CHAPTER VIII.
That Western doctors also say the same thing openly as the Eastern ones, just as it clearly appears to those looking at the authorities provided to us by the Latins.
A I, for my part, believe that I have accomplished what I promised you, in few words, having passed over many things, as much as was possible. For I have shown how it was possible, without making any use of the Romans, to see that the holy Fathers from the East themselves considered the Son to be the cause of the Spirit, and that they agreed with each other in all respects; and that they both thought and taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and from the Father and the Son. It is therefore up to you, having embraced what comes from them, to be united with the Romans and with the holy Church of the Romans, thinking the same things as our own Fathers and teachers. And do not imagine that either they, or their fathers and ours—the holy ones from the West—pronounced anything contrary to those from the East. This is not so, it is not so; for they are by all means rather in agreement and harmony. And I would have set before you their testimonies for the sake of greater persuasion, and to show the harmony between the Easterners and Westerners, if I did not know that you all knew and had heard them once the Latins brought them forward; and at the same time, because the discourse has been extended to such a length, it is not necessary to add more. Moreover, it will be possible for you to take them up and read them from the materials provided to us by the Latins. This alone, however, I thought necessary to bring to your recollection: that all those from the West in common—Hilary, Jerome, B Damasus, Augustine, Ambrose, Leo, and many others—clearly and explicitly, and everywhere in their own words, not in one or two sentences, but through many arguments and discourses, say that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and from the Son just as from the Father, and that the Son is the cause of the Spirit just as the Father is, and that He is His principle, and that the Father and the Son together are one and the same principle and cause of Him, and not two principles or two causes. All of which, when you have weighed them and compared them with the Eastern teachers, it is necessary to think that they agree with one another, and hold the same views concerning the same things. For the arguments mentioned earlier regarding the harmony of the teachers compel us to believe that they reach the same opinion and say the same things; and they themselves, and along with them those from the East, have been shown to hold this opinion, just as the Westerners do, so that they appear to us to be clearly in agreement. Even if we had no way of supposing that they attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Son, solely from the fact that no one anywhere in his own words denies that the Son is the cause of the Spirit, we could say that they do not contend against the Romans, who so manifestly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; but now, not only do they not deny it, but rather clearly [express it] through the Son and from the C
CHAPTER VIII.
Ego quidem paucis, quoad potui, multis omissis, quod pollicitus sum, perfecisse puto. Probavi namque sufficienter, nullo doctorum Occidentalium usus, ipsos scilicet Patres nostros et doctores Orientales Filium quoque causam sive principium esse Spiritus sensisse, et per omnia invicem convenientes et concordes, et partim ex Patre per Filium, partim ex Patre et Filio procedere Spiritum sanctum, et sapere et docere. Vestrum autem est, ut eis doctoribus, et quidem rectis, Latinis et sacrosanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ uniamini, cum eadem quæ et Patres et doctores nostri crediderint. Neque putetis aut ipsos, aut patres eorum et nostros, Occidentales videlicet sanctos, contraria Orientalibus Patribus dixisse. Minime, minime ita est. Et apposuissen vobis auctoritates et testimonia etiam illorum ad persuadendum vobis, et eorum cum Orientalibus concordiam probandam, nisi vos omnes scirem et scivisse, et audivisse eas, cum Latini produxerint. Ad hæc cum oratio nostra prolixior fuerit, non sunt alia addenda. Præterea licebit cuique, cum voluerit, eas et videre et legere, cum sint apud nos a Latinis datæ. Hoc autem solum ad vestram reducendum memoriam putavi, quod omnes Patres Occidentales, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Damasus, Augustinus, Ambrosius, magnus D Leo, Gregorius, et ceteri multi, quam clare, quam aperte una mente, una voce ubique operum suorum, non uno aut duobus membris et articulis, sed pluribus verbis, prolixis sermonibus et probationibus ex Patre et Filio procedere Spiritum sanctum affirmant, et ita ex Filio sicut ex Patre, et principium Spiritus Filium esse sicut ipse Pater, et unum et idem ejus principium esse Patrem et Filium simul, non duo principia. Quæ omnia mente volventes, et Orientalium doctorum dictis comparantes, qui ex Patre per Filium, et ex Patre et Filio procedere dicunt Spiritum sanctum, item ex Filio et ex utroque esse, necessario eos concordes invicem reperiemus, et eadem de eodem sentientes in omnibus. Et superiores enim rationes, quas de concordia et quidem necessaria doctorum adduximus, cogunt nos credere eos consentientes invicem, et eadem de hac divina processione Spiritus sancti sentientes, quemadmodum etiam de aliis dogmatibus fidei. Et nunc ipsi Orientales per seipsos eadem cum Occidentalibus dicere satis probati sunt, ut nemo negare possit amplius eorum summam concordiam. Atqui etsi nullo modo Patres Orientales attribuerent Filio esse principium Spiritus, cum tamen nullibi aliquid neget expresse processionem Spiritus ex Filio, nemo esset, qui
