The Cappadocian Fathers and Filioque

June 11, 2014

in Cappadocian, Catholic View, Filioque

TrinityWby Will R. Huysman

Careful examination of the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers reveals that they agree with the doctrine of Filioque.

St. Basil the Great (†379) writes in Epistle 214:4,

"In God, whatever appertains to nature is common … but the Person is known by the character of paternity, or filiation, or sanctifying power."{1}

St. Photios the Great (†891) echoes this teaching in Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 19. In section 10 of the same work, St. Photios asserts that Filioque attributes to the Son a property distinctive of the Father, thereby confusing the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son and destroying the μοναρχία of the Father. St. Basil, however, does not draw the same conclusion. In his understanding, active spiration is not proper to the Father. Generation (paternity), filiation, and passive spiration are the hypostatic properties; it is proper to the Holy Spirit to be spirated, but it is not proper to the Father to spirate. We know this from St. Basil’s writing Against Eunomius.

During the Council of Florence, controversy arose as to whether the passage from St. Basil’s Against Eunomius was genuine.{4} Against the Catholic theologian John of Montenero (†1446), Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus (†1444) argued that the text promoted by the Catholics was spurious. He based his argument on "the number and quality of the Greeks’ books" and his belief that St. Basil did not think"that any saints … had ever taught that the Holy Spirit was third in dignity and order."{6} Mark, the leading opponent of what he thought to be a false union, also argued that St. Basil says that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit in Letter 38:4 to his brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Basil writes that the Holy Spirit, from Whom all provision of good flows to creation, depends on the Son with Whom He is inseparably apprehended, but has His being dependent on the Father as cause from Whom He proceeds. He has this mark of His hypostatic individuality, that He is known after the Son and with Him and that He subsists from the Father. But the Son, the sole only-begotten emitted from the unbegotten light, knowing through Himself and with Himself the Spirit proceeding from the Father, has no communion with the Father or the Holy Spirit as regards individuating marks, but is known by only the above mentioned signs.{6}

According to Assumptionist Byzantine scholar Fr. Martin Jugie (†1954), St. Basil here uses "cause" in the sense of προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία or αἰτίας ἀχρόνως, which can only be the Father.{7} He also, without denying that the Son spirates the Holy Spirit, uses "proceeds" in the strict sense of the Holy Spirit’s relationship of origin to the Father, and speaks in the same sense in his key work On the Holy Spirit;{8} this vocabulary is explained later in the discussion of St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 34. Mark interpreted St. Basil’s mention of the Holy Spirit’s dependence on the Son only as the Holy Spirit’s enumeration after the Son.{9} John countered, with reference to other Basilian texts, that St. Basil describes the order whereby one person is from another person with Whom He shares the divine nature.{10} One of these texts, the disputed one alleged to be from St. Basil’s Against Eunomius Book III, Chapter 1,{11} reads

Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said.

St. Basil agreed with Eunomius that the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis by His personal dignity and third in numerical order after the Father and the Son.{12} That the Son gives existence to the Holy Spirit was not merely the bishop’s personal opinion, but was sacred tradition that he was faithfully transmitting. Nevertheless, St. Basil does not agree with Eunomius that this implies that the Holy Spirit is ἑτεροούσιος.

Archbishop Basilios Bessarion of Nicaea (†1472), "a great man whose name has unjustifiably been blackened,"{13} provides abundant evidence that the passage in question was truly from the pen of St. Basil. Bessarion, who was elevated to the cardinalate by Pope Eugene IV (†1447),{14} states that five of the six codices his compatriots brought to Florence contained the whole passage, while the sixth, from which the passage was missing, "was defective in some parts and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter."{15} Right after the Council of Florence terminated, Bessarion checked, to the best of his ability, all the manuscripts in the monasteries of Constantinople and discovered that the ancient codices had the passage, while the more recent ones lacked the passage.{16} Bessarion adds that one codex from 350 years before the Council had the passage erased so poorly that it was still visible, while the other codex had the passage covered with ink.{17} He quotes witnesses from earlier centuries to demonstrate the presence of the passage in the ancient manuscripts.{18}

