaching and confirming your brothers. For I want you to be on earth in my place. And therefore Peter remains to this day and will remain by following Christ through his successors, as will be declared in the progress of the discourse. From these things the Savior shows His intention, as has been said, before He suffered and after the resurrection.
III.
Furthermore, the holy Fathers and the acts of the ecumenical councils most clearly prove the same thing. What ground, then, do you have C to offer against these things? If it is not that which I hear preached by many, that they do not live the life of Peter; for he was poor, but these are rich; and, "The pope now leads a different kind of life than Peter lived, how then is he his successor?" I notice two things being reproached here which cannot be passed over. First, that he was poor and this man is rich; second, that he lived one kind of life and this one another. But to the first, this must be answered to them: namely, that the wealth and the things he possesses, he did not seek for himself, nor did D he extort them from anyone by force; but many ages and years ago, not only before the schism and the division of the Churches, but even very close to the ascension of Christ, and before the holy and great first council, the great and invincible emperor Constantine bestowed them upon the most holy and supreme high priest Sylvester, as is carried in the edict and is found in the holy books of the canons. But we shall set this down word for word, that we might not seem to say anything other than what those words themselves sound.
Decree of the invincible and great emperor Constantine, to the most holy Sylvester, Pope of Rome.
"We deemed it right, together with all our satraps
A and the entire senate and the nobles, and with all the people living under the power of the Roman glory, that, just as Saint Peter is constituted as vicar of the Son of God on earth, so also the bishops who are successors of the Prince of the Apostles may hold a princely authority upon the earth, greater than the glory of our own imperial rule. And this has been granted by us and by our empire; and we wish that this Prince of the Apostles and his successors, in his person, be the first Fathers and defenders before God. And just as our imperial power is worshipped and honored upon earth, so we decree that the holy Roman Church be worshipped and honored; and that more than our own empire and our earthly throne, the holy seat of Saint Peter be glorified and exalted, granting to it power and the dignity of glory; and deciding, we decree that it should have princely authority, and that it be the head of the four thrones, namely, the throne of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, and of the city of Byzantium; and simply over all the churches of the whole world. And the bishop who is to be in the holy Roman Church must be glorious and higher than all the priests of the world. And if there is anything for the worship of God and for the correction and strengthening of the faith of the Christians, it should be judged by him. For it is right that the holy Law should have its head and source where the holy lawgiver Christ Jesus our Savior commanded the blessed apostle Peter to hold the seat, B and where he suffered the passion of the cross, and drank the cup of blessed death, and became a follower of his master and Lord. And we also [command] that the nations bend their heads for the sake of the confession of the name of Christ, where their teacher, the blessed apostle Paul, stretching out his neck for Christ, received the crown of martyrdom. And until the end of the world [all] should seek out the teacher where the relics of these saints rest; and there, prone and extended upon the earth, we, the servants of our heavenly King and God and Savior Jesus Christ, should serve, where we [formerly] served the proud earthly king. We therefore deliver to these holy apostles, to my blessed lords Peter and Paul, and after them to the blessed Sylvester, our Father, the great bishop and universal Pope of the city of Rome, and to all his successors, who until the end of the world shall occupy the throne of the blessed Peter, from this day forth, our imperial palace, the Lateran, which surpasses and exceeds all the palaces of the world. Furthermore, [we deliver] the diadem, that is, the crown C of our head, together with the *loros* and the *omophorion* which encircles the imperial neck, and also the purple chlamys, and the scarlet tunic, and all D the imperial vestments, or even the imperial dignity of the presiding equestrian order; conferring upon him also the imperial scepters, and together with them all the insignia, and the banners, and the remaining ornaments of imperial prominence, and the glory of our power. To the most reverend clergy of different orders serving the holy Roman Church, we decree that they should have that [same] height of singular power and excellence which our most ample senate is seen to be adorned with, that is, to be made patricians and consuls; and likewise we promote them to the other imperial dignities.
A And just as the imperial train is adorned, so we ordain that the clergy of the holy Roman Church be adorned; and just as the imperial power is adorned with various offices—that is, of chamberlains, of porters, and of scouts—so we also desire that the holy Church of the Romans be adorned. And in order that the episcopal light may shine forth in its breadth, we furthermore ordain that the clerics of the holy Roman Church ride upon horses adorned with white linens. And just as our senate wears shoes or sandals of white linen, so also may the heavenly things, just as the earthly, be adorned for the praise of God.
Moreover, beyond all this, we grant and concede unto that most holy Father of ours, Sylvester, Bishop and Pope of the city of Rome, and to all his successors, the blessed bishops, for the honor and glory of the Lord and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and to the same great and apostolic Church, that if anyone from the senate should wish, of his own will and pleasure, to become a cleric and be numbered in the count of the holy clerics, no one of all men shall dare to hinder him.
B We have decreed, moreover, that the same most God-fearing Father of ours, Sylvester, the great bishop, and all his successors, the bishops, shall wear the diadem, that is, the crown which we handed over to him from our own head, made of pure gold and priceless pearls; and that they themselves shall use it on their heads for the praise of God and for the honor of the holy and chief apostle. But the blessed Pope Sylvester would not wear the crown of gold or pearls above the diadem, that is, the papal veil which he had for the glory of God and of the holy Peter. C But because the holy Sylvester did not wish to wear a crown of gold, we placed upon his holy head with our own hands the most resplendent loros, signifying the holy resurrection; and clutching the bridle of his horse, out of reverence and fear for the holy Peter, we performed the office of squire, ordaining that all his successors should use the loros in processions, in imitation of our empire.
And for this reason, that the dignity of the episcopate might not be despised, but rather be adorned with glory and power even more than our earthly empire, behold, our palace, as we have said before, and the city of the Romans, and all the provinces of Italy and of the Western regions, places, cities, and forts, D we have handed over and left to the most blessed pontiff and our Father and the universal Pope, Sylvester, and we have surrendered to him and his successors the power and firm authority of our imperial command. And by this divine command and pragmatic decree, we ordain that they shall remain in perpetuity for the holy fathers of the Roman Church. Whence we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and the power of our kingdom be transferred to the Eastern regions, and that a city be built in our name in the best place in the province of Byzantium, and that our empire be established there, since it is not just that an earthly emperor should have power there where the principality of the priests and the head of the Christian religion have been established by the heavenly Emperor. Indeed, confirming the page of this imperial decree with our own hands, we have placed it over the venerable relics of the holy apostle and prince Peter, and there...
we have sworn to keep all these things inviolate A and to command our imperial successors to preserve them in our archives. We have delivered them to our holy and universal Father, the bishop and Pope, and through him to all his successors as bishops, with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ consenting; and we order all things written above to be firmly observed for ages to come.
B IV. Do you see how the invincible Emperor, I mean the great Constantine, was the one who gave what the Roman Church now possesses, and that he did not take it by force nor seize it from anyone? And that the earthly king dedicated everything to the honor and glory of the celestial King, and delivered it to the Church most freely, with all reverence and piety? The most holy Sylvester received these things for two primary reasons: first, on account of the fervor of faith and the intention of the Emperor, lest by rejecting the gift he should scandalize the piety of his soul; second, to inspire in everyone reverence for the Church, which was oppressed by poverty, suffered persecution, and was held in contempt by the impious tyrants and emperors who preceded Constantine. C Furthermore, it was so that it might also possess worldly power, since it had many adversaries then, as it has now, both spiritual and worldly—let him who has an understanding, understand. And if it were poor, it would be persecuted once again, just as it was in the time of Sylvester, and worse now than then, by those who openly profess Christianity but in secret practice Hellenism, and who entirely reject the presence of Christ in the flesh, and who have often desired to diminish it and reduce it to nothing. We shall also reasonably provide a third defense: that those admirable supreme pontiffs of old, and above all the blessed Sylvester, foresaw that in the last days faith would diminish among men, D and that the Church of Christ would not have the same fervor and reverence that it had at the beginning when it was poor. Those who possess [wealth] will prevail, while those who do not possess it will be accounted as nothing. For this reason, they willed that the Church should be possessed and sufficient, so as not to be held in contempt by anyone. For whoever has seen the Church of Rome, as I have seen it, and how the kings and princes of the earth come to it and render it reverence and respect…
will testify to me that I speak the truth. For if it were indigent, it would be held in no honor at all among those who are moved only by vainglory and wish to have their honors by force. What then? Is it therefore not the Church? And for this reason, are we not to give it the obedience and honor that is fitting, since it is wealthy and possesses great boldness of speech? Far be such an absurdity; for we would also be bringing an accusation against Christ himself, who was born poor, practiced poverty, and preached neediness, yet later taught that he is the eternal King of heaven and earth. And again, A “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” And again, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory.” Would you say these things are not true? By no means, by no means. So too has it happened to the Church, as to her spouse Christ, that she was born poor from the barren synagogue of the Jews, but little by little became wealthy—obviously, through water and spirit; and now she is wealthy and possesses much boldness of speech.
Regarding the second point, that the current high priests do not live the life of Peter, we must answer, even if what is said seems harsh to some. If you, brothers, bring an accusation against the occupant of the Roman throne because he does not live as the blessed Peter did, why do you not also bring accusation against the Eastern high priests B who do not live the life of the high priests and apostles who came before them? That is to say, against the one of Alexandria, who does not live the life of Mark; against the one of Antioch, of Ignatius the God-bearer; against the one of Jerusalem, of James the brother of the Lord; against the one of Constantinople, of Andrew the first-called? But you know how to reproach only the one of Rome. Why is this? Because he is a Latin, because he shaves his beard, and because on the fourth day and on Friday he eats oil and fish. These things, then, you know how to reproach; but you do not know how to reproach avarice, drunkenness, and ignorance. But if, according to your judgment, the high priests of Rome are sinners, what is that to you? It is not for us to examine and condemn our leaders, C when the Prophet cries out expressly, “You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.” Indeed, it is not even permitted for sheep to rise up against their shepherd. For we hear the Lord saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do, but according to their works do not do.” For they could have replied to the Lord, “We are not bound to obey the high priests, even if they sit on the chair of Moses, because they are sinners.” But they did not say it, for they knew that to sit on the chair of Moses showed that they had the authority of Moses, even if they were sinners and did not live the life of Moses. For they were not prophets like Moses, nor were they holy. In the same way, these men D also attend to the throne of the blessed Peter, and they have his authority, and as authorities and powers they command, and we...
ourselves will not be held responsible for them. For we do what we owe to them, and we offer submission as far as possible, listening to the blessed Gregory, who says: “Do not wish to shepherd the shepherds, O sheep, nor lift yourselves above your own limits; it is enough for you if you be well shepherded.” B
V.
