Writings

[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...

along with the others, Theodoret reprehends, and writing to the monks in Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia against divine Cyril, he says: "In the first chapter, indeed, he eliminates the economy undertaken for us; but in the second and third chapters, as if forgetful of those things which he had set forth in the proems, he introduces the union according to hypostasis; in the fourth chapter, he denies the distinction of the evangelical and apostolic voices," etc. And after these things, as he thought, reprehending the statements and calling them blasphemous and full of impiety, and treating them altogether badly, he infers: "He blasphemes also against the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as he says that He proceeds not from the Father according to the Lord's voice, but has His existence from the Son." ^A But the Saint, just as in the other chapters he was instituting a defense both for the truth and for himself, so also in the ninth chapter says: "We have already said before, that the power of the chapters fights against and opposes the trifles, or rather the blasphemies, of Nestorius and his exceedingly reckless sayings. For since he was saying concerning the Holy Spirit: 'He who conferred such great glory upon Christ, made Him terrible to demons, and gifted Him with the ascension into the heavens,' and since he babbled such things of Him as if He were some common man among us, the anathema became necessary, not indeed against those who say that Jesus, that is, the Word of God who became man, was glorified by the Holy Spirit, but rather against those who impudently say that He used the power which is through the Spirit as if it were foreign. ^B For we remember Him who said clearly concerning the Holy Spirit: 'He shall glorify Me.' We know besides, moreover, that by the operation of the Holy Spirit He crushes the most wicked and unclean powers; but we do not say of Him, as we do of each of the saints, that He used the power which is through the Holy Spirit as if it were foreign. For it was and is His Spirit, just as it is, indeed, also the Father's. And the divine Paul explains this to us very well, having written: 'But those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If, however, any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.' For the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father according to the voice of the Savior, but He is not foreign to the Son; for He has all things with the Father. And He Himself taught this when He said concerning the Holy Spirit: 'All things that He has...'"

are mine; therefore I said that He will take of mine, and will announce it to you.' ^A Therefore, the Holy Spirit truly glorified Christ, performing miracles, yet as His Spirit, and not as a power foreign and superior to Him, insofar as He is understood as God. For just as the Son is called and is in truth the power of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the power of the Son; and just as the Son is the Word of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the utterance of the Son, according to the divine Basil.

But let us proceed further to the words of Theodoret, that we may set them forth as they are, for the sake of complete persuasion and conviction, as to how Theodoret wrote and spoke, and how Cyril thought and preached. The words of Theodoret in his epistle to John of Antioch are as follows: ^B 'God, who governs all things wisely, and providing for our concord and caring for the salvation of the peoples, prepared for us to be gathered together in the same place, and showed that the opinions of all were in harmony with one another. For having read in common the Egyptian letters, and having accurately weighed their meaning, we found those things which were sent from there to be in harmony with what we said, and diametrically opposed to the twelve chapters, against which we have persisted until the present time as if they were foreign to piety. Those ^C indeed contained that the Word, God from God, had become flesh carnally, and that there was a union according to hypostasis, and a gathering according to a natural union, and that the Word of God was the firstborn from the dead; and they rejected the distinctness of the terms used concerning the Lord; and they contained other things besides, which were foreign indeed to the apostolic institutions, but were the offshoots of heretical tares.

But the things that have now been sent are adorned with evangelical nobility. For our Lord Jesus Christ is preached in them as perfect God and perfect man, and two natures; ^D and their difference and union are unconfused, not according to a mixing or a fusing, but brought about in an ineffable and God-befitting manner, preserving the properties of the two natures completely whole; and the Word of God is impassible and unchangeable, while the temple is passible and was delivered to death for a little while, and was raised again by the power of the united God. And the Holy Spirit does not have His existence from the Son or through the Son, but proceeds from the Father, yet is called the Spirit proper to the Son, as being consubstantial. Having observed this straightness in the very letters, and having found them to be diametrically opposed to what had been written before, we praised God, who heals the tongues of the stammerers, and transforms the dissonant sound into a sweet melody.'

^A When blessed Cyril heard this, as though he were being slandered, he wrote the following to Eusebius: ‘I have read the letter written by your reverence,’ and after a few words: ‘For they circulate, as I learn, certain letters as if written to me by the most devout and most God-fearing Bishop John; and it is likely that these are either forged or contain additions to please those who think as Nestorius does. For I did not restore communion to him at the holy synod in the metropolis of the Ephesians, unless he had anathematized in writing the dogmas of Nestorius.’ And after a few words: ‘I do not make any discourse concerning those who were deposed, but it is necessary for them to remain in this state in which they were. I have however forgiven the insult done to me by them.’ ^B And after many things: ‘For neither have I reached this way of thinking out of fickleness or changeableness, nor am I found to have ever said anything of the kind in a tome, or in a letter, or in a book. And the name of "co-essentiality" [consubstantiality]—we do not even know what it is at all. It is likely that those who write such things are inventing such pretexts there, in order to plead their own case regarding the rashness with which they rushed against us at Ephesus, and so that they might not seem to have been moved in vain. For their conscience convicts them. Let your reverence therefore make their defense before those who speak otherwise there. For all things have been done securely.’ Do you see, ^C as the saint says, that all things were done securely? And neither in the tome, nor in the letter, nor in the book did he set forth anything contrary to the Twelve Chapters; so that it is manifest to those who do not wish to establish falsehood that what was said by Theodoret is an obvious slander. For in no way did blessed Cyril act in a manner contrary to and diametrically opposed to his earlier writings, as Theodoret of Cyrus asserts. And again, the same person writes word-for-word in his letter to Evoptius: ‘Cyril to his devout and most beloved brother and fellow-minister Evoptius, greeting in the Lord.’ ^D In this letter, he says: ‘I have received now, for the full assurance of the disposition that is in your God-fearing soul, the tome sent to me, which is said to have been composed against the anathemas by Theodoret of Cyrus—for they say that the little town is called by that name. Having read what it contains, I offered hymns to the Lord, and I did not cease to say this also: "O Lord, deliver my soul from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue." For I find myself slandered everywhere, and enduring this on account of each of the chapters.’ But you have observed that, even if,

as some who are well acquainted with him say, the man is not lacking in experience regarding the art of speaking, and has been enriched with no mean knowledge of the sacred scriptures, he is nevertheless quite carried away from understanding the power and meaning of these chapters. For this reason, I for my part think and believe that he grants appearances of ignorance to satisfy the desires of certain people, so that he might not be thought to use, in an unrefined and superfluous way, or rather, [more] readily, the slanders against us. Yet, actually, there is nothing difficult or steep, as I suppose, in what has been said by us, nor is its intention difficult to grasp. But since it was necessary for us, even though we have already written sparingly on these matters, to say a few things to him as well, so that no one might think we have chosen silence because we are condemned, I shall make my apology, having been as brief as possible. ^B For he ought, indeed, if he were trained in the God-inspired Scriptures, and if his purpose were at all to hold discourse about our divine mysteries, to have made mention only of the sacred Scriptures, and thus to have woven the narrative in a manner worthy of God, and not to have brought forward and presented to us ancient and stale fables, and what follows. It is evident, therefore, from what has been said, that the saintly Cyril did not think otherwise than as he explained, as Theodoret slanders him by writing that he found the correctness of the Egyptian writings, and in opposition to the first chapters, he praised God—who heals stammering tongues and changes an inarticulate sound into a sweet voice—because he had corrected those that were stuttering and had modulated the inarticulate sound into a pleasing harmony. For he himself ^C rather not only stuttered, but also composed blasphemous and impious statements against the twelve chapters, which even the divine and holy Fathers in the ecumenical councils subjected to anathema. For in the third volume, in the thirteenth session of the holy sixth council, you will find it written thus: "If anyone does not anathematize the writings of Theodoret against the right faith of the holy Cyril, and the so-called letter to Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, and if anyone does not accept the writings of the holy Cyril, and especially those which he wrote against Theodore and Theodoret, Andrew and Nestorius, and those who have thought or think similar things to these, or things held by any one of them, let him be anathema." But the steadfast herald ^D of the truth and interpreter of the divine dogmas composed the solutions to the twelve chapters of equal number according to the petition of the Ephesians; Theodoret, however, remained outside of communion and was not accepted by the whole Church, even until the holy and ecumenical fourth council; and when he was present at the holy fourth council and was requesting to enter together with the other Fathers, he was not accepted until a letter was brought from the most blessed Leo of Rome; for the magistrates of the senate were saying that the emperor commands

^A that Theodoret should not enter at the same time; but the Roman legates said that the Roman Pope commands that he should enter; and thus he was admitted. And what need is there to go through the series of the subsequent events, since almost everyone knows the acts of the fourth synod, in which these things are also written down?

The explanation of the ninth anathema is as follows: “The only-begotten Son of God, having become man, remained also God, being all that the Father is, with the sole exception of being Father; and having His own Spirit, who is from Him and subsists in Him essentially, He wrought divine prodigies; so that, having become man, He remained also God, so that He performed miracles by His own power,” and what follows.

Since they consigned all of Theodoret's chapters to condemnation—among which is the ninth—it is necessary to set forth what was said by the holy ecumenical synods in manifestation of the truth. For in the seventh tome, in the fourteenth session, the aforementioned holy sixth synod mentions Theodoret's books and subjects them to condemnation; and in the eighth tome, in the seventeenth session, ^B while enumerating all the heresies against which the synods were convened, it adds to these, along with the latest of them, the fifth synod, which was gathered here against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the venerable Cyril; and after the sacred and divine Creed issued at Nicaea, it also adds the one from Constantinople, and the letters of Cyril together with the other holy men. And you will frequently find in this holy synod Theodoret's chapters subjected to condemnation along with the other heretics. In the seventh holy synod, after the anathema pronounced against Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and others, it likewise adds the writings of Theodoret which he composed against the orthodox twelve chapters of Cyril, who lives among the saints. It is therefore ^C sufficient, even from these things, to show that Cyril's chapters were never altered or retracted, but were held as venerable and sacred by the Fathers gathered in the ecumenical synods, and as a true concord with the orthodox faith; whereas the things which Theodoret wrote against them were not only discordant with the truth, but even impious, and for this reason were consigned to condemnation.

EPHESUS. (VI)

It is manifest that where the preposition “by” [διά] denotes a causal mediation and the proximate cause, as the Latins wish, it is in every way equivalent to “of” [ἐκ], and the one ^D takes the place of the other in usage, as in the phrase: “I have acquired a man by [διά] God,” which is the same as “from [ἐκ] God;” and: “the man by [διά] a woman,” that is, “from [ἐκ] a woman.” Where, according to which the synods were con-

-^Astructed, it is clear that its cause also is joined in this petition. It remains therefore that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son should be spoken of after the manner of implicit theology, in such a way that while proceeding from the Father He is understood to be manifested, or made known, or to shine forth, or to appear through the Son. For this, says the great Basil, ^B has the sign of a knowable mark according to His hypostasis, to be known with the Son and to subsist from the Father. This, then, is what "through the Son" intends: to be known with Him. For there is no other property of the Holy Spirit designated here in relation to the Son than that He is known with Him, and no other relation to the Father than that He subsists from Him.

APOLOGIA

Divus Cyril in his explanation on the prophet Joel, and divus Epiphanius, do not remove the preposition "from" [ἐκ] regarding the Son, but the saints speak of it as a mediation and actually confess the "from" [ἐκ]. For the former says: “For in one way the Son is God and from God according to nature (for He is begotten of God and the Father), and the Holy Spirit is proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as indeed He is understood from God and the Father. And the Word of God having become man has remained, and thus God, existing as all things that the Father is, except for paternity alone, and having as His own the Holy Spirit, who is from Him and subsists essentially in Him.” And Epiphanius: “In the way that no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, so I dare to say that not even the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom He proceeds and from whom He receives, nor the Son or the Father except the Holy Spirit who truly clarifies and teaches all things, who is from the Father and from the Son.” And the Golden-Tongued in his sermon on the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and on that text: To what region are the angels appointed? “Christ came to us, gave to us the Spirit that is from Him, and

^A our nature assumed.” And the Nyssen says: “One thing is that which is immediately from the first, and another that which is through that which is immediately from the first; so that the singularity of the Only-begotten remains undoubtedly in the Son, and that the Spirit is from the Father is not doubted, the mediation of the Son preserving to Itself the singularity, and not hindering the natural relationship to the Father (the Spirit).” ^B It is clear, therefore, that “from” (ex) is not forbidden, as he himself says, and that “through” (per) denotes here a mediation; for as he says “from” the first immediately through that which is immediate. But if the divine Damascene forbids “from” for the reasons mentioned above, he nevertheless consequently introduces “through,” refuting the evil dogma of Nestorius and Eunomius; for where he forbids “from,” saying, “We do not say *from* the Son,” he introduces, however, “we confess Him *through* the Son.” If, however, the saint wished “through the Son” to mean the same as “with the Son,” yet nowhere in his writings has he put this, it seems very marvelous and strange, especially since he often uses the preposition “through” in the same case form; but it would be much more the act of a sophist or a fool ^C than of this holy man, had he understood the preposition “with” but set down “through” instead. For sophists set down equivocal terms so that they may conclude not what is logically necessary, but what accords with their own will; while the simple set down one word in place of another. But this holy man, being both wise and a theologian—having read the writings of Eunomius, Nestorius, and Theodoret, and neither accepting that the Holy Spirit is from the Son alone, as Eunomius said, nor from the Father alone, as Nestorius and Theodoret thought, but theologically preaching the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father through the Son—if he were placing “through” in place of “with” and “along with,” he would have acted more like a sophist, which is far removed from his holy and in all respects blameless soul. But even those things which the venerable one of Ephesus brings forward, deducing by ^D examples that the preposition “from” is equivalent to the preposition “through,” are more in agreement with us than with him who takes “through” in place of “with,” which none of the saints has said in this way regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit; and as for his claim that “proceeding through the Son” is a condensed theology—that is, that “through the Son” means to be manifested, known, to shine forth, or to have appeared—the Church does not preach this. For if it denotes only a manifestation into the world, and the Holy Spirit is not *through* the Son, but has appeared also *from* the Father, it should not be said that He is from the Father. For in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, the great Basil says: “The Holy Spirit, having nothing adventitious in Himself, but having all things eternally, as the Spirit of God, and appearing from Him.” But as to those words, “No other propriety is there of the Spirit [D (continued)] toward the Son than to be known with Him,” he did not set it forth as the great Basil says; for the divine Basil...

says it is known *after* the Son, as you will find in the most ancient copies. And this is clear also from other works of the great Basil, who treats of theological order, and likewise in the seventeenth chapter of his writings to Amphilochius, where he says: ^A “As, therefore, the Son is related to the Father, so the Holy Spirit is related to the Son, according to the order and arrangement handed down in Baptism. And if the Spirit is set in order with the Son, and the Son with the Father, then clearly the Spirit is also with the Father.” And again, in the same place: “And the Holy Spirit, being joined to the Father through the one Son.” It is clear, therefore, from this that it is written not “with the Son,” but “after the Son,” and “to be known with Him.” For having said “after the Son,” so that no one might suppose a posteriority of time, he immediately adds: “and to be known with Him,” declaring by this the highest unity and their inseparability. For the propriety of the Spirit relative to the Son ^B is not that He is known with Him; for if this were so, the great Athanasius would also have declared it. But what does he say in the epistle to Serapion, the beginning of which is: “Perhaps you will marvel”? “Such a propriety as we have recognized of the Son toward the Father, the same shall we find the Spirit to have toward the Son; and just as the Son says: ‘All things that the Father has are mine,’ so also shall we find all these things to be in the Spirit through the Son.” But even what the divine Gregory of Nyssa says, ^C “For the one is immediately from the First, but the other [is] through that which is immediately from the First,” does not harmonize with the statement made by the venerable Ephesian, that “There is no other propriety of the Spirit toward the Son than to be known with Him.”

EPHESUS. (VII). If, therefore, it is necessary that a property be accurately convertible with that of which it is the property, then the Holy Spirit has no other relation to the Son than to be known with Him, just as [it has] to the Father, that it subsists from Him. The Holy Spirit, therefore, does not subsist from the Son, nor does He have His being [from Him]. For what prevented [people] from saying the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, in the same way that all things are said to have been made through the Son? But the latter is said by the ^D preposition “through” taken in place of “from,” while the former is not so in any way. Nor could anyone find anywhere that it is said “through the Son” without the mention of the Father, but it is said “from the Father through the Son.” This, however, does not necessarily attribute the cause to the Son. For this reason, the expression “from the Son” is not found at all and is clearly proscribed.

APOLOGIA. If, therefore, a property, according to the doctrine of truth, as this honorable man himself also sets forth, must necessarily be convertible with that of which it is the property, and if it is...

^A properly so, it should be explained first in how many ways "property" is spoken of, with a brief clarification, and then immediately address the matter at hand. A property belongs either only to a species, but not to every member, as geometry to man; or it belongs to every member of the species, but not only to it, as being bipedal to man, but also to other species; or what belongs to every member and only to that species, but not always, as graying in old age; or to only, and every, and always, as being risible by nature. This again is fourfold: from composition, such as having flat nails; from operation, such as the upward motion of fire; from power, such as fire surpassing other things by its heating power; ^B or from quality, such as that which is risible in man. But these things have been said so that it may be known in how many ways "property" is spoken of. But the Holy Spirit is truly the property of the Son, as the teachers tell us. For Cyril says: "If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as using that power which is through Him as if it were something foreign, and as having received from Him the faculty to operate against unclean spirits and to fulfill divine signs, and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, through whom He also performed the divine signs, let him be anathema." And in the resolution and explanation of this chapter ^C made according to the request of the Ephesians, he says: "Having as property the Holy Spirit, who is from Him and essentially dwells in Him." And the first holy synod, through Leontius, says: "The Holy Spirit is found to proceed indeed from the Father, but to be the property of the Son and to emanate from Him." And Cyril in his epistle to Nestorius posits the Spirit who is from Him and is His own property. It has therefore been demonstrated very clearly that the Holy Spirit is from the Son Himself and is His own property; and that He has a relation to the Son and is His Spirit, just as the divine John of Damascus says in the seventh chapter of his theological works: "It is necessary also for the Word to have the Spirit." Wherefore He is also referred to the One whose Spirit He is, as to a breather or producer, and the Son, as breathing, possesses Him; ^D just as Athanasius the Great says: "This anointing is the breath of the Son," and the divine Epiphanius: "The Spirit breathes from the Father and from the Son." Therefore, that He is known with Him is not the reason why the Spirit is said to be the property of the Son, as the honorable man of Ephesus himself wishes.

but that ^A regarding the breathing, it is referred to the Son as to the breather, since the breathing is His, according to the great Athanasius. Now, as to what prevents Him from proceeding "through the Son," and what follows, this too the honorable man has set down very well. For he himself knows that the preposition "through" is placed in the stead of the preposition "from," and to this we shall also add appropriate testimonies from the saints—as the preposition "through" is placed in the stead of "from" by the teachers and by divine Scripture—which prove that it is used for the preposition "from." For the holy Athanasius, against those who say that "from whom" (ex quo) differs from "through whom" (per quem), introduces many testimonies from the evangelical, apostolic, and prophetic books, showing that "through whom" is the same as "from whom." And Basil in his summary discourse to Amphilochius explains the matter in this way and says: "Moreover, the prepositions 'through' ^B and 'from' often alternate for the things signified by one another, when the one takes on the significance of the other; for example, 'I have acquired a man through God,' is equivalent to saying 'from God.'" And the testimonies which the divine Athanasius brings forward from divine Scripture without distinction, showing that "through" is taken to mean "from," are rather necessary. Consequently, also, the holy Cyril in the epistle to Nestorius, which begins "They babble," as I learn, says it is necessary to confess that He was also born according to the flesh "through a woman," and after a few words, "He has been born among us from a woman." And one will find that in this epistle the holy man often alternates and changes the prepositions, at one time using "through," at another time using "from," as though they were equivalent. The illustrious Maximus, in his dialogues with the Anomoean, says: "To the pure all things are pure; with us, ^C according to the mind of Scripture, 'through whom' is the same as 'from whom,' and in fact Paul says, 'Faithful is God, through whom you were called into service.'" And the divine Chrysostom, in his fifty-first homily on the Gospel according to Matthew: "For Scripture knows how to use 'through' in place of the word 'from,' as when it says, 'I have acquired a man through God,' not putting the second cause, but the first." And again: "Is it not through God—the description of these is it," and so forth. It is therefore evident that the preposition "through" can mean the same as "from," just as the honorable man himself has posited it, and we, even more, have agreed with him through the Saints, ^D who are many and great, who clearly say that "through" signifies the cause and is equivalent to the preposition "from." And no one can gainsay this, that "through" does not signify the cause, unless we also wish to show that the holy John Chrysostom is ignorant when he explicitly says this. If, therefore, "through" is equivalent to "from," and if it was said by the teachers to be proceeding separated from the Father’s name or from the Father’s hypostasis, the

followers of Aetius and Eunomius would have had an easy transition; since this was ^B their intended aim, to show that the Holy Spirit is from the Son alone. And they used to call him "Son of the Son," as Athanasius testifies, and called the Father the grandfather and the Spirit the descendant, just as the great Basil also said, defending himself, as Athanasius did: "Not because he is not from God through the Son, but lest the Trinity be thought an infinite multitude, having sons from sons, as happens among men, falling under suspicion." ^C If, therefore, the Holy Spirit were simply and absolutely said by the teachers to proceed from the Father through the Son without those words, he would have been believed, by those holding evil opinions and like-minded with Eunomius, to be from the Son alone, who used the expression "from the Son alone" and attributed the cause of the Holy Spirit to the Only-begotten alone. For this reason, the Saints always preach and say [he proceeds] conjoinedly from the Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son, and substantially from both. If, therefore, they preach thus and, understanding the "through" in this way, speak as they set down [the "from"], just as he himself interprets it—would that venerable man wish to make the theologians out to be more foolish or more ignorant than the sophists? But what pious man would say this of those blessed and holy men, who with many labors and sweat elucidated and clarified the divine doctrines ^D like sacred heralds?

OF EPHESUS.

The words of the Western Fathers and teachers, which attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Son, I neither acknowledge (for they have never been translated into our language, nor were they approved by ecumenical synods), nor do I accept, conjecturing that they are corrupted and interpolated.

APOLOGIA.

If, therefore, the words of the Western holy Fathers were not approved, it was not fitting to call them saints, nor for the testimonies brought forth from them to be accepted by the ecumenical synods for the confirmation of right dogmas, but [they ought] to reject and cast these away, because they are unapproved, as this new legislator decreeing says. But this has not happened in any of the synods. For those that were produced in them hold the place...

^A of the testimonies of Ambrose, Hilary, Leo, and Augustine, and no one has dared to go so far as to belch forth such a thing. But what does the epistle of the holy Maximus seem to him to say, when it states that the Western Fathers say that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son—which he brought forward a little earlier to show that they did not demonstrate themselves to be making the Son a cause? But what of this? Does he not embrace the Patriarch Photius, who confesses this? But the divine Maximus says that the Latins deny the cause; or rather, the divine Basil denies it beforehand, as has been demonstrated above. For whatever the Son possesses, He does not have it from Himself, nor does He have His existence from Himself, but He has both His existence and everything He possesses from the Father, as He Himself, being Truth Itself, said: "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that He will take from what is mine and will declare it to you." St. John Chrysostom, explaining ^B this, said: "He will take from my knowledge, from those things which I Myself know." It is evident, therefore, that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son. The knowledge of the Son, therefore, is not one thing and the Son another, as the divine Cyril says in the *Treasures*: "God will be glorified by all as simple and devoid of composition." Hence it is absurd to speak regarding Him as having knowledge of the same kind that we have. For if He were something else, and the knowledge in Him were something else besides Him, He would be composite and not simple; but since He is confessedly simple, there does not exist any knowledge in Him other than Himself. We, however, are not so; for we are something according to our essence, but we have knowledge ^C existing within our essence. And the divine Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians, says: "For He Himself, as has been said, gives the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has these from the Word." Therefore, He does not have these things in one way from the Son and in another way from the Father; for, as has been said often, He has everything from the Father; and this is evident from the things said many times, but also from the words of the divine Basil in the letter to Amphilochius, stating thus: "The passage in Matthew, 'The Father alone knows the day of the end,' and in Mark, because it seems clearly to exclude even the Son from this knowledge, we understand thus: No one knows, nor the angels of God, nor would the Son have known, ^D except for the Father—that is, the cause of the Son’s knowing is from the Father; and this explanation is not at all forced or contrived for him who listens with a right and fair mind." And after some words: "No one knows, nor the angels of God, nor even"

^A the Son, if not the Father. For knowledge was given from the Father. But it is most pious and fitting before God to say of the Son, that he who is consubstantial with Him, has knowledge from Him as well." And Nyssen in the [treatise] to Ablabius: "And again, hearing that 'The Father judges no one,' we imagine that Scripture contradicts itself. For He who judges the entire earth through the Son, to whom He has given all judgment, does this, and everything that comes to pass by the Only-Begotten has its reference back to the Father." ^B

EPHESUS. (CAP. IX) (I conjecture this) both through many other things and through the volume of the seventh ecumenical synod recently brought forth by them, containing the definition together with the addition to the Creed; and how much shame the reading of this cast upon them, those who were present at the time know.

APOLOGY. If indeed he himself had not suffered this, he could have reproached the Latins; but if, while transcribing the Creed of the holy first synod gathered at Nicaea into a book with his own hands, he wrote it differently and otherwise, and it contains both addition and subtraction, ^C how does he reproach them regarding this matter, especially when they confess that they have always made the explanation in the Creed? If, therefore, the Latins did not confess that they had made the explanation in the Creed, it would have been right to accuse them as liars and as those falsifying and corrupting divine things. But if they always said that they had made the addition, and that they possess the expression from the saints, as even this honorable man will entirely confess that the expression "and from the Son" is also from the saints, according to the confessions of both Photius the Patriarch and of Maximus among the saints, what does he consider new, if it was done according to the forgetfulness of the scribe, as is wont to happen? Especially since he himself has suffered this in the Nicene Creed, ^D where divine Cyril said: "We do not permit ourselves or others to change a word, or even to pass over a single syllable." But this man both changed and omitted, as I suppose, due to forgetfulness; for how else could he have done it? That indeed regarding the Nicene Creed the saint says: "We do not permit ourselves or others," etc., is clear from the Acts of the holy and ecumenical third synod. For in many of the meetings of the

^A Nicene synod, they read only that [Creed], making absolutely no mention of the Constantinopolitan [Creed], as we shall make clear in the proper place as our discourse proceeds.

EPHESUS (CHAPTER X)

APOLOGIA

EPHESUS (CHAPTER XI)

APOLOGIA

already demonstrated that the saints of the West speak thus. But what of those ^A things which say that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Son, and essentially from both, and that He proceeds and comes forth from the Father and the Son? But these are the expressions of Cyril and the doctors of the Church; furthermore, we hear the great Athanasius saying that the Son is greater than the Spirit, and equal to Him, and we believe and confess this. For he says in his third work against the Arians, the beginning of which is: "Heresies, those which are against the truth..." "Such things, therefore, the Lord said to the Jews as a man; but to the disciples, showing forth His divinity and greatness, He did not signify Himself as less than the Spirit, but as greater and equal, bestowing the Spirit and saying: 'I will send Him,' and 'He shall glorify Me, and whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak' (John 16:13-14)." That which is greater, the great Basil explains in his *On the Controversial Passages of Scripture* thus: "It is called greater, either in magnitude, or in time, or in dignity, or as a cause." And Gregory of Nyssa in the third book *Against Eunomius*, the beginning of which is: "It cannot be, as it seems, that one who wishes to benefit all..." says: "If anyone were to interpose ^B some temporal interval before the hypostasis of the Only-begotten, who is perceived as prior to the Son only by the reason of being the cause who is the Father, the doctrine concerning the eternity of the Son would rightly be in danger." And after some things: "For just as the Son is conjoined to the Father, and, having His being from Him, is not posterior in existence, so in turn does the Holy Spirit hold toward the Only-begotten, so that it is only by a conception according to the logic of cause that He is perceived as prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit." These things we believe and preach; and if he wishes to reject them, let him reject them. For I, indeed, think that he would not say that we confess otherwise, nor would he himself deny these expressions if he wished to agree with the divine Fathers. For we abide in the theologies of the saints and doctors, and we hold them entirely, and we follow their sacred dogmas, not wishing in any way ^C to believe otherwise than as the Fathers taught, those luminaries and teachers of the Church, firmly holding the ancient and patristic dogma, even if those who slander us say otherwise and deride our positions.

EPHESUS.

And in agreement with the holy Damascene, I do not say that the Spirit is from the Son, even if someone else happens to say this.

APOLOGIA.

And we, indeed, in all things hold to the holy Damascene ^D especially.

^A and embrace his theology. For we neither say nor will we ever say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but from the Father and from the Son, and from the Father through the Son. ^B For to say that the Spirit is from the Son, and not to prefix the term "from the Father," implies that the Son is the primary cause—which is what Eunomius proclaimed, just as Nestorius proclaimed the term "from the Father alone." But the saint, treading a middle path between these two suppositions, says that he is neither from the Son alone nor from the Father alone, but from the Father through the Son. And by this, the opinions of both sides are crushed, as we explained more broadly above, and there is no need to repeat the same things. For Eunomius used the formula "from the Son," separating the Spirit from the Father, as the divine Basil proves in his books against him; but one who says "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son," with the copulative conjunction, explains very well and rightly that the paternal hypostasis is the fountain of the Holy Spirit, and that out of this fountain the Son is the fountain of the Holy Spirit, as the great Athanasius says in his book *On the Incarnation of the Word*: "For it knows," he says, "that among God the Father, the Son is the fountain of the Holy Spirit." And ^C Gregory the Theologian, in his discourse on the Holy Spirit, teaches that the Father is compared to an eye, the Son to a fountain, and the Holy Spirit to a river, and that they relate similarly. He says: "For when I have considered much and long with myself, in the curiosity of my mind, and have explored the discourse on every side, seeking some image of so great a thing, I could not find to what of the things below the divine nature should be compared. For even if I found some small similarity, the greater part escaped me, and left me down here with my example. I set before myself an eye, a fountain, and a river, as others have done, to see whether the Father might correspond to the eye, the Son to the fountain, and the Holy Spirit to the river in some proportion. For these are not distinguished by time, nor are they broken off from one another by continuity, and they ^D seem in a way to be divided by three properties," and what follows.

EPHESUS. (CHAPTER XIII).

APOLOGIA.

^A even God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you." He guards the unity of the Father and the Son; for he did not say "direct" (plural), as though a double grace were given by two, namely from this one and that one, but "direct" (singular), in order to show that both the Father and the Son give this. Therefore, just as these holy men do not conflate the Father and the Son into one person, neither do we, by saying that the Father and the Son are one principle. Furthermore, the Father sends the Holy Spirit, and the Son also sends him; yet those who send are not two, lest two principles and two causes be posited. ^B But also what Gregory the Theologian says: "The sender has dignity in relation to the one sent," how shall we understand the dignity in this? For he says in the discourse on the holy Spirit: "I will ask the Father, and He will send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth"—which words the Savior said, lest any adversary think him to be God or appear to be speaking as if from some other power. Then He says: "He will send, but in my name"—omitting the word of asking, He has retained the word of sending. Presently He says: "I will send," in order to show His own dignity; then finally: "He will come," by which word the power of the Spirit is indicated. Therefore, "dignity" among the teachers is called nothing else than principle or cause, just as the holy Chrysostom says in his thirty-ninth homily on the Gospel of John, as if answering certain of the Arians who ask: "And how are the sender and the one sent of the same substance?" He replies: "Again you defer the discourse to human things and do not understand that these things are said for no other reason than that we may recognize the cause, and not fall into the sickness of Sabellius." ^C But let us also put forward a little bit from the divine Augustine, which is in harmony with the words of the admirable Gregory concerning the mission. For he says in the fourth book (On the Trinity), chapter twenty: "For it is not in vain that the same Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He could have intended to signify, when, breathing into the face of the disciples, He said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' For that bodily breath proceeding from the mouth with the sense of corporal touching was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a demonstration through a suitable sign that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son." And with some things ^D intercalated: "And that which the Lord says: 'Whom I will send to you from the Father,' shows that the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son. For having said, 'Whom the Father will send,' He added, 'in my name'; yet He did not say, 'Whom'"—but he explains it thus,

'Whom I shall send to you from the Father,' showing that the Father is the beginning of the whole divinity, or, to speak more correctly, of the whole deity. And the great Basil, in his sermon *On the Faith*, whose beginning is, 'By the grace of the good God,' says towards the end: 'Neither does the Holy Spirit speak from Himself, nor does the Son do anything from Himself, and while the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the Holy Spirit,'—thus we think and thus we believe in the consubstantial Trinity. And in the fifth book of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, chapter ten: 'One God, the Father of the only Son, not of many; the one Paraclete through Christ; and Creator of the other orders, the one maker, the maker of the diverse creation through Christ.' Videlicet, in both cases 'through Christ' is said. Those, therefore, who say that the preposition is used in place of 'with,' will they say that both of these are 'with Christ'? How can they possibly distinguish these things? Or will they say that those men who were illuminated by the Holy Spirit, ^B and the most wise Clement himself, were ignorant of this theology? I think that no one among those who adhere to the truth would say this.

EPHES. (CHAPTER XIV)

Nor is the cause understood as essential in this place, so that it might exist as common in the three persons. And for this reason, the Latins will never in any way escape the charge of having two principles, for as long as they call the Son the principle of the Holy Spirit. But the principle is personal and distinguishes the persons. Therefore, according to these things, keeping close to the ^C holy and ecumenical seven synods and to the God-illumined Fathers who shone in them, 'I believe in one God, the Father almighty,' and what follows in the symbol.

APOLOGIA

'The cause in this place is not essential,' he says; and rightly so. For if it were essential, it would also be common. But neither is it something personal, as the ensuing discourse will show. What, then, will he say concerning the Father and the Sender? For these are not convertible, and they are two; therefore, according to him, there will be two principles, the Father and the Sender. I think he will not say even this, if he wishes to hold and speak the truth; for it will not suffice to say that the sender is not the cause of the one who is sent. But enough of these things. However, I think that he would not call the cause *hypostatic* either, as has been said before. For he himself will preserve the hypostases, ^D just as the Lord delivered them, who taught us the mystery of the all-holy Trinity in the tradition of saving baptism, commanding the disciples to baptize 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' indicating by the words 'in the name' the one essence, but by adding the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, showing the properties,

according to which the persons subsist, existing as incommunicable in their own proper existences. ^A It is demonstrated, therefore, that the concept of cause is neither hypostatic nor essential, in such a way that it would be common to the three persons or belong only to one person. It remains, therefore, that it is common to two persons, but that these are in no way contracted, nor should any duality of principles be thought to follow from this, just as that venerable man himself, rather after the fashion of a legislator, teaches, who, upon hearing that the Son is a cause and a principle, thinks that two causes and two principles are introduced. But we, hearing John, who reclined upon the breast of the Lord, saying in the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse: 'These things says the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God,' and hearing Gregory the Theologian saying: 'The beginning from the beginning, the image of the archetype,' ^B do not think that the creation was made from two principles; for he himself said: 'All things belong to the Only-Begotten, and are referred to the first cause.' And Basil the Great, in his letter to his own brother, whose beginning is: 'Since many [consider] the common of essence,' says: 'Again, we are led and instructed by Scripture to believe that the Only-Begotten God is the author and cause of the supply of those goods which the Holy Spirit works in us. For we have been taught by the holy Scripture that all things were made through Him and consist in Him.' When, therefore, we are raised even to that thought, we are again led by the hand by the divinely-inspired Scripture and taught that, while by that power all things are brought from non-existence into existence, ^C nevertheless they are not produced from that without beginning, but there is a certain power subsisting unbegottenly and without beginning, which is the cause of the cause of all things that exist.

OF EPHESUS. (CAP. XV.)

^A it, and he ordered them to be conjoined to those before it; he restored the most holy Photius to his own see, and he condemned and anathematized, just as the ecumenical synods preceding it did, those who would dare any addition or subtraction, or any alteration at all, to the aforementioned Symbol.

APOLOGIA. ^B And we most of all, by the guarding power of the most Holy Spirit and by the prayers acceptable to God of the holy apostles, with all the promptness and affection of our soul, embrace and love the Symbol of the same holy apostles as it was first set forth—a Symbol which was not received by the reverend bishop of Ephesus in the disputations of the ecumenical council, but is received and preached by us—as it is confirmed by the testimony of the divine Dionysius, who speaks thus: "Some call this hymn a confession, others the symbol of divine worship." And in the Constitutions of the same apostles, which the holy Clement collected in eight books, it is written down in the tradition of holy baptism, as he himself also noted; for he held those Constitutions in Italy; those which he lost in the land of the leaders [of the apostles], the bishop of Naupactus now holds; but also in this great city there are similar copies containing the same. But the holy and ecumenical third synod also makes mention of this ^C most sacred symbol. For it says in the letter to the Emperor (Theodosius): "We could not fail to discuss the dogmas of the faith and piety. But first, in the monuments of the acts, we have set forth the religious pledge of your piety with its own splendor; thereafter we added the edition of the holy faith, which was first handed down to us by the most holy apostles, and afterwards was set forth by the three hundred and eighteen Fathers gathered in the metropolis of Nicaea." But it is not, as he himself said in the disputations, that the Fathers, by joining the Nicene Symbol with that which was published at Constantinople, made one standard for those learning. For the holy and ecumenical third synod in many of its gatherings nowhere made mention of the Symbol of Constantinople. But he himself, this reverend man, transcribing the acts of the fourth synod, just as ^D he described the Symbol in the first [act] as it was published from antiquity and from the beginning, so in the fourth it was set forth separately, both the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan Symbol. And after the Nicene was read, all cried out: "This is the faith of the orthodox and the eternal faith! And in this we were baptized, and in this we have baptized, and in this we baptize. Pope Leo thus believed. Pope Leo thus taught," and what follows. By the command, however,

^A of the most glorious princes, the symbol of Constantinople was also read by Aetius the deacon, as we have explained more fully in another treatise. But we also observe and keep the apostolic doctrines, both written and unwritten, just as the Apostle Paul exhorts, and as the divine Basil says in his writings to Amphilochius: "Of the dogmas and proclamations kept in the Church, some we have from written teaching, and others we have received in mystery, having been passed down to us from the tradition of the apostles; both of which have the same force for piety, and to these no one will gainsay—no one, certainly, who has even a slight experience of what the institutions of the Church are. For if we should attempt to reject the unwritten customs as having no great power, we would unknowingly do damage to the Gospel in its most essential points, or rather, we would reduce the proclamation to a mere name."

In addition, we also accept and embrace the holy ecumenical synods, and furthermore the local ones as well, which were accepted by the ecumenical councils. Furthermore, we also accept the voices of the blessed and holy doctors, which serve for establishing right dogmas, from which testimonies were accepted in synods at various times for the confirmation of the true faith. Regarding the Acts of the eighth synod, this reverend man himself is ^B well aware that its Acts are held in the codex of the monastery of the holy Forerunner, which is also called Petra, joined together with the Acts of the sixth and seventh councils, which confirm Ignatius and hand over to him the Constantinopolitan throne, but drive out Photius as an intruder ^C and strike him with anathema. Furthermore, the Church has ranked Ignatius among the saints, as written above, even if in the Synodicon Ignatius and Photius are found linked together, and the writings and deeds against them are subjected to the anathema, so that the things of Photius may not become known to all. Even though the chroniclers, both Cedrenus and Manasses and Glycas and Scylitzes, and the Life of Saint Ignatius found in the volume of the Peribleptos monastery, openly reveal what Saint Ignatius suffered from Photius, ^D and how Saint Ignatius was restored to his own seat by the decree of the synod, and the Cosmidion monastery guarded Photius as an exile. We, furthermore,

shall receive the Acts brought forward by the Ephesian [synod] as being [the acts] of the eighth synod; and also the letter of the most holy Pope John, which he mentions, although it is very much suspected because the entire text is in Greek and bears no trace of Latin idiom. Moreover, in this synod it ought to have been read before all other things, and then Photius ought to have received the [insignia] delivering the see of Constantinople to him. But this did not happen so; rather, as soon as the Pope’s legates arrived and delivered to Photius the letters and the gifts sent—both the omophorion, the sticharium, and the sandals—without any previous examination, Photius immediately received them and what had been sent to him, as the Acts of this synod testify, and Photius’s words: "Christ ^C our God, who wraps the heaven in clouds and, to renew and purify our nature, took it upon Himself, may He protect our brother and fellow-minister and spiritual Father with a safe guard in the present life, and in the future age clothe him with the bridal garment, and show him worthy of that heavenly bridal chamber." There was a necessity, therefore, that the letter be read before everyone and the written profession of the legates be received, and, these things being done, that those things pertaining to the restoration of the throne and the high priesthood be completed. Nevertheless, we receive it most readily as an ecumenical synod, and the letter as well. What, then, does it say? "We think, however, that your holiness is not unaware, as one who is prudent and full of wisdom, that to compel the rest of our bishops to think in this way involves us in no slight difficulty, because no one ^D could easily change so divine a matter so suddenly, even if it has had its beginning but a short time ago, and has not obtained stability through the space of many years. For this reason, it has seemed good to us that no one should be forced by us to desist from the addition which he has already placed in the Creed, but rather [that we should] prudently prepare [them] by gradually exhorting [them] to abjure the blasphemy. 'Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint, but willingly, not as lording it over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock,' the prince of the apostles, Peter, said," and so on. Now these words are excerpted from the Epistle. For who has not heard that by the Latins, deserters of the faith (who think wrongly) are rather tested by fire? For what reason does (Pope John) thus [write to] those who violate the right faith

clergy"? For Arius and Macedonius and those with them might have said this, because it is written: "Do not lord it over the clergy," and all those who are likewise aliens to the orthodox dogmas. And where is the canon that ordains: "He who communicates with one who is excommunicated, he himself shall also be excommunicated"? It is evident, therefore, that what was added from the Son to the divine Symbol is not a heresy. For if this were a heresy, those who sing in this way would be subjected to anathema, even if they escaped the penalty of fire. But the most blessed Pope John and the synod celebrated by him did not do this, even though they exercised such precision in ecclesiastical matters that, because the Eastern Church inserted the name of Anthimus into the diptychs, the Roman Church was for that reason rent from it. ^B But it is necessary to set forth from this very synod, from which the reverend Ephesius has his own [proofs], in what way it asserts that the apostolic throne has great power, and how, for the sake of the universal good, a synod is seen to dissolve a synod, and what things it comprehends and what testimonies it produces—which we shall set forth as they are, so that he himself and anyone else may know that we are able to establish the development that occurred by the Roman Church [not] only from other proofs, but also from this synod. For it says in its second Act thus: "And indeed, thinking it fitting to pacify the Church of God, we sent our legates, fulfilling your will; even though your piety anticipated us by doing violence to Photius, in restoring him, that is, before our legates had arrived there; we, however, heal and supplement these things, not by our own authority—even though we have the power to do this—but by bringing forward the proofs from the apostolic constitutions and the decrees of the holy Fathers, not dissolving the rules of the Church handed down from of old, but [showing that] where their too exact and immutable observance tears apart and destroys the whole structure of the body of the Church, we are taught by the Church herself to draw its affairs toward that which is expedient." For indeed, the second canon of the synod in Nicaea says ^C thus: "For since frequently, whether by necessity or by some other means, men are compelled to transgress ecclesiastical canons." And also Pope Gelasius says regarding the same matter: "Where force is not applied, the statutes of the holy Fathers remain unshaken." ^D

^A Likewise, the most holy Pope Leo commands in the same spirit, saying: "Where force is not applied, the statutes of the holy Fathers remain unshaken; but where necessity and force are found, there let him who has the authority make provision for the benefit of the Church of God." For by necessity, according to the divine Apostle, a change of the law also takes place. And Pope Felix agrees with these, saying: "It is necessary to consider this, that where necessity is encountered, the regulations of the Fathers are often transgressed." Consequently, even the holy synod at Carthage says in the thirty-fifth chapter: "We command that the clergy of the Donatists return again to the Church, even though they had previously been deposed by a synod." And a synod is seen to abrogate a synod for the sake of the union and concord of the Church. ^B And Pope Innocent also says in the fifth chapter: "Let those ordained by the heretic Bonosus be received, so that scandals may not again arise in the Church of God." And not only to these, although they were such and taken as an exception, did this apostolic see, while caring for ecclesiastical peace, extend a helping hand, but also to orthodox bishops and patriarchs taking refuge in it. And after a few words: "For since this apostolic see once received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the first and great high priest Jesus Christ through the prince of the apostles, Peter, when he said to him: 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on ^C earth shall be loosed in heaven,' it has the universal power to bind and to loose, and according to the prophet Jeremiah, to root out and to plant. For this reason, we too, using the authority of the prince of the apostles, Peter, with all the most holy Church that is with us, affirm that we receive Photius." What, therefore, is there to learn from these things? First, that a synod is dissolved by a synod for the sake of utility; next, it is established that when necessity hangs over, canons are relaxed for the sake of the union and concord of the Church; and that the apostolic throne possesses the keys of the kingdom ^D of heaven, to bind and to loose, and to root out and to plant. If, therefore, he embraces this synod as oecumenical and brings forth testimonies from it, what does he imagine to be new or beyond expectation that was done by that same synod, since it concurred—with the first prelate asserting such authority for himself and acknowledged as such by the eighth Synod—even now with the holy Symbol together with the said exposition in the Roman Church, and in the East, just as it was framed from the beginning?

EPHESUS.

APOLOGIA.

EPHESUS.

APOLOGIA.

^A Athanasius, put forward, saying: 'If a bishop or presbyter, justly or unjustly deposed, returns to his functions without an ecclesiastical synod, to such a one let no place for defense be given.'" It is therefore no wonder if those three canons of Photius are found in the books. But rather, they even abrogated one of them in the case of that Anthimus of Macroblachia. For this man, having taken up the angelic (monastic) habit, was again urged by the synod and performed pontifical duties. And Holobolus of Gothia also did the same things; at the end of his life he was judged as a high priest, and as a high priest he was buried in the monastery of Christ the Philanthropist, in the presence of the renowned and most holy patriarch, the lord Matthew, as well as the metropolitans of Serres, Berrhoea, and the other bishops. And this canon was never in use, except that it was found to be prohibited by Saint Theodore the Studite, as is contained in his ^B Questions and Answers. But we embrace this one also, as we have said before, and whom it accepts, we also accept. For indeed it held in communion those who chant the holy Symbol with the addition, as the letter of the blessed Pope John testifies. We, however, with the judgment and discernment of the whole ecumenical synod, receive the explication and explanation that is confessed, and not the completion of something missing, and especially for the aforementioned words of this holy synod, which the prelate of Ephesus brings forward.

OF EPHESUS. (CAP. XVIII)

^A St. Basil in the *Ascetics*: “A manifest desertion of the faith and a crime of pride is either to reject any of those things which are written, or to introduce any of those things which are not written, since our Lord Jesus Christ says: *My sheep hear my voice*, and before this He says: *But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they know not the voice of strangers*.”

APOLOGIA. The terms “Consubstantial” and “Theotokos,” or the “ever-virgin Mother of Christ God,” were not preached by the apostles, nor indeed were all the things which the saints explained in their sacred writings, yet the Church embraces, accepts, and believes all these things. What, then, could one say concerning the change of the preposition, when in the Gospel the Lord’s voice declares, *who (the Spirit) proceedeth from the Father*, but the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers gathered at Constantinople say: *proceedeth from the Father*? ^B It is manifest, therefore, that the saints spoke only with regard to the evil opinion; for they did not contradict themselves. For it is clear that it is not written in the Gospel that the Holy Spirit proceeds *through the Son*, nor—as the divine John of Damascus teaches—from the essence of the Father, nor from the essence of the Son. Therefore, the things that have been said by the reverend prelate of the Ephesians, and the utterance of the divine Apostle brought forward by him, and likewise the explanation of the Father Chrysostom, have no place here.

OF EPHESUS. (CHAP. XIX).

APOLOGIA. Even if the aforementioned things are sufficient for a clear ^D evident...

^A assurance, as the later synods—not only those that followed the God-bearing Ignatius, but also those that followed the holy Basil and even John of the golden tongue—have explained and clarified many things, and no one has forbidden this; nevertheless, we shall also bring forward some things from the dialogue of the divine Maximus, as he is the latest (1) of the aforementioned saints, to demonstrate this truth: that not every explanation and exposition is forbidden, and conversely, that not every exposition and interpretation added to the sacrosanct definitions constitutes another definition through the introduction of other terms, but rather that those things which previously had not appeared in question, but were later explained, are deservedly accepted and kept. For Maximus says in his ^B *Short Apologia* (2), which he compiled on behalf of the Council of Chalcedon, the beginning of which is: "Since very generously, or more appropriately, ignobly..." — "But if, concerning the truth itself, it must be said that all the fathers chosen by God after the Nicene Council, and the whole assembly of orthodox and holy men, did not at all introduce another definition of faith through the bringing in of their own words, as you claim, babbling much and being entirely maddened, but rather confirmed that same one as the first and only one decreed by the holy three hundred and eighteen (6) Fathers, clarifying it and clearly enucleating it by their own narration for the sake of those who were perverting it and its dogmas toward their own impiety and explaining it erroneously." What then, if the Latins also did the same for the sake of those who called the Son unequal to the Father, by adding to the sacred Symbol an explanation—namely, the term *Filioque*—which even the divine Maximus himself in his own epistle (a) testifies to be a voice of the Fathers? Furthermore, from the disputation of Saint Maximus with one who followed the opinion of the Anomoeans (Macedonians) (7), the Macedonian (8) says to Maximus: "Do you therefore subscribe to the exposition of Lucian?" Maximus: "What have you condemned in the exposition promulgated by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea of Bithynia, that you seek another?" Macedon.: "But you, what have you condemned in the confession of Lucian?" Orthodox: "I have condemned the addition which you appended to the exposition of Lucian; and I can show that the addition is contrary to it." Macedon.: "And did you not add to the Nicene [symbol]?" Orthodox: "But not things contrary to it." Macedon.: "You added entirely." Orthodox: "The Fathers piously explained what had not been investigated then." What then will he say concerning those things ^D stated; [index: entries preserved]

Did the divine Maximus ignore the definitions, so that ^A by them he might rather refute the one who did not speak well? By no means. For he himself knows the decision of the sacred and holy fourth synod, as it is contained in the acclamation to the emperor, which thus decrees: "If, however, anyone thinks that those who wish to defend the faith according to their ability should stay at this point, he must especially promulgate this commandment to heretics; removing them from unjust attack, not turning the shepherds away from protection. For every law prohibits sin to wicked men, it does not take power away from the judges." Furthermore, let them learn that even now it is permitted, when an ambiguity has arisen, to add our own confession to the interpretations of the Fathers, as we demonstrate that our mind is not discordant with their intention. We have understood the ordinance from the Fathers to this extent. And thus we think, following the things said by the saints, doing nothing beyond what has been handed down to us (for the things brought forward in the whole confession for the sake of defense declare that everything which we say is not from our own thought, but from the teaching of the theologians and holy Fathers); not wishing to think anything else, except as the thrice-blessed Fathers and teachers of the Church of Christ, having been enlightened by the initiatory and divine Spirit, explained them. ^B

EPHE. (CAP. XX).

Egone itaque hisce omnibus spretis sequar eos, qui sub prætextu confictæ pacis unionem præcipiunt, eos qui sacrosanctum symbolum adulterant et Filium secundam sancti Spiritus causam inducunt? Nam reliquas absurditates in præsentia prætermitto. Quarum vel una sufficiens foret ad nos ab ipsis prorsus separandos. Ne id unquam patiar, o bone Paraclete, neque adeo a memetipso et a decentibus cogitationibus unquam decidam, verum firmiter inhærens tuæ doctrinæ atque beatis viris a te inspiratis apponar ad patres meos, si non quid aliud abhinc deferens, certe tamen pietatem. ^C

APOLOGIA.

Nos confictam unionem neque desideravimus aliquando neque unquam desiderabimus, cum omne confictum conjunctum habeat errorem. Sed documenta ac testimonia sanctorum et divinorum Patrum, quæ tum hic consignata, tum in aliis lucubrationibus de hac unione ^D exposita fuerunt ad ea quæ ab ipso dicta sunt et quæ his similiter

^A they present, show that we have done nothing fabricated, nor have we introduced anything spurious into the sacred Symbol, as did those of old who exchanged the word "consubstantial" for "of-like-substance." Nor do we call the Son a second cause of the Holy Spirit, as he himself thinks; for thus we should believe in two gods, as he imagines. However, a sufficient answer has been given regarding these matters previously.

But as regards the remaining absurdities which he passes over in silence, if he is speaking of the beatitude and fruition of the saints, he contradicts himself most strongly in the discourse which he published concerning St. Elijah. For he says: "I for my part consider it necessary and true that he is now permitted, just as it is for the souls of the saints, to dwell wherever he wishes according to the time, while he gladly makes his dwelling in his own temples and comes to those who on each occasion are in need of help; but I would not say that for this reason he abandons the heavens and the light shining there and his attendance with the angels before the supreme Lord; for thus he, who is over almost all, would have less than the other saints if, because he is clothed in flesh, he were separated from communion with them and from the vision of God face to face, which he enjoyed in an exceptional way throughout his whole life." ^B By this, therefore, it is clear that even he confesses that the saints enjoy beatitude, unless perhaps he judges beatitude to be something other than the contemplation of God face to face. But it is better to be silent about the contemplation of God face to face in this present life.

As for what pertains to the unleavened bread, Eusebius, Eutychius of Constantinople, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Chrysostom, and others of the saints will provide a defense. Regarding the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the eighth synod—to which he himself bears witness—was sufficient to establish it and to produce full conviction. But Theodore the Studite and the Acts of the holy synods also confirm it clearly. And each one of these questions we have treated in its own separate dissertation, so that we know he is reproaching the Latins with these things. ^C When, therefore, we learn of other matters, if they are true, we too shall stand with him in making accusations; but if they are like those already mentioned, we shall pass over them in silence according to the canons.

^D See how he, who elsewhere does not confess that the saints are in the kingdom of God, yet here clearly asserts that they enjoy the vision of Him face to face; which seems amazing to those of sound mind. How does he not understand that he is clearly contradicting himself?

doing so. For they say: "The more serious crime must be investigated first, and if the first is not accepted, the rest are not to be examined." ^A This, too, the laws decree. But regarding the prayer ^B which he recites at the end, if he obeys the Fathers and follows them, he will certainly obtain what he asks; but if he does otherwise, and acts according to personal persuasion, the outcome will be manifest. And as for us, if we maintain union for the sake of some matter of this world, we shall surely be punished—a consequence which necessarily follows. But if we follow closely in the footsteps of the Fathers, and in accordance with our power strive to maintain the peace and concord of the Church of Christ—on account of Him who reconciled and brought us to His own Father, and furthermore for the sake of the benefit of Christians and the explanation of the faith, which, by the ungodly, is daily, so to speak, narrowed and almost reduced to nothing—then we too shall be with the divine Fathers at the coming of Christ, even though the thing requested is great and exceeds our way of life. May God grant also to the venerable [Metropolitan] of Ephesus to look toward the truth, to bid farewell to all that proceeds from mere voluntariness and empty persuasion, and not, out of regard for the excellence of his own arguments, to despise those which are more humble, if they also say something worthy of reason, and especially if they draw their confirmation from the divine Fathers; by whose acceptable prayers may the Lord make level and direct the minds [of all] toward unity, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd, to whom be glory and praise to the ages of ages. Amen.

GREGORY HIEROMONACH, GREAT PROTOSYNCELLUS AND CONFESSOR, WHO WAS LATER MADE PATRIARCH, AND BURIED IN ROME, AND SHONE WITH MIRACLES. RESPONSE TO THE EPISTLE OF MARK OF EPHESUS FROM VARIOUS SENTIMENTS OF THE SAINTS.

EPHESIAN. To the Christians everywhere in the world and to those inhabiting the islands, Mark, Metropolitan of the Ephesians, sends greeting in the Lord.

GREGORY. The exordium which the venerable Ephesian uses excites all men everywhere in the world and inhabitants of the islands to hear his words. We, on the contrary, say to all inhabitants of the world, let them first give their ears to his words, and then listen to ours. For this reason we place his words first, and subject our responses to them, so that the truth may be manifest to all. For just as the sun, which is perceived by the senses, rising and filling the world with its light, makes itself visible to the eyes and makes inferior things able to be seen; since when the sun has risen, there is no need of one who might indicate the light to us, the ray itself showing the presence of the sun; nor is there one who would say to his neighbor: Look at the sun; so too the ^B true discourse of divine dogmas, shining like the sun through the tongue of the holy Fathers, reveals the truth to men who are not blind in their mind; and it provides certainty concerning the sincerity of the divine dogmas, and the integrity and purity of the faith, and invites all to desert to the camp of the truth. For just as the presence of light puts to flight darkness, since it is nothing; for that which is nothing cannot resist a thing that exists by its own nature; so also the illumination of the divine Spirit, through the sacred utterances of the God-bearing Fathers and the truth...

declares itself; and it illuminates those who follow and write down the thoughts of these [Fathers], and grants to those who hear a saving illumination from above. Therefore, for the sake of this common benefit for all, and for the finding of the truth (which ought to be sought not only in divine dogmas, but also in every other matter, as the Lord says: "Seek, and you shall find" ^A), let us also seek it out from the theology of the teachers, and let us supplicate Christ our God, who is Truth itself, so that by sending down the illumination and grace from above, He may enlighten the eye of our mind, that we may not fall behind the truth; for He Himself is the one who said: "Without me you can do nothing" ^B; and: "Everyone who asks, receives" 1. For since He is Truth itself, He requires true things, as holy David testifies: "The Lord seeks truth" 2; and: "My throat will meditate on truth" 3. Since, therefore, this venerable man writes to all Christian inhabitants of the lands and islands everywhere, that, just as he had already signified in his previous letters to them, they might receive the truth of the faith and turn away from those who uphold the pact of union with the Latins, come, let us also examine these very things which he writes; and if this honorable man holds fast to the truth, we too will stand with him, proclaiming it and exalting him as a friend of the truth; but if he deviates far from the truth, having brought forward the sayings of the holy Fathers, we shall make it plain to those reading what we answer to his writings; so that they may understand which side declares the truth itself; and it is a matter of adopting those things that have the brightness of truth with them; for that which uses faulty syllogisms and the darkness of falsehood deals in shadows. But since he himself puts forward what belongs to both sides, and we believe that we have the better understanding and that the truth is with us, it is ^C plainly necessary to follow the testimonies of the holy Fathers as a shining lamp, so that, just as if two colors were proposed, red and black, if everyone said he had the red and royal and precious one, when no light is present through which it could be discerned what each has, it may be perceived by the light who asserts the false and who the true. Moreover, this light cannot be had from anywhere else than from the holy Fathers filled with God, as we have said: who, illuminated by the holy Spirit through the dogmas of truth, like the sun, illuminate those who seek with all their mind and scrutinize their meaning. For they, having been inflamed with desire, sought, and having sought, found, as Wisdom says: "Those who seek me shall find me" 4; and they exhort us to do this same thing, so that by following the bare letter, like the Jews, we may not fail to arrive at the truth itself. This indeed both the other Fathers and Basil the Great in his first book against Eunomius teach: For if anyone, he says, without applying any investigation, contends that a matter is to be understood just as it presents itself at first sight, he, having reverted to Jewish and old-wives’ fables, will be found completely destitute of thoughts worthy of God. Therefore, that which—

1 Matt. vii, 7; Matt. vii, 8. 2 Ps. xxx, 24. 3 (Not expressly cited in the margin, but referred to in the text). 4 Prov. i, 13 (v. 28); Sap. vi, 13.

^A for we grow old. According, then, to our promise, we shall first set forth in detail the words of the venerable [Metropolitan] of Ephesus, and subsequently we shall append our own defenses, together with the testimony of the God-bearing and holy Fathers, so that through them the truth may be made manifest; for a discourse confirmed by those of renown possesses irrefutable demonstration.

EPHESUS. Those who have taken us captive in a wretched captivity and have desired to drag us to the Babylon of Latin customs and dogmas, this they have by no means been able to bring to a conclusion, perceiving it to be contrary to nature and, moreover, impossible. But having stopped in a certain midway of the journey, both they themselves and those who have followed them, they have ^B neither remained what they were before, nor have they become what they desired; having left behind Jerusalem—which is truly the vision of peace—and Mount Sion—which is the firm and unshaken faith—they neither wish nor are able, in truth, to become and be called Babylonians. And for this reason they may rightly be called Greco-Latins, though they are commonly called by the many "Latinizers."

RESPONSE. Having prefixed a title to his letter, addressed to all everywhere in lands and islands, and having wished them greeting, this worthy man immediately begins from the history of ^C the captivity that once occurred from Jerusalem to Babylon, wishing to render the account more agreeable and to stir up the hearers to an attention toward the things to be spoken. For it is the property of allegorical discourse to accommodate the words to the will of the speaker and the matter at which it is directed; therefore he introduced this history, that he might use it as an allegorical scheme according to his own will. It is permitted to us, then, without departing from the truth, to say that we rather hold and inhabit Jerusalem, which is interpreted as "peace," which also the Lord commanded us to keep, when He said: *Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you* ^D. Holding, therefore, this voice of the Lord which commands this, just as if occupying Mount Sion, we call those who rend the Church of Christ "Babylonians." We, however, neither have been Babylonians, for we shun confusion and schism, nor will we ever desire to be, being in truth disciples of Him who gave the commandment: *Seek peace.* He mocks us by calling us "Greco-Latins," having hit upon what he considers a new and appropriate name; yet we do not regard this as a mockery, but we confess it to be true. For when Constantine the Great set forth from Rome and brought the most noble Roman optimates from the city as inhabitants to that city which had recently been founded and honored with his name, and which was called New Rome, their descendants—speaking Greek but drawing their lineage from them—may rightly be called Greco-Latins, since the Latins call the Hellenes Greeks. And so, that which this most excellent man objects to us as...

a reproach, we consider to be the truth and we profess it. I pass over now the fact that our emperors are Romans and derive their origin from there. But the term Greco-Latin ^A was spoken in jest. For we, through the grace of Christ, showing that we seek the truth by every means, admit to our communion all who hold it, whether they be Greeks or Latins, barbarians or Scythians. For we know and we say only this one thing: that those who do not acquiesce in and follow the decision of an ecumenical council receive a different name; just as those who did not follow the decision of the synod, but rather Arius, were called Arians; and those who followed Eunomius, Eunomians; and those who followed Nestorius, Nestorians. But those who do follow the ecumenical decision do not receive a different name. And that the synod at Florence was an ecumenical synod, no one would deny. But as our argument proceeds forward, we shall provide a demonstration regarding this in its proper place. Having thus begun, and having thus fashioned his discourse, he begins once more in this way:

EPHES.

These men, then, are like the fabled hippocentaurs, half-beast; with the Latins they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and has the Son as the cause of His subsistence—for these are the very words of their definition—but with us they say that He proceeds from the Father.

RESP.

He begins again from a history of the Hellenes, which does not exist, but was fabricated by the vain conceits of ^B empty-headed men. For he ought to have taken an example from things that truly exist, which he could then also suitably apply. For every serious writer employs likenesses and examples that are not fictitious, especially in ecclesiastical matters. But this reverend man, having posited what does not exist as if it did exist, and having brought forward a likeness as if it were a thing constant in nature, calls us "half-beast" animals, inflamed by anger—or rather, to speak more fittingly; for it is clear that the example is utterly absurd, since the example is taken from something entirely made up; how then could it square with a nature that is existent and subsists in reality? But lest we seem to be responding to nothing, neglecting that which is proposed to us (for we do not wish to refute a man inflamed with anger, but to search out the truth and make it manifest), ^C come, let us examine his words one by one in order. He says, then: "With the Latins, indeed, they confess that, from the Son, etc.; but with us they say that He proceeds from the Father." In saying this, he pretends not to know that the Latins also confess with us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but that He proceeds from the Son, we indeed confess with the Latins, but we say this having been taught it by the saints. And that this is so, let us bring forward the doctors and theologians themselves as witnesses, not all [of them] or everything which they have written about this matter. ^D

but some, and from them a few things for a partial assurance, that what we say is taken from the saints. ^A

Accordingly, let us say, as the divine Cyril [says] in the discourse to the Emperor Theodosius, the beginning of which is: "The supreme height of human glory," he says: "He will baptize," he says, "Jesus in fire and the Holy Spirit; not that He ought to pour out the Spirit upon those being baptized as an alien [spirit], as a servant and minister, but as God according to nature, with the supreme authority, [He pours out] the [Spirit] which is from Himself and is His own." And in the discourse to Nestorius, the beginning of which is: "When our Savior clearly proclaims," he says: "Even though the Spirit has His own distinct subsistence, being understood as Spirit existing in Himself, not [as] the Son, nevertheless He is not alien to the Son; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth; and He is poured out from Him no differently than from God the Father Himself." ^B That the holy Father means "procession" by the word "poured out," he himself declares in the exposition of the Symbol. For he says: "And is poured out," that is, proceedeth, "as from a fountain, from God the Father." Here, [concerning] that [phrase] "is poured out from Him no differently than from the Father Himself," how is it to be understood? For if he had said only "is poured out," another sense might have a place; but when he adds, "no differently than from the Father Himself," he cuts off every occasion for those wishing to distort the sense. ^C And the great Basil, in the treatises against Eunomius, in one of the chapters whose inscription is: "That as the Son is to the Father, so the Spirit is to the Son," he says: "Therefore, the Son is the Word of God, and the Spirit is the word of the Son; for 'upholding all things by the word of His power' (Heb. 1, 3); and since He is the word of the Son, for this reason he calls it the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; and the Word of God is a living and active word." ^D And the holy Ambrose (to whom the divine Basil writing said: "Come now, O man of God, since you did not receive or learn the Gospel of Christ from men, but the Lord Himself transferred you from the judges of the earth to the apostolic dignity"), he, in the first book *On the Holy Spirit* to the Emperor Gratian, chapter 10, says: "But neither when He goes forth from the Father does He depart from place, and is separated as body from body; nor when He is in the Father, is He included as body in body." And the Holy Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and 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, being the spirit of His mouth? Truly, both [this] is an indication of eternity, and expresses the unity of the divinity. The holy Agatho, in his letter which he sent, fortified by the signatures of one hundred and twenty bishops, to the holy sixth synod, has these things concerning the blessed Augustine: "The blessed Augustine, most excellent doctor." And again: "The most prudent preacher of truth, the blessed Augustine." This blessed Augustine therefore

writing to Orosius, says as follows: ^A "The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but He proceeds from both together." And again, the same man says in the third book *Against Maximinus*: "You ask me, if the Son is of the substance of the Father, is the Holy Spirit also of the substance of the Father, why is one the Son, and the other is not the 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 is proceeding; therefore the former is the Son of the Father, from whom He was begotten; the latter, however, is the Spirit of both, since He proceeds from both. But because of this, when the Son was speaking of Him, He said: 'He proceeds from the Father' (John xv, 26), because the Father is the author of His procession, He who begat such a Son, and in begetting Him, gave it to Him so that the Holy Spirit might proceed from Him also. For indeed, if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from Him too, He would not have said to His disciples: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (John xx, 22); and He gave this by breathing, so that, by showing that He proceeds from Himself as well, He might openly demonstrate by breathing what He was giving secretly while He was simply breathing. ^B Since therefore, if He were begotten, He would doubtlessly be called the Son of both—not only from the Father, nor only from the Son, but from both—and because of this, since He can in no way be the Son of both, He ought not to have been begotten of both. He is therefore the Spirit of both, proceeding from both." And further down in the same chapter: "Let it suffice for 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 shown, whence He is also called the Spirit of the Father, etc."

The holy Anastasius, regarding whom the sixth holy synod says: "We receive the holy Anastasius"; and Theodore, Bishop of Melitene, replied: "The entire East calls this Anastasius of blessed memory, formerly Bishop of Antioch, holy; and he who does not receive him, may God anathematize him"; and all answered with one voice, "Amen." This saint, therefore, in his discourse, which is entitled *On the right dogmas of the truth according to us*, and which begins, *Of those things concerning our sound faith*, says the following: ^{C D} "Taking the property of the body as an example, we have demonstrated the interconnection of divine things through the analogy and likeness of the members. For by this reason also the spirit of His mouth—that is, clearly, of God—is called the Holy Spirit, while the Only-Begotten is [the] mouth; and again, the Spirit proceeding from Him and being sent, not only by the Father, but also by the Son." And after some things interposed: "Therefore," he says, "the Lord, showing Himself to be He from whom the Spirit exists, said to the disciples: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' That that discourse is by this author, the Synod of Constantinople celebrated against Acindynus will bear witness, for it brings forward testimonies from it. Nilus Cabasilas will also be a witness."

^A To this, Epiphanius, concerning whom Saint Theodore the Studite says at the end of his second book against the Iconoclasts: "We know Epiphanius to be both holy and greatest in the virtue of miracles." Again, the same in his epistle to Naucratius, which begins thus: "Another caution for you again, beloved son," says: "The things which you asked me to answer separately concerning the differences of heresies and baptisms are more than the compass of an epistle can bear." And again: "It is superfluous to recount those things which were found and written by the God-bearing Epiphanius more diligently than by any other Father. Unroll, therefore, his sacred book on heresies, and you will learn all things that you desire to know." The holy sixth ecumenical synod also, in the fourth volume, tenth action, speaks thus concerning this saint: "Testimonies of many others were read, as well as authorities of Saint Epiphanius from the Panarion, from the sixty-ninth discourse." And again, the same synod has this: "And our ^B excellent Father Epiphanius in the treatise against the Arians persuades us." Furthermore, the holy seventh general synod in its sixth action says thus: "The books of our holy Father Epiphanius, both the one called the *Ancoratus* and the others, are famous throughout the whole world, and their sound has gone out far and wide, and they are scattered throughout almost all the churches." Therefore, this saint in the aforementioned books, in the *Panarion* in the discourse against the Semiarians, says: "They confess one deity and principality and lordship: they piously acknowledge the persons likewise in the properties of the hypostases; understanding the Father as subsisting in the paternal majesty, and believing the Son not to be some part of the Father, ^C but essentially perfect, born of the perfect, and subsisting; and believing the Holy Spirit, whom Holy Scripture calls the Paraclete, to subsist from the Father through the Son." And in the *Ancoratus*: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the third light, from the Father and the Son." And after a few words: "For as no one knows the Father except the Son, neither the Son except the Father, so I dare to say that neither 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 from the Son." And again: "Therefore, the Father was always, the Son was always, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son." ^D Therefore it is clear and plainly manifest that both we and the Latins have taken that phrase, "and from the Son," from the teachers and theologians of the Church: from whom the holy ecumenical synods, while a theological question was being treated, used to adduce testimonies, as has been explained.

EPHESUS

And with them they say that the addition to the Symbol was made lawfully and rationally; for—

RESP. It sets down those words of the definition: "Lawfully and rationally," but it remains silent on what precedes them; and what those things are—namely, the explanation of those words, *Filioque*, for the sake of clarifying the truth, and under the pressure of the necessity at that time—that it was lawfully and rationally added to the Symbol. What then? Is it necessary that every explanation and clarification always be added to the text, and can the text of Holy Scripture not be read without it? Or because we recite the Symbol without the addition of the explanation, shall we say that the explanation and clarification added to the text was made neither lawfully nor rationally? And who, being of sound mind, could say this? ^B We know that ten chapters of the Gospel of John have been illustrated by commentaries by Basil the Great; and the same entire sacred Gospel has been declared by John Chrysostom, and also by the most excellent doctor Cyril, and others; yet it is not always read in the church with the narration. Wherefore, if we said that what was lacking had been added, and that which was not complete had been perfected by a supplement, and then we sang the Symbol without the added supplement, there would be reason for us to be justly reproached by him. But when one hears that the explanation and clarification have been made, yet that it is not always read with the text, he accuses us with no merit at all. This ONE thing is necessary: that everything declared by explanation be proven by the testimonies of the saints. For whatever a synod determines, it does not, through the things it introduces by adding, establish another definition, but explains the very first definition itself, and expands it ^C by explanation. That this is true, however, hear holy Maximus bearing witness accordingly. For he, in his brief apology for the Council of Chalcedon, of which the beginning is: "Since with too generous a spirit"—or to speak more aptly, "ignoble"—"For if," he says, "it is permitted to speak the truth for the sake of truth, all the Fathers chosen by God after the Council of Nicaea, and every council of orthodox and holy men, in no way introduced another definition of the faith" by the introduction of their own words, as you say, "delirious in the highest degree and utterly insane; but they wished that very first and only one, sanctioned by the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, to be firm and ratified, clarifying it, and, so to speak, unfolding and working it out more openly, on account of those who twist it and its dogmas with perverse interpretations to their own impiety." ^D

EPHESUS. And with them indeed they say that the body of Christ is unleavened, while with us they would not dare to partake of it.

RESP. He knows how to rebuke and rail against us on account of the unleavened bread, but he ignores that the mystical sacrifice was performed of old by the Lord with unleavened bread; nor does he think it indifferent whether it be by leavened or by unleavened bread that the sac—

- ^A rament is celebrated. But, as he imagines, everything—both the priesthood, and the altar, and the voice which the Lord uttered, "Do this in my remembrance," and the divine words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," and every rite—is rendered idle because they do not have a little leavened leaven from the same substance or from the same matter. But that our Lord and God celebrated the legal Passover, and then delivered the mysteries to the disciples, hear the holy Father Chrysostom saying in his eighty-first homily: "For what reason did he celebrate the Passover? To show through everything, even to the last day, that he is not contrary to the Law." Mark what he says: "Lest he should be contrary to the Law, he celebrated the Passover." What then? Did he act contrary to the Law by keeping leavened bread? But that at that time, even throughout seven days, ^B leaven was not to be found, the same holy Chrysostom will testify in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: "Let us say first, why leaven is driven from all boundaries; what then is the meaning of this riddle? The faithful must be free from every wickedness. For just as that man perishes, wherever old leaven is found, so also with us, wherever wickedness is found; for it is not to be supposed that while the punishments under the shadow of the law were heavy, those for us are not much greater. For if they cleanse their houses so thoroughly as to search even the mice-holes, much more does it behoove us to search the secrets of the soul." Since, therefore, they used to search the mice-holes, and the holy Father affirms that Christ, up to the last day, was not contrary to the Law, ^C and therefore celebrated the Passover; surely he would have been contrary to it if he had celebrated the Passover and kept leavened bread. Moreover, that this is forbidden by the Law, hear the words of it commanding: "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread: from the first day there shall be no leaven in your houses. Whoever shall eat leaven, that soul shall perish from Israel." And a little later: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at evening you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the same month at evening: seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses: whoever shall eat what is leavened, that soul shall perish from the congregation of Israel." But that Christ celebrated the Passover according to the Law, and the Jews performed it unlawfully by transgressing the Passover, hear the golden-mouthed Father in his eighty-fourth homily on John, ^D while he explains those words: "They lead Jesus from Caiphas into the praetorium." Why did they lead him there, where all were gathered? "That they might act with the consent of all the high priests; for he was the high priest at that time, and all were waiting for him. And so they spent the night and watched on account of this matter; for they had not yet eaten the Passover, he says, but for this reason they were watching. For after those words, 'And it was morning,' John added, 'And they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.'" What then

is there to say? That they ate it on a different day and broke the law because of their desire to commit this slaughter. For Christ did not transgress the time of the Passover, but those men did, who dared all things and trampled underfoot countless laws. Since these are the facts, how shall we censure those who perform the sacrifice with unleavened bread? ^A Regarding ourselves, we say that we have received it in this way and that we cherish our custom; and the apostles, breaking bread at home, performed the sacrifice; and it nowhere appears that they sought unleavened bread in order to sacrifice. Again, when the days of unleavened bread had come and leavened bread was nowhere to be found in Jerusalem, it nowhere appears that they asked for leavened bread to consecrate, because they knew that the underlying substance is the same—namely, wheat flour. ^B For it is not the case that because a little leaven is not present, all things pertaining to the sacrifice are already invalid, especially the words of the Lord, which transform the bread and the wine with water into His body and blood. That these very words transform this matter into what has been mentioned, hear from the divine Chrysostom in the homily entitled: "On the Betrayal of Judas, and on the Mystic Supper of the Savior, and Against the Jews"; the beginning of the discourse is: "I wished, dearly beloved, to take up the passage of the patriarch again." Christ Himself is present now, also adorning this table; for He who adorned that table then, the same also adorns this one now. ^C For it is not a human being who causes the things set before us to become the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest stands only to fulfill the form and offers the prayer, uttering those words; but the grace and the power are of God, who works all things. "This is my body," He says; these words transform what is set before us. And just as that voice which said, "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 1, 28), was spoken once, but throughout all time it becomes an effective act, strengthening our nature for procreation: so also this voice, once uttered by that divine tongue, "This is my body," in every altar ^D throughout the churches, the power of that word until this day, and until His coming, makes the sacrifice complete. If, therefore, this word transforms the matters set before us into the body and blood of Christ, and makes them tremble-worthy mysteries, it would be a marvel if these were not perfect because they lack a little leaven; and this, when Christ Himself has perfected it in such matter, as we have proven.

EPHES. Are these things not enough to show their intent, and that they did not come together with the Latins for the study of truth—which they have betrayed while holding it in their hands—but that they wished to fish for gold and bring about a feigned, not true, union?

^A RESP. That we, while seeking the truth, have been united through it with the Latins, is plain and manifest to all who do not love contention; for the inquiry was held through the theology of the saints, and not, as he himself says, that we have betrayed the truth which we held. For this same thing could be said of every ecumenical synod, namely that, having abandoned the first faith, they produced another. But it is nowhere written that by explaining it they produced a new faith. A witness to this fact will be Saint Maximus in that treatise of which we made mention earlier. For he says: "By what logic and in what way do you accuse the holy synod in Chalcedon—though it clearly made use of the voices of the Fathers—as though it were introducing another definition of faith, and why do you revile and mock it here and there, both in writing and orally? ^B Do not judge according to outward appearance, says the Lord, but judge righteous judgment." What is your complaint regarding the Fathers of the synod in Chalcedon concerning one and the same matter, and what is the reason for those who came before being freed from this same crime? For if it is permitted to accuse the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon of promulgating a different definition of faith for the reason that they used terms which are not found in the definition of the Nicene Fathers, it follows entirely that it could be said for the same reason against Cyril and against the hundred and fifty Fathers; but if it is not permitted to say this concerning them, I do not see why it should be permitted concerning this synod. That, therefore, we have followed the paternal voices, and through them brought about the union, has already been demonstrated: wherefore he does not even rightfully accuse us of having betrayed the truth that was with us. Nor did we make the union while gaping after gold; ^C for he himself likewise received the scheduled salary just as we did, and was not without gold staters. Indeed, he also received them from what was sent here for the provisions of the voyage, and in Venice, as well as the monthly sum given there. I do not know, furthermore, whether it is because he painted an icon of Saint Eugenius to offer to the Pope, and wrote a laudatory address to him, writing in it: "Father Abraham, lift your hands and bless your children who come from the east"—and not having received a reward for these things, nor having fished for gold—he belches forth words of this kind.

EPHES.

RESP. We have used as a medium for union the theology of the saints, without abandoning what we held before, as has already been quite well and clearly demonstrated.

^A For, as has been said from above by the God-bearing Fathers, everything that is expanded and elaborated does not overturn what is first, does not alter it, nor does it obscure or vanish it, but rather it establishes and clarifies it, and renders it more manifest. That the truth concerning the Holy Spirit, which is that He proceeds also from the Son, has been proven beforehand, and that this voice is that of the blessed Fathers, is clear. We have not conceived of any other "Medium" at all, save for Truth, which Gregory the Theologian also speaks of: "When I say 'Medium,' I mean Truth." And elsewhere: "We for our part, walking the middle and royal path, in which also the summit of the virtues stands." We always strictly cherish this Medium alone, knowing that the middle is something that has substance by nature, while what is on either side of the middle is a non-substantial evil. We do not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, nor indeed from the Son alone, but holding to the middle path of the saints, we confess Him to be from the Father, and from the Son, and through the Son. ^B

EPHES. But two different Symbols are still recited, just as before; and there are two different kinds of sacrifices performed, the one with leavened bread, the other with unleavened.

RESP. There are certainly not two Symbols, nor are they different; for the Symbol of the Faith, which we and the Latins chant, is one; nor does it become another Symbol on account of the clarification which they added to it. But even if there were two, they would not even then be called "two," since the Symbol of the Nicene Fathers is one thing, and the Symbol of the Apostles is another; yet because they do not differ in meaning, they are not called "different" by any means. Nor are there two kinds of sacrifices, nor are they called such, since the goal is one, namely, that the priest should become a minister of this sacrifice; and every priest who begins the divine mystery has this as his foundation: the Lord’s voice which the Lord uttered—"Do this in remembrance of me"—by means of the wheat bread and the wine and the water. ^C Thus, through these, and through the entire rite, and the Lord’s divine words, and the altar, the mystery is perfected, and it becomes the Body and Blood of the Savior Christ, with Him transmuting it by His omnipotent divinity. And this venerable Ephesian himself will confess that the divine sacrifice was accustomed to be celebrated even before the times of the holy Basil and Chrysostom, yet not by the rite which they themselves set forth. How could it be, when they were later? And after they had set forth the manner of celebrating the Mass, no one will be able to prove that the Western Church used that same mode; yet, two kinds of sacrificing have never been called two, because the power of the divine words is one, ^D and the intention, and the matter, and the capacity of the priest who performs the ministry, and the heavenly grace that operates. For, as was said above, the intention is

^A that the Lord said: "Do this in my remembrance," and the matter is flour from wheat, that is, bread, and wine with water, over which the Lord said: "This is my body," and, "This is my blood"; and the matter always becomes his body by the power of the one who transforms these things. This sacrifice is, therefore, one ^B, provided it be performed according to the rule and word delivered to us by the Lord, as we have explained. Concerning fermented and unleavened bread, a demonstration has already been brought forward; for the holy Father Chrysostom, in the fiftieth homily on Matthew, says: "Believe, therefore, that this is now the same supper in which he himself also reclined; for this differs in nothing from that, since Christ, not man, is the one working here." But enough has been shown on what should be thought concerning this mystery. Furthermore, in our lectionaries concerning the blessed Gregory, in the month of March, we also have this: "Gregory was removed from the midst of life and called into the midst of the choir of angels." And: "Saint Gregory, versed in every kind of knowledge and in the Scriptures, left behind many books composed by himself." And after a few words: "Not composed through human reasonings and studious erudition alone, but through the Holy Spirit, as Peter his archdeacon explained after his departure from this life, saying that he saw a white dove flying to his mouth while he was writing, and as it were suggesting and dictating what was being written." And not long after: "They say, however, that it was from his institution that the complete sacrifice of the Mass is performed among the Romans during the time of Lent, which is observed among them to this day. But we have not been separated on account of this, nor did the men of that age speak of two kinds of ^C Masses; nor have we ourselves ever blamed them, nor did they force us to such a custom; since these things do not injure the truth of the faith."

EPHES. There are also two baptisms; one which is conferred by triple immersion, the other by the infusion of water from the crown of the head from above; and the one also employs chrism, while the other has no need of it at all.

RESP. No one ever spoke of two baptisms. For there is one holy baptism, which is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and he who is baptized in this way is a perfect Christian. For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit signify ^D the three divine hypostases; while the common name signifies the unity and identity of essence, and the equality, inseparability, and indistinctness of power of the three persons. And whoever is thus baptized, his baptism is not repeated; but if one is baptized with something added or taken away, then it is neither called, nor is it, baptism. For baptism is properly from God; just as the divine Father Chrysostom teaches in his fiftieth homily on Matthew: "For the priest," he says, "is a minister; for just as when he baptizes, he himself does not baptize you, but

God is the one who holds your head with invisible power, and neither angel, nor archangel, nor anyone else can draw near and touch it," so also now, for whenever God regenerates, it is his gift alone. Since, therefore, it is God himself who baptizes and holds the head of the one being baptized, ^A as the saint says, how does he assert that there are two baptisms? From where does he obtain this, that those baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are not perfect Christians?

That the immersion via three submersions is necessary is evident; for thus it was handed down by the saints, as representing the three-day burial of the Lord, and it is handed down in such a way, and the rubrics of the Latins say the same. The necessary and indispensable things, therefore, are the renunciation of Satan and of his pomp, and of his worship, and of his works, and the promise made to Christ, and the confession of faith, and the anointing with oil together with prayer, all of which the Latins also perform indispensably. But neither do we immerse infants up to the very top of their head, because we cannot command them to hold their breath and to exhale through their nose, so that while this is held, the entry of the holy water through the ears might be prevented; nor can we close the mouth of the infant. ^B But we place them into the font, as if it is something very necessary and handed down, with the font representing a womb and revealing the rebirth through this. And so that the head, wherein is the seat of all the senses and the vehicle of the soul, might not become devoid of holy baptism, we cup our hand, and having filled it with holy water, we pour it over the head, invoking the divine name and the property of each individual hypostasis. And also the holy Apollonius, when reproached by the tyrant as being unbaptized and therefore not a Christian, having stood to pray—since God wished to give him full assurance, he did not overlook his supplication, but sent a cloud and poured dew upon his head. If, therefore, that which is poured upon the head were not baptism, it would not have happened in this way, but in another. ^C But why say much about this? Even this honorable man knows one baptism, both ours and that of the Latins, and not two; for being a foster-child of the Church, he never saw the Latins being re-baptized by us; however, moved by a feeling of disgust, he speaks these things, and one ought not to scrutinize things spoken out of disgust. But the Latins also anoint the baptized with chrism, and just as we do, they believe that the anointing with chrism is one of the seven sacraments of the Church. They apply it, however, when men reach a more mature age, when, according to the eminent doctor of theology, Gregory, it is possible by [reason of] age to hear something mystical and to respond. ^D

EPHES.

and if there be any such things. What then is the union, when it possesses no open and manifest sign, and how are those united who wish to retain their own [customs]? For this is what [the Latins] elsewhere agreed upon, while not following what has been handed down from the Fathers.

RESP. ^A This excellent man does not know, as it seems, that even in this great city of Constantinople there are various customs, and that the fasts and ecclesiastical rites differ. For some begin to fast for the forty days from the fifteenth [day] of November; others from the sixth of December; others from the twentieth. To the honor also of Christ’s Ascension, some begin to fast from the Kalends of May; and other fasts are observed by others. And if, in fact, during the days of the holy and great Quadragesima, many eat fish on Saturdays and Sundays, while others do so on other days, and some abstain from them altogether—what then? Shall we say that they differ among themselves even in faith? In ^B ecclesiastical rites, also, custom is various; for the great church of Constantinople uses one manner in celebrating the offices, while the greater monasteries use another, smaller ones [that are] adapted for quiet use another, and finally the secular priests of the Church use yet another. Nay, even the Tabennesiotes in one and the same monastery had various modes of fasting and chanting, with some fasting for two days and others for a week; and some singing the holy hymns in the evening, others at midnight: which happened also in the monastery of the ^C Acœmetae. And the holy Simeon the Stylite completed a forty-day fast without tasting anything at all; the blessed Daniel likewise performed this; yet no one has ever accused them of this to this day. And when the canon commands that one should fast on all Fridays, we do not fast on some, whereas the Latins fast on all, unless the day of Christ’s Nativity should happen to fall [on one]. Again, when the canon commands that one should not fast on a Saturday, Socrates, who was before the third synod, says: "In the Western parts they fast on Saturdays," yet those who were ^D of those times did not accuse them of this, because they knew that a difference in fasts and customs does not introduce a difference in faith. It would indeed be strange why this man did not reckon the diversity of language and the various kinds of vestments as a fault; or why, while they bend their knees when they adore and pray, keeping the usage of antiquity, we do not. But I think the expression, "and if there be anything of the sort," is meant to signify this, which also seems to be a strange thing.

EPHES. But what is this wise argument of theirs? They say, "The Church of the Greeks never said that the Spirit proceeds *solely* from the Father, but simply that He proceeds from the Father; but this does not exclude the Son from the production: so that in this way we have been and

^A now are united. O the folly! O the blindness! But if the Church of the Greeks has always said that He proceeds from the Father—having received this from Christ Himself, from the holy apostles, and from the Fathers of the councils—and has never said that He proceeds from the Son, for it received no such thing from anyone, what else, I ask, was it asserting than that He proceeds from the Father alone? For if not from the Son, it is evident that it is from the Father alone.

RESP. That the Church of the Greeks did not affirm, nor does it affirm, that the Spirit is from the Father alone is evident from the fact that the expression "from alone" ^B altogether removes the expression "through the Son." Following, therefore, the ancestral traditions and listening to the saints who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son" and "from the Son," and embracing the orthodox faith, how could it have held the opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone? For the expression "from the Father" does not indicate "alone," because one who says "Father" also understands "Son" together with Him. For ^C the great Basil says in his work against those who contradict [the doctrine of] the Son in the New and Old Testament, in one of the chapters titled, *Whether the Son is God by nature*: "It is impossible to speak of a Father if there is no Son; and one who says 'Father' does not speak of a Father absolutely, but the father of someone." The same author says again in the letters to Amphilochius: "The Lord, therefore, having passed over in silence His own Person, as being a matter confessed, says that the Father ^D alone knows, affirming that the knowledge of the Father is also His own; for this is understood even if not explicitly stated." And holy Athanasius in the discourse titled, *That the Nicene council, having perceived the craftiness of Eusebius, etc.*, which begins thus: "You have done well," says: "And when we say the name of the Father, we recognize from this name also the Word who is in the Father. Those, therefore, do not speak truly who say that the name of the Father excludes the Son, when rather it even signifies Him also." As to the claim that saying "through the Son" removes "from alone," hear the holy Fathers teaching this with a clear voice. For the great Athanasius says in the treatise he titled, *Refutation of the simulation of Meletius and Eusebius*, the beginning of which is: "Man is made in the image of God": "But it would be impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the glory of the Trinity if He were not from God through the Son in the mode of procession, and not made by the power of creation, as they say." Furthermore, the same Athanasius, in a dialogue he writes introducing an Orthodox and a Macedonian, says: "If, therefore, it is shown that the Spirit, who is poured forth from the Father Himself through the Son, has the same nature and divinity as the Father and the Son, it will also be demonstrated that He is to be worshipped and honored with the cult of latria." And the great Basil, in the chapter titled, *That unless one says the Spirit is from God, neither will one say the Word is from God*, says: "How then could those things which are inseparable be separated: the Word of God and the Spirit from God through the Son?" And John of Damascus says in the thirteenth chapter: "The Holy Spirit, the power of the Father manifesting the hidden nature of the Godhead, is from the Father, proceeding through the Son as He knows." And what need is there for those who...

Damascenus in the thirteenth chapter (9): The Holy Spirit, he says, is the manifesting power of the hidden divinity of the Father, proceeding from the Father through the Son, as He Himself knows. But what need is there to enumerate individually the saints who declare this most clearly, when the holy seventh cecumenical synod itself says this (10)? For it speaks thus through Tarasius the patriarch: I believe also in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is himself God and recognized as such. But if any say that “through the Son” means the same as proceeding “together with the Son” or “along with the Son,” they do not understand this well. For the divine Athanasius says in his epistle to Serapion, which begins, *The letters of your holy disposition*: ^A In Christ was the Spirit, just as the Son is in the Father. And again in the same: The holy and blessed Trinity is indivisible and united in itself; and if one speaks of the Father, His Word is in Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And again in another epistle to the same, which begins, *Perhaps you will wonder*, he says: For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but while being in the Word, through Him He is in God. From which it is shown that those who say the Spirit proceeds through the Son, [meaning] that [He proceeds] together with the Son, do not agree with those who have been cited, and the others who speak similarly, whom, lest it be too much, we have omitted. ^B Certainly this manner of speaking points rather to union than to distinction. For this reason the doctors of the Church do not speak or understand it in this way, but have handed down the aforementioned distinction; indeed, they establish the concord of the prepositions “through” and “from,” and deem that “through” signifies the cause entirely. Thus divine Chrysostom, in his fifty-ninth homily on Matthew: For Scripture, he says, knows how to use the word “through someone” in place of the phrase “from someone,” as when it says: *I have acquired a man through God*, understanding not a secondary, but the primary cause; and again: *Is not the interpretation of them through God?* and: *God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son*. ^C Do you see how this expression, “through the Son,” openly denotes the cause, so that no one can contradict it? But that it may be proved more effectively that “through” and “from” pass into each other’s signification so as to denote the cause, let us hear other saints as well. Therefore Basil the Great, in the summary treatise which he inscribed *On the Holy Spirit*, chapter 5, the beginning of which is, *These are the things which are said by them, but we shall show what we have proposed*: Now indeed, he says, “through” and “from” often succeed into the place of one another, when the one takes on the meaning of the other; as, *I have acquired a man through God*, which is the same as if he said, *From God*. ^D And elsewhere: *Whatever Moses had commanded to Israel through the commandment of the Lord*. And again: *Is not the interpretation of them through God?* For he said “through God” when he wished to say “from God.” Saint Cyril also, in his epistle to Nestorius, which begins, *I understand that some falsely disparage my reputation*: Since, he says, having taken flesh He has been named also Son of man, it is necessary to acknowledge that He has been born according to the flesh through a woman; and after a little: The Word from God the Father out of the holy

^A Virgin exists; and below: He was born even as we are of a woman. And not much later: The Word of God the Father, existing in the form of His Begetter, dwelt in a man born through a woman. Since, therefore, "through" and "out of" are used interchangeably, and the Western Fathers assert "also out of the Son," while the Eastern [Fathers assert] "through the Son and out of the Son," it is not right to disregard these and conceive of "through" as a substitute for "with." For no one among the saints has said that He proceeds "with the Son," or proceeds "along with the Son," because, as has been said before, this manner belongs rather to union than to distinction. For this reason, those who know well how to philosophize about the Spirit, being aware of this distinction, have never said that the Spirit proceeds with the Son; for if they had known this, the great Athanasius, that fountain of theology, would surely not have said in his fourth book against the Arians: "The Spirit does not conjoin the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word." And in the letter to Serapion: "In Christ was the Spirit, just as the Son is in the Father." And: "The Spirit ^B has such a nature and order toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father." And Basil the Great, that abyss of theology, says in the seventeenth chapter of his work to Amphilochius: "Just as, therefore, the Son has a relation to the Father, so too does the Spirit have to the Son, according to the order delivered in the formula of baptism; and if the Spirit is coordinated with the Son, and the Son with the Father, it is evident that the Spirit is also coordinated with the Father." And further, Athanasius, in the discourse against all heresies, the beginning of which is: "The text before us from the Gospel," he says: "Similarly also the great Paul: God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father [Gal. iv, 6]." And the Father Himself says through the great prophet: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy [Joel ii, 29]." And the Lord Himself, having come to bring salvation to the race of our humanity, used a voice which befitted the majesty of the Lord: "I," He said, "am in the Father, and the Father is in me [John xiv, 11]." And: "I am the truth." And: "If I go to my Father, I will not leave you orphans, but I will send you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth." Behold the Spirit is in the truth, and the truth is in the Father; behold the indivisible Trinity. Those, therefore, who say that the preposition "through" is taken in place of the preposition "with," do they not manifestly ^C oppose the theology of the saints?

EPHES.

RESP.

for he speaks thus, saying, whenever there is need. And we, too, though it is not inserted in the Creed, understand and say "and from the Son" whenever there is need; and likewise "through the Son." For why? Just as the saints say the Son is from the Father alone, even if it is not written in the Creed, and we proclaim it thus, so too do we understand and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father alone, but from the Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son, even though it is not inserted in the Creed. But that the saints do not teach by their theology that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, while they do say that the Son is begotten of the Father alone, hear this: for the great Basil says in his *Refutations*, in the chapter entitled "That the Son is not a creature": "The Son is Only-begotten because he is begotten of the Only [Father] alone." And the divine John of Damascus in the thirteenth chapter of his *Theological Chapters* says: "The Father is of the Son alone." And in the treatise of the same divine Damascene on the Trinity, which begins "We believe, therefore," he says: "He is Only-begotten, because he alone was begotten singly of the Father alone." ^B Gregory the Theologian says in his oration *On Heron*: "Truly the Son is the Son; for he is the only one from the only one, and singly and solely; for he is not also the Father, and he is the Son of the whole, and from the beginning." And again the same author says in his second oration *On the Son*: "He is Only-begotten, not only because he is the only one from the only one and solely, but also because it is in a singular manner, not in a bodily way." Maximus also says this, conversing with an Anomoean: "Since he is the only one from the only one." And Gregory of Nyssa, in the revelation to Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, says: "There is one God and Father of the living Word, subsistent wisdom and power, and an eternal image, perfect [Father] of a perfect [Son], begetter of an only-begotten Son; and one Lord from one, one." And you will find many other of the saints asserting this. If, therefore, they had believed that the Holy Spirit also proceeded from the Father alone, they would certainly not have kept silent; and we, even if it were not in the Creed, would have proclaimed it, just as we have learned from them and say that the Son is from the Father alone. But this is not written in the Creed, nor in the writings of the holy ^C Fathers; and when the heretics asked the saints, they never said "from the Father alone." For the great Basil says in his works *Against Eunomius*, in one of the chapters entitled "Why the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Son": "Not because He is not from God through the Son, but so that the Trinity might not be thought to be an infinite multitude, with the suspicion cast that there are sons from sons as there are among men." But you say: "If the Son is the image of God, and the Spirit is the image of the Son; and if the Son is the Word of God, and the Spirit is the utterance of the Son, why is the Holy Spirit not called the Son of the Son?" For you have used this as a most powerful argument for impiety; since you decree that the Spirit must be understood as either a son or a creature. The heretics asked this same thing of Gregory Nazianzen, as he himself writes in his oration *On the Holy Spirit*, ^D and when questioned by the heretics, the saints did not say "from the Father alone." For the great Basil says in his works *Against Eunomius*, in one of the chapters entitled "Why the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Son": "Not because He is not from God through the Son, but so that the Trinity might not be thought to be an infinite multitude, with the suspicion cast that there are sons from sons as there are among men." But you say: "If the Son is the image of God, and the Spirit is the image of the Son; and if the Son is the Word of God, and the Spirit is the utterance of the Son, why is the Holy Spirit not called the Son of the Son?" For you have used this as a most powerful argument for impiety; since you decree that the Spirit must be understood as either a son or a creature. Gregory the Theologian [did the same] when questioned by the heretics, as he himself says in his treatise *On the Holy Spirit*

^A that he knew the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father alone, he would have said so, and would have freed himself from much trouble of words. And Athanasius, most skilled in divine things, in his epistle to Serapion, which begins, "I have read the letter written by your piety," introduces what was objected by the heretics in this way: "Then, as you write, they add: 'If the Spirit shall receive from the Son, and is given by Him; for so it is written'; they immediately infer: 'Therefore the Father is the grandfather, and the Spirit is His grandson.'" Certainly, if the holy Fathers had believed the Spirit to be from the Father alone, they would have said so, just as they affirmed the Son to be from the Father alone; but they never said this, although they were strongly urged by the heretics. Whence therefore this worthy man received the expression "from alone," we do not see; for he ought to have cited the authors who had philosophized in this way, and not passed over it in silence; since before the schism none of the saints had said this. Therefore we consider it sufficient if we only say that this was indeed said by the saints, but that [other] not at all; and that we say and believe what they said, even if it is not expressed in the Creed; but what they do not say, we likewise neither hold nor preach.

EPHES. For this reason also John Damascene, in the person of the whole Church and of all Christians, says: "We do not say the Spirit is from the Son." If therefore we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, clearly we say [He is] from the Father alone. For ^B this reason also, a little earlier, he had said: "We do not call the Son the cause," and in the following chapter: "The Father," he says, "alone is the cause."

APOL. If indeed the divine Damascene, wherever he uses the words "We do not say," intended "It is not," we could correctly admit this sense here also; but if he also uses this way of speaking elsewhere, "We do not say," not as if the thing is not, but because it is not brought forward on account of the heretics, why should we understand the "We do not say" here as if the thing is not? That it is so, hear him explaining it in these words: for in chapter 77, the title of which is, "That the holy Virgin is Theotokos," he says: "We do not call the holy Virgin Christotokos." And in another of his treatises, which is entitled, *An Exact Sermon against the God-hated heresy of the Nestorians*, which begins thus: *To the followers of Nestorius*, he has this at the end of the sermon: "Therefore we preach the holy Virgin as Theotokos, as she who truly and properly gave birth to God incarnate from herself; we know her indeed to be Christotokos, for she gave birth to Christ, but ^C because the most depraved Nestorius abused that word for the denying of the word 'Theotokos,' we name her not 'Christotokos,' but from the more excellent [title] 'Theotokos'." You see how he acknowledges indeed the name of Christotokos, but does not use it, not because the Virgin is not Christotokos, but because she is not so called; for it did not escape him, what Gregory the Theologian says in his oration on the Holy Spirit: "Of things, some are not, yet are spoken; others are, yet are not spoken; others..."

^B are both, and are, and are spoken." For just as he here most clearly declared that we do not say "Christ-bearer" because of Nestorius and his followers, not because it is not so, so on account of Eunomius, who asserts that the Spirit is from the Son alone, he says: "We do not say 'from the Son' [regarding] the Spirit." For if he knew that He was not [from the Son], he would have spoken about this as he also speaks about the Son; yet we do not call the Son [the Son] of the Spirit, nor [do we say He is] from the Spirit, as Gregory of Nyssa also says: "But the Son, being from God, is not [the Son] of the Spirit, nor is He, nor is He called such," nor does this relative consequence invert itself.

Note also it in another way: for when he says, "We do not say 'from the Son,'" he does not stop his discourse there, but immediately connects it, adding "through the Son." For he says in the thirteenth [chapter] of the *Theological Orations*: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit proceeding from the Father, for there is no motion without the Spirit; and He is also the Spirit of the Son, not as if from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father." For that holy man well understood, as one skilled in the Greek idiom, that wherever the preposition "from" (*ex*) is placed, it does not signify anything prior, but indicates that from which the first origin arises, and there it rests the mind of the hearer. But the preposition "through" (*per*), wherever it is placed, entirely seeks in every respect another origin, which is also the pre-initiating one. For this reason, therefore, the "from the Son" is denied, while the "through the Son" is very much affirmed. "We do not say 'from the Son,'" he says; for he does not say, "And we do not say 'from the Son,'" with the added copulative conjunction "and," but, "We do not say 'from the Son.'" For the conjunction "and" seeks something else, just as the preposition "through" also does, and it has a pre-conceived "and" as a conjunction. And see how, following the other holy men before him, he says "through the Son." For he says: "The Holy Spirit, the manifesting power of the hidden divinity of the Father, is from the Father, proceeding through the Son, as He knows." And again: "He himself is mind—the Father, clearly—the abyss of the Word, the begetter of the Word, and through the Word the producer of the manifesting Spirit." Therefore, let those who say that the preposition "through" is taken in place of the preposition "with" and "together with," understand and say also in this case that the mind, which is the abyss of the Word and the begetter of the Word, produces the Spirit together with the Word, or produces Him with the Word. But they will not wish to [say this], as I suppose; and from this the trick of [their] misinterpretation will be exposed. For not in vain did the holy man, when he had denied the preposition "from," bring in "through," but for the aforementioned reason, namely to refute Eunomius and his followers, who affirmed that the Spirit was from the Son alone. For he himself knows the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son; and he discourses about Him as is evident from the places already cited and from the hymns which he sings to the Lord: "Grant us, O propitious One," he says, "the Spirit from whom goodness emanates, and who proceeds from the Father through Thee." So we too plainly confess that the Spirit is by no means said to be from the Son primarily, but He is said to be from Him as well. For it must be confessed that the paternal hypostasis is the principle and cause of the Son and of the Spirit; but as for the Son, we shall by no means confess Him to be the primordial principle, nor shall we say the Spirit

proceeds from the Son, but rather from the Son after the Father, with the ^A copulative conjunction "and." For he who says the Spirit is from the Son provides a suspicion that the Son is thought of as the primordial principle. Therefore the divine John also says: "We do not say the Spirit is from the Son." But he who says, "The Spirit is from the Father through the Son," or "from the Father and from the Son," openly confesses the Father as the sole primordial principle of the procession of the Spirit; for all that the Son has, He has received from the Father, essentially, that is, and naturally, as a true Son from a true Father; or rather, He has all things with the Father, as the Lord Himself says, and as Cyril interprets. For he says in the apology to Theodoret regarding the ninth chapter, which begins, "I have already said, against the trifles of Nestorius," that is, his blasphemies: "The Holy Spirit proceeds indeed from God the Father according to the voice of the Savior, but He is not alien to the Son, for He has all things with the Father; and this He Himself taught, saying concerning the Holy Spirit: 'All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that He will take of mine and will declare it to you.' And thus we understand the holy John to agree with the other saints who say: 'And from the Son,' 'Through the Son,' and 'From both.' But if we do not understand the saint to intend, in saying 'We do not say it is from the Son,' that he is denying a primordial principle, but [if we take it] simply and absolutely, then we shall find him to be neither consistent with himself nor in agreement with the other ^B saints. For [the phrases], 'The manifester of the Spirit is through the Word' and 'The Word must have [the] Spirit,' as he says in the seventh of the Theological [Orations], do not allow for there to be no [procession] at all from the Son or through the Son. This the divine Cyril also sets forth concerning the text, 'When the Paraclete shall come'; for he says: 'For just as the Spirit is naturally the Spirit of the Son, existing in Him and proceeding through Him, so too is He the Father’s; but those for whom the Spirit is common, their substance certainly cannot be distinct.' ^C The statement, 'The Father is the sole cause,' is not found in the most ancient books; but we too accept this, and say that it is well stated. For all things that the Son has are referred to the first cause, the Father, just as the great Basil also [writes] in the letter to Amphilochius, concerning the Lord’s not knowing the day of the end, [where] he speaks thus: 'And so no one knows the day of the end except the Father alone,' [stating we believe this to have been said] because the Son refers the primary knowledge of things that are and things that will be to the Father, and through all things points out the first cause to men. Gregory the Theologian also, explaining the ^D evangelical passage, says: 'So that all other individual things, and thus also the knowledge of the most important things, may be referred to the cause, and honor may be rendered to the Begetter.' It seems to me, furthermore, if one reads it as certain persons do...

even among those learned in our affairs, that one may grasp a little something, namely that not even the Son knows the day or the hour otherwise than as the Father does; for what is the conclusion? Since the Father knows, for this reason the Son does too; as it is clear that this is known to no one, nor is it graspable, except for the First Nature. ^B But the great Basil also refers the causality of the creatures, of which the Son is also Creator and cause, back to the Father; for he says that the Lord speaks to God and Father, just as Basil the Great says in the eighth book of those *To Amphilochius*: 'All that is mine is yours,' so that the origin of the creatures is traced back to Him; 'and yours is mine,' as the causality of creating belongs to Him from there. If then the power is equal, surely the operation must also be equal; for Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; and thus all things were made through Him. The same Basil remarkably well sets forth in his treatises *Against Eunomius*, refuting the one who assigned the cause only to the Only-Begotten, denying it to the Father, and calling the Spirit a creature of the Son. The saint, establishing that causality should be attributed not only to the Son but to the Father as well, says: 'But who is truly ignorant of this, that no operation of the Son is separated from the Father, nor is there anything at all that the Son possesses which is alien to the Father? For all things,' he says, 'that are mine are yours, and yours are mine.' How then does he attribute the causality of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone, and by an accusation against nature, takes away his creation? ^C If he says these things in order to set up two principles opposed to one another, he will be ruined along with Manichaeus and Marcion; but if he wishes for all things to depend upon one cause, that which is said to be accomplished by the Son is referred back to the First Cause. So that, even if we believe that all things have been brought into being through God the Word, we nevertheless reserve that [prerogative] entire to the God of all, so that He may be the cause of all things. And thus we understand and believe, with the holy Maximus also, that causality is reduced to the Father.

EPHES.

What further? 'We have never,' he says, 'held the Latins to be heretics, but only schismatics.' And they have taken this from the Latins themselves; for those men call us schismatics, having nothing for which they might accuse us regarding our own opinion, but only that we have separated ourselves from the obedience owed to them, as they imagine. But whether it is also just for us to reciprocate the same to them, and that they should not be accused for their own opinion, must be considered.

RESP.

It is so, they in their turn used to call us schismatics. For what could they accuse in us, being ^D orthodox as they were? For if they were truly in error regarding the faith, they would not call us schismatics, but heretics. For

we neither consider nor call them heretics; for if we held them to be heretics, the Church would not honor their Pope with ^A the titles of most blessed and supreme Pontiff—for after such a long passage of time, the orthodox do not honor with these names those who hold erroneous views regarding the faith. † He calls those Greeks orthodox, who, because they believed that two principles were being posited by the Latins, held their union to be suspect, not because they excluded the Son from the principle of the Holy Spirit, as may be seen in the definition of the Council of Florence, and [only] in that they were prepared to be corrected by the Church. ^B

EPHES. They certainly gave the cause of the schism by openly making the addition which they had previously whispered. But we did not separate ourselves from them first; nay, we separated and cut them off from the common body of the Church.

RESP. It is certain that they gave the cause of the schism through the addendum in the Creed †, not that they had whispered it before, for he himself will be a witness hereafter that the phrase "Ex Filio" (from the Son) was in use among the Western saints: he might perhaps deny the meaning, or interpret the term differently, just as he clearly does; but he will not be able to deny the term itself, "Et ex Filio" (And from the Son), ^C since he brings forward Saint Maximus as a witness to prove what he has proposed, and cites part of his letter, although he suppressed the "Per Filium" (Through the Son). How then did they whisper what they had received from the saints? But because they wanted to accomplish on their own what are common matters, while the other churches did not concede this; therefore we would have left them alone forever, had they not been willing to have common matters examined and regulated according to the ancient practice by a general synod, which is what has now been done.

† The addendum which the Greeks call [that] in the Creed was recited by the Latins in the time of Photius, as Photius himself ^D testifies in his encyclical and other minor works which he wrote against the Roman Church. It is clear, therefore, that the addendum was not the cause of the schism; for the Greeks were still united after Photius. It is clear, moreover, that even before [the Council of] Florence, the business of union was treated in other general councils, in which the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit was sufficiently and abundantly agitated.

EPHES. For what reason, I beseech you? Was it as those holding a right opinion, or because the addition was rightly made? And who would say this, unless he were utterly deranged? Therefore, it was because they held absurd and impious views, and were the authors of a reckless addition. As heretics, therefore, we are...

^A estranged from them; and for what other cause? For the pious laws say: "He is a heretic, and is subject to the laws against heretics, who deviates even in the slightest degree from the right faith."

RESP. For no other reason than the one already stated: those who wrote against them were moved by it, alleging the absurdities that seemed to follow from the addition, and while they confessed that the expression "from the Son" was the voice of the holy Fathers, they rejected the sense, and reduced the expression to two principles or a confusion of persons. Even if this were so, the guilt would not attach to the Latins, but to the holy Fathers who first uttered this expression. But they subject to anathema the absurdities which they suppose follow from this expression ^B. Therefore, we are not at all "shaken in our brain," as he himself calumniates us; nor did we turn away from them because we preached that they were absurd and impious; for if they preached absurd and impious things, our Church and our emperors would not have sent constant embassies to request that a synod be held. For the orthodox hold heretics, once they have been cut off from the body of the Church, in no account; but our own men, who excelled in wisdom and virtue—Macarius of Nicomedia, and Euthymius, who was afterwards promoted to the see of Constantinople, and Joasaph of Ephesus, and Macarius, the hegumen of the monastery of the Pantocrator—went there and received the blessing of the Pope. Nay, even he himself who writes these things did likewise. We did not, therefore, turn away from them as heretics.

But since he brings forward a law, the Latins, too, shall cite a law: that no one is to be condemned in their absence. For the law thus ordains: that if an accused person, when summoned, does not appear, he is liable only to the penalty of default, until he appears before the tribunal. For this reason, the name of the Pope was expunged from the diptychs. Furthermore, that he who deviates from the right faith is a heretic, there ^C is no need to prove by laws; for all Christians have this firmly persuaded, and it is preached by all, both before the law and after the law. But did he not prove this when he was there and debating? On the contrary, at the time of the debate, he refused the debate; for if he had proven this, no Christian at all would have admitted union with the Latins, especially the prelates of the Church and the clerics who subscribed. For no one, whether minor or major, by the grace of Christ, would have wished to accept the union of the Latins if he had demonstrated that they did not think rightly. But just as in this letter he proclaims the term "from the Son alone," so too, when he brought in the same "from the Son alone" there, the Latins brought forward the testimony of the Fathers; but he himself did not wish to debate further, nor did he wish to come to the synod at all—even though he who was debating with him, in the presence of the emperor, the nobles, the prelates, and all the people, was calling out: "Let the reverend lord of Ephesus come, that he may hear the answers to the things he said, and render an account ^D of them."

But he refused to appear, though urged by all. How then does he say these things now, which neither others said, nor he himself was able to prove? For the struggle was there, and the words, and the defenses, and he refused to appear; and now he says whatever he wishes. Therefore, there is no need of a long response. ^A

EPHESUS. If, therefore, the Latins do not deviate at all from the right faith, we have cut them off in vain, as it seems; but if they do deviate at all, and that concerning the theology of the Spirit, in whom to blaspheme is the most ruinous of dangers, they are then heretics, and as heretics we have cut them off.

RESPONSE. Whether they deviate or not, has already been demonstrated. But as to the point of blaspheming concerning the theology of the Spirit, in what sense it was said by the Lord to the Jews, why he does not know, I am ignorant. For we say that the danger is most ruinous, in whichever divine person one blasphemes; for we acknowledge them to be equal in eternity, and power, and divinity; so that whoever blasphemes against any of the divine hypostases, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the coming one. This also the great Athanasius asserts in his explanation of the evangelic saying: "All things have been delivered to me." For, he says, he who blasphemes against any one of the divine hypostases shall not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the future. And Gregory the Theologian says thus: "Whatever you take away from the three, you will have disturbed the whole, and lost for yourself the sacrament of perfection." ^B Therefore, the Latins do not take anything away from the three; for they acknowledge the divine persons as equal in power, and sovereignty, and divinity, and eternity. How then does he say that they blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? Whence, having learned this, does he speak?

But as to his saying that they are heretics, and that as heretics we have cut them off, let him first call to mind John of Antioch and Cyril; for both held to the right faith, but because Cyril did not wait, but had pronounced his judgment against Nestorius before the arrival of John, those around John of Antioch wrote against the divine Cyril; and the Acts of the Third Council will testify to this. If, however, we have cut them off as heretics, as he himself asserts, let him show the decree of the council against them, how and when they were condemned, and whether they persist in the condemned heresy for which they were condemned, so that we too, having known the judgment and the decision, may embrace it most gladly. ^C But he cannot show these things; for where can he show that the Latins preach heresy? Unless it be that it "follows." But the Latins say, even if it follows, you say so; but we say it does not follow; and first of all, because

^A our holy Fathers teach this expression; and second, because we do not understand it in such a way that from this expression the personal distinction is either subverted or so united as to result in confusion, which you vehemently assert follows. For we understand the unity very well, and we declare the distinction most admirably; and hence, neither are the Father and the Son two principles of the Holy Spirit, nor are the Father and the Son one person in the procession of the Holy Spirit—for then there would be two sending, since the Father sends and the Son sends. But it is not so: for the expression, "From the Sole," neither is nor was said by any of the ^B saints. For how could it be, when they themselves say, "From the Father and the Son," and "through the Son," and "substantially from both"? For between these expressions and that, "From the Sole," there is a contradiction. Just as these propositions: "While the sun is above the earth, it is day and it is not night," and again, "While it is beneath the earth, it is night and it is not day"—so, too, these two will never agree, "From the Sole" and "From the Son and through the Son and substantially from both." And these things have indeed been pronounced by the doctors and theologians of the Church, whom the holy general synods have proclaimed to be held as saints, and whose writings they embrace. But the expression, "From the Sole," was heard ^C after the schism and the contention. For if we wish to judge theological matters by consequences, we shall fall into many absurdities. For if, because we say God is from God, there are two gods and not one God whom we believe, and because we say "begotten," we understand time; and because we say "descended from the heavens," we circumscribe Him by place—what need is there to gather more, which seem to be inferred by consequences? For whoever thinks wickedly will conclude everything that has been said through such sequels. But since we are men fashioned from clay and mud, we cannot use words about God that are congruent. Therefore, we explain all divine matters in a human way. Nor should one refute us by consequences, but by confession; for truly, with God, we judge regarding the things of God.

EPHESIUS

^A write regarding these matters in his replies to Mark, the most holy patriarch of Alexandria?

*The Question of Mark.* Captive Latins and others coming to our catholic churches seek to share in the divine sanctifications. We wish to know if this is to be granted.

*The Reply of Theodorus.* "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" [*Luc. xi, 25*]. Since, therefore, the Western Church—I mean that of Rome, that once-renowned gathering—was cut off many years ago from the communion of the other four most holy patriarchs, having branched off into customs and dogmas alien to the Catholic Church and the orthodox; for this reason, the Pope is not accorded a place in the divine sacrifices in the common commemoration of the patriarchal names; therefore, a Latin man ought not to be sanctified by a priestly hand through the divine and immaculate mysteries, unless he first consents to renounce Latin dogmas and customs, and is canonically catechized, and is enrolled in the number of the orthodox. Do you hear? They have been cut off not only in customs, but also in dogmas ^B alien to the Church; and things alien to the orthodox are entirely heretical; and that he must be canonically catechized and enrolled in the number of the orthodox? And if he must be catechized, it is clear that he must also be anointed with the chrism. How, then, have they suddenly appeared to us as being "orthodox," those who for so much time and by so many Fathers and teachers were judged to be heretics?

*ANSWER.* Having brought forward the canon ordaining who must be chrismated, which makes no mention of the Latins, and having appended nothing but the reply of Balsamon to the Alexandrian, he brings in: "Those who have been judged heretics by so many Fathers." ^C It is manifest, then, that they were not judged by "many Fathers," but by Balsamon alone, and that, too, after the schism and the contention. If, therefore, the Alexandrian, after so much time had elapsed (for three hundred years had already passed), did not know how those coming from the Latins were to be received, it is obvious that they were not judged to be heretics by "many Fathers"; for the judgment and sentence by which the Latins were condemned would undoubtedly have been known to the Alexandrian and the other churches. But the Latins also used to chrismate ^D our people, and called them "chrismated." But that these things were not done according to any just reason is evident from the fact that, at the time of our union, they had nothing to object against us, but, being orthodox, we were held as orthodox by the orthodox.

*The Latins sometimes chrismated the Greeks with a condition and a distinction, because the presbyters are not the proper ministers of this sacrament—such as were the priests of Photius in Bulgaria—or because the presbyters, who among the Greeks commonly confer this sacrament, are not the ordinary ministers of confirmation.

EPHES.

RESP.

† The author’s opinion: for this dogma, as has been said, had already been discussed in other councils before.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A they possess. We do well, therefore, with Gregory the Theologian to say these things. But when I speak of a "middle," he says, I mean the truth, toward which we do well to look, and it alone, avoiding both lowly reduction and the more absurd separation. And again: "We, treading the middle and royal path, in which the pinnacle of virtues also stands." This we too say. But as for the middle "term" between two opinions which he himself introduces—we do not know whence he took it or from whom he has it. Wherefore, as it is unknown to us and we have never heard it from others, how are we to answer to this? For he himself introduces things not said by the saints, and by his own position he makes an affirmation and a negation. For the saints do not say, "from the Son alone," but, "through the Son," and, "from both," as was previously demonstrated. Therefore, the Church ^B never held what was not said by the saints; rather, we accept and guard those things which we have from the saints, and we shall never depart from them, acknowledging no other "middle" besides that which the saints have handed down to us, even if he himself fashions a new one as he pleases.

EPHES.

RESP.

^A just as that phrase is: "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed" [Matt. xiii, 31]; and that: "When Christ shall appear, we shall be like him" [1 John iii, 2]; these things do not indicate an essential likeness. But in the case of the Son of God, our Savior, it is not so; rather, we have known Him to be consubstantial, hearing Christ Himself saying: "I and the Father are one" [John x, 30]. Where, by that word "one," He declared identity of essence with invariability; but by the word "are," He expressed the two hypostases. But the Arians, because they did not believe that the Son of the true God and Father had the same substance as the Father, with all variation entirely removed, and that He was equal to Him—if you except the generation—they changed "homoousion" (consubstantial) into "homoiousion" (of like substance); and they called this a middle term, and imposed it upon the simpler folk. How will this fit in our case and that of the Latins, who commonly confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be one God; and that whatever the Father is, the Son is also; and whatever the Father and the Son are, the Holy Spirit is also, in power, and sovereignty, and authority, and divinity, with the properties remaining ^B unchanged?

EPHES. But what, he says, shall we do regarding these middle-ground Greco-Latins, who cultivate this middle position; who openly praise some of the Latin customs and dogmas, while they approve of others but would by no means embrace them themselves, and do not even approve of others at all? They are to be avoided no differently than vipers; no differently, indeed, than those who are even worse—those who traffic in Christ and have Him for gain. For these are, as the Apostle says, those who "suppose that gain is godliness" [1 Tim. vi, 5]; concerning whom he adds, saying: "From such withdraw thyself." For they do not defect to them so that they might learn, but so that they might acquire something for themselves. But what fellowship has light with darkness, or what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has he that believeth with an infidel? [2 Cor. vi, 14-15].

RESP. To this there is no need of an answer; for he casts contumelies upon us, stung and inflamed by anger. ^C Whether, therefore, he speaks well or not, let the answers which we have given and are about to give show, and this will be clear to sensible men.

EPHES. For we, with Damascene and all the Fathers, do not say [the Spirit proceeds] from the Son; but these, with the Latins, say that the Spirit is from the Son.

RESP. We also, with holy Damascene, do not say that the Spirit is from the Son, but [that He proceeds] also from the Son; for the conjunctive particle indicates most excellently that the Spirit is both from the Father and from the Son. But to say "from the Son" absolutely denotes that the Son is the primordial cause, which was the opinion of Eunomius and his followers. ^D We, however, with Damascene and all the Fathers, say...

"and from the Son," and "through the Son." For the former expression belongs to Eunomius, who says the Spirit is from the Son alone and introduces degrees of divinity; but the latter, "and from the Son," is the voice of the Fathers. But we have also produced the Damascene as an interpreter of his own words, clarifying his own meaning, and we have well performed the clarification regarding this in what has gone before.

EPHESIAN

RESP.

at this place, whether he understands the Son as a fountain, ^A a fountain—not that we mean the water of this sort, which is a creature, but that divine grace, that is, the Holy Spirit; for He Himself is the living water. And Gregory the Theologian, in his discourse on the Spirit, which begins: “These things indeed have been said concerning the Son,” says: “I have conceived of an eye, and a fountain, and a river,”—for others have thought so too. If, therefore, because we say that the Son is the fountain of the Holy Spirit from the fountain of the Father, according to these holy and divine Fathers, we are expelling Him from the Godhead, as he himself asserts, he would certainly also be expelling the Son from the Godhead, because the Father alone is the fountain of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But what he would avoid as absurd, he ought to understand all the more rightly and truly concerning us; for we believe in a Trinity of the same essence, power, and deity, although he unjustly slanders us in this matter, as in others. ^B

EPHES. And we indeed, with Gregory the Theologian, distinguish the Son from the Father by causality; these men, however, join them with the Latins by causality.

RESP. We join the Father and the Son by nature and deity as Father and Son, not by causality. Otherwise, by his own words, he would also join the Son and the Spirit, since both are being and are said to be caused. He merely wishes to object, and he searches out whatever causes he wishes, or rather, whatever he invents. Wherefore we do not stand in need of many proofs for things that are not necessary. ^C

† This same author, Gregory the Protosyncellus, in his response to the confession of Mark of Ephesus, answering him as he objected these same things, says thus: “But the Theologian, when he said: ‘All things that the Father has are the Son’s, except for the cause,’ added: ‘And all things which the Son has are the Spirit’s, except for the filiation,’ calling the cause here that which is according to generation, as he himself explains in his first theological oration: ‘For the Son, if indeed you take the Father as the cause, is not without beginning; for the Father is the beginning, inasmuch as He is the cause.’ And so the argument of the Ephesian suffers from equivocation.” ^D

EPHES. And we, with the venerable Maximus and the Romans of that time and the Western Fathers, do not constitute the Son as the cause of the Holy Spirit. These men, however, proclaim the Son in their definition—or rather, their deformation—as the cause according to the Greeks, and as the principle according to the Latins; for it is to be noted by us under this name, since they themselves, even while in fear, gave their assent to his subscription.

RESP. The most excellent man ought indeed to have expounded the entire part of the letter that pertains to this; and not

^A to skip over the phrase "through the Son," while only citing the words: "They did not show themselves to be making the Son the cause" and bringing forward only that much. But we shall set forth the whole passage, so that the explanation may be clearer, and the answer likewise. For he says: "Of the synodical letters of the most holy Pope who now presides, the inhabitants of the Royal City did not seize upon as many points as you have written, but only two; the one of which exists concerning theology, namely, that he said the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son; the other concerning the divine incarnation." And after a very few words: "And for the first, they brought forward consistent opinions of the Roman Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria from his sacred commentary upon the Evangelist John, by which they evidently showed that they do not posit the Son as the cause of the Holy Spirit (for they knew the Father to be the one cause of both Son and Spirit, of the one by generation, of the other by procession), but wished to signify that the Spirit is produced through the Son; and by this means to prove the communion of essence with no variation. Therefore, this excellent man ought not to have usurped the word 'from alone.' For behold, the holy Maximus openly and clearly testifies ^B that the holy Western Fathers, together with the divine Cyril, theologize that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son; if then also from the Son, it is clear that not from the Father alone, as he himself has often said." Concerning the words "not making the Son the cause," that is to say, such as Eunomius used to speak of, as we have also declared previously; for the saints are accustomed to call the primordial and pro-archic [cause] "cause" in the proper sense, just as Gregory the Theologian declares in his [oration] on the descent from Egypt, saying thus: "God stands in these three greatest things: cause, creator, and perfecter, I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Why then, is the Son not the cause of the creation of the world? How then do we say in the confession of faith: "through whom all things were made"? But the Theologian and Basil attribute the name of "cause" to the Father alone. Nor indeed does divine Maximus bring in those words "produced through him" in vain; since it is impossible for [the Spirit] to proceed through the Son without the Son also being the cause of the procession of the Spirit. This same thing Gregory of Nyssa also proves very well in his first anti-rhetorical discourse against Eunomius, saying thus: "If then he were to assign a timewise impression ^C to the hypostasis of the Only-begotten, he who fore-conceives the Father to the Son only by the priority of cause, reasonably the doctrine of eternity concerning the Son would be in danger for us." And after some things: "For as the Son is joined to the Father, and by being from Him does not lag behind in existence: so again does the Holy Spirit follow the Only-begotten, by mere conceptual consideration preceding the hypostasis of the Spirit by the account of causality." And Basil in the work to Amphilochius in the 16th chapter, the title of which is: "That the Holy Spirit is inseparable in every conception from the Father and the Son." ^D "Comprehend, he says, in [your] mind the Father as the primordial cause of things that come to be, the Son as the creator, [and] the Holy Spirit as the perfecter." All these refer causality to the Father, since

while the Son is also the cause of all these things—or else let them deny the cause even from what has been said, and correct an error with an error. And the sayings of the saints show this even more clearly, displaying that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son, which ^B divine Maximus also affirms, not calling the Son a cause distinct from the Father; for everything that the Son has naturally, He has received from the Father. For the divine Cyril says in his [commentary] on [the Gospel of] John concerning the text, "And I will ask the Father": "The Son, being essentially a partaker of the natural goods of God and Father, has the Spirit also in this way, in the same manner as the Father is understood to have Him, not as something adventitious or arriving from without—for it would be foolish, or rather insane, to think so—but just as each one of us contains his own spirit within himself and pours it forth from his innermost depths; for this reason Christ also breathed corporally, showing that just as the spirit of a man proceeds from his mouth corporally, so also the Spirit which is from the divine essence is poured forth in a manner worthy of God." Since, therefore, this Spirit is of God the Father and of the Son, why should they not altogether have the same power, whether understood together or separately? For the Father is Father and not Son, and the Son is Son and not Father; yet the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. The same divine Cyril, in his interpretation of the prophecy of Joel, "I will pour out of my Spirit," ^C says: "For in so far as He is God, and is Son naturally from God—for He has been begotten of God the Father—the Spirit is His own, and is in Him, and is from Him, just as indeed He is thought of as being from God the Father Himself." And the blessed Pope Leo, in his first sermon on Pentecost, which begins, "Today's solemnity, most beloved," has this: "The Holy Spirit, being the Spirit of the Father and the Son, is not like any of the creatures, which are both of the Father and the Son, but as living and powerful and eternal with both, and subsisting from that which the Father and the Son is." And Saint Hilary, in the sermon which is read after Pentecost on the feast day of the Holy Trinity, speaks thus: "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 existence, of one power, the creator of all creatures, out of whom are all things, through whom are all things, [and] in whom are all things: the Father from Himself, and not from another; the Son begotten from the Father, true God from true God, true light from true light, not indeed two lights, but one light; the Holy Spirit proceeding equally from the Father and the Son." And the blessed Augustine, in his fifth [book] on the Trinity, ^D says the following: "If, therefore, that which is given also has its beginning from Him from whom it is given—because He received it from nowhere else—that which proceeds from Him, it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles. But just as the Father and

the Son are one God, and relative to the creation are one Creator and one Lord, so too relative to the Holy Spirit they are one principle, just as ^A regarding the creation the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Lord.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the utterances to which the divine Maximus bears witness also testify that the Son is a cause of the subsistence of the Spirit. But regarding his saying that the *horos* (term), which he writes with a double *rho*—*orrion*, that is, an "extreme tail" (for so, he says, it is fitting to honor it, etc.)—should be honored, I first marvel at the man’s piety and at the fact that he does not know how much the divine name is to be held in honor. For if, because the vessels forged by Dathan and Abiron had once been named for the ministry and worship of God—for this was what God himself had commanded his servant—the God-seer Moses did not want them to be common, how can this man utter such things, not at all fearing the definition which contains and frequently repeats the fearsome name of God, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? ^B But we, in our response, following modesty in all things, say nothing to this, as we also do not to the other things he has uttered, moved, as it seems, by bile and anger, not wishing at all to meet his reproofs; for, wishing only to manifest the truth, we overlook the other things which do not lead to it, but only display ostentation.

EPHES. And we, with the philosopher and martyr Justin, say that just as the Son is from the Father, so too is the Spirit from the Father; these men, however, with the Latins, assert that the Son is from the Father immediately, but the Spirit mediately. And we, with the Damascene and all the Fathers, confess that we are ignorant of the difference between generation and procession; these men, however, with Thomas and the Latins, say that these productions differ by mediation and immediation.

RESP. We also say that the Son and the Spirit are from the Father, yet in a different mode of subsistence, as the saint himself expresses, even if he has passed over this. ^C For although the Father is the cause of both, yet for the one it is by generation, for the other it is by procession; and for the former as begetter, for the latter as producer; and for the former proximately and immediately, to wit, the Son; for the latter through Him who is proximately from the Father, that is, mediately and through the Son, to wit, the Spirit. And we have learned these things not from the Latins, as he says, but both from the teachers of the Church. For Gregory the Theologian says: "The different mode of production has also made the appellation different." And Gregory of Nyssa, in the discourse *Ad Ablabium*, says: "For the one is proximately from the First, ^D while this one is through him who is proximately from the First;

^A so that the ratio of the Only-begotten may remain certain for the Son, and that the Spirit may without doubt be from the Father, the mediation of the Son preserving for Himself the [property of being] Only-begotten, and not hindering the Spirit’s natural relationship to the Father." Cyril also, in his *Thesaurus*, says: "The Father begets the Son without an intermediary." And the same Father, again, on the text, *All things were made through Him*, says: "We understand the Father to exist together with the Son because of the immutability of the essence, and the supreme relationship between them, which is without any intervening medium." Moreover, the Great Athanasius, in his discourse against the Arians, the beginning of which is as follows: *The Arians, as it seems, judging...*, says: "It is not the Spirit who joins the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word." And the divine Basil, in his second discourse against Eunomius, says: "For just as it would be a foolish question if anyone were to ask if there is anything prior to the unbegotten and beginningless Father, so here also, if one asks about Him who is eternally with the Father, and between whom and the Begetter ^B no medium intervenes." Having therefore followed these doctors, we affirm both; and if he wishes to rebuke us, let him rebuke further. Certainly, both he and others would have witnesses more worthy, whom we ourselves prefer, than the words of himself and others. Therefore, we very aptly and truly use the terms "mediately" and "immediately," following the doctrine of the saints, even though they themselves might not approve.

EPHESIANS.

RESPONSE.

^A The inscription, "On the Holy Spirit," says that the common characteristics of creation are not communicable to the Holy Spirit, and the peculiar characteristics of the Spirit are not communicable to creation, from which it is gathered that the Spirit is not a creature. Those things that are common to the Father and the Son are also common to the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is characterized in Scripture by the same marks by which God the Father and the Son are characterized. From this it is gathered that the Spirit is of the same divinity as the Father, because those things that belong solely to the Father as God, and not as Father, and to the Son as God, also belong solely to the Spirit, and no longer to creation, just as the names and realities that are incommunicable to creation are common to the Trinity alone. From this it is gathered that the Trinity is consubstantial.

^B When we think in this way, why does he utter such things? Who then is the one who imagines, as he himself says, that the Spirit through whom we are deified is a creature? Does he think us so ignorant of religion as to worship a creature? Let him who worships a creature not behold the morning star rising, as the Theologian Gregory says; for we understand nothing created in the holy and blessed Trinity, which is an undivided essence and energy without any variation, for this is alien to the Church of Christ.

EPHESIUS

RESP.

^A is this: "It behooved us, in truth, to be lifted up along with the heaven-running Word, through Him, since we desire to be made God-seeming." In this same place he says: "That it is permitted to him, even as it is to the souls of the saints, to betake himself at whatever time and place he wills, to visit his own temples, and to attend to those who in each instance beg for his aid, I judge to be both necessary and true; yet I would not say that for this reason he is absent from the heavens, and from the effulgence that shines there, and from the angelic standing before the Lord. For he would have had less than the other saints—he who possesses almost more than all of them—if, because he bears the flesh, he were deprived of their fellowship and of that vision of God face to face, which he enjoyed even through the whole course of his life in a preeminent manner." My testimony for the discourse is also that which is sung about him by the Church, thus: "Prophet and herald of Christ, thou art never separated from the throne of Majesty, and art always present to each one who is sick, pouring out prayers for all in the highest places, and bestowing benefits upon the whole world, and art celebrated everywhere with praises." ^B Behold, this eminent man openly and clearly asserts that the saints enjoy the clear vision of God, and that holy Elijah, even with his body, is not deprived of such a vision. If, therefore, the prepared kingdom and those ineffable goods are something different from the clear vision of God, let him demonstrate this to us; for if they were, that enjoyment would be greater than the vision of God itself. But no saint until this day has said that there is anything greater for enjoyment than the vision of God alone. Moreover, no one has said—besides this man—that such a vision is granted in the course of this present life, as he himself asserts. But that the saints clearly see God now, he affirms both congruously and truly; for he has other witnesses to this fact, namely the saints, among whom is the Father and doctor John Chrysostom, who in that sermon the inscription of which is: "That sinners are to be mourned, and that sacrifices offered for them bring great benefit to those who have fallen asleep," has an opening of the discourse of this kind: "Death, brothers, is a thing indifferent. Let us rejoice," he says, "not only for those among the just who are living, but also for those who have finished their life. Those, indeed, even while they look upon this light, are to be pitied by all ^C because they stumble; but these, when they have migrated even thither, are blessed because they have flown away to Christ. Sinners, wherever they may be, are far from the King, and for this reason are to be wept for; but the just, whether they lead their life here or there, are with the King: and there even more closely and unitedly, not through a mirror, not through faith, but looking upon Him face to face." And Gregory the Theologian likewise, at the end of his discourse ^D on the holy Cyprian, says: "And the radiance of the holy Trinity, at which thou now standest as an attendant." The same author speaks more at length about this matter in his funeral oration for his sister. But what need is there to bring forward many testimonies? For in the treatise which we have published on this subject, we have discussed and defended this matter more fully and clearly.

^A If, therefore, the saints stand before the holy Trinity, and seeing God face to face, do not yet possess [their beatitude] perfectly, but beatitude consists in something else, let Him reveal it, and we shall be silent. But He has nothing more to show than this vision ^B. There is only one point in which many who disagree suppose the saints—that is, that they say sometimes that the saints possess [beatitude] perfectly, and sometimes not perfectly. For when they think and speak of their souls, they say they possess it perfectly; but when [they speak] of the whole man, they do not [say it is] perfect. For how could the composite [nature] possess it before the common resurrection has arrived? Wherefore, in respect to the fact that they are souls, the saints possess it perfectly, but in respect to the fact that they were not merely souls, but were clothed in bodies, they do not possess it perfectly. For just as the soul is as a form in the body, and while the whole, which is the body, has not yet risen nor received the rewards, the soul itself possesses perfect beatitude. But because man is a composite, and the composite part struggled, we say that it [man] does not yet possess it perfectly. But when we consider the whole from the part, and from the more noble [part], we say that the saints possess perfect beatitude. Blessed Gregory the Pope will bear witness to this in the book of his Dialogues. For otherwise, how could we conceive in our mind that the saints intercede for our souls, if they are already crowned with that perfect ^C beatitude? If, therefore, they have not yet attained the full beatitude, they do not intercede, nor will they intercede; for in the age to come there will be no intercession. But that those who have not made satisfaction here undergo the torment of fire before the common resurrection, we shall prove this also more clearly from the narrative of the Fathers. In the discourse read in church, which has the inscription of John the Monk and Presbyter of Damascus, among many other similar things, this too is contained: that one of the God-bearing Fathers had a disciple who was leading his life in negligence, and who reached the end of his life in this state. The all-merciful and lover of souls, the Lord, upon the tears and prayers of the elder, showed him [the disciple], like the rich man in the Gospel, immersed in the flame up to his neck. From this, the holy man labored much, and with tears entreated God, so that he clearly saw in a vision that the [disciple] was completely freed ^D and redeemed from the fire; for he had endured the torment because of his negligence, and it was for this reason that such a sin obtained pardon. If this is false, then the Purgatory which the Latins assert is also false. But if it is true (for we also have faith in the evangelical history through those things which we read in the Acts of the holy Fathers), then those things which we say with the Latins will certainly be true, even if they themselves do not approve of them. The prophet Malachi also says, "As a refiner's fire, and as the herb of fullers, God will burn and cleanse some." That eternal fire, therefore, will not cleanse or wash some.

^A If, therefore, those who commit sins are forgiven by confession alone at the end of their life, then all that the Church has decreed to be done on behalf of the living and the dead, whether after death or while the person confessing is still alive, is completely superfluous. But sinners who die without repentance depart into punishment. ^B For the divine Maximus, writing to the Cubicularius, says: "Who, my beloved, stain-spotted by sins of my kind, does not fear the presence of the holy angels, by whom, at the divine judgment, he who receives the end of this present life is violently forced out of his body with anger, even against his will? Who, conscious of his own wickedness, does not dread the most cruel and barbarous encounter with the wicked demons, when each of them, as he pulls the wretched soul toward himself through the space of the air after its departure, mercilessly and by the exposure of the deeds it has committed, forces it to cast away every miserable hope of gaining the future blessings?" And after the examination and reckoning of the spiritual forces of wickedness that takes place in the air, there follows a precipitation into the underworld and a dwelling place: where there is profound darkness and the deepest silence; where the souls of the damned have for their food the most bitter groans, and the most bitter tears, and sorrow in their most lost state: at every moment expecting nothing other than the judgment on their merits that must be rendered by the just verdict. ^C This perpetual sadness and pain toward them is made by the hope of the resurrection, the day of Christ's fearful arrival, the most shuddering appearance before the tribunal, the account to be rendered of one's whole life, through which those who shall stand on Christ’s right hand shall receive the promises of ineffable blessings, but those who have obtained the position on the left shall have eternal fire, and the outer darkness, and the undying worm, the gnashing of teeth, and the perpetual tear, and the endless shame. And the blessed Pope Gregory, in the cited book of the *Dialogues*, says:

Petrus the deacon. I see that my inquiry has been sufficiently satisfied; but there is this further point that strikes my mind with a question: since it has been stated above that the souls of the saints are already in heaven, it remains without doubt that we must believe that the souls of the wicked are nowhere but in hell; yet I know not what the truth is concerning this matter. For human estimation does not hold that the souls of sinners can be tormented ^D before the judgment.

Gregorius. If you have believed by the satisfaction of the sacred discourse that the souls of the saints are in heaven, you ought to believe throughout that the souls of the unjust are in hell. Because from the retribution of eternal justice, from which the just are glorified, it is necessary and consequent that the unjust should also absolutely be tormented. For just as blessedness rejoices the elect, so it is necessary to believe that the fire burns the reprobate from the day of their departure.

^A expecting meanwhile the assumption of their bodies, so that the whole being may be punished, at which time also the punishment is properly called perfect and is an endless punishment. There is no need, therefore, any further to demonstrate this, for what has been said suffices; but if anyone will not be convinced by these things, neither will he be convinced by any number of things one might say.

EPHE.

RESP.

^A and mystical rites He cut away—circumcision, the Sabbath, the animal sacrifices, and the Passover and the lamb. For this reason He commanded that these be celebrated only in Jerusalem, so that their abolition might easily come to pass when the temple and city were utterly razed, and so that, being unable to perform these elsewhere, they would cease. He transformed the shadowy things, fashioning the truth in place of the shadow. But he [the opponent] refers the bloodless and dread sacrifice—which is perfected by the power of the Spirit, and of Christ Himself, and of the Father (for the works of the Holy Trinity are indivisible, even if that efficacious voice is the Savior's, commanding: "This is my body," and: "This is my blood," by which bread and wine, together with water, are transmuted into the body and blood of Christ, as Chrysostom says)—to the observance of the Jewish Passover, and perversely interprets the canon. But we hold all the mystical ceremonies of the Jews to be impure and profane, as Chrysostom also proves more plainly in his sermons held against the Jews, among which the Passover is numbered, since they are performed outside the temple of Jerusalem against the divine commandment. We have already spoken of this matter of the mystical sacrifice, and there is no need to repeat the same things, although, compelled by him, we have disputed on this spot, certainly not willingly, for he himself gave the cause. ^B

EPHES.

RESP.

of the collected Anthology of Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, you will find proof of this same matter. For he says: "Again, the madness of the heretics complains of the definition of the fourth synod, asserting that the first synod of Ephesus had altogether forbidden such an enterprise. Yet if, according to their babble, the synod forbade anything else at all from being brought forward, then that prior synod passed judgment upon itself. For it defined that which no prior synod had defined: since by its own authority that term, 'Hypostatic union,' was accepted, concerning which the older synods had decreed nothing. Moreover, they reject, for their own trifles, the council of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople, by which the heresy of the Spirit-fighters was defeated, and which, by adding to the Nicene Creed the words concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit, explained it most aptly. ^B For if the prior synods, by making additions, escape reproach, then those that follow ought not to undergo blame for doing the like in similar matters. Thus, the senseless mind confuses and perverts all things. For the synod of Ephesus prohibited entirely the setting forth of a different creed, whose dogmas might run counter to the faith at Nicaea; provided, however, that the latter be kept inviolate, there could be added that which occasion might require, just as it itself made additions: this, both nature, the teacher of things, instructs us, and the use of the Church, according to persistent tradition, confirms. Therefore, the admirable man Cyril, before the ecumenical synod had yet been celebrated, having gathered together the chosen among the priests of his province, wrote an exposition of the faith of Alexandria, which he sent to Nestorius." And further on, in the same book, you will find these words of the great Ephraem: ^C "Again, the heretics slander the fourth synod, saying that it had been decreed before it that it was not permitted for anyone to bring forward, or write, or compose, or hold any other faith than that which was set forth—although the synod did not decree this, even if they lie shamelessly; but, having in highest honor the faith set forth by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, it had commanded that it was not permitted for anyone to bring forward another faith, and the rest. And it is manifest especially from the very words of the synod, which, if read alone, reveal the truth needing no other proof or construction. ^D And it did not only define this, but acted otherwise; yet, as it defined, so is it known to be practiced everywhere. For it teaches and hands down to those approaching the faith no other symbol than that of the holy Fathers. Rather do they provoke laughter at themselves, than slander against the synod, in saying that it is disparaged by many—for how many synods spoke against the first and ecumenical holy synod, even though they were a company of bishops? And some of the Egyptians even wished not to know if the synod of the one hundred and fifty had truly occurred. But let us pass over their irrationality; for since the holy Fathers have thus explained it, and have pronounced these statements to be shameless babble and futile words, what are we to say to those who utter such things? Shall we refute them, or shall we rather approve what has been said? Either course would be denied by anyone who is in possession of his own mind.

^B EPHES. We, for our part, consider the Pope to be one of the patriarchs—and this is certainly an orthodox view—but they proclaim him with great solemnity to be the Vicar of Christ, and the father and teacher of all Christians.

RESP. We do not say that there are two or three popes, but one of the patriarchs; nevertheless, even among those of the same order, there is one who is primary. For the holy Father Chrysostom says in his seventeenth homily on the Acts of the Apostles: "Observe how, even among the seven, there was someone who was preeminent and held the primacy; for although the ordination was common, he nevertheless obtained greater grace." Furthermore, we call every bishop a successor of Christ and one who sits in the chair of Jesus my God; for He is the one who says: "He who receives you receives me," and "He who hears you hears me." And these things apply commonly to all, for the priesthood is equal in all concerning the conferring of baptism, the offering of sacrifice, granting absolution to those who confess, performing the holy chrism, tonsuring a monk, blessing oil for the washing away of the stains of sin, and ordaining a priest according to his rank; for we know that each one possesses the same power and the same faculties for ecclesiastical functions. And we have known this precisely, having received it from the Fathers. Nor is it from ourselves that we say this about the pope. For Theodore the Studite, writing to the Emperor Michael in the name of all the hegoumenoi, in the epistle which begins: "We, all assembled together by the command of your God-crowned empire, the most humble bishops and hegoumenoi," says: "If, however, anything concerning which doubt or disbelief is felt by your holy majesty should need to be resolved by the high priest in a pious manner, let your great and God-confirmed power, which burns with zeal for divine matters for the benefit of all, command that a declaration of this matter be sent from senior Rome, as it was handed down from above and from the beginning by tradition. ^C This, O Christ-imitating Emperor, is the most supreme of the Churches of God, over which Peter first presided, 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.'" ^D The same Theodore, in another epistle to Naucratius, which begins: "My ears shall not be filled with the voices of rumors," says: "I call God and men to witness at this present time; they have separated themselves from the body of Christ, from the chief see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of Hades—that is, the mouths of the heretics—have not prevailed throughout the ages, nor shall they prevail until the end of the age, as promised by Him who... In the holy third synod...

^A Arcadius the bishop said: "Let your beatitude command that the letters brought to you from the saintly and—with all veneration—most holy Pope Celestine, bishop of the apostolic see, be read, from which your beatitude will be able to discern what care he takes for all the churches." Projectus also used the same words. And after a little bit, Cyril of Alexandria says: "The epistle having been received from the most holy and in all respects most sacred bishop of the holy apostolic Church of Rome, Celestine, let it be read with becoming honor." Likewise in the fourth holy council ^B, in the sacred letters of Valentinian to Theodosius, these things are written: "That the most blessed bishop of the Roman city, to whom antiquity has granted the primacy of the priesthood over all, may have the place and authority to judge concerning the faith and the priests." Since, therefore, he has the authority to judge concerning the faith and the priests, he is justly inscribed in the definition as the teacher of all Christians.

EPHES. May they be luckier than their father; in other respects they are similar: for even that man experiences adverse fortune in having an antipope, who provides him with enough trouble; and the mind of these men does not allow them to imitate their father and teacher.

RESP. Would that we had as many preachers in the Church teaching the people on feast days and Sundays ^C as are seen, with the greatest happiness, in the Latin Church, and as many monks who have embraced extreme poverty. But he himself is ignorant that, regarding the antipope, while he did indeed wish to seize the dignity, he was rejected by those who think rightly and who properly administer public affairs and guard their own honor. From which it has come about that there is no antipope, so that there might not be a schism in the Church of God, which is the most grievous of all evils. The synod of Basel, too, has been dissolved, and all things are in peace and the utmost tranquility. Wherefore it did not befit such a man to cast curses upon the Church, but rather to pray that all things might turn out auspiciously and prosperously for it. ^D

EPHES. Flee, therefore, my brothers, from them and from communion with them; for such are pseudo-apostles, deceitful workers, transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ. And it is no wonder: for Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing, therefore, if his ministers also be transfigured as ministers of justice; whose end shall be according to their works. And again, in another place, the same apostle says of the same persons: "Such men do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by sweet words and blessings deceive the hearts of the innocent." But the firm foundation of the faith stands, having this seal next page begins

^A. And elsewhere: "If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you have received, even if an angel from heaven, let him be anathema." You see, prophetically, that famous saying, "even if an angel from heaven," so that no one should put forward the eminent authority of the Pope. And the beloved disciple says: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, and do not greet him, for he who says greeting to him shares in his evil works." Since these things have been prescribed to you by the holy apostles, stand firm, holding to the traditions which you have received, whether written or unwritten, lest being led astray by the error of the lawless, you fall from your own stability. But may God, who is able to do all things, grant both those [people] to recognize their own error, and ^B separate us from them like pure and choice wheat from wicked weeds, and gather us to be stored in His granary, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is due all glory, honor, and adoration.

RESP. To these things, indeed, which he brings forward here, no response should be given; for, after his custom, he casts insults at us; nevertheless, we shall say a few things. The term "Consubstantial," and the term "Theotokos," and whatever the saints have explained, were not explicitly handed down by the apostles. We, however, receive as apostolic traditions all those things which our Fathers have declared and expounded more broadly concerning divine matters. Therefore, if those saints are bound by the penalties established by the apostolical [authority], we are also bound. Furthermore, what he brings forward against us from the Epistles of the apostles does not pertain to the matter. ^C For we firmly hold the apostolic traditions, both written and unwritten, supported by their prayers, believing in the consubstantial Trinity, and in God incarnate, born of the ever-virgin Theotokos. But these things have been said not for the sake of contentious display; for we do not wish to quarrel and contend, but to search for the truth, with the knowledge and doctrine of the saints—by which the sacred dogmas were expounded—leading us, being unwilling to persuade men in any other way than that which is revealed to us through the luminaries of the Church. The Lord is witness of our thoughts, who will demand an account from everyone who utters a lie. For we have never had in mind, nor will we ever, to be enemies of peace; for if we lose peace, we become enemies of those to whom it was said by Christ: "Peace be with you." ^D But we desire and yearn to hold to this; and God is powerful to give peace and to establish and strengthen it throughout His universal Church, so that all, unanimously thinking and professing the same thing, may attribute glory to Christ God, to whom it has so pleased, since to Him is due glory unto the ages. Amen.

OF GREGORY PROTOSYNCELUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, TO THE EMPEROR OF TREBIZOND.

^A 1. It is necessary, and the matter itself compels us, most divine Emperor, to render and pay an account not only to your most high Majesty, but also to all those who seek it from us regarding the hope that is in us, even as we have received this from the common teacher of the Church, the most blessed Peter, upon whom, according to the divine voice, it is founded. If, therefore, we owe this to all, much more do we owe it to you, most high Emperor, who have obtained the empire from God by hereditary succession; and not only this, but because you also adorn the empire in a distinguished manner through your knowledge, and other prerogatives, and deeds of prowess, by the intent of a good will; and—which is the greatest thing and truly worthy of an empire—because you embrace and hold, as much as you are able, the orthodox faith, which more than anything else adorns the emperor, and renders him illustrious, and grants him life and health, and provides trophies and victories, and shows him worthy of the empire to his subjects. And what need is there to recount one by one all the things that this brings about? This alone bestows upon the emperor, both in the present and in the future life, all good gifts, so that he may reign together with the living, eternal, and only true King. I conceive that your Majesty possesses all these aforementioned things, and I praise them; and I always pray, and will pray, to God, the giver of these, that they may ever increase, and that He may preserve your empire peaceful in all things and at all times, and after a long life and a similar and excellent succession of children, that He may grant [the enjoyment of] the heavenly and eternal kingdom. These things I always pray and will pray for.

^{B C} 2. I make answer, therefore, to the definitions of the blessed and holy Fathers, having first added a little regarding the question, both so that I may be obedient to the herald of Christ, Peter, and that I may pay due respect to the disposition I have toward your most high Majesty. I ask only this, that you hear what is said with patience, and do not act as some of those here—or rather, the majority—who speak vainly and only create disturbances, as they cry out: "We hold the thing handed down to us by the Fathers: there is no reason to lend our ears to others, ^D and we do not wish to hear more." Although, in truth, even those who act…

^A with the truth and the gift and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and God, we hold and preserve the ancestral dogma in all things, and we shall preserve it, as the unfolding discourse will most clearly demonstrate. ^B For this reason, we set these things forth in simple words, avoiding elegant speech and convoluted phrasing that might make what we say or write obscure or ambiguous, mimicking in this our common Master and Teacher, who says: "My speech and my proclamation were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in a demonstration of Spirit and power, so that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." Therefore, we too, following His teaching, say and proclaim what has been handed down to us by the Church of Christ, not with elegant words and arguments taken from outsiders, as has been mentioned, but by the teaching of the Fathers and the written tradition that we have received, confirming what we say and write; and we follow the footsteps of our Fathers in all things and shall continue to follow them, and we will never do otherwise, just as we imagine and believe that your sacred and imperial soul will never take an opposing view.

3. Nor, because of the questions that have arisen from time to time and the innovative ideas of those who hold erroneous opinions, will we affirm that the holy Fathers gathered at the time created another faith through the introduction of their own terms, as saint Maximus ^C clearly explains when he reasons thus: "For if it is permitted to speak the truth in defense of the truth, all the God-chosen Fathers after the Council of Nicaea, and every synod of orthodox and holy men, did not entirely introduce some other definition of faith through the addition of their own words, as you quite erroneously assert, speaking in a way that is altogether insane." We shall set forth what follows in the proper place, clarifying our truth. For each holy and ecumenical synod did indeed add what was not explicitly stated in the holy Scripture, but it did not, by that addition, create another faith, even though what was added was not stated anywhere beforehand. For instance, the term *homoousion*, or "consubstantial," is not found in holy Scripture, nor in pagan writings, nor was it even explicitly stated by the holy apostles; yet this synod added it, but it was by no means considered, by those who diligently seek the truth, to have created another faith. In the same way, the second holy ecumenical synod proclaimed the all-holy Spirit to be God, and truly so, ^D just as the first did with *homoousion*. But this was not to be found anywhere in the divine Writings. And the third holy synod likewise added the term "Theotokos." And all these things are, in truth, as they are, in the way that the saints, moved by the divine Spirit, decreed them. And the fourth synod likewise added the two natures, and the union according to substance, and the fifth the two wills and the one who wills, and the sixth the two energies and the one who acts. But you will not find these

^A in the Scriptures. But the synods confidently added them as being true, inferring them from the divine Scriptures. And they have not from this made another faith, as the divine Maximus, having anticipated this, declared very clearly, saying: "Every synod of orthodox and holy men did not by the introduction of its own words introduce another definition of faith altogether, as you allege," and so on. And the holy seventh ecumenical synod also theologized that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. And before this, very many of the saints theologized in this way—both from the Son himself and as his own, and from him, as the inspired Cyril in the ^B Anathemas, and Basil to those who were saying, "Why is the Spirit not the Son of the Son?" answering, said: "Not because he is not from God through the Son," he said, "but lest the Trinity be thought of as an infinite multitude of sons of sons, as is custom among men, and might come under suspicion." And before that chapter, the same saint says: "For this reason, the Word of God is the Son, and the Word of the Son is the Spirit," and so on.

[Propterea et Dei quidem Verbum Filius, Verbum] ^C

4. Wherefore, when the Eastern and Western Church had come together, and an ecumenical council had been celebrated, and they had made an examination—as to what the teachers of the Eastern Church and of the Western would wish to say regarding the procession of the most holy Spirit: whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or also from the Son, or how that which is "from the Father through the Son" ought to be understood; and if the Son contributes anything to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, or if he is from the Father alone, just as the Son is also from the Father alone; and if the Son receives from the Spirit, just as the Spirit receives from the Son—but these things I did not find in the Scriptures. But that the Holy Spirit receives, and that he has his being through the Son, these things I found in many places. For Athanasius, the foundation of the truth, in his third [discourse] against the Arians, says: "All things that the ^D Spirit has, these he has from the Word." But who, provided he is sensible, would say that the Holy Spirit is not altogether and in all respects simple, and that in the case of simple things, whatever it receives—which in composite things is otherwise—is said to receive the whole? But even before this, in the same discourse, he writes: "For the Son is not a participant of the Spirit, that through him he might be in the Father, nor does he receive the Spirit, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word." For this reason, the Son is also said by the teachers to be immediately from the Father, as Cyril says in the *Thesauri*: "The Father generates the Son without any intermediary." And again, the same [author] in the exposition of the saying, "All things were made through him," says: "We understand the Father to be together with the Son because of the essence similar in all respects, and containing his pinnacle, and immediate." Likewise, Gregory of Nyssa, in the discourse to Ablabius, writes: "For this is immediately from the first." And in no place do the holy Fathers, from our Savior himself down to the holy ecumenical seventh synod, appear to have announced the Holy Spirit out of the Father alone, just as

they have theologized that the Son is begotten out of the Father alone; but rather through the Son, and as his own ^A and out of him, as Cyril says in the Acts of the holy and ecumenical third synod in the twelve Chapters, and in the Treasures, theologizing: «out of the essence of the Father, and out of the essence of the Son, and existing out of him.» 5. But hear that the holy ones theologize that the Son is generated out of the Father alone. For the great Basil says in the Antirrhetica: «The Only-begotten Son, because he alone is generated out of the Only one.» And Gregory the Theologian, in the second oration concerning the Son: «Only-begotten, not because he alone is out of the Only one and alone, but because he is also in a unique manner.» And Maximus, also discussing against the Anomoeans, asserts: «Since he is alone out of the Only one.» And Gregory the Wonderworker also says: «One God, the Father of the Word, and one Lord ^B alone out of the Only one.» And the illustrious Damascene also in his discourse concerning the Trinity, whose beginning is, *We believe therefore*, he says: «The Son alone was generated out of the only Father.» And you will find Anastasius, and many others of the holy ones, theologizing this same thing. However, no one before the holy ecumenical synod said «out of the Father alone»; but «through the Son,» as we have previously noted, was used by the more select of the holy ones and the holy seventh synod. The eighth synod, therefore, insisting upon the seventh which preceded it as it asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and examining what that preposition "through" might signify, drawing its understanding from the Gospel, the Creed, and the teachers of the Church, determined that it denotes a cause. For it is said by the ^C Gospel: *All things were made through him*, and: *Through whom all things were made*, the holy Creed defines, and Paul the Apostle: *Through the will of Jesus Christ*; and: *Blessed is God through whom you were called into the ministry*. All these things signify a cause. Either, therefore, let them understand that "through" in these places also indicates a cause, and let them cure evil with evil; or let them affirm that the holy ones did not write correctly when they said that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and that they meant the "through" in another sense, which would be neither for the learned nor for theologians. But who would dare to assert such things concerning the holy ecumenical seventh synod and the others? Although Father Chrysostom so expressly says: «For Scripture is accustomed to use "through" for "by," as when it says, *I attained a man through God*, ^D expressing not the second, but the first cause,» and what follows. Do you see that the divine Chrysostom affirms that "through" denotes a cause in Scripture? Divine Maximus likewise says in his Dialogues against the Anomoeans: «To the pure, all things are pure among us according to the mind of Scripture. "Through whom" is the same as if one were to say "out of whom,"» and he adds the apostolic testimony, since Paul says: *Through whom, God is faithful, you were called into the ministry*. Gregory of Nyssa openly calls the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit in these very words, in his Oration to the Anomoeans: «If he were to posit any temporal interval in the hypostasis of the Only-begotten, who [sets] the Father alone as cause before the Son...

then the argument assigned to us regarding the eternity of the Son would logically be endangered.» And after a few words: «For just as the Son is conjoined to the Father, having his existence from him, and is not posterior regarding [the mode of] being, so in the same way the Holy Spirit is linked to the Only-begotten, being strictly understood as [subsisting] in the hypostasis of the Spirit only by the conceptual mode of cause.» The divine Cyril also says in his *Thesaurus*, in the thirty-third chapter: «Since therefore there is one Lord Jesus Christ according to the voice of Paul, and he calls the Spirit 'Lord,' there is consequently no difference of nature between the Son and the Spirit, but he [the Spirit] is named by the title of lordship as existing naturally from him and in him.» And what need is there to add all the testimonies of the saints, which, being numerous, would extend the discourse to too great a length? We have already written these out in the *Responses* to that venerable [Metropolitan] of Ephesus, while he was still among the living, and to others who thought the same as he did. Therefore, we deem it sufficient to declare openly that the eighth synod followed in the footsteps of the seventh, which had preceded it, and introduced no new dogma, but merely explained the proposition concerning the Holy Spirit which that [seventh synod], and before it the holy and God-bearing Fathers, had asserted, drawing on testimonies sought from the saints, the immaculate Gospels, the apostolic books, and the teachers of the Church. We have in no way altered our ancestral ^B dogma, but what we previously proclaimed in a compressed manner, we have now clarified, just as has happened in other synods, expanding what was proclaimed in a compressed way into broader terms.

6. But if the Latins do not speak of 'cause' and 'caused' regarding the two inner processions—just as the divine Cyril also does not wish for this, saying: «It is not permissible to speak of 'cause' and 'caused' in relation to the Holy Trinity»—but instead speak of a 'principle' instead of a 'cause,' and the 'cause' and the 'principle' come together into the same thing? This is what the Theologian Gregory says: «Source from Source; yet we do not consider two sources.» For everything that does not distinguish the Father from the Son is common to the Father and the Son. Therefore, 'to proceed' does not distinguish the Father from the Son; 'to proceed' is therefore common to the Father and the Son. And for this reason, there is one principle of the Holy Spirit: the Father and the Son, just as he who is testified to by the fifth, sixth, and seventh ecumenical synods as the most wise, most distinguished, and great teacher of the Church, and holy and blessed—for he is so testified to by the aforementioned holy and ecumenical synods—Augustine, says: «One principle ^C: the Father and the Son, [of] the Holy Spirit.» And if these things are sufficient for your Majesty as a reminder according to the saying, «Give an opportunity to a wise man, and he will become wiser,» thanks be to God. But if you command further and clearer things to be said, we shall speak them, showing by the grace of Christ that we have introduced nothing new into theology, just as we have manifested through the divine Maximus. ^D

^A 7. Nevertheless, I see that it is necessary to point out even more clearly that we have neither despised nor disregarded the divine decrees, as those have done who have filled the entire world with writings published against us, thereby slandering us and confusing everything in their eagerness to divide the Church of Christ, even though they hear the divine and holy Father Chrysostom saying in his exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians: "It shows that to divide the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy." And in the same Epistle, the same saint confesses in another homily: "Nothing so irritates God as the division of the Church; even if we have performed countless good deeds, we shall pay no less a penalty than those who tear apart His body, if we cut asunder the ecclesiastical fullness. For that [the body], indeed, happened for the benefit of the world, even if not with such an intent; but this [the division] is nowhere useful, but rather a great harm. These things are said by me not only to leaders, but also to those who are led. A certain holy man, he says, said something that seemed daring to some, but he said it nonetheless. And what is that? Not even the blood of martyrdom can wash away this sin. Tell me, for what cause do you undergo martyrdom? Is it not for the glory of Christ? How then do you pillage the Church, for which Christ gave up His own soul?" And Dionysius of Alexandria says in his own canons: "One ought to endure anything whatever so as not to cause the Church of God to be divided. And it was no less glorious to have suffered martyrdom for not dividing the Church than for not sacrificing to idols; and in my judgment, it was even ^B more illustrious." But setting these things aside and neglecting them, they disturb and confuse everyone, both here and in all other regions. I, for my part, assure your most high Imperial Majesty, and call upon the Truth itself as my witness, that I am of a most willing mind and do not in the least resist being removed from the patriarchal throne; for it never entered my mind—and I call God to witness—that I should be created Patriarch of Constantinople, nor even, thirty years ago, that I should become a bishop, but rather that I should remain solely in the monastic habit. Yet an inescapable duty weighs upon me to declare these things, according to my ability, not only to your most high Majesty and your sacred soul, but also to every person; and now I declare it in part, and what remains to be completed, this too, if God grants and your Majesty commands, O best of emperors, I shall supply. ^C 8. Furthermore, I consider it necessary to set forth from the beginning the matter concerning the definitions, as much as time permits in the present Commentary, in order to manifest the truth. For if someone, once subjected to excommunication by a bishop, swells up like a drum, as we have seen in our own time, and is dissolved by the absolution of the prelate and crumbles into dust, how much more so when the holy Fathers have gathered in ecumenical councils in the name of Christ the Savior for the sake of the truth and of right doctrines, and have Christ Himself speaking within them, as He says: "Where two or three are

^A gathered in my name, there am I in their midst," 1 the things said by them have such strength that no one may look askance at them. But the hindrance to a different faith comes from the all-praised apostles; for as Paul says, "One faith, one Lord." 2 Since, therefore, there is one faith, another is entirely contrary to it. For if it is different, it is not one. For if it were the same, it would not be different; and if it is different, it is not the same. And Paul, the great apostle, proclaims: "If anyone preaches to you ^B anything other than what you have received, let him be anathema." 3 And Dionysius, his disciple, decides, speaking as a universal rule: "It is not to be dared for us to say or even think anything concerning the divine oracles beyond what has been divinely revealed to us." But all the holy and sacred synods expanded and explained them, and the holy Fathers, and in no place were they considered to have made a different faith through the explanation and expansion of the sacred oracles. But let us proceed to the proof, showing that those who are innovating speak not rightly, saying against us those things which it is not lawful to say. For even the *homoousion*, and the Holy Spirit as God, and the *Theotokos*, and the hypostatic union were ^C not declared by the divine apostles, nor yet by all that the saints explained; but they were not daring, nor were they judged under anathema. And this is most well demonstrated also by the synod gathered against Acindynus, being accused by those who were seditious, as it is contained in the Tome whose beginning is: "Nor is there anyone ignorant of the common enemy of the Church." After many things, it says: "For what reason, while a pious emperor is still alive, do they dare such things against piety?" Now they accused a certain addition having been made in the confession of the bishops who were being ordained. And after some things: "Regarding these, the holy synod, ^D against which you are more iniquitous, says there is an addition, which should not even justly be called an addition, as it is an elucidation of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod." Thus it clearly appears from these Fathers also that an elucidation is not hindered, nor an explanation, as the unsaid is understood. By what reason, then, shall we make those who say the same things as them into culprits, for having made an explanation and an elucidation? 9. Furthermore, the Ephesian said that this hindrance had been legislated by the holy and ecumenical third synod. For he says: "We do not endure that the defined faith, or the Symbol of faith, composed by our holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea at certain times, should be moved by anyone in any way, nor do we permit ourselves or others to change a word of the things lying therein, or to overstep even one syllable, mindful of him who says: 'Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your Fathers have set,' and what follows.

Let us see, then, how this stands. We have no way to prove this either from our own thoughts or from external sources, save from what the divine Fathers and doctors say: that this prohibition did not originate from the third synod, but even before the second. For the great Basil says in his epistle to the Church of Antioch, the beginning of which is: 'Who will give me wings like a dove?' ^A: 'We do not accept a faith written down by others more recent than ourselves, nor do we dare to offer the fruits of our own minds to others, so that we do not make the words of piety merely human; rather, we announce to those who ask us what we have been taught by the holy Fathers.' There is, therefore, the faith for our Church, administered by the Fathers, written down by the holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea—which we believe is on your lips, yet we do not refuse, lest we be accused of negligence, to note down these very words in writing. These are: 'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,' and the rest of the Nicene Creed. Are not the great Basil and the divine Cyril in harmonious agreement, when the latter says: 'We permit neither ourselves nor others'? The divine Cyril speaks in this way, and the great Basil says the above: 'We do not accept a faith written down by others more recent than ourselves, nor do we dare to offer the fruits of our own minds to others,' which is one and the same as saying: ^B 'We do not permit ourselves, nor others.'

10. Furthermore, since this must be explained in greater detail, the blessed Athanasius says in his Tome to the Antiochenes, the beginning of which is: 'To the beloved and most longed-for,'—'Nothing further, beyond what was decreed at Nicaea.' And, after a few words: 'For some wished, as if what the Nicene synod had handed down were lacking, to write something about the faith and to lay their hands upon it boldly. But the holy synod ^C which gathered at Sardica was indignant, and decreed that nothing more should be written concerning the faith, but that one should be content with the faith confessed by the Fathers in Nicaea, because nothing is lacking in it, but it abounds in piety; and that it is not necessary to set forth a second faith, lest that which was written at Nicaea be thought of as imperfect, and an excuse be given to those who wish to write and decree much concerning the faith.' And after some words, he says: 'The faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea is better and more accurate, and one must be content with its words and use them for the future.' And from this saint it is made manifest that this prohibition existed even before the second synod. He adds that the Sardican synod was indignant and decreed that nothing more should be written about the faith, but that one should be content with the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea, because nothing is lacking in it, but it is full of piety. And thirty-three signatures were set to the said Tome. The saint, for the confirmation of what is said, also makes mention of the Sardican synod. And let these things be sufficient; by which it has been demonstrated that the prohibition ^D of any other faith exists from much earlier, and from a

^A beginning had been decreed by the holy Fathers. But also the definitions of the holy Fathers, if the truth must be told, and that of the holy Cyril: "We do not permit ourselves, nor others," speak of the Nicene Symbol.

11. Moreover, that the two Symbols were not made one instruction, and that no one of the Fathers united them, will be demonstrated now. And first indeed from the third synod. For this makes mention of the one in Nicaea and says concerning it: "Neither do we permit ourselves, nor others, either to change a word of those things which are set down therein, or at least to pass over one syllable." This, however, he was saying against those who always fought against the ^B consubstantial, as the following discourse will show. And that it stands thus—that the Symbols are held as distinct—this the holy and ecumenical fourth synod clearly establishes in its second act: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, the only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, ^C as well in heaven as upon earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead, and in the Holy Spirit." Eos porro, qui dicunt, erat aliquando quando non erat, et ante quam generaretur non erat, et quod ex iis quæ non erant factus est, aut ex alia substantia, aut essentia affirmantes esse, aut mutabilem, aut alterabilem, eos Ecclesia apostolica anathemata ferit. The most reverend bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the orthodox. We all believe this. We were baptized in this. We baptize in this. The blessed bishop Cyril taught thus. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith. We were baptized into this. Pope Leo believed thus. Pope Leo interpreted thus." The most glorious princes and the most excellent senate said: "Let those things also be read which were set forth by the hundred and fifty holy Fathers." Aetius, the most pious deacon, read from a volume: "The holy faith which the hundred and fifty holy Fathers set forth, and is in concord with the holy and great synod which was in Nicaea. We believe in one God, ^D the Father Almighty," and the rest up to those words: "of the world to come. Amen." All the most pious bishops cried out: "This is the faith of all. This is the faith of the orthodox. Thus we all believe." And the letters of Cyril having been read, the bishops cried out: "Thus we all believe. Pope Leo believes thus. Likewise Leo and Anatolius. As Cyril, so we believe." The letter of Leo having also been read, they cried out the same. In the same way concerning these Symbols, and in the fifth holy and ecumenical synod, with nothing changed, and in the eighth tome of the holy sixth synod, in the seventeenth action, you will find them divided by no other reasoning. For it is written: "Exposition of faith

of the holy and blessed Fathers at Nicaea: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty," and the whole of that in Nicaea. And after the end of this, it says: "Exposition of faith of the one hundred and fifty blessed Fathers at Constantinople." Do you see that the holy symbols are held separately, and not as he of Ephesus claimed, that the Fathers made one teaching, uniting these, which seemed so to those who were ignorant? And the divine Cyril also, regarding the words, "We do not permit ourselves, nor others, to change any word of what is set down there, or to alter even a single syllable," is speaking against those who were always warring against the ^A *homousios*.

12. And that the matter is so, as he says concerning the *homousios*, many others have also asserted; but to strengthen this, Basil and Maximus, the luminaries and teachers of the Church, were sufficient for me. For the former, in his letter to the bishop Patrophilus, the beginning of which is, "I have read your letters," says after many things: "That I might omit what happened in the meantime, how often they changed when setting forth the faith? They gave one at Ancyra, another at Seleucia, another that one proclaimed at Constantinople, and another at Lampsacus; ^B and afterwards that which they gave at Nica in Thrace, and now again another at Cyzicus, of which, even if I am ignorant of the rest, this I hear, that having left out in silence the confession of the consubstantial, they bring in the 'similar according to essence'." The divine Maximus also has these things: "If the decrees of emperors confirm the synods that have been held, and not a pious faith, then the synods which were held against the *homousios* would be accepted, since they were held by the commands of emperors, I mean the first at Tyre, the second at Antioch, the third at Seleucia, the fourth at ^C Constantinople under the Arian Eudoxius, the fifth at Nica in Thrace, the sixth at Sirmium; and besides these, many years later, the seventh at Ephesus the second, which Dioscorus presided over." Whence it is evident that the argument was for the sake of the *homousios*. For this reason also Athanasius, and Basil, and Cyril, those unshakable foundations of the Church, who confess this primarily from the first holy synod, the one having composed it, the others having received it. The divine Basil says: "We neither accept a new faith written by another, nor do we dare to present the products of our own mind, lest we make human the words of piety," ^D and the rest. And holy Athanasius: "That nothing more than those things decreed at Nicaea should be brought forward, and that they at Sardica were indignant, and decreed that nothing more should be written concerning the faith, but that they should be contented with the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea, because nothing was lacking in it, but it was full of piety." And Cyril also says: "We do not permit ourselves or others to change any word of what is contained there, or to alter even one syllable." Add to this, that the ninety bishops in Egypt and Libya, and the blessed

Athanasius in his letter to the Africans against the Arians, ^A begin: "Sufficient are the things written by our colleague," he says. "But the bishops, who were truly genuine servants of the Lord and who believed rightly, being nearly two hundred, wrote that one should be content with the [faith] at Nicaea alone, and should neither inquire into nor think anything more or less than that." These things they also made known to Constantius, who had commanded the synod to take place. And after a few things: "If, then, they mention Ariminum, let them first demonstrate the abolition of the aforementioned, and those things which the bishops wrote, saying: 'Nothing more is to be inquired into regarding those things decreed at Nicaea by the Fathers, nor is any other synod to be named besides that one.'" ^B Behold, even here the ninety who were [present] decree that nothing more or less than those [things] at Nicaea should be sought or thought. And two hundred, he says, are those who declared to Constantius that nothing more should be sought than those [things] at Nicaea, nor any other synod named. The same saint, in his Tome, as has been shown before, in which also thirty-three [bishops] signed, says: "Nothing more than those things decreed at Nicaea is to be brought forward," and that the synod at Sardica was indignant, and decreed that nothing further should be written concerning the faith, but that they should be content with the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea, because nothing was lacking in it, but it was full of piety. The holy synod at Sardica consisted of three hundred and forty bishops. ^C Therefore, all these legislate that one should seek or think nothing more than those [things] at Nicaea. And all these things were before the second synod. What, then, will every contentious person and inventor of new words say? For it is clear that from the first synod the prohibition exists.

13. And if I say from the first synod? The prohibition is from the holy apostles themselves, with Paul himself proclaiming: "If anyone preaches a gospel to you other than that which you received, let him be anathema." And Dionysius, his disciple: ^D "In general, one must not dare to say or think anything beyond the things divinely revealed to us through the holy scriptures." But it is evident that the apostles did not speak the word *homoousion*, nor *Theotokos*. Were those, therefore, who said these things rash and under the punishment of the Apostle, or did they despise those many holy Fathers who declared that nothing more than those things at Nicaea should be brought forward, and [did] those in the holy second ecumenical synod [err] in adding to them? By no means. Rather, both the apostles and all the synods repel and punish those who think the opposite, but they receive those who speak the truth, and when necessity presses, they decree that our confession should be joined together from the interpretation of the Fathers, and they do not deprive the judges of their authority. It is evident, therefore, that the prohibition was made not concerning the true faith, but concerning an alien one. This also Basil and Cyril establish: "For we permit neither ourselves nor others to alter a single term of those things set down there, or to change even one syllable." To change means to put one word for another, and to alter. Therefore it is necessary...

to attend to what is read, and to consider what is written prudently, and not to read or run through it lightly and rashly. To "prevert" also implies passing over for those who truly possess understanding. Both Basil and Athanasius, who say and write these things, existed before the second holy ecumenical council; and therefore, as was said before, this prohibition had already been established even before that one on account of the *homousion*, as the argument has most clearly demonstrated through the testimonies of the aforementioned saints and teachers, and for curbing the reckless attempts and changes of the heretics against the *homousion*.

^B 14. But in order that it may become clearer and more manifest for many reasons that the prohibition was made for the sake of the *homousion*, even if what has been said has already sufficiently proven this, let us again hear the divine Athanasius. For in that same epistle of his, the beginning of which is, "It was fitting, most honored brothers," he says these things: "Those, therefore, who followed Acacius, abusing the audacity of their folly, completely denied the things written at Nicaea and slandered the synod; but others, and these were the multitude and the common people, accepted all other things of the synod, only regarding the term *homousion* as suspicious, as if it were obscure." Likewise, the synod gathered in Jerusalem by the grace of God also says: "They contend against that great synod for no other reason than that it condemned the Arian heresy. For it is for this reason that they also slander the term *homousion*, thinking wrongly about it." ^C Furthermore, in that same epistle, he says after a little: "In Isauria itself, they wrote contrary things, saying that the *homousion* and the *homoousion* [sic] should be cast out as foreign to the Scriptures, and that we should cast out the name of 'essence' ('ousia'), as that which is nowhere in the Scriptures." For indeed the divine Cyril also aptly says: "We do not permit ourselves, or others," he says, "so that an opportunity may not be given to those who wish to change and write contrary things." And this is clear also from the seventh canon of the third synod, for it says: "Any bishop introducing a faith other than that which was defined at Nicaea is alienated from the episcopacy, and let the layman be cast out." And its interpretation is: "Whoever, beyond that faith which the holy Fathers gathered in the Nicaean synod published, brings forward another impious symbol, for the subversion and destruction of those who from paganism, or Judaism, or any other heresy whatsoever are turning to the knowledge of the truth, if he is a layman, let him be anathematized; but if he is a bishop or a cleric, let him be alienated from the episcopacy and the clergy." ^D Lo, it has been shown that the Symbols of the holy synods were distinct, even if they do not differ in their meaning, and that the definitions make mention of that at Nicaea because of the *homousion*, as has been said before. For indeed, that which was composed in the city of Constantinople was read from a book by the deacon Aetius, at the request of the most illustrious princes, because that which was at Nicaea was known and unique, as all were baptized and baptized others in it, and that which had been written at Constantinople as a definition

^A For although we are baptized and baptize in it later, nevertheless the Nicene [symbol] was in everyone’s mouth, as the divine Basil and the holy third synod have handed down.

15. But it is necessary to set forth here the things presented from the definitions, that the demonstration may appear more clearly. For it is written: ^B “These things, therefore, having been formulated by us with all precision and care from every side, we decree that it is not permitted to anyone to bring forward, or at any rate to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach otherwise. But those who dare to compose another faith, or to bring it forward, or to teach, or to deliver another symbol to those who wish to turn to the knowledge of the truth from paganism or Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce a ‘novelty of speech’—that is, an invention of language—for the subversion of those things now established by us, if they are bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be alienated from the episcopacy, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they are monks or laymen, let them be anathematized.” And in the sixth synod it says: “These things, therefore, having been set forth by us with all precision and care from every side, this holy and great ecumenical synod has decreed that it is permitted to no one to set forth another faith, or at any rate to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach otherwise. But those who dare to compose another faith, or to bring it forward, or to teach, or to deliver another Symbol to those who wish to turn from paganism or Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, if they are bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be removed from the episcopacy, and the clerics from the clergy; ^C but if they are monks or laymen, let them be anathematized.”

It is clear, therefore, from the already-cited definitions of the blessed Fathers, that it is permitted to no one to bring forward another faith, or at any rate to write, or to compose, or to introduce a “novelty of speech”—that is, an invention of language—for the subversion of those things established regarding the contrary faith. For “for the subversion” denotes this. For they do not say these things only concerning the holy Symbols. Every exposition of faith is called a Symbol and is one. For this definition contains [matters] concerning the incarnation of the Lord, and that the Godhead is not subject to passions, and concerning two wills. And when the Fathers had explained these things excellently, they add: “These things, therefore,” and the rest... “the holy synod has decreed that it is permitted to no one.” ^D And these things indeed are contained in the definition of the holy synod. But that of the holy third synod says: “This Symbol of divine grace would indeed have sufficed for the perfect knowledge and firmness of piety;” afterwards it adds, concerning the incarnation of the Lord, and that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, and the union of the two natures, and that the Symbol of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers must remain untouched and inviolate; then also the Symbol of the one hundred and fifty, and it says, because of the enemies of the Holy Spirit, and the synodical epistles of Cyril and Leo, and [[that]] the Divinity of the Only-Begotten is not subject to passions, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, but according to his humanity, with us. To all of which, most fittingly...

having explained these things, as those who possess the mind of Christ, they add: ^A “These things, therefore, having been defined,” namely all the afore-mentioned matters.

16. It is evident, therefore, that they say this regarding a contrary faith. For many others also have written about the things contained in these, and have expounded them; and among them the God-taught Fathers, Maximus and Damascene. What then shall we say? That the holy ones were ignorant of the prohibition, or that they knew and despised it? Far be it from us to speak such injury. For the prohibition was concerning a contrary faith, one which would overthrow the true faith, since there is but one faith; and the blessed Paul confirms this, saying: “One Lord, one faith.” If, therefore, there is one faith, by all means the other must be contrary. And no one, provided he does not stray from wisdom, will say that another faith is proposed as true, since only one is true. Wherefore, the divine Maximus also rejects a contrary addition, but embraces a true one. And this is openly gathered from his Dialogue against one who defended the opinion of the Pneumatomachian Macedonius, ^B in which, when the Orthodox says: “I have condemned the addition which you have added to the edition of Lucian: and I can show that what you have added is contrary to it,” and the follower of Macedonius responds: “Did you not add to the Nicene [Creed]?” the Orthodox replies to this: “But it is not contrary to it.” And even more clearly the same saint sets this forth in his confession, briefly composed, which he compiled for the sake of the Council of Chalcedon, the beginning of which is, “When most nobly,” or more aptly to speak, “ignobly,” and after a few words: “Who then, and concerning what is the accusation? For he asserts that another definition of faith, different from that which was ^C handed down in the holy Nicene Council by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, has been introduced.”

Also, it will be most fitting to bring forward the opinion of Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, from the Florilegium compiled from books of every kind by Photius of Constantinople, and it stands in this manner: “But the madness of the heretics again blames the fourth council, in that it published a definition, and contends that such an attempt had been entirely prohibited by the first council held at Ephesus. And yet, if, as they babble, the council forbade the producing of any other definition, it brought the sentence of condemnation upon itself before all others: for it defines by decreeing this very thing, which no other had defined before it. But the ‘hypostatic union’ is a term about which the more ancient ^D councils had decreed nothing. Moreover, they reject and condemn with their own babblings the Constantinopolitan [Council] of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers, by which the heresy of the Spirit-fighters was routed, and the faith was congruously explained with the addition of words to the Nicene Symbol concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit. For if preceding [councils] escape censure by making additions, neither will those which followed them in similar matters incur blame in a dissimilar way. Thus the mind of fools mixes and confuses everything. For the Ephesian...

^A synod did indeed altogether forbid the setting forth of another faith, whose dogmas were contrary to the synod at Nicaea; but it became its own task to add those things which the occasion requires, keeping pure and inviolate what is within it, as, indeed, the nature of things, which is our teacher, ordains, and the custom of the Church appears not to have rejected. Wherefore, even before the oecumenical synod had been assembled at Alexandria, the divine Cyril, gathering the elect priests within it and arranging the written faith, sent it to Nestorius. ^B And the holy Ephraemius, Patriarch of Antioch, says: "Behold, the heretics again malign the fourth synod, saying that it taught that it is not permitted to anyone to bring forth, or to write, or to compose, or to hold another faith besides that which it set forth. And yet the synod had not decreed this, although the heretics lie most shamelessly. But that faith which the three hundred and eighteen Fathers asserted, holding it in the highest honor and confirming it, it said that it was not permitted to anyone to bring forth another faith than that," and the following. "From all these utterances of the synod, which, provided they have been read, require no other proof or demonstration that they are the truth, it is found that it did not define one thing and do another; but as it decreed, so it is known to have acted everywhere. For to those who advance toward piety, it taught and handed down no other Creed than that of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, but they excite laughter against themselves rather than an accusation of the synod, when they say that it is derided by many. For how many ^C synods spoke against the first and holy oecumenical synod, and even then, being a fullness of high priests? And some of the Egyptians did not even wish to know if the synod of the hundred and fifty had even taken place. But let us pass over their ravings." To these, the divine Maximus says: "By what reason, therefore, can anyone ever prove that it works and sanctions the holy synod of Chalcedon in such a way as if it repudiated the Nicene definition, even if he be most keen in inventing things that are nowhere, and which are feigned against the truth for the sake of fabrication and lying? But if you receive with cursing and reproach that it is indeed firmly conserving these things, and perhaps introducing a second definition, what is this second definition introduced by it? The confession, you say, of the two natures, and that expression, 'in two natures,' which the Nicene definition contains in no way, but was openly introduced by the Chalcedonian Fathers, in no way known before, or recounted by anyone. But that you cannot even prove this is manifest, since that term was ^D long before it regarded as pious and was publicly preached by many Fathers, and the discourses of those who proclaimed it are witnesses, being clearer and more splendid than any ray of the sun. And you either are ignorant of this through lack of education, or you pretend to be ignorant because of cursing and the insane accusation of the pious Fathers and doctrines. But if there were none of this either, while nevertheless, as I have said, it offers itself abundantly, what prevents so many Fathers—nay, the whole assembly of Christians, for that is properly characteristic of the orthodox—

^B holy synod, from authoritatively setting this forth and legislating against the confusion of Eutyches?” And after a few words he adds: “On what grounds and in what manner do you accuse the holy synod at Chalcedon, even though it evidently made use of the Fathers’ terminology, and why do you scold it in writing and tear it to pieces as though it were introducing another definition of faith there? Do not judge by appearances, God has said, but judge a just judgment. What is your accusation against the same and single subject of those at Chalcedon, and what is the protest of those who preceded them? For if it is an accusation against those at Chalcedon that they introduced another definition of faith on account of the expressions added to the definition of the Nicene Fathers, then for that same reason it will necessarily follow that one must speak against Cyril and against the one hundred and fifty. But if it is not against them, I cannot conceive how it can be against the former. I urge you to cease your madness and opposition regarding these points which cannot be demonstrated, ^C if perhaps by this means you might, as is proper, be ashamed, put an end to your hesitation, and conclude this great conspiracy against the truth itself.

“Since indeed Gregory, the champion of theology, will no less fail to escape your accusation against the synod of Chalcedon; nay, even more, as you yourselves prescribe, he will be most liable to it, for he made the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit entire from a truncated and mutilated Nicene [Symbol], since this question had not yet been raised at that time, acknowledging the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, and exhorting Cledonius to hold and teach the same. But it seems to me that, just as sight, on account of its own weakness, is unable to gaze upon the splendor of the sun, nor is it able to deceive it, and so blames the splendor as being weak rather than its own visual impairment, so you, having because of your confusion a heavy and poor state of health, ^D and abundantly refuting as impious and inconsistent [the synod]—even though it perfectly preserves the truth of the two natures in Christ—you accuse them as though they were not common luminaries and interpreters of the truth.

“But if the true things about the truth are to be said, all the Fathers elected by God after the Nicene synod, and the entire assembly of orthodox and holy men, did not introduce another definition of faith through the addition of their own words, as you, speaking too erroneously and acting quite insanely, judge. But they firmly confirmed that same [definition] as the first and unique one sanctioned by the holy three hundred and eighteen Fathers, clarifying it and more openly enunciating it in their exposition, for the sake of those who were distorting and falsely interpreting it and its dogmas to establish their own impiety. Not long after, in their attempt to violate what was held therein concerning the divinity, the one hundred and fifty Fathers did not allow Eunomius and Macedonius to do so by their own words and decrees; and the blessed Cyril did not allow Nestorius, who was striving to divide the mystery of the Economy in another way.” As indeed—

the venerable fathers at Chalcedon prevented those who were attempting to confuse the matter. Why, therefore, do you not embrace this ^A one also, together with those synods, on account of the same and equal benefit? Or is it that, by receiving this one with contumely as if you were haters of honest things, you also receive those others with contumely? Because you perform this specifically in your deeds, while pretending in your words that you oppose it; so that, while commending and extolling those others with fabrications of piety, you might undermine them by means of this one, attributing to it an equal crime for an equal deed. Who, then, will endure such great arrogance of yours against piety and pious men? and what follows.

17. Furthermore, let us hear from that same holy synod in its Epistle to Acacius, where it explains that the holy and ecumenical third synod, through the divine Cyril, abhors what is contrary, not what is orthodox—which rather it commends—and calls only another thing, strictly speaking, contrary. As for the true one, it embraces it, and calls those who reject it execrable. For it says in that letter: "We have neither demanded a new exposition of the faith from anyone, nor have we accepted one innovated by others. For the Scripture inspired by God is sufficient for us, as is the prudence of the holy Fathers, and before all, the Symbol of the faith, aptly and rightly composed for all proper dogmas. But because the most holy bishops of the East, when at Ephesus, were dissenting from us, and because of this, there was a suspicion that they were held fast in the snares of the blasphemies of Nestorius, they composed an apology, as was fitting, to free themselves as prudently as possible from that charge, and to satisfy in every respect the lovers of the blameless faith, and to show themselves to be void of Nestorian impiety; and this they did very prudently. So far is this act of theirs from appearing worthy of any note or reproach at all. For ^B if Nestorius himself at that time, when it was proposed to him by all of us that he should condemn his own dogmata and embrace the truth, had exhibited a written confession concerning these matters, would anyone be saying that he had composed a new Symbol of the faith? Why, therefore, do they rashly attack with reproaches the most holy ^C bishops of Phoenicia, calling their consensus a new Symbol, which they published usefully and necessarily, so as to clear themselves and to appease those who had persuaded themselves that they were approving the novelty of Nestorian terms? For the holy and ecumenical synod, which had convened at Ephesus, necessarily provided that it should not be proper to introduce into the Churches of God another exposition of the faith, besides that which already existed, which our most blessed Fathers, speaking in the Holy Spirit, had defined. But they, having once appeared—I know not how—to dissent from this, and having been brought into suspicion that they neither thought correctly nor adhered to the apostolic and evangelical dogmata, would they, by remaining silent, have freed themselves from this ignominious ^D note, or rather by a full satisfaction of their

^A declaration of sentiment? And yet the divine disciple of Christ has left behind this written instruction: “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” 1 Pet. III, 15. Whoever, therefore, wishes to do this, is certainly not attempting any novelty, nor is he caught innovating on the exposition of the faith, but rather he renders the faith he has regarding Christ clear to those who ask him. Furthermore, I have heard that the enemies of truth bear the concord of the most pious bishops with great difficulty, and turn everything upside down, seeking to force the confession which those bishops have published—concerning the right faith, innovating nothing, that is, adding nothing to those things which were once established, but rather adhering to the blameless dogmata of the holy Fathers—to agree in meaning and force with their own impious inventions.

If therefore [the Church] approves this, and encourages that a synod be held, how do some affirm that a prohibition was made by the third synod? ^B Furthermore, the holy Gregory the Theologian, to whom the title of Theologian belongs, writes thus to Cledonius: “We have never preferred, nor can we prefer, anything to the creed set forth by the holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea for the overthrow of the Arian heresy; but by divine grace we keep that faith intact, [and even] that which was not stated perfectly concerning the Holy Spirit, we formulate.” Which the admirable interpreter Elias of Crete explains in this passage: “For in the body of the words it had been omitted, but in the soul, that is, the meaning, it had never been omitted at all. Wherefore the saint did not promise to formulate—that is, to specify and shape—what had been omitted, ^C but what had been expressed imperfectly, by the wording of the body.”

But also the six hundred and thirty Fathers in the holy and ecumenical fourth synod, in their allocution to the Emperor, decree in this manner: “If anyone, however, opines that those who wish to defend the faith according to their ability must stop at this point, he ought especially to promulgate this precept to the heretics, removing them from [their] assault, not turning the shepherds away from [their] protection. For every law forbids crimes to the wicked, but does not take away power from the judges. Otherwise, let them be informed that it is permissible, even now, when ambiguity arises, to attach our own confession to the interpretations of the Fathers, as those who in no way hold a sentiment discordant with their understanding.” But this decree of the holy and blessed Fathers left no handle for tergiversation to those who love contentions and dissensions, ^D inasmuch as it interprets itself openly, and removes all hesitations and doubts, and was sent to the Emperor as a law and a statute. For he says: “Otherwise, let them be informed that it is permissible, even now, when ambiguity arises, to attach our own confession to the interpretations of the Fathers,” etc. But let these things suffice for the present, so that it may be clearly shown that we have never transgressed the divine boundaries. For it is neither just nor pious to hold in neglect those [boundaries] which we ought to embrace and keep with all our strength; and to not only shake off another faith, as if it were contrary, but also to reject and anathematize it—

^A but to accept the true [faith], according to the holy and divine Maximus, and the remaining saints, and the six hundred and thirty Fathers of the holy and ecumenical fourth synod, and to append our own confession, the true faith, especially if we follow the opinions and decrees of the saints and keep all things that have been communally decreed. For it is not permitted for each person to innovate, or rather, to introduce novelties. But if the things being added are from the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, and are defined by common judgment, there is nothing to prevent this. And this the divine Basil defined before the second synod, ^B saying: "We do not accept a faith that is newer, written for us by someone else." And Athanasius, who suffered much, relates concerning the synod at Sardica that it decrees that one should "acquiesce to the Nicene faith." Indeed, the second synod also added with confidence, and the holy fourth synod rightly decreed—following the third—that if necessity should urge, our confession is to be appended to the interpretations of the Fathers.

18. Furthermore, we do not say without qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and absolutely, lest we fall into the opinion of Eunomius, nor do we say that He has His existence from the Son. For then the Son would be the principal cause, and not the Father, just as the godless Eunomius claimed, as the great Basil says in his refutations of him in the second book of his *Antirrhetika*: "For who among all men is not aware ^C that there is no operation of the Son separated from the Father, nor is there anything in existing things that is in the Son and is alien to the Father? For all things, he says, that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine. How then does he attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone, and consider the creation of the latter to be a predicate of His nature?" Therefore, the divine Damascene also says: "We do not say the Spirit is from the Son," but he confesses and proclaims [that He is] through the Son, and denies that He has His existence from the Son, but he does not deny that He has it *through* the Son. But if some of the Eastern saints likewise, and many more of the Westerners, also teach "from the Son," this is not a disagreement, but rather a harmony. For "from the Son" intends the same thing as "through the Son." Therefore, it is manifest to those who wish to think ^D intelligently, that wherever the preposition "through" is placed, the preposition "from" is understood as preceding. Likewise, the copulative conjunction "and" also has "from" as a presupposition. Therefore, he who says "from the Son" absolutely does not think or speak in any other way. But he who prefixes "from" and attaches it by means of the conjunction "and"—that is, "from the Father and the Son"—shows that the Father is the fount, and principle, and cause of the whole divinity. Afterward, to say and hold that the Holy Spirit is "from the Son" and has His proper existence [from Him] is not at all true. For He would be from the Son alone, since the Father is not a mediator in the procession of the Spirit; for the Father is not a mediator between two persons, the Son and the Spirit. And for this reason, we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, neither that He receives His procession, nor that He receives His being, nor that He is poured forth, but through the Son.

To say "from the Father" and "at the same time from the Son" is the same thing, ^A as the holy and divine Damascene also says in his thirteenth chapter: "And through the Word, the producer of the manifestation of the Spirit." And the illustrious and divine Maximus, in his interpretation regarding the sense in which the saying of Zechariah is to be received, "And upon it a small lamp and the lanterns," says: "The Holy Spirit, just as He exists by nature according to essence from God and the Father, so He is also from the Son according to essence, as proceeding in an ineffable manner essentially from the Father through the begotten Son." And the much-suffering Athanasius, in his Epistle to Serapion, the beginning of which is, "Perhaps you will marvel," says: "For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but being in the Word, He is in God through Him." And after a few words: "The Spirit being in the Word, it would be clear that the Spirit was also in God through the Word."

19. For it is not a property of the Father to produce, in such a way that He alone produces. For the property of the Father is to generate, if indeed we believe in only three properties, ^B according to the saints, and according to the Theophant Basil, in his letter to his own brother, *On Essence and Hypostasis*, where he says: "But the Father, who is over all, alone possesses a peculiar notion of His own hypostasis, in that He is Father and that He subsists from no cause whatsoever; and by this sign He Himself is uniquely and separately recognized." And Theologian Gregory asserts the same thing in many of his orations, both in the funeral oration for the great Basil: "Worshipping three in properties, but one in essence; then in the *Holy Lights*: "But when I say 'of God,' you are surrounded by one light and by three; by three according to the properties, that is to say, the hypostases"; and in his discourse *On Saint Athanasius*: "For one essence and three hypostases being piously understood by us—for the one denotes the essence of the Godhead, and the other denotes the three properties." And in his discourse *On Dogma and the Composition of Bishops*: "We therefore adore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, distinguishing the properties, but uniting the Godhead." It has been demonstrated, therefore, most clearly ^C that we believe in three properties. Therefore, either to produce or to generate is a property. But to produce is in no way a property; therefore, to generate is the sole property of the Father. Hence, we are rightly taught by the doctors of the Church that the Son is generated from the Father alone, but the Spirit not from the Father alone, but from the Father through the Son. For this reason, we also believe that the Father generates and produces, and in generating He produces according to a different mode, not according to another property of His. For this reason, it is said that He produces *through the Son*, and brings forth *through the Son*, as the Damascene also says in the same chapter: ^D "The manifesting power of the hidden Godhead of the Father is from the Father, proceeding through the Son."

^A 20. It is therefore evident to all Christians who possess the use of reason that the generation of the Son is conceived prior to the procession of the Holy Spirit, not in eternity—for in eternity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are together at once—but just as the Father is conceived prior to the Son, so too is the Son prior to the Holy Spirit, as many of the holy Fathers affirm, and as the holy Gregory, bishop of the Nyssaeans, confirms, saying: "For just as the Son is conjoined to the Father, having from Him the fact that He is, according to subsistence, yet is not posterior, so again the Holy Spirit adheres to the Only-Begotten, being conceived prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit only in thought, according to the principle of cause. Chronological extensions and intervals have no place in the life that is before the ages, so that once the account of cause is introduced, the holy Trinity in no way disagrees with Itself." And Basil the Great, in his epistle to the Canonicae, sets this forth more clearly. For he says: "If the Spirit exists superior to God, He cannot be from God. But if He is from God, how can He be older than Him from whom He is? Nay, neither is He prior to the Only-Begotten, for there is no medium between the Son and the Father." And the great Cyril, in his epistle to Nestorius, says that He is "from Him and His own." And the holy First Synod, through Leontius: "The Holy Spirit is found to be proceeding indeed from the Father, but to be the own ^B of the Son, and emanating from Him." By that same reasoning, then, by which He is said to be the own of the Father, He is said also to be the own of the Son; and just as He is said to be of the essence of the Father, so is He said to be of the essence of the Son. And the divine John Damascene, in the eighth chapter, the beginning of which is, "We believe, therefore," says: "And solely the Holy Spirit [is] proceeding from the essence, of the Father, not generated, but proceeding." This also the all-great Athanasius implies: "From the essence of the Father [is] the Holy Spirit." And the inspired Cyril, in the thirty-fourth chapter of the *Thesaurus*, says regarding the essence of the Son: "Confessing that He is not in any will of His own, nor in any counsel alien to His will, in whom and from whom He is, but as emanating from His essence." And further: "From the essence of the Son [is] the Spirit, as a certain quality, so to speak, of the God who is Lord of all. If this be so, He is therefore God, and not generated, nor made, as seemed to the wicked-minded." And again: "In the Gospels the Savior says of Himself: I am the Truth. And the blessed John, ^C showing the Spirit to be from the essence of the Father and the Son, calls Him in the Gospels the Spirit of truth." By the Teachers, therefore, He is confessed as being from the essence of the Father and the Son; and we do not say that the divine essence is separated from the divine persons, but that every divine person contains the whole essence within Himself. When, therefore, we speak of essence together with the relative name, we speak of the common along with the proper, as it seems also to the holy Damascene, and to the other saints, and to the divine Maximus. For the latter, in debating with an Anomoean, says, concerning the Anomoean’s claim, ^D

^A “Another is essence and another is subsistence—another, the saint said, I say, and another, not as a thing.” But the Father possesses the Holy Spirit, proceeding [from Himself], not having received Him from another; for He Himself is the sole cause and the sole principle; for He has no pre-existing cause nor pre-existing principle. But the Son does not possess the Spirit from Himself, but from the Father, as also the inspired Cyril [says] in the explanation of the passage, *And I will ask the Father, and He will send you another Paraclete*, saying: ^B “For the Son, being a participant in the natural goods of God and the Father substantially, possesses the Spirit in the same manner as the Father is understood to possess Him.” Then, explaining the manner through an example taken from man, which is most suitable to the matter of which he speaks, he adds: “But as each of us contains his own spirit within himself, and pours it forth from the inmost parts to the outside. For indeed, for this reason Christ breathed it out corporeally, showing that just as spirit goes forth from the mouth of a man corporeally, so also from the divine essence, as befits God, that which is from It is poured forth.” He has already clearly given the mode by which the Son possesses the Spirit, which is obviously no other than that by which the Father has Him. But the one [possesses Him] not from Himself, but from the Father; the other, the Father, not from another, but from Himself. ^C Consistent with this, the divine Augustine also speaks in the second book on the Trinity, in the eighth chapter (it is chapter 20 of the fourth book), saying: “Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son. For it is not in vain that the same Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He wished to signify when, breathing into the face of the disciples, He said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ For that corporeal breath, proceeding with the sense of being touched corporally, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit; but it was a demonstration through a suitable sign that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son.”

21. Having set forth these things as we were aiming to do in this discourse, we have now fulfilled our obligation, as we have previously stated, demonstrating by the things mentioned that we have the Fathers as the authors of our arguments, and that in this way we persevere in our ancestral dogma, as the things said make very clearly manifest. ^D And we have introduced nothing new into the holy Church of Christ beyond those things which were established by our holy Fathers, teachers, and theologians. But if these things are not sufficient for your Majesty, but you desire to have them confirmed by more demonstrations—provided only that we may know what gives offense—we shall explain these matters with similar testimonies of the saints. For we cannot express all that is brought forward in this argument in a single discourse on account of the satiety that is adverse to the ears, although it is most worthy of admiration and abounds in graces. May the Lord preserve your Majesty for many years with sound and incorrupt health, having accepted the prayers of the saints who handed down these teachings for our great joy and pleasure.