The testimony of the erudite Bessarion, who, far from being "a traitor both to his religion and to his fatherland, was in fact one of his country’s best friends,"{19} is most trustworthy. Moreover, John of Montenero brought an ancient codex with the whole passage from Metropolitan Dorotheus of Mitylene.{20} Nicholas de Cusa (†1464) brought to the Council of Florence a 600-year-old Constantinopolitan parchment to the Council of Florence,{21} which the Catholics did not have time to interpolate.{22} This manuscript predates the controversy between Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome (†867) and Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople. It is not likely that a Latinizing forger could have written and so neatly inserted such characteristically Greek phrases.{23}

Finally, "the entire argument of Basil" against the heretic Eunomius "presupposes [the idea in the passage] as something logical and indispensable," according to the patrologist Otto Bardenhewer, D.D., Ph.D. (†1935).{24} As John of Montenero pointed out during the Council of Florence, St. Basil’s goal in this section of his work "was to prove that there were firsts, seconds, and thirds in order and dignity of [hypostases] of one and the same nature."{25}

In Oration 29:2{26} (the Third Theological Oration) on the Son, St. Gregory the Theologian (†390) says, "The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter … The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit is the Emission …"{27} In the same section, he suggests confining the discussion to "the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself says." Does this imply that the Son has no role in the ontological procession of the Holy Spirit? Fr. Jugie gives a negative answer, explaining that St. Gregory does not rule out the idea that the Son has it from the Father that He is also προβολεύς.{28} The fairness of the scholar’s explanation becomes apparent when we compare St. Gregory’s statement from this oration with comments he makes elsewhere.

In Oration 34:10, St. Gregory lays special emphasis on the monarchy of the Father: "all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."{29} Mark of Ephesus, in his July 1440 "Encyclical Letter to All the Orthodox," quotes this statement to show that the Son does not spirate the Holy Spirit.{30} If the Father is the only cause, Mark argues, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. However, St. Gregory uses "cause" in a narrower sense than proponents of Filioque do when they say that the Father and the Son are one "principle" of the Holy Spirit,{31} and he does not teach that the Son does not participate in the spiration of the third person of the Trinity.{32} He means that the Father is the only person of the Trinity Who does not take His origin from another; this hypostatic property of being the ungenerated generator does not include the notion of being the sole spirator of the Holy Spirit, as St. Gregory’s other statements show.{33} Several codices of Oration 34 have "ingenerateness" instead of causality; the two words are synonyms for St. Gregory.{34} Moreover,{35} in Oration 41:9, he says, "All that the Father has the Son has also, except being Unbegotten."{36}

We find, in Oration 31 (the Fifth Theological Oration) of St. Gregory, a number of indications of the Son’s involvement in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. In Oration 31:4, the Theologian observes,"If ever there was a time when the Father was not, there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not."{37} According to Fr. Jugie, St. Gregory here not only declares the co-eternality of the three hypostases, but also describes the Trinitarian ταξις so as to vaguely allude to the asymmetric dependence of the Holy Spirit on the Son.{38}

Other statements are clearer in their signification. In Oration 31:32, the saint compares the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to "the sun and a ray and a light."{39} This figure implies more than just an eternal energetic shining forth (manifestation) of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, which is the view of Gregory of Cyprus (†1290), who succeeded the unionist John XI Bekkos as Patriarch of Constantinople in 1283. The analogy St. Gregory uses implies that the Father and the Son act together to give existence to the Holy Spirit, because the globe of the sun is the unbegotten source, which, through and with the ray, produces the light.{40}

In Oration 31:8, St. Gregory points out that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father," as "our Savior Himself" declares. Here St. Gregory does not say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, because εκπόρευσις has always been used, even by the Eastern Fathers after the Cappadocians who expressly taught the idea of Filioque, to indicate the relationship of origin of the Holy Spirit to the sole ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος and πηγή of the Godhead, the Father.{41} εκπόρευσις cannot be used in connection with the Son, because the Son is not unoriginate, but rather is begotten from the Father. St. Gregory deems the fact of εκπόρευσις sufficient to prove that the Holy Spirit is God: "inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, [He] is no creature." Does this mean he had no idea of a relationship of origin between the Holy Spirit and the Son? On the contrary, his teaching, from the very same sentence, that the Holy Spirit "is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten" entails that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son in the sphere of ontology,{42} though different vocabulary (προείναι instead of εκπόρευσις) must be used in order to convey this properly.{43}

Further support for this thesis comes from the ninth section of the same oration, when St. Gregory explains why the Holy Spirit is not another Son. He points out that "the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of Their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of Their Names."{44} The relations of which St. Gregory speaks are clearly relations of origin.{45} For St. Gregory to be consistent with his own maxim and be able to distinguish the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, there must be, besides the relation between the Father and the Son and the relation between the Father and the Holy Spirit, a relation of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit. The order of names tells us that the Son does not proceed from the Holy Spirit, so it must be the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.{46}

In Oration 42:15,{47} his final farewell at the Second Ecumenical Council,{48} the Theologian does not deny that the Son, even though He is caused, spirates the Holy Spirit.{49} He teaches that the Father isἅναρχος, the Son is ἀρχὴ, and the Holy Spirit is τὸ µετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, which, according to Dr. Bardenhewer, implies between the Holy Spirit and the Son the relation of One Who proceeds and One From Whom He proceeds. Additionally, in Oration 31:2,{50} St. Gregory expressly states that the Holy Spirit is "ἐξ μφοῖν συνημμένον," that is to say, the Holy Spirit is "composed of both" the Father and the Son.{51} According to Dr. Bardenhewer, the sense of the Theologian’s words is that the Father and the Son both compose, so to speak, the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Father and the Son both produce or spirate the Holy Spirit.{52} It follows that St. Gregory teaches here that the Holy Spirit "proceeds equally from the Father and the Son."{53}

This being so, why didn’t the Second Ecumenical Council, under St. Gregory’s presidency,{54} define that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? First, the Second Council did not need to define that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, since that was not something the Pneumatomachi denied; the latter thought that the Son would of course be involved in the procession of any other person from the Father.{55} Second, the Council’s goal "was to put the origin of the Holy [Spirit] on a footing with the origin of the Son with respect to consubstantiality with the Father," and since the Pneumatomachi denied that the Son is God, the Council would not achieve its goal of proving the Holy Spirit is ὁμοούσιος with God the Father by defining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.{56} Third, the Council wanted to base its definition on Holy Scripture, but the key text John 15:26, which formally teaches that "the Spirit of Truth … proceeds from the Father," does not formally teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.{57} After the Cappadocians’ time, why didn’t the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils define that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? These Holy Councils, which hailed many Filioquist Fathers as illustrious teachers of orthodoxy,{58} had no need to define this because no one was denying it in those times.{59}

In "To Ablabius on Not Three Gods,"{60} St. Gregory of Nyssa (†394) informs his friend,

While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

The bishop of Nyssa teaches that, while the Father is the only cause in the sense of being the only hypostasis Who does not take His origin from any other, the Son must somehow be involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father if the generation of the Son is to be distinct from the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Son is the mediator such that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. What does such a formula mean for St. Gregory?

The answer is found in Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6,{63} in which he draws the analogy of the three persons being three lights or torches who subsist in one nature of fire:

Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?

For St. Gregory, the Father is the first torch, Who, through and with the second torch (the Son), communicates fire (the divine essence) to kindle the third torch, the Holy Spirit.{64}

In Sermon 3 on the Lord’s Prayer,{65} St. Gregory is much more explicit:

For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.

The hypostases of Son and the Holy Spirit eternally exist in a caused manner. The hypostatic property of the Son is that He is the only hypostasis to have His existence from the Father by being generated, while it is the hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit to have His existence from the Father and the Son. The best manuscripts say "from the Son" and not "of the Son;" e.g., the seventh century Vatican 2066 discovered by Cardinal Angelo Mai (†1854).{66}

Finally, the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa in his first book Against Eunomius{67} leave no room for doubt:

as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit’s subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself.