But so that I may completely stop your mouths, let us begin to show you through the testimony of the holy teachers of the Church that the Roman Church is preeminent over the others, and holds the monarchy as being prior to and higher than all the rest. The holy Anacletus says: “The most holy Roman and apostolic Church did not receive its primacy from the apostles, but from the Lord and Savior himself, just as he said to the blessed apostle Peter: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ which the most holy apostles Peter and Paul consecrated by their own martyrdom.” The divine Marcellus speaks thus: “We exhort you not to teach or hold anything other than what you have received from the blessed Peter and the rest of the apostles and Fathers; for he is the head of the whole Church, to whom the Lord says, ‘You are Peter,’ and so forth. For his throne was among you, which was later, at the Lord’s command, transferred hither, where we, by divine cooperation and grace, preside this day.” Furthermore, the blessed Pope Leo says: C “Since the most blessed apostle Peter received the primacy from the Lord, and the Roman Church remains in his institutions, it is wicked to believe that the holy bishop Mark, his disciple, who first administered the Church of Alexandria, confirmed his decrees with rules other than his own teachings; it being undoubted that he drew from the same fountain of grace and of the one Spirit; and being a disciple of the teacher Peter, he was not appointed to teach anything other than what he received from the one who appointed him.” This is further confirmed by the decree of Constantine, which is placed within the canonical systems, in which, among many other things, this also is found: “Decreeing, we declare that the most holy Roman Church should hold the primacy, as over the four thrones—namely, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople—so also over all the churches of the whole world.” From which it is given to be understood that the Roman [Church] excels all others, as it holds the primacy; to which not only the Church of Antioch, D but also that of Constantinople and the rest are commended. Gregory the Dialogist says thus: “The Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic throne.” Furthermore, from the synod of Constantinople: “The bishop of the city of Constantinople,” it says, “must have the honor of primacy after the Roman bishop.” To these things, Anacletus says: “The Roman throne is adorned with primacy by the grace of God, which it received from the Lord and not from any other; and as by a hinge [cardine]
the door is turned, so too are all the other churches governed by the office and dignity of this holy and apostolic power, with the consent of the Lord.” A Furthermore, Callistus says: “It is not permitted for the members to be separated from the head; but according to the testimony of Scripture, all members ought to follow the head.” And no one doubts that the apostolic Church is the mother of all, from whose canons it is in no way fitting to depart. Furthermore, Gregory says openly: “It is permitted to no one, nor is it in anyone’s power, to overstep the precepts of the apostolic throne, or the ministry of our disposition. Let him be, therefore, filled with sadness at his own ruin who would wish to gainsay the apostolic precepts, and let him henceforth have no place among the priests, but let him become an alien from the holy mystery.” B Furthermore, the most holy Cyprian says: “Whoever leaves the chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, let him presume that he is not in the Church.” Furthermore, Nicholas, the supreme pontiff, writes thus: “Christ alone founded the Roman Church and set it upon the rock of the faith, which was to arise shortly; He who entrusted to the blessed Peter, the key-holder of eternal life, the laws of both the earthly and the heavenly kingdom. It is not, therefore, any earthly wisdom, but that Word by which heaven and earth were established, and by which all elements were finally created, that founded the Roman Church. It surely enjoys the privilege of Him by whose authority it is supported. C Whence it is not doubted that whoever takes away its own right from any Church, does an injustice; but he who attempts to take away the privilege of the Roman Church—handed down by the supreme head of all churches Himself—he undoubtedly falls into heresy; and while he is called a just man, he is to be called a heretic: for he violates the faith who does something against her who is the mother of the faith.” Furthermore, Pelagius adds: “Schism is most shameful, and men should not be afflicted in this way by alien powers, as the clarity of canonical Scripture and the truth of the ancient canons teach. Whoever, therefore, is severed from the apostolic see, no one doubts that he is in schism. D And whoever attempts to set up a table against the Roman and ecumenical Church, and as it is schismatic not to have the Roman Church as one’s head, so it is heretical also to take away her right. For it is manifest that those who have severed themselves from the unity of the faith and from the administration of Peter the apostle, in whatever manner they have divided themselves, these men and those like them are neither loosed from the bonds of their sins, nor could they enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.” These things, then, the Western Fathers.
teachers and masters, declare thus, as you see, and clearly; and after them we shall provide the Eastern teachers as testimony, and we shall splendidly set forth how they agree with them.
V. Concerning the Primacy of the Pope
A And first, let the great luminary of Damascus come forward; for he, in the discourse composed by him on the Transfiguration of the Lord, the beginning of which is, “Come, let us celebrate the festival, O God-beloved assembly,” after many other things, says thus also concerning the matter at hand: “As man, however, he poses the question; but as God, He secretly enlightens the one who was about to follow Him, whom He had foreordained in His own foreknowledge as a worthy president of the Church; to him, as God, He breathes, and through him He speaks. And what is the questioning? ‘But who do you say that I am?’ And Peter, burning with fiery zeal, and being struck with awe by the holy Spirit, said: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ O blessed mouth! O most happy lips!” And after a few words: “This is the faith, steadfast and immovable, upon which, as upon a rock, the Church is fixed. Of this you have worthily become the namesake; against this the gates of Hades—the mouths of heretics, the instruments of demons—will indeed rush, but they will not prevail; they will arm themselves, but they will not conquer. The weapons of babes are and shall be their blows; their tongues will grow weak, and they shall be upon them. For he who opposes the truth prepares evils for himself. This faith he himself acquired by his own lips; but to you, as to a most faithful servant, He entrusts it, that you may guard it, unshaken and undisturbed, by your prayers. For that it will never be overturned, nor shaken, nor plundered, the conviction is secure; Christ said, through whom the heaven has been established B and the earth has been founded and remains unswerving; for by His word the heavens have been established.” And after a very few words: “Supplicate Christ, who proclaimed you the key-bearer of the kingdom; who granted you to bind and to loose sins.” And after some other things, he says again: “But why did He take along Peter, and James, and John? Peter, wishing to show the testimony truly testified from the Father, and confirming his own decree, just as the heavenly Father had revealed it to him, and as one who was to receive the rudder as president of the whole Church.” Do you see how He handed over the rudders to Peter as president, and as one holding the authority of the whole Church? To the deaf adder and those obstructing their ears are similar they C who refuse to hear and refuse to see. They say, forsooth: “But this was given to Peter alone, and not to his successors.” This, as a saying of foolish men, and possessing no sense at all, it was our duty to leave unanswered—for by a just rationale it needs no apology whatever. But for the sake of those who wish to defend against them courageously, we shall refute it as being full of ignorance. If we should yield this point, we shall overturn the catholic faith, and we shall declare that Christ preached falsehood; and infinite absurdities will appear from this: if the faith of Christ lasted only to Peter and the rest of the apostles, but afterwards did not; if it was handed down to Peter and the apostles, but not to his successors. O truly manifest folly! O perverse mind! How have D synods been established in the Church as an aid? How
have synodal canons been brought about, if they possessed no authority? How did Constantine the Great render homage to Sylvester as he would to Peter, and no less than that, as has been written down in his decree? And how, too, did the Emperor of the Alamanni [Germany], bowing his neck before Pope Alexander, receive the yoke upon his very neck, when [the Pope] said, "You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk, and you shall trample the lion and the dragon," while he himself responded, "It is not to you, but to Peter that I offer obedience," and the Pontiff [answered], "Both to me and to Peter"? How, therefore, are you not ashamed to declare such things? How have heretics been cast out by the supreme pontiff and the holy synods, if the Church was able to [function] only up to the apostles, but not after that? And why did those who, through the turns of time, were enemies and foes B of the Church of God—the heretics, that is—not say this? For they indeed—driven out and persecuted by the ecumenical Church—did not have the nerve to say this. But you, saying this now, appear to be defending them. Therefore, Arius, Macedonius, and Eunomius, Nestorius, Dioscorus, Severus, and that whole other ungodly company of heretics must rise up and offer thanks and be beholden to you, because things that never even entered their minds to say, you, by undertaking their defense, state. But that many and infinite absurdities arise from this is manifest even to the blind, and therefore enough about these matters.
VII
We shall also bring forward other testimonies and sayings of the holy doctors of the Church that clearly prove the question set before us: that the Roman pontiff is the head and teacher of the whole Church, and to him alone has it been granted to judge, to inquire into the faith, and to regulate the whole world, and to expel heretics from their sees and restore the orthodox. And first, we shall bring forth for you as a testimony the judgment made against the holy Chrysostom, by which he was unjustly condemned by those who were managing affairs in Constantinople and punished with exile; upon being informed of this matter, Pope Innocent subjected the emperor, together with his wife and the other priests and pastors, to excommunication, on the condition that they restore Chrysostom to his own see. For concerning the sentence passed on Chrysostom, and his condemnation to gratify Eudoxia, they banished him to the city of Cucusus in Armenia in bitter exile. This matter he reported to Innocent, the most holy Roman pontiff. For the Eastern pontiffs had nowhere else to fly when they were afflicted with injuries, except to the Roman pontiff, recalling the saying of the Lord to Peter: "And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." Wherefore the divine Innocent, having received the letters of the holy John, writes to those in Constantinople... C D
in order that they might recall John to his own throne. Since they did not do this, and John had migrated to God, he writes for a second time to Arcadius and Eudoxia the sovereigns, in a letter that reads as follows:
Letter of Pope Innocent
A "The voice of the blood of my brother John cries out to God against you, O King, just as once that of righteous Abel did against the fratricide Cain; and it shall be avenged in every way. Nor have you committed only this, but even in a time of peace you have stirred up a great persecution against the Church of God and His priests. You have cast the great teacher of the world from his throne without a trial; you have persecuted Christ along with him. For I do not mourn for him—since he has obtained his lot with the holy apostles in the kingdom of God and our Savior Jesus Christ—although that loss is unbearable; but I am pained, being anxious first for the salvation of your souls, and then for those who have been deprived and famished of his all-wise teaching and admonition. For not only has the Church of the Constantinopolitans been deprived of his honey-flowing tongue, but the entire world has become widowed, having lost such a divinely inspired man; for the persuasion of one woman allowed this drama to be performed. Nevertheless, she shall receive her punishment from this, and the future unending torment, not many days after departing this life.
C For even if the blessed John has left this life, having kept the faith and strengthened those who were wavering, he has inherited unceasing delight and immortality for endless ages. But the new Delilah, Eudoxia—who by the razor of error has little by little shaven you—has brought upon herself a curse from many mouths, having bound up a heavy and unbearable burden of sins, adding this to her former transgressions. Therefore, I, a sinner and the least of all, as one entrusted with the throne of the great apostle Peter, excommunicate both you and her from the participation of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God. Furthermore, any bishop or cleric of the order of the holy Church of God who dares to attempt to administer [them] to you, from the hour you read my present bond, I will to be under deposition. If you should force anyone as possessors of power, and should transgress the canons given to you by the Savior through the holy apostles, know that this will be reckoned to you as no small sin on the fearful day of judgment, when no worldly rank will be able to help anyone; but those things which are within shall be poured out, as an example to all. As for Arsatius, whom you introduced into the episcopal throne in place of the great John, we depose [him] even after death, together with all D the bishops of his faction and his associates. For he is unworthy, as an adulterer of the episcopacy. For every plant which He did not plant
A by our Father who is in heaven, shall be uprooted. We add to the deposition of Theophilus, excommunication, anathema, and complete alienation from Christianity.