Bessarion the Cardinal undertook A at the request of Gregory III, Patriarch of Constantinople. Yet, regarding Georgius Scholarius, there is a very great dispute indeed. For most scholars B, following Matthaeus Caryophyllus and Leo Allatius, have assumed there were two men named Georgius Scholarius, both called Gennadius, the one devoted to the Union, the other its most bitter enemy. Fr. Spanheim admitted only one, and thought he was always opposed to the Union, and that books favoring the Union were falsely attributed to him. Eusebius Renaudotius, not differing much in this matter from Richard Simon, likewise recognizes only one Georgius Scholarius, who first promoted the Florentine decrees but subsequently rejected them, and who, having become a monk and assumed the name Gennadius, ascended the patriarchal see after the fall of the city of Byzantium. To this opinion, very many scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic, have since subscribed, and by common calculation it is judged to be by far the more probable, although some particulars in the history of this Gennadius remain cast in the deepest shadow. Most, however, have observed that even in attacking the Latins he approached their doctrine more than any of the Greek schismatics who leveled their pens against the Westerners. It is not our place at present to resolve this dispute. This, however, is certain: that manuscripts of the best quality provide, in agreement under the name of Georgius Scholarius, a refutation of the seventeen arguments of Marcus, four of which we have examined ourselves, namely the Vatican 1428, f. 128 b–175 b, the Marcian 579, the Laurentian XIV, n. 14 plut. x, and the Munich f. 180 a–222 a. Moreover, in a manuscript of the Greek College which is in Rome, our work was read, with an inscription C as attested by Allatius, which attributes it to Scholarius, though it calls him Gennadius the Patriarch, which nowhere else occurs. Furthermore, J. Plusiadenus, most closely connected to Bessarion, testifies in a note added to the work that Georgius Scholarius had written that refutation at the request of Gregory, who was then still protosyncellus. Hence we do not at all agree with those who have deemed that this refutation should be ascribed not to some Georgius Scholarius, but to Gregory Melissenus, who later became patriarch. The authority of the manuscripts forbids us from such a conclusion, the testimony of Plusiadenus next forbids it, and finally, the comparison of the works themselves forbids it. And in very truth, Gregory acts with great reverence and with high honor toward Marcus, while on the contrary our author of the refutations inveighs against him bitterly; the former almost never calls dialectic to his aid, while the latter makes the greatest possible use of it; the former fights only with the pronouncements of the Fathers, while the latter brings forward their testimonies very sparingly and rarely. Therefore, it is not Gregory the patriarch, but some Scholarius who is the author of these refutations. Furthermore, if only one Scholarius is admitted, it may indeed seem strange that a man so closely connected to Marcus of Ephesus after the Council of Florence could have so bitterly attacked him; but that should not move us much, since it is evident from the Epistle D of Marcus to the same man, and that written after the synod, that Scholarius had gone over to the side of the Latins and changed his mind, at which time he certainly could also have encountered the arguments of the same Ephesian; indeed, from the entire method of argumentation of our Scholarius, which is not the same as the others who defended the union, the arguments for his identity with that Scholarius who delivered three orations in the synod to commend the union, and who afterward mona-
has been made under the name of Gennadius and declared patriarch (21), one might perhaps not incongruously infer. Before Gregory assumed the governance of the Church of Constantinople, and thus before the year 1445, our refutations were written; at which time Scholarius could still well have been devoted to the union, he who later, having entirely followed the side of the Ephesian, swore eternal hatred against the dogma of the Latins (22). From the fact, too, that in the continuation of this refutation Bessarion has not a single word about the labor of Scholarius, it may be taken as an indication that his name was then hateful and ill-omened to those Greeks who were united with the Roman Church because of his apostasy. But if the writer of the codex cited by Allatius says true things, who says that Scholarius was prevented by death from completing the refutation of thirty-seven or thirty-eight chapters (23), then certainly two Scholarii must be admitted, since one of them certainly was still alive when, at the request of Gregory III at Rome, Bessarion undertook the remaining chapters to be refuted (24). But whether this annotation, which Caryophilus (25) follows, tells the truth is still subject to doubt. B