Here he unambiguously confesses that there is a relation of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit, i.e., that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of "deriving existence from Him," according to Fr. Jugie.{68}

Even though St. Basil the Great emphasizes that the hypostatic properties are unique and incommunicable, he expressly teaches that the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit in Against Eunomius 3:1; the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is no prejudice to the clear distinction of the hypostatic properties. Strong internal and external evidence shows the disputed passage to be genuine.

Although St. Gregory the Theologian puts great emphasis on the monarchy of the Father, his vague allusion to the Holy Spirit’s dependence on the Son in the Trinitarian τάξις, his analogy of the Trinity as sun-ray-light, and his teaching that the Holy Spirit is the mean between the Father and Son all imply not merely that the Holy Spirit is eternally energetically manifested through the Son, but that He has His being from the Father and the Son. Filioque becomes necessary to distinguish the persons of the Holy Spirit and the Son when we give just consideration to the holy archbishop’s axiom that the persons are distinguished from each other in their relations of origin to one another. His teaching that the Father is ἅναρχος, the Son is ἀρχὴ, and the Holy Spirit is τὸ µετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Finally, his statement that the Holy Spirit is "composed of both" the Father and the Son means that the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit.

St. Gregory of Nyssa expressly teaches that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son on the level of hypostasis. For the holy bishop, existing in an ungenerated way does not include the idea of being the sole spirator of the Holy Spirit. The Son’s mediation in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the person of the Son, consists in, as the saint’s analogy to the flame and torches reveals, the Son cooperating with the Father in spirating the Holy Spirit as from one principle.

Whatever one thinks of the pneumatological statements of Eastern Fathers like St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria,{69} St. Epiphanius of Salamis,{70} and St. Cyril of Alexandria,{71} there can be no doubt that the Latin Fathers, from the time of Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers,{72} unanimously teach Filioque.{73} They include St. Ambrose the Great of Milan,{74} St. Augustine the Great of Hippo,{75} Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome,{76} Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome,{77} the martyred philosopher St. Boethius,{78} Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome,{79} and St. Isidore of Seville.{80} All the God-bearing Latin Fathers were, like the holy Cappadocian Fathers, inspired by the one Spirit of Truth; how could the Cappadocians and the Latins have held mutually exclusive views on the procession of the Holy Spirit?

{1} P.G. 32:789.
{2} P.G. 102:297B.
{3} Ibid., 289B,292A.
{4} Giovanni Domenico Mansi, M.C.I. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31:783A-794C.
{5} Joseph Gill, S.J. The Council of Florence (Cambridge: University Press, 1959), 203.
{6} P.G. 32:329C.
{7} Martin Jugie, A.A. De processione spiritus sancti ex fontibus revelationis et secundum orientales dissidentes (Rome: Istituto Grafico Tiberino, 1936), 148.
{8} Ibid., 147-148.
{9} Gill, The Council, 203.
{10} Ibid., 204.
{11} P.G. 29B:655A,C.
{12} St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P. "Chapter 2: How the Son is to be understood as second from the Father and the Holy Spirit third." Contra Errores Graecorum. Translated by Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I.
{13} Joseph Gill, S.J. Personalities of the Council of Florence, and other essays (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1965), 52.
{14} Ibid., 52.
{15} Reuben Parsons, D.D, Studies in Church History, vol. 3, Centuries XV-XVI (New York: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1897), 139,
{16} Gill, The Council, 223-224.
{17} Ibid., 224.
{18} Ibid., 224. See P.G. 161:325-328,408.{19} Gill, Personalities, 53.
{20} Gill, The Council, 203.
{21} Edward Bouverie Pusey, D.D. On the clause "and the Son" in regard to the Eastern church and the Bonn Conference: a letter to the Rev. H.P. Liddon, D.D. (New York: Pott, Young & Co., 1876), 121,
{22} Gill, The Council, 201.
{23} Ibid., 224.
{24} Otto Bardenhewer, D.D., Ph.D. Patrology: The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. Translated by Thomas J. Shahan, D.D. (B. Herder: St. Louis, 1908), 282,
{25} Gill, The Council, 204.

