Gennadius (or George) Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople

GEORGIUS SCHOLARIUS OR, WITH HIS NAME CHANGED, GENNADIUS PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

A DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GENNADIUS BY EUSEBIUS RENAUDOT

We present, Christian reader, Gennadius's homily on the Body and Blood of Christ, which is celebrated among the Greeks but nonetheless very rare and never seen by us in either Greek or Latin. We take it from a paper manuscript of the Brindisi monastery of excellent quality, written by a skilled hand at least one hundred and fifty years ago. ^B Gennadius is the man who, around the year 1453, when Constantinople was captured, was elected patriarch by the Greeks according to the custom of their ancestors, by order of Muhammed, the emperor of the Turks. In the same manuscript are found: a Funeral Oration for the Despoina, mother of Emperor Constantine; another delivered at the funeral of Sophianus; Homilies on the Beheading of John the Baptist, on the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the Nativity of the Lord, and on the Publican and the Pharisee; a work on the time and manner of the existence of rational souls; and other short works which, especially in the various codices of the Royal Library, bear the name of Gennadius and are attributed to this same author by the most certain arguments. But while the authority of the manuscripts alone and several not-to-be-despised reasons confirm the titles of the other short works, the Exposition of the Christian Religion, made before the emperor of the Turks, carries the greatest weight of all. For it designates so clearly the man who was the first to be named patriarch of Constantinople ^C after the collapse of the city, as the author of this our Discourse or Homily, that even those who have invented the idea of two Gennadiuses cannot doubt it. We do not accuse those who published certain short works of Gennadius in the previous century, or who translated them into the *Bibliotheca Patrum*; for it was permissible for those pious and not unlearned men, though strangers to more recent criticism, not to recognize Gennadius—or Georgius Scholarius—since they had scarcely handled any Greek manuscripts. But the two Greeks, Matthaeus Caryophyllus, Archbishop of Iconium, and Leo Allatius of Corcyra, can by no means be excused; for they were the first to play out this fable, and other theologians followed their opinion, except for one, Richard Simon, a most learned man, who was the first to explode it in his defense written in the vernacular against Thomas Smith, the Oxford theologian. The matter concerned the faith of the Greek Churches regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, about which there had been fierce dispute for nearly twenty years between Catholics and Protestants, on the occasion of the short work *On the Perpetual Consent of Both Churches Regarding Eucharistic Faith*, which thereafter produced many volumes written on both sides.

The advocate of the Protestants was a man of eloquence, well prepared with ^A many natural gifts to write with grace and polish, but of mediocre learning, and in ecclesiastical antiquity—and most especially in the texts of barbarous Greece—a stranger beyond what is credible. He possessed, furthermore, a certain bold, yet modest and placid impudence—as he denied things that were clearer than light and sanctimoniously affirmed things that were either utterly false or wholly empty—which recommended the man to his own people more than did the learning, eloquence, or sincere spirit of better theologians of the same sect. When he had explained the entire Albertine volume in a thick book, and a new question was raised concerning the current faith of the Oriental Churches, especially the Greeks—a question scarcely touched upon by the Protestants—he denied that the Greeks believed in the true presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist; and if any might perhaps think so, he asserted that the Greeks had been corrupted by the Latins; and thus he seemed to himself to have won the case. He appealed to the testimonies of the patriarchs; he demanded that public records be produced, as well as confessions of faith and the decisions of synods, thinking, of course, that it was impossible for these to be obtained from Greece. Yet, scarce two years having passed, instruments arrived from the Churches of the Greeks, and from the Melchites, Jacobites, and Nestorians of Syria; and two years later, for a long time thereafter, so many other things arrived from the distinguished man Charles François Olier de Nointel, ambassador to the Ottoman court, that nothing more could be desired for the stabilization of the truth or for condemning the man to perpetual silence. But he who had once crossed the bounds of shame had necessarily to be skillfully impudent. Thus, he who in private judgments had borne the infamy of being convicted of calumny by such certain records now obtained, by quibbling, that his own people believed his doctrine of the Orientals against the evidence of the records. And not only records and synodal ^B decisions, but even whole books were sent from Greece, by which the records were confirmed; and indeed we have known with no small joy the fruit of their authority in recalling many to a sounder mind and to returning to their Catholic Mother. Of such a kind were the *Orthodox Confession of the Oriental Church*, published in the very printing presses of the Dutch for the sake of Panagiotes, the primary interpreter to the Turkish emperor; the *Bethlehemite Synod*; and the *Work* of Meletius Syrigos *against the false exposition of the faith by Cyril Lucaris*, which many Protestants kiss with such fervor, while the most learned among them protest.

Among other testimonies which Syrigos had produced against the unheard-of theology of Lucaris, there occurred the opinion of Gennadius, who, he says, flourished around the year 1453, the first to be named patriarch after the capture of the city. Scarcely anything more expressive appears in literary monuments than that testimony. For not only do the opinions of Gennadius agree with the opinions of the Catholics, but words even agree with words, while he expresses the *metousiosis*, or transubstantiation, of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, which cannot be dragged into a metaphorical meaning by calumnious interpretations. If, perhaps, something should be brought to light from libraries that seems contrary to Catholic doctrine, two things are usually practiced by theologians: they examine the codices, first, to ensure the authority of the one brought forward as a witness, and then the doctrine is explained; nor, if it seems to diverge from the common opinion in which we live, is it immediately judged to be rejected. Those who did otherwise—as in the past memories of our ancestors did Peter du Moulin, who would reject as spurious any writings of the Fathers if they opposed the tenets of his own sect—experienced the censure of the most learned men among his own people. But that new theologian neither searched the shelves of libraries nor applied any criticism, but seemed to himself to have laid prostrate the whole of Greece—ancient, modern, and whatever it might be in the future—with one argument. He claimed, in fact, to have proved sufficiently that the real presence—much less transubstantiation—had never entered the minds of the Greeks, and that all, from the beginning of the schisms, had held the faith that was contained in the *Confession* of Cyril Lucaris: those, therefore, who thought otherwise were not true Greeks, but *latinophronas* [Latin-minded], not legitimate Greeks but traitors to the ancestral faith and to the sacred ancestral rites, who had no authority in controversies of this kind. Supported by this foundation, the whole machine of Claudian arguments stood for many years. I omit other things of this kind, of which even the Protestants themselves should be ashamed, as I have indeed heard many good men who wished to bid farewell to Claude, because he had led the common cause into such straits from which there was no way to retreat. For it did not matter to us, they said, what the Greeks or the remaining Orientals believe, nor what they censure in our doctrine, which does not rely on the human testimonies of foreign Churches but on the word of God alone.

Gennadius had been brought forth by Meletius Syrigos; and when Richard Simon had published excerpts from the same, Thomas Smith, an Oxford theologian, published two small works on the state of the Greek ^C Churches, and certain *Miscellanea*, in which he proposed again the old trifles concerning the faith of the Greeks, the *Confession* of Cyril Lucaris, and his history, having been refuted by the most certain arguments; and among other things, he proposed a divination against Gennadius, or rather against Meletius Syrigos, whom he charges with *Homilies* on the Eucharist supposed to belong to Gennadius, by no evidence but only by conjectures, which I think will appear most empty to fair readers. He also teaches that the more recent Greeks owe the word *metousiosis*—which they are accustomed to use for eighty years, since the time when Latinism was infused among them—to the Metropolitan of Philadelphia, Gabriel; this is shown to be most false by the Epistle of Meletius Pegas, Patriarch of Alexandria, which we have published. His own religion, as we believe, deceived the man, whose prejudices he labored under; at Constantinople he expended entirely careless labor on the business he had undertaken in explaining it, or he must necessarily confess...

^A that he brought forth nothing from there which might pertain to the defense of his desperate cause. For various rumors concerning Lucaris, which the archives of the Church of Constantinople refute, and what has been collected by Allatius and Caryophyllus—if you were to remove it from that miscellaneous work—whoever has even tasted the literature of recent Greece with the tips of his lips will acknowledge nothing new, nothing born beyond the sea. No Catholic, even if he embraces the memory of Allatius, Arcudius, Caryophyllus, and others who deserved well of the Church with charity, thinks that he is bound to swear by their words, or finds nothing to be desired in their writings. Indeed, those who have immersed themselves in Greek literature and have seriously handled the codices themselves desire their diligence and prudence, and not rarely their candor and good faith. Witnesses are the many books of Catholics published in the last thirty years, in which Arcudius is beaten as a perpetual calumniator of the Greek Church; Allatius is not spared; Caryophyllus and other "Hellenomastiges" are often refuted. Therefore, he who had set his heart on siphoning off Syrigos as a counterfeit writer and Gennadius as a "Latinizer" ought, without doubt, not to have copied Allatius, Arcudius, or Possevinus, but rather the manuscript codices to which we appeal, so as to say things about Gennadius that could in no way afterward be called into doubt. But first, those things which have been written about Gennadius by Catholic authors, upon which Smith ^B has built his own disputation as if upon most certain foundations, seem to need introduction.

Gennadius, who was declared the first patriarch of New Rome after the destruction of the Greek Eastern Empire, had the name Georgios Scholarios before assuming that dignity. Thus testify the authors of the *History of Constantinople* in Crusius’s *Turco-Graecia*: "They chose," he says, "the lord philosopher Georgios, a holy and pious man, a judge of the imperial court, and having confirmed his election according to custom with acclamations, they constituted him patriarch, calling him Gennadius." Him, as Malaxus writes, Joannes Palaiologos, when he set out for France or Italy, where the eighth synod was held, took with him as "the most wise." In the Greek Acts of the Council of Florence, sess. 25, the words of Georgios Scholarios are referred to the emperor, by whom, at his request for an opinion on establishing concord with the Latins, he replied that he had already explained in published orations what his mind was—to embrace the doctrine of the Roman Church regarding the heads of controversy between the two Churches, which were soon explained by the synodal definition. Mention of these orations is also made in the *Apology* of Joseph of Methone; and there is a great question among the learned whether the words of the Greek Acts are to be understood of those things which we have in Greek and Latin in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* and in the *Collections* of the councils. Georgios Scholarios was then among the laity, and a primary judge of the imperial court; and thus it is not surprising that in writing the synodal definition he did not ^C add anything except for the emperor himself, for only ecclesiastics were subscribing, and among the laity, none except the emperor. Returning to Constantinople in the year 1439, after the synod was concluded, Gennadius lived in great dignity with the emperor Joannes and his brother and successor Constantinus, until the year 1453, which was the final one for the Greek empire of Constantinople.

But what in truth happened to Gennadius in all these thirteen years, Allatius divined. For he did not learn from any Greek author that Gennadius—the most observant of the Catholic faith, which he had professed at Florence together with other Greeks—had confirmed the schismatics by word and writing, and especially Marcus of Ephesus, the standard-bearer of the schism, or that he was most hostile to the Latin name. However, because it is understood from various acts and monuments, few of which have been published and the rest of which are preserved in libraries, that at the same time a certain Georgios Scholarios, closely joined in the highest familiarity with Marcus of Ephesus, had written many things against the Latins, Matthaeus Caryophyllus, and Leo Allatius following him, feigned two Gennadiuses, two Georgios Scholariuses; they ordained that one, who took part in the Council of Florence, was a Catholic; the other a schismatic. This one, having become a monk, received the name of Gennadius together with the habit of religion; that one, having been made patriarch from a layman after the capture of the city, was also called Gennadius, who after five years, having laid aside the patriarchal insignia, withdrew into a monastery and died his day around the year 1460. Indeed, Allatius suspects that another certain Georgios Scholarios ^D Cortesius existed, whom he judges to be the author of various works against the Latins; and thus he enumerates three Georgios Scholariuses and Gennadiuses, but, as will be seen below, very unfortunately. However, almost all theologians followed this conjecture of his, until the very learned R. Simon proved with certain arguments that there was a single Gennadius. Yet because these things were written by him as it were *en passant* (*in transcursu*), since the brevity of the work did not allow him to explain the whole question from ancient monuments, it remains that we dispatch it in a few words, as much as possible.

Gennadius indeed, who had the name Georgios Scholarios, a Constantinopolitan by birth as it seems, having attained great fame among his own people from an early age for his learning, eloquence, and skill in law, was in the ministry of the imperial court before Joannes Palaiologos set out for Italy. At that time, he held the office of primary judge, *Kritēs tēs basilikēs kriseōs*, as not only the political and ecclesiastical history in Crusius, but also various titles of his opucles, testify. He himself complains of the trouble of business, writing to Filelfo in these words: "But hindered by the clamors of the judgments, I am scarcely allowed to breathe, and even against my will I offend something against my friends." But oppressed by the tumult of the judgments, so that he is scarcely allowed to breathe, I offend somewhat against my friends even against my will. Which also in other certain letters to friends, and

in apologetic accounts he not obscurely designates. Not yet having exceeded his thirtieth year, he firmly resolved to serve Christ, to abdicate the magistracy—a business which is a certain hindrance—and to decline toward that private life which Christ has marked out for us, as it is most full of much philosophy, the hope of future things, and, in a word, of every good: that no one of my citizens is ignorant of this, I believe. That he deferred it for so long, he reports to have been due to the care of his parents, whom he could scarcely abandon in their old age without impiety, and for certain other reasons.

Meanwhile, he had a commerce of letters with the most learned Italians—Francesco Filelfo, Ambrogio Traversari, and Marco Lipomano, a Venetian patrician—many of which exist not inelegantly in the Royal codex 2955, and a few in the Colbertine 4958; but through the utter negligence of librarians, they are without date, consul, or place from which they were sent, so that they offer only a modest light to the history of Gennadius. Filelfo himself ^A bears witness in a certain Greek poem that he came into his intimacy while he was still a young man, when he was living in Constantinople.

Ον μοι ὄντι νέῳ νεαρὸν πάνυ διὰ θεάων ^B Εν Βύζαντος ἔρῳ ἥψατο Καλλιόπη. Quem juveni mi olim, juvenem Byzantis in urbe Calliopes Diva conciliavit amor.

For this poem of Filelfo pertains to our Gennadius, not, as Allacci thinks, to I know not what Georgios Scholarios Gennadius, metropolitan of the Phasorians. The proof is the letter we praised a moment ago, which is the eighth in the Royal codex, in which he writes to Filelfo that the letters written by him had pleased the Emperor greatly, whose kindness toward him he well knew. Georgios Scholarios was on most intimate terms with Loukas Notaras, the Grand Duke and son-in-law of Emperor John Palaiologos, to whom some not inelegant letters of the Duke to Scholarios exist; and with that same Emperor's brother, Constantine Palaiologos, who was the last of the Christians, to whom the second letter of the Royal codex is written; with Theodore the Despot, their brother, whom he praised in a funeral oration which exists in the same codex; and with other men of particular dignity. Among ecclesiastics, he honored above all others Mark of Ephesus, to whom the fifteenth letter exists, in which he signifies that he is sending a defense of the doctrine of Aristotle against Gemistus Plethon, and then also to the Nomophylax Paisios, Chartophylax and, as it seems, Archbishop of Crete, and not a few others. To these exist letters about matters mostly private, all without date and consul. Many, I believe, have perished, because only the more select ones seem to have been kept, so that they might be added to the ancient orators—Demosthenes, Isocrates, Libanius, and other principal authors—as in the Colbertine codex; the rest perished, like many other works of Gennadius, because the author, as it seems, never took care to collect them; but after his death, whatever was lying hidden both in Constantinople and in the libraries of the monasteries was gathered into codices by students.

In his thirtieth year, Georgios Scholarios made a vow to embrace the solitary life, which, however, he did not fulfill until shortly before the city was taken, and after the death of John Palaiologos. Thus he writes of himself in his Apology to Constantine: "Which," he says, "I" ^C

Thus, under John Palaiologos, Georgios Scholarios, sustaining the office of imperial judge, came in his retinue first to Ferrara, and soon to Florence, when the Emperor was setting out for Italy for the sake of procuring concord between the Latin and Greek Churches. So bear witness almost all the authors, and the Greek acts of the council. At Ferrara, as it seems, two letters were written: one to Venice to Marco Lipomano, and the other to Ambrogio Traversari. In the first he writes that he had wished to go to him, "but," he says, "a certain fortune, forcing me to run to the Emperor, does not allow me to stay in golden Venice, nor to enjoy the pleasures and graces of this city, in which the excellent Lipomano holds a primary place; but as soon as we had disembarked, we instituted our journey to the Emperor by river." Perhaps because he had arrived too late. In the second, to Ambrogio, whom we believe to be none other than the Camaldulensian, he writes thus: "But since, with the Emperor who loves you very much, the desire for union has in us also transferred itself to your city, or rather, he himself has imposed upon us the necessity of migrating from such a desire; for others, indeed, it suffices to go to your city and to have there delights, spectacles, magnificent temples, and other things not inferior to those at home. But grant to us some corner of your monastery, which you possess and adorn in that beloved city. Thus, you will not unjustly prefer those who love you most to those who are most closely joined to you, and then it will be easier for us to be together, nor shall we feign illnesses, nor shall we from our unhappiness suffer so much pain. But if at any time again, though less completely than now, the cares of public business separate you from us, the virtue and wisdom of the monks living there will console this absence. Which, indeed, having been advanced to virtue under such a father and leader, I trust will be most useful and pleasant to those coming, so that each of them can suffice for those who lack a father."