III. Since, as we have said, Scholarius had left an imperfect confutation of Mark Eugenicus—either because his opinion had changed and he had passed over to the adverse side, or because he was overtaken by death—another strenuous fighter later stepped into the arena to complete the work begun. "No one is unaware," says the most learned Le Quien (26), "that Bessarion, Metropolitan of Nicaea, was by birth and country a Trapezuntine (27), who was promoted to the Nicene see about the year 1436 after having spent twenty years in a monastery. He came to Italy for the synod which was called in the year 1438 for the sake of conciliating the Eastern Church with the Western, which was held first at Ferrara and then at Florence. After many disputations, in which he had managed the cause of his own people, he at length promoted the union of the Churches to the best of his ability... Having returned to Constantinople, he bestowed effort on fostering the union which had been ratified at Florence, and was even declared the patriarch of this royal city (28); but feeling that his own countrymen were in no way favorable to him, he ceded the honor and returned to Italy, where he was co-opted among the cardinals of the Roman Church by Pope Eugenius IV (29). Made Bishop of Tusculum by Nicholas V, he fulfilled the legation to Bologna. Upon the death of Paul II, by the perverse care and solicitude of a certain servant of his regarding him, he fell short of the supreme pontificate, to which he was being assumed by the votes of all the cardinals. Sent as legate to the King of the French, he managed that duty unhappily, and shortly thereafter, in the year 1472, he died at Venice (30) at the age of 77. He was a man of great erudition, to an excessive degree a student of Platonic philosophy (31), on account of which the schismatics have disparaged his memory with every kind of injury." C But the life of Bessarion was treated more accurately, as far as we have heard (for that book has not come into our hands), by Aloysius Bandinius (32).
IV. Among those very many writings by which he defended the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (33), the response to those things from Mark's
J. HERGENROETHERI A
to the syllogistic chapters of Eugenicus, which had not been refuted by Scholarius. He undertook this labor, as has already been stated, moved by the prayers of Patriarch Gregory III, who was then residing in Rome. This is clearly attested by Joannes Plusiadenus and the codices already mentioned above. And yet he did not treat everything at one and the same time: rather, he replied first to the first chapter, which he deemed the most significant of all, and established certain general canons for solving the others; but when Gregory, not content with this, requested that the remaining arguments also be refuted in the same manner, so that they might not appear to many to have been left as indissoluble, he subsequently treated these individually as well and completed the entire work. This is noted not only in the codices, but it can also be seen in the work itself. For in the preface to the solution of the first chapter, he explicitly says that he is omitting the remaining arguments as being of altogether minor importance, and that anyone who has before his eyes what he is about to discuss in the present text could easily solve them. Then, after those words *και παῤῥησιάζεσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν*, as is noted in its place below, at the end of the long response to this first chapter, a new discussion begins with the words *'Αλλ' ἡμεῖς* and it clearly testifies that he had thought that what had been said was sufficient for the first argument, yet he wished to obey Gregory, who requested the refutation of the remaining sophisms. Hence, Bessarion’s apologetic dissertation is divided as if into two parts, of which the former dissolves the first argument and establishes certain general canons, while the latter touches upon the remaining twenty arguments with a less expansive pen. As regards the time when Bessarion wrote these, it must necessarily be placed between the years 1445 and 1459, since Gregory, who died in 1459, was already patriarch. These were written after the letter to Alexius Lascaris and many other works of the same subject.
V. This refutation of the 21 syllogistic chapters is found in various manuscript codices. It exists in the Vatican 1428, f. 176 a–210 a, in the Marcian 527, n. 2, f. 58–92, in the Munich 27, f. 224 a–255 b, and in the Laurentian cod. 14, n. 14, plut. x. We have transcribed it from the Munich codex, and, as far as was possible, we have for the most part compared our copy with the Marcian codex, and as regards the beginning, with the Vatican one as well. B
VI. By way of an appendix, we have added here some shorter writings of Mark of Ephesus: C
1. *Conc.*, vol. IX, p. 319 seq. *Monac.* 27, f. 1–27. *Marcian.* 527 (XCII. 6), f. 17–44. 2. *Orat. ad concil. Flor.* *Hard. Conc.*, vol. IX. *Mon.* 27, f. 75–79. 3. *Epistola ad Alexium Lascarim Philanthr.*, called *Antidotus*. *Hard.* l. c. p. 1045 seq. and in *Arcud.* *Mon.* 27, f. 27–56. 4. *Apologia adversus G. Palamam pro Joan. Vecco*. Ed. by Arcudius, in *Mon.* 27, f. 57–72. *Marcian.* cit. f. 1–16. *Vatic.* 1428, f. 279–295. 5. *Responsio ad quatuor argumenta Maximi Planudis*. Ed. Arcud. *Mon.* 27, f. 72–74. *Marcian.* cit. f. 54. 6. *Epistola catholica sive encyclica ad Græcos sedi Constantinopolitanæ subjectos*. Ed. Arcud. D
A pla, from which the history of the Council of Florence can be aptly illustrated in certain respects. It is worthwhile here to compile a catalog of the books published by Mark, which we have encountered thus far. These are indeed as follows:
1. Homilies or two Orations on Purgatory delivered at Ferrara (39). 2. Homily that divine gifts are sanctified not only by the words of the Dominical B prayer, but also by the power of the Holy Spirit (40). 3. Epistle to George Scholarios, in which he censures him for having defected to the Latins. (We have published this epistle in the Appendix, n. 1.) 4. Solutions to certain doubts proposed by him (41). 5. Dialogue on the addition made by the Latins to the Creed. (In Appendix, n. 4.) 6. Epistle to the monk Theophanes, in which he praises his writings against the union with the Latins (42). 7. Another epistle to the same, which we have provided in the Appendix, n. 2. 8. Circular epistle to all those dwelling everywhere in the world and in the islands concerning the Florentine synod (b). 9. Epistle to Emperor John Palaiologos, a fragment of which Allatius displays in *De synodo Photiana*, p. 549. (Appendix, n. 5.) 10. Syllogistic Chapters currently edited by us. 11. Profession of faith refuted by Patriarch Gregory. 12. Epistle to Presbyter George against the rites and sacrifices of the Roman Church (43). 13. Antirrheticus against Andrew of Colossae. 14. Apology for his flight, written in the year 1440. 15. Treatise against the encyclical of Bessarion. 16. Final words to George Scholarios. (Appendix, n. 3.) 17. Homily on the Lord’s Prayer (44). 18. Poems and hymns to the Mother of God (45). 19. Several epistles (46).
(39) Testified by Montfaucon, in *Bibl. Coisl.* p. 406; in *cod. Coislin.* 289 (old 337) it is read: "Mark of Ephesus, homily delivered in Ferrara of Italy to the cardinals and other Latin teachers concerning the cleansing fire glorified by them." Beginning: "Since having answered with love to the things spoken by you..." Both orations exist in *cod. Paris.* 1218, 15th cent., catalog p. 256, n. 2, 3 (n. 4 is a refutation of objections). (40) "...are the Latin innovators, who in the holy mystery perfect the divine gifts by the Dominical words spoken by the priest, but the power of the prayer [perfects them] hereafter, as our orthodox Church glorifies." Beginning: "We have the exposition of the mystical liturgy from the holy apostles and the teachers who succeeded them." It exists in *cod. Mon.* 256 f. 127, in *cod. Coislin.* 290 (old 352. See Montfaucon *l.c.*), *Paris.* 1218, n. 9 (*Catal. l.c.*). Cf. also *Paris.* 1261, and printed at the end of the Liturgies of SS. James, Basil, and Chrys. ed. Paris 1560, fol. p. 158. In Latin in *Liturg. Cl. de Sainctes* Antwerp 1562, 8, p. 82. *Mon.* 256, f. 136 seq. under the title: "Solutions to someone who has posed the present questions, 1st Question. Of what shape is God?" Answer: "God has no shape, neither human nor any other like those of sensible things; for he is incorporeal and immaterial; everything that is incorporeal must necessarily not have shape." There are twenty questions. (42) In the cited *cod. Mon.* 256 is read f. 143 an epistle of Theophanes with this title: "To our most divine and most reverend emperor Lord John Palaiologos, the humble and least among the hieromonks, Theophanes, who is in the mountain of Monovyzos, in the island of ...". Beginning: "Would that I were abandoned by all, I think." There follows f. 146 a *Syntagma* of the same beginning: "The piety and true faith which is ours as Christians, which we have received and possess." At the end a scholion f. 155 b: "For these things were sent to the [bishop] of Ephesus by the most honorable among hieromonks, Lord Theophanes, while the holy [bishop] of Ephesus was then in Constantinople, so that he might bring them to the emperor, to see if the things written might appear correct, which the holy man having received, he not only praised it, but also wrote back these things to him." There follows f. 155 b, Mark's epistle: "Having received the writing of your holiness, I received no small comfort." "...written concerning the things occurring in the divine prayer, that is, of 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.'" Beginning: "How great is the power of the prayer and what [grace] it bestows on those using it..." Fragment of an epistle of Mark to George the presbyter, given by Allatius in *Creyghon exerc.* xi, p. 190. (44) *Cod. Paris.* 2075. (45) *Cod. Paris.* cit. (46) *Cod. Paris.* 965, 1191, 1218, 1286, 1295, 1310, 1527, 2005, 2075.