Table of Contents

ON GREGORIUS, SURNAMED MAMMA, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, AND HIS WRITINGS

We present to the learned an hitherto unpublished work of Gregorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which Leo Allatius had long ago wished to include in the third volume of his *Graecia orthodoxa* (1), yet which he never brought into the public domain (2). It seemed fitting to discourse briefly on the author himself and on his books, which have sometimes been attributed to Georgius Scholarios, from whom he must be strictly distinguished (3).

Gregorius, surnamed Mamma and also called Melissenus and Strategopulus (4) by some, having long ago professed the monastic life (5) and being adorned with the dignity of protosyncellus and penitentiary, attended the Council of Florence, where, together with Antonius, Metropolitan of Heraclea, he acted in place of the Alexandrian Patriarch (6); he subscribed to its decrees with a sincere mind, to which he clung with unmoved constancy throughout his entire life thereafter. Upon the death of Metrophanes on the Kalends of August in the year 1443 (7), and with the Constantinopolitan see long deprived of a shepherd amidst the most sorrowful military events, Gregorius was at length, though unwilling and reluctant (8), proclaimed patriarch, in the year 1445 (9) or, as others (10) maintain, in the year 1446, on the 7th of July. ^A At that time, there was the greatest confusion in regard to sacred matters in that city; difficulties and anxieties overwhelmed the learned and pious man on every side, as he was harassed by the calumnies and injuries of his adversaries; no further patronage could be expected from the Emperor for the cause of union, and the insane fury of the schismatics grew day by day. Hence, Gregorius III held the patriarchal see for but five years, and in the year 1451, whether unjustly driven out (11) or voluntarily yielding by abdicating his rule (12), he fled to Rome, where, as the negotiations ^B undertaken for his restoration achieved nothing (13), the illustrious exile died in the year 1459, not without a reputation for sanctity (14), and was buried at S. Giorgio in Velabro (15). Georgius Trapezuntius celebrates him with the highest praises (16) as a confessor and martyr, an athlete of the truth, and a pillar of the Church; multiple Greek writers relate that when he was departing from Constantinople, he foretold the sad destruction of that city (17); his writings, in which he vigorously defended the union against the machinations of so many adversaries, reveal the man's modesty ^C and humility. Furthermore, three works of this excellent Prelate are known to us above all: I. The Apologetic Book or Epistle to the Emperor Trapezuntius concerning the addition made to the Creed, of which ^D

^A M. Allatius (1) published the beginning: *Ἡμεῖς, ὦ θειότατε βασιλεῦ*. II. An Apology written against the Confession of Marcus of Ephesus, beginning with these words: *Ἐγὼ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι*. This treatise, which begins: *Ὁ τῆς Ἐφεσίων πόλεως ἀρχιερεὺς κύριος Μάρκος*, was once read by Arcudius, but has not yet been published in print (2). III. An Apology against the encyclical letter of Marcus of Ephesus, which begins: *Ἐγὼ διὰ τὴν ἐπιταγὴν καὶ τὴν χρείαν τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας*, written and already made public in the editions of the councils (3), the beginning of which is: *Τὸ μὲν προοίμιον τοῦ αἰδεσίμου Ἐφέσου*.

In the order we have described, these three books appear in many manuscripts that we have seen. Thus, in the Munich Greek Manuscript 27, from folio 97b to 114a, the book to the Emperor Trapezuntius is read; from 114b to 144a, the Apology against Marcus’ Confession; from 144a to 177b, the Apology against Marcus’ epistle. Likewise, Vatican codex Greek 1428, f. 81a–98b, exhibits the work we listed first; from f. 210b–241b, the second work; f. 242a–278b, the third work. Also in the Marciana library, which is in Venice, codex 589 (sign. lxxxviii, 3), f. 76a following, the book to the Emperor Trapezuntius precedes, and the Apology against Marcus’ confession is found from f. 205a. However, this order is certainly not chronological; rather, the book to the Emperor Trapezuntius seems to have been written after those two Apologies against Marcus, while the enemy of union had already departed from the living, as it openly challenges them (4). ^B These facts, if I am not mistaken, also sufficiently indicate the time when Gregory wrote these three works. Marcus of Ephesus is said to have died in the year 1447 (5); therefore, the Apologies against him had been published before this year; however, the book to Emperor Trapezuntius, which nowhere hints that the author had already abdicated the patriarchal see, must have been written before the year 1451, yet not before a. 1445, when the author openly commemorates his patriarchate (6), nor indeed before the year 1447, since it indicates not obscurely that Marcus was already dead. The book to the Emperor Trapezuntius can therefore be considered to have been written between the years 1448–1450.

That Gregory wrote other things besides these three works seems perfectly certain, and such is confirmed by what he himself affirms in the Apology *εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἐφέσου ὁμολογίαν*, which we are now taking care to publish, ch. 20. We, however, do not concern ourselves for the present with the rest of his works, which have not appeared to us in any of the manuscripts we have perused thus far, and we now hasten to those which concern the aforementioned Apology, which we are now publishing for the first time.

