A sample from De processione Spiritus Sancti: Tractate 3, On the corruptions perpetrated in the works of the Latin Fathers
Here we present an annotated translation of the third of Zoernikav’s nineteen Tractates, based on the 1774-1775 edition published by G.L. Hartung at Königsberg.[a] In this tractate, Zoernikav catalogues numerous instances (real or imagined) in which reference to the filioque has been interpolated into Latin Christian writings, down to the beginning of the ninth century. The tractate does not simply give a representative snapshot of the work’s wide learning in both Patristics and contemporary polemics. It also allows one to retrace aspects, at least, of the conditions and chronology of Zoernikav’s composition and to mark out some of the intellectual limits of his method.
Zoernikav proceeds through his authors in chronological order, beginning with what is ostensibly the earliest of his authorities: On the Cardinal Works of Christ (De cardinalibus operibus Christi), attributed to Cyprian of Carthage (3.1). Here, the breadth of his reading is on full display. He cites no fewer than twelve editions published in five different Western European cities, and engages also with three Roman Catholic writers, including a notable editor (Jacobus Pamelius, Jacques de Pamele), one of the most illustrious theologians of the post-Tridentine period (Robert Cardinal Bellarmine), and one of his closer interlocutors, the Polish Jesuit Nicolaus Cichovius (named only in marginal comments, but frequently in view).
The entry also places a hard chronological limit on Zoernikav’s reading. His latest edition of Cyprian dates from 1648, and he gives no hint of knowing anything about the greatest of the early modern editions of Cyprian, which was published at Oxford in 1682 by the famous John Fell. The omission is highly significant, since Fell, unlike Pamelius, recognized that On the Cardinal Works of Christ could not be a work of Cyprian at all. That point that would have worked to Zoernikav’s favor by displaying both the ignorance and the perfidy (as he will have seen it) of the Latin scribes. Zoernikav is unlikely, therefore, to have added appreciably to his reading after his arrival, in 1680, in Chernihiv, and will not (one infers) have maintained a strong network of scholarly contacts in the West. These inferences square with repeated references (3.3, 36) to the recency of the Parisian edition of the conciliar acts—in itself, of course, merely a statement that it was newer than the other editions available—which began to appear in 1672.
Whether Zoernikav was working from brief notes or editing a text already substantially written while in the West is not perfectly clear. We have not been able to consult the 1772 editio princeps or the manuscript held at the New York Public Library, nor to determine the whereabouts of his diary, which was apparently extant in the nineteenth century.[b] Minor inconsistencies within the 1774 edition do not, therefore, reliably reveal Zoernikav’s methods. Thus, to name one at first bewildering example, the repetition of seemingly identical texts of pseudo-Cyprian, as if they somehow differed, within 3.1 in fact points to the inclusion or exclusion of commas within various editions of On the Cardinal Works of the Christ. Here, the printer is very likely at fault. In one of the same sections, Zoernikav also gets his source’s text slightly wrong. That is more likely due to his error and, while only a complete re-examination of his sources could show how common such lapses are, comparison of several texts with modern critical editions (and the variants listed in their apparatus critici) suggest that they are reasonably frequent.[c] Whether Zoernikav had begun the final “writing up” before he settled in the Ukraine, therefore, or not, he is unlikely to have checked his final text against his sources directly. He also worked at least occasionally out of order: in Tractate 3, he repeatedly refers to Tractate 4 and occasionally to Tractate 5 as if they had already been written and even appears, in 3.38, to treat the conclusion to Tractate 3 as if it, too, had already been composed.
These are clues to the timing and order of Zoernikav’s composition and to the redaction the work may have undergone while still in his own hands. The inclusion of the On the Cardinal Works of Christ also begins to reveal the work’s weaknesses. First, Zoernikav is reliant on printed editions almost to the exclusion of manuscript evidence. In the late seventeenth century, this is not quite so grave a defect as it would be in a modern text-critic. In Zoernikav’s day, even editors as shrewd as the Benedictines of St. Maur, who produced a famous and frequently insightful edition of Augustine, could work with a limited set of manuscripts (occasionally, from earlier editions alone) without a systematic reconstruction of their genealogy or even a fully developed method for assessing their relative antiquity.[d] That said, early modern scholars did know that debate over the authenticity or original form of a text had to rest both upon scholarly judgment and upon the actual form of the text represented in the manuscripts. In the latter, Zoernikav is lacking. He shows very little acquaintance with manuscripts at all, citing only one in this tractate (Bodleian, MS Laud Misc. 383, then catalogued as H 22, at 3.27), even where others pertinent to his case would definitely have been available (as at 3.15, where he might have cited the pre-Carolingian Bodleian MS Laud Misc. 126 in support of his case). He even appears to suggest (3.30) that older editions are necessarily a better guide to the content of the manuscripts, and can debate points that any editor would reserve to his own judgment (such as the punctuation of pseudo-Cyprian in 3.1) with a slavish reliance on prior editions, as if the editions were a transparent window onto both the form and the meaning of the text they contained. Though the libraries in which he is said to have studied are both many and renowned, he seems to have gained, or used, only a superficial acquaintance with the Patristic texts and their transmission.
Zoernikav’s acquaintance with prior scholarship on Patristic pseudepigraphy is deeper, but not much more systematic. Despite his drive to prove the Latins to be falsifiers, he is much more interested in arguing that the filioque has been interpolated within Patristic works than in showing the works themselves to be spurious. His treatment of Patristic spuria then agreed or at least proposed is correspondingly uneven. At least sometimes, his judgment is likely to have been shaped by the prior convictions of his own party or (at best) by mutual agreement on an unlikely conclusion with his primarily Roman Catholic opponents. Thus, near the beginning of Tractate 1, he cites Dionysius the Areopagite as if he were actually a first-century author. His acceptance of an illustrious “ancient” authority shared with, for example, the Jesuit Nicolaus Cichovius,[e] contrasts markedly with the scorn he heaps upon the papal epistles forged by Isidorus Mercator (3.3), whose inauthenticity had been shown by the Calvinist David Blondel. In other instances, Zoernikav seems simply (and generally without great polemical point) to be representing scholarly consensus. Thus, he is aware (3.23-4) that a pseudonymous treatise On the Trinity, a composite of multiple works that is extant in multiple redactions and at least partly of fourth-century origin, was not by Athanasius, and that Bede had not written the commentary on Boethius’s De trinitate that passed under his name (3.27). Yet other known pseudepigrapha pass as authentic without comment. The most remarkable example is again the On the Cardinal Works, shown inauthentic long before Fell’s edition,[f] but Zoernikav might also have commented on, for example, Jerome’s exposition of the faith to Cyril (3.9) or the pseudo-Augustinian Dialogue of 65 Questions.
Despite the appearance of rigor granted by his many citations to printed editions, Zoernikav does not provide anything like a status quaestionis on either the text or the authorship of any particular work under review. Both, of course, require a degree of scholarly judgment, and here we encounter the work’s second and deeper weakness. The core criterion that drives Zoernikav’s assessment of authenticity is not the evidence of the textual transmission. It is not even his assessment, sometimes cogent (as in 3.15), sometimes blinkered (as in 3.7), of the internal logic of passages that contain alleged references to the double procession of the Holy Spirit. His governing criterion is, instead, the absolute and unswerving conviction that no whisper of the filioque had ever been voiced before the beginning of the ninth century. In his view, neither the doctrine of double procession itself nor the controverted addition to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed had obtained any purchase at all until the Synod of Aachen of 809. For that, his evidence is a flowery discourse by the spokesmen the assembled bishops had sent to Rome. The spokesmen assert that the doctrine had not for some time received systematic exposition, yet do not admit it to have been a novelty (rightly, as the doctrine was not new). Zoernikav’s interpretation is therefore entirely unnecessary, except if one has supposed (as he has) that there is no difference among the addition to the creed, the doctrine it expressed, and full exposition of that doctrine in the face of controversy. In fact, he had masses of evidence at his disposal, laid out in full at the end of the Tractate, that should have led him to revise his polemical narrative. To do so would not even have undermined the basic case, that the creedal addition was late and that many of the Latin Patristic texts were interpolated or spurious. Zoernikav insisted, instead, on fitting all of his sources into a single Procrustean argument. The result is that the case loses cogency as it goes on. Already too insistent, when it comes to authors such as Hilary of Poitiers (3.2), on a rigorous theological vocabulary, Zoernikav is arguing, by the end, against all historical probability.
The result is an illuminating insight into the polemical methods of a widely read man of the late seventeenth century, and a reminder that neither the mode nor the limitations of modern interconfessional polemic, so easy to find on the internet, are in any way new. Few, however, of Zoernikav’s modern counterparts could match either the diligence or the philological minuteness with which he pursues the case to which he was, apparently, won (in what seems likewise a very modern experience) through his books.
Translator’s note
Zoernikav’s writing is generally easy enough to follow, but some sentences are markedly garbled, especially but not exclusively in the material he quotes, and the style is not exactly commodious. In this translation, I make no attempt to represent every Latin particle (enim, utique, saltem, scilicet, etc.) that Zoernikav sprinkles with liberality through his text, to reproduce the varied and seemingly interchangeable idioms (legitur, sic habet, etc.) that introduce variant readings, or to retain either the exact punctuation or the (sometimes incredibly lengthy) paragraphs of the Latin text as printed. I have aimed, furthermore, at producing a readable English version, not at complete consistency in rendering particular words or expressions, which may appear in quite different translations in different contexts. I do in general retain the overall flow of Zoernikav’s own sentences, except where the result seemed to me utterly tortuous, and the edition’s sometimes idiosyncratic capitalization. I also generally retain the italics used in the Latin for quotations from other authors; in the interest of intelligibility, I sometimes insert quotation marks to set off particular words or phrases under discussion.
Mattias Gassman
[a] Available in electronic form on Google Books.
[b] On all three texts, as well as the chronology of Zoernikav’s life, see Edward Kasinec and J. Robert Wright, “A Manuscript Copy of Adam Zernikaw’s ‘De Processione’ (Baturyn, 1682) at the New York Public Library,” Україна 15 (2005-2006): 353-62. Enquiry to the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine has, under present conditions, been unsuccessful.
[c] Thus too, he appears to get the Patristic pseudepigrapha cited at the Council of Florence out of order in 3.10 and slightly to garble text borrowed, without full citation, from David Blondel in 3.3.
[d] A revealing discussion in Cyrille Lambot, “Les manuscrits des sermons de saint Augustin utilisés par les Mauristes,” Revue Bénédictine 79 (1969): 98–114.
[e] Cichovius cites Dionysius at p. 65 of the tract he addressed to the monks of Kiev.
[f] The matter is discussed by Thomas James, the first Bodleian librarian, in A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councels, and Fathers, by the Prelats, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, for maintenance of Popery and irreligion (London: Mathew Lownes, 1611), 11-13 (in the 1688 edition, available on Google Books, pp. 17-19). James notes doubt by prior scholars, including Bellarmine, who cited the work nonetheless (cf. 3.3), but—more importantly—adduces an Oxford manuscript demonstrating the authorship by Arnold of Bonneval.
Tractate 3 – Which treats the corruptions perpetrated by the Latins in the writings of the Western Fathers, regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
But if the Latins really dared so impudently to corrupt the writings of the holy Eastern Fathers, and were themselves nevertheless forced, under the compulsion of truth, to confess that some of the Fathers taught differently, while the Greek manuscripts prove that others were falsified, what should we think of the fidelity[1] that the Latins showed where the writings of their own ancient Fathers are concerned? Surely one would not think that those persons had preserved their fidelity intact, if they discovered that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone was asserted by the Latin Fathers, when they gave so many examples of their corrupted fidelity where the writings of the Eastern Fathers are concerned? Nay, it is clear that they were much more easily induced to corrupt the Latin Fathers, who were not so often read in the East, than to lay violent hands on the writings of the Eastern Fathers, which had been widely distributed throughout the whole East. And hence also corruptions can be produced in great number, which the Latins perpetrated in the writings of their Fathers, since,[2] of course, they were accustomed more freely to corrupt their own than the Eastern Fathers, just as we are going to demonstrate now.
Corruption[3] I
Cyprian is read as having the following in the sermon on the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, from the Father and the Son, is borne over the fourfold thing.[4] Thus the Cologne edition, 1617, p. 285, Antwerp, 1568, p. 490, and 1589, p. 437, Paris, 1648, p. 452, 1541, p. 301, 1633, p. 487, 1563, p. 412, Basel, 1558, p. 331, 1521, p. 480, 1525, p. 474, and, finally, Rome, 1563, p. 368. But what does it really mean to have said, The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, from the Father and the Son? Is it not clear of its own accord that those words—from the Father and the Son—have been interpolated? Indeed, on this account Pamelius himself, the editor of Cyprian, acknowledges in his notes that the words are unsound, although he expounds them according to the reasoning of his own opinion,[5] in such a way that the phrase “from the Father” ought to be removed. For that earlier phrase ‘from the Father,’ he says, I deem superfluous. In a book published at Paris in 1500, whose title runs thus, The minor works[6] of illustrious men, of Athanasius the Divine against Arius, etc. (we made mention of this book in the earlier Tractate on corruptions, concerning the words of Didymus), just before the end, the same passage reads thus: the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, from the Father and the Son, is borne over the fourfold thing. Here it is all the more clear that those words are corrupted: what does it mean to say without distinction, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, from the Father and the Son?[7]
There is, it seems, no other reason why the words of Cyprian are read thus, than that, when some of the first defenders of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son added above the words of Cyprian, proceeding from the Father, the words, from the Father and the Son, as if by way of correction, the rest of the scribes[8] who wrote down the manuscripts of Cyprian inserted the annotation, from the Father and the Son, into the text itself. I have seen, at any rate, that the Antwerp edition, 1541, vol. 2, p. 339, reads the words joined together, thus: from the Father and the Son is borne over the fourfold thing.[9] Bellarmine, having following this reading, sets forth those words to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.[10] But that the words were so joined by a new reasoning, is certain from the many other editions cited. By an exceedingly perverse reasoning one of the Jesuits[11] cites those words of Cyprian corruptly: the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is borne over the fourfold thing. He thus perversely omits the words, proceeding from the Father, which all the editions of the works of Cyprian everywhere have.
Corruption II
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, according to all the editions of his works that I have seen, says in bk. 2 of On the Trinity: It is not necessary to speak about the Holy Spirit, because one must confess him from the Father and the Son, his authors.[12] Here, surely, it would not be necessary to adduce manuscripts or other editions, in order to accuse these words of falsity, for the fact itself tells that they have been offered in bad faith. Would, after all, so great a Father have taught that there were more authors than one, and therefore also two principles, two causes of the Holy Spirit?
This, surely, not even the Latins themselves will admit concerning so great a Father. For the entire catholic Church has always condemned with every anathema those who introduce two causes, two principles in divine things. Indeed, that “author,” “cause,” and “principle” are the same in significance is acknowledged among all. And hence the Latins allow that there are two who produce the Holy Spirit,[13] but not two producers and authors. And never, if Hilary had astrued two authors or two causes and principles of the Holy Spirit, would he have been worthy to have been numbered by the holy fifth ecumenical Synod in its third conference,[14] Vol. 5 of the Councils, column 435, among those Fathers whom that holy Synod bears witness that it followed and from whom it took all the things which they expounded concerning the correct faith and the condemnation of heretics.
Furthermore, Hilary himself knows only one author of the Holy Spirit elsewhere in the same bk. 2 of On the Trinity, according to all the editions of his works. For his words run thus: (The heretics) do not know the Holy Spirit, since they are ignorant both of his benefit and his author.[15] Here he knows only one author of the Holy Spirit. How, therefore, could the number of producers of the Holy Spirit have enlarged, a few words later, for Hilary? Hence it is, therefore, clear of its own accord that those words of Hilary were corrupted, in fact by those of the Latins who openly confessed, by the vilest heresy and damnable error, that they established two authors of the Holy Spirit; inasmuch as they believed that he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Corruption III
But no less does that corruption work to this effect, by which they forged an epistle of Liberius, Pope of Rome, to Athanasius, which speaks as if the first ecumenical Synod had already passed the decree that warned that another definition of the faith should not be brought into the churches. Let us grant that this is so.[16] The third ecumenical Synod at any and every event, having reiterated this decree, declared with the other three that followed that nothing contrary to the holy Creed could be added to it. For the holy first ecumenical Synod of Constantinople added some things to the holy Creed. Therefore, on this testimony alone collapses that copious disputation of Mark of Ephesus, which he held at Ferrara against the Latins; so too does the widespread assertion of the Easterners, which they object to the Latins, that, even if there were a procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, it could not be added to the holy Creed, because, under the decree, by which warning was given by the first Synod of Ephesus, that a new definition of the faith should be not brought into the Churches, it is equally declared that not even true things can be added to the holy Creed.[17]
The words of the aforementioned Liberius, in the cited epistle to Athanasius, Vol. 2 of the Councils, column 765:[18]
We have indeed found in the same epistle the correct faith of the Nicene Council, for which we have also returned most abundant thanks to God and on behalf of which we were not only prepared to endure persecutions and sufferings, but even, if it should have been necessary, did not refuse, so far as our fragility allowed, to die for the name of Christ. Therefore, the aforementioned Holy Nicene Council, as we read, declared that no one was allowed to advance another faith, or to write one down or compose one, or to opine or teach otherwise, nor to hold or advance any opinion in matters of faith which could oppose these rules of the Fathers. He, however, who has presumed to compose another faith, or to advance, teach, or hand down another Creed to those who desire to be converted to the way of truth from whatever heresy, or to those from among the Jews, or from among the pagans, who wish to become Christians—these men, if they be Bishops or clerics, are indeed Bishops alien from the episcopate, clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laity, they are stricken with the anathema.