In his thirtieth year, Georgios Scholarios made a vow to embrace the solitary life, which, however, he did not fulfill until shortly before the city was taken, and after the death of John Palaiologos. Thus he writes of himself in his Apology to Constantine: "Which," he says... ^D

That Scholarios was not of a mind alien to ecclesiastical concord, besides what has been said above, is suggested by a portion of a letter to the Grand Duke, which Allacci corrupted with an alien interpretation, while he thought it was written from Greece, whereas it had been sent from Italy. "Now, however, know that we are experiencing the most excellent beginnings of tranquility"; which words concerning ec-

- ^A clesiastical concord appear to refer to the hope of peace. But the Response of George Scholarius to the Latin-minded [Latinofronas] regarding Purgatory, along with the response to their objections, and Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, and certain other things, are such that they seem most worthy of a pious man who is most devoted to peace, as read in the 25th act of the Council of Florence in the Greek acts. For when asked by the emperor for his opinion on the decree of union, he replied as follows: "Most excellent and most powerful emperor, the speech which I composed as best I could and offered to this our synod, in which I exhorted these holy Fathers toward union and the rendering of aid to the affairs of Constantinople, indicates the opinion which I formerly held and still hold regarding the matter of the proposed union." Two libelli, which he had composed beforehand and which he now surrendered to the present synod, also bear witness; one of which gives counsel that the union should be made and how it ought to be made, and explains whatever else pertains to this matter. The other, however, treats the question itself, and its goal is to show that the doctors of the Church are in concord among themselves, not by human reasons and demonstrations, but by the sentences of the Holy Scriptures and those same doctors. The same Acts, a little further on, testify that these same books were offered to the synod: "After the speech of Bessarion, the lord George Scholarius offered us three orations deliberating on the union, exhorting and encouraging you to embrace the union." People generally suppose that these are the very same orations that were edited with the Acts of the council and separately under the name of George Scholarius, contrary to what Matthew Caryophyllus thought, who refuted this common opinion with the most solid arguments, against which the Allatian defense does little or nothing. But concerning these, because it is a more laborious question, it shall be spoken of when the works of Scholarius must be discussed. The opinion of Caryophyllus has this advantage: that if we establish that these orations were imputed to Scholarius by the Greeks who were studious of concord, there remains almost no controversy concerning one or two Scholariuses and Gennadiuses. For whoever imputed this offspring to an author most famous among the Greeks for being a tenacious partisan of schism could just as easily have inserted into the Greek Acts what is read there to confirm their authority. For if these few words are excepted, and the Epistle of Mark of Ephesus which was edited by Allatius a few years ago, there is scarcely anything in the monuments of that century from which it is evident that Gennadius, or Scholarius, labored for the establishment of the concord of the churches, since he appears later to have been most obstinately occupied in breaking apart the same concord up to the very end of his life.

Therefore, whether it could have happened at all that George Scholarius exhorted the Greeks at Florence to union, or acted otherwise—for that is clearly obscure—having returned to Constantinople with John Palaeologus, he joined himself to Mark of Ephesus in attacking the union which had been sanctified at Florence. And in that interval of time, as it seems, George wrote many small works against the Latins, which exist in various codices of the Royal Library, namely an Homily against those who favor the Latins regarding purgatory, and a response to their objections; Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, ^B and certain other things, concerning which mention will be made in their proper place. On this occasion, George Scholarius incurred the offense of John Palaeologus, who was gravely moved that Scholarius should attempt to disturb with his voice, writings, and authority—which was preeminent among his people—the union procured with so much labor, and through whose benefit he hoped for necessary aid from the Italians in the greatest crisis of his affairs. He is a witness himself in the apologetic Oration to the emperor Constantine, though in such a way as to attribute to John an indignation that was simulated rather than sincere. "Then," he says, "with that most excellent emperor showing indignation on account of the defense of true dogmas, I did not think it ought to be permitted that, to those to whom the story was unknown, it might appear that the anger of the emperor was compelling me to the yoke of Christ, and that I was fleeing unwillingly to the monastic life." For he assigns this as the reason why he did not fulfill his vow of the monastic life, which had long been conceived, while John was alive.

Even while he reigned, after his return from Italy, he wrote many orations in the manner of homilies, which were read in place of a sermon, or were written after they had been declaimed viva voce, as we gather from the inscription that appears in our codex. For although George Scholarius led the life of a layman up to the time he assumed the patriarchal dignity, it is nevertheless difficult to doubt that he had been in the habit of declaiming before the emperor and senate ^C every Friday from the pulpit, not because the magistrate that he held had any ecclesiastical dignity attached to it, but because he declaimed in the imperial triclinium at evening and afternoon hours, not from the ambo, or in the morning during the synaxes; for that was the duty of priests according to ecclesiastical discipline, and similar orations of Leo the Philosopher and several other laymen exist. Scholarius himself testifies that the emperor John was finally reconciled to him at the end of his life, and that, now not obscurely favoring him, he exchanged this life for death. Furthermore, although we read among all Latin authors and the Greeks addicted to the union that the mind of the emperor was never alienated from the concord which he had signed with the Florentine subscription, almost all the schismatics dissent. Thus it is read in the title of the pseudo-synod of Constantinople, in the Addenda of Allatius (2): "Which," it says, "was held after the completed pseudo-synod of Florence at an interval of a year and a half, and after the death of John Palaeologus, who favored the Latins, having been deceived by the Italians under the hope of aid, although he had nevertheless given his assent to the orthodox dogma before his death." At that time Scholarius, having arranged his domestic affairs, was soon about to betake himself to a monastery, when he was compelled to change his plan. He died in the same

ecclesiastical affairs were written by Marcus of Ephesus, shortly before the death of John Palaiologos. George received the final utterances of the dying man, and swore upon his words—invoking God and the angels as witnesses—that he would preserve the ancient faith and struggle eternally against the Florentine union, according to the stated opinion of his friend and teacher. He himself writes of this in his Epistle to the Constantinopolitans as a matter of common knowledge; furthermore, he praised the deceased in an oration which exists in various codices. There exist also in the Royal codices the final words of the dying Marcus of Ephesus to Scholarios, by which he commends to him the defense of the Greek Church and its dogmas: there is also the response of Scholarios, which is fully in agreement with this Epistle. ^B

Constantine, brother of the emperor, the last of the Constantinopolitan emperors, succeeded John Palaiologos at the end of the year of Jesus Christ 1448. Under him, Scholarios was immediately accused of having been the author among the ecclesiastics—with whom he had the greatest influence—of the delay of the coronation, which was accustomed to be celebrated with various prayers according to the ecclesiastical rite. Nor did George Scholarios openly deny that it should be deferred until the Church and the Republic were consulted; but he maintained that he did this with no other intention than to take care that the shaken faith of the forefathers be restored, looking to the interests of both the faith and the Emperor, while being most alien to the councils of wicked men, inasmuch as he embraced the new emperor with singular love, and hoped that things might be changed by him for the better—for which sake he had experienced, as everyone knew, an adverse fortune. But when Constantine, fearing the ruin that threatened him and which followed within barely five years, requested aid from the Italians, which Nicholas V, the Roman pontiff, promised only on condition that he confirm the Florentine union and compel the Greeks, especially ecclesiastics and monks, to embrace it, several embassies were sent by the pontiff to Constantinople. The first seems to have been that of the Bishop of Cortona, who debated often with the Greek theologians about four years before the capture of the city. George Scholarios defended the side of the Greeks; he collected the disputes in writing and undertook to refute the Latins in various short treatises. He himself makes mention of this in an Epistle to the Constantinopolitans written on 29 November in the year 1452, in which he writes that he perseveres in the doctrine which he had expounded in the disputes held against ^C the Bishop of Cortona, for the demonstration, he says, of the truth which is among us, and in many and various works which were written for the sake of the ancestral faith by divine gift, as also in the confession of his faith, or rather of the Catholic Church, which he had published three years earlier.

Around this time, George, due to the hatred of the union by which all the emperor's councils were vehemently troubled, fearing, it seems, for himself, renounced the world and betook himself to the monastery of the Pantocrator, very near to him. ^D He wrote at the same time a farewell oration to Constantine, which exists in the Royal codex, in which he not only attempts to clear away the accusations of his adversaries, but also, often being excessive in his own praise, extols to the heavens his deeds and labors undertaken for the defense of the religion of the forefathers, so that he is not free from the blame of vanity and forwardness, for which he was accused. When he wrote this oration, he was still a layman residing in the Pantocrator monastery, from which, migrating to the monastery of the Charsianeites, he took up the schema or religious habit there. Thus the inscription of this oration in the Royal codex informs us. It appears that he received at the same time the name Gennadius, according to the common custom among the Greeks, so that they who renounced the world by the profession of the monastic life might also change their ancient name, as if for a second birth. For immediately he began to be called Gennadius, and indeed before he was designated patriarch, contrary to what Allatius argued from the *History* of Malaxos and certain other authors. On this sole argument, though of no weight, he built up a entire dispute concerning the two Gennadiuses. Whence also his other historical observation concerning Gennadius's monastic profession is refuted, which he thinks was made after he had abdicated the patriarchal dignity, and five years after the capture of the city, whereas the abdication preceded it by nine years more or less. For the authority of Malaxos and Theodore Zygomalas, who put together the *Political History*, is not so great that it should overturn the testimony of contemporary authors. For Michael Ducas, before the capture of the city, designates with the name of the monk Gennadius him who was previously called George Scholarios.

When Gennadius had finished with the secular life, the emperor sent Bryennios Leonaris to Pope Nicholas. Isidore, Cardinal of Russia, came shortly after as legate to Constantinople from Nicholas V in the year 1452, as Ducas teaches in his *History* (1), in whom it appears no one has explained the ecclesiastical matters of that time better. He writes, then, that the legate had arrived in Constantinople in the month of November, in the year 6961 according to the Greeks, which was 1452 of Christ. After discussions were held concerning the concord of the Churches, he writes that the emperor and certain ecclesiastics had agreed that the Florentine union should be observed, but that a majority of the ecclesiastics and monks, and the leaders among them, were most alien to it. Nevertheless, he says, those clergy, priests, and deacons who seemed to obey the Henotikon, and the emperor and the senate, assembled in the Great Church so that with harmonious minds and united they might celebrate the divine liturgy and render vows to God with a sincere mind. Then also the schismatics ran to the Pantocrator monastery, approached Gennadius—previously George Scholarios—and asked for his counsel on how they ought to conduct themselves. He was keeping himself enclosed in his cell; therefore, having received a paper, and being asked for his opinion and counsel, he revealed in writing what was contained in such things: "Wretched Romans, why have you wandered from the path," and other things which are read in Ducas.

^A regarding the innovation of the faith—not indeed that of the faith itself, but regarding the innovation of the faith which, through God's abandonment, has come to be vain, foolish, and inconsistent. It was written in the monastery of the Pantocrator, to which we understand Gennadius had come at the emperor’s command, the latter believing that if he embraced what they call "Latinism," he would immediately persuade the others to do the same; but the exact opposite happened. For Gennadius could neither be moved from his opinion, nor could he ensure that the business of the union be set aside, which, as we learn from the Scholia in the Royal Codex, was completed in that same monastery one month after Gennadius had delivered his oration. When matters were already in complete confusion and the Turks were besieging the city, he began to attack the union more freely and to insult Latinism more petulantly.

^B He wrote certain homilies as well, but he did not involve himself in ecclesiastical controversies at all until the arrival of the cardinal of Russia. For shortly before he arrived, Gennadius wrote an hortatory epistle to the Athonites, that is, the monks of the Holy Mountain of Athos, so that they might persevere in the ancient faith, omitting the definition of the Council of Florence. He sent this epistle through two monks of the same mountain, Anastasius and Simon, as he himself testifies in a fragment of one of his letters. He also wrote to the emperor on March 12, in the same year as it seems, or 1453, shortly before the destruction. He also recited an oration before him, in the presence of a great gathering of noble citizens, in the monastery of the Pantocrator, or the Almighty, on the appeasing of the Divine and the preparation from within, on November 15, 1452, perhaps before the legate had arrived; for Gennadius was wholly dissuading the emperor from observing the Union of Florence, which, in the presence of the legate, he would have neither dared to do, nor would the emperor have suffered it. But when, as has been said above from Ducas, the union had been renewed while most were protesting in vain, Gennadius immediately attacked it with voice and writings. A most virulent little work on this subject exists with this title: ^C *Of Gennadius, the least of all, Scholarius, on the forsaking of God, and the unreasonable and...*

^D Meanwhile, when, as Ducas writes, he had again shut himself in his cell and would admit no one, he wrote two epistles: one to all the clergy and laity of Constantinople, dated November 27, the title of which is: *Gennadius the sinner, the servant of God and the least of all, to the most noble citizens of Constantinople, both to all those of the sacred order and those of the laity*. It begins thus: *Know you all well*. The other was to the clergy, which seems to have been written at the same time and is said to have been sent to the great ecclesiarch, namely Syropulus, the author of the History of the Council of Florence, and to the great chartophylax, Agallianus, when the clergy were ordered to assemble in the palace of Xylocercus and the Liturgy was celebrated, when all things had already been done according to the opinion of the cardinal and the three pontiffs on November 15. In it, he excuses himself for not having come and testifies that, although he had explained his opinion on this business of the union a thousand times, and that that union was extremely displeasing to him, he wished the emperor and all the rest to understand that he persisted in the same. He then vehemently attacks the union and the faith of the Latin Church.

He also wrote, as Ducas observes, a brief complaint against Latinism; but that which is cited by that author differs from another example of the same, which the Royal Codex provides in these words: *O poor citizens, you have lost everything, and now at last you cast aside piety basely and without conscience. For when you ought to flee to God in the present state of affairs, you separate yourselves from God. I am innocent, and I have God as my witness, His saints, and you yourselves, that I have never neglected anything. And now, so may God judge me, you are making a bad union; you will perish. You calumniate me, and you offer threats; but even if you bring upon me the death with which you threaten me, I am prepared to undergo it. For what does it profit to live, that I should see such a manifest abandonment of God towards you? Lord, do not allow these men to be precipitated into such ruin, lest the orthodox faith be justified in the Orient, in the Occident, and in the islands against our city, so that because we have neglected it and You, we perish. Rather, justify it, so that...*

You may provide them with ears to hear, since there is one who points out Your will with his words, or else, O Lord, take me away from the present life more quickly, before I see one who is harvesting the fruits of such impudence. I will not deny You, O dear orthodoxy, nor will I falsely dissimulate, O august tradition, as long as my spirit remains in this body. Do not, therefore, tempt me any further, O men; for indeed I will never be a participant in such a union, because you will neither be united in this way with the Latins, and, separated from God, you will endure eternal infamy. Nor, however, would I wish for the document related by Ducas to be questioned, which anyone can compare with another at his leisure. ^A Moreover, it considers the time from the first of the month of November, as the inscription teaches, after the cardinal’s arrival, as the manuscript codex has it; in those latter times also, or at least in the final year of Constantine, Gennadius wrote other things against the Latinists, such as the twelve Chapters sent to Emperor Constantine through Pope Ignatius, and others to the Grand Duke: metropolitan subscriptions, or synodal definitions against the Florentine union, and various Apologies given to the legate or the Bishop of Cortona for the Greeks against the Latins, which seem to have had no other author than Gennadius. How great was the fury of the Greek schismatics, especially the monks and nuns, against the Henotikon-supporters, Ducas narrates (1) and confirms with various examples. Everyone followed Gennadius as a leader and teacher, by whose judgment they were separated from the communion of the Latins and the Henotikon-supporters, and they caused not only disturbances in the churches, but sedition throughout the entire city. While it was being besieged by the Turks, Gennadius often prophesied to his own people the ruin of the empire and the destruction of the city, assigning no other cause for so many evils than the fact that they had betrayed the ancestral faith and had been reconciled to the Latin heretics through a legate.

The city was captured on May 29, 1453, and in the same year Gennadius, to whom none was more acceptable to the Greeks, was elected patriarch by order of Sultan Muhammad, as Malaxus in his Political History, Phranzes, and others teach. He had fled with others and had withdrawn outside the city, and during that interval of time which elapsed from the destruction of the city to his election, he had written a Monody, in which he lamented the public calamity. It exists in various codices and has been partially published in Turco-Graecia and in the Bibliotheca Patrum (2). How he was raised to the patriarchal throne, he himself relates in an Epistle, the title of which is, *To all the faithful in Christ Jesus*, when he abdicated the dignity. "Many," he says, "were being freed on that day by those from whom they previously did not know how to escape. I, however, was a useless weight in the hands of the victorious enemies, since I had once entreated my friends, and when they were unwilling to help, I had committed everything to God. I, indeed, would have redeemed with no small amount of money the liberty to lie hidden somewhere and to lament the common calamities along with my sins. But they made manifest the one hiding to this Lord, shouting that this was the very one who ought to be exercising care for our souls, at the same time praising him to the heavens—the one who should have been saved in his hiding, if they had truly believed him to be such among themselves, and not [should have] shut him into such labyrinths. Therefore, I was immediately snatched from my remote place, and I enter the city more unhappily than when I had departed from it. But with the Lord turning things around, I am ordered to rule a monastery that was completely desolate and trodden underfoot, and to become a deliverer without money for the monks who were living together, monks who previously, ^B through malice and..."

A MONODY ON THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Remember, brothers and fathers, how great and how noble our race once used to be. For it was wise, glorious, noble, prudent, courageous, having subjected the entire inhabited world into a monarchy, and indeed was, in its zeal for virtue and in holiness, simply put, a reflection of virtue as a whole, just like a sponge absorbing waters. But now, alas for the evils! Everything has perished. For Constantinople has been captured, the mere memory of which is enough to cause one to break out in voice with crying and wailing and to breathe one’s last. For when it was captured, the altars were defiled, the holy things were trampled, and a great shedding of blood occurred. ^C Nuns were defiled, virgins were corrupted, infants were beheaded. Men, priests, husbands, wives, and people of every age died by the swords of the impious. Woe to me, wretched and miserable! Who is capable of lamenting this great suffering and announcing the calamity to those who come after? Alas! Where is the imperial presence and order? Where is the constitution of the palaces? Where is such a great swarm of nobles? Where are the schools of wisdom? Woe to me, alas! Where is the patriarchal administration? Where is the beauty of the Church of Christ? Where is such a great and illustrious choir of the hierarchal and monastic order? They were trampled underfoot by Muhammad. And the evils were not in the reigning city alone, but even in those after it, there were still greater and worse things. All these things happened because of our sins. When I look upon these things, I become another person, my soul is troubled, and my spirit fails me.

Remember, brothers and fathers, how distinguished and how glorious our race once used to be; which, by reason of its learning, glory, nobility, sharpness of wit, and fortitude, reduced the whole world into the form of a monarchy. For our race, through its love of virtue and the integrity of its morals, absorbed every virtue whatsoever, just as a sponge absorbs water. But now, alas! Everything has gone to ruin from the foundations. For Constantinople has been captured, which calamity alone chokes the voice and brings forth sighs and groans. For with this city having been plundered, the altars have been defiled, the temples have been trodden by sacrilegious feet, much blood has been shed, monasteries have been polluted, virgins have been violated, tender adolescents have been caught by the head, and magistrates, priests, men, women, and all the youth have been slaughtered by the swords of the impious. O miserable me! Who will be able to recount this calamity, this misery, to posterity? What has become of the splendor and glory of the emperors, what of the magnificence of the palaces? Where have the multitude of magistrates and the academies of wisdom gone? O sorrow! Where is the seat of the patriarch? Where is the splendor of the Church of Christ? Where is the order of priests and monks? Muhammad has devoured everything. And things are not languishing in distress in the queen city alone, but much worse things are raging and devastating the provinces. But all these evils had their origin on account of our sins. ^D As I contemplate all these things, my mind is troubled from within, and my spirit wavers.