You see here the authority which that divine see possesses? That it not only deposed Arsacius while he was alive, but also after his death. “Arsacius,” it says, “whom you brought into the throne in place of the great John, we depose even after his death.” This is the same as saying that we do not wish for him to be inscribed in the book of the high priests in the coming judgment. For there, we declare easily that John, the golden-mouthed high priest of Constantinople, both is and shall be, but Arsacius, not at all. And the divine B supreme high priest was not content with the deposition of Theophilus of Alexandria—which had taken place at the synod in Thessalonica because he had concerned himself with the condemnation and exile of Chrysostom for the sake of Eudoxia—even though it had been synodal and through his representatives, but he added to it both excommunication and anathema—alas for the evils!—and complete alienation from Christianity. O, the wonder! Him who was once baptized in the name of the holy Trinity and written in the book of the Christians, he strikes out of the book and strips of Christianity. This shows clearly the power that that divine see possesses. If, therefore, as you believe, it was given to Peter alone, and not to his successors, how then did Arsacius and Theophilus, and Arcadius and Eudoxia, and the rest who were then deposed and condemned by the high priest of Rome, not say: "We do not heed your punishments, because this was given to Peter alone and not to you"? But they did not have this, nor did they dare to say it; rather, they begged for forgiveness for their sins from him. But this, I think, is sufficient to demonstrate that the successors of Peter and the rest of the apostles possess the same power, and that their successors do not possess less.
VIII. C We shall come to other proofs and indisputable testimonies, that he and no other is the head of the fullness of the Church, from the letter of the Emperor Justinian to Epiphanius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, [issued] from the holy synod assembled by him in the Trullus, the beginning of which is: "Emperor Justinian Augustus, since the right and blameless faith, which the most holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God proclaims and preaches, admits of no innovation, we, following the doctrine of the holy apostles and of those who after them have flourished in the holy churches of God, D have thought it right to make known and witnessed to all the hope that is in us," and the rest of the same letter, in which the faith and confession is openly perceived.
After this, in the following letter A whose beginning is: "The same Emperor to Epiphanius, most holy and most blessed Archbishop of this royal city and ecumenical patriarch," he says the following: "Wishing to make known to your holiness all things pertaining to the ecclesiastical state, we have deemed it necessary to employ these divine letters to you, and through them to make clear to you the matters that have been set in motion, which we are persuaded you also know. For having found certain persons estranged from the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, following the error of the impious Nestorius and Eutyches and using their blasphemies, we promulgated a divine edict—which your holiness also knows—by which we have refuted the madness of the heretics, having changed nothing at all, nor are we changing, B or overstepping the ecclesiastical state which has hitherto, God willing, prevailed, as your holiness also knows. But throughout we preserve the state of the union of the most holy Churches, which has been concluded with the most holy Pope and patriarch of elder Rome, to whom we have written similar things. For we never tolerate that any matters pertaining to the ecclesiastical state should not be referred to his blessedness, as being the head of all the most holy priests of God; and since, as often as heretics have arisen in these parts, they have been suppressed by the intention and judgment of that venerable see. It is therefore permitted to us also to say and conclude as follows: all those who desire him and have him as head are holy and true priests of God and faithful servants; but those who do not desire, nor have that man as head, are not priests of God." For so did that C holy synod of Justinian declare, in saying, "As being the head of all the most holy priests of God." And that the entire judgment of the Church of God is in him, listen: "And as often as in these parts—the Eastern regions, that is to say—heretics have arisen, they have been suppressed by his judgment and intention." So that those who do not follow him are schismatics, and slide into heresy. And for this reason, whatever they do is rejected, and all is unprofitable. A witness to this is the council at Carthage, from the letter which the council at Carthage and the great Cyprian sent to Januarius, the beginning of which is: "Being in common counsel, beloved brothers," he says, "there being one baptism, and one holy Spirit, and one Church founded by Christ our Lord from the beginning upon Peter the apostle by reason of unity; D and for this reason the things done by them—that is, by the schismatics and heretics—being false and vain and empty, are all rejected." You hear? That he calls adulterous and empty those things which are done apart from his command? Thus, when the faith was being shaken on every side, from that source protection was being prepared. Anastasius, disciple of Saint Maximus, says: "When the faith was being most harmoniously shaken by all, if the one who always assists—who, having left behind the seed of religion for us at ancient Rome, brought aid by a special grace—had not come, to confirm the promise that knows not how to lie, which was made to the prince of the apostles...
And what is that promise made to the prince? If you know, it is this: "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail," and: "Strengthen your brothers," and: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" [from the disputation of St. Maximus with a certain Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea]. B Theodosius: "Receive the voice, and do not investigate its meaning." Maximus: "You are clearly introducing new and strange laws into the Church regarding these expressions. If, according to you, there is no need to examine the meanings of the Scriptures and the Fathers, we cast away the entire Scripture, both the Old and the New; for I heard David saying: 'Blessed are those who search out his testimonies; they shall seek him with their whole heart.' And again: 'Instruct me, and I shall search out your law, and I shall keep it with my whole heart.' And again: 'Wonderful are your testimonies; therefore my soul has searched them out.' And the Lord in the Gospels says, 'Search the Scriptures.' Therefore, let my master be assured that I will not consent to receive a statement without the meaning that lies within it, lest I become a manifest Jew." Theodosius: "If the Fathers have said anything, I say it and do it in writing: two natures, and two wills, and two energies, both for us, and commune, and there shall be union." Maximus: "Lord, I do not dare to accept a written agreement from you regarding such a matter, being a simple monk. But since God has moved you to accept the voices of the holy Fathers, as the canon requires, send them in writing to him of Rome—that is, to the emperor and the patriarch, and the synod with him." And after some time: "And the emperor and the patriarch shall deign to imitate God’s condescension; and they shall together issue a petitioning command, which is a synodal request to the Pope of Rome. And certainly, if an ecclesiastical way is found permitting this for the sake of the right confession of faith, resolve this with you."
IX. C Do you see, you who do not wish the successors of Peter to have the same power as Peter, how no one else of the patriarchs is able to examine and regulate matters concerning the faith, if not the Pope of Rome alone? And how do you dare to say this, and to blaspheme so brazenly? For I am wary even of hearing you—to say nothing of speaking it—that the faith of Christ lasted down to Peter, but from Peter and until today it has not lasted. Yet how is it that you say this, which is entirely blasphemous? It is a marvel; for if this is granted, the entire faith slips away and perishes. O your patience, Christ the King! How is it that you permitted your faith and your Church to Peter alone, and not to his successors? And how has it been governed until now? D You who do not wish the successors of Peter to have the same power as Peter, how is it that no one else among the patriarchs is able to investigate and regulate matters concerning the faith, if not the Pope of Rome alone? And how do you dare to say this and blaspheme so brazenly? For I am wary even of hearing you—to say nothing of speaking it—that the faith of Christ existed until Peter, but from Peter and until now it does not exist. How is it that you say this, which is entirely blasphemous? It is a marvel; for when this is posited, all faith has departed and perished. O your forbearance, Christ the King! How have you left your faith and your Church to Peter alone, and not to his successors? And how, even until now, has it been governed; how are we baptized, how…
FOR THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. CHAPTER V. ON THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE
A How were the synods constituted? How were the heretics cast out? How was the Church illuminated, if there was no head? How, in general, would the Church and the faith have endured even until now—I would say more boldly, if she had not altogether possessed authority and power, and one shepherd and king, according to the evangelical voice: “There shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John x, 16)? The matter does not require many heads; where pastors are not subjected to one, they destroy rather than build, and subvert rather than direct. And how does the Savior say, “Behold, I am with you all the days, even unto the consummation of the age” (Matt. xxviii, 20)? For Peter was not to remain in this life until the consummation of the age; wherefore, by this word, it is declared that Christ remains here in the present age, along with the successors of Peter and the rest of the apostles. Read and see, and listen attentively, that those who say this overturn the catholic faith and the ecumenical synods, and show all things which the saints delivered and taught to be vain and foolish. Read the synodal acts and understand the authority of the Church, and the monarchy of Peter, and that it remains even in his successors. Do you not know that the robber-synod held at Ephesus, convened by Dioscorus the patriarch of Alexandria, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and other bishops of the same sect, against the true faith of Flavian the patriarch of Constantinople—that the most holy Pope of Rome, that divine Leo, alone overturned it and cast it down with an anathema? B And having written a letter, he sent it to the holy synod at Chalcedon; which that holy synod, having received, called a pillar of orthodoxy. And according to it, the synod judged the question before it; and the bishops cried out, “Eternal be the memory of Leo! As Leo believes, so we believe; as Leo teaches, so we preach.” And while the synod was being conducted, Eutychianist monks requested of the Emperor Marcian that the synod be dissolved, and that the Nicene Creed should suffice, and that nothing further should be sought; but the synod demanded that they subscribe to the letter of the most holy Leo, and because they did not obey, it condemned them as heretics. Do you see and hear that the fourth ecumenical synod, having six hundred and thirty holy Fathers, did nothing else than what the most holy Pope Leo alone taught? And that because the heretics wished to overturn the synod, the synod demanded that they either subscribe to the letter of Leo or be struck with anathema; and because they did not obey this, they were subjected to anathema. How, then, did it extend only to Peter, and not after him? For Leo lived nearly five hundred years after Peter. How, moreover, did Athanasius [appeal] to Julius, Chrysostom to Innocent, Ignatius the third to Nicholas, Theodoret to Leo, Maximus to Martin, and the other priests of the East, [when] cast out and driven from their own sees, either flee there themselves, or by giving letters signified [their situation]; whence by letters
they recovered their own sees—if they did not acknowledge him as the supreme high priest and successor of Peter, and able to A help them? But how did all, even kings and princes, remain silent as they looked upon the pope's letters, and allow them to take their sees, if the power was only Peter's, and not his successors'?
X.
It has been shown B sufficiently, in my opinion, that not only to Peter, but also to his successors, belongs the same authority, until the consummation of this age. But it shall also be shown that without him, the supreme high priest, an ecumenical council cannot come to pass, nor could it be called ecumenical at all, or possess authority. This can be seen in many other instances, as we have stated in what was said before, and it shall be told in what is to be said; but especially in the Life of Saint Stephen the Younger, C about whom the Metaphrast writes accurately on the twenty-third day of November, where the divine Stephen, being accused by the heretics because he would not submit to their council—which they had already issued against the venerable and holy images, and which they were compelling him to sign with the definition they set forth—says: "Read to me your definition," and they began to say: "The definition of the holy and ecumenical sixth council—" "Do not proceed further," the holy Stephen shouted with a loud voice. "How do you dare to call your council holy, which has profaned the holy things? For it, in its own acts, agreed not to call the apostles and martyrs holy. But where are you going? To the church of the Apostles, to the church of the martyr George. Whence do you come? From the church of the Forty. Therefore the divine man says: 'How do you dare to call your assembly holy, since it has profaned the holy things and does not wish to call the saints, holy?' O your great ignorance! You do not wish the apostles of God and our Savior Jesus Christ to be called holy, yet you call your own guard, gathered against the D Church, holy? How then could it be called ecumenical, over which the president of Rome has not presided, without whom it is entirely impossible for ecclesiastical matters to be regulated?" Do you hear that an ecumenical council cannot be called such unless the bishop of Rome constitutes it, and that without him it is impossible for ecclesiastical matters to be regulated? How then do you not perceive these things? Because you do not wish to see, nor to hear those who know; because your heart has been baptized once for all in persuasion, and cannot hear or see the truth. Furthermore, Maximus, being harassed by the heretics, betook himself to older Rome, and found Martin the most holy pope, whom our Church also honors as a saint on the thirteenth of March.
A For what reason? But because he recognized him as the head of the Church, he ran to him. From thence he writes to Martin, a presbyter of Cyprus, a letter, of which the beginning is: "By divine law enriched according to God, most holy Father," and after a few words he says: "From the synodal acts of our most holy pope Martin." He would not have written "most holy pope" if he had not recognized him as the lord of the whole Church. And for this reason he also begged him to convene a synod of the bishops under him, and to anathematize the leaders of the impious dogma, who were babbling that there was only one will in Christ. This is written in the Synaxarion of Saint Maximus; let anyone who wishes read it on the thirteenth of August. If, therefore, as you suppose, he is not the one who can order, inquire, confirm, direct, and govern the Church of God, as a pilot directs a ship, how did these things happen, and many other things like them which, due to the length of the account, we omit? For if we wished to speak of these, time would fail us in the telling. And how, when he subjected them to excommunication, did those anathematized by him not gainsay him? Although they were archbishops, and bishops, and patriarchs, yet they complied, obeying him as a father. But now, those who do not even know what is before their feet find fault; those whom I judge to be adversaries of the Church, enemies and foes, and conspirators against the apostolic and synodal canons, which rightly taught us that we must be subject to the Church. For immediately from the beginning the 138th Novella of Justinian says: "We decree," it says, "according to the decrees of the holy fathers, that the most holy pope of elder Rome is the first of all priests, but that the Constantinopolitan holds the second rank after the apostolic see." Moreover, the fifth canon of the Council of Sardica says the same things in this way. Furthermore, Anastasius, the disciple of Saint Maximus, after the history of Saint Maximus, after some other things, says: "And these are the words of Martin, the most holy pope and apostolic head and martyr, who truly presided over the entire world under the sun." Furthermore, the great Gregory the Theologian, in his epitaph on the great Basil, says that the pope of that time sent two bishops, Lucifer and Eusebius, to pacify the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia. How would the high priest of Rome have sent them into the East to set the Churches in order unless he were the prince and governor of the entire world? Furthermore, Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, was appointed by the heretic Dioscorus; but the most holy Pope Leo, in his letter to the Emperor Marcian, after many other things, says: "Concerning the appointment of the patriarch Anatolius, we let it pass without investigation, because he attached himself to the orthodox faith." Behold, from this it is inferred that if Anatolius had followed the heresy of Dioscorus, he would have been judged by him; nor could you gainsay it, for he was the patriarch of Constantinople: and if he was his judge, he would therefore be the judge of the others, of the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Hierosolymitan, and thus the judge of all. Pope Agapetus...
came in person to Constantinople, where he deposed Anthimus of Trapezunt, who had become patriarch of Constantinople, being a heretic, and consecrated the most holy Mennas in his stead. Whence this? Save that he holds authority over all, and that this was given from the beginning by the Lord to the apostle Peter and to those after him. Furthermore, Proclus was raised to the patriarchal throne with the assent of Rome, according to Zonaras. Behold, it is shown that the Roman [pontiff] judged Anthimus of Constantinople. Most holy Leo deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and condemned them as heretics. Most holy Felix deposed Peter of Antioch and subjected him to anathema. Wherefore, since the Roman [pontiff] is the supreme pontiff, he holds the primacy over all patriarchal sees. How then [could he be the judge] A at that time, but not now? No one will dare say this. But at that time, and now, and until the end of the world, he will hold authority. And so that you may clearly understand that we speak the truth, and what power that divine see possesses, we shall append to our words the letter of Felix, which reads as follows:
To the most glorious and most serene son Zeno Augustus, Felix the bishop, greeting in the Lord.
It is proper for your humanity B that those things be signified which the order of events demands, which it is also fitting to signify for the benefit of the authority of your serenity. And just as if I were present, I ask that you admit my petitions to your friendly and receptive ears, as a most Christian emperor, and let your piety in no way think that we pursue anyone with greater benevolence than you, except for him who desires you to have peace with God. Since you, moved by a faithful heart, do not doubt C the power of the temporal see, and deem that the retribution of eternal life depends upon the will from above, deign to receive from my insignificance the venerable and divine confession of the most blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles; to whom, since the keys of the kingdom were entrusted, he will prepare for your most Christian empire a dwelling in heaven with the angels: who, since he was the first to declare an unchangeable and unblemished faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, was beatified by the Savior himself; for when he had said to the Lord, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he received a response from Him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven; and upon this confession of thine I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” so that from this he might take away where he received his surname, D which is Christ Jesus and God.
A Peter, the firstborn son of the devil, who unworthily thrust himself into the holy Church of God of the Antiochians and defiled the episcopal throne of Ignatius the martyr—who received the episcopate from the right hand of Peter—and of Eustathius the confessor and president of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, dared to say that one ought not to name Christ as the Son of God according to the divine decree of the Saviour and the tradition of the divine Scriptures and the exposition of the Fathers; but rather, wishing to introduce the doctrine of Arius, Apollinaris, and Eunomius, he dared to say that one of the Trinity endured the passion for us in his divine essence. By such a statement, he seeks B to abolish the saving incarnation, according to which Christ endured the passion. It is even said that one of our own, as one having taken hold of the seed of Abraham, has introduced a multiplicity of gods; for the sense of these words introduces three gods—one dead and two living—and it abolishes the consubstantial, and renders the holy synods vain: the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, and the Chalcedonian. Moreover, he will be found not to accept the virginity of the holy Virgin Mary; for if the Word did not assume humanity by being incarnate from her, what need is there of the Virgin? Why also did Gabriel say to her, “The holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David”? C Beyond these impious and contumelious deeds, when he attempted to adulterate the Trisagion by adding, “who was crucified for us,” he brought the matter into infinite absurdities. And although he was often admonished by us and by your fraternity in Christ, and by the Easterns, and by Acacius, the archbishop of your kingly and Christ-loving city, he never wished to be converted. Therefore, now the holy Church of God, out of maternal affection, does not cease, as if speaking to her own foremost son, to say: “O Christ-loving emperor, do not suffer the bond of our worship, by which the faithful are bound, to be dissolved; do not permit the surname of Christ the Lord and Son of the only-begotten God to be violated; D preserve the most holy hymn, which even saved your city when it was in danger, as a tradition handed down by angels, inviolate. Expel from the Church of the Antiochians Peter, who has followed the Arian superstition.” For what reason does Peter, having abrogated my faith, rend the consensus of the world? For what cause does Peter rend my tunic, which was woven from the top? God the Father commanded the prince of the apostles how it is fitting to call his Son. The Only-begotten founded me upon the confession of Peter; the Holy Spirit daily testifies to me, saying: “Do not judge yourselves to know anything, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Enemies, disobedient, deceitful, placed outside the vineyard, slaughtering and stoning and affixing to *the wood of the cross the Only-begotten Son of God, did not divide his garment; and Peter rends my garment! The gates of hell shall not prevail against me, and Pe-
- B ter attempts to cast down my wall? I, most pious emperor, who brought you back, having been driven from this kingdom, and delivered the wicked and disobedient of the divine dogmas within me to your burial, have opened a way of power for you before you; I have cast down your enemies along with their lawless dogma. I have supplicated the ancient power for you from God who reigns in the highest, from whom you have received your kingship. Look toward your predecessor, the most pious emperor Marcian, and embrace his faith gladly. Root out the heretical tyranny of Peter with speed; give orders for the disciple of Valentinus and Eutyches to be driven from the citadel, and from the ecclesiastical administration, as well as being cast down from the priestly dignity. Behold, O most legitimate son and unconquerable emperor, what kind of indisputable vindication there has been for the synod at Chalcedon, and what a penalty has been taken against your enemy, and deliver the masses from the heretical teaching of Peter. These things the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God advocates, so that you might not henceforth receive into communion the one deposed by her for the aforementioned causes; but rather, by your divine letters, arrange for him to become a boundary to the city of Antioch; and in his place establish a man who adorns the priesthood with deeds, and is a strict guardian of the holy synod at Chalcedon and of those things confirmed therein. May the almighty God preserve your power in peace forever. C
XI. IA'
Do you see the power which that divine throne possesses? Do you hear how it puts on not only the person of Peter, but also Christ himself, in saying, "Peter rends the garment of my faith"? Look then and see accurately and consider the whole epistle, and understand the authority of the Roman Church. And be united, you yourselves, and do not fight against the truth. For if he speaks these things from the person of the Church, yet it is he who directs and governs the Church. Furthermore, we shall add to this the testimonies of the Eastern teachers. Cyril, the blessed archbishop of Alexandria, in his *Thesaurus*, speaks thus: "That we must, as members, cleave to our head, the archbishop of Rome, and to the apostolic throne, from which it is our duty to seek what we ought to believe and what we ought to think and hold; for it is his alone to rebuke, to correct, to chasten, D to confirm, to dispose, to loose and to bind." Do you hear, you who contradict the blessed Cyril, that it is our duty, just as members to a body, so also we to the apostolic throneto remain; and that it is his alone to direct and govern the universal Church of the Christians? If, then, he writes thus, he writes as one who thinks thus; and if he thought thus, he acted thus. And if he was rendering obedience and reverence at that time to the high priest of Rome, who shall contradict it, unless it be someone ignorant and foolish?
Having these things in mind, it occurs to me even to laugh intensely; or rather, in truth, not to laugh, but to mourn and groan for those who of their own will so close their eyes to the light, and do not even endure to hear the truth. For who is he that denies the confession proclaimed aloud by the Church, that is, the Symbol of the Faith? In which we openly confess one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, dispersed into all parts of the inhabited world. No one could ever call this [Church] one, unless all the rest, joined together like members according to the blessed Paul, remain in her as head; which all together, joined, constitute one body. B And just as, according to the same Apostle, the foot, or the hand, or another member of the body cannot say to the head, "I have no need of you," so neither can the other churches say to the Church of Rome, "We have no need of you." All have their authority from her, and all are confirmed by her. All the writings of the teachers will bear witness to this. For she, recognizing all the members as a head, and being equally concerned for all, as if set in the highest place, grieves if any member languishes, and carries its care and leads it to health, as was said before. For she speaks and cries aloud: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I am not burned?" If, however, some member is cut off from that body, it rots and smells, but the head (which otherwise yields neither to labors nor to torments) is not harmed in the least.
It is necessary, however, for those who profess the Symbol and preach one Church, to know what this one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is. For it is either the Western or the Eastern—which is the same as to say, that of the Latins, or that of the Greeks; for no other besides these can be found; for other religions besides these are conventicles and full of heresies. Count carefully and see. But if you consider the Church of the Greeks to be this one that the Symbol designates, you reduce the confession of Peter to nothing, against which Christ promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail; for the whole Church of the Greeks, or rather, the whole East, has been swallowed up by Mahomet; and do we not see that all the patriarchs, and bishops, and priests are under the authority of Mahomet, and receive from him the authority of the priesthood? And they kiss his foot, and pray for him even when they do not wish to. Where, then, will you place the saying, "The gates of Hades," that is, the mouths of heretics, "shall not prevail against the Church of Christ"? In that place D where not only the mouths of heretics lord it over her, but even the impious and foreigners hold authority? In that place where you can neither sacrifice safely, nor does a bell or a chime, or the sign of the cross appear? In that place, where no one freely
A can speak the sweet name of Christ? Or if he does, it is divided in two? In that place where, when the priests who are found there perform the priestly rites, the enemies of Christ enter in and mock, and trample upon and profane the altars, and cast down the Holy Things, and strike the priests and push them, and laugh at the religion of the Christians? By no means. But it must be where the sign of Christ shines brightly, and where the churches happen to be adorned, and bells and chimes and altars are all seen with reverence and venerated, and the people rise with respect for the priests from afar; there, where the faith of Christ is preached openly; there, where the kings of the earth and the rulers, B coming to visit the holy places and to venerate the heads of the apostles, together with them and their leader, venerate the pontiff and fall at his feet; there, where feast days, psalmody, and prayers are celebrated without fear, where no one fears that someone will oppose him; there, where the supreme pontiff sends out teachers and preachers into all the earth to preach and announce the word of God, in imitation of Christ, nay rather, acting as the vicar of our Savior upon the earth. For just as He said to the apostles: "Behold I send you, go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature," so he too sends teachers into the whole world with great care, who go not only to Christians, but also to all nations, whether from the order of Saint Francis, or of Dominic, or from another rule. C Therefore, we shall confess that the Church is there where there is no heresy, nor iniquity, nor infidelity, but rather a firm and unshaken faith. But it is not so in the East, where iniquity and infidelity abound. And this is not my own statement, but let Theodore the Studite come forward and give this testimony, which no one will be able to deny, in his fifteenth catechesis, which you indeed read, but do not understand, because you do not wish to. For this teacher appears to be fighting against the opponents of the icons, when he says: "But I hear that at Rome the keys of the apostle are set forth for veneration and are held in honor; D although the Lord did not give him sensible keys, but intellectual ones for binding and loosing. Yet they have made silver ones and set them forth for the people to venerate. Such is their faith."
A Indeed, it is plain that this blessed one confesses the faith there to be unshaken, and not in Peter alone, but also in his successors. Seeing and hearing these things, to which you cannot even look straight—for they are as the bright and shining light of truth, toward which it is not permitted to say you are fleeing—you see that the high priest of Rome is a sinner, and that he serves carnal pleasures, and for this reason you do not wish to accord him the piety and the respect that is fitting.
XII.
B And although we have already answered this in the preceding, we say to you again more exactly that you are openly liars. For it is not because he is a sinner that you refuse to obey him, but because he is a Latin and because he shaves his beard. For if you were avoiding him because of sin, you would be avoiding yourselves, for you are sinners. How then do you know how to judge him, yet do not judge your own? Are all the priests of the East holy? You cannot demonstrate this. Therefore, you do not avoid him as a sinner—for you yourselves are not without sin—but because he is a Latin and differs from your opinions. For you consider the Latins to be aliens from the faith, and you teach the simpler folk to flee from them as from the face of serpents; and this is clear. And if anyone among the Latins appears to be holy, you do not wish to greet him, but rather you heap abuse upon him. But the Greeks, even if they be the most profligate and dull-witted, if only they speak against the Latins, you deem them the holiest of all; among many others, that person who is called Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus—men not otherwise of sound mind, but filled with vainglorious wisdom, possessing no virtue or holiness in themselves, but solely because they speak and write against the Latins, you exalt and celebrate, and adorn their images, and hold festive days for them, and honor them as if they were saints; C but the Latins, although the Church long ago ordained them to be honored as saints, you cease not to blaspheme. Especially regarding the supreme high priest, you do not even consider him a Christian at all, because he is a Latin; for this you gnash between your teeth, incessantly shouting blasphemies. And, fearing the dread of those who hold power, you flee to another refuge as to a spider’s web, calling him a sinner and spewing out other insults. Take care that you do not hear: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone," that is, he who has not committed sin, let him begin to judge regarding sin; and, "Judge not, that you be not judged." Do not seek occasion, brothers, in sins. It is not your office to inquire into the sins of your princes, while all the teachers cry out, and John of the golden tongue in many of his orations, and in the oration whose title is: *That one ought to honor one’s spiritual masters and not revile them*. The beginning of the oration is: "No thing entices one more to the liberty of speech," and a little later he says: D "If those who revile father or mother, parents according to the flesh, are put to death according to the Law, of what punishment shall he be worthy who [reviles] a spiritual man,who is far more necessary than many parents, not fearing lest the earth might gape and swallow him up completely, or lightning come down from above and burn up his slanderous tongue? Have you not heard what befell the sister of Moses, when she spoke against her own brother and ruler, how she became unclean and fell into leprosy, and endured the ultimate disgrace? And though her brother interceded and fell before God, she did not obtain any forgiveness? And a little further on: “And he could not make God propitious; but even was severely rebuked, so that we might learn what great evil it is to criticize rulers and to judge the lives of others.” And a little further on: “If this is B so in the case of fleshly parents, how much more must this law be kept in the case of spiritual Fathers, and each one ought to occupy himself with his own life and be concerned, lest we hear on that day: ‘Hypocrite, why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the log that is in your own eye?’” And a little later: “When those in leadership are honored by those they rule, this is recounted to them, just as God said to Eli: ‘I took you from your father’s house.’ But when they are reviled, as in the case of Samuel: ‘They have not rejected you,’ he says, ‘but me.’ He who honors the priest, honors God; but he who has learned to despise the priest, proceeding on this path, will one day be insulting God as well. He who receives you, he says, receives me.” And: “Keep your priests in honor.” C Thence the Jews learned to despise God, because they despised Moses, because they stoned him. And if indeed one were to be piously disposed toward the priest, much more so toward God; and even if the priest be wicked, God, seeing that you honor him for His sake, and because you honor one who is not worthy of honor, He Himself will grant you the reward.” And a little later again: “Do you not know that the priest is the angel of the Lord? For does he speak his own things? If you despise the priest, you do not despise him, but God who ordained him. And whence is it clear, he says, that God ordained him? Therefore, if you hold this opinion, your hope has been made void. For if God does not act through him, you have no washing, you are not a partaker D of the mysteries, you do not enjoy the blessings; therefore you are not a Christian. Why then, he says, does God ordain all? And does He work through all, even if they themselves are unworthy? For the sake of the salvation of the people. For if He worked through an ass and Balaam, an impure man, much more through the priest. For if He worked through Judas, and through false prophets prophesying, to whom He says, ‘I know you not, depart from me, you workers of lawlessness,’ much more will He work through priests. For if we were to intend to scrutinize the lives of those in authority, we would intend to ordain the teacher ourselves, and things top-to-bottom turn upside down.
A you criticize him, you are punished. And how do you admonish me, since you do not do it yourself? Does he not say to you: If you believe him, you do not receive a reward? Christ teaches these things: Let us not judge one another, but let each himself... And a little later: Let us not curse, I implore you, the teachers. If someone has a father liable to many crimes, does he not cover them up? Do not exult, he says, in the disgrace of your father; this must be said much more concerning spiritual fathers. Show reverence, because he ministers to you daily, he sees to it that the Scriptures are read for your sake, he adorns the holy house for your sake, he keeps watch for you, he prays for you. He offers prayers B to God for you; his worship toward God and everything is for your sake. Revere these things, ponder these things with yourself, and approach him with all show of observance. And a little later: Hear what God says about the princes of the Jews: The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses: whatever they say to you, keep and do, but according to their works do not do. What life of theirs could be found worse? Yet He neither cast them down from their dignity, nor did He care that they be despised by their subjects. And rightly so. For if subjects were to arrogate this power to themselves, all would immediately be abrogated and cast down from the tribunal. Therefore, also Paul, when he had poured out insults upon the high priest of the Jews and had said: God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall C, and do you 31 sit judging me? But being warned by some to be silent, with them saying, Do you curse God's high priest? wishing to show how much honor and reverence we are bound to follow those in charge, he said: I did not know that he was God's high priest. Therefore, also elsewhere he says: Obey your leaders, and be subject to them, for they keep watch 32 as those about to render an account for your souls; therefore it is fair that they enjoy the fruit of this worship. And after a few words: Consider what God says concerning the Jews: The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses; whatever they have said to you, do; but now we cannot say: They have sat on the chair of Moses, but on that of Christ. Therefore, says Paul: We are ambassadors for Christ, as God D exhorting through us 34. You have heard from this doctor in what manner priests are to be honored. If therefore he says this concerning priests, how much more concerning the princes of priests and patriarchs and doctors of the Church, who in your presence not only are not honored, but are even most impudently lacerated, what punishments, I ask, are you going to undergo? Great ones, I think, or rather not according to my opinion, but according to the golden-tongued and admirable John, when he says: He who treats priests with injury, treats Christ with injury. But he who treats Christ with injury, what will he answer on that tremendous day? Thus, therefore, concludes Chrysostom. If those things are known to you which we have set forth from his honeyed orations, especially with what honor those in authority are to be honored, because upon
the seat of Jesus and of God they sit, be subject therefore to them, as we also are subject; not as saints by virtue, but as rulers. For not even we honor the High Priest of Rome as a saint because of his virtue, but according to his authority and priesthood. For if he is holy, he does not make me, being a sinner, holy; and if he is a sinner, he does not harm me, being just. B Or do you think that because he is Pope he shall inherit the kingdom of heaven? By no means; but rather because of his virtue, if he has any. For many Popes shall inherit eternal punishment. Not through being Latins and supreme pontiffs of Rome, but through their sins. And many patriarchs of Constantinople also, clearly—and of Alexandria, and of Antioch, and of Jerusalem—shall inherit the unquenchable fire, not because they are Greeks and patriarchs, but because of their wickedness. And likewise in reverse. For there is no respect of persons with God, that the rulers of this present life should be seen as heirs of the life to come, but only the virtuous ones in any case. Or do you not hear the Wisdom saying: "Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness before the face of such as have afflicted him. And they, seeing it, shall be troubled and shall say: This was he whom we had sometimes in derision, and a proverb of reproach, we fools; but now he is counted among the children of God, and his lot is among the saints; we have erred from the way of truth"? * Therefore, one ought not to judge anyone’s life or be over-curious; for the work of each one shall be made manifest in that public assembly. C Therefore, brethren, repent and strive for your own salvation, knowing this for certain, that he who is not subject to the Roman pontiff is not subject to Christ, who said to Peter: "Thou art Peter," etc., and he shall never attain salvation. For when you say that you do not wish to be subject to him because he is a sinner, this is the way of foolish men, and of those lacking all understanding. Why do you judge the pontiff of the Church, whom you do not even know what kind he is? For no one, says Scripture, knows the things of another. How do you judge him, whom you do not know at all, as a sinner? Are all, I ask, who have obtained the throne of Peter, wicked and sinners? Or do the rest of the pontiffs and dignitaries of the Church deliberately elect a sinner as Pope? Do you not blush to pursue the election of the Church D with insults? Do you not know that even in Constantinople they used to make him patriarch who was especially illustrious in honor and virtue? For virtue is honorable even among the enemy; so also here, they appoint as their priest and king him who excels above others in honor and virtue. But if he is a sinner, what is that to us? He shall render an account for himself, as each of us shall for our own; for no one shall be judged for another.
* Sap. v, 3.
XIII.
You deify the Pope beyond measure; but we know him to be a man, capable of being engulfed by sin and blasphemy; for this reason, we do not accept that we must follow him in matters pertaining to the faith. But it has already been said to us by you that this is nothing, since it is necessary for us to follow some shepherd: for he, as a man, sins daily. For if our whole life were but one hour, even so we could not be without filth. But for his own sins, everyone, as has been said many times, will render an account for himself. For it is sufficient for us if we are well-pastured, according to the great doctor of theology, Gregory. But the seditious and contentious man says, "I do not approve of a sinner being my head." To whom we must reply: that we understand your thoughts well, which we shall reveal further on, even if you try to obscure them out of cowardice. But now we shall reply to what you speak of openly, B because you say this out of a vice of the soul; for it is not known to you that he is a sinner, nor is his way of life sufficiently known to you, but you shamelessly slander and revile him who is the successor of Peter and bears the figure of Jesus Christ on earth. For those who call him a sinner bring forward things similar to those which the Jews brought forward; for they, seeing the man who had been blind from birth now seeing, and being twisted with envy, ask him, saying, "Who opened your eyes?" And he says, "The man who is called Jesus, he said to me, Wash in the pool of Siloam, and having washed, I received my light." C But they, burning with rage, say, "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner." To whom the man who had lately been blind replied: "If he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind, now I see. For in this is the wonderful thing, that while he was a sinner, he opened my eyes, I who was blind. Since the world began it has not been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." We can, therefore, transfer these words to the successor of God, who is the holy Pope. If he is a sinner, how did he curse you? And Nicolaus I excommunicated the Greeks during the time of Photius, and not one iota of that excommunication failed, but they became captives, as he said in the excommunication, among all nations, like the Jews. For it is written, "God does not hear sinners." If he is a sinner, how was he heard? But this one, indeed, was heard in this way. Innocent before this excommunicated Eudoxia because of the exile of Chrysostom; D and her tomb trembled until, having been entreated, he released the excommunication, and the trembling of her tomb immediately ceased. But what has happened in our own memory, now under Nicholas V, the Supreme Pontiff, when the envoys sent to him by the Emperor Constantine, who was called Dragases, are still present: to whom he gave letters full of fear of God and horror, where openly with execration...the complete fall and destruction of the wretched Greeks. In this letter, after many other things—understanding the abuse and insults which are shamelessly blasphemed against every day by the Greeks—he marvelously says this: "All nations have accepted the decree which has been established; but the Greeks have neither accepted it, nor is there any hope, as it seems, that they will ever accept the things decreed for concord and union. For delays are always being piled upon delays by them, and the same excuses and apologies are always being made for everything. For let not the Greeks think that the high priest of Rome and the whole Western Church are so deprived of understanding that they do not know what kind of things they are babbling in their responses to every delay. For we understand everything well, but we bear with it, looking to Jesus, the eternal high priest and Lord, B who commanded that barren fig tree to be kept until the third year, while the vinedresser was already demanding that the plant be cut down because it bore no fruit." O the magnitude of the calamity! In the year 1451 he wrote this letter, and in 1453 Constantinople was captured. Can you say that these things are not true? Not at all, since the fact is manifest and the matter itself speaks openly. "We shall wait," he says, "three years, in case you perhaps turn from your schism and division and truly join yourselves to the decree, according to the Savior's command concerning the fig tree. But if not, you shall be cut down, so that you do not render the land idle and useless." This is the greatest miracle of miracles: that, as Pope Nicholas himself writes in that very letter, that Greek nation—once great, formidable, wise, famous, strong, and mistress of every land—is thus shown to be a slave to barbarians by the judgment of God. As I relate these things, it comes upon me to weep and to mourn the destruction of our race, even if you do not see it.
XIV. C
First of all, then, that I may start from here, call to memory, brothers and fathers, how great and what manner of nation ours once was. For it was wise, famous, noble, prudent, brave, and subjugated the whole world to one monarchy. D Moreover, in the pursuit of virtue and holiness it surpassed all nations, in fasts, vigils, prayers, and alms; and, to speak in one word, just as a sponge absorbs water, it absorbed every virtue and was always pleasing to God. But now, alas for the evils! Everything has perished. Constantinople has been captured; at the mere remembrance of which I am forced to burst into speech with shouting and wailings, and to breathe my last. For when the city was stormed, the altars were defiled, the sanctuary was trampled, and pouring of
A blood followed: nuns were defiled, virgins were corrupted, infants were beheaded; at the hands of the impious, rulers, priests, deacons, abbots, men, and women perished. Marriages were sundered, sanctuaries were trampled and outraged, holy vessels were shattered; images most ornate were trampled and defiled with spittle. Woe is me, wretched and miserable! Who will ever be able to lament such a disaster and express in words so bitter a calamity? Alas! Where is the royal state and retinue? Where is the order of the palace and its discipline? Where is the host of so many princes? Where is the school of wisdom? Woe to me in my misery! Where is the patriarchal administration? Where is the beauty of the Church? Where is that so great and such a company and number of the sacred monastic and non-monastic orders? Where are the orders of monks and nuns? Behold, has not everything been swallowed up by Mahomet? And it was not in the Queen of Cities alone that this evil occurred; it was also in the regions subject to her—[where were] many things even worse—and day by day we see and understand these things with wide-open eyes. B Why, then, are these things happening? Tell me, I beseech you, by the Lord. If you say, as you are wont to say, that this happened because of our sins, that is not the case; I will say [otherwise], for we do not provoke God with our sins any more than the other Christian nations. For there are other nations more prone to wickedness and sin; how is it that they are not punished as is our most unhappy and pitiable nation? Woe to me in my misery! I become beside myself when I turn my mind to these things, and my heart is troubled, and my spirit seethes; for the race of the Jews, having committed two sins, paid the penalty according to the prophet: "For my firstborn son Israel," he says, "hath done two evil things: he hath forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and hath digged to himself cisterns broken and leaky." C And the Church says, "Me they have crucified upon a tree, but Barabbas they requested and released." First, therefore, because they engaged in idolatry, they were led captive into Media and Babylon; second, because they crucified our Lord and God, they became captives among all the nations. But our nation—oh, what a calamity! Oh, what grief!—neither ever engaged in idolatry, nor crucified the Son of God: for what reason, then, is it so harshly vexed? And it suffers not only the same things, but even things much worse than the impious Jews. For they, having been led into captivity, became slaves of all nations, as being hateful and enemies of God; but these have become slaves not only to the nations, but even to the Jews D themselves, who are the slaves of all nations. Oh, my calamity! Is it not left for me to weep and lament, and to inquire into the cause, and to see for what we suffer these things? For my part, I cannot find another cause (for our nation is not worse than other nations in virtue; rather, it is better; for it has been said, and said truly, that our nation excels all nations in virtue and character), except for the schism, and the fact that it has withdrawn itself from the obedience and subjection
A toward the Roman Church; and this I judge to be the sole cause of the ruin of our race. For from the time we were severed from it, we received the curse; and we suffer all that we suffer. And though we suffer, we do not repent, but rather become worse; and we blaspheme against the very Church of God, and we shamelessly vomit forth both mentionable and unmentionable things against it. Wherefore, my brothers, let us cast away despair, for the sake of the Lord, and let us approach the true union of Christians. Let us acknowledge our fault, so that we may not become worse than the Jews; and let us not, through persuasion, malice, and prejudice, close our ears so as not to hear and understand. Let us hear the Lord crying out to the apostles: "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." B It is, therefore, possible to state the truth: he who hears the Pope, hears the Lord; and he who does not hear the Pope, does not hear the Lord. And he who does not hear the Lord, hears those who are captive and cut down by the sword. I saw, and I remember well, in the debates of a certain monk, Barlaam, which were held in Constantinople with a certain apostolic legate regarding the primacy of the Pope, where the legate concluded by saying: "I am indeed capable of resolving all your objections—for the Church of Christ and C its presiding Supreme Pontiff did not send a man who does not know how to resolve your doubts—but you always involve yourselves in trifling verbal quibbles. Therefore, it pleases me to speak to you a brief and true word, which I have also been charged to say to other Greeks: that thus says the Pope: 'If you will and shall hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land,' according to the prophet; 'but if you will not, and will not hear me, the sword shall devour you.' For the mouth of the Pope has spoken these things. Do you have anything to say in contradiction to this? Read and see if it did not happen as he said. If, therefore, it has happened, you ought, or rather, it is necessary for you to hear him, but D not to perform his works if they should be evil. Thus the Lord has commanded us: 'Upon the chair of Moses have sat the Scribes and the Pharisees; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, do ye; but according to their works do ye not.' Since, therefore, this man also sits in the chair of Peter, we ought to hear him as Peter, and imitate his words, but not imitate his works if they are evil. Thus the saints teach us; thus the laws and the canons cry out, as we have previously demonstrated, and will demonstrate again in a little while. Now, however, we wish to uncover what you unjustly harbor within yourselves against the Pope and the Latins. For you say that it is on account of sin that you avoid him. But this is not true; rather, you are seeking, brothers, reasons that are hardly true. For he has cursed you, and excommunication has found you, and you have been utterly destroyed. But there is another disease from which your soul is sick within, as we have previously exposed, though you do not dare to say it openly, lest perhaps someone...
this truly, friends, is not the case; but you are making excuses, brothers, excuses that are not true. For the excommunication has cursed you, and it has found you, and you have been utterly brought to nothing. But there is another thing that you are harboring within your soul, as we have said before: being ashamed to speak openly, lest you be named and exposed as worse than all heretics; and you are accustomed to chew upon this under your breath. And there is something else that you have on your lips: for there are some foolish men who even openly say that the Latins are heretics, and before them all especially the Pope, and because of this you neither want union, nor do you endure to hear the commemoration of the Pope; nor do you accept to see the priests who embrace the union; nor do you regard those who communicate with them as Christians at all. And if you should happen to be found listening to the commemoration of the Pope, you do not receive the antidoron; but you act like madmen, and you gnash your teeth most cruelly against those very priests, and you consider them worse than the Jews. Fearing therefore to say these things, and dreading the anger of some people, you bravely flee toward an obvious pretext. You fight, even you, against the truth, wrangling over the shadow of an ass.
XV
But we, in the four books we published before, have discussed many things about these same matters, proclaiming the truth as clearly as possible, and we have plainly demonstrated that the Latins are orthodox in their doctrines, and have very gallantly defended them against the calumnies with which you unjustly slander them. And in this present work, namely this fifth one, we have said not a few things; demonstrating that the High Priest of Rome is the successor of Peter; and we shall further prove that he is the successor of Peter and the vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ; and that he alone possesses the authority to direct and govern the whole Church absolutely, to bind and to loose, to bless and to curse, to admonish and to heal; and that he alone has the place and the resources to examine matters of faith and priesthood. For immediately the great Theodore the Studite, in his epistle to Pope Paschal, speaks as follows: "Listen, apostolic head, chosen by God, shepherd of the sheep of Christ, gatekeeper of the kingdom of heaven, rock of the faith upon which the Catholic Church is built. For you are Peter, adorning and governing the throne of Peter." And after some things: "Come, then, arise from the West, and do not cast us off to the end. For to you Christ our God said: 'And you, when you have turned, strengthen your brothers.'" Do you hear how this great Father calls the High Priest of Rome Peter, and the gatekeeper of eternal life, and the shepherd, and the apostolic head, and asks him to bring aid to Constantinople because of the heresies of those who attacked the images? Whence this, if not because he had the authority to strengthen the other churches, as one who was above every heresy and set far above every storm of heretics? And a witness of this is he himself in the same epistle to Paschal, saying: "You therefore are truly the pure and unadulterated source of orthodoxy from the beginning. You, set far above every heretical storm, the safe harbor of the whole Church, you, the city chosen by God as a refuge of salvation." Do you understand how he calls the Roman Pontiff the safe harbor of the whole Church? To
ensure that, just as ships tossed in the midst of the sea by the waves hasten to the harbor so that they may not be left outside and submerged by the waves and the turbulent swell, so too all the churches, tossed by heresies like waves, may hasten to the High Priest of Rome as to a saving harbor—where they will find all calm and peace. For there Christ placed the keys of the faith in Peter the Apostle, to shepherd and govern the whole Church, not in him alone, but also in his successors, saying to him, "And you, when once you have turned, strengthen your brethren," which happened not only to Peter, but also to his successors. For immediately, Sylvester, the great Pope of Rome, after the baptism of Constantine, overturned the heresy of Arius. And in that same city, Julius and Liberius confirmed Athanasius and sent him back to Alexandria when he was being persecuted by the Arians. Pope Damasius utterly destroyed the heresy of Macedonius, who was the patriarch of Constantinople. The divine Celestine handed over to destruction, through Cyril who spoke of God, the heresy of the impious Nestorius, who was also patriarch of Constantinople. Leo the most holy condemned the godless heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus. Martin and Agatho, by word and deed, struck down this vile heresy of the Monothelites. Gregory the Great, the Dialogist, subjected to anathema the impiety of those who attacked the icons. Then, after the disobedience and the schism, Nicholas the First went in person to Constantinople in the time of Photius to heal the schism—and because they did not receive it, they were subjected to excommunication by him. After him, the supreme pontiffs C did not cease through the turns of time to write and exhort the Greeks to the conversion and obedience of the Church, until the synod was convened at Lyons, which the Greeks call the eighth, over which Pope Gregory the Tenth presided, and they were united, and again they apostatized; and yet again they received the legates of the Church. A synod is convened in Constantinople with the legates of the Pope, in the time of John Beccus, the patriarch of Constantinople; and they were united for a short time, showing obedience and peace, but after this, they turned back again to their own first vomit. Yet not even then did the leaders of the catholic Church grow weary of rousing them to obedience and peace. But they, having once seceded, did not listen. Thus the matter reached even to us. And we saw with our own eyes what many before us—both patriarchs and kings—longed to see, and did not see. We, however, saw the most blessed Eugenius the Fourth, the supreme High Priest of the Roman Church, with what zeal he exerted himself for this holy work, having sent out triremes D
and expenditures, so that he might heal this great wound; and a council had taken place in Ferrara and Florence, notable cities of Italy, great and admirable, having learned and wise men, adorned with theology and virtue. And indeed, at the end, they composed the definition, shining with all wisdom and truth, which was proclaimed everywhere, and all nations received it. But the Greeks, and those of them who are worse, and simple and unlearned men, speak against it. But if anyone who possesses reason speaks against the decree, he does so not from wisdom, but from wickedness, and from false and vain prejudice, and empty glory, A if he wishes to reap fruit from the foolishness of the masses, he says these things. This definition we also, having taken into our hands, went through with all our strength; and believing from the depths of our soul that it is true, we worshipped and kissed it. From which, having taken our starting points, we defend its five articles; the last of which is this concerning the authority of the Pope. Which no one possessing intelligence will be able to deny.
XVI.
"But he does not think rightly," they say, "for he has dogmatized contrary to the common Fathers and teachers." If, therefore, that divine see does not think rightly, Christ lies when He says: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away," for He promised to His Church that He would be with her, and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against her. Therefore, lest we call Christ a liar—which is blasphemy even to think of—we say that the Church of God is infallible. B This matter will be testified to again by Theodore the Studite himself, writing to the Emperor Michael in the name of all the superiors, in this manner: "When we had gathered for this purpose by the command of your God-crowned empire, the least bishops and superiors," and after a few words he says: "We have dissolved all the doubts you had; but if something seems doubtful or unbelievable to your divine magnificence, the explanation of that matter must be piously requested from the High Priest. Let your great and God-strengthened hand, as one desiring the public good, command that the clarification be received from elder Rome, as was delivered from the beginning and from of old by the fathers. This, O Christ-imitating emperor, is the most authoritative of the Churches of God, of which Peter is the first-throned; to whom the Lord says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.'" C And again the same man, in another letter to Naucratius, whose beginning is: "My ear shall not be filled with the voices of hearsay," says: "I testify now before God and men that they have cut themselves off from the body of Christ, from the supreme throne wherein Christ deposited the keys of the faith, against which the gates of Hades have not prevailed from of old, nor shall they prevail until the end—the mouths of the heretics, that is—according to the promise of the truthful One." Do you hear how that is the head of Christ's Church, of which Peter is the first-throned? And that the gates of Hell have never prevailed, nor shall they prevail against it until the consummation of the age, the mouths of the heretics? DA Clearly they are mouthless/silenced; according to the promise of the unlying Savior. If, therefore, the heretics have never prevailed, nor shall they prevail against the Church of Christ, how do you generally dare to say that she has been led into error? She who is preached by the teachers as unerring. This is also shown in the holy third synod, in which, letters having been brought from the apostolic see, Arcadius the bishop rose and said to the synod: "Let your blessedness, most venerable Fathers, command that the letters brought to us from the holy and—with adoration—named Pope Celestine, bishop of the apostolic see, be read; from which your blessedness will be able to know what care he has for all the churches." B The same and similar things were said by Proiectus the bishop. And a little later, Cyril of Alexandria said: "The letter received from the most holy and in all things most pious bishop of the holy apostolic Church of the Romans, Celestine, let it be read with the honor due." Do you hear Arcadius and Proiectus, how the high priest of Rome has the care of all the churches? For what else, if not because he is the head of all? And the fact that Cyril said it should be read with the honor due, the Fathers showed by uncovering their heads, and listening with awe to what was said. And in the holy fourth synod, which also records the divine letter, it says this: "In order that the most blessed bishop of the city of Rome, whose priesthood antiquity has placed over all, may have the place and opportunity to judge concerning the faith and priests." C Since, therefore, he has the opportunity to judge concerning the faith and priests, rightly is he written in the decree as the head and teacher of all the churches of Christ, and by us is honored and adored, and all obedience and observance is and shall be rendered to him by us, as long as we shall remain in this life, mindful of Him who says: "Obey those who rule over you, and submit; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who must give an account" (Heb. XIII, 17). And we shall never cease to make mention of him in the sacred prayers of the liturgies, according to the traditions of our holy ones, so that, not being carried away by the error of the lawless, we may fall from the steadfastness of the orthodoxy; D well knowing that he who is not subject to him will never have salvation; likewise also he who does not make mention of him, is neither a priest, nor does he deserve to have the authority of a priest; just as the thirteenth canon of the First and Second Synod openly testifies. For it says thus, word for word: "The wicked one, having cast the sowings of heretical tares into the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut out root and branch by the sword of the Spirit, came upon another path of thought, with the madness of the schismatics, the body of Christ..."
A resolved, in order that henceforth, if any presbyter or deacon, as if under some accusation, having condemned his own bishop before a synodical judgment and examination and a final condemnation has been issued against him, should dare to withdraw from his communion, and does not mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgies according to what is handed down to the Church, such a one shall be subject to deposition and shall be deprived of all priestly honor. For he who is ordered in the rank of a presbyter, and who snatches for himself the judgment of the metropolitans, and who, before any judgment, himself condemns—as far as it rests with him—his own Father and bishop, this man is not even worthy of the honor or the title of a presbyter. And let those who follow them, if they are any of the ordained B, themselves also lose their own honor; but let monks or laymen be utterly separated from the Church, until such time as they vomit out their connection with the schismatics and turn again to their own bishop. Have you realized here, too, that he forbids the priests from the priesthood, and does not even allow those who do not commemorate their authority to have the title of priests, and for those following them, he orders those who are ordained to remain unordained, and those who are not ordained, whatever rank they might be of, he excommunicates? Understand then, brothers, for the Lord’s sake, understand; and do not wish to resist the truth, which is so manifest, nor to contend against the leaders of our souls; for it is hard, or rather foolish and senseless, to kick against the goads C. For just as pottery is broken by a stone, so your heads are broken by the Church. For the Church is both a Stone and a Rock of stumbling, and Christ himself is likened to her. The blessed Paul writes thus: "For they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ." 63 This is the stone "cut out of a mountain" made without hands 42. And Christ said to Peter: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," and the rest, as has often been said. See then, it is demonstrated that the Rock and the Stone is the Church of Christ. Whoever, therefore, trips against it, there is no light in him. But he who holds fast to her commandments does not trip, since the light of the true one is in him, D of Him who "illuminates every man coming into the world." For the truth and knowledge are light; and those who wish and remain in it are illuminated by it. But those who do not wish to be subject, the darkness of madness covers their eyes, and they trip and are broken and are utterly destroyed; and they will have the sentence which the Lord commanded, that: "My sheep hear my voice; but those that are not mine, do not hear my voice—and the wolf snatches them and scatters the sheep." So shall it be also with the rational sheep that do not hear the voice of the Shepherd; for they shall slide and be scattered into heresies and absurdities and schisms.
XVII. That it is not possible for the Church to be deceived, or to wander, or to be broken, or to perish, but rather that those who fight against her suffer these things, has been demonstrated before by many and excellent arguments; now more effectively...
let us hear from the holy Chrysostom, the golden trumpet of divinely inspired John, in his sermon on Pentecost, the beginning of which is: "The heaven has become earth for us today." For he says therein, after many other things, thus: "Greatly indeed is the Church an object of care for God, not secured by walls, but guarded by grace. For the sake of the Church, A heaven was established, the earth founded, the sea poured out, the air filled, Paradise planted, the law given, prophets sent, and miracles wrought; the sea was divided and drawn back, rocks were split and rejoined, manna was brought down, and a table was prepared on the spot. For the sake of the Church, prophets; for the sake of the Church, apostles; and why should I say more? For the sake of the Church, the only-begotten Son of God became the Son of man, as Paul says, he who spared not his own Son, that he might spare the Church; the blood of His Son He poured out for the Church. This blood irrigates her. Through it, her plants cannot wither, nor her leaves fall. She is not subject to the B necessities of the seasons, nor does she serve time. In summer she flourishes with leaves, and in winter she is not stripped; for it is not the necessity of the seasons, but the grace of the Spirit that cultivates her; therefore she is not uprooted. But it is no wonder that she is not uprooted; how many from the beginning have fought against the Church, when she was a new plant, and weapons were moved against her? Now, indeed, through the grace of God and the power of the Spirit, the emperor is pious, and the commanders, and the whole world is filled with the faith. But then, in the beginning, in the early days, kings were in impiety, commanders were impious, decrees of rulers were in force, altars were kindled, smoke was everywhere, and the air was polluted with odors, demons were reveling, the devil was dancing, the father was renouncing C the son, the son was dishonoring the father, nature and piety were being torn asunder. Where, then, are those who dared to draw up in battle array against the Church? When she was a new plant, they did no harm; when she touched the heavens, do you expect to prevail over her? When there were eleven apostles, not even one of them was overcome, but the eleven caught so many myriads. Now, that the earth and the sea, the inhabited and the uninhabited, every country and city and all the ends of the earth have been filled with piety, do you hope then to gain control over her? You cannot. Christ declared that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear D and for the earth to perish than for the Church to suffer harm. Who says these things? Christ Himself: 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' And rightly; for the Word of God is more powerful than heaven itself, for heaven is the work of the Word. God said, 'Let there be heaven,' and the Word became work. Nature ran, and there was nothing to hinder it; for He is the Master of nature and of changing it. 'I built her, I who' formed the heaven
yet I did not shed blood for heaven; I was not crucified for heaven; I did not take upon me a heavenly body for heaven. And why do I say heaven? I did not take upon me the body of angels, so that you might learn that the Church is more precious than heaven and angels and the whole of creation. Therefore, 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' It is easier for heaven to be destroyed, and for the earth to be extinguished, than for my words to fall away. Let us bring into the midst what his words were; let us see if they have fallen away. I do not doubt, but I am stopping the mouth of the heretic. What, then, are the words? 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' What word? 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' A 'Upon this rock,' he said, not 'upon Peter'; for he did not found his Church upon a man, but upon the faith of Peter. And what was the faith? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He called the Church a rock, as it receives the waves but is not shaken; for the Church indeed receives temptations, but it is not overcome. What then is 'upon the rock'? That is, upon the confession of Peter, not upon wealth. Are you throwing stones? Or wood? Or iron? No, he says; for it is not a tangible structure. These things, whatever they are, perish in time, but the confession even demons cannot overcome. The martyrs bear witness, who, being pierced in the side, did not lose their faith. O strange things! The wall is dug through, and the treasure is not plundered; the flesh is consumed, and the faith is not consumed. Such is the power of the martyrs. B 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Pay close attention: he calls those the gates of hell who give birth to death. What then? Does one enter into Hades when he is in danger? Yes; for just as the gates of a city are an entry into the city, so the gates of hell are an entry to death. 'For why,' he says, 'do you not prevent temptations?' Not so; that I may show my power. If no one were to attack it, they could say: 'If it had been attacked, it would certainly have been conquered.' For this reason I allow it to be attacked, so that the title of victory may not be inscribed to the loneliness of the attackers. And he did not say, 'The gates of hell shall not attack it.' What then? It shall be attacked, but it shall not be conquered. C The Church is tossed by storms, but it is not sunk; it does not go under the water. It receives arrows, but it does not receive wounds. It receives engines of war, but the tower is not shaken. And why do I speak of the Church? The fisherman uttered one word, and it stood as an unshaken tower. How many tyrants have striven to destroy this saying, and have not been able! For it is founded upon the rock. Consider how many tyrants, how many kings adorned with diadems, sharpened swords, teeth of wild beasts, impending deaths, frying-pans, furnaces. The devil exhausted his quiver, and he did not harm the Church. For what reason? Because the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. D The thing itself bears witness; events and experience testify. How many have waged war, but have not conquered. But those who waged war are finished in silence and consigned to oblivion,
while the Church flourishes. Where is Claudius? Where is Augustus? Where is Tiberius? These are empty names; no one remembers them. Because they waged war against the Church, they lost even their memory; but the Church shines brighter than the sun. Did you hear the golden soul and mouth? Have you listened to this visionary and God-inspired Father? That those who wage war against the Church are obliterated and consigned to oblivion, but the Church flourishes. And those who fight cast forth arrows, but they themselves are struck. Why these things? Because Christ established her; Christ redeemed her with His own blood, through whom the heaven has been established and the earth founded. "For by the word of the Lord," he says, "were the heavens established, and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth." Therefore, by the word by which He established the heaven, He established His Church, saying: "Upon this rock I will build my Church." What rock? The solid confession of faith of Peter the fisherman; which, having been established, remains unshaken and immovable and impregnable, just as the heaven stands and remains by the power of the Word. Therefore, in heaven and on earth the Church is honorable and holy; or rather, according to this golden-mouthed and golden-speeched Father, she is more honorable than the heavens and the angels and every creature. Therefore Christ also adds, saying: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away," that is, it is easier for heaven and earth and all things to be shaken than for My Church to be. Heretics will rush upon her, but they shall not prevail. They shall strike their heads against the rock and be scattered, because upon the rock the Church is founded. Therefore, the Church, like a rock, will remain unshaken; her confidence is secure. Christ said this. For those who from the beginning of the preaching waged war against her and besieged her have perished, and the memory of them has perished with a sound, but the Church flourishes and shines above the sun. Where are the kings who tyrannized over her? Where are the rulers? Where are the heretics? Where are Arius and Eunomius? Where are Nestorius and Dioscorus? Where are Severus and Eutyches? Where are all those before them and after them? Have they not perished? Have they not been obliterated? But the Church was and is and will be, both then and now and always, even unto the very consummation and end of the age.
XVIII.
Since, therefore, we have set forth so many and such excellent things from the honey-flowing sermons of that holy Doctor, it is fitting that we should also narrate with all reverence what happened to him while he was praying. For thus we find it written in his Life, which Metaphrastes narrates, the beginning of which is: "The life of all who have lived according to God," and after many things he says: "While he was standing in prayer at night, a certain divine thing appeared, higher than what the eyes could behold; and as though into..."
to propose such a matter is difficult even for the tongue to utter, and to hear it seems something new and full of horror. Yet one must attend with the mind; for the story is mingled with fear and delight in equal measure. Two men, white in their vestments and fearful to behold, appeared to descend from heaven to this illustrious man as he was praying, and to approach him face to face; the one appeared to hold a volume, the other, keys. John, amazed at the strangeness of their appearance, was seized with fear, but they took him by the hands, raised him up, dispelled his fear, and bade him take heart. To his question as to who these A men were, who had been deemed worthy of such glory and had come to him, they replied, "Do not fear; we have come to you sent by Christ." Then the one, stretching out his hand, offered the volume, saying, "Take the book; for I am John, to whom the wisdom of God entrusted his breast, and who was permitted to lean upon him. This book will make you capable of understanding the Scriptures through us, and will lead you, as if by the hand, to the knowledge of Him." The other, stretching out his hand, said, "Take these keys; know me to be Peter, to whom God entrusted them, and believe that through me you are now made a participant in the same grace as I. Wherefore, whatever you bind or loose on earth, know that it shall be bound or loosed in heaven." Do you not perceive from these things that the one, along with the gift of easily interpreting the Scriptures, added the understanding of them B from the Giver of wisdom? And that the other, along with the power of loosing and binding, commanded him also to know and piously believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God through him? Believe from now on that you cannot be saved without submission to Peter. And rightly so; for he is the door of salvation. Whoever does not enter through him into the knowledge of the faith—that is, to recognize him as the vicar of Christ—can never attain salvation. For as Christ says, "I am the Door; he who does not enter through the door, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber"; so too His successor Peter says: "Whoever does not believe through me in the Son of the invisible God and Father, born in the flesh, and who suffered and rose again, and the rest C of the mysteries of the Dispensation, is a heretic and will never be able to be saved." Holding these things, then, and others of which the entire writing of the teachers is full, let us submit to the Church and remain in her, and let us pray to remain in her submission for all eternity, that we may find the Lord propitious on the dreadful day of requital. May it be, may it be.
18.
Epilogue
Now, we have fulfilled our promise as far as was possible, having defended the five articles contained in the decree of the Synod of Florence. We have written these things having taken the material from the common Fathers and teachers, whom the Church honors as saints, D and to whom [index: entries preserved]
A those who follow their footsteps and receive those who have spoken and passed these things on as true, defer, and whom Mark of Ephesus, being unable to contradict in the Synod B and having shunned the contest, avoided. We have concluded this work with much labor and study; therefore, I pray all who read these things not to journey through them with malice or stubbornness, nor looking to their own personal whim, but, having applied a sincere disposition, to set their own conscience as judge over what has been said. For I believe that he who approaches reading in this condition will be healed of his sickness and will render thanks to him who has set these things forth and labored, having collected the passages from many places and fit them together. We have undergone this labor, as the Lord knows, who is the knower of hidden things, not wishing to procure C temporary glory, nor for the sake of acquiring wealth, but desiring with a pure and pious mind to support the truth to the best of my ability; for this is clearly demonstrated to those who do not openly wish to contradict the saints. And we have undertaken this work besides for this reason, that those who are ignorant of these studies, and yet doubt concerning this dogma, may no longer be able to offer the excuse that they are clearly ignorant of the sentiments and sayings of the saints. Therefore, it seemed fair to me to weave this volume together, and to set before those desiring to finally recover their senses a kind of sumptuously prepared banquet. The Church, however, the immaculate bride, admitting no filth or wrinkles, will appear again brighter than the sun, as it was, and is, and will be, even if those who think otherwise tear themselves apart; for it has always existed outside of error, nor has it preached diverse opinions, but those same ones which it received from the divine mouth of the Savior. I ask you again, O dearest ones, to read these things with charity and the spirit of faith, and if they appear true and just, to assent to them; if the contrary, to refute them and bring forward reasons, giving them in writing, so that we also, having examined them, may say what seems best with charity, or, having been persuaded otherwise, may strike them out. I am confident and trust in God, the Father of peace, that you also, being persuaded by the words, will yield to the truth, rendering gratitude and obedience to God, and receiving in return the grace and understanding of the Paraclete; for D there is no change or diminution of the pious and ancestral mindset when this is granted, nor is the orthodox faith diminished. Far be it! I would rather die a thousand times than persuade you to decline even slightly from the true faith. Recover your senses, I pray, brothers, recover your senses. How long will you persist in this false persuasion? How long will you limp, if not on both, then at least on one foot? Be roused, O sluggish ones, you who crawl upon the ground, arise, lest while you sleep the evil sleep, the enemy easily sow the tares of discord. Let the wall that divides the hedge be torn down; let us become one body under the same head; and the head is Christ himself, whom, as teacher and dispenser of life, following with a pious and pure conscience, we shall know the