書信集 第 1 章 第 10/55 段

Does 'economy,' then, apply to every transgression of a commandment, for every man, or only in certain cases and for certain persons? And what is the criterion by which it applies in some cases and to some persons, but not at all in others? And by whom, and by how many, is this economy to be exercised — by hierarchs alone, or also by priests? Synodically, or also by each one individually? And if it applies to emperors alone, does it apply only to adultery, or to every transgression? And how is it that the commandments of God give way in the case of emperors? Is it perhaps altogether because an emperor's reign has an end — since not even the law of an earthly king gives way, unless another king succeeds him? But this too must be questioned:

since the divine Apostle says: 'Husbands, love your own wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.'

How, then, having now accepted adultery and the moechian union, and, in the times surrounding it, other comparable transgressions, could the Church remain without spot and without wrinkle, and not rather be defiled with mire — which I shudder even to say? Let those who now call themselves evangelists determine this for us.

For, having accepted these things themselves, they call themselves the Church of God, judging as opposed to it those who do not accept them.

But truly, as the prophet says, 'The fool will speak folly, and his heart will devise vain things, to accomplish lawless deeds and to speak error against God.'

This, then, is a most grievous heresy, and here one may apply the words of the most blessed Apostle:

'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ, for a different gospel —'

'which is not another gospel at all; only there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.'

But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we preached to you, let him be accursed.

But contrary to what was preached — not by the apostle, but by Christ himself — the adulterous synod has preached the adulterous union, from which comes adultery, and has preached the manifold enticement of those who commit adultery as a saving economy.

...so that it might again exalt on high its own raving champion.

From the trial of which may I, wretched man, flee, and I pray that you too, sinner though I am in so praying, may flee it — even if you should be unwilling to heed me.

Behold, then, brother, I have set before you — evangelically, apostolically, and at the same time paternally — if indeed you are willing to be persuaded by words of truth, that the adulterous synod has without doubt fulfilled a heresy, having begun from adultery even though it slackened somewhat in the middle, from the mere fact of naming — or rather proclaiming — the adulterous union to be an economy taking place in the church of God.

And do not be surprised that a single utterance gives birth to heresy, when you hear the Lord saying:

Not one iota, not one stroke, shall pass from the law until all things come to pass.

Nor should it seem right to you to say, 'What need is there to fuss over details and, on account of a single word, to drag up gnostic speculations and to piece together this conclusion and that?' — lest you fall into the so-called heresy of the Gnosimachoi, concerning whom the writer says:

The Gnosimachoi are those who set themselves against every kind of knowledge concerning Christianity, saying that those who seek out certain forms of knowledge in the divine Scriptures do something superfluous;

for God requires nothing else of a Christian except good deeds.

It is better, then, for one to walk more simply, and not to busy oneself with any doctrine of gnostic inquiry.

Such, then, are the Gnosimachoi.

Give me, yourself, if you can, proof from the divine oracles that this is not a heresy, and do not bring against me a multitude, nor boast of your nocturnal God-fearers — the 'gnostics,' as you call them, and laymen and friends.

For if they are God-fearing, where is their boldness of speech? And if they are 'gnostics' — and I do not say this as denying that they are —

for I confess that many are even superior to me, a layman) — but if indeed they possess the truth, let them demonstrate it with true knowledge from the truth itself, and indeed also from examples — fitting ones, though, not ones incompatible with, and contrary to, the truth and to the apostolic and patristic canons.

And if they are friends according to God, how is it that they share communion with the heterodox? For such men are not true and faithful friends.

Attend, then, brother, to what the divine Basil says to those who judge the truth by [mere] numbers.

He who does not dare, he says, to give an account of the question at hand, nor is well supplied with proof, and for this reason takes refuge in numbers, thereby confesses defeat, as one who has no provision for boldness of speech.

Let even one man show me the beauty of truth, and persuasion is immediate, however brief;

but a multitude that asserts authority without proof is sufficient to intimidate, but nowhere sufficient to persuade.

Or how many tens of thousands will persuade me to consider day as night, or to take bronze coin for gold, and thus to accept or admit manifest poison in place of fitting food? Then, shall we, for the sake of earthly matters, be unashamed to reject a multitude of liars, yet for the sake of heavenly doctrines shall I follow unproven gestures, departing from the things handed down of old — and even before that — with much agreement, and with the testimony of the holy Scriptures? Have we not heard the Lord saying, 'Many are called, but few are chosen'? And again:

Narrow and hard-pressed is the way that leads to life, and few there are who find it.

Who, then, among those of sound mind, does not pray to be among the few who enter into salvation through the narrow way, rather than among the many who are thrust into destruction through the broad way? And who would not have desired, had he lived at the time of the contest of blessed Stephen, to share his portion — his, who alone was stoned, who was set before all as an object of ridicule — rather than share the portion of the many who supposed they possessed credibility from a wicked authority? One man who is well-pleasing before the divine is preferable to tens of thousands who are puffed up in arrogance, just as we also find in the Old Testament, where thousands of the people fell by a plague sent from God, and Phinehas alone stood and made atonement, and the destruction ceased.

...God granted [him] favor.

Good, then, good it is, both that one man speak boldly and justly, and that the unjust agreement of the many be dissolved.

But you, if it so pleases you, may prefer the submerged multitude to Noah, who was saved, while you permit me to run with the few to the ark;

and again, if you wish, place yourself among the many in Sodom, while I will journey with Lot, even though he alone was profitably separated from the crowds.

Nevertheless, a multitude is also respectable to me — not the one that flees examination, but the one that furnishes proof; not the one that defends itself bitterly, but the one that corrects in a fatherly manner; not the one that delights in innovation, but the one that guards the ancestral inheritance.

But what sort of multitude do you even mean to me? The one hired by flattery and gifts? The one deceived by ignorance and lack of understanding? The one that fell through cowardice and fear? The one that preferred the fleeting enjoyment of sin to eternal life? — things which many have openly confessed? With numbers you reinforce a lie; you have only demonstrated the severity of the evil;

for the more that are in the evil, the greater the calamity.

But to proceed to your other propositions would be superfluous, beloved, since it would exceed the proper measure of a letter, and besides, for those who receive these words with sensitivity, what has been said will readily meet [any further objection].

{To his son Naukratios} You speak to me and relate to me each time, my most beloved child, nothing superfluous or idly told, but something timely and fitting and conducive to the benefit of the soul, just as now also.

And I, while praising your vigor, also welcome your progressing discourse, which you will adorn all the more if you are able to work through the scholia of grammar;

for one who holds fast to orthodoxy and wishes to contend against those of false opinion must also share in the power and experience found in reasoned discourse.

For since those men, thinking they possess something great from that sort of knowledge, boast loudly, tickling the ears of those who itch [for novelty], it is best for right-thinking men not to be lacking even in the strength of reasoned speech, and to cast down their well-aimed siege engines.

Thus it is dear to me that you be made strong, my child.

But what I wish for you I do not wish altogether also for everyone, since one person differs from another in disposition, and what is expedient differs accordingly.

You said that the brothers Philip and Philo have fallen asleep.

And well done, well done, that both came to a good end — not that their earlier course was blameworthy (for how could it be, in men who had renounced flesh and blood to the world and had placed upon themselves the gentle yoke of subjection?), but that they attained the highest blessedness, having been persecuted for the Lord's sake, afflicted and hard-pressed.

And against this there is no one to gainsay, except those ill-named Moechians who have set aside the gospel.

And as for Philo, it is fitting to stop the praise at this point; but as for the many good achievements of the excellent Philip, which you yourself have already recounted —

I, in addition to what has been said, also admire his unfeigned and blameless character, his freedom from anger and from bearing grudges, his compassionate and brotherly love, his readiness to listen and his lack of negligence, and, in short, his freedom from passion, from which also come his readiness to compunction, his hatred of the world, his love of God, and his lack of self-assertion.

Speak, as you have already begun to show, of the man's abundant tears, his love for his homeland and his love of obedience, and, in dangers, his combative zeal and earnestness and utter freedom from complaint, and the, as it were, ever-blooming character of the many-flowered virtues of his soul.

Well also stand the affairs of the steadfast Gaianos, who has traveled through nearly every place where the dispersion of the brothers is found.

And that they are in good health, thanks be to the Master God;

that they do not fall in their afflictions, but rather grow more courageous — glory to Christ who strengthens them;

that they are driven away, not even being deemed worthy of shelter by certain monks — especially since monks of every community have agreed together on this point — do not be surprised.

And a man's enemies will be those of his own household.

For did not those wretched men reject Christ our God himself, who said these things? And indeed the son of thunder says:

He came to his own, and his own did not receive him.

...those who endured persecutions and imprisonments for the gospel? Nothing was lacking to their persecutors except to crucify and put them to death.

May the bond of this lawlessness not be reckoned against them; but, as you have said, unable to bear the offenses of those subject to them, and lest the light of truth be kindled for them, but rather that they might continue journeying in the darkness of ignorance, they send our brothers away, lest perhaps some holy word of truth and righteousness — or rather, of admonition — should become audible to them.

This shall not be, nor shall this counsel of theirs stand; but the word of God, which they have trampled underfoot, shall be spoken and shall be established forever.

For heaven and earth, he says, will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

And against these things, who is able to contend, except the tyrant Satan and his interpreters — men truly vain-minded and most hostile — who have ratified adultery as a saving economy for the church of Christ? Now I must turn my discourse to your questions.

You asked why the divine Cyril exercised economy in not separating himself from those of the East who commemorated in the diptychs Theodore of Mopsuestia, although he was a heretic, since the most correct and most timely doctrines of piety had been preserved among them.

For thus it is written, and the one who has recorded this is he among the saints, Eulogios, archbishop of Alexandria, in his treatise 'On Economy,' from which we have also inserted a citation into the treatise composed by us specifically 'On Economy in General.'

The solution, then, has been given by the very man who also recorded the matter (for it has not yet been stated elsewhere, and it suffices not to seek another solution; but for the sake of clarity, let what we offer hold to the same meaning): