Letters 1 part 51/55

For this reason we exhort and entreat -- as though your blessed daughter herself were sending forth her voice through us, the lowly ones -- that the monastery of the Lions remain functioning as a women's community, guarding the daughters she left behind, who serve God in spirit as her handmaidens;

for this is a glory both to her and especially to your own piety toward God, and it will be free from blame in the eyes of those who scrutinize our affairs.

This is what the apostle enjoins, saying:

'Give no offense, either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.'

Since, if you should not act in this way, the affair -- once set in motion out of what is proper into what is contrary to nature -- will not come to a halt, and we ourselves would incur a fault not free from ridicule -- I would add, even from condemnation.

...from writing back in reply to your honor, so that we very nearly were even deprived of the sense of the matters that had been written to us.

But the reason was that no trustworthy letter-carrier was at hand.

But now, since out of necessity we have sent the steward of our monastery to that place, we are duly making up for what was lacking, saying first this: that we are not capable of medicating a soul that is grieving and worn down by many sufferings.

Nevertheless, one must attempt to find the remedy from the God-inspired sayings.

What then does the greatest steward of these sayings say? 'Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks.'

If, then, it has been commanded to us at every time and in every matter and without ceasing to rejoice and give thanks and pray, then no time at all -- not even a single instant -- will pass by without the true Christian being bound up in rejoicing and giving thanks.

Therefore the present circumstances are not, after all, so afflicting -- whatever they may be -- even though they carry an excessive weight of misfortune.

And these things are said, not as though your good soul were ignorant of them, but by way of reminder, since a soul that is weary sometimes loses strength for the elevated contemplation of these truths.

My second point is that, even if those in authority have stripped you of many possessions you had, yet in no way have they been able to deprive you of your most precious possession.

Do you not see, and give thanks, for what knowledge God has stored up as treasure for you, what a tongue, from which, as from the innermost treasuries of the heart, it brings forth utterances and thoughts, above all freely and without cost? This is the most excellent of all, more profitable than all wealth, and more substantial than all substance;

which, if anyone possesses it, makes him, to the one who has understanding, more desirable than the exceedingly wealthy, even if he is clothed only in rags.

And this the whole chorus of the righteous has shown; and among the pagan figures, that famous Odysseus, who, naked from shipwreck, was seen by the princess.

But we must turn our discourse back to your question.

And yet, although you know from yourself what is right, you are eager to be instructed further by us who are unlearned.

For you say that at one time reasoning urges you toward prayer, and at another it checks you, on the ground that God already knows what we wish to ask for, so that prayer would thereby be superfluous.

Besides this, you say, since you are a sinner, prayer profits nothing; and, in short, whatever else the letter indicated;

for I did not have it at hand to keep before me.

What then is to be said about these things? That such reasoning carries the flavor of fate and fortune, and, to put it altogether, the abolition of free will; and we, being sensible and enriched with the knowledge of God, ought not to rely upon this opinion;

but concerning the second problem, one must be convinced that God also hears sinners who make use of the best repentance (for how, according to the sacred oracles, would he not also listen to the petition of those over whose repenting he rejoices?); and concerning the first problem, one must answer thus: that divine foreknowledge does not abolish free will;

For it is not because he foreknows that we do what we do, but rather he foreknows what we will do; and in this both the definition of foreknowledge and the principle of free will remain intact.

For in matters that are not up to us, God's determination precedes, with regard to time, place, and manner; but in matters that are up to us, in which free will operates, God's foreknowledge follows, as it were, with regard to both virtue and vice.

So then we must both desire and pray for the better things, so that we may thereby have God following after us, and not the opposite;

for otherwise he will follow after us in the opposite way -- here chastising and punishing, but there crowning us and rendering to us the kingdom of heaven.

{To John the Grammarian} When I had come to speak on the subject of the venerable icons (our own Plato was present, taking part in the discussion), he said that your eloquence, having received long ago a letter of mine on the same subject, had been perplexed as to how it had not been clearly set forth in doctrine, or perhaps was even leading the hearer astray from the truth.

Now as for me, if the one who cast this reproach had been someone of no consequence, I would not quickly have turned to reply, knowing that I would have to bear both the darts of envy and the rebukes of the ignorant;

but since it is a reproach, and from a most wise friend, I thought it necessary to bring the letter itself before your eyes and, having examined it as best I could, to send it to your friendship -- either to release you from your perplexity, or to have it corrected by your own keen intelligence;

for it is necessary that, in place of the opinion that has been found fault with, the one who reproves should introduce his own judgment.

{Theodore to Athanasius} You ask how it is that the icon of Christ is not worshiped with the worship of adoration, but rather Christ who is worshiped in it, since the worship is one and the same in both cases? [The answer is] that in the case of Christ himself, the worship is one of adoration -- for in worshiping him I worship together with him the Father and the Holy Spirit as well, which is our Trinitarian worship and adoration -- whereas in the case of the icon it is the same worship (how could it not be? for those whose power is one and whose glory is one, of these, clearly, the reverence is one and the worship is one), yet it is relative, that is, worship in name only.

For in worshiping it, I did not join in worshiping the Trinity together, but I worshiped Christ -- not as divided according to hypostasis, but as differentiated according to the principle of essence;

which is a relative worship, not one of adoration, even though it is the same worship -- in the former case understood and spoken of in this way because it is Trinitarian, that is, pertaining to nature; but here, on the contrary, because it is relative, that is, pertaining to hypostasis.

For if you were to call it worship of adoration, you would be signifying that the Father and the Spirit had become incarnate just as the Son did, which is absurd.

Therefore, in worshiping the icon of Christ, I am not worshiping the divinity, as some claim (for that would be signifying the Trinity;

and the Trinity has not become incarnate (far be it!); what then? [We venerate] Christ himself relationally.

for he alone, God the Word, became incarnate.

but in venerating Christ himself, it is clear that I have jointly venerated the Father together with him, and the Spirit as well.

so that in the case of the icon it would fittingly be understood and called 'relational [veneration],' but in the case of Christ himself, 'adoring [worship],' inasmuch as the Father and the Spirit are also thought of together with him and jointly venerated.

So then, my good friend, this observation seems to me correct: that in the case of the blessed and worshipful Trinity, the preposition 'with' (σύν) has been employed—for while indicating a distinction of the hypostases, it also presents a natural unity, just as is sung by all Christians in the Symbol of the Faith—but in the case of the veneration of Christ and of his icon, there is no room for the preposition 'with' to be employed.

for otherwise, by dividing the one hypostasis into a duality of hypostases according to the reasoning given, it would carry us off into the impiety of worshiping a mere creature.

Therefore the pronoun was fittingly employed, which, while preserving in both cases the unity of the hypostasis, marks the distinction of the natures.

And indeed, says the all-wise Dionysius, 'each is in each, apart from the difference of essence.'

Having spoken of a difference of essence, he clearly indicated thereby, by the phrase 'each in each,' an identity of hypostasis, according to which the relational veneration has been contemplated.

for relation, as they say, belongs to the category of 'things relative to something.'

for they exist simultaneously and are reciprocal to one another, as the archetype is to the image.

for the one could not exist without the other being present, inasmuch as they have been philosophically classed among things that exist simultaneously.

Moreover, the term 'homonymous' is also appended, and this expression too carries the same import.

for the name is the name of the thing named.

so that here too the argument belongs to the category of relatives, since according to the philosophical definition we are taught that things are 'homonymous' when only the name is common, while the definition of essence corresponding to the name is different—as, for example, Christ himself and the [Christ] depicted [in the icon].

But since 'hypostatic' is also appended, this has been expressly demonstrated: that in his icon there is no hypostasis other than that of Christ, but rather it is that very hypostasis of Christ—that is, his imprint—that is manifested and venerated in the icon by the visible form of his shape.

And the whole argument stands firm for those who think soundly.

But in order that the argument might have greater confirmation, I considered it necessary to append three patristic citations to this letter, so that here too, to speak in the words of Scripture, might be fulfilled: 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.'

...worthy of good report—honoring not the wooden panel nor the wax-painted image, but the emperor's own likeness;

thus creation does not honor the earthly shape, but reveres the heavenly imprint.

{From the Synod of Antioch, in the time of Patriarch Theodoret} Not as though he were another in form, but as the one Lord existing in one form, according to whom the single imprint, being by nature of the Father's hypostasis, was one both before the flesh, being incorporeal, and is one in the flesh, and remains that same one in the icon as well—not divided into two imprints nor split into two glories, but gathered together into one.

but just as he himself is one out of two opposites, gathered together into one person, so also his icon is one, and belongs to that same one Christ.

And we shall not say that the imprint which appeared to us according to the flesh is one thing, and the imprint formed according to the icon in the visible shape of his form is another, but that it is the same one imprint; since the imprint is spoken of not insofar as it is body, but insofar as it is incorporeal.

And this will be clarified further through the divine Chrysostom, who calls the imprint 'heavenly,' since indeed the Only-begotten God, coming down from heaven, was incarnate and appeared not insofar as body but insofar as incorporeal, having put on our body.

