General Letter

had the use of language. A cleric had once presided over the Ruthenians, who preserved the Greek rite among the northern peoples. When Constantinople was captured by the Turks, he was acting as legate of the Apostolic See there, having long since been gifted the dignity of the cardinalate by Pope Eugenius the Great. In the slaughter of the Christians, which was immense there, he stripped off the garments of a man’s corpse that lay nearby and which resembled him, and exchanged them for his own, leaving his cowl and red skullcap upon the dead man. He himself, having been captured like one of the common people, was ransomed for a small price. As for the corpse, upon which the insignia of the cardinalship was found, its head was cut off and fixed upon a spear along with the skullcap; it was then carried through the city and the Turkish camps in ignominy and contempt of the Apostolic See, while a crier shouted that it was the head of the Ruthenian cardinal. He himself returned a little later to Pope Nicholas, whom Pope Pius, several years later after the death of Gregory, the Patriarch of Constantinople—who died at Rome not without a reputation for holiness in the year in which the journey to Mantua was made—raised to the summit of the patriarchate. Upon his death, he substituted Cardinal Bessarion of Tusculum, a most learned man, Greek by nation and Trapezuntine by birth. Thus Pius II, who then continues in his history to declare who those other two excellent men in the Church of God are, who exchanged life with death. Cardinal Bessarion, therefore, having been created titular Patriarch of Constantinople by Pius II after the death of Isidore, wrote the present letter to the Greeks, which is sufficiently serious, pathetic, and elegant.

GENERAL EPISTLE OF THE MOST WISE CARDINAL BESSARION

^A BESSARION, by divine mercy cardinal of the most holy Roman Church, and ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the New Rome, to those, of whatever rank and wheresoever they may be, who are subject to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople—bishops, hieromonks, priests, monks, and laymen, well-beloved in the Spirit as brothers and sons—wishing and desiring grace, peace, and blessing from God the Almighty, and striving with all zeal to perform those things which lead thereunto.

I would truly have wished, well-beloved brothers and sons in God, that I might be present with you myself, and converse with you myself...

^A regarding matters pertaining to your salvation, and regarding those things which I both long and pray for you to do and to say. But since the circumstances that surround us, and such great distance of place, prevent this, the remaining course—and the second best—is of necessity to be with you by letter, and by this epistolary discourse to announce to you a portion of those things which we would speak of were we present ourselves. I pray to God who is over all things that you may receive the things about to be said with the very same love with which we ourselves shall speak them. For God Himself, whom nothing—not even that which is in the mind—escapes, is my witness that it is first of all divine zeal, and then the love of our race, that moves me to utter what I am about to say, and does not allow me to be silent, unless I make known to you those things which it is necessary for you to know.

Before all things, then (that I may begin from this point), remember, brothers and sons in the Spirit, how great and of what sort our race once was, both in wisdom and in other virtue; furthermore, in that which is worldly, in power and empire and strength. Indeed, our people were not only ^B discoverers of all wisdom and all sciences, but they were also those who brought them to their culmination. There, all holiness shone forth; from there, the monarchy of the whole world held sway. But now (alas for these evils!), we have not only lost our empire, but we also experience servitude—and that a terrible and grievous one—with barbarians and lawless men (alas!) lording over us. And not only this, but not even a trace of wisdom has remained among our people, although it is the custom for science to be sought and attained after the acquisition of the necessities of life. ^C

*Petri Arcudii notæ.*

See the second session of the Eighth Synod. But our Greeks, because of their respect for Tarasius and for other reasons, did not allow the complete letters of Hadrian to be read.

At the Florentine Council, too, the Latin Fathers discussed this title with the Greeks, as was to be expected, along with other matters pertaining to the faith; yet they would not have done so had not the latter refused to hear or treat of this subject, just as they did with many others. For the Latins have never permitted to the Greeks—nor will they ever permit—this vain and false appellation.

It must therefore be said that Bessarion supposed this term to have been tolerated by the Latins. For Joseph, too, when he had reached the end of his life in Florence, revealing his final opinion on all matters, submitted himself to the Roman Church, and yet nonetheless called himself ecumenical patriarch. Or, Bessarion and Joseph were misled by the pseudo-synod fabricated by Photius, where Photius introduces the legates of the Pontiff, who attribute the title of "universal" to him, where he also shamelessly arrogates to himself the first place in the session. Finally, it is also likely that Bessarion and Joseph refrained from such a title, but that it was added by later Greeks. For we do not possess an autograph subscribed by the hand of Joseph and Bessarion, especially since Bessarion himself in this same letter calls the Roman Pontiff truly ecumenical.

This was the reason why, when the library of Bessarion was gifted to the most serene Republic of Venice, we inquired through friends whether it was written in that letter, or in the title, or in the subscription. They deny that it can be found, and whoever seeks proof should visit the library itself. Moreover, Bessarion himself translated that letter into Latin, yet nowhere in his own version is the word *ecumenicus* found.

Furthermore, it is repugnant for one to call himself ecumenical and to write it, and ^D then for the patriarch of Constantinople, by calling himself ecumenical, to prove and show that the whole Church can err in the faith, since he who is called universal falls in the faith; whereas, on the contrary, the Roman Pontiff, who is in truth and can be called ecumenical, cannot err. Whence Gregory the Great, lib. iv, epist. 32, to the Emperor Maurice, against John the Faster: "Who is this," he says, "who presumes to usurp a new name for himself against the statutes of the Gospel, against the decrees of the canons? Would that there were one who desires to be called universal without belittling others!" And certainly we know that many priests of the Constantinopolitan Church have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy, and have become not only heretics, but arch-heretics. Thence, indeed, came Nestorius, who, thinking that there were two persons in Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and man, because he did not believe that God could become man, erupted into Judaic perfidy. Thence came Macedonius, who denied that the Holy Spirit is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. If, therefore, anyone in that Church has snatched up that name, by which he makes himself the head of all good things, then the universal Church—which God forbid—collapses from its state when he who is called universal falls. But may such blasphemy be far from the hearts of Christians. Thus Gregory.

^A When people perish due to the servitude of their race, and the poverty that follows and accompanies it, there is no consideration of wisdom, no inquiry into the arts and sciences. Yet virtue, insofar as it pertains to character and makes those who possess it noble and good, remains and persists forever among our people. What, then, is the cause why those who are good and excellently mannered have lost wisdom, and authority, and liberty itself? For surely neither fortune nor chance, nor the unstable flux of affairs, nor what happens "as it may," has brought upon us such great misfortune—unless someone should suppose that even the things that exist in the nature of reality are not governed by divine Providence, which is absurd even to think.

^B Nor indeed should the weight and multitude of sins (which some, acting rightly in another manner and thinking humbly of themselves, as is proper to say, have been accustomed to blame) be assigned as the cause of our present evils. For we do not provoke God with our own sins more than the rest of the Christian nations that prosper; for it has been said, and said truly, that in regards to morals, our people are in no way worse than other nations, and in some respects they are even better.

^C Therefore, one must be cautious, lest perhaps a deviation from the truth of the faith, or negligence regarding right dogmas, or the division from the Catholic Church, has proved to be the mother of these calamities for us. For of this evil, certain ones of our own people were the authors, out of their own arrogance, obtaining for themselves a dominion subject to no one; and those who came after partook in it, not because of their own wickedness, but through the malice of those who preceded them, having experienced this plague, which it is both fitting and at once saving for those who think correctly to wash away at last and lay aside.

Wherefore, I also beg and beseech you, brothers and sons most beloved in the Holy Spirit, that with all zeal and study you may recover for yourselves your ancient nobility, recall your ancient splendor, and, following our ancient teachers and holy Fathers (whose profession of faith and doctrine of piety are the same as that which the Roman Church even now confesses and holds), that you may turn away from these recent ones, and from the authors of that execrable schism and dissension of the Churches of God, and that you may religiously accept the synod celebrated at Florence. And as for the things that were decreed there on its behalf, under the cooperation of the divine Spirit, embrace them and believe them yourselves. ^D Many and excellent reasons were laid down there for this dogma, as if they were foundations; many things were said on both sides to commend one's own opinion. Finally, it prevailed among all that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Spirit, and that the Spirit proceeds from both as if from one producer. Many testimonies of the saints and teachers, not only of the Westerners but also of the Easterners and our own, were brought forward to signify this, and it was shown by many considerations. For have we, brothers, behaved negligently or casually regarding a matter of such great weight? We have been very vigilant.

^A Indeed, be well assured, we have exercised great care. But we have yielded to the truth; we have given place to the teachers. For far be it from a noble and Christian soul to close its eyes to the truth when it has been shown!

We would have set forth some portion of those arguments in this place as well, were it not for the law of writing letters, and at the same time, because it is permitted to read elsewhere much more than what has been said here. For many blessed men before us have said much that is excellent on this subject, and we ourselves have written and published not a few things—whether at the request of friends, or considering them ourselves, or responding to those who contend aimlessly and in vain, opposing us and trying to resolve their sophistries. And everything is in our possession, or with those among you who are more studious and eager listeners. If any one of you should hear these things with a good mind and without contention (if he only wishes to hear), by the favor of God, he will reap no small benefit. However, having mentioned but one, and that as briefly as possible here, I shall turn to the rest.