The Confession of Marcus of Ephesus mentioned above, which Gregory wished to have placed, conveniently dissected into parts, before his own refutation, appears quite often in fifteenth-century manuscripts without Gregory’s Responses, specifically in those manuscripts that were written by schismatics who abhorred the union. Thus, in Vatican-Palatine codex no. 403, f. 99–101, where Marcus’ discourse against the Latins concerning purgatory (f. 1 seq.) and the above-mentioned epistle, *Ἐγὼ διὰ τὴν διαταγήν, etc.*, are found. Thus also in the Munich Greek codex 256 (7), which provides many writings of the Ephesian, on f. 118 the epistle *Ἐγὼ διὰ τὴν διαταγήν* is read; but on f. 123, the Confession *Ἐγὼ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι*. We have compared this Munich codex of excellent quality regarding the text of Marcus with the aforementioned Munich 27, and we have found little discrepancy between them.

The Apology of Gregory regarding this Confession of Marcus exists also in many manuscripts, of which we have perused for only a short space of time the one held in the Laurentian library in Florence, codex XIV, no. 12, 13, plut. x (8). We have described the text itself from the Munich codex 27, which we have also frequently used for others; this one, as far as the circumstances of time and affairs permitted, we compared with the Marcian 589; it was also permitted to inspect the Vatican 1428, but only cursorily. The reading, even if brief, of these two manuscripts taught us that they are scarcely different from the former in certain readings. Therefore, having inspected those places which Allatius had already used, and with that work ^C along with others of the same...

[Beginning our translation from the start of the work:]

OF THE BLESSED GREGORY, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, THE CONFESSOR, APOLOGY AGAINST THE CONFESSION OF EPHESUS

PREFACE

^A The bishop of the city of the Ephesians, Lord Marcus, who is called by the patronymic Eugenicus, having heard the voice of the blessed Paul which thus commands: “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” set forth a confession in writing, so as to make it manifest not only to those who are near at hand, but also to those who are distant and far away. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those who encounter it to investigate whether it harmonizes with the theologies of the blessed Fathers, so that, if it is so, it may be embraced by all as being in harmony with their traditions; and so that they might render thanks to the one who composed it, and cleave to him rather than to those who preach otherwise. But if it is otherwise, and not in accordance with the exact tradition of the theologians, it will be necessary to point this out for the manifestation of the truth. And we, therefore, having encountered it now that it has recently come into our hands, studied to investigate

^A everything we might find well and correctly set forth and explained, as is fitting, and we will willingly embrace it; but whatever is otherwise, we shall refute it with the weapons of the doctors and theologians. Nor is it a matter for wonder if the writings of a man who has attained a famous name in the discipline of grammar and in the writing of books, and has presided for a long time over a school for children, are now being subjected to examination by an unlearned and simple man; for it is necessary that he who is joined and united to him should not simply adhere to him, unless he has explored the opinion he holds, especially since he himself rises up to impugn an ecumenical council. If, therefore, we are simple men, we know, however, Him who said that often what was not present to the perfect, a child has found, and what fled the wise, has appeared to the simple/idiots, and what stayed hidden from the master, has shone forth to the disciples. ^B It is fitting, therefore, that we should seek and diligently observe what he himself omitted, or what escaped him and fled him, and bring it to light; for we also think that we have the Spirit of God. But that we may not prolong the speech further, let us come to the Confession itself, examining it part by part, first setting forth a portion from it and subsequently the defense, confirming it from the doctors and theologians of the Church. The words of the honorable Ephesian are as follows:

EPHESIAN.

I, by the grace of God nourished on pious dogmas, and following the holy and catholic Church in all things, believe and confess God and the Father as alone unbegotten and without cause, the fountain, indeed, and cause of the Son and of the Spirit; for both the Son is begotten from Him, and the Spirit proceeds from Him, the Son contributing nothing to the ^C procession, just as neither does the Spirit to the generation; or that the progressions occur together and with one another, as the theological Fathers teach; for this reason, therefore, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed through the Son, that is, with the Son, and as the Son, though not by way of generation as He; but the Son is not said to be generated through the Spirit, because the name of the Son is relative, lest the Son should appear to be the Spirit's.

APOLOGIA.

^D And he indeed attempts to show that he has received this theology from the saints in this manner; we, through...

the teachers of the Church, set forth the things contrary to his opinion as testimony to our true theology; for from thence flows the truth of the doctrines. ^A For the great Athanasius says: "Whatever the Spirit has, He has received from the Word." And Gregory of Nyssa, in the third book against the Macedonians, says: "For in those things where the operation according to the good has no diminution or mutation, how is it reasonable to think that the order according to number is a sign of some diminution or of mutation according to nature? Just as if someone, seeing a flame divided in three lamps, were to suppose the first flame to be the cause of the third light, kindling the extreme through the communication of the middle; afterwards, one might assert that the heat abounds in the first flame, while that which follows is changed and gradually diminished, and that the third is no longer to be considered fire, ^B even though it burns and shines in like manner and performs all the functions of fire." From this holy example, therefore, it is manifest that the third has its essence from the first through the middle; for he said that the extreme is kindled through communication by means of the middle. The holy Damascene, in the thirteenth chapter of his Theologics, says: "He, therefore" (the Father, that is), "is the abyss of the Word, the begetter of the Word, and through the Word the producer of the revealing and explaining Spirit." From this, it is manifest that "through the Son" does not signify the same thing as "with the Son," even if he (Ephesius) stubbornly asserts this. ^C But neither are the processions simultaneous. Gregory the Theologian confirms this, saying: "The difference in manifestation or of the relation to one another has also made the difference in their appellation." For it is manifest that if the processions were simultaneous, ^D

he would not have said that the manner of manifestation is different. One may learn this even more clearly from the other theologians and doctors of the Church. For Athanasius says in the third book *Against the Arians*: "The Spirit does not join the Word to the Father, but this Spirit receives from the Word." And in his letter *To Serapion*: "The Spirit has such a nature and ^A order toward the Son, as the Son has toward the Father." This explanation is in no way in agreement with the opinion of the theologians; nor does the expression "through the Son" harmonize with that expression "with the Son," for none of the saints has expounded this theology. For if the preposition "per" (through) is the same as the preposition "cum" (with), as he says—that "the Spirit proceeds through the Son," which is to say "with the Son"—it would be permissible to say also in reverse that the Son is generated from the Father through the Spirit. But that the word "through" does not signify that the Son and the Spirit proceed simultaneously, let the theologians of the Church come forward and resolve this dispute, and judge this perverted explanation. ^B For Nyssen says in his first book *Against Eunomius*: "For just as the Son is joined to the Father, and, though He draws His origin from Him, He is not posterior according to existence, so also the Holy Spirit adheres to the Only-Begotten, being considered prior only by a mental concept according to the principle of cause of the Spirit’s subsistence." And Basil, the god-revealing, teaches in the seventeenth [book] *To Amphilochius*: "As, therefore, the Son relates to the Father, so also does the Spirit to the Son according to the order handed down by the Word." If, then, the Spirit is set in order with the Son, and the Son with the Father, the Spirit is clearly set in order with the Father ^C as well. That there is also an order in the holy Trinity, which everyone who proclaims [the faith] piously must preserve, the same Basil demonstrates in his letter *To the Canonical Women*, concluding and saying: "So far does this innovation regarding the order contain the annihilation of the substance itself and the denial of the entire faith; it is equally impious, therefore, both to demote the Spirit to the level of creatures and to rank Him above the Son or the Father, whether according to time or according to order." And again, the same [Basil] in his letter *To his brother Gregory* says: "Just as, in a chain, he who grasps the top of one link draws with it clearly the other link inserted into it, so he who has drawn the Spirit has drawn with Him ^D through Him both the Son and the Father; and whoever truly grasps the Son will have also, from both sides, the Father of Him on one side, and on the other the Holy Spirit included together." In this way the saints [maintained] the distinction in the divine persons.

^A And Gregory of Nyssa says: "Confessing the nature to be immutable and in all respects similar, we do not deny the distinction between cause and caused, in which alone we perceive the one being separated from the other, in that we believe this to be the cause, and that to be from the cause; and of that which is from the cause, we again conceive another distinction: for the one is immediately from the First, and the other is through that which is immediately from the First; so that the Monogenes [Only-Begotten] remains without doubt in the Son, and it is not doubted that the Spirit is from the Father, the mediation of the Son preserving the Monogenes for Himself, and not impeding the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father." Therefore, we also, asserting the mediation ^B of the Son in the Holy Trinity according to the writings of the Fathers, do not conceive it according to any local distance, nor according to those things which are joined together in matter and bodily coarseness, but according to the dignity of that immaterial substance, which is divided into three immaterial and subsistent persons; for it is joined in distinction, and is distinguished in joining. And this honorable prelate of Ephesus does not even fear to bring forward, shortly after, the holy Nyssen, who says, "The Son of the Spirit neither is, nor is He called; nor does this relative sequence work in reverse." For this reason the Holy Spirit is called the image of the Son, as the divine Apostle says, from which the great Basil also took and said ^C the same; and John of Damascus in the canon to St. Basil says: "The Son is the image of the Father, and the Spirit is the image of the Son." In the same way, the Holy Spirit is also called by the holy Fathers the substantial and natural energy of the Son, and from the substance of the Son; but the Son is neither called the image of the Spirit, nor power, nor natural and substantial energy, nor is the Son from the substance of the Spirit. Therefore, he would not be able to prove, from the holy Fathers, either the "at once," which the Ephesian asserts, or the "through the Son" as meaning "with the Son" or "together with the Son," even though many holy fathers and the holy ^D and ecumenical synod itself proclaim that He "proceeds from the Father through the Son." But I think the aforementioned is sufficient for proof, that the "proceeding through the Son" does not signify proceeding "with the Son" or "together with the Son," both through the different mode of existence, and as these things do not signify distinction, but unity and not order.

^A

EPHES. (II). Furthermore, the Spirit is called "of the Son," because He is proper to Him by nature and is manifested and given to men through Him; but the Son is neither nor is He called "of the Spirit," according to Gregory of Nyssa.

RESPONSE (II). It is appropriate, therefore, in this respect to say to the venerable Ephesius that this is an outstanding invention and explanation; for by this statement you have done away with that "with the Son" and "together with the Son." For if "through the Son" were to signify the Spirit proceeding "with the Son" or "together with the Son," then by all means the Son would also be said to proceed "through the Spirit." But this most theological man said, "He neither is nor is called so." But there is also attached to it what he himself omitted: "Nor does this relative sequence convert." Therefore, by this means, this also accords with the things said before, and it demonstrates most clearly that the expression "through the Son" does not signify "with the Son." And what he brings forward from divine Basil, that the Spirit is called "of the Son" because He is proper to Him by nature, he says rightly. For when Eunomius heard him—along with the other things he was saying to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity—this enemy of God and evil-minded man argued that He was of a third nature, as Basil reveals in his first book, refuting his evil opinion and saying: ^B "He is called the Spirit of Christ as being united to Him by nature." And he brings forward many testimonies, both through the angels and the stars and the heavenly mansions, to show that, although they differ in order, they do not differ in substance. Therefore, he also said that the Spirit of Christ is joined to Him by nature; that is to say: even if He is and is called the Spirit of the Son—with Christ Himself calling Him the Spirit of Truth and with the Apostle preaching, "If anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His"—yet He is one in nature and indivisible, and not as the wretched Eunomius opined, who attributed the cause to the Son alone, and called Him a product of the nature of the Son, and introduced degrees of divinities. But He is by nature in the Son, as the nature is one and indivisible in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and so is the divinity. For the essence and nature and divinity in the three persons is one in number, and as it were one thing is in the divine persons, ^C having absolutely no distinction, even if ^D

^A the persons are distinguished; for the nature and essence and divinity in the divine persons is not merely a matter of conception, but as the thing itself is. And this the divine Maximus clarifies in his discourse against the Anomoeans; for when that person said to holy Maximus, "Essence is one thing and person is another," the divine Maximus said: "I said 'one thing and another,' not 'one thing'" [(2)]. If, therefore, anyone thinks that the Holy Spirit is called 'proper' to the Son according to nature, and that He is of the Son alone, in the first place he deems the nature of the divine persons to be distinct, which is far removed from the mind of any Christian; for since it is one in number, how could it have distinction? For one thing, in relation to itself, does not create a real distinction; how, therefore, that man conceives this, or for what purpose he has posited it, we do not perceive.

But the fact that He appears and is given through the Son ^B signifies rather a natural procession; wherefore the saints are also in agreement on this point. It is clear even from the fact that theologians use this expression also for the generation of the Son. For the divine Cyril, on the Gospel text, *In the beginning was the Word* [(3)], says: "Even if He is understood and spoken of as in the Father and from the Father, He shall not enter in for us as alien and foreign, or as a second one after Him, but as existing in Him and co-existing always, and having appeared from Him according to the ineffable mode of the divine generation." And again on the same text: "Necessarily the blessed Evangelist attacks more sharply those who teach otherwise, and frees the Son from all servitude, and shows Him as having appeared from the free and sovereign substance of all things, and asserts that He exists in it naturally, saying: *In the beginning was the Word*." And on the words, *And the Word was God*, he discourses thus: "Denying the Lord who bought them, because they think that He is not by nature God who appeared as the Word from God and the Father, but as though some spurious being ^C and one of false name is being thrust upon us." And again the same author in the fifth book Against Hermias [(6)]: "Then they think they honor the Father, while by their calculations they cast down the Son, who was born of Him by nature, to a lesser dignity." And the divine Basil in the *Antirrheticus*: "The Holy Spirit is most perfect; therefore, all things are perfect in Him." And after a few words: "He has nothing acquired in Himself, but possesses all things eternally, as the Spirit of God and appearing from Him, having the principle of Himself as His own fountain, and flowing thence." And Cyril in the discourse which begins, *Of the glory that is among men*, says: "The Spirit is proper to ^D the Son, these whom alone He is the Word"

^A appearing from the Father, but if He were also conceived according to us as having become man. But as for the notion that He is given only through the Son, the Son would be a minister rather than the Giver. Yet the blessed Cyril does not allow this in his exposition of that evangelical utterance, when he says: "When the Paraclete shall come, the Spirit of truth" (1). "For just as the Spirit is proper to the Son, naturally existing in Him and proceeding through Him, so is He certainly proper to the Father; and to those for whom the Spirit is common, to them the things of the substance must also surely be not separate nor diverse. For let no one of those accustomed to impiety ^B or misinterpreting the reasons through ignorance lead us to think what is not lawful, as if the Son, fulfilling a certain ministerial function, were serving the Spirit of the Father to the creation. For even this, some foolishly have not been afraid to say. But rather it is logical to believe that, since He is His own, as indeed He is [the Spirit] of God and Father, He sends Him to His holy disciples for sanctification." If, therefore, He is proper to the Son naturally, and existing in Him, and proceeding through Him, and is in the same way proper as He is of God and Father, the fact that the Holy Spirit has appeared also indicates that He is from the Son; and since He is said to be from Him and His own, through whom He is own, and through whom He has appeared, for this reason also the Son is neither ^C nor is said [to be of] the Spirit, nor does this relative sequence reverse itself, according to Gregory of Nyssa, because the Son, neither being nor being called [of] the Spirit, does not have or admit this relative sequence in reverse, nor does He appear or is He given through the Spirit. But if some also add that prophetic text, "The Lord hath sent me and His Spirit" (5), yet the great Basil solves this contradiction very well in the third book *Against Eunomius* (6), whose beginning is: "Vix tandem exsatiatus" ("Hardly at length sated"). For Isaiah, speaking from the person of the Lord according to His humanity, clearly utters those words: "The Lord," he says, "hath sent me and His Spirit" (b). Therefore, there is no benefit from the aforementioned to the venerable prelate of Ephesus for proving that the Holy Spirit is not through the Son; ^D rather, the aforementioned dicta and the ill-explained word *per* (through)—for the interpretation of it as *cum* (with) does not at all fit the procession of the most holy Spirit—confirm the opposite of what he himself intended, as has been shown and will be shown still more clearly and manifestlier as the inquiry proceeds. As indeed what has been said suffices, how "through" is understood by the holy fathers rather as "from"—not at all as "with" and "together with."

^A

OF EPHESUS.

APOLOGY.

He is consubstantial, and it has shone forth from Him essentially, having naturally in Himself all that belongs to the Begetter." And in the *Apology to Theodoret* he says: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father according to the voice of the Savior, but He is not alien to the Son; for He possesses all things with the Father," and what follows. There is, therefore, no room at all for the claim that he makes, that the Son contributes nothing to the ^A procession of the Holy Spirit. That the Spirit receives from the Son is something that a diligent investigator will find often in the writings of the holy Athanasius, as well as in the books of other saints, but one will nowhere find that the Son receives from the Spirit. From what has been said, therefore, he has not proven that the saints subtract the reason of cause from the Son, as he had contended; wherefore, this apology does not seem suitable here either.

OF EPHESUS. (IV)

RESPONSE. (IV)

^A opine, do these words signify that they are reciprocally inserted into one another and fill one another like empty vessels, so that the Father empties the void of the Son, and the Son the hollow of the Father, and that neither of them is full and perfect. Therefore, merely to say this is more than impiety. For the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the fullness of the Godhead." And after a very few words: "For He is life as from the Father, who is the fountain." And the Theologian [Nazianzen], defending himself against the aforementioned claims and citing their words, says: "Or [is it] by consuming and absorbing the Godhead itself—which pleased those who indeed lead the Son forth from the Father, but resolve Him back into Him again." ^B Therefore, against those who say such things, and [that] the Father is barren, the illustrious Dionysius and the divine Athanasius offer a defense, of whom the one says: "The things that pertain to the divine generation do not turn back upon themselves." The other indeed says: "We separate ourselves from those who Judaize and from those who pervert Christianity into Judaism, who, denying the God from God, speak of one God after the manner of the Jews, not calling Him the sole God because He alone is unbegotten and the sole fountain of the Godhead, but for the reason that they say the Son has not been begotten, and that He [the Father] lacks the fruit of the living Word and of true wisdom. For they think the Word of God is such as that which proceeds from the heart of man, and wisdom is ^C such as that which exists in the soul; for this reason they say He is one person together with the Word, just as they say a human being together with his own word is one human being, thinking nothing more than the Jews." And the divine Damascene in the eighth of his *Theological* [chapters] says: "The Son has been begotten from the Father, not the Father from the Son, and the Father is the cause of the Son by nature." These things, therefore, do not assist him in showing that the Son is not the fountain of the Holy Spirit, unless perhaps the great Athanasius, the firm foundation of the Church, was forgetful of himself when he proclaimed the Son to be the fountain of the Holy Spirit, as the discourse following will show. But besides ^D what has been said, that the Father alone is the fountain of the super-essential Godhead does not exclude the Son from being the fountain of the Holy Spirit. For everything the Son has, He has from the Father, as He Himself says: "All things that the Father has are mine," and, "I live because of the Father" (Joann. xvi, 15; vi, 58). And why is there need to repeat these things, when what has been said is sufficient? Just as if someone, calling Adam alone the father of humanity, were to call [him] the father of all men—since that statement would not lead [one to conclude] that he is the father of all humanity—this would by no means prevent these [others] from being called fathers of some men, provided he knows they are not lacking in sons. The Theologian says: "All things whatsoever the Father has are the Son's, except for the cause."

^A And he adds: "And all things whatsoever are the Son's, and the Spirit's, except their sonship," naming here the cause in relation to generation, as he himself clarifies in another of his discourses. For he says in the [discourse] on doctrine and the establishment of bishops: "And the Son, if you take the Father as cause, is not without beginning. For the Father is the beginning of the Son as cause."

The words of the divine Maximus are as follows: ^B "The citizens of the royal city did not take issue with the synodical [letter] of the most holy Pope who now is, in so many chapters as you wrote, but in two only: of which one is concerning the faith of the Trinity and the fact that, as they say, he said the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son; and the other is concerning the divine incarnation." And after a very few lines: "And regarding the first indeed, they brought forward the concordant testimonies of the Latin Fathers, and furthermore also of Cyril of Alexandria from the holy lucubration which he labored upon concerning the Evangelist John. ^C From which they showed that they were not making the Son the cause and author of the Spirit (for they know the Father to be the one cause of both the Son and the Spirit, of the one by way of generation, of the other by way of procession), but rather [they did this] to signify that [the Spirit] proceeds through Him, and by this means to demonstrate the connection of essence and the equality without any variation."

Since he mentions Cyril in the *Exposition on John*, although we have previously brought forward certain things from this lucubration, nevertheless it is necessary in this apology to make mention of another passage as well. For he says regarding the [verse], "And I will ask the Father": ^D "For since the Son is a partaker of the natural goods of God and the Father, He has the Spirit in this same manner, in which also the Father would be understood to have [Him], not as superadded nor from without (for it is foolish, or rather also insane, to think so); but just as each of us contains his own spirit within himself, and pours it forth from the inmost viscera to the outside; for this reason [He] also breathed it physically, showing by this sign that, just as human spirit proceeds from the mouth of a man...

^A physically, so also does the Spirit, which is from the divine essence, proceed in a manner fitting to God. Since, therefore, it is the very Spirit of both God the Father and of the Son, how do they not altogether possess one power, distinctly and at once united ^B? For the Father is the Father, and not the Son; and the Son is the Son, and not the Father; yet the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. Indeed, the divine Cyril says: "In the same way that the Father has the Spirit, so too does the Son; and as He is the Spirit of the Father, so He is of the Son," and so on. But what is this word that exists? Those who are of [the West] will understand it, and the whole of the passage. Yet the fact that the Westerners call the Holy Spirit to be from the Son—and that blessed Maximus asserts that He proceeds through Him naturally, without the Son, however, being the cause—seems to be something wonderful and paradoxical. ^B But so that what the divine Basil has to say about this in the same tractate may become clearer, let us set forth the very words of Eunomius, which the great Basil proposes in his second book against him. For when that man would say: "If, however, on account of the simplicity and uncompounded nature of the divine essence, the substance is posited as concurrent with the power, and on account of the goodness inherent in God, the whole power of the Father was poured into the generation of the Son, and again, the whole of the Only-Begotten’s [power] into the subsistence of the Holy Spirit," and so on, the divine Basil refuted these as being filled with impiety. And having come to the end of the argument, he says: ^C "But to whom among all is it not evident, that no operation of the Son is divided and severed from the Father, nor is there anything in existing things that resides in the Son and is alien to the Father? For 'all things,' He says, 'are mine, and yours are mine.' How then does he attribute the cause to the Only-Begotten alone, and consider this creation to be a predicate of His nature? If, therefore, he says these things, setting up two principles in opposition to each other, he shall be routed with Manichaeus and Marcion. But if he contends that existing things depend on and proceed from one principle, that which is said to have been made by the Son has its reference back to the primary cause; so that even if we believe that all things were brought into being through God the Word, we do not rob the God of all of being the cause of all." ^D How is it not...

evident that he brings about danger by separating ^A the Spirit from God—on the one hand, as the Apostle consecutively hands it down to us, sometimes calling it the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes God’s, in the places where he writes: "But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his"; and again: "But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God"—but on the other hand, as the Lord calls it the Spirit of truth, being himself the Truth, and saying it proceeds from the Father? Yet this man, for the degradation of our Lord Jesus Christ, removes him from the Father, and attributes him peculiarly to the Only-Begotten for the destruction of his glory, doing injury, as he supposes, and the rest. ^B And indeed, just as this heaven-sent one, saying that the Spirit is third by nature for the destruction of the right faith, was refuted by the great Basil, who at that time brought forward testimonies from both divine and material things or examples—namely, from angels and stars, and from the divine mansions—and from there confirmed that the Holy Spirit is not of a third nature, even if it is third in order (for these, even if they differ in order, are yet of the same substance, even if they differ in dignities); so also in this matter, those who speak of two causes for the procession of the Holy Spirit, namely the Father and the Son, will be refuted by the aforementioned utterance of the divine Basil, who states: "That which is said to be effected by the Son is referred to the primary cause"; and: "No operation of the Son is divided or dissected from the Father." ^C According to the same manner, Cyril also says in the second book of the *Thesaurus*: "For it is shown clearly that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the essence of the Son, but is in him and from him as a kind of natural operation which is able to fulfill all things whatsoever it wills." And again in the same place: "It is not separated from the divine essence, but being naturally emitted from it, it possesses the whole operation of the Father (and the Son)." And the great Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, calls the Spirit the operation of the Son. If, therefore, it is the operation of the Father and the Son, and the operation is not divided according to the divine Basil, then there are not two causes. ^D For it is manifest that with one spirative power or operation, the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit, and that all things that are the Son's are referred to the Father, even those of which the Son is the cause. Gregory the Theologian declares this, saying: "For all things that are the Only-Begotten's have their reference to the primary cause." And that the same person—in his [sermon] on the

^A Pentecost, in his discourse, says: "But as for whatever is said here in a humbler manner—to be given, to be sent, to be divided, the gift, the inbreathing, the promise, the intercession, or anything else of such a kind—so that I may not speak of each thing individually, it must be referred to the primary Cause, so that it may be demonstrated from Whom [it proceeds], and that three principles may not be accepted in a polytheistic manner." Thus also all those who are ranged under Christ refer the things of the Only-Begotten to the Father; and they also refer to the Father the very creation itself, of which the Son is also a cause, just as the illustrious Basil says in the eighth [sermon] to Amphilochius: "All mine are thine (says the Lord), as if the origin of created things is to be referred back to Him (the Father), and thine are mine, because from the Father the authority and cause of creating proceeded to Him." See how, agreeing with the saints, we follow their most accurate theology. And they refer the ^B cause, as these men say, to the Father Himself; even if through the Son all things were made, and the Son is a cause, yet they confessed one Cause of creation. But he who defines the *through* instead of *after* and *with* will be an advocate for Arius, to one hearing: "Through the Son all things were made," and thinking that all things have been made with the Son.

EPHES. (V). But he [says], "That the Father is the only Cause," and in other places: "We do not call the Son a cause, nor the Father," and in other places: "Whatever is fitting for the source, the cause, the begetter, must be adapted to the Father alone." This most theological Damascene would not have set the *through* in regard to the Son and forbidden the *out of* [from], for in the eighth of the Theological chapters he says: "We do not say the Spirit is *out of* the Son, but we name Him the Spirit of the Son, and we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us *through* the Son." And in the thirteenth [chapter] again, the same [author says]: "The Spirit of the Son, not as if proceeding *out of* Him, but as proceeding *through* Him *out of* the Father; for the Father is the sole Cause." And in the letter to Jordan, ^C near the end: "The Spirit is a subsistent emanation and production, [existing] *through* the Son and not *out of* the Son, as the enunciation of the Spirit of the mouth of the Word of God." And in the discourse on the life-bestowing burial of the Lord [he says]: "The Holy Spirit of God and the Father, as proceeding *out of* Him; which is also said to be of the Son, as being supplied *through* Him and imparted to creation, but not having its existence *out of* Him."

APOLOGIA. Rightly has this honorable and venerable man joined together the words of the divine Damascene. And concerning the [statement] "The Father is the only Cause," as much as God has granted to us, we have spoken; perhaps we shall speak again, ^D of God Himself

^A showing with the aid of God Himself that we adhere to the truth and stand in it. What he brings forward: "We do not call the Son being a cause, nor the Father," is thus in the ancient and most venerable manuscripts; but there it is written: "We do not call the Son void of cause, nor the Father." And that this is fitting, whether he himself or someone else says it, is clear from what the same divine Damascene asserts above in the same chapter. For he says: "One is the Father, the Father, that is to say, void of cause (for He is not from anyone); one is the Son, and [the Father] is not without beginning, that is to say, not void of cause." And after some recapitulation, he says: "It is necessary to know that we do not say the Father is from anyone, but we call Him the Father of the Son; but the Son we do not call void of cause, nor the Father; but we call Him [born] from the Father and Son of the Father." ^B It is clear therefore from what has been said and from the recapitulation, that the holy man did not say "cause" or "principle," as we have said before. Moschampar, however, who was vehemently moved against the Latins, interprets it thus: If the holy man had wished to indicate something else, he ought to have first named the Father, then the cause. But what he brings forward later (Marcus), namely the words: "Whatever things are appropriate to a fountain, a cause, a begetter, are to be applied to the Father alone," if he had indeed added "and spirator," they would certainly have provided him great support; since, however, he did not add "spirator," the venerable prelate of the Ephesians did not have great help from this. For if he had said "and spirator" here, he would have indicated entirely that He alone is the spirator, just as in this chapter, although the things said were sufficient to prove that the Son is from the Father alone, yet he added this too, saying that He was begotten alone from the Father alone. But as for the statement, "The most theological man would not then place the preposition *through* and reject the preposition *from*; we do not say the Spirit is from the Son," we shall bring forward the holy teacher himself in this doctrine as the interpreter of his own words. And first, indeed, "we do not say" does not equate ^C in his usage to "it is not"; which is clear from those things which he himself declared in the synoptic chapters. For he says in chapter 77, the inscription of which is: "That the holy Virgin is Theotokos": "We do not call the holy Virgin Christotokos." But how he understands this "we do not say" in another of his discourses, the inscription of which is: "A most accurate word against the God-hated ^D heresy of the Nestorians," and the beginning of the discourse: "To those of the same mind as the Nestorians,"