That this entire epistle of Liberius is a forgery is clear from indubitable reasonings; if we thought it intact.[19]
It runs thus in the cited passage: Long ago and from the beginning we have received so great a trust from the Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that we have authority on behalf of the universal Church to defend the true faith, in order that no one may be allowed to alter any statute of the holy Church to the injury of those who believe rightly, without peril to his office. We have had the epistle directed to us—if indeed it is yours—recited before us. We have understood the tribulations and persecutions which you are suffering for the correct faith. Over these things we also mourn as one with you and are prepared to labor for you, as a father for his sons.
And a little later these words are added: For the Blessed Apostle protests, saying, If anyone strives, he is not crowned, unless he has striven according to the rules. And again the Lord says, He, however, who has persevered to the end will be saved. Surely, when sacred contests for the defense of the catholic Church have been set before us and we hope for great salvation to come out of this from God the giver of all good things, our hands should not fail, most beloved Brothers, for reason of any dissolute slothfulness; but we should be made brave through the grace of the Lord and the virtue of his power, since he has perfected our feet like the feet of deer and placed firmly upon the heights the understanding of his utmost kindness for our salvation, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses placed around us.[20] Therefore, putting off every weight and the novelty of the adversaries that surrounds us, let us run with patience, looking to Jesus the author and perfecter of the faith, who in the work set before us on his account will give us the Spirit of his truth, who speaks in us and brings forth the magnificent things of the faith through the teaching of the Holy Fathers, whom the adversaries slander every day. For in the Prophets it says, On account of Zion I shall not be silent, and on account of Jerusalem I will not be quiet, until her righteous one goes forth as a splendor and her savior is kindled as a lamp. Surely when[21] the catholic Church, which constitutes the true Zion and the city of Christ the King of the heavens, has been conquered for so long a span of years by those who turn away from the words of the faith, who neither fear God nor esteem men, but bring to no effect[22] the pious and canonical doctrines concerning this word, though they had been invited by such diverse and weighty testimonies, written and unwritten, to correct and push away from themselves their own heresy, just as also was demonstrated quite clearly in the earlier examination as much by pamphlets as by the intimations of the most reverend Priests and venerable Abbots, since the Apostle protests to us that we ought to avoid the heretical man after his first and second correction, as we know that one of this sort is ruined and sins under the condemnation of his own judgment—in no way ought we then to be silent or to stay quiet, lest in any way we be judged iniquitous, embracing a peace hateful to God, since it is written, I have been zealous against sinners, seeing the peace of sinners; for he might also say to us, My priests have despised my law and polluted my sanctuaries: between sacred and profane they have kept no distance, between polluted and pure they have not distinguished; but we ought to rise up alongside God and stand ready, putting on weapons of the Spirit against those who speak maliciously against his faith, that we might wisely approve the Spirits, that is, their words, if they are from God.[23]
For it is written in Jeremiah, I have given you as a stout examiner among my people,[24] and you will know and prove their way. We need much vigilance and careful examination of divine wisdom, which reveals the hidden things of darkness, in order to examine and scrutinize a thing of this sort, since cunning wickedness is in a certain manner hidden and tucked away, and, when it emerges, is scarcely comprehended, since it artfully flatters itself for its piety, so that it can lie hidden from the mind of the scrutinizers. And, at any rate, knowing this the Blessed Apostle says, For pseudoapostles of this sort and deceitful workers transfigure themselves into apostles of Christ. But no wonder, since even Satan himself transfigures himself like an angel of light. And therefore no wonder, if his servants are transfigured as servants of righteousness, whose end is according to their works. But the Lord also, fortifying us against this in advance, says, Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Therefore, toward this very end bringing prayer from our whole heart over such an examination above all[25] and saying with David, Uncover my eyes and I will consider marvels from your law: for your word, Lord, is a lamp to my feet and a light for my paths; since his (as Blessed Daniel the Prophet says) are wisdom and bravery. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who understand instruction. He himself reveals deep and hidden things, and knows the things placed in darkness, and light is with him. You, he says, who have given wisdom and bravery to me and shown to me the things which I asked you—[26]with divine aid let us attend more diligently to those who comply and reasonably offer to us from our venerable archive the writings, of each and every character, of those who have been accused on account of a novel deceit;[27] so that those have presumed to make these prevarications might first indeed be subject to the judgment of the terrible, omnipotent God, but might in next place revere a certain royal indignation, through which, if indeed they are Bishops or clerics, they might in every way fall out of the order of their priesthood or of their clerical rank; if, however, they are monks, they might be separated and alien to their places. If, however, they have rank or a soldier’s belt or military service, they might be stripped of them. If, however, they are private persons, if indeed they prove to be nobles, they might suffer proscription of their substance. If, however, ignoble persons, they might not only be beaten in body, but punished by perpetual exile: so that all, constrained by the fear of God and revering the worthy punishments threatened to these persons, might guard the peace of the holy Churches of God immovable and without disturbance. Given eight days before the Kalends of June, in the consulship of the senators[28] Asclepius and Deodatus.
Thus far that epistle. But, in first place, it is entirely compiled out of the words of other men, the greatest part, in fact, out of the acts of the Lateran Council held under Martin, Pope of Rome.
The first words, indeed, are taken out of Epistle 24 of Leo the Great, who lived long after Liberius. Thus Leo: Long ago and from the beginning we have received in the celebrated Councils so great a trust from the Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that we have authority to defend the truth on behalf of our peace, in order that no one may be allowed in any particular to disturb her so fortified, until suddenly the injury is removed.
The words that follow: Therefore, the aforementioned Holy Nicene Council declared another faith, etc. until the words: to be stricken with an anathema, are the words of Maximus bishop of Aquileia, in the Fourth Act of the aforementioned Lateran Council, vol. 6 of the Councils, column 262. And here indeed that impostor who forged this epistle of Liberius placed the words that Maximus himself had affirmed concerning the Chalcedonian Council, as if they had originated, in fact, from the first universal Synod at Nicaea. Surely, since the Chalcedonian Synod was much later in date than Liberius, the impostor was able only, while he advanced the words of Maximus as if they had originated from Liberius, to name a synod of the same era. Otherwise, he would have made the deception all too apparent to everyone. Thus, in fact, Maximus says at the same place: Therefore, the Holy and Universal Chalcedonian Council of venerable Fathers declared that no one was allowed to advance another faith, or to write one down or compose one, or to opine or teach otherwise. He, however, who has presumed to compose another faith, or to advance, teach, or hand down another Creed to those who desire to be converted to the way of truth, from heathendom, from among the Jews, or from whatever heresy—these men, if indeed they were Bishops or clerics, are indeed Bishops alien from the episcopate, clerics, however, from the clergy; but if they were monks or laity, they are anathematized.
The words that follow: For the Apostle protests, etc. until these: whom the adversaries slander, the exact words, not changed by even a single syllable, are of Martin, Pope of Rome, in the aforementioned Lateran Council, act 5, column 268. Further, the words that follow these: Because of Zion I will not be silent, etc. until these: Let us attend with care to those who reasonably offer, though prolix, are the exact words of the same Pope Martin, in act or conclave[29] II of the aforementioned Lateran Synod, column 160 and 161. Finally, the words that follow these: He who has presumed to prevaricate, etc. until the end of the letter, are the words of the Emperor Constans, related (though he was a heretic) in like manner in the aforementioned Lateran Council, act or conclave 4, column 233. Thus, the whole epistle of Liberius is plainly woven together from the acts of the Lateran Council. But Pope Martin celebrated this Council in the year 649, three centuries after Liberius.[30]
Finally, the names of the Consuls written beneath argue that that letter is spurious. For no Roman consul, from Christ’s birth to the reign of the Emperor Justinian, had the name either of Deodatus or of Asclepius. One Asclepiodatus discharged the consulate with Marianus, in the year of the Lord 423, in the 56th year from the death of Liberius;[31] just as also the Jesuit Severinus Binius confesses this letter to be of suspect reliability on this account alone. Thus we read in the notes of Vol. II of the Councils, column 767: The consuls added onto this epistle show that it is suspect in reliability; for nowhere have I been able to find their names written elsewhere in the fasti.
Why should I say any more? Not just this epistle, but all the others as well, which Isidorus Mercator published in great number in the ninth century, under the names of Roman Popes who flourished in the early centuries, the Calvinist David Blondel has shown were patently forged by this Isidorus, in the peculiar but incomparable book he published about this matter. For after the publication of that book, though the Latins had once fought against the Lutherans and Calvinists on behalf of those epistles of the Popes, as if for their altars and hearths, they have all at length been compelled to state that whatever epistles of the Popes were published by Mercator had been forged by the man himself. Just so, for this reason, even the Jesuit Philippe Labbe, in the most recent Parisian edition of the Councils,[32] confesses that that epistle of Liberius to Athanasius, just like all the rest published by Isidorus Mercator, is spurious.
Deservedly, therefore, we laugh at Cardinal Julian, who added, when he had in like manner adduced those words of Liberius from his epistle to Athanasius at the Council of Florence, in conference[33] 13 of its acts published in Latin: From these I conclude that Liberius had seen those chapters (i.e., of the Nicene Synod) in the archives of the Roman Church. And, a little later: Put off your sensibilities and you may see, if you are able to respond to this: you may pronounce a brief response on this point.[34] — Look into it: that book is ancient, and it may be seen. Liberius must have had very keen eyes, since he had already seen in his time in the archives of the Roman Church things that Isidorus Mercator forged out of his own brain many centuries later. Out of what insolence, then, out of what scoffing does Julian hymn his triumphs before the victory? He ought, at any rate, to have proved beforehand that things forged in the first place by Isidorus Mercator, could also have had Liberius as author. “But the book was ancient.”[35] As if, from the ninth century, when Mercator lived and brought forth his wares, to the time of the Florentine Synod a few decades[36] had intervened, so that a manuscript written in Mercator’s day or the following century could not seem ancient at the time of the Council of Florence.
With no less stupidity, when Bessarion brought up those words in his book On the procession of the Holy Spirit to Alexius Lascaris, ch. 3, he adds: So studious and diligent in all their acts are the Latins, just as Your Nobility also knows, having experience of their wisdom in many matters; so that not only in divine but also in human and civil affairs no part of primitive deeds or writings escapes them. Therefore, in each and every city you will find in their archives many writings about their most ancient deeds. This custom is also preserved in the catholic Church, and in other pious places. For many acts of the Pontiffs, and many letters and canons of the Councils are extant. They have, therefore, brought forth to us in an ancient parchment book an epistle of Pope Liberius to Blessed Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria. And after the words of Liberius, adduced above, he subjoins: Now, indeed, after the acts of the First Council have perished, these things are unknown to us; but then, when they still survived, both Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius knew them.
If the Latins are so studious in preserving the acts of the celebrated Councils,[37] why were the acts of the Council of Aachen suppressed, at which the Latins disputed among themselves about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son? But they were studious in preserving that epistle of Liberius to St. Athanasius. They did not, after all, need to show much care and diligence in preserving the letter of Liberius, which finally came to light when Mercator forged it. Concerning the “very ancient parchment book,”[38] it is clear from what has been said, what one should think. At the same time it is clear from this, what one ought to think about the very ancient manuscripts that the Latins present to the Easterners. No less, at any rate, are these also, being either corrupted or forged, without authority, than the manuscripts recently written down among them. But the acts of the first Council ran thus; Liberius knew it, together with Athanasius, from them. Surely, when in the ninth century the acts of the Nicene Council finally ran as it pleased Mercator, now Athanasius and Liberius knew these points from that source. Mercator must have been very fortunate; since his books were known to the ancient Fathers through some kind of Platonic ideas, before either the books or its[39] author existed in the natural order.
Corruption IV
John the Provincial quotes this passage from Damasus, Pope of Rome, Confession of faith and anathema of heresies to Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch, in conference 21 of the Council of Florence published in Latin by Horatius Justinian, vol. 13 of the Councils, column 1108. We believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, maker of things visible and invisible, through whom all things were created in heaven and on earth: that this one is blessed, and that this is the one Trinity of divine name: that the Father is not the Son, but has a Son who is not the Father; that the Son is not the Father, but is a Son from the nature of the Father; that the Spirit is the Paraclete, who is himself neither Father nor Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father, therefore, is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Paraclete not begotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son.
But of these words neither finger- nor footprint is found in Damasus’s Confession of the catholic faith. For his words are found intact in Theodoret, book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 11, and Nicephorus Callistus, book 12 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 18.[40] And Baronius indeed contends on this ground, in his entry for the year 867, that Damasus’s Confession was corrupted by Theodoret. Yet, that Theodoret is defamed by calumny is clear, at any rate, from the fact that Augustine already, before Theodoret, so quotes the anathemas of Damasus in Sermon CXXIX on time.[41] But we have treated this matter in its own proper place in the Tractate on the testimonies of the Latin Fathers. (For that disputation was looking toward this one.)[42]
Other modern Latins, differing from Baronius, do not indeed want Theodoret to have corrupted Damasus’s Confession of faith to Paulinus; but they say that Damasus wrote two letters to Paulinus, as the Emperor Justinian testifies in Baronius’s note for the year 373, number 13. Those words did not appear, therefore, in the Confession of faith to Paulinus by Damasus that Theodoret recounts, but in another epistle of his to the same man. But John mentions only one epistle of Damasus to Paulinus and does not add that those words appeared in an earlier or later epistle of his to the same man. He gave the title of that writing as The confession of faith and anathema of heresies to Paulinus; and this inscription matches the contents of the Confession of faith by Damasus that is quoted by Theodoret. Nor does Baronius show anything in the place that he quotes, except to establish from Justinian’s words that Damasus wrote more things than are extant; nor does Justinian mention writings of Damasus to Paulinus; but he simply records that Damasus wrote certain things, by which he condemned all who did not receive the Nicene Synod.
These are the words of Justinian: That certain of those very persons who came together in the Holy Nicene Synod and subscribed to the definition of the faith or Creed expounded by it: since it afterward became evident that they held a contrary opinion, some were anathematized while alive, others, however, after death, by Damasus of holy memory, Pope of ancient Rome, and by the universal Council at Sardica, just as St. Athanasius testifies. Where in this text, I ask, does Justinian recount that the anathemas newly published by Damasus to Paulinus were written afresh? No less would you gather that, at any rate, from this statement, than that those anathemas from the Council of Sardica had equally been written to Paulinus. Let us grant, finally, that two epistles were written to Paulinus by Damasus; by what need, I ask, were they able to infer that those words of Damasus appeared in the second?
Corruption V
Lombard, in book 3 of the Sentences, division 4, quotes this excerpt from book 2 of Ambrose’s On the Holy Spirit: Because that which is from anything is either from its substance or from its power:[43] from the substance just as the Son, who is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Hugo Etherianus raises the same words as an objection to the Easterners in book 3, ch. 17, vol. 12, pt. 2, of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, p. 412. Also, Calecas, in book 2, p. 288, vol. 14 of the aforenamed Library, although Calecas reads only: From the substance just as the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, omitting these: just as the Son, who is from the Father.
But in the works of Ambrose, according to all the editions published by the Latins, the same passage reads thus: Because that which is from anything is either from its substance or from its power. From the substance just as the Son, who says: Out of the mouth of the most high I went forth; just as the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, of whom the Son says: He will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine.[44] Since, therefore, the words of Ambrose were: Just as the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, of whom the Son says: He will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine, the Latin corruptors inserted in place of these: Just as the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Corruption VI
The Jesuit Petavius offers this quotation from Ambrose’s book On the Holy Symbol, ch. 4: The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from each[45]—he has neither himself begun, etc.[46] And here the Jesuit stops.
But, again, that this place also has been corrupted can by shown from what follows. Petavius adduced the earlier words in this fashion, since he saw of his own accord that they hardly cohered with what followed. Ambrose writes thus in the cited passage, in vol. 4 of his works, column 89. The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from each, did not begin himself, because his procession is continuous and from him who did not begun (for the Father did not begin), and because he did not begin, neither did the Spirit begin, for this reason also, that he is in him and is his.
When he said that the Holy Spirit did not begin, he added, to give a reason for this, because his procession is from him who did not begin. In order, then, to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him who does not begin, he names only the Father, as if it was he from whom, when the Holy Spirit proceeds, he does not himself, nevertheless, begin. From one, furthermore, he adds that he understands that the Holy Spirit proceeds, since he equally makes mention of one in these words, as if it was he from whom he had said before that the Holy Spirit proceeds: And because, he says, he did not begin, neither did the Spirit begin, for this reason also, that he is in him and is his.
How, therefore, could he just have said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from each, when he soon afterward speaks of the Father, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds? Surely, if these words were really Ambrose’s— The Holy Spirit proceeds from each—it would have been fitting to say in what follows, Neither did he begin, because his procession is continuous and from those who did not begin. When, therefore, he says, And from him, who did not begin, and adds that he understands this of the Father, it is clear that he had in no wise said before, Who proceeds from each. Therefore, the genuine words of Ambrose were: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, nor did he begin, because his procession is continuous, and from him who did not begin. And so, onward.
Corruption VII
Ambrose, further, in bk. 1 On the Holy Spirit, ch. 10, vol. 4 of his works, column 226, has the following: The Spirit also, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father, is not separated from the Son.
But that this passage has been corrupted, as well, is betrayed by the words that follow shortly after. Ambrose continues thus: In what way, after all, can he be separated from the Father, who is the Spirit of his mouth? Concerning the Father alone he supplies his reasoning; therefore also he had spoken about the Father alone before, if the reasoning ought to have corresponded to what precedes. The words of Ambrose ought to have run thus: In what way, after all, can he be separated from the Father and the Son, who is the Spirit of their mouth?[47] These, therefore, were the true words of Ambrose: The Spirit also, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father. For how can he be separated from the Father, who is the Spirit of his mouth?
Corruption VIII
Rufinus, the Presbyter of Aquileia, in his Exposition on the Apostles’ Creed: That, therefore, there might be a distinction of persons, terms of disposition[48] are distinguished, by which that one is understood to be the Father, from whom are all things and who does not himself have a Father; the Son as one born from the Father; and the Holy Spirit as one proceeding from each and sanctifying all things. In the editions of Jerome’s works—for among these Rufinus’s Exposition also appears—Rufinus’s words run thus. Rufinus’s works were also published at Paris in 1580, where those words likewise read thus on p. 188.
But, again, that these are corrupt is established by the fact that, when the same Exposition of Rufinus appears among the works of Cyprian, the final words read thus according to all his editions: The Holy Spirit, as if proceeding from the mouth of God, and sanctifying all things. Thus the Cologne edition of Cyprian, 1617, p. 319, the Antwerp edition, 1563, p. 557, and 1541, vol. 2, p. 185, and 1589, p. 488. Paris, 1648, p. 526, 1541, folio 167, 1633, p. 552, 1563, p. 429, Basel, 1521, p. 381, 1525, p. 376, 1558, p. 263, and, finally, the Roman, 1563, p. 397. Thus also the rest.[49]
Corruption IX
Inasmuch as[50] the works of Jerome have been printed on the public presses among the Latins, only one place occurs in which the Son is joined to the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit. These words appear in the Explanation of the faith to Cyril: There are three persons, whom we believe to be truly equal, divine, and of one substance, that is, from the Father the Son proceeds,[51] and the Holy Spirit properly and truly proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thus all the editions of Jerome read.[52]
Lombard quotes the same words of Jerome in bk. 1 of the Sentences, division 12, when he asks, Why has Hieronymus said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father properly, without adding the Son? and reports that Jerome said, from the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit properly and truly proceed. The words of Lombard are: Jerome says, in the exposition of the catholic faith and of the Nicene Creed: We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father. Again: We find that the Holy Spirit is true God in Scripture, and is properly from the Father. And again: From the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit truly and properly proceed.
These final words correspond to the ones we just said appeared corruptly in Jerome’s works, just as the other two places mentioned by Lombard are contained in the same Exposition of the faith to Cyril; just as we have seen in the Tractate concerning the testimonies of the Latin Fathers.[53] So far, at that time, were the manuscripts of Jerome from affirming the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in this passage that Lombard asks why, in the aforesaid passage, Jerome named the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, furthermore, does Peter Abelard also quote those words of Jerome in bk. 2 of Introduction to Theology, ch. 4, p. 1093. Thus Abelard: When expounding the definition of the catholic faith and of the Nicene Creed, Jerome says, We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father. Again: We find that the Holy Spirit is true God in Scripture, and is properly from the Father. And again: From the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit truly and properly proceed. The same words from the Creed of the Nicene Council, just as it was expounded by Jerome, are reported already before Lombard and Abelard in the tenth century by Peter Damian in Tractate on the Holy Spirit, ch. 2 (which is opuscule 38 in vol. 3 of his works, in the Paris edition of 1642, p. 287). In the Nicene Symbol, also, it is said: We believe also in the Holy Spirit who proceeds properly from the Father, and is true God, just like the Son. And a little later: and that we find that the Holy Spirit also is true God in Scripture, and proceeds properly from the Father, and is always with the Father and the Son. And again: from the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit properly and truly proceeds from the Father.
Likewise, equally, the manuscript read thus, which was used by John the Provincial, defender of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son at the Council of Florence. Though he raised other points (corruptly, as we will soon see) from the same Exposition of the faith by Jerome, he neglected, nevertheless, to adduce this passage, where, according to nearly all the editions of Jerome’s works, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is asserted in the same Exposition of the faith. This he would never have done, if his manuscript had contained any such thing.
Corruption X
Therefore, John the Provincial, in session 21 of the Council of Florence (published in Latin by Horatius Justinianus, vol. 13 of the Councils, column 1109), first[54] mentioned these words from the exposition of faith to Augustine and Alypius: We believe also in the Holy Spirit, true God proceeding from the Father and the Son, equal in all things with the Father and the Son, in will, eternity, substance. But that these things also are corrupt, all the editions of the works of Jerome show, in which those words of Jerome read thus in the Explanation of the Creed to Damasus: We believe also in the Holy Spirit, true God proceeding from the Father, equal in all things with the Father and the Son, in will, eternity, substance.
Corruption XI
Secondly, the same John raises these points from Jerome’s Exposition of the Nicene Creed in the cited passage: And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who is true God, just as the Son. When, afterward, he had quoted certain words from Jerome’s first epistle to Damasus (which, nevertheless, appear not in a certain epistle of Jerome to Damasus, but in the Creed of Damasus), he adds: This Jerome was a disciple of your Gregory Nazienzen, and had this doctrine from him .
But again, according to all the editions of Jerome’s works, he writes thus in the Exposition of the Creed to Cyril: And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father and is true God, just as the Son. Likewise, equally, Lombard, Abelard, and Peter Damian report this passage without abridgement, in the words just quoted; so that, surely, John puts himself forward[55] for the mockery of all, when he boasts that Jerome received these things from his teacher Gregory Nazianzen, which, in the final estimate, were inserted by some impostor into Jerome’s words.
Corruption XII
The spokesmen sent to Rome in the year 809 by the Synod of Aachen adduce these words from Jerome’s Exposition of the Creed in their pamphlet[56] On the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son: The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, is coeternal with the Father and the Son and coequal in every way. This is the Holy Trinity, that is, Father and Son and Holy Spirit. One is the Deity and power, one the essence, that is, the Father who has begotten,[57] the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. But these words do not appear in the quoted Exposition of the Creed by Jerome, as also Peter Damian states in the Tractate on the Procession of the Spirit, ch. 5, vol. 3 of his works, p. 288. Jerome, he says, is reported to have written this, although it could not be found in that exposition of the faith, at least, that we read.[58] But these words do not appear in the other writings of Jerome, either. Nevertheless, Hugo Etherianus also gives the first part of the quotation at book 3, ch. 17, vol. 12, part 2, of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, p. 412. Likewise Calecas, bk. 2, in vol. 14 of the Library, p. 288, thus: The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, is[59] coeternal with the Father and the Son and coequal in every way; when yet, as we just warned, neither finger- nor footprint of these words appears among the works of Jerome.
Corruption XIII
In Augustine, Ep. 66, these words appear in the Basel edition, 1556 and 1569, Paris, 1586, and Antwerp, 1577: The Holy Spirit was not made, like a creature, out of nothing, but so proceeds from the Father and the Son that he was not made by the Son, either.[60] But in the epistles of Augustine edited on their own in Paris, 1516, and in the editions of Augustine’s works published at Basel in 1528, 1541, and 1545, those words run thus, with the final phrase omitted: The Holy Spirit also was not made, like a creature, out of nothing. In the Venice edition, 1552, they read in this way: The Holy Spirit was not made, like a creature, out of nothing (but so proceeds from the Father that he was not made by the Father nor the Son). The final words are thus enclosed within a parenthesis, as also happens in the Paris edition of Augustine’s works, 1541 and 1555. But in these Parisian editions, the editor has explained in the foreword[61] that those words which are included in these marks are not in the Frobenian manuscript, but are inserted from the old books of Victorianus.[62] Hence, the Venetian edition[63] of Augustine’s works, 1584, even omits that parenthesis.
How, therefore, should the words adduced, in which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Son also, have come from Augustine? In the older editions and manuscripts,[64] after all, either the remaining words do not appear or only the Father is mentioned in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latins would not themselves, at any rate, have removed “the Son” from the words of any Father, in which the Holy Spirit is also said to proceed “from the Son,” so that those words must only have come from Augustine, in which there is mention of the Father only in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Nay rather, Augustine soon adds: For neither does the Father diminish himself, so that he may have a Son from himself; but he has so begotten another self from himself, that he remains entire in himself and is in the Son just so much as he is alone. Similarly also, the Holy Spirit, being intact from the intact, does not surpass the one from whom he proceeds; but, being as much with him as he is from him, he neither diminishes him by proceeding from him, nor enlarges him by adhering to him. In these words, at any rate, he mentions only one from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, no less than he had made mention of one Father in the generation of the Son. How, therefore, would he have mentioned only two in the preceding text, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds? If this were so, after all, he ought to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds “intact from the intact ones”; is “so much with them, as from them”; “neither diminishes them by proceeding from them, nor enlarges them by adhering to them.”[65] In fact, the diversity of readings has its origin from this, that some Latin corruptors removed the words of Augustine altogether, in which he made mention of the Father at least; but others inserted in their place the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, since the reading, unless taken to the end, is genuine.[66]
Corruption XIV
Lombard, in Bk. 1 of the Sentences, distinction 18, quotes these words from Bk. 5 of Augustine, On the Trinity: The Holy Spirit is a gift of the Father and the Son, because he proceeds both from the Father and the Son. But all the editions of Augustine read thus, in Bk. 5 of On the Trinity, ch. 11: The Holy Spirit is a gift of the Father and the Son, because he also proceeds from the Father, just as the Lord says; and because the Apostle says: He who does not have the Spirit of Christ is not his. He is speaking, at any rate, of the Holy Spirit himself.[67]
Corruption XV
In bk. 15 of Augustine, On the Trinity, ch. 27, these words appear: She[68] herself shows you those three things in yourself, in which you may recognize the image of the most high Trinity itself, which you cannot yet contemplate with steady eyes. She herself shows you that there is a true word in you, when it is begotten of your knowledge, that is, when we speak what we know: although we bring forth or think no word that has meaning in the tongue of any nation, still our thought takes shape out of that which we know; and there is in the mental sight of the thinker an image most similar to his thought, which the memory contained, while a third thing, the will or love, joins those two things like parent and child. That this will proceeds from thinking (for no one wants something, of which he is altogether ignorant what or of what kind it is): that it is not, nevertheless, an image of the thought—and that, therefore, a certain difference between nativity and procession is insinuated in this intelligible matter, since to see something in thought is not to desire it or even to perform one’s will—he may see and discern, who can.
By “knowledge” or “understanding,” he means the Father, by “thought,” the Son, by “will,” the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, Augustine had said that “will” (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from “understanding” (the Father), the Latin corruptors changed the word “understanding” (cognitio) into the word “thought” (cogitatio), so that the sense might be thus: that “will” (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from “thought” (the Son). That this is a corrupt reading is clear, in the first place, because the words are added to these in the Venice edition of 1552: The old texts,[69] meanwhile, have “understanding” in place of “thought.”[70] Next, Augustine’s own words prove the same point: when he is about to give an explanation for what he had said, he adds, For no one wants something, of which he is altogether ignorant what or of what kind it is. From understanding, at any rate, he shows by these words that the will arises. Equally, therefore, he had said before that the will proceeds from understanding, so long as he intended to demonstrate by this line of reasoning, what he had just promised.
Corruption XVI
In Sermon 38 On time Augustine has the following, according to all the editions of his works:[71] The Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten, but must, to keep the faith, only be said to proceed from the Father and the Son; he, however, does not proceed from the Father into the Son, then proceed from the Son in order to sanctify creation, as certain persons used to think, misunderstanding what one ought to believe, but proceeds at once from each: because the Father begat such a Son that, just as the Spirit proceeds from the Father,[72] so also he proceeds from the Son.[73]
By themselves, these words show, just as they stand, that this passage is corrupt. For the controversy over the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, even according to the Latins’ own confession, can never be said to have begun, even if every point of the Latins’ opinion were true, before Nestorius and Theodoret. But in fact Augustine had never heard about Nestorius’s novelty, inasmuch as he spent his life at Hippo in Africa, far from Constantinople; nay, he had already departed life before the time of the universal Synod of Ephesus I, which was gathered against Nestorius. Hence, for this reason, he never mentions Nestorius in his books, either. The aforementioned Synod of Ephesus meant to summon Augustine, too, since he was then a Bishop of great renown indeed, but the report arrived meanwhile that he was already dead, as is clear from the acts of the Council of Ephesus I. Nay, according to the words adduced, Augustine did not just mention that certain persons had denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, at the time at which he was writing; but that, even before those times, there were those who denied the same idea. As certain persons, he said, used to think, misunderstanding what they ought to believe. But how could the Easterners be said to have disputed with the Latins either before Augustine’s times or in the first years of his episcopacy, when it is clear that there was at that point no contention between the two Churches?
Corruption XVII
Something similar to this[74] appears in Bk. 15 of On the Trinity, ch. 27. Here, after Augustine has demonstrated at length, following the arguments which are contained in Tractate 99 On John, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, he adds: I have transferred these words from that sermon into this book (but I am speaking to the faithful, not the unfaithful).[75]
These words show, at any rate, that there were those who in no wise believed in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, at the time when Augustine was writing.[76] But, as has been shown, in Augustine’s time there never was a controversy in the Churches about the procession of the Holy Spirit. How, then, could those prolix disputations on behalf of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which appear in the cited Bk. 15 of On the Trinity, ch. 27, Tractate 99 On John, and elsewhere, have come from Augustine himself? How, after all, would any of the Fathers have disputed profusely for a particular dogma—and that quite often indeed—when no one had ever called it into doubt, either before his time or during his life?
For this reason also, Bede, when he adduces the words of Augustine from Tractate 99 On John in his commentary on John chapter 16, straightforwardly omits those prolix words of Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which appear in the cited Tractate. Thus, he reads according to what precedes and follows: From him from whom he is, therefore, he has heard, hears, will hear. From him he is, from whom he proceeds. But what he adds—He will glorify me, because he will receive from mine and announce it to you—is not to be passed over negligently. For what he says—He will glorify me—can be understood, because by pouring out charity into the hearts of those who believe, and by making them spiritual, he will declare to them, how the Son is equal to the Father.
Corruption XVIII
In the Dialogue of 65 Questions, quest. 11, Augustine is read as having the following, in vol. 4 of his works:[77] The Holy Spirit will not speak from himself, because he is not from himself. For the Father is born from no one. The Son is begotten from the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
But, when Augustine has like words in Tract. 19 On John, they read thus: The Holy Spirit will not speak from himself, because he is not from himself. For the Father alone is not from another: for the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Here, also, no mention of the Son in any wise occurs in the production of the Holy Spirit. Further, these words soon follow those cited in Quest. 11: For to hear is to be, to be, however, is not from himself, but from the Father; therefore, whatever he hears, he will speak. In order to show here, from whom the Holy Spirit is when he is not from himself, he names only the Father, from whom, hence again, the Holy Spirit hears, from whom he speaks. How, therefore, could he just have said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, hears from him, speaks from him?
Finally, in the public Library of Oxford in England, I chanced to see a certain manuscript of these Questions. It was catalogued[78] among the Theological manuscripts in quarto, Litt. H. num. 22. And indeed those Questions were contained on p. 553 of this book. But in it, the later words of Augustine just cited from that place ran thus: For to hear is to be, to be, however, is not from himself, but from the Father and the Son; therefore, whatever he hears, he will speak. Since, therefore, all the editions of Augustine’s works read in this place, to be, however, is not from himself, but from the Father, it is clear at any rate again, on this score, how the Latins have corrupted the writings of the ancient western Fathers.
Corruption XIX
It is no less spontaneously clear that Augustine’s words in Bk. 15 of On the Trinity, ch. 17, have been corrupted: And, nevertheless, it is not in vain that in this Trinity no one is called the Word of God, except the Son; nor the gift of God, except the Holy Spirit, nor the one by whom the Word is begotten, nor the one from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, except God the Father. I added “principally,” however, for this reason: because the Holy Spirit is found also to proceed from the Son.[79]
Augustine’s aim, at any rate, is to show what each person has as his own,[80] by which indeed it may correspond with no other person.[81] For he says, in this Trinity no one is called the Word of God, except the Son, and so forth. Since, therefore, Augustine speaks in regard to the Father of the generation of the Son and the production of the Holy Spirit, as if he alone had it as proper and common with no other person, it is clear, at any rate, that Augustine held that, just like the generation of the Son, so also the production of the Holy Spirit was proper to the Father. For the particle “except” (nisi), which Augustine uses for the other persons, and for the generation of the Son from the Father, excludes all other persons. How, therefore, could he have added, from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and thus added that the production of the Holy Spirit also belongs to the Son? Neither does that restriction, principally, work toward this end, for, according to the Latins, the Holy Spirit still proceeds equally from the Father and the Son in one procession. Nay, he who believes this would never say that it was the Father’s own, as if he had it solely and uniquely, to generate the Son and principally to produce the Holy Spirit. Nay, he will always join the Son to the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Hence, that expression, principally, is never found to be inserted anywhere else in another Doctor of the Church, except in Augustine alone, so that, surely, they might frustrate those well-spoken words of his, in which he was saying that (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father. In this way and for this reason, the forger himself adds in this place, I added “principally,” however, for this reason: because the Holy Spirit is found also to proceed from the Son.
Corruption XX
In the book On the Trinity and Unity, ch. 5, in vol. 4 of Augustine’s works, these words appear:[82] Only the Father is not said in Scripture[83] to have been sent, since he alone does not have an author by whom he is begotten or from whom he proceeds. Therefore, it is not on account of diversity of nature, of which there is none in the Trinity, nor on account of another’s authority over him, that the Father alone is not said to have been sent: for splendor or heat does not send forth fire, but fire sends forth splendor or heat. Thus the Father sends the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from each. Since most of this Chapter and the following are taken out of Augustine’s book Against the sermon of the Arians, the words from ch. 4 of this book that correspond to these run thus: Therefore, it is not on account of diversity of nature, of which there is none in the Trinity, but on account of authority itself, that the Father alone is not said to have been sent: for splendor or heat does not send forth fire, but fire sends forth splendor or heat. Thus the Father sends the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from each.[84] The phrase, Thus the Father sends the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from each, has been added in the book On the Trinity and Unity, ch. 5.
Corruption XXI
Again, in the same book On the Trinity and Unity, ch. 10, there are these words: The Son has not been made by the Father, but begotten, and the Holy Spirit has not been made by the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. But since, as has been said, most of this book from ch. 5 up to the end is taken out of Augustine’s book Against Arius, the words from ch. 21 of this book which correspond to these run thus: They say that the Holy Spirit was made by the Son, which they never read in Scripture; though the Son himself says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.[85]
Corruption XXII
Nay, when in ch. 23 of the book Against the sermon of the Arians, Augustine clearly denies that the Holy Spirit is from the Son and dissolves the widely disseminated argument of the Latins that they seek from those words, The Holy Spirit will receive from mine, in the book On the Trinity and Unity, ch. 10, where the same things are repeated, they are all truncated and perverted. His words in the book Against the sermon of the Arians, ch. 23, were these: However, because he said concerning the Holy Spirit, He will receive from mine, he himself solves the question, lest anyone think that, in a sort of series of steps, the Holy Spirit is from him [i.e. the Son] as he himself is from the Father, since both are from the Father, the one being born, the other proceeding. And to distinguish these two things in the sublimity of that nature is altogether difficult. Therefore, lest anyone think this, as I said, he adds immediately thereafter: All things that the Father has are mine; on this account, I said, he will receive from mine, thus wishing, without a doubt, for it to be understood that he receives from the Father (but therefore from himself, because all things that the Father has are his). This, however, is not diversity of nature, but commendation of one principle.— [86] However, as for their assertion that “the Holy Spirit awaits the command of Christ in all things,” let them read, if they can. For what has been said is, He will not speak from himself. It has not been said, Whatever he has heard from him, but, Whatever he has heard, he will say. Why, however, this is said has become clear a little while ago from the exposition of the Lord himself, which I mentioned, where he says, All things that the Father has are mine; on this account, I said he will receive from mine.
In ch. 10 of the book On the Trinity and Unity we read the following: Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are both from the Father, the one being born, the other proceeding. And to distinguish these two things in the sublimity of that nature is difficult in every way. Therefore, lest anyone think this, it is said that “he will receive these things from mine”; wishing, without a doubt, for it to be understood that he receives from the Father, but therefore from the Son himself, because all things, whatsoever the Father has, are his. This, however, is not diversity of nature, but commendation of one principle — That, however, the Holy Spirit awaits the command of Christ: for, just as has been said, he speaks not from himself, but whatever he has heard from me, he speaks, that is, all things that the Father has are mine; on this account, I said, he will receive from mine. Here, at any rate, it is clear that the earlier words are omitted, in which he denies that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and again, when Augustine denies that the Holy Spirit hears from the Son, that these very words are flipped upside down in the worst kind of faith, as if he had said, “what he hears from the Son” or “he awaits the command of Christ in all things.”[87]
Corruption XXIII
Ratramnus, the monk of Corbie, in bk. 3, ch. 6, of On the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Easterners, vol. 13 of Gleaning of Ancient Writers (edited by Lucas Dacherius), p. 94, brings up these words from the book On the united nature of the divinity, which passes under the name of Athanasius: In this, surely, the Father is distinct[88] in person, because he has truly begotten; and in this the Son is distinct from the Father in person, because he has truly been begotten by him; but in this the Spirit is distinct in person: this is the principle Paraclete from the Father and the Son, who was poured out at Pentecost onto the apostles, because he truly proceeds from the unique divinity of the Father and Son.[89] And these individual points Ratramnus advances in his way, prolixly, against the Easterners on behalf of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.
But according to all the editions of the works of Athanasius, in bk. 2 of On the united nature of the divinity,[90] the same passage reads thus: In this, surely, the Father is distinct,[91] who has truly begotten; and in this the Son is distinct, who has truly been begotten by him. But also in this the Spirit is distinct: this is the Paraclete, who was poured out at Pentecost onto the Apostles. And, therefore, remember, according to these words spoken one by one, that the names are distinguished in the persons. Thus Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, also reads the same passage, who was writing, in the same year in which Ratramnus likewise was writing against the Easterners on the procession of the Holy Spirit, his book Against the Easterners, vol. 7 of the Gleaning of Ancient Writers just quoted, p. 13. Into the manuscript, therefore, that Ratramnus used, the words had already been inserted in the ninth century: that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son;[92] and again, he truly proceeds from the united divinity of the Father and the Son. Already eight centuries ago, therefore, including the one that is reaching its end, as it is clear even from this example alone, the Latins had corrupted the writings of their fathers. We have treated those books On the united nature of the divinity under this heading, because they have a Latin, not a Greek, author. But more on this in the Tractate on the testimonies of the Latin Fathers.
Corruption XXIV
How the Latins were accustomed to corrupt the writings of the Fathers is clear from the diversity of readings of that passage in bk. 8 of On the united Deity of the Trinity.[93] I believe (ego credo) the Son in the Father, etc. — The spokesmen sent from the Synod of Aachen, 809, in the pamphlet On the procession of the Holy Spirit that they offered to Leo III, and Damian in the Oration on the catholic faith, ch. 10 (in vol. 3 of his works, p. 9) and the opuscule On the procession of the Holy Spirit (vol. 3 of his works, p. 288), read the passage thus: I believe (credo) the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son, also the Spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father, that he is of both the Son and the Father; because he proceeds from the Son also, just as it is written in the Gospel, because he gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles through his insufflation, saying, Receive the Holy Spirit. But according to the editions of Athanasius’s works, the passage reads thus: I believe (ego credo) the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son, also the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, that he is also of the Father, because he also proceeds from the Son, just as it is also written in the Gospel.
The diversity of readings is indeed clear to anyone. But what does it mean to say, That the Spirit is also of the Father, because he also proceeds from the Son? Of its own accord, at any rate, it is clear here, that though the words of the author ran, Because he proceeds from the Father, and that he is of the Son and of the Father, as the quoted Spokesmen and Peter Damian read it, the later Latins turned the word, “of the Son,” into the word, “from the Son,” so that it now reads in the published works of Athanasius, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, that he is also of the Father. And those words are then added according to each reading: about these let the judgment stand according to what will be said at the end of this Tractate.
Corruption XXV
Eusebius of Emesa, On the Fourth Sunday after Easter, vol. 5, part 3 of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, p. 682.[94] Since, however, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, whence he has his being, thence he also has the fact that he is both wise and truthful: because, after all, for him to be is for him to be wise and truthful, and similar things. For he is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, he is also the Spirit of all truth; but he has and receives these things from the Father and the Son. And this is why the Lord says: Because he will receive from mine and proclaim it to you. And to these he soon adds in the same place: Of these things, however, since they are common to all three and substantially common, the Lord could have said, if he had wished: Because he will receive from mine and his own and proclaim it to you. For the Son, also, when he was preaching, was receiving both from himself and from those things which are of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, according to the first passage adduced, Eusebius would teach, where Christ says, He will receive from mine, that he meant, what he receives from the Father and the Son, to be wise and truthful, or rather, to be himself.[95] How, therefore, could Eusebius ever have added, if these words truly came from him, These, however, since they are common to all three, etc.? Surely the Son and the Father do not have their being from the Holy Spirit also, or receive being wise and truthful? How, by the same token, could he ever have said that the meaning of those words, he will receive from mine, was, what he receives from the Father and the Son, to be wise and truthful, or being itself, when in what follows he soon adds, The Lord could have said: he will receive from his own? Surely the Holy Spirit does not, therefore, ever receive from himself to be wise and truthful, and even being itself? He adds, further, For the Son also was receiving both from himself and from those things which are of the Father and the Holy Spirit. According, therefore, to the first passage quoted, as we have seen, this proposition would follow: that from the Holy Spirit and from himself, the Son receives the fact that he is both wise and truthful, and even being itself. Hence, it is thoroughly clear that the earlier passage of Eusebius that we have quoted was corrupted in the worst kind of faith.
Corruption XXVI
The Latins raise this passage from the confession of the catholic faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage: We do not receive the Holy Spirit, such that he be the Father or the Son, but we believe that the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son are of one substance and essence. Thus indeed these words read among the orthodox writings[96] published at Basel, 1569, p. 1617.
But this very confession of Eugenius is reported by Victor, Bishop of Utica, in bk. 2 of The Vandalic Persecutions, inasmuch as many African catholic Bishops presented it to the King of the Arians; and from his history the confession was taken and published under the name of Eugenius. Thus the passage runs in vol. 5, part 3 of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, p. 638, in vol. 7 of the Parisian Library of the Fathers published in 1589, column 1910, and in the rest of the editions of the history of Victor of Utica: We believe that the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeding from the Father are of one substance or essence.[97] Nay, that very confession of Eugenius, published separately, runs thus without corruption in the Antidote against diverse heresies of just about all centuries published at Basel in 1528, fol. 221, and vol. 4 of the Councils in the most recent Paris edition, column 1128.
Corruption XXVII
Rusticus, Cardinal Deacon of the Roman Church, in the Disputation against the Acephaloi, well before the end, vol. 6 of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, part 2, p. 237:[98] The Son is begotten,[99] and has begotten nothing co-eternal[100]; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nothing co-eternal proceeds or has been begotten from him. A few, in fact, of the ancients added this, also, to the proper qualities[101]: that, just as the Holy Spirit has not begotten the Son eternally with the Father, so also the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, just as from the Father. But I confess that the Spirit has not, indeed, begotten the Son eternally (for we do not say that there are two Fathers); whether, however, he proceeds from the Son in the same way as from the Father, I do not yet have perfectly to my satisfaction. Since it does not pertain to the point presently under investigation, we should note it, but move on.
Does a Cardinal Deacon of the Roman Church really have nothing to affirm about an article of faith of such importance as this one—whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? The Latins, at any rate, have said that the Roman Church had believed at that time that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Certainly it believed either that the Holy Spirit proceeds or that he does not proceed from the Son. How, therefore, in the established dogma of the universal Latin Church and the common consensus always handed down, did Rusticus profess that he was not yet satisfied? Never, anywhere,[102] did the Fathers doubt from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds; just as it was equally without doubt among them, by whom the Son is begotten.
You will say,[103] with the editors of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, that Rusticus did not doubt in the cited passage about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son simpliciter, but rather, whether he proceeds in the same manner from the Son, as from the Father, since the Father has it from no one, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. How could a Cardinal Deacon ever not have had it to his satisfaction, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Son also, as the Latins say? The Son, at any rate, has all things that he has from the Father: who could believe that Rusticus had not known or had denied this? And, if the Son has anything from himself, not from the Father, there would be two principles in the divinity; and therefore, if the Son does not have the production of the Holy Spirit from the Father, but from himself, so much more at any rate would it follow that there were two causes, two principles, of the Holy Spirit.
How, therefore, could Rusticus the Cardinal Deacon have doubted about so manifest a matter, and one that concerns the principles of our Christian faith? Nay, when Rusticus denies that he is satisfied on this matter, which the rest of the ancients had simply affirmed, it would follow hence that the ancients had believed that, just as the Father has the production of the Holy Spirit from himself, not from another, thus likewise the Son has the production of the Holy Spirit from himself, not from another. Would any of the ancient Fathers ever have taught this? Would our ancient Fathers have clearly asserted two principles of the Holy Spirit and simultaneously denied that all things that the Son has, he has from the Father? They would not at all have merited the name of “ancient Fathers,”[104] or have been mentioned as such by Rusticus, but they would rather have been the worst kind of heretics, since they introduced heathenry, two Gods.[105]
The genuine words of Rusticus, therefore, were these, The Son is begotten, and has begotten nothing co-eternal, or proceeds from him; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nothing co-eternal proceeds or has been begotten from him, omitting the rest (a few, in fact, of the ancients, etc.) The forger, therefore, removed these words about the Son, or proceeds from him, and added the rest (a few, in fact, of the ancients, etc.), occasioned by the fact that[106] Rusticus had denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; and, lest he leave it that[107] Rusticus himself had made a declaration against the widespread opinion of the Latins, he added that he[108] was not yet satisfied on the point.
Corruption XXVIII
They raise the following, furthermore, from Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, Bk. 1 Against Eutyches: Hear very clearly that it is proper to the Father to have begotten, and proper to the Son to have been born, but proper to the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, and that another person does not at all share what is specially proper to each particular person.[109] Thus indeed this passage reads in vol. 4 of the Library of the Fathers, in the Paris edition by de la Bigne, 1610, column 597, and vol. 4 of the Library of the Fathers, in the Paris edition by de la Bigne, 1624, column 497, and in Aeneas of Paris’s book Against the Easterners, vol. 7 of Gleaning of Ancient Writers (edited by Lucas Dacherius), p. 46.
But de la Bigne himself, in his own first edition of the Library of the Fathers, Paris 1575, vol. 5, column 551, and in the second edition of his Library of the Fathers, Paris 1589, vol. 4, column 644, reads the same passage thus: Hear very clearly that it is proper to the Father to have begotten, and proper to the Son to have been born, but it is proper to the Holy Spirit to proceed; and that another person does not at all share what is specially proper to each particular person. Thus, further, these words run among the Writings of the ancient Latins on the one person and two natures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, published at Zurich in 1571, column 91.[110] And among the various works of the Fathers written against heresies, published at Basel in 1556 under the title Heresiology, p. 765, and among the works of George Cassander published at Paris in 1616, p. 520.
Corruption XXIX
Hormisdas, Pope of Rome, in Ep. 79, which is to the emperor Justin, vol. 5 of the Councils, column 1553. Nevertheless, it is known that it is proper to the Father that he should generate the Son; proper to the Son, that he should be born, equal to the Father, from the Father; it is proper to the Holy Spirit, that he should proceed from the Father and the Son under the one substance of the Deity.[111]
But the Library in Hamburg (a German town renowned for commerce) at the school of St. John holds the Codex of the canons of the ancient Roman Church published at Paris in 1609, which, since someone had compared it with a manuscript,[112] when it comes to this passage of Hormisdas, deletes the final words, That he should proceed from the Father and the Son under the one substance of the Deity, outright, and reads the whole passage thus: That it is proper to the Father that he should generate the Son; proper to the Son of God, that he should be born, equal to the Father, from the Father; and let what is proper to the Holy Spirit also be known.
Corruption XXX
In 589, the third Council of Toledo was held in Spain. If, therefore, we open[113] the royal edition of the Councils, 1644, vol. 13, p. 107, and the second Parisian edition, 1671, vol. 5, column 100, we read that Reccared, King of the Spains,[114] recited in the same Synod the Creed of Constantinople with the addition on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.
It is false, at any rate. For if we open the older editions of the Councils, we read that the King said, Who proceeds from the Father. Thus runs the Cologne edition of the Councils, 1530, fol. 107, and Paris, 1535, vol. 1, fol. 114. And though, in the edition of the Spanish Councils published by Garsia Lovisa at Madrid in 1593, p. 203, the Creed of Constantinople recited by Reccared was published with the addition, Garsia nevertheless set those very words, And from the Son, in marks, thus, “And from the Son,” and added in the margin: They are lacking in the published texts.[115] Bellarmine says the same thing in bk. 2 of On Christ, ch. 21. In the third Council, he says, of Toledo, held in 589, the Creed was read without any addition.[116] It is clear, therefore, that the old editions of the Councils, as much as the manuscript codices of the same,[117] did not have that addition. For the Latins would never have omitted to add it in the old editions, and would certainly not have taken it away, if the manuscript codices had also contained any such thing.
Corruption XXXI
From bk. 3 of Gregory the Great, Moralia, John the Provincial raised these words at Florence, in order to show the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, in meeting 21 of the Council of Florence, published in Latin by Horatius Justinian, vol. 13 of the Councils, column 1113. He claims openly to make known concerning the Father, because through the Father he will now reveal the splendor of his majesty, from whom as begetter he himself arises, one not unequal to him; and how the Spirit proceeds from each, coeternal to each, he shows. And here John stopped.
But in bk. 30 of On Job, ch. 5 (this passage corresponds to John’s), the words read thus according to the editions of Gregory the Great’s works: (The Savior) claims openly to make known concerning the Father, because, through the splendor of his own majesty that was then revealed, he shows how he himself arises, not unequal to his begetter, and how the Holy Spirit of each proceeds, coeternal to each. For we will then see openly, how that which springs forth, is not subsequent to the one from whom it arises; how he, who is produced by procession, is not preceded by those who bring it forth. Thus runs the Roman edition of Gregory’s works, 1588, Antwerp 1572, Paris 1523, Basel 1564.
John, therefore, read, How the Spirit proceeds from each, coeternal to each. But the published texts: How the Holy Spirit of each proceeds, coeternal.[118] The published texts then add much more, in which the Holy Spirit is affirmed to proceed from the Son also. John omits these things altogether, although they are joined immediately to what precedes, which he would never have done, if the manuscripts of Gregory, which John used, had contained any such thing. By diverse Latin falsifiers, therefore, it is manifestly clear that this passage of Gregory has been corrupted.
Corruption XXXII
In bk. 2 of Gregory the Great, Dialogues, the final chapter, according to the editions of his works, the words run thus: Since it is clear that the Paraclete always proceeds from the Father and the Son, why did the Son say that he was going to depart, so that he might come, who never departs from the Son?[119] But when, 175 years later, Zachary the Pope of Rome translated those books into Greek, the Greek version in no way said, always proceeds from the Father and the Son, but in its place, Since he proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son, as is clear to the one who looks into the Greek version of it subjoined to the works of Gregory the Great in the Roman edition of 1588. The editor, however, adds: In this passage let the reader consider those words which appear on line 9 (of this page, that is): It is clear, therefore, that the Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father, and remains in the Son,[120] that is: It is clearly apparent that the phrase “the Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father, and remains in the Son,”[121] reads very differently in Gregory’s Latin text, since it is agreed that the Paraclete always proceeds from the Father and the Son. From this, it is manifestly clear that the version by Pope Zachary was later corrupted by the Greeks, as John the Deacon noted well.
He appeals to John the Deacon, who says, in bk. 4 of the Life of Gregory the Great, no. 75, p. 133 of vol. 1 of the Works of Gregory, Rome 1588, About 175 years later, Zachary, Bishop of the holy Roman Church, being most learned in Greek and Latin, rendered these books (Gregory’s Dialogues) into Greek during the reign of the Emperor Constantine[122] and published them for the eastern Churches; although the clever perversity of the Greeks scraped off, of its own accord, the name of the Son in the mention of the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and removed it.
What then, if these very words, too, were inserted into John’s text by the Latin corruptors, who saw that Zachary’s Greek version accused them of falsehood? For that John lived at the time of John VIII and had dedicated to him his books On the Life of Gregory; but John VIII altogether abominated the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as we will see in its place. How, therefore, in books dedicated to John VIII, would he have so fiercely attacked the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone?[123] Or if these things did come from John the Deacon, equally, when he perceived that the Greek version differed from the Latin manuscript that had, surely, been corrupted by his people, he, being himself a champion of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, blamed the Easterners, as if they were making these texts differ, in turn, from the authors themselves.[124] And by what argument, I ask, does the author of those words, whoever he is, show that Gregory’s words were corrupted by the Greeks rather than by his own people? By none. Their only argument for the claim that the Greeks corrupted this passage is that it reads differently in the Latin text; and how firm this argument is, is clear from the corruptions adduced.
Next, John speaks as if the Greeks had corrupted Gregory’s words a long time ago, not in his own time. But the Latins want Photius to have revived the belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and no one but the Iconoclasts to have held this position previously. The Iconoclasts ought, therefore, according to the Latins, to have corrupted this passage, which (as anyone can see) is patently absurd. How would the catholic Greeks, teaching according to the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, not have perceived the deceit at once? Or how would they have let in manuscripts so corrupted that all the Greek codices from then on read thus, corruptly? But John does not mention certain heretics, either, as the culprits in the corruption: he lays this charge to the nation of the Greeks, Although the clever perversity of the Greeks, he says, removed the name of the Son. And in the same sense that he had said, Zachary published those books for the eastern Churches, he also soon added, Although the clever perversity of the Greeks removed the name of the Son, thus, likewise, showing that passage had been corrupted in kind by easterners.[125] How, therefore, do these words agree with one another? It is established, therefore, from John’s words that the Eastern Churches had also held, after Zachary had translated those books of Gregory into Greek, to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. But as far as the point he raises—that that passage was corrupted by the Greeks—enough thus far. If anyone were to consider, in how many countless passages the Latins have corrupted the Fathers, no one will by any means deny that we must rather look to this Greek version than to the Latin text itself.
Corruption XXXIII
Isidore of Seville, in bk. 7 of the Origins, ch. 3, has the following according to the published editions of his works: The Holy Spirit is therefore proclaimed as God, because he proceeds from the Father and the Son and has their substance; for nothing else could proceed from the Father, than what the Father is himself.[126]
But that these words are also corrupt, is clear from the fact that, in the attached explanation, why the Holy Spirit is God for the reason that he proceeds from the Father and the Son, Isidore mentions only the Father.[127] For nothing else, he says, could proceed from the Father, than what the Father is himself. Here, surely, he would no less have mentioned the Son, if he had just taught, nearby, that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son at once.
Corruption XXXIV
The same Isidore, further, in the Letter to Duke Claudius:[128] Likewise, you took care to apprise us of the objection of certain Greeks, that they have read that it was forbidden under pain of anathema, in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Synod, to take away anything from the catholic faith expressed in the Creed and in that work of St. Athanasius, or to add anything to them.[129] And, therefore, certain Greeks strive shamelessly to criticize the Latins, because, in professing the holy faith, they recite to God with heart and mouth, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son; since, in the aforementioned Councils, the formula, Proceeds from the Father, was established, and the holy Roman Church approves and believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But if the above-mentioned prohibition is considered subtly and correctly, every ambiguity is removed: for when it prohibited adding or taking away, it meant anything contrary. And he adds there many other things on this matter,[130] and afterward asserts and demonstrates the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son at length.
But these words, as well, never came from Isidore. For if in his day already the Latin Church already recited the addition, And from the Son, whence, I ask, was that addition again removed by the common consent of the Latins? Would this be credible? But those who brought that addition into the Latin Churches at the end of the eighth century say expressly that the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son had at that point lain neglected for a long time, out of a kind of torpor on the part of the Doctors, but that they were asserting it anew, as is clear from the words of the Spokesmen from the Synod of Aachen sent to Rome in 809, on which further when we treat it.[131] Nor, furthermore, were the Easterners separated in communion from the Latins in the eighth century, who objected to the Latins that they had erred against the decree of the ecumenical Synods and therefore were liable to the anathema, as well, by which innovators in the Creed were condemned, since they had added to the holy Creed the formula, And from the Son. No schisms, I say, disagreements, or parties born of this matter then divided the Churches. It is certain that they came together in friendly fashion at the time of the seventh ecumenical Synod; nor was any objection offered to the Latins in that Synod as it has been up to the present day. Hence it is certain that those prolix words of Isidore, therefore, in no wise came from the man himself.
Corruption XXXV
Agatho, Pope of Rome, and the Roman Synod of 205[132] Latin Bishops wrote these words in the Synodical epistle, in which it is said: I believe in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. Baronius, in his note on the year 860, no. 32,[133] and Binius in his notes on that Roman Council of Agatho, want these words to have been corrupted by the Greeks, by removal of the phrase, And from the Son. And hence, among more recent writers, a certain Jesuit brings up these words of Agatho thus, so that he reads: proceeding from the Father and the Son.[134]
But, in fact, all the editions of the sixth ecumenical Council, in Greek as much as in Latin, have the words of Agatho only thus: Who proceeds from the Father; the manuscripts ought equally, therefore, to have had thus.[135] Nay, it is entirely clear from this that the words of Agatho were, Who proceeds from the Father; and none either of the Latins or of the Latinizing Greeks ever adduced words of Agatho, by which he taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But they were not ignorant of the acts of the ecumenical Council, so that they would altogether have pushed such texts forward, if they had found them in the acts of that Synod, inasmuch as they labored to find other proof, anywhere else at all, to demonstrate their opinion. By the same token, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims in Gaul, who lived at the time of Photius, adducing that Synodical epistle of Agatho in his book On the Three-fold Deity, vol. 1 of his works, p. 431, reads them likewise, Who proceeds from the Father.
Pithoeus himself, finally, denies altogether that these words of Agatho had been corrupted; although because of Baronius’s words, by which he was then deceived, he deems that Julian had already complained about it at Florence, and that Calecas had objected to it before him.[136] Thus the book On the history of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, among his miscellaneous works, p. 31. From which it is also apparent that Cardinal Julian complained in vain about the Greeks, as if they had corrupted the letter of Agatho and the Roman Council to the Sixth Synod in that part, where the Creed of the faith according to the formula of the Synod of Constantinople is reported concerning the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father,[137] which Manuel Calecas is said to have raised as an objection to them even before him.
What argument, I ask, do the Latins have, that they should object that that passage was corrupted by the Greeks? Baronius, treating the sixth ecumenical Synod in his note for the year 680, no. 32: Furthermore, he says, in that sincere confession of the catholic faith that was written in the same Synodical epistle, the lying pen of the scribes worked its falsehood. While it read there: We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father and the Son, once the word, And from the Son, was erased, all that was left was, proceeding from the Father. An imposture by the Greeks of the same kind was uncovered at the Council of Florence by Julian, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, in the disputation which he delivered against the Greeks; and Manuel Calecas, a Greek author, noted and marked this very fact, long before Julian, in the commentaries he wrote against the errors of the Greeks.
A truly outstanding rationale! From the Creed of the seventh universal Synod the Greeks removed the phrase, And from the Son, just as Baronius and Calecas demonstrate; equally, therefore, they removed And from the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the epistle of Agatho. And why would the Greeks not also have removed the phrase, And from the Son, from the Creed of the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ecumenical Councils? Certainly, by the same necessity by which Baronius made his inference, this also follows: the rationale for the argument is the same, after all. That, further, the Creed of the Seventh eumenical was in no way corrupted by the Greeks, but that Julian’s manuscript, rather, was corrupted in the worst kind of faith and deception, was made manifest in the Tractate on the corruptions perpetrated in the writings of the eastern Fathers;[138] and in that fashion it was equally shown there that Baronius cited Calecas ineptly for his assertion. Since, therefore, it is clearer than day that the Greeks in no way corrupted the Creed of the Seventh Synod, let all judge on what foundation Baronius rests when he infers that the Synodical Letter of Agatho was corrupted by the Greeks.
In order to demonstrate the same point, the Jesuit Binius remarks in his notes on the Roman Council of Agatho:[139] One must note, he says, that the Greek corruptors corrupted it,[140] as Julian, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, observed, following Manuel Calecas, at the Council of Florence, in the disputation that he delivered against the Greeks; in that passage, which once read, We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father and the Son, they expunged the word, And from the Son. We have presented these things for the truth-loving reader and put them forth for his consideration, lest you wonder when we say below that the Synodical acts of the Sixth Council were corrupted by Greek imposture, especially in the words attested as coming from Honorius, the Roman Pontiff.
Thus, with too little consideration, Binius interprets what Baronius had said about the seventh ecumenical Synod (for he had followed him when advancing those points) in reference to the sixth Synod, as if Julian had asserted at the Council of Florence that that letter of Agatho had been corrupted, or tried to demonstrate it, and Calecas had already noted the matter before, when neither finger- nor footprint on this appears either in the acts of the Council of Florence or in Calecas’s books. Thus, we may deservedly laugh at his raillery, when he adds, We have presented these things for the truth-loving reader and put them forth for his consideration, lest you wonder when we say below that the Synodical acts of the Sixth Council were corrupted by Greek imposture, especially in the words attested as coming from Honorius, the Roman Pontiff. Evidently, though he had sent only lies in advance, he nevertheless put forth, brazen-faced,[141] these things to be considered by the truth-loving reader. The words of Baronius were, at any rate, as we have seen: An imposture of this sort was uncovered. Of this sort, I say, that is, similar, or another like it, but not this very imposture, by which they corrupted the epistle of Agatho.
Corruption XXXVI
In the Roman order on the divine offices, p. 28 among the ancient writers on the divine offices published by Melchior Hittorp at Rome in 1601, the holy Creed is read with the addition, And from the Son.[142] But when the holy Creed is recited in Greek, as well, in the same passage, it reads only, proceeding from the Father. How would the Roman Church, in reciting the holy Creed, have left out the phrase, And from the Son, in Greek, but added that phrase again in Latin? From this, at any rate, it is clear that that Creed, as recited in Latin, was corrupted later on. Nay, how would it already have frequented the Creed with the addition in the eighth century? In the same way that the Roman Church would have recited it for a long time before then; since those who introduced the Creed with the addition into the Churches at the end of the eighth century stated of their own accord that the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son had not been asserted at all in the Latin Church for a long time up until that point, as is manifest from the pamphlet On the procession of the Holy Spirit sent to Pope Leo III by the Spokesmen from the Synod of Aachen in 809.[143]
Corruption XXXVII:
Bede, in the Commentary on Boethius’s book On the Trinity, vol. 8 of his works, column 938. The Greeks say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son, because this is not found in the Creed that was published at the Nicene Council, where the decree was also promulgated that he who says something else is anathema. Therefore, they say that we are under the anathema, which is false, because we do not say something else, that is, something contrary. Nay rather, they speak openly against the Apostle, for he says, Because he sends the Spirit of his Son who cries out in our hearts, Abba, Father; and many other authorities proclaim this point in harmony.[144]
In reality, these words in no wise came from Bede. For in Bede’s day the Greeks were not divided in communion from the Latins, nor did they object that the Latins were under the anathema; and no controversy was stirred up by the Latins at the seventh ecumenical Council on account of any addition to the Creed or of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.
Corruption XXXVIII:
They want a disputation to have been conducted between the Gauls and Latins in a certain great Synod on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in the year 767. Various Latin historians are cited to establish this point:[145]
Conrad of Lichtenau, in his note on the year 767, p. 163 of the Basel edition, 1569:[146] In the year of the Lord 767, when a question had arisen about the Holy Trinity and the images of the Saints, between the eastern and western churches, that is, between Greeks and Romans, Pepin the King held a Synod in the village of Samoussy,[147] and, when the question had been aired, set out into Aquitaine, on the seventh day after Christmas, to wage the aforementioned war.
Aimon the Gaulish monk, in book 4 of On the Franks, ch. 67 of the Paris edition, 1602, p. 203:[148] When a question had arisen about the Holy Trinity and the images of the Saints, between the eastern and western churches (that is, Romans and Greeks), King Pepin, having gathered an assembly in the village of Gentilly, held a Synod on this very question, and, when it was completed, set out into Aquitaine, after Christmas, to wage the aforementioned war.
Einhard has the same words in the Annals of the deeds of Charlemagne, vol. 2 of the writers of French history published by Andreas Duchesne at Paris, 1636, p. 237.[149]
Again, Regino, Abbot of Prüm, in book 2, on the aforesaid year, among the old writers of Germany published by Johannes Pistorius at Frankfurt, 1583, p. 25[150]: In the Year of the Lord’s incarnation 767. The King held a great Synod in the aforenamed village between the Romans and the Greeks, on the Holy Trinity and on the images of the Saints, and after this he entered Aquitaine through Narbonne.
The Annals of the Franks from 687 to 904, vol. 3 Duchesne, p. 279:[151] In the Year of the Lord’s Incarnation 767. Pepin held a Synod in Samoussy, since the Romans and Greeks were disputing among themselves about the Holy Trinity and the images of the Saints.
The author of the Annals of the Franks from 708 to 808, vol. 2 of the cited History of the Franks, p. 13:[152] Then the King held a great Synod in the aforenamed village between the Romans and the Greeks, on the Holy Trinity and on the images of the Saints, and, making a journey in the region of Aquitaine through Narbonne, he captured Toulouse.
The author of the Annals of the Franks from 741 to 814, vol. 2 of the History of the Franks, p. 27:[153] Then the Lord King Pepin held a great Synod in the aforenamed village between the Romans and the Greeks, on the Holy Trinity or on the images of the Saints. And afterward he proceeded, making his journey in the region of Aquitaine through Narbonne.
The author of the Annales from 741 to 882, vol. 3 of the History of the Franks, p. 153, has the same thing.[154]
Finally, Ado, Bishop of Vienne, in his Chronicle, vol. 9, part 2, of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, p. 292:[155] A Synod was held at that point in time, in the year of the Lord’s incarnation 767, and the question was aired between the Greeks and Romans about the Trinity, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, just he proceeds from the Father, and about the images of the Saints.
That the Latins defended against the Greeks the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, by common agreement in a great Synod in the year 767, is utterly false. The Spokesmen sent from the Synod of Aachen to Rome in 809 testify, in the pamphlet On the procession of the Holy Spirit, that the controversy was lately arisen, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or not, and had emerged in their own times, suddenly as it seemed to themselves.[156] How, therefore, could the Westerners, by common consent in a great Synod—as those authors were testifying—have defended the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Greeks in 767? If you say that this was far off from the beginning of the ninth century, you gain nothing by it. For already at the end of the eighth century those innovators had arisen, who first invented that addition to the Creed in the Latin churches, certainly before the year 809 from Christ’s birth, as has been shown in its own place.[157] Albinus Alcuin, who departed life in 804, likewise faulted this innovation in the Creed. Who would really believe that all the Latin Fathers gathered in that Synod in 767 had soon departed in death after the year 807, and that a great many of them had not extended their lives for a couple of decades?[158]
Since, therefore, the Fathers in the Latin church taught and defended the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son for so many years after this also,[159] how, I ask, did those who asserted this dogma at the end of the eighth century, at the same time as the quoted Spokesmen, state in the cited passage that the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son had for a long time before their day been unknown in the Latin church? When, furthermore, that dogma arose at this time among the Latins, it was itself new and something that the rest of the Latins themselves attacked and condemned, as is clear from the cited pamphlet of the Aachen Spokesmen.[160] How, therefore, could the Latins already in 767 have held to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son by common consent and defended it against the easterners? How, in that year 767 or those preceding, could the same question have arisen not among the Latins themselves, but among the Greeks and the Latins, as the Latins wish those authors to testify?
Finally, Conrad of Lichtenau, Aimonius, and Einhard mention one question that was aired in that Synod. But was there one question? Did they hold a debate there on images, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, or not? These, at any rate, are two different questions, not one. Nay, the words of the author of the Annals of the Franks from 741 to 814, vol. 3 of Canisius’s Ancient Readings, part 1, p. 196, run thus: Then Lord Pepin held a great Synod in the aforenamed village between the Romans and the Greeks on the holy city or on the images of the Saints, and afterward he proceeded, making his journey in the region of Aquitaine through Narbonne. In this way, therefore, he shows clearly that a question singular in number was treated in that Synod, doubtless about the images of the Saints, which concerned the Holy Trinity at the same time. We must, after all, read Trinity for the word city, because otherwise the passage would make no sense. Duchesne, also, in his history of the Frankish writers, as we have seen, reads Trinity in place of city. According to either edition, therefore, that author says that a debate was held in that Synod about the Holy Trinity or about the images.
One question, therefore, was handled in that Synod. How, therefore, could a debate have been held about the procession of the Holy Spirit in the same Synod at the same time? Those words, therefore, “about the Trinity” are not to be referred to the procession of the Holy Spirit, but are likewise to be explained with reference to the question deciding on images. The Latins, after all, who used to contend, opposite the Greeks, against images,[161] believed that the adoration owed to God alone was offered them by the Greeks, and hence this question likewise concerned the Trinity itself. Hence, therefore, those words of those historians arose: A question was treated on the Trinity and the images of the Saints.
The later Latins, seeing that the procession of the Holy Spirit was the point of supremely great controversy between the Greeks and the Latins, likewise introduced into Ado, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, just he proceeds from the Father, deeming, likewise, that a debate was held on this point between the Latins and the Easterners in the year 767, as well.[162]
Corruption XXXIX
Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and the Presbyter Beatus in book 1 Against Elipandus Archbishop of Toledo, after the beginning, in vol. 8 of the Cologne Library of the Fathers, p. 344. Nor has the Father proceeded from two, or the Son, but just the Holy Spirit. And on this account the Father alone is God from no one, but from himself. The Son is God, just as the Father, but he is God from the Father, not from himself. The Holy Spirit also is God, just as the Father and the Son, but he is God both from the Father and from the Son, not from himself. But they soon add: Only the Father is God from himself, but these two are God from one, that is, from the Father, and on this account the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. In these words, at any rate, they teach that from one, that is, from the Father, and therefore from the Father one and alone[163] is the Son so much as the Holy Spirit. How, therefore, in the words just proceeding would they have asserted that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son?[164]
Corruption XL
Hadrian, Pope of Rome, in his epistle to Charles, King of the Franks, in which he dissolved the objections that had been made to the seventh ecumenical Synod, vol. 7 of the Councils, column 916, in act 3.[165] In the first chapter, indeed, it was reported, on that which says[166]: And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son. Censure.[167] That Tarasius does not opine rightly, inasmuch as he professes in the reading of his belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father and the Son, according to the faith of the Nicene Creed, but from the Father through the Son.[168] Response. Tarasius did not explain this dogma on his own authority, but confessed it on the authority of the doctrine of the holy Fathers, whose chapters we will briefly set down, out of the very great love for you that we bear on account of your most outstandingly upright royal excellence protected by God.[169] And from that point on, many testimonies from the Latin Fathers, among other things, on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son are subjoined.
The censurer of the seventh universal Synod faults Tarasius on this ground, that he said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and not—according to the faith of the Nicene Creed—from the Father and the Son. But in those days that addition to the Creed was finally brought, for the first time, into the Latin churches, when it had thus far been unknown, as we will show later from the words of the Spokesmen of Aachen. How, therefore, could Hadrian have been altogether silent on the Creed when it was raised with that addition, and have omitted to show that it had no authority, on the ground that[170] certain innovators had at that time enlarged it with the phrase, And from the Son?
Further, according to the cited words, Hadrian handles that question on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as if it were hitherto generally received and undoubted. But it is clear from the book by the Spokesmen of Aachen, which we have cited so many times, that the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit was not hitherto generally received and undoubted, but was hitherto unknown, lately invented, and condemned by the rest of the Latins.
Corruption XLI
Paulinus, Metropolitan of Aquileia, treating the Creed of Constantinople at the Council of Friuli (791), is reported to have said the following, in vol. 7 of the Councils, column 994.[171] But also afterward, on account of those, namely heretics, who whisper that the Holy Spirit is of the Father alone and proceeds from the Father alone, the phrase, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, was added —[172] For those who followed, that is, the ones who added, “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,”[173] had read the same truth himself[174] contradicting Philip: Philip, he says, he who sees me, sees my Father as well. Or do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? And, further, by these many words the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is demonstrated. And column 996, In how catholic a fashion, the holy Fathers, made firm by this stability of faith, professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father! How gloriously also those, who confess that he proceeds from the Father and the Son!
Here, Paulinus mentions the addition to the Creed as if it had not first entered frequent use from that moment or was in use at that time,[175] but had already obtained for a long time before. But also afterward, he says, it was added. Again: Those who followed, that is, the ones who added, had read. But at the same time at which that Council was held the Creed was finally brought with that addition into the churches by certain innovators, as is clear from the words of the Spokesmen of Aachen. If that addition to the Creed was already in frequent use a long time before, for what reason would the Latins have taken it back out again, so that all memory of it had disappeared altogether, so that, indeed, the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son was altogether unknown among the Latins? The aforementioned Spokesmen of Aachen, after all, testify that that dogma had not been asserted in the Latin churches for a long time before their day. Finally, the corruptors themselves, though they state that the holy Fathers professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, want nevertheless to confess gloriously that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We follow the catholic profession of faith rather than the glorious one. For the foundation of the catholic Church is the catholic faith, not the one which is glorious.[176]
Corruption XLII
Albinus Alcuin, in book 1 of On the Trinity, ch. 15. The Holy Spirit indeed is said nowhere to be either unbegotten or begotten:[177] lest, if he were called unbegotten like the Father, two Fathers would be understood to be in the Holy Trinity; or if he were called begotten like the Son, two Sons, by the same token, would be estimated to be in the Holy Trinity; but he must, to keep the faith, only be said to proceed from the Father and the Son; he, however, does not proceed from the Father into the Son, then proceed from the Son in order to sanctify creation, as certain persons used to think, misunderstanding what one ought to believe, but proceeds at once from each: because the Father begat such a Son that, just as the Spirit proceeds from the Father,[178] so also he proceeds from the Son.[179]
But in fact, in Albinus Alcuin’s time, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit had in no wise passed by. Nay, at the time, the Latins were as much opposed to one another over it as possible, some approving, others denying the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, so that, finally, Charles, Emperor of the Gauls and Germany, was compelled to convene the Synod of Aachen in 809. But on this at length in the Tractate on the quarrels among the Latins themselves that arose on account of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit.[180] Nay, Albinus himself condemned that addition to the Creed at that time: but more on this in the passage cited.
Corruption XLIII
Rabanus Maurus, book 1 of On the Universe, ch. 3, vol. 1, p. 59. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is proclaimed as God, because he proceeds from the Father and the Son and has his substance. How, I ask, if Rabanus Maurus had said beforehand that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, could have for any reason added, And has his substance? He ought, rather, to have written, And has their substance. In this way, in fact, the same words were read by Isidore of Seville, when he had them in book 7 of the Origines, ch 3. Since he here mentions only one of whom he spoke before—and he has, he says, his substance—it is clear that Rabanus spoke of the Father alone before, that from him the Holy Spirit proceeds. But further, just like Isidore in the cited passage, Rabanus joins to the words adduced, For neither was anything able to proceed from the Father, than what the Father is himself. How these words show that that place was corrupted, as well, we say above, concerning the same words of Isidore of Seville.[181]
Corruptions various and of huge number, shown by a single argument
The words, finally, that appear after the decease of the ancient Latin Fathers in the writings of the Doctors of the Latin Church who followed and the acts of the Synods, in great number, sometimes also in more extended speech, to the end of the eighth century, on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son—these are shown each to be corrupted and interpolated by a single argument.
The Creed was read with the addition by fifty-two Fathers at the eighth Council of Toledo (653), twelve Bishops at the Council held at Emerita in Portugal (666), eight Bishops at the fourth Council of Bracara in Gaul (675). The Council of Hatfield in England (680) confessed that very doctrine, at which, other Bishops of this island being present, Theodore, Archbishop of England, presided. The same dogma is affirmed at various times by the twenty-six Fathers of the eleventh Council of Toledo (675). They want Agatho, likewise, to have done the same thing, together with the two hundred twenty-five Latin Bishops assembled at Rome, in the Synodical epistle. The Creed was read with the addition by the thirty-five Bishops of the twelfth Council of Toledo (681), the forty-eight Bishops of the thirteenth Council of Toledo (683), and the forty-one Bishops of the fifteenth Council of Toledo (688). The same dogma, furthermore, was affirmed at various places by the fifty-nine Bishops of the sixteenth Council of Toledo (693). The Creed was read with the addition by the seventeenth Council of Toledo (694).
The dogma itself was handed down by Ildefonsus, Bishop of Toledo, in the book On the virginity of Mary, ch. 8, and Aponius, books 3 and 6 On the Song of Songs. In the Roman order concerning divine offices, the holy Creed appears in Latin with the addition. And then in the ordination of a Bishop according to the usage of the Gauls, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is reported in two instances. Bede, in the commentaries On Romans, ch. 8, On 1 Corinthians, ch. 12, On Galatians, ch. 4, the Homily on the summer Sunday, Exaudi,[182] the commentary On John, ch. 7 and 8, the book On the six days of creation, at the words, And the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters, book 1 of On the elements of Philosophy, the commentary On Boethius’s Book on the Trinity in many places, and with extreme prolixity.
In 767, the Latins want to have defended the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son against the Easterners in a great Synod. The same dogma was affirmed by the Bishops of Italy in the booklet Against Elipandus in the Council of Frankfurt. Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and Beatus the Presbyter, in book 1 of Against Elipandus and in book 2 in various places, who also recite the Creed with the addition in book 1. The Gauls, likewise, when they criticized the seventh universal Synod, because Tarasius said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Pope Hadrian, in the Epistle to Charles King of the Franks, defends, according to the Gauls’ sentiment, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which, likewise, was affirmed in the Council of Frankfurt by the Epistle to the Bishops of Spain. Albinus Alcuin, in book 1 of On the Trinity, ch. 6, 13, 15, book 2, ch. 9, 11, 19, 20, in the Tractate on the words, Let us make man in our image, etc., in the book On the use of the Psalms, part 2, in the commentary On John, at the words, My doctrine is not mine, again, at the words, Who are you?, again, at the words, When the Paraclete has come; in the invocation to the Holy Trinity, in his Creed; finally, in the book of Questions on the Trinity, quest. 2. The same dogma was asserted by Paulinus, Metropolitan of Aquileia, in the book Against Felix and Elipandus the Bishops, and, beyond assertion of the dogma, he disputes at length for the addition at the Synod of Friuli (791).
According to these texts, therefore, from the time of Pope Martin to the end of the eighth century, the entire Latin Church ought publicly to have handed down, taught, and proclaimed the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son and to have made frequent use of and recited the addition of this dogma in the holy Creed; and therefore the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son ought to have been no less known to all the Latins than the generation of the Son from the Father, approved by the consent of all, and called into doubt by no one. But the Speakers of the Synod of Aachen sent to Rome in 809, in the pamphlet On the procession of the Holy Spirit against the rest of the Latins,[183] state clearly that the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit had been handed down in the Latin Church at the time of Gregory the Great, Jerome, and Augustine, but that that dogma had then been neglected in the Latin Church out of a kind of torpor of negligence.
Thus those Spokesmen, Bernarius, Bishop of Worms, and Adalard, Abbot of Corbie, begin in the cited pamphlet, vol. 7 of the Councils, column 1199.[184] The question, which has lately arisen on the procession of the Holy Spirit, was aired some time ago by the Holy Fathers, with the greatest diligence. But because it has lain neglected by enquirers for a long time, it has not rested as if aired of old, but has, so to speak, suddenly arisen from hiding in our day, which I do not doubt, believing faithfully, to have been divinely inspired. For the Church is at present stricken by the blows of questions, so that, educated in catholic doctrines and polished by confessions of the sound faith, it may be able to live for eternity, having received the inheritance of sons, and reign in blessing with the Lord. But because, as I said before, this question long lay undiscussed by questioners, God Almighty wished to stir up the hearts of the Pastors towards the same question, so that, having removed the torpor of negligence, they may be able by the arm of holy exertion to dig through the treasury. For the Pastors of the divine Scriptures ought often, with the hoe of the Lord’s speech, to break up the field, lest the tares of the wicked sower and the malign seed be able to overwhelm the fruit of the shapely wheat; or the heretical bird, flitting everywhere, snatch the catholic seed from the hearts of the little ones; and the horrible emergence of spines be able to suffocate the Lord’s shining wheat. For the understanding of the sacred reading provides a rod for the weak and arms for the vigorous, bravely crushes the treacherous plots of enemies, and happily promises eternal crowns for the victors. Therefore, let the torpor of negligence depart far from the pastors; let damning laziness recede from mind’s keenness and soft wantonness leave the body’s members, and deep stupor and soft dreaming emerge into the upright and gainful watches of the reading, so that the field of the Church, fertile and sown with the seed of the doctors, may be able to return hundred-fold fruit to the Almighty. Now I shall begin concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The question, they say, on the procession of the Holy Spirit was aired for a long time[185] by the Holy Fathers, with the greatest diligence—assuredly that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son (they are, after all, disputing on behalf of this procession)—and because this question, they continue, has lain neglected for a long time—surely the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son—in this time, as if always unknown, [186] it has suddenly arisen in the Church with God as its author. Finally: This question—surely, that the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Son—lay for a long time undiscussed; but God has now aroused the hearts of the Pastors, so that, having shaken off the torpor of negligence—by which, surely, their predecessors had neglected to teach and assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son (they are, after all, treating this matter)—they should again draw it out of the heavenly treasury, and teach the rest.
Thus those Spokesmen state that for a long time—for a long time, I say—the Latins had not taught that dogma, but, oppressed by some torpor of negligence had neglected it, though once the ancient Fathers had asserted it; they, therefore, having shaken off that lethargy again assert that dogma with God as author. But if the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son had been unknown or not asserted for a long time before that day by the Latins, how, I ask, do we read in so many Councils, in so many books of the Holy Fathers, from the time of Pope Martin up to the end of the eighth century, that the procession of the Holy Spirit was asserted, handed down, and sometimes demonstrated at length? How, I ask, does the holy Creed appear with the addition in so many Councils? All the testimonies that we have cited in great number were, therefore, corrupted in the worst kind of faith.
Again, Pope John VIII, in his Epistle to Photius, speaking on the addition to the Creed, in vol. 2, part 2 of the Pandects of the canons received by the Greek Church published at Oxford in England in 1672[187]: We judge that Your Reverence knows rightly, since you are wise and endowed with learning, that it brings no small annoyance to us to persuade the rest of our Bishops to think thus, since to change a thing so weighty so swiftly—no one would be able to do this, though it had its origin a short time ago and was not confirmed by the span of many years.[188] From these words it is clear that the origin of that addition cannot be pushed before the end of the eighth century. How, therefore, could frequent use have been made of that addition so many centuries before, according to the words of so many Synods celebrated in Gaul, Italy, and Spain? That these have been corrupted is manifestly clear.
The same thing is established from the words of Albinus Alcuin, in the Epistle to the Brothers at Lyons and Creed of the catholic faith[189]: Do not bring in new things, just as we have quoted his words elsewhere.[190] If, therefore, at the end of the eighth century, the new addition to the Creed was published, it is clear that the words of the Synods were corrupted, in which before that time the addition occurs in a great number of Synodical acts.
Thus far it is established, therefore, that in many—or, if you consider the writers and Synods of the seventh and eighth centuries, innumerable—passages the words of the Latin Fathers were corrupted in the matter of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Without need, they raise other passages[191] from the Latin Fathers, in which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is likewise propounded: they could likewise have been inserted by falsifiers, and therefore ought not, as passages of doubtful trustworthiness, be admitted, especially when in other passages the same Latin Fathers are found to have taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
[1] The word I render “fidelity” here and in the following lines is fides. The implication is not just that the Latins have been mendacious; they have corrupted both their own “good faith” and the “doctrine” they professed to have received.
[2] Dum, as very often in Zoernikav, takes a sense that overlaps extensively with cum.
[3] Latin: corruptela.
[4] Quaternario refers to the four elements of creation. This is not genuine Cyprian, but the last section of the De cardinalibus operibus Christi of Arnold of Bonneval (ca. 1156), to be found in PL 189: 1609-78. Cf. Clavis Patristica Pseudepigraphorum Medii Aeui, vol. 2, 557.
[5] Sententia could refer to the opinion of a faction, that is, the Latins, rather than Pamelius’s own private view. Pamelius’s note appears in the 1568 Antwerp edition, 492, n. 4.
[6] Latin: opuscula.
[7] Something, evidently, has been lost in the printed text, since this quotation (Spiritus a Patre procedens, a Patre & Filio quaternario superfertur) appears identical to the one quoted at the outset. Consultation of the early modern editions reveals that Zoernikav is in fact driving at a difference of punctuation: in Pamelius’s 1568 edition, for example, the text (which appears at p. 490), runs Spiritus sanctus a patre procedens, a patre & filio, quaternario superfertur. In the Illustrium virorum opuscula, it is punctuated slightly differently: Spiritus sanctus a patre procedens a patre & filio: quarternario superfertur (I expand manuscript-style abbreviations; the text appears about halfway down the second-to-last, unnumbered page).
[8] Latin: librarii.
[9] The reference is again to a subtle point of punctuation in this edition: Spiritus sanctus a patre procedens, & a patre & filio quarternario superfertur. Zoernikav, who does not note the extra et after the first comma, does observe the lack of a comma after filio. The implication, in Latin, is that the Spirit is “carried” or “borne up” by the Father and the Son, another common usage of a/ab.
[10] In Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei, adversus huius temporis haereticos (col. 420 of the 1586 Ingolstadt edition; col. 316 of the 1596 Lyons edition).
[11] In the margin: Cichovius quaesito ultimo pag. 127.
[12] The critical edition of De trinitate 2.29 (CCSL 62:64) has Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, qui Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est.
[13] producentes Spiritus S.: properly, “producing/productive of the Holy Spirit.” “Producers” in the next line is productores.
[14] Latin: collatio.
[15] In the critical edition, De trinitate 2.4 (CCSL 62: 40), Spiritum sanctum nesciendo, dum et usum et auctorem eius ignorant!
[16] In the Latin, punctuated thus: si ergo hoc;
[17] Zoernikav is clearly being ironic, but to which effect, it is hard to say.
[18] Here as elsewhere, Zoernikav is using the edition of Labbe and Cossart, published in Paris in the early 1670s, to which he will refer later in 3.3; it is among the latest printed of his authorities.
[19] The word I have translated as “entire” and “intact” is integram.
[20] ‘Liberius’ quotes from the Vulgate of Ps. 17 [LXX] and Hebrews 12. The syntax, with a plural nominative participle in the last clause following on singular verbs predicated of God, is no easier than in the conciliar text from which the quotation seems to derive.
[21] I have opted not to split a sentence of twenty lines into multiple parts.
[22] Perhaps I overtranslate incassum, but I can see no other plausible sense.
[23] si ex Deo sunt: this is not indirect question, but, if the ordinary rules of Latin grammar hold, a simple hypothesis without any implication of truth or falsehood. Zoernikav, or his source-text, capitalizes both instances of Spiritus, though the latter is plural.
[24] Jer. 6:27 (Vulgate), Probatorem dedi te in populo meo robustum, printed here, however, as dedite, the second-person plural imperative (“give a stout examiner among my people, and you will,” etc.)
[25] The Latin is equally verbose: ergo in id ipsum ex toto corde referentes ante omnia super tali quaestione deprecationem.
[26] The sentence continues from the Danielic quotation with only a comma to separate.
[27] An obscure sentence: cum ope divina unius cuiusque personae conscripta eorum, qui pro novitatis commento accusati sunt, de venerabili scrinio nostro obsecundantibus, et nobis rationabiliter offerentibus solertius intendamus.
[28] Viri clarissimi, a standard late Roman title for members of the senatorial order.
[29] Latin: actione sive secretario.
[30] Zoernikav dates, here as occasionally elsewhere, ab O.R.
[31] The text runs thus: Nullus enim Romanus Consul, ad Justiniani Imperatoris tempora, a Christo nato nomen habuit aut Deodati, aut Asclepii. Unus Asclepiodatus cum Mariano consulatu defunctus est, anno Domini 423. anno 56. a morte Liberii. Zoernikav is borrowing from David Blondel, Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes, etc. (Geneva, 1628), 488 n. a, which reads, nomenclatura Consulum fictitia. Nullus a Christo nato ad Iustinianum Asclepius aut Deodatus; unus Asclepiodotus cum Mariniano Consulatum gessit A.D. 423: Anno 56. a morte Liberii. Since Zoernikav has no qualms about referencing Blondel in the next paragraph or about quoting other authors at length, the failure to signal a quotation suggests either a printer’s error or that he was working from imperfect notes. The consuls in question are Asclepiodotus 1 (also “Asclepiades”) and Fl. Avitus Marinianus 3 in J.R. Martindale (ed.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: A.D. 395–527 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 160, 723-4. Gotten right at least in the printing of Blondel to which I have linked above, the names are misspelled in Zoernikav’s published text, whether by his own error or a typesetter’s.
[32] in editione Parisiensi ultima Conciliorum: the wording implies that it was quite recent indeed when Zoernikav wrote this. Zoernikav refers to the learned preface on the decretals in the (1672) first volume of Labbe and Cossart’s edition, coll. 78-82.
[33] Latin: collatione.
[34] The Latin is odd: exuite conscientias uestras, et videatis, si huic potestis respondere: dicatis breviter responsum ad hoc. The subjunctives might also express a polite command, but the si-clause cannot properly be governed by videatis as an indirect question. One suspects it would be easier to take it with the following clause, thus yielding, “Put off your preconceptions and see; if you are able to respond to this, you may pronounce a brief response on it,” but the critical edition of the conciliar acts, p. 113, adopts a punctuation similar to Zoernikav’s. The dash, original to the text as printed, denotes (as seems to be usual in the Tractatus) a lengthy ellipsis: Zoernikav is running together words from two statements by Cardinal Julian, which are interrupted by an answer from Mark of Ephesus.
[35] Quotation marks added.
[36] To adapt the Latin to current idiom. lustra denotes five-year spans.
[37] The syntax is strange: studiosi in conservandis actorum Conciliorum celebratorum, an ablative of the gerundive followed by a genitive phrase that one would expect to find in the ablative, as well.
[38] Again, my quotation marks, as also below.
[39] sic: eius, not eorum.
[40] Verba enim ejus integra reperiuntur a Theodoreto … et Nicephoro Callisto: lit. “found by Theodoret … and Nicephorus,” with reference, perhaps, to their historical endeavors.
[41] Published among the Augustinian spuria by the Maurists, who numbered it pseudo-Augustine, Sermo CCXXXIII (PL 39: 2175-6).
[42] huc enim disputatio illa spectabat. The Tractatus de testimoniis Patrum latinorum in fact follows this tractate. The quotation from ps.-Augustine appears there at p. 336, where Zoernikav writes, quantum vero haec valeant ad demonstrandam processionem Spiritus S. a solo Patre; supra circa anathemata Damasi ostensum. Zoernikav refers, presumably, to the lengthy discussion of the confession earlier in Tractate 4, pp. 312-16, rather than to his briefer treatment here in 3.4. The wording and comparative brevity suggest that he in fact wrote this tractate after the fourth.
[43] I have consulted the translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series.
[44] With some minor differences, Zoernikav’s text agrees with the critical edition of De Spiritu Sancto 2.5.42 (CSEL 79: 102).
[45] Latin: ab utroque.
[46] The spurious De Trinitate seu Tractatus in Symbolum Apostolorum (Clavis Patrum Latinorum 171) may have been written against adherents of the teachings of the Spanish mystic Priscillian. For this section, see Patrologia Latina 17: 513 (1845 printing) or 541 (1879 printing). This work is not to be confused with the authentic Explanatio symboli of Ambrose (Clavis Patrum Latinorum 153/223.7; critical text at CSEL 73: 1-12).
[47] The critical edition of De Spiritu Sancto 1.11.120 (CSEL 79: 67) has a text very like the one Zoernikav rejects: Spiritus quoque sanctus, cum procedit a patre et a filio, non separatur. Non separatur a patre, non separatur a filio. Quemadmodum enim separari potest a patre, qui ‘spiritus oris eius’ est. There is, in fact, no mystery except of Zoernikav’s creation. He has overlooked a reference to the “procession” (apparently the temporal mission) of the Spirit from the Son shortly before, at 2.11.119 (CSEL 79: 66), non ergo quasi ex loco mittitur spiritus aut quasi ex loco procedit, quando procedit ex filio. Not only, therefore, has Ambrose dealt with the “procession” of the Spirit from the Son before he ever turns to this verse (Eccl. 24:5, paraphrased from a text very like the Vulgate, ego ex ore altissimi prodivi), Zoernikav’s hypothetical Filioquist reading would require Ambrose to take the Father and Son as the (singular) altissimus.
[48] Latin: affectionis vocabula.
[49] And thus, indeed, the critical edition of Rufinus, Expositio symboli 33 (CCSL 20: 169).
[50] Latin: prout, here perhaps ironical; Zoernikav surely means “even though.”
[51] I supply the verb from the following clause. The adverbs are perhaps meant to be understood, as well.
[52] The “Fides S. Hieronymi” (Clavis Patrum Latinorum 638). The critical edition by Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), vol. 1, fasc. 2, part 1: 355-63, has a rather different text at p. 360, yet is in agreement with Zoernikav on the key point: tres enim personae sunt quibus credimus, uerae, aequales, diuinae unius substantiae, id est de Patre Filius, et Spiritus proprie et uere de Patre qui prodit. The “Fides” was already known to be spurious in Zoernikav’s day; thus, the Huguenot André Rivet, who died the year before Zoernikav’s birth, listed it among the “writings universally agreed to have been falsely ascribed to Jerome” (Scriptorum Hieronymo falso adscriptorum omnium consensu) in Critici sacri, 4th edn (Geneva, 1660), pp. 405-6.
[53] Again, Zoernikav refers to Tractate 4 as already written.
[54] Zoernikav appears to be confused. In the text of the council published by Horatius Justinianus (Rome, 1638, 263-4), the three ‘epistles’ of pseudo-Jerome appear in the following order: 1. I. epist. ad Damasum, 2. ad Augustinum et Alipium Episcopos in expositione fidei, 3. expositio Nicaeni symboli. After the third follows, immediately, the reference to Gregory of Nazianzus quoted, below, at 3.11. Thus likewise in Labbe and Cossart, Paris 1672, vol. 13, col. 1109, which Zoernikav seems to have used, and the modern critical edition by Georg Hofmann, p. 202. Zoernikav appears again to be working from jumbled notes.
[55] The Latin, prostituat, carries unavoidable connotations of display for prostitution.
[56] Latin: libello.
[57] The verb is perfect: genuit. So, likewise, could be the following, genitus est, but not procedit, predicated of the Spirit.
[58] Zoernikav runs together two sentences separated by the quotation from pseudo-Jerome: we would place ellipses between this and although. Compare the text of Damian, Opusc. 38.5 in PL 135: 639C.
[59] Latin: existit.
[60] Ep. 170.4 in Goldbacher’s edition (CSEL 44: 625), reading spiritus quoque sanctus non sicut creatura ex nihilo est factus, sed sic a patre procedit, ut nec a filio nec a patre sit factus. Goldbacher’s apparatus notes both the omission of the final phrases in two editions and the variant reading a patre filioque in four, but no actual manuscript variants.
[61] Latin: sub frontem operum.
[62] Various editions were published at the press of Johannes Frobenius in Basel. Zoernikav certainly references one of these, the edition by Erasmus of 1528 (see Goldbacher’s preface, CSEL 48: lxxxii).
[63] Or perhaps, “The Venetian edition based on this one”: Veneta hinc editio.
[64] Zoernikav is overreaching: he has not even begun to make a case about the manuscripts, except at second- or third-hand.
[65] The quotation marks are all mine.
[66] The Latin cum nonnisi ultimo adducta lectio genuina sit (or perhaps fit) is obscure.
[67] With slight modification, Zoernikav’s text matches the critical edition of De trinitate 5.11.12 (CCSL 50: 219).
[68] In context, lux, “light.”
[69] vetera, presumably in reference to manuscripts.
[70] The reading cogitationis, retained by the Maurists at PL 42: 1097, is replaced by cognitionis in the modern critical edition of De trinitate 15.27.50 (CCSL 50A: 532), following the consensus of manuscripts; for the latter reading in one particularly old witness, the mid-8th-century Bodleian, MS Laud Misc. 126, see this facsimile, fol. 258r.
[71] Not Augustine’s at all. The text appears, with a few more sentences, as Alcuin, De Trinitate 1.15, in 3.42, below.
[72] Latin: de se.
[73] Latin: de illo.
[74] Lit. “Things equal to these” (paria hisce); Zoernikav may be thinking of the words themselves.
[75] See, with slightly different text, the critical edition of De trinitate 15.27.48 (CCSL 50A: 530).
[76] An obvious non sequitur.
[77] Clavis Patrum Latinorum 373a. It is not genuine Augustine, as had already been posited by Zoernikav’s day: Rivet, Critici sacri (3rd edn), 4.392.
[78] Latin: exstabat. A rare, perhaps solitary, instance in which Zoernikav cites a manuscript and not just an edition. The manuscript bearing the old shelfmark H 22 is now catalogued as Bodleian, MS Laud Misc. 383; the text Zoernikav cites is to be found, in actual fact, at fol. 104r. My thanks to Matthew Holford, Tolkien Curator of Medieval Manuscripts, and his colleagues for their help in identifying the manuscript.
[79] The text Zoernikav is about to reject matches, with only slight difference, the accepted modern text of De trinitate 15.17.29 (CCSL 50A: 503).
[80] proprium; I otherwise try to maintain the etymological link with the English “proper.”
[81] Or possibly: “so that it may indeed befit no other person,” quo quidem cum nulla alia persona conveniat.
[82] Spurious: Clavis Patrum Latinorum 379. This, too, was already known in Zoernikav’s day: Rivet, Critici sacri (3rd edn), 4.395.
[83] Latin: legitur.
[84] The modern text of Contra sermonem Arrianorum 4 is printed at CCSL 87A: 190.
[85] Contra sermonem Arrianorum 21.10 (CCSL 87A: 226). As in the section quoted in the next corruptela, Augustine is in fact confuting a hierarchical model of the Godhead in which the Holy Spirit is the creation and inferior of the Son—something still of concern to the ninth-century theologians who challenged the Eastern view of the Spirit’s procession during the reign of Charlemagne (see n. 168, below). Zoernikav does not take this context into account.
[86] The dash is Zoernikav’s, or his editor’s, and hides a lengthy omission from Contra sermonem Arrianorum 23.20 (CCSL 87A: 231-2).
[87] The Maurists were no less fierce in their criticism of the work’s compiler: PL 42: 1199.
[88] Latin: alius.
[89] The final phrase, in which I have supplied an understood est, may be taken instead in apposition: “but in this the Spirit is distinct in person, he, the principle Paraclete,” etc.
[90] Zoernikav could have consulted, e.g., the Paris edition of 1571 (repr. 1581), 551, or the 1528 printing by Sichardus at Basel (used in 3.26); in both editions, the text is printed at De unita deitate Trinitatis ad Theophilum. He is certainly right that it is not a work of Athanasius. Two recensions are extant, and the phrase a patre et filio belongs to the later and longer text (cf. CCSL: vi-vii) of De trinitate 2.22 (CCSL 9: 25). Though the original, shorter text has often been attributed to Eusebius of Vercelli, a contemporary of Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers, its authorship remains uncertain (Clavis Patrum Latinorum 105).
[91] Latin: alter.
[92] The published text presents this in italics, and thus as a quotation, but it is in fact a paraphrase in indirect speech.
[93] Appended in both manuscripts and editions to the work just treated, but now held to be by a different, likewise uncertain author (see Clavis Patrum Latinorum 105, CCSL 9: 127). It was known to Augustine: Carl L. Beckwith, “Augustine’s Use of Ps.-Athanasius on John 5:19 and the Chronology of De Consensu Euangelistarum,” Augustinian Studies 53/1 (2022), 51–68. The critical edition of De trinitate 11(8).8.19 (CCSL 9: 151-2) has et filii esse et patris, quia et a filio procedit.
[94] A mistake: this page is not to be found in vol. 5, part 3, of the Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum of Marguerin de la Bigne (Cologne, 1618-1622), but in volume 5, part 1. This volume does not appear to be available online, but see col. 763 of vol. 6 of the Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum (Lyons, 1677) for a reprint. It is not a genuine sermon of the bishop of Emesa (a student of Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian), several of whose sermons were, however, translated into Latin; see É. M. Buytaert (ed.), Eusèbe d’Émèse: Discours conservés en Latin: textes en partie inédits, 2 vols. (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense: études et documents 26–27, Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1953–1957). Though printed by de la Bigne under the name of Eusebius Gallicanus, it does not belong (as a note, reproduced from Bellarmine, at col. 787 of the Lyons printing, acknowledges) to the collection (now edited at CCSL 101-101B) that passes under that name.
[95] Latin: quod a Patre et Filio accipiat, sapientem et veracem esse, sive ipsum esse. Perhaps “… or rather, being itself.”
[96] Latin: orthodoxographa.
[97] The critical edition of the Liber fidei catholicae in Victor of Vita, Historia persecutionis Africanae prouinciae 2.56 (CSEL 7: 46-7) adopts the same text for which Zoernikav advocates.
[98] In fact, 6/2, p. 232: the dialogue between Rusticus and the heretic terminates abruptly on p. 237. A work of the deacon Rusticus, nephew to Pope Vigilius and translator of the acts of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, this is a problematic text. To quote from a review by the acts’ English translator, Richard Price: “The survival of this work is a mystery, since it was entirely unknown in late antiquity and the middle ages; we do not even have a manuscript of it. We are entirely dependent on a printing of 1528 (reprinted with little change in Migne, PL 67), based on a lost manuscript of exceptionally poor quality.” That printing was J. Sichardus, Antidotum contra diversas omnium fere saeculorum haereses (Basel, 1528), which Zoernikav has cited for the text of Victor of Vita in the previous corruptela.
[99] Or, as always with genitus est, “was/has been begotten.”
[100] Consempiternum. All words rendered “eternal(ly)” in this passage are derivatives of sempiternus, not aeternus.
[101] Latin: proprietatibus.
[102] Latin: Ullibi, a word coined (to judge from references in the Brepols Library of Latin Texts) in the Renaissance.
[103] Zoernikav’s emphasis (dices); this formula for a hypothetical objection is more common elsewhere than in Tract. 3.
[104] Quotation marks mine.
[105] Latin: gentilismum, duos Deos introducentes. Common scholarly assumption to the contrary, words derived from gentilis appear to predominate, in all periods of Christian Latin literature, over those derived from paganus.
[106] Latin: occasione ejus, quod.
[107] Latin: nê Rusticum ipsum … statuisse relinqueret.
[108] Latin: ipsi, i.e., Rusticus.
[109] Latin: nec omnino reciprocari alteram personam, quod est unicuique personae specialiter proprium. The first phrase ought, strictly, to mean, “and that the other person is not at all reciprocated.”
[110] Zoernikav gets the title (left, as is his wont, in plain Roman type, so possibly just a description) slightly wrong: not scripta veterum Latinorum de una persona et duabus naturis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, but Scripta veterum Latina de una persona et duabus naturis Domini et Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi.
[111] This is Clavis Patrum Latinorum 1620.236/1683.137 = Ep. 137 of Hormisdas, no. 236 in the Collectio Avellana, section 9 (CSEL 35/2: 719). 9. The editor, Günther, accepts the reading notum etiam quid sit proprium spiritus sancti.
[112] Latin: habebatur codex canonum … quem cum nonnemo cum manuscripto contulisset, dum pervenit ad haec Hormisdae verba. Zoernikav has to be referring to a reader’s alteration of the printed text, which retains the line he says was deleted in the Hamburg copy: p. 600, here.
[113] evolvamus: lit. “unroll,” as a scroll.
[114] Hispaniarum, pl.
[115] Latin: desunt in excusis.
[116] Bellarmine (col. 309, here) is arguing that the filioque had been added to the creed in the seventh century. In all probability, the word was not added to the creed at Toledo III in 589, but the doctrine of double procession was proclaimed both by Reccared and by the Visigothic clergy and noblemen who were acceding to pro-Nicene, catholic doctrine: see the critical texts of the king’s speech, the creed, and the anathemas in Gonzalo Martínez Díez and Félix Rodríguez, eds. La colección canónica Hispana, vol. 5: Concilios hispanos: segunda parte (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1992), 55, 67 (attesting many manuscripts that add et filio), 79.
[117] The wording is categorical: eorundem manuscriptos codices must mean simply “the manuscripts of the conciliar acts.” It could, of course, be a typesetter’s slip for earundem manuscriptos codices, “the manuscripts underlying these particular editions.” If there is no error, Zoernikav appears to be insinuating that the filioque was newly inserted, without manuscript evidence, into the Parisian editions of the Councils.
[118] Zoernikav now leaves out utrique before coaeternus; his reading otherwise matches that of Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob 30.4.17 in CCSL 143B: 1503.
[119] This, with minor differences, is the reading of Gregory the Great, Dialogi 2.38.4, in the critical edition, Sources chrétiennes 260: 248.
[120] In Greek.
[121] The translation, different in minor details from Zoernikav’s, is in Latin. I add quotation marks for clarity.
[122] Constantine V Copronymus.
[123] Zoernikav’s conviction that John VIII was adamantly opposed to the Filioque rests on the fulminations in Ep. 350 ad Photium (PL 126: 944-6). The letter is likely a forgery; see, with prior scholarship, Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948), 197–8. Zoernikav shows no suspicion about a text quite simply (for his case) too good to be true.
[124] Latin: quasi ipsis auctoribus haec ab invicem diverterent.
[125] Latin: Sic pariter in genere ab orientalibus ostendens locum illum esse corruptum. The meaning of in genere is obscure.
[126] Isidore, Etymologiae 7.3.1 Lindsay. Zoernikav passes over 7.3.8 (about a page later, in Lindsay’s edition), hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentem Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur, Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit (quotations from Rom. 8:9 and John 16:13 follow), and 7.4.4, Spiritus sanctus solus de Patre et Filio procedit; ideo solus amborum nuncupatur spiritus.
[127] The Latin is equally awkward: sed et haec corrupta esse, liquet ex eo, quod in subnexa ratione, cur Spiritus Sanctus sit Deus, ex eo, quia a Patre Filioque procedit, solius meminuerit Patris.
[128] Clavis Patrum Latinorum 1224, often rejected as spurious, but lately defended by Shawn C. Smith, “The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and a Letter of Isidore of Seville,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 22/2 (2014), 261-86.
[129] Latin: prohibitum legitur, in Symbolo, et in illo sancti Athanasii de fide catholica deminuere, uel addere aliquid. “That [thing] of St. Athanasius” is the Quicunque vult, the so-called “Athanasian Creed.”
[130] Or maybe, “to this effect”: in hanc rem.
[131] Deinde, which might suggest “in the next section,” but Zoernikav will not handle the text until the final section of Tractate 3.
[132] Sic, for 125: see the heading to the epistle, as quoted at Constantinople III, in Labbe and Cossert, vol. 6, col. 677
[133] Sic, for 680, no. 32. 860.32 (in Annales ecclesiastici, republished and extended by Augustinus Theiner, Paris: 1867, vol. 14, p. 509) has nothing to do with synods. For the text Zoernikav quotes, see Theiner (ed.), Annales ecclesiastici, vol. 13, p. 8. Zoernikav, or his editor, gets the citation wrong at 2.1 (p. 202), as well, but correct farther down at 3.35, p. 294.
[134] The marginal note refers to Cichovius, vol. 2 de processione Spiritus S., p. 23. This is in fact the second “enquiry” (quaesitum) of the first part of Tribunal SS. Patrum Orientalium et Occidentalium ab Orientalibus summè laudatorum, etc. (Krakow, 1658), p. 23, a treatise devoted to the procession of the Holy Spirit and Roman primacy and addressed to the monks of Kiev; Cichovius cites the acts of Florence and Calecas as his authorities.
[135] The statement is revealing: Zoernikav does not have any manuscripts, has not seen any, and is using the editions as proxies.
[136] This text can be read in Codex canonum vetus ecclesiae romanae a Francisco Pithoeo ad veteres manuscriptos codices restitutus (Paris, 1687), 358, cited above under 3.29; in the opening clause, Pithou is referring to the words of Leo III that he has just cited.
[137] Latin: ea parte, qua fidei Symbolum ex Constantinopolitanae Synodi formula refertur de Spiritu sancto ex Patre procedente.
[138] Tractate 2.1.
[139] Concilia Generalia et Provincilia, etc. (Cologne, 1606), vol. 3, p. 5.
[140] i.e. the Synodical Letter.
[141] perfricta tamen fronte: lit. “with his face rubbed all over.’
[142] In the first edition, De divinis catholicae ecclesiae officiis ac ministeriis, varii vetustorum aliquot ecclesiae patrum ac scriptorum libri, etc. (Cologne, 1568), the Greek and Latin texts appear on p. 39.
[143] For this text, see the notes to the final corruptela.
[144] The text appears in vol. 8, coll. 1088-1120, of the editio princeps, published by Johannes Heerwagen at Basel. Zoernikav appears to be citing the Cologne edition of 1612, vol. 8, coll. 937-8, which reproduces Heerwagen’s introduction. Doubts about the work’s authenticity had already been voiced in Zoernikav’s day: the Maurists Lucas d’Achery and Jean Mabillon list the work among the dubia in Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti in Saeculorum Classes Distributa, Saeculum III, quod est ab anno Christi DCC ad DCCC (Paris, 1672), part 1, p. 556.
[145] All of these texts, as will quickly be apparent, derive in some way from the Annales regni Francorum, the five classes of whose manuscripts are discussed, along with the early modern editions, in the preface to Friedrich Kurze, after G. H. Pertz, Annales Regni Francorum, inde ab a. 741 usque ad a. 829, qui dicuntur Annales Laurissenses Maiores et Einhardi (Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Hannover, 1895).
[146] Conradi a Liecthenavv Abbatis Vrspergensis Chronicum absolutissimum a Nino Assyriorum rege usque ad tempora Friderici II. Imp., etc. (Basel, 1569), 163; Conrad died in 1240.
[147] Latin: in villa Salmoniaco.
[148] I have not been able to locate this edition of De Francis; Aimon de Fleury died ca. 1010.
[149] Andreas du Chesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores a Pipino Caroli M. imp. patre usque ad Hugonem Capetum regem, etc. (Paris, 1636), vol. 2, 237. The portion of the Annales Einhardi (class “E” in Kurze, Annales Regni Francorum, xii-xiv; text at 24) that runs to 801 may have been written as early as that year, and dates from the first third of the ninth century in any case (Rosamond McKitterick, Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity (Cambridge, 2008), 27).
[150] Johannes Pistorius, Illustrium veterum scriptorum, qui rerum a Germanis per multas aetates gestarum Historias vel Annals posteri reliquerunt, Tomus unus (Frankfurt, 1583), 23; a second volume was published as Germanicorum Scriptorum, qui rerum a Germanis per multas aetates gestarum Historias vel Annals posteri reliquerunt, Tomus alter, in 1584.
[151] Andreas du Chesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores a Car. Martello Pipini r. patre, usque ad Hugonis et Roberti Regum tempora, etc. (Paris, 1641), vol. 3, 279. This text based on the Annales regni Francorum derives from a manuscript held in a monastery at Metz, and so is called the Annales Metenses (see Kurze, Annales Regni Francorum, vi).
[152] du Chesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, vol. 2, p. 13; this text is derived “from an ancient manuscript codex of Johannes Tilius” (p. 11).
[153] du Chesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, vol. 2, p. 27; this text is derived “from an old manuscript exemplar of Antonius Loiselius, which is now preserved in the library of the illustrious gentleman Fransciscus Thuanus, son of Jacobus Augustus” (p. 25)—that is, Codex Parisinus 5941A, olim Colbertinus, antea Loiselianus, saec. XI (Kurze, Annales Regni Francorum, ix-x).
[154] du Chesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, vol. 3, p. 153. These are the Annales Bertiniani (p. 150), an extension of “class C” of the Annales regni Francorum (Kurze, vii).
[155] I have not seen this edition. See PL 123: 125 for a text. Ado died in 874 and so is a relatively early authority.
[156] Latin: et suis saltem temporibus, subito ipsis emerserit.
[157] ut suo loco ostensum: Zoernikav ought to say “as will be shown,” as this is the subject of the final section. It is possible that parts of Tractate 3 were written out of order, and not just the whole tractate over and against Tractate 4.
[158] Latin: ad aliquot lustra.
[159] Latin: Cum ergo porro ad tot abhinc etiam annos in latina ecclesia Patres docuerint, defenderint processionem Spiritus S. a Filio.
[160] Not to put too fine a point on it, Zoernikav is making things up. The libellus (i.e., the epistle of Smaragdus of St. Mihiel, Harald Willjung, Das Konzil von Aachen 809 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica Concilia 2, Supplement 2, Hannover, 1998), 301-12) does not profess the doctrine to be new, though it does hint at opposition, referring, in the introduction, to the “heretical bird, flying everywhere,” who might “snatch the catholic seed from the hearts of the little ones,” and, at the end, to the hope that the “enemy” will be persuaded by the letter.
[161] Zoernikav construes oppugnare with an object as well as contra, thus: qui oppugnabant contra Graecos adorationem imaginum. He seems, therefore, to be saying that the Greeks did in fact “adore” images.
[162] Zoernikav’s assertion that Ado’s chronicle was interpolated thus hinges on his reading of the libellus of the Synod of Aachen (809) and on his interpretation of a single conjunction (vel, “or”) in one branch of the annalistic tradition. Though based on shaky reasoning, his estimation of the focus of the Synod of Gentilly (767) may nevertheless be basically correct. See Thomas F.X. Noble, “Kings, clergy and dogma: the settlement of doctrinal disputes in the Carolingian world,” in Stephen Baxter, Catherine Karkov, Janet L. Nelson, David Pelteret (eds.), Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald (Studies in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland, Abingdon: Ashgate, 2009), 237-52, at 241-2.
[163] Or possibly, “the one and only Father”: ab uno et solo Patre.
[164] The passage is Adversus Elipandum, 1.19 (CCSL Continuatio Medievalia 59: 13). Needless to say, Beatus and Etherius did not share Zoernikav’s belief that any reference to procession a Patre without explicit allusion to the procession a Filio is really an assertion of procession a solo Patre. They made both of the statements he thinks incompatible with each other.
[165] Now edited in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolarum vol. 5, Karolini Aevi III (Berlin, 1899), 5-57. Hadrian is replying to an initial critique of the second council of Nicaea (787) sent by Charlemagne, which he terms the Capitulare adversus synodum; it underlies the four books, later composed by Charlemagne’s theologians, that are now termed the Libri Carolini or Opus Caroli. See Ann Freeman, with Paul Meyvaert, Opus Caroli Regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) (MGH Leges 4, Concilia 2, supplement 1, Hannover: 1998), 1-3; the relevant section is the opening of 3.3 (Opus Caroli, p.. 34). The Opus Caroli was published in the sixteenth century, but Zoernikav, peculiarly, does not draw on it.
[166] Compare the eighth-century Latin version of the acts of Nicaea II contained in the Opus Caroli: Et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum ac vivificatorem, ex Patre per Filium procedentem. The text as given in the MGH edition of Hadrian’s letter, p. 7, is ungrammatical, though (with effort) still intelligible: Et Spiritum sancto domino ac vivificatorem qui ex Patre per Filium procedentem. As Anastasius Bibliothecarius, quoted in the MGH apparatus, complained, the Latin text was exceptionally bad: Charlemagne’s men were arguing, as it were, against the (pre-2023) Google Translate version of the Greeks’ opinions.
[167] Latin: Reprehensio.
[168] Charlemagne’s theologians seem (Opus Caroli 3.3, p. 347 Freeman) to have taken per Filium as a profession of “Arian” belief that the Spirit was created through the Son.
[169] pro uestro nimio amore, quem erga uestram praeerectissimam a Deo protectam regalem excellentiam. In Classical Latin, at least, one would expect uestri rather than uestro, but context demands an objective interpretation.
[170] tanquam quod: lit, “as if because.”
[171] A critical edition may be found in Albert Werminghoff, Concilia Aevi Karolini, vol. 1, part. 1 (Hannover, 1906), 182, 184.
[172] Zoernikav omits several lines.
[173] As usual, the quotation marks are mine.
[174] John 14:8-11, immediately after Jesus’s famous self-description (14:6) as “the way, the truth, and the life.”.
[175] A tortured phrase: tanquam quod non ab ipso, aut eodem tempore esset primum frequentatum.
[176] gloriosus, of course, can mean “boastful,” as in the title of Plautus’s play about the soldier.
[177] Latin: nec ingenitus, nec genitus alicubi dicitur.
[178] Latin: de se.
[179] Latin: de illo.
[180] In Tractate 5.
[181] 3.33, p. 292. The passage from Rabanus (PL 111: 23) is just a quotation from Isidore of Seville; Zoernikav overlooks the statement (likewise quoted from Isidore) later in 1.3, hoc interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentem Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur, Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit (PL 111: 24). Rabanus does rework his material, so the reference to the procession of the Spirit in Isidore, Etym. 7.4, noted above, at 3.33, does not appear in De universo 1.4.
[182] The Seventh Sunday after Easter.
[183] Because of Zoernikav’s or his editor’s habits of punctuation and failure to use italics, it is impossible to say whether adversus ceteros Latinos is part of the title or not.
[184] Harald Willjung, Das Konzil von Aachen 809 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica Concilia 2, Supplement 2, Hannover, 1998), 301-12.
[185] Zoernikav has iam diu in place of the original iam dudum.
[186] Now Zoernikav begins to twist the quoted text in the direction of his interpretation: nothing equivalent to his tanquam semper ignorata can be found in Smaragdus’s text.
[187] William Beveridge, ΣΥΝΟΔΙΚΟΝ sive Pandectae canonum SS. Apostolorum, et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptorum, etc. (Oxford, 1672), vol. 2, pp. 306-7.
[188] On this, the probably supposititious Ep. 350 of John VIII, see n. 123 under Corruptela 32, above.
[189] In Ep. 90 ad fratres Lugdunenses (PL 100: 288), Alcuin writes, Novas vero, fratres charissimi, Hispanici erroris sectas tota vobis cavete intentione … Et Symbolo catholicae fidei nova [nomina] nolite inserere; et in ecclesiasticis officiis inauditas priscis temporibus traditiones nolite diligere. As the editor notes (287-8 n. d), the reference is probably to the adoptionist doctrine condemned immediately thereafter. If Alcuin is objecting to the filioque after all, he could mean only the literal alteration of the Creed, not the underlying doctrine: De fide s. trinitatis 1.14 (PL 101: 22) unambiguously professes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, despite Zoernikav’s remarks, above, at 3.42.
[190] In fact, in Tractate 5, p. 365, below. Has Zoernikav written Tractate 3 after this one, too, or has he merely lost track of where he has placed (or will place) particular notes?
[191] loca; the plural in the sense “passage” is ordinarily loci.
Attributions
Copyright 2023 Mattias Gassman (CC BY 4.0)