The Son himself asserts that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, calling Him the Spirit of truth. And He Himself is the truth. ^B In many places, the great Paul proclaims this. For, he says, "God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts"; and, "If any one does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one does not belong to Him." And he says the same thing frequently in many places. This word alone, brothers, is sufficient to prove the whole matter; for there is no need to be overwhelmed by a great outpouring of words. For it is His Spirit naturally and essentially, and not adventitiously. But of whatever it is said that something is, it is necessary that that thing to which it is said to belong should excel in some dignity and preeminence with respect to that which is said to be His. Therefore, either the eminence and preeminence is that of the producer to the produced, or it is the preeminence of the Creator over the creature. But this has no place in the present matter, lest the Creator and Lord be brought down to the level of the creature. ^C For even to think of such a thing is impious. Therefore, it remains that it is the relation of the producer to the produced.

For what some maintain, fleeing from the truth, that to be called the Spirit of the Son is [to be called] the consubstantiality of the Son... ^D [Petri Arcudii Note: [alt-version omitted] ...the sense is, that of which anything is said to be is more excellent, or at least [more excellent] in outward nature, since the nature of the Creator is one thing, and the nature of the creature is another, and as a consequence, that of the master and the servant (which same argument Bessarion touched upon in his book *Lascaris Philanthropinum*): or [it holds] within, by comparing person with person; and then that to which it is said to belong is eminent not by nature, but by natural order. For there is nothing in God beyond nature, since one thing is prior, not in time, but in order, and the other is posterior. For this [the posterior] is from that [the prior] by reason of origin, or causality, as the Greek Fathers say, not that from this.]

^A demonstrate by the Spirit, or to be sent by the Son, and how many like things there are, as the threads of a spider, we have often shown. For whether the Spirit were called His [the Son's] on account of consubstantiality, for this very reason the Son would also be called the Son of the Holy Spirit, yet you will nowhere find this; or whether it be because He is sent by Him—this is our line of reasoning. For that sending, and pouring forth, and welling up, presupposes production and essential procession, and it is impossible for one who does not produce to send, as we have shown in many places and by many sufficient reasons. Many things, then, are said by our opponents in avoidance of this truth, but they are of no force at all; but those who stand up for the truth bring forward many more and better things; and we know them all precisely, having often engaged in dispute against all contrary arguments. In this place, however, due to the length of the arguments, we pass these by and refer those who wish to consider them to the writings we have composed on this subject. But this one thing we now say to you with great confidence, which is sufficient alone (be well assured) for the demonstration of the truth, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father, as from one principle and one producer. And you would have tested it by experience, if I were present with you giving and receiving argument; and that there are also many other testimonies of Holy Scripture, such as: "Whom I will send to you from the Father"; and such as: "He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it to you"; and such as: "Whatever He shall hear, He shall speak"; and other like things. From each of which the same truth of the faith is easily proven, which the Catholic Roman Church has long taught and held, and which the whole Church once embraced. ^B

But you might object, that the Lord Himself, speaking concerning this, says: "The Spirit," He says, "who proceeds from the Father," not adding also Himself. And what is this objection, brothers? For He did not say that He does not proceed from Him [the Son]. For this would perhaps be a more strenuous argument. Although not even this would be sufficient to prove what you wish. For the same Lord said: "Of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father alone"; and again: "My teaching is not mine, but of the Father who sent me"; and: "No one knows the Son, but the Father"; and yet we, doing what is right, believe the contrary. And we maintain that He knows that day and that hour as clearly as the Father, and that He knows Himself just as the Father knows Him, and that His teaching is His own in every way. If, therefore, regarding those things which He clearly denied, we laudably believe the opposite, why should we not piously believe in this instance that which He did not deny? ^C

Furthermore, this must also be considered: Christ promised that He would build His Church upon the confession of Peter, and that the gates of Hades—that is to say, the empty babblings of the heretics—would never prevail against it. What, then, this Church is, brothers, must be sought. For that the promise is firm and without falsehood, and that it must be believed, no one who is a Christian would deny; but the Church, therefore, must be searched—

^A for who it may be. For it must be either that of the Latins or that of the Greeks, ^B for there is no other besides these, if it be that all other conventicles are certain illegitimate assemblies and full of heresies, long ago condemned and rejected by the holy Fathers and doctors, and by universal councils. Therefore, if you say that this is the Church of the Greeks, you are confining the Church to an exceedingly narrow—nay, rather, to a vanishing point ^C—which indeed (alas for the evil!) slips away daily and comes to nothing, if I should not say has already come to nothing. For the impious have laid hold of all things. The Barbarians have prevailed over everything to such an extent that in the future, if the evil progresses in this way, our very Greek language will most quickly fail, as will all books, all commentaries, not only those of the doctors of the Church, but even the very divine Scriptures themselves, and I speak of the holy Gospel itself, if the evil continues at this rate. Or do you not know that all those in the East—if indeed any Christians have remained—and those in the West who follow the Church of the Greeks, some for an hundred, others for fifty years and more, except for Constantinople itself and the islands lying round about it, did not even know the divine Scripture by name, nor were they able to count how many or what kind of books it contains? Nor were they able at all to give and receive an account of the hope that is in us ^D; nor did they understand at all anything of what is read in the holy Gospel; nor even the priests themselves who read them, who possessed not the complete text, but only certain fragments which were read in the Church—and these they would scarcely ever have—and, like a parrot or certain animals that imitate the human voice, they would indeed emit a Greek sound and only read what was set before them, and not even that correctly, and they did not understand at all what was being said.

But now, even with Constantinople itself captured and destroyed (woe is me!), what is or will be the Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail? For whom will this promise of the Savior be kept? Recognize, brothers, the head of the Churches, the chair of Peter. Recognize your mother and teacher. Run through the volumes; if you examine them accurately, you will find that the Roman Church has held the primacy over all others straight from the beginning, and that it presides over the universal Church to such a degree that without it absolutely no ecclesiastical questions or dogmas have ever been settled or believed. This is truly that upon which Christ built His Church. This is that which holds and preserves the faith of Peter and preaches it to others. They who follow this one Church make it one with themselves. They who are cut off from it and severed from its communion cannot attain salvation. For outside the fold of Christ there is no salvation. It is necessary for those who do not hear the voice of the Shepherd to fall among wolves, plunderers, and thieves. And that no Christian may suffer this (and may not even one ever suffer it), that faith must be believed and taught which this Catholic Church confesses and worships. I exhort you all to receive this piously and to think with it, and I shall not cease to pray to God. For I wish you to be as I am: not for a small good—

^A for you, nor is it to be despised, brothers, if I wish for you the same good that I desire for myself. For one could not show greater love to a neighbor than to pray that he obtain the same good things that one prays for for oneself. For it says: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). And God demands nothing greater than this from us, as if this were the proof of supreme love. Nor indeed would you say that we missed the truth through ignorance and lack of learning, since you know that we have been imbued with studies from our youth, and that as far as this matter is concerned, we were second to none ^B among you; and that we have applied much study to this doctrine, and investigated the truth as much as it was possible to do so. And what else is it likely that a man from his youth, led by modesty and humility, and living as much as possible in obedience and the renunciation of his own will, with God’s help (let this be said without boasting), would have chosen, having read and stored in his soul much about the vanity of the world, much about the improvement of morals, and much about the punishments or rewards that are in store? Or would he have improved his soul with correct doctrines, and embraced the true discovery within the faith? This I value all the more now than before as being of the greatest and utmost importance, ^C in proportion to how, as old age now approaches, successive illnesses attack me, threatening me with death every day and making life bitter. I know for certain, brothers and fathers, I know and it does not escape me at all, that I have not much longer to live, and that the time of my dissolution is already at hand; when (as those who are experts in these things say) no small fear comes upon men—about things they did not fear very much before—as they see that the time has arrived to render an account for their past lives. But yet, the closer death draws near to me, the more the clarity of the faith consoles me, hoping that what is lacking from works for salvation will be compensated for ^D by the rightness of my dogmas; for the sake of which, despisind the honors that I possessed among you (and I possessed not a few, nor were they small), I have followed this truth entirely. For I speak to those who know, and you have heard it from those who know, and you shall hear it if you wish. Because while I was still a youth and not yet bearded, the greatest honor was paid to me, even by those who had never seen me, and my name was known to all wherever the Greek tongue is heard. I had not yet reached my twenty-fourth year, and I was venerable to leaders and princes and to all of you, and most acceptable to the emperors; who not only preferred me to my contemporaries and to those older in age, but also to those established in positions of dignity, and adorned me with dignities and powers that exceeded my age—not because of my virtue, but because of their own goodness. And although now I wear a great habit in the Church of God, and although I possess a splendid dignity, and although I truly enjoy honors that are great and surpassing, and which exceed my merit—but those came afterward, nor were they hoped for, as God knows. Then perhaps someone might say that there have been greater men among you. For indeed, there among you, right away between

^A the first I was reckoned, but here, where there are many—or rather, a number greater than can be counted—men who surpass me in wisdom, in prudence, and in every virtue, I am scarcely one among many. And someone among the very ambitious—if you remember—said that he would rather be first in a miserable little town than hold second place in the greatest and most illustrious city of Rome. For the primacy, even if it be among the least, has a certain pleasure to it.

^B But as for the things I had among you, I have counted them as the least; and as for these present things, I call God to witness that I would have considered them as dung—and having cast everything aside, even if they had been worth many times more—I would have come to you without looking back, had I not been conscious to myself that I had chosen things better and more conducive to salvation, and had I not been persuaded that the holy Catholic Church of the Romans teaches and believes those things which lead to eternal life. If, therefore, I exhort and beseech you toward those things which I believe to be the aids for your own salvation, you ought to listen with a grateful and fair mind, and gladly accept what is being said.