{26} P.G. 36:76B.
{27} Philip Schaff, D.D. translation, used for the rest of the primary sources unless otherwise noted.
{28} Jugie, De processione, 164.
{29} P.G. 36:252A.
{30} P.G. 160:176B.
{31} When Catholics say one principle of the Holy Spirit, they use "principle" indeterminately. See Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 4, ad 4. The term "principle" of the Holy Spirit is a substantive name (a form with an accompanying suppositum), so even though the Father and the Son are two supposita spirating, They are not two principles because They are one form, God. See ibid., ad 7.
{32} Jugie, De processione, 165.
{33} Ibid., 165.
{34} Ibid., 165.
{35} Qtd. in ibid., 165.
{36} P.G. 36:441C.
{37} P.G. 36:137A.
{38} Jugie, De processione, 162-163.
{39} P.G. 36:169B.
{40} Jugie, De processione, 161.
{41} Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. "The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions." Catholic Culture.
{42} Jugie, De processione, 163.
{43} Pontifical Council, "The Father."
{44} P.G. 36:141C.
{45} Jugie, De processione, 163.
{46} Ibid., 163.
{47} P.G. 36:476AB.
{48} New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., s.v. "Gregory of Nazianzus, St."
{49} Jugie, De processione, 161.
{50} P.G. 36:136A.
{51} Bardenhewer, Patrology, 292.
{52} Ibid., 292.
{53} Ibid., 292.
{54} New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., s.v. "Constantinople I, Council of."
{55} Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D. and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. 1, 4th ed. (New York: Benziger Bros., 1909), 296.
{56} Ibid., 296.
{57} Ibid., 296.
{58} E.g., the Holy Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council declare in the first session that they "in every way follow the Holy Fathers … Hilary, … Ambrose, … Augustine, … [and] Leo [Pope of Rome], and their writings on the true faith." See Mansi, IX:183B.
{59} New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., s.v. "Byzantine Theology."

{60} P.G. 45:133BC.
{61} Jugie, De processione, 156.
{62} Ibid., 156.
{63} P.G. 45:1308AB.
{64} Jugie, De processione, 155.
{65} Johannes F. Callahan, ed. Gregorii Nysseni De oratione dominica; De beatitudinibus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 42.
{66} Jugie, De processione, 160-161.
{67} P.G. 45:464BC.
{68} Jugie, De processione, 158.
{69} This great pillar of the Church saw no contradiction between affirming that the Father is "the sole unbegotten and sole fount of divinity" (P.G. 28:97BC) and declaring,
"Whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" (Against the Arians 3:25:24 in P.G. 26:376A) and "jointly with the Father, the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit" (On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in P.G. 26:1000A).
{70} The Well-Anchored Man 71,73 in P.G. 43:148B,153A.
{71} Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35 in P.G. 71:377D; Thesaurus 34 in P.G. 75:576B,600D; On the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten in P.G. 75:1241A; On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1 in P.G.68:148A.
{72} On the Trinity 2:29 and 8:20 in Migne, Patrologia Latina Cursus Completus, 10:69A,250C-251A.
{73} New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., s.v. "Filioque."
{74} On the Holy Spirit 1:11:120 in P.L. 16:733A. See also ibid., 1:15:172 in P.L. 16:739B.
{75} Against Maximus 2:14:1 in P.L. 42:770.
{76} Letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga in P.L. 54:680.
{77} Profession of Faith in P.L. 63:514B.
{78} How the Trinity is One God and Not Three Gods 5 in P.L. 64:1254C.
{79} Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92 in P.L. 75:599A.
{80} Etymologies 7:3 in P.L. 82:268A,C. See also Books of Sentences 1:15:2 in P.L. 83:568C.


{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post: