ORIENTAL

DOCUMENTS RELATING
TO THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
PARTS 1 & 2
 DOCUMENTS RELATING
TO THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
PART 1: DOCUMENTS 1-6

Text edited and Translated By

Text translated from Patrologia Orientalis, Volume 15, now in the public domain
TO BENEDICT XV, SUPREME PONTIFF,
WHO, RELYING ON THE PROMISES
BY WHICH CHRIST ASSURED PETER, PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES,
OF PERPETUAL VICTORY OVER THE GATES OF HELL,
AMID SUCH GREAT CRAFTINESS OF MINDS
AND SUCH GREAT TURMOIL OF AFFAIRS,
HAS GOVERNED THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH
WITH JUST RULE,
SHOWING KINDNESS TO ALL,
BUT MORE ESPECIALLY INCLINED TOWARD THE AFFLICTED,
SEEKING THE WELFARE OF THE FALLEN EAST,
TO DEAL WITH EASTERN AFFAIRS,
HE ESTABLISHED A NEW COLLEGE OF CARDINALS,
AND TO ADVANCE THE STUDIES AND ARTS OF THE EAST IN THE CITY,
HE FOUNDED A NEW SCHOOL,
WITH A BUILDING PROVIDED AND SELECT MEN APPOINTED FROM EVERYWHERE,
TO BE ORGANIZED AND ADMINISTERED.
TO THESE WE DEDICATE THE MONUMENTS,
ACCURATELY COLLECTED,
OF THE MOST HOLY COUNCIL OF FLORENCE,
IN WHICH BOTH GREEKS AND LATINS,
AS THERE IS ONE GOD IN THE WORLD,
AS THERE IS ONE SUN IN THE HEAVENS,
THUS PRONOUNCED THAT THERE IS ONE CHURCH ON EARTH
UNDER THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
TO THE MOST HOLY AND SUPREME PONTIFF,
TO THE BEST FATHER,
A TESTIMONY OF FAITH, CONSTANCY, OBEDIENCE, AND PIETY.
 Table of Contents
Introduction p.1 : THE QUESTION OF PURGATORY AT FERRARA 1
Document 1 : The Latin Deputies' Document on Purgatory. 10
Document 2 : First Oration of Mark of Ephesus, on purgatorial fire. 17
Document 3 : Response of the Greeks to the position of the Latins on purgatorial fire, 28
recited by Bessarion of Nicaea on 14 June 1438.
Document 4 : Response of the Latins to the treatise presented by the Greeks concerning 40
purgatorial fire.
Document 5 : Second oration of Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, on Purgatory. 57
Document 6 : Response of Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, to the last questions of the 79
Latins on purgatorial fire.
Introduction p.2 : WORKS AND COUNCIL DOCUMENTS OF MARK OF EPHESUS 89
Document 7 : Oration of Mark of Ephesus to Pope Eugene IV. 108
Document 8 : Testimonies collected by Mark of Ephesus, by which, he says, it is proved 112
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Document 9 : Syllogistic chapters of Mark of Ephesus against the Latins on the 128
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.
Document 10 : Dialogue of Mark of Ephesus on the addition made to the creed by the 154
Latins.
Document 11 : Ten arguments of Mark of Ephesus against purgatorial fire. 159
Document 12 : Treatise of Mark of Ephesus on the consecration of the Eucharist. 163
Document 13 : Confession of faith written by Mark of Ephesus at Florence, but published 169
after the conclusion of the council.
Document 14 : Account by Mark of Ephesus of the matters conducted by him at the 174
Council of Florence.
Document 15 : Encyclical letter of Mark of Ephesus against the Greco-Latins and the 179
decree of the Council of Florence.
Document 16 : Letter of Mark of Ephesus to George Scholarios, in which he inveighs 185
against him for having thought that some agreement could be made with the Latins.
Document 17 : Response of George Scholarios to that letter of Mark of Ephesus. 188
Document 18 : Letter of Mark of Ephesus to George, priest of Methone, against the rites 193
of the Roman Church.
Document 19 : Letter of Mark of Ephesus to the Patriarch of Constantinople. 197
Document 20 : Letter of Mark of Ephesus to the moderator of the monastery of 199
Vatopedi on Mount Athos.
Document 21 : Letter of Mark of Ephesus to Theophanes, a priest on the island of 202
Euboea.
Document 22 : Letter of Mark of Ephesus to Theophanes, a monk on the island of 205
Imbros.
Document 23 : Dying oration of Mark of Ephesus to a gathering of friends, and 207
specifically to George Scholarios.
Document 24 : Book by the great rhetorician Manuel on Mark of Ephesus and on the 211
matters conducted at the Council of Florence.
 INTRODUCTION
According to Pindar, every work should begin with a brilliant frontispiece: Ἀρχοµένου δ' ἔργου,
πρόσωπον χρή θέµεν τηλαυγές (When beginning a work, one should place a shining frontispiece). It
would therefore be appropriate here to present, in a few carefully crafted pages, the origins of the
religious conflict that has divided the East and West for so many centuries, to recall its main phases,
and conclude with a formal dissertation on the Council of Florence, which was meant to close this
great debate. However, this is not my intention. The Council of Florence, it is true, still awaits its
historian; nevertheless, it is not through skillfully arranged pictures, but rather through the often
thankless task of examining documents, that a historian proceeds today, and the assembly of 1439
still presents, in its records, too many gaps for one to even think of reproducing its physiognomy
with complete fidelity. And when I speak of records, it is in a metaphorical sense. Alas, these
precious documents no longer exist, or at least have not yet been found, by one of those
misfortunes that would be difficult to find many examples for in such recent events. Thus, I hope
that the documents gathered here for the first time will be received favorably. They are of vital
importance for the debates that took place at Ferrara, and yet they had until now been left in the
shadows. Le Quien, who missed very little, examined them closely and gave a succinct but faithful
analysis of them in his fifth Dissertatio Damasceniana. And it is through Le Quien, not through
direct knowledge of the texts, that historians of dogma have made reference to them. There is
something better to do, I think, than to endlessly reproduce the same assertions, especially when
dealing with documents that, far from being lost, have in fact been preserved for us in a large
number of manuscripts. Allow me to place them first in their historical context. After many difficult
negotiations, the bishops dissenting from Basel and Pope Eugene IV had, so to speak, competed in
speed and seductive offers. The Greeks, led by Emperor John Palaiologos and Patriarch Joseph,
arrived in Venice on February 8, 1438. By this date, the general council had already been open since
January 8 at Ferrara, much to the disappointment of the Fathers of Basel, which led one of them,
Enea Silvio, the future Pope Pius II, to write with sweet irony, Risit Oriens Latinorum insaniam, qui
sibi ipsi dissentientes, aforam unionem perquirerent. On the name of Eugene IV, first through the
great Cardinal Nicolas Albergati, and then through the no less famous Julian Caesarini, the Eastern
prelates hesitated for some time about which side to take. Where was it better to go? To Ferrara or
to Basel? The Doge advised them to wait in Venice for the arrival of the ambassadors from Basel
and the representatives of the princes. In the end, the papal legates won the day; after twenty days
of active negotiations, the emperor, followed by a pompous retinue, headed for Ferrara, where he
made his solemn entry on March 1, welcomed with munificence by Eugene IV. Four days later, on
March 8, the patriarch arrived in turn, escorted to the Pope by four cardinals, twenty-five bishops,
and the governor of the city. The protocol for both receptions led to quite lively debates, which
were renewed with no less intensity at the first solemn session of the council, on Holy Tuesday,
April 9, in the cathedral of Ferrara, dedicated to San Giorgio. But in the end, an agreement was
reached. On April 13, after the Easter celebrations, the Pope invited the Greek bishops to meet

1

 privately to examine the various doctrinal questions on which there was disagreement between the
two Churches. The Greeks would have preferred, once again, to do nothing until the long-promised,
yet always delayed, arrival of the Fathers of Basel. After some hesitation, they set to work. Ten
prelates from each party, with their respective secretaries, two per side, were to meet twice a week in
the Church of San Francesco to discuss the controversial points. On the Greek side, these were the
metropolitans of Ephesus, Nicaea, Monembasia, Laconia, Anchialos, and five others, whose seats
are not specified. By order of the emperor, only the first two, namely, Mark of Ephesus and
Bessarion of Nicaea, were to speak in public. Leading the Latins were Cardinals Julian Caesarini and
Nicolas Albergati, Archbishop of Rhodes Andrew, and the learned Spanish Dominican John of
Torquemada. After an exchange of compliments, the delegates addressed, in the third session, the
issues to be debated. Julian Caesarini had reduced them to four: the procession of the Holy Spirit,
the unleavened bread, purgatory, and the Roman primacy. At the Greeks' request, the first of these
questions was postponed until later, when the council, with the arrival of the Fathers of Basel and
the representatives of the princes, would present a more imposing aspect. Regarding the other three,
they agreed to respond in the shortest time possible after consultation with the emperor. He advised
them to choose, to begin with, one of the last two questions. The Latins raised no objection, and
thus, with the consent of both parties, the question of purgatory was the first to be deliberated.
At the fifth meeting, which took place on June 5th, Julian Césarini presented the Catholic
doctrine concerning Purgatory. After summarizing it in a short formula, borrowed from the Council
of Lyon and which was later to be inserted verbatim in the decree of Florence, the cardinal
supported it with a number of texts taken from the second book of the Maccabees, the Gospel of
St. Matthew, and especially from the first chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Then came
some patristic testimonies, provided from the Eastern side by St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. John
Damascene, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and, from the Western
side, by St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory the Great. To these authoritative arguments was
added, finally, a proof of reason. This presentation was then written down and given to the Greeks,
and their two champions, Mark and Bessarion, each made a separate response, which was later
merged into one and given to the Latins on June 14, 1438. It is precisely these responses from the
Easterners that are the main subject of the present publication. It is important, therefore, to
carefully examine, if not the content, now accessible to all, at least the origin and authenticity. The
personal work of the bishop of Ephesus cannot be doubted. To settle the matter, it is sufficient to
refer to the testimony of the numerous manuscripts that have preserved, under the name of Mark,
three discourses on Purgatory, delivered in Ferrara in the presence of the cardinals and Latin
theologians: and since these discourses, when reproduced in full, always follow a consistent order,
this order is obviously dictated by the chronological succession. The intrinsic examination leads to
the same conclusions. One need only reread them to realize that they constitute successive replies to
the Latin theses. The first piece, more general in nature, precisely begins with the formula presented
by Césarini. In the second discourse, one sees the disagreement narrow around certain more

2

 troublesome texts, finishing, with the third piece, on finer details. Mark of Ephesus’ discourses have
survived in their entirety, and it is only right to now give them a place in the conciliar collections. Is
the same true for the work of Bessarion, or at least for this collective response of the two prelates
given to the Latins on June 14, 1438? This question, which seems never to have been discussed,
should also be answered affirmatively. But as it seems an effort has been made to complicate the
issue, it is necessary to first untangle the matter before presenting a conclusion that is absolutely
beyond dispute. Martin Crusius mentions, in his Turco-Graecia, a pamphlet which he describes in
these terms: Responsio Graerorum ad positionem Latinorum, opinionem iynis purgatorii
fundantium et probantium, quae lerta et data fuit reverendissimis et reverendis Patribus et dominis
deputatis die sabbati 13 mensis luni 1438, in sacristia Fratrum Minorum, Basileae, praesentata
Nicolao Cusano. If one removes, or rather corrects, the last words of this title, one is clearly faced
with the collective response of Mark and Bessarion. That this document was later delivered to Basel
to Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa is not impossible; but that it was delivered by the Greek prelates who
attended the council there is quite implausible. In June 1438, the Greeks were certainly not in Basel,
where they never went, and there is no record, furthermore, that the question of Purgatory was, I
won’t say debated with the Easterners, but even merely raised at the Council of Basel. No less
noteworthy is the fact that it was to delegated prelates, Patribus et dominis DEPUTATIS, that the
Greeks submitted their response. Such delegates had, as we have seen, been appointed at Ferrara;
they could not have been at Basel, for the simple reason that this point of controversy was never
even discussed there. Let us go further. It is on Saturday, June 14th, that the submission took place;
now, according to Dorotheus of Mitylene, it was on June 14th that Bessarion publicly answered on
behalf of the Greeks. Finally, the last coincidence: the place of meeting is indicated as the sacristy
of the Friars Minor; and Dorotheus of Mitylene, in disagreement with Syropoulos, who names the
church of St. Andrew (which is no longer in use for worship), does correctly indicate that the
Commission of the Ten met in the church of St. Francis. The official Greek translation of the
Cedula presented by the Latins is equally definitive: in a very brief preamble, it mentions the same
location: ἐν τῷδε τοῦ µακαρίου Φραγγίσκου σκευοφυλακίῳ. This church of St. Francis is still served
in Ferrara by the Conventual Franciscans, and its reputation was such that it contains the tombs of
the family of the Este marquises. Everything aligns, as we see, with our hypothesis, and there is no
doubt that the document indicated by Crusius is the Greek response to Julian Césarini's exposition.
Another no less serious question: Did this Responsio Graecorum, so interesting for the history
of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, ever see the light of day? Yes again, and there are several
editions of it. A collection, with heterogeneous content, such as those commonly published in the
16th century, was released in Basel in 1555 under the title Orthodoxographa theologiae sacrosanctae
ac sincerioris fidei doctores numero LXXVI a Is. Heroldo collecta. Basel, 1555, folio. Now, among
the many disparate works contained in this thick volume, there is one, pages 1376-1390, which
exactly corresponds to the description provided by Crusius. It is titled Apologia Graecorum de
purgatorio igne in concilio Basileensi exhibita, nunc quam primum a Joanne Hartungo latinitate

3

 donata. Here again, correct Basileensi to Ferrariensi for the reasons mentioned above, and you have
the very document described in Turco-Graecia. The pamphlet is dedicated to Otthenrich, Count
Palatine and Duke of Bavaria, and the dedicatory letter from Hartung is dated Heidelberg, the 4th
of the Ides of September, or September 10, 1545. If we are to believe Harles, who is generally well-
informed, our Apologia was also published in Leipzig in 1556. Hic (libellus) graece et latine cum
Alex. Alesii libello contra Lud. Nogarolam de traditionibus, prodiit Lipsiae 1556, 8°, sine nomine
auctoris hoc titulo: Apologia Graecorum de purgatorio igne in concilio Basileensi (an. 1438)
exhibita. Then, before the end of the same century, Vulcanius published it in Leiden in 1595, in an
octavo volume. The Latin translation was included. That’s not all. This same translation by
Vulcanius, but this time accompanied by the Greek text, reappears at the beginning of the 17th
century in the celebrated pamphlet by Claude Salmasius against papal primacy: Ol. Salmasii librorum
de Primatu Papae pars prima. Cum apparatu. Accessere de codem primatu Nili et Barlaami tractatus
(Hanoviae Hanau, 1608). I only have the reprint published in Leiden (Lugduni Batavorum) by the
Elzeviers in 1645, and here, our pamphlet occupies pages 65-93 of the Appendice. The text is the
same as in the Orthodoxographa, but for reasons unknown, the title given by the Basel collection is
reduced in Saumaise's edition to simply De Purgatorio igne liber unus. And it is under this new,
rather vague title that we see it reappear in an anonymous Greek collection published in London,
according to contemporaries like Allatius, in Constantinople, according to Legrand, around the year
1627, by the efforts of Nicodeme Metaxas. This collection is so rare that Legrand only knew of two
copies, one belonging to the British Museum, the other to the famous library of Prince George
Maurocordato, which, after the prince’s death, became the property of Mr. Georges Baltazzi. My
personal library owns a copy. As with Saumaise, the pamphlet on Purgatory appears immediately
after the treatise by Barlaam on the Power of the Pope and occupies pages 31-40. And it is this
purely accidental placement that misled literary critics. Some attributed the work to Nil Cabasilas,
others to Nicholas Cabasilas, nephew of the former, still others to Barlaam, although there is not a
single manuscript to support any of these attributions. It was Barlaam who won out, after Peter
Areudius claimed it in a strangely composed work, published after the author’s death, under the title:
Περι του καθαρτερίου Πυρος κατα Βαρλαάµ, Πετρου του Αρκούδου. De Purgatorio igne adversus
Barlaam Petri Arkudii. Romae, Typis et impensis Sac. Cong. de Propag. Fide, 1637, in-4. The
pamphlet on Purgatory is reproduced there in small sections and refuted, depending on the case, in
a few lines or in several hundred pages. As seen in the preface and also in the imprimatur from the
Master of the Sacred Palace, dated April 1, 1637, Areudius’ book was published under the care of
the priest Pantaleon Ligarides, one of those wonderfully flexible minds, Roman in Rome, Greek in
Constantinople, Russian in Moscow, always ready to serve whoever offers more dignity and
especially more money. To what extent Ligarides respected the work of his predecessor is hard to
say, but the later history of this adventurer allows all suspicions. The work is so poorly composed
that it would not be worth pausing over, were it not for this unfortunate attribution to Barlaam of a
work that has absolutely nothing to do with the Calabrian monk, which would disappear from

4

 history. It is all the more useful to clarify this issue because a scholar of Allatius’ caliber, going
further than Arcudius, even goes so far as to shout falsification and does not hesitate to assert that
the true author of the pamphlet is a 16th-century Protestant! Here is how this strange hypothesis is
formulated: "As for my opinion on that book, I say that it was taken from the bosom of heretics,
composed at the time when Lutherans thought they were successfully engaging with the Greek
Church, as they tried to defend it against the Roman Church, and at the same time they sought to
make it united with it; I think it was translated from Latin into Greek. No Greek would have
shamelessly tackled this issue, who revered the authority of the holy Fathers, and kissed their words
as if they were divine utterances, and when dealing with them, always referred to their names with
the utmost reverence in writing. But the author, whoever he is, despises the testimonies of the
Fathers, maliciously misrepresents their words, and does not hesitate to brand them with the stigma
of heresy. Moreover, he calls upon only the Sacred Scriptures, rejecting the writings of the Fathers,
and six hundred other things which neither the Greeks themselves, nor Mark of Ephesus, nor
Barlaam, though they fiercely opposed the Latins, would have dared to note in writing." Allatius, it
must be said, truly goes too far in his constant desire to exonerate his compatriots, and one can only
smile at his literary acumen when he claims that Mark of Ephesus, to name just him, would not have
dared speak in such a manner of ecclesiastical writers who opposed his own views. Indeed, there is
no longer any doubt: the greater part of this pamphlet is taken, word for word, from Mark of
Ephesus. This is easy to prove.
Upon reading the De Purgatorio igne liber unus with some attention, one quickly realizes: 1) that
it is not an individual work, but a collective one, composed—an important detail to note—after a
long and difficult journey: zyén to pónon hypostasi katà tēn makrán taútēn apodēmian tosoútōn
(21); 2) that it is addressed to those who worked hard to bring the Greeks to this assembly: hymîn te
tosoúd’ hypèr tēs prokeiménēs hēmôn synéleuses prokatabaloménois spoudés (ib.); 3) that it was
presented at the beginning of the deliberations, before the examination of any other question, a
circumstance the authors used to express the wish for a peaceful solution not only to the present
issue but to all other disputed points: ouk epi tou prokeimenou nyní toútou zētēmatos elpīs esti
genēsthai mónon, alla kai epi pántōn tōn isōs tōn állōn (ib.); 4) that it constitutes a reply to a
presentation made earlier by the Latins, which it examines, one by one, all of their arguments,
starting with the summary at the beginning, which, as already noted, is the very formula of the
future decree of Florence; 5) finally, that it responds, under section 218, to the fifth argument of the
Latins drawn from Roman primacy, and this argument indeed occupies the fifth position in the
Cedula presented by the Latins. And if, after recalling these general characteristics, we move on to
the examination of the material composition of the piece, one immediately notices that much of it
comes from the first speech of Mark of Ephesus. If the general order common to both works, that
is to say, Mark’s speech and the anonymous reply, is naturally dictated by the Latin document to
which it was responding, it is impossible, however, outside the hypothesis of direct collaboration, to
explain the presence in the anonymous piece of entire pages literally borrowed from Mark’s first

5

 speech. It is especially when we arrive at the reasoning arguments that conclude the piece that the
plagiarism becomes obvious. Here, there is a pure and simple transcription with no modification
whatsoever. Unless we treat Mark as a plagiarist without apparent reason, we must therefore admit
that he himself, in agreement with his colleague Bessarion, contributed part of his own work to the
collective reply. And since we know, moreover, that these two prelates alone were tasked with
responding to the Latins, we come to this conclusion, as certain as it is unexpected: that all the
passages in the reply that are not identical, in substance or in form, to Mark’s first speech belong
specifically to Bessarion. It was indeed Bessarion, according to Dorotheus of Mitylene, who spoke
on behalf of the Greeks during the session of June 14, where he answered, point by point and in
writing, the Latin presentation. Thus, it is natural to think that the parts not borrowed from Mark’s
first speech belong to the Metropolitan of Nicaea. The divergence between the two pieces is
particularly noticeable at the beginning. Now, we know exactly from Syropoulos that the emperor,
after reviewing the responses of Mark and Bessarion, found the latter’s superior in the preamble and
the presentation of the question, while for the actual argumentation, Mark’s work surpassed his
colleague’s in his eyes. Therefore, he ordered that Bessarion’s text be kept for the beginning and that
Mark’s text be added for the second part. These details, we have all the less reason to doubt, as they
fit perfectly with the composition of the anonymous reply, if we carefully compare it with Mark’s
first speech. One small detail still deserves to be noted. According to the same Syropoulos, the
emperor reproached Bessarion for addressing his opponents, at the beginning of his reply, with the
formula Ἡ ἄνδρες λατίνοι, whereas it would have been more appropriate to say Πατέρες αιθέσιοι, or
some other similar expression. And what do we read at the head of the collective reply? This
formula: Αἰδισιµώτατοι κύριοι καὶ πατέρες, very close, I must admit, to the one the emperor
suggested. The conclusion is inevitable: the so-called liber unus de Purgatorio igne is nothing other
than the collective reply of Mark and Bessarion. We are far, very far, from Allatius’ hypothesis; but
our demonstration is based not on vague impressions, where patriotic sensitivity always plays a
certain role, but on palpable facts, on precise observations.
Here is, finally, another of exceptional gravity. The Latins, having replied, as was to be expected,
to the Responsio Graecorum, one need only compare their reply with the Greek document to realize
that it is not directed at Mark’s speech, but at the anonymous Responsio. The original Latin work, by
John of Torquemada, if we are to believe Syropoulos, has not yet been found; but its official Greek
translation has come down to us in a manuscript from Milan. It can be read, in this collection, under
number IV, accompanied by a Latin translation based on the Greek, awaiting the opportunity to
present the actual text of the Latin Delegates. If one takes the trouble to compare the two
documents that concern us, it becomes clear that the Latin document is the counterpart to the
anonymous Responsio, and not to Mark’s first speech. The Latins, in their prologue, do not fail to
recall the conciliatory words with which the Responsio began—above all, the Greeks had declared
that the goal was to find the truth, not to defeat an opponent. Nothing similar appears in the rather
severe and harsh prologue of Mark. The Latins then recall the general content of the Greek reply,

6

 and the four distinct parts it is composed of. The details they mention correspond perfectly to the
Responsio and finally to the speech of the Archbishop of Ephesus. He had not addressed, in his
first speech, the argument the Latins presented concerning the belief, on this doctrinal point, of the
Roman Church; the Responsio, on the contrary, responds with a rejection, and the Latins, in their
reply, bitterly complain about this lack of respect toward the first See of Christendom. The
examination of the reasoning arguments, which conclude both Mark’s speech and the anonymous
Responsio, leads to the same conclusion: it is to the latter, not the former, that the Latins replied.
They are astonished that their only argument of reason, drawn from divine justice, received no
answer from the Greeks. This reproach clearly applies to the Responsio, where this argument was
indeed not addressed, but it cannot be said of Mark’s speech, which devotes a rather long
development to it. The third argument gives rise to similar observations: Mark does not discuss it,
while the Responsio presents it exactly as the Latins did. Curious indeed, this argument was based
on a theory of Saint Thomas about the immutability of the will in the damned, and it is known, on
the other hand, that Bessarion’s library contained the Greek translation of the Summa. A secondary
but interesting piece of evidence, this establishes beyond doubt that the part of the Responsio not
reproduced in Mark’s first speech is indeed the work of Bessarion. Since the other arguments are
common to both the Responsio and Mark’s first speech, they are clearly from the Archbishop of
Ephesus. But let us also note this detail: the ninth argument of Mark, which is rather weak, was
omitted in the drafting of the Responsio; this explains why it is not found in the Latins’ reply. It is
therefore obvious that the Latins replied not to Mark’s first speech, but to the Responsio, and there
can no longer be any doubt about the origin of this latter document. Thus, I felt it necessary,
although it was not entirely unknown, to include in this publication the so-called Liber de
Purgatorio, but by restoring to it a title it should never have lost. Apart from this piece, published in
collections that are difficult to access, if not impossible to find, and in a very imperfect manner,
without any references, this current volume contains only unpublished documents, if not in
themselves, at least for the vast majority of the scholarly world. Mark’s three speeches have, in fact,
been uncovered in small segments in a weekly journal from Constantinople, La Vérité, which, after a
year, became La Vérité Ecclésiastique. This journal is so little distributed outside that I have so far
been unable to find a complete collection of it, even in the capital of Greece. Would foreign capitals
outside Hellenism be more favored? Even then, another edition would be required, so poorly was
the first editor tasked with the work, as will be easy to verify by consulting the variants provided at
the bottom of the pages of this publication. Do I need to say that Mark’s work deserved to be
pulled from obscurity? It contains, I must admit, many subtle passages, but, on the whole, it is
remarkably instructive. Even after reading Allatius, Arcudius, and Valentin Loch, to name just the
authors who have treated the subject ex professo, one could still wonder what exactly the Orthodox
world believed concerning Purgatory, on certain specific points. Mark of Ephesus answers most of
these questions, skillfully as always, but with great frankness. Thus, one understands why the
theologians of the East have always turned with pleasure to the speeches delivered at Ferrara by the

7

 Archbishop of Ephesus. His brother, John Eugenikos, nomophylax, speaks of them in these terms
in his Antirrhetikos from the Council of Florence: Satis itaque superque nobis sunt tum veteris tum
novi Testamenti innumera de hoc testimonia nec minus superabundant una cum aliis et sanctissimi
patris et praesulis et praeceptoris nostri tractatus nunc primum Ferraria recitati et concinnati, et locis
in omnibus divulgati. One will not be surprised, therefore, to see the Greeks borrow from Mark the
elements of their teaching on this matter. A literary incident from the 16th century will provide us
with a topical proof. The Protestant David Chytraeus (Kochlafe), returning in 1569 from a long
journey to the East, delivered a resounding speech in Wittenberg, in which, while making
reservations about certain practices deemed superstitious, he asserted that, overall, the Greeks and
Lutherans held an almost uniform belief. Once published, this speech sparked intense polemics in
Germany, the echoes of which soon crossed the border. Moved by such an audacious claim,
Cardinal Charles of Lorraine had twelve questions posed to the Greeks in Venice, who were said to
be well-educated, asking them to respond in writing. The tenth question was formulated as follows:
"Existimantne Graeci post hane vitam animas suppliciis quibusdam propterea purgari, quod in hac
vita meritas poenas non dederint?" The question was precise: how did the Greeks answer? Simply by
borrowing one of the best pages from Mark of Ephesus' first speech. If one only reads the Latin
translation of these responses, published by Sigismund von Herberstein in his Commentarii rerum
Moscoviticarum (Bale, 1583), one might fail to notice the plagiarism. But if one takes the trouble to
refer to the original Greek text, edited by Jean Lami, the borrowing becomes obvious. It is all the
more useful to point this out, as the controversialists do not seem to have known about Lami’s
edition, which was quite poor, and, incredibly, buried in a commentary on the Epistle to the
Corinthians, where one would not think to look for such documents. I won’t dwell further on this
secondary incident, but I like to see it as evidence of the enormous influence exerted on the
educated minds of the Greek world by the speeches of Mark of Ephesus.
They therefore deserved, for all these reasons, to emerge from obscurity. Thanks to the generous
support provided by His Holiness Benedict XV to M. Graflin, I was able, even in the midst of war,
to use the manuscripts from Paris, which could not be sent to Athens, just as, alas, it was impossible
to go to them. The unfortunate circumstances we are going through did not allow me to consult all
the manuscripts of these speeches preserved in Europe or in the various libraries of the East, nor
even to make use of the notes gathered in the past, not without difficulty, on the manuscripts from
Constantinople. As the situation created by the war seems likely to persist, it seemed to me that the
manuscripts from Paris, Milan, and Oxford provided a sufficient basis for the establishment of the
text, and that there was no imprudence in sticking to them.
A simply careful examination of these various manuscripts easily allows them to be classified
into two distinct series. Some, like the one from Milan and number 1286 from Paris, present here
and there notable divergences with the copies from the other series, which are by far the most
numerous. I am not talking about simple textual variants, but about significant additions, which
clearly indicate a different recension. This recension is characterized by the presence, among the

8

 reasoning arguments that end the first speech, of two syllogisms that are not found in the
manuscripts of the other series; by the interversion of the last two of these same arguments; and
finally, by the insertion, in the body of the speech, of a text from St. Basil, not to mention other less
serious modifications. It is evident, on the other hand, that the two known representatives of this
first series do not derive from one another: the one from Paris actually has gaps not found in the
Ambrosianus, and interpolations that undoubtedly come from the scribe, who scattered many of his
own notes along the margins and formulas of admiration so frequent that they quickly become
tiresome. Perhaps I will be reproached for having taken the trouble to note them all, and, in truth,
one could say of more than one: Ut quid frustra locum occupat?
I have given preference, in the establishment of the text, to the manuscript from Milan, the best
representative, at least to my knowledge, of the first series. This is because there exists, in favor of
this manuscript, aside from intrinsic arguments not lacking in value, an extremely significant external
reason: it is the only one to have preserved for us the Greek text of the first two documents
presented by the Latins, one at the very beginning of the deliberations; the other, after the first reply
from the Greeks. This fact alone is proof that the scribe must have drawn from a good source. It is
regrettable that he did not also preserve for us the translation of the series of objections raised by
the Latins regarding the response given by Mark of Ephesus to the first Latin reply. If this
document, which seems to be of very limited length, had come down to us, our conciliar file
regarding the question of Purgatory would be absolutely complete.

9

DOCUMENT 1
 Document Of The Latin Deputies Concerning Purgatory.
Chapters Of The Latins To The Greeks Concerning Purgatorial Fire, Given In Writing By These
Deputies.
To those of us and to you, deputies from both the Western and Eastern Churches, gathered in
this shrine of Saint Francis, and beginning to discuss the manner of restoring the union of the Holy
Latins and Greeks, and also the approach to be taken in discussing the controversies of each
Church, you requested that such an inquiry should begin with the purgatorial fire. But since you have
requested that the Roman Church’s faith be expressed concerning the truth of this matter, we briefly
respond in writing: if truly penitent souls depart in charity before they have satisfied the
requirements of penance for what has been committed and omitted, their souls are purified by
purgatorial punishments after death, and the prayers, masses, almsgiving, and other works of piety
of the living faithful are beneficial for relieving these punishments.
However, those souls who, after receiving the sacred baptism, incurred no stain of sin, as well as
those who, having incurred the stain of sin, are purified in their bodies or after having cast off their
bodies, as previously stated, are immediately received into heaven. But the souls of those who die in
mortal sin or with original sin alone descend immediately into hell, where they are to be punished
with different kinds of punishments. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment, all men will appear
before the tribunal of Christ, with their bodies, to give an account of their deeds.
If you say that this is not the dogma of the Eastern Church and desire to know by what
authorities of the Sacred Scripture and the holy Fathers this is founded, we, the Deputies, are ready
to give an account, according to the doctrine of Saint Peter, to everyone who asks about the faith
that is in us. We have thought it fitting to offer this response as satisfaction for your request, which
primarily concerns purgatory. However, if you request an explanation of the other matters we have
stated, we will also seek, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal charity, to satisfy them.

I. That there is a certain preordained place, as we have just said, and that purgatorial fire exists in
the future world, is first declared in the Old Testament in the book of the Maccabees, where it says:
"It is a holy and salutary thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins." But
for those who are in paradise, there is no need to pray, for they do not need it; nor for those in hell,
because they cannot be loosed or purified from their sins. Therefore, there are some who, after this
worldly life, can be loosed or purified from their sins.
II. This is also declared by what the Savior says in the New Testament, in Matthew 12: "Whoever
blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next." In this
statement, it is implied that some sins can be forgiven in this world, and some in the next.
III. And by the Apostle Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 3, where he discusses
building upon the foundation which is Christ, with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw;
and then he adds: "The Day of the Lord will reveal it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire
will test the work of each one, what sort it is. If anyone's work survives that has been built upon,

11

 they will receive a reward; if anyone's work is burned up, they will suffer loss, but they will be saved,
yet so as through fire." These words about the purging fire in the future world explain themselves,
for the words "he will be saved, yet so as through fire" cannot be understood as referring to the
damned, because they will not be saved but will perish forever; nor can it be understood as referring
to those who die without sin, for of these it was recently said: "If anyone's work survives"; but those
who die without sin have nothing for which they need to be purged by fire. Therefore, it must be
understood as referring to others who are to be purified in another life, yet will be saved.
IV. It is also declared by the universal custom of the Church, both Latin and Greek, which prays
for the dead, and has always been accustomed to pray for them. Certainly, such prayer would be
useless if purgatory after death were not considered, for it would be in vain to pray for those who
are already in heavenly glory or in hell.
V. By the authority of the Holy Roman Church, taught and instructed by the blessed apostles
Peter and Paul, and by other holy pontiffs, who have shone with innumerable miracles, and whom
both Greeks and Latins venerate as saints; for she has always held and preached this, even during the
time of union, and continuously before the present outbreak of division.
VI. The truth of this faith of ours is declared by the authority of the holy Fathers of both the
Greeks and the Latins, and especially those whom both Latins and Greeks accepted in the universal
council, whose words are these: "We follow in all things the holy Fathers and doctors of the Church:
Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine,
Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Leo, Proclus, and we accept all things which they have
expounded regarding right faith and the condemnation of heretics." From some of these doctors
and a few others, we will briefly refer to certain points, for the sake of brevity.
First, Blessed Augustine, in his homily on the purgatorial fire, explaining the words of the
Apostle: "No one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus," says:
"Many are deceived by a false security, misunderstanding this reading, believing that even if they
build upon the foundation of Christ with capital sins, these sins can be purged by a temporary fire,
and that they will later reach eternal glory. This understanding, dear brothers, must be corrected, for
those who flatter themselves with such thoughts deceive themselves. For by that temporary fire, of
which the Apostle speaks, 'he will be saved, yet so as through fire,' not capital sins, but only minor
sins are purged."
The same Augustine, in Book XXI of The City of God, Chapter 13, says: "Temporary
punishments are some in this life only, some after death, and some both now and then; however,
after the final and most severe judgment, they will be suffered. Not all come into eternal
punishments, which will be future after that judgment, who undergo temporary punishments after
death. For some, that which is not forgiven in this life will be forgiven in the future world, that is, so
that they are not punished with eternal punishment in the next world, as we have already said."

12

 And in Chapter 24, he says: "For it cannot truly be said of some that they will not be forgiven,
either in this world or the next, unless they are those to whom, even if not in this world, it will still
be forgiven in the next."
The same Augustine, in the book On the Care of the Dead, says: "In the books of the
Maccabees, we read of sacrifices offered for the dead; but even if it were never read in the ancient
Scriptures, the authority of the entire Church, which is evident in this custom, is not insignificant,
for in the prayers of the priest, which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, there is a place for
the commemoration of the dead."
The same Augustine in the same book says: "The supplications for the souls of the dead should
not be omitted, which the Church has undertaken to make for all those who have died in the
Christian and Catholic society, even under their names unknown, under the general
commemoration. This is so that those who are lacking relatives, or sons, or any kin or friends may
be commended by the common mother, the Church. But if these supplications were lacking, which
are made with true faith and piety for the dead, I think that it would do nothing for their spirits,
even if their lifeless bodies were placed in holy places."
The same Augustine in the book On Penitence says: "Penitence, if it comes at the end of life,
heals and frees by the washing of baptism; so that those who are baptized at the end of their lives
do not experience purgatory. But those endowed with the blessings of the holy mother Church will
receive abundant good in true blessedness." And a little further on, he says: "Late penitence often
deceives many. But because God is always powerful, He can always help, even in death, those to
whom it pleases Him. Therefore, since fruitful penitence is the work of God and not of man, He
can inspire it whenever He wills with His mercy, and reward with mercy those whom He could
condemn with justice. But since there are many things which hinder and delay, it is most dangerous
and close to ruin to delay penitence until death. But even if the penitent lives, and does not die, we
do not promise that he will escape all punishment, for he must first be purged by the fire of
purgatory, who has delayed the fruit of his conversion into the next life; here, however, though this
fire is not eternal, it is nevertheless heavy in a wondrous way, for it exceeds all the punishment
anyone has ever suffered in this life."
The same Augustine, in a certain sermon on the dead, which begins with Omnium
Christianorum spes, says: "Therefore, he says, in the prayers of the Church, and in the saving
sacrifice, and in the almsgiving which is offered for their souls, there is no doubt that the dead are
helped, that the Lord may deal with them more mercifully than their sins deserve. For this is what
the Fathers have handed down, and the whole Church observes it, that for those who have died in
communion with the body and blood of Christ, when they are commemorated at the sacrifice in
their place, prayer is offered." And below: "For it is not to be doubted that these things help the
dead, who lived in such a way before death that these things can be of use to them after death."
Saint Ambrose, explaining the words "but he will be saved, yet so as through fire," says: "He will
not be saved without punishment. For by this, he says, he will be saved, but will suffer the

13

 punishments of fire, so that through fire he may be purified and saved, and not like the wicked, who
will be tormented with eternal fire forever: so that, in some way, it will be worth it to have believed
in Christ."
Blessed Gregory the Great, the Supreme Pontiff, in the first book of his Dialogues, brings forth
many examples from revelations, proving the existence of Purgatory, and among other things, he
says: "As each one departs from here, such he is presented in judgment; but still, it must be believed
that some sins are to be purged by the fire before judgment, as the Truth says: 'But whoever speaks
against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next.' In this sentence, it is
understood that some sins can be forgiven in this world, and some in the next. What is denied for
one, the consequent understanding is clear, because it is granted for some. But still, as I said, this is
to be believed to be possible for small and minor sins."
Also, the great Saint Basil, in his prayers, which are customarily said on the vigil of Pentecost, in
one of them, which begins with "Eternal flowing..." prays for the dead: "Hear us as we pray, and
give rest to the souls of Your servants, the forefathers, and brothers, and other kin, and all those
who were united with us in faith." In the following prayer, which begins with "Lord, Almighty God,
Father of mercies," he says: "Hear us humbly praying, and give rest to the souls of Your servants,
who have fallen asleep in a bright place, in a verdant place, in a place of refreshment, where sorrow,
groaning, and mourning have been far removed, and set their spirits among the dwellings of the just,
of peace and remission."
In the funeral rites of the dead, the Savior is addressed thus: "I am the image of Your ineffable
glory, though I bear the marks of sin. Have mercy, Lord, and through Your mercy cleanse me, and
grant me the desired homeland, and restore me to the paradise of Your court."
Gregory Nyssen, in his Dialogue on Consolation and the State of Souls After Death, introduces
his sister Macrina, who speaks after the death of her brother, Blessed Basil: "For it is not out of
hatred or revenge that my opinion holds that God inflicts pain on those who have sinned by living
wickedly; He who seizes and exacts, and draws to Himself whatever His grace has brought into the
world; but He, with better counsel, attracts the soul to Himself, who is the fountain of all beatitude:
but from necessity, what is attracted to Him endures that sharp affection." And further: "And just as
the material mixed with gold is purified by fire, not only is the adulterated part liquefied by the fire,
but the pure gold also must necessarily be melted along with the mixture, and what is pure remains,
while the adulterated part is consumed; so, when wickedness is consumed by purgatory fire, it is
necessary that the soul, which is joined with wickedness, remain in the fire until all the adulterated
material and mixture is removed by the fire."
The same Gregory, in the book he wrote about those who sleep, says: "As long as the power
remains in nature to avoid evil, divine wisdom has devised this plan: that man should be allowed to
be in what he wills, that by tasting what he desires, having experienced the evils, he might, by nature,
spontaneously rush to the former beatitude and eagerly return to it, shaking off every irrational and

14

 harmful weight, whether in the present life with great intention and wisdom, or after this life by the
purging fire of purgatory."
Also, of this purgatory, of which we now speak, the blessed Dionysius is a witness in chapter V
of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where speaking of the prayer the hierarch makes over one who is
sleeping, he says: ‘Then the divine hierarch, proceeding, makes a holy prayer over the one who
sleeps.’ And further: ‘Indeed, in his prayer the hierarch petitions the divine goodness that He may
forgive all the sins committed by human weakness, and may lead him into light and the realm of the
living, into the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from where sorrow, sadness, and groaning
flee.’
Also, Saint Epiphanius, who, against the blasphemer Aerius and among other things saying that
the prayers of the living do not benefit the dead, says: ‘Finally, what is more useful than recalling the
names of the dead? What is more fitting and wondrous than if we believe that those who have
passed from here are living, and that their substance has not perished, but that they live and are with
the Lord, as a religious doctrine is preached, by which those who pray for their brothers can hope
well for them, as for those who have gone on a journey? Moreover, the prayers made for the dead
are useful, although they do not extinguish all sins. However, they benefit, because often, while still
living on earth, we are led, whether willingly or unwillingly, to signify that which is more perfect. For
we make mention of both the just and the sinners: for sinners, that they may implore mercy from
the Lord; for the just, and for the fathers and patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs,
confessors, bishops, anchorites, and all the righteous, that in honoring the Lord Jesus Christ with
special reverence, we may separate them from the rank of other men.’ And further down: ‘But
leaving these aside, I return to the point where I diverged, and I must say that the Church, which has
received this ritual from her ancestors, should do this.’*
This is in harmony with what Damascene says in a certain sermon on the suffrages for the dead,
saying: ‘The disciples of the Savior, aware of the mysteries, made memorials of those who have
fallen asleep faithfully in the tremendous and life-giving mysteries.’ This is referred to by Blessed
Thomas in Sentences, Book IV, Distinction 45, Article 1.*
The bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus also testifies to the existence of this purgatory fire, saying:
‘The Apostle says that he will be saved, so as through a purgatory fire, purging whatever it finds due
to the carelessness of past life, from the dust of even the feet of earthly sense; in this fire he
remains as long as any corporeality or earthly affection clings to him, to be purged. For this, Mother
Church prays and offers devoutly peaceful gifts; and thus, through these, purified, he comes forth
and stands before the purest eyes of the Lord of hosts.’*
VII. In the seventh, the above truth is explained by divine justice, which leaves nothing
unpunished that has been done in an unregulated manner, and which, as Scripture says, establishes
the measure of punishment according to the measure of sin. Therefore, since for every sin a man
deserves a certain punishment, if he does not satisfy it in this world, the order of divine justice
continues so that he may satisfy it in the future, otherwise he would remain unpunished. But if

15

 someone departs in contrition, he will not satisfy this punishment in hell, according to that: ‘The
sinner, in whatever hour he groans, will live and not die,’ which must be understood as referring to
eternal death. However, in heaven, he will not satisfy the punishment of sin, because it is repugnant
to the purity of heaven; for, as Wisdom says, ‘nothing polluted enters it, nor does anything impure
pass through it.’ For heaven is a house of solace, not of punishment; of joy, not sorrow. Therefore,
it remains that besides paradise and hell, another place should be assigned, where this purgation
takes place; and when this is done, once the soul is no longer polluted or defiled, but is made pure, it
immediately flies to God to behold and enjoy Him. Many other things could be added to this.
However, we believe that these are sufficient at present to illuminate this chapter. Now, therefore, we
ask you to clearly show us in the Scriptures what you think of the things that have been said and
exhibit them to us.

16

DOCUMENT 2
 Of The Most Holy Metropolitan Of Ephesus, Lord Mark Of Ephesus, Refutation Of The Articles
Presented By The Latins Concerning The Fire Of Purgatory.
1. Since it is necessary for us to respond with charity to the things you have said, while
preserving our religion and the ecclesiastical doctrines received from the Fathers, we place at the
forefront, in summary, whatever arguments and testimonies you have presented in writing, so that
the response and solution to each may be briefer and clearer. Therefore, these things are said at the
beginning of the writing, namely: ‘If those truly repentant, before they have made satisfaction for
their sins by worthy fruits of repentance, and abandoned them in the love of God, their souls are
purified by purgatorial punishments after death; and that they may be relieved from such
punishments, the prayers of the living faithful, namely the sacrifices of the Mass, prayers, alms, and
other works of piety, are beneficial to them.’ To this we respond as follows. Indeed, the sacrifices of
the Mass, prayers, and alms which are made for the faithful departed benefit them, as both the usage
of the Church, which has long been established, and the various prayers of both Latin and Greek
doctors recited at different times and places, and transmitted in writing, testify: however, we have
not found anywhere expressly written that souls are freed by such aid from certain punishments and
the purifying fire, which has this virtue; nor in the prayers and hymns that are offered for them, nor
in the books of the doctors. Rather, we have received that those detained in hell, who are already
condemned to eternal punishments, whether they are suffering in reality and by practice, or whether
they are dreading them with certain expectation, can indeed be lifted up and experience some small
consolation, but not completely freed from punishment, nor held by any hope that they will ever
gain such liberation. This is sufficiently demonstrated by the things that are told about the great
Macarius, the Egyptian ascetic, who, when he had found a skull in the desert and asked it, was taught
by divine power; and also by what Basil the Great writes in his prayers for Pentecost, customarily
recited: ‘You, who have deigned to receive supplications and entreaties for those detained in hell on
this most solemn and saving feast, and give us great hopes for the future, that the detained may be
released from those burdens with which they are afflicted, and may be comforted by you.’ But if the
souls of the faithful, having departed from this life, are stained by some blemishes, either lighter
ones, for which they did not truly repent, or even heavier ones, for which they did not show
repentance with worthy fruits, we believe that they are purified according to the nature of such
faults, not by any purgatorial fire or certain punishments determined in a fixed place (for, as we have
said, this has never been handed down), but rather in the very exit from the body, through fear itself,
as even the holy Gregory the Dialogist plainly declares; but also even after departure, whether they
remain in this region of the earth, before they arrive at the worship of God and reach a blessed end,
or whether they are detained in hell, they are not certainly in fire and punishment, but as being
detained in custody and prison, when their faults are more severe and need to be expiated over a
longer time. Moreover, we agree that prayers and liturgies offered in their name, with the divine
goodness and mercy accompanying them, help them, for such faults are sometimes immediately
forgiven and dismissed by the divine goodness and mercy, as admitted by that great Dionysius in his

18

 "Consideration on the Mystery" of those who have piously fallen asleep; and sometimes, after some
time, by applying just measures, either they are fully released or their offenders are relieved until the
final judgment.
However, for the removal of these, we do not see the necessity of another punishment or
purgation by fire; for these are purified by fear, those by the torments of conscience, which gnaw
the soul more keenly than any fire. And those souls themselves, by the loss of divine glory and the
darkness of the future, are tormented. These things, as well as others, torment and chastise the
human soul more than anything else, as both experience shows and we have witnesses, such as Saint
John Chrysostom, who writes the same in nearly all, or at least in most, of his moral sermons, and
also the divine ascetic Dorotheus, who speaks about Conscience in his homily. And concerning the
uncertainty of the future, the masters say that they are tormented more by that than by the
punishment itself. Thus, the great Gregory the Theologian in his ninth prayer on the Plague of Hail
says: ‘These indeed are received by the ineffable light and the contemplation of the holy and royal
Trinity; but those, together with others, or rather above others, experience that torment, namely,
being cast away by God, and the shame of conscience, having no end.’
2. Therefore, in order that they may be freed from such evils, we both pray and believe to God
for those who have fallen asleep, but not from any other punishment or fire, except that which has
been threatened to last for eternity. Moreover, the souls of the departed are testified to be freed
from the detention of hell, as from a certain prison, through prayers, as Theophanes the Confessor,
who is called Graptus, along with many others, attests, he who sealed his sermons with the blood of
martyrdom, having had the image of Christ inscribed on his forehead. For he prays in one of the
canons for the departed as follows: ‘Deliver your servants, O Savior, from the tears and groans of
hell.’ Do you hear? He said tears and groans, not from any punishment or purgatorial fire. But if the
mention of some fire appears in these hymns and prayers anywhere, it is not some temporary fire
that has the power of purgation, but that very eternal fire and everlasting torment, from which those
who have departed in faith pray to be delivered. The holy men, moved by mercy and compassion for
their fellow beings, pray and dare to ask this, which can scarcely be granted. For Saint Theodore the
Studite, the confessor and witness of the truth, says in the very beginning of his canon for the
departed: ‘We pray to Christ, remembering those who have died since the world began, that He may
deliver them from the eternal fire, since they died in faith and hope of eternal life.’ Then also, in
another troparion of the fifth ode, he says: ‘Deliver from the fire which always burns, from the dark
mist, from the gnashing of teeth, and from the worm that never ceases to torment, and from any
other punishment, O Savior, all who have piously fallen asleep.’ Where is this purgatorial fire? If it
were to be clearly acknowledged, where would it be more fittingly expressed by the saint than in this
place? Certainly, are those holy men not heard by God while they pray these things? It is not for us
to judge; but they themselves decide the matter, as does the Spirit dwelling in them, by whom they
spoke and wrote, and indeed the Lord Christ, who gave the command to pray for our enemies, and
who prayed for those crucifying Him, and who inspired Stephen, the proto-martyr, to pray the same

19

 while he was being stoned. But, someone might say, when we pray for such people, surely we are not
heard. Let it be so, but all that lies with us, we fulfill; and indeed some saints, when they prayed not
only for the faithful but also for the unbelievers, were heard and delivered them from eternal
punishment, as is said about Thecla, the proto-martyr, and the blessed Gregory the Dialogist, who,
as it is reported, freed Emperor Trajan from eternal torment.
3. Therefore, for all such men, sacred prayers and Masses are performed by the Church and by
us. As for those who already enjoy divine beatitude, the efficacy of these prayers, especially the
secret sacrifice, is shown by those things we say in the prayers of the Mass, prepared by the great
John Chrysostom, namely: ‘We also offer this reasonable service for those who have fallen asleep in
the faith, for the ancestors, the fathers, the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, the
confessors, the ascetics, and for every soul that has passed away with faith in their life.’ For although
we do not specifically pray for goods from God for them, we give thanks for them and we perform
this for their glory; and in this way, the sacrifice is also offered for them, even in a small way, and it
contributes to their benefit. Indeed, if we ask for something, there is nothing surprising in it, for
Dionysius, the expounder of divine matters, in his "Contemplation of the Mystery," which is said to
be offered for those who have piously fallen asleep, says: ‘The priest, for those who have lived holy
lives, asks God for the clearest and most divine life from Him, to be rendered in return for their just
judgments, and also for the good things promised by Him and certainly to be given, so that the one
who is regarded as the interpreter of divine laws may also ask for divine gifts as if they were his own
rewards, and may make clear what he requests according to the sacred rite, that these will indeed be
granted to those who have been perfected according to the divine life.’ Therefore, since this efficacy
extends to all, and since the aid of the secret prayers and sacrifices helps almost all those who have
fallen asleep in faith, as has been shown, we see no necessary reason to assert that such help can
only be given to those dwelling in purgatorial fire.
4. After these things, you have wished to further prove the doctrine of purgatorial fire. First,
indeed, from the Book of Maccabees, in which it is written, ‘It is a good and wholesome thing to
pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins’; and then from the Gospel according to
Matthew, where the Savior says, ‘Anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be
forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come’; from which it seems to be implied that some
remission is given in the future life. However, that these do not introduce a purgatorial fire is more
clearly evident. For what has remission in common with purgation by fire and punishment? Indeed,
if remission is granted, whether by prayers or by divine mercy alone, there is no longer any need for
punishment or purgation; but if punishment and purgation are established together (for this is why
they are established, and they would be completely pointless if purgation did not take place through
them), then it seems we are offering prayers in vain and praising God’s mercy in vain. Therefore,
from the testimonies presented, purgatorial fire is not confirmed but rather disproven; for in these,
the remission of sins is shown as the effect of some royal power and mercy, not as liberation from
punishment or purgation.

20

 5. The third testimony, which is drawn from the first epistle of the blessed Paul to the
Corinthians, where the Apostle, while speaking of one who builds upon the foundation, which is
Christ, with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, adds: ‘For the Day of the Lord will
declare it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
If anyone’s work remains that he has built on, he will receive a reward; if anyone’s work is burned
up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.’ — This, I say, seems to be
the testimony that most of all suggests purgatorial fire; yet it undermines it the most. For, in the first
place, the blessed Apostle said that the fire has the power to test, but not to purge; then, he declared
that even the finest and most precious works would pass through it; these, as is clear, do not require
purgation. Afterward, he says that those who have borne evil works will suffer loss when their works
are burned, but those who are purified will not only suffer no loss but will gain much. Furthermore,
he says that such things will happen on that day, namely, the Day of Judgment and the future age;
for the Day will declare it, he says, since it will be revealed in fire. But to apply purgatorial fire to that
time, that is, after the terrible arrival of the Judge and the final sentence, is it not very absurd? For
the Scripture gives us no such thing; indeed, that very one who will judge us says, ‘These will go
away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life’; and again, ‘They will go
forth to the resurrection of life, but those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation’;
yet He does not leave any intermediate place, but after He divides all those to be judged into two
parts, setting some on His right hand, others on His left, calling those on the right sheep, and those
on the left goats, He addresses them individually, without ever mentioning a third group, who should
be purified by that fire. Therefore, it seems that the fire spoken of by the Apostle is that which
David the prophet says: ‘A fire will blaze before Him, and a mighty storm will be round about Him’;
and elsewhere, ‘Fire will go before Him and will consume His enemies round about,’ and Daniel
again: ‘A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him.’ Indeed, this fire makes the saints,
who bear no work or mark of wickedness, brighter, as gold is refined in the furnace or as the stone
they call asbestos, which, when placed in the fire, seems to be reduced to charcoal, but when taken
out of the fire, becomes brighter, as the bodies of those three holy youths in the Babylonian
furnace; but the sinners, who have readily offered their vice, like easily combustible fuel to that fire,
will soon be seized and set on fire, and their work, that is, their evil will or deed, will be utterly
consumed. But they themselves will be deprived of the things they have carried, namely, the wicked
goods; yet they will be saved, that is, they will be forever kept and guarded, so that they will not
perish together with their wickedness.
6. And this interpretation of that particular passage is also presented by the holy father
Chrysostom (who indeed is called the mouth of Paul among us, just as Paul is called the mouth of
Christ), explaining the epistle, with Paul himself dictating, as Proclus, his disciple and successor in
the seat, was shown in a vision, and delivering a special sermon on this very statement, so that the
followers of Origen, whose opinion seems to align more with yours than with ours, might not draw
this saying into their own meaning, and so weaken the Church, asserting that the damnation of the

21

 reprobate will eventually cease, and the complete restoration of the wicked will occur; for he says
that a sinner will be saved "as through fire," meaning he will remain subject to fire, but will not be
utterly consumed along with his evil works and vices. On this fire, the great Basil also speaks in his
Morals, interpreting the Psalm verse, "Before the Lord's fire burns," where he says: "The fire that is
prepared for the devil and his angels is extinguished by the voice of the Lord: for, since it has two
properties, one which burns and the other which illuminates, the harshness and torment of the fire
must remain for those deserving of burning, while its brightness and radiance must be destined to
the happiness of those who will lead a joyful and blessed life." Therefore, it seems that this cutting
and division of the fire will occur when, with its power dissolved, the clear and shining works of
those who have provided them will shine even more brightly, as the light will remain for the reward
of those who will receive it eternally. But those who have produced evil and facilitated their own
burning will gain salvation in the worst form of perdition, forever remaining in a fire that persists
(for this is what "saved" properly signifies), lest it seem that they too might be entirely consumed,
since fire has the power to destroy. Many others among our countrymen also understood this
statement in the same manner. But if someone interprets it differently, understanding "salvation" as
liberation from punishment, and "passing through fire" as purification, they are entirely mistaken, if
it is permissible to speak thus. Nor is it surprising, for we see many learned interpreters of Scripture
explaining the same passages in various ways, without all of them arriving at the same fullness of
meaning; for it is impossible for the same text explained in different ways to suit everyone equally.
We, however, must choose those interpretations that are more consistent with the principal
ecclesiastical dogmas, leaving the others aside. Therefore, we will by no means change the
interpretation, even though Augustine gives this interpretation, or Gregory the Dialogist, or some
other of your learned men; for this interpretation offers less support for a temporary purgatorial fire
than the opinion of Origen, which postulates the restoration and liberation of souls from
punishment through that fire, an opinion which, as a common pest of the Church, was condemned
and anathematized by the fifth general council, and has ultimately been entirely rejected.
7. Thus, in this way, we respond to the testimonies which you have presented from sacred
Scripture. Then, furthermore, you have referred to certain sayings of the holy Fathers that seem to
support your opinion, presenting some words of the fifth general synod, in which it is decreed that
one must assent to all the Fathers, whose sayings you have decided to expound and accept, including
Augustine and Ambrose, who certainly seem to have more openly taught about this purgatorial fire.
However, we are entirely unaware of those words, for the acts of that synod are not found among
us; therefore, we request that they be presented, if indeed they are written down among you. For it
seems rather strange to us that Theophilus has been listed among the other Doctors, since there are
no works of his on matters of faith, but his infamous behavior is universally notorious, especially
for his fury against Chrysostom and his other misdeeds, for which he was later, after his death,
penalized with deposition and anathema, according to a letter that Pope Innocent is said to have
written.