towards the end of the discourse he clarifies as follows: "Wherefore, also we proclaim the holy Virgin as Theotokos, since she truly and properly gave birth to Him who was incarnate of her, but we know her as Christotokos; for she gave birth to Christ. But because the impious Nestorius abused this name ^A in order to destroy the [title] Theotokos, we call her Theotokos [and] not Christotokos, from the higher [name]." If, then, this discourse, which clarifies the mind of this holy man, were unknown and nowhere to be seen, we would entirely say that he did not hold the holy Virgin to be Christotokos, because of his words: "But we do not call the holy Virgin Christotokos." And how would this have any sense? For he himself knows very well Gregory, the one surnamed for theology, [who] in his discourse on the Spirit says that some things do not exist yet are spoken of, while others exist yet are not spoken of. But how will the saint agree with himself, saying in the fourth of his Theological [orations]: "It is necessary for the Word to have the Spirit; for our word is not devoid of spirit." If, then, ^B the Word has the Spirit, as he himself says, and after some [sentences] he adds: "But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and devoid of all composition, the Spirit of God is piously to be confessed; because the Word of God is not more lacking than our word, by all means, the Spirit also is from Him who has it." For [the verb] "to have" is said in eight ways by those outside and by this holy man, as he is in agreement with them. For "to have" is either according to quality, such as a habit, a disposition, or knowledge; or according to quantity, as one says that a piece of wood has three cubits; or as a possession, such as a house or a field; or as things [around] the body, such as a garment or a tunic; or as having a wife; ^C or as in a limb, such as a ring on a hand; or as having [something] as a part, such as a hand or a foot; or as in a vessel, just as a modius has wheat. But these are set forth to show the clarity of "to have," and how we rather are in agreement with the saint. But let us proceed also to another clarification. For [the phrase] "we do not say" does not denote "it is not," as the holy man himself says; but the matter will become evident also in another way, and especially because of those who say that the expression "through the Son" denotes only manifestation and communication, and "with the Son" and "proceeding with the Son"—even if it has been demonstrated ^D by many saints before that it does not signify this, as those who say these things wish. With Eunomius saying the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and Nestorius [saying] that He has existence from the Father alone, the saint, by neither agreeing with the dogma of Eunomius, nor being led by that of Nestorius, but [walking] through the middle of the two opinions—for the holy man does not say "we do not say"

concerning the dogma, [at least] not that it is from the Son alone, but he places the "Through the Son" instead of [the doctrine] from the Father alone, which removes both [the doctrine of] from the Father alone and [that of] from the Son alone. For he says in the [letter] to Jordan: "The Word is a subsistent generation; and therefore the Son [is a subsistent generation], and the Spirit is a subsistent procession and production, but through the Son, and not from the Son, as the Spirit of the mouth of the Word of God is declarative." That the holy ones call the only-begotten Son the mouth of the Father, holy Anastasius has shown, as has been said in the preceding [section]. And furthermore, the same Damascene says: "He is the mind, the abyss of the Word, the begetter of the Word, and through the Word the producer of the manifestative Spirit." ^B If, therefore, the same excellent rhetorician, who defines the preposition "through" instead of "with" and "together with," and whoever else embraces "through" instead of "with" and "together with" here—for it is clear that if "through" is said instead of "with" and "together with" in the case of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the mind, the abyss of the Word, the begetter of the Word, together with the Word or with the Word, will produce the Holy Spirit according to his subtle interpretation. If, therefore, one in the discourses of the divine and holy Damascene concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit embraces the "through" instead of the preposition "through," or, if he judges it to have been placed instead of the preposition "with" and "together with," let him say the same concerning those words: "Through the Word the producer." But since our mind is not to refute, out of reverence for this venerable man, but we only intend to explain the truth, come now, let us add the rest concerning this matter, as much as our strength allows us, to the explanation, so that we may make the discourse even clearer. ^C The divine Cyril, having met with the writings of Nestorius and having seen the creed faked by him, as almost everyone knows, having seen it from him, composed twelve chapters against the impious books of that man; whence also Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, being violently moved against them, spoke against everything in writing, in which [chapters] that one specifically concerning the Holy Spirit was declared. Wherefore, even for the clarification of the truth, we shall set it forth as it is, then also all the things of Theodoret, and furthermore the defenses of Cyril on behalf of himself and for the confirmation of the twelve chapters. ^D The chapter so reads word for word: "If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as using a power alien to Him, through which He obtained [the power] from Him to perform works against unclean spirits and to fulfill the signs, and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, through whom He performs the signs, let him be anathema." This chapter...