^A They have filled everything with their multitude; and those who, even now, pretexting the calamities of the Christians, and having found occasion to satisfy their concupiscence, have brought infamy upon the once-sacred order, and have filled the whole world with every evil, to the scandal of those who witness it. Furthermore, I am compelled to build, to raise up churches that were razed to their foundations, and to provide for these things—would that it were for the sake of the Christians who are found in each locale, and who meanwhile were not concerned with how they should live according to the fatherland’s law, or how they should worship God. Afterwards, a synod was convened of many bishops coming together from Europe and Asia, by whose suffrages I was constituted first deacon, then presbyter, then bishop and patriarch.

^B The actions which Gennadius performed while established in the patriarchal office, we have from practically nowhere but the *Græco-Barbara Ecclesiastical History*. When the Turks had occupied the temple of Hagia Sophia and the patriarchate, he withdrew himself to the monastery of the Holy Apostles, vast and even then horrible in its solitude, whence he fled in that same or the following year, fearing lest, on account of a slaughter committed against a Turk—whose corpse had been found within the walls—punishments be exacted from the Christians. Furthermore, Gennadius seems to have fled the city, for he mentions three *biaias anódous*, or violent returns into the city, in the titles of certain of his little works according to the most ancient Royal codex. He left the city three times: once when the enemy was breaking in; a second time after the slaughter which occurred within the walls of the Holy Apostles. Finally, having resigned the patriarchal office, he withdrew to the monastery of the Forerunner ^C on Mount Menoikeion, from where he was compelled to return to the city; and at that time he delivered some homilies to the people. From this, the *Patriarchal History* of Philippus Cyprius, which was published a few years ago, must be corrected; for he writes that the patriarchs of Constantinople immediately resided at the Pammakaristos, against the faith of all historians, just as with many other things which demonstrate that this author—or rather, this compiler—has often hallucinated.

When he had returned from his flight—though in what year is unknown—Gennadius delivered that famous oration or disputation which was published in Greek, Latin, and indeed even in Turkish, but with Greek lettering: *On the Only Way to the Salvation of Mankind*. The *Græco-Barbara History* narrates the occasion. At that time, it says, the sultan himself entered the patriarchate, and when he had come into the church of the Pammakaristos, he entered into the chapel where the cabinet of sacred objects is today, and he conversed willingly with Patriarch Gennadius. Then, all fear set aside, the patriarch opened to him the entire truth of the Christian faith; and he wrote, for the number of his questions, twenty chapters... which he also gave to the sultan. These chapters are subjoined in the cited location, along with a Turkish interpretation by Acumates, or Ahmet, the prefect of Berrhoea. However, in our codex, this is not done by way of these questions and answers ^D; rather, the apology was written as a continuous speech, such as the work required. The speech itself has also been published many times, both separately and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*.

After Gennadius had finished this speech, he resigned his patriarchal dignity, having with difficulty obtained leave from the sultan; and soon he wrote a letter, or rather a lengthy *Apologetic Oration*, to all the faithful in Christ Jesus, *tois pantachou pistois en Christo Iesou*. He narrates how, after the aforementioned frequent slaughter of the city and the entire empire, and the threats of divine vengeance on account of the embraced Latinism, he came into the hands of the enemy upon the city's capture; and how, dragged back from his flight, he was made patriarch, even if against his will. He determined to resign this office as soon as the sultan allowed, both because he was deprived of the aid of those who, according to ecclesiastical laws, ought to have sustained a portion of the burden, and on account of the labors spent in vain in removing scandals and settling quarrels. He also recounts various calamities which he had suffered from envious men, who, clearly craving the patriarchate themselves, caused him much trouble. He signifies at last that he is resigning from the dignity so that he might finally have leisure for himself alone, and might do penance for his sins in a tranquil and solitary life. This is that *paraitēsis* which the *Ecclesiastical History*, according to Crusius, teaches us was described in the codex of the Church of Constantinople for the sake of memory and authority.

Gennadius soon withdrew into the monastery of St. John the Baptist on Mount Menoikeion near Serras, or Pherras, as is written in the Royal codex, after he had presided over the Church of Constantinople for five years and some months, and thus his abdication is referred to the year 1459. Yet it seems this must be determined otherwise; for the title of the Oration which Gennadius delivered at the funeral of Theodorus Sophianus, his nephew by his brother, teaches that it was pronounced on September 28 in the year 6965 according to the Greeks—that is, in the year of Christ 1457—by "Gennadius the monk." But in the titles of those little works which he wrote during his patriarchate, he is not commonly called this. This conjecture is confirmed by another, sufficiently plausible one. For in the monastery of John, or the Forerunner, Gennadius wrote many things elaborately, which, if he died in the year 1460 according to the chronology of Panvinius and Genebrardus, he could barely have completed in a one-year interval. Such are the treatises *On the Existence and Nature of Souls*, *On Purgatory*, *On Predestination*, addressed to Joseph of Thessalonica; three other *Sermons on Predestination*; *Epistles to Theodorus Brennus*, or Briennius; and other things, neither few nor extemporaneous. Whence, since no one up to this point, from certain monuments of Greek history, [has determined] the year of Gennadius...

supremum designaverit, if one were to posit that he lived beyond the year 1460, it would not appear to be an empty conjecture. For in the Royal codex, the Homily on the passing of the Blessed Virgin Mary is said to have been written at Constantinople in the monastery of the Pammakaristos, when he had been forced to return to the city for the third time in the year 6972, which, as everyone understands, is 1464 according to the Greek chronology, corresponding to the year of Christ 1464, whose certain marker is the 12th indiction, which the Canon of expanded years edited by Allatius, in the work On the Sundays and Weeks of the Greeks, has appended to this year. He also wrote a booklet On the first worship of God, after resigning his dignity, on Mount Menoecius and the monastery of Prodromos in the year of the world 6966, which is 1458 of Jesus Christ. And so, already by the year 1458, or 1457, if the inscription on the funeral Oration for Sophianus is true, he was called Gennadius the monk, and had ceased to be patriarch, since, if faith is to be placed in Malaxos and the History of the barbarians, he does not appear to have resumed private life before 1459. Furthermore, they do not correctly write that he died immediately, since he survived for at least four years. And these are the things which, in such profound darkness of recent history, we have been able to observe regarding the life and deeds of Gennadius. ^B

Many things did Gennadius write, besides those which have long since been published in various places. For whatever Allatius attributes to his three Georges or Gennadiuses, these have our own author; but far more remain hidden in libraries, and whoever examines their index lightly will cease to marvel that a most learned man exercised a not very accurate criticism in reviewing them. For he had seen scarcely a fourth part of them, and for the most part through the eyes of others. Yet, although we designate more and more certain things, we do not claim to have set forth all the works of Gennadius. For treasures scattered and dispersed here and there were collected by the studious after his death, and so it is no wonder that some things have perished. Homilies written before his patriarchate were found in Constantinople after the city was taken, some at Thessalonica and Callipolis, as were other writings of the same, which will be enumerated hereafter, so that no one can rightfully marvel that some things perished in such a calamity of the State and of the Greek Church.

From those things which have been set forth above, it is manifest that Georgius Scholarius—who was most intimately joined with Philelphus, Lipomanus, and Ambrose the Camaldulensian, men of the Latin tongue; and among the Greeks with Lucas Notaras, Theodore the Despot, and others—held the office of chief judge in the court of John Palaeologus, and came to Florence in the retinue of the same emperor with a prompt and eager mind to procure the concord of both Churches, yet in such a way that he depended on the nod of the bishops and the patriarch, since as a layman he could not have a voice among them. Perhaps it was with this intention that he explained to the emperor what seemed to him the best course of action, and offered counsel regarding embracing the union; ^C therefore, the faith should not waver. For Sylvester Syropulus, not suspected of Latinizing, reports a formula of concord regarding the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which, composed by Georgius Scholarius, was read before the emperor and the principal Greeks. Of the Orations which circulate with those same acts, there is no mention in our codices, nor does Sylvester Syropulus remember them, and Matthew Caryophyllus adjudicates them to Georgius Scholarius. For although Syropulus must be suspect, not only on the ground of negligence, but by an everlasting hatred against the Latins, yet no one even moderately skilled in more recent Greek history will judge that the perverse opinion of a certain critic, by which he denies faith to the man entirely, should be followed. But one would rather believe Allatius, who recognizes Sylvester as an author and one of the patriarch’s followers, though not as one whom the rash interpreter concocted from his own brain, the language and mind of the Greek synod, learned, elegant, comparable to the ancient lights of Greece, while he himself writes most poorly and barbarously. Yet he does not report that Georgius Scholarius had attacked the union at the synod with Mark of Ephesus, and thus he does not attack the veracity of the Greek Acts, although he testifies that he slipped away to Florence after the synod was concluded. ^D Meanwhile, no other person appears, either in published Greek authors or in manuscripts, whom Caryophyllus and Allatius designate as Georgius Scholarius, who remained in Constantinople while John Palaeologus and Joseph the patriarch, together with other Greeks, were giving their effort to ratifying the union at Ferrara and Florence.

Our Georgius used Mark of Ephesus most familiarly; but that two men of the same name and surname flourished at the same time, of the highest learning, especially in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, and used the same friends, while they disagreed most vehemently about the business of religion, no one fails to see that this could scarcely have happened. But to establish such a thing from mere conjectures, as Caryophyllus and Allatius have done, without any testimony from authors, and with the consideration of the times being furthermore confused, is absolutely absurd and lacks excuse. Nor was there any other reason why they held this to be the case, and tried to persuade others of it, than that they might assign to the Catholics—by way of the exhortatory oration in which he urged John Palaeologus toward union—Georgius Scholarius, who was present at the Florentine council with the purple-clad officials of the Constantinopolitan court, whom they subsequently do not acknowledge as having returned to Constantinople. For then it is confirmed by certain arguments from the history of those times that he held views completely contrary, especially in his writings, most bitter against the Latins, which bear such singular marks of the author Georgius Scholarius that they admit of no benign interpretation or accusation of false inscription. This.

^A But the whole pile of Allatius's arguments rests on this single point, both in his work *On Perpetual Consensus*, and in his *Diatribe on the Georgii*, and in his *Exercitations against Robert Creyghton*. This argument compels us to institute an inquiry regarding the faith of Georgius Scholarius, or Gennadius, as it is necessary for the discussion we have begun.

Yet it must be admitted at once that it is not fully clear what the opinion of Georgius Scholarius was at Florence regarding the union, beyond what is in the cited Acts, act 25, which agree not only with certain royal codices but with ancient books before the Greek texts were published in Rome, and are therefore free from any suspicion of falsehood or interpolation. That he favored the reconciliation of the Churches to their original concord is confirmed by more than just the authority of the Acts. Whether they have Xanthopulus or some other person as their author, they certainly excel over the thorny narratives of Syropulus, both by a certain natural simplicity and elegance of speech, and also by the history of events which rarely dissents from the Latin Acts, and which—with the ecclesiastical monuments existing in both languages, both published and in manuscript—can be reconciled without any difficulty. Furthermore, by the testimony of these, and by his letter to the Great Duke and another to Ambrosius Camaldulensis, we do not hesitate to assert that Scholarius, along with other Greeks, especially the patriarch Joseph, favored the union and urged the emperor in a written oration to have it composed according to the formula of definition proposed by the Roman Pontiff.

However, we do not suspect without reason that those orations, according to the opinion of Caryophyllus, are either false or highly interpolated. For in most copies, mention is inserted of the capture of the city; since that disaster did not occur until twelve years later, it had no place there. Other not a few points, observed by learned men in these orations, also persuade us of this. On this occasion, Marcus Ephesius, who was linked in the closest friendship with Scholarius, seems, because of his more favorable disposition toward the Latins, to have written a letter to him, which Allatius edited, having received it from the illustrious Emericus Bigotius, who had transcribed it from a codex of the Ambrosian Library of Milan, and which we have obtained in the most perfect state in an excellent manuscript codex of the Royal Library. ^D "How much pleasure and joy you brought us when you embraced the right faith and the pious and ancestral opinion, and took up the defense of the truth, which had been condemned by unjust judges; but by contrast we were filled with such sorrow and sadness when we heard that you had changed again, to think and say the contrary, and that you were running with the wicked stewards toward the middle ways and economies." ^A We were filled with sorrow when it reached our ears that you were again, with an altered face, holding to contradictory things and conferring with the most wicked stewards for the procuring of means of union and disposition. Allatius translates this so; it would have been better to say, "toward certain means and temperaments," for this, as is evident from the Acts, was what the emperor and patriarch, Bessarion, Isidore, and others—in whose number Georgius Scholarius was at that time—were busying themselves with: that with doctrine saved and the discipline which they had received from their forefathers intact, a concord with the Latins might coalesce.

That it is the Florentine synod which Ephesius designates is proven by the subsequent words of the Letter: ^B "You will perhaps say that the change did not occur in the contrary direction, but that we are looking toward a certain middle ground and economy; but church matters, O man, were never corrected by a middle ground; there is no middle ground between truth and falsehood." He asks if these things befit our present synod, and continues: "And entirely so, I would say." And below: "They weave spider-webs, and in truth the definition composed and named by them is a spider-web." ^C This is the definition composed and named by them themselves. He exhorts one to flee Sodom and Gomorrah: he reproaches him because the love of dignity and riches, and other worldly comforts, have perverted him, and commands him to think how quickly they will meet their end and judgment. "As if the pseudo-synod will also be compelled to render an account of the blood of perishing souls, of those who were scandalized in the mystery of the faith, who have received the unbearable and unforgivable blasphemy into their souls, that against the Holy Spirit, and who dare to trace its existence to two principles, those who allowed themselves to be led away by the lawless and Latin customs."

This Epistle ought to have been written at Florence, at the very moment Scholarius had exhibited that oration which is mentioned in the Greek acts, or at least a little after the Greeks returned to Constantinople. Nor does it matter that both Ephesius and Scholarius

were there at the same time. But it is probable that he ^A committed his oration to writing for the sake of its having greater weight. Indeed, he designates the Florentine synod so clearly that Allatius himself, who is accustomed to cutting rather than untying such knots, does not deny that he is trapped, but recurs to his own Scholarius or schismatic Gennadius, to whom he thinks this was given, supported by no other reasoning than that if it were written to the Scholarius who came to the council with the emperor, the whole fable of the two Gennadii would collapse. But since it is clearly apparent that no one else is designated in this place than that most learned man, the philosopher, established in the highest dignity, who encouraged others toward concord—which Allatius does not even suspect concerning his schismatic Gennadius—these things cannot fall upon that phantom, namely the other Gennadius, a man unknown in his cell, commended solely by his hatred of the Latins, who is said to have departed this life before the city was captured.

Although Scholarius praised the Florentine union in his oration, he did not, however, confirm it with his subscription, since the laity did not subscribe. And thus he seemed to himself to have accomplished almost nothing, as if, in the manner of an orator, he had merely expressed an opinion highly pleasing to the emperor and most convenient for the afflicted affairs of the Greeks. Having returned to Constantinople, he was reconciled with Mark of Ephesus and alienated from the Latins and the Henoticists, whence he incurred the offense of John Palaeologus, which we have from his ^C Apologetic oration to Constantine, which Allatius had never seen. In the entire interval of time that elapsed between the end of the Florentine synod and the death of John Palaeologus, there is no mention of another George or Gennadius, but only of this one of ours who lived in the closest association with him, who dedicated to him his books in defense of Aristotle against Gemistus, who stood by him as he was dying, and who, with God as his witness and many present, took upon himself the defense of his Church against the Latins, and who published so many books whereby the union achieved at Florence might be torn down, and who, while still a layman, deterred the Greek prelates from crowning Constantine, and finally retreated into a monastery shortly before the city was captured. All these things are demonstrated so clearly from the lone epistle to Constantine that they can in no wise apply to the obscure other Gennadius, whom no one can ever prove by any suitable testimony to have gone to Florence, to have favored the union, or to have been a philosopher and the chief judge, a very close friend of Notaras, very intimate with the learned Italians, a disciple of Mark of Ephesus, and a man of great necessity—much less the argument which Allatius holds as his masterpiece, that Scholarius did not profess the monastic life until after he had abdicated his dignity.

But because he always held the same opinion regarding concord with the holy Church of the Latins as he had signaled at Florence, ^B he considered it no wonder if he, whom he could not deny was most hostile to the Latin name, was thought to have been someone else. He became a different person when he changed his mind, following the example of so many Greek prelates who had subscribed to the union, which Scholarius had not done. What spirit he held concerning the Florentine synod should no longer be pursued by conjecture, but one ought to believe his own orations. Most important is the valedictory to Constantine, in which he testifies that his enemies had no other cause for slandering him than that he resisted their innovation, made through a synodal definition, with all his might. The same is proved by his various writings against the Latins and Latinizers, his disputations with the bishop of Cortona, and other things which are either indicated above or will be designated in the *Notitia* of his works: then those things which he wrote upon the arrival of Cardinal Isidore and during the very siege, and finally the Oration inserted into the codex of the Great Church when he resigned his patriarchal office. For the former demonstrate that he who, adorned with the dignity of chief judge, traveled to Florence in the emperor's retinue, is himself the one who excited such disturbances against the Latins and the Florentine union; the latter demonstrate that the same man, designated the first patriarch after Constantinople came into the power of the Turks, all agree among themselves and shine light upon one another, so that they do not permit that supposititious man ^D to stand in any place or at any time.

It is worth the effort to relay the words of Gennadius himself, writing about himself in an unpublished Epistle to his ecclesiastical and secular citizens, written six months before the city was captured. After he first complained that he was being targeted by the various slanders of his enemies, and that threats were being leveled at him, he says: "I say there is no other reason than that we do not wish to be separated from our ancestral tradition, and at the same time to be impudent against God together with them. Unless I desire the peace of the Churches, and the concord of all Christians, but a true, spiritual, ecclesiastical, just, and salutary one, may my life be bereft of peace. As regards the first head, namely that which pertains to religion, I say and testify that I have always held and do hold this holy mother Church, along with the other three most holy patriarchs, as the true Mother of the orthodox Christians; in her, just as the evangelic preaching did at its beginning, according to the prophecy of the Lord, the proof of faith is effectively perfected against all incursions of apostasy. I also embrace all the dogmas of this Church as divine, most true, and salutary, one of which is that the Holy Spirit proceeds or subsists from God the Father, just as is held in the Symbol of all the general councils. For he is not from the Father and the Son, as the Latin Symbol says, and as the Florentine synod explains with unheard-of interpretations. I embrace the holy and great synod held against the Latinizer Beccus, and I hold that it must firmly be placed among the ecumenical ones.