22

 8. Nevertheless, if the testimonies of blessed Augustine are to be examined, in the first place,
explaining that apostolic saying, he says that the temporary and transient fire, of which the apostle
speaks, "But he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire," is for the purification of light sins, not
mortal sins. But this explanation, which Chrysostom gives, as we said, is opposed both to the sense
of that saying and to your opinion: for if that fire is revealed at that time, and it will be both
temporary and transient, beginning and ending, which the apostle by no means says, where is that
purgatorial fire which you firmly hold exists, by which immediately after death sinners are taken
away? How long, then, will that fire torment men who are passing through it, if it is temporary and
transient? Moreover, it contradicts the testimony which is presented next, drawn from the book De
Civitate Dei; for in that work he says: "Not all come to eternal punishments, which are to be after
that judgment, those who suffer temporal punishments after death." Therefore, if after death,
temporal punishments, whether by fire as you affirm or through other means as we say, follow, and
eternal punishment immediately follows that judgment, when then will that purgatorial fire take
place and purify those who are about to pass through it? Moreover, Gregory the Theologian does
not say that the fire is temporary and transient, but rather more severe and lasting, just as
Chrysostom does. For in his prayer for the Novatians he writes: "Perhaps there they will be baptized
by fire, the final baptism, which is more laborious and lasting, and which consumes the material like
hay and destroys all the lightness of malice." You see how lightly your doctors have touched the
meaning of these passages, and have not penetrated fully, as did that golden-tongued John and this
theologian, along with other great lights of the Church?
9. As for the things which follow, both blessed Augustine and the holy father Ambrose, some of
them do not openly affirm the purgatorial fire, except that the dead are aided by liturgies and prayers
made on their behalf; others, however, clearly state it, but we fear that some corruption or addition
has crept in, as often happens with the works of saints among us; especially since such writings,
when translated into our language, were in no way based on the foundation of the sacred Scriptures,
as we said. And perhaps someone might say, explaining these words, that the Fathers were almost
forced to make such an interpretation of the Apostle's words. Indeed, lest any guilt seem to be
purged by these, and thus a conclusion of damnation be drawn, as was Origen's view, since they
could not, as is probable, understand the force of the words in translation, they declared the
purification of light sins, and indicated a dismissal. As for the blessed Gregory, whom you say in the
fourth book of his Dialogues demonstrated purgatory with many examples and revelations, he
indeed considers that there is truly a purgatorial fire after death, before that final judgment, whether
he interprets it allegorically or sincerely believes it. However, the testimonies from the sacred
Scriptures which he adduces to confirm this do not carry any necessity with them, as we previously
said; and the narrations and revelations which he presents do not indicate any fixed place for the
purgatorial fire. For those who are thus purified, he asserts that some are subjected to baths to serve
those who are washed; others, through revelation, appeared burning in various places; all of which
seem to be nothing other than miracles and revelations privately shown by God to lead to the

23

 conversion and repentance of the living; but the universal purgatorial fire is not in any way proven
by any of these arguments. In fact, through what follows, the doctrine of the purgatorial fire is
entirely overturned. For he says that the smallest and lightest sins in the righteous are purged by the
compensation of other good works in this life; others, upon leaving the body, are purged only
through fear; and others, even after death, are purified through the alms and offerings made in their
name. So why, then, the purgatorial fire, when there are so many means of purification available?
Thus, we respond to your doctors, where it seems they disagree with us; for there is no other way to
explain those things.
10. Moreover, the words of the great Basil, in which, praying to God for the departed in the
prayers for Pentecost, he implores rest for them and that they may be numbered among the just,
establish nothing at all regarding purgatorial fire. Similarly, in the hymn we sing for the dead, in
which we address God on behalf of the deceased, saying: “Have mercy on your creation, Lord, and
cleanse it in your mercy,” a purification indeed seems to be implied, but not through fire, rather
through divine mercy and goodness alone. For it would be absurd to ask for someone who has
already been purified by fire to be cleansed further through mercy. Rather, we beseech that the stains
which hinder them from enjoying the vision of God may be removed solely by divine goodness. We
call this purification.
11. As for the statements of the blessed Gregory of Nyssa that are subsequently presented, it
would have been better to pass over them in silence than to compel us to openly defend them. For
this teacher appears to clearly assent to Origenist doctrines, particularly in those prayers where he
concludes that condemnation is nothing other than a certain purification and a furnace drawing
souls to God through pain and labor, with the eventual restoration of all things, even the demons
themselves, so that, as he says, God may be “all in all,” according to the Apostle’s teaching. Since
such an authority is presented alongside the others, we first respond, as we have received from our
fathers, that these are likely corruptions and interpolations introduced by certain heretics who
adhered to Origen’s ideas. Many such heretics flourished in those times, especially in the regions of
Egypt and Palestine, to make it seem as though they had the holy and great luminary [Gregory] as
the patron of their opinion. Secondly, we say that the holy Gregory, even if he did truly hold such
an opinion, was still a man and liable to error, especially since this doctrine was controversial at the
time, neither fully resolved nor entirely rejected, which only occurred at the Fifth Council. Thus, it is
not surprising if he deviated somewhat from the truth, as happened to many others before him—
such as Irenaeus, bishop of the Lugdunenses, Dionysius of Alexandria, and others. For even they
gave some occasion for calumniators with their words. Moreover, that this doctrine was
controversial and not yet fully clarified is testified by Gregory the Theologian, who, in his discourse
on baptism, discussing the inextinguishable fire, adds the following: “Unless someone wishes to
understand this more humanely, and as punishment deserving of mercy.” You see how he allows
anyone willing to interpret that fire in a more benevolent manner? However, at the Fifth Ecumenical
Council, this opinion was deemed utterly inhumane; therefore, since it undermined the Church and

24

 weakened the more diligent believers, it was anathematized. Those words, if indeed they were
spoken by the illustrious Gregory concerning that fire, imply not a partial but a perfect purification
and the complete restoration of all things. However, they do not persuade us, who adhere to the
common opinion of the entire Church and use sacred Scripture as our rule and norm, not
considering what any individual wrote peculiarly on the matter, nor embracing the writings of others
who may have proposed different ideas about purgatorial fire. For neither does Scripture teach a
dual punishment or a dual fire.
12. Later, other statements are introduced, those of the divine Dionysius, the great Epiphanius,
and the eminent theologian Damascenus, which assert nothing at all concerning purgatorial fire, but
rather overturn the concept. For they say that it is solely through divine goodness that sins
committed by human frailty and carried into death are forgiven. They also show that the sacrifices
of the Mass and prayers offered for the dead are beneficial to them. But it has already been said that
we also hold and affirm the same, both in belief and in practice. Furthermore, the authority of the
blessed Theodoret, which you present, is neither known nor accepted by us, and we would like to
know from you where it was taken from and from which of his works.
13. Furthermore, you have said, "The proposed dogma is made quite evident if one considers
divine justice, which leaves no disorderly offense unpunished. Therefore, since it is impossible for
those who have not fully paid their penalty in this life to do so either in heaven or in hell, it follows
necessarily that there exists a third, separate place, where this purification occurs, through which,
once cleansed, one is immediately raised to heavenly enjoyment.” To this argument, we respond as
follows, and let it be considered entirely true and just. It is indeed beyond dispute that the remission
of sins is accompanied by liberation from the penalty owed for them; for as soon as someone is
absolved of their sins, they are also freed from the penalty owed for those sins. This remission,
however, is granted in three ways and at different times: first, at the time of baptism; second, after
baptism through repentance, sorrow, and the compensation of good works in this life; and finally,
after death, through prayers, alms, and other works performed by the Church for the dead. The first
remission, indeed, is entirely free from labor, open to all equally, just like the outpouring of light, the
vision of the sun, and the succession of seasons; for it is entirely a matter of grace and demands
nothing from us except faith. The second, however, involves much labor, like that of “one who
washes his bed and couch with tears every night,” who still bears the scars of sin, who walks in
mourning and sorrow, and who imitates the repentance of the Ninevites and the humility of
Manasseh, to whom mercy was granted. The third, while laborious in its own way (as it involves
repentance, a striking conscience, and lamenting lost goods), is entirely free from penalty, since it is
remission itself. For remission and penalty cannot coexist. In the first and last cases, divine grace
plays the greater part, aided by prayers, and what we contribute is minimal. On the other hand, in the
second case, grace plays a lesser role, while the greater effort is required from us. The first remission
differs from the last in this respect: the former completely removes all sins, while the latter removes
only those that are not mortal and of which one has repented in life. This is the belief of the

25

 Church of God, which, while praying for the remission of the dead and hoping it will be granted,
does not impose any penalty on them, knowing well that the reasoning of justice in such matters is
far surpassed by divine goodness.
14. I. Indeed, if, as Gregory the Theologian says, the very desire for the divine presence—that is,
love—purifies those who desire God in this life, and if the purified are rendered godlike and
addressed by God as His own, how could the same desire, after death, fail to purify souls freed from
bodily matter, such that a purgatorial fire would still be necessary to atone for minor sins?
II. Moreover, it is more fitting to divine goodness not to disregard a small good than to punish a
minor sin. Yet, a small good in those who have gravely sinned earns no reward because of the
overwhelming weight of their wickedness. Likewise, a minor evil in those who have done many
noble deeds does not deserve punishment, because their greater deeds outweigh it. For if the greater
is not, certainly the lesser will not be. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose the existence of
purgatorial fire.
III. Similarly, as a small good in otherwise wicked people does not result in a reward but only
lessens punishment, so a small evil in otherwise good people will not result in punishment but only a
diminished enjoyment of reward. Thus, it should not be thought that there is purgatorial fire.
IV. Furthermore, if the perfect reward for those pure in heart and soul is the vision of God, and
not all receive this equally, then purification cannot be uniform, nor would there be any reason for
purgatorial fire. For if some had imperfect purification, all would have to be equally purified by the
same fire and equally made fit to see God. This allegorically and figuratively occurred on the
mountain where the law was given: “For not all were deemed worthy in the same state or order, but
each according to their mode and measure of purification,” as Gregory the Theologian observes.
V. Also, the great Gregory the Theologian, in his mystical discourse on Easter, when he reaches
the part where he says, “We shall take nothing out, nor leave anything over for the next day,”
explicitly and clearly asserts that there will be no purification beyond the present night, calling the
present night the life of each person and denying any purification after it.
VI. Likewise, in his discourse on the plague of hail, he states: “I omit to speak of the torments
there, to which the impunity of the wicked in this life delivers them, so that it is better to be
chastised and purified now than to be afflicted with punishment there, when it will be a time for
punishment, not purification.” He plainly declares that there is no purification after departing this
life, only eternal punishment.
VII. Finally, our Lord, in the parable from the Gospel according to Luke about the rich man and
Lazarus, teaches the condition that befell each of them. He says that Lazarus, upon dying, was
immediately carried by angels to the bosom of Abraham, while the rich man, upon dying, was
buried, and his soul was found in torment in hell. Having thus signified by the bosom of Abraham
the supreme and blessed rest of those pleasing to God, and by hell and torment the ultimate
damnation and eternal punishment of the wicked, He left no middle place containing temporary

26

 punishment, but instead indicated a great and impassable chasm by which the two are separated and
their utter and unbridgeable opposition is manifested.
VIII. Likewise, it is inconsistent for a soul separated from the body—now entirely incorporeal
and free from matter—to be tormented by corporeal fire, since the body, which the fire would have
consumed, has already perished. Indeed, after the resurrection, when the soul will again take on an
incorruptible body, and all creation will have been transformed, it will then be possible for it to be
tormented with a punishment appropriate to its nature by fire, as we know, which can divide and
separate. Not only the soul but also demons, who are dark and clothed in some form of material
density, such as aerial or fiery bodies, according to the great Basil, will be subject to this fire. But
before the soul receives its proper body, being a mere form without any admixture of matter—
although it exists in itself—how could it possibly be tormented by corporeal fire?
IX. Likewise, if the souls of the saints were detained in hell solely on account of original sin
until the Savior descended there, it was certainly not in fire and torment but rather in custody and
imprisonment, as the Apostle Peter says in his epistle: “In which also He went and preached to the
spirits in prison.” Why, then, should the souls of those who have committed minor sins in this life
be possessed by such a hell after death, rather than requiring purgatorial fire, through which they
could be released by prayers?
X. Likewise, our holy fathers—those who led lives on earth like angels—although frequently and
in various ways, through visions, dreams, and other miracles, were instructed themselves and taught
others about eternal punishment and the wicked sinners subjected to it, and although they foresaw
these things as if present and already realized, describing them in their teachings (as, for example,
the parable in the Gospel according to Luke describes the condition of the rich man and Lazarus),
yet they declared nothing anywhere about a purgatorial fire that would someday come to an end.
XI. Likewise, the doctrine of the “restoration of all things” and the end of eternal punishment,
which, as has been said, originated with Origen and was embraced by certain ecclesiastical men,
among whom are Didymus and Evagrius—this doctrine, which purported to emphasize God’s
kindness toward humanity and was very pleasing to the less discerning, as that godly author John,
the Heavenly Ladder, says—was nevertheless condemned and rejected by the holy Fifth Ecumenical
Council, because it encouraged laxity in the minds of people and made those who were already
negligent even more careless, as they anticipated eventual liberation from torment and the promised
restoration. For the same reasons, the proposed doctrine of purgatorial fire likewise seems to be
something that should be eliminated by the Church, because it induces negligence even in the more
diligent, persuading them not to strive with all their strength to purify themselves in this life, as they
anticipate another purification after death.

27

DOCUMENT 3
 The Response Of The Greeks To The Position Of The Latins On The Fire Of Purgatory, Recited
By Bessarion Of Nicaea On June 14, 1538.
1. If, most reverend lords and fathers, the sole aim of our discussions were victory, and if our
only concern were to secure triumph by any means, we would surely act neither justly nor fairly
toward one another. But since we, who have undertaken such great labors and made this long and
arduous journey, and you, who have expended so much effort to hold this assembly, aim at nothing
else but to embrace the truth, wherever it may lie, and count that as the most desirable gain, there is
great hope, with God’s help, that we may conclude this matter to the satisfaction of both sides and
depart in mutual agreement. This, we trust, will not only apply to the controversy presently under
discussion but, perhaps, even to all others, which though they seem impossible to resolve for us, are
entirely possible with God, as the sacred Scriptures proclaim. Let the concern for those matters rest
with God, for He surely will not permit our efforts to be in vain. He, who among the many titles
attributed to Him has not disdained to be called the “God of peace,” will not render our discussions
fruitless. Instead, as the cornerstone and bond of unity, He will join us together, making us, who are
disjointed members of His body, into one single body under one head, which is Himself.
Concerning the specific question now before us, we must begin our discussion with God as our
guide.
2. Regarding purgatorial fire and a temporary punishment through fire that will eventually end,
we have not received such teaching from our own doctors, nor do we know the Eastern Church to
hold such a belief, as we have previously stated. However, we fully affirm and hold that the prayers
the Church offers for the departed, as a pious act of worship to God, do benefit them in some way.
We base this on the decrees of the Fathers concerning this matter. We believe and confess that the
souls of the saints, untainted by sin, are granted eternal life, while those who have abused this
present life, indulging in the pleasures of the flesh without regard for virtue, deserve eternal
punishment. In this we agree with you, and we commend the clarity of your distinction, giving
thanks to God and rejecting the false notions we previously attributed to you based on
misrepresentation. However, concerning those souls who occupy a middle state between virtue and
vice—having committed certain non-mortal sins due to the passions inherent in their embodied
state—we disagree with the notion that they require a purgatorial fire to expiate their sins before
attaining eternal glory. While we affirm that such souls do not deserve eternal punishment (a
position we find entirely consistent with divine mercy), we do not accept the necessity of a
purgatorial fire, as proposed in your response.
3. Thus, we must address this topic by dividing it into sections. The entire controversy can be
separated into two main points, with one of these points further divided into two sub-points. First,
we must consider whether God grants the remission of certain sins after death. Second, we must
determine whether this remission is granted through punishment or purely through divine mercy
and the prayers of the Church. If it is through punishment, we must then ask whether this involves

29

 some other form of purification—such as imprisonment, darkness, or ignorance—or whether it
necessarily requires fire, specifically the corporeal fire you assert.
4. In addressing this final question (i.e., that souls are subjected to punishment through
purgatorial fire as a means of attaining eternal life), we do not agree for several reasons. First, we
have not received such a teaching from any of our doctors. Second, we fear that by introducing the
concept of a temporary and purgatorial fire, we might destabilize the entire Church. Since God and
our Savior declared that sinners would be cast into eternal fire, however that fire is understood, this
has been the only fire recognized by the faithful. From childhood, their ears have been filled with
this teaching, and it is this fire that they fear above all, shaping their actions and guiding their lives.
If, however, we were now to speak of a temporary fire, there is a danger that the faithful might
mistake it for eternal fire and conclude that all fire is of this kind. This could lead to the error of
Origen, causing people to dismiss the thought of eternal punishment and anticipate an eventual end
to their suffering. Such a view would lead to many absurdities, including widespread negligence in
living rightly and an increase in sin, which would only supply material for eternal punishment. For
these reasons, we have never adopted this belief, nor do we intend to do so.
5. As for the question of whether God remits sins after death for those who have committed
venial sins (the first of the points under discussion), we affirm this in accordance with the teachings
of the doctors, as they have explained it. Regarding the second point—whether this remission
occurs through some form of punishment, such as imprisonment or darkness, or purely through
God’s mercy and the prayers of the Church—this is not the time to address it. We must instead
focus on your arguments and demonstrate that the doctors of our Church make no mention of
purgatorial fire in their writings. The testimonies you have presented in support of this doctrine will
now be examined and, with God’s help, addressed to the best of our ability.
6. As for the testimonies you have cited from the books of Maccabees and the divine Gospel
according to Matthew, we will not speak at great length here, for the reasons already stated above.
These are manifest to all and clearly demonstrate that forgiveness of certain sins is granted to some
after death. However, whether this is through punishment, and specifically through fire, they do not
in any way suggest. Indeed, that these passages do not plainly support purgatorial fire is clearer than
daylight. For what connection is there between forgiveness and purification by fire and punishment?
Either there is need for punishment or for forgiveness, but not for both at the same time. For "he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to
come," and nothing further is added. Likewise, the passage from Maccabees, which states, "it is a
good and pious thing to pray for the dead, so that they may be absolved of their sins," makes no
mention at all of punishment or fire expressly named; it merely exhorts us to pray to God for the
dead, with the hope that their sins will be forgiven.
7. Thus, these matters are as stated. Let us now turn to that oft-repeated and widely discussed
passage, and let us examine what the saying of the blessed Paul signifies, especially by relying on the
interpretations and reflections of our doctors. If not, we ourselves will carefully scrutinize all that

30

 was said by the Apostle, using the sharpness of our minds to the extent possible, adhering closely to
the very wording, until we can fully grasp the true intention of the divine herald. “For no one can lay
a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation
with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each one’s work will become manifest; for the
day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each
has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If
anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through
fire” (1 Cor. 3:11–15).
8. First, we would like you to know that the blessed John, golden both in spirit and speech,
devoted diligent effort to explaining the epistles of the divine herald, as well as the entirety of the
Old and New Testaments. It is reported, and we gladly believe what is written in his life, that he,
having no greater priority than to undertake this work, was deeply moved and even overwhelmed
when he considered the loftiness of the Apostle’s words, fearing greatly lest he stray from the true
sense. Thus, turning to prayer, after fervently supplicating Paul to aid him in this endeavor, he at last
undertook the work. It is said that Paul, partly to affirm the modesty of his intent and partly to
show approval that John should serve as interpreter of his writings, appeared to him as he was
seated, ready to begin the work, and whispered in his ear. This vision was also granted to Proclus,
John’s disciple and successor in the See of Constantinople. The circumstances were as follows: A
certain nobleman, having fallen into misfortune and incurred the royal displeasure, came at night to
John, intending to ask him to intercede with the king. Proclus, entering the little room to inform his
master, saw a figure standing behind John, bending slightly and whispering in his ear. Suspecting
someone had entered without his knowledge, Proclus turned the distressed man away, telling him to
return another time. This happened for three consecutive nights. The figure did not depart but
remained with John, who was now fully engaged in interpreting Paul’s writings. However, whenever
Proclus entered to deliver a message, he also saw the figure standing there. On the third day, John,
remembering the nobleman (for he had known of his case and expected his visit), was surprised he
had not yet come and asked Proclus the reason. Proclus replied, “He has come, and often, but every
time I entered, I saw you occupied with another and feared to trouble you.” John, upon hearing this
and after examining the description, immediately identified the figure as bald and resembling the
image of Paul, which hung there. Greatly praising God and Paul, he was filled with renewed zeal for
the task and, with the help of God and Paul, brought it to completion. The extraordinary grace
evident in these homilies and the exceptional elegance, splendor, and gravity of their style can only
be appreciated by those who understand the language in which he wrote.
9. Returning to the matter at hand, when John came to the passage in question, interpreting it,
he neither said nor thought anything like what you propose. He did not consider this phrase to refer
to purgatory or temporary fire, but rather to eternal and endless damnation. He believed that Paul
used the terms “wood, straw, and hay” to symbolize fuel for eternal flames, and that the “fire” refers
to that everlasting fire. As for the salvation of those punished by fire, he understood it as referring

31

 to their continued existence in that fire and the perpetuity of their punishment. Lest anyone, upon
hearing the word “fire,” knowing also that men will take up bodies after the resurrection, and that
sinners will have bodies susceptible to suffering, suspect that they will suffer only for a time, with
their bodies eventually being consumed and destroyed by this fire—especially when they hear that
their works will be burned—our doctor preemptively counters this notion: “This shall not be, it shall
not be. For those whom this fire takes hold of, it will retain and punish eternally, without any
redemption. Even if their works are consumed in the burning, they themselves will not perish but
will remain intact while being punished, even while in the fire.” This is how he interpreted the
passage, and in the same way did most of the doctors, whose testimony should not be doubted.
10. If, however, you bring forward the blessed Augustine or any other of the Latin saints who
have interpreted these words differently from him—believing that they refer to the fire of purgatory
—we would first reply that it is entirely reasonable for the Greeks to better understand what is
Greek. And you yourselves would not deny that the Greek language is better understood by those to
whom it is native. If, then, what was written in Greek by the Apostle has never been understood or
interpreted by anyone among those who use the Greek language as their mother tongue in any other
way than as the blessed John Chrysostom has explained it, surely greater trust must be placed in
them, as they are many and of such great authority. As for the Latins, we believe that they were
influenced partly by the fact that their translation of Scripture lacks a word that aptly conveys and
expresses the sense of the Greek term, and partly because, to avoid a greater evil, they admitted a
lesser one. For, as Augustine himself states, there were those who extended this statement to all sins,
believing that every sin could be expiated, to the point of asserting that even eternal punishment
would have an end. Augustine, therefore, wishing to remove this opinion and utterly eradicate it
from the minds of people, admitted this intermediate form of punishment, granting the idea of a
temporary fire, though perhaps led to this by the weakness of the words. For the words "saved," "be
saved," and "salvation" in Greek simply mean "to remain" or "to exist" in our common language.
This is also demonstrated by the very meaning of the apostolic statement itself. For since it is the
nature of fire to destroy and consume, and yet those who are detained in eternal punishment are not
consumed (for otherwise their detention would not be eternal), they will remain, he says, existing
and whole, even in the burning fire.
11. First, then, we respond to this interpretation. Moreover, since both John Chrysostom and all
the holy Greek doctors have interpreted this passage as we say, while Augustine and the Latins have
interpreted it otherwise, we, standing in the middle, will revisit the apostolic statement more deeply,
adhering closely to the words themselves and considering what they signify, always prioritizing the
truth. This, then, is how Paul’s statement is understood. “The foundation,” he says, “has been laid,
and now it is not permitted to lay another: for it is one and the same, Jesus Christ, in whom one
must not lose faith. And this foundation remains unchanged.” Up to this point, he speaks about
doctrine. What follows, however, concerns the effort related to works. Addressing the faithful, he
says that no one is allowed to alter the foundation of faith—specifically, faith in God incarnate—for

32

 anyone who attempts to do so must necessarily overturn the entire structure. Since works are dead
without faith, and faith without works is powerless, after addressing faith, he also adds a discussion
of works, speaking of those who build upon the foundation. He divides his statement into only two
parts, establishing no third or middle category. Gold, silver, and precious stones represent virtues,
while wood, straw, and stubble represent their opposites—namely, vices. Now, your opinion might
carry some necessity if Paul had further divided vices into two categories, saying that some could be
expiated while others were subject to eternal punishment. But he says nothing of the sort. Instead,
after enumerating virtues, which lead to eternal life, and vices, which result in eternal punishment, he
adds that each one’s work will be made manifest, also stating when this will happen—the last day,
when God will descend to render to each according to their merit. “For the day will make it
manifest,” he says, “because it will be revealed in fire.” Undoubtedly, this day refers to the second
coming of the Savior and the age to come, a day properly so called because, compared to the
present life, it stands as day compared to night, as Paul also testifies elsewhere: “The night is far
spent, the day is at hand.” This, then, is the day in which Christ, coming in glory, will be preceded by
a river of fire, as also foretold by the prophet Daniel: “A river of fire flowed and went out from
before Him.” And David likewise says: “A fire will burn before Him, and a stormy wind will encircle
Him.” Peter also affirms this, saying: “The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in
which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements, burning with heat, will
dissolve.” And again: “Looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, in which the
heavens, being on fire, will be dissolved, and the elements will melt with fervent heat, as our beloved
brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him.” From all this, it is clear that
Paul spoke in this passage of the final day and the fire that will eternally burn against sinners. This
fire, he says, will test the quality of each one’s work—illuminating one and consuming another along
with its authors. All the doctors agree on this point, particularly the great Basil, who interpreted the
Psalm verse, “The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire,” in this way: “The fire prepared for
the punishment of the devil and his angels is divided by the voice of the Lord, so that, with two
properties in this fire—one that burns and another that illuminates—the harsh and burning force is
reserved for those worthy of burning, while its brightness and radiance are destined to bring joy to
those who will live a happy and blessed life. The voice of the Lord, dividing the flame of fire, thus
ensures that the fire of punishment is obscure and the light of rest is devoid of the power to burn.”
Thus, the twofold nature of this fire is that it embraces the just, illuminating and enlightening them,
making them brighter than any gold, while it burns and eternally punishes sinners. For this reason, it
is said: “The fire will test the quality of each one’s work.” Those whose works remain, being
stronger than the fire or rather having assimilated the fire’s illuminating quality, will receive their
reward. But for those whose works reveal the burning nature of the fire—because they are
combustible and suitable for destruction, like wood, straw, and stubble—the authors of such works
will suffer loss. Yet, not in the sense that their evil works will be destroyed and consumed by the fire,
but in that they themselves will remain in the fire, enduring eternal punishment.

33

 12. First, from the fact that he does not divide sins into mortal and non-mortal but speaks
simply of works as either virtues or vices; second, from his declaration of when this will occur—
namely, on that final day, as also the blessed Peter affirms; and third, from his statement that the fire
will encompass both the works and the workers, consuming those works that are combustible while
preserving the workers unharmed and unconsumed—it is evident that the blessed Paul was not
speaking of purgatorial fire (which you claim is meant to expunge minor sins, not every kind of vice
entirely, and which you posit to occur before judgment for those who have committed venial or
expiable sins, but not for the righteous, whose works are likened to gold and precious stones).
Instead, he refers to that eternal and unending punishment in which these things will take place.
Indeed, even the phrase “will suffer loss,” referring to those whose works are suited to burning,
clearly signifies eternal punishment for those who are to be deprived of the participation in and
splendor of the divine light, administered by the one who will judge them. This does not in any way
align with those who, according to your view, are purified; for they do not suffer loss but rather gain
greatly by shedding their vices and taking on purity and cleanness. Thus, we interpret this passage in
this way, and it seems most likely to be true. If someone, however, interprets it differently—
understanding salvation as liberation from damnation and passing through fire as a means of
purification—it is certain that such an interpretation does not reflect the true sense of Paul’s words.
This is not surprising, since humans, being fallible, often interpret scriptural passages in various
ways, and not all arrive at the same fullness of understanding. It is impossible for the same phrase,
explained with differing interpretations, to be equally fitting for all. We ought to prioritize those
interpretations which come from the most esteemed authorities and are most consistent with
ecclesiastical doctrines, while setting aside others as secondary.
13. First, from the fact that he does not divide sins into mortal and non-mortal but speaks
simply of works as either virtues or vices; second, from his declaration of when this will occur—
namely, on that final day, as also the blessed Peter affirms; and third, from his statement that the fire
will encompass both the works and the workers, consuming those works that are combustible while
preserving the workers unharmed and unconsumed—it is evident that the blessed Paul was not
speaking of purgatorial fire (which you claim is meant to expunge minor sins, not every kind of vice
entirely, and which you posit to occur before judgment for those who have committed venial or
expiable sins, but not for the righteous, whose works are likened to gold and precious stones).
Instead, he refers to that eternal and unending punishment in which these things will take place.
Indeed, even the phrase “will suffer loss,” referring to those whose works are suited to burning,
clearly signifies eternal punishment for those who are to be deprived of the participation in and
splendor of the divine light, administered by the one who will judge them. This does not in any way
align with those who, according to your view, are purified; for they do not suffer loss but rather gain
greatly by shedding their vices and taking on purity and cleanness. Thus, we interpret this passage in
this way, and it seems most likely to be true. If someone, however, interprets it differently—

34

 understanding salvation as liberation from damnation and passing through fire as a means of
purification—it is certain that such an interpretation does not reflect the true sense of Paul’s words.
14. This is not surprising, since humans, being fallible, often interpret scriptural passages in
various ways, and not all arrive at the same fullness of understanding. It is impossible for the same
phrase, explained with differing interpretations, to be equally fitting for all. We ought to prioritize
those interpretations which come from the most esteemed authorities and are most consistent with
ecclesiastical doctrines, while setting aside others as secondary. He was, after all, a man; and it is not
impossible for a human, even one who has reached the pinnacle of sanctity, to err, especially
concerning matters that have not been previously examined or resolved through a council of
gathered Fathers. It is evident that many can discern the truth more accurately than one individual,
just as two good people are better than one. Since the question of eternal punishment had not yet
been debated and settled, it seems that this man leaned toward the opinion that sinners could
eventually be restored, even asserting an end to punishment in certain of his writings. He posited
that this punishment was nothing other than a kind of purification, a furnace, and a drawing toward
God through pain and suffering, leading ultimately to the complete restoration of all, even the
demons themselves, so that, as he says, “God may be all in all,” in accordance with the Apostle’s
words.
15. To this, we first respond with what we have received from our forefathers: that these are
likely deceptive and harmful fabrications of certain heretics, followers of Origen, who flourished
particularly in regions near Egypt and Palestine during those times. These heretics sought to make it
seem as though they had the support of that holy and great luminary as their patron in this opinion.
Secondly, we say that even if that saint [Gregory of Nyssa] truly held such an opinion, it was at a
time when the doctrine was still in controversy and had not yet been fully resolved, as we have
already stated. The contrary opinion had not yet been condemned, which occurred later at the Fifth
Council. Thus, it is not surprising if, as a human, even he erred somewhat in this matter—just as
happened with many others before him, including Irenaeus, bishop of the Lyonnese, and Dionysius
of Alexandria, among others. For these men, too, provided some pretext for critics with their
writings. That this doctrine was disputed and not yet clarified in its truth at that time is confirmed by
Gregory the Theologian, who, in his discourse on Baptism, while discussing that unquenchable fire,
adds: “Unless someone prefers to understand it more kindly here and in a way more fitting to the
dignity of the one punishing.” You see how he leaves it open to those who wish to interpret that fire
more benignly? But in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, this opinion was deemed particularly inhumane
and harmful to the Church, as it fostered laxity among the faithful, and it was condemned as
heretical. Even if the statements attributed to the blessed Gregory about that fire suggest
purification, they do not imply a particular or temporary purification, but rather a complete and
absolute restoration of all. However, we place no trust in these claims, as we align ourselves with the
common judgment of the entire Church and use sacred Scripture as our rule and standard. We do
not consider what any individual among them wrote in isolation. Nor is it necessary for us to

35

 embrace certain writings about purgatorial fire merely because someone expressed an opinion on the
subject. Scripture does not teach a dual punishment or a dual fire, nor did the Fifth Ecumenical
Council hand such a doctrine down to us.
16. But you will say that Augustine, the blessed Ambrose, and Gregory the Dialogist affirmed
this openly. We acknowledge this, and it cannot be denied. However, since these were Latin writers
and wrote in Latin, some of them do not explicitly establish anything about purgatorial fire but only
teach that the dead benefit from liturgies and prayers offered on their behalf. Others, though they
may speak clearly on the matter, left behind no writings of this sort—at least none that we have read
to this day, aside from Augustine's book On the Trinity and Gregory’s Dialogues, both of which
have only recently been translated from Latin into Greek. What wonder is it, then, that we are
ignorant of what we have never seen, read, or heard? Indeed, our own people and all those who
used the Greek language left nothing whatsoever written about these matters. As for what the Latins
wrote, these are wholly unintelligible to us Greeks. Yet even the statements of these Fathers may be
interpreted in a more moderate sense—and rightly so. From the writings of both Augustine and
Gregory the Dialogist, it is clear that neither they nor others who spoke of this matter intended to
establish it as a doctrine by their own authority or to assert it as definitively true. Rather, as one
might say, they were compelled or constrained by circumstances and limited reasoning, forced to
accept a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater one. This was the belief, held by some, that all sin
could be expiated. Believing it a violent thing to contradict the many who held this view, and fearing
that their opposition might seem implausible if they denied outright that any sin could be forgiven,
they took a middle path, accepting the lesser evil to make their position more reasonable and avoid
the greater evil. Yet we should not firmly adhere to what some have said in conformity to the times.
Even if they had definitively declared such beliefs, it would still not be necessary for us to follow
them or acquiesce to their views. If they argue from the words of Paul, interpreting them as
referring to some temporary fire (although we have already explained what Paul meant,
demonstrating from John Chrysostom and the context of the passage that his words differ
completely from the interpretation of the Western Church Fathers), how can we readily accept a
doctrine that originates from a mistaken premise and proceeds from it to conclusions contrary to
our understanding?
17. But you claim that the blessed Gregory, in the fourth book of his Dialogues, demonstrated
purgatory with many examples and revelations. Indeed, he does establish purgatory after death,
before the final judgment—whether he understood it allegorically or truly believed it. However, the
testimonies he adduces from Scripture to support and confirm this idea carry no compelling
necessity, as we have said before. As for the narratives and revelations he recounts, they do not
establish any defined purgatorial fire in a specific location. For instance, he speaks of some of the
purified being sent to baths to serve those bathing, and others appearing through revelation as
burned in various places. All these seem to be private miracles and revelations granted by God to
lead the living to repentance and conversion. But they do not prove the existence of a universal

36

 purgatorial fire. In fact, what Gregory later adds undermines such a doctrine altogether. He states
that slight or trivial sins in the righteous are either purged in this life through the compensations of
other good works, cleansed at the moment of death through fear alone, or, after death, through alms
and sacrifices offered on their behalf.
18. When you also argue from the authority of the Roman Church—this being your fifth
argument, which we have deferred until now—you must know this: If both parties among us were
so inclined as to consider whatever prevails in individual churches as binding and firm, it would
never have been possible for us to convene together or hold this colloquium. Rather, the primary
and greatest reason for our gathering was to set aside all presumption and custom unsupported by
reason, and to judge matters in their bare essence, comparing them with the sacred Scriptures and
the declarations of the doctors, using these as rules and norms by which to weigh them. For if we
do not proceed in this manner but judge matters based on custom, both sides will easily dismiss
anything, and we will never come to agreement. Thus, neither from this, nor from any of the other
statements presented, can your opinion be necessarily proven.
19. Finally, when you rely on reasoning to address the question at hand, drawing arguments from
the justice of God, it is necessary for you to understand that we too can easily employ reasoning to
confirm our position and even infer conclusions contrary to yours—whether we argue from God's
kindness toward humanity, the necessity of different abodes in His kingdom, or the varying degrees
of divine enjoyment. Indeed, the inequality of this enjoyment requires that not all are purified to the
same degree, as well as other numerous arguments, which we will provide in due course if needed.
For now, we shall conclude after briefly presenting a few points:
I. We assert that it is more consistent with divine goodness not to overlook a small good than to
consider a small sin worthy of punishment. But a small good in those who have committed grave
sins does not lead to any reward because of the overriding wickedness. Therefore, neither should a
small sin in those who have performed many good works merit punishment, since the greater deeds
outweigh it. If, indeed, the greater aspect is ineffective, how much more the lesser? Thus, purgatorial
fire should not be believed in.
II. Furthermore, as a small good in those otherwise wicked has no power to effect a reward for
good deeds but only to lessen punishment, so also a small sin in those otherwise righteous cannot
result in condemnation but only a difference in enjoyment. Therefore, purgatorial fire is not to be
assumed.
III. Additionally, the equity of eternal punishment is chiefly demonstrated by the immutable will
of those who sin—a perpetual desire to sin warrants perpetual punishment. By the same reasoning,
the contrary conclusion holds: If one who perpetually sins is perpetually punished, then one who is
not punished perpetually must not have an immutable will. For if such a person had an immutable
will, then if it were toward sin, they would deserve eternal punishment; if toward good, why would
they need punishment at all? But since you claim that those being purified by this fire also have an
immutable will, there is no need for them to be purified by fire.

37

 IV. Moreover, if the perfect reward for those pure in heart and soul is to see God—and not all
attain this equally—then the purification of all cannot be uniform. There would be no need for
purgatorial fire if purification is incomplete in some; otherwise, all would be equally purified by the
same fire and equally prepared to see God. This was figuratively shown on the mountain where the
law was given. For it is clear that not all were of the same status or order, but each according to their
degree and manner of purification, as Gregory the Theologian affirms.
V. Furthermore, the great saint Gregory the Theologian, speaking contemplatively and
anagogically about Easter, explicitly and clearly states, "We shall carry nothing away, nor leave
anything for the morrow," thereby asserting that no purification exists beyond this present life. By
"the present night," he means the life of each individual, and he allows no purification after it.
VI. In addition, in his discourse on the plague of hail, Gregory states, "I omit speaking of the
torments there, to which indulgence in this life delivers one, for it is better to be chastised and
purified now than to be handed over to that torment when it will be a time of punishment, not
purification." This plainly teaches that no purification exists after departing this life, but only eternal
punishment.
VII. Likewise, our Lord in the Gospel of Luke, describing the fate of the rich man and Lazarus,
says that Lazarus, upon dying, was immediately carried by angels to the bosom of Abraham, while
the rich man, upon dying, was buried, and his soul was found in Hades, suffering torment. Thus, by
representing the bosom of Abraham as the supreme state of the blessed, and Hades as the extreme
condemnation and eternal punishment of the wicked, He left no intermediate place for temporary
punishment, but established a great and impassable chasm separating the two—an absolute contrast
with no middle ground.
VIII. Moreover, it is inconsistent to think that a soul, once departed from the body and entirely
incorporeal, could be punished by material fire, especially since its body, which the fire would have
touched, has already perished. After the resurrection, when the soul regains its incorruptible body
and all creation is transformed, as we are taught, the punishment by fire will then be suitable to its
state—not only to the soul but also to demons, who are material and possess a certain density and
aerial or fiery bodies, as the great Basil teaches. But before the soul regains its body, being a form
without matter, how can it be punished by material fire?
IX. Furthermore, our holy fathers, who lived lives on earth equal to those of angels, frequently
and diversely spoke through visions, dreams, and other miracles of the eternal punishment in which
the wicked and sinners are tormented. They instructed themselves and others, describing it as if it
were already present and observed. Yet, in all this, they made no declaration of a temporary
purgatorial fire, as also evidenced by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke.
X. Finally, the doctrine of universal restoration and the end of eternal punishment—originating
with Origen and later supported by certain churchmen such as Didymus and Evagrius, who
appealed to God’s kindness toward humanity and were embraced by the idle as encouraging
slackness—was nevertheless rejected and condemned by the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council. This

38

 doctrine was deemed as fostering negligence among souls and leading them to expect eventual
deliverance from torment and promised restoration. For these reasons, the proposed doctrine of
purgatorial fire must also be eradicated from the Church, as it instills negligence in the diligent and
persuades them not to strive with all their might to purify themselves in this life, when no
purification beyond it is to be expected.

39

DOCUMENT 4
 The Response Of The Latins To The Booklet By Graphislus Concerning The Fire Of Purgatory.
A Contrary Response Given By The Schismatic Latins To The Greeks Concerning The Fire Of
Purgatory.
1. We give the greatest thanks to Almighty God, that we have gained some fruit from the care
and diligence jointly undertaken: for from your response, our hope has grown so much that we not
only do not doubt that we will come to an agreement about the matters we are now debating, but
also about the rest, with the help of Christ. Behold, for you, as can be seen from your responses,
profess with the greatest faith, and affirm that the prayers of the living and the intercessions of the
Church benefit those who have not left the world so completely that they immediately deserve to be
received into heaven, nor have lived so wickedly that they are condemned to eternal fire, but are
rather placed in between, those ensnared by the stains of sin, waiting for the aid of the prayers of
the living. Moreover, concerning the intermediate state of such people, we are in mutual
disagreement. For indeed, you labor with the greatest zeal to overturn our opinion and affirm your
own, something that perhaps someone might say you are doing excessively, especially since at the
very beginning, you declared that you had come together not to win, but only to seek the truth, with
diligent investigation, asserting that it is not fitting to assent to any presumption or custom from
which prejudice might arise, but that the bare matters should be weighed and compared with the
sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the learned. Also, you say that you have neither ever
professed nor will profess the doctrine of purgatorial fire, clearly contradicting your earlier assertion,
where you declared that no presumption or custom should be followed, but only truth should be
obeyed. Therefore, we must earnestly pray to God that the truth itself may prevail and triumph, with
all wicked passions utterly repelled; for in this way, the light of truth shines more clearly for us, and
through suitable instruments, it may speak today that which contributes to the glory of God and the
benefit of the Catholic Church.
2. Having said these things in the preface, let us proceed with discussing your response. You
have divided it into four parts. And first, with respect to souls migrating from here and distributed
into three orders, on the two extremes, you seem partially to agree with us. However, since we have
come together for the sake of the holy union, in order for it to be fully realized, we consider that any
differences should be brought openly and plainly into the open, so that, with God's favor, all discord
may be wiped out and thoroughly eradicated. Therefore, since you have not exposed the matters
pertaining to the two extremes with sufficient clarity, we ask and pray that you clearly indicate, as we
have previously requested, what you believe regarding the souls of the saints, free of all stain, whom
you consider worthy of eternal life; whether they are immediately taken into heaven after their
migration from here? Also, what do you think about the wicked, who have died with mortal sins?
Do their souls immediately descend into Tartarus to be punished forever, or do they, along with the
saints, await the final judgment and the resurrection of all? Regarding those in the middle order, on
the manner in which their souls are freed (for we are in disagreement on this matter), since you have
said nothing clear about it, we wish to learn what you think regarding these souls, which you say are

41

 not condemned to eternal punishment: do they first undergo some form of punishment, and if so,
what kind? Is it merely the delay of divine vision, or some sensible punishment? And how will they
endure it? Is it through torment, and what kind? Is it through imprisonment, darkness, or ignorance?
And if through ignorance, what kind, or of what things? And after they have been purified or freed,
will they immediately ascend to heaven, as is said of the first group? In the second part of your
response, you assert that souls of the intermediate group will not undergo the punishment of
purgatorial fire, denying that any saintly doctor has handed down this teaching. In the third part, you
respond to the testimonies of saints whom we have brought forward as trustworthy witnesses to this
truth. Finally, in the fourth part, you present arguments and reasons in an attempt to prove your
opinion. To all of these things, with the help of Jesus Christ, the first and greatest truth, for which
we dispute, we will respond in order.
3. Regarding the first part, accepting your explanation, we proceed to the second, where you say
that you deny the punishment of purgatorial fire because you fear that if this fire is believed by
Christians, Origen's opinion about the restoration of all things will gain ground, and from there, the
corruption of morals and the sloth of life will arise, with the faithful believing that the fire, which is
prepared for the devil, his angels, and reprobate men, will eventually be shared by them. First, it
seems wonderful to us that you fear in vain, "where there was indeed no fear at all," such that you
make such an opinion, opposing the tradition of saints, by contradicting views so correct and
necessary, as well as the most ancient practice of the Catholic Church. But surely, you wise, strong,
and learned men should not have been afraid; rather, you should have reflected, as the holy Fathers,
who had received such a doctrine about purgatorial fire from divine Scripture, would not have so
openly handed it down if they had thought anything harmful could arise from it, for they would
have always provided for the beauty of the Lord and the benefits of the Churches. For indeed, they
taught that this temporary fire would not be rejected as eternal but reserved for the purification of
those who had committed light stains of sin, but for the eternal punishment of the wicked who die
with mortal sins. And this would not stain the Church, as it is clear that the Roman Church, which
has continually held this doctrine. Origen's impious opinion about the restoration of all things has
always been rejected, which is completely unknown to many Western Churches. Those who believe
in purgatorial fire are not rendered more slothful but rather more diligent, as it becomes clearer with
the rising sun: for those who more diligently engage in purification, when they hear and piously
believe that there is a purgatorial fire after death, which, though not eternal, is exceedingly painful,
surpassing all temporal punishments we have ever endured, as Augustine says, they fear it much
more than if they thought they would remain in some unknown place unpunished, for from such a
belief, they would become more sluggish. Thus, the fear of hell terrifies the wicked. The recollection
of purgatorial fire, on the other hand, urges the good to more intense vigilance, which is exactly the
opposite of what you claim. For if the holy Fathers had been silent for fear of any kind, many
things, truly beneficial, would have remained silent, which are now publicly proclaimed in all the
Churches, and no saint, whether by writing or voice, would have taught anything through fear, since

42

 there were always some who contradicted them. Therefore, from this doctrine of purgatorial fire,
the living gain great benefit, both by more diligently attending to works of piety, and by offering the
holy sacrifice of the Mass and alms and prayers to appease God, not only for themselves but also for
the departed. Indeed, this sacred custom is pursued not only by the Latins but also by the Greeks
with the greatest devotion.
4. Since you have asserted in your objection that this doctrine has not been handed down by any
of the learned, we declare that it is clear to everyone that it is proven through the words of the great
Basil, who, in his prayers, asks God to grant that the souls of the deceased may be transferred to a
place of refreshment. By this statement, he indicates that the punishment, which is carried out
through fire, torments those souls, which, as though transitioning from burning to refreshment, he
implores God to alleviate. Likewise, Gregory of Nyssa, that remarkable man and one of the most
distinguished doctors, when introducing the holy Macrina speaking, clearly taught the doctrine of
purgatory fire, and also in his book about the dead, testified that there is purgatorial fire, as we have
previously said. However, in responding, you affirm that he, as a man, could have erred, and this
seemed very offensive to us. For Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, as well as the four evangelists,
were also men, and likewise Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Hilary, and all those who excelled in the
Church were men and could have fallen into error. Do you then consider how your response
ultimately unfolds? With this reasoning, the entire faith and all the Scriptures, both Old and New
Testaments, are thrown into doubt, as they were handed down to us by men who could have erred.
What then remains firm in sacred Scripture? What will we consider valid? We admit that a man can
be wrong, as far as he acts according to his own nature and effort. However, when he is guided by
the divine Spirit and confirmed by the judgment of the Church in matters concerning the truth of
doctrine, whatever he writes, we consider most certainly true. Therefore, we cannot casually or
recklessly accept such a thing from such a man, especially since he was a brother of the great Basil
and of the blessed Macrina, and a close companion of Gregory the Theologian. Who would think
that he could fall into such an error under the guidance of these great men? Moreover, we add that
the Fifth Synod, which was primarily assembled against the followers of Origen, condemned
Origen's doctrine as dangerous and harmful, and in doing so, confirmed the works of those who
opposed him, so that any suspicion of Origen's works being corrupted is far removed from the
most wise man. For if Origen's opinions had been accepted by the Synod, they would certainly have
rejected them. Therefore, it remains that he, who professes eternal fire, understood purgatory in the
way that is clearly shown in his books, both Catechetical and on the infants who die prematurely.
Indeed, his works, after the burning of Origen's books, have been preserved intact and highly
esteemed, which would not have happened had he written such things as you claim. What you assert
about Origen's followers corrupting his works is unreasonable. If this had happened, it would have
occurred after the Fifth Synod, when the opinion had already been cast out by the Church. It is
evident that, if such things were written, they could not have remained hidden from the Synod. If
the Synod had known about them, they would surely have condemned them. If his books were later

43

 corrupted, there arises a serious suspicion that it was done by others for some other reason. For in
these books, where he clearly speaks of purgatory fire, in the same way we believe, do you think
those who deny such fire would insert this doctrine into his works in order to stir up arguments? But
enough of Nyssa.
5. What then shall we say about the doctors of the Latin Church, whose views on such fire you
cannot claim to be unaware of, particularly since you cannot fail to know that the truly outstanding
doctor, Saint Augustine, has written about this issue, especially since he has been highly praised by
numerous general councils and his works on the truths of the faith have always been honored with
equal praise? Therefore, it is not credible that you could be unaware of what he has taught on this
matter, as his views have long been known to both Greeks and Latins alike. Since this doctrine is
ancient and widely spread throughout the world, the holy Fathers would not have sustained it if they
thought it would bring any harm to the Church. Indeed, the Roman Church, taught by the apostles
and built upon the rock, has always kept the middle path, not swerving to the left or right, and has
passed through all the storms and tempests of heresies unharmed: for she clearly distinguished
persons in the Trinity against Sabellius so as to avoid the error of Arius, and professed the same
essence of the three persons; similarly, in the dispensation of the Savior, she distinguished natures
against Eutyches so as not to divide the persons with Nestorius. Likewise, regarding the state of
souls after death, she professes that some temporal purgatorial punishments are to be inflicted only
upon those who have died in charity and grace without mortal sin, so that, with Origen, she does
not say that all sins are to be purged. What then shall we say about Saint Gregory of Old Rome,
whose Dialogues book was translated into Greek by Zacharias, the bishop of the Roman Church,
even before this schism? Indeed, in this work, the holy father clearly discusses purgatory fire, so that
it cannot be the case that this doctrine is hidden or entirely unknown to you. Having clearly shown
this, we may conclude that it is certainly not fitting to further examine or question such a well-
established and ancient doctrine, which has flourished in the Catholic Church for so many centuries.
Otherwise, the faith of the Church would be perpetually shaken, and it would fall into the greatest
error, always uncertain and in doubt. Therefore, it is necessary to hold firmly to whatever doctrine
has been received from the masters, both through revelations and by arguments consistent with
reason.
6. Since you have asserted that the passages we presented from the Maccabees and from the
Gospel according to Matthew signify not a purgatorial punishment, but rather a release and
absolution from sins, we declare that there are two things to be considered in every sin: namely, the
guilt, which is the stain adhering to the soul after the insult inflicted upon the Creator, and the
penalty itself, which makes a person liable to some form of punishment. God indeed forgives the
guilt, through prior contrition and detestation of evil; however, the penalty must be paid or undone.
In your response, when you speak of the remission of sin, it is not made clear from which aspect
both remission and absolution of sin should be understood. For when the soul is freed from the
bonds of the body, it can no longer detest evil or repent; from this, it follows that neither prayers,

44

 nor supplications, nor any help from the living can be of benefit to those who have passed away, as
sacred Scripture says: "The death of sinners is most grievous." Therefore, that mitigation or
remission which you think of must clearly be understood in terms of punishment. And indeed, this
is how the matter stands, as we have learned from sacred Scripture. For it is written in Deuteronomy:
"According to the measure of sin, so is the measure of punishment." And in the second book of
Kings, when David had said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan responded: "The
Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However, because you have blasphemed against
the Lord, the son who is born to you shall die." Here, it is clearly shown that the penalty immediately
follows upon the guilt committed. Therefore, when the remission of mortal sin, which comes from
a contrite heart through the prayers and other suffrages of the Church, is understood not in terms
of guilt, but in terms of penalty, you cannot deny that the souls, before they are freed from sin
through prayers and other pious works, are liable to certain punishments and torments. Although
these may be suitably varied in different ways, as Gregory the Great explains in his Dialogues, in
accordance with the divine plan of justice, this purging is most fittingly accomplished through the
temporary, bodily fire, which we understand to be the means of purging, as we have received it from
the teachings of the Church and the revelations given to men of God. This purging, being effected
through such fiery substance, is most appropriate, for fire itself seems to be both the most suitable
for torment and for purging.
7. After this, we now proceed to the third part of your response, in which many things are
mentioned about the admirable dignity, doctrine, and holiness of the blessed John Chrysostom. You
then suggest that the Latin doctors' ignorance of the Greek language was the reason why the
apostles' teaching was not properly understood, and you say that, to avoid greater danger, they were
unwilling to choose more carefully. Then, through the structure of wood, hay, and stubble, you claim
that not venial sins are meant, but rather a certain heap of mortal sins; and by the term "salvation,"
you assert that not salvation, but a certain dwelling place or endurance in fire is indicated. Finally,
you assert that the "day" mentioned by the Apostle of the nations, as he says, "For the day will
declare it, because it will be revealed by fire," refers only to the last day of eternal punishment. With
God's help, we will respond to each point in turn.
8. First, we say that it is dangerous and otherwise distasteful to compare the greatness of the
saints, for their dignity and excellence are fully known to the one Creator alone. However, since you
have compelled us, we proceed with great reluctance to such a comparison. You assert that Saint
John was particularly eminent in searching out and interpreting the apostolic teaching, and that this
is confirmed by the vision shown to him in battle. We certainly hold that remarkable man in the
highest esteem and reverence, and we praise his fame and clear teaching, due to his many virtues,
which we greatly admire. But when it comes to defending the truth, not flattering favor, we believe
that Saint Augustine can in no way be considered inferior to Saint John, and in some respects, even
greater. His supreme authority is shown, among other ways, by the testimony of Celestine to the
Third Synod, as he writes in a letter to all the bishops of Gaul: "We have always held Augustine, the

45

 man of blessed memory, in our communion for his life and merits, and no rumor of suspicion has
ever been cast upon him. We remember that he was of such great learning that he was always
considered among the best masters, even by my predecessors. Therefore, all have agreed in their
common opinion that he was both loved and honored everywhere." Augustine was invited to the
Ephesine Synod by the command of Emperor Theodosius, as stated in the letter of Bishop
Capreolus inserted in the Acts of the Third Synod; and the imperial rescript found that he had
already passed away. Indeed, in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Synods, his authority was highly
regarded, and there is no need to say more, for it is evident to all. But you are not unaware of the
strength and extraordinary authority of Saint Gregory, bishop of Rome. When certain detractors
sought to burn his books after his death, Peter, the deacon of that great man, who discusses the
matter in his Dialogues, stepped forward to show that the proposal was utterly absurd and improper.
He declared that he had often seen a dove, or rather the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, over
Gregory's head while he was writing. To confirm this, he said, "I speak the truth, and if I read the
Gospel and immediately pass away, you will know that my words were true." He went up to the
pulpit, recited the Gospel, and immediately passed away to the Lord, and thus the malice of the
wicked ceased. Nor are we without more recent miracles. Indeed, when the blessed Thomas, while
near death, was explaining Paul's letters, Paul appeared to him, affirming that the true sense of his
letters had been understood, and encouraging him to continue his work, for he himself would soon
lead him to a place where he would see all things clearly; thus, he exchanged life for death. We have
said this so that you may clearly understand that the vision of Proclus concerning the blessed John
Chrysostom does not create any difficulty for us or our predecessors, who have always been highly
esteemed and who have explained that apostolic saying in the same way as we have.
9. Since you have asserted that both the great Augustine and the other Latin doctors, because
they were not skilled in the Greek language and lacked the specific Latin words to translate the
Greek texts, therefore used this interpretation, we respond by stating that almost all of our doctors
learned the Greek language, as is certainly evident from their writings. Indeed, blessed Augustine in
many places in his books, while interpreting the divine scriptures, presents the text as it is found in
Greek, using Greek letters, and explains it accordingly. In his book Confessions, he says that when
he was still a boy, he had struggled greatly in learning Homer, just as Greek boys struggle in learning
Virgil because of the difficulty of the foreign language. Saint Gregory, in a letter sent to Narses, a
certain patrician in Constantinople, almost says the following: "Therefore, your charity should seek
out the old manuscript of the same synod and send it to me. As soon as I read it, I will send it
back." Therefore, it cannot be supposed, much less is it right to say, that they did not understand
certain very simple words, and for this reason were unfit to compare them with the Greek text in
order to draw the true meaning, should any ambiguity arise in the Latin books. If you recall how
much effort the ancient Romans devoted to learning the Greek language, and how many of their
descendants, even many in our own time, you will certainly stop attributing ignorance to them. For
the writings of the Greeks were held in such high esteem among them that they would never have

46

 considered themselves experts in their native language if they were ignorant of Greek, which is the
source from which the Latin language flowed. Indeed, they devoted great effort to translating
anything, whether sacred or secular, from Greek works that seemed more established into their own
language, a practice that is still followed today by many.
10. As for what you say, that our doctors, to avoid greater harm, permitted less, this should by
no means be accepted, and we wish you had not said such things or held such a low opinion of such
great lights of the Church, as if they could neither prevent nor know how to restrain any error,
without falling into another error themselves. So powerful was their commitment to philosophy that
they considered it utterly unlawful to lie under any circumstances, for no reason. To make this
clearer, the great Augustine wrote a book titled On Lying, and another against lying, in which he
declares that no Christian may lie in any way whatsoever. He divided lying into eight categories, the
first and most pernicious being that which concerns the truth of doctrine and piety. This lie, he says,
should never be told to anyone, and he declares it to be utterly disgraceful, detestable, and a great
sin. He also openly declared that it is no less a crime to speak falsely about God, even if it serves to
praise Him, than it is to conceal the truth about Him. In interpreting the Epistle to the Galatians, he
wrote this statement: "If at any time something false, under the pretense of dispensation, were
permitted by the Church, the way would be open for lies, and the whole of divine Scripture would
be endangered, and its authority would be shaken." But this has already been addressed above. Nor
should it be surprising that, when discussing the purgatorial fire, he said that some have
misunderstood the Apostle’s words. For he did not refer to the whole Church nor to a heresy that
held such a view, but rather to certain private individuals, whose minds he wished to correct, and he
spoke these things before the people. Therefore, to hold such views about these most holy men is
neither fair nor proper, and we ask that you abandon this opinion, for it is neither becoming nor
safe, and that you show due reverence to the saints.
11. Let us now turn to the exposition of the Apostle’s words. First, we will say a few things
about the blessed John Chrysostom, whom you claim held the opinion that the Apostle’s saying:
"No one can lay another foundation" and so on, should be understood as referring to the damned
and to eternal fire. To this, we respond that divine Scripture contains many meanings. For example,
to omit many other things, the words "lion" and "rock" are often used to refer to Christ. Thus, we
also read in the Apocalypse of John: "The lion of the tribe of Judah has triumphed," which
everyone agrees refers to Christ. And the Apostle says: "They drank from the spiritual rock that
followed them, and the rock was Christ." However, we find that the same words are not only used
for Christ, but also applied to others, entirely in contrast. Therefore, this doctor, while perhaps
considering the multiple meanings of Scripture, focused on the one which seemed most fitting to
the context of the passage. This sense, as stated by Augustine and Gregory, does not contradict the
idea that Chrysostom may have believed that it referred to the final fate of the wicked and their
punishment, whereas others applied it to the intermediate state of the dead. Let us now examine, as
best we can, the Apostle’s teaching, giving the appropriate honor to the saints.

47

 12. Therefore, the Apostle says: "No one can lay another foundation besides that which is laid,
which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones,
wood, hay, straw, each person's work will become manifest; for the day of the Lord will declare it,
because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If
anyone’s work remains that he has built on it, he will receive a reward; if anyone’s work is burned up,
he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." In this passage, the
Apostle speaks of the foundation, the building, the burning, and salvation. He says, "The foundation
of all these things is Christ," and on this foundation no infidel can build. For Christ exists as a
foundation only through faith; and when an unbeliever does not embrace this faith, not only does he
not use this foundation to build, but he destroys it through his own opinion. Furthermore, "What
fellowship has light with darkness?" For while he decides to profess other principles completely
contrary to the evangelical profession, he does not adhere to this foundation, but to another
foundation entirely different. From this, it follows that neither Christ is in him, nor he in Christ.
Also, he does not use this foundation who departs from life in mortal sin, since his works are already
dead and destroyed. Indeed, this living foundation admits only a living building, as the blessed
Apostle Peter testifies when he says: "And you, like living stones, are being built up." Moreover,
although faith is absolutely required in such a structure, it must be the kind of faith that is informed
by charity, otherwise even demons would build upon this foundation. For as James says: "They
believe and tremble." Therefore, the faith, which is the beginning of our whole spiritual building,
must be joined to charity, which expels mortal sins in such a way that it does not allow them,
whatever they may be. Thus, no one builds upon this foundation. The very nature of the language
shows this; for mortal sins are more aptly compared to lead and stone, both because they are heavy
and because they are not purged by fire. However, venial sins are more suitably represented by
wood, hay, and straw, because they are light and easily washed away by fire. Therefore, Gregory the
Great, interpreting this passage in the fourth book of his Dialogues, adds: "It must be carefully
considered, because he said that the person will be saved through fire, not one who builds upon this
foundation with iron, brass, or lead—that is, with the more serious sins, and thus harder, and at that
time unsolvable—but with wood, hay, and straw, that is, with lesser and lighter sins, which fire easily
consumes." From all of this, it is clear that by wood, hay, and straw, both from the nature of the
language and from the context of the Apostle's mind, venial sins are understood. Augustine also
explains this saying of the Apostle: "The foundation, he says, is Christ Jesus. Moreover, if the faith
of Christ, that faith which works through love, were not to be called a foundation, then it would not
be through it that Christ dwells in us, as the Apostle says to the Ephesians: 'Christ dwells in your
hearts through faith.' Therefore, nothing in the building is above the foundation; if by wood, hay,
and straw we understand most grievous sins, then Christ will not be the foundation, but something
else will be placed above him." The same Augustine, in book XXI of The City of God, says:
"Whoever has Christ in his heart, so that he does not place anything earthly or temporal, nor what is
lawful and permitted, above Him, has Christ as his foundation. But if he places anything above Him,

48

 even if he seems to have the faith of Christ, yet he does not have Christ as his foundation, to whom
such things are placed above.”
13. As for the Apostle's saying, "For the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire,"
you assert that this should be understood as referring to the final judgment day. But this does not
help your argument at all. For although we concede that the Apostle was speaking about the future
eternal judgment, it does not follow from this that he was discussing mortal sins or that, therefore, it
must be concluded that souls cannot be purified after this life. Indeed, we understand that this day
refers not only to the universal judgment, but to each individual’s day of death. Just as the day of
judgment is called the "day of the Lord," because it is the day of His coming to judge the world, so
too the day of death is called the "day of the Lord," because in death Christ comes to each person
either to reward or to condemn. Therefore, concerning the reward of the just, the Gospel according
to John says to His disciples: "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you
to myself, that where I am you may be also." Concerning the condemnation of the wicked, it is
written in the Apocalypse: "Repent, and do the works you did at first; otherwise, I will come to you
and remove your lampstand." That fiery river, of which the prophet Daniel foretold, will not only
carry away the wicked to eternal punishment, but also purify the just, if it finds anything in them to
be purified, and will make them spotless. Therefore, this day signifies the eternal and everlasting fire,
which we can rightly understand as referring to the final judgment day. There is also another day,
which signifies the temporary fire destined for lighter sins, which is properly called the "day of the
Lord," because it precedes the general day, whose judgment depends on it.
14. It remains for us to briefly discuss the word "salvation" in the Apostle's saying. For when you
say the words salvus erit, salvari, salus, in the Greek language, they always signify some kind of
permanence or existence, we fear that we may seem to be acting unpleasantly if, as Latins, we assert
that you did not use these terms correctly. For indeed, nowhere in Divine Scripture can these words
be found except when referring to something good or to salvation. And not to digress too far, in the
same letter, Paul speaks: "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to
those who are being saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God." And again: "I have already judged
to deliver such a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus." Again: "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save
some." The holy Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, reports: "What must I do to be saved?"
He replied: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." Now,
if this were really the Apostle's intention, that they would be preserved in the fire, not to be
consumed, he would have used a very clear word in the abundant Greek language, and would have
said either "it will remain," or "it will endure," or "it will be kept," or "it will be preserved," or any
other word more appropriate to remove any ambiguity, if there were any in the word, even though in
fact there is none. For where can one find the word for salvation used in Scripture to signify
something other than salvation? Paul, when he carefully spoke in his sermons with a clear and
simple language, despite being full of mysteries, would not have used an ambiguous term if he had

49

 understood it the way you say. Therefore, since your explanation does not correspond to either the
Apostle's meaning or the meaning of the word, it is clearly evident that the interpretation we have
presented is the true one. With this explanation from our scholars, the preposition fits very well,
because it signifies a certain transition, not permanence. For if the Apostle's intention had been to
use the word "salvus erit" to mean "it will be preserved" or "it will remain," he would certainly have
said: "He himself will be saved, but only as through fire." But when he says, "He will be saved as
through fire," he clearly shows that a transition takes place through the fire of punishment to the
place of salvation.
15. Then you say that the word detrimentum (loss) does not fit those who are purified, as they
are not harmed but rather gain something great, and therefore only the wicked are meant to be
referred to. We strongly disagree with your interpretation. For according to our view, those who are
purified certainly suffer loss, as the Apostle says, when they are punished with the sharpest penalty,
which, as we said above, according to Saint Augustine, is the most bitter, and such that no other
penalty in this life can compare to it. Just as through the bitterness of remedies we come to the
sweetness of health, so also the just, through the bitterness of purification, attain the fruit of eternal
salvation, as they can say with the psalmist: "We went through fire and water, and you brought us out
to a place of refreshment." Therefore, after the Apostle says that such a person is to be punished
with purification, he immediately adds the saving gain, saying: "Yet so, as through fire." Thus, these
two—being punished with repeated penalties and gaining much from it—fit very well together.
16. Now, when we bring up the authority of the Roman Church, we did not refer to the custom
of just any church: for all have always followed it with reverence and honor, as it was taught by the
blessed apostles Peter and Paul, those foundations and lights of our faith, as well as by other most
holy pontiffs, whom God showed to have lived saintly lives by many miracles. Indeed, from the very
beginning, this faith has been continuously and unshakably preached and taught to this very day.
This is what should most compel and move you, since your fathers, before the present schism arose,
never contradicted our view, as is clearly established, but, as we may say in summary, they completely
agreed with us. Moreover, the Roman Church, as the head, mother, and teacher of all other
churches, has always been honored, as testified by Saint Maximus in his letter to the Easterns, when
he says: "All the ends of the earth, who sincerely confess the Lord and live in the Catholic and
Apostolic faith, look to the Roman Church as to the sun, from which they receive the light of the
Catholic and Apostolic faith." Indeed, this is not without reason: for Peter, the first of all, confessed
the true faith revealed to him by the Father, saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
But for now, let us stop here.
17. To our argument, which is based on the reasoning of divine justice, you have responded with
nothing at all. Rather, you have assembled numerous arguments as though in opposition. We
certainly could have selected many points relevant to the issue, had not our desire for brevity
restrained us. Therefore, content with a single argument, we have disputed no further; for the
foundation of our faith does not rest on the reasonings which are the product of human intellect,

50

 but on the rock of divine Scripture and on the holy mountains, that is, on the precepts of the holy
Fathers, whom the Catholic Church has embraced as the bride embraces the friends of the
bridegroom and the heralds of truth. Now, let us turn to your actual arguments.
I. You say first: "It seems more fitting for divine goodness not to disdain a small good, than to
punish a small sin. But a small good in those who have sinned more gravely brings no reward due to
the overpowering wickedness. Nor, therefore, is it fitting for a small evil in those who have done
much good to be punished, because the greater virtues prevail. For if what appears to be greater is
not, then what appears to be lesser will certainly be hard to endure. Therefore, the fire of purgatory
should not be believed to exist.” Solution. In response, we say that the greater truth upon which
your argument is based pertains when the small good remains intact, which does not happen if it is
lost due to fault, as it happens to all those who fall into mortal sin. For indeed, mortal sin destroys
all the good that had previously been done. Certainly, when a sinner offends God by sin, they
deserve to lose all the good they have received. Therefore, for a person dying in mortal sin, no
reward remains after this life for whatever good they may have done. Hence the Lord says through
the prophet Ezekiel: "If the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, all his
righteousness will not be remembered." The same holds true in human law, and it seems reasonable
that a soldier, although highly esteemed for many good deeds done for the king, if later he gravely
offends the king, will lose all his merits and will be punished harshly. However, this is not the case
for a small sin, that is, a venial fault, or the guilt of punishment in those who have passed away in
charity, because charity also works in them; it does not entirely erase these lighter faults, but only the
mortal sin opposed to it, by which one is deprived of the life that charity bestows. By setting this
distinction, the premise you introduced does not hold. We can also respond to your reasoning by
denying it, namely that small goods in those who are otherwise wicked do not deserve reward, if by
reward you mean mitigation of punishment. For if someone descends to hell despite some pious
deeds, they will be punished more lightly than one who is sentenced to eternal punishment without
those deeds, a benefit that seems to be provided by those small acts well done.
II. You say secondly: "Just as a small good in those who are otherwise wicked does not affect the
reward of the righteous, but only the difference of punishment, so too, a small evil in those who are
otherwise good will not bring damnation, but only the difference of enjoyment. Therefore, it should
not be believed that purgatorial fire exists.” Solution. Although it seems we have already responded
above, it is worth noting that the matter is not as universally applicable as your major premise
assumes. The reasoning for small good in one who departs with mortal sin is not the same as for
small evil in one who departs with charity. Indeed, when mortal sin causes destruction, no reward
for eternal life or mitigation of eternal punishment is to be expected; however, in the case of the
just, due to the perfection of heavenly bliss and the purity of the good to be seen, before all else
they must be purified. For no one will behold that immutable good at any degree of vision unless
they have a pure mind, untouched by any evil, in which no malice may exist at all. And truly, while
small goods in those who are otherwise wicked bring some difference in punishment, small evils in

51

 those who are just do not regularly affect their enjoyment, first because it happens that one departs
this life with a greater number of minor defects than another, but with a stronger charity, for whose
greatness the degrees of enjoyment are distributed; secondly, because it can happen that one who is
altogether better, due to greater punishment, departs this life. Therefore, it is clear that small evil in
those who are otherwise good must be punished with a penalty.
III. Thirdly, you say: "The justice of eternal punishment is most clearly shown in that those who
have sinned have an unchanging wicked will; for to the eternally wicked will, eternal punishment is
due. Just as it follows clearly that if someone remains perpetually fixed in evil, they are punished
with eternal punishment, so also it is reasonable that someone who is not perpetually punished will
not have an unchanging will. For if someone possesses an immovable will for evil, they are kept in
eternal punishment; but if they possess an immovable will for good, what need have they for
punishment, for surely they are worthy of a crown?" However, you yourself say that those who are
purified by this fire possess an unchanging will. Therefore, they do not need to be purified by fire.
Solution. In response, we say that the consequence you draw does not hold against us, even though
the immutability of the right will is necessary for attaining beatitude; it does not, by itself, suffice,
but many factors must come together to bring about good actions, especially to reach the ultimate
end. We hold, according to the teachings of Aristotle and the great Dionysius, that the reasoning for
good and evil is not the same in their own constitution. Indeed, evil tends to arise from even the
lightest faults, while good cannot be perfected unless it is whole and complete in its reasoning.
Therefore, any obstacle prevents the perfection and attainment of the good. Even though it might
suffice for someone to be punished eternally for the mere fact of being perpetually fixed in evil, it is
not sufficient, when someone departs this life, to immediately obtain eternal bliss, if they are simply
immovable in the will for good; besides this, it is required that nothing remains that needs
purification, for as stated earlier, nothing impure can enter into heavenly beatitude. Furthermore, if
the immutability of the right will in one predestined for eternal life were sufficient by itself to attain
true beatitude, just as the immutability of the wicked will in one condemned to eternal destruction
suffices for eternal ruin, why then is there a need to pray for the dead or to request other suffrages,
if, as you say, the immutability of the right will alone suffices? From this, it appears that the
consequence you sought to draw is not rightly concluded when you say: "He who is immovably fixed
to evil is punished eternally; therefore, one who is not perpetually punished does not have an
immovable will."
IV. Fourthly, you assert: "If the perfect reward of those who are pure in heart and mind is to see
God, yet this is not equally obtained by all: therefore, not all undergo the same purification; hence,
there will be no need for purgatory fire if, indeed, in some cases the purification is incomplete. For
certainly, they would all have been equally purified by the same fire and equally fit to see God. This
also, as it is written, happened figuratively on the mountain where the law was given: for it is certain
that not all were accounted as worthy in the same state and order; one was treated differently from
another, each, I think, according to the extent of their purification, as Gregory the Theologian said.”