Therefore, since it presents the imprint by way of reference, we venerate Christ himself, and not the matter artfully shaped into a form in the icon.

{From the Second Council of Nicaea} And he who venerates the icon venerates in it the hypostasis of the one depicted.

{To Eudokia, Candidatissa} It was made known to me by brother Silvanus concerning your honored self, that you are in sorrow because a certain fear and terror arises in your soul without any cause.

And having heard this, I, the humble one, did not bear it unmoved, but I too was grieved, and I prayed—even though unworthy to be heeded by God—that that dread might be released from you.

Moreover, both I and my lord the archbishop and the brothers join in praying that this affliction may be shattered away from your piety.

But this affliction, my lady, is a strange and contemptible thing, and you ought not to consider it at all capable of harming you in any way, because, having put on Christ, you also have his cross as a weapon; marking yourself with it, believe that you at once drive away every demonic mischief, whether it happens that you are terrified by day or by night.

Sing therefore to the Lord: 'Deliver my soul from fear of the enemy.'

'I will not be afraid of the terror by night, of the arrow that flies by day, of the thing that walks in darkness, of the mishap and the noonday demon.'

And, 'if God is for you, who is against you'—you who eat his body and drink his blood; by which we tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy.

Do not, then, collapse together with this untimely fear, nor grow negligent, but be of good cheer in the Lord; and, we remind you, pray, as you have been accustomed, both by night and by day; and, if you are able, read a little as well; and the peace of God will guard you and keep you unharmed in all things.

{To Euphrosyne the Abbess} I have learned from one who knows well that grief has touched your honored self, because a certain sister wishes to be cut off from your holy community.

And this grief is not beyond what is reasonable.

For how could a soul not be pained when one of its own members is cut off? But nevertheless, since such things happen through the malice of him who lies in wait among the sons of disobedience, we must bear them with patience, showing all the care that the true word permits, so that we may be innocent of the blood of such a one—whether he be called brother or she sister.

You have asked to learn whether it is blameless for your honored self to release the sister who insists on breaking away from you.

And how is it that, being wise and intelligent, you do not recognize of yourself what is fitting? For if this separation happens willingly, it is not without danger, either for you, the teacher, or for the one who was discipled.

But when the disciple has become fully trained to lead other sisters, and is already being sought after by another community, such a thing is a dispensation, as Saint Basil says, and not a separation—far from it!

And indeed, from being well governed one rises to governing lawfully; and from this a good zeal arises in those of like disposition to advance to perfection and to act likewise in a godly manner, since our Lord and God, in pointing out to the chief of the apostles the proof of love for him, said:

'If you love me, feed my lambs.'

so that indeed the one who has gone forth to shepherd with such a purpose would be blessed, imitating Christ, the true and first Chief Shepherd.

There is, then, also another dispensation observed among our fathers: when a soul of difficult disposition, after much and prolonged care, chooses to move over to another community, being about to be useful there, in imitation of trees that are transplanted from this place to that.

If, therefore, you should also do this, it has some reasonable ground, both parties clearly—the one giving and the one receiving—cooperating with each other, so that the apostolic precept is fulfilled: 'Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.'

But any other separation the word of truth does not admit: first, because the covenant of the Holy Spirit is thereby torn apart—the covenant solemnly professed before God and men at monastic profession.

What could be more destructive than this? And indeed here too the word of the Lord fits: 'What God has joined together, let no man separate.'

For if there, though in a carnal union, separation is forbidden, how much more in a spiritual bond—unless perhaps divine things are being made a jest? But far from it! The word of the mystery is trustworthy, both as to the remission of sins committed and as to the indissoluble bond of the union.

Then how will the community be built up, from which she breaks away, if the one released by the abbess bears no blame, and will it not rather be led into division—cut apart now by this one through the same contentious zeal, then next by another, and shortly after by yet another (and thus the sound body of Christ will depart and be utterly corrupted), starting from that first breaking-point? And she who works this whole evil shall be heir of the 'Woe,' as Saint Basil cries out.

For neither your monastery, nor any other that acts in this way, will have either stability or a footing.

So then, let him who disobeys go on disobeying, and let him who breaks the law go on breaking it, according to what is written.

But you, in saving, save your own soul, not abandoning the laws of God, but standing firm in the teachings of the saints, foremost among whom in these matters is Basil the Great, even if you should end up living together with only two or three virgins.

'For where two or three are gathered in my name,' says the Lord, 'there am I in the midst of them'—but certainly not together with those who transgress the law, even if they be ten thousand.

{To Dorotheos, [my] son} I have come to know, beloved child, also from the letter you have just written, your faithful and loving disposition toward us, humble as we are—which is a mark of true obedience, even though we are sinful and worthless.

For this may you also be preserved henceforth, pleasing the Lord and shining forth in virtue in your community, and indeed in many other respects as well.

For it is not the nature of the good to be hidden; rather, the more it seems to lie concealed, the more clearly it renders manifest the one who works it, so that, according to what is written, he is called 'the city of God.'

But let this suffice on this matter.

As for the matter you indicated—namely, making commemoration of so-and-so—you ought to perceive of yourself that, if at the time of death, having previously been in communion with the heresy out of human fear, he stood confessing and, as it were, being reproved by someone, and then in this way partook of orthodox communion and along with it breathed his last, it is fitting that he be reckoned among the commemorations of the orthodox, since our good God, out of great loving-kindness, receives the penitent even at that final hour, and judges him accordingly.

So then, if it happened in this way, one must not decline to offer liturgies for him to God.

But if none of this happened, and he was in communion with the heresy and did not manage to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord (for that bread was heretical, and not the Body of Christ), one must not dare to speak of a [liturgical] synaxis for him (for divine things are not toys), lest the one who asks concerning such a person hear: 'You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly.'

I have nothing else to say, insofar as it is possible for me to discern the truth.

For 'there is no communion of light with darkness,' nor will he who does not commune with orthodoxy—even at the final hour—be numbered among the party of the orthodox.

For wherever he is found, there he will also be judged; and whatever provision he has taken for eternal life, with that he will also be numbered.

For the rest, pray for me.

My lord the archbishop and your brothers greet you.

I address the brothers with you as my children, and my lady Thecla as well, as a daughter in Christ.

{To the Emperors Michael and Theophilos

{To the most God-loving and most pious Augusti and Emperors by God's grace, autocrators: an apology and address on behalf of those scattered here and there} It is known to those who share in reason that God, King of all, bestowed the substance and name of earthly kingship upon human nature for this reason: that, in imitation of the heavenly things, earthly things too, possessing peace and freedom from sedition, might render harmonious doxology and worship to him.

Having received the reins of this kingship by divine judgment, your Christ-imitating majesty has fittingly summoned us, the least of all, to come to discussion with those who hold a position opposed to us on the doctrine of the faith, so that from this it might discern which side upholds the truth, and thus grant the victory to it, to the end that there be no schisms among us, but that all think the same thing in orthodoxy.

For this we praised your love of learning in matters of the faith, and we praised even more highly the peace-loving character of your intention, since it is thus desirous of establishing your subjects for their benefit and salvation.

For may this bring you a recompense: upon your splendor, an ineffable splendor, and upon your kingship, an unending kingship.

But, O most mighty and most God-loving sovereigns, it is not possible for this great and much-longed-for achievement to come to pass so simply and without toil, because along with the greatest of matters there appear also the greatest of hardships.

What is this? First, that those who oppose us have long ago been entrenched—even by a synod—in their own opinions, while we ourselves have been forbidden, in apostolic and patristic fashion, to join with those thus held fast in error in discourse concerning the faith;

then, that judgment concerning it belongs to none other than those alone who have received authority from the Lord through the Spirit, while you too, called by God to take the lead in this matter, join and set your seal upon it together with them.

But it is necessary to set forth what the sound and blameless conviction of our most Christian religion actually is.

We believe in one God, worshipped and glorified together in Father and Son and Holy Spirit—the much-hymned, all-working, and sovereign Trinity—according to the God-inspired Creed handed down to us by the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, through which every heresy has been driven out and from which every holy synod hangs, as branches from a root and rivers from a spring.

For it is from this that the second council made plain the authoritative teaching concerning the Spirit;

then the third proclaimed holy Mary as Theotokos, since she gave birth to the only-begotten Son of God himself;

then the fourth dogmatically defined our Lord Jesus Christ as of two natures and in two natures according to a single hypostasis;

then the fifth, setting its seal upon the council before it, anathematized Origen and those about him who held to the pre-existence of souls;

then the sixth, following upon the two natures, taught two wills and two operations in the one Christ;

[the seventh council] proclaimed him visible and depictable, its truth being firmly grounded in four ways: from the order of nature, from patristic usage, from conciliar pronouncements, and from ancient institution.

According, then, to the order of nature, to give an example, the evangelist John indicates this, saying:

'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.'