But you say that the addition made by the Latins to the divine Symbol is a great scandal to us. If you would wish, brothers, to consider this correctly, what is called an addition is not an addition, but an unfolding and an explanation. For an addition—even according to our own teachers—is the teaching of doctrines that are contradictory; but the clarification of the same things and of similar things is an unfolding, and not an addition. If we stand with the truth, and it accords with the opinion of the teachers, we are fearing a fear where there is no fear, and we are performing a work of superstition rather than of piety. The second synod added many things to the Nicene Symbol; for it spoke of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, ^C of the unity of the Church, of baptism, of the remission of sins, of the resurrection of the dead, of eternal life; and it said many other things as well, regarding none of which the first synod had made an explicit statement. Many later Fathers, declaring the faith, taught it more fully; yet it was not an addition, but an unfolding. Why, then, was this same thing not permitted to the Catholic Church, according to the standing necessity of the heretics?

Because, says someone, it was permitted then, but afterward, since the third synod was the first to prohibit any addition, it is not lawful for anyone to add, not even the truth itself. But this argument is false, brothers, and in truth foolish and vain. Read, if you wish, the discourse we have composed regarding this matter, in which this truth is clearly contained; and I know for certain that you will think the same as we do. For this reason, then, brothers and fathers, do not emulate those who contend, nor imitate those who, by the very fact that they oppose true dogmas, think they are acquiring glory for themselves. But humbling yourselves before God, and following so many wise and most pious men—

^A those whom the Roman Church nourishes, accept her doctrine and faith. Considering their high priest and pastor to be the head and prince of this Church, the leader and teacher of the faith, venerate him and follow him as the guide of the journey that leads to eternal life. For you know well that this is among the things most necessary for salvation: to know one’s own pastor, to recognize the head of the whole body of the faithful, and to know and venerate one’s own ruler. For where there is no prince, there is no order; and where there is no order, there is confusion and dissolution, says Gregory the Theologian. For whether you wish to contemplate divine or human matters, brothers, you will find that there must be one principle of all things, and that otherwise it is impossible for whatever things exist to be governed rightly. For in the first place, true Christian theology teaches that God is one above all things; and because this God is in three hypostases, in order to preserve the unity of the same and in all respects similar substance, He establishes those divine persons. Indeed, the understanding of the Gentiles, ^B derived from these sensible things, confesses the same thing. For one of the most famous among them posits one first cause, one author and creator of all things that exist, even if he introduces behind him many degrees of things that are—one principle and many principles, which he believes, however, exist under the first. Another, for his part, posits the same thing through many arguments, and then, as if concluding, having borrowed the sentiment from another who preceded him by much: “There is no good in the rule of many,” he says; “let there be one lord, one king.” For he says that he does not want things to be badly governed, as indeed they would be badly governed if they did not have one overseer.

Regarding human and political administrations, and the political good itself, these same authors—and all others, and before them our Savior Jesus Christ—value legitimate ^C monarchy more than other regimes. “Render, therefore,” He says, “the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things that are God’s to God,” as there is one God in heaven, and one monarch, Caesar, on earth. Among those of the world’s wise men, he who holds the first place in wisdom among them considers this form of government—that some one person, who excels in virtue, should rule over all others—to be superior to other regimes, which you might also call the best principate, which he establishes as far more excellent than the others, as being most similar to the (divine) truth and the best of all. Such a one he prefers to the others and extols. His auditor, explaining all polities, approves of this one more than the others, calling it supreme royal power. ^D Do we, brothers, despise this best and most absolute form of government—which is so necessary in these flux-filled and transitory matters—in the eternal affairs of souls and in the administration of the principate of the most holy Church of God? Far be it! For it is here more necessary for the good...

order, and to such a degree as eternal things are more precious than temporal ones. ^A And our lawgiver, Jesus Christ, in as much as He excels all human wisdom—since He is for us the author of all things and the provider—He surely established the better manner of governance for His own Church, by appointing Peter as monarch, and through him his successors. For He says to him: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." And again: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." And again: "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs." And again: "And you, when you have returned, strengthen your brothers."

And do not think that I am introducing a new law, or teaching you a new dogma. Remind yourselves, as many of you as are versed in ancient histories, as many as are experienced in the acts of the ecumenical councils: how great a power the Roman pontiff holds over the entire Church! ^B Pope Celestine alone approved and decreed the synod held at Ephesus, even though the entire Eastern Church and the patriarchs themselves had gathered there. The six hundred and thirty bishops who were at Chalcedon accepted the letter of Leo the Great as if it were the holy Gospels, and they called it a column of orthodoxy, and according to it they passed judgment on the matter proposed.

^C *Notes of Petrus Arcudius.* Bessarion in his interpretation rendered it thus: "Celestine alone rejected and made void the first Ephesian synod, although the entire Oriental Church and the patriarchs themselves had unanimously gathered for it." Whence the Greek words... someone of the Greeks changed [it], when rather they should have stood [differently]. And this seems to correspond to the purpose of Bessarion, who wishes to prove the authority of the Roman pontiff over others from the fact that, although the patriarchs of the East had gathered together with their bishops and had decided what they decided, the Roman pontiff nonetheless made it void and declared it null; otherwise it would not be said that he alone approved the synod, if the others had also gathered. But as regards the truth of history, the aforementioned words do not seem to be able to apply to Pope Celestine, nor to the first synod, but rather to Leo the Great. And therefore it should have been written: "Leo the Great alone rejected and made void the conspiratorial synod [latrocinium] held at Ephesus, although the entire Oriental Church and the patriarchs themselves had gathered for it." And in place of "first," in the Latin version you should write "second" synod. For there was in that synod Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Domnus of Antioch, and Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, with a not inconsiderable number of bishops; and with Flavian of Constantinople having been rejected—or rather, battered with fists and heels by Dioscorus, and because of this dying in exile after three days—and with the bishop of Dorylaeum and their Catholic bishops who followed being ill-treated, and indeed with the legates of the Roman pontiff escaping from such violent disturbances, ^D Theodosius the Younger, deceived by the false report of his courtiers, ordered the false synod to be equaled to Nicaea and condemned Flavian. Afterwards, Leo—both by a synod of Western bishops called by him at Rome, and by the rejection of the conspiratorial synod of the Orientals, and then by obtaining favor from Marcian, the successor of Theodosius—deputized the Council of Chalcedon. Whose letter, etc. Thus also Gennadius records this history (if indeed it is Gennadius, and not rather Gregory the Protosyngellos, or another) in the book of five chapters for the defense of the Council of Florence, chap. 5, fol. ... of the first and only Greek edition. See also the preface which is prefixed to the Council of Chalcedon. Or we can also say (if it was not Bessarion’s) that some things are missing in the letter of Bessarion, omitted by the scribe. For Bessarion was introducing Celestine as the one who had prescribed ten days for Nestorius to repent, and had entrusted his affairs to Cyril with the most ample power of substituting another patriarch in place of Nestorius. John of Antioch, likewise, and Theodoret, a learned man, did not wish to agree with Cyril, but had separated themselves and had associated with Nestorius, so that it is deservedly said that Celestine alone had decreed and approved the first and true Ephesian council. Afterwards Bessarion introduces also Leo the Great according to those things which we mentioned a little above. Wherefore we could probably conjecture that this place should be restored thus: because, to be sure, he had transferred all his power into Cyril as his legate, and had prefixed a space of ten days for Nestorius to repent. And Cyril himself, according to the mandates of the pontiff, performed all those things, or attempted to perform them. Then followed in the letter of Bessarion, and what follows.

^A They judged the question, following in his footsteps and adhering to his dogmas. The same men, taking away the second rank among the patriarchs from the Alexandrian and conceding it to the Constantinopolitan, in imitation of the second ^B synod.

Notes of Petrus Arcudius

(1) The canons of the councils are commemorated in this place, of which the third Constantinopolitan runs thus: "It behooves the bishop of the Constantinopolitan city to have the honor of primacy after the Roman bishop, because it is new Rome." But the Chalcedonian canon, at greater length, not only embraces the same reasoning but also adds equality with these words: "Everywhere following the decrees of the holy Fathers, and recognizing the canon recently read of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops who were gathered under the great Theodosius of pious memory, who was emperor in the royal city of Constantinople, new Rome, we also define and vote the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of the same Constantinople, new Rome; for indeed, to the throne of elder Rome, because that city was ruling, the Fathers reasonably granted the privileges, and moved by the same intent, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops assigned equal ^C privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome, rightly judging that the city which is honored by the empire and the senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the elder queen Rome, should be exalted and magnified in ecclesiastical matters just like her, existing as second after her."

Thus the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon partly produced the Constantinopolitan canon, and partly founded a new one. And this was not done by all the Fathers, but only by two hundred, as is clear from the subscriptions, when there were otherwise six hundred and thirty present at that council.