52

 Solution. To this, we respond that the difference in the blessed vision is not caused by that
purification, which we assert is the cleansing from faults and the debt of punishments through
purgatory fire. For there are two kinds of purification in this life. The first is the one of which the
Lord spoke in the Gospel according to Matthew: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God." This refers to the purity of mind, which is perfected by virtues and divine gifts. Thus, St. John
Chrysostom says: "By 'the pure,' he calls those who possess all kinds of virtue and are conscious of
no evil, or those who live in chastity, which is especially necessary for seeing God, according to
Paul's saying: 'Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.'"
And this is what determines the difference and degree in eternal fruition. The second purification,
about which we now speak, is that which frees and purges souls from venial faults and the debt of
punishments by which they are delayed from eternal life after their departure. This does not result,
as we said before, in a difference of degrees in happiness. For in this kind of purification, it is
necessary that all souls be equally purged, for they must be freed from any fault or debt, though they
may be purged from different faults.
V. Fifthly, you argue: "The great Saint Gregory the Theologian, while discoursing
contemplatively and anagogically about the Paschal mystery, when he came to the part where he
says: 'We will carry nothing forward, nor leave anything behind,' clearly and explicitly states that
there will be no purification beyond this present night; for he calls the present night the life of each
one, and does not admit any purification beyond it.” Solution. To this, we respond that the opinion
of this blessed man does not at all oppose the truth of purgatory. For when the purification of the
wicked is mentioned, one kind happens in this life through the penances and holy actions of the
penitent, and another happens after this life. The first purification, which takes its name from
penance, cannot occur after the soul's departure; they rest from their labors, as St. John says in the
Apocalypse, when any kind of action, whether good or evil, has ceased. Thus, the wise man says:
"Before judgment, work righteousness." The second purification, which we are now discussing, by
which lesser faults are said to be loosened after this life, does exist. However, Gregory, that most
eminent theologian, was not speaking about this second purification, but about the first one, as is
evident from the context of his words, where he explains the phrase "We will carry nothing
forward" and adds that it is a sacrilege to reveal our mysteries to those who are outside, and only
then does he say that there will be no purification after this present night. From this, it is clear that
he was speaking about the purification by which greater sins are expunged, which indeed has no
place after this life.
VI. Sixthly, you argue: "While speaking about the plague of hail, he says: 'I do not speak of the
torments of the future life, to which the indulgence of this life condemns them; so it is better to be
chastised and purified now than to be sent to that punishment, when the time for punishment has
come, not for purification.' This clearly shows that there is no purification after departure from this
life, but only eternal punishment.” Solution. To this, we respond as we did before: for he speaks of
the first purification, which is perfected through the groans of penance and the use of holy actions,

53

 and which does not exist after this life. As is clear from the series of his discourse, he adds: "For, as
the divine psalmist wisely said, one who is mindful of God here is better than death; for there is no
confession or correction of morals in hell. Here, God has the life and action, but there the judgment
of deeds is concluded."
VII. Seventhly, you argue: "The Lord, in the parable in the Gospel of Luke, about the rich man
and Lazarus, teaches what the fate of each one was. He says that Lazarus was carried away by angels
into Abraham's bosom immediately after death, but the rich man, as soon as he had died, was
buried, and his soul was found in hell, tormented. And thus, by showing the perfect state in
Abraham's bosom, the blessed rest of those who have pleased God, and by showing hell and
torment, the final damnation and eternal punishment of the wicked, he leaves no place between the
two for any temporary punishment, but rather a great and impassable gulf, which separates the one
from the other, expressing their absolute and opposite opposition.” Solution. To this, we first say
that the place assumed in the argument, with negation but without any other addition, as it seems to
be quoted in your reasoning, is found to be entirely unusual among learned men. Moreover, we say
that although Christ in the parable designated only two places (for he was not discussing the
receptacles of disembodied souls, but the ultimate ends of men, and purgatory has no place among
them), it does not follow that a third place for temporary purification does not exist, especially since
our Savior Himself presupposes it in the Gospel according to Matthew, where He teaches that some
faults can be forgiven in the future life, which certainly will neither be in paradise nor in hell. Thus, it
is necessary to suppose a third place in which this remission takes place. The same has been
established by the illustrious Apostle and also by the Latin and Greek doctors, as we mentioned
earlier.
VIII. Eighth, you argue thus: "The soul, once separated from the body and made entirely
incorporeal and free from matter, is not justly subjected to corporeal fire, since the body, which the
fire would have apprehended, has already perished. Certainly, after the resurrection, when the body
is assumed again in an incorruptible state, and all creation has been changed, and the fire, as we
know, has been separated, it seems reasonable that the punishment inflicted by it should be adapted
to the person; nor should this apply only to humans but also to demons, since they too are clothed
in some kind of darkness, and also with bodies of air or fire according to the teachings of Basil the
Great. But before they receive their bodies, when their form alone exists without any mingling of
matter, though it subsists in itself, how can they be tormented by corporeal fire?” Solution. In
response to this, we say that it is entirely fitting by divine power and justice for the soul, once
separated from the body, to be tormented by corporeal fire. First, we admit that material things have
no power over incorporeal beings and spirits, yet no doctor denies that this can be accomplished by
divine power. Indeed, if the entire mechanism of the universe exists in hypothetical potential just
like matter in a potential state, it can be argued that through divine will spirits can be made fit to
receive this punishment. Furthermore, divine justice requires that the soul, which subjected itself to
corporeal things through sin, should be subject to the same things in the punishments it faces.

54

 Therefore, it is neither absurd nor surprising that the fire, acting by divine power as an instrument to
punish the wicked, should also affect the separated soul, tormenting it. That this is the case is shown
by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the soul of the rich man is said to be tormented
by flames even before the resurrection of the body. It is also clearly demonstrated by the divine
judgment that the damned are commanded to "depart" into the eternal fire prepared for the devil
and his angels. Moreover, we reject the opinion of those who assert that demons will assume some
kind of airy or fiery bodies to make them more fit to endure torments, as this would seem to be an
injury to divine power.
IX. Ninth, you argue thus: "Our holy fathers, who led an angelic life on earth, taught others
what they had learned about the eternal torment of the wicked through visions, dreams, and other
miracles, and described them as if they were already present, showing how in the parable of the rich
man and Lazarus, as described in the Gospel of Luke, the state of the blessed and the damned is
depicted; but they did not declare anything about purgatory or a temporary fire.” Solution. In
response, we say that there have indeed been revelations and visions by the holy fathers concerning
purgatory. This is testified by Gregory the Great, and even John Damascene speaks of such things.
Indeed, in the life of the blessed Jerome, Cyril also presented many miraculous examples. We
ourselves have cited many clear testimonies from both Latin and Greek doctors.
X. Tenth, you argue thus: "The opinion about the restoration of all things and the end of eternal
punishment, first proposed by Origen, as has been said, and followed by some ecclesiastical figures,
including Didymus and Evagrius, gained traction. It was accepted by those who, under the guise of
God's mercy, wished to make it palatable to the lazy, just as the author of the Heavenly Ladder,
John, states: however, this opinion was condemned by the holy fifth and universal council as it
weakens souls and makes the lazy even lazier, as they await an eventual liberation from torment and
the promised restoration. For these same reasons, this doctrine about the purgatorial fire should be
rejected by the Church, since it fosters negligence and convinces people not to work diligently on
purifying themselves during this life, thinking that another purification awaits them.” Solution.
Although we have already addressed this difficulty, for greater clarity, we shall speak again on the
matter. We assert that no such inconvenience will arise from acknowledging the truth of purgatory.
After all, there is no teacher so ignorant or listener so unlearned that they would not easily
understand the great difference between the suffering of hell and the punishment of purgatory. This
tradition is not about making people lazy but about urging them to be vigilant, as they hear of
intolerable torments that await in the afterlife, far harsher than anything they might face in this life.
We know this from experience. Many who have received such revelations never appeared cheerful
again, but remained grave and serious, always fearing that they might fall into the torments they had
seen. If, as you say, the doctrine of purgatory makes people lazy, how much lazier will they become
if they hear nothing of such a thing? Moreover, they will suffer far more from the slightest
contrition, a short confession, or a long journey of salvation than from any other source of
comfort. The voice of God, which says, "At whatever hour the sinner groans," and others like it, will

55

 be gravely harmed if the doctrine of purgatory, as you hold, is rejected. Those who deny the
purgatorial fire cause people to despair, as they know that nothing defiled can enter eternal life, and
no person can live a life entirely free from some lesser fault. If the soul is cleansed of lighter sins or
the guilt of greater ones before entering eternal life, and since there is no place for purification after
this life, those stained by sin will never be able to see God. Therefore, the doctrine of purgatorial
fire must not be rejected by the Church, as you suggest, as if it were damaging and an incentive to
negligence, but rather it should be embraced and preached honorably by the Catholic Church, as it is
most salutary. It prepares souls to be more diligent and vigilant, and more eager for the hope of
future blessedness. This should be enough in response to your arguments.

56

DOCUMENT 5
 Second Discourse Of Mark, Archbishop Of Ephesus, On The Fire Of Purgatory.
The Second Response Of The Most Wise And Most Learned Archbishop Of Ephesus, Lord Mark
Eugenicus, To The Latins, In Which He Explains The True Doctrine Of The Greek Church.
1. Certainly, many matters require thorough investigation and inquiry when it comes to
controversial doctrines, with very strong and weighty arguments on both sides. A great benefit
indeed comes from that inquiry, provided we aim not for contention but for truth, and not only
strive to win by our strength, but also, if we are ever defeated, bear it with a calm spirit. This,
however, is not something that usually happens to us, who often turn to small things, walking on the
ground and far from true wisdom; but we hear and believe that the same occurred even to the
disciples of Him who is wisdom itself, our Lord Jesus Christ. For when it was once questioned
among them whether those from the nations who came to faith should be circumcised and taught to
observe the law of Moses, the apostles and elders gathered to consider such a question; and after a
great inquiry, Peter gave his opinion, which James confirmed with his vote, and it seemed good to
all, with the Holy Spirit, that those from the nations returning to God should not be troubled. If,
then, the inquiry there brought about the harmony of those in dispute, there is good hope that we
also, who are moved by one spirit and bound by the same charity, will aim for the same goal, namely,
to attain the truth, without deviating from the intended purpose, even though the inquiry may be
prolonged, but in all things, listening and speaking with a peaceful mind, we will begin to agree
fraternally in whatever is most true and fitting.
2. And indeed, you profess and hope for these things just as we do; however, you openly declare
that we, as if forgetful of such matters, are more than is right concerned and strive to make our own
opinion firm, while seeking to overthrow yours. To this we respond that we have by no means
proposed our own opinion, whatever it may be, much less have we striven to firm it up; and you
yourselves accuse us of this a little further below, asking more clearly to learn what we really believe.
Therefore, we will strive not to overturn your opinion, but to demonstrate that it is by no means
necessary, both because it has not been sufficiently clearly handed down to us from the Scriptures,
nor confirmed by our fathers, and because it does not seem to align at all with reason. Nevertheless,
to comply with you as is fitting, we will more openly explain our opinion, not making it more firm
than necessary, but stabilizing it as reasonably as it can be, and we will carefully consider yours,
whatever it may ultimately be. For perhaps the truth found from this will free us from disputes and
from further disagreement among us.
3. We profess, therefore, that the just have not perfectly received their proper lot and that
blessed state to which in this life they prepared themselves through their works, nor have the wicked
immediately after death been condemned to eternal punishment, wherein they will be tormented
forever; but both of these things will certainly occur after the final judgment and the resurrection of
all. Now, however, they both exist in suitable places, the one group indeed entirely peaceful and free
in heaven with the angels and before God Himself, even in paradise, from which Adam fell, into
which the righteous thief was the first to enter, conversing with us everywhere in those places where

58

 temples are honored, hearing those who have called upon them and interceding for them before
God, as those endowed with such an extraordinary gift from Him, performing miracles through
their own relics, even enjoying the blessed vision of God and the radiance that flows from it much
more perfectly and brightly than before, while they were living; the other group, on the contrary, is
confined in hell, dwelling in darkness, in the shadow of death, and in the lowest pit, as David says,
and again Job: "In the land of darkness and gloom, in the land of eternal darkness, where there is no
light, nor life for men." And indeed, they will possess the highest joy and soul's delight, already
expecting and almost having in their hands the promised kingdom and secret goods; but those, on
the contrary, will be consumed by the greatest distress and inconsolable sorrow, waiting for the
judge's sentence, expecting the punishments of the damned. Nor, however, have they attained the
inheritance of the kingdom and those goods, "which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has the
heart of man conceived"; nor have they been condemned to eternal punishments, being burned by
inextinguishable fire. And we hold this doctrine not only accepted from our fathers of old, but also
we can easily confirm it from the very divine Scriptures.
4. Indeed, in some very ancient responses, under the title of the renowned doctor Athanasius to
the prince Antiochus, this question is posed: "What then? Have the just received their reward, and
the sinners their punishment?" — "Not at all. The very joy that the souls of the saints enjoy is part
of their happiness, as the sadness that sinners have is part of their punishment." Just as if the
emperor were to summon his friends to dine with him, but to punish the condemned, those called
to dinner would rejoice before the emperor’s house, until the hour of the dinner came; but the
condemned would dwell in sorrow, locked up in custody, until the judge comes: so it should be
understood concerning the souls who have departed before us, I mean of the just and the sinners.
"If no one, as it was said, has entered the kingdom or hell, what then is that which we have heard
concerning the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man speaks of being in fire and torments,
speaking to Abraham?" — Concerning Lazarus, the Lord spoke parabolically, as He did concerning
the ten virgins and other parables. For indeed, the parable of Lazarus did not actually happen; for in
hell, the sinners do not see the just, who are with Abraham in the kingdom; in fact, no one there in
the darkness recognizes his neighbor.”
5. This opinion, having been taken by our Church, she both believes and declares; and to defend
it, there are more than sufficient arguments. First indeed, the Lord, in the Gospel according to
Matthew, describes the future judgment: "Come," He says, "blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom, which was prepared for you" — therefore, they had not yet inherited it; "then," He says,
"the kingdom prepared for you" — prepared, not given. Again, concerning sinners: "Depart, you
cursed ones" — therefore, they had not yet departed — "into the eternal fire, which is prepared, not
for you, but for the devil and his angels." This also in this place is again said to be prepared, as those
who have not yet been apprehended will be the demons; for how could this happen, since they have
been passing through the air until that day, working without hindrance upon those who obeyed
them? The same demons cry out to the Lord, as it is found in the same Gospel: "Have you come

59

 here before the time to torment us?" — therefore, they were not yet being tormented when the time
had not yet come. Thus, if the wicked demons and the principal architects of all evil, to whom the
punishment is specially prepared and laid up, have not yet suffered their due punishment, but freely
go about wherever they wish, what reason then can persuade us that the souls of those who have
passed from this life in sin should be immediately delivered to fire and those punishments which
were prepared for others? Indeed, why would there be need for judgment or even the resurrection
of the bodies, or the second coming of the judge to the earth, and that great and universal spectacle,
if, before that day, both had already received their reward according to their merits? And why does
the Lord, in the parable of the virgins, say that the virgins who went out to meet the bridegroom,
that is, the souls, were sleeping and had fallen asleep while the bridegroom delayed, that is, had died,
yet had not entered the marriage chamber until the bridegroom came from heaven, raising all of
them, as if from sleep, and introducing some with Him, but excluding others? This will indeed, as is
evident to all, take place on that day. For then, He says, "the kingdom of heaven will be like ten
virgins." But how can He, having gone away on a journey, distribute His goods to His servants, and
then when He returns, require of each a report of their work and give them their reward?
6. And truly, the Apostle says in his second letter to the Corinthians: “We must all be made
manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body,
according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” You see, no one has received their reward
before that judgment, and before all of us are manifested together, each one receiving reward
according to what he has done in the body? Furthermore, in his second letter to Timothy, he says
that the time of his departure is at hand, but that the crown of righteousness is laid up for him,
which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give him on that day: and not only to him, but to all who
love His appearing. And in his second letter to the Thessalonians: “It is indeed just with God to
repay with affliction those who afflict you; and to you who are afflicted, rest with us when the Lord
Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those
who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; they will
suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the
glory of His might, when He comes to be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all
who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed on that day.” Furthermore, in the
letter to the Hebrews, speaking about the saints who preceded us, it says: “All these, though
commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided
something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” This is understood to
refer to all the faithful and righteous who lived before the coming of the Lord. Just as the ancient
fathers were not made perfect without the apostles, so neither were the apostles without the martyrs,
nor the martyrs without those who came after them into the best vineyard of the Church. This is
also plainly taught by the parable, where workers are hired at different times of the day but receive
the same reward. The great evangelist John also speaks similarly in the Apocalypse: “When He
opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of

60

 God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy
and true, how long before You will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’
Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their
fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had
been.” From all these, it is clear that neither the saints are enjoying the perfect good things and the
future beatitude, nor the sinners, already condemned, are being tormented by their punishment. For
how could it happen that the imperfect, almost incomplete, and lacking bodies (which they will take
on again, incorruptible, after the resurrection), could receive their complete rewards? Therefore, the
Apostle says: “Christ the firstfruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ, then the end.
Then will appear, He says, then will shine, then will be consumed. And the Lord in the gospel: ‘Then
the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.’”
7. Finally, let us bring in the teachers of the Church who support this view and confirm it in
general. The great Gregory the Theologian in his funeral oration in praise of his brother Caesar
says: “I am led by the words of the wise to believe that every beautiful soul, dear to God, after being
released from the chains of the body, immediately perceives and contemplates the good that awaits
it, and, being freed from the darkness that held it, rejoices with a marvelous pleasure, and, as if
liberated from a heavy prison, directs itself peacefully to its Lord, and enjoys a hidden beatitude,
which it had already perceived through a shadowy image; and after some time, when it has taken
back the related flesh from the earth, which both gave and received it in faith, then at last it will be
admitted into the heavenly inheritance of glory, and just as it had shared in the sorrows of nature, it
will also share in the delights, absorbing all of itself into the one thing, spirit, mind, and God, by the
life that absorbs what was mortal and fleeting.”
8. The golden-tongued John in his sixth discourse on the State says: “Just as the boxer hastens to
leave the stadium in order to be freed from his wounds, and the athlete longs for the spectators to
rise, that he may be freed from his labors, so he who lives a rigorous and harsh life with virtue
desires the end, in order to be freed from present labors, and with the crowns of victory placed
before him, to trust in them, sailing to the peaceful harbor, where no shipwreck is feared.” And in
the fourth Against the Ludicrous Discourse, when he praises the martyrs, he says: “They have
despised this life, trampled on executions and tortures, scorned death, and been freed from the
delusions of human affairs, sailing peacefully to the harbor, and now they have reached Paul’s choir,
eagerly awaiting their crowns, as they no longer have uncertainty about the future.”
9. Again, the divine Gregory, in his discourse On the Plague of Hail, after describing that future
judgment, says: “The righteous will proceed into the resurrection of life, now hidden in Christ, but
afterward to be revealed with Him; but those who have done evil, into the resurrection of judgment,
where even those who do not believe have already been condemned by the Word of God. And
indeed the light that excels all speech will shine forth, the contemplation of the Holy and Royal
Trinity, purer and clearer, merging completely with the mind, and I think that the kingdom of
heaven is most certainly set in this contemplation. But for the others, along with the rest, it remains

61

 to be a punishment, to be cast away from God, and the shame of conscience, which will have no
end.”
10. From all these things, it clearly appears that whatever some of the saints have seen through
visions and revelations about the future damnation of the wicked and sinners, these are merely
shadows or outlines of the future, not things that are already present and in action. Thus, Daniel,
describing the future judgment in the manner of the prophets, says: “I looked until thrones were
placed, and the judgment seat was set, and the books were opened, and these and those were made.
For it is evident that these things were not accomplished, but shown to the prophet in a mental
vision.”
11. Therefore, from all the arguments presented, and from the pious teaching of our Church, it
is clear that neither the wicked receive eternal punishment immediately, nor the righteous
immediately attain the eternal kingdom, but both wait for that future judgment to fully receive what
is prepared for them, according to their deeds. How then can we accept any other form of
punishment, one that is now being carried out, and a temporary fire by which the souls of those
who have lived moderately may be tormented while they await the universal punishment, when even
the worst and most wicked men, indeed the demons themselves, are not yet afflicted? For the divine
apostle Peter says in his letter that they also await this judgment, detained in hell, like in prison and
chains, but not yet tormented: “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them
into chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until judgment.” Do you hear? They are detained by a
prior power, being confined in prison while awaiting the judgment. Surely by the same reasoning, the
worst sinners are indeed tormented in part, but they have not yet been cast into the final
punishment. Therefore, we would say that the punishment of the mediocres consists of remorse, or
the shame of conscience and its sting, or repentance, or confinement and darkness, or fear and the
ambiguity of the future, or merely the delay in divine vision, depending on the nature of the sins
each one has committed. This will be the most accurate mode of thinking and speaking. As for the
souls being purified in the corporeal fire, we absolutely cannot say this, and we will ask those who
do, not to be angry with us if we do not easily accept it. Unless we perhaps think that the fire is
mentioned allegorically or cleverly devised for some necessity of that time and for the benefit of the
listeners. These are the reasons we usually offer to explain new and unusual doctrines that are not in
accordance with Scripture.
12. Therefore, the prayers for the dead, which the Church performs in the mystical sacrifice and
in other certain ceremonies, which are customary at various times, for all those who have peacefully
passed away in the faith, we offer equally, and we pronounce that they help and benefit all in some
way, with efficacy and usefulness, which derives from them, overflowing to all: for sinners indeed,
and for those who are held in hell, that they might receive some relaxation, even if they are not
completely freed, as Basil the Great says in the prayers to be recited at Pentecost, writing these
words verbatim: "Who, even in this most solemn and saving festival, has deigned to accept expiatory
prayers for those who are held in hell: you give us great hope, that they may receive some relaxation

62

 of their punishments and some kind of relief granted by you." Nor is it surprising that we pray for
these, since some saints, when they prayed for the wicked, were heard. Thus, the blessed Thecla
brought Falconilla from the region of the impious by her prayers, and Gregory the Great, as they
say, transferred Emperor Trajan. However, the Church of God does not pray for such men; but for
all those who have died in the faith, even if they were most wicked, it asks for forgiveness from
God, offering prayers for them both publicly and privately. This is clear from that very collective
formula, for it says, "For all who have peacefully passed away in the faith"; it is also clear from the
preceding words of the great Basil; it is evident also from those said by blessed John Chrysostom in
his commentaries on the Gospel of John, Homily 62: "If the one who has died was a sinner, who
often offended God, he certainly must be mourned; indeed, not only mourned, since this brings no
benefit to him, but those things must be done which can help him, such as almsgiving and
offerings." And again, in his commentary on the first letter to the Corinthians, Homily 41, he says
this: "If the sinner has passed away, then one should rejoice because the sins have been cut off and
he has added nothing to his fault; and, as far as it is possible, one should help him, not weep for
him." And after a few more words: "Why then do you grieve? Why do you lament, when such great
forgiveness can be obtained for the deceased?" And in his exposition of the Epistle to the
Philippians, he says again: "If the Gentiles, together with the deceased, are accustomed to burn their
belongings, much more fitting is it for you, who are faithful, to offer what pertains to him, not so
that it may be reduced to ashes like that, but to acquire greater glory for him: and if the one who has
died was bound by sin, that his sins may be cleansed; but if he was just, that he may receive an
increase in reward and recompense." And indeed, from that very saying you brought up from the
book of Maccabees, which is apt to prove that it is good and beneficial to pray for the dead, so that
they may be freed from sin, it is clear that that sacrifice and propitiation offered for them was for
those who had fallen into impiety and idolatry. "For Judas Maccabeus," it says, "when he saw that the
people he led had been slain by foreign enemies, and found their garments stripped, and their
offerings for idols, immediately offered a sacrifice and propitiation to God for each of them."
Therefore, if the prayers and supplications of the Church benefit such people and confer much gain
to them, as those who are not yet condemned nor subjected to the sentence of the judge nor cast
into punishment, much more will they assist those who are in a middle state, if made for them,
either by referring them to the order of the just, if their sins are slight and minor, or by relieving
their pains and advancing them in better hope, if they are left in their present condition. And indeed,
even for those who have lived justly and holily, with these prayers, especially the hidden virtue of the
sacrifice, reaches them, since they too are imperfect and are always progressing in the good, not yet
enjoying perfect happiness, as is clear from what the expositor of divine things, Dionysius, asserts in
his consideration of the mysteries, in which it is stated that prayers are made for those who have
peacefully passed away in the faith: "The high priest," he says, "prays for those who have lived holily,
that they may receive the brightest divine life, to be rewarded according to their merits by those just
balances, and for the promised and certainly given good: for he is the interpreter of divine

63

 judgments, asking for divine gifts, and openly declaring what is to come, according to the sacred
right, for those who have completed their lives according to God." Therefore, since that virtue
overflows to all, and the aid of prayers and hidden sacrifices benefits all those who have peacefully
passed away in the faith, as shown, we find no objection in saying that such help is provided for
those who are in purgatorial fire.
13. However, that which you blame us for saying, namely that this opinion leads to the
corruption of morals and sloth of life, we said not because it necessarily follows, but because it is
likely that such a consequence might result. For some, perhaps, will be struck by fear of that
purgatorial fire, which is said and believed to be most intense; others, however, will be led into
negligence and carelessness, since its nature is unknown, but is affirmed to be temporary. Indeed,
many can be heard saying: "I wish that purgatorial fire might exist after death, namely, that I might
safely wait for that purification." Similarly, others say: "I wish that those torments might have an
end, so that they are no longer a concern for me."
14. What more is there? Those who say to us that this opinion was not taught by any doctor, you
are trying to bring it to an astonishing conclusion based on the words of Basil the Great, where, in
praying, he asks God to deign to transfer the souls of the dead to a place of refreshment. You say
that this phrase signifies the souls being tortured by fire, and that he prays for them to be moved to
a contrary state. But it is surprising how you, by using this very phrase, suggest that Basil intended to
pray for the souls to be freed from purgatory, even though in none of his prayers or speeches does
this holy man ever say or imply that he prays for such souls to be liberated from purgatory's fire.
You are misinterpreting his words, as though they were meant to signify another kind of forgiveness
or liberation from suffering! But what? David indeed says: "Release me, that I may be refreshed
before I go," not certainly because he is being consumed by fire, but because he is in various kinds
of distress.
15. As for Gregory of Nyssa, that famous doctor, it seems strange to you, indeed, you take it
harshly and bitterly, that we have put forward this opinion, that he, being a man, has strayed from
the right doctrine, and you believe that all dogmas and the entire Scripture are undermined by this
argument. To this, we reply that there is a great distinction between what is proclaimed by canonical
Scriptures and handed down by the Church, and what any doctor might have personally written or
taught: for the former must be believed as divinely revealed and must be harmonized, if they seem
to differ; the latter, however, does not necessarily need to be believed, nor should it be uncritically
accepted.
For it is possible for someone to be a teacher without always speaking accurately. Indeed, what
need would there have been for the ecumenical synods, if it were impossible for anyone to stray
from the truth? This indeed happened to some, such as Dionysius of Alexandria and Gregory
Thaumaturgus, one of whom received the crown of martyrdom, while the other’s name suffices for
praise.

64

 And regarding the divine Dionysius, Basil the Great, writing to Maximus, says: "Our judgment is
this: We do not admire everything in this man; indeed, there are things we completely condemn. For
nearly all the impiety now being spread, I speak of the Anomoean heresy, was first sown by him, as
far as we know. However, I believe the cause was not the wrongness of his opinion, but his intense
desire to oppose Sabellius." And a little later: "We have found that this has happened to this man:
When he strongly encountered impiety, he did not realize that, in his excessive zeal to oppose it, he
had fallen into the opposite evil." And shortly after: "Therefore, it happened that he changed one
evil for another, but deviated from the right doctrine." Regarding Gregory Thaumaturgus, writing to
his brother, he says: "Furthermore, when he was a pagan, he did not think that it was necessary to
examine words carefully, but conceded something to the character of the one being introduced, so
that he might not resist what was most important. Therefore, you will find many words there which
now give the greatest strength to heretics, such as 'creation' and 'making,' and anything of that sort."
And what is so surprising about one or another straying from the right doctrine, when the whole
synod, namely the Neocaesarean synod, of which Basil the martyr, bishop of Amasya, was
president, seems not to have understood the apostolic saying that was used to establish the canon?
Indeed, when the sixth ecumenical synod declared the abrogation of this canon, it says about it in
Canon XVI: "Since the book of Acts teaches that seven deacons were appointed by the apostles, the
Neocaesarean synod, in its published canons, openly stated that there should be seven deacons
according to the canon, even if the city is large, as you will be persuaded from the book of Acts; but
we, having adapted the mind of the fathers to the apostolic teaching, found that they referred to
those who served in the ministry of the tables." But only the canonical Scriptures are immune from
error, as Blessed Augustine testifies in his writings to Jerome: "For only in the books of Scripture
which are now called canonical have I learned to give this honor and reverence, that I firmly believe
no author of them has erred in writing... However, I read other writings in such a way that, although
the sanctity and doctrine of the authors might be preeminent, I do not think them true simply
because they wrote or thought so." And again, in his letter to Fortunatian: "Nor do we have to treat
the disputations of anyone, even if they are Catholics and praised men, as if they were canonical
Scriptures, so that we cannot, with due honor to those men, reject or oppose something in their
writings, if perhaps we find that they thought differently from the truth, as understood either by
divine help or by others." And in such a way, I am with the writings of others: such I want to be in
understanding my own writings.”
16. Therefore, since such honor, as stated, and faith and obedience are due only to the canonical
Scriptures, what foolishness do we admit, when we say that Gregory of Nyssa, being a man, strayed
somewhat from the right doctrine? This, though the matter was still controversial at that time, as we
have already mentioned? Indeed, you contend that he did not deny eternal fire, as is clearly evident
from his Catechetical Prayer and from another prayer concerning infants who are prematurely taken;
if you could prove that he ever said or believed such a thing, we would have much gratitude for you.
For we do not find anywhere that he said or implied that the eternal fire is everlasting torment, or

65

 that only small sins will be expiated, but rather that any fault would be erased by that fire, and that
any punishment would eventually cease, having an end, since it is nothing but a purification, not only
of the impious and wicked men, but also of the very demons, restoring them to their former state.
For about the devil, he says in the Catechetical Prayer: "He indeed used deceit to destroy nature; but
this one, both just and good and wise, devised a deception for the salvation of the one who was
perishing, benefiting not only him who perished, but also the one who had plotted destruction
against us. For, as death indeed approached life, and darkness to light, and corruption to
incorruption, what was worse is truly destroyed and reduced to nothing, but that which is purified is
helped. Just as when a baser material is mixed with gold, and the goldsmiths, having consumed the
foreign and impure part by fire, restore the material to its native and superior brilliance, so also,
when death, destruction, and darkness, and if any other spawn of wickedness, cling to the evil one,
the divine power, like fire, abolishes what was unnatural within him, affecting the nature of
incorruption with its benefit, though this purification is laborious. Therefore, the adversary himself
did not doubt that what is done is just and salutary, since it has reached the point of benefiting the
one who has undergone it. Now, just as those who are cut and burned for the sake of healing
become angry with those who heal them, because they are sharply pricked by the pain of the
incision, yet if from it health results, and the pain of the burning passes, those healed will give
thanks to those who cured them, so also, after the evil that is now mixed and congealed in nature
has been removed by long cycles of time, once the restoration of the state of those now lying in evil
is made, all creation will give thanks with one voice, both those who have been chastised in
purification, and those who have never needed any purification." And again, in the prayer
concerning the dead, dealing with any vice, he says: "Therefore, in order that both the dignity of
human nature, with free will, might be preserved, and the evil might be removed, divine wisdom
devised this plan, that it might allow man to choose for himself, so that, tasting the evils he desired,
and learning by experience what he had chosen, he would be again kindled by the same desire, that,
the burdens of vices and disorders contrary to reason being removed, he might either in this present
life be purified by the study of wisdom and reason, or, after death, be purified through the fire of
cleansing, and return to his former happiness." And after a few words: "In this, man, while living
here, acting according to his own will, if he neglects what is bestial, will adopt a more civilized way
of living, overcoming what is opposed to reason; in this present life he will expiate the vice he has
mixed with his nature; if, however, the impulse of disturbances leads him astray, he will turn to the
bestial nature, and then another course will be necessary for him, that he may arrive at the good,
when he has left the body, having understood the difference between virtue and vice, and will not be
able to become a partaker of the divine nature unless the stains mixed in his soul are removed by the
purgatorial fire." For these reasons, the use of the body is necessary for us; for it is through it that
free will is present, and the return to the good is not blocked, but in due order and succession we are
moved toward better things, some already, from the time they live here, establishing a life free from
vices and disturbances, such as we understand the patriarchs and prophets to have been, and those

66

 who, along with them and after them, through virtue and the study of wisdom, returned to
perfection, such as the disciples, apostles, and martyrs, and anyone who, having preferred a life of
honor joined with virtue, though fewer in number than those who turned to worse things,
nevertheless testify by their example and witness that virtue can be cultivated and practiced in the
flesh; but others, after this life, removing the stain of matter and the inclination to evil through the
purgatorial fire, and returning to the grace initially granted to nature, will return to it by their
voluntary desire for good things." And in his prayer concerning infants who are taken prematurely:
"It is certainly clear to him who has seen the reasoning of divine power that the one who has
reached this height of wickedness can, after many cycles of years, be restored again through the
eternal purification and join the company of the saved.”
17. These things having been said by him about every fault equally, and about all sinners and
wicked men, as well as about the demons themselves, it is quite clear, as they say, that he asserted
this purgation through fire would occur after the resurrection and judgment. This is evidently shown
by what he says in the same speech about infants: "Will that soul too be brought before the
judgment seat, and undergo the judgment of the life she lived? Will she receive her retribution
according to her merits? Or will she be purified by fire according to the words of the Gospel, or will
she be refreshed and revived in the dew of blessing?" What, I ask, do these words have in common
with the purgatory you introduce? For he decided that all sinners and all faults would equally be
purified by that fire; but you, on the other hand, affirm that some, namely the lighter ones, and some
people, specifically those who were not completely wicked, would be purified; he indeed after the
final judgment, but you immediately after the departure from the body. Do we not act rightly when
we do not fully agree with such statements, but regard them either as spurious or, even if they are
genuine, we reject them as contrary to the generally accepted Scriptures and dogmas?
18. Thus, we were compelled to refer to these words to avoid the appearance of slandering the
holy man, while we say that he supported the teachings of Origen. It is certainly appropriate for you
to also bring some defense of these words if you can think of any that are new (I say appropriate
since he is considered a common doctor), and what happened, that his works were condemned by
the Fifth Synod and handed over to the fire? For to claim that after this synod they were corrupted
by others for some other reason is a crude and outdated excuse and utterly unnecessary. However,
that such an opinion existed does not necessarily mean that his works were to be destroyed and
consigned to the flames. For this did not happen to all of Origen's books, as is evident from the
Philocalia, which is composed by Gregory the Theologian, with the help of Basil the Great, and is
filled with similar words and thoughts, because the issue was still under dispute, as we previously
stated. However, what method the holy Maximus devised to resolve the renowned Gregory's
opinion on restoration to the original state, we will recount without omitting anything; whether,
however, these numerous words suffice to cure so many, let your judgment be. "The Church knows
of a threefold restoration to the original state," he says: "one indeed, of each individual, according to
the measure of virtue by which it is restored, where it has fulfilled the measure of virtue in itself;

67

 another, the restoration of the entire nature in the resurrection, when it is restored to incorruption
and immortality; and a third, which Gregory Nyssenus chiefly used in his speeches, namely that
whereby the powers of the soul, which had succumbed to sin, are restored to the original state in
which they were created. For it is necessary that, just as all nature in the resurrection, when we hope
to receive the incorruption of the flesh, so too the perverted powers of the soul, the images of
wickedness and malice implanted in it, be lost after the long duration of ages, and after all the ages
have passed, without any further delay, come to God, who has no end; and thus through knowledge,
not participation in good, but by receiving power, it will be restored to its original state, showing
openly that the creator of sin is not the same." If you have judged this medicine to be appropriate, it
will be the best fortune for both sides; if another more accurate one needs to be sought, let fair
Mars, as they say, favor both sides. For it is clear to everyone that Origen's opinions clearly align with
these words you just quoted, and it is surprising that you regard the ancient opinion of the Church,
which lies between two opposites, on the purgatorial fire, when most of the renowned teachers have
allegorized that eternal fire and eternal punishment, so that they considered the fire there and the
outer darkness as nothing but ignorance of God, in the same way that light itself is called the vision
of the blessed; and the worm, of course, that is the reptile, venomously shooting and consuming the
flesh, is nothing other than the stings of conscience and the bitter repentance that the wicked
undergo; while the gnashing of teeth is no other than the fury of those who seek vengeance and the
sorrow that results from it, as well as the bitter weeping. Moreover, if these are the kinds of
torments after the resurrection and judgment, how can we believe that incorporeal souls, as soon as
they are released, will be burned and purified by corporeal fire, unless one says that these words too,
just like those, refer to something else, namely to be taken allegorically and spiritually?
19. Furthermore, when we examined the testimonies, both from the book of Maccabees and
from the Gospel, that you have brought forward, candidly and sincerely indicating that no
punishment or purification is shown in them, but only the remission of sins, you introduced a
strange distinction, asserting that every sin is divided into two parts, namely the offense against God
and the punishment resulting from it; and indeed, the offense is forgiven after contrition and
detestation of evil, but the punishment remains absolutely owed, so that it is necessary for those
whose sins are forgiven to still be tormented because of them. However, since these things are
entirely contrary to the clearest and most acknowledged facts, we will refrain from further
discussion: for we do not see kings, after granting forgiveness and remission, still afflicting with
punishments those who have committed crimes, much less God Himself, to whom mercy is
supreme among all His attributes, and who punishes after sin, but immediately removes the
punishment after remission. And this is right. For if the offense against God merits punishment,
once the cause is removed and reconciliation has been made, the effect itself, that is, the
punishment, must necessarily be taken away. Thus, the publican, with a contrite heart when he
prayed, was not only freed from sins, but was also justified in descending, which is the same as
saying he was no longer liable to any punishment. Manasseh in the Old Testament, as soon as he

68

 prayed with humility, received forgiveness and was restored to his kingdom by divine power in a very
short time. The Ninevites, however, performed such a prompt penance that they both freed
themselves from sin and avoided the punishment that had been threatened. And the paralytic in the
Gospel, when he first received the remission of his sins, immediately, as a sequel, was raised up from
his bodily ailment. But why should we enumerate all examples in such an open and manifest matter?
In truth, where did you take that distinction, which you proposed as necessary and universal? Which
evangelist, apostle, or Church doctor ever wrote anything of the sort? What deeds demonstrate this?
For David's example is not enough, whose sin of adultery and homicide was indeed forgiven, but he
lost the son he had borne; for he fully received the remission of his sin, as is evident from the fact
that he did not lose the prophetic gift, but he paid a mild penalty, as God judged. Indeed, this was
not a punishment, but rather grief, which may have been granted for other reasons, which teachers
often mention when discussing those infants who are taken prematurely. For the son he later bore
from that same woman not only survived, but succeeded to his father’s kingdom, and he was
Solomon, the wisest of men. Therefore, from the particular nature of that act, one should not
conclude by generalizing that only the offense is forgiven, while the punishment must necessarily
remain. This utterly contradicts both common opinion and the nature of things, and it does not
seem consistent even with your own views. For if the cause, namely the stain, as you put it, adhering
to the soul after the offense against the Creator, is forgiven, what is left to be purified by
punishment, when that stain has been removed through remission? If remission could not in any
way bring about purification without punishment, your view would seem correct; but if the first,
greatest, and most perfect remission of sins, which is made through baptism, carries with it the
cleansing of all stains and the resolution of all punishment, then what necessity is there for this
second remission to lack the purifying power and to attribute it solely to the punishment? Besides
what has been said, we assert that the authorities you cited do not support your opinion: for the
passage from Maccabees was not about some minor fault, but about a grave and deadly crime for
which propitiation and sacrifice were made for the dead; and as for that passage from the Gospel,
namely that he who blasphemes will not be forgiven either in this age or the next, it certainly does
not support your view, as if remission were then granted, but it indicates that, while some faults are
punished in this life, others in the next, and still others in both, that particular sin, which cannot be
forgiven or remitted either in this life or in the next, will receive the severest of punishments.
20. Now, we must proceed to the most serious and foremost arguments, namely that which the
apostolic statement seeks and demands as firmness: for this, almost alone, the entire consensus of
the learned Latins rests upon the doctrine of purgatory fire. Moreover, since there are many among
us Greeks who have treated the sacred Scripture, of whom the chief and leader is John, that golden-
tongued one, no one has come to this conclusion that he would derive from the apostolic statement
the purgatory fire that you hold to be confessed, at least it does not seem to you so; for you have not
presented even one interpretation of our countrymen that proposes such a thing. All of them also
freely admit that the words of Sacred Scripture are to be explained by the holy doctors in various

69

 ways, not only by using words meant to signify different things, as you, with your wisdom, have
proposed the voices of the lion and the rock in the middle (for this is peculiar to Scripture), but also
by using the entire context of a particular passage in different and often even opposing senses: in
this way, blessed John Chrysostom judged that by the apostolic session with Christ, only a certain
honor was signified, and that the judgment of the tribes of Israel was understood to refer only to
condemnation: "For," he said, "men will not sit with the judge, God, but will only condemn, as the
Ninevites and the Queen of the South condemned the corrupt people of the Jews"; but other
doctors call and refer to the apostles as both fellow judges and co-judges of the Lord Christ. Do
these seem contradictory? But it is no surprise that in some matters and opinions that are not
essential, one person has departed from another's view, whether the mind so decided, or the opinion
suggested it, or the time and circumstances or the will of the listeners required it. Therefore, by the
same reasoning, this proposed statement is rightly subject to various interpretations, both among our
scholars and yours. However, the interpretation of the blessed Father John Chrysostom is certainly
more accurate and truer, not only because of his dignity and preeminence, for which even the great
apostle Paul seemed to converse with him, and also because of the unanimous consent of our other
doctors with him, but also because he, more than anyone else, seems to follow the series and order
of the apostolic statement, as one who does not dissect each individual word and interpret it
separately, but gives a deeper and more comprehensive exposition that repeats the apostle's scope
and objective, and presents it all as one integrated body. Moreover, anyone who wishes to reflect on
it—especially if this apostolic scope and aim proposed from the beginning is kept in mind—will
find that Chrysostom's interpretation is far more accurate than the one presented and maintained by
you.
21. For the Corinthians, to whom the epistle is addressed, when they were in disagreement
among themselves, and some preferred one teacher over another from those who were famous for
wealth and worldly wisdom (for these were greatly admired and boasted about because of their
wealth), they stirred up greater disputes and contentions, to the point that even when someone had
married his stepmother, they let it go unpunished and uncondemned. This one was among those
teachers whom they were proud of, and even though he had fallen into such a great crime, he still
retained the dignity of a teacher, having a considerable following, and supported by worldly wisdom
and wealth. When the divine apostle sought to correct this, he first addresses them with a general
admonition and rebuke, urging them to speak the same thing and not to form factions, nor to
ascribe to one another the titles of those teachers, whom he wanted to name without naming, each
of you, he says, says: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ," adding Christ
to them to shame them, since all should come under the one part of Christ, without being called by
any other, not even by the principal apostles themselves, for this, he says, I have made into me and
Apollos, so that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written. Then he condemns the
arrogance of worldly wisdom, calling it the origin and cause of schisms, and drives it out of the
Church, calling it the "emptying of the cross of Christ" and foolishness before God, and whatever

70

 else is such. Then he diminishes the wisdom of those teachers, saying, "For who is Paul? who is
Apollos? but ministers by whom you believed, and to each as the Lord gave." I planted, Apollos
watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters,
but God who gives the increase. And he who plants and he who waters are one. Everything is from
divine power; we, however, contribute only a small and humble part, so that no one can achieve
more than another in this matter, even though we expect a reward for it. Each will receive his own
reward according to his labor. In this place, he calls the teachers mercenaries, so that they do not
exalt themselves, as the Lord alone will reward their work. Then, when he wanted to refer to the
fornicator teacher, whom he later excommunicates and hands over to Satan, he says, "We are
workers of God; for we do not perform our own work, but we contribute to the Lord who is willing
to work." You are God's field, you are God's building. Changing his metaphor from agriculture to
building, he calls himself the architect, according to the grace of God, and now boasting of his own
preeminence, so that he may be all the more able to rebuke and threaten. "I," he says, "have laid the
foundation, starting with faith in Christ, for that is the foundation; but another builds upon it,
namely, each of your teachers. Let each one take care how he builds upon it." Here he significantly
attacks the fornicator. Let each one take care, he says, whether he builds with sound doctrine and
consistent words, for the building of teachers consists primarily in deeds, which commend it.
Therefore, let no one consider only his own building, nor think that he is profiting from it, but let
him consider what is built with him, for these must be tested by fire on that day. What fire? Surely
that which will precede in the sight of God, according to David's saying, and which will seize and
illuminate the saints and the best teachers whose excellent works have been built upon the
foundation of Christ, and will make them more glorious, and through the preservation and
brightness of their work, it will serve as a reward for them who labored. But those who have built
with wood, hay, straw, that is, worthless material easily consumed by fire, away from the good
foundation, such as the fornicator, who arrogated the teacher's task to himself, will not only not
receive any reward for their teaching, but even the work of teaching itself, when burned, will
become a detriment, not a reward. For such a work or teacher will not withstand the power of that
fire. However, that teacher himself will not perish with his own work, but will be saved and stand
before the judge, to give an account of what he has done, and to receive eternal punishment,
without receiving any benefit from that completed teaching, as his work will be utterly consumed.
For thus, he will be saved as through fire, by which such materials are burned and consumed, and he
will achieve salvation through a worse destruction: it would have been better for him if he had not
been brought to light at all, or if he had not lived at all, bearing such material. He then adds,
speaking openly of that one who had committed the sin, saying, "Do you not know that you are the
temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God
will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, which you are." And when that one who boasted of
wisdom and of teaching thought that he would avoid punishment, he continues, "Let no one deceive
himself. If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool, that he may

71

 become wise; for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." And while he had discoursed
on these things, he again uses a most vehement speech, now addressing the one who had committed
the sin, and harshly rebukes those who were admiring that teacher, who were focused only on his
eloquent speech, but not looking at his virtue and character. For thus he speaks: "As though I were
not coming to you, some are puffed up. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will
know not the speech of those who are puffed up, but the power: for the kingdom of God is not in
word, but in power. What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of
meekness?" Indeed, there is heard among you fornication, and such fornication as is not even named
among the Gentiles, that someone should have his father's wife; and you are puffed up, and have not
mourned, so that the one who has done this deed might be taken away from among you? Do you
see in this place what kind of work he said would be burned up, and the work of the fornicator
being truly referred to? If the fornication is only slight or moderate, and this fornication, according
to your teachers' interpretation, leads to a good salvation for the teacher, then why does the
interpretation of Chrysostom not hold strength, and why do we not understand the salvation here as
referring only to the fact that he is not completely lost with his work, but that it remains, after his
work has been destroyed, standing before the judge with his work now utterly consumed? For that
fire alone has the power to prove, but it is not the one that will seize sinners forever; and perhaps for
this very reason David says, "He will kindle a fire around his enemies," that is, it will burn and
obscure them and make them hideous, as those burned by fire usually become, but it will not utterly
destroy them. Gregory the Theologian also distinguishes this from the eternal fire in his prayer on
Baptism, as he examines the different kinds of fire: "Whether," he says, "it is that fire which will
proceed before the face of the Lord and burn around his enemies, or whether it is that far more
dreadful fire, which is united with the worm of sleep and is never extinguished, but remains eternal
for the punishment of the wicked.”
22. How this explanation seems better and more directly related to the goal of the apostolic
teaching, as has been clearly shown, we say that the vilest and most corrupt works, which are
signified by wood, hay, and stubble, are opposed to those excellent and noble works, which are
signified by gold, silver, and precious stones. These works are indeed suitable for building, but the
structure to which they are applied will easily be destroyed by fire. For the apostle's intention was to
show that no benefit or reward will be gained by those who build upon the foundation of Christ
with corrupt works. Therefore, he opposed the reward in such a way that, when the work cannot be
saved nor presented to the judge for payment, the one who completed the work will still be saved, as
though through fire, like one who is barely saved and will stand before the judge with a miserable
and incomplete report. It is perhaps for this reason that the prophet, when speaking of that day,
says: "Behold the man and his work," to show that both the work and the worker must be preserved
if there is to be any reward. Now, we say that these corrupt works are built upon, not by the wicked,
which is your opinion, nor by any sinner at all; for the apostle was not intending to speak to all, nor
was he giving a general division, but he was speaking of those who labor in cooperation with God,

72

 that is, of the teachers. While building upon the foundation of Christ (for it cannot happen
otherwise, since they are the instructors of Christians), it is possible, he says, that even the most
corrupt and vile works might be built upon it, as it happened to one who fell into fornication. If you
say that the worst mortal works cannot be compatible with the foundation of Christ, we would
argue that neither even moderately bad works can be compatible with it. Now, since both these and
those are being built upon the foundation of faith by many, not by just any common people, but
even by teachers, both past and present, as it even happened to that teacher, it is clear. But the
statement that "he will be saved" means nothing more than that he will survive, as the angel said to
Job: "I am saved (I escaped); I alone have come to tell you," which does not in any way suggest that
something good is being implied, as you might believe. This becomes clear from what the apostle
added, fearing that anyone might think otherwise: "Yet so as through fire," meaning barely and with
a wretched and deplorable condition. Then, using very strong words, he says: "Do you not know
that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the
temple of God, God will destroy him." At this point, the prayer takes an adverse turn, pronouncing
that salvation through fire leads to destruction. Therefore, the question here is not about light sins,
nor does he propose any advice regarding purification (for nothing of that sort is clearly
mentioned), but about the most serious and mortal sins, such as fornication, which he calls the
destruction of the temple of God, that is, the body. We therefore accept nothing absurd, as we fully
follow Chrysostom’s explanation. Nor is it surprising that some understand the apostle's words
differently, for this often happens to teachers in nearly every part of Scripture, and it cannot happen
that the same text, explained in different ways as we have previously said, can be equally applied to
all meanings. It is necessary that some interpretations be more fitting and better achieve the goal of
the text, which we believe the one we presented does, being aligned with the truth of the matter as
judged.
23. I. In response to our arguments, from which we could have presented many points, we only
briefly address a few. To the first, where we said that it is more consistent with divine goodness to
not despise a small good than to punish a small sin, you responded that a small good cannot be
rewarded if it perishes due to a mortal sin; for mortal sin destroys all good works done previously.
However, lighter sins do not have the same effect, for in those who die in God's love, love itself
cannot erase light sins, but only the mortal sin directly opposed to it, which takes away life, a life that
love grants. This seems very strange, as if someone, a fuller, would say that deeply ingrained stains
can be removed, but lighter stains, which have not penetrated the fabric as deeply, cannot. However,
we indeed hear the prophet say: "If the righteous turn from his righteousness, all his righteousness
will be forgotten." Similarly, we hear that on the day a sinner turns and groans, he will live and not
die. Moreover, in the writings of the great Athanasius, such a question is raised: "If someone, after
committing a serious sin, condemns himself and begins to do penance, and after three days dies,
what should be thought of him? If, in beginning penance, he restrains himself from wicked
thoughts and makes a covenant with God that he will not commit the same sins again, and dies the

73

 next day, God will accept his repentance, just as He did with the thief. Indeed, entering penance is
within man's control, but whether he lives or dies is in God's hands. For God often takes those who
have begun penance, so that He may gain them, being good, as He foresees that if they lived longer,
they would fall again and perish." Similar things are said by blessed John Chrysostom in his homily
on Philogonium: "I testify and guarantee that each of you, who are subject to sin, if you depart
from your previous evils and truly promise to God that you will never return to them, nothing
further is required by God for your excuse." Where, then, is the memory of punishment and
purification? How many examples support this! The good thief, the publican who went down
justified, David who, after committing sin and undergoing penance, remained a prophet, Manasseh
freed from chains. Therefore, even more so, through charity and penance, both grave and light sins
can be forgiven, just as mortal sins do not erase good works done before.
II. To the second, when we again said that if a small good cannot result in eternal life or
avoiding eternal punishment when it perishes through mortal sin, neither can a small evil result in
punishment, but only a difference in the retribution: You responded again in nearly the same way as
before, namely, that a small good, when destroyed by mortal sin, does not merit retribution for
eternal life or avoiding eternal punishment; however, a small evil must be purged according to God’s
judgment because of the excellence of the supreme beatitude and its purity. To this, we reply that we
do not claim that small evil can be carried by those who are called to eternal happiness, but that it
will be forgiven and pardoned by divine goodness and mercy, according to the exceptional teaching
of the holy Dionysius. However, such persons should be affected by lesser glory than those who
have committed no such evil, provided that we do not regard virtues and vices as equally balanced
(for this is what the teachers affirm). As Gregory Theologus says in his speech in praise of the great
Athanasius: "Then, when both word and deed and thought will be weighed in God’s just balance,
when He will rise to judge the earth, gathering counsel and works, and exposing those which He has
hidden and sealed." Therefore, if good deeds and evil deeds are to be balanced (as He desires in His
balance), the greater part must certainly prevail, and thus, before that day and time of judgment by
fire, as you say, the evils are not purged, but rather remain, and at that time they will be manifested
and exposed, and placed on the scale, so that the greater part will win, and the judgment will stand
according to the weightier portion. Then, those who have departed from those evils will experience
a difference in their enjoyment, but not an increase in punishment.
III. Thirdly, as we have said, the equity of eternal punishment is shown in this, that those who
have sinned possess an unchangeable will to evil; and therefore, since they have an unchangeable will
to avoid evil, it is unnecessary for them to be purified by this fire. — In response to this argument,
you have said that it is not only the immutability of the right will that is required to obtain some
measure of happiness, for this by itself is not enough, but that many other factors must also come
together to establish good works and to attain the ultimate goal, factors which we do not necessarily
need to consider in the case of evil; for evil arises from even the smallest individual sins. However,
we did not say this according to our own opinion, nor has any of our learned doctors ever claimed

74

 that eternal punishment depends on the immutability of the perverse will, but your teacher Thomas,
while refuting Origen's arguments, introduces this as a probable cause for the punishment being
unchangeable, namely that the will is immutable. Thus, with your help, we said that it is not probable
that the immutable will to good in those affected by it should lead to eternal punishment. If they are
affected by this immutable will, they have departed this life, and if it remains immutable, why should
eternal punishment be borne from it? What you have raised—that a good will is not sufficient by
itself to establish good works and attain the ultimate goal—this we have said in the opposite sense,
namely that even a perverse will is not enough to effect evil and to prepare the punishment that
arises from it. For the one who wished to be wicked is not wicked by that wish alone, nor is he to be
punished merely for that desire. Gregory the Theologian also says in his homily on the Holy
Baptism: "If you think the one who only wished to kill should be condemned for murder, then you
should also regard the one who only desired baptism as baptized." Therefore, if a good will is not
sufficient for obtaining happiness, then neither is an eternal will for evil sufficient for eternal
punishment. Hence, if this cause for eternal punishment is maintained, as Thomas thought, then the
immutable good will in those who possess it will certainly be the cause of glory, or at least will not
bring about punishment. For if opposites are causes of opposites, then, as Aristotle says, the cause
of opposites is likewise opposite.
IV. Again, regarding the fourth point, we said that the perfect reward for those who are pure in
heart and mind, according to the Gospel, is to see God, and that not everyone will attain this
equally; therefore, the purification process is not the same for everyone, and hence it is unnecessary
to purify by purgatorial fire if the purification is imperfect in some. You have not fully resolved this
argument by asserting that there are two kinds of purity and purification: one in the present life,
accomplished through virtue and holiness, which is the cause of seeing God; and the other in the
future life, through fire, by which venial sins are cleansed. First, because what we discussed has been
accepted by you; secondly, because any purification or purgation, even if it is accomplished in this
life through good virtue and conduct, surely removes some stain, i.e., sins, from those who apply it.
If this is sufficient to cleanse and remove sins, then there will be no further penalty for those who
are cleansed, and they will remain able to see God, that is, to receive the reward, according to the
measure and manner of the virtues each has acted upon. However, if this purification is deficient,
then in proportion to that deficiency, those less purified will see God less, as even happened on the
mountain when the law was given. Hence, it follows that there will be no further purification after
this life for those who have been imperfectly purified: if not, then all should be purified equally.
However, we do not find this acceptable.
V. Likewise, from the statement of the great Gregory the Theologian in his homily on Pascha,
where we had stated that there is no further purification after this life, you responded by stating that
there are two kinds of purification of sins, one in this life through penance and satisfaction, the
other after this life; the former, according to the saint, denies that there is purification after this life,
but admits the latter, which you profess. If someone holds that there is no purification after this life,

75

 it is equivalent to claiming that there is purification, and therefore openly contradicting oneself. It is
easy to resolve everything if one says that an animal is not a stone, and then we might say the same
thing and then reverse it. Now, it is far from the saint’s view, but after the two uses of Pascha, one in
which nothing is to be carried out, and the other in which nothing should be left until the morning,
he added two considerations: the first is that we should not carry anything forward, for it is not
fitting to present part of our mysteries to others; and the second that we should leave nothing until
the morning, meaning that any purification, whether through virtue and good works, through
penance and penalties, or through the frequent performance of ecclesiastical rites, must be diligently
carried out. Therefore, the two notions that there is no purification and that there is purification
through fire are mutually contradictory and cannot both be true at the same time unless the
contradiction itself implies a pact, which cannot happen.
VI. You argue similarly from the statement of the same Theologian from his homily on the Hail
Mary, which is similar to the previous one, where he openly says that those who have not been
purified here will be sent to that torment when the time of punishment arrives, not a time of
purification. You assert that there is no longer any time for purification through penance, but only
for punishment. We can easily solve everything by restricting general statements and saying that the
man is not an animal, since the human described in literature is not an animal. If the saint had
previously spoken of purification in this life through penance and good works, your assertion would
seem somewhat relevant, even understanding purification in that way. But if he speaks, as it seems,
of the punishments of this life, by which sinners are expurgated (for thus he says: "It is better to be
chastised and purified now, than to be sent to that torment when the time for punishment will be,
not purification"), then in this context, we must understand that purification occurs through
chastisement and punishment.
VII. Regarding the seventh point, when we said that in the Gospel parable, where Lazarus is
carried to Abraham's bosom, and the rich man is found in hell and tormented, there appears
nowhere any third place where the souls of those who have lived moderately are purified, but rather
a great, impassable gap is fixed, separating others from others, and setting a supreme and complete
contradiction between them, you responded by saying that the parable does not concern souls that
have just departed the body, but the ultimate boundaries of men, in which purgatory has no place,
and therefore no mention of a third place for transitional purification appears. However, this
perfectly aligns with our view. For if the parable concerns the ultimate boundaries, where there is no
place for purgatory, then they have not yet reached their final end, whether just or unjust. So how
could the middle ones, as soon as they have departed this life, be judged, tormented, and purified to
attain their final end? But how does purgatory extend its influence when the worst of men are not
yet tormented? Although the parable concerns the final end of both those who departed this life, it
certainly shows the places they will occupy as soon as they leave this life, meaning that the rich man
is found in hell while Lazarus is taken to Abraham's bosom. Therefore, if there were a third place, it
would not have been omitted. We conclude that such a third place does not exist.