If, then, the Word became flesh, it is clear that as Word he is uncircumscribable, but as flesh he is circumscribable;

and if he 'dwelt among us' (for the one dwelling and the tabernacle in which he dwells are two different things), then in one respect he would be circumscribed, and in another he is above circumscription.

For by what signs will he be recognized as having become man, unless he naturally possesses the property of being depicted—which is the primary property in a man formed as such, and by whose removal man ceases to exist? But he is indeed truly man; therefore he who as God is uncircumscribable is, as man, circumscribable.

By this very reasoning he was styled 'mediator between God and men,' as one joining both extremes to himself and existing as both, possessing without deficiency, in one hypostasis, the properties of the two natures of which he was composed: from the Father, together with all else, also the uncircumscribable, since he has said, 'all that is mine is yours, and yours is mine'; and from the mother, together with all else, also the circumscribable, since it is written, 'for indeed he does not take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.'

Wherefore he had to be made like his brothers in all things.

Therefore, when one property is removed with respect to either nature, it necessarily removes together with it all the properties of the same order; and when the properties are removed, it is clear that the natures to which they belong are removed along with them.

And, as witness to this teaching, the hieromartyr Justin says somewhere as follows:

'For nothing among existing things remains what it is, if but one single thing naturally belonging to it is lacking';

and hence, on this novel supposition, the substance of our faith is rendered null and void.

Following, then, upon the evangelist, the apostle also says the following:

'Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.'

Therefore, if being in the form of God he took the form of a servant, it is indisputable that, insofar as he exists in the form of God, he is not depicted, because the divine is beyond comprehension; but insofar as he took the form of a servant, he is depicted, because the servile form is bounded within the comprehension of touch and color.

For how will he be believed to have 'become in the likeness of men,' unless he is by nature able to be depicted like other men? And how will he be said to have been 'found in appearance as a man,' unless he is seen depicted in human appearance? See, O most serene ones, how, being duly made like his brothers in all things—of whose flesh and blood he likewise partook—he must of necessity also be depictable equally with them? But if not, then he has not truly been made like them, and the one who declared this has spoken falsely, and his nature has been falsified.

And indeed, God the Word himself says somewhere as follows:

'Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from God?' But he who cannot be depicted could never call himself a man, nor could he who is by nature able to be killed fail also to be by nature able to be depicted;

for the one entails, and is tantamount to confessing, the other.

This is he who was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, as the blessed Peter has said;

and what else is this than to say that he is depicted in the flesh, but not depicted in the spirit? This is he who said, 'and he who eats me, he also shall live because of me';

but he who is not circumscribed could not be said to be eaten, unless indeed he were but a phantasm.

But should we accept this, we would fall into the opinion of the Manichaean, casting off the great mystery of piety;

for that one too says that the Son manifested his own essence on the mountain in both the visible and the invisible, not having two natures, but one.

So that those also who insist that Christ is not circumscribed, as thereby holding to one nature, are convicted of falling into agreement with that man's opinion;

nor again, in being circumscribed, is the one person of Christ divided into a duality of persons, as it seems to some, because the nature shared by image and prototype does not admit of being divided hypostatically, but has its distinction by reason of essence.

For the all-wise Dionysius says:

'each is in the other, save for the difference of essence.'

Since indeed in the case of the life-giving cross also one could not say that the cross-shaped image is anything other than its prototype, except that it differs only by reason of nature;

and the example is near at hand, and the truth beyond dispute.

This, then, is the first of the ways mentioned.

What is the second? The sayings of the saints, declaring—not by way of syllogism, but plainly—that our Lord Jesus Christ is to be depicted;

which, were we to wish to include all of them here, would carry us beyond the proper measure of this address.

But having selected from among many two or three, and these the most pertinent, we shall from these confirm the rest as well, thus fulfilling here too what is written: 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.'

The voice of Peter, chief of the apostles, recorded in the account of the hieromartyr Pancratius:

'Bring out the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ and imprint it upon the little tower, so that the peoples may see what form the Son of God took, that having seen it they may believe the more, beholding the imprint of his form, and may receive a reminder of the things preached to them by us.'

How awesome is this saying, as though he were even crying aloud: 'Bring out the icon of him whose virtue has covered the heavens, and imprint it, as it were, on high, as a manifest testimony,'

'so that the peoples may see what form the Son of God took';

not the form of an angel, nor of an archangel, nor of any other power, but the servile form like ours;

'so that having seen it they may believe the more';

as though the narrative by word alone were not sufficient, but there was need also of the working effected through sight, for the fuller confirmation that the Son of God had become the Son of man.

'and may receive a reminder of the things preached to them by us';

similar to saying, 'this shall be a memorial to you for generations of generations.'