It must be noted that these are pseudocanons, and manifestly fight against other canons. For while they prefer the Constantinopolitan prelate to the Alexandrian and the Antiochene, they destroy the sixth Nicene, and while they show to the same—in the second part of the twenty-eighth canon—the power to consecrate metropolitans (who were previously consecrated ^D by the proper bishops of the province) by subjecting to him the Asiatics, Pontics, Thracians, and other metropolitan archbishops among the barbarian nations, they do not preserve the privileges for their own churches, and they destroy part of the same eighth Nicene canon and part of the second Constantinopolitan canon, which assigns proper terms to each and orders the Nicene canons to be observed. Which Leo the Great also frequently inculcates in his epistles, but most especially in his epistle to Anatolius: "I grieve also," he says, "that your affection has slipped in this, that you have attempted to infringe upon the most sacred constitutions of the Nicene canons, as if this time had chanced upon you opportunely, in which the see of Alexandria has lost the privilege of the second honor, and the Antiochene Church has lost the property of the third dignity, so that in those places, which are subject to your law, all metropolitan bishops might be deprived of their own honor." And in his epistle to the bishops who were gathered in the holy Council of Chalcedon: "I admonish your holiness regarding the guarding of the statutes of the holy Fathers, which have been fixed in the Nicene synod by inviolable decrees, so that the rights of the churches, just as they were ordained by those three hundred and eighteen divinely inspired Fathers, may remain."

But what is more to be wondered at is that the Chalcedonians do not care if they are not self-consistent and coherent. For in the first canon they decree, and rightly judge, "that the Rules of the holy Fathers constituted through each council up to now obtain their proper force." But they themselves, forgetful of this canon just recited, sanction the contrary in their own new canons. Again, by what reasoning do those mentioned Chalcedonian Fathers not blush to say: "everywhere following the decrees of the holy Fathers," if they set the Constantinopolitan, all others being set aside, equal to the Roman pontiff, and act against the Nicene canons? Wherefore the legates of the pontiff said that the third canon of the second synod was added, and is not found among the synodal acts.

"They seem to have been added to the constitutions of the three hundred and eighteen, and the one hundred and fifty Fathers who were later, those which are now commemorated and are not found in the synodal canons, which state that these had been constituted. If, therefore, they used this benefit in these times, what do they seek now, since they did not use it according to the canons? If they never used it, why do they seek it?" It is held in the Latin: "If they never used it, why do they seek it?"

From this it is also clear that that canon is not legitimate, because Theophilus of Alexandria, as the more eminent, claimed for himself the consecration of the bishop of Constantinople; and Dioscorus of Alexandria himself consecrated Anatolius of Constantinople. From which it is manifest that that canon is superadded to the council. For the Constantinopolitan, placed in such a great height, would not have borne with equanimity being consecrated by the Alexandrian, but either by the Roman pontiff, or in that way by which those patriarchs later consecrated themselves, and still do.

Wherefore the legates produced the sixth Nicene canon in these words: "The holy Roman Church has always held the primacy; Egypt, therefore, also holds it, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have power over all, since this is the custom also for the Roman bishop. Similarly also at Antioch, and in other provinces, let the primacy be preserved for the churches."

^A of the synod having granted it, they thought they had done nothing, unless also Leo, the most holy Pope, had confirmed it, and they begged that this be done by his letters and legates. He, however, did not consent; and unless another later—

Notes of Petrus Arcudius

The Chalcedonians produced the same sixth canon in these other words: "Let the ancient customs prevail those in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these. Since this is customary also for the bishop in Rome." They produced this Nicene canon in the Council of Chalcedon in a mutilated form, expressing nothing about the primacy of the Roman pontiff.

Since, therefore, the canons did not agree, the pontiff’s legates had kept to themselves at home, and the two hundred Chalcedonian Fathers confirmed the canons regarding equal privileges for the Constantinopolitan bishop. On the following day, the legates of the pontiff asked the most glorious princes, attending in the name of the emperor, that whatever was done in their absence and without their knowledge should be void. Therefore, the Fathers of the council gave letters to Leo the Great, indicating in the first place what they had decreed, aided by the help of his doctrine and that of his legates. In the second place, at the urging of Anatolius and his friends, they report that they had confirmed the third canon of the Constantinopolitan council concerning privileges, and they earnestly beg that he himself also deign to accept and confirm it. Where they clearly admit the opposition of the legates. For they say, "^B For those most holy bishops, Paschasinus and Lucentius, who occupied the place of your holiness, and the most God-beloved presbyter Boniface who is with them, tried to resist those things that were thus defined." Leo, having approved the synodal acts concerning the faith, rejects the spurious canon, and accuses Anatolius of pride for attempting to set himself above the Alexandrian contrary to the Nicene canons, and he praises the opposition of his own legates. "Nor can it be doubted," he says, "concerning their contradiction, of which you yourself also complain in your letter, that they intended to obstruct your efforts. In which matter, though you commend them to me much by writing these things; yet you accuse yourself, because you did not want to obey them, while you strive for illicit things, desiring things that should not be granted superflously, and unhealthy things where you covet contraries, which can never obtain our consent." These things stand in the Acts of the council, and in the letters of Leo given to and fro. Wherefore, the Greeks undeservedly took care to have these canons inserted into the book of canons along with others. For they are spurious, counterfeit, invalid, void, and fighting against others.

Yet, having placed these as a foundation, Nilus of Thessalonica, a most bitter enemy of the Roman pontiff, takes his axiom, namely that the Fathers had given privileges to the Roman pontiff, which is most false, and the true opposite, as the most learned man, and full of divine zeal, the archbishop of Iconium, Joannes Matthaeus Caryophyllus, proves excellently in a book most recently edited against Nilus of Thessalonica. Forasmuch as the prince of the apostles, Peter, instituted the Alexandrian patriarch, Mark the evangelist, and Evodius the Antiochene, his disciples. But the reason why Peter instituted those patriarchates is, perhaps, this: ^C because they were the largest provinces and primary cities. For he chose Rome also afterwards for this reason, that he might place his see there, because it was the prince and head of the world. Byzantium, however, was not a city to be compared with these, which later grew into Constantinople. Nor could whatever Peter was able to bestow upon the Alexandrian and the Antiochene, could the succeeding Fathers effect with the Constantinopolitan. But whatever jurisdiction they have, they have from Peter, and that limited, whereas Peter’s [jurisdiction] from Christ was absolute and unrestricted. Therefore, it would be necessary to ask, which Fathers granted privileges to the Roman pontiff? They will say perhaps, the Nicene Council in the sixth canon. But there it is held, according to the Greeks, "Let the ancient customs prevail." Therefore, let them produce older Fathers who granted these, especially since it is said in the same canon, which relate to the Alexandrian, that he has [them], because the Roman pontiff was accustomed to grant them to him, "Since this is customary also for the bishop of Rome." And indeed, if the Fathers granted privileges to the Roman pontiff, why did the same Fathers not grant them to the Constantinopolitan, but wrote to Leo the Great begging on his behalf? Whence Nicholas the First in his eighth letter to Emperor Michael, about the middle, says: "The privileges of the Roman Church, confirmed by the mouth of Christ in blessed Peter, established in the Church itself, observed from antiquity, and celebrated by holy universal synods, and perpetually venerated by the whole Church, can in no way be diminished, can in no way be infringed, can in no way be changed, because the foundation, which God has laid, human effort cannot remove. And what God has established stands firm and valid; and he sins most especially who attempts to resist God’s ordinance. The privileges, I say, of this see, or Church, are perpetual, they are divinely rooted and planted. They can be impinged upon, they cannot be transferred; they can be drawn [in question], they cannot be torn away. Those things which were before your empire, and remain (thanks be to God) unharmed until now, will remain after you, and as long as the Christian name will have been preached, they will not cease to subsist unmutilated. These privileges, therefore, given to this holy Church by Christ, not given by synods, but only now celebrated and venerated, etc." And a little further on: "Therefore it is to be noted, since neither the Nicene, nor finally any synod conferred any privilege upon the Roman Church, which knew that in Peter it had fully merited the rights of all power, and had received the governance of all Christ's sheep; just as the blessed prelate Boniface testifies, writing to all the bishops constituted throughout Thessaly: 'The institution of the universal nascent Church took its beginning from the honor of blessed Peter, in whom its governance and supremacy consists. For from his ecclesiastical discipline the fountain has flowed forth through all the churches with the culture of religion already growing. The precepts of the Nicene synod attest nothing else. So that it did not dare to constitute anything over it, since it saw that nothing could be conferred above its merit.' Finally, it knew that all things were granted to it by the word of the Lord. If all things, therefore nothing was lacking which it did not grant to it. Finally, if the institutes of the Nicene synod are examined diligently, it will surely be found that this synod conferred no increase upon the Roman Church, but rather took an example from its form for what it granted to the Alexandrian Church." Thus he.

Furthermore, they provide a reason why they elevated Constantinople, because it was the new Rome, and by its empire

^A and senate, it was honored. But whatever the prince of the apostles could do, the Fathers could not do. For Christ the Lord did not grant the fullness of power to the Fathers, but to Peter, since he did not offer these or those, but his own sheep to be tended. Therefore, that rationale is falsely attributed to the holy Fathers. Thus, now that the empire (by the just judgment of God) and the senate have been lost, it has also lost its primacy, and its equal status, having been made no longer Constantinople, but Turcopolis.

Furthermore, why should those Fathers have had to constitute the Church of God as ^B five-headed? And since Milan was once an imperial city, will the Church be two-headed, and its bishop have equal privileges after the Roman pontiff? Indeed, when the emperors and the senate migrated from old Rome to Thrace, old Rome ceased to be Rome, if their logic holds. Add to this that the Church of God will be neither five-headed, but hundred-headed, and ten-thousand-headed. For we believe that the Church of God is one because Christ is its primary and invisible head, and his vicar is its secondary and visible head with the most ample power. But those whom these people constitute as patriarchs obtain limited power, even those who boast of being ecumenical. But those endowed with such limited power are infinite, except for the Roman pontiff; therefore, etc. Who then would not accept those canons, if he were to run through them even superficially, so that the Constantinopolitan [bishop] has the *presbeia* after Rome, and nevertheless obtains equal privileges according to the Chalcedonians? And that city, while being second after the ancient Roman one, yet glories in equal privileges in ecclesiastical affairs? And since that Church can err, and has in fact erred, it must be confessed that the ecumenical Church (as it styles itself) can err.

But not so Nazianzen in his iambic poem about his own life: who, after praising the old and new Rome as equal in glory like two solar lights, nonetheless affirms that his own new Rome (because he was bishop there) had shamefully erred in matters of faith, whereas the old one had never done so, as befits the prince of the Churches. How, therefore, can it be that those most holy Fathers, one of whom was Gregory, would have wished to make it errant, and to equate and compare it, in ecclesiastical matters, with that which cannot err? And indeed, if those Fathers had validly and legitimately granted such privileges to it, that Pharisaical "Faster," John, would not have wrongly called himself ecumenical later on. For this title truly belongs to the Roman prelate.

Poems of Nazianzen

Finally, the Roman Church does not recognize the Constantinopolitan canons, ^D as testified by Gregory the Great in book vi, ep. 31, to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of Antioch. "The Roman Church," he says, "does not yet possess, nor does it accept, the same canons or acts of that synod (the first of Constantinople)."

It is to be observed, however, in what way the Greeks erred to the very heavens in constituting these canons regarding the immoderate privileges of the Constantinopolitan patriarch, which in truth not even the coryphaeus of the apostles, Peter, could grant unless he wished to deprive himself; although they shamelessly confess the opposite; just as they also shamefully erred in the condemnation of the most holy pontiff Honorius as a Monothelite. Whence they do not fear to contradict themselves, and to report false epistles of the supreme pontiffs. For Honorius wrote two epistles, which exist in the sixth synod, action 12 and 13, to Sergius of Constantinople, in which he forbids it to be said that there is one will and one operation in Christ. Therefore he is not a Monothelite. For the Eutychianists, since they could not openly deny two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, devised saying "one will, and one operation," which Cyrus of Alexandria had permitted to them under the pretext of union, as is apparent from the epistle of Sergius, so that they might arrive indirectly at the prior errors of Eutyches, and deceive the peoples. Whence, according to the various things that Sergius wrote to Honorius, Honorius replies; for when Sergius had posited in his epistle that Cyrus of Alexandria had produced some authorities of the holy Fathers scattered in certain of his pamphlets asserting one operation, and had shown them to Sophronius of Jerusalem, Honorius replies: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, one, that is, human, not contrary to itself." Thus Honorius interprets that "one will" of certain holy Fathers, if there be any who said it. And since Sergius, if two wills were spoken of, wrongly concluded that they must necessarily be contrary: [Greek text translated as:] "As if the Divine Word willed the saving passion to be fulfilled, but His humanity resisted His will, and opposed it, and thence two parties willing contrary things be introduced, which is impious. For it is impossible for two wills, both together and at the same time, to exist in one and the same subject and be contrary." As if God the Word were willing the saving passion to be fulfilled, but His humanity were opposing His will, and resisting, and in this way two willing contrary things be introduced, which is impious. For it is impossible indeed in one and the same subject for two wills to subsist simultaneously, and be contrary to this same thing. Whence Sergius desired that "two wills" not be spoken of, lest it follow that they were contrary, which however he repu-

- diated the exile of the saints, and subjected them to anathema, and alienated them from the communion of the Christians. He would not have done this if he did not have authority over the universal Church; for he would not have done it, had he not been the universal shepherd, and the common father and teacher of Christians.

*Petri Arcudii notae.* He struggled against the saints who did not acknowledge this contrariety. He replies that these are not contrary wills, nor one, but two; but that Christ had spoken in such a way as to provide us with an example of how we ought to conduct ourselves if ever we should have a will of our own contrary to the divine will; for we ought to render ourselves conformable to the divine will, just as Christ did, who subjected himself, and gave us an example. Wherefore Honorius acknowledges and confesses two wills in Christ, the divine and the human: for which reason the Emperor Constantine wrote in his second epistle concerning Honorius, that he was not consistent with himself, *ἑαυτῷ προσμάχεσθαι*. If he proclaims only one will in Christ, he confesses two. But Honorius was confessing one human will that was not contrary to itself, such as it is in men, namely that of the spirit and of flesh vitiated by original sin, and therefore he immediately subjoins, that indeed our nature, not our guilt, was assumed by the divinity. That, indeed, which was created before sin, not that which was vitiated after the fall. Which reasoning is null if it is brought forward to prove that there is only one will in Christ, God and man; but it is most efficacious if it is proved therefrom that there were not in Christ the man two contrary wills of the flesh and the spirit. For that contrariety is born of sin, but Christ has a human nature without sin.

Why then did Honorius forbid the names of one or double will? Because, surely, at that time, as no council had yet been celebrated on the matter, it was expedient to keep these names hidden in silence, and so it had been agreed between Sophronius, the prelate of Jerusalem, a most orthodox bishop, and Sergius of Constantinople, who nevertheless did not urge Cyrus of Alexandria to abstain from one will and operation, as he wrote to the pontiff, and as a Catholic he forbade the acknowledgment of one or two operations, and counseled silence for the sake of extinguishing the heresy, while otherwise he was teaching the thing itself without those names, namely that Christ is one who operates divine and human things, through a divine and human nature. But even he himself later, a fickle man, began to sow heresy by sending letters to various bishops, which heresy indeed progressed so far that it was no longer safe to veil it in silence, and therefore Theodore, the Roman pontiff, repudiated the *ἔκθεσις* of the emperor, which forbade these names. Otherwise, if Honorius had been a heretic, likewise Sophronius, a most Catholic man, would have been a heretic for the duration of time during which he was silent on these names.

Finally, it remains for us to answer clearly: whether Honorius, or the sixth and seventh synods, erred, since it is a *κρημνὸς ἀμφοτέρωθεν*. I answer: since Honorius was orthodox, as is clearer than the sun from his epistles, if the sixth synod condemned him, it erred gravely, and labored under an intolerable error and impudence. If, however, the synodal Acts were corrupted by someone, the Fathers of the seventh council, being deceived by the falsified sixth synod, unworthily condemned Honorius (for one or both of these things could have happened), unworthily, I say, they condemned Honorius who had died many years before (for this schism lasted for sixty years), and if the Roman pontiff taught *ex cathedra*, as he certainly did teach, the whole Church erred, and the words of Christ would not have obtained an infallible effect, by which it is said: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Which is entirely blasphemous, not to say that it be uttered, but even that it be thought. Wherefore the Roman pontiffs who followed Honorius declare the Roman Church with all confidence and full mouth, and truthfully, to have never swerved from the path of truth in any part of error, and always defend it as perpetually immune from every stain of heresy, and they easily prove it. Agatho, indeed, says of his predecessors, one of whom was Honorius, that they admonished, asked, rebuked, besought, argued, and exercised every mode of exhortation, so that the fresh wound might receive a remedy. And the Fathers of the council themselves name the Pope the pastor of the universal Church, and they ask him that he might wish and deign to confirm the Acts of the council with his authority. And they acknowledge him as teaching from the chair of Peter; which things, for them to be true, I know not how they can stand with what they say, that he erred, or could err.

Moreover, the Emperor Constantine himself affirms that true dogmas emanate from the Roman Church: ^B *Νόμος γὰρ ἐκ Σιὼν ἐκπορεύεται τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ἀκρωρείας τὰ δόγματα*; and finally he infers: *Δόξα τῷ ποιοῦντι δεδοξασμένα Θεῷ, τῷ παρ' ὑμῖν τὴν πίστιν ἀπαρεγχείρητον διασώσαντι. Πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἔμελλεν, ἐν ᾗ πέτρα τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἐθεμελίωσε, καὶ πύλαις ᾅδου ταῖς αἱρετικαῖς ἐνεδρεύσεσι μὴ κατισχυθήσεσθαι προηγόρευσεν ; ἐξ ἧς ὥσπερ ἐξ οὐρανίων ἀψίδων τῆς ἀληθοῦς ὁμολογίας ὁ λόγος ἀνέλαμψε, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν φιλοχρίστων ἐφώτισε, καὶ τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν κατεψυγμένην ἀνεζωπύρησε*. Glory to God, who does wonderful things, and has preserved the faith among you entire. For how was He not about to do that in that rock, upon which He Himself founded the Church, and foretold that it would never come to pass that the gates of hell might prevail against it by heretical insidiousness, from which, as from the vaults of the heavens, the word of true confession shone forth, enlightened the souls of those who love Christ, and rekindled the chilled orthodoxy. This reasoning of the emperor, based upon divine Scripture, is most solid.