76

 VIII. Regarding the eighth, when we said that it is not right for a soul, after leaving the body and
becoming wholly incorporeal, to be tormented by corporeal fire, you conceded that no corporeal
thing has power to affect an incorporeal being. However, you argue that it is possible through divine
power, and there is nothing surprising about this. In response, you did not provide any argument
proving this to be a real occurrence, but rather you suggest that it would be just if it happened,
though perhaps not very probable. For one might retort, by twisting the argument, that the soul,
since it has subjected itself to corporeal things through sin, should endure corporeal punishment as
well: this would be more just, equitable, and fitting. However, when you introduce the parable, where
the rich man’s soul is said to be tormented by fire before the resurrection of his body, you are seen
to contradict yourselves and undermine your own position, since you previously said that the parable
only concerns the ultimate ends, not applying in the present. But now, you assert that the soul of the
rich man suffers. As for the demons, we have not stated that they would assume a corporeal, airy, or
fiery form to better bear their punishments, but that they were granted this after the fall and their
attachment to this corporeal world, just as Adam, after violating the command, is said to have
clothed himself in animal skins, taking on a coarser, mortal, and reluctant flesh. This is not our own
statement, but comes from the great father Basil, as found in his commentaries on Isaiah.
IX. Concerning the ninth, we indeed said that no vision was reported by our holy fathers, nor
any other miracle by which the indication of purgatorial fire might be provided. In contrast, you
assert that many such deeds occur both in Gregory the Great and in others. To this we respond,
confirming what was said at the beginning, that from such deeds no distinct and temporary fire,
having the power to purify, can be deduced. Rather, our fathers, who sowed the seeds of heavenly
conversation in the deserts, whether in Egypt or Palestine, did not explicitly declare such things, but
they observed certain representations or images of future penalties, in which not those who
committed lighter sins, but those who lived most impiously and wickedly, will be tormented.
Gregory the Great, who seems to introduce purgatory, did not limit it to any one place, but rather
refers to others being tortured and purified elsewhere, those who, as he says, have committed the
smallest of sins.
X. Concerning the tenth and final point, when we had gathered this opinion, akin to the doctrine
of Origen, and said that it, like the former, must be rejected because it brings about sluggishness and
weakness in the soul, as it expects a further purgation, you again responded by repeating what you
had said earlier, asserting that this doctrine does not make people negligent, but rather urges them to
be vigilant, as they dread the most intense and intolerable pains of purgatory. But we, pressing what
we have said, maintain that no temporary punishment, even though the sharpest of all in the mind,
will deter those prone to vice. Rather, they will either gradually fall into Origen's view, regarding any
punishment as temporary, or, by some distinction, they will scorn this temporary punishment, as
pleasure is fleeting, while virtue is rough and arduous. Thus, they will consider it more fitting and
superior to submit to future uncertainty, unaware of what judgment will be passed on our deeds, or
care whether these are fully dismissed by appropriate penance, or whether they will remain to be

77

 manifest at the day of judgment, since they are fully convinced that they will one day achieve
complete purification. For the Lord in the Gospel says, “he who calls his brother a fool will not be
thrown into purgatory, but into hell”, and concerning idle words, he declares that we will give
account in judgment, not that these will be cleansed by fire. Therefore, that more than purgatory
terrifies and moves us to penance, namely, that by offending God and violating His commandments,
we make ourselves liable to judgment and eternal punishments. Thus, it is fitting, as we believe, that
the purgatorial fire, which your doctors say exists immediately after death, should be interpreted in a
mystical sense, rather than taken as something corporeal, even though they, yielding to the times,
may have asserted this. In this way, the soul, being spiritual and devoid of matter, will receive an
appropriate and fitting punishment. Thus, by agreeing with the truth itself, we will give unanimous
praise to Him who is the truth, to Christ our God, to whom all glory, honor, and worship are due,
with His eternal Father and the most holy Spirit, now and forever, and throughout all ages. Amen.

78

DOCUMENT 6
 Response Of Mark, Archbishop Of Ephesus, To The Final Questions Of The Latins Concerning
The Fire Of Purgatory.
His Response To The Difficulties And Questions Presented To Him By The Cardinals And Other
Latin Scholars Concerning The Above-Mentioned Discourses
1. Since you ask us to respond more clearly and openly to the questions you have raised, I will
briefly address the first question (which you added in your request), namely how we should
understand that the souls of the saints have not yet attained their proper and blessed condition. We
affirm that the enjoyment and happiness of the saints, which they now experience, having been
freed from their bodies, is in some way imperfect and lacking, regardless of whether one wishes to
call it the vision of God, participation in God, communion, the kingdom of heaven, or some other
similar thing. We have demonstrated through the testimonies of Scriptures and the authority of the
doctors that this condition is incomplete, awaiting the restoration that is hoped for. As to why we
hold this view, we have proposed several plausible reasons: either that God has judged it fitting for
souls to be endowed with incomplete glory without bodies, which fought alongside them, or that it
does not befit each individual saint to receive the rewards of their works one by one, but rather all
are to be perfected together according to the divine Apostle, to receive their crowns simultaneously
and to be proclaimed in the presence of the whole universe. This may also be due to some other
reason that God knows in His ineffable judgment. From these points, we deduce that the enjoyment
and vision the saints now possess is indeed more perfect than the pledge they received in this life,
but not yet as complete as what is hoped for in the future.
2. As for your second question, what we mean when we say that the saints are with God in
heaven and with the angels: We profess that heaven is not some bodily place where we suppose
angels dwell, but rather a super-sensible and spiritual place, if this term may be allowed, a place most
fittingly called the dwelling of God. John Damascene writes in the 13th chapter of his theological
work: "The place of God is that in which His action is exerted." And again: "The place of God is
that which more abundantly participates in His operation and grace." Therefore, heaven is His seat,
for there are angels who do His will. Again, it is a spiritual place where intellectual and incorporeal
nature exists and is understood. Thus, in this place, which is above the heavens and above the world,
intelligible and incorporeal, we hold that both angels and saints are contained. We call this place
heaven, firmly believing that God is present, manifested, and working in it, taking this from the
Lord’s words: "Our Father who art in heaven" and again, "The face of my Father who is in heaven."
Just as intellectual natures are close to divinity and can be understood through the mind alone, while
all others are alien, subject to the senses, in the words of Gregory the Theologian, so the place of
God and the world in which intellectual natures are contained is nearer, created first according to the
same theologian’s teaching. In contrast, our world, which surrounds the earth, is far removed.
Therefore, the greatest manifestations of God are said to have occurred through the splitting or
opening of the heavens, indicating that from those super-celestial regions, God has descended

80

 whenever He has willed to make Himself known to men. From that place to this corporeal world,
we say that angels are sent by God to perform some ministry, and they cannot be present both here
and there at the same time. Just as they perform their duties when they are there, assisting God,
contemplating Him, and praising Him, so likewise, when they are here, they perform their duties,
though they rest for a time from that highest contemplation and appearance. John Damascene again
writes, in his work on the place of God: "An angel is not contained in a place like a body, receiving
form and figure, yet he is said to be in a place because in a spiritual way he is present and acts, as is
fitting to his nature; nor is he elsewhere, but he is in that intelligible place where he works. For it is
not possible for him to act in different places at the same time; only God can work everywhere at
once." Therefore, according to this theologian’s view, an angel cannot act simultaneously in different
places, nor can he, when present in heaven, perform corporeal tasks. Likewise, when he converses
with us and works on our behalf, he cannot simultaneously contemplate and praise God in the
manner he does in heaven, but he must withdraw for a time from that operation, even though
briefly. Indeed, if he stands before God’s throne, he would cease contemplating God, for being sent
by God, he would cease seeing Him, not because He is not everywhere to be seen, but because He
who would be seen has turned elsewhere to perform some other task. This matter is quite clear
unless one wishes to argue. Who would say that the angel, while striking down the Assyrians, was
both standing before God and contemplating and praising Him at the same time? For this reason,
the Lord did not say in the Gospel that "their angels always see," but rather that "their angels in
heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." When they are in heaven, He says, they
always see the face of Him who is seen in heaven. Thus, if they were not in heaven, they would not
see His face, for He does not reveal Himself in corporeal things. Moreover, the great Dionysius, in
chapter 15 of the Celestial Hierarchy, assigns to angels three general operations distinct from each
other: "To turn towards the higher, that is, to contemplate God purely, each according to his state
and order; to reflect upon themselves and preserve their own virtues, that is, to understand and
move themselves; and finally, to diffuse themselves and make others partakers of their provident
virtue, that is, to care for and provide for the lower." Therefore, they do not perform one
continuous task of contemplating God in the same manner. If anyone thinks they lose some
happiness because they do not always purely contemplate God alone, but are required to perform
some other task, what a pitiable and narrow estimate of happiness! To suppose that happiness is so
easily lost and confined to a single continuous work, as if they cannot turn aside for a moment to
something else. How can they fall from happiness, who are said to participate in the first light and
listen to His voice, do His will, and carry out their whole operation either towards God or according
to God? For these reasons, we rightly say that the saints do not fully enjoy the vision and fruition of
God for this reason: that they return to the corporeal world, take care of their fellow beings, and
often dwell with us, performing miracles through their relics, and appearing to those who invoke
them, wherever people may be. It is not possible for them to undertake such tasks and help those
who call upon them while simultaneously enjoying that vision sincerely. Yet, from this, it does not

81

 follow that they are less happy than we are, since even a small portion of that divine grace, by whose
power they can accomplish so many things, is enough to procure the greatest happiness. This is
perhaps the reason why the divine Apostle, after describing all that will happen in the future
resurrection, when the living will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, adds: "And
so we shall always be with the Lord," showing that the saints do not yet always dwell with the Lord,
since they tend towards the body, which the soul naturally desires to receive, and return to the world
to care for their fellow beings. This concurs with the words of the blessed Dionysius: "When we
have become incorruptible and immortal, having attained the Christiform blessed state (which will
certainly happen in the future age), then we shall always be with the Lord, as it is written." Thus, the
perfect vision and enjoyment of God, and eternal communion with Him, is reserved for that future
age, after this world has passed.
3. The third difficulty was this: by what name should we call that blessed vision, which the saints
now enjoy? Is it the one through the "mirror," as the Apostle calls it, or do the saints behold God as
He is? To this we reply that the divine essence can in no way be seen, conceived, or known by any
created nature, not even by the most distinguished minds among the immaterial beings. For that
which is known as it is, must be comprehended by the knower. But God is comprehended by no
one, for He is, by His nature, incomprehensible. To prove this, the great John Chrysostom delivered
long and excellent sermons against the Anomoeans, who boasted that they knew God according to
His essence. In his first book against Eunomius, the great Basil also speaks to them, saying: "What
then, he asks, will be the excellence left to the knowledge of the Only-Begotten or the Holy Spirit, if
they themselves comprehend the very essence? For the power, goodness, and wisdom of God,
attributed to the Only-Begotten, are not believed to be suitable for understanding the essence. For, it
is contrary to nature that the essence itself should be comprehensible to anyone except the Only-
Begotten and the Holy Spirit. But we, who are carried by God's operations, and through those
things that were created, understand the Creator, and by this we can perceive His goodness and
wisdom. For it is known that God has manifested Himself to all men." The testimony of the golden
John in his homilies on the Seraphim is also clear on this: "For whose grace, he writes, do they veil
their faces and extend their wings? Is it not because they cannot bear the radiance of His throne and
those shining rays? And yet they were not veiling the pure light itself nor the substance, but it was a
lowering, the appearance that could be seen. What does this lowering mean? When God appears, not
as He is in Himself, but in a manner that is suitable for those who have the ability to see, He reveals
Himself, adjusting the vision according to the weakness of the perceiver..." He goes on: "Therefore,
although the prophet says: 'I saw the Lord sitting on a throne,' do not think that this is the very
substance that was seen, but the lowering, and it was seen in a way that is more obscure than what
the higher powers can perceive.” The same is affirmed by Gregory Nyssen in his commentary on
the Beatitudes: "Divine nature, whatever it is according to essence, surpasses all comprehension and
skill." Blessed Augustine, in Chapter 31 of his Soliloquies, says: "For what is incontemplatable,
invisible, superrational, superintelligible, superinaccessible, and superincommutable, and believed to

82

 be superessential, is not something that any angel or man has ever seen, nor can it be seen." And a
little later: "The Holy Trinity, and supernumerable (meaning super-miraculous), and super-
inexpressible, and super-inscrutable, and super-inaccessible, and super-incomprehensible, and super-
intelligible, and super-essential, surpassing all sense, reason, intellect, intelligence, and essence of the
heavenly souls: which neither the Cherubim nor Seraphim perfectly know, but whose face is veiled
by the wings of their contemplation.” Therefore, according to the teachings of these doctors, the
nature of God cannot even be seen by the angels, and His essence escapes the gaze of all except the
Only-Begotten Word and the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for it to be seen by the saints, whether in
this world or in the future. So what is it, one might ask, that the saints see, if they do not behold
God according to His essence? It is that which the angels see, reply the doctors, and first among the
angels. "In ineffable glory," it says, "the Seraphim enjoy, contemplating His incomprehensible beauty.
He reveals Himself as much as the one who has the ability to see can bear." What do they see? They
see that which they participate in. But they do not participate in the essence itself (God forbid!). By
what means, then, do they participate in God? Listen to the most divine Maximus, who teaches
about that participation: "Although He is in no way able to be shared by things in His essence, He
wishes to share according to another mode with those who can participate." And He never exceeds
His essential mystery or hidden reason; for the mode by which He is shared remains forever
inexplicable to all. Do you hear this? He Himself said it; do not inquire too curiously into other
matters, but may you learn the truth through experience, or rather feel it, if you are worthy. "For that
splendor of truth, which we now draw in small measure, tends," says Gregory the Theologian, "to
make us see and feel God's clarity, worthy of Him who both constrains and releases, and again will
constrain and release in a more excellent and sublime way.” Thus, just as Dionysius the Great said,
so also this doctor, after that sublime and divine union is completed, is bound by the hope and
desire to see and feel God's clarity. Therefore, a distinction exists between visions, some of which
are called through faith, others through a mirror and in riddles, others through species, and others
face to face. None of these, however, allow the nature of God to be comprehended fully. Indeed,
Moses is said to have met God face to face and spoke with Him, through a "species" and not
through riddles. Yet no one stood in God's substance or essence, as Scripture speaks, nor did anyone
ever see or reveal God’s nature, but the Only-Begotten Son Himself declared it. As for the visions
we have mentioned, nothing prevents one from being more perfect than the other. Hence, the most
perfect vision is considered to be the one hoped for after the complete restoration of all things; the
others, however, can be compared with each other in some way. Therefore, it is not surprising that
we say that the saints now see God through a species, in comparison to this present life, as they see
more perfectly. This vision is less perfect than that which will come after the judgment, which alone
can truly be called "face to face," as Blessed Augustine attests in Chapter 19 of Book XIV of De
Trinitate, writing: "The image that is renewed in the spirit of the mind in the knowledge of God,
will not be perfected outwardly, but inwardly day by day, and will be completed by that vision, which
will be after the judgment, face to face, while now it progresses through a mirror in a riddle.

83

 Therefore, the perfect completion of this will be understood when it is said, 'Come, you blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you.'"
4. Furthermore, you asked what is that brightness shining from God, by which we say the saints
enjoy themselves in heaven. Indeed, we have already spoken about it, as far as it is fitting for
someone who has not learned the matter by experience, but has taken it from the writings of the
saints: from which nothing more will be said at this time, except what they themselves say.
Moreover, the learned architect of the Heavenly Ladder, that John the Divine, when he defines it (he
calls it illustration), says this: "It is an ineffable kind of illumination, which is not seen by seeing, but
is understood in a hidden way." Have you heard the definition? Do not inquire further; we do not
wish nor are we able to speak about things that cannot be seen or understood.
5. Fifthly, when you asked what we understand by the kingdom of God and those ineffable
goods, to the perfect enjoyment of which the saints have not yet arrived, we already replied at that
time, and now we say that the kingdom of God is thus defined by the very great Maximum: "The
kingdom of God is the good that is naturally in God, imparted by grace." As for the goods which
the Apostle says cannot be seen by the eye, nor heard by the ear, nor conceived by the mind of man,
we, as human beings, do not dare to inquire curiously; we think it better for those who have learned
by experience to explain to us what those goods are by their nature, rather than for us to try to
demonstrate them with reason, which exceeds reason itself. However, both this and that are equally
impossible; for, as it is said, how can I describe the sweetness of honey to the ignorant? However,
these things seem not only to differ in name but also in reality. And indeed, they rightly do so. For if
the threat to sinners involves not only the privation of God but also some kind of Gehenna and
other punishments, it is fitting that for the saints there should be not only one vision of God but
also other goods, which are mystically mentioned in the Scriptures; of which the Lord himself says
in the Gospel according to John, "I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly,"
calling eternal life that life of which he says, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent," but by the word "abundantly" he signifies the
other goods by which the saints will enjoy themselves.
6. Concerning the sixth, as it was written by you, so we have said and now say. The souls of
those who die in mortal sin, we say, are indeed in hell, confined as if in a prison and a dungeon, but
not yet subjected to the flames of hell; they have, however, a foretaste of them. Moreover, they see
it and stand waiting, while they are no doubt overwhelmed with the most bitter sorrow.
7. The seventh question, moreover, was this: how the souls of the saints are filled with the
greatest joy and delight when they have not yet obtained those ineffable goods. We answer that the
part of those goods which has already been given is indeed a supreme pleasure for them, since they
see God without any intermediary, as the angels themselves contemplate him; and as for the goods
that are yet to be given, they have such a certain hope that it is enough to fill them with certain joy.
Moreover, when this occurred to their minds, we also made mention of the three virtues: namely,
faith, hope, and charity. All of these are indeed perfected in this life; however, since there is a

84

 threefold condition of human beings—whether they are to be considered in this life, or after they
have departed, or in the future age—we think that each condition corresponds to one of these
virtues, which is perfected in it. Faith, then, is the work of this present age; for by faith we walk, and
all the saints pleased God by faith. Hope, on the other hand, is exercised after they have passed from
here; for in this life, it is connected with fear, and Paul himself fears, lest after he has preached to
others, he himself should be found unworthy; but after the completion of the spectacle and the
period of the contest, rewards are at hand, except for one thing, which is not yet present, and the
crown of justice remains to be obtained. But the joy that arises from hope, the great Apostle Paul
declares, for he says: "Rejoicing in hope.” Charity remains, which is the most perfect of virtues and
the greatest of all those fruits, the summit of all spiritual fruit. Hence, it is held that the works of
the future age are solely by charity, as by it the saints are united and joined to God, with hope and
faith having ceased.
8. Furthermore, you asked the eighth question, whether the lack of divine vision for the damned
is a greater punishment than eternal fire, and whether the damned are already tormented by such
punishment. To this, we answered that it is indeed a greater and heavier punishment than all others,
since it is the cause and foundation of the others. Moreover, it will be much greater and more
grievous after that final and most severe sentence, when it will be pronounced: "Depart from me,
you cursed, into everlasting fire." For then, seeing God, as much as they are able, they will no longer
hope ever to see him again; and because they have provoked such a Lord to wrath, they will be
tormented with the most severe sorrow.
9. Also, concerning the ninth question about the punishments we say the wicked will suffer, you
asked whether all the punishments will affect them equally, such as ignorance, sorrow, the shame of
conscience, and others. To this, we also said, as you wrote, that such punishments, according to the
various and unequal sins of people, will fall all at once on some, while on others, there will be
different ones, and on some, they will be greater, on others, smaller.
10. To the tenth question, when you asked what we understand by uncertainty about the future,
we replied that such uncertainty should be understood according to the time when they will be freed
from those punishments and counted among the saved. Regarding the shame of conscience, which
is the eleventh question posed by you, we answered that from every sin that has not been dissolved
by penance, some shame and torment will be inflicted upon the soul conscious of its guilt. Indeed,
that adversary, with whom the Lord commands us to be reconciled in the Gospels, is our
conscience, which admonishes us about the sins we have committed, retraces the reasons, and
afflicts the soul with disgrace. Thus, if thorough and perfect penance is made, both the sin itself and
the punishment due for it are forgiven, and nothing prevents one who has passed away from being
counted among the saved; but if penance is incomplete, and not fitting for the sins committed, the
sin will not be forgiven, and therefore the punishment will remain for those who have passed in this
way, not because they retained the remission, but because they could not pay the penalty.

85

 11. Indeed, we commit many such sins every day, which we either do not at all or do not
sufficiently sincerely atone for through penance, nor repay with good works in equal measure.
Therefore, many of these will indeed be forgiven by divine kindness at the time of death or after
death, according to the great Dionysius among the saints; others, however, are cleansed through
almsgiving, prayers, and other works, whatever the Church customarily does for the dead.
12. Furthermore, you inquired about the relaxation of the damned, which we said would benefit
them through the prayers of the Church; how it should be considered. — We responded according
to the judgment of our fathers, that comfort is given to the damned, while they remain in the
torments in which they were previously, and that they are not fully liberated from them. However, it
greatly benefits those unfortunate souls that they receive at least some slight and temporary relief. As
for the demons, we said that if not all, at least some, perhaps the more violent ones, were cast down
with the damned as in a prison and dungeon, according to the apostle Peter's judgment, who
pronounces that "angels, when they sinned, God did not spare, but cast them into chains of
darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." When asked what these chains might be, we replied that
they could be understood as the cessation of those evils which they previously exercised upon
humans, yet they are still bound to eternal punishment, though not fully subject to it at the moment.
For it is added that they are "reserved unto judgment," meaning that they will be fully subjected to
punishment at the final judgment.
13. The thirteenth question you posed was what the small and light sins were by which the
intermediate souls are held. Upon being informed, we said that these are what you call venial sins,
like idle words and such others. You asked whether it could be that these remain in those who died
in charity, as we hold the opinion that charity, which covers greater sins, also wipes away the lesser
ones. However, this is not our view, nor is it recognized by us even by name: we say that sins are
forgiven not by charity, but by penance itself. This is clearly deduced from the fact that John
Chrysostom, although he frequently and broadly discusses penance in his sermons, where one
penitent follows another of the same name, and expounds its power and virtue abundantly, never
mentions charity as something found in penitents. And justly so. For if fear is absent in charity, then
one who fears cannot die in charity. But fear, as we know, most urgently incites us to penance: hence
it follows that penance is more excellent than charity, which is the most perfect of virtues, and is not
fitting for penitents but for those endowed with exceptional virtue. Therefore, we did not propose
this opinion from ourselves, but rather we contradicted your assertion that serious and mortal sins
can be wiped away by charity, but lesser ones cannot be removed by it. Regarding penance, we
explain that penance, when it is about things that are sins, can wipe them away, even if they are very
serious, provided the person sincerely repents. But those who have no care about their sins—
because they have either regarded them as trivial or have forgotten them—will not see them erased,
though they seem light, but will need God's mercy, granted through the prayers of the Church, to be
included among the saved.

86

 14. The fourteenth and final question was whether we impose satisfactions on penitents, and for
what reason. — We say, therefore, that the remission of sins and absolution should not be granted
to us, by the power given to us by God, until satisfactions have been imposed, but we do not grant
remission without such penalties. We do this for many reasons. First, so that the sinner, by
voluntarily undergoing this discomfort in this life, may avoid the punishment in the afterlife: "For no
worship is more pleasing to God than affliction," says Gregory the Theologian, "and kindness is
repaid with tears." Second, so that the carnal sense, prone to pleasure and from which all hatred of
God and sin arise, may be redirected by this laborious method: for, as the saying goes, opposites are
cured by opposites, and it is necessary that pleasure be eradicated through pain. Third, so that the
satisfaction imposed on the soul acts like chains and bridles, to prevent the same sins from being
committed in the future. Fourth, since virtue is naturally a difficult thing, those who wish to reach it
must be accustomed to labor, just as they fell into sin through pleasure. Fifth, so that the penitent,
by accepting the satisfaction imposed, gives us evidence that they truly follow the hatred of sin. And
these are the reasons for imposing satisfactions, though there may be others. We omit these when
some are about to leave this life due to imminent death, considering that the two conditions—
namely, the conversion of the penitent and their sincere resolution to pursue virtue—are sufficient
for remission of sins. Therefore, we remit sins according to the power granted to us, believing that
they are forgiven by God both in terms of the guilt itself and the penalty that must be borne. For
"whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." With this faith, we administer the divine gift
of the Eucharist to those near death, as the act of sincere repentance is within the control of the
sinner; yet the completion of satisfaction is in God's judgment, for He removes the sinner from this
life, and therefore, like a merciful king, for His own mercy, grants remission to the sinner, as He did
to the thief, who, on the verge of death, asked Christ to remember him in His kingdom, and the
most generous Lord granted him paradise.

87

 DOCUMENTS RELATING
TO THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
PART 2: DOCUMENTS 7-24

Text edited and Translated By

Text translated from Patrologia Orientalis, Volume 17, now in the public domain
 INTRODUCTION
If the union promulgated in Florence on July 6, 1439, remained almost a dead letter for the
entire East, it is mainly due to the systematic opposition of the lower clergy and the monks, who
had as their spokesperson the only prelate who had obstinately refused to sign in Florence, the
famous Mark of Ephesus. Upon his return to Constantinople on February 1, 1440, Mark strongly
opposed the agreement; he attacked with virulence all the signatories of the union decree and
sought to bring back to their original positions those who had submitted not so much out of
conviction but out of political necessity and pressure. It took little for him to become the oracle and
idol of the people, in the eyes of whom he became a hero and a saint. For these reasons, we thought
that a booklet, where all the anti-council writings of the fanatical Archbishop of Ephesus would be
grouped in a methodical order, would be well received by our readers. Among these violent diatribes,
through which he relentlessly tried to suffocate any desire for reconciliation in the hearts of his
compatriots, some have already been published, but in editions that no longer meet the demands of
our time; others appear here for the first time. In all, however, the same inspiration is found: fierce,
blind, and irreducible hatred of the union and its supporters. Without fearing repetition, the author
continuously presents the same arguments, even if they have been refuted a hundred times, even if
they are devoid of any dogmatic value. Any person of good faith will agree: while some of Mark's
arguments seem plausible, even serious, most are astonishingly childish, and one is surprised to see
the author return to them again and again, without the slightest concern for the solutions provided,
during the council, by the Latin theologians, or in the past, by the Greeks themselves, several of
whom had already responded to Mark of Ephesus by refuting the controversialists he had relied
upon. The only merit of Mark, if there is any, is that he presented the grievances of his predecessors
in a concise, forceful manner, capable of impressing crowds unfamiliar with these matters of high
speculation. We will reproduce Mark's texts, good or bad, sincere or hypocritical, with equal care, as
it is important to fully understand the sources from which the enemies of the union in the East, still
so numerous after five centuries, have drawn.
Our series opens with a speech to Pope Eugene IV, written in a strange manner; it is easy to
roughly date it, thanks to a curious page from Syropoulos. Since the solemn session of April 9, in
Ferrara, Greeks and Latins had continued to observe each other, without addressing any discussion
on the disputed points, much to the displeasure of Eugene IV, whose budget was becoming heavier
and more crushing each day for the papal treasury, which had to bear the costs of maintaining the
Easterners. To ease their forced leisure, some influential cardinals hosted many receptions. The
patriarch, it is true, had forbidden his subordinates from responding to Latin invitations deemed
compromising, but this prohibition was not without some exceptions, as the Greeks, by nature, were
curious. Thus, one day, Mark of Ephesus, his brother the nomophylax John Eugenikos, and
Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Mytilene, attended a lavish banquet held in their honor by the famous
Cardinal Giulio Caesarini, the very one whom Mark would have as his main antagonist in the public
debates of the council. The conversation revolved around various topics, mainly philosophy, as was

89

 customary at the time. When the guests were about to take their leave, Caesarini suggested to the
Archbishop of Ephesus that he write an address to the Pope, thanking him for his efforts in
convening the council and urging him to continue on the path he had started, despite the apparent
difficulties. Mark, who had not expected such a proposal, hesitated for a moment; however, he
finally agreed, and it is precisely this address, almost unknown to Western historians, that can be
found later, under number VII. Whether Caesarini was well inspired to push his guest of the day
into such an act of deference towards Eugene IV, I will not venture to say. Perhaps he did not fully
appreciate this eloquent page, for instead of sending it to its august recipient, he showed it to the
emperor. The latter immediately entered into a violent anger, and the patriarch was the first to bear
the brunt of it. "By what right," he repeated, "did the bishops act as they pleased and risk
compromising him with the Latins through such inconsiderate actions?" He even wanted to open an
investigation against the Archbishop of Ephesus and have him judged by the synod; but he ended
up withdrawing after some remonstrances from a few prelates, particularly Bessarion. It is in the first
days of May 1438, shortly after the funeral of the Archbishop of Sardis (April 24), that, according
to Syropoulos' report, this curious incident must be placed, and the composition of the little literary
work it provoked. It is less a compliment than a haughty lesson addressed to the Pope by the fiery
champion of Greek orthodoxy. If he came to the council, it was certainly not to change his mind,
but to heal the West of its errors. He only mentions two errors: the addition to the creed and the use
of unleavened bread; but with the tone he adopts, the audacity with which he places the full
responsibility of the schism on the Pope of Rome, one can easily guess the inner sentiments that
motivated him. As such, the document deserved to be brought fully into the light, freed from the
superfluous additions that Callistus Blastos, its first editor, had burdened it with.
A Greek scholar, Archimandrite Andronic Demetracopoulos, whose leisure time was almost
entirely devoted to collecting the writings of his compatriots hostile to the Roman Church from the
libraries of Germany and Russia, had discovered in two manuscripts from the Synodal Library of
Moscow the following work by Mark of Ephesus: Συλλογή χρήσεων γραφικών, ὅτι ἐκ µόνου τοῦ
Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, δοθεῖσα τῷ αὐτοκράτορι καὶ
θεοστέπτῳ βασιλεῖ τῷ Παλαιολόγῳ, καθὼς παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας αὐτοῦ βασιλείας προσετάγη. The
compilation itself is preceded by a letter to the emperor, which begins: Ἐπειδή µετὰ τῆς τοῦ κόσµου
παντὸς φροντίδος καὶ τῆς ἐκκλη- σιαστικῆς εἰρήνης καὶ ὁµονοίας µέλει τῷ ἐνθέῳ κράτει σου,
θεοφρούρητε, θεόστεπτε, νέε Κωνσταντίνε, ἄγιε βασιλεῦ, καὶ ζήτησιν ἡ ἁγία βασιλεία σου ἔθετο τοῦ
ἐπισωρευθῆναι χρήσεις γραφικάς, παριστώσας ὅτι τὸ θεῖον καὶ ζωαρχικόν Πνεῦµα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς
µόνου ἐκπορεύεται κτλ. To address the sovereign in such terms full of deference, Mark must not yet
have broken with him. The work was therefore composed during the council itself, before the return
to Constantinople of the emperor and the prelates who had accompanied him. For this reason, the
work should appear in our collection of monuments related to the council. But since Russia
remained closed to us, it was impossible to consult the manuscripts from Moscow, and the

90

 catalogues of other fonds remained silent about this work by Mark of Ephesus. After knocking in
vain at the doors of the main libraries, I had given up for the moment on publishing this Sylloge,
when a manuscript from the Ambrosian Library of Milan, No. 653, fortunately provided the sought-
after document. It does not, indeed, contain the letter to the emperor, but it is clearly the collection
that Demetracopoulos had found in the Moscow manuscripts. Although Mark's name does not
appear in the Ambrosian manuscript at the beginning of the work we are concerned with, it can be
found in the index placed at the head of the volume. The leaf containing this index is completely
torn at the upper left corner; but, by a rare stroke of luck, the preserved part begins as follows: ...
Εφέσου κυρ Μάρκους συλλογαί, ὡς συνέλεξεν ἐκ τε προφητῶν καὶ εὐαγγελίων, ἀποστόλων τε καὶ τῶν
ἁγίων πατέρων, περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἐκπορεύσεως. This wording, which is in the same hand
as the rest of the manuscript, cleared up all doubts, and in the absence of the Moscow volumes, the
Milan manuscript has now provided us with a compilation, the importance of which should not be
exaggerated, but which is not without interest: it constitutes, so to speak, the arsenal from which
Mark would stock up for his dogmatic duels with the Latin theologians. One can sense the
improvisation, the opus tumultuarium, both in the repetition of certain texts and in the disorder in
which they are presented. Incompatible with the careful work of a scholarly cabinet, these features
can easily be explained by the necessities of the near-daily struggles during the stormy sessions in
Florence. Thus, I did not hesitate, despite the absence of the letter to the emperor which would
explain its origin, to include this work here under No. VIII, with references to the original works of
the Fathers, except for two or three, which I have not yet succeeded in finding. I had long hoped to
find a copy of the Moscow manuscripts, with the text of the letter to the emperor, either among
Demetracopoulos' papers or among those of Nicephorus Calogeras, the former Orthodox bishop
of Patras, who had also used the Moscow manuscripts. But despite strong recommendations, I was
unable to obtain any information on this matter, except for the invitation to go see for myself. A
visit, I confess, might have yielded the desired result; but the distance was such that I did not dare
undertake it without the certainty that it would not be in vain. The reader will find, under No. IX, a
substantial compilation, certainly the one in which Mark employed all the resources of his dialectic.
He boasted of being firm in syllogisms, but he had, in this kind of sport, so many predecessors that
we find no originality in this long series of arguments. Since Photius and Nicetas of Byzantium, the
system had been used and overused throughout the Byzantine Middle Ages. What is surprising
about Mark is the art, or rather the flexibility, with which he repeats the same arguments a hundred
times without seeming to do so. But his dialectic, despite the apparent richness of the formulas, is
extremely poor. It lives only on sophisms, perpetual ambiguities; only, everything is built in a way
that gives the impression of a solid construction. Georges Scholarios first, before taking the
sophisms of Mark for his own, and Bessarion later, have shown the fragility of the monument in
pages where theological science, compared to that of Mark, shows an overwhelming superiority.
Joseph Hergenröther edited, with the refutation of these two scholars, a good part of Mark's work:
thirty-nine chapters out of fifty-six. However, in Hergenröther's edition, the general order of the

91

 chapters is completely disrupted, the editor having based his work not on Mark's own work, but on
that of his opponents, among whom the original order was not preserved for reasons I need not
examine here. It was therefore necessary to produce a new edition of this work, which would
include the chapters omitted by Hergenröther and respect the original arrangement of the author.
The German editor might have noticed the gaps in his work had he known of three editions
preceding his, published during the seventeenth century. However, God forbid I should criticize him
for ignoring them; it is so difficult, even today, despite more frequent communications, to inquire
about publications from the Greek East, and once informed, to obtain them! I mention this detail,
less to criticize Hergenröther, than to show the esteem in which the Orthodox world has always held
Mark's Syllogisms. Moreover, the three editions I refer to and which will be mentioned later, have
become so rare that to consult a chapter of Mark not published in Migne, one might as well go
directly to the manuscripts. The edition we present to the public, while constituting a useful
complement to Migne's Patrology, will simultaneously save the reader from having to search for the
rarities of Seraphim of Pisidia, Koutounios, or Eugene Bulgaris.
Migne also published, under the care of the same Hergenröther, the small Dialogue of Marc on
the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, reproduced later under No. X; but by a method that is
surprising for such a serious editor as Hergenröther, it is horribly truncated, without a clear reason
for these mutilations. If Marc's text, compared to other pages of the author contained in the same
volume of the Patrology, did not provide any new argument and was redundant, it would have been
better to leave it in the discreet shadow of libraries; but to bring it out of oblivion, it should have
been reproduced in its entirety. This is what I have tried to do here, with the help of a good
manuscript from our National Library. Marc undoubtedly repeats himself, but one can say the same
for each of his works. This observation, far from stopping us, should encourage us to publish them
all: through the constant repetition, one will better see the poverty of the arguments.
In the Introduction to the first volume of this collection, I wrote that the ten syllogisms on
Purgatory, contained in a manuscript from Moscow, should be identical to those in Marc's second
discourse in Ferrara, and thus did not form a distinct work. This statement is only partially true, as
will be shown under No. XI with the edition of these ten syllogisms from a copy in Constantinople
by M. X. Siderides. The works of Marc mentioned here mostly focus on the Procession of the Holy
Spirit and the addition of the Filioque to the Creed—an irritating question that occupied nearly all
the public sessions of the Council of Florence. In the pamphlet reproduced under No. XII, Marc
addresses another point in the Greco-Latin controversy, that of the epiclesis, or the consecratory
formula of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The issue of the debate is known. Does the transubstantiation,
or the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the
Eucharist, occur by the very words of Christ: "This is my body, this is my blood," or only by the
invocation to the Holy Spirit, which the Eastern liturgies place after the narration of the institution?
Contrary to Catholic doctrine, which attributes the change to Christ's words, the schismatics of the
East today believe that the change occurs by virtue of the Epiclesis. Marc of Ephesus contributed

92

 significantly to spreading this error among his compatriots by composing his treatise on the
epiclesis, which has been reprinted several times since Claude de Sainctes first published it in Paris in
1560, in his precious collection of Primitive Liturgies. Although already known, this treatise by Marc
should be included here, as it was composed in Florence itself at the end of the council, when this
question was deliberated. At least this is what Syropoulos, an eyewitness, affirms, adding this
interesting detail that it was at the express request of the emperor that Marc wrote his treatise.
Bessarion made a scholarly reply; it is still unpublished in its text, but it will eventually appear in this
collection of conciliar documents. For one would be wrong to believe that the Council of Florence
only counted adversaries among the Greeks. While the attack directed against the august assembly by
the Archbishop of Ephesus was harsh, passionate, and hateful, the defense, even by a Bessarion, was
at times quite sharp and without mercy, as the opponent was manifestly suffering from an incurable
disease: obstinacy. One hastens to challenge the antagonist when one has lost hope of convincing
them. In the three documents placed under Nos. XIII, XIV, and XV, Marc attacks with extreme
violence, not just a specific doctrinal point defined in Florence, but the council itself. He strikes hard
and fast, without regard for propriety, even truth. He especially despises the Greek-Catholics, for
whom he has no expressions of contempt sufficient; he calls them Greco-Latins and Latinizers; he
goes so far as to call them half-beasts, like the centaurs of the fable. However, aside from the insults,
there is nothing in these virulent pamphlets that the author has not already repeated elsewhere.
Directed directly against the assembly of Florence, two of these documents, Nos. XIV and XV, have
long been included in collections of the councils, but divided and somewhat cut up into small
sections, separated by the twofold refutation of Gregory the Protosyncellus and Joseph of Methone.
As for No. XIII, already known in the East through its publication in anti-Catholic works, it had
only been made accessible to Western readers by the edition of Joseph Hergenröther in Migne's
Patrology, where it appears fragment by fragment, accompanied by the refutation of Gregory the
Protosyncellus, just like the two others. All three appear here in their normal and continuous form,
no longer split into separate segments; good manuscripts have helped us improve the text, but we
could not consult all those who have preserved it, as their number is considerable. The reader will
find listed at the beginning of each of them the editions prior to ours, as well as the manuscripts we
used. I purposely avoid all details of pure bibliography in this introduction; they will be better placed
at the beginning of each document. By its nature, document XIII is strictly dogmatic. Devoid of any
reference to contemporary events or the council's discussions, it sets forth in concise and dense
formulas the Eastern belief regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The author calls upon most
of the Fathers of the Greek Church, quoting either a phrase or a complete text, but he deliberately
avoids any citation from the Western Fathers, declaring with pride not to know them, since they
wrote in Latin, as if the Greeks did not habitually write in Greek; he adds that if their texts are
favorable to the Latin thesis, it is because they have been falsified by the Latins. And that's it! It is no
more complicated than that! Although composed during the stormy private deliberations held by the
Greeks during the months of May and June 1439, this profession of faith was made public only

93

 after the return of the Archbishop of Ephesus to the East. A recent biographer of Marc, the monk
Calliste Blastos, assures us that it was pronounced in Ferrara on December 8, in the 15th session of
the council. Nothing in the sources we possess supports such an assertion.
In No. XIV, Marc, after briefly recalling the origin and history of the council, explains the
reasons that prevent him from accepting the decree of union. Then he attacks the Latinizers, whom
he considers the sole cause, in his view, of the sad outcome of an assembly that had been
inaugurated under favorable auspices, according to this good apostle. But the Easterners quickly
unmasked the hidden motives of the Latins, he claims, and the council had tragically failed. There
had even been, among the Easterners themselves, traitors to orthodoxy who had aligned themselves,
under the pretext of compromises, with the Latins. He alone, he declares with his usual modesty,
had been able to resist the lure of Latinism and defend the good cause to the end. And he urges the
people to judge between him and his opponents. This piece is essentially an autobiography, a
justification of the role played by the author at Florence. Document XV is, like No. XIV, a circular
letter to all the Orthodox faithful urging them to reject the Pact of Florence. In it, Marc primarily
attacks the supporters of Rome, who had become numerous in the islands once the union had been
officially promulgated there in June and July 1440 by the new Patriarch Metrophanes. He warns the
Orthodox especially about a supposed stratagem of the unionists: according to them, the decree of
Florence did not alter the established practices, and there was therefore no difficulty in accepting it
in its entirety. Marc spares no effort to destroy, especially by ridicule, this way of thinking, and the
picture he draws of the alleged contradictions of the unionists is full of flair. It is unfortunate for
him that the cause he defends is so bad! Above all, he says, no false compromise, no ambiguous
situation, no transaction. The Latins are not just schismatics, but heretics of the worst kind; they
should be avoided like the plague. And he enumerates the dogmatic and ritual differences that, in his
eyes, constitute formal heresies. According to Professor Diamantopoulos, this letter would have
been written by Marc during his exile in Lemnos, a few months after his return to the East. This is
not impossible, but it is purely a hypothesis. There is indeed mention of captivity at the beginning
of the document, but it is only a historical reminiscence, a simple allusion to the Babylonian
captivity, as the continuation of the period clearly suggests.
Alongside general works, didactic treatises, or circular letters composed by Marc against the
Council of Florence, our collection presents several private letters from the Archbishop of Ephesus
related to the same subject. Their number is not considerable, but they are not without interest.
Marc appears in them, as everywhere, as an irreducible opponent of the union, but in more
moderate or less redundant terms, as befits the intimate nature that any personal correspondence
should present. The most important of all is published under No. XVI; it is addressed to the famous
George Scholarios, imperial secretary, whom we will have to deal with at length later in this
collection. At Florence, Scholarios had sided with the moderates, or, to put it better, among the
resigned. Considering union to be a political necessity, he had delivered an exhortation and three
remarkable discourses, urging his compatriots to accept it as a combination, an unavoidable

94

 compromise. It has pleased some modern critics to deny the authenticity of these discourses, which
Scholarios delivered not in a public session, but in the private meetings held by the Easterners,
almost every day, sometimes at the emperor's, sometimes at the patriarch's. But these critics are
wrong, at least in disregarding the multiple testimonies of manuscripts, some of which were written
during Scholarios' lifetime. We also have as subsidiary proof the transactional formula he proposed
to end the debate about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, a formula that aligns well with the general
inspiration of the three discourses. Finally, here is the letter from Marc, of unquestionable
authenticity, which would make no sense if Scholarios had not maintained, even after his return to
Constantinople, a reserved, rather conciliatory attitude. And if further proof were needed after so
many others, we would find it in Scholarios' response, written in very low terms, in which he tries to
justify himself to Marc. According to Renaudot, it is in Florence itself that Marc would have
addressed Scholarios with the letter we are concerned with. This is an error. As the subscription of
the Laurentian manuscript proves, it was after his clandestine departure for Ephesus that Marc wrote
this vehement admonition to his friend. And since, according to Syropoulos, Marc had secretly left
the capital on the very day of Pentecost (May 15) in 1440 to first reach Bursa, then Ephesus, this
letter should be dated to the summer of 1440. One cannot deny, despite the detestable cause it
defends, the elevation of style and the depth of sentiment in this letter.
After reproaching Scholarios for his middle ground, his biases regarding the question of union,
as if there could be a middle ground between truth and falsehood, Mare continues: "You have been
deceived by the lure of vain glory, of false riches, of beautiful and magnificent clothes, and all the
other advantages that form the happiness of this world. Alas! Alas! What unworthy sentiments for a
philosopher! Look behind you, and see those who, before you, have glorified themselves with such
honors! Tomorrow, you too will descend to the underworld, leaving all of this behind on earth. But
of all your actions, you will be held accountable, just as this so-called synod will be held accountable
for the souls it has lost, for all those who have been scandalized in the mystery of the faith, who
have blasphemed without excuse against the Holy Spirit, who dare to relate its existence to two
principles, who have been led to accept the customs of perdition and impiety of the Latins, those
who have brought upon themselves the curse and anathema for having changed the dogma.” Here
there is an obvious slander: the very form of the union act states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father and the Son as from one cause and one principle. If Scholarios claims to see in the union
only a means to protect and strengthen the nation, Mare responds sarcastically: "Nothing could be
truer, don’t you see the enemies of the faith being put to flight, and one of our own chasing a
thousand enemies, two of our own scattering ten thousand? If God does not guard our city, in vain
do those who defend it with the Pope’s gold shields keep watch." And he concludes with this
exhortation: "Courage then; now is the moment for you to transform yourself. Let the dead bury
their dead. Let Caesar have what is Caesar’s. Render to God a soul that He Himself created and
endowed. Reflect on the great goods you owe Him; render to Him the gratitude that is due. But

95

 above all, my friend, you who are so wise, make it so that I can rejoice in you and give glory to God
for you, and may He keep you always safe from all fault!"
Mare had spoken condescendingly to Scholarios. The latter’s response came quickly. It will be
read later, under number XVII. We could not omit it here, even though it was not from Mare
himself, due to its close connection with the document just mentioned. Ignoring Mare’s personal
grievances, Scholarios responds with equal sharpness, and it is hard to say which of the two letters is
the least arrogant, which breathes less disdainful vanity. Feeling his pride wounded, Scholarios, as
befitting an misunderstood one, swears never again to engage in theology or controversy, except in
private, among friends. A vow made by a player, which will be frequently renewed later and never
kept. We will see proof of this in one of the last documents of this collection. Clearly distinct from
Scholarios, despite the assertion of some authors, is the priest George, to whom the letter numbered
XVIII is addressed. In it, Mare condemns, with his usual narrow-mindedness, the use of unleavened
bread by the Latins as the Eucharistic matter. Incidentally, he slips in perfidious insinuations, even
absurd assertions, about their way of celebrating Mass, their behavior in church, and how they shave
their beards: all things constituting, in the eyes of this unyielding fanatic, irremissible transgressions.
Like Epimenides coming out of his cave, the Oriental, after centuries of sleep, is astounded when he
encounters customs different from his own, and in this regard, Mare of Ephesus is indeed the most
accomplished type of his race. A Catholic from Methone, having learned of this letter, sent it to
Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodes, one of Mare’s opponents at the council. Andrew took the trouble
to refute this little pamphlet in a long Latin dialogue, already pointed out by Allatius, but still
unpublished, contrary to Démétracopoulos’s assertion, who must have misunderstood Allatius’s or
Fabricius’s Latin. Andrew’s work is preserved in the Palatinus Latin 604. The postscript of the letter
to George of Methone allows us to date this document approximately. It was composed in 1440 or
1441, at a time when the struggle against the Union of Florence had already started in
Constantinople but had not yet reached large proportions. It is also around this time that we should
place the drafting of our document XIX. The manuscript in Vienna that we have preserved only
contains, as a title, these simple words: "Μάρκου πρὸς τὸν οἰκουµενικόν." And an old librarian,
Tengnagel, notes in a marginal note that this Marc is perhaps the Archbishop of Ephesus. This
hypothesis becomes certain if we carefully compare the conclusion of the letter to the Patriarch with
the last line of the Profession of faith of Marc, as there is identity not only in thought but also in
expression on both sides. Mare, who loves to repeat himself everywhere, has copied himself here.
As for the recipient, it can only be identified with Metrophanes of Cyzicus, elected patriarch on May
4, 1440, and died on August 1, 1443. In the absence of any clue allowing further clarification, it is
permissible to suppose that this letter dates from the beginning of Metrophanes’s patriarchate, a
time when the attitude of the new head of the Church could still be equivocal and provoke the
exhortations to resistance that Marc addresses from his distant residence. Thus, we will assign, until
further notice, this very short letter to the second half of the year 1440.

96

 There is little to say about the letter numbered XX, as it does not provide us with any elements
of verification or any historical references, except for the expressed desire of Mare to join the
monks of Vatopedi. The thought of seeing them soon and sharing their life filled him with joy; but
then Satan, the perpetual envious one, jealous of the happiness he was about to experience, forced
him to interrupt his journey. This reflection naturally leads us back to the time when Mare,
disappointed by the unwelcoming reception in Ephesus, ill, and discouraged by the attitude of the
new patriarch, had considered retiring to the solitude of Mount Athos. And we have already said
that this fits very well with the second half of the year 1440 or the beginning of the following year.
By a fortunate exception, the document numbered XXI bears a date, June 16, but the year is not
indicated. J. Dräseke, in his article on Mare of Ephesus, suggests June 16, 1440, but this opinion is
not tenable. As seen earlier, Marc fled from Constantinople on May 15, 1440, Pentecost Day, to go
to Bursa, and from there, made his way to his diocese in small stages, as it is still customary today to
travel in the interior of Asia Minor. Upon reaching his destination, he fell ill, and what’s more
serious, he was harassed in countless ways by the Turks, masters of the land, because he did not
have the investiture diploma of his archbishopric. Full of bitterness, he eventually decided to leave
with the thought of retreating to Mount Athos. He therefore crossed the sea again to Gallipoli, but
upon arriving in Lemnos, he was detained as a prisoner by the order of the emperor. The length of
this journey and the difficulty of communication made it very hard, even today, to complete such a
trip in the short interval of one month (May 15 - June 16), as Dräseke suggests. It was even more
difficult in the 15th century, when transportation was more rudimentary than today, and the country
was in a state of perpetual war; and with illness intervening, Marc was forced to rest for several days.
For all these reasons, the date of June 16, 1441 seems perfectly natural. The events Mare refers to in
his letter further confirm this hypothesis. The election and installation of a new prelate favorable to
the union in Athens could not have taken place until after Metrophanes promulgated the Florence
pact, and this formality was carried out during the months of June and July 1440 through circulars
to the faithful, of which we still possess two copies. Therefore, all these events first had to take
place, and then, with the inevitable delays of the time, reach Mare in his solitude on Lemnos. For
this reason as well, the date of June 16, 1440, seems too early.
Which Metropolitan of Athens is being referred to in Mare's letter? The late Spiridion Lambros
managed to identify the name in a letter by Michel Kalophrenas, which he published for the first
time. To support his thesis, Lambros put forward several arguments, all of which, unfortunately, are
incorrect. Kalophrenas does indeed mention his archbishop, Phantinos; however, the very title of
archbishop, rather than metropolitan, clearly indicates that the author was writing not from Athens,
but from Crete. Furthermore, the circular letter from Metrophanes, included with Kalophrenas's
letter in the London manuscript used by Lambros, is specifically addressed to the faithful of Crete, a
detail that should have raised the awareness of a more careful or less hurried critic than the director
of Neos Hellenomnemon. I am not currently in a position to provide the name of the prelate
referred to by Mare; it is better to admit ignorance than to clutter history with imaginary figures.

97

 Letter XXII belongs to a period when Mare was in Constantinople. The question is whether this
stay in the capital coincides with his return from Italy or with his return from the temporary exile on
Lemnos. Dräseke and Diamantopoulos favor the first option, but I find it difficult to share their
view. Let us first recall the circumstances that led to the sending of this letter. A certain Theophanes,
a monk from the island of Imbros, had written, like many others, a small treatise against the Union
of Florence, which has been preserved in two manuscripts: no. 381 (347), fol. 59-68 from the Iviron
Monastery on Mount Athos, and no. 256, fol. 143-154 from the Royal Library of Munich. In both
manuscripts, the treatise, or Syntagma, is preceded by a letter to the emperor, already published by
Manuel Gédéon based on the Iviron manuscript. Moreover, in the Munich manuscript, after the
treatise, the letter, published later as letter XXII, appears. Theophanes, having asked the archbishop
of Ephesus to bring his treatise before the emperor, receives a response from Mare that it would be
in vain. The time for words is over, he says, and now action must be taken. He speaks in extremely
violent terms about the new patriarch, a devouring wolf rather than a shepherd of souls. In my
opinion, this alludes to the timing of the document. Contrary to Dräseke’s opinion, which dates it to
1440, between Ascension and Pentecost, I believe that Mare must have written it after the arrival of
Gregory the Protosyncellus to the patriarchate. The letter refers to a recent patriarchal election,
which resulted in the selection of a prelate fully devoted to union with Rome, a mercenary prelate,
not a shepherd, a wolf and not a pastor; and it seems, on the other hand, that the new patriarch
must have been young enough for Mare to apply to him the words of Jehovah in Isaiah: "I will give
youths as their rulers." In my opinion, these words cannot apply to the elderly Metrophanes of
Cyzicus. Furthermore, if we accept the 1440 date proposed by Dräseke, the interval between the
return to the capital of the members of the council (February 1st) and Mare’s clandestine flight
(May 15th) seems too short for Theophanes to have composed his treatise, sent it to Mare, and
received his response. Moreover, do we not already have another letter from Mare, number XIX,
addressed to Metrophanes himself ? Mare could not have expressed himself simultaneously in such
different terms about the same person. All signs point to the fact that the patriarch referred to in
letter XXII is none other than Gregory the Protosyncellus. But if this is the case, another difficulty
arises: the election of Gregory himself. Few events have caused as much controversy. Quien,
followed by P. Pierling, places this election in 1446; Gédéon, Tryphon Evangélidès, and Krumbacher
bring it back to 1443, while Allatius, the Bollandists, Fromman, Dräseke, Papaioannou, and most
modern historians, following the testimony of Phrantzes, date it to 1445. Phrantzes was a
contemporary, certainly, but he wrote his Chronicle only in 1477. His testimony cannot therefore be
accepted without scrutiny, and other data compel us to place the election of the new patriarch at
least in 1444. Here’s why. Manuscript 127 from Pantocrator Monastery on Mount Athos contains,
from folio 212 to folio 342, Scholarios's first treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. At the
bottom of folio 212, we read this interesting note in Scholarios’s own hand: "This is the first of
those against the Latins; for the second and third, other works have been written." Then, a bit lower
down, in a different ink, this second note: "It was written eight years before the fall; three years

98

 before the fall, Genadius became a monk." According to the author himself, it was written eight
years before the fall of Constantinople, meaning in 1444/1445. Further precision is possible. We
possess a small treatise by Scholarios, addressed as a letter to Jean Basilikos regarding a text by
Theodore Graptos (Patriarch Nicephorus). Migne reproduced it based on the edition by Patriarch
Dositheus, which is heavily truncated, but the Coislin 101 manuscript from the National Library of
Paris contains an excellent copy made by Silvestre Syropoulos in August 1445. In a passage on folio
286, Scholarios expressly refers to his two previous works on the Procession of the Holy Spirit: "It
is not difficult to resolve and refute, as indeed has already been done sufficiently in these two
books." Since Coislin 101 is not the original manuscript of Scholarios, but a copy, we must date the
original composition at the latest to July 1445. Consequently, the two preceding books, which are
quite extensive, must have been written in the first half of 1445, and the first one, in particular,
during the autumn of 1444. Moving back to the second half of 1444, we are in agreement with the
eight years indicated by Scholarios, keeping in mind that the year in Constantinople began in
September. Thus, the eighth year before the Fall began on September 1, 1444. But why go back so
far? Because the two works were not written in one go, and there must have been a considerable gap
between the writing of the first and second treatises. Here’s why. Jean Comnene, emperor of
Trebizond, upon hearing of the first work, wanted a copy, which he requested from the author.
Instead of sending it, Scholarios preferred to compose a new work more suitable to the theological
competence of the august recipient. For all these reasons, which are not to be overlooked, we are led
back to the autumn of 1444 for the composition of the first treatise. Once this point is established,
let us recall the circumstances that led to the writing of this first work. Once again, we have the
invaluable advantage of quoting Scholarios himself. His testimony is recorded in a short
introduction placed at the beginning of the treatise in several manuscripts. Renaudot already
published it from the Parisinus 1290. The original of this interesting preface, written by Scholarios
himself, can be found in the upper and side margins of manuscript 330 from Dionysiou Monastery
on Mount Athos, where I had the good fortune of encountering it. Here and there, the text differs
from that of Paris, as it is a first draft later transformed into a more syntactically correct formula,
but the substance is identical. Here is the text from the Dionysiou manuscript as it appears on folio
67: Of the same George of Scholarios: it was written after fifteen lectures held in the palace with the
papal envoy and bishop of Cortona, and teacher of Latin theology, in the presence of Patriarch
Gregory, the cardinal, and many Latins and Orthodox, before Emperor John and Lord Theodore.
Having been invited to present the conclusions of those lectures in this book, it was transcribed in
many copies and spread everywhere, even among the Latins, where it is now found. The writer at
that time was the imperial secretary of Emperor John, the chief critic of the Romans, and a teacher
in the emperor's dining hall during every preparation, with the presence of the senate and the entire
city, preaching the word of God to the glory of God, the giver of all things.
Everything in this memorial aligns with the data from other contemporary sources. The bishop
of Cortona, papal legate and master in sacred theology, is the Dominican Bartholomew Lapacci,

99

 who was still in Constantinople on October 29, 1446, buying a copy of Moschopoulos'
schédographie. The cardinal is Pope Eugene IV's nephew, Francesco Condulmer, who left Venice on
June 22, 1444, arrived in Modon on July 17, and departed for Constantinople on July 20, where he
stayed until the fall of 1445. Finally, Patriarch Gregory is the former protosyncellus. But if he
attended the conferences as patriarch, the date of his elevation to the patriarchate given by
Phrantzès cannot be retained. Indeed, as shown above, the first book on the Procession of the Holy
Spirit must have been written no later than early 1445, but probably at the end of 1444. And since
this treatise is after the conferences, which it summarizes, they must have taken place no later than
the fall of 1444. Unless, improbably, Scholarios gave Gregory the title of patriarch in advance, his
election must have taken place during the summer of 1444. In fact, the text of Phrantzès can fit our
synchronism perfectly. When he mentions Gregory's election, it is after discussing the Battle of
Varna, which he places in the year of the world 6953, from September 1, 1444, to August 31, 1445;
and since the battle took place on November 9, the year 6953 corresponds to 1444. Once the battle
narrative is finished, Phrantzès adds: "During the summer of the same year." Strictly speaking, he
should be referring to the summer of 1445, as the summer of 6953 actually corresponds to 1445.
However, since Phrantzès was writing in 1477, in Corfu, surrounded by Latins who counted years
differently, he might have used the local method of reckoning. Thus, in Phrantzès' mind, the phrase
"during the summer of the same year" could refer to the summer of 1444, following the battle of
Varna. In any case, the synchronisms provided by Scholarios force us to place Gregory's election in
1444, at the latest. Another consideration: the emperor must have been informed of the imminent
arrival of the papal legate and cardinal-nephew Condulmer, who had left Sienna for his Eastern
mission on June 10, 1443. He likely didn't want this extraordinary mission to arrive in the imperial
capital while the patriarchal seat was vacant. The year 1444, required by all these circumstances, is
also indicated by a list of patriarchs after the Council of Florence. Therefore, the drafting of our
text XXII, which helps us clarify the chronology of the final days of Mark of Ephesus, will also
place it in 1444. When did Mark die? Certainly before August 1445. In the work of Scholarios
copied by Syropoulos in this period, composed no later than July 1445, Mark is already mentioned as
dead. It is known that the great defender of Orthodoxy died on June 23, and the date of June 23,
1445, is indeed plausible. This is the date Giovanni Mercati, the renowned Prefect of the Vatican
Library, has recently suggested in his remarkable "Appunti Scolariani." However, I cannot fully agree
with this view, and to justify my stance, I must refer to an argument presented by Mercati himself. As
he rightly observes, the last words of Mark of Ephesus and Scholarios' response clearly imply that
until that moment, Scholarios had neither written nor publicly debated in favor of the so-called
Orthodox faith. Therefore, Mark's death must have occurred before the composition of the first
treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e., before the fall of 1444. Furthermore, Gregory the
Protosyncellus was already on the patriarchal throne when Mark of Ephesus breathed his last, since
in the supreme discourse he delivered on his deathbed, he resolutely excluded Gregory and his
followers from his funeral procession. Although Gregory is not named, it is clear that it refers to

100

 him. Thus, we are led back to the summer of 1444, the period, as seen earlier, of Gregory's rise to
the patriarchate. Is it possible to place Mark's death in 1443? Not likely, as, according to Syropoulos,
Patriarch Metrophanes did not die until August 1, 1443, i.e., after June 23, the day Mark died.
Moreover, it would be hard to believe that Syropoulos, who records Metrophanes' death, wouldn't
have mentioned Mark's death if it had occurred before Metrophanes'. This is also Mercati's view,
though one should not rely too heavily on this argument. Thus, the arrival in Constantinople, around
the end of July 1444, of Cardinal Condulmer is recorded in Syropoulos' work, and Mercati uses this
as proof that Mark could not have died in 1444. But, as seen earlier, from Scholarios' autograph
notes, 1444, after excluding 1443, is the only plausible date. Syropoulos does not mention Gregory's
election to the patriarchate, but as we have observed, it must have preceded the arrival of Cardinal
Condulmer in Constantinople. These apparent difficulties, derived from Syropoulos' history, vanish
when we remember that the mission of Condulmer is recalled by Syropoulos in a final chapter,
which does not belong to the main narrative, but where the author summarizes the reasons that
caused the failure of the union promulgated at Florence in Constantinople. Clearly, Mark's death
could not be one of the reasons cited. Against this date of 1444 for Mark's death, Mercati presents a
final argument: Mark composed a work on cycles that dates precisely to this year 1444, as
demonstrated by references to the current year. I too have consulted this still unpublished treatise.
Indeed, Mark refers to the current year, 6952 of the world, i.e., 1444, but each time using the
expression "EVIGTÁUEVOY ETOS," the starting year. Thus, he composed his work during the
first months of this year, and while this information is valuable, it does not force us to push Mark's
death into 1445. Therefore, 1444 seems, for all these reasons, the only plausible date. As for the
exact day of his death, June 23, we would only have a reason to dismiss it if we took literally a
passage from Saint Antonin of Florence. According to the holy bishop, Bartholomew of Florence,
i.e., Lapacci, bishop of Coron (sic!), having gone to Constantinople with the Venetian cardinal-legate
(obviously Condulmer), engaged in a lengthy discussion there, during which, by order of the
emperor, he debated with Mark of Ephesus. Mark was defeated, and the sorrow caused by his defeat
was so great that he died a few days later. This account, though authentic, presents a problem since,
as we know, Condulmer was still in Venice on June 23, 1444. One could resolve this difficulty by
suggesting that Saint Antonin made a mistake. Indeed, Bartholomew of Florence did not become
bishop of Coron until June 1449. At the time of Condulmer's mission, the bishop of Coron was
Christophe Garatoni, who was just as famous as Bartholomew and well-known among the
Byzantines, since he had held the chancery of Venice in Constantinople since 1423. Thus, Saint
Antonin likely meant Garatoni, not Bartholomew, and in this case, the passage would no longer pose
a problem. However, I must admit that this proposed correction should be checked against
manuscripts, which I am unable to do. If the authentic text of the Chronicle indeed mentions
Coronensis, then Saint Antonin must have meant Garatoni, and nothing prevents us from placing
Mark's death on June 23, 1444.