^A And yet, because the absence of schismatics does not remove the quality of an ecumenical synod. I tremble to receive its terrible sentence, with its judgments and anathemas, as a holy and divine decision which established appropriate decrees concerning the dogmas of the Latins and the commemoration of the Pope. I persist in that promise by which I bound myself to the blessed bishop of Ephesus when he was about to depart to God, in the presence of God, of angels, and of men, and in the disputes I had against the bishop of Corneto for the demonstration of the truth which we profess, just as in the diverse works which, by divine bounty, I published for the faith of my country; in the profession of my faith, or rather of the Catholic Church, which I published two years ago after having worked it out accurately; and in the subscriptions which, with churchmen who felt as we did, we confirmed in writing at the time of the embassy and later after the embassy of lord Brennius, in which I had no part in any way, since we had decided never to accept the commemoration of the Pope so long as we were divided and at variance with him concerning the principal dogmas of the faith, following the definition of the aforesaid synod, of our fathers, and of all our masters.

Likewise, in the letter to Sylvester the Great Ecclesiarch, and to Agallianos the Chartophylax, and to the remaining ecclesiastics, written when the Liturgy was being publicly celebrated after the union was renewed with Isidore, Cardinal of Russia and apostolic legate, after he had excused himself for having refused to go to the synod when called. To what end, furthermore, was this assembly held? Surely because, now that union has been brought about by the people (alas! for division is from God), they are anxious to obtain the consent of the clergy. Leave me unacquainted with these matters, for you have seen my opinion on this business a thousand times, my lord Emperor, and your counselors, and all of you. Indeed, a few days before these, I sent to him through the venerable monk and priest D. Ignatius twelve chapters on this subject, which you yourselves have also seen. But as for me, I shall never say anything other than what I now say, since I hold that Florentine synod in the same regard as it is held before God, as truth teaches, and as all legitimate children of the Eastern Church feel in accordance with the sentence and conscience of the holy Fathers; and to speak more clearly, I consider that synod to be of such a kind as was that pseudo-ecumenical one under Constantius, which, as it seemed to itself, had done away with the *consubstantial*. Since, likewise, it is my opinion that he who makes commemoration of the Pope, or communicates with one who does, even by counsel or exhortation, is the same to me as he whom the holy and great synod assembled at Constantinople condemned, which examined the doctrine of the Latins, and deposed Beccus at that time, and those who felt as he did. Nor do I think that the commemoration of the Pope, or of any other bishop, is a light matter.

^B But the spiritual communion of those who think alike, and perfect subordination toward legitimate pastors, consists in the remembrance of that. But the synod and the Holy Fathers define that we ought to flee the communion of those whose opinion we abhor. They define many other things of this kind not unknown to you. But above all the Lord says: *They will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.* God forbid also that I should make my Church, which is the holy mother of the Orthodox, heretical by accepting the commemoration of the Pope, for as long as the Pope continues to confess and believe those things for which he is not accepted by our Church. For if anyone now confesses that he rightly dispenses the word of truth, he confesses that his own ancestors were heretics. My opinion, therefore, is such: it was and it will be, and I shall be outside the communion of the Pope and of all who communicate with him in any way, as were our fathers, whose piety it becomes us to imitate, though we possess neither their holiness nor their wisdom. This speech is certainly not that of a Latin man, or of one who has passed over into the Roman opinion. Rather it is that of one who had lived at court, who had journeyed to Florence, and who was created patriarch immediately after the city was taken: which is proved not only by the trustworthiness of the manuscript codices, but is abundantly confirmed even by the single valedictory letter to all the faithful, when he was laying down his dignity.

Furthermore, whatever has been disputed by Caryophyllus or Allatius about the two Gennadiuses or Scholariuses, beyond those things which we have tasted fragmentarily, does not seem to be of such value that it should be brought to a separate examination. For that can be completed only through a prolix and tiresome commentary, yet without any reward for the labor. For whoever has once perceived the synopsis of Gennadian history which we have delineated from certain monuments will immediately understand in what matters and how often the most learned man has wandered. Yet I cannot wonder enough at him, when, first, in the work on the *Perpetual Consent* (1), published in the year 1644, he had begun to spin this contentious thread about the two Gennadiuses, then a little later he had inserted his entire argument, word for word, into the *Dissertation on the Georges* (2), and after thirty years he had given it out again, re-cooked, in the work against Creyghton, neither bettered by second or third or thirtieth revisions, so that he preserved the very words, jokes, and witticisms most religiously, without changing even a dot. Therefore, he who knows one of these Dissertations knows both the others.

^C The judgment of Caryophyllus (a) regarding the two Gennadiuses deceived the most learned man, which opinion, since it seemed most convenient for asserting the Gennadius of the Catholic Church, he followed, not sufficiently foreseeing where it would lead him, for no other end than that the authority of the *Apologetics for the Florentine synod* should not perish, which was not of such value as to...

^A make it necessary to disturb the series of more recent ecclesiastical history. There was no reason for Caryophilus to dream of a double Gennadius, except that he had learned it from the collector of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Margarinus de la Bigne; perhaps no one was ever more unfortunate in expressing an opinion about the writings of the ancients, following Bellarmine and others, whose way of criticizing consisted entirely in transcribing other people's commentaries.

Truly, from those things which have been argued above, it is as certain that Gennadius was, in our estimation, a most obstinate and furious schismatic, as it is certain indeed. And thus, the authority of this Homily which we are publishing ought to be beyond any exception. For Protestants are accustomed, if any testimony is brought forth from the books of the Greeks who wrote four hundred years ago, to shout immediately that it was influenced by the Latins. But by what reason could Gennadius be brought under suspicion of being "Latin-minded" (*latinophron*), when he attacks the Latins so virulently, when he holds them for heretics and forbids them to be admitted to communion; when he so openly condemns ^B the addition made to the Symbol, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, Unleavened Bread, Purgatory, and those very things that are not held among us as essential articles of faith; when he declares anathema upon John Beccus and proclaims multiple times that he embraces the pseudo-synod in which that pious man, venerable for many reasons, was condemned; whose exhortation and counsel finally caused monks and nuns to openly withdraw from the communion of the Latins, and to treat even the holy things in a profane manner; who swore by the words of Mark of Ephesus, and who openly avowed that he would remain *achoinōnētos* (incommunicado) toward the Latins until the Roman Church should abjure so many heresies, of which he accuses it everywhere? These things, therefore, the Protestants must refute before they reject Gennadius from the number of witnesses who testify to us concerning the faith of the Eucharist. But that this may be accomplished, we demand of them not empty conjectures, but certain arguments.

Whatever our opponents are accustomed to bring forward from our own authors to the contrary, we will hold as being of no account at all. For if anything that Allatius, Caryophilus, Arcudius, or others have written about the affairs of the Greeks holds the force of law or a perpetual edict among us, such that it is not permitted to reclaim [the truth], it is even less so in the case of writings by sordid authors, whose testimonies Claudius has utilized in such a useless manner to join the Orientals to the Calvinists, when one hundred and ten years ago the Patriarch Jeremias, whose opinion was more tolerant, had so clearly signified to the Lutherans of Württemberg how much that [view] displeased him and the whole Oriental Church.

But because Jeremias had not used the word "Transubstantiation," ^D though he taught the thing itself, as the Württembergers themselves who published the *Acts* testified in a note in the margin, a new crop of arguments was born from this, in which Thomas Smith, a theologian of the English Church, exercised himself. Upon returning from Constantinople, he had published an epistle on the state of the Greek churches, in which he had attacked the most learned Richard Simon, because in his *History of the Oriental Faith* he had taught by most firm arguments that the Greeks believe in the real presence and transubstantiation. But because Smith had thus established that the first, or at least among the first, to have used the word *metousiōsis* was Gabriel, Metropolitan of Philadelphia, R. Simon had opposed the testimony of Gennadius from that brief homily which Syrigus had inserted into his work, which work he had received from us. Smith, in the first edition of his *Miscellanea*, when he saw that his entire divination concerning Gabriel was vanishing because of that single testimony, rejected the work of Gennadius as that of a "supposititious" writer. But his most learned adversary defeated him in a vernacular dissertation (2) *On the faith of the Oriental Church concerning transubstantiation*, in such a way that he is acknowledged to have answered nothing that was relevant to the matter in his *Answer to the Cavils of Simon*, for that is the title he chose to give it.

Since, therefore, in his first dissertation, he was busy trying to reject the short homily—or epistle, if it can even be seen as such—which had been produced from the book of Meletius Syrigus, he brought forward these arguments: he says that Gennadius was most addicted to the Catholics, on the sole testimony of Allatius and others who make Georgius Scholarius and Gennadius two people, when from those things which were expounded above, it is sufficiently certain that Scholarius and Gennadius are one and the same, and that he gave effort to promoting the union when he was in Florence, and [that] having changed his opinion, he subsequently became famous among his own with the most bitter hatred toward the Latins.

He takes another argument from the silence of Allatius, Possevinus, and others, to whom this homily was never read, even though [Allatius] had diligently labored in investigating the writings of Gennadius. May the judgment rest with those who will compare the Allatian Index with ours, whether Allatius is worthy of this invidious praise. Possevinus is praised for many other things, but never for diligence in reviewing authors. For who would dare to sell the idea that he has seen everything, unless it be those to whom these studies are unknown? We have from the Royal library мss. codices which approach the age of Gennadius so closely that they appear to have been written immediately after his death, or even during his lifetime, and several of them, as it is no vain conjecture, corrected by himself. In them are read, among many other things, the Epistles and Orations which Gennadius wrote when he was retreating into a monastery and abdicating the patriarchal dignity, which the whole of Gennadius's

disputations overturn. Should anyone deny that these are genuine, he will have the same defense in Allatius’s silence.

Every day, from the shelves of libraries, many things unknown to learned men are unearthed; nor is it a marvel that something exists in the Gallican volumes which does not exist in the Roman. Smitheus does not bear with an even temper that the Royal Library of the Vatican is compared [to it]: why, pray? For what does it matter to him which of them is richer? Clearly, so that he may stir up an invidious suspicion from the praises of the Vatican, as if what is lacking in one cannot exist in another; or, if it should be found, it must be judged a forgery.

^A

He was a doctor of the Gospel in the Church of Constantinople, who was present at the synod held in 1638 under Cyril of Berrhoea against Cyril Lucaris, and confirmed it with his subscription: who, having been sent into Moldo-Wallachia by Parthenius the elder, Patriarch of Constantinople, was present for the drafting of the decrees against the Confession of the same Lucaris; then, in order that they might receive patriarchal confirmation, he brought them to Constantinople. He was the one, among all other theologians designated by the same [Parthen]ius, to review and weigh the Orthodox Confession, which had been composed first for the use of the Russian Churches; which, having then been approved by the consent of the whole Greek Church as the most true exposition of the common faith, and twice published, is handled in the hands of all Greeks. ^B If Smitheus did not learn these things at Constantinople, the fault is his own; but the book itself by Meletius against Cyril’s Confession was published, as was written to us recently from Venice, and Petrus Allixius, a very learned man, makes mention of it as having been published in Moldavia.

Furthermore, since that edition has come forth through the work of the Greeks, there is now no place for any suspicion against the faith of Meletius Syrigos. For the writings have been printed at Iași or Bucharest, not by the work of dark, shady characters or men addicted to the study of factions, but by those who have flourished in the clear light of the Greek Church, with the praise of doctrine and piety.

"This homily, however," says Smitheus, "was not said by Simonius to exist in the codices of the Royal Library, but at the house of M. Burdelot," coldly, indeed, and very sparingly... with only the title of the homily added. For we are not permitted to know through him whether each of these homilies bore the name of Gennadius as its true author. Should he not have described that codex—along with the titles of the other homilies—more accurately and specifically, lest some impostor, with unusual craft, might have falsely claimed the name of Gennadius for the sake of removing suspicion? Simonius never mentions Burdelot, nor did he say the codex existed at his house. We do not sufficiently understand what it means to describe a codex "coldly" or "sparingly." Is it because they do too much, commending [it] most verbosely, and often quite unfaithfully? For how many are there who often cite the most faulty manuscript codices in place of copies, which, if someone were to do among us, he would not be without hisses? ^C The codex itself, as men most practiced in Greek antiquity have judged, is such that no one has doubted its authenticity except those who have not seen it. Nointel had it from Panagiotis; we received it from Nointel. Why, then, should anyone think of relieving a suspicion which could be thought of only with the greatest calumny? The homily exists with other works of Gennadius, which not only the consensus of many codices, but also the testimonies of the Greeks, confirm to be most certainly his. In the one that Meletius Syrigos praises, it is established by the authority of the one we are publishing: [namely], having been pronounced in the wretched palace, before the emperor and senate. Callinicus, Patriarch of Constantinople, among moderns, praises it in his synodical [letter], as do a great number of others.

But the author of the *Miscellanea* rejects Meletius Syrigos as a Greekling, a shady character, most addicted to the study of factions, educated—unless he is mistaken (and he is vehemently mistaken)—at Rome. Yet perhaps no one among the more recent Greeks has flourished with greater praise for doctrine and orthodoxy, commended, of course, then by Callinicus, who presided at Constantinople a few years ago, by Dionysius, [and] by Parthenius; then by Nectarius and Dositheus, Patriarchs of Jerusalem, whose work against the chapters of Cyril, from the year 1640 in which it was completed, has been praised down to this day, nor has it been grazed by even the slightest censure. No one ever called him a shady character who ^D.

Furthermore, what we have learned from books, if Smitheus did not hear it at Constantinople, it does not concern us: but Parthenius and Dionysius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, Nectarius and Dositheus of Jerusalem, and others who have adorned the Orthodox Confession with their testimonies and commended it to all their own as a rule of faith, no one will deny are witnesses more copious in this matter than Smitheus.

He wonders how Patriarch Jeremias, writing against the Wirtembergians, did not mention that homily, and a new argument arises thence for him by which he confirms his suspicion. But when he was disputing so lengthily against them concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, he said not a word about the voluminous work of that same Gennadius against the Latins concerning that same part of theology, just as he also makes no mention of many other theologians from Greece, whose writings are either published or kept in libraries. Whoever would judge works to be alien to their authors from such a light conjecture would be ridiculous. For the authority of Gennadius, which Jeremias censures in his final letters for having held the authorities of the ancient holy Fathers in low esteem, would have moved the Lutherans.

That there is also nothing in the two tomes against the Latins which represents a doctrine similar to the homily seems to Smitheus to be a matter full of suspicion. It would have been more marvelous, and like a monster, if Gennadius, while discussing the procession of the Holy Spirit and other controversies between his own people and the Latins, had disputed in a clearly alien place about the faith of the Eucharist, concerning which he was not ignorant that there was perfect agreement between both sides. It had been disputed sharply at Ferrara.

and Florence between the Latins and the Greeks, especially concerning the Unleavened Bread, that is to say, the matter in which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated; let Smitheus produce or name one Greek author (and we do not except Sylvester Syropulus) who mentions that the Latins were accused by the Greeks of any error concerning the faith of the Eucharist. On the contrary, when the Bohemians held an opinion concerning the same sacrament almost the same as that of the Reformers, ^A let him see in Syropulus’s own narrative how gravely the Greeks took it that, in the first formula of a decree for holding a council, they had been compared in a certain way to the Bohemians, whom they recognized to be suffering from many very bad heresies. Therefore, that nothing concerning the controversies of the Eucharist is found not only in those two volumes against the Latins, which Smitheus never saw, but also in many other writings against them, the index of which we shall provide, was a most certain argument for the complete agreement concerning that article.

But the author of the *Miscellanea* is so far from having recognized the force of this, that he seems to aim at nothing more in his double Dissertation than to bring about a most serious cause of suspicion against Gennadius and his homily, because of an alignment in it not only of opinions but also of words. For if Claude of Charenton is to be believed—and Smitheus has no other author for this paradox from Greece or the Eastern provinces—since the dogma and the name of the real presence, and much more so of transubstantiation, had been hitherto unknown to all in the Christian East, those who admit both are pseudo-Greeks and "Latino-minded." ^B If Smitheus thinks this has been demonstrated by Claude, as he has sufficiently indicated in more than one place, we believe with stronger right that it has been invincibly proved by our theologians that he has not even brought forward a plausible conjecture. Let the matter be left in the middle, as ought to be done in questions of this kind: the Protestants do not have even a syllable by which the Claudian censure can be proven; for the whole force of the arguments will lie in this one thing: that the Greeks did not use the doctrine and the word before the times of the metropolitan Gabriel of Philadelphia. Moreover, everyone knows how often that argument which they call negative is deceptive in similar controversies. But if it is of any moment, as it can certainly often be used with judgment, we Catholics shall also use it, but with a more certain and evident one. For since there exist a great number of Greek works against the Latins, both published and in manuscript, and since there exist acts and records of things done to procure a concord between both sides, nothing occurs [in them] whence it might be established that the Latins were accused by the Greeks because they taught transubstantiation, or the Greeks by the Latins because they rejected it.

There is added another proof of great authority from the discipline of the Greeks, which was not discovered yesterday or the day before, but has been observed for many centuries up to this time; it is of such a nature that it cannot subsist without the faith of a real transmutation. For the rites and prayers by which ^C the Liturgy is celebrated, the circulation of the bread and the chalice before they are consecrated, and their veneration arising from the consecration soon to follow; the form of distributing communion; the reservation of the particles as a viaticum for the infirm; the Mass of the Presanctified, and so many other certain arguments of the same faith—these are the things which the Protestants promptly removed, because whatever similar occurred in the Latin Mass, they removed it.

As if, however, they were dealing less with the thing than with the word, unless the Greeks have expressly named transubstantiation, Smitheus forbids us to think that they ever thought about a real and substantial transmutation. Because, therefore, Claude had posited that Gabriel of Philadelphia was the first by whom the word *metousiosis* had been usurped, Smitheus [deemed him to be] the first or among the first; but since the testimony of Gennadius overturned all his arguments, he declared that author to be supposititious. Nor need any other reason be sought for so hasty a judgment, when it is manifest from his double opuscule that he knew nothing at all about Gennadius except a few things, and those not true, which he had learned from Allatius—if one acquiesces in which, it is not his place to pass judgment on Gennadius or his works. Nothing therefore moved the author of the *Miscellanea* to judge the homily false, and Gennadius, if he were its author, to be imbued with Latinism, other than that most mendacious Claudian hypothesis, which recognizes no one as a legitimate Greek unless he rejects the real presence and transubstantiation.

How false that would be, moreover, had been sufficiently demonstrated from Gabriel of Philadelphia. That phantom was first to Claude, and a fictitious book: so indeed it seemed to a man who was the least of Greeks, as his admirers cannot deny. The second act of the fable remained: that Gabriel should be the first who usurped the word of transubstantiation; soon, [if not] the first or among the first. We appeal to the faith of all who have read the Greek authors, whether they have found any who praised or accused Gabriel on the count that he, as the first or among the first, applied a word hitherto unusual to explaining the mystery of the Eucharist. But there was indeed room for Meletius Syrigos to praise him, when he was arguing about the word *metousiosis*, and admitting that it had not been used by the first doctors of the Church, but [was] correctly applied later by their successors to explain the faith.

When, therefore, the conjecture of Smitheus was utterly overturned by the testimony of Gennadius—for it was clear from it that the word was not usurped a hundred years ago, but a hundred and sixty or more—[and since it was] not from a most false hypothesis [that the homily was rejected], but at least a very doubtful one, and destitute of proofs, the authority of Gennadius had to be demolished; but [this had to be done] by the faith of Greek witnesses, whom no one will deny must be heard in their own affairs, or at least it must be evinced that both the dogma and the word were equally unknown to them. If we except Cyril Lucaris, no Greek theologian has failed to approve both the word and the dogma. Gabriel and Meletius Syrigos are praised by all as true interpreters of Greek doctrine. Cyril, a judge ^D

was damned by synodal authority; his Calvinist Confession was refuted by the same synod. And against these testimonies, which are confirmed by the Acts and by many Confessions sent from the East, does anyone dare to oppose the most empty conjectures?

First among the first, as Smitheus believes, Gabriel of Philadelphia usurped the word "transubstantiation," in the year 1600, when his little book was published. But Meletius Piga, Patriarch of Alexandria, in his letters of the years 1593 and 1594, had used that word, and had explained its meaning and consequences accurately, indicating at the same time his other treatises in which he had discussed the same subject more fully long ago. He cannot be suspected of Latinism, he whom Georgius Douza and other Protestants praised highly, especially for the reason that he had resisted most fiercely the reconciliation of the Greeks of his rite and the Catholics who were subjects of the kingdom of Poland. Will Smitheus say that those letters are spurious? But Paisius, Patriarch of Alexandria, sent them, copied from an authentic exemplar, to Panagiotis in Constantinople, and Callinicus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the synodal definition of the year 1691, numbered Meletius Piga among those who used the word "transubstantiation."

By the same authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople and of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, is confirmed that homily of Gennadius which Smitheus attacks. The words are: "The Church uses the term (transubstantiation), because it is not subject to equivocation, and it overcomes the sophistries of all heretics. Nor did it borrow it from the Latins, but it has been used by that word for many years by its own domestic and legitimate orthodox doctors, as it is easy to see from the commentaries of the defender of the true religion, that Lord Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who, before orthodox emperors, pious patriarchs, and the sacred senate, and the doctors themselves of our right faith, fought for this mystery through this word as something previously known and accepted by the Church."

That synodal Definition of Jassy in Moldavia was published in the year 1694 by Dositheus of Jerusalem in a book against John Caryophyllus the Logothete, but since we have not been able to obtain it until now, we provide the version of Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli inserted in his Epistle to Chrysanthus, Notary of the Metropolitan of Caesarea, which was edited at Venice in the year 1703.

In that synodal Definition, moreover, there are two things which it is worthwhile to observe carefully. First, that the homily which we are publishing was most well known to the two patriarchs, Callinicus and Dositheus, and then to the metropolitans and bishops who were present at the writing; and therefore no one can doubt its authenticity, unless one believes that the *autopsia* (personal testimony) of Smitheus is to be preferred to such testimonies. The second is that the Greek prelates themselves testify that Gennadius usurped the word μετουσίωσις as something previously known, and that this was most correctly observed by them. For when he delivered that homily in the palace before the emperor, the bishops, and the senate, he was still a layman; yet no one will suspect that a man, learned indeed, but a layman, could have dared to usurp a word unknown and not established by use in explaining a mystery, while none of the bishops or theologians protested.

But Callinicus, Dositheus, and other Greek prelates will be, to Smitheus, *Latinophrones*—of a new and hitherto unknown kind, that is; for when that word began to be used, it designated none other than those who embraced the Definition of faith established at Florence. But Smitheus says that not at Constantinople, but in the books of Claudius, those are *Latinophrones* who believe in the real presence and transubstantiation. Therefore, those also, like those who subscribed to the synod of Jerusalem, will be in the same class of *Latinophrones*, who nevertheless deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, who believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and finally teach the rest of what is condemned at Rome. By that reasoning, Gennadius and his homilies are proscribed by him; for he has no other [criterion]; and thus, if Gennadius is suspected of Latinism, it is necessary that Meletius Piga, Gabriel of Philadelphia, Georgius Coressius, Meletius Syrigus, Cyril, and Parthenius, who in the synods of 1638 and 1642 condemned Lucaris’s confession as heretical, be involved in the same suspicion, as well as all the metropolitans and bishops and other ecclesiastics who subscribed to the decrees, as well as those who confirmed the decrees of the synod of Jerusalem in 1672, Nectarius of Jerusalem, and finally all the most sincere Greeks, if there ever were any. For there is none of them who did not embrace the Decrees against Cyril Lucaris, and who did not pronounce anathema against those who think the same things, like that nefarious traitor to the ancestral faith. But all of them are, in the end, so much "Latins" that most of them fought against the Latins with the sharpest style, for which name they are praised by their own as distinguished theologians of the Greek Church and its defenders. If, therefore, they are not sincere Greeks, where then has the Greek Church been for two hundred years? For all whom we know from history and books, as Greeks, have had no other faith. But Smitheus opposes Cyril Lucaris, Zacharias Gerganus, bishop of the small town of Arta, and Metrophanes Critopulus. New laws must be created, in order that faith be had in three witnesses against a thousand others—nay, against the public and many times renewed testimony of the whole Greek Church. But the first of these was damned by anathema, and his Calvinist confession was proscribed by four public synodal judgments: namely, at Constantinople in the years 1638, 1642, and 1691, and at Jerusalem in the year 1672. These judgments were never retracted, since Dositheus inserted all those opinions into his Enchiridion published in Moldavia. Gerganus, barely known among his own, cannot be opposed to so many patriarchs and bishops. If Metrophanes truly and from his heart published that confession which was printed in Helmstadt, he refuted himself; for when he was Patriarch of Alexandria, he subscribed to the Decrees of the synod of Constantinople.

^A If it pleases, let a few other errors be added; but what weight can their testimonies have against the constant testimony of the whole Greek Church for seventy years and more? Thus, out of this abnormal disposition of his law, Cyril being condemned and affixed with the most terrible sentences, one must believe not of his faith alone, but of the faith of the entire Eastern Church: that the Greeks themselves are not to be believed concerning their own faith, even if for a hundred years and more they have confirmed it with private and public writings and with their own discipline, which lies open to the eyes of all. Consequently, whatever Gennadius taught, that transubstantiation which Cyril condemned in his ill-formed and clandestine Confession, will be, for Smitheus, a Gennadius of "unstable character." From that false hypothesis, other no less false hypotheses are born, against Gennadius’s praiser, Syrigos, Georgios Coressios, and finally the rest who have professed that they accept transubstantiation—that is, all Greeks: for whosoever from Cyril until now has held the patriarchates, sees, bishoprics, and ecclesiastical dignities, have believed and spoken no otherwise than the Synods of the years 1638, 1642, 1672, 1691, the Orthodox Confession, and other documents of public authority. If this is true, as it is indeed most true from the consenting testimonies of all Greeks, Gennadius ought not to be suspected of Latinism, even if he did teach transubstantiation, nor should his Homily be stripped of its credibility, because it represents that same voice.

^B But Smitheus heard nothing of the sort concerning Gennadius or his works in Constantinople; for if he had questioned even one Greek who was not completely illiterate, he would have heard, without a doubt, what everyone knows: that no one was less addicted to the Latins than that patriarch, and no one [was less addicted than] Syrigos, Coressios, or the others whom he treats so inclemently. One did not need to sail to Constantinople just so that Claudius could be transcribed. But since he heard nothing there about Gennadius and the others whom the Catholics produce as witnesses, whence did he get the idea that he was "Latin-minded": that his homily was false: that Syrigos was a lurker educated in Rome, that the Orthodox Confession was the work of "Latin-minded" men, to omit the rest? Surely he did not receive these things from the Greeks, who, long before Smitheus traveled to Constantinople and afterwards, have publicly testified to the exact contrary. Furthermore, why did he not ask the Patriarch of Jerusalem about all these things in the familiar conversation with which he honored him in the year 1671? That was Nectarius or Dositheus, than whom no one among the more recent Greeks was more hostile to the Latin name. They certainly would have answered nothing other than what the former testified to, without ambiguity, in his epistle to Paisios of Alexandria, and in another to the monks of Sinai, namely, that from the writings of those whom Smitheus rejects as corrupted by Latinism one must seek the sincere exposition of the Greek faith, and not from the false Confes- ^C sion of Cyril, which they reject with horror. He shows how different Nectarius’s judgment of Claudius—of Calvin, of Luther, of Legerus—was from that of Smitheus.

But Gennadius was not the only one who had to be refitted-since his authority remained intact—if the Synod of Jerusalem, held in the year 1672 against the Calvinists, in which transubstantiation is clearly established, were not also to collapse at the same time. Thus, therefore, he attacks it (1), mocking the Greeks, as he does everywhere: "Did they," he says, "not recently assemble at Jerusalem with whole heart and love of truth to edit oracles against the heretical Calvinists?" When I read these things, I was utterly stunned, for I well remembered that the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while staying in Constantinople, during a familiar conversation with which he honored me, as I was about to return to England at the beginning of the year 1671, had said to me that he was plotting something against the pontificials which he desired to have published there. An eyewitness ought not to have concealed the name of that patriarch; but in the year 1671, it was either Nectarius or Dositheus, who held the Jerusalem see for a very long time after his voluntary abdication; for he died barely two years ago. But that matters little: for we know that Nectarius had elaborated a work against the primacy of the Pope, which Dositheus, his successor, caused to be printed at Jassy in the year 1682, and which Peter Allix translated into Latin. What cause, then, was there for Smitheus to be stunned? Namely, that he who was preparing a writing against the Roman Pontiff, in the following year at Jerusalem, condemned Calvin, Cyril Lucaris, and Claudius with anathema: for these things seem to him to be "incompatible." Thence he falls silent modestly, but with the sting left behind—namely, that everyone should gather for himself that the decrees of that synod are suspect or false; but how vain that conjecture is, is demonstrated not with many words: for in that very treatise of Nectarius against the primacy of the Pope, which is full of gall and venom, while he relates certain miracles that occurred in the Eucharist, he teaches transubstantiation clearly, and in an epistle written at Constantinople (2) in 1692 he excellently commends the Orthodox Confession: finally, he calls that "lurker" and "Latin-addict" Meletios Syrigos, whose primary part it was in writing it, after other praises (3), a "herald, interpreter, and standard of the dogmas of the true faith," κήρυξ, διερμηνεύς, καὶ στάθμη τῶν ὀρθῶν τῆς πίστεως δογμάτων. If he judged so poorly concerning Syrigos, no one will recognize him as a competent judge concerning Gennadius and his homily.

Nor is there any reason why that "eyewitness account" which some are accustomed to repeating to the point of nausea should be objected. For whom will Smitheus ever persuade that he learned at Constantinople what he wrote about Cyril Lucaris, or that in the Greek Church he is worshipped as a saint and martyr, who is transfixed with anathemas? If indeed the truth of God, of which he testifies himself to be a most avid lover, is of any value to him, he should recognize that all ^D his conjectures...

^A have been brought to Constantinople, and that he has returned home with goods that are little sellable. For in what way could the Greeks have been ignorant of that false system which, apart from Claudius—who was utterly a stranger to Greek literature—had never entered anyone's mind? Or how could they have been led, within a few years, into a sentiment contrary to their own synodal decrees, their orthodox confession, their discipline, and their common doctrine, with no one contradicting or noticing it? But all these paradoxes have been sufficiently refuted by a most learned adversary, and there would be no reason for refuting them more copiously, were it not observed daily that nothing so absurd or false can be affirmed by any Calvinist of any name that it does not immediately find credulous admirers, and soon after, among the rest, pass into something like a settled judgment. For that whole lie, about the Greeks believing anything other than the real presence and transubstantiation, but instead embracing that faith which Cyril set forth in his Confession, was fabricated by Claudius, who either ignored or rather pretended not to know how different this was not only from the judgment of the Greeks, but even from that of the most learned men outside the Roman communion. That it was believed by the unlettered of his sect, no one will be surprised: for who would suppose that a minister of the divine word, in such a serious matter, either did not know what he was writing, or had so confidently affirmed what was unknown to him? The other one returns to Constantinople, and by three published booklets testifies that he had seen with his own eyes and heard with his own ears what Claudius had affirmed. We Catholics, fortified by the testimonies of all the patriarchs, metropolitans, and other ecclesiastics, both public and private, by books published and unpublished, by public fame, by the discipline which is visible to the eyes of all, and by other arguments of certain authority, do not rashly assert that Smith has not seen or heard at Constantinople what never existed, ^B but it is precisely what we demonstrate; and thus the Homily of Gennadius, which we provide, is an eyewitness of such a kind, and he does not fear critics of the same sort who are, as he loves to say, more "nasutiores" (sharp-sighted). Whence, however much his *autographa* are commended with praise, we see the learned Protestants gradually receding from his opinion; as Laurentius Normannus did concerning the orthodox Confession, Petrus Allixius concerning the synod held at Jassy in the year 1642, and Meletius Syrigus: and Marbachius, Calovius, and Fethavius, theologians of the Augsburg Confession, long ago debunked it concerning the Cyrillian Confession and the synods of 1638 and 1642, by which it was proscribed. Nor does Smith himself entirely deny that the modern Greeks have finally imbibed the dogma of the real presence and transubstantiation: ^C but that this was done by the worst frauds of the Latins, which the day, as a revealer of secrets, will teach us. If he understands the supreme day of Judgment, then indeed: for before the supreme Judge all things will lie open. If he means some distant time, already some years have passed since it cannot be doubted that the Greeks hold nothing less than *Latinophronountes*, concerning the Confession of Cyril, since the synods held against it and its author, concerning the orthodox confession, transubstantiation, and Gennadius, Syrigus, Coressius, and Gregorius the proto-syncellus, his disciple, hold that opinion most firmly, which that eyewitness had attacked with all his might. For when Dositheus himself caused the decrees of the Jerusalem synod to be published in Moldavia, in which all things are contained quite clearly, which cannot stand with the Claudian definition of the *Latinophronountes*, but it is evident that the sincere Greeks are those who believe in the real presence and transubstantiation, all conjectures are in vain when the Greeks themselves speak. Whence whatever Smith deduced from that false hypothesis against Gennadius and his homilies does not require a more accurate refutation.

NOTICE OF THE WORKS OF GENNADIUS

Whatever writings of Gennadius have reached us, he wrote either before his patriarchate, or during the patriarchate itself, or after he had laid down his dignity and, as a private person, had retired to the monastery of Saint John the Baptist ^D near Serres at Mount Menæceum. Certain manuscript codices represent this order of his works, which follows the series of his life, which, however, has this disadvantage: that it is not so clear regarding many of them exactly when they were written, of which kind are several homilies and certain minor opuscula. But we will follow this order nonetheless, because it is more convenient.

Georgius Scholarius, while still a layman, wrote, as it seems, a good number of letters around the time of the Council of Florence, some of which survive in the Royal Codex 2955, under this title: *'Ex τῶν 'Επιστολῶν Γεωργίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου τοῦ ὕστερον Γενναδίου, From the Epistles of Georgius Scholarius who was Gennadius afterwards*. 1. Addressed to no one; 2. To the brother of the Emperor; 3. To the Great Chartophylax; 4. To Marcus Lipomanus, sent from Florence to Venice; 5. To Ambrosius the Camaldolese; 6. To the Grand Duke: In the same place are also written, as it seems, not from Greece, as Allatius, who mentions it, suspected. It exists also in the Colbertine Codex 4958; 7. To an anonymous person regarding private business; 8. Written to Philelphus at Milan from Constantinople, as I think, either before the Italian journey or after his return; for in it he laments being snatched away by the noise...

^A of legal contests and the occasions for writing to friends; 9. to the Prince (πρίγκηπι), whether he be Theodore the Despot or Constantine who later was the final emperor; 10. to the Emperor Constantine, which he wrote already as a monk, giving thanks for the little gifts sent; 11. to Paisius of Crete, as we conjecture, the archbishop, to whom he offers congratulations for his constant labors for Christ and his liberation from prison; 12. regarding the disturbances at Constantinople, sent to Lemnos; 13. to the Emperor of Trebizond regarding the legation sent to the Italians; 14. to the Nomophylax in the Peloponnese; 15. to Mark of Ephesus, prefixed to a short work against Gemistus Plethon on behalf of the defense of Aristotle; 16. without a title, regarding private business. A manuscript codex of the Royal Library presents all of these letters, selected, as it seems, from many others as being more worthy to be included in the codex. In the Colbertine codex, some other older ^B letters are attached, from which they seem to have been collected for the sake of style rather than to illustrate history, as are also a few others by Lucas Notaras, the Grand Duke, Theodore the Despot, and certain other nobles of the Constantinopolitan empire.

He wrote at Florence the Orations which are circulated with the Acts of the Council, if indeed they are his; he could certainly have written them, as is evident from the Acts: for it is probable—nay, certain, unless one wishes to accuse the Acts of falsehood, which is difficult to prove with reliable arguments—that Georgius Scholarius had come over to the view of those who were urging union with the Latins. The reliability of the Acts is confirmed by an epistle of Mark of Ephesus from the Florentine codex and which exists in the Royal codex 2953, brought forward by Allatius, in which he inveighs against Scholarius because he had thought some concord with the Latins could exist. But it must be admitted that not a few things have crept into these orations, which it would be a more prolix task to annotate. They were edited at Rome with the Florentine Council in folio, in Greek and Latin, by the translator Matthæus Caryophyllus, and in quarto in the Roman edition of the councils in the year 1612, volume IV. Allatius says they exist in manuscript codices: the Scoriacensis, two Bavarian ones, the Altempsianus, and that of Antonius Augustinus. They are also held in the Royal codices and in the Imperial Library no. 61, among the Greek historians.

The Apologia for the Five Chapters of the Florentine Council, written later, was edited at Rome in 1577 in folio ^C with the same council in Greek; and in Latin, translated by Fabius Benevolentius, in quarto in 1539, translated into barbarous Greek by Matthæus Caryophyllus, and several times in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Caryophyllus adjudges it away from Gennadius, which Allatius refutes. It seems completely useless to call their reasons into examination. For since it is evident from those things which we have said about Gennadius that immediately upon his return to Constantinople he was reconciled with Mark of Ephesus, and [since it is clear that he] devoted all his effort to ^D turn back the union, it would be in vain to seek at what time he edited this Apologia, which is considered to have been written only after the fall of the city, and thus while he was in the patriarchate, by those who attribute it to Gennadius: for he never, once the hatred for the Latins was settled, laid it aside; rather, he inveighed against them with perpetual accusations and persevered in that opinion to the very end of his life. If, therefore, this work of his is to be judged an Apologia, it must have been written either at Florence or immediately after his return. But if anyone so maintains, he must confess that it was interpolated, with a long enough strip of text attached regarding the Constantinopolitan calamities.

These Orations exist: *On the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ* (Εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Μεταμόρφωσιν), as it is held in Royal codex 2955, while he was still a secular, under the Emperor John, discovered at Thessalonica after the capture of Constantinople.

*On the Feast of the Entry (of the Theotokos)* (τῶν Εἰσόδων προσφωνητικός). This oration was read first in the Peribleptos monastery, in the presence of the Emperor Constantine.

*Another without a title*, "Of old, the Jews" (πάλαι μὲν Ἰουδαῖος), in the same codex.

*On the Commemoration of the Decapitation of St. John the Baptist.* The oration exists in the same codex. In our own, under the title of Gennadius the Monk, it begins: "The most blessed John and Baptist" (Ὁ μὲν μακάριος Ἰωάννης καὶ Βαπτιστής). It is omitted by Allatius.

*Another, On the Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh* (εἰς τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). In the same codex and in ours, it begins: "O most brilliant lights of the Church" (Ὢ λαμπρότατοι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας φωστήρες). It was written, however, in the monastery of St. John the Baptist. It exists in Royal codices 2955 and 2959 and in our own: Allatius does not mention it.

*Another on the Dormition of the B. Virgin Mary* (ἐπὶ τῇ μεταστάσει τῆς ὑπεραγίας Δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου). It exists in the same Royal codex and in 2959. From its title, it is gathered that it was written in the Pammakaristos monastery, namely at Constantinople, read on the feast of the Dormition of the B. Mary, in the third [year], he says, of our violent return to the city, indiction 12, an. 72, that is, in the year of the world according to the Greeks 6972, to which corresponds indiction 12, A.D. 1464. And thus they are mistaken who affirm with no foundation that the year 1460 was the final year of Gennadius. These words, however, seem to have been written by the hand of Gennadius himself. It begins: "The beginning of the year" (Ὁ μὲν τοῦ ἔτους ἀρχή), and is also held in our codex.

*Another, On the second Advent of our Lord, and on the Resurrection of the bodies* (Περὶ τῆς δευτέρας παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν σωμάτων ἀναστάσεως). It exists in the same Royal codex.

Another, on the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, whose beginning is, "The precipice of pride." ^A Another, on the parable of the Prodigal [Son], and on repentance: it begins, "The murmuring of the Pharisees and Scribes." In the same Royal codex and in our own; Allatius does not mention it.

Another with this title, "The homily of the most blessed and renowned patriarch, Lord Gennadius, spoken on Holy and Great Friday in the palace, while he was still in the habit of a layman." It exists in the same codex, 2958.

Another under this title, "Consideration of the parable of the talents in the Gospel." Its beginning is: ^B In the same codex.

A homily on the body and blood of the Lord, which we have found up to this point only in our own codex marked with this title: "From the homilies which were spoken in the unhappy palace on Friday in Great Lent, found after the capture of the city. They were written after being spoken by word of mouth at the request of friends. But this one was spoken on the Friday of Lazarus. Homily on the mystical body of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Another on the same subject, shorter, written as it seems at Constantinople after he had been declared patriarch, in which he makes mention of another. We find it in no codex, but we have translated it from the work of Meletius Syrigos against Cyril Lucaris, where it is cited.

Besides the homilies mentioned by us, that Gennadius himself wrote many others is testified to ^C in a certain Epistle, in which he writes to a friend concerning his own works: "Also, homilies sketched out, so that after the homilies spoken by word of mouth, they might be read to the people in the churches every Sunday, in succession, after the meal, by the Enorites [the parishioners], or those dwelling on the mountain, in every church—containing almost everything necessary."

To the homilies can be added: "An Oration against the Simoniacal heresy or unbelief," the beginning of which is: "The [things] from these godless barbarians." "On the difference between venial and mortal sins," the more accurate [version] begins: ^D In the same Royal codex. "On the fact that signs do not happen now as they did formerly," beginning: "Some ask."

"The [work] of Gennadius, monk and patriarch of the poor of Christ, on the only way to the salvation of men." It was published to the Sultan, at his request, after the dialogues which had taken place before him in the Patriarchate; and after this, another, shorter version was published. Both were interpreted into Arabic, and thus were given.

[alt-version omitted]

The theological works of Gennadius are varied, besides those which he wrote against the Latins, of which we shall treat in the last place.

The first place among the theological works is held by the "Exposition of the Christian faith," made before the emperor of the Turks, Muhammad, and comprised in writing. This has a double edition: one longer, the other shorter. The title of the first in our codex and the Royal codices is as follows: "Of Gennadius, monk and patriarch of the poor of Christ, on the only way to the salvation of men." This work was indeed given to the Sultan at his request, after discussions held before him in the Patriarchate; and afterward another shorter one was published: but both were translated into Arabic and thus published. When they say "translated into Arabic," you should understand "into Turkish"; for there is not any trace of an Arabic version in the manuscript codices. It exists in the majority of codices. On this, see Allatius, p. 402. The second, shorter little work is the same as that which Martinus Crusius published in *Turco-Graecia*, book first, with a Turkish version which, as the title states, was made by Ahmet, judge of Berrhoea, father of Mahmou-ti Chelebi, scribe to the emperor. A copy of this same [work], together with a very elegant Turkish version, manuscript but in Greek letters—and perhaps the very one which was destined for the emperor or some principal Turk—is in the Royal library, n. 2961.

^A It was also published in the year 1556, in *Haresiologia*, at Helmstedt, [in] Greek and Latin, 1611, 4º. In the library of Panea Bilet, those which he was able to receive merely by fame and hearsay, Gennadius, being questioned, answered him. This, at first, the patriarch seems to have committed to writing. But later, when the emperor wished that this profession be committed to writing and given to him, he retracted, refined, and, by rendering it more absolute, seems to have published this second version. Both, however, have this in common: that they treat of the older theology, that is, those two dogmas in the investigation of which the ancients were especially occupied: concerning God and His nature, and concerning Christ and His more exalted nature. That the author omitted other dogmas, I am far from criticizing. For who is there who does not know that in those two, at that time, the distinctiveness of Christians was seen to reside? In no way, therefore, was there a need for the patriarch to touch upon other dogmas, such as those concerning which the Greeks differed from the Romans. It was enough to resolve those two in such a way that, even if there were not full assent [on the part] of the Turk prince, at least a milder judgment and a moderate reverence would be expressed. This had such a result that Gennadius was frequently summoned to the emperor, and it is said that Muhammad himself doubted concerning his own religion. From which it is certainly established that he was more liberal and milder, and more apt to hear and perceive things divine, than is commonly believed.

^B These confessions—rightly most laudable both for their liberality and for their doctrine—breathe the Platonic manner of thinking concerning those principal dogmas. For the study of Plato still flourished at that time, to which all the best men devoted themselves. But there had already arisen friends of Aristotle, who strove with every effort to contend against the Platonists, to snatch the palm from their master, and to defer it to Aristotle. Among these was, first and foremost, George of Trebizond, who died at Rome in the eighty-sixth year of the fifteenth century. He wrote a book full, as authors report, of invectives, by which he strove to infringe upon the authority of Plato, whose patronage Bessarion—having already been raised by the Pope among the red-clothed fathers—took up in such a way that, with many learned men applauding him, the Trapezuntine paid the penalties for his rashness. ^C Bessarion, however, although he underwent the struggle for the glory of Plato, nevertheless did not stand among its most fierce defenders. Just as in the discords of the Churches he proved himself to be not plainly repugnant to either side, yet essentially serving neither, so too in the contentions of the philosophical schools he comported his nature such that he seemed a partisan of Plato, yet not to be counted as a scorner or implacable enemy of Aristotle. Nor in this sort was Gennadius unlike him. He openly followed the Platonic school, but he did not rashly embrace those Platonic [elements] which seemed less Christian. It is agreed that he fought sharply against Plethon, the Byzantine, who died in the Peloponnese in the middle of the fifteenth century, because he taught the tenets of Plato learnedly and subtly, but with the very foundation of Christian doctrine—which rests on the unity of God—destroyed. This enmity he had contracted for himself because of the books written *Concerning the Difference between Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy* and *Concerning the Laws* (a), which, besides Gennadius, also had George of Trebizond and Manuel the Peloponnesian (2)—the rhetor of the great church—as their most bitter adversaries.

But to return to the confessions of Gennadius, these are, for the most part, [thoughts] which were considered [conformable] to the custom of the Platonic family ^D and form [of] thought. He does not deny that it is interpretable as it is in the beginning; [it is] the highest Platonic dogma: Plat. *Tim.* 303 Bip. edit.; Orig. *contra Celsum* VII. 48; Greg. Naz. *Orat.* XXVIII. By the way of eminence, as they say, he taught that a conjecture could be made concerning the virtues of God, which Gennadius, in his second confession, number 2, taught; the same thing, under the guidance of Dionysius the Areopagite, *De div. nom.* 7, the Platonists primarily pursued. And that the name is to be repeated from [the] (col. 519) [Greek omitted], as one of the followers of that philosophy handed down: Theophilus *ad Autolycum* I, p. 70 and 71. That men at times, and indeed by participation—i.e., on account of a pure life by which they were made participants of the divine nature—are called gods (ibid.), is a sentiment no less often remembered by the Platonists: Athanas. *De defin.* vol. II, p. 44; Clem. Alex. *Strom.* VIII, 2, 25. That the world was created by God [Greek omitted], p. 11, was indeed a customary formula, but the same was cultivated and frequented by the Platonists, so that the dreams of the Aristotelians concerning the eternity of matter might be extinguished. That God [Greek omitted] (ibid. art. 1.); he warns with gravity, whether for the sake of the Aristotelians, or because he had learned it so from the Platonists, whom they were accustomed to propose the same: Orig. *Eclog. in Genesin*, who says (col. 338), [Greek omitted] that He created the world—similar are those which Irenæus reports (II, 30): *God created all things by Himself—by the Word and Wisdom*. Which, moreover, Gennadius did not so much explain as signify [that] God created and governs the world led by His own love for men alone, [which] we know had been often disputed by the ancient Platonists. In grave words (col. 334) he warned that God is indeed in the world, but *above* the world, which the Platonists, using similar formulas, were accustomed to say, to show that God is outside the world itself, not necessarily adhering to it by nature. He added quite appositely that He is [Greek omitted] *in every place*, which conjunction of both views the ancients, who came from the school of the Platonists, also loved, such as Clem. Alex. *Strom.* I, c. 2, [Greek omitted]. Moreover, he attributes great momentum to divine providence and describes it in more ample words (col. 338), clearly from the mind of those who would wish to encounter the dictum of the Aristotelians that beneath the moon there is no providence: Tatian II, Chalcidius 345, Theodor. II *Orat.* He represented this simplicity, venerable by its antiquity, distinguished by philosophical colors, also in his exposition of the Trinity. As Iren. IV, 20, *there is always*, he says, *the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Holy Spirit*: in the same way Gennadius (col. 338 A) affirms that even before the world was created there was [Greek omitted], since God is [Greek omitted], to which [this] is near, which they said concerning the *Logos*, [that] He was in God before the creation of the world, that which exists in Athenagoras *Legat. pro Christianis* X: [Greek omitted]. It tastes moreover of great antiquity that he judges that the nature of God, on account of His Trinity, cannot be defined and circumscribed by words (col. 526 A). For the same was felt by Didymus, who had progressed out of the school of Origen, *De Trinit.* I, 9, 15; II, 1; nevertheless, he drew [it] mostly from the Platonic philosophy of the gentiles. Whereat the anger of Manuel flared up so that he accused him of an animus hostile to Christian virtue. Cfr. Leo Allatius, *De perpet.*, etc., p. 955.

^A procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, etc. For this was not from the collation of manuscript codices, but by conjecture only, since he gathers that Gennadius…. Possevinus in his *Apparatus sacer*: although it is falsely suspected by the Greeks that some things were excised which pertained to the very mystery itself, he endeavors to illustrate it with images and similitudes as much as he can. Nor does he dissent from the ancients in the choice of these. We certainly find the only image (col. 322) in Athenagoras, *Legat.* X, who wished to render more clearly to the readers what the spirit is. He relies on Platonic formulas, with which the passage of St. John IV, 16 was intermingled; this explanation of the Trinity, more proper to mystics than to scholastics, by which three persons were said to be God, Wisdom, Love. We read this exposition of the hidden mystery in Gennadius’ *Confessio* I, p. 13. He illustrates the very theory of the two natures in Christ, and of them being distinct and united ^B *kata hypostasin* and *prosopikos*—not therefore commingled and confused—by an example already employed by the ancients, which he took from the nature of man composed of soul and body (col. 342). The same is not only in many places of Augustine, but also among others who adapted the doctrine and mode of speech of the Platonic philosophers to explain Christian matters. Cfr. Cyril’s second epistle to Succensus, *Opp.* V, 2, 143. Affined to this is that, because those who thought there was some weight and importance in this similitude used the formula by which they supposed themselves able to explain how human nature could have been next to the divine, namely this, which is in the same place in Gennadius, art. 7, [Greek: τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ προσληφθῆναι συστῆναι], which is clearly the same thing which Hippolytus, *contr. Noet.* 15, steeped in ancient Alexandrian philosophy, said: [Greek: ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχει ἡ σάρξ], and what Bellarmine, after many centuries, contended: *De Christo*, III, 17: "The Word sustains humanity." Human nature, in the very fact that it was assumed by the divine, subsisted; the faculty of subsisting was bestowed upon humanity by the other divine part of the person. But lest Christ’s divinity seem to be restricted and circumscribed in a tighter space than was proper regarding human nature, he claimed for Him (col. 343) the power of God, by which the ancients, as Theophilus *ad Autol.* II, 3; Origen *de princ.* II, 13, endeavored to demonstrate God to be far superior to the world, and not in the least entangled, as it were; I speak of that which is everywhere in Origen: [Greek: τὸ ἄπειρον, ἀπερίγραπτον, ἀπερίληπτον]. Gennadius spoke entirely from the mind of those philosophers in art. VIII: [Greek: Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἄπειρος, ὥσπερ καὶ Θεός ἐστιν ἄπειρος], contending that this *Logos* is in Christ (man), and in the world, and in heaven, and in God the Father; since, by their same opinion, He could never be [Greek: ἄλογος]. But he dared to say that the *Logos* is in God Himself and yet subsistent by Himself. For he had already professed the ancient sentiment (col. 342): whatsoever is in God and of God, that by its own nature (I have again followed Crusius’ reading) is God Himself, not so, as it were, enveloped in the divine nature that it does not exist by its own powers; for in God there is no [Greek: συμβεβηκός], whence the *Logos* is not only by nature partaker of Him, but is also God. I said this was an ancient line of argument and bears the appearance of philosophy. For by the same reasons Gregory Nazianzen, *Orat.* XXXI, attempted to declare that the Spirit is substance, not [Greek: συμβεβηκός], and therefore is God. ^C In antiquity there flourished an opinion concerning inspiration, though not more accurately defined—not, as it seems, among all, but among the more learned and liberal: that not all sacred authors were graced with the same divine afflatus, but some were superior to others, either by a more generous or longer revelation ^D benefit. For Origen certainly confessed this quite often; in express words in *Homil. in Numer.* XVI, 8: "Some things indeed the Lord spoke, and not the prophets; but other things the prophets, and not the Lord." In like manner also Gennadius fashioned this opinion for himself, that the inspiration of the prophets, by which they had used, was both more meager and intermittent. I believe this truly lies hidden in those words which are (col. 346 A): "God’s benevolence was increased all the more from the fact that God Himself (from Crusius’ edit.: The divine Logos Himself and God) came into Jesus with all His power, rather than that Greek: ἔπεμπεν εἰς τοὺς προφήτας αὐτοῦ μίαν χάριν ἢ δύο, καὶ εἰς ἄλλον μὲν προφήτην ἐλάττονα, εἰς ἄλλον δὲ μείζονα." Therefore, not all the multitude of the prophets was assisted by the same inspiration, much less that which was in Jesus, after God Himself and His *Logos* inhabited Him; but in a greater and lesser way, certainly according to their dignity. And there was in them no *Logos*, but grace, which he also said regarding the nature of all writers, art. 14.—But why it was necessary for the *Logos* to be coupled with the man Jesus, Gennadius explained well (col. 339), nor is he in this place alienated from the ancient philosophizing theologians. For the entire orb of the world, forgetful of divine laws except for the Jews, was addicted to the worship of many gods who were not true gods ([Greek: θεοὶ μὴ ὄντες] ibid.). Therefore God willed [Greek: ἀνάπλασιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων] to take place through the Word and the Spirit, and for this new creation most especially, which was again said according to the opinion of the Platonists, Divinity took on human nature. Thus indeed did God prepare, out of His mercy alone, to convert men and liberate them [Greek: ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης τῶν δαιμόνων]. He borrowed this whole opinion from the writings of the Platonists. For they held that the gods of foreign nations were unworthy of the name of gods, but called them demons, by whose fraud it happened that the one God was neglected, and offices were violated toward Him, so that the names of gods were invented and fables were devised and scattered among the common people. As far as the state of souls after death is concerned, from the custom of the ancient Church he closely synthesized their immortality with the resurrection of bodies, thinking that the bodies of the saints would be, according to Platonic formulas, incorruptible, luminous, and light (col. 346). What meanwhile souls do and feel until that restitution of bodies is not sufficiently clear from art. 12. But if I am not egregiously mistaken, he thought them to be prepared for the full perception of beatitude. For he said that such souls [Greek: τελειοῦσθαι εἰς τὴν γνῶσιν], by which, until their bodies are returned, they will see the arcana of God, which they indeed know now, but only through faith. He therefore refutes the opinion of those who thought the condition of the souls even of the just to be in a lack of senses, powers, and consciousness; most rightly and with the best and wisest men of the ancients, he establishes that, at that time, having posited it between death and resurrection, there is the beginning of regeneration. Finally, I would like to add a few things concerning the arguments brought forward by Gennadius for the truth of the Christian religion. And in the first place he puts the prophecies (col. 347), which Justin also, *Apol.* II, 30, judged to be [Greek: μεγίστην καὶ ἀληθεστάτην ἀπόδειξιν]. That the prophets prophesied everything which Christ and the apostles said, whose accurate event of prophecies in Christ Origen had already admired (*De princ.* II, 2 sqq.; *in Joann.* tom. II, 28); that true oracles of the Greeks were made known to Christ by the permission of God; which is not far removed from the arguments established in the book for the Council of Florence, c. 4.

^A but he merely gathers it by conjecture, for he did not think that Gennadius, who seemed a Catholic to him, had passed over it in silence. But how empty this conjecture is, is manifest from what has been said above.

A sentiment widely spread among the most learned men of antiquity held that there was a certain divine seed [σπέρμα] within them, by which they were led to investigate the truth and to discover certain Christian things (with the praises of Christ, in Gennad., art. 14). Moreover, he who will consider with himself how much the ancients opined that the art of astrologers was valid for foreknowing future events, will not wonder that the same praise is attributed to the astronomers both of the Persians (1) and of the Greeks, that they foresaw future events, God evidently permitting it, and as it were seeing Christ from afar. He sought a second argument for Christian truth from the most perfect consensus of Sacred Scripture, and this from its author, which was divine grace (art. XV). These things recall to the memory of anyone versed in the reading of the ancients that which is in Iren., vi, 9 sqq., 15 sqq., 32 (cf. Clem. Alex., Paedag., iii, 12); with this sole difference between the two, that the former sought consensus from inspiration, the latter inspiration from consensus. To the third argument taken from the fact that many and very wise men accessed this faith, he aptly appends a fourth, which I would call moral, ^B of very ancient standing, already frequently used by the Apologists since Justin (2); that the Christian religion contains all things spiritual [πάντα πνευματικά], and that it contains nothing that pertains only to this life, but instills in men the love of God and of his future eternal life; that it snatches them from the calamities and fortunes of this world, and places them in a higher place, whence they may despise terrestrial things and seek heavenly ones. Akin to this is what follows in art. XVIII, that the faithful followers of Christ truly lived an upright and sincere life; to which even those who embraced its patronage in the first centuries of the Church appealed (3). Nor does he forget the miracles performed through the charisms, which were long believed to have been given to Christians, not indeed by the help of demons, whose deceit [πλάνη] was thoroughly exploded (art. XVI), but by the power of God, who willed that his own work be sustained thence. He closes the series of these arguments by setting forth the last two, the philosophical and historical (4) (art. XIX and XX): that those arguments which can be opposed to Christian doctrine are of such imbecility and levity that they are easy to refute, but that this doctrine itself has such strength that it has endured intact for many centuries, full of persecutions and slaughter, and that the Lord, when he returns, shall find it immaculate, safe, and sound.

These arguments, discussed here a little more fully, will easily gain pardon among readers, since from them both the gravity of the confessions and the weight and richness of the opinions are equally conspicuous, as is the antiquity of the faith which he represents, and the simplicity of his sense and mind. Wherefore, if that praise is deservedly to be attributed to the Greek Church, that it has been less struck by dogmatic tumults, that it has almost never yielded to the novelty and allurements of opinions, and that, finally, it has borne the dignity and venerable appearance of a more ancient Church, whose footsteps it has faithfully followed, ^C all these things fall into these confessions, about which we inquire, all the more praiseworthy because they propose nothing but what they ought to have approved for all Christians, unmixed with any uncertain and dubious matters, so distinguished as if by Platonic lights, that they easily capture and delight the minds of readers.

I cannot refrain from mentioning one thing, in which I see him deviating from one of the dogmas of his Church. We know that the sum of all the disputes between the Greeks and the Latins was on the procession of the Holy Spirit, concerning which it was as if a badge of judgment by which anyone might be distinguished. What then are we to say, when in conf. 1 (col. 322 C) we read these words: "The Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;" which he also establishes by a similitude, by which he thought he had attained that: "The body of the sun produces rays; light proceeds from the sun and the rays"? And this is the same thing, in the explaining of which the first chapter of the book for the Council of Florence is occupied. If those things which are in col. 323 D seem to contradict these, just as breath is generated by the soul, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; one must not so much think of a certain variety of mind, as if it had been permitted to him before the Emperor, who was unskilled and inexperienced in these matters, to put forth now this and now that, just as the volubility of his tongue and the connection of the subject required; but rather of the nature of the image he used, and of the other aid by which that discrepancy might be alleviated. He drew the image from the soul, to show the unity of the Trinity. The soul produces both the word [sermonem] and breath [spiritum], ^D and so also the one God, i.e., the one principle of God, begets the Son and, as they say, breathes the Spirit. Therefore, he is not dealing with God, one person in Trinity, but with the substance of the divine essence itself, which, equaling the human soul, is the cause of the word and of breath. Although, therefore, the nature of this image itself forbade Gennadius to place the Son alongside the Father, the author of the Spirit; yet, not dealing with the procession of the Holy Spirit, but with God, the cause of all things, with the two others gathered into His own nature from Himself, he is not to be thought to have departed from his own opinion. And if anyone wished to ask him what he himself thought about these words, with which he seems to fight against himself, I do not believe he would have answered otherwise than he did in the book for the Council of Florence, i, 4; he explained himself in a very similar matter. Cyril the Great in John xiv, when he had used these words, "It flows from the divine essence, which proceeds from it," by which the procession of the Holy Spirit seems to be referred to the Father alone, Gennadius did not hesitate to oppose to these that statement: "From God, with the Son, all His own proper virtues are communicated, not improperly, but naturally and essentially; therefore also that power, by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him." Which being granted, the faith of Gennadius will be intact, nor will he be obliged in every place, with no urgent necessity or even opportunity given, to add the Son to the name of the Father, since neither is without the other (5). In the other...

^A dialogue, Christians and Jews converse. The beginning is: "Do you wish that we discuss those matters upon which we Christians and Jews disagree?" It exists in codices Reg. 2954 and 2959, and similarly in our own. In both, it is said to have been written "In my third difficult ascent to the city." In mine, this is added: "And glory from there."

Let no one take offense at these words. These are not empty words of virtues, but rather they subsist in their own nature in God as natures or persons; for they are substantial hypostases of persons. With this addition, therefore, beyond what is read in Crusius—namely, the "three persons"—we have no need, and he removed whatever might be an offense. Perhaps he intentionally avoided the designation of "persons," although it is used most frequently by the Greeks, not so much because he feared that before Muhammad, who was ignorant of these subtleties, he might appear to be speaking of three gods, but rather either because Muhammad had falsely understood it in the first confession, or because this name, as if more robust and coarse, seemed less appropriate for a more sublime explanation of the Trinity.

Since Gennadius has thus been given a defense, or at least an excuse, it remains for me to add a few words about the editions of the confessions. The former saw the light of day at Vienna in 1530, published by the lawyer Joannes Alexandr. Brassicanus, in Greek and Latin, the opening of which Crusius also mentioned in his *Annotations to Turcograecia*, p. 191. I regret that the booklet was not reprinted by that same Crusius. He himself saw and read it, for besides the opening, he adds other things shortly after. For I could not obtain the book ^B (a), although it is said to have been reprinted at Zwickau, 1677. It exists only in Latin in the *Bibliotheca Patrum Lugdunensis*, Vol. XXVI, p. 556, with the translator's name omitted. I have therefore rendered this interpretation. The first edition of the latter confession is that of which the Peloponnesian Emmanuel Malaxas sent a copy to Crusius in Tübingen; it is read in his *Turco-Graecia*, lib. II, p. 109 sqq., in Greek, Latin, and Turkish. The Turkish is set down in Greek and Latin characters. Near the end, the response of Muhammad is also added, rendered in Greek and Latin on p. 110; wherefore I do not know how Heineccius, *loc. cit.*, p. 232, could have said that this response had not yet been explained (1).

This latter confession was reprinted in David Chytræus's *Oration on the state of the Churches at this time in Greece, etc.*, to which the confession of faith presented by Gennadius the Patriarch to Mahomet II, etc., and other things were added at Frankfurt, 1583, p. 173. But he did not share with his readers whence he had received the copy; that he had much commerce with learned Greeks or others living in those lands is clearly shown by the booklet, into which not a few of their letters are interspersed. He had also made, as he himself says on p. 8, by the authority and at the summons of the Emperor Maximilian, many great journeys out of the Academy of Rostock, so that he might inquire primarily about the state of the Oriental Churches. Finally, the Latin interpretation of this is in the library we mentioned on p. 558, made from Crusius's *Turco-Graecia*, but slightly different from his interpretation. The text of the edition is drafted from Chytræus, with readings accurately noted from Crusius and with variant readings from him and from the *Bibliotheca* version. ^{C D}

^A

Concerning the fact that divine providence and divine predestination do not remove the usefulness of prayers

Concerning the humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Concerning the resurrection

Concerning the Lord’s and divine blood, to Dionysius the Hieromonk

Concerning the angels, contrary to the opinion of Argyropulus

On the apostolic text: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant"

Solution of various difficulties from the Gospel

Concerning the words contained in the divine prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us"

Concerning the fruits of the Spirit

Exposition of the hymn, "Martyrs, crowned"

From the metrical prayers of the same: "O Father immortal"

Concerning how divine operations are distinguished both among themselves and from the divine essence

Concerning those who commit evil acts, whether they do so unwillingly or willingly

Metrical oration, expressed in prose

Hymn with prayer

Concerning the time and mode of the existence of intellectual and immortal souls, to a certain friend

Concerning the state of souls after their release from the body, an authentication of the treatise

to him. In our codex, p. 4. Allatius did not see it. ^A Regarding John of Thessalonica, I believe this is about the same long Epistle. It exists in our codex, p. 12. It begins, "Most gladly do we answer you." Allatius did not see it. To the most holy Lord Theophanes, Metropolitan of Media, concerning the rational and human soul, the second [treatise]. Of this Theophanes, three Epistles exist in codex 2958, where this treatise is also found: one to Ignatius the monk while he was still steward, another to the great ecclesiarch, and a third to the Archbishop of Ephesus. Regarding the book of Gemistus, and against Greek superstition, to John the Exarch. It exists in codex 2955 and 2959. "We commend your..." ^B In a separate class are to be referenced certain funeral Orations. It exists in Reg. cod. 2955 and in our own, under this title: "A consolatory oration of the most wise and holy lord Gennadius to Emperor Constantine on the death of his mother, the most worthy Despoina." It begins, "The blessed and most worthy mother of your majesty." Funeral Oration for the Despot Theodore, brother of the Emperor, it begins, "To the brother of our most powerful emperor, it is the third for the one lying..." Since he retired ^C from the palace and the monastery of the Pantokrator, in which he had first lived while he was a layman, and went away to the coenobium of Chardianeti, and was preparing himself for the monastic habit, "Often having warned you, most serene emperor." Of Gennadius, the least of the Scholarii, concerning the vain, irrational, and disjointed innovation of the faith which occurred when God was abandoned, "Give me wings." To the most noble citizens of Constantinople, all clergy and laity, "Alas for the pain." A consultative discourse which I read in the Pantokrator before the emperor and the whole city, concerning the appeasing of God and the preparation from within against the war, on the 15th of October. ^D Of the most wise teacher, Lord Georgios Scholarios, afterwards also the blessed Patriarch of Constantinople, Lord Gennadius, a funeral monody for the most blessed Father and teacher Lord Mark of Ephesus, who in the world was called Eugenicus. It begins, "Alas now, O present ones, the hopes of the good things for which we have been oppressed by God for so many years have departed." Funeral Oration for the blessed Theodore Sophianus, who was buried in the holy monastery of Vatopedi, which his uncle, Gennadius the monk, pronounced extempore at the sepulcher in September of the year 6965 [A.D. 1457]. It begins, "But while he was still living the life here." A Novella or Golden Bull, which I drafted in order that it might be issued by the emperor for the taking away of those transgressions of ecclesiastical and divine laws which are hateful to God, on account of which we have been afflicted by God for so many years. The ecclesiastical Novella which was to be issued by the ecclesiastical authorities for the renewal of the ecclesiastical and divine laws that are being dreadfully and manifoldly trampled underfoot; which was also drafted, containing the transgressions and the corrections for each part.

^A

Oration written to the emperor on May 12.

Varia scripta ad Magnum Ducem.

Letter to all the faithful

Two books on purgatory.

Summary response to the objections of the Latins regarding the same purgatory.

Letter of the same to John of Thessalonica concerning purgatory

Brief writing of the same against the opinion of the Latins

Two volumes on the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins.

Longer dialogue of the same against the Latins on the procession of the Holy Spirit

Dialogue of the legate on the Holy Spirit

Letter of the same Gennadios

others ^A cultivating the monastic life in the holy monastery of Sinai. It begins: "The writings of your reverence." It treats of various points of discipline, occasioned by matters concerning those who were accustomed to flock there to visit the holy places of Mount Sinai, which he had learned from the monks Joachim and Gregory. Concerning a bishop abdicating his dignity, which he denies can be done without the patriarch's license: whether a bishop can celebrate without a deacon, which he says is permitted in a chapel, or *parekklesion*, and that it was done by patriarchs Euthymius and Matthew, not publicly in church: concerning the bishop of Bosnia, who was bringing many of the Latin religion to the faith of the Greek Church: concerning the prince of Chartzeca, whom the same bishop was endeavoring to bring to the same: that a commemoration of him should not be made publicly in the Liturgy, because he still ^B dissembles the Christian faith. However, he asserts that it is permitted to pray for him during the thanksgiving at the table, while he is present. "But in our thanksgiving at the table, if you wish to pray for him while he is present, you should [pray] that the Lord God may preserve the life of the lord Chartzekas." Who he might have been, or who they were by the name of *Koudouyeron*, who appear to have been his subjects, we do not know. Then, concerning Latins and Armenians coming for the sake of adoring the holy places, [he advises] not to repel them, even if they are heterodox and separated from the Greek Church by schism; yet that the Eucharist should not be given to them, but the *antidoron*, or blessed bread, unless they have abjured their own opinions. Concerning simony; he decries it as an evil which should be tolerated rather because of the calamity of the times, than that obedience should be denied to bishops for that reason, lest a scandal be generated from which contempt for the episcopal order, and soon for religion itself, is born: that one should endure what one cannot set right: that he himself had ordained no one for money, but rather had ordained many at his own expense whom he had redeemed from captivity: that the beginning of the evil was fifty years ago; that it is sufficient to observe the bishops, to see if they are orthodox, and to see if they teach nothing alien to the faith of the Greek Church: that one should not pay attention to trifles concerning ecclesiastical rites and duties. This epistle is the same as the one which ^C Lambecius reports exists in the Vienna library addressed to a certain monk: for it begins with the same words. But because he lists another to the monk Joachim the Sinaite concerning certain controversies pertaining partly to the patriarch of Jerusalem, partly to the Armenians and Latins visiting the holy places, we fear that a faulty copy may have deceived the most diligent man. For Gennadius speaks of that Joachim in an epistle to Maximus Sophianus, from whom, as he had learned from Gregory, he had heard the things that were disturbing the peace of the Sinaites. Since, therefore, he had immediately sent them back instructed with mandates, so that they might speak more fully with the Sinaites concerning that subject, there was no reason to write to Joachim about the same thing. But not infrequently a man is little ^D fortunate in his conjectures, as will be clear from the following example.

For Lambecius writes in book VIII, p. 509, that a history of the events between the Latins and Greeks transacted at Ferrara and Florence was written by Gennadius, which is kept in the Imperial library. He says the codex is on paper, a hundred and sixteen years old (so he wrote in the year 1679), in which is contained a pseudo-history of the Council of Ferrara and Florence, written maliciously and injuriously by Gennadius Scholarius, a Greek schismatic monk, and a perpetual and most bitter foe of the Western Church, who before his life as a monk had been called Georgius Scholarius, and who seems to have died before the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. Which title Lambecius himself cobbled together from the most false conjectures of Allatius. But in the manuscript codex it is shown thus: *Gennadii Scholarii acta Florentiæ in octava synodo historice conscripta*. Which title, unless it is the fault of the printers, is not without flaw, and indicates the laziness of the writer, or rather of the owner. For very often in manuscript codices titles are found written by an alien hand, of which no faith is wont to be afforded by critics, unless confirmed from elsewhere. The specimen presented by Lambecius is of this kind: *The entry into Ferrara with God. After the Saturday of Cheese-fare Sunday the patriarch entered into Ferrara with the emperor, and entered into the church of Saint George. And first he was sprinkled* (read thus, for *enisato*, the word *nili*) *and he and the patriarch by means of the stoup; then the Latin-haters there showed him a very large and well-nourished hand, saying it was Saint George's, contained under a hollowed board,* etc. Lambecius had not seen, I think, the history of the same council written by Sylvester Syropulus, even though it had been published eighteen full years before he himself published his eighth book. Moreover, in it these words, which are the only ones he displayed to us by way of specimen, are read on p. 89 of the edition, which is unique, The Hague, in the year 1660, as also in the authentic and autograph manuscript of Syropulus himself: from which the copy described by Claudius Sarravius was held by Isaac Vossius, and from him by Robert Creygthouus, an unfaithful and unskilled interpreter, than whom perhaps no one has ever trifled more unhappily in interpreting, so much so that he did not even allow the author's own name to remain steady: having commented so many and such inept things that he turned *Syropulus* into *Sguropulus*, against the hand of the author and the faith of all the actors of that time. Therefore, the history which some unskilled Greekling ascribed to Gennadius, and Lambecius following him, is Syropulus's, as even the final words cited by him indicate: "From which I am convinced that God will never permit the union that was evilly brought about in Florence to stand." These are the things read as the extremes on p. 350. But the subscription of Theodosius, notary of the Church of Constantinople, is of no authority.

We have the book written by Gennadius himself, which he transcribed from an ancient original; ^A nor does there exist any record of so lengthy a work, especially since there was such frequent occasion to cite it in his orations against the Union and his disputations against the Latins. These matters we had to state necessarily, so that Lambecius would not deceive anyone.

Thus far Eusebius Renaudot, and Fabricius who copies Renaudot. The latter adds the following, guided especially by Allatius.

^B In the *Catenae Patrum*, frequent mention is made of Gennadius or Georgius Scholarius, and fragments occur. See above in vol. VIII, p. 645, § 5; p. 693; p. 696, §. Montfaucon, *Bibl. Coisl.*, p. 82, 251, 389, etc.: in the Bodleian Library, cod. Barocc. 76. — In Nicon's *Collection of Various Places of Sacred Scripture and Ecclesiastical Writers*; in Montfaucon, *Bibl. Coisl.*, p. 111. The *Life of Gregory Nazianzen* is wrongly ascribed to Gennadius. See above, vol. VIII, p. 432. — In Nicon's collection and the cited codex, the *Life of St. John Chrysostom* by Gennadius is mentioned. *Prayer to the One and Tri-hypostatic God*. Lat. in *Bibl. Patrum*, tom. IV, Paris, 1589, and elsewhere. (Allat). See above in this vol., p. 175 sqq. The letters carved on the tomb of Constantine the Great, concerning the fall of the city and the empire of the Turks, imputed to those times, and known to no one, he himself was the first to explain and publish. Dorotheus, metropolitan of Monemvasia, published them at the end of his Chronicle, Venice, by Jo. Petr. Pinelli, 1657, 4 [reprinted in *Historical Book containing in brief various and excellent Histories*, etc., Venice, by Nic. Glykas, 1788, 4, p. 548, sq. Harl.], and Matthew Cigala, a Cypriot, after a new synopsis of various histories, Venice, by Anton. Julianus, 1637, 4. Other codices attribute that prophecy to Leo the Wise, etc. (Allat.) Cf. above, vol. VIII, p. 695 sqq and in note a. I have already cited several codices on p. 697; Banduri’s edition. Add the Escorial codex, vouched for by Pluwer, in *Itinerar. per Hispan.*, p. 169. — Paris, in the public library, cod. 938, no. 7. (Harl.) Regarding the *Monody on the Desolation of Constantinople by the Turks*, which has not yet been published, Allatius refers it to Fabius Benevolentius and the epistle of Theodorus Zygomalas to Crusius in 1581, given in *Turco-Graecia*, p. 100; and Allatius now adds: "Is this letter," he says, "the same as the *Monody* which Angelus Justinianus (ap. Fabium Benevolent.) had read? Or is it from the fifth chapter for the decrees of the Council of Florence [a piece taken from it]; or did Gennadius write it separately, then, when there was need, used the same words—without changing a syllable—in the manner of most serious men, as if they were his own, in other works? Truly, the things Zygomalas reported were transcribed verbatim from the chapter already mentioned." Gaulminus in his notes on Eustathius's *Ismenias and Ismene* ^C makes mention of a book of Gennadius whose title is: *Another exposition of the Ramplius, which I took from the book of Gennadius the Patriarch*. Joannes Meursius used this exposition of Gennadius on the *Ramplius* in more than one place in his *Glossarium Graeco-Barbarum*. (Allat.) Fabricius indeed added the following note: "Ramplius is the title of an astrological book from the science of the Persians, a synthesis of the Persian art of the Ramplius. It is divided into three schemes or tomes, in which the results are described. In the ms. cod. Paris. reg. (a) a simple explanation is subjoined; another is anonymous, with this title: *Explanation of the Persian art*, and another: *Another exposition of the Ramplius, which I received from the book of Gennadius the Patriarch*. But from these words it is uncertain, in my judgment and in Cangius’s, whether Gennadius is the author of this other exposition, or whether it was described from some book which had been taken from the library of Gennadius. See Cangius, *Glossarium Graecum*, p. 1281, where he himself observes that they were not two, but one and the same Georgius Scholarius, who favored now the Greeks, now the Latins, from these words of Marcus Eugenicus, archbishop of Ephesus, from his unpublished epistle to Gennadius in the same Reg. 3118: 'To the lord Georgius Scholarius, Marcus, archbishop of Ephesus: How much delight you have filled us with,' etc. [See above Renaudot, *on Gennadius* (col. 289.)] Allatius produced the same on p. 88 against Creyghton, and Renaudot on p. 53." Thus far Fabricius. Allatius, no. 9, mentions Gennadius’s *On the Soul, and its existence*, at the Royal Library, VI, § II, 3. The same, no. 10, after having sharply inveighed against Marcus Eugenicus, the prelate, speaks more fully of Gennadius’s response to his syllogistic chapters against the Latins: concerning which, see above at § 3, on the writings of Gennadius and elsewhere. Nos. 11, 12, 13, Gennadius’s *On the Catholic Faith*, *On the Holy Trinity*, and others, concerning which we treat in Renaudot, *On the writings of Gennadius*. No. 14. On Georgius Pletho, Gennadius’s adversary. Cf. Schroeckh, *Hist. eccl. christ.*, tom. XXI, p. 435 sq. and a little later at no. 24. No. 15. Gennadius’s *Exposition on the book of Porphyry, which is about the five universals*, ^D is subjoined another by the same, transcribed from the book of Gennadius the patriarch. (Harl.)

^B N. 20. Allatius testifies in the Index of the Milanese library that he read *On the false script of Gregoras* by Georgius Scholarius; but he teaches that this is a pseudo-epigraph, and a blunder of the scribe, or rather of him who compiled the index, and that he himself at some time, if his memory does not fail him, read in the manuscripts: *Essay on the false script of Gregoras*; but he leaves it to others, who have the capacity to compare the codices, to judge whether it is the same as, or different from, the works sold under the name of Georgius Scholarius in the Milanese collection. And Montfaucon, in *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum* 1, p. 497, among the codices of the Milanese library and the books of Georgius Scholarius, makes no mention of such a book. Concerning the theological writings of Gennadius from the libraries of Robert Constantin the Frenchman and Gesner, see n. 21.

N. 22, 23. He also translated most things from the Latin language into Greek. In the Palatine library there was held an interpretation of the same into the Greek tongue, *An Exposition by St. Thomas on the books of Aristotle’s On the Soul*, and *St. Thomas Aquinas’s Opusculum on Being and Essence*, translated into Greek by the same Gennadius, and illustrated with commentaries by him. At Florence, in the Laurentian codex 19, n. 12, plut. 86, is *St. Thomas Aquinas’s interpretation on Aristotle’s books On the Soul*, translated into Greek by Gennadius; and in codex 17, n. 8, plut. 87, the same; then in codex 27, n. 1, plut. 86, is *Gennadius’s Narration on the book of master St. Thomas Aquinas on Being and Essence*, dedicated to his own teacher, Matthaeus Camariota. ^C Bandini will provide more in *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Laurentianorum* 3, p. 363 and 403, and p. 570 sqq., where there is also a mention of this book, omitted by Allatius and Fabricius, which however exists in the said codex 27, n. 2.

Gennadius Scholarius, *On human happiness, a conciliation of Aristotle and Plotinus*. Begins: "In the first of Aristotle’s Ethics," etc.

N. 24. Also *From the dialectics of master Peter, the Spaniard, an interpretation by lord Georgius Scholarius*, i.e., *Dialectics of master Peter, the Spaniard, interpretation by lord Georgius Scholarius*. Begins: "Dialectics is the art of arts," etc. At Milan in the Ambrosian library (Allatius). At Madrid in the Royal codex 76, fol. 121, the same interpretation by Georgius Scholarius; and at fol. 163, *On sophisms from the books of the philosopher Thomas*, which book Iriarte shows in his *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Matritensium*, p. 276, to have been written in Latin by Thomas Aquinas and translated into Greek by Georgius Scholarius. In the same codex is the book of Georgius Gemistus, known as Pletho, *Against the objections of Scholarius concerning Aristotle*; then in the same codex, fol. 183 and 191, an anonymous work (which Iriarte, p. 278, suspects to be by Georgius Scholarius), *A Synopsis of syllogisms*, namely hypothetical ones. At Vienna, in the Imperial codex 39, *Excerpts from the Dialectics of Peter the Spaniard*, interpreted by Georgius Scholarius, and from Thomas Aquinas, *On the difference between essence and being*, interpreted by the same. See Lambeciuss, VIII, p. 818 sqq. In the Ambrosian library at Milan, Georgius Scholarius, *On the eight parts*

oratorical interpretation from the Dialectics of Petrus Hispanus, and his grammar on pseudography and the impiety of the Greeks. See Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 497 B.—and p. 529 C in the same *Biblioth.* On the grammar of Georgius Scholarius. See above, in this volume at § 4, concerning the life of Gennadius and the grammatical writings of Georgius Curtesius Scholarius. Thus far Allatius regarding the works attributed to Georgius Scholarius, otherwise known as Gennadius. To these may be added:

Aristotle’s eight books of *Physics* with the scholia of Simplicius, reduced to a compendium by Georgius Scholarius, who was later called Gennadius, in the Moscow codex *syn.* 7. See Matthaei's *Not. codd. Gr. Mosquens.* p. 24 sq.

From Renaudot’s dissertation it is now evident that Allatius distinguishes between Georgius Scholarius, whom he calls a schismatic, and Georgius Curtesius, and he reviews a few writings; many more have been cited by Renaudot and myself. It is therefore worth adding only a few things from Allatius. He attributes to the "Schismatic" Georgius a work which was published in London in 1624, in quarto, without the printer’s name, under the Greek title: *Orthodox Refuge*—the first section on the causes of the schism in passing, and a plain demonstration, etc. This work, written after the Council of Florence, Allatius vehemently condemns, calling it a miscarriage that had escaped the not-too-cautious author; he finally notes that manuscripts are found scattered throughout the Parisian, Vatican, Palatinate and other libraries. Fabricius adds in a note that it was published in London with other writings of the Greeks: Nilus, Gregorius Palamas of Thessalonica, Barlaamus, Meletius Pegas, Maximus Margunius, Gabriel Severus, and Georgius Corossius. "Moreover," he says, "this work of Georgius Scholarius, 292 pages long, is entirely devoted to defending the dogma of the Greeks concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and vindicating the opinions of the doctors of the ancient Church on that matter." It begins: *Tòn theîon lógon...* It is divided into six discourses and 53 chapters. Later, Allatius, following Possevinus, mentions Georgius Scholarius's *Monody on the Falling Asleep of St. Mark*, then a Paris codex in which is his oration *On the Vain, Absurd, and Disordered Innovation of the Faith, by the Permission of God* (see above, Renaudot on the life of Gennadius); furthermore, his canon on Gregorius Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, mentioned elsewhere, and his funeral oration on the Despot Porphyrogennetos Palaeologus, in a codex of the Medicean library; but it is uncertain whether that was the work of the schismatic or the Catholic. But these are sufficient. And Oudin, *loc. cit.*, p. 2488 sq., following the *Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis* of Carolus Dufresnius, Dominus du Cange, fol. 1281, appended a long passage where he reviewed many books of Gennadius, omitted by Allatius, at slightly greater length. (Harl.)

EXCERPT FROM THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ENTITLED:

History of the patriarchs who sat in this great and catholic Church of Constantinople after Sultan Mechemeta took it. In which is described what was done in the times of each: and who was the author of the *peskesion*, that is, the gift which the new patriarch gives to the sultan: who furthermore was the author of the *charatzion*, that is, the annual ecclesiastical tribute; and who likewise made the addition [to it] at what time, which lasts until the present day: and under which sultan these things were done. All of which Manuel Malaxus, a Peloponnesian, translated into the common Greek tongue and wrote out for Crusius Martinus in the year of our Lord 1577, in the month of April.

At that time, when the Turkish king Mechemeta captured this city of Constantine, ^D there were...

^A one thousand four hundred and fifty-three years from the birth of Christ, on the twenty-ninth day of May, on a Tuesday. Now he knew that the Romans—that is, the Greeks—always had a patriarch, because he himself had spent the greater part of his time in this city before he captured it, while his father, Sultan Murad, was ruling in Adrianople. Thus he knew the Roman customs, the orders, and the administration of the Romans thoroughly and exactly. Therefore, he wondered why the patriarch did not come to pay him homage for the sake of honor, as acknowledging him as lord; moved by anger, he pondered what this matter might be. And immediately he summoned the clerics and said, "Where is the one who has functioned as patriarch, and why has he not come to pay me homage as emperor?" For this sultan greatly desired to converse with the patriarch regarding the faith, and to inquire and learn of the things of God. However, the clerics answered him that for a long time they had not had a patriarch; for the patriarch who had been there had voluntarily relinquished his seat while still living, and from that time they had made no other. When the sultan heard this, he ceased from the anger he had entertained; he gave them his will and said to them: "You, however, make whatever patriarch you wish, according to the prescription of your religion." ^B Now this which the sultan said—that they should make a patriarch—was not said by him out of love for the religion, but craftily. He wanted, forsooth, it to be known to the Christians dispersed everywhere that they again had a patriarch presiding, so that they might be enticed to come together into the city.

Therefore, the clerics, by order of the sultan, gathered certain of the sacred prelates who were in the vicinity. A synod having been convened in this way, they chose with one mind and voice the most learned and most prudent man, Georgios Scholarios, who, while the Roman Empire still stood, had served as judge in the imperial court. And at the time when Emperor John Palaiologos had set out for Italy, where the eighth synod was held, he had taken him along with others, as one endowed with outstanding erudition. Moreover, the man was also distinguished for his piety and holiness. ^C But when they gave him the minor instrument—as it was called—for his appointment as patriarch, he was completely unwilling either to listen to it or to accept it, so that he might become patriarch. The prelates, however, and the clerics and all the people, created him patriarch even against his will and reluctance, having also given him the greater instrument—which is called such—as a token of their will. The prelate of Heraclea ordained him, with many other prelates also present, in the temple of the Holy Apostles, which formerly the queen Theodora, the spouse of the great Emperor Justinian, had founded; and they gave him the name Gennadios.

1. Gennadios Scholarios, the wisest.

He became the first patriarch here in Constantinople after the same sultan became its king, as we have written. And when... ^D

he had received the patriarchate, the archbishops, the clergy, and the chief men of the people took him and went and worshiped the same sultan. And there he asked the clergy ^B what custom the emperors of the Romans had when they made a patriarch. And they answered and said that when a patriarch was to be made, the emperor would give him a precious cap with a veil beneath the cap, and also a wavy cloak, and a white horse; and he would mount it and go around the city, and bless it. And the emperor would give him the staff with his own hand. And thus the sultan took the staff with his own hand and gave it into the hand of the patriarch. And he commanded, and all those things which we have mentioned, which the patriarchs were accustomed to receive from the emperors for the sake of honor and benefit, were duly performed. The sultan also followed this patriarch with great clemency and benevolence, because he had recognized that he was a most wise and pious man. He also gave him the famous church of the Holy Apostles, and he made it the patriarchate.

And there, where the patriarch was residing, one night a man was found murdered. Whereupon a great fear came upon the soul of the patriarch, lest the same thing should happen to him or to any of his household; because the whole place which was around the patriarchate was uncultivated and deserted, for no people lived there, as they had been slain in the war. However, immediately the patriarch departed from there, having left that church locked, and he went to the sultan and reported what had happened; and he asked him to give him the monastery of the Pammakaristos, that he might make it the patriarchate. And the sultan, when he heard this, at that very hour gave him an order, and he received the church of the Pammakaristos, of the all-holy Theotokos, and made it the patriarchate; may the Lord God, Christ our Savior, preserve it until the end of the age undisturbed and ^C unmolested by every enemy. And this church of the Pammakaristos was entirely surrounded on the outside by people; the whole neighborhood was full of houses, above and below, because they brought out people from other castles and settled them there. For this reason, the patriarch, seeing that the whole of that place of the Pammakaristos was full of people, asked the sultan; and he gave him that church, and he took up seat there, and made it the patriarchate, as we have said.

In the time of the Romans, this Pammakaristos was a convent for women. But the church of the Holy Apostles, where the patriarch had previously sat, they made into an Imaret (as they call it) for the same Sultan Mehmed. And even today something of the structures of the former church remains. ^D At that time, the same sultan himself entered the patriarchate; and when he had come into the church of the Pammakaristos, he entered into its chapel (where

^A in that place there is today a repository for sacred objects) and spoke, and conversed with the patriarch, Kyr Gennadios. And the patriarch demonstrated to him the whole truth of our faith, without any fear. And he wrote for his questions twenty chapters which appear below, one by one, what they say, and gave them to the same sultan. [Vide infra Gennadii Confessionem posteriorem. Pergit historia.]

^B Then the sultan, having heard these things from the mouth of the patriarch, and having also received them in writing, greatly admired his knowledge and wisdom regarding divine things; and he became convinced of the entire truth concerning the religion of the Christians, that it was true, and that the mysteries of their faith were not only true, but also miraculous; and that no deceit lay within them, but that they surpassed gold in purity and splendor. Hence he pursued the Christian race with love and looked upon them with a kindly countenance. For this reason, he issued an edict and established severe and terrible penalties for those who would harass or slander any of the Christians, so that they might be heavily punished. And not only did the sultan love the Christians, but so did all the Muslims, on account of the edict of the lord. And the sultan felt great joy and gladness, in that it had fallen to him to be ruler and king of such a nation.

^C Now the patriarch, Kyr Gennadios, occupied the most exalted patriarchal throne of the most holy Great Church of Christ for five years and some months. And because of the many and great scandals that existed, he summoned a council of archbishops, and clergy, and nobles, and all the Christians, and made a resignation of the patriarchal throne. The archbishops, and the clergy, and all the people begged him to remain, but he did not wish at all to listen to them; he only wrote his resignation in the codex of the Great Church. And having taken his belongings, that is, whatever he had, he went immediately to the monastery of the divine Prodromos, which is on Mount Menikion, near Serres, and there he died peacefully and exchanged this world for the heavenly kingdom of God.