These things being thus proved and declared, I know not why the Fathers of the seventh council say concerning Honorius that they had found, through the letters written by him to Sergius, that he followed in all things his opinion, since Honorius, truly, as Roman pontiff teaching ^C *ex cathedra*, was most Catholic. You think then, you will say, that the sixth synod erred, or was corrupted. I answer that this is not new, for the Greeks themselves first corrupted the Acts of the first and second council, as we have proven: then the Orientals, through Dioscorus of Alexandria and Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem, condemned the holy Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, and the Fathers of the fourth synod, not wishing to subscribe to a pseudo-canon concerning the privileges of the Constantinopolitan, at length, willing or unwilling, asked the holy Leo to confirm the canon. And in the sixth synod itself, the Fathers found two quaternions of Monothelites under the name of the patriarch Menas and of the pontiff Vigilius, which the Monothelites had inserted, attesting to one operation, which the Fathers of the council immediately and utterly rejected. What shall I say of the Quinisext? Celebrated without the consent of the Roman pontiff, surely without his legates, against the canons, and styled by an unusual name? Which, however, the Greeks boast of as ecumenical, and in it they tax the Roman Church with many pseudo-canons. As regarding the celibacy of presbyters, regarding the fast of the Sabbath, which the most learned Caryophyllus ^D [index: entries preserved]

^A father and teacher, and Constantinople, and the emperors there were his sheep, would he not have severed them from the communion and unity of the Church? For his decision would have had no strength, nor would it have harmed them in the least, had they not been subject to him. After this, Photius, that usurper of the Constantinopolitan see, who had unjustly expelled the most holy Ignatius, cast him out of the Church and brought Ignatius back in. By what right? Was it not because he possesses authority over all? But after this, when the divine Ignatius had departed to God, and the emperors were pressing with many and persistent entreaties on behalf of Photius, did not John, who after Nicholas and Adrian had received the authority of the Roman Church, restore him to the patriarchal throne, sending the pallium to him by the hand of the bishop Paschasinus? What do all these things signify, brothers, if not the greatest authority and dignity of the Romans over the entire Church? ^B

Notes of Petrus Arcudius

^C...confutes it elegantly and truthfully by the authority of the ancient Fathers, as we do in the book *De Sacramentis*, where we treat of matrimony, having exploded that portion of matrimony. In addition to this, they concocted a conciliabulum in the time of Copronymus, where three hundred and thirty-eight bishops were deceived and subscribed against the holy images.

At the very end, in the seventh synod, the Greek Fathers did not wish for the letter of Pope Hadrian reprehending Tarasius—because, having been a layman, he was called patriarch and even oecumenical—to be read in its entirety, but rather that it be truncated.

Wherefore, by the just judgment of God, as often as in general councils the Orientals have not followed the guidance and the light offered by the Apostolic See, they have erred on that side. Hence, that opinion appears to be supported by no probability which claims that a council, as it is distinguished from the pope, is above the pope; for it implies that the members of the body, which can err, and in fact have erred, are above the head, to which Christ promised the infallibility of faith.

One must look in this matter to the holy Maximus the Confessor and martyr, who lived at the same time as Honorius, and spoke to Honorius’s secretary, and from him gleaned in what sense Honorius had written those words of his letter. Theophanes the Isaurian, a Greek historian; Emmanuel Caleca, in the book he wrote against the errors of the Greeks. Among moderns, Albertus Pighius, lib. *Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae*, c. 8; Osius, lib. ii, against Brentius; and John of Louvain, *De perpetua cathedra Petri protectione, et firmitate*, cap. 11; Onuphrius in *Adnotationibus ad Platinam*, in the *Life of Honorius*. Among the more recent, Baronius volume VIII, the years 633 and 681; Bellarmine, volume I, lib. IV, *de Romano pontifice*, cap. 11; and our own Matthaeus Caryophyllus, in his book against Nilus of Thessalonica.

(1) It is a mnemonic error that the pallium was sent by Paschasinus; rather, it was sent by Paul and Eugenius from John VIII, as is evident from the pseudo-synod fabricated by Photius.

It is to be noted primarily that Photius, having been mixed [in his loyalties] through the favor of the foolish and drunken young emperor Michael and the Caesar Bardas, had expelled the holy man Ignatius from the Constantinopolitan see, and on the contrary held a pseudo-synod twice, where Ignatius was condemned both while absent and while present. And since Photius had given letters to Nicholas I full of lies, in which he signified that Ignatius, the patriarch, being worn out by age, had renounced the patriarchal dignity, and that he himself had been elected patriarch, he requested that Nicholas send his legates, who would realize that everything had been done properly and legitimately. Nicholas, having sent legates who were in part terrified by threats and in part corrupted by gifts, when he had learned of the frauds of Photius, held a synod, condemned him, declared Ignatius innocent, and restored him. Photius, after he recognized that his frauds had been detected, sought with greater impudence to attack the head itself, I mean Nicholas. Therefore, he feigned a universal council of three hundred and seventy-three bishops, among whom he also admitted those who held the places of the other patriarchs, and as if he were being forced, he condemned Nicholas as if he were a defendant, a criminal, and a villain. Afterwards, the eighth general council was celebrated at Constantinople, in the reign of Basil the Macedonian, in favor of Ignatius, where Photius was condemned, and the pseudo-synod of his which had been sent to Adrian II was publicly denounced, trampled upon, and burned in the presence of the Greek legates, who were also eyewitnesses to a miracle. For when it was raining heavily, and the fire should have been extinguished, the water acted like oil, inciting a greater flame, and leaving behind a foul stench, it reduced everything to ashes. After the eighth synod, Photius, being in exile, through the fraud of a certain librarian, having composed a pseudo-prophecy under the title *Akrostichis Veklas*, insinuated himself into the emperor’s favor, and living in the palace, dared many things against the canons. Furthermore, he devised this sort of prophecy—fraudulently indeed, yet not without some appearance of probability. He wove together a lineage that nowhere exists, has existed, or was to exist. He feigned that that celebrated King Tiridates of Armenia was the head of the dynasty, and from him he deduced the lineage with names invented at his own pleasure, and he founded the family in a fabulous narrative. When at last he reached the parent of Basil, he wrote that he had a son by nature, such a man as Basil himself was, and that his name was Veklas. For by observing the names of each individual, I mean those of the emperor Basil himself, and of his wife the Augusta Eudokia, and of his children Constantine, Leo, Alexander, and Stephen, he composed a fraud from the first letters of each name. Thus he deceived Basil, who is said to have reigned more happily and for a longer time than any king before him. See Nicetas Paphlagon at the end of the Life he wrote of the holy patriarch Ignatius. When Ignatius had passed from this life, Photius, among the countless schemes which he found worthy of his genius, discovered this one as well: he invited many prelates to a banquet, and pretended that he had bought some goods for the Church,

^A Reputing all these things, then, and applying your mind to them, put away every vain prejudice, every unjust hatred, and every incorrect opinion regarding the Latins. And, embracing the truth, both the purity of the faith according to the Catholic Church, and that holy Church of the Romans herself, holding them of the highest and utmost importance, do you yourselves become with us, saying much health to those who otherwise, on account of their own contentiousness, rashly and as it happens utter whatever comes to mouth, and lead you away from the right faith. And regarding the shepherd of the Roman Church as the truly ecumenical Father and teacher, and supreme pontiff, reverence him, and honor him as is fitting. And regarding us (even if we are unworthy) as your patriarch, legitimately created by the Church by the grace of God, and believing us to be so, receive our admonitions as the words of a father, communicating with me in the same judgment and faith, so that, believing the same things in the same spirit and mind, thinking the same things, for as long as we dwell in the body, may each of you love and cherish the other, as a father rejoicing with his children, and providing for you all good things, as far as can be, and doing well in all ways. And after the shedding of this tabernacle, may we attain the same glory in Christ, and enjoy eternal life, having happily attained the desirable end. Amen. ^B Given at Viterbo on the sixth day before the Kalends of June, in the year of the Lord 1463. Sealed with our cardinalitial seal, because the patriarchal leaden seal was absent. For greater security, however, lest anyone suspect this letter to be forged and not our own, since parchment could not be found due to the constraints of the place, it was written on stitched cotton paper, and we have sealed the seams in three places, namely at the ends and in the middle. And these things which begin from the words, "Given at Viterbo," up to here, we have written with our own hand, and have also subscribed. BESSARION, by the mercy of God cardinal and ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople of New Rome, I have subscribed with my own hand. ^{C D} to desire to confirm that purchase with their own handwriting and seals on white paper, having obtained them as if they themselves were petitioning the pontiff, he wrote them all, desiring that he might be their patriarch; he even added letters from the emperor, and extolled himself with many praises, and heaped accolades upon himself. John VIII, deceived and looking to the public good, as he thought, sent the presbyters Paul and Eugenius, and Peter the Deacon, cardinals, with the pallium sent and with the authority to restore him, he seeking pardon from the council. He, having corrupted the apostolic letters, wrote other things in Greek instead of the others, and did not beg for forgiveness, but impudently presiding at his own pleasure, he celebrated a synod, and established canons, partly with his own kind of Greeks favoring him, and partly with other Greeks who were aware of the crafty genius of Photius, without the Roman pontiff, who was restoring him after he had been condemned, praising him; rather, they clearly testified that he had done ill, and that he could not absolve and restore one whom his predecessors—and an ecumenical council—had bound, and they had rendered him inept. This would indeed be true, if the one condemned had been contumacious and did not repent. But was Photius such a one? Truly, he deceived the pontiff: otherwise, why could the patriarch of patriarchs, the Roman pontiff, not absolve the condemned, if he repented? In that synod, which Zonaras interprets, Photius strove to confirm the seventh synod regarding images, tacitly condemning the eighth, which had been celebrated against him, or rather, having abolished the legitimate and ecumenical one, he attempted to obtrude his own in place of the eighth, and in the published canons, in the first canon, as can be seen in Zonaras, he prefers himself to the Roman pontiff, as if having a greater scope of jurisdiction than the pontiff himself possesses. When John VIII had learned this, he publicly struck him with anathema, after many pontiffs who had previously excommunicated him. See the eighth council, and the successor of Anastasius, William the Librarian, in the *Lives of the Pontiffs*, and the other historians.

ENCYCLICAL TO THE GREEKS. BESSARION HIMSELF MADE THE PRECEDING EPISTLE FROM GREEK INTO LATIN, WHICH WE, HAVING LATER DISCOVERED, HAVE TAKEN CARE TO HAVE PRINTED.

BESSARION, by divine mercy and the grace of the Apostolic See, Cardinal of the most holy Roman Church, Patriarch of Constantinople. To the beloved brethren and sons in Christ, archbishops, bishops, presbyters, monks, and other ecclesiastical and secular persons inhabiting the provinces subject to the holy Constantinopolitan See, grace, peace, and benediction from God Almighty. Intended only for those desiring to obtain it, and for those who, with every effort, act in ways that lead to its attainment.

^B We would surely have wished, beloved brethren and sons, that by speaking with you ourselves we might give and receive a reckoning of the things that are necessary for your salvation, and which we desire, with fraternal and paternal affection, to speak of and to act upon with you. But because both the condition of present circumstances and the vastness of the sea and the intervening distance of lands prevent this, we shall attempt to perform our duty remaining by means of a letter, and in this epistle we shall express some small part of those things which we would say face to face. I beseech you, however, in the Lord, that you hear with the same charity with which I myself address you, those things which I intend to say. For God himself, whom no thoughts of ours can escape, is my witness that in the first place his zeal, and then the very tight bond of charity by which we are bound to our nation, move me to write these things, nor do they allow me to cover those things which are necessary for you to know.

Before all else, therefore, remember, brethren and sons, how great and excellent our nation once was, both in learning and in every kind of wisdom, as well as in the other virtues, and what, moreover, were the strengths, the power, and the principate of our people. For who would doubt that the Greek race has stood forth not only as the inventress of all liberal arts and of all wisdom, but also as their perfecter? There, virtue, religion, and sanctity always flourished; there the empire of the whole world shone out; but now (alas, for the unhappy and miserable condition of our fatherland!) we have lost not only the principate and the empire of the world, but we even suffer servitude, and this indeed a cruel and most shameful one; for fierce, barbarian, and infidel men rule over us; nor have we suffered this alone, but not even a simulacrum of discipline or any trace of wisdom has been left among our people. For disciplines and good arts are accustomed to be sought and investigated by those who first have attained what is necessary for sustenance; since these, for the present, are lacking to us because of servitude and poverty, there is no longer any method of wisdom, no care for disciplines, no study of the best arts. Virtue alone, which pertains to morals and which makes those who study it good, that truly remains; it remains and always exists among our people. But what cause could there be— ^C that they should have lost virtue, and the principate, and the very sweetest liberty of all things? For not fortune, or chance, or the reckless event of affairs, or an unstable flux have brought such great calamity upon us, unless one thinks that human affairs are not governed by divine Providence, which it is even impious and wicked to think. But it must not be said that the multitude of our sins was the cause of that thing, as some, humbling themselves before God, have been accustomed to say. For we have not provoked God with our sins more than other Christian nations, which we now see enjoying this worldly felicity. Since it has been said—and truly said, as I judge—that our people are in no way inferior to them in those things that pertain to morals and the honesty of life. It is to be feared, therefore, that the tinder and matter of so many and such great evils has been that the Greeks, having abandoned true dogmas through sloth, have seceded from the unblemished truth of the faith, and, rending the seamless tunic of the Lord, have divided themselves from the Catholic Church. The cause of this thing was the rashness of some of our people, that they might not be forced to render an account of their own principate to another. These later ones, then, were followed by others, moved not so much by their own wickedness as enticed by the perversity of the former. But it is decent and salutary to lay aside at last, and to drive away entirely, this destruction. Wherefore I exhort and entreat you, brethren and ^D sons most desired in the Holy Spirit, resume with all diligence and effort your ancient nobility; win back for us our pristine glory. Follow those ancient and most holy Fathers and our doctors, whose confession of faith and doctrine of piety have always been the same as that which the Roman Church now holds and professes. Condemn, pursue, and exterminate those recent authors of so pestiferous a division. With a devoted mind, receive the Ecumenical Synod held at Florence, and believe and profess with a sincere heart the things which were decreed there with the cooperation of the holy Spirit. Many and effective reasons were brought forward in that place concerning the procession of the holy Spirit. Many things were said on both sides by the parties for the confirmation of either opinion. At length, this opinion prevailed among all: that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the holy Spirit, and that he proceeds from both as from one breather. Many testimonies of holy doctors, not only Western but even Eastern and our own, were adduced to prove this, and it was demonstrated by many reasons, nor did this happen through the sloth of our people; for we have not attempted to investigate that matter sluggishly or neglectfully, O brethren; we have spent many sleepless nights, we have applied great vigilance, assiduous study, and the highest care; it was necessary to yield to the truth; we were overcome by the opinions of the doctors. For far be it from a good—

^A soul and a faithful one to close its eyes to the manifest truth, and to despise it out of an ambition for victory. I would now recount to you a small portion of those arguments, were not the law of an epistle restrictive; and also because it is possible for you to see and read far more elsewhere than we could recount in the present moment. For most of those who have preceded us, men of great learning and holiness, have written many excellent things concerning this dogma. We too have written not a few things, partly so that we might satisfy the will of friends who were urgently requesting it, and partly so that we might commit to the common utility what we have thought, or our responses to others who contend in vain. Since all these things are with you, if any one of you should read or hear them without contention—and you will all read or hear them, if it be permitted—he will obtain no small utility, let it be said for the glory of God. Nevertheless, let us, if you please, bring forward one argument, and that a brief one.

On the procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, with the Son himself as witness, who calls that Spirit the Spirit of truth; and He himself is the Truth. And Paul says: *God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts*; and again: *If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His*. The same Apostle repeats this word very frequently in other places. This is enough and more than enough to prove that of which we are treating. Nor is it becoming to exceed the limit of an epistle. The Holy Spirit is therefore the Spirit of Christ naturally and essentially, not accidentally. And that to which anything belongs in this way must, by some authority and excellence, excel that which is said to be its own. Indeed, this authority is certainly not to be called the kind that exists between a master and a slave. For who would dare to turn the Creator into a creature, which it is sacrilegious even to think? It remains, therefore, that this authority and excellence of origin belongs to Him who breathes, in relation to the Spirit who is breathed. And certainly it is impious to assert otherwise. For what some of our people, declining from the truth, contend—that He is called the Spirit of the Son because He is of the same essence with the Son, or because He is sent from Him—these are cobwebs rather than reasons, as I have often demonstrated. For if the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son on account of consubstantiality, for that same reason the Son would also be called the Son of the Holy Spirit, which has never been heard in the Holy Scriptures. But if He is so called because He is sent from the Son, that reason certainly strengthens our opinion more. For that "sending," and "springing forth," and "flowing," and other similar things presuppose aspiration and a certain substantial procession; and that it is impossible for the Son to send the Holy Spirit unless He also breathes Him, we have shown in very many places with many suitable arguments. Many other things also from our side for the veiling of ^B that truth are accustomed to be said; they are of no moment, yet more and better things are said by those who follow the truth. Although we hold these firmly, since we have many times opposed those who contradict us, still, for the sake of brevity, we refer the admonished: if there are any who are desirous of investigating the truth, let them read those things which we formerly wrote concerning this matter. This, however, we say to you, and we assert it fearlessly, that if circumstances had allowed us to grant and receive an account of this matter in person, you would have been the judges. That one thing which we have said is enough and more than enough to manifest the truth, and that no doubt remains, but that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father, as from one principle and one breather. There are also many other testimonies of the sacred writings, such as: *The Paraclete, whom I will send to you from the Father*; and again: *He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it to you*. And again: *Whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak*, and other things similar to these. From all of which the truth of the faith is shown more clearly than the light—which the holy Roman Church holds and preaches, just as it has always held and preached, and as all the Church once confessed. But perhaps someone will say: Why did the Lord himself, when he was speaking of the Spirit, say: *The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father*, and not also add that He proceeds from Himself? What then, or of what kind is this argument, brothers? For even if He had said the Spirit proceeds from the Father, He did not however deny that He proceeds from Himself. For if He had said that, perhaps it would seem to introduce some difficulty. Although not even this would suffice to protect your opinion. Since the Savior Himself said: *Of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son of man, but the Father alone*. And again: *My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me, the Father*. And again: *No one knows the Son but the Father*. Of all of which we without a doubt feel and profess the contrary. And we believe the Son of God knows that day and hour just as the Father does. And that He knows Himself just as the Father knows Him, and that His doctrine is chiefly His own doctrine. If, therefore, we indeed rightly believe the contrary of those things which Christ openly denied, why do we not also piously believe this, which He did not deny? Indeed, that point is above all to be considered most attentively, brothers and sons in Christ most beloved. ^D Christ once promised to build His Church upon the confession of Peter, and that the gates of hell, that is, the blasphemies of heretics, would never prevail against it. We must ask, brothers, what this Church is. For no Christian would dare to deny that the promise was true and certain. Therefore, it is either the Latin or the Greek Church. For a third cannot be given. Since all others are full of heresies, which the holy Fathers and general councils have condemned. If, therefore, you call this Church the Church of the Greeks, you make the Church too narrow, indeed—

you reduce it to nothing. For what is our Church, miserable men that we are, or how great is it? It is slipping, alas, it is slipping and perishing every day, not to say that it has already perished entirely. All Greeks are subject to ^A infidels; indeed, the barbarian nations have so utterly destroyed everything, that I do not doubt that before much time has passed, the very splendor of the Greek language, all the books, the entire works of the holy doctors, the codices of the sacred scriptures themselves, and the Gospel itself are destined to abandon our unhappy fatherland, unless the piety and mercy of our Savior should avert such a calamity from our heads. Are you unaware, brothers, that all the Orientals—if any remained among the faithful, who in the East followed the Church of the Greeks—with the exception only of the inhabitants of Constantinople and the surrounding islands, had for a hundred, or indeed fifty years and more, not even known how to name the sacred Scripture, nor to count its volumes? They knew no faithful dogma, no question, no reason concerning the hope of future life; in sum, they understood nothing of what is read in the Gospel. The priests, although they were reading it assiduously, were no less ignorant than the others; nor did they possess the complete Gospel, but they were accustomed to carry around certain fragments of it, which are wont to be read in the churches. And just as parrots and other animals of that kind sometimes are accustomed to attempt to mimic our words without understanding, so did they emit the Greek sound and read only those things that were written, nor was it without barbarisms; but of those things which they read, they understood absolutely nothing. ^B Recognize, recognize at last, my brothers, the head of the Churches, the chair of Peter. Recognize your mother and mistress; embrace the faith lauded by the apostolic mouth; from that source seek food for your soul, from that source seek counsel. If you examine the books of our doctors, if you consider with diligence the writings of those men, you will find that the Roman Church holds all power over the others, and so presides over the universal Church that, without its authority, no ecclesiastical question can or should be solved, no dogma concluded. This is that rock upon which Christ built his ^C Church; this is that which holds and preaches the faith of Peter. This alone is that against which the gates of hell have not prevailed. Here the authority of the Fathers is always kept incorrupt; here the Sun of justice rises; here is the Light of the world; here is the salt of the earth; here are the vessels of gold and silver. Whoever are associated with this holy communion make one Church with it; those who are separated from it cannot have salvation; he who does not gather here, scatters. Whoever eats outside this water is profane. If any were not in the ark of Noah, they perished while the deluge reigned. Outside the sheepfold of Christ they cannot be saved; they will fall into the hands of rapacious wolves, and thieves and robbers. Since it is necessary that those who do not listen to the voices of the shepherds, lest it happen to any of the Christians, that that faith which the chair of Peter professes must be preached, must be held. I beseech you, brothers, receive this with reverence and humility, cling to it, insist upon it. I do not cease to pray to the Lord for you, that, putting on wisdom, you may perform that which I exhort you to do. For I would wish you all to be as I am, nor does it seem to me—o brothers—that I am desiring some small or contemptible good for you; if it is a good for me myself, I desire it also for you. For no one is bound to show greater charity to his neighbor than the same thing which one desires for oneself. For it says: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"; God does not require more than this from us, as if this were the highest sign of charity. Nor do I think that I speak out of ignorance or lack of skill concerning the truth, since you know that I have spent my whole life from my tender years in the study of letters, and have devoted myself with the greatest effort and diligence to this dogma of which we speak, and have investigated the truth as much as was possible. For what else could a man choose for himself, who from an early age has lived separated from his own will in humility and obedience, and who (let it be said without boasting) has read, heard, and written much about the vanity of the world, about the amendment of manners, about rewards or eternal punishments, other than to nourish his mind with right and true sentiments, and to embrace the truth of the faith once found? Which, indeed, we value more now than we did before, the more that, as age now grows heavy, the multiplied diseases of the body threaten me with death daily and make life ^D wearisome. I know indeed, brothers, and Fathers, and I know, sons beloved in Christ, that there is not much left of life for us, and the time for our resolution is already at hand, at which, as the wise men say, there comes upon men a fear of things which before they were not wont to fear. For they see the day approaching, at which an account must be rendered of all their past life. For me, indeed, the closer death is, the more the integrity of faith consoles me. For I hope that that which will be lacking in my works for the salvation of my soul can be supplied by the truth of faith. For this reason, having spurned and despised honors, if I had any among you (and I had them, neither small nor few), I have followed entirely this truth of the faith. I speak indeed to the learned, and to those who have heard from the learned, and who shall hear, if they so will, in the future: When I was an adolescent, and still lacking the first down of youth, you set great store by me, even those of you who never saw me; my name was known to all who understood the Greek language; not yet twenty-four years old, I was extolled by the princes of our nation, by you all, and finally by the emperors themselves, both in honor and in dignity, beyond my years. For they preferred me, not only to my equals, but even to my elders, and those who were powerful in authority and grace, not because of my virtue, but because of their goodness. Although, indeed, much dignity in the Church of Christ at this time...

^A I have attained, and honors bestowed upon me far beyond my deserts, nevertheless all these things followed afterward, and, as God who is conscious of all things knows full well, they were neither expected by me nor sought after. And yet, perhaps, I might not wrongly say that those greater things which I had among you were such that, since there I was easily numbered among the first, here, indeed, where there are many—nay, almost innumerable—who surpass me in wisdom, learning, and other virtues, I scarcely have a place even among the last. Now it is a familiar saying of the Roman prince, who, when he was very fond of honor, said he would rather have the first place in a town, however humble and obscure, than the second in the most glorious and excellent city of Rome. For authority, even in the smallest matters, has a certain, yet very great and sweet pleasure. But as for us, both those things which we had among you we did not prize highly, and those which we now have—we call God to witness—we would have deemed equally trivial; nay, rather, having spurned and despised all things, even if we had many more, we would have fled to you as quickly as possible, had we not been conscious that we chose the better part, and had we not been certain that this holy and catholic Church believes, hands down, and teaches those things which make the journey toward eternal life. If, therefore, I exhort you to those things which I do not doubt will be profitable for your salvation, you ought to listen with humility and reverence, and with joy and alacrity of spirit receive our salutary admonitions.

But you say that the addition of the Latins to the Creed has caused a great scandal among you. Why so, brethren? Surely, if you are willing to consider it rightly, that was not an addition, but an exposition, an explanation, a declaration. For an addition, even according to the judgment of our doctors, is that which introduces contrary dogmas; but that which professes the same and similar things is a declaration, not an addition. Indeed, if what is said were not true, this addition would certainly have to be avoided. But if it is true, and consonant with the faith of the saints, we fear a fear where there is no fear, and we indulge in superstition more than in piety. The Second Synod added much to the Nicene Creed concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the unity of the Church, baptism, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life; of which the first council had made no mention whatsoever. Many things, furthermore, other doctors who succeeded them, the Latins, have handed down beyond what they had done; which, however, were not additions, but declarations. Why, therefore, was it not permitted for the catholic Church also to do the same, when a similar necessity of heretics impelled it? For as for the answer you are accustomed to give—that then, indeed, it was permitted, but now, after the Third Synod prohibited any addition, not even the truth itself may be added—it is, in truth, a foolish and vain argument. Read, if you like, the account ^B of that matter which we published long ago, and you will find it most manifest, and, if we are not mistaken, you will agree with us. Do not emulate contentious men, nor imitate those who, since they cannot do otherwise, strive at least by fighting the truth to obtain glory. Humble yourselves before God, and following so many and such men endowed with singular devotion and wisdom, the disciples of the Roman Church, accept its faith, and venerate the Roman Pontiff, believing him to be the true pastor of the Church itself, the head of the whole Church, the leader of the faith, and the teacher, and follow the way that he shows which leads to eternal life. For this is also one of the things necessary for salvation: to know one’s own pastor, to recognize the prince, and to know and honor the leader. For where there is no prince, there is disorder; where there is disorder, there is dissolution, as Gregory Nazianzen says; and certainly, whether you wish to consider divine or human matters, brethren, you will find that there ought to be one principle of all things, and that otherwise things cannot be rightly governed. For, that we may begin from divine things, the theology of Christians teaches that God is one who is above all, who, although He exists in three persons, so that [the] unity is preserved intact, those persons are posited to be of the same and similar divine substance. And the Gentiles, too, having received knowledge from these sensible things, confess this same thing. For a certain one among the rest of their philosophers, more noble than the others, asserts that there is one first cause, one Creator of all things; and although he believes there are many degrees of beings even after Him, he establishes one principle, and many principles, all under that first one. But another, asserting this same thing in many words, and having finally borrowed the sentiment from someone more ancient: "It is not," he says, "good to have a multitude of princes; let there be one prince, one king." For they do not want beings to be governed badly, as if it would appear to be governed badly unless there is one who presides over all things. But in human and civil affairs, these same men, whom we have mentioned, and all others—and before them our Savior Jesus Christ—set legitimate monarchy before other modes of government. "Render," He says, "to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's";* as if God were indeed one in the heavens, and there were one prince on earth; this one, however, who holds the first place among the philosophers, prefers that form of commonwealth not only to the other types, but even to the rule of the best (aristocracy), and says it is as similar as possible to the divine. Where one, who excels others in virtues, dominates all. Another, a student of this man, among all the enumerated forms of government, establishes this same mode of governing before all others, calling it the most perfect kingdom. Therefore, shall we preserve this good, perfect, and necessary order from God in transitory and earthly things, brethren, and yet despise it in the government of our eternal souls and the holy Church of God? It is certainly unseemly,

* Matt. xxii, 21.