101

 With the lesson of Cortonensis, we must, on the contrary, apply the passage from Saint Antonin
regarding Barthelemy Lapacci, whose arrival in the capital is after June 23, 1444. In any case, in light
of Scholarios' testimony, it is impossible to go lower than 1444. This latter date, then, is the most
plausible, and we will retain it until a new element brings a definitive solution to this small historical
problem. Thus, the chronology of our document n°XXII is at least provisionally fixed. The scene
presented by this document is not lacking in grandeur. Mare is about to die. Throughout his life, he
has fought for the triumph of his ideas; but as he is about to pass, he anxiously wonders who will
now carry the banner of orthodoxy. Among all those around him, he sees only one man capable of
continuing the fight in his place, and that man is Georges Scholarios. He therefore calls upon his
devotion and earnestly begs him not to fail in the task that lies ahead. Scholarios, renouncing his
policy of compromise, accepts. "Always," he says, addressing the dying man, "I have behaved toward
Your Holiness as a son and as a disciple, and my own testimony proves that you do not doubt this...
(Although sometimes I did not openly take part in the battles you fought yourself, I will remain
silent about the reasons for my actions, for no one knows them better than Your Holiness. Often I
have confided in you, admitting what my state of mind was at the time; I sought your forgiveness,
and you forgave me. But now, with God's help, I renounce those feelings, I publicly declare myself
the most sincere champion of the truth, and I will preach, without any dissimulation, according to
the example of Your Holiness, the doctrines of our fathers and the truth of the Orthodox faith)."
Mare was reassured: the fragment of orthodoxy would not die with him; the hands that received
it from him were capable of carrying it. Thus, his final words were a word of hatred against the
union with Rome, and his supreme consolation was that this hatred would persist after him. And he
died on June 23, after fourteen days of excruciating suffering caused by ileus or intestinal
obstruction, at the side of his brother, John Eugenius, who recorded his last moments as follows:
"He was ill for fourteen days. This illness, he said himself, had exactly the same effect as those iron
torture devices applied by executioners to the holy martyrs, instruments that surrounded their sides
and intestines, pressing them and remaining attached, causing unbearable pain. Thus, it seems that
what was lacking from human hands—this saintly, athletic body—was fulfilled by the disease,
through an inscrutable judgment of divine Providence.” This energetic description only lacks the
technical name of the disease. An Italian from Brescia, Hubertin Pusculo, who visited
Constantinople during Mare of Ephesis’ time, echoes the brother’s account, and describes the death
of the prelate in a few verses worth citing, their edition being somewhat difficult to access. The
passage in question can be found in the second song of Constantinopolis:
Heresy and the prince Marcus manifestly repays
The support, an example to all. For while alive, putrid,
He had once poured out foul and vile thoughts conceived in his heart,
And, dying, his mouth, from which his breath had flowed, was corrupted,
Vile, and vomited through his chest with a suffocating stench,
So the foul odor of his stomach’s internal workings emerged.

102

 O truly forgetful Greeks! O empty of virtue!
Therefore, it was not a great punishment for you to bear this shame;
Did it not terrify you, Constantinople, when you saw this dreadful
Death unheard of ? The fiercest enemy of Christ,
Impious and a plague upon the world, against the mysteries
Of the faith, inventing crimes, while still persevering,
And with bold and excessively audacious words, he tried to overturn
The firm foundation of God, immovable by human hands,
Hungering for true and holy religion throughout the world,
While he denied Christ Himself to be God,
And his whole being poured out, and his body remained empty of life,
As one might see the unimaginable depths revealed through his mouth,
Whom nature had given, though yet his body consumed itself.
Here, against the horrible punishment, that which he had taken in with his mouth,
After many days, he recalled from his belly,
Corrupted, and vomited his soul amidst the foul odor.
These consistent testimonies from two contemporary authors, one of whom is Marc's own
brother, spare us from justifying Joseph of Methone for having discussed the nature of this disease
in his polemic against the Archbishop of Ephesus. It is up to each person to see or not see a
punishment from heaven, but the disease itself was neither invented by Joseph of Methone nor by
the Catholics, as some Orthodox writers still enjoy repeating. Would Orthodoxy itself constitute
immunity against the effects of intestinal obstruction?
The reader will not find, in this pamphlet, certain works by Marc that their titles would suggest
should be included. Here are the titles, according to Fabricius, reproduced by Migne: a) Apologia de
fuga sua; — b) Contra encyclicam Bessarionis; — c) Antir-rheticum contra Andream Colossensem.
Now, these three works, I must say loudly, have never existed anywhere except in the fertile
imagination of a Cretan forger, Nicolas Comnène Papadopoli, whose Praenotiones mystagogicae
form a mishmash of fabricated texts for the needs of some thesis with rare audacity. How many
scholars, for more than three centuries, have been deceived by them, and even today, this imposing
folio continues to dupe those in circles where ready-made works and texts tailored to fit are favored.
Hergenröther himself seriously mentions these three works among the sources to consult for the
history of the Council of Florence, and he suggests that he encountered them. Where, then?
Perhaps in the list compiled by Fabricius, but certainly nowhere else, and I challenge any manuscript
curator to show us one of these supposed writings that Papadopoli is the first to mention, because
he is the first to invent their titles and the few lines he quotes from them, to deceive with that
consummate art of literary fraud that no one has mastered as well. As for the Epilogus adversus
Latinos, also cited by Fabricius, we have deliberately excluded it; it is just an excerpt from a long
speech delivered by Mare at the council and reproduced in full in the Acta. We will find it again in

103

 the critical edition of the Acta, which we intend to publish one day, as their text presents literary
problems yet to be fully explored.
Demétracopoulos still attributes to Marc of Ephesus an unpublished treatise on the Procession
of the Holy Spirit, and he gives the following incipit from number 280 of the Imperial Library of
Vienna: KanÁ Tís dant do danDãs Lai dógiaTos, ny oi Poncã E TÕ agio GUUGó TOOVTaL
mpocizy. I possess a copy of this piece from a manuscript of Athos, and I must say, after reading it,
that it does not display any of the characteristics of Marc’s other works. Moreover, it is anonymous
in the Vienna manuscript, and its attribution to the Archbishop of Ephesus is pure hypothesis.
Demétracopoulos himself had registered it, a little higher up, under the name of Nicetas Choniates,
with a slight variation in the title, which does not suffice to make us doubt the identity of the two
copies. Therefore, we could not include it among Marc’s anti-council works. Our pamphlet
concludes with a treatise often mentioned and sometimes praised by certain historians who certainly
have never read it. I am speaking of the work by Manuel the Great Rhetor on Mare, Metropolitan of
Ephesus and the Council of Florence, and against Gemistus and Bessarion. Perhaps reading this
piece will leave some disappointment, as it gives much less than its title seems to promise. It is
scarcely more than the biography of Mare, and the history of the council is barely touched. As soon
as the first page is turned, one is quite surprised to find oneself facing a virulent diatribe against
Plethon and Bessarion. Plethon can still be passed over, as his Christianity left much to be desired;
but to treat Bessarion as impious, an atheist, a hardened pagan, based on a few lines written in the
style of the humanists of the time, will certainly surprise more than one reader. Despite this
unfortunate impression, we felt it necessary to include Manuel’s work in this collection, first to spare
future historians unnecessary regrets about the impossibility of consulting it, and also because, all
things considered, this treatise constitutes a curious sample of theological controversy in the 15th
and 16th centuries. Not to mention the substance of the debate, which we do not need to examine
here, one finds in Manuel frequent use of Summa contra Gentiles by Saint Thomas Aquinas, which
the author doubtlessly did not consult firsthand but through his preferred teacher, Georges
Scholarios, from whom he shamelessly appropriated entire pages. Moreover, the name of Saint
Thomas never appears under his pen, nor does that of Scholarios. Another cause for astonishment,
for anyone consulting Manuel’s pamphlet in the Paris manuscript recension, is his strange way of
handling the texts of the Latin Fathers that he brings in support of his thesis, and I am less
surprised, after having read it, that a monk from Athos seriously claimed to me, in August 1901, that
Saint Augustine had been an irreducible adversary of the Filioque. It is because the Greek translator
audaciously distorted the very text of the great doctor of Hippo. But this part of the Paris
manuscript, borrowed from another composition of the same type by Manuel, had to be omitted
here. In the refutation of Plethon’s religious system, Manuel’s argumentation is neither lacking in
verve nor in logic; but once again, originality is missing. His best pages are borrowed, word for
word, from the refutation of Proclus’ Institution Theologica by Nicolas of Methone, whose name,
incidentally, is not cited. It is true that Nicolas of Methone, whose theological learning has been so

104

 praised, was himself a professional plagiarist. This is what, among these fine theologians of
Byzantium, kills the craft. Thus, Manuel’s treatise constitutes, despite its apparent erudition, nothing
more than a mosaic of borrowed texts patched together with more or less success, somewhat like a
newspaper chronicle in our major dailies. I have left no stone unturned to recognize and trace these
various borrowings, leaving others the task of completing, in some points, this part of my work. We
must resign ourselves, especially in Byzantine studies, to not knowing everything.
We know very little about the author himself. He has sometimes been confused with Manuel
Holobolos, a 15th-century author; but this identification, already challenged by Hase in 1813, does
not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. In the absence of other arguments, the text itself of the
treatise published here would suffice to dismiss it. Ulysse Chevalier, in his Bio-Bibliography, places
Manuel around 1450. This date is still too early. As early as 1840, Constantin Oeconomos had
recognized our Manuel in the figure of that name mentioned in the Chronicle of Malaxos
concerning the death of Patriarch Joachim (1498-1502). On the other hand, Theodose Zygomalas,
in a letter written in 1581, counts Manuel among the disciples of Matthieu Camariotes, himself a
disciple of Georges Scholarios. Manuel was still alive in 1547, as his signature appears at the bottom
of a synodal document from that date. By placing his death in 1551, Patriarch Constantios I must be
close to the truth, even though he does not indicate which source he drew this information from. In
any case, one cannot place his death before 1555, since by this time, the title of Grand Rhetor was
already held by Jean Zygomalas. Two testimonies cited by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in his
excellent article on our Manuel give him the name of Galésiote. Was this his patronymic, or is it
rather a simple nickname related to some connection of Manuel with the monks of Galésios or their
church of Saint Anastasia in Constantinople? It is difficult to say. In the first case, he would
probably be the son of that Galésiote whom Georges Scholarios had taken as a secretary to Italy
during the Council of Florence. This would explain why he so often relied on the works of
Scholarios. Another detail worth noting is that in 1482, at the death of Patriarch Maximus, Manuel
delivered, on behalf of the clergy of the capital, an eulogy for the deceased. He thus already held a
certain position among the patriarchate's officials at that time, and he must have been at least in his
twenties. Therefore, without risking straying from the truth, one can place his birth around 1460.
Manuel the Rhetor wrote a lot, or at least copied a lot, if we judge by the extensive list of his
works that Papadopoulos-Kerameus compiled with great care. However, this long enumeration
should not deceive us. His treatises proper are short, with the one we publish below being one of
the most substantial. The rest of Manuel's literary work mainly consists of liturgical pieces, written
in that implausible language of Byzantine hymnographers, where words always outweigh thoughts. It
is also worth noting that several of the pieces attributed to Manuel are not his own. This is the case,
for example, with most of the metric prayers highly praised by Papadopoulos-Kerameus. Manuel
simply copied them from an unpublished collection of works by Georges Scholarios, as I will
provide evidence of elsewhere. For now, it suffices to highlight those of Manuel’s works that are
more directly related to religious controversy:

105

 1. Treatise on Purgatory, found in manuscript no. 1293, fol. 254-263, of the National Library of
Paris, under the following title: “Manuel of the most eloquent and learned great rhetor of the Holy
Great Church of Constantinople, new Rome, from the Peloponnese, a speech concerning the fact
that there is no posthumous purgatorial fire, as some claim; and against those who ignorantly assert
that observing the old law is Judaism.” Another copy of this treatise is likely in the Vatican library, as
Allatius quotes a passage, albeit brief, in his dissertation on Purgatory.
2. On the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Here is the title: “By the same Lord Manuel, the great
rhetor, in two Latin arguments proving both the refutation of theirs and the construction that it is
from the Father alone; spoken to Lord Gerasimus who had presented them.” This treatise can be
found in the following manuscripts: N 348 of the Metochion of the Holy Sepulcher in
Constantinople, f. 6 sq.; N 42 of the Selden manuscripts in Oxford, f. 110; N° 585 of the Public
Library of Petrograd, I. 62; N° 13(13) of the Synodal Library in Moscow, Г. 79; N² 420 (393) from
the same collection, f. 115; a 112 from the Iviron Monastery on Mount Athos. Manuscript N° 1377
from the same Iviron Monastery contains the following excerpt: "By the same Manuel the great
rhetor, a speech resolving certain difficulties, some of which provoked these thoughts." This is likely
the same treatise.
3. Response to Father Francesco. It is titled: “Letters and speeches of Father Francesco, as he
wrote to the great rhetor, followed by an apology and refutation of Father Francesco’s chapters.”
This is preserved in the following manuscripts: Cromwel 10, f. 89; Selden 42, f. 157; Sinaiticus 33;
Moscow manuscripts 13(13), T. 116, and 324 (311), f. 10; Iviron 139 and 1337; Metochion 145, f.
552. It was published incompletely in the Varia Sacra of Etienne Le Moyne (Leyden, 1685), p.
268-293, and fully edited by Archimandrite Arsénij in Moscow, 1889.
4. Against Plethon: "By the same most learned Lord Manuel the great rhetor of the Great
Church, against the Plethonian treatise, whose beginning is ‘The untold Latin books that come to
us’.” This is preserved in the following manuscripts: 385 of Petrograd, I. 57; 423 (394) of Moscow, f.
105; 348 of Metochion, f. 11; 512 of Iviron.
5. On the Death of Christ: "A speech proving when the Lord's flesh was glorified and how it
should be understood to have been glorified." Preserved in manuscript 512 of Iviron and 324 (311)
of Moscow, this piece was published based on the Moscow manuscript by Archimandrite Arsénij in
the supplement to volume XXVII of Lectures of the Religious Formation Society, and in a separate
booklet (Moscow, 1889).
6. On Mare of Ephese and the Council of Florence. This is the work published here.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus seriously lists it among the historical works: perhaps this honors it too
much, as the treatise is more of a philosophical-theological diatribe directed against Plethon and
Bessarion. The few pages dedicated to the memory of Mare of Ephese were copied verbatim by
Manuel himself to be transformed into a synaxarion or liturgical office composed in his honor,
celebrating the champion of orthodoxy at the Council of Florence. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, who
published this office, did not notice this procedure, which is fairly common in the East, of

106

 extracting two versions from the same work. Unable to insert his dissertation into a liturgical piece,
Manuel prudently refers us back to it during his synaxarion. Archimandrite Arsénij, who died as
auxiliary bishop of Novgorod, published this treatise of Manuel, accompanied by a Russian
translation, in the Christian Reading Bulletin of the Saint Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy, Volume
II from 1886, pp. 102-162. Arsénij’s method of establishing the Greek text is somewhat strange.
Having received a copy of Manuel’s treatise from an old manuscript from Sinai, which was later
transferred to St. Petersburg, he also took a copy of the Moscow manuscript. However, instead of
cross-referencing these two copies of the same text, he faithfully printed the copy from St.
Petersburg while systematically rejecting the variants in the Moscow codex, even though they were
often preferable to the St. Petersburg readings. I have indicated both in my edition, not from the
manuscripts themselves, which I was unable to consult, but based on the work of Arsénij and
Troitskii, whose responsibility alone is at stake. However, for the establishment of the text, I have
based it on manuscript N° 1293 from the National Library of Paris, copied in 1511, while Manuel
was still alive, by a certain Paul Kolybas from Modon in the Morea. Apart from certain spelling
variations resulting from itacism and the doubling of consonants, this copy is remarkably accurate;
though it does have some regrettable gaps, which the edition by Arsénij fortunately helped to fill.
If I had to use certain terms of doubtful Latin in my translation to stay faithful to the author's
meaning, the need for accuracy will serve as my defense. Indeed, every translator of such works
might adopt the motto of Creuzer, the courageous editor of Proclus: "No one can translate Proclus
and similar philosophers into Latin without being called a monkey of Cicero."
L. PETIT,
Archbishop of Athens

107

DOCUMENT 7
 Discourse Of Mark Of Ephesus To Pope Eugenius Iv,
To The Most Holy Pope Of Elder Rome, Mark, Bishop Of The Assembly Of The Faithful
Established In Ephesus.
1. Today the beginnings of universal joy; today the spiritual rays of the sun of peace rise for the
whole world; today the members of the Lord's body, scattered and broken for many past centuries,
hasten to mutual union with one another: for the head, Christ God, does not allow Himself to rule
over a divided body, nor does the bond of charity allow itself to be utterly torn away from us,
Charity consents. Therefore, He, the Prince of His priesthood, has urged us to gather here, and He
has urged our most religious emperor to render obedience to you, He has urged our most holy
shepherd and patriarch to forget his old age and prolonged infirmity, and He has gathered us, the
pastors, from all sides, and has driven us to long journeys, seas, and other dangers. Is it not clear that
these things have come to pass through the power and will of God, and that the outcome will be
most favorable and pleasing to God, as we can already foresee? Therefore, let us proceed, most holy
Father, to receive your children coming from the distant regions of the East; embrace those who,
already separated from you, flee to your embrace; heal those who have suffered scandal; command
that whatever obstacle or stumbling block prevents peace be removed from the way; say also to your
angels, as if another God: 'Prepare the way for my people, and cast away the stones from the way.'
How long, then, while we are of the same Christ and the same faith, shall we strike and slaughter
one another? How long shall we, worshipers of the same Trinity, bite and devour one another, until
we are consumed by each other, and reduced to nothing by external enemies? Let this certainly not
be, Christ the King, nor let the abundance of our sins exceed Your goodness; but as in former times,
when you saw iniquity overflowing and violently breaking forth, You restrained it through Yourself
and Your apostles, turning all to the knowledge of You, so now, likewise, join these servants of
Yours, who hold nothing more precious than Your love, one to another, and us to You, and fulfill
that vow which You uttered as You were going to Your passion, praying: 'Make them one, as We are
one.' Do You not see, Lord, our dissension, how pitiful it is, and how, accustomed to another
dominion and arrogance, we have abused the indulgence of the flesh, and have become wholly
servants of sin and utterly corrupted; while, on the other hand, we have become devoted to the
enemies of Your cross, led into pillage and servitude, and we have been reckoned as sheep to be
slaughtered? Have mercy, Lord; heed us, Lord; help us, Lord. What once was commonly said, that an
ecumenical council is necessary to resolve matters, we have now accomplished today; what was in
our hands, we have contributed. Act, therefore, and give us also what is Yours, so that what we have
undertaken may be completed: for You have the power, if You will, and Your will is to accomplish
the work. Say also to us now, as once through Your prophet: 'Behold, I am with you, and My spirit
remains in the midst of you.' For if You are present, all things will be made clear and plain.
2. And these things I have thought good to say in the present. Now I will speak to you, most
blessed Father. What is the reason that we contend so greatly about the renewal of this kind of
addition, which has broken and torn the body of Christ, and by which those who are called His

109

 disciples have been divided until now by disagreements in their opinions? What is this long and
enduring strife and the unbrotherly contempt of our brothers, and the alienation of those who
suffer scandal? Do we condemn the Fathers when we think and say something different from their
common traditions? Why do we weaken their faith, while we introduce ours as supposedly more
perfect? What do we preach except the Gospel that we have received? Who is the malevolent devil
who envies our concord and unity? Who has taken away the fraternal love from us, substituting a
different sacrifice that is illegitimately offered, because it is offered without unity? Are these the
thoughts of an apostolic mind, of paternal goodwill, and of fraternal charity? Or on the contrary, is
it the attitude of a cruel and irritable man, who begrudges that all should perish? Indeed, I think that
the one who introduced this division, and tore the once unbroken garment of the Lord's body, will
face a harsher punishment than those who nailed Christ to the cross and all the wicked and heretics
of every age. But to you, on the contrary, it is fitting, most blessed Father, if you will, to unite what
has been separated, to tear down the middle wall of partition, to accomplish the work of divine
dispensation. You have already begun this, and with the greatest gifts and magnificent donations,
You have extended it: may You be pleased to bring it to its summit; for no other occasion more
fitting will present itself than the one God has granted to You today. Lift up your eyes around and
see the venerable and august old men, now often in need of rest and comfort, driven from their
lands, coming to Your greatness, strengthened by a single hope in God and love toward You. Look
at the crown of glory already woven; do not hesitate to be crowned by it. One has wounded, You
heal the wound; one has torn, You mend; one has grown worse, and You strive to repair the harm as
though it had not happened. I heard one of your teachers say that, for the sake of moderation and
correction, some who did not rightly understand the faith initially devised this addition: let us
indeed, for the sake of moderation, remove it again, so that you may recover your brothers, whose
division it clearly harms you, unless you are inhuman. Consider in your mind the blood of Christians
shed every day, the harsh servitude under barbarians, the cross of Christ offered to shame; also,
altars overthrown, pious homes destroyed, divine praises extinguished, sacred places occupied, holy
vessels and garments plundered. All these things, through mutual peace and concord, may
reasonably be hoped to be averted, with the help of God, provided that, laying aside our fierce and
inexorable spirit, we do not refuse to observe the customs that bind us together in peace, and
remove from our midst whatever is an offense to us. For if, as He said, 'If food causes my brother to
stumble, I will never eat meat again.' So too, now, most holy Father, the fermented bread is good,
and so is the unleavened. But if the unleavened is scandalous and less suitable for sacrifice, and
considered imperfect and dead, and the bread of iniquity is called so in Scripture, why should the
fermented be rejected, and the unleavened embraced? For since there is one bread, we, though many,
are one body, as the divine apostle says, for we all partake of one bread. Wherefore, if we do not
partake of one bread, we are not one body, nor do we conspire with one another, nor move with the
same impulse. I beseech you, as He says, 'By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak
the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.' Since we do not speak the same thing, it

110

 is just that this great and incurable schism remains between us to this day. Where, then, do we not
speak the same thing? Not in secret and hidden places, where things may be concealed from the
people, but in the public symbol of faith, in the confession of baptism, in the Christian badge. Now,
if someone adulterates a royal coin, he is considered worthy of the gravest punishment; the one who
corrupts the common sign of the Christian profession, what law would he judge himself worthy of,
paying a lighter punishment for so great a crime?
3. Consider the matter as it is. Once, we all said the same thing, and there was no schism among
us, and then we certainly conspired with the Fathers themselves. But now, when we do not say the
same thing, how, I pray, can we agree with one another? But we indeed, while we say the same things
as before, conspire with ourselves, with our Fathers, and with you as well, if you would speak the
truth. But you, when you adopted more recent opinions, must necessarily disagree, first with
yourselves, then with the common Fathers, and finally with us as well. Why not return to that best
concord, which will show that we, agreeing with one another, and with our Fathers, will remove the
schism, unite the separated, and accomplish every good? Nay, by the very Trinity! Nay, by the
common hope in which we have placed our trust, do not allow us to depart without fruit and
without accomplishing the work. For we serve as ambassadors for Christ, as if God were exhorting
through us: Do not disgrace the mission; do not make your labor in vain, do not offer useless
prayers, do not comply with the wills of the enemies; do not let our common enemy and betrayer
mock us as he did before; do not cause God and His Holy Spirit to be grieved." Any mind and any
hearing waits in suspense for your judgment. If you willingly approach peace, removing the scandals
from the midst, things will now go better for Christians, and worse for the impious, as they will
tremble at our success and foresee their own destruction. But if (God forbid!) the opposite happens,
and the evil spirit of dissension prevails, I can no longer proceed, troubled with sorrow; but may
God, who can do all things, restore His Church, which He has redeemed with His own blood, and
may He make it so that whatever He desires, as it is in Heaven, may also be accomplished on earth,
for to Him is due glory, honor, and adoration forever and ever, Amen.

111

DOCUMENT 8
 Testimonies Collected By Mark Of Ephesus, By Which, As He Says, It Is Proven That The Holy
Spirit Proceeds From The Father Alone.
Testimonies, Which We Have Most Diligently And Accurately Gathered From The Prophets, The
Gospels, The Apostles, And The Holy Fathers, Concerning The Holy Spirit, By Which It Is Properly
And Truly Proven That The Holy Spirit Proceeds From The Father Alone, And Not From The Son.
1. David says in Psalm 32:6: "By the word of the Lord, the heavens were established, and all
their strength by the breath of His mouth."
2. In Psalm 142:10: "Your good Spirit shall lead me on level ground."
3. In Psalm 138:7: "Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?"
4. In Psalm 50:13: "And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me."
5. In Psalm 103:30: "You send forth Your Spirit, and they are created."
6. From Isaiah (61:1): "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to
preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captives and recovery of sight to the blind."
7. From the Gospel of Matthew (10:19–20): "When they deliver you up, do not worry about
how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it
is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."
8. And a little further (Matthew 12:28): "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely
the kingdom of God has come upon you."
9. From the Gospel of Luke (11:20): "But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely
the kingdom of God has come upon you."
10. From the Gospel of John (14:16–17): "And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you
another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth."
11. And again (John 14:26): "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
12. (John 15:26): "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
13. (John 16:7–8): "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if
I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I depart, I will send Him to you. And
when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment."
14. (John 16:12–13): "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not
speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to
come."
15. (John 16:15): "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of
Mine and declare it to you."

113

 16. From Acts, the words of the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:33): "Therefore, being exalted to the right
hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out
this which you now see and hear."
17. From his Catechetical Address to his disciple Clement: "That people, clearly seeing, might
believe in the one God, the Father Almighty, and in His Only-Begotten Son, begotten ineffably of
Him before all ages, and in the Holy Spirit, who ineffably proceeds from the same Father – in one
God known in three Hypostases, unoriginate, unending, eternal, and ever-existent."
18. From the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 2:10–12): "But God has revealed
them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For
what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one
knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to
us by God."
19. From the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 8:9–11): "But you are not in the flesh but in the
Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,
he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because
of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who
raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in
you."
20. From the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 4:6): "And because you are sons, God has sent
forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, 'Abba, Father!’"
21. From the Epistle to Titus (Titus 3:5–6): “He saved us through the washing of regeneration
and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our
Savior.”
22. From St. Dionysius, in the second book On the Divine Names: “...and the Spirit of Truth,
who proceeds from the Father.”
23. From the same book: “But even Those who are of the supersubstantial Divine essence do
not turn into one another; the singular Source of the supersubstantial Divinity is the Father, so that
neither does the Father become the Son, nor the Son become the Father.”
24. From the same book: “From the Sacred Scriptures, we have learned that the Father is the
Source of Divinity; the Son and the Spirit are of Divine essence. They are, if one may speak so,
God-planted Branches and like Flowers and supersubstantial Lights. How this takes place cannot be
spoken of or comprehended.”
25. From the same author, in the book On Mystical Theology, chapter 3: “As from the
immaterial and indivisible Good, Lights of Benevolence are begotten, issuing forth from the heart.”
26. From St. Athanasius, in the first letter to Serapion: “For just as the Only-Begotten, the Son,
is begotten, so too the Spirit is given and sent by the Son. He is one, not many, nor one from many,
but uniquely the Spirit. For just as the Son is the Living Word, so there must be one perfect and

114

 complete, sanctifying and enlightening Life, which is His operation and Gift, said to proceed from
the Father, since from the Word, confessed to be from the Father, He shines forth, is sent, and is
given.”
27. From the same, in the book On the Holy Spirit: “If they thought rightly about the Son, they
would think rightly about the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and, being proper to the Son, is
given by Him to the Disciples and to all who believe in Him.”
28. From the same, in the homily beginning with: “We believe in one God”: “The Holy Spirit,
proceeding from the Father, is always in the hands of the sending Father and the carrying Son.”
29. From the same, in the 46th chapter of the treatise On the Common Nature of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “God is the Origin of all, according to the Apostle, who says: ‘God the
Father, from whom are all things’; for the Word is from Him by way of begetting, and the Spirit is
from Him by way of proceeding.”
30. From the First Ecumenical Council: “The First Holy and Ecumenical Council answered the
doubting philosopher through the mouth of the blessed Leontius of Caesarea: ‘Receive the one
Divinity of the Father, who ineffably begot the Son, and of the Son, begotten from Him, and of the
Holy Spirit, proceeding from the same Father, but proper also to the Son, as the divine Apostle says:
“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.”’”
31. From the Second Ecumenical Council: “And the Second Council, speaking divinely, decreed:
‘And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who
with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.’”
32. From St. Basil, in the book Against the Arians, Sabellians, and Eunomians: “Judaism
contends with Hellenism. Thus, what we said regarding the Son, that we must confess His Person,
we must also say regarding the Holy Spirit: for the Father and the Spirit are not the same, as it is
written: ‘God is Spirit,’ and likewise, the Person of the Son and the Spirit are not the same, as it is
said: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.’”
33. And further: “Here (in Romans 8:9), some have erred, believing that the Spirit and Christ are
one and the same. But what do we say (regarding this verse)? That it refers to the kinship of nature,
not the confusion of Persons. For the Father, possessing perfect and self-sufficient being, is the
Root and Source of the Son and the Spirit.”
34. And further: “There is only one true Spirit. Just as there are many sons (of God), but only
one true Son, so, although it is said that all things are from God, strictly speaking, the Son is from
God and the Spirit is from God. For the Son proceeded (ἐξῆλθεν) from the Father, and the Spirit
proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father; but the Son is from the Father by way of generation, and
the Spirit from God in an ineffable manner.”
35. And further: “I know the Spirit with the Father and know that He is not the Father. I know
Him through the Son but do not claim He is called the Son. I understand the propriety in relation to
the Father, since He proceeds from the Father, and the propriety in relation to the Son, since I hear:
‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.’”

115

 36. From the same, to his brother Gregory, on the distinction between essence and hypostasis:
“For the Son, through whom all things exist, and with whom the Holy Spirit is understood
indivisibly, is from the Father. For no one can know the Son unless first illumined by the Spirit.
Behold, the Holy Spirit, from whom all good gifts flow as from a fountain to creation, is united with
the Son, is inseparably understood with Him, and has the Father as the cause of His being, from
whom He proceeds. His distinct mark of personal hypostatic property is to be known after the Son
and with the Son and to have being from the Father. The Son, revealing the Spirit, through whom
and with whom He proceeds from the Father, is the only-begotten Light from the Unbegotten
Light. As to personal hypostatic property, He has nothing in common with the Father or the Holy
Spirit. God (the Father), who is above all, uniquely has the distinctive property of His Hypostasis—
to be the Father and to have no cause of His being.”
37. From the same, in the exposition of Faith sent for signature to Eustathius of Sebaste: “We
do not say that the Holy Spirit is unbegotten, for we know only one Unbegotten and one Beginning
—the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor do we say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, for in the
tradition of faith we have been taught that there is only one Begotten. But we confess that the Spirit
of Truth proceeds from the Father, and we declare that He has His being from God, but not in the
same way that creation has its being (uncreatedly, ἀκτίστως).”
38. From the same, in the commentary on Psalm 32: “Just as the creative Word established the
heavens, so this also applies to the Spirit, who is from God and who proceeds from the Father—that
is, who is ‘from His mouth.’ Thus, you should not think that He is external or among created things,
but glorify Him as having Hypostasis from God.”
39. And further: “We find other places where it is said: ‘The Word of His mouth,’ so it is evident
that the Savior and the Holy Spirit are from the Father. Therefore, since the Savior is called ‘the
Word of the Lord,’ and the Holy Spirit is ‘the Spirit of His mouth,’ both were active in the creation
of the heavens and the powers within them. Thus, it is written: ‘By the Word of the Lord, the
heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth, all their power.’”
40. From the same, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 16: “Let no one think I am saying
there are three original Hypostases, for there is one Origin of all, working and accomplishing
through the Son and in the Spirit: ‘By the Word of the Lord, the heavens were established, and by
the Spirit of His mouth, all their power.’ Thus, the Word is not merely the sound wave in the air
produced by the organs of speech, nor is the Spirit of His mouth merely breath expelled by the
organs of respiration. The Word is ‘in the beginning with God and was God,’ and the Spirit of
God’s mouth is ‘the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father.’”
41. From the same author, in the book against the Arians: "In Him, there is nothing that He ever
later acquired; rather, He eternally possesses all things, as the Spirit of God, revealed by Him, having
Him as His Cause, as though He were the Source of Himself, from whom He proceeds. Yet He
Himself is also the Source of the aforementioned blessings. Proceeding from the Father, He exists
as a hypostasis. This Holy Spirit, God has richly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ."

116

 42. From St. Gregory of Nyssa, First Book of the Antirrhetic, chapter 22: "We confess the
Father as uncreated and unbegotten, for He was neither made nor born. Thus, uncreatedness is a
shared property of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but unbegottenness and Fatherhood are
personal properties unique to Him alone and not shared by the other Persons. The Son, in the
concept of uncreatedness, is united with the Father and the Spirit, but as He is and is called the Son,
this is His personal property, not shared by either the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit,
sharing in the uncreated essence of the Father and the Son, is also distinct from them through His
personal marks. His unique characteristic is that He possesses nothing of the personal properties of
the Father or the Son. He exists neither as begotten nor as unbegotten, but simply exists—this being
His personal property concerning the Father and the Son. He is one with the Father in
uncreatedness but is distinct from Him in not being 'Father' as He is. United with the Son by their
shared uncreated essence and by receiving His being from God, He is still distinct by His personal
property, namely that He proceeds from the Father not as the Son does and through the Son."
43. From the same book, chapter 26: "In this essence, the Father is understood as eternal,
unbegotten, and always the Father; from Him, inseparably related, the Only-Begotten Son is known
along with the Father. Through Him and with Him, before any empty or non-substantial thought
could divide Them, the Holy Spirit is immediately recognized in the closest unity—not later in being
than the Son, so that one could imagine the Son without the Spirit, but having His cause of
existence from God as does the Only-Begotten Light. Proceeding through the True Light, He is not
separated from the Father or the Son by time or by nature.”
44. From the same book, chapter 36: "It is better for us to think not of rays issuing from the sun
but of another Sun, Unbegotten, from which Another Sun shines forth by birth, equal to the First
in beauty, power, brilliance, greatness, and light—in all that pertains to a sun. Then let us conceive
of another Light, similar in nature, which, like the Second Sun, is not separated by any interval of
time from the First, but shines forth through Him, receiving its personal cause from the Archetypal
Light. It, too, is Light, equal in nature to the Light before it, illuminating and performing all that
pertains to Light.”
45. From the same book, at its conclusion: "Just as the Son is united with the Father and receives
His being from Him, yet is not later in existence than the Father, so too the Holy Spirit is related to
the Son. Only in the concept of causation is the Son considered prior to the Spirit in hypostasis;
time has no place in Eternal Life. Thus, when the idea of causation is set aside, the Holy Trinity is
seen as perfectly harmonious and without discord within itself.”
46. From his Catechetical Oration: "Just as we hear of the Word of God as willing, acting, and
omnipotent, so too are we taught about the Spirit of God. We envision Him as existing with the
Word and manifesting His action—not as a breath without existence, but as a Power in essence,
having His personal Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father and abiding in the Son.”
47. From his Discourse on the Holy Trinity: "We say that the Divinity is consubstantial and
three-hypostatic, for both the Old and New Testaments declare one God with the Word and the

117

 Spirit. Thus, it is necessary to reason in this way regarding the Divine Nature: the Father remains the
Father and does not become the Son; the Son remains the Son and is not the Father; the Spirit
remains the Spirit and does not become either the Son or the Father but remains the Holy Spirit. For
the Father begets the Son and is the Father, the Son is the begotten Word and remains the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, remains the Holy Spirit."
48. From the same: "The personal property of the Father lies in the fact that He has His being
from no cause, and this cannot be said of the Son or the Spirit, for the Son proceeds from the
Father, as Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and the Father.”
49. From his commentary on ‘In the beginning was the Word’: "The Word acknowledges one
Principle, not two, as the Manicheans claim. There is no 'first cause,' 'second cause,' and 'third cause,'
as taught by Plato, Basilides, Marcion, Arius, and Eunomius. According to Orthodox Faith, the
Father is called the Principle, and so are the Son and the Spirit—not to suggest three principles but
because of their consubstantiality. The Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Spirit is
called God—not to promote tritheism but because of the one Divine essence shared by the Three
Hypostases. The Father is called the Principle of the Son and the Spirit not for any other reason
than that He is the One from whom They proceed. In terms of causation, the Father is prior, but
not in terms of existence.”
50. From his discourse to Ablabius: "By confessing the unchangeableness of the Divine Nature,
we do not deny distinctions concerning the Cause and those proceeding from the Cause. We believe
that the distinction between Persons lies in this: one Person is the Cause, and the Others proceed
from the Cause. Additionally, we understand a distinction between Those who proceed: One
proceeds immediately from the First, while the Other proceeds from the First through the One who
is immediate. Thus, the unique property of being the Only-Begotten belongs to the Son, and it is
undeniable that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son’s intermediary role preserves His Only-
Begotten status and ensures the Spirit’s natural relation to the Father.”
51. From the book called "The Knowledge of God”: "The Spirit proceeds from the Hypostasis
of the Father; as Scripture states, 'The Spirit of His mouth,' and not 'the Word of His mouth.' From
this, it must be understood that the property of bringing forth the Spirit belongs exclusively to the
Father."
52. St. Gregory the Theologian, from his first discourse on the Holy Lights: "The Holy Spirit,
indeed, proceeds from the Father, but not in the same way as the Son (i.e., not by birth), but through
procession."
53. From his farewell discourse: "The Name of the Unoriginated is the Father; the Name of the
Beginning is the Son; and the Name of the One Who is with the Beginning is the Holy Spirit. The
nature of the Three is one; the union is in the Father, from whom and to whom the Others (i.e., the
Son and Spirit) relate."
54. From his first discourse on the Son: "Thus, the One became Two through motion and
stopped at Three. And this is for us: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The First is the Parent of the Son

118

 and the Emitter (Προβολεύς) of the Spirit—I speak in terms of passionlessness, timelessness, and
incorporeality. The Second is Generation (i.e., the Son); the Third is Procession (i.e., the Holy
Spirit)."
55. And a little later: "Therefore, remaining within our bounds, we introduce the Unbegotten,
the Begotten, and the One Proceeding from the Father, as God Himself and His Word speak in one
place."
56. From his discourse on the Holy Spirit: "He is either entirely unbegotten or begotten. And if
He is unbegotten, then there will be two Unbegotten; but if He is begotten, division is introduced
again: was He begotten by the Father or the Son? And if by the Father, then there will be two Sons,
and They will be Brothers. If by the Son, behold, they will say, we now have a 'Grandson God'—
what could be more absurd?"
57. And a little further: "Tell me, where will you place the One Who Proceeds, who stands
between the two parts of your division and is introduced by a theologian greater than you—our very
Savior? Or is it only for the sake of your 'third covenant' that you wish to exclude from your
Gospels the saying, 'The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father'? Because insofar as He
proceeds from there, He is not a creature; insofar as He is not begotten, He is not the Son; and
insofar as He stands between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God!"
58. From the same discourse: "When we consider the Godhead and the First Cause and the
monarchy, what we behold is One; but when we consider the Persons in whom the Godhead exists
and Those who come forth timelessly from the First Cause in equal glory, we have Three to
worship."
59. From the discourse on the arrival of the Egyptian bishops: "The essence is called God and
exists in the Three Greatest: the Originator, the Creator, and the Perfecter (Sanctifier). I mean, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are not so separated from one another as to be three
distinct and alien natures, nor so merged as to be confined within one Person."
60. And a little further: "If everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, except
causality, then likewise everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Spirit, except Sonship."
61. From the discourse on the dogma and the appointment of bishops:
"To whom would the Son belong if not to the Father as the Cause? One must not diminish the
Father’s dignity of being the Beginning, which belongs to Him as Father and Parent. For He would
be the Beginning of something small and unworthy if He were not the Cause of the Divinity
contemplated in the Son and Spirit. For it is necessary both to uphold faith in one God and to
confess Three Hypostases, or Three Persons, each with Their personal property. Faith in one God is
preserved, in my reasoning, when we refer both the Son and Spirit to one Cause, without blending
or confusing Them with Him, according to the same divine essence."
62. From the same discourse: "Personal properties are preserved when we depict and call the
Father Unbegotten and the Beginning—the Beginning as Cause, Source, and eternal Light."

119

 63. And further from the same discourse: "You hear of generation? Do not seek to know the
manner of generation. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not pry into how He
proceeds."
64. From his discourse on Pentecost: "If everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the First
Cause, then likewise everything that belongs to the Spirit belongs to the First Cause."
65. And a little later: "Everything the Father has belongs to the Son, except unbegottenness;
everything the Son has belongs to the Spirit, except begottenness."
66. From his discourse on moderation in disputes: "We must acknowledge one Father,
unoriginated and unbegotten, one Son, begotten of the Father, and one Spirit, having His being
from God. We must attribute to the Father the personal property of being unbegotten, to the Son
the property of being begotten, and all else is of one essence, co-enthroned, equally glorious, and
equally honored. This we must know, this we must confess, and here we must set our boundaries,
while rejecting idle chatter and the unlearned innovations of reasoning."
67. From his discourse to the philosopher Heron: "Confess the one Holy Spirit, who has gone
forth or proceeds from the Father."
68. And a little further: "Do not subordinate the Father, lest we introduce something prior to the
First, thereby overturning the essence of the First. Likewise, do not render the Son or the Holy
Spirit unoriginated, lest we strip the Father of His property. For They are not unoriginated, and yet,
in some sense, They are without beginning, which is truly wondrous! They are not unoriginated
concerning the Cause—for They, like light from the sun, are from God, though not after Him. But
They are without beginning concerning time."
69. And a little further: "To the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit belong the shared properties
of unbeginning existence and divinity. But to the Son and Spirit belongs their being from the Father.
The distinctive property of the Father is unbegottenness, of the Son begottenness, and of the Holy
Spirit procession."
70. From the book addressed to Evagrius: In the same way, the Father sends forth His rays to us
—both the glorious Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Just as the rays of light possess an indivisible relation
by nature and are neither separated from the light nor from one another while transmitting the
benefit of light to us, so also do our Savior and the Holy Spirit, as the twin rays of the Father, bring
the light of truth to us while remaining united with the Father.
71. From his first homily on the Son: How can they not share the absence of a beginning with
the Father, if they are coeternal with Him? They proceed from Him, even though they are not after
Him in time. For what lacks a beginning is eternal; yet what is eternal does not necessarily lack a
beginning so long as it refers back to the Father as its principle. Thus, in relation to causation, they
do not lack a beginning. However, it is evident that the cause is not necessarily prior in time to that
which it causes, just as the sun does not precede its light in time. Therefore, in relation to time, they
are without beginning.

120

 72. From Pope Damasus of Rome, Acts of the Second Synod: If anyone does not say that the
Holy Spirit proceeds truly and properly from the Father, as the Son is from the divine essence and is
the Word of God, let them be anathema.
73. From St. Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius: Although the Spirit exists in His own subsistence
and is considered in Himself as the Spirit and not the Son, He is nonetheless not alien to the Son.
For He is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth. He proceeds from Him no less truly
than He proceeds from God the Father.
74. From the same author, in the letter to Emperor Theodosius: Granting forgiveness of sins to
those who cleave to Him, He anoints them with His Spirit. As the Word of God the Father, He
sends forth this Spirit and pours it into us from His own nature as from a fountain. Furthermore,
having taken on human nature and the economy of the Incarnation, He also, as man, inspired others
in a physical sense. For He breathed on the holy apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” He
does not give the Spirit in measure, as John the Baptist said, but imparts Him fully, just as the Father
does.
75. And a little further: Christ does not bestow the Spirit upon the baptized as something alien,
as a servant or minister, but as God by nature, with supreme authority and power, since the Spirit
proceeds from Him and through Him. Through this same Spirit, a divine character is imprinted
upon us.
76. From the interpretation of the sacred Creed: After completing their statement about Christ,
the holy and blessed Fathers mentioned the Holy Spirit. They declared their belief in Him, in a
manner similar to their belief in the Father and the Son. He proceeds, as from a fountain, from God
the Father and is granted to creation through the Son. Thus, He breathed on the holy apostles,
saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, the Spirit is both from God and is God.
77. From his letter to John of Antioch: We in no way allow that the faith or the Creed
formulated by the Fathers should be disturbed by anyone. We neither permit ourselves nor anyone
else to alter even a single word or syllable of it, remembering the scripture: “Do not remove the
ancient boundary stones which your fathers have set.” For they did not speak on their own, but by
the Holy Spirit of God the Father, who proceeds from Him and yet is not alien to the Son in terms
of essence.
78. From his book on the Holy Trinity: In this holy and worshipful unity, three persons are
recognized and believed in: the Father, without principle or cause, unbegotten, eternal; the one and
only Son, begotten in an ineffable manner without passion and before all ages, from the substance
of the Father, and thus of the same essence and dignity as the Father, entirely like Him and equal to
Him in all things except paternity, having the Father as His principle and cause through generation;
and finally, the Holy Spirit, life-giving and worthy of worship, proceeding from the Father—that is,
from the substance of the Father—not through generation as the Son, so as not to introduce two
Sons into the Trinity, but proceeding uniquely from the Father as breath proceeds from a mouth.
Manifested through the Son, He spoke in all the holy prophets and apostles. Moreover, as I said, He

121

 is from the essence of the Father and the Son, sharing the same substance as the Father and the
Son, yet distinct and utterly incommunicable to any creature in His essence, just as the Father and
the Son are.
79. From the first book against Julian: The Son was begotten from the Father and exists in Him
and from Him by nature. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds, being proper to God the Father and similarly
to the Son. For the Father sanctifies what is fit to be sanctified through Him.
80. And at the end of the same book: The Spirit proceeds from the Father by nature and is
ministered to creation through the Son.
81. From the second book against Julian: The very nature of the elements cannot, by its own
power, escape corruption. To remain stable, it requires the hand of God holding it together. The
prophet taught this when he said that the Spirit of God was moving over the waters. For all things
receive life from the Spirit of God, since He is life by nature, proceeding from the life of the Father
and from Him.
82. From the book Thesaurus: Speaking to the Jews, Christ says: “But if I cast out demons by
the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Here, the “finger of God” refers
to the Holy Spirit, who in a certain sense originates from the divine essence and naturally depends
upon it, just as a finger depends on the human hand. Sacred Scripture refers to the Son as the “arm”
and the “right hand” of God, as in: “His right hand and His holy arm have brought Him salvation,”
and again, “O Lord, Your arm is exalted; they did not know, but when they come to know, they will
be ashamed.” Just as the arm is naturally joined to the whole body and performs whatever the mind
desires, often using the finger to anoint, so we must understand that the Word of God is naturally
joined and emanates from Him. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds naturally and essentially from the
Father through the Son, sanctifying all things. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not alien or foreign to the
divine nature but originates from it and remains in it naturally. Just as a finger is of the same nature
as the hand and the hand of the same substance as the body, so too is the Spirit of the same essence
as the Father and the Son.
83. And a little further: He clearly shows that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the essence of the
Son but exists in Him and from Him, as a natural power capable of accomplishing whatever the Son
wills.
84. From his letter to the monks:
The Spirit is poured forth or proceeds, as from a fountain, from God the Father and is bestowed
upon creation through the Son.
85. To Palladius: The Spirit is in no way mutable, for if He were subject to change, this defect
would affect the very nature of God. Since the Spirit is of God the Father and the Son, proceeding
substantially from both—namely, from the Father through the Son—He is immutable.
86. And in the ninth response: The Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, as the Savior
Himself said, yet He is not alien to the Son. For the Spirit possesses everything together with the
Father, as Christ Himself taught, saying of the Holy Spirit: “All that the Father has is mine;

122

 therefore, I said that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” Thus, the Holy Spirit
glorified Jesus by performing marvelous works, yet He did so as His Spirit, not as a foreign power,
for the Spirit, as God, is superior and inseparable from Him.
87. These things St. Cyril proclaimed in opposition to Nestorius, who claimed that Christ
performed miracles through a foreign power, as though He were merely an ordinary man or one of
the prophets. However, Theodoret, upon noting that Cyril referred to the Spirit as proper to the
Son, stated: “If by saying ‘proper Spirit of the Son,’ he means that the Spirit is of the same nature as
Him and proceeds from the Father, then we shall confess and accept this as pious teaching. But if he
claims that the Spirit derives His existence from the Son or through the Son, we shall reject this as
blasphemy and impiety. We believe the Lord, who said, ‘The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the
Father,’ and also the holy Apostle Paul, who likewise stated: ‘We have not received the spirit of the
world, but the Spirit who is from God the Father.’” When Cyril heard this and understood it well, he
offered no response but instead published a book on the Holy Trinity, where he affirmed that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
88. From St. John Chrysostom, First Book Against the Anomoeans, found in the Margarita: I
know that God is everywhere, and that all of Him is everywhere. But how this is so, I do not know. I
know that He begot the Son, but how He begot Him, I do not know. I know that the Spirit is from
Him, but how the Spirit is from Him, I do not know.
89. From his book On the Holy Trinity: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty. I believe—I
do not investigate. I believe—I do not pursue the incomprehensible. I believe in one and only true
Almighty God.
90. And shortly after: I also believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, who was
begotten from Him before all ages, in a manner known only to Him who was begotten.
91. And again: I also believe in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the
Father and completes the Trinity. In Him, I place my trust for my sanctification; in Him, I place my
trust for the resurrection of the dead.
92. From another discourse on the Annunciation and against Arius: I, instructed by the Holy
Scriptures, honor the Father, who has always been Father; I honor the Son, who shines forth from
the Father’s essence before time began; I honor the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and
rests in the Son.
93. From a sermon on the Holy Spirit: So that, as I was saying, no one hearing of the Spirit of
God might think this signifies mere familiarity and not a sharing of the divine nature, Paul says:
“You have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God.” The Spirit is also
called the Spirit of the Father, as the Savior told the apostles: “Do not worry about how or what you
should speak, for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” Just as
Scripture speaks of the Spirit of God and adds that He is “from God,” it also calls Him the Spirit of
the Father. And to prevent anyone from thinking this speaks only of familiarity, the Savior confirms
this, saying: “When the Comforter comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.” In

123

 one place, He is said to be “from God,” and in another, “from the Father.” What the Son claimed
for Himself, saying, “I came forth from the Father,” He also attributes to the Holy Spirit, saying,
“Who proceeds from the Father.” What does “proceeds” mean? He did not say “is begotten,” for
what is not written cannot be presumed. The Son is begotten from the Father; the Spirit proceeds
from the Father. Do you ask me the difference—how the Son is begotten and how the Spirit
proceeds? What is the matter here? When you learned that the Son is begotten, did you comprehend
the manner? Do you think that when you hear the term “Son,” you grasp the mode of His
generation? These are names, beloved, to be revered with faith and preserved with pious thought.
94. From St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in the book Anchoratus: Thus we believe that the Holy
Spirit is the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Comforter, uncreated, proceeding from the Father
and receiving from the Son.
95. From the letter of Pope Celestine to Nestorius: Blasphemous words against God must not
disturb the purity of the ancient faith. Who has ever escaped condemnation who either added to or
detracted from the faith? For what has been fully and clearly handed down to us by the apostles
requires neither addition nor diminution. We read in the Scriptures that nothing is to be added or
removed, for great punishment binds both the one who adds and the one who takes away.
96. From St. Maximus, chapter 63 of his commentary on the prophet Zechariah: The Holy Spirit
is of the nature of God the Father in substance, and likewise of the nature of the Son in substance,
proceeding inexplicably from the Father substantially through the Son.
97. From his dialogue with Macedonius: The Son is begotten from the substance of the Father,
and thus is the only-begotten Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the substance of the Father.
98. From the same: One God, the Father, the begetter of the one Son, and the source of the
one Holy Spirit: unity without confusion and Trinity without division. The Mind without origin, the
sole eternal parent of the Word who is eternally existent, and of the eternal life, that is, the Holy
Spirit, who proceeds from Him.
99. From his scholia on St. Dionysius’ On the Divine Names: God the Father, without temporal
movement and by the power of love, proceeds into the distinction of persons, remaining indivisibly
and undiminished in His totality, supremely united and supremely simple. Through His own
Splendor, He brings forth the living Image and the Holy Spirit, who is to be worshiped and proceeds
eternally from the Father, as the Lord teaches.
100. From his exposition of the Lord’s Prayer: The Son and the Holy Spirit truly coexist in
essence with the Father. They are by nature from Him and in Him, beyond causality and human
comprehension.
101. From Justin, philosopher and martyr, in his book On the Faith, chapter 11: Since the Father
begot the Son from His own essence and produced the Spirit from the same essence, it is fittingly
and rightly understood that one and the same divinity is shared by those who partake of the same
essence.

124

 102. And shortly after: Just as the Son is from the Father, so also is the Spirit, except that there is
a difference in the manner of existence. The Son is light from light through generation; the Spirit is
also light from light, but not through generation—rather, through procession. Thus, He is coeternal
with the Father, the same according to essence, proceeding without passion. In the Trinity, we
understand unity, and in unity, we acknowledge Trinity.
103. From St. John of Damascus, seventh book On the Holy Spirit: When we are taught of the
Spirit of God, who is the companion of the Word of God and declares His power, we do not
conceive of a mere breath without subsistence. Rather, we understand Him as a substantial power,
who exists in His own distinct person. He proceeds from the Father, rests in the Word, and declares
and reveals Him.
104. From the eighth book: We believe in one Father, the origin and cause of all, unbegotten,
who alone is without cause or generation, the Creator of all things. He is uniquely the Father by
nature of His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the producer of the Holy Spirit.
105. From the same book: Though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, this procession is
not in the manner of generation but rather as a distinct procession. This mode of existence differs
from that of the Son and, like the generation of the Son, surpasses human comprehension and
understanding.
106. From the same book: The Father alone is unbegotten (having His existence from no other
hypostasis), the Son alone is begotten (eternally and timelessly begotten of the Father’s essence), and
the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the Father’s essence—not by generation but by procession.
107. Likewise, we believe in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the
Father and rests in the Son, and who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the
Son.
108. From the same book: The Holy Spirit is wholly like the Father and the Son, proceeding
from the Father, imparted through the Son, and perceived by all creation.
109. From the same book: The Holy Spirit is inseparable and never departs from the Father and
the Son, possessing all that the Father and the Son have, except for unbegottenness and generation.
110. Truly, the Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by generation but by procession. We
understand that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the manner of this
difference remains unknown to us. Both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit
proceed from the Father. Whatever the Son and the Spirit have, they receive from the Father,
including their very existence. If the Father did not exist, neither would the Son nor the Spirit.
Moreover, if the Father lacked something, so too would the Son and the Spirit lack it. Thus, because
the Father exists, so too do the Son and the Spirit. The Father is the source of all that the Son and
the Spirit possess, except for the unique properties of unbegottenness, begottenness, and
procession. In these hypostatic properties alone do the three holy persons of the Trinity differ.
111. Again: It must be understood that we do not say the Father derives His being from any
other, but we confess Him as the Father of the Son. We do not call the Son a cause or father but

125

 confess Him as from the Father and the Father’s Son. Similarly, we confess the Holy Spirit as from
the Father and call Him the Spirit of the Father. However, we do not say the Spirit is from the Son
but call Him the Spirit of the Son, revealed and imparted to us through the Son. Yet, we do not say
the Son exists through the Spirit or from the Spirit.
112. From the same book: When considering the mutual relationship of the divine persons, I
know that the Father is the transcendent source, the fountain of goodness, and the abyss of being,
reason, wisdom, power, light, and divinity. He is the begetter and producer of the Son and, through
the Word, the source of the manifesting Spirit.
113. Again from the same book: The Father is the fountain and origin of both the Son and the
Holy Spirit. He alone is the Father of the Son and the producer of the Spirit. The Son is the Son,
the Word, wisdom, power, image, radiance, and exact imprint of the Father, and He is from the
Father. The Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father, proceeding from
Him. He is also called the Spirit of the Son, not as deriving His existence from the Son but as being
manifested and imparted through Him.
114. From the same book: The Holy Spirit is also God, the sanctifying power, existing in His
own hypostasis, proceeding from the Father without separation and resting in the Son,
consubstantial with the Father and the Son.
115. From his letter to Jordan: For us, there is one God—the Father, His Word, and His Spirit.
The Word is begotten, subsisting in Himself, and thus is the Son. Likewise, the Spirit is subsisting in
Himself as a procession and emanation from the Father, yet through the Son, but not deriving His
being from the Son. He is the Spirit of the Word, proclaiming the Word of God.
116. From his oration on the burial of the divine body of the Lord: This is the Godhead we
worship: the Father, the begetter of the Son, unbegotten Himself because He is from no one; the
Son, the offspring of the Father, begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit of God and the Father,
proceeding from Him, who is also called the Spirit of the Son, for He is made manifest and
imparted through Him to creation, though His being is not from the Son.
117. From Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s commentary on the Lord’s Prayer: While the Son and the
Holy Spirit share the characteristic of not being unbegotten, the unique properties of each remain
distinct, ensuring no confusion in their personal distinctions. The Son is uniquely described in
Scripture as begotten of the Father. The Spirit, however, is said to proceed from the Father and is
also called the Spirit of the Son. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to
Him. Thus, the Spirit proceeds from God and is also the Spirit of Christ. Yet the Son, while being
from God, is not the Son of the Spirit, nor is this relational sequence reversible.
118. Analogies from the First Holy and Universal Synod: The Father is likened to the mind, fire,
and fountain; the Son to reason, radiance, and the stream; and the Spirit to breath, light, and water.
The second and third proceed from the first: the word and spirit come from the mind, radiance and
light from fire, and the stream and water from the fountain. Yet the third does not proceed from the

126

 second, nor the second from the third. The Spirit is inseparable from the Son, as the Son is
inseparable from the Father. Together, they share perfect equality and unity.
119. The Second Holy Synod, proclaiming divinely that the Holy Spirit is "the Lord and giver of
life, who proceeds from the Father, and who is to be worshipped and glorified together with the
Father and the Son," established this doctrine definitively.
120. From Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, as revealed to him by John the Evangelist and
Theologian: There is one God, the Father of the living Word, of the subsisting Wisdom, and of His
own Power and Image—perfect, the begetter of the perfect, the Father of the only-begotten Son.
There is one Lord, the only one from the only one, the figure and image of divinity, God from God.
There is one Holy Spirit, deriving His substance from God and manifesting through the Son to
humanity—the perfect image of the perfect Son, the life and cause of all living things.
121. From the prayer of John, the humble monk and priest of Damascus, on Holy Saturday,
beginning with the words "Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord?", a little after the
introduction: God is the author and origin of all things, Himself derived from no other, and thus
unbegotten. He has the Word within Himself, truly subsisting and co-eternal with Him, born of
Him without flux or time. The Word is in no way separated from the Father, for He is perfect God,
wholly like His begetter, except for unbegottenness. He is identical to the Father in essence, power,
will, operation, kingdom, and dominion, yet not without origin or cause (for He is from the Father).
He did not begin in time (for the Father never existed without the Son), since the Father is
undoubtedly the Father of the Son. Nor will He be Father without the Son, who exists together with
the Father in equality. The Son is born indivisibly from the Father and remains in Him without
exceeding or departing from Him, for He is the Father’s Wisdom and truly subsisting Power. By
nature, He is God, of the same substance as the Father. The Son is not without the Spirit, nor is He
understood apart from Him. For the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, sharing the same power,
will, and operation, being equal in eternity and subsisting in Himself. The Spirit exists in a mode
distinct from the Son, proceeding in a certain divine and incomprehensible manner. He is entirely
like the Father and the Son—good, sovereign, Lord, creator, and by nature God, sharing the same
substance as the Father and the Son. Together they reign as one, worshipped by all creation with
equal glory and veneration. This is the Godhead we serve: the Father, the begetter of the Son,
Himself unbegotten because He is from no one; the Son, the offspring of the Father, begotten from
Him; and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God the Father and is also called the Spirit of the
Son, for He is manifested and imparted to creation through the Son, though His existence is not
derived from the Son.
The End.

127

DOCUMENT 9
 The Syllogistic Chapters Of Mark Of Ephesus Against The Latins On The Proceeding Of The
Holy Spirit From The Father Alone.
1. If indeed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He would proceed from
Them either 1) as from two Hypostases, or 2) as from their common essence, or 3) from their
generating (or originating) power (ἐκ τῆς ἀροβλητικῆς δυνάµεως). If He proceeded from the Father
and the Son as from two Hypostases, then clearly there would be two Sources, two Causes, and two
Originators in the Divine Trinity, and thus the unity of origin and the fact that the Father is the
“only Source of the divine essence” would be disrupted. But if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the
Father and the Son in the sense of proceeding from their common essence, first of all, it has never
been heard of until now that anyone would say that a third Hypostasis proceeding from two
Hypostases would not proceed from them, but from some common essence. Thus, we return again
to the first position. For the Hypostasis is nothing other than an essence with a personal
characteristic; hence, what proceeds from the essence of one or two must also proceed from the
Hypostasis or Hypostases. Moreover, the property of the Divine essence to generate is not simple,
for it is the Spirit, and it generated something different from itself, though of the same common
essence. But if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son in the sense of proceeding
from the “generating power,” which belongs to Both, the question is: what is this “generating
power,” and is it distinct from the essence, or is it one with it? And if it is one with it, then again the
same arguments bring about the same absurdities. But if it is something other than the essence, then
we would have to admit that something distinct from God’s essence is being attributed to Him,
which, while disputed in other matters, (it would be better) for them (the Latins) to avoid these
words rather than accept them as an object of confession. Moreover, would it not be absurd to
consider as something distinct from the Divine essence the very thing that generates the Divine
essence or Hypostasis? But, thus, they would again not avoid two origins, for what is born of a
father and a mother proceeds from their generating power or their generating power, which is
common to both, though differing in form; yet, nevertheless, proceeding from two Hypostases, it
has two sources of its birth, and no one would deny this. So too, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the generating power of the Father and the Son, He will have two sources of His being.
“But even the creature,” they say, “existing from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
through Their creative power, came into being from the one God and Creator, and has one Source –
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So what then prevents the Holy Spirit, proceeding from
the Father and the Son, from being from one God and Originator (Προβολ?ως) and having one
Source – the Father and the Son?”
(But asking the question in this way), you will free us, dearest, from the labor (of discussing it)
by clearly showing the Holy Spirit to be like the creatures. For if in the same way that the creature
came from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,
then what else is the Holy Spirit but a creature? But turning back to you, I will say the opposite and
more pious, namely – that so simply, indeed, the matter stands regarding the creature, but not so

129

 regarding the Holy Spirit. For that which in the matter of creation came from two or many
persons,can be said to have come from one, speaking in terms of the concept of creation, and this is
not only in terms of Divine creation, in which the same will, desire, wisdom, power, and action
(energy) exist, but also in terms of human creation and our own; for the same concept of art in its
various aspects is one, and all the arts are one. Therefore, what has come from many persons can be
said to have come from one, and one has a principle (source). But as for that which has being from
two by nature, no one could say that it comes from one; nor is it possible – to conclude that each of
these two has the same mode of producing being; moreover, the Latins themselves say that the
procession of the Spirit is different – from the Father and differently – from the Son, and in the first
case (they say) it is directly, and in the second – indirectly. Thus, they cannot avoid two origins unless
they are willing to fall into many absurdities. “What prevents,” they say, “it from having indeed two
Sources, but of course, one under the other, so that from two it becomes one. This is what Gregory
the Theologian also says: ‘Source from Source.’”
If you mean Sources in the sense that one is somewhat closer and the other farther, I don’t
know, truly, whether they will form one Source – by the subordination of one to the other, or
whether they will remain two, because they are really distinct from each other. Think about this.
Each of these two Sources is more one than the other and less one than the other: in one case it is
more, in the other – less; the one that is closer is the greater Source, because it is closer; the one that
is farther is a greater source because it encompasses within it the one that is closer. If they are thus
distinct, how will they become one (Source)? Who would say that Adam and Seth are one source of
Enos, though each of them is a source, one closer, the other farther? How would they be one
source? How can we bear the blasphemy of those who, by framing the question in this way about
Sources, distance the Spirit far (πόρρω) from the Hypostasis of the Father and proclaim Him as it
were the “Grandson” (of the Father)? Meanwhile, it is said: “...proceeding from the Father” and
“the Spirit proceeding from the Father’s Hypostasis.” But what Gregory the Theologian said, he said
comparatively in relation to the creature, as if he had said: “Creator from Creator,” as “Light from
Light” and “God from God,” and “Good from Good”; He is in everything, as the Father, One God
with Him, and the One Light, and the One Good, and the One Source of all creation. “All things
were made through Him,” says the Evangelist, “and without Him nothing was made that was made”
(John 1:3). And what was not created, certainly is not from Him and not by Him, i.e., in our case –
the Holy Spirit (for He is uncreated. A.A.). What precisely this was that Gregory the Theologian
meant in his saying is clear from the fact that elsewhere he says: “Unbegotten and the Source and
the One Who is with the Source, the One God.” He did not say: “The One Who is from the
Source,” but “with the Source” – proceeding from the Unbegotten, of course. And if indeed he
thought that the Son is the Source of the Spirit, where would he have had a better opportunity to
express this, oh, most stubborn of men?! But neither he nor anyone else from our theologians
thinks in this way, though you might waste time (trying to find and prove this).

130

 2. "The Spirit," says the Theologian of Nyssa, "proceeds from the Father's Hypostasis"6. But if
He proceeds also from the Son's Hypostasis, what else does this signify, except that He proceeds
from two Hypostases? And if He proceeds from two Hypostases, what else is it but that He has two
Beginnings of His Being? Thus, as long as the Latins assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Son, they will not escape dual beginnings.
3. If both the Son is from the Father and the Spirit is from the Father, then why wouldn't the
Spirit also be the Son? – Because They differ from each other, according to the theologians, in their
mode of being, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father in a different manner than the Son, not by
birth. But if the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, is not the Son, what then is the exact distinction
between the Son and the Spirit, both in relation to the Father and in relation to each other? For if
from the Father proceed both the Son and the not-Son, but Something Else, it is clear that, in
relation to the Father, They differ in their mode of being (substance) and are, as caused (i.e.,
proceeding from the Cause), in relation to the Cause. As for the relation to each other, They are
distinguished by the very contradiction of their opposite statements: for it is evident that "to be the
Son" is contradicted by "not to be the Son." Thus, beyond this, I say that there is no need for the
opposition of states to distinguish the Son from the Spirit, since the very contradiction of their
opposite statements makes the distinction (between Them).
4. Not wishing to follow the generally accepted principles of theology, but inventing others, the
Latins, in support of their teaching, do not distinguish, as we do, what is common to God (for we
say that one thing is common to all the Persons of the Holy Trinity, while another is personal and
proper to each Divine Person), but make some other distinction, saying that one thing is “personal,"
another "common," and another "most common" (κοινότατα, communissinia): that which pertains
to One Person they call "personal," that which pertains to Two is "common," and that which
pertains to all Three is "most common." But this distinction is unusual, and by custom is a novelty
of the Latins, as is clear from their own words. But let us examine what they mean by “common"
and not "most common." – This means to be from the Father, specifically "to be from the Cause”
("causality" το αίτιατόν), and also "to be sent from Him" and similar expressions. But in relation to
the Father and the Son, this means "sending the Spirit" and "pouring out" and "producing" and
similar actions, which, they assert, is the same as "producing the Spirit by nature." Let us examine
this question from the beginning. If "being from the Cause" ("causality") were something different
from birth and procession when these expressions are used in relation to God, it might be
appropriate to say that this is a common property for Two (the Persons of the Holy Trinity – the
Son and the Holy Spirit). But if, in reasoning, it is impossible to accept "causality" by itself in
relation to each of Them without implying the mode (for in one case, causality is birth, and in
another, procession), then "causality" is one term that signifies two things: birth and procession; and
these are the personal properties of each of Them. Therefore, what is "common" to these Two
Persons in relation to the Father are precisely those personal properties by which They are
distinguished both in relation to the Father and in relation to each other. As for the words "to send”

131

 and the like, it is best to understand them as "goodwill," as Gregory the Theologian says7, and refer
them to the First Cause of all things, so as not to be enemies of God. Furthermore, what pertains to
a particular time and once, for something and for some reason, should not be attributed to Divine
properties, which are eternal and without beginning. This also applies to the "sending" (of the Holy
Spirit), for what pertains to a specific time and was once for something and for a reason, it would
not be reasonable to attribute it as a personal property to the Father and the Son in relation to the
Spirit, let alone to the eternal and pre-existent procession of the Spirit. Moreover, the Spirit is not
lacking the property of "sending," as is shown in the words of the Prophet, speaking on behalf of
the Son: "The Lord sent Me and His Spirit" (Isaiah 48:16). If this is said in the sense that, only as a
Man, He could be sent (by the Holy Spirit), how can this be confirmed? – Either show it, or do not
reason about it. However, the divine Chrysostom, in his homily on the Holy Spirit, shows that in this
place, from the words of Isaiah's prophecy, it is said in reference to the Father, Who may be sent by
the Son and the Spirit8. Thus, "sending" would be "most common" and not "common," as the
Latins think. Also, the procession of the Spirit in eternity is not "common" for the Father and the
Son. Moreover, there is nothing surprising in the relation between the Son and the Spirit, if they
share something in relation to the Father, for He is not only the Beginning, but also without
beginning and without cause, and They, both of Them, have the Father as their Beginning. What
then shall we ascribe to the Father and the Son that would also not belong to the Spirit? – But this is
not allowed by Dionysius the Great, who clearly expresses this: "What is common to the Father and
the Son is also common and proper to the Holy Spirit, as the Divine Word declares"9. And Gregory
the Theologian says: "All that the Father has, the Son has, except the Cause; all that the Son has, the
Spirit has, except Birth.”
Let us further examine the matter of “sending." The Father is known in the Old Testament; the
Son, however, was to be known in the New. Therefore, the sending of the Son is as if He was
revealed by the Father in the world. Then, when the Son is known, the Holy Spirit was to be known
as well; therefore, it is said that from the Father and the Son, who have already been known, He is
sent, that is, He is revealed. For what else can "sending" and "sending away" from the omnipresent
God, Who does not change His place, mean? Therefore, Christ says: "If I go, I will send Him to
you" (John 16:7). It is clear that this is not about eternal procession, for He did not say: "If I do not
go, I will not send (ου προβάλω) the Comforter; but if I go, then I will send," but rather, "if I will be
taken from your eyes, I will show you His grace and power." Moreover, since changing places is
foreign to the concept of God (for this is the nature of bodies), if it is said about the "sending" of
the Son, it is spoken in the sense of His coming into the world in the flesh. For "God sent His Son
into the world, born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4); but when it is said about the "sending" of the Holy
Spirit, Christ signifies His grace and action (energy), not the Hypostasis Itself. And that grace and
action are one, but the Hypostasis is something different, the divine Chrysostom testifies, saying in
his homilies on the Gospel of John: "The grace of the Spirit is sometimes called fire, sometimes
water, signifying that these are not names of the essence, but of the action (energy)." And

132

 again:"Here the 'Spirit' should be understood in the sense of 'action' (energy): for it is divided, and it
is sent; it is sent by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, showing the common action of
the Trinity, or rather the identical one"11. Thus, there is nothing that is common to the Father and
the Son that is not also common to the Spirit, as the famous Dionysius shows.
5. "The Spirit," says the Theologian of Nyssa, "proceeds from the Hypostasis of the Father.”
Who does not understand from this that the procession of the Spirit is an inherent, personal
property of the Father? For, just as when we say that the Hypostasis of the Only-Begotten (Son)
became incarnate, we express that this is not common to the Father and the Spirit, so also, when we
say that the Hypostasis of the Father produces the Holy Spirit, we do not attribute this equally to the
Son. Therefore, let the Latins either point to someone among the theologians who says that this
happens also from the Hypostasis of the Son, or let it be clear from this that the Holy Spirit
proceeds only from the Father.
6. Having in the confession of the Holy Spirit as third (in order among the Persons of the Holy
Trinity), after the Father and the Son, the Latins believe that on the basis of this order, they can
prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. For, if He did not have a relation to the Son
in respect of His being, they say, He would not be counted as third, and would not have His place
after Him. But, oh, venerable ones, I would say to you in answer to this that if the Son is second
after the Father (for this is required by the order itself, and nothing else lies between Them), who
else could the Holy Spirit be but third? For, undeniably, He is not first; second, by necessity, is the
Son; and third, therefore, is the Holy Spirit, truly being the Fulfillment of this blessed Trinity.
Therefore, I believe that this order was preserved by the theologians, so that, if the Spirit were
placed immediately after the Father, people would not consider Him to be the Son; for when they
speak absolutely, they also remove the very order. "For there is no, they say, ordinal reckoning in the
Holy Trinity not because there is no ordinal reckoning in Her, but because She is above it"12, and
also: "The Same Ones (the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity) are both counted and reckoned and
numbered under"13. So, how does this order serve your position, when it is not necessary that
something which follows in order should have its being from that which precedes it? Let us also
bring you Basil the Great, who speaks on this very issue: "Since," he says, "the Holy Spirit, from
Whom all gifts of grace proceed to the created world, depends on the Son, with Whom He is
directly known; but from the Father, He depends as the Cause of being, from Whom He proceeds;
the sign of His personal hypostatic property is this: to be after the Son and with Him to be known
and from the Father to have being"14. Do you hear this heavenly herald, what he says? – "From the
Son," he says, "He depends," i.e., He is closely connected with Him; not that He proceeds from
Him, but that He is known with Him directly as from the Father having being; "for the middle
position of the Only-Begotten," as his brother Gregory of Nyssa says, "while preserving for Him
the Only-Begottenness, does not remove the Spirit from the natural relationship with the Father.”
And further: "The recognitional sign of the Holy Spirit is this: to be after the Son and to be known

133

 with Him and from the Father to have being"15. What could be clearer or wiser than these words, or
more in agreement with our teaching?!
7. The Latins think that something great speaks in favor of their opinion in that it is said of the
Holy Spirit that He is the "Spirit of the Son," but I refer this also to the same as "proper to the Son”
and "not alien to the Son," and to similar expressions. But does it follow from this that He proceeds
from Him? The first Theodore would not allow this16, for by this he would introduce a
blasphemous and ungodly teaching. Therefore, the divine Cyril also speaks in these words: "In no
way do we allow altering a single word in what is there (in the Nicene Creed), nor to disturb a single
syllable. For it was not they who spoke, but through them the Holy Spirit spoke, Who proceeds
from the Father and God, but is not alien to the Son, according to the nature of the essence"17. Do
you hear in what sense it is said – "the Spirit of the Son" and "proper to Him" and "not alien"? –
"According to the nature of the essence" – He says – namely, as consubstantial with Him... And
Basil the Great also says in the 18th chapter to Amphilochius: "It is said: the Spirit of Christ – as
united to Him by nature"18. So, what better interpreter of the apostolic and his own words shall we
seek, apart from those divine Teachers?
8. That after the Resurrection the Lord gives the Spirit to the Disciples through a breath, the
Latins explain by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him. But that it was not the very essence
of the Spirit that was given then through the breath is evident from the fact that at that time the
Holy Spirit had not yet come. "If I do not go...," says Christ, "the Comforter will not come to you”
(John 16:7). And the divine Chrysostom testifies in his commentary on John, saying: "Some say that
Christ did not give the Spirit to the Disciples then, but by His breath made them capable of
receiving it. However, no one will err if he says that they did indeed receive some spiritual authority
and grace to forgive sins, which is why He added: 'Whosever sins you forgive, they are forgiven’
showing thereby what kind of action (energy) He gives: for grace is immeasurable, and the gift is
manifold. For, behold, even from Moses, receiving the Spirit, God gave it to others, and in the Lord
Christ, all the grace of the Spirit rested. 'For God does not give the Spirit by measure.'" Therefore,
even from Him, He gave and by it He performed miracles. "O Spirit of God," He says, "I will cast
out demons”
9. Then, what is said, that the Holy Spirit is the "Image of the Son," they draw to support their
dogma. – To this we say that there is absolutely no necessity, whether in art or in the nature of
things, for an image to have as its cause the one it represents^20. For although it is said that the Son
is the "Image of the Father," it is not in the sense that He relates to Him as the Cause, but in the
sense that He represents and depicts Him within Himself, as He says to Philip in one place, “He
who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Thus, the Holy Spirit is the "Image of the Son”
not in the sense that He is the Cause of the Spirit, but in the sense that the Son could not be known
otherwise except through the Holy Spirit. "For... no one," says the Apostle, "can say that Jesus is
Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3). And then: "He will glorify Me, for He will take of
what is Mine and declare it to you" (John 16:14). Explaining this, the divine Chrysostom says: “That

134

 is, He will declare to you what is in harmony with My words. For what is Mine is the Father's; He, by
declaring to you from what is the Father's, will declare it from what is Mine"^21. For just as the Son,
having come to fulfill the Old Law, i.e., to perfect it and add what was lacking in it because of the
weakness of the hearers, thereby glorified the Father who gave this Law (For "I have glorified You
on earth," He says, "I have finished the work You gave Me to do" (John 17:4)), so the Holy Spirit, in
turn, accomplishes the work of the Son. "I have many things to say to you," says (Christ to the
Disciples), "but you cannot bear them now: however, when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will
guide you into all truth: for He will not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak, and
He will tell you of things to come" (John 16:12–14). "From what is Mine," He says, "He will take
and declare to you," namely, that which is lacking. And this is the same work as the work of the
Father, for "all that the Father has is Mine" (John 16:15). Thus, the Holy Spirit is the Image of the
Son in the sense that He declares what belongs to the Son and glorifies the Son, receiving from His
work and perfecting it, just as Christ Himself accomplished the work of the Father.
10. On "per Filium" in relation to the Procession of the Holy Spirit They believe that the Holy
Spirit proceeds just as much from the Son as from the Father, asserting that the phrase "per"
signifies the same as "ex" in Scripture. Indeed, "per" is equivalent where the discourse concerns
creation, especially when it is applied separately to the Son apart from the Father. For instance, "All
things," they say, "were made through Him." However, the procession of the Spirit is never stated
separately from the Father; rather, it is said to originate from the Father and to be brought about
through the Son. It is clear, therefore, that the phrase "through the Son" signifies something
different than "from the Son," although, in truth, it does not even speak of procession but of
bestowal. For John of Damascus says: "We name the Spirit as indeed the Spirit of the Son, but we
do not say 'from the Son'; rather, we confess that it is made manifest through the Son and is
imparted to us through Him.” This distinction clearly demonstrates that the phrase "through the
Son" signifies something entirely different from what the Latins mean by it. And if it were
sometimes said in relation to the essential procession of the Spirit, we again invite the theologians to
interpret their own words. Gregory of Nyssa states in his writings against Eunomius: "The Holy
Spirit is understood conjointly with the Son, without being considered posterior to the Son, so that
the Only Begotten is never thought of without the Spirit; rather, He also has the principle of His
existence from the God of all things, from whom the Only Begotten Light shines forth through the
true Light.” Here, the words "without being considered posterior" mean the same as "through the
Son," which elsewhere Gregory explicitly explains as equivalent to "with the Son." He writes:
"Through Him and with Him, the Holy Spirit proceeds, before any intervening void or unsubstantial
medium can be imagined.” Chrysostom, while explaining the apostolic phrase, "That now through
the Church the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities,”
understands "through the Church" as equivalent to "together with the Church." For the Church
does not teach the angels.

135

 In the same way, the phrase "through the Son" must be understood here. For the matter stands
thus: When the Holy Spirit is said to proceed essentially from the Father, the addition of "through
the Son" ensures that He is not regarded as another Son. The Father requires a Son corresponding
to Himself, and thus the inclusion of the Son maintains the unique property of the Only Begotten
and does not exclude the Spirit's natural relation to the Father. Gregory again says:
"The Son is called proximate to the First, for the name 'Son' implies the Father; however, the Holy
Spirit is not described as proximate to the First but rather through that which is proximate to the
First.” This demonstrates the mutual relation and communion between the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit, as well as the equal honor and shared nature of their procession from the Father. Thus, if the
Father were called the Progenitor, the Spirit would be proximate to the Progenitor, and the Son,
through the one who is proximate to the Progenitor—that is, the Spirit. Both proceed from the
Father jointly and with equal honor. Therefore, the preposition "through" provides no support to
the Latins for establishing their opinion. In fact, it shows the opposite. To confirm this further, let
the most holy Maximus, a witness and confessor of the truth, testify. He writes in his epistle to
Marinus, a presbyter of Cyprus: "The synodal letter of the most holy Pope of that time was not
criticized by the citizens of the imperial city in all the chapters you mentioned, but only in two, one
concerning theology, namely, that he said the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, and the other
concerning the economy, namely, that he said the Lord was not without original sin as far as His
humanity is concerned. Regarding the first, they cited statements from the Roman Fathers and Cyril
of Alexandria in his commentary on the Gospel of John, from which it is shown that they did not
make the Son the cause of the Spirit's procession (for they recognize the Father as the sole cause of
the Son by generation and of the Spirit by procession), but rather that they signified that the Spirit
proceeds through the Son, thereby demonstrating the shared substance and the absence of any
difference in nature.” Here, the Latins proceed contrary to the illustrious Maximus. For he, along
with the Romans of his time and even the Pope, transfers the term "from" into "through" and states
that this signifies the absence of any difference in substance. However, the Latins, disregarding the
words of the Fathers and treating them with indifference, consider "through the Son" to mean the
same as "from the Son," attributing the cause of the Spirit to the Son, which the Fathers explicitly
denied. What could be more shameless in such contention?
11. Concerning the Attributes of the Divine Nature. Certain attributes that pertain to the divine
nature are always spoken of in the singular, even though they are understood in the three persons.
For example: God, Creator, King, Good, and similar terms (for we say one God, one Creator, one
King, one Good, referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Other attributes, however,
are always expressed in the plural, even if they are common only to two persons, such as "to be
from a cause," which is spoken of the Son and the Spirit. For we say that two are "from a cause,"
not one. Since this is so, and the Latins attribute the principle of divinity to two persons—namely,
the Father and the Son—we must ask them to which of the two they assign this principle. If they
say it belongs to the latter (the Son), the absurdity will be evident, for there would then be two

136

 principles, just as there are two who are "from the principle," thereby opening the way to a duality of
principles, and the celebrated unity of the principle would be abolished. But if they assign it to the
former (the Father), a question arises as to how this can be. For if these things are both common
and natural, they equally pertain to the three persons. Furthermore, even on this reasoning, they will
fall into the same difficulty: the one principle, insofar as it is both generator and producer (that is,
the Father alone), is not the same numerically as the one principle insofar as it is producer only (that
is, the Father and the Son together, as they claim). Thus, in this way too, there are two causes and
two principles, and they are surrounded on all sides by the duality of the principle. The Principle of
Divinity and Its Application to Father and Son The principle of divinity, as the Latins themselves
concede, applies differently to the Father and the Son, not in the same manner. It pertains to the
Father insofar as He is both generator and producer, and to the Son insofar as He is producer only.
However, the difference, according to the Fathers, implies a numerical distinction. Therefore, two
principles of divinity are posited, and thus the unity of the principle is abolished by the Latins.
Thomas Aquinas and the Distinction of Divine Persons: Thomas, the doctor of the Latins,
considers that some form of opposition is required to distinguish the divine persons. He states that
since material distinction has no place in divine matters, the opposition of relation is the sole basis
for distinguishing the persons, as no other opposition is found. However, it must be shown that the
opposition of contradiction is more suitable for distinguishing them, as all theologians agree that
this is the only way the divine persons are separated. First, it is evident in divine matters that for any
person, their mode of existence is sufficient to distinguish them from another. Moreover,
theologians define the modes of existence in the divine persons as "unbegotten," "begotten," and
"proceeding." Or, more universally, as "without a principle" and "from a principle," which, as is clear,
are in contradictory opposition to one another—for "to have a principle" and "to lack a principle"
are contradictory. Thus, the Father is distinguished from the Son and the Spirit by this contradictory
opposition. The Son and the Spirit are similarly distinguished from each other by their proper modes
of existence. For to originate through generation and to originate not through generation but
through procession are their respective modes of subsistence and are mutually opposed in
contradiction. Gregory the Theologian affirms this: "Proceeding indeed from the Father, but not in
the manner of the Son; for it is not through generation, but through procession.” Therefore, this
distinction of contradiction, being in agreement with the truth and with all theologians, is indeed
suitable for distinguishing all the divine persons. As for the distinction proposed by Thomas, which
he considers the sole appropriate method—the distinction of relation—it separates the Father from
those who proceed from Him (namely, the Son and the Spirit) but does not in any way separate the
other persons from one another. For neither of the two is the principle of the other, nor is such a
distinction supported by any theologian. On the contrary, the Fathers state: "The Father is the sole
cause," as John of Damascus declares. Gregory of Nyssa also writes: "We understand another
distinction in that which proceeds from the cause.” This distinction is different from that which
exists between the cause and that which is from the cause. Indeed, the illustrious Dionysius

137

 pronounces it impious to say or think anything beyond what the sacred Scriptures, divinely revealed
to us, proclaim.
12. The Principle of Divinity According to the Latins: The principle of divinity, as the Latins
themselves have admitted, corresponds differently to the Father and the Son, not in one and the
same way. Rather, it pertains to the Father as He is the Begetter and Emanator, but to the Son as He
is only the Emanator. However, the difference between these, according to the Fathers, introduces a
duality of principles. Thus, two principles of divinity are granted, and thereby, the unity of the
principle is rejected by the Latins.
13. On the Distinction of Divine Persons: Thomas, the teacher of the Latins, held that some
opposition is required to distinguish the divine persons. He asserted that, because a material
distinction has no place in the divine, the opposition of relation alone serves as the reason for
distinguishing the persons. He claimed no other opposition exists. Therefore, it must be shown that
the opposition of contradiction is more suitable for distinguishing them, as all theologians agree that
the divine persons are distinguished from one another solely by this kind of opposition. First, it is
clear that in the divine, the mode of subsistence of any person is sufficient to distinguish it from
another. Furthermore, theologians establish the modes of subsistence in the divine persons as
unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding—or, more universally, as either lacking a principle or being
from a principle. These modes, as is evident, are mutually opposed in contradiction. For to have a
principle and not to have a principle are contradictory. Thus, the Father is distinguished from the
Son and the Spirit by this contradictory opposition. Likewise, the Son and the Spirit are
distinguished from one another by their own proper modes of subsistence. For to originate through
generation and to originate not through generation but through procession are modes of
subsistence mutually opposed in contradiction. Gregory the Theologian affirms this about the Spirit:
"Proceeding from the Father, but not in the manner of the Son; for it is not through generation, but
through procession.” This distinction of contradiction, therefore, is entirely consonant both with
truth itself and with the consensus of all theologians. It is certainly suitable for distinguishing all the
divine persons. The distinction introduced by Thomas as the sole appropriate one—namely, the
distinction of relation—indeed separates the Father from those who proceed from Him, namely, the
Son and the Spirit. However, it does not in any way distinguish the other persons from one another.
For neither of them is the principle of the other. Furthermore, such a distinction is not known to
have been applied by any theologian but is entirely contrary to their teaching. Damascene states:
"The Father alone is the cause.” Likewise, Gregory of Nyssa says: "And again, we understand
another distinction of that which is from the cause.” Here he refers to a distinction other than that
which exists between the cause and what is from the cause. Finally, the illustrious Dionysius declares
it wholly impious to say or think anything beyond what the sacred Scriptures, divinely delivered to
us, proclaim.
14. If originating from the principle pertains differently to the Son and the Spirit (for the former
originates through generation, and the latter through procession), this difference, according to the

138

 Fathers, entails a numerical distinction. Thus, there are certainly two who originate from the
principle, namely the Son and the Spirit. In precisely the same manner, if the principle of divinity
does not pertain equally to the Father and the Son (for the Father is both begetter and emanator,
while the Son is only an emanator), there will necessarily be two principles of divinity. Since
difference is the cause of number—that is, duality—this conclusion aligns with the judgment of the
theologians.
15. If it is more exalted for God to be the cause of divinity than to be the cause of created
things, how is it that the Holy Spirit, who according to the Latins does not partake of what is more
exalted in the Father and the Son, is not thereby inferior in dignity and divinity? If being the cause
of divinity is a communicable reality, why does the Spirit not partake in this role? But if it is entirely
incommunicable, as it is a property of the Father—just like being without a principle—the Son
could in no way partake in it either, despite the Latins ardently maintaining otherwise.
16. We, in denying that the Son is the cause of the Spirit, in no way make Him less in dignity
than God the Father. For we assert that being the cause of divinity is not a communicable reality,
just as the Father’s property of being without a principle or His very paternity is incommunicable.
The Latins, however, believing that this causality is communicable but denying it to the Spirit, are
compelled by necessity to render Him inferior in divinity and dignity to the Father and the Son. For
this reason, and for others, they are frequently driven into blasphemies against the Holy Spirit.
17. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He does so either insofar as they
are distinct or insofar as they are united. If He proceeds insofar as they are distinct, then, since they
are distinct in hypostases and are two, the Holy Spirit proceeds from two hypostases and,
consequently, from two principles, as must necessarily follow. If, however, He proceeds insofar as
they are united, then He no longer proceeds from them as distinct. Thus, He does not proceed from
the hypostases of the Father and the Son—neither from the hypostasis of the Father nor from the
hypostasis of the Son. Gregory of Nyssa, in one place, affirms the former to be true and the latter
to be false, saying explicitly: “The Spirit proceeds from the paternal hypostasis.” Furthermore, what
does it mean to say that the Spirit proceeds insofar as the Father and the Son are united? Perhaps
they will claim it refers to the nature or to a spirative power. But if He proceeds from the nature,
then He proceeds from Himself, since the nature is common to all three persons. If, however, He
proceeds from a spirative power, the Spirit Himself would also need to possess this power. For, as
Dionysius and Basil, those eminent theologians, affirm: “What is common to the Father and the Son
is also common to the Spirit.” Yet the Latins provide a peculiar and even ridiculous response: they
claim that the Spirit would indeed possess such a power if it were not impossible for Him to emit
Himself. This is no different than someone, upon realizing that their argument implies a man is a
stone, refusing to correct the reasoning and instead asserting that a man would indeed have been a
stone if it were not impossible for a rational animal to be inanimate and immobile.
18. Whatever pertains to God must properly, uniquely, solely, always, and entirely pertain to Him.
The natural and shared attributes belong equally to all three persons, while hypostatic and personal

139

 properties belong uniquely to each individual person. Nothing in God is accidental, adventitious, or
subsequently acquired; everything that pertains to Him is proper and singular. Thus, when God is
described as good, wise, God, king, creator, invisible, immortal, and eternal, these attributes are
singularly and properly ascribed to Him as they relate to creation. As the Apostle says: “To the King
of ages, immortal, invisible, the only wise God” (1 Tim. 1:17); and again, “Who alone has
immortality and dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16). Similarly, whatever is said of any one
of the three persons is said singularly and properly in relation to the others. Hence, the Father is
called Father uniquely and solely; the Son is called Son uniquely and solely; and the Spirit is likewise
called the Holy Spirit uniquely and solely. In the same way, the Father is uniquely and solely
unoriginated, or without principle, while the other persons are solely and uniquely from the
principle. Since there are only two categories—principle and that which is from the principle—if the
Father alone has the role of principle, then the other persons must solely and uniquely be from the
principle. Note that the term "solely" is always used in relation to an attribute: the Father is solely
Father and not also Son; the Son is solely Son and not also Father; and the Holy Spirit is solely Spirit
and not Father or Son. Similarly, the Father is solely without principle, not being caused or from a
principle, and thus He is also solely the cause. The other persons, by contrast, are solely from the
principle without being a principle themselves. If either the Son or the Spirit were also a principle,
the exclusivity of the Father as the sole principle would be eliminated, violating what has already
been necessarily demonstrated. For opposition, as even the Latins concede, is the basis of
distinction, and two opposites cannot coexist in one and the same divine person. One of them
would then not properly exist, and consequently, it would not exist at all. This is consistent with the
statements of the saints, such as Damascene, who writes: “The Father alone is the cause”; and
Theodore the Studite, who declares: “The sole begetter of the only-begotten Son is the Father
alone; the sole light of the sole light is the splendor; and the Holy Spirit, the sole Spirit of the sole
God, is the Lord of Lords, the one who truly exists.” Thus, the Son cannot have the role of cause,
as He must solely be from the cause, just as the Spirit is solely the Spirit of the sole God the Father.
19. Let us ask the Latins: If you claim that the Son possesses whatever belongs to the Father,
why do you not also make the Father the Son? They respond that such a claim would contradict the
Son’s identity, as the distinction between the persons is based on opposition, not confusion, to avoid
conflating them. If, then, the divine persons are distinguished by opposition, as you believe, most
wise ones, and if opposites cannot coexist in the same subject, it follows that being the cause and
being from the cause cannot both apply to the same person. These are opposites; thus, the Son
cannot simultaneously be from the cause and also the cause, just as the Son cannot simultaneously
be the Father. What response can be given to this? They might claim that the Father would also be
the Son if there were someone who could refer to Him as Son. What an absurdity! Here we
encounter the same sophistry once again. Such reasoning is akin to asserting that every human being
is begotten and then claiming that Adam, too, would have been begotten if only he had had a father.

140

 20. The Latins assert that when speaking of the divine persons, there is no difference in
Scripture between the prepositions per (through) and ex (from). Consequently, where it is said that
the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, they substitute from the Son. But we ask them to clearly
demonstrate whether they have ever found in Scripture any instance where the Holy Spirit is said to
proceed through the Father. For if the expressions are equivalent and interchangeable, this should
also have been said, just as it is commonly expressed concerning creation: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus
Christ, through the will of God” (2 Cor. 1:1), or again, “Paul, an apostle not of men, nor through
man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1), or elsewhere, “I have gotten a man
through God” (Gen. 4:1, LXX), and yet again, “Is it not through God that their interpretation
comes?” (Gen. 40:8). In summary, if everything said about the divine Spirit equally refers to both the
Father and the Son, then we would need to attribute all things equally to both and profess the
procession equally from both. However, if certain things are attributed specifically to the Father,
others specifically to the Son, and some equally to both, the Latins must take care not to confuse
and mix these distinctions indiscriminately. For instance, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds
through the Son, supplies gifts to creation through the Son, abides in the Son, and rests in the Son.
However, it is never said that the Spirit proceeds through the Father, is supplied through the Father,
abides in the Father, or rests in the Father. Rather, it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Therefore, let what has been handed down be faithfully expressed, and what is omitted in tradition
remain omitted. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son should be dismissed as a
foreign and unsubstantiated concept.
21. When I consider the language that the saints consistently use regarding the Holy Spirit, it
seems to me that the supporters of the Latin position fail even to grasp the logical structure of the
discourse, let alone the divine dogmas or the intent of the Fathers, who, aided by the Spirit,
investigated matters pertaining to the Spirit. What, indeed, can they say when the holy doctors
distinguish the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son through differing
conjunctions? For instance, one says: “The Spirit also derives His existence from the God of all, but
presents Himself to humanity through the Son.” Another states: “He proceeds from the Father and
abides in the Son.” Yet another asserts: “He depends on the Son, with whom He is comprehended
without distance by the mind, but His existence is suspended from the Father as the principle, from
whom He also proceeds.” Another declares: “He proceeds indeed from God the Father, but is not
alien to the Son in terms of substance.” Would the Latins still dare to assert that there is one single
procession of the Spirit from both? What, then, would be the purpose of this distinction in speech,
whereby different aspects are attributed to the Father and the Son? For who among the faithful has
ever said that created things were made by God the Father and then adorned by the Son, when both
equally, as one God and Creator, granted existence and embellishment to all things? Would it not be
absurd to separate such expressions if the terms were equivalent? It would be as ridiculous as
someone saying, “The heavens were established by God the Father, but compacted by the Son.”
Indeed, anyone who uses such a divided formulation inevitably separates one from the other, just as

141

 someone saying, “Paul was from Tarsus, but Peter was from Palestine,” does not ascribe both
qualities to either individual. Similarly, when one says that the incarnation occurred by the will of the
Father, through the operation of the Son, and with the cooperation of the Spirit, each is attributed a
unique role, and the others are excluded from it. It is therefore clear, even from such divided
formulations, that it does not belong to the Father to be the one through whom the Spirit is
supplied, nor to the Son to be the one from whom the Spirit proceeds.
22. When God spoke in the divine Scripture, knowing in advance the wickedness of humankind,
He preemptively restrained any potential weeds of false teaching that might be sown by the enemy.
He left no word incomplete; if a phrase seemed insufficient, He completed it elsewhere, or if it
might give rise to error, He corrected it in another place, so that the saying of the wise would be
fulfilled: "All things are right to the wise and those who find knowledge are straightforward.” First,
the phrase "The Father is greater than I" was uttered, which was necessary for those who would
attempt to diminish the Son's paternal dignity. Yet, this was balanced elsewhere when Jesus said, "I
and the Father are one," and again, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me"; and the Apostle
also states, "He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Furthermore, the
passage from Proverbs, "The Lord created me," which was used by Wisdom, is clarified in the
subsequent verses, for it is said, "Before the mountains, I was brought forth," referring to the
creation and birth of the Son according to the flesh, and also the eternal generation. Similarly, when
in the Gospels Jesus calls His Father the "only true God" (for He says, "That they may know You,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent"), to avoid the perception that He was
excluding Himself from true deity, John, the same one who wrote these words, says in his epistle,
"This is the true God and eternal life.” Likewise, the Spirit is said to belong to the Father in terms of
natural relation and the gift given to us (for He says, "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your
Father who speaks in you"), but to prevent anyone from thinking that the Spirit is alien to the Son,
or that He is not also given by the Son, the Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son. The Apostle
states, "God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts." Now, if the phrase "proceeds from the
Father" had meant that the Spirit also proceeded from the Son, surely the Scripture would have
corrected this elsewhere, as the one who cares for the salvation of humanity would have made this
known, either through Himself or through His disciples. Since nothing is said, it is clear that He did
not mention it because the situation is not as such. Therefore, John of Damascus says, "We call the
Spirit the Spirit of the Son, but we do not say that He proceeds from the Son." And the divine
Apostle says, "Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have
preached to you, let him be anathema."
23. The name of the Father, when applied to God, encompasses all His properties; for it
includes the concept of being unbegotten, as Basil the Great rightly explains, since the one who is
properly Father and alone is not begotten by another. In relation to the Spirit, the Father is called the
originator, according to the Scripture that says, "From the Father comes the light." If, therefore, the
Son does not share in the name of the Father, neither will He share in the spirative property with

142

 the Father, lest the Son appear to be both a father and a son, as we humans are accustomed to think.
Thus, the Spirit is considered as the Son's nephew.
24. The Latins assert that the Father and the Son are one cause of the Holy Spirit. Let us then
ask them: Just as the Father alone is the single cause of the Holy Spirit, are the Father and the Son
one cause, or is it otherwise? If they say yes, then, since the Father alone is the one person, it would
follow that both the Father and the Son are one person, thus leading to a Sabellian contraction. But
if they state it differently, claiming the Father alone as the single cause in one sense and the Father
and Son together in another, they must beware that they are, perhaps unwittingly, asserting two
causes and two principles.
25.The Latins assert a general principle of distinction, applying it to all things that can be
distinguished, claiming that they can be separated either according to matter or according to one of
the oppositions. Indeed, although such a doctrine might be confirmed in created things, whether it
must be transferred to divine matters is questionable, as divine realities do not fall under the same
reasoning as created ones. Let us, however, set aside this issue for the moment and demonstrate,
based on the purpose at hand, that this doctrine is neither necessary nor completely true even in
relation to things that pertain to us and of which we have some knowledge—namely, created things.
This is not only because the Latins present as universal something that is not universal, but also
because, in cases where material or oppositional distinction is considered, neither the matter nor the
opposition themselves cause the distinction. Rather, it is the things already distinguished that follow
as connected elements, which indicates that things are distinguished in this way without the
distinction itself being the cause.
Here is how the matter stands. Matter by itself is indivisible; for just as it exists without quality, it
also exists without quantity. What lacks quantity is indivisible, and what cannot be divided cannot be
distinguished. But what, by its own nature, neither divides nor distinguishes itself—how could it
provide the cause for distinction? Furthermore, if a body is composed of matter, and according to
the same matter, it is divided into certain quantities, then each part is taken and placed separately to
show that it is this substance, not some other. This is called a material distinction. However, this
does not make matter the cause of the distinction, since it is undifferentiated by itself. Instead,
material division arises, through which quantity is added to what is distinct. Similarly, form is not the
cause of the operation in bodies, for it lacks operation by its own nature, but it works in conjunction
with matter. Nor is it true that a property that pertains to a composite because of the elements that
constitute it is directly attributable to those elements. Therefore, form is not the principle of
operation, even though the operation of bodies corresponds to the form, and neither is matter the
cause of distinction, even though in composites, distinction is based on matter. We should not
attribute the cause of distinction to matter, but we can rightly ascribe the cause to material division
in things that consist of matter.
Additionally, in things that lack matter, it should be determined whether opposition is necessary
for distinction. Things in the same kind are said to be divided by opposition when they are greatly

143

 different or when they are separated by substantial differences. For example, in color, white and
black are very distant and are even called opposites; in animals, the rational and non-rational are
separated—humans and horses, for instance. Therefore, the question is whether those things are
distinguished from one another where there is opposition or contrariety, or whether even those
things placed in the middle between them are also divided. Certainly, they are distinguished as well,
for all things depend on their common kind, and they are distinguished according to their specific
distinguishing factors, even if they are not vastly different from each other, or even if they share
contrary qualities. What, indeed, is the opposition between dark and red in color? What between a
horse and an ox in animals? Since they are divided from the same genus, they are distinguished from
the common genus, and as they are opposed to each other, they are also mutually distinguished by
their respective qualities, though these distinctions are not easily specified. Therefore, opposition
should not be taken as the cause of distinction, for in many cases, it does not even have a place.
Rather, it is division itself that precedes and causes distinction, as it divides everything from the
same genus by its specific qualities.
Indeed, the same principle of distinction applies to individuals. For what else can distinguish
them if not matter? What if no opposition can be found in them? Will they not still be distinguished
from one another? Certainly, many such monstrosities have been produced by Latin reasoning.
However, even here, division brings about distinction by separating each thing according to its own
qualities. It is not surprising that we may not easily identify the specific qualities that distinguish
different species, but it is acknowledged that more than one thing can be divided from the same
source. This could not happen unless they were distinguished both from each other and from their
source. Therefore, the primary and most essential cause of distinction is division, not matter or
opposition, as these are neither universally nor inherently apt for distinguishing. In fact, the very
name of division, being related to distinction, clearly shows that division is the cause of distinction.
Moreover, the Latins claim that the opposition which they call "relative" is most suitable for
distinguishing things. However, this is clearly baseless and does not even require demonstration. For,
in the first place, such opposition is posterior in origin to nature itself. A person is first a man, and
later a father; similarly, quantity is first possessed, and then a double amount is considered.
Furthermore, relative terms involve a mutual implication; this is more about connection than
distinction. Additionally, both terms can, in the same or different ways, converge, which is far from
what constitutes a distinction. Thus, the commonly used Latin reasoning for distinguishing things
based on matter or opposition is futile and reckless.
Let us now apply our doctrine to divine matters, where it fits better than the view supported by
the Latins. The division in the divine persons closely resembles progression from the same source:
division is itself a form of progression. Just as things divided from the same source, although they
have not yet reached opposite positions, fall into categories that separate them from each other and
from their source (for they could not be divided otherwise), so too in the divine persons, the Son
and the Spirit are distinguished by the fact that they proceed from the same Father in different ways.

144

 In this way, they are distinct both from the Father and from each other: from the Father, because
they proceed from Him (everything that proceeds from something is, by nature, distinct from that
from which it proceeds); and from each other, because they proceed in different manners, though
this is completely unknown and ineffable to us. Therefore, opposition is not needed to distinguish
the Son and the Spirit, as Thomas assumes. Even in created things, opposition is unnecessary. It
suffices that the two are distinguished by their differing modes of progression. This is consistent
with both the divine realities themselves and the teachings of the saints, as they have fully handed
down this distinction. As Damascene the theologian writes in the eighth chapter of his Theological
Exposition: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not by generation, but by procession; a
different mode of existence, incomprehensible and unknown, just like the generation of the Son."
Gregory the Theologian likewise says, "The properties of the Father are that He is understood and
said to be without origin and the origin; of the Son, that He is begotten; of the Spirit, that He
proceeds."
26. As no divine persons are supplied by the Father in their existence, since they all have their
origin and perfection from Him, neither does one supply the production of the other. Therefore,
the Holy Spirit is not a partner or associate with the Father in generating the Son, nor is the Son a
partner with the Father in sending the Spirit. The action of generating and sending is perfect and
singular, emanating solely from the Father to produce one.
27. Just as that which operates definitively also manifests its action definitively, so too does a
defined action refer back to a defined agent. Thus, if generating and sending are the defined actions
of one Father, sending, but not generating, is the defined action of the joint operation of the Father
and the Son, according to the Latin view. However, generating is equally the defined action of the
Son, just as proceeding is the defined action of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there would be four
distinct agents in the divine persons, each acting definitively: one Father, one producer distinct from
the other, one Son, and one Holy Spirit. But four distinct agents producing four distinct actions
cannot possibly result in the unity of the Trinity. The Latins, therefore, fail in their claim of faith in
the Trinity, as they have mutilated it according to their own opinions.
28. The principle of the divine nature, according to the Latins, is either the hypostases of the
Father and the Son, or their nature or some action. If it is the hypostases, how can there not be two
principles (for there are two hypostases)? In the same way that if there are two hypostases, they
bring about two effects. But if it is their nature, then it must be fully adequate, as nothing more can
be added. For the Spirit is not a principle. If, then, something belongs to the nature of the Father
and the Son, that would be the principle of the deity; and conversely, if something is the principle
of the deity, it must be the nature of the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit will be as
alien to the nature of the Father and the Son as He is to the principle. And do the Latins still accuse
the Macedonians? If, finally, it is some action, we must determine whether it is one action or two. If
two, then there must again be two principles; if one, we must also ask whether it is personal or
natural. If it is natural, the Spirit will be alien to any natural action and thus to the nature. If,

145

 however, it is personal, it will be specifically referred to one person. For it is absolutely necessary
that a single personal action, if directed towards one effect, emanates from one person alone.
Therefore, it is in vain that the Latins attribute a single spirative action and property to both the
Father and the Son.
29. A single, simple action, which tends towards one effect, refers to a single agent. Let the agent
be A, and the action it carries out directed towards C. There is a single, simple action
between them, namely AC. I claim that the agent A is singular in number. It cannot be the
case that there are two agents, AB. This B will either be part of A or
placed separately. If it is part of A, it will not be something other than A,
but one with it, and thus the entire system will be singular. If B is placed
separately, imagine it first below. The action flowing from A to C will either be
even and continuous or uneven. If it is even and continuous, since it is singular in
number, it is clear that B, placed in the middle, will bring no help to the action, but will
either do nothing or at least not act on C in the same way as A. However, if the
action is uneven, it is evident that the action will gain strength, just as a river grows
stronger when a stream flows into it. This is not the property of a singular, continuous
action, for there is an interruption between the action and the addition of B’s contribution, thus two
actions are formed, not one. The same will happen if B is placed above A. In this case, it becomes
even more evident that there are two actions: one from A to C and another from B to the same C.
Therefore, it is impossible for a single action to refer to two agents, just as it is impossible for a
single line to have two endpoints on either side. Thus, a singular action refers to a singular agent.
Now, let us assume that the agent A is both the Father and the producer, and that C is the
subsistence of the Holy Spirit, while the spirative action is placed between them, a single, simple,
eternal action. Then let B be the Son. It is evident, therefore, that the single personal action by
which the Spirit is sent refers to the Father, but not to the Son. This is what Aristotle clearly states in
the fifth book of Natural Inquiry, saying: "A single action is that of one agent." And in the ninth
book of the same work, he adds: "Where there is one motion, there is also one mover; if one thing
moves another, the motion is not continuous."
30. It is fitting that the Father is the common source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as Gregory
the Theologian teaches. However, if the Son is indeed immediately from the Father, without any
other cause, and the Spirit is not immediate but has the Son as its cause, then it is no longer
common for them both to be from the Father, as they are not equally participants in this origin.
Therefore, either the Theologian must be lying, or if the other view is to be said, then the Latins are
completely mistaken when they attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Son.
31. The theologians assert that the mode of existence and property of the Holy Spirit is not
simply to proceed but to proceed from the Father. But if this is the mode of existence and property,
then what is said about proceeding from the Son either does not align or adds something to the
existence, thus making the property double. Since what is proper must return to that from which it is

146

 proper, it cannot overflow or lack, making it double. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father alone.
32. When we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one principle of created things, it
is understood that we are speaking in comparison to the divine nature, for that is
one, while these are many and diverse. In the same way, when we say that there
is one principle of the deity, it is clear that we speak of it with respect to one
person in relation to the others. And just as no created thing is taken to one
principle because of its creation, so neither should any of the two persons be
assumed to one principle by reason of the deity. For it is better for one to
be the principle of many than for many to be the principle of one.
Therefore, the Father alone is the unique principle of the Son and the
Spirit, just as the Trinity alone is the unique principle of all created
things. This is explicitly stated by the blessed Dionysius: "The Father is
the only superessential fountain of the deity."
33. When different actions originate from the same agent at the same time, they clearly produce
distinct effects. Suppose the agent is A, and its actions are sent at the same time, one to B and the
other to C. I assert that C is distinct from B. For if they were the same, they would align precisely
with each other, and the action directed to them would be the same. Therefore, they must be
distinct. Let us imagine that A is the Father, who acts eternally and naturally; B is the Son, and C is
the Holy Spirit. The actions between them are distinct: the action directed toward B is the
generation of the Son, while the action directed toward C is the procession of the Holy Spirit. It is
evident that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, because the actions directed toward each are
different. Hence, no further distinction is necessary between the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the
distinct actions and processions themselves are enough to distinguish them.
34. Those who agree with the Latins ask us whether the Father emits the Holy Spirit with His
virtue and wisdom or without them, assuming that if we deny one, we would affirm the other. For if
the Son is the wisdom and virtue of the Father, the Father certainly emits the Holy Spirit with the
Son, and not alone. We also agree that the Father emits the Holy Spirit with the Son, with the Word,
wisdom, and virtue, as the holy Fathers say, for the Holy Spirit proceeds with the Word,
accompanying and revealing it, so that neither the Word is without the Spirit, nor does the Spirit
proceed without the Word. However, this does not mean that the Son is the cause of the Spirit’s
existence, just as the Spirit is not the cause of the Son. What proceeds from the Father and the Son
in the same manner cannot be the cause of each other. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Holy
Spirit to proceed from the Son as He proceeds from the Father; if this were the case, there would be
no difference between the Spirit and created things, which were also made by the Word of God, His
wisdom, and His virtue. Indeed, "all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made
that has been made." Hence, what is not made does not need to be said to exist through Him.
Furthermore, the Son is not as much the wisdom and virtue of the Father as He is the Son and the

147

 Word. The Son is the Word of the Father, but the Father is neither the Son nor the Word (since the
Son is referred to the Father, and the Word is referred to the speaker). Wisdom and virtue of the
Father, however, are as the Father Himself is wisdom and virtue, not merely wise and powerful.
Wisdom is of wisdom, and virtue is of virtue, as God is of God and light is of light. The Father is
called wisdom and virtue because all wisdom and virtue are in Him, just as in the image and
exemplar. However, the Holy Spirit is no less wisdom and virtue, as no expert in Scripture would
deny. These names are essential and common to the divine persons, as St. Augustine testifies in his
work on the Trinity. Therefore, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as wisdom and virtue
proceed from wisdom and virtue, it is unnecessary and vain to ask whether the Father emits the
Holy Spirit with His wisdom and virtue, unless someone wishes to convert this into a creaturely
concept, as Scripture says, "The Lord established the earth in wisdom, and He prepared the heavens
by understanding." Moreover, the Father does not need the aid of wisdom or virtue to bring about
the procession of the Spirit, just as He does not need the aid of the Son's generation or any of the
divine powers. This is proper to created things, as the theologians say. Therefore, both the Son and
the Holy Spirit proceed equally and immediately from the essence of the Father, the Son with the
Spirit, yet neither from the other nor in any way dependent upon each other.
35. If something is said singularly of the many in the divine persons, it is either the essence
entirely or something essential. For just as there is one thing by which each person is distinguished
from the others, there is also one thing by which the three are united. This thing, in fact, is the
essence, or something of it, such as one will, one virtue, or one action. We say that the Son is God
from God, and both are one God; light from light, and both are one light; wisdom from wisdom,
and both are one wisdom; virtue from virtue, and both are one virtue. Therefore, the divine persons
can only exist insofar as something singular exists within them, which is essential. If, then, the act of
emitting is one in both the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit must also partake in this, as
something essential, and He too would emit another person. But if He lacks this essential reality,
there is no doubt that He would also lack the essence itself. The Latins must choose one of these
two options; however, if they reject both, they must abandon their prior position, from which these
conclusions necessarily follow.
36. If, according to the Latins, the Son and the Spirit proceed from the essence of the Father,
but only the Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father and the Son, the essence of the Father
does not produce the same as the essence of the Father and the Son. What does not produce the
same is, in fact, not the same. Therefore, the essence of the Father is not the same as the essence of
the Father and the Son; and consequently, the essence of the Spirit must also be different. There
would then be multiple essences within the divine Trinity, which is impious and absurd.
37. If the Father is the principle of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the
principle only of the Holy Spirit, then these principles are not the same. Thus, the principle in the
divine Trinity is not one but two, and the Latins’ attempt to avoid a duality of principles is in vain.

148

 38. The term "Son" signifies two things: his relation to the Father, inasmuch as he receives his
being from Him, and the fact that he shares the same substance with the Father; for every son is
consubstantial with his father. This is also indicated by the term "generation," by which both the
cause of his being and consubstantiality are most clearly expressed. It is not the same for the Holy
Spirit, nor is it for the term "procession." However, whenever we hear of the Spirit of the Father,
we understand it as a certain gift of the Father that is given to us, sanctifies us, and operates within
us. As the Lord says: "The Spirit of your Father, who speaks in you." Similarly, the Spirit of the Son
is also said to be the same, for it is a common gift of both. As the blessed Augustine says, whenever
we hear of the Spirit proceeding from the Father, we take it to mean both the cause of his being and
his hypostasis, but not his consubstantiality, which neither the Spirit nor the procession can indicate.
Therefore, when theologians wish to indicate simply the cause of being, they say "the Spirit who
proceeds from the Father," teaching us this from the Lord, without mutilating or truncating the
expression or leaving out the principle. But when they want to indicate consubstantiality at the same
time, they add "through the Son," saying "Who proceeds from the Father through the Son," as if
they were saying: "Not without the Son, nor from a different nature, but with generation, the
procession is also understood." Hence, the divine Maximus says: "He who proceeds ineffably
through the Son," and he certainly would not have added "generated" unless he wanted us to
understand this. Moreover, the same theologian confirms this in a letter to Marinus, the presbyter of
Cyprus, stating that the Romans of his time "do not recognize the cause of the Spirit as the Son, but
rather show that He proceeds through the Son, and thus demonstrate the knowledge of the
substance without any differentiation." The more recent and ridiculous theology of the Latins,
however, interpreting the phrase "through the Son" as meaning a nearer principle, establishes the
Father as a more remote principle, and not a principle proximate to the hypostasis of the Holy
Spirit. Thus, the words of the venerable Gregory of Nyssa, who says, "Through the Son, the
interposition is preserved and the Spirit is not excluded from the natural relation He has to the
Father," are ignored. This theology introduces gradations and disparities into the Holy Trinity,
placing the Father as the highest and first principle, the Son as inferior and a second principle, acting
as a kind of intermediary between the Father and the Spirit, and finally, the Holy Spirit as the lowest
and distant from the principle, thus leading into the abyss of tritheism, circumscribing the divine
persons and making the Spirit almost like a grandchild.
39. I came across a certain Latin scholar writing on behalf of the Latins, who asserts that it is
wrong to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (for this would make
two, distinct principles, one nearer and the other more remote). Instead, he claims that the Spirit
proceeds from both the Father and the Son, as it is indeed added in the Symbol, so that the Father
and the Son together are understood as one principle of the Holy Spirit. But if this is the case, as he
says, the first part of his statement aligns with what our scholars teach. No longer should the
expression "through the Son" be understood as implying a proximate principle, nor should the
phrase "through the Son" be misused, as some who have separated from the Son have foolishly

149

 done. If this is the case, and if the distinct persons of the Holy Spirit proceed from each, one
having it from itself, and the other from the other, then two principles will indeed exist. After they
have lost this connection, they will not avoid two principles; indeed, they will demonstrate their
doctrine to be inconsistent and contradictory, undermining itself.
40. One of those who had abandoned our faith and become a defender of the Latins asked me
whether everything that naturally proceeds from someone through something does not have, as its
principle, the thing through which it proceeds. In response, I asked him whether everything that
naturally proceeds from someone through something does not have two principles for its existence:
one from which it proceeds, and the other through which it proceeds. For instance, as the Apostle
says, a man born of a man through a woman has two principles: namely, his father and mother.
Likewise, Jacob, who was begotten from Abraham through Isaac, has two principles, one more
remote, his grandfather, and one closer, his father. Therefore, if they wish to base their theology on
examples taken from what happens among us, let them also acknowledge two causes and two
principles, and not deny the necessary conclusions that follow from their reasoning.
41. "But," he said, "if creation received its existence from the Father through the Son in the
Holy Spirit, how does it not have three principles but rather one principle and one creator?" To this,
I replied: "Creation, most noble one, is not attributed to the essence of the Father and the Son, nor
to their hypostases, but to their shared will and power, which is one and the same in all three. As a
result, creation has one God as its principle and one creator. But the Holy Spirit is said to proceed
from the hypostasis of the Father; therefore, if He also proceeds from the hypostasis of the Son, as
you claim, then having two hypostases as causes, He would necessarily have two causes and two
principles, unless we are to lose our reason. Therefore, do not employ incongruous examples again;
for creation is from God not by essence but by activity."
42. "If the Son is posited as the proximate principle of the Holy Spirit and the Father as the
non-proximate principle, since these are opposites and opposites cannot coexist simultaneously, then
the Father and the Son cannot be one principle, as they would be opposite principles. Consequently,
there would be two principles. How, then, will these unfortunate proponents avoid the idea of two
principles, which press upon them from every side?"
43. While the Latins assert that the Father and the Son are principles of the Holy Spirit,
designating the first, second, and third principles in a certain necessary natural order, they very
clearly separate the Holy Spirit from the Father by a certain interval, introducing gradations and
disparities into the Holy Trinity, claiming that the Father is greater than the Son and the Son is
greater than the Holy Spirit. But let them learn from the Fifth General Synod, where these are
condemned as the views of Origen. Indeed, the Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, in his speech
against him, calls these blasphemies. He said, "The Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is
greater than the Holy Spirit." This is rightly condemned, for as Gregory the Theologian says: "We
believe in one God, because there is one divine essence, and all things which proceed from Him are
referred to the one." Thus, if those who refer all things which proceed from Him to one God,

150

 believe in one God, then those who refer one thing to two cannot possibly believe in one God, but
in many gods. What, then, are they saying against the Gentiles?
44. If the Holy Spirit proceeds closely from the Son, and not closely from the Father, as the
Latins assert, it is clear that He proceeds from the hypostasis of the Son, but not from the
hypostasis of the Father. For how could this happen if He does not have His existence proximate to
the Father? It is not correct to say that Jacob, who was not directly born of Abraham, proceeds
from the hypostasis of Abraham, unless one wishes to say from his nature, since we are all
considered to be from Adam’s nature, but not from his hypostasis. Yet the holy doctors plainly teach
the opposite about the Holy Spirit, declaring that He proceeds from the hypostasis of the Father, as
divine Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, and all others, affirm. No one says that He
proceeds from the hypostasis of the Son. Therefore, the Latins err in claiming that the hypostasis of
the Son is the nearest cause of the Holy Spirit.
45. Whenever the Latins say that the Father is not the nearest principle of the Holy Spirit, let us
ask them whether they mean that the Son is the principle of the Spirit, and if so, do they also mean
that the Son contributes something to the Spirit's being? If they say the Son is the principle, it is
clear that the Son is not properly the principle of the Spirit, for He is not the proximate principle.
From this, it follows that the Father and the Son are proper principles, as proximate, but the Spirit is
not properly so, since He is not proximate. This theology, or rather this theomachy, we have not
heard until now, but we do hear the claim that just as the Son proceeds from the Father, so too the
Spirit proceeds from the Father. They make it an absurdity when they try to deny the Spirit’s
proceeding from the Father alone, while affirming it from the Son. If they claim that the Father
contributes anything to the Spirit’s being, how can one refrain from declaring this doctrine full of
absurdities? For it leads to the conclusion that there are two principles, as the hypostases are two,
and the essence of the Spirit is divided, with part from the Father and part from the Son, thus
composing the Spirit from both, having existence from both, and bringing about monstrous
consequences.
46. Furthermore, the Latins, pressed by these arguments, again resort to the issue of creation,
attempting to show themselves clearly as pneumatomachians, by manifestly considering the Holy
Spirit as a created thing. They argue that even the creation of all things from the Father through the
Son has the principle of being, yet it is still considered to have one principle and one creator, not
two or three causes, nor one properly and the other not, nor do they suggest that one contributes to
the other’s existence. If they say this, they must either plainly confess that they consider the Holy
Spirit a creature, or else admit that outside of their nature and hypostases, two persons can, by one
action and one reason, achieve whatever they wish. But if each person naturally produces one
person through one single action from its own hypostasis, it cannot be done unless part of the
existence is contributed, so that there are two principles, two actions, and a composite effect. Thus,
how they can attribute to one personal action the operations of two persons, while asserting that
there is one principle, is truly perplexing.

151

 47. The human mind itself, I say, produces reason from itself and sends forth spirit as the
messenger of its movements and thoughts, to animate and move the body, and to manifest and
express reason. Thus, both the reason and spirit are produced simultaneously by the mind, the one
announcing externally the thoughts of the generator, the other animating and moving the body
according to the will of the speaker. However, no sane person would say that the spirit proceeds
from reason, for the spirit is the companion of the word for its manifestation, and in turn, the word
is manifested by the spirit. In the same way, the eternal Word is produced with the Spirit by the first
mind, namely the Father, but it is not the cause for the Spirit's being. This is similar to how we are
taught by the divine Maximus, who adapts a marvelous example to the divine model. Just as the
word in us is the messenger and interpreter of the movements of the mind, so the divine Word is
the angel of the great counsel of the Father; and just as the spirit in us is the principle of life and
movement of the body, so the divine Spirit is the principle by which creation lives, moves, is
preserved, and sanctifies. Therefore, the divine man says in the third chapter of the third century of
the Centuries of the Gnostics: "The Word neither was, nor is, nor will be prior to the Word; but the
Word is, not independent of the mind or life, but one that is endowed with mind and life, as it has
the Father, who possesses essential life, coexisting with Him, and the Holy Spirit." Notice how the
mind is named as God and the Father, the Word as the Son, and life as the Holy Spirit, coexisting
with the Son, but not originating from the same existence. This is what another theologian says: "He
proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son."
48. Now, if the processions of the divine persons differ according to the principle of
remoteness and proximity, let the Latins be pressed on the point that the Son is from the Father
alone, and the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. If this is said to be a procession, as they
claim, then the procession must be the same as generation, and generation must in turn be the same
as procession. Therefore, in the Trinity, there would be two sons: one begotten from the Father
alone, and the other from the Father through the Son, with one being proximate to the Father and
the other proximate to the Son, but remote from the Father, as a grandson. But such reasoning, or
rather delirium, about God has never been heard until now.
49. Either the principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same, or it is different. If it is the
same, since the Father alone is the principle of the Son, certainly the Father alone will also be the
principle of the Spirit. But if they are different, how can there not be two principles?
50. The hypostasis of the Father is the principle of the Holy Spirit; there is also another
hypostasis, namely the Son, according to the Latins, who claims to be the principle of the Holy
Spirit. Therefore, according to their doctrine, the Father and the Son are two principles of the Spirit.
Thus, they assert that there are two principles of the Spirit.
51. The Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit in such a way that either one
alone is the principle, or neither. If both are one principle as one person, then they are certainly one
principle, as they are one person, and thus Sabellianism is revived. But if, on the other hand, both are

152

 one principle, yet each individually also can be considered a principle, how can there not be two
principles? Indeed, if there is a difference, it is certain that it introduces a numerical distinction.
52. In the divine persons, either there is one principle, or there is not one. If there is one person
as the principle, then we have what is sought, for the Father, without a doubt, will be the sole
principle. But if there is not one, then there will certainly be two principles, as there are two things
that arise from the principle. This is absurd, and the thing itself speaks for itself.
53. If the proximate cause is greater and closer than the mediated cause, why is it that when it is
so often said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the words "through the Son" are rarely added?
Why is it that the greater and closer cause is omitted, while the lesser and more distant cause is
always expressed? And how can there not be two principles when both greater and lesser, closer and
more distant, are relevant?
54. The Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit either by reason of nature or by reason of hypostasis.
If by reason of nature, since the nature is the same in all three, the cause will be common to all, and
thus the Spirit himself will proceed from one or the other. But if the Son is the cause by reason of
hypostasis, since the hypostasis of the Son is different from that of the Father, and also from that of
the Spirit, then the Son will be the cause, as will the Father, with a distinct principle. Therefore, there
will be two hypostases as causes, and thus two principles.
55. The power of producing the Spirit, according to the Latins, is one and the same in the Father
and the Son, and it will be essential and natural. However, the Holy Spirit will be excluded from this
power, since he does not produce any other person. But, as the theologians teach, things of the
same virtue must also be of the same nature. Therefore, things with different essential virtues must
necessarily not have the same nature, and thus the Holy Spirit is excluded from the common essence
of the Father and the Son, as he is excluded from the common essential power. But we know that
the Holy Trinity, being of the same essence, is also of the same virtue, and we proclaim the power
of all three persons as one, just as we proclaim one essence. The new pneumatomachians who make
many assertions are not valid.
56. According to the theologians, the properties of the Father are that He is unbegotten, that He
begets, and that He sends forth. If one of these properties, namely the sending forth, pertains to the
Son, which is the Latin view, then the Father will have a greater communion with the Son than with
the Holy Spirit, and consequently, a greater distinction from the Holy Spirit than from the Son. So,
why do the Latins accuse Macedonius of heresy, when they themselves openly become
pneumatomachians?

153

DOCUMENT 10
 Dialogue Of Mark Of Ephesus On The Addition Made To The Creed By The Latins.
Dialogue Of Mark, Archbishop Of Ephesus, Titled In Latin, Or On The Addition To The Creed.
Latins: I am amazed that you reproach us for the addition to the Creed, when the Second
Ecumenical Council handed down the entire Creed of the First Council to us, unaltered but
enriched with additions for the sake of greater clarity. Therefore, the change in the words does no
harm, provided that the accurate doctrine is preserved.
Greeks: We admit that this is the case and are not unaware that the symbol of the Second
Council, compared to that which the First established, remains unchanged in its wording. However,
although it was permissible for those Fathers to alter the Creed, we do not think it should be allowed
for you to make such changes.
Latins: Why is this, I ask?
Greeks: First of all, because those were Ecumenical Councils, and for you, it is by no means
appropriate, even if you greatly defend the Pope and his primacy. Then, it was certainly allowed at
that time, as it had not yet been forbidden; but for you, who have attempted to make an addition,
since the matter has already been prohibited, nothing at all prevents you from being subject to the
anathemas proclaimed by the Fathers.
Latins: When, I beg you, was this prohibited, and for what reason?
Greeks: I will explain everything to you carefully. After the exposition of the faith made by the
First Council, many varied expositions of the faith were created by different councils to abolish the
consubstantiality, which indeed were declared void. However, the Second Council, which was both
Ecumenical and faithfully preserved the teaching of the First, produced a distinct exposition, the
one we now use without addition, while you use it with the addition. Nevertheless, neither of these
two councils issued any decree forbidding changes to the Creed. Therefore, at the Third Ecumenical
Council, a Creed was proclaimed, made by the followers of Nestorius, imbued with heretical
depravity, which they did not hesitate to use in some cases when baptizing through Lydia. When the
Fathers heard this read and judged it no longer tolerable for anyone to alter the Creed, they
immediately issued a decree, forbidding anyone from altering the faith defined by the Fathers or the
Creed itself.
For this reason, blessed Cyril, in his letter to John of Antioch, knowing well the decisions he had
made (for he presided over that great council), said, "We absolutely do not permit that anyone,
neither ourselves nor anyone else, alter a single word or even a single syllable of what is set forth
here. We are mindful of the one who said: Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers
have set." For they did not speak on their own, but through the Spirit of God and the Father, who
proceeds from Him. Indeed, though proceeding from the Father, the Spirit is not alien to the Son
according to the essence. Do you hear? Not only the sentence but even the alteration or
transgression of a single word or syllable is forbidden. We, he says, do not permit this, nor does
anyone else, by the authority of the entire synod. Although they were Ecumenical Councils, they still
issued the prohibitive decree and pronounced those horrendous anathemas. If they would not

155

 permit it to themselves, will they permit it to you? They proved this in practice. For they did not dare
to add the word "Theotokos" (Mother of God), over which the whole dispute had arisen, to the
Creed; but as they had said before, so we still say: "Of the Holy Spirit, who is from the Virgin
Mary." Let these words of the great Cyril stand as the clearest and most manifest testimony of his
teaching on the divine Creed and the procession of the Holy Spirit. For the Creed must remain
inviolable both in words and syllables, and the Holy Spirit is declared to proceed from the Father,
while the Son is His own, being consubstantial with the Father. Do you see how clearly and explicitly
this is presented? He placed both truths beautifully together, as if by prophetic insight, foreseeing
that you Italians would violate both. This is how the holy Fathers knew how to foresee and prevent
future evils! Embracing these words, all the bishops of the East united in peace. They say that after
the letters from Egypt were publicly read and their meaning carefully examined, they found concord
in what was sent from there. For they are based on the noble Gospel: Our Lord Jesus Christ is
proclaimed as perfect God and perfect man, and the Holy Spirit is not to be understood as existing
from the Son or through the Son, but as proceeding from the Father, though consubstantial with the
Son. Do you see how they understood the Spirit to be no different from the Son according to
essence?
Indeed, when Nestorius, in his own Creed, had said that the Holy Spirit is neither the Son nor
derives existence through the Son, the great synod accepted this statement and neither opposed nor
criticized it. This led to the conclusion that they confirmed it as their own. For if it had been
otherwise, how would they have remained silent? Therefore, I want you to know that the Third
Ecumenical Council is the first to have issued a prohibitive decree against those who would alter the
Creed, and it is the first to have rejected and condemned your doctrine through the words of
Nestorius, which he had adopted as his own. Do not seek another synod that would have allowed
such an act, for it was once prohibited by the great council, and if any synod later permitted it, it
would not have been a true synod but a pseudo-synod. This, then, should remain settled.
Furthermore, after that synod, a fourth council was convened, which, as its decree states, first
recited both Creeds and then accepted one. After reading them, it immediately added: "This
venerable and salutary symbol of divine grace suffices for the full understanding and confirmation
of piety." Therefore, both are one; for the first contains the second, and the Third Council spoke of
both as one. But listen to what follows: "For it teaches perfectly about the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit." Do you hear the perfect doctrine it teaches? Nothing regarding the Holy Spirit is
lacking or needs addition. But how this Creed should be maintained is clearly stated at the end:
"Thus, having set forth and established these things, this holy and universal synod has decreed that
no one may offer another faith, that is, to write, compose, teach, or offer another."
"Anyone who dares to write, compose, or offer another faith, whether they be bishops or clerics,
the synod has decreed that they are to be alien to the episcopate, and clerics, alien to the clerical
office; if they are laypeople, they are to be subjected to anathema." In this context, it is clear, I
believe, to those with sound understanding, that by "faith" they mean the Creed itself. For it does

156

 not speak of any general definition, as many definitions were made after this. But this other faith
refers not merely to many words but to the addition, subtraction, or alteration of even a single word.
For "writing, composing, and offering" clearly refers to the composition of words, which it forbids.
Latins: No, but the "other faith" refers to that which opposes the original faith, which contains
doctrines contrary to the Church. For that faith, which offers clarification and explanation, is
certainly not another faith, whether it differs by a single word or many words.
Greeks: I am amazed that you do not examine the words of those who spoke, but instead twist
the meaning to suit your own judgment. For to consider that the same thing means both the
opposite and the contrary is the act of one who is neither wise nor skilled in adapting the words of
nature to the essence of things. Indeed, the word "other" clearly extends further than the word
"contrary," and not everything that is "other" is necessarily contrary to something. For example, a
man is "other" than a horse in appearance, but in essence, they are not opposed to each other. Thus,
they did not understand by "another faith" a completely opposite one, just as no one considers a
human being to be an animal. However, they did mean by "another" a change in the words, as I have
shown earlier.
Moreover, it is plainly ridiculous that one who has created a heretical and opposing faith, if he is
a bishop or a cleric, should only be subject to deposition, while if he is a layperson, he should face
the penalty of anathema. For any heretic, whether bishop or layperson, is anathematized without
distinction. But even this could not terrify or turn away the heretics, for many still arose even after
this. No one dared alter the Creed, except for you alone. Therefore, the prohibition applies to the
words, not to the meaning, as you suppose. Hence, your bishops and clerics are no longer bishops or
clerics, since they have been deposed by so many synods, and laypeople are subjected to anathema
and excommunication. Indeed, the same decrees have been issued by subsequent synods, namely the
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh, which loudly proclaim: "We keep the laws of the Church; we maintain the
decrees of the Fathers; we anathematize those who add or subtract anything from the Church." And
again, "If anyone attempts to overthrow the tradition of the universal Church, whether written or
unwritten, let him be anathema."
Do you not overthrow the written tradition of the Fathers by introducing such novelties? Are
you not ashamed, while proclaiming the rest of the Creed as the Fathers established it, to insert a
single word into it according to your own judgment? This is certainly the work of heretics—adding
or removing words in order to obscure their heresy. Why, then, did you not do the same with the
Gospel, the Apostles, or with the writings of any of your own teachers? Would you not seek
punishment if anyone dared to do such a thing? Though there may be many definitions and horrific
anathemas, and many other prohibitions, do you not consider it shameful to alter the words of
documents that have already been published and spread throughout the world, stirring up trouble in
the Churches? You are hard-hearted and unfeeling, and your minds are as iron, despising your
separated brothers, only so that you can enforce your own will and the novelty you insist on!

157

 What else? After the Seventh Synod, another synod was convened under the reign of the Roman
Emperor Basil, gathered by the most holy Patriarch Photius. This synod, which was later called the
Eighth Ecumenical Council, had representatives from Pope John, the most blessed senior Pope of
Rome, namely Bishops Paul and Eugene, and Priest and Cardinal Peter. This synod also confirmed
the Seventh Council and restored the most blessed Photius to his seat, while anathematizing those
who would dare to recite this addition to the Creed in the future. It said, "If anyone dares to write
another Creed besides this sacred one, or add or subtract anything from it, and calls this a definition,
let him be damned and exiled from the Christian community."
The same Pope John, writing to the most holy Photius, speaks even more clearly and extensively
when discussing such an addition to the Creed. This synod also issued canons that are found in all
canonical books. Therefore, is it not just that we separate ourselves from you, since you disregard so
many Fathers, many Ecumenical Councils, and those which are well-established, as though they are
of no importance?
Latins: Indeed, I had never heard such things until now; but now I am amazed that those who
once made the addition, despite so many prohibitions, nevertheless were not at all afraid to present it
and pass it on to future generations.

158

DOCUMENT 11
 Ten Arguments Of Mark Of Ephesus Against The Fire Of Purgatory.
Ten Syllogisms By Which It Is Shown That The Fire Of Purgatory Does Not Exist.
1. Those who see the glory of God, one sees it more perfectly than another; and the one who
sees it more perfectly is the one who has been more purged. Now, the fact that someone is more
purged implies that another is less purged, namely, the one who enjoys less of the vision. For just as
the greater thing is followed by the greater, the lesser thing is followed by the lesser. Hence, the one
who still carries some slight faults with them will still see God, and yet they do not need the
purgatorial fire, which is replaced by God’s mercy, according to the most learned Dionysius of the
divine matters, who asserts: "For those who have lived holy lives, a divine and most radiant life is
retributed according to each one’s merits by the most just scales, and by divine mercy, the stains
contracted from human fragility are covered up, so that no one, as the holy scriptures teach, is clean
from filth."
2. Again, if those things which are the same according to one thing and the same are in relation
to each other, then according to that thing, they do not differ from each other; but those things
which do not differ from each other according to anything, do not differ in the effect that unites
them, and therefore, their proposed goal is not different, but one and the same. But, in fact, the
efficiency of the purification, which consists in turning away from sin and in turning toward virtue,
corresponds to the vision of God. But between the pure and the pure, there is no difference.
If, therefore, all those who, rejecting sin, have done many good works or have done nothing good,
but still died with a right will, should be purified through purgatory, they all, whether purified or
pure, do not differ from each other, nor from those who passed away with a right will and with the
exercise of virtues. For as far as the rectitude of the will is concerned, they are the same. As for
what was lacking in actions, it is made up for through the purgation of the transitory fire. The rest,
indeed, is such that neither in their efficiency nor in the goal set for them will they differ from each
other, but the same efficiency will be present for all, and in one and the same way, they will achieve
the same goal. Therefore, all will see God’s glory equally. But truly the Church teaches the contrary,
by positing many mansions in God’s contemplation, from which arises the diversity of ranks and
degrees.
3. Furthermore, in the souls that have been purified, the evil for which the fire was needed is no
longer considered, for purification necessarily effects liberation from evil. But evil and good are
opposites, as privation and form. Where there is no consideration of privation, there perfect form
must be present, since imperfection arises only from privation. Therefore, the soul, being purified,
will achieve the perfect good as it demands according to the nature of beatitude. But if many things
are perfect in the same species, they will not differ among themselves in good except by number.
And since the proposed goal, that is, beatitude, is not granted except for the reason of purification,
it follows that all the souls of the deceased, in whose state beatitude consists in the vision of God,
will equally partake of it. However, this is false: for the Lord says in the Gospels that there are many

160

 mansions in the Father’s house. By these words, many holy fathers, whose testimonies should not be
denied, thought that the degrees of that blessed life are signified. Therefore, it follows that...
4. Furthermore, turning away from sin is a conversion to God and a pursuit of virtue by which
we ascend to God. But if the exercise of virtue is joined to the rectitude of the will, then nothing is
lacking. But if the will is free from fall, and yet the exercise of virtue is prevented by death, such a
soul will not be distinguished from that soul to which both were provided, except by the fact that
the exercise of virtue was lacking. If, therefore, without any punishment and in this way, beatitude is
acquired, it is absolutely necessary that they not be rewarded with the same and perfect rewards, and
thus the diversity of mansions is completely preserved. But if something was lacking, the soul will
be purified and will pass through purgatory, and at length, after sufficient punishment, it will be
rendered perfectly equal. In this way, all will equally see God, which, as incongruous, is rejected.
5. Furthermore, to attain beatitude, both the rectitude of the will, by which it is properly
directed to the universal good, and that which elicits good works worthy of reward, are required. But
both the rectitude of the will and the exercise of works necessarily pertain to this life, as you also
think: for you assert that the will of souls detained in purgatory is immutable. However, where no
motion of the will is directed towards anything at all, there is no one thing that is more worthy than
another. Therefore, souls, although they have not been purified by the purgatorial fire, are no less
worthy of the vision of God, provided that they departed with a right will, which is principally and
most especially required for beatitude. Indeed, if through purgatory the will is not made right from
an evil one, and rectitude of the will is required for beatitude, then purgatory contributes nothing to
it. But what has no effect is placed in vain; and nothing is done in vain by God. Therefore,
[purgatory] is not.
6. Moreover, the justice of eternal punishment is shown most clearly in this, that those who have
sinned with an evil will have an unchanging will: for to the perpetually evil will, a perpetual
punishment is also due. And conversely, in the same way, if someone remains unchanging in doing
evil, they are punished with eternal punishment; but if they are not perpetually chastised, they will
not have an immutable will. For the one who has the same immutable will, if they remain in evil, is
subject to eternal punishment; but if they are in good, why would they need punishment, since they
are deserving of crowns? Yet you yourselves claim that those who are purified by such a fire have an
immutable will. Therefore, they are not purified by fire.
7. The love of good and their intense desire is the cause why we do not will evil, for one
naturally rejects the contrary of what one desires, since evil is opposed to good, and sin to virtue.
Therefore, the pursuit of virtue expels sin. For I have said, "I will confess my injustice to the Lord,
and You have forgiven the impiety of my heart." And, "You first declare your iniquities so that you
may be justified." But you contend that the will of those who are detained in purgatory cannot be
changed, because it is rightly disposed. Therefore, they would be chastised who are free from sin and
have nothing deserving of punishment.

161

 8. Furthermore, the will can be changed into vice as long as it is joined to the body; but when
the soul is separated from the body, whatever will is found in it remains immutable, thereby
acquiring either a reward or punishment, without passing through purgatory.
9. Again, it is more fitting for divine goodness not to disdain a small good than to avenge a small
fault. But a small good in those who have sinned grievously does not receive any reward due to the
weight of the evil. Therefore, a small fault in those who have exercised great virtues should not be
punished, as they overcome those things that are superior. For if that which seems greater is not,
how will it be, then, that that which seems lesser is? Therefore, purgatory fire should not be believed
to exist.
10. Lastly, just as a small good in those who are otherwise wicked is not capable of effecting the
reward of the good, but only a difference in punishment, so also a small fault in those who are
otherwise good does not bring about punishment, but only a difference in fruition. Therefore, it is
not to be believed that purgatorial fire exists.

162

DOCUMENT 12
 The Booklet Of Mark Of Ephesus On Eucharistic Consecration.
Of Mark, Archbishop Of Ephesus, Who Explains That The Divine Gifts Are Sanctified Not Only
By The Words Of The Lord's Institution, But Also By The Consequent Prayer And Blessing Of
The Priest, Through The Power Of The Holy Spirit.
1. We, who have received the exposition of the mystical liturgy from the sacred apostles and
their successors, the teachers of the Church, find nowhere among them that the divine gifts are
sanctified and perfected by the Lord’s words alone, and that the body and blood of the Lord are
transubstantiated solely by those words. Rather, what is first recited serves, by unanimous consent,
to recall to mind the event that took place, and to pour out power upon the proposed gifts for the
transformation. However, what follows afterward, namely, the prayer and blessing of the priest, in
reality transforms the gifts into the very prototype of that body and blood of the Lord. This very
sequence of words testifies to this, which we find consistent and harmonious among us, and the
entire prayer will consist of these elements.
2. For in the liturgy of the sacred apostles, written by Clement, after the narration of the Lord’s
miracles and actions, as well as His passion, resurrection, and return to heaven, it is written word for
word: “Therefore, remembering all that He suffered for us, we give You thanks, Almighty God, not
as much as we owe, but as much as we are able, and we fulfill His command. For in the night in
which He was betrayed, taking bread into His holy and immaculate hands, and lifting up His eyes to
You, God and His Father, He broke it, gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat: this is My body,
which is broken for many for the remission of sins.' Likewise, also the cup, mingled with wine and
water, He sanctified, and gave it to them, saying: 'Drink of this, all of you: this is My blood, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins; do this in remembrance of Me.' Therefore, remembering
His passion, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven, and His second glorious and terrifying
coming, in which He will come with glory to judge the living and the dead, and to repay everyone
according to their works, we offer to You, the King and God, according to His institution, this bread
and this cup, giving You thanks through them, that You have deigned to allow us to stand before
You and to offer to You a sacrifice. And we ask You, that with a propitious and serene countenance,
You look upon these holy gifts placed before You, You who are in need of nothing, God: and may it
please You to accept them for the honor of Your Christ, and be pleased to send down Your Holy
Spirit upon this sacrifice, the witness of the passions of our Lord Jesus, so that it may transform this
bread into the body of Your Christ and this cup into the blood of Your Christ.”
3. These indeed were handed down by the holy apostles through the writing of blessed Clement
to the Church. Moreover, Saint James, the first bishop of Jerusalem and the brother and successor
of the first great high priest, also explaining the mystical liturgy in the same part, after the recitation
of the Lord’s words, wrote: "Therefore, remembering also the passions of His life-giving Cross, the
salvation of His death, the tomb, and the resurrection from the dead on the third day, His ascension
into heaven, and His sitting at Your right hand, God and Father, and His second glorious and fearful
coming, when He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to repay each according to

164

 their works, we offer to You, O Lord, this venerable and bloodless sacrifice.” And shortly thereafter:
“Have mercy on us, O God, according to Your great mercy, and send down upon us and upon these
holy gifts placed before You Your most holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, who with You, God the
Father, and Your only-begotten Son, sits, reigning together, consubstantial and coeternal, who spoke
in the law and the prophets and in Your New Testament, who descended in the form of a dove
upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the Jordan River and remained upon Him; who descended upon Your
holy apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Zion, on the day
of holy Pentecost: send down this same most holy Spirit now upon us, and upon these holy gifts
placed before You, that He, coming, may sanctify and make this bread the holy body of Your Christ,
and this cup the precious blood of Your Christ.”
4. Following these, there are those who later produced a more concise version of the liturgy,
such as the great Basil and, after him, John Chrysostom. Indeed, when Basil approached this part, he
also recited the first consecration handed down by the Lord, saying: "He dismissed," he says, "the
salutary memorials of His passion, those which we have proposed according to His commands. For
it was necessary that He should go to His voluntary and most blessed and life-giving death, on the
night in which He gave Himself for the life of the world, taking bread into His holy and immaculate
hands, and lifting it up to You, God and His Father, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying, breaking it,
He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying: 'Take and eat: this is My body, which is broken
for you for the remission of sins.' Likewise, taking the cup from the fruit of the vine, mixing it,
giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying, He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying: 'Drink of
this, all of you: this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the
remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me.’" And after a few more words: "Therefore, O
most holy Lord, we, sinners and unworthy Your servants, who have been appointed to minister at
Your holy altar, not because of our righteousness (for we do nothing good on earth), but because of
Your abundant mercies and compassion which You have poured out upon us, we confidently
approach Your holy altar, and offering these antitypes, that is, the representations of the holy body
and blood of Your Christ, we beseech You and pray to You, O Holy of Holies, that by Your
benignity and good will, You send Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these proposed gifts, and
bless them and sanctify them, and show this bread indeed to be the honorable body of the Lord,
our God and Savior Jesus Christ; and this cup, indeed, to be the precious blood of the Lord, our
God and Savior Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world.” Saint John Chrysostom also
again, more concisely explaining: "The Lord, having completed all the mysteries for us, on the night
He was betrayed—or rather, He gave Himself for the life of the world—taking bread into His holy
and immaculate hands, after giving thanks, He blessed it, sanctifying and breaking it, He gave it to
His holy disciples and apostles, saying: 'Take and eat: this is My body, which is broken for you for
the remission of sins.' Likewise, after dining, He took the cup, saying: 'Drink of this, all of you: this
is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.’"
And shortly thereafter, he continues: "We offer to You this reasonable and bloodless sacrifice, and

165

 we pray, beseech, and ask You to send Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these proposed gifts: and
make this bread the precious body of Your Christ; and what is in this cup, the precious blood of
Your Christ, transforming them by Your Holy Spirit.”
5. Indeed, all of these, in harmony, first recite the Lord's words, and through them, they lead us
to the remembrance of the event then performed, and they impart the sanctifying power and
potency into that which is consecrated. Afterward, they make a prayer and call upon the grace of the
Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit, coming, may apply what was spoken to the present realities, and
perfect the proposed gifts, transforming them into the Lord's body and blood. For it was He who, in
the womb of the Virgin, created that divine flesh, according to the words spoken to her by the
angel: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."
Therefore, even the great Basil, after reciting the words of the Lord, calls the proposed gifts
"antitypes"—namely, as though they were not yet perfected by those words, but still bearing some
kind of type or image. And so, immediately afterward, he prays that the Holy Spirit may come and
make this bread the precious body, and this cup the precious blood. This is certainly most fitting.
For just as in the first creation of the world, the earth received its power to bring forth what grows
upon it by divine command, and as the same Doctor says, that command, abiding in the earth,
perpetually gives it the power to bear fruit, so too is it necessary for our care, in the hands of
farmers, to complete what the earth produces. In the same way, the word spoken once by the Savior,
as St. Chrysostom says, continually operates; yet the grace of the divine priesthood helps,
interceding through prayer and blessing, for the perfection of the proposed gifts. For the Holy Spirit
also makes the water of baptism, which was simply water, into the expiation of all sins, invisibly
working within it. The same Holy Spirit works through the chrism with which we are anointed,
through the priests themselves, and through all the other mysteries of the Church. Now, we do not
pray for the proposed gifts thinking that the words we utter are impotent, nor do we think that the
prayer we offer has no effect; rather, we believe that the words themselves retain their power, and we
demonstrate the faculty of the divine priesthood, which, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit,
has the power to accomplish the entire mystery. For St. Chrysostom, in his work on the Priesthood,
also says the following on this matter: "The priest stands, not giving fire, but the Holy Spirit; and he
prays for a long time, not that some flame sent down from heaven might consume the proposed
gifts, but that the grace might descend upon the offering and inflame all hearts, and make them
more brilliant than purified silver.” But there should be no hesitation or uncertainty in our prayer,
since the one who is sacrificed and who partakes of the Lord has commanded us to do this (For He
said, "Do this in remembrance of Me") and has promised to give the Holy Spirit to all who ask for
Him, not just to priests. He desires that this be done by us every day, as is shown to us in all things.
Perhaps you also have doubts about baptism, which is similarly accomplished by prayers and
invocations, whether you have truly received the remission of sins. Do you question the grace
granted to you by the priesthood? Or do you doubt the efficacy of other ecclesiastical mysteries

166

 prescribed by the Church? Certainly not. For He, who promised to be with us always, even to the
end of the world, is faithful.
6. And indeed, we have received these teachings from the holy apostles and their successors, and
we hold to them in such a way that we cannot be moved from this position, and we give an account
of their reasoning. But no one, neither apostles nor teachers, is seen to have said that the words of
the Lord, spoken in the manner of a simple recitation, are sufficient for the sanctification of the
gifts. Rather, the fact that those words, once spoken by the Lord, continue to operate as if they were
always present in the work of creation, as St. John of the Golden Mouth says, is what gives them
power. However, what is now spoken by the priest—this itself, as spoken by him—could not be
learned from anyone else. For just as the word of the Creator operates through everything that is
done by someone, so the word spoken once by God continues to work. Indeed, we cannot say that
the Lord’s word works simply because it was spoken by anyone, nor without the altar. Therefore, if
the priest's role and the altar are necessary, and the other things that pertain to it, why should it not
also be the case that prayer, blessing, and the coming of the Holy Spirit are also necessary for the
perfection and completion of the mysteries? To this, the sacred Dionysius adds his testimony to
confirm our rites. In his treatise on the theory of the mystery of the synaxis, he says: "Where the
sacred works of God are celebrated by the hierarch, the consecration is approached; and first, he
offers an explanation, exclaiming: 'You said: Do this in remembrance of Me'; then, following the
imitation of God, he prays to be made worthy to perform this consecration and to bring about the
divine actions of Christ, imparting them most sacredly, so that the holy gifts may be most reverently
received. Then he performs the divine sacraments, presenting with his eyes what he has
accomplished through the sacred gifts. For the bread, which was whole and indivisible, being opened
and distributed into many parts, and the unity of the chalice being divided among all, symbolically
multiplies and distributes the unity." And shortly after: "By the prescribed communion, the hierarch
ceases from the sacred action of thanksgiving."
7. This is available to anyone who wishes to contemplate it, to see with whom it agrees, whether
with those things that are questioned of us, or with those things that are questioned by the Latins.
For we, following the holy apostles and teachers according to the interpretations handed down by
them, and this same sacred interpreter, celebrate the sacred works of God, that is, as He says, the
incarnation of God for us, His death for us, the divine generation of the baptized, the divine
adoption, and deification through the keeping of the commandments. Thus, when we come to the
consecration, we first offer an excuse for this and exclaim the very words of the Lord which He
then spoke, and we add what He commanded: "Do this," He says, "in remembrance of Me." Then,
praying that we may be made worthy of the composition of this consecration according to the
imitation of God, as the interpretations contain, we accomplish the most divine sacraments, through
the intercession of prayer and blessing, as well as the accession of the Divine Spirit. Meanwhile, the
covered bread, which is indivisible, being opened and cut into many parts, we distribute the unity of
the chalice to all. The Latin priest, however, recites the Lord’s words, as He commanded: "Take, eat,"

167

 and "Drink ye all of it," and "Do this in remembrance of Me"; yet he does not consecrate any more,
but considers this recitation of the words to be sufficient for the sanctification and consecration.
Then, having broken the bread, not covered in the meantime but as it happens, wherever it is
touched, he lifts a portion and places it in the chalice; whatever is left is placed in the mouth, and
after drinking the entire chalice, he encourages those ministering with him, the deacons, to greet one
another, imparting nothing to anyone, while glorifying the Lord's word, "Take, eat ye all," and
"Drink ye all of it.” Do these manifest a clear contradiction to what has been handed down to us in
the interpretations of the liturgies, and to the words of the Lord, and to the very words they use?
Certainly, those who feel this way will dare to blame us and more curiously investigate and interpret
our rites, which are so in agreement with the holy fathers. But Chrysostom says, "The Lord’s word,
once spoken, makes the sacrifice complete." He says, "once spoken," not that which is now spoken
by the priest, but that which was spoken once by the Savior, for it is He who imparts the power and
potency to the proposed gifts, not to perfect them in action. This is accomplished by the coming of
the Holy Spirit through the priest’s prayer, and this is made clear from what Chrysostom says, as we
have already explained: "Send, He says, Your Holy Spirit, and make this bread the precious body of
Christ, and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of Christ, changing them by Your Holy
Spirit." If this does not convince those who are contentious, they must certainly be regarded as
pitiable, for they are held by double ignorance and a profound blindness.

168

DOCUMENT 13
 The Confession Of Faith Of Mark Of Ephesus Written In Florence, But Published After The Final
Synod.
The Confession Of The True Faith Of The Most Holy Archbishop Of Ephesus, Lord Mark
Eugenicus, Published In Florence At The Synod Held With The Latins.
1. I, by the favor of God, being imbued with sound doctrines and in all things obedient to the
holy and catholic Church, believe and confess that God the Father alone is unbegotten and without
origin, being the fountain and cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Son is begotten of
Him, and the Spirit proceeds from Him, without the Son contributing anything to the procession or
the Spirit to the generation. In other words, the progressions arise simultaneously, originating
independently, as the theological Fathers teach. Thus, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed through the
Son, that is, with the Son and as the Son, though not in the manner of generation as the Son. The
Son, however, is not said to be generated through the Spirit because the name "Son" is relative and
implies the relationship to the Father, lest the Son be thought to be of the Spirit. Thus, the Spirit is
indeed called the Spirit of the Son, as He is proper to Him by nature and through Him is manifested
and given to humanity, while the Son is neither of the Spirit nor called such, as testified by Gregory
of Nyssa. If the words "proceed through the Son" were to indicate causality, as some modern
theologians assert, rather than signifying that the Spirit shines forth and appears through Him,
proceeding simultaneously and accompanying Him, as the divine Damascene states, then all
theologians would not have unanimously and explicitly excluded the idea of causality from the Son.
One theologian says: “There is one source (that is, one cause) of the superessential Godhead, the
Father, and this is distinguished from the Son and the Spirit.” Another affirms: “The Father alone is
unbegotten and the sole source of the Godhead.” Another states: “Whatever the Father has, the Son
also has, except being the cause.” Yet another observes: “The Romans themselves do not consider
the Son to be the cause of the Holy Spirit.” Finally, another asserts: “The Father alone is the cause.”
The divine Damascene, being a most acute theologian, would not have used the preposition
"through" in speaking of the Son while rejecting "from." In the eighth chapter of his theological
work, he states: “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son but call Him the Spirit of the Son and
confess that He is manifested and supplied to us through the Son.” Again, in the thirteenth chapter,
he writes: “The Spirit is of the Son, not as from Him, but as proceeding from the Father through
Him; for the Father alone is the cause.” In his letter to Jordan near its end, he remarks: “The Spirit,
subsisting personally as breath and product, is supplied through the Son, not as existing from the
Son, but as the Spirit of the mouth of the Word of God.” Finally, in his discourse on the burial of
the Lord’s body, he declares: “The Holy Spirit is of God and the Father, as proceeding from Him;
and He is also said to be of the Son, as being supplied through Him and communicated to creatures,
but not as having existence from Him.” It is evident that the preposition "through," when it denotes
causal mediation as the Latins claim, is entirely equivalent to the preposition "from" and
interchangeable with it. For example, the phrase “I acquired a man through God” is the same as
“from God,” and “a man through a woman” means “from a woman.” Therefore, when the

170

 preposition "from" is excluded, it is clear that the causality is also excluded. Consequently, the Holy
Spirit is said to proceed from the Father through the Son only in the sense that, proceeding from the
Father, He is manifested, known, or revealed through the Son according to the precise
understanding of theology. Basil the Great states: “The hypostatic property of the Spirit is made
known in this way, that He is known after the Son and with the Son, and that He subsists from the
Father.” Thus, the term "through the Son" signifies being known with the Son. There is no other
property of the Spirit in relation to the Son assigned here except being known with Him, nor any
other to the Father except subsisting from Him. Therefore, the Spirit neither subsists nor has
existence from the Son. For why, then, could it not be said that the Spirit proceeds through the Son
in the same manner as all things are said to have been made through the Son? However, the latter is
stated because "through" is used in place of "from," whereas the former is not, nor can one find
anywhere that the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son without mention of the Father. The
Spirit is said to proceed from the Father through the Son, which does not necessarily ascribe
causality to the Son. This is why the phrase "from the Son" never appears and is explicitly excluded.
2. As for the statements of the Western Fathers and teachers that attribute causality of the Holy
Spirit to the Son, I neither recognize them (for they have never been translated into our language
nor approved by the ecumenical councils) nor accept them, relying on this reasoning: that they are
corrupt and interpolated. This is apparent for many reasons, but especially due to the volume of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council presented by them two or three days ago, containing a definition with
an addition to the Creed. Those present know the shame they exhibited when this was recited.
However, the Fathers did not write anything contrary to the ecumenical councils and their universal
decrees—indeed, nothing that does not align with the Eastern Fathers’ teachings and fully agrees
with them, as is demonstrated by many other statements of theirs. Therefore, I reject such
dangerous phrases about the procession of the Holy Spirit, and together with Saint Damascene, I do
not say that the Spirit is "from the Son," even if someone else, of whatever rank, appears to say this.
Nor do I say that the Son is the cause or producer of the Holy Spirit, lest there be imagined another
principle in the Trinity, and thus two causes and two principles. For "cause" in this context does not
mean anything essential (which as common pertains equally to the three persons). Therefore, the
Latins will never escape the duality of principle as long as they say that the Son is a principle of the
Holy Spirit. For "principle" is a personal property by which the persons are distinguished.
3. Therefore, obeying in all things the holy and ecumenical seven councils and the God-
enlightened Fathers who shone forth in them, I believe in one God: "I believe in one God, the
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light,
true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things
were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by
the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; who was crucified for us under Pontius
Pilate, suffered, and was buried. And He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; and

171

 ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to
judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and
Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is
worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and
the life of the world to come. Amen."
4. This sacred creed and profession of faith, established by the First and Second Ecumenical
Councils and subsequently confirmed and strengthened by the rest, I fully accept, keep, and embrace
with all my soul. Together with the aforementioned seven councils, I also accept the one that was
convened after them during the reign of the pious Roman Emperor Basil and the most holy
Patriarch Photius, which is called the Eighth Ecumenical Council. This council, in the presence of
the legates of the most blessed Pope John of Old Rome—namely Bishops Paul and Eugene, and
Peter, presbyter and cardinal—confirmed and promulgated the Seventh Ecumenical Council and
decreed that it should be united with the preceding councils. It restored the most holy Photius to his
rightful see and anathematized and subjected to condemnation, as in the earlier ecumenical councils,
all who dared to introduce an addition or subtraction or any alteration whatsoever to the sacred
Creed. For it says: "If anyone shall dare to compose a creed other than this sacred Creed, or to add
or subtract anything under the guise of definition, let him be condemned and cut off from all
Christian communion.” The same is proclaimed even more abundantly and clearly by Pope John in
his letter to the most holy Photius regarding any addition to the Creed. The canons issued by that
council are also found in all canonical books.
5. Therefore, according to the decrees of this and the other councils that were convened before
it, I believe the sacred symbol of faith must be preserved intact, just as it was originally formulated.
Receiving those whom they receive and rejecting those whom they reject, I shall never admit into
communion anyone who has presumed to add something new to the sacred Creed concerning the
procession of the Holy Spirit, as long as they persist in such innovation. For, as it is written:
"Whoever communicates with an excommunicated person, let him also be outside communion.”
Saint Chrysostom, explaining Paul’s words—"If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what
you have received, let him be anathema”—states: "He does not say if they proclaim something
contrary or subvert the entire gospel, but if they preach even a little beyond what you have received,
if they alter anything, let them be anathema.” And again, the same Chrysostom says: "One must
show moderation, but never betray the truth.” The great Basil, in his Ascetics, says: "It is a clear
desertion of the faith and a sign of pride to reject anything that is written or to introduce anything
that is not written, as our Lord Jesus Christ says: 'My sheep hear my voice.' And He had already said:
'A stranger they will not follow but will flee from him because they do not know the voice of
strangers.’” And in his letter to the monks, he writes: "If anyone pretends to profess sound faith but
communicates with people of another opinion, unless they cease after being admonished, let them
not only be excluded from communion but not even be called brothers.” Before these, the God-

172

 bearing Ignatius wrote in his letters to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna: "Whoever speaks apart from the
things that have been established—even if he is trustworthy, fasts, maintains virginity, performs
wonders, or prophesies—consider him a wolf in sheep’s clothing, bringing destruction to the
sheep.” And why say more? All the teachers of the Church, every council, and all of divine Scripture
urge us to avoid people of other sects and flee from communion with them. Why should I,
disregarding all these, follow those who, under the guise of false peace, seek to form a union, who
adulterate the sacred Creed and claim the Son is another cause of the Holy Spirit? I pass over for
now the other absurdities, any one of which would be sufficient cause for us to separate from them.
May such a thing never happen, O good Paraclete! May I never stray so far from You or from sound
doctrine. Rather, I resolve to pursue Your teaching and follow the blessed men inspired by You. In
the end, may I be united with my fathers, bringing with me, if nothing else, the reward of having
upheld the true faith.

173

DOCUMENT 14
 Report Of Mark Of Ephesus On The Events He Participated In During The Council Of Florence.
The Report Of The Most Holy Metropolitan Of Ephesus, How He Accepted The Dignity Of The
Episcopacy, And His Opinion On The Council Of Florence.
1. Because of the mandate and the necessity of the Church of Christ, I accepted the pontifical
office, a duty so far beyond my merits and abilities. Following the Ecumenical Patriarch and the
divinely appointed king and emperor, I journeyed to the council held in Italy, disregarding the illness
from which I suffered and not deterred by the significant difficulties surrounding the matter at hand,
which was of the utmost importance. I hoped, with God's favor and the efforts of our shared
patrons, that all would proceed successfully, and that we might accomplish some great work worthy
of our efforts and expectations. However, upon arriving, we immediately experienced dealings with
the Latins far different from what we had hoped. Despair quickly set in. One who stood near me
began to speak thus: "Surely these men will not allow their customs and doctrines to be altered in
any way, for they have shown us nothing but arrogance.” Meanwhile, we were ordered to wait,
enduring long delays until the full council could assemble. At last, the appointed time arrived. Even
then, many days passed before the Greeks and Latins finally convened in one place to begin
disputing the addition made to the Creed.
2. Opening the Debate. Entrusted with the responsibility of initiating the discussions, I began by
attributing the cause of dissension to them, accusing them of being poor cultivators of friendship
and filled with arrogance. They defended themselves by casting blame upon us and asserting their
innocence, as is their custom. In subsequent sessions, I presented the acts of the sacred councils,
reciting the definitions of those holy Fathers, who forbade any alteration of the Creed, down to the
very word and syllable. They decreed terrible anathemas against those who dared to make any
change. Bishops and clergy who did so were to lose their priestly office and the grace granted to
them, while laymen would be subject to anathema, which is separation from God. Using
unbreakable syllogisms, I demonstrated the necessity of my reasoning and showed that the
definitions could not be understood in any way other than how I explained and understood them.
When we saw that the Latins, putting aside all pretense of genuine inquiry, were not pursuing the
truth for its own sake but only seeking to maintain appearances before their followers, they did
everything in their power to close the sessions on their terms. They aimed to speak last so as to
refute what we had brought forward. Seeing this, we abandoned further disputation and turned to
entreaty. We pleaded with words that could have moved even hearts of stone, urging a return to that
splendid concord which once united us—when we all believed and spoke as the Fathers did, and
there was no schism among us. But as we spoke, it seemed we were singing to deaf ears, baking
stones, sowing seeds upon rocks, writing upon water, or engaging in any other proverbial act of
futility. Though proven wrong by arguments and cornered by logic, they admitted no correction.
Their obstinacy seemed the result of an incurable sickness. They pressed us to proceed to a
dogmatic inquiry, claiming that the issue of the addition had been sufficiently addressed. They
believed that if their doctrine were proven sound, the addition to the Creed would be justified.

175

 However, our side would not tolerate this. We refused to discuss the doctrine unless the addition was
first corrected. We would have persisted in this course until the end and withdrawn from the council,
had we not been dissuaded by some who argued that it would be disgraceful to leave without
addressing the doctrinal issue. Thus, a compromise was reached to transition from debating the
addition to examining the doctrine itself. It was also agreed to move the council from Ferrara to
Florence.
3. At Florence: Disputation on Doctrine. When we arrived in Florence, we began the disputation
on the doctrine. The Latins presented arguments drawn from sources that were either apocryphal
and obscure or corrupted and falsified, asserting that these supported their position. Once more, I
engaged with them and clearly demonstrated the absurdity of their position while proving the
corruption of their texts. Yet, I achieved nothing. I could not persuade them, and my time was
wasted. For every argument they made, they met my responses with further words, one discourse
giving rise to another, as often happens in such debates. The truth was not allowed to manifest itself,
as they covered it with a flood of ink and obscured it with lengthy speeches. Finally, exhausted in
hope and strength—both because of my ongoing illness and because I saw only empty words being
exchanged—I delivered the longest discourse I could manage. I laid out numerous irrefutable
testimonies proving the truth of our doctrine, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the
Father and not from the Son. Beginning with the words of the Gospels, I progressed through the
Apostles and their successors, all the way to the Third Ecumenical Council. I carefully examined
every statement, applied syllogisms to each, and concluded that the Latins’ novel doctrine had been
universally condemned.
4. Withdrawal from the Latins' Debates. After delivering my concluding address, I took leave of
their assemblies, resolved either to avoid their sessions altogether or to remain silent. Yet they
summoned our delegation, whether we wished it or not, claiming they wished to respond to the
points we had raised. Since I was unable to attend due to illness, they held two successive sessions
without us, where they spoke without contradiction. In the first session, they presented the words of
their own theologians, asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the
Father. In the second session, they distorted my arguments rather than refuting them and presented
what they claimed were contradictory opinions of our own Fathers. When I was silent, none of our
delegation dared to oppose them further, as all sought to avoid the disputes, fearing they might
become entangled in controversy and discord. Seeing our silence, they regarded it as an unexpected
gain and provoked us to debate, as if we had fled the fight. When we declined, they celebrated
themselves as victors, claiming to have upheld the truth. They never failed to do this, being so
inclined by nature, ever ready to contradict and ascribe victory to themselves.
5. Compromises and Manipulations for Unity. From this point, talk of economy and
condescension began to arise. Some among us suggested that it would be good to embrace peace
and demonstrate agreement among the saints so that the Westerners and Easterners might not
appear to speak contrarily. One even began to philosophize about the preposition “through,”

176

 suggesting that it could mean the same as “from” in our Fathers' writings and thereby attribute
causality of the Spirit to the Son. Thus, Latinizing ideas gradually emerged, and the focus shifted to
devising terms for peace. They sought phrases that were ambiguous and could be interpreted in
either sense, much like a cothurnus (a sandal that fits either foot). Their plan seemed aimed at
persuading our side to agree easily, while also hoping the Latins would accept these terms without
scrutiny. Eventually, a document was drafted, containing statements that aligned with the Latins’
views but presented as terms of union. This document was sent to the Latins, as if through it unity
might be achieved. However, they refused to accept the document without first examining it. They
either demanded its ambiguities be resolved or insisted on the acceptance of their own document,
which had already been sent to us. This Latin document expressed full agreement and confession of
the dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.
6. Deception, Delay, and Pressure for Union. Much time was wasted after these events, and our
delegation grew weary of the delays. They lamented their poverty and complained of hunger, for it
had also been contrived that no promised provisions were supplied to us, hoping we would
eventually yield under this pressure. What more can I say? The traitors to their own salvation and
faith spared no effort, until finally, with the emperor, the patriarch, and the despot present, they
caused Latinism to break forth openly. They brought forward statements that appeared to support
the Latins’ position, citing both their theologians and the writings of Saint Cyril. Engaging in debate
with me, they frequently insulted me with sophistic arguments during the sessions. At one point,
they asked the council what it thought of these statements and whether it confessed the Son as a
cause of the Spirit. The council answered that they did not doubt the authenticity of the statements
as being from the Fathers, relying on a letter attributed to Saint Maximus. However, the majority
refused to attribute causality of the Spirit to the Son, as the wise Maximus himself had declared. Yet
those bold in impiety, who had supported the Latins from the beginning, were further enticed by
promises and gifts. With shameless audacity, they declared the Son to be a cause of the Spirit, a
claim not even explicitly found in the Latins’ own statements. The patriarch himself followed their
judgment, having long been corrupted and desiring to end the council, even though death was
already pressing him toward his grave.
7. My Testimony and Final Witness. As for me, I had prepared my written confession of faith,
for it had been previously agreed that each participant would submit a written statement of their
position. When I saw how eagerly they rushed toward union and how those who had once stood
with me had now fallen to their side, and seeing that no mention was being made of written
statements, I withheld my own document. I feared provoking them and exposing myself to certain
danger. Nevertheless, I openly expressed my beliefs, stating that the teachings of the Western and
Eastern Fathers could only be reconciled according to the interpretation of the venerable Maximus.
That is, the Son cannot be a cause of the Spirit. I also noted that the addition to the Creed was
neither properly made nor justly introduced. Afterward, they pursued their plans, drafting their
definitions and finalizing the terms of union. As for me, I withdrew from them and devoted myself

177

 to my Fathers and teachers. Through this written testimony, I make my position known to all, so that
anyone who wishes may judge whether I have defended the truth or rejected it, and whether I
refused to embrace a union based on perverse doctrines.

178

DOCUMENT 15
 Encyclopical Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus Against The Greek-Latins And The Decree Of The
Council Of Florence.
To All Christians, Both In All Parts Of The World And In The Islands, Living In Orthodoxy, Mark,
Metropolitan Of Ephesus, Greets You With Salvation In The Lord.
1. Although they have sought to captivate us and lead us into the Babylon of Latin rites and
doctrines, they have not succeeded in bringing this intention to fruition. They have come to
understand that such a thing is contrary to nature and altogether impossible. Therefore, stopping
midway on this journey, both they themselves and their followers have ceased to be what they once
were and have not become what they aimed to be. For they have abandoned Jerusalem, the true
"vision of peace," and Mount Zion, that is, the firm and unshakable faith. Yet they neither wish to
be nor can they ever become Babylonians. For this reason, they may rightly be called "Greek-Latins,"
though they are commonly referred to by the more familiar term, “Latinizing." These people, like
the mythical centaurs—half-beast, half-man—profess with the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son and that the Son is the cause of His subsistence (these are their own words). Yet with
us, they claim the Spirit proceeds from the Father. With the Latins, they argue that the addition to
the Creed was lawful and reasonable; with us, they refuse to recite it. For who would object to
reciting something they believe was lawfully and reasonably added? With the Latins, they declare the
unleavened bread to be the Body of Christ, but with us, they dare not receive it in communion. Are
these not sufficient proofs to reveal their disposition? Their aim was not a sincere desire to
investigate the truth, which they held in their hands but discarded. They sought union with the
Latins, not for the sake of true unity but rather to gain gold and fashion a false union.
2. But how were they joined to the Latins? This must be considered. For everything that is
joined to another must necessarily be united by some medium. As regards the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit, they appeared to join the Latins by affirming that the Spirit has His subsistence also from the
Son. In all other respects, however, they differ, and there is no unity, medium, or commonality
between them. Two distinct Creeds are still recited, just as before. Two different forms of sacrifice
exist: one made with leavened bread, the other with unleavened. There are also two forms of
baptism: one by triple immersion, the other by pouring water on the crown of the head. One uses
chrism, the other considers it unnecessary. Their practices, customs, fasts, and ecclesiastical rites
differ entirely. Where, then, is this union, when no clear and manifest sign of it can be seen? How
can those who insist on retaining their own ways be said to be united? They consented to this union
under the condition that they could retain their own traditions, even though they departed from the
teachings of the Fathers.
3. But what is the excellent reasoning they put forth? "Never," they say, "has the Church of the
Greeks stated that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, but simply that He proceeds from the
Father. This does not exclude the Son from participation in the Spirit's procession. By this
reasoning, we were united before and are still united now.” O madness of men! O blindness! If the
Church of the Greeks has always said "from the Father" as it was taught by Christ Himself, the Holy

180

 Apostles, and the Fathers of the Councils, but never "from the Son" (for this has never been
received from anyone), what else does this assert but that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father?
For if not from the Son, then clearly from the Father alone. You can confirm this by the example of
generation: "Begotten of the Father before all ages." Does anyone add "of the Father alone"? Yet
we understand this without need of addition, for we know the Son is begotten of no one else. Thus,
John of Damascus, speaking on behalf of the entire Church and all Christians, says: "We do not say
the Spirit is 'from the Son.'" If, therefore, we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, we surely say He
is from the Father alone. For this reason, he had said shortly before: "We do not call the Son the
cause." And in the next chapter, he declares: "The Father alone is the cause."
4. What more? They say, "We have never regarded the Latins as heretics, but only as
schismatics." But they have taken this argument from the Latins themselves, for the Latins call us
schismatics, having no grounds to accuse us concerning our doctrine but only because, as they claim,
we have departed from the obedience they believe is due to them. Should we, then, grant the same
consideration to them, and not accuse them of their doctrine? This must be examined. The cause of
the schism, without doubt, came from them when they openly introduced an addition to the Creed,
which they previously muttered secretly. We did not first separate ourselves from them; rather, we
severed and cut them off from the common body of the Church. And why, I ask? Was it because
they held right beliefs, or because of a lawfully made addition? Who could say such a thing unless
they are entirely deranged? No, it was because they held absurd and impious opinions and were the
reckless authors of the addition. Thus, we rejected them as heretics, and for this reason, we are
separated from them. For what other reason could there be? The pious laws state: "A heretic is
anyone who deviates even slightly from the true faith and is subject to the laws established against
heretics." If, then, the Latins do not deviate from the true faith, we have wrongfully cut them off.
But if they do deviate—and that in regard to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, where blasphemy is the
gravest and most destructive danger—then they are heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics
from the communion of the faithful. Why, then, do we anoint with chrism those who come over to
us from among them? Is it not clear that it is because we regard them as heretics? The seventh
canon of the Second Ecumenical Council states: "Those who come to the true faith from heresies,
and who seek the portion of salvation, are received according to the prescribed custom we set forth.
The Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians (who call themselves Cathari and Aristeri), the
Quartodecimans, and the Apollinarists are received upon giving a written renunciation of their
errors and anathematizing every heresy that is not in accord with the holy, catholic, and apostolic
Church of God. They are then sealed with the holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth,
and ears, and we say, 'The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’" You see, then, to whom we liken those
who come over to us from the Latins? If all these are heretics, then the Latins, too, must be counted
among the heretics. What, then, does Theodore Balsamon, the learned Patriarch of Antioch, write in
response to the questions of Mark, the most holy Patriarch of Alexandria? He states: "The captive
Latins and others who approach our holy catholic churches and request participation in divine

181

 sanctification—should this be granted to them? We desire to know. 'He who is not with Me is
against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.' Since, therefore, many years ago the
Western Church—that is, the renowned Roman portion—was separated from the communion of
the other most holy four Patriarchs, having been carried away into customs and doctrines foreign to
the catholic Church and Orthodox practices (for this reason, the Pope is not included in the
common commemoration of the patriarchal names during the divine sacrifices), it is not fitting for a
Latin to be sanctified by a priestly hand through the divine and immaculate Mysteries unless he first
renounces the doctrines and customs of the Latins, is canonically catechized, and is received into the
number of the Orthodox.” Do you hear this? They were carried away not only into foreign customs
but also into doctrines that the Church does not recognize. And whatever the Orthodox do not
recognize is undoubtedly heretical. Do you also hear that they must be canonically initiated and
received into the number of the Orthodox? If they must be initiated, then they must also surely be
anointed with chrism. How, then, do they suddenly appear to us as Orthodox, when for so many
years and by so many Fathers and teachers, they have been judged heretics? Who made them so
easily Orthodox? Gold, if we are to speak the truth, and your own profit! In truth, however, gold
did not make them Orthodox; rather, it made you like them and cast you into the company of
heretics.
5. But what if, someone suggests, we devise some middle ground between the doctrines, by
which we can unite with them and resolve our affairs most effectively, without being compelled to
admit anything beyond what is familiar to us and handed down by the Fathers? This is precisely what
has deceived many from the beginning, persuading them to follow men who led them into the
precipices of impiety. Believing that there could be a middle ground between two opposing
positions, as happens in certain opposites, they rushed headlong to their destruction. Certainly, a
phrase might be found that is intermediate between two opinions, equivocally expressing both.
However, for a middle position to exist between opposing doctrines on the same matter is
impossible. Otherwise, there would also be a middle ground between truth and falsehood,
affirmation and negation. But there is none, for regarding every matter, it is either affirmation or
negation. If, therefore, the doctrine of the Latins—that the Spirit proceeds from the Son—is true,
then our doctrine, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, is false, and this has caused the
schism. Conversely, if our doctrine is true, theirs is false. What middle ground could there possibly
be between these? Absolutely none, except perhaps some phrase crafted to accommodate both
opinions, like a boot that fits either foot. Could such a contrivance bring about peace? What shall we
do when we examine our respective thoughts and opinions? Could it be possible for those holding
contrary beliefs to both be called Orthodox? I, for one, cannot believe it. But you, who mix
everything together and easily apply names to all things, may know better. Do you wish to hear from
Gregory the Theologian what he writes about "middles"? "An image," he says, "looking toward all
who pass by, a common boot for either foot, a thing that shifts with every wind, using written
craftiness and trickery against the truth. For the term ‘likeness,’ according to Scripture, was a pretext

182

 for piety, covering the hook of impiety.” This was concerning the middle ground once conceived.
Regarding the council that devised such a middle, he further says: "Whether we call it the Tower of
Chalana, which properly divided tongues (would that it had divided these as well, for their consensus
was in evil); or the council of Caiaphas, in which Christ was condemned; or by some other similar
name, that council overturned and confused everything, demolishing the ancient pious doctrine that
supported the Trinity. For it set up a rampart, undermined the faith of consubstantiality with its
machinery, and opened the door to impiety through the writing of middle positions and the misuse
of terms. For they were ingenious in wrongdoing, though they knew not what it was to do rightly.”
Let this suffice for us regarding the middle ground, for we have sufficiently demonstrated that there
is no such thing and that it is impious and alien to the mind of the Church to seek such middle
grounds.
6. What, then, is to be said of these Greek-Latins who embrace a middle position, openly
approving some of the Latin doctrines and practices, partially approving others without fully
accepting them, and entirely rejecting yet others? Such men are to be avoided as one avoids serpents
—and indeed even more so than those who exploit Christ for gain, treating Him as a means of
profit. These are the men, as the Apostle says, who "suppose that godliness is a means of gain,"
concerning whom he adds, "Avoid such men, for they do not come to learn but to acquire
something for themselves.” What fellowship has light with darkness, or what concord has Christ
with Belial? What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? For we, with St. John of
Damascus and all the Fathers, say that the Spirit proceeds not from the Son; but these men, with the
Latins, say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. We, with St. Dionysius, say that the Father alone is
the fountain of the superessential divinity; but they, with the Latins, assert that the Son is also the
fountain of the Holy Spirit, thereby excluding the Spirit from the divinity. We, with Gregory the
Theologian, distinguish the Son from the Father by causality; but they, with the Latins, conflate them
in causality. We, with St. Maximus the Confessor and the Romans of his time, and with the Western
Fathers, do not recognize the Son as a cause of the Holy Spirit; but they proclaim the Son as the
cause according to the Greeks, or as the principle according to the Latins, of the Spirit in their creed
—or rather their disgraceful manifesto, which we must respect as such by calling it a "tail" to be
tucked between the thighs. We, with Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, say, "As the Son is from the
Father, so also is the Spirit from the Father." But they, with the Latins, claim that the Son proceeds
immediately from the Father, while the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. We, with
St. John of Damascus and all the Fathers, confess that the distinction between generation and
procession is incomprehensible; but they, with Thomas Aquinas and the Latins, claim to distinguish
these through mediation and immediation. We declare, with the Fathers, that the will and operation
of the uncreated divine nature are also uncreated. But they, with the Latins and Thomas, assert that
the divine will is identical to the essence, while the divine operation is created—whether they call it
deity, divine and immaterial light, the Holy Spirit, or anything else of the sort. Thus, they worship a
created deity, a created divine light, and a created Holy Spirit—an abominable blasphemy. We declare

183

 that the saints have not yet received the kingdom prepared for them, nor have sinners been cast into
Gehenna, but both await their final lot after the resurrection and judgment. But they, with the Latins,
assert that immediately after death, souls are either rewarded or punished according to their merits.
For those who died in repentance but without full atonement, they invent purgatory as a fire distinct
from the flames of Gehenna, claiming that through this, souls are purified after death and then
enjoy the heavenly kingdom with the righteous. We reject the use of unleavened bread in obedience
to the Apostolic Canons, but they, in their confession, affirm that what the Latins consecrate is truly
the Body of Christ. We, contrary to the laws, commands, and decrees of the Fathers, affirm that the
addition to the Creed is an innovation; but they declare it to have been done lawfully and reasonably.
We regard the Pope as one among the patriarchs, provided he holds right belief; but they proclaim
him as the vicar of Christ, the father and teacher of all Christians, with great solemnity. May they
become happier than their father in all things except faith, for he has his own misfortunes, having an
antipope to trouble him sufficiently; and they cannot bring themselves to imitate their father and
teacher.
7. Flee, therefore, brothers, from them and their communion, for they are false apostles,
deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan
himself transforms himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing, therefore, if his ministers
transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
The same Apostle, speaking of such men in another place, says: "Such persons do not serve our
Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites, and through smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the
hearts of the innocent. But the firm foundation of faith stands, bearing this seal." And elsewhere:
"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation." And again: "If anyone
preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, even if it is an angel from heaven, let him be
accursed.” You see the prophetic nature of the statement, "even if it is an angel from heaven," so
that no one may appeal to the prominence of the Pope. And the beloved disciple says: "If anyone
comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him.
For whoever greets him shares in his wicked works.” Since these things have been prescribed to you
by the holy apostles, stand firm in the traditions which you have received, whether written or
unwritten, lest, being led astray by the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness.
May God, who is almighty, grant even to them the grace to recognize their error, and may He
separate us from them as pure and chosen wheat from the evil tares, and gather us to be stored in
His heavenly granary in Christ Jesus our Lord. To Him belong all glory, honor, and worship,
together with His Father, who is without beginning, and His most holy, good, and life-giving Spirit,
now and forever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

184

DOCUMENT 16
 Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus To George Scholarius, In Which He Reproves Him For Believing That
Some Harmony Could Be Established With The Latins.
From Ephesus, To Scholarius.
1. Most illustrious, most wise, most learned, and most dearly desired brother and spiritual son,
Lord George, I pray to God that you may be well both in soul and in body, and that all things may
prosper for you. As for myself, through His mercy, I am doing reasonably well. How much joy you
brought us when you declared the correct opinion and the pious doctrine of our fathers, defending
the truth that was condemned by unjust judges! Yet we were filled with equal grief and sorrow when
news reached us that you had once again changed your counsel, turning to the opposite side by
fleeing to "the worst of stewards," seeking some middle paths and compromises. Is this a noble
thing or worthy of a philosopher's spirit? Though I was already considering extolling your praises
and meditating upon the great Gregory, surnamed "the Theologian," while recalling how he praised
the illustrious philosopher Heron for resisting the errors of the Arians, saying, "With his whole
noble body torn by whips, he was cast into exile." But you, having suffered no harm, being only, as I
believe, frightened by threats or enticed by promises of honors or gifts, have rashly betrayed the
truth once more. Who will give water to my head and fountains of tears to my eyes, that I may
mourn for the daughter of Zion—the soul of a philosopher—shaken and tossed like dust from a
summer threshing floor?
2. Perhaps you will claim that there has been no change to the opposite side, but rather that a
middle way and a compromise are being sought. My friend, such "middle ways" have never reformed
ecclesiastical matters for the better. There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood. Just as
one who does not walk in the light must necessarily be in darkness, so also he who deviates even
slightly from the truth may rightly be said to be covered by falsehood. While one may speak of an
intermediate state between light and darkness—what we call dawn or twilight—no one has ever
imagined, even in thought, any middle ground between truth and falsehood, no matter how much
they labor at it. Hear how the eminent theologian Gregory praises a council eager for middle ways:
"Whether it is the tower of Babel that beautifully divided tongues (would that it also divided those
tongues united in evil!), or the council of Caiaphas, where Christ was condemned, or by whatever
similar name this assembly should be called, which overturned and disrupted all things: for it
abolished the pious and ancient doctrine of the Trinity, which should be equally honored, erecting
barriers and preparing engines to shake the consubstantiality; and it opened the door to impiety
through the ambiguity of written dogmas. For they were wise to do evil, but to do good they did not
know." Do not these words fit our current synod? Indeed, in my judgment, the current synod,
though burning with zeal for compromise and ambiguity, did not have the means to openly declare
such blasphemy, as it was restrained by the financial control of those distributing funds. Therefore, it
vomited forth its blasphemy plainly and openly as it pleased them. Or, as the prophet says, "They
hatched asps' eggs and wove spiders' webs": for truly the web woven by them and called a definition

186

 is indeed a spider's web. Do not let them deceive us into seeking a middle way and ambiguity, for
they are the council of Caiaphas until the union they pursue envelops the Church in darkness.
3. How long, O wretched man, will you divide your noble and upright soul with empty
concerns? How long will you dwell on dreams? When will you dedicate yourself to the truth? Flee
Egypt without looking back; flee Sodom and Gomorrah! Escape to the mountain, lest you be caught
with the others. But are you held back by that vain little glory, false wealth, fine and splendid robes,
and other things by which the happiness of this world is adorned? Alas for the mind of a
philosopher devoid of philosophy! Consider those who came before you, who sought the same
honors. Tomorrow, you too will descend into the grave, leaving all things on earth behind. You will
be held to a strict account for all you have done, as will the pseudo-synod, which must give an
account for the blood of perishing souls—those who were scandalized by the mystery of faith,
those who took into their hearts the intolerable and unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,
and those who dared to attribute the existence of two principles to Him, who allowed themselves to
be led astray by the illegitimate and ridiculous rites of the Latins, and who brought down curses and
anathemas upon their own heads.
4. But will the union they have achieved be a protection and aid to our nation? Not at all.
Behold, as it were, the enemies of the Cross put to flight, and a thousand driven away by one of us,
and ten thousand routed by two! On the contrary, we see the opposite. Unless the Lord builds our
empire, in vain do they labor who build it; unless the Lord guards our city, in vain do they watch
who guard it with papal gold. So then, turn yourself entirely to God. Let the dead bury their own
dead. Leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s; give to God the soul He created and adorned. Consider in
your mind how much you owe Him, and repay Him accordingly. Thus, I implore you, my most
beloved and learned friend, act in such a way that I may rejoice because of you. Let me glorify God,
who keeps you safe from every adverse event.
The humble Metropolitan of Ephesus and all Asia, Marcus

187

DOCUMENT 17
 Response Of George Scholarius To The Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus.
To The Bishop Of Ephesus, Lord Mark Eugenicus, To Whom He Had Written A Letter From
Ephesus, Having Secretly Fled Constantinople, Fearing To Offend The Will Of The Emperors,
Because He Had Not Participated In Nor Approved The Definitions And Decisions Made At The
Council Of Florence Regarding The Procession Of The Holy Spirit.
1. To the most venerable Metropolitan of Ephesus, most honorable Exarch of all Asia, to me in
the Lord most divine and holy father and hero, most excellent and wise man, Gennadius, [while he
was still a layman]. The letters of your holiness were also shown to us, after they had fallen from the
hands of many; for he to whom they had been entrusted, since he neither wished to give them to
me without informing others, nor to keep them himself (for what reason I do not know), although
gravely admonished by you, brought it about that many of your sayings against me calmed down.
But when some had sated their desires, because they held it as certain that you were still burning
with zeal for the faith, and others indeed had mocked (as many as, of course, do not approve of you
too much), then finally a friend came who returned them to me. Indeed, when I had first vehemently
rebuked the, so to speak, guardian of the records for depriving me, among other things, even of
letters written by your own hand, I received as much pleasure as I could from the given letters. For I
had no doubt that they were the offspring of your mind, both because many affirmed that they had
previously read them, with which these entirely agreed, and because they admirably reflected your
mind and zeal, as much as anyone can judge from afar, to omit another sign. This one fault I
attributed to you, that, prone to believing all things, you thought those to be speaking the truth who
fabricate worse things against us, although you had many things brought forth by us which you
could oppose to rumors. Indeed, I was hoping that you would sharply rebuke those who rave such
things out of ignorance and envy, because they have resolved to attack matters that are confessed,
nor do they fear the most certain signs of falsehood, by whose aid unjust mouths are accustomed to
impose judgment at an opportune time. For it is not right to say that truth is despised by us, to
whom it has been a concern before all else, so that we who thoroughly know its utility and gain,
either strive to deceive ourselves (we who have many aids both from nature and from art), and place
every business in trust in God, against whom if anyone firmly rages, it cannot happen that he
departs covered in shame.
2. I think it escapes no one that we, in rhetoric, in philosophy, in the highest theology which
exceeds the powers of many, have used no teacher of our age in learning these things, since the
study of those things has long since been hindered by public calamities, and only a shadow of them
remains among some, and those very few; but "as much as for watering the lips, but not for watering
the palate," as someone says, since we had received [knowledge] from others, it happened by the aid
of supernal grace, rewarding our diligence, that we became possessors of our desire and progressed
further in the sciences. And now, although we know how much we excel others, it is nevertheless a
delight for us to perform the duties of a student and we have proposed all those to be followed by
us who are able to act as guides, and this we desire that all may be able, nor do we claim to be

189

 teachers of all, but we indeed implore from God the knowledge of truth for ourselves, since we
greatly fear and dread errors very close to it, considering it a divine benefit to be freed from them.
But if anyone approaches us for the sake of instruction, first excusing our ignorance with many
words and advising him to entrust himself rather to another for instruction, we scarcely finally
comply with him, if he insists and urges us, lest the increase and use of the talent with which we are
perhaps endowed be demanded back from us. And so, since we are such, it is not permitted to fear
that we will ever deviate from the straight path, nor is this to be placed in fear by us rather than by
anyone else about himself. For the sound judgment which we once had we have never truly changed;
but as regards the future, we conceive the greatest hope in God, that He will never permit us to be
led into falsehood or error, and that we pay so bitter a penalty for our sins. But if some, both now
and in times past, not rightly understanding our judgment, become distorted interpreters and judges
of our words, whether from ignorance or from envy, I pardon the injuries, although I greatly grieve,
beseeching the author of all good to infuse knowledge and virtue into the minds of the brethren.
3. Then a certain remedy for this evil was devised by me, although by no means noble, yet
necessary. For as long as I shall have thought that the common way of living is to be observed by
me, perhaps led by a certain indulgence and a grateful and courteous mind, not by a desire for glory
or riches, as you have progressed so far as to slander, keeping other things indeed silent I guard them
with myself, living a private life among private men, and fulfilling the best law of God and
philosophy, by which it is not granted to just anyone to dispute and strive about divine and highest
matters so that those who cannot be convinced might be convinced, about whom it is said in the
proverb, "You will not persuade, even if you persuade.” But I will take care to be of service to my
people only in those matters which I shall know can be both sought and understood and grasped by
them and about which they themselves have spontaneously entreated and asked me. For not only as
a teacher of philosophy and theology, but also as a counselor, as a judge, as an orator in most serious
matters, and all these with praise, as I attest before God, I am able to offer myself to them: which
duties indeed cannot be excellently performed and exercised without philosophy, but by the aid of
those it is fitting to benefit men unskilled in philosophy from the city and the nation. But when, after
every impediment has been removed by God according to His mercy towards me, it shall have
pleased me, to use your words, "to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and to remit to
the dead the burial of the dead, with all hope placed in the Lord, then indeed, then truly free from
any trouble whatsoever, attending to myself and recollecting the sins of my past life, I will strive to
defend myself from evil in the future, if I shall be able with God's help, nor in any way strive either
to heal another or to be healed by another, nor take care that I gather for myself any estimation and
fame and those things which you recount among men. For not evidently that I might obtain greater
honor and dignity and pride, or that I might be called "Rabbi," I will withdraw from the midst and
change my garment, as if from a companionship of evils with an excuse not at all empty I would
pass over to an insolence worthy of no pardon, and despising lesser things in appearance I would
enjoy greater pleasures, or grudgingly concede them to others: for if these things were a concern to

190

 me, there is no sacred choir which would not have me as its leader, or not about to have me, if I
should wish. But my plan is both to benefit the republic, without myself suffering grave damage,
and not to dissolve the vows which I once uttered, and least of all to seek pride where I have once
humbled myself: for it is exceedingly difficult that he who has obtained dignities and honors should
think back on abjection, unless perhaps he is a man of most noble mind and of such a kind whom
Aristotle calls heroic and plainly divine.
4. By proceeding on this path, I shall come to peace with all, which will bring it about that I shall
contend in strife with no one. This I hope will also be pleasing to God himself, who claims the name
of peace for himself. But truly, if ever there should be a need to contend and wrestle, and the rights
of truth, if they should be silent, should fall into danger, and someone should be in peril if I should
keep silent about them, and I should disgracefully lose the crowns to be gained from confession, and
I should lay snares for my neighbors, then indeed I shall by no means sit quietly in idleness, but with
an open face, filled with ardor and joy, I shall openly and freely speak the truth, so that neither for
honor or gifts or any other such thing shall I abandon it, or, moved by threats, retreat, or cowardly
flee, but standing my ground and defending true doctrines, I shall willingly endure whatever must be
undergone. For if necessity urges it, it will be shameful to be silent and to speak will provide crowns.
But truly, as long as there will be nothing of the kind, but as if in jest we should have spoken about
divine things in matters by no means playful, for which each is moved by his own appetite, by no
means weighing the things of God according to God, I judge silence to be the most excellent thing
of all. Wherefore I greatly repent that I have hitherto said many things inopportunely, from which I
well know that I have been a cause of offense to not a few, although not of utility to anyone, who,
having obtained my discourses and each receiving them according to his own judgment, have
thought that a certain double and diverse opinion about divine things is held by me, and have
accused my mind of being easily swayed. And I know indeed that I shall render account of no such
scandal, since it has happened not because I myself have spoken badly, but because they themselves
have understood badly, and because they are not able to distinguish the mean from the extreme right
and the times of each, and they criticize those who know how to distinguish the same: wretched
men, who thus rage against men subject to no reproach. For who is ignorant that many such things
have been said and done both by the common teacher and legislator and by his disciples, whence it
appears that no less right is present in those things which are done from accommodation, if we
consider to what end the accommodation is made: for indeed he came to send a sword upon the
earth, but for the sake of peace, the peace which he left to his disciples when he was about to depart
from them in body. For what before seemed peace was truly war and discord and confusion.
5. And so I know what I have said, and I plainly trust that I have been the cause of no scandal at
all to anyone; but I would have preferred to have been altogether silent, lest I be conscious to myself
that I have provided, even if not the cause, at least not even the appearance of a cause. Therefore,
do not fear where there is nothing to be feared, nor think that these things will be of great concern
to me in the future: for I shall not try to lead anyone to the extremes or to the mean, because it is my

191

 purpose to live in quiet, without speaking about any such matters, unless it is absolutely necessary,
not that I myself criticize any mean whatsoever, since I well know that true faith itself is placed by
Saint Gregory as a mean between Judaism and paganism°, namely between the rule of one and the
abundance of many gods, and the opinions of Sabellius and Arius are said by the same to be evils
diametrically opposed", just as extravagance and thrift, while the doctrine which obtains among the
orthodox stands in the middle. And indeed anyone may perceive many means in divine things, which
are praised by the learned and held in honor. For if between truth and falsehood, as you say, there is
no middle ground, although the matter is exceedingly controversial and full of disputes among all
skilled in these things, yet certainly if opinions, when there is talk of establishing truth, are false and
opposed, it will be altogether necessary for the true opinion to define that which has been the mean
and by that very fact true. Therefore, not that I flee the mean, but because I have determined that
silence is to be observed by me, I embrace no mean. But truly, if ever I shall have perceived that
there is a time to dissolve the law of silence, then indeed, then I shall surely bring forth openly those
things which by long study and with God’s help I have kept and hidden away, although I shall be
troublesome to you, although to the Pope, although it may be necessary for me to suffer any
inconveniences whatsoever.

192

DOCUMENT 18
 Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus To George The Presbyter Of Methone Against The Rites Of The
Roman Church.
Of The Same Of Ephesus, A Letter Sent To A Certain Presbyter Named George Of Methone.
1. Most honorable presbyter and brother most beloved to us in Christ, Lord George, I pray God
that your holiness may be safe and in all things may fare excellently: by His mercy I myself am also
quite well. Having received your letters, I was affected by intolerable grief, having been taught
through them that those who Judaically offer the unleavened and dead sacrifice and sit in the
shadow of the law dare to reproach and object to us the rites used by us in the holy Mass: the
unhappy ones, as if blinded by pride, are ignorant that nothing is performed and done by us except
that we have written proofs that in all things we follow the holy doctors and the ancient traditions of
the apostles. For that divine and confessor Maximus, in the commentary on the holy Mass which is
inscribed: "Of what things are the signs which are performed in the holy Church, while the divine
synaxis is held," in the chapter whose title is: "Of what things are the symbols both of the prior holy
synaxis's entrance and of those things which are after it," says these things expressly: “The prior
entrance of the pontiff into the church, while the holy synaxis is celebrated, reason itself teaches
that it refers to a likeness and image of that first advent by which the Son of God and our Savior
Christ Jesus, having assumed flesh, entered into this world; by which freeing and redeeming the
human race given over to corruption and spontaneously sold to death through sin and subjected to
the tyrannical rule of the devil, every debt by which it was held having been dissolved, as if He were
guilty of this, who was free from any guilt of sin, He again led it back to the original grace of the
kingdom, where He himself had given himself as the price of redemption and exchange for us, and
for our destructive passions He repaid his life-giving passion as a medicinal cure, by which the
salvation of the whole world might be prepared. From which advent henceforth, his ascension into
the heavens and the supercelestial throne and his return after exile, is symbolically figured by the
entrance of the pontiff into the sanctuary and his ascent to the sacerdotal seat.”
2. And these things that holy man says about the first entrance. But about the second, which is
also called greater, in the chapter which is inscribed: “What the entrance of the holy mysteries
signifies,” he has these things: “But the entrance of the holy and venerable mysteries is the
beginning and the origin of the future new doctrine in the heavens concerning God’s dispensation
towards us, and the manifestation of the mystery of our salvation, which lies hidden in the
innermost parts of divine concealment. For God the Word says to his disciples: ‘I will not drink
henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of
my Father.’” 1 Do you hear in what manner the master calls the divine offerings even before the
consecration holy and venerable mysteries? And rightly indeed. For someone is called a king before
he is crowned as king, especially when he is already approaching to receive the crown, increased with
attendants and honors; also the image of a king is called a king, and likewise it is honored and
adored. In like manner the divine gifts, before they are transmutted, are said by us to refer to a type
and image of the Lord’s body and blood. Whence also the great Basil in the holy Mass calls them

194

 antitypes themselves. “Offering,” he says, “the antitypes of the precious body and blood of your
Christ.” What therefore do we do ineptly, while we send forth and receive with honor those things
which, already offered and given to God, have become both sacrifice and victim, and are offered to
him himself to be consecrated by the advent of the Holy Spirit? But those who strain out a gnat but
swallow a camel, perhaps will accuse us concerning the sacred images, because we adore them, since
they are not the archetypes themselves, but examples of them. For that would be entirely worthy of
their foolishness. And these things from whom? From those who overturn any ecclesiastical
tradition, who in no way distinguish between sacred and profane. Where among them is the
sanctuary, which is now called by us the sacred bema? Where among them is the sacred seat which
the pontiff ascends? Let them read the words of the venerable Maximus, and let them be covered
with shame; let them see who follow him and his words more, we or they? And yet that illuminator,
contending for truth and right faith, traveled through the whole world, and spent a very long time in
the western part, namely in Rome and in Africa, nor had he said anything other than what the whole
Church held and all Christians. But these adulterators of the faith and innovators have also
corrupted and changed ecclesiastical customs. Nor is it to be wondered at, since they have also
adulterated nature itself, men appearing as women, the venerable adornment of the male form
having been put aside. Wherefore while they celebrate Mass, they have women standing by (for they
themselves seem similar to women), and very many laymen sitting wherever they please; but they
themselves in washing the sacred chalice after communion throw the washing water onto the
ground, indeed they do not fear to tread on the sacred table at their pleasure. So much do they know
how to venerate their holy things! And yet they accuse us. O foolishness! O blindness!
3. You already have enough from those things which have been said by Maximus, most wise in
divine matters, that the first entrance is a sign of the Lord’s first advent into this world through the
flesh; whence it happens that before it the songs of the prophets are sung, and afterwards the
readings of the apostles and the Gospel are read. But the other entrance, namely the great one,
signifies the other advent of the Lord, in which when he shall have come here again with glory to
judge the living and the dead, he will receive the worthy ones with himself into the supercelestial
region, to remain there perpetually with them, revealing more perfect and more divine things to the
same according to the saying: “When I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God.” Someone
might also have said another reason, namely that the great entrance is a figure of the exequies of our
Savior, in which, when he had given up his soul, having been carried to the sepulcher by Joseph and
Nicodemus, he shortly afterwards rose again, and converted the whole world to his recognition.
Similarly also in the Mass the sacred bread not yet consecrated and as if dead is carried, but shortly
to be vivified by the virtue of the life-giving Spirit and to be changed into the life-giving body itself.
4. I have written these few things to you from many to touch upon their impudence. Know
however that the definition of the false synod, or rather the vain novelty, was received by absolutely
no one, as was entirely fitting, indeed truly those by whom it was issued and subscribed are held by
all in hatred as execrable and betrayers of the truth, so that none of those who are here has hitherto

195

 concelebrated with them. But God who is all-powerful may lead these things to our benefit, and
restore his Church, which he redeemed with his own blood, to its original form. “Guard the good
deposit of faith,” utterly rejecting profane novelties.
Marcus of Ephesus.

196

DOCUMENT 19
 Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus To The Patriarch Of Constantinople.
Of Mark To The Ecumenical [Patriarch].
Most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, I trust in God that your excellent holiness is well and
rejoices in bodily and visible health always in the Lord. I indeed, by God's mercy, am moderately well
in body. We have received by report what has been done there, and it has grieved us not lightly;
nevertheless, we give greatest thanks and impart greatest praises to the merciful God, because he has
added courage to you in the present crisis, and we ask him again and again that you may become
stronger day by day in dangers and unshaken, so that as many as emulate the orthodox faith may
have you both as a harbor and a refuge and a citadel. And if indeed evils are driven away, all will
consider you blessed and worthy of praise; but if God has permitted, for those judgments which he
himself knows, that evils may worsen, you will become stronger from the endurance of pains and
more experienced, like iron plunged into water, thus incited and sharpened by daily dangers.
For nothing so much conquers the vexer as the alacrity of the one enduring. Let us not be, I beg,
more cowardly than those seven boys, I mean the Maccabees, who, having endured torments of
every kind for merely swine's flesh, carried off the crown of the contest; but let us also say with
them: “For what? Even if we do not die at this time, will we not die at all? Will we not perform the
due gift of birth? Let us do gloriously what is necessary; let us learn to die; let us make our own
what is common; let us purchase life by death. Let none of us be desirous of this life, let none be
cowardly and timid. Let the tyrant despair of the rest, and let him be the first path to others, and the
last seal of the contest.” For unless there had been persecution, neither would the martyrs have
shone forth, nor would the confessors have obtained the crown of victory from Christ,
strengthening and cheering the catholic and orthodox Church with their rewards. For it is necessary
also that there be heresies, according to the divine Apostle, that even those who are approved may
be made manifest. But if we have understood this and thus contended, truly we ourselves shall also
obtain the same rewards, and we shall be made heirs of the same glory, and we shall enter into the
joy of the Lord, fearing nothing, dreading nothing, neither external enemies, nor those who dwell
among us, pseudo-Christs and enemies of the Spirit. And I pray that until our last breath we may
profess with the greatest confidence the excellent deposit of the holy Fathers, that faith which we
have drunk in with milk from our childhood, which we first proclaimed, with which I wish that we
may finally depart, bringing this indeed, if nothing else, from here, right faith.

198

DOCUMENT 20
 Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus To The Moderator Of The Monastery Of Vatopedi On Mount Athos.
Of Lord Mark Of Ephesus, Surnamed Eugenicus
1. Most religious hieromonk and provost of the venerable and sacred monastery of Vatopedi on
Mount Athos, I pray God that your excellent holiness may also be well in body for the
consummation indeed and protection and benefit of the souls committed to you, but for our
pleasure and joy. We also still live, God favoring, by the benefit of your holy prayers. Having
undertaken a journey to you, I seemed to myself as if ascending into heaven itself, led by the hope
of approaching men emulating the life of angels in bodies, men exhibiting supramundane wisdom in
the world, men continually having the praises of God on their lips, and carrying with strenuous
hands the two-edged swords, namely of contemplation and action, to ward off vices. But he who
fell from heaven, that Lucifer, and who always envies us, prohibited us from the journey undertaken
thither; nor is it at all to be wondered at that he prohibited us men, useless and possessing nothing
good, since he afflicted the blessed Paul, the sun of the whole world, with the same loss. For often,
he says, "I wanted to come to you, once and again, but Satan hindered us." If therefore he hindered
him, it is also to be endured by us what was pleasing to God. Nevertheless, even now we
contemplate you in hope, and we trust that by the benefit of your prayers we shall perhaps behold
your most desired and dear faces, and perhaps even remain with you for all time, if it should thus
please God. But if anything else should happen contrary to our will, it is fitting to give thanks to
God even for that very thing: for we have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Much
consolation has been to us from your brothers who are here, both the most honorable ecclesiarch
and the great steward and the rest, whom we have had as living images of your charity and piety: for
they have very often received us with hospitality and refreshed and restored us. May the Lord repay
them worthy rewards for their labor and love.
2. But I beseech you through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing,
and that there be no schisms among you. So that you may safely guard our true ancestral faith as the
best deposit, adding nothing, subtracting nothing: for neither have we had a deficient faith hitherto,
nor did we need a synod or definition for learning new things, we who are both sons and disciples
of the ecumenical synods and of those Fathers who were present in them or shone in subsequent
times. This is our glory, our faith, the most excellent inheritance of our fathers. Instructed with this,
we hope that we shall stand before God and obtain remission of admitted faults; but if we lack this,
I know not by what justice we shall be able to be freed from eternal punishment. Whoever shall have
tried to shake this from us, and to substitute another and newer one in its place, even if he should be
an angel from heaven, let him be anathema; let him plainly perish from the memory both of God
and of men. No one rules over our faith, neither emperor, nor pontiff, nor false synod, nor any
other, except the one God, who himself through himself and through his disciples delivered it to us.
I beg you, says the divine Apostle, "to observe those who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to
the doctrine which you have learned, and turn away from them. For such do not serve our Lord

200

 Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and blessings deceive the hearts of the
innocent." But the firm foundation of faith stands, having this support.
3. Beware therefore, brothers, of the teachers and heralds of Latin novelty, but bound together
by charity among yourselves, one body and one spirit, unanimous, thinking the same thing, come
together into our one head, Christ: for it is not right again to quarrel immoderately with brothers on
account of cold suspicions and to show rivalry which is not according to knowledge, lest we seem to
fulfill a lust for contention and pugnacity under the pretext of faith. For right faith will profit no one
without brotherly charity. But truly you possess both this and that and will possess them perpetually,
venerable fathers and brothers, although I, out of the duty of love, have admonished you a few
things, and endowed with these you will stand before the Lord, shining like the sun in the kingdom
of our Father. Pray also for me, that I may lead the rest of my life according to God’s will, so that I
may be able, if I shall have preserved a good confession unshaken until the end, to obtain some
place, even the lowest, in the company of those who have pleased God.
4. I send greetings to all my holy fathers and brothers individually, but especially and particularly
to the most religious ex-provost and spiritual father Lord Gennadius, from whom I also especially
ask that he intercede for my weakness in his holy supplications to God.
May your holy prayers be with me!
Marcus of Ephesus.

201

DOCUMENT 21
 Letter Of Mark Of Ephesus To Theophanes The Priest On The Island Of Euboea.
To The Most Religious Hieromonk And Spiritual Father, And To Me Most Beloved And Venerable
Lord And Brother Lord Theophanes, At Euripus.
1. Most religious hieromonk and spiritual father, and to me most beloved and most honored
lord and brother in Christ, I pray God that your holiness may also be well in body: by whose holy
prayers I myself also, by God's mercy, am quite well. You should know that, as soon as I returned to
Constantinople, when one of those favoring the Latins who had subscribed had ascended to the
patriarchal see, and was bringing trouble to me, I departed to my church, compelled by necessity. In
which, since I likewise had no rest, but, seized by a grave illness, I was also harassed by many losses
and inconveniences from the infidels, because I had not received a mandate from the prince, I also
departed thence with the purpose of betaking myself to Mount Athos. And so, having crossed the
strait to Gallipoli, while I was passing through Lemnos, I was apprehended there by order of the
emperor and confined in custody. But the word of God and the power of truth are by no means
conquered, but rather are carried with an abundant and prosperous course. For very many brothers,
incited by my exile, assail those wicked men and violators of sound faith and ancestral customs with
all reproaches, and drive them away from everywhere as if they were refuse, plainly not enduring to
have sacred matters with them, or to recite their names as Christians from the diptychs.
2. I have also learned that a certain little servant of Monemvasia has been ordained as
metropolitan of Athens by the followers of the Latins, who, residing there, performs sacred rites
promiscuously with the Latins and illicitly ordains whomever he finds, of whatever sort. Wherefore
I beg your holiness, that, inflamed with zeal for God, as befits both a man of God and a friend of
truth and a genuine disciple of Saint Isidore, you urge the priests of God to flee his communion
plainly and entirely, not to perform sacred rites with him, nor in any way to make commemoration
of him, holding him not as a bishop, but as a wolf and a hireling; but let them themselves by no
means perform sacred rites in the temples of the Latins, lest the wrath of God, which has broken
out upon Constantinople on account of the wicked deeds which are perpetrated there, turn also
upon you.
3. Likewise, understand that that false union is now in such a state that, by the favor and power
of God, it is being completely dissolved, and that the doctrine of the Latins has not only not
become firmer through the pseudo-synod, to which they have always devoted their efforts, but is
even more vehemently refuted and convicted, so that it is everywhere condemned as blasphemous
and impious, so that even those who confirmed it do not dare to open their mouths to defend it. For
indeed that patron of your hireling, not pastor, that foolish man of Monemvasia, having obtained
the prefecture of Prodromus from the emperor, is not even commemorated, while sacred rites are
performed, by his own monks, nor is he in any way incensed with incense like the other faithful, but
they have commerce with him only in expediting business matters, as if he were a mere consul. The
emperor, having been made certain of this matter, says nothing, indeed openly confesses that he
regrets the deed, casting the blame upon those who subjected themselves and subscribed. Beware

203

 therefore yourselves, brothers, lest you communicate with the excommunicated, or commemorate
men by no means to be commemorated. Behold, I Mark the sinner signify this to you, that he who
has been accustomed to recite the name of the Pope as an orthodox pontiff is of such a kind that
he adopts all the rites of the Latins, even to the very shaving of the beard, and he who has sided
with the Latins will plainly be condemned with the Latins and held as a deserter of the faith.
May your holy prayers be with us.
To the excellent prince Lord Constantine Contopetrus and to all the other nobles who received
us with hospitality, many greetings and divine benediction.
Mark of Ephesus. June 16th.

204

DOCUMENT 22
 LEtter Of Mark Of Ephesus To Theophanes The Monk On The Island Of Imbros.
Of The Ephesian To Theophanes.
1. Most religious hieromonk, and to me most beloved and most honored father and brother in
the Lord, I pray God that your holiness may be well even in body, by whose holy prayers I myself
also, by God's mercy, am moderately well. Having received the letters of your holiness, I had no
small comfort in such great troubles by which we are oppressed, because men increased in honor
and rank beyond merit by the Church of God have afflicted it with insult and disgrace, by
associating to it companions cut off and rotten for many centuries and liable to six hundred
anathemas, and by polluting the spotless bride of Christ with commerce with them. For, just as if
past things were not enough for confirming the novelty which they have perpetrated, they have
chosen for themselves a patron, or rather a hireling, not a shepherd, a wolf, not a shepherd, whom
they can manage and bear as they please, and by his help they think that they will instill the most
wicked dogma of the Latins into the minds of all; and perhaps they will stir up persecution against
those who fear God, since they can in no way be led to assent to their communion.
2. While our affair was in this state, the letters of your holiness were returned, which instill much
comfort by the sincerity of your will, the integrity and candor of your mind, and the communion of
sentiment, refreshing our dejected mind. For now the contest is not about words, but about things;
nor is it a time for collecting sayings and arguments (for to what purpose, since the judges are so
corrupt?); but those who love God must strongly resist by the works themselves, prepared to
undergo any danger for the right faith, lest they be defiled by the company of the impious.
Wherefore I did not think that even the Syntagma of your holiness was useful to deliver to the
emperor, nor plainly without danger, since it can help to nothing else in the present state of affairs
except to move laughter and mockery of those who appear wisely unwise and are rashly driven by a
disordered and dark spirit. For now on account of our sins that saying has been fulfilled: "I will give
children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them.” And I pray that He who alone
can do all things may wish to restore his Church, and to calm the present storm, appeased by your
prayers, which may always be with us.
Mark of Ephesus and of all Asia.
To the most religious hieromonk and to me most beloved and most venerable father and brother
Lord Theophanes.

206

DOCUMENT 23
 The Dying Prayer Of Mark Of Ephesus To A Gathering Of Friends, And Specifically To George
Scholarius.
A
The words of our holy father Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, which he pronounced before
many bishops, presbyters, monks, laymen, on the day he migrated to God, and which the most
honorable and wise hieromonk committed to memory and writing.
I wish to explain more fully what I think, and now especially, while my death is imminent, so that
I may be consistent with myself from the beginning to the end, and may not appear to some to have
said one thing and hidden another in my heart, which it is necessary to reveal at this hour of my
resolution. Therefore, I wish the patriarch to be warned, lest perhaps under the guise of bestowing
honor on me at the funeral of this worthless body of mine or for sacred rites to be performed in my
memory he should decide to send any of his bishops or his clerics or anyone else of those who
communicate with him, to offer prayers or perform sacred rites together with the priests of our
party to be invited for these things, with the persuasion that I, in whatever way finally, even secretly,
admit his communion. But lest my silence should provide an occasion for suspecting some
compromise to those who do not fully and thoroughly know my purpose, I say and attest before
many most honorable men present here, that I neither approve nor accept his communion or that
of his followers in absolutely no way, neither while I am living, nor after death, neither the union
that has been perpetrated nor the dogmas of the Latins, which he and his supporters have accepted,
and by defending which he has acquired this dignity for himself to destroy the sound dogmas of the
Church. For I most certainly hold that the further I am separated from him and men of such kind,
the closer I approach God and all the saints; and insofar as I am divided from them, to that extent I
am united to the truth and the holy Fathers, the teachers of the Church: so I likewise hold it as
certain that their followers are very far distant from the truth and the blessed doctors of the Church.
And therefore I say this to you, that as my whole life I have been separated from them, so also at the
time of my departure, indeed after my death I abominate their communion and fellowship, and I
prescribe by oath that none of them should approach my funeral or the annual sacred rites either of
myself or of anyone else of those who adhere to us, to attempt to put on sacred vestments with
ours and perform divine service. For this would be to mix those things which cannot be mixed. For
it is necessary that they remain entirely separated from us, until God shall have granted the best
reformation and peace to his Church.
B
Then, when he had turned himself to the prince Scholarius, he said:
There are certain habits among philosophers, about which, although they have now fallen from
my memory, I shall nevertheless say a little, that there are indeed habits to be adapted to proposed
arguments, among which is also held the reason of the contingent, likewise also the reason of the
more contingent, which indeed the more contingent is almost the same as the necessary. This agrees
greatly with the argument of this speech. And so this is my opinion about Lord Scholarius.

208

 I have known him from his earliest age, and I pursue and love him with affection and love as my
son and friend and whatever else one may devise for conciliating friendship and charity. Having
conversed familiarly with him up to this point in time, I have most clearly perceived with how much
prudence and wisdom he is powerful, with how much faculty of speaking. Wherefore I do not
doubt at all that he alone, of those who remain at this time, is able to extend a helping hand to the
right faith, which is tossed by the fury of those who have corrupted the sincerity of the divine
dogmas, so that the Church may be reformed, with God helping, and the orthodox faith may be
strengthened, provided that he himself is willing not to fail the work, nor to hide his lamp under a
bushel. Indeed, I do not trust that he will be so affected, nor that he will so fail his own conscience,
that seeing the Church snatched away by a storm and the faith leaning on a weak man (I speak in
human fashion), and knowing that he has what he may offer for its aid, he should not undertake the
defense with all zeal and great alacrity of mind. For he is plainly not ignorant, wise man as he is, that
the subversion of the catholic faith is the ruin of all of us. And in past times indeed, when perhaps
he thought that those things were sufficient which were done by certain others, and especially by us,
for its defense, he did not seem to openly defend the truth, perhaps hindered by certain counsels or
men. But I formerly contributed either nothing or very little indeed to the defense of the faith, since
neither strength nor zeal was sufficient, as the matter demanded; but now I utterly perish: but what
is less valuable than what is nothing? If therefore he thought it superfluous to perform by himself
what could be performed by others, because he had judged that we could effect something in this
business, lest damage should arise from it for other reasons compared to the very small gain, as he
has often related the matter to me and asked for pardon: but now, since I must depart from here,
nor do I see anyone else who in the Church, in the faith, in defending the dogmas of true religion
can perform my parts just as he, therefore I ask him, since time not only invites but also urges, to
reveal the hidden spark of piety in himself, and to defend the Church and its sound doctrines, so
that what I myself could not accomplish, he may bring to an end with God’s help. For he is able to
do this with God favoring, on account of the innate prudence and faculty of speaking with which
he is powerful, provided that he wishes to use them opportunely. And although indeed he has this
duty to God, to the faith, to the Church, that he should contend faithfully and sincerely for the faith:
nevertheless, I myself commit such a duty to him, that he may be in my place a defender of the
Church and an interpreter of sound doctrine and a champion of orthodox dogmas and of the truth,
trusting in the help of God and in the truth itself, for which contests must be undergone, so that he
may offer himself as a companion in waging them to the holy doctors and God-bearing Fathers,
those excellent theologians, and may expect rewards from the just judge, by whom whoever have
contended for piety will be declared victors: likewise he ought to strive with all his strength to
establish the right dogmas of the Church as if he were about to render an account in the hour of
judgment both to God and to me, who commit this duty to him, relying on the good hope that these
my words will yield more than a hundredfold fruit, since I have cast them into the best soil. I would
wish him to respond to these things himself, so that departing from this life I may have full certainty,

209

 and may not breathe out my spirit with weariness, because I have utterly despaired of the Church
being reformed.
C
The Response of Lord Scholarius.
I, my holy lord, first indeed give great thanks to your great holiness for the praises which you
have bestowed upon me, while, in drawing me to you, you have ascribed to me gifts which I by no
means have, nor do I certainly know to be in me. This indeed the supreme goodness and virtue and
great wisdom of your great holiness has effected, which I myself have well known from the
beginning and have not ceased up to this day greatly to admire, deferring to your great holiness
whatever is owed both to a father and to a teacher and to an instructor, using your judgment as a
rule both of accurate doctrine and of most correct speech, myself consenting to those things which
were approved by you, but rejecting without hesitation whatever was not from the judgment of your
mind; and I have never refused to fulfill the parts of both a son and a disciple towards your great
holiness.
Of which matter I adduce your great holiness itself as a witness. For you know that I have never
approached you not thus affected towards you, and while I was revealing the innermost counsels of
my mind, I have given such assurances to you. But if at any time I did not openly approach those
battles which your greatest holiness was waging, but passed them over in silence, no one knows
better than your great holiness why I conducted myself thus, since when I had very often entrusted
my innermost feelings to you, and had purified myself, I did not fall from pardon.
But now, with God’s help, I have now despised all these things, and I have constituted myself a
most sincere and open defender of the truth, so that, remitting nothing of the dogmas of my
fathers and of the truth of the orthodox faith, I may preach according to the purpose of your
greatest holiness. But I do not confess these things because I see your great holiness departing from
here: for neither have we laid aside all hope, indeed, relying on God, we trust that you, convalescing
from this illness, will still be with us and will execute all these things together. But if by the hidden
judgments which God knows you shall have migrated hence to the place of rest which he himself
has prepared for you, and on account of our plain unworthiness you shall have sought the seat
which you are worthy of, I significantly reveal to you before God and the holy angels, who now
invisibly assist us, and to those many and most illustrious men who stand here, that I will be in your
place in the present matter and, as if with your own mouth, will embrace and defend whatever you
were embracing and teaching, and I will propose it with all zeal, in no way diminishing any of them,
but contending for them even to the utmost perils of blood and death. And although my use and
strength in these matters is exceedingly small, I nevertheless trust that your great holiness will supply
what is lacking to me, you surviving by your exceptional experience in such matters, but you being
released by fate, by your most acceptable supplications to God.

210

DOCUMENT 24
 BBook Of Manuel The Great Rhetorician Concerning Mark Of Ephesus And Concerning The
Things Done In The Council Of Florence.
Book Of Lord Manuel The Great Rhetorician Concerning Mark The Most Holy Metropolitan Of
Ephesus And Concerning The Florentine Synod, And Also A Refutation Against Gemistus And
Bessarion, And Their Impious Books.
1. Since among other things which were related in your letter to us, you also asked me in writing,
best of friends, that I briefly explain to you the things done by the blessed Mark, who adorned the
episcopal see of Ephesus, whence indeed he had his origin and how he conducted himself in the
eighth synod coerced among the Italians, with whom disputants he joined himself during that time,
whether indeed he seems to have disputed according to the accurate mind of the holy theologians,
who persistently dissenting from him were, on account of their own cunning, also the authors of
deflecting others from the equal and right way: come now, to fulfill this your desire, I shall attempt
to say these things briefly indeed, as far as it will be possible, so that you may have readily what you
may read as an example of exceptional virtue and a document of our sincere friendship towards
you.
2. Therefore, this most holy Mark was a son and alumnus of the royal city itself. From his very
first hair, so to speak, he was dedicated by his parents to learning common disciplines; which when
he had traversed in a short time like a bird, he surpassed all his fellow students and contemporaries.
Then, having been admitted to the sacred order of the Great Church, with blessing and sacred
prayer imparted by the most holy among the patriarchs and that most wise Euthymius, he placed all
his study in the divinely inspired scriptures; and soon, having assumed the monastic habit in the
sacred and great monastery of Mangana, he devoted himself entirely to the solitary life. He so
contained himself in the monastery and his own cell for the sake of preserving solitude, that he did
not grant the power of seeing him even to relatives and friends and those connected to him by
kinship, but he devoted one labor night and day to perpetual meditation on the divine letters,
whence he acquired for himself that sea of opinions which his published works testify to. Finally, his
neck having been subjected to the divine yoke of the priesthood, and not long after having been
constituted bishop of the Ephesians by the great and most holy Church, unwilling indeed, but at the
requests of many friends, he thenceforth amplified and increased as much as he could a greater
arena for cultivating virtue.
3. But while he in this way was receiving greater divine increases day by day, he who at that time
held the Roman scepter (he was the emperor John of good memory, who was the sixth in order
from the Palaeologus family), seeing the Agarene race progressing more widely day by day, but ours
constricted from all sides and reduced to utter extermination, so to speak, and therefore fearing lest
the very prince of cities should be reduced to dominion with the Roman empire’s boundaries
gradually being devastated, just as indeed at another time, alas! it happened, he deemed it right to
join to himself as allies in war those who were in Italy. But he could not safely accomplish this
unless, with a council having been coerced, he should take care with all his strength either to

212

 compose or in some way to remove from the midst those heads of our theology contrary to which
they had inserted into the orthodox dogmas with a zeal for novelty. But these were, both that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and that essence in God is the same as operation: which things,
unless they were clarified synodically and expressly, so to speak, he judged that neither people would
agree to one way of rightly thinking, nor on account of this would they bear mutual aid among
themselves. When this counsel, in appearance indeed excellent, had been proposed to himself by
that most religious Christ-worshipping emperor, pressed by necessity, he sent a legation to the
Roman pontiff for the sake of handling the matter. He, when he had received it courteously indeed,
greatly rejoicing concerning the proposal, in turn asked through his legates that a council for
composing the matters should be held at Florence, which also was done. For the emperor, having
assumed some chosen and learned men around himself, also summoned the blessed Mark whom we
mentioned above, and when he arrived there and the synod was coerced, he constituted him its
exarch, as was fitting; for with six men designated from each side who should hold discourse, Mark
was ordered to lead our men, among whom both Bessarion, that prelate of Nicaea, and Gemistus,
men indeed intent on God and corrupted in many ways, were present with other shifty men or
traffickers in divine matters. These men were not only deceitful heretics (from which it happened
that they turned their backs to the adversaries and at that very time solicited their supporters to
betray the truth by promising honors and rewards), but they were also most open impious men,
carrying around in their minds the ancient abomination of the Greeks concerning gods, or rather
demons, just as their plainly most wicked books sufficiently demonstrate, which they left behind to
pervert and offend simpler men.
4. Furthermore, since we have briefly mentioned their names, so that their impiety and
wickedness may be plainly and sufficiently manifest to all, I shall relate in this place their own bare
words; then indeed I shall show, as in a summary, the reproach and disgrace which is gathered
thence, so that with the filth of their minds now placed before the eyes of all, no one may undertake
to read through these impious writings of theirs, and all may know how great a vice arrogance is, by
which some, trusting in themselves and not safely following the divine fathers, have been snatched
into the precipice of impiety and madness. Thus indeed the things which one of them, I say
Bessarion the cardinal, wrote to Gemistus, that most wicked man, seeking solutions of certain
difficulties concerning those who, as they indeed judge, produce themselves, namely gods,
concerning whom, in discoursing, he thought that his teachers and authors of his own utter ruin
differed from the common opinion, by which it is established that all things have been effected by
one author, namely God. But it is established among us and all rightly thinking according to divine
and human wisdom, who indeed confess the truth with a sincere conscience, that this man by no
means imputed the error of worshipping many gods to those men whom he enumerates in this
place, while he proposes these doubts to his supporter Gemistus (for who would have done this,
since he well knew that he was of the same opinion as he?); but he questions their theology through
simulation as an enigma astonishing him and with a very willing mind desiring to be most firmly

213

 instructed concerning it, and not, so to speak, to stammer. Indeed, from other impious words of the
same man it plainly appears that he was firm and fixed in such a most wicked error, by which a
multitude of gods is asserted, and with God the living God having been spontaneously and
voluntarily abjured, one indeed in nature, but threefold in hypostases and properties, he has lapsed
into that dark and outer fire of Gehenna, with the error by no means having been abandoned.
Wherefore our oration, while it pursues Bessarion and Gemistus his follower, aptly glides down also
into them and into the false persuasion of a multitude of gods, and vice versa: for these men
labored with the same impiety as those men, and those men as these men. But such words must now
be related by us, and the perverse and most God-hostile judgment which they exhibit must be
refuted.
5. “Since therefore,” he says, “one opinion has prevailed among all and that most certain, that
nothing exists anywhere which does not have a cause, we nevertheless find not a few followers of
Plato, such as Proclus and Hermias and Damascius, who think that both the soul and all gods prior
to it in time, whether intelligible, or both intelligible and intelligent at the same time, or intelligent,
subsist through themselves; but someone might say that not even Porphyry and Iamblichus and
Syrianus think otherwise concerning such and so grave a question, since he discovers that those
whom we have mentioned frequently use their opinions and for the most part assent to their
opinions. Wherefore with one consent, as it were, of those men whom we have mentioned, they
pronounce that entities of such a kind subsist through themselves, and indeed subsist through
themselves in such a way that they constitute themselves and produce themselves, and that all things
are at the same time both caused and causes.”
6. From these words he begins the writing, from which it is understood how fervent in those
men is the man's faith, or to speak more truly, aberration, with which he both enumerates them and
expounds their and his own tenets or trifles. But let these be as a fringe, by which, as is accustomed
to be done, the whole most impure texture is revealed. These things indeed anyone will reject as
impious fabrications, especially since the conclusion which is inferred thence has been badly
deduced, which, as in a man professing philosophy, seems utterly incongruous. But vain glory, says
John Chrysostom, everywhere strikes against itself. For who, if he knowingly establishes an
argument with the worship of God safe, would judge some being to be so subsisting through itself
that it constitutes itself and proceeds into being through itself from nothing; or, what is the same,
draws itself from potentiality into actuality? We do not say that this even falls to the cause itself of
all things, namely God of all things, from whom all things have been produced from non-being into
being. For that which leads itself from potentiality into actuality, there was certainly a time when it
was not; but whatever is later in time, how is it eternal? And what is not eternal, how is it God?
Indeed, Aristotle, in book Lambda of the Metaphysics, shows this very thing, while he asserts that
the most excellent first mind, namely God, is pure actuality and entirely devoid of potentiality. “For
it is possible,” he says, “not to operate, which has potentiality; nor likewise if it will indeed operate,
but its substance is potentiality: for there will not be perpetual motion. For what is potential, it is

214

 possible for it not to be. Therefore, it is necessary that there be such a principle whose substance is
actuality.” For since he wished to demonstrate that God is both devoid of a principle and eternal,
and does not obtain existence from himself, compelled by the force and necessity of the argument,
he declares him both pure actuality and that his very existence is actuality, driving far from him
whatever of potentiality there is according to the double signification of this word.
Wherefore, as is consequent, he asserts the same to be entirely immobile. For whence would he
be moved? For if indeed he were moved, he would be moved from potentiality into actuality. But
since he is indeed pure actuality, he remains utterly immobile according to substance, moving indeed
all other things by ineffable power and changing them according to his will, as he who has created all
beings both intelligible and sensible. Wherefore he defines the same: a living eternal best. And
indeed life is, he says, since eternal life is the most excellent act of the mind. Finally, bringing
forward a general conclusion, he subjoins: Therefore, that there is some eternal and immobile
substance, and likewise distinct from sensible things, is clear; and that it is impassible and immutable;
one, not many: “for it is not good,” he says with Homer, “a multitude of rulers; let there be one
ruler.” As if he had said: One is the principle of things and one God.
7. “For what is sufficiently done with one being posited,” as a certain other theologian says, “it is
better to be done through one than through many. But the order of things is as it can be best; for
the power of the first agent does not lack the power which is in things for perfection. But all things
are sufficiently completed by being led back to one first principle. Therefore, it is not to posit more
principles or more gods.”
“Furthermore.” “If there are two, each of which it is necessary to be, it is necessary that they
agree in the intention of necessary being: therefore it is necessary that they be distinguished by
something which is added, either to only one, or to both. And thus it is necessary either that one, or
both, be composite. But nothing composite is necessary to be through itself. Therefore, it is
impossible that there be more, each of which it is necessary to be; and thus more gods.”
“Moreover.” “If there are more gods, it is necessary that the nature of divinity is not one in
number in each: therefore it is necessary that there be something distinguishing the divine nature in
this and in that. But this is impossible, because the divine nature does not receive addition nor any
difference. Nor is the divine nature the form of some matter, so that it can be divided according to
the division of matter. Therefore, it is impossible that there be more gods.” For if there were more
gods, since they themselves would attribute essence to themselves and they themselves would
produce themselves and they themselves would be the cause of themselves, there would also be held
more principalities. But everything which has more principles is by its nature seditious and turbulent
and stirs up the dissolution of everything. For for this reason Jupiter himself, according to Homer,
with ambushes having been built by the other gods, was about to be prostrated and cast into bonds,
unless, having been more quickly informed by Thetis concerning the conspiracy having been begun,
he had appointed Aegeon as his guard. Indeed, if the Greeks in their doctrine concerning the gods
had established the rule of one, such sedition and confusion would not have had a place among

215

 them nor fabulous garrulity. Wherefore the same Homer, having spurned the rule of many, “it is not
good,” he says, “the rule of many: let there be one ruler.” Which words Aristotle, as befits a
philosopher, having borrowed, in handing down his theology, rejected polyarchy and approved
monarchy, with this same verse having been employed.
8. But although Aristotle was a manifest pagan, nevertheless he seems to have touched upon the
truth selectively in some things, even if he falsely judges essence and operation to be the same in
God. For we both rightly think and declare essence to be one thing, but operation to be another: for
that which is had is asserted to be distinguished from that which has, the truly divine and most wise
theologians assert. But, however that is, he is discovered to have touched upon the truth somewhat
in most things; but truly Bessarion and Gemistus, even after the law of grace having been given,
which they participated in simulatedly, and the flower of divinely given truth having been emitted
from it, plainly remained foolish, as it is said in the proverb: He who is not able to see through a
sieve is blind. For having feigned the profession of Christians both in acting and in speaking and
afflicting the Spirit of grace with contumely, with Proclus, who was a leader to them for perdition,
they generate, fashion, profess many gods subsisting through themselves: and this since nothing in
the nature of things can either somewhat or simply subsist through itself, as has been demonstrated.
For there is no thing which does not have a cause, nor those, as we say, intelligent powers, which
since they are secondary splendors, have been produced from the first and principle-less light and
participate in the very entity before other created things, nor anything else of those things which are
liable to generation and corruption. Thus vapors, when the earth has been moistened and warmed
by the sun, insofar as more or less heat and dryness and humidity are carried around promiscuously
up to that place where the reflection of the solar ray now ceases, because the heat is weakened there
and the cold prevails, are necessarily dissolved: and accordingly from the heat, if it becomes more
fervent, lightnings are born, if less, winds; from the humid indeed, clouds; and from the clouds,
rains. Likewise, a species from a seed, but this from a generating one which is complete in actuality.
And thus proceeding from one to another in this way you will by no means stop until you have
arrived at the first principle and cause, namely at the very being, God.
9. Therefore, it is clear that there is no being which so subsists through itself that it obtains
generation from itself, neither among purely intelligible beings, nor among purely sensible beings,
nor among those which are in the middle. For even if, about to define a composite substance, we say
that it is a thing subsisting through itself which does not need another for subsisting, nevertheless,
while we say this, we by no means think that it attributes existence to itself through itself, so that
one and the same thing is at the same time both cause and caused, like those gods posited by
Gemistus and Bessarion. For it would be ridiculous and quite foolish if what in no way naturally falls
to that immaterial substance and plainly void of any materiality and in no way composite, which
understands itself as if circularly by a certain most simple intelligence, that very thing should agree
with a composite and material substance, which indeed it is plainly established is temporal, as having
received both existence and composition from another, namely from the cause of all things.

216

 Therefore, we neither think nor say this, but that it does not need the hand by which it was
produced to be continually present: for when the efficient cause has once been satisfied and fully
enjoyed, it suffices for itself both for its own existence and for accidental existence. Therefore,
nothing in things so subsists through itself that it receives generation from itself; but we say that
substances subsist through themselves in the way which we have explained, not because they were
not produced by another, but because, having been created by the first cause, they are now from
themselves equal to existing.
10. Nor is it less ridiculous, what they fashion for themselves, that gods are liable to corruption
and plainly finite. For if they are many and become increased in multitude, they will also certainly be
finite. For infinity cannot be considered except in the one author alone of all things, to whom also
immutability is attributed and all-round incomposition, and also immateriality and simplicity and
omnipotence, and all other things which, as certain perfections, are essentially inherent in him as a
truly most absolute and one only supremely good being, in whom they coalesce in an
incomprehensible and singular way according to a certain ineffable and inexplicable excellence. For
among those beings which have been created by him, one is more powerful than another to that
extent, so to speak, and more perfect and more remote from matter and more infinite, insofar as
each is able to participate in him; but if they are compared with him, all are equally imperfect and
empty of substance, since he is infinitely removed from all in infinite ways according to the initiatory
principle of theological science. Therefore, since those whom they posit are many gods, it is plainly
necessary that these be finite, likewise also corruptible, as indeed they judge, as having been
generated. For if they subsist through themselves, they are also certainly generated, and therefore
liable to corruption: for these, as is their opinion, themselves produce themselves into being when
they were not, although Proclus their patron, in chapter XLV of his Theological Institutes, as if
arguing absurdly and madly both thinks and says, wrongly pronouncing: “Everything which is
subsisting through itself is devoid of generation.” But he utters these things not without arrogance,
as if he were speaking and writing to men lacking mind. Thus indeed any empty boaster is
accustomed to pass over his own lapses, with his mind blinded by a drunken fury: on the contrary,
he who is humble by his nature, whose virtues and glorious deeds are illuminated by divine grace.
Therefore, since that is said to be subsisting through itself which produces itself from itself
according to such an abnormal philosopher in all things; but that which is produced is nothing other
than what is made, by what way finally will that which is made be devoid of generation? But if what
is made has been generated, it is necessary that that itself be corruptible. Wherefore it is plainly
established that the gods posited by Bessarion and Gemistus are both corruptible and do not subsist
through themselves, both from the common and well-deduced judgment of the faithful and from
the very syllogisms or rather paralogisms of their famous patron. Indeed, this learned and hidden
patron of theirs has fallen into this absurdity, lest perhaps he should say that what subsists through
itself is imperfect; but he did not notice this, that he who says these things plainly diminishes the

217

 power of the first cause of all things, as if it were not suitable for effecting some perfect things,
when they were nowhere at all, that they might be.”
11. Moreover, that they think that each of those whom they consider gods is at the same time
both cause and caused, is most ridiculous and in no way philosophical. For a cause must be prior to
its caused either in time or in reason; but how can it happen that prior and posterior coincide at the
same time in one and the same thing? And by what pact will some thing, since it is one and the same
and not truly different from itself according to substance, be able to be both itself through itself
and another? For it is established that the caused and the cause are truly another and another, unless
we rave after the manner of drunkards. This is clearly evinced even from the very notion of those
things which are related, to which both cause and caused are referred as to their species. For those
are said to be related, as many as those very things which are, are said to be of others or are referred
to another in any other way: for a genus is also accustomed to be predicated univocally of its species.
But if we in our reason of discoursing or speaking about God say that the Father is the cause of the
Son and the Spirit, who are from him as caused; nevertheless, we say one and another cause of one
and another of the caused in one nature and substance: since we say one and another hypostasis, not
however one and another thing. "For the word 'another'," as the philosopher and equally theologian
Gregory says, "is accustomed to be used of those whose substance is the same."
Indeed, we say that God first and through himself understands himself, not however that he
produces himself or is the cause of himself. For since the thing understood is the perfection of the
one understanding, there will be nothing else primarily understood by God besides himself, because
nothing at all exists more noble and perfect than him. But if it were otherwise, since intellectual
operation has species and nobility according to that which is primarily understood, the intellectual
operation of God would have species and nobility according to that which is other than him: but
this is impossible. Therefore, there is nothing which is understood by God first and through himself
other than himself. Therefore, we say that he understands himself, not however that he is the cause
of himself. Therefore, no thing, if it is one and the same, can be caused and cause, nor in any way
subsist through itself, as has already been demonstrated, as if it itself gave existence and substance
to itself, not even the maker of all intelligible and sensible things and our God. For again that truly
philosophical and theological voice says in the oration On the Dogma and Constitution of Bishops:
"Therefore, the Father is devoid of a principle: for neither from elsewhere, nor from himself does
he have being. But the Son, if indeed you accept the Father as cause, by no means lacks a principle;
for the principle of the Son is the Father, as cause; but if you have understood a principle
concerning time, he is also devoid of every principle: for neither is the Lord of times subjected to
time."
But the golden orator John in the first of his On the Incomprehensible homilies: "For that
God," he says, "is everywhere, I know, and that he is whole indeed everywhere; for he is devoid of
partition. But by what pact, I do not know: for reason is not able to attain this. For how can that
substance be known, which has being neither from itself nor from another?" Therefore, God is not

218

 something subsisting through itself. But if God is not something subsisting through itself, it is
certainly far from the case that anything else of beings is something of such a kind, since all things
have been produced from non-being into being by him. Nay rather, we do not even precisely say that
God suffices for himself for subsisting. For that which suffices for itself from itself, that alone is
sufficient; but whatever is sufficient for itself, that does not have what it communicates. But God is
not sufficient for himself, but super-sufficient; nor full, but super-full, and all rivers of goodness
flow forth from him. Similarly, if you consider the matter accurately, you would properly say that
God is not something eternal, but pre-eternal; then eternity is had; finally that which is everlasting.
For that is said to be everlasting which participates in eternity; but any thing participating is certainly
inferior to the thing participated in. Therefore, by how much that which is sufficient for itself
precedes, by so much also it surpasses that which subsists through itself.
12. But I judge that what has been said thus far is sufficient for most clearly proving that those
gods established by Bessarion and Gemistus lack any foundation, both for showing what was the
impiety of both: for with a feigned Christian profession indeed, one of them devoured the money
of the Italians, having obtained great esteem in those parts, with deceitful and ridiculous books
written and published concerning dogmatic matters; but the other indeed enjoyed grace plainly
undeservedly with that most happy and most religious among princes Theodore, that most
celebrated man. Indeed, we would not have employed such as if shadowed refutations against them,
especially in this age, in which almost no one exists who accurately perceives such things or, burning
with divine zeal, survives for vindicating the truth, since with most the charity of divine things has
grown cold, as Scripture says, and has utterly withered; nor indeed to show off our art in writing, as
the Lord knows, namely the very Wisdom itself; nor also, lest perhaps someone should think that we
are grieving over the false excellence of their erudition and subtlety: for we are not, God favoring,
those men, nor do we so fall in spirit. Let those envy them who, having been made participants in
their impiety and error, nevertheless are most far distant from their skill in composing words. And
so not because we are moved by any of these reasons, but because we bear with difficulty their most
open impiety and negation of God, which indeed conceived in minds and mouth they have
studiously poured forth in writing to plainly deceive simpler men, as we said even from the
beginning of the work, moved by fervent zeal for the faith we have used such words and responses
against them. Wherefore if anyone is incensed by these our words against them, he, as it seems,
having feigned the Christian religion and name, is involved in the same error and impiety as they.
13. But indeed the words also of that most wicked Gemistus must be related by us in this place
as if incidentally, and it must be seen in what way he responds in letters rewritten to Bessarion, the
companion of his defection. “Indeed, it must by no means be thought,” he says, “that those men
whom you enumerate agree among themselves in all things. Certainly, they agree among themselves
in most and principal chapters; there are nevertheless things in which they dissent. For example,
whom Plato makes the nearest maker of this heaven, Proclus, referring Platonic dogmas to the
fables of Orpheus, constituted him fourth from the first cause; but Plotinus the third, as one who

219

 has looked up to most of the poets; but Julian the second, as perhaps he had learned from
Maximus.”
15. But perhaps it is not at all surprising that he both writes and discusses such things in these
letters to Bessarion, a supporter of the same opinion. One can see in the noise of words the proud
mind of the man, with which, insane, he writes and pronounces such things: which some, delighting
in, not otherwise than in those monsters composed of men and oxen according to Empedocles,
unless I am mistaken, by reforming dissimilar parts from similar ones in turn, foolishly supported
him; not because, with the matter diligently explored, they approved his theology (for not so great a
splendor of light was in it, as is clear to anyone not plainly unskilled in the art of dialectic from his
impure works, nor again, if it had been either in him or in anyone else, would they have been able to
attain the matter: asses to the lyre, as the proverb says); but because they were led by vain rumor so
rashly fabricated by the impostor devil, or because, connected to the man by intimate familiarity,
they attributed this heap of friendship to him. And Gemistus, while he was vomiting forth these and
other so nefarious trifles, established in extreme old age, was now approaching the gates of hell,
hearing the barking of Cerberus and perceiving the din of the Furies; nevertheless, not caring much
about these things, he both thinks and writes these things without shame, offering a clear argument
of his latent impiety, nay, for narrating the generations of his gods he assumes as a garrulous teacher
and theologian even that execrable and most impure Julian: for such is the dung, such is the shovel.
But perhaps it is not at all surprising that he both writes and discusses such things in these letters
to Bessarion, a supporter of the same opinion; for they seem not unlike those which it is to read in
that exceedingly impious and most wicked book, in which, alas! wandering insanely, he disputed
concerning the multitude of gods, then concerning the providence of the gods and their diverse
kinds, most especially indeed concerning the seven most excellent gods, concerning the origin of
Poseidon and of the other supercelestial gods, concerning prayers to be poured forth to the gods,
concerning the commerce of one man with many women, concerning sacred rites to be performed
in the worship of the gods, concerning Jupiter the king and also concerning the supercelestial gods
and concerning those who are in heaven; and thenceforth concerning demons and that they are not
evil, and against their calumniators: plainly it was to be contended by him with his strength for
impure demons, to whose will and nod he had accommodated himself entirely, so that he might also
become an heir of him who has been prepared for them of outer and dark and unquenchable fire.
For when the most wretched man had denied the maker of heaven and earth, and had plainly been
ignorant of that: In the beginning God created heaven and earth, he absurdly adduces his leaders to
perdition discoursing concerning the gods also in this place for establishing the origin of their first
god, namely of Jupiter. For those whom they posit as gods, these both are generated and perish,
and, so to speak, are transmitted from some to others. Is it not of a plainly erring mind both to
think and to write such things? Whom indeed, he says, Plato, his parent, makes the maker of all
things, namely Jupiter, him Proclus, following the theology of Orpheus, asserts to have been fourth,
with the enumeration having been led from the first, with intermediates certainly preceding him in

220

 time. O wretched philosophy, which does not treat of true being, insofar as it is permitted, but
weaves together some deceitful and fictitious mythology, about which we shall soon speak, so that
that Gemistus may be held in greater contempt and reproach, who, perhaps not unskilled in the
Attic dialect, affects in an old womanly way to vomit forth words of such shameful and impious
kind, not with philosophical reason, if the meaning is considered, but certainly boasting with only
false elegance of speech, he calls the speech to the fables of Orpheus and swells it up in whatever
way. Which composition and elegance of words the impudent man has vitiated with most wicked
arguments, as if someone should employ polluted and plainly most vile materials for showing off his
art in making garments for men, when he could have used clean and fit materials for the matter. But
this fabulous or trifling generation of gods which they feign must now be expounded by us, so that
we may the more refute and condemn them, and all may well know how monstrous things men
professing philosophy have most shamefully handed down, however much it may be troublesome to
us to bring forward and produce such foul ineptitudes into the midst, with which those things are no
more ridiculous than those which are read in the scenic comedies of the comedians. And these
things are thus.
16. Therefore, that Orpheus, very celebrated among the Greeks, in that which, if I remember
well, he published Theogony, as it is called, narrating fables with these very words says that Phanes
first of all existed, the greatest of their parents, Who gave the tamed world to the divided mortals,
Whom the illustrious king Ericapaeus first held. To this one succeeded Night, Holding the royal
scepters in her hands, the glory of Ericapaeus. Afterwards followed Uranus, The first king of the
gods after the death of parent Night. Then came “Jupiter, king of the immortal gods.” Him
however others say to have been the fifth king according to oracles given by Night, while addressing
him, She pronounced you to be the fifth king over the perpetual gods.
17. But perhaps it is not at all surprising that he both writes and discusses such things in these
letters to Bessarion, a supporter of the same opinion. One can see in the noise of words the proud
mind of the man, with which, insane, he writes and pronounces such things: which some, delighting
in, not otherwise than in those monsters composed of men and oxen according to Empedocles,
unless I am mistaken, by reforming dissimilar parts from similar ones in turn, foolishly supported
him; not because, with the matter diligently explored, they approved his theology (for not so great a
splendor of light was in it, as is clear to anyone not plainly unskilled in the art of dialectic from his
impure works, nor again, if it had been either in him or in anyone else, would they have been able to
attain the matter: asses to the lyre, as the proverb says); but because they were led by vain rumor so
rashly fabricated by the impostor devil, or because, connected to the man by intimate familiarity,
they attributed this heap of friendship to him. And Gemistus, while he was vomiting forth these and
other so nefarious trifles, established in extreme old age, was now approaching the gates of hell,
hearing the barking of Cerberus and perceiving the din of the Furies; nevertheless, not caring much
about these things, he both thinks and writes these things without shame, offering a clear argument

221

 of his latent impiety, nay, for narrating the generations of his gods he assumes as a garrulous teacher
and theologian even that execrable and most impure Julian: for such is the dung, such is the shovel.
O how many falsehoods and ineptitudes the theology of these wise men has fashioned! What
more shameful could be devised? Execrable indeed are they on account of their error, but more
execrable on account of the vileness of those things which they venerate. And they affect
philosophy and profess the art of philosophizing, which indeed, as being engaged especially in the
investigation of being itself, that is, of truth, and being accustomed to diligently investigate that,
detests and utterly rejects such fabulous figments as badly deduced and contrary to being (for they
are false), especially that multitude of gods, who insofar as they are many, are finite and corruptible
and imperfect, as we said before. Moreover, they are distant both from unity and from each other:
but the more they are distant, the more they lack unity and fall away from goodness. Wherefore they
are not simply good; insofar as they are not good, they are evil, such as we know the wicked demons
to have been, who, when they were good by their nature, by perverse will have become most
shameful and evil. These evil demons, when they had received Gemistus departing after death very
festively and courteously, as one who had spent his life in the body entirely at their nod, in a letter
sent to his insane son Bessarion, a man of the same opinion as he, for bringing consolations, as far
as it was permitted to him, says: “It has been reported to me that our common parent and teacher,
with any earthly things having been laid aside, has flown into heaven and the most luminous places,
to dance the secret Bacchic dance with the gods of Olympus.” Alas! after serenity, a dark cloud! after
truth, a lie! after the sun, darkness! after one God in nature in three hypostases, the true creator of
things and of all things on account of his excessive goodness, many gods, diverse in nature, time,
order, producing themselves and the authors of themselves, likewise now procreated, as indeed
some among their theologians judge, now procreating, and in this way foolishly cut off into various
parts, nor plainly worthy to be called gods (for divinity is something undivided); to these things is
added that most shameful Bacchic dance. And these things he relates in mind, in words, in tenets, he
who was a cardinal of elder Rome, Bessarion! Let all Christians who dwell everywhere through Italy
diligently listen, princes and subjects, private citizens and nobles, the people faithful in deed and
name of the Lord, as having been clothed with the grace of divine baptism; let them listen, I say,
what a most wicked man, without recognizing him, they have magnificently affected with very many
rewards and dignities, although he undoubtedly both in deed and in mouth denied Christ our God
and carried around in his impure mind many gods leading themselves into being, a crowd namely of
wicked demons, nay, a most shameful Bacchic dance to be danced by them not otherwise than by
the frogs of Aristophanes. Thus he follows and cultivates his supporter Gemistus as a pledge of
friendship and mutual concord: for in this way those who worship demons are worshipped by
demons.
18. Besides these things and with these things, the same man, professing and writing in this same
impure and most wicked letter the transmigration of souls according to the tenets of Plato or
Pythagoras, says a little lower: “Wherefore if anyone admits the doctrine of the perpetual ascent and

222

 descent of souls of Pythagoras equally as of Plato, very agreeable indeed to reason, he will not
doubt to add this also, that the soul of Plato, after it had served bound by the indissoluble bonds of
Adrastia and had completed the fatal circuit, descended into the earth, and with the body of
Gemistus having been assumed, led life with him.” O diabolical insanity, with which this excellent
man both thinking and writing things entirely alien both from the common mind of the faith and
from the very natural consequence and character, approves this doctrine very impudently and
shamelessly and asserts it to be agreeable to reason. Moreover, that they are directly and
diametrically opposed to the Christian religion, that is clear to the blind themselves, as they say; but
that they are opposed even to the very connection and nature of things, that must now be
considered by us, with these words having been brought forward not unseasonably against the man:
19. But hey you, if from your own alone, not from the opinion of Pythagoras or Plato (for these
do not assert that souls go into heaven, so that descending thence again they are sent into bodies,
but they assert that they go into Tartarus, thence to return again into life; whence it happens that the
souls of men do not descend in a certain orbit, as you assert, but ascend from Tartarus: for not into
heaven and the pure region, but into Tartarus, as has been said, they are said by them to go, now
into the Dog, now into Pluto, now into Persephone: for Socrates thinks this in the Phaedo according
to Plato saying: “Whoever, with other pleasures and ornaments of the body having been neglected,
has studiously followed the pleasures which are perceived in learning, and has adorned his mind not
with a foreign, but with his own ornament, temperance, justice, fortitude, liberty, truth, thus
expecting migration to Tartarus, as if about to migrate thence, when fate shall have called);—if
therefore thus ascending from Tartarus they are sent into other bodies and revive, whence is it clear
to you that that soul, which has turned aside into the body of Gemistus, was of Plato? For not only
one wise man existed in the present life Plato, but before him very many, but after him not a few
equal to him both in speech and in mind, nay, much more excellent than him have been; especially
indeed very many sacred doctors of our holy Church have surpassed him by far both in doctrine and
in genius: whence it happens that it is plainly uncertain whose such a soul was. For it can happen
that it was first of some other, then sent into Plato, thence again transferred into another it has
revived, with many bodies even perhaps of irrational beasts having been changed, such as of an ass
or horse or lion or bee or wasp, and finally has turned aside into Gemistus, and again from him into
others, so that it cannot be said whose finally such a soul was: for it must not be said definitely of
this or that; for only one continuous transmigration of the same through an infinite multitude of
bodies is judged. Wherefore it entirely escapes us whose that soul was, which, having gone out from
Tartarus, has now inhabited the body of Gemistus composed for the destruction of man. But if
that soul was of Plato, Gemistus certainly was first brought into life without a proper soul, endowed
and moved only by a sensible and reasonless soul; but later, after having received namely the soul of
Plato, instructed with reason and moving himself in human fashion equally as the rest of men. But
neither he nor any one of men can rightly be called an individual: for he is said to be divided and cut
both into Gemistus and into Plato: into Gemistus indeed, if you look at the body; but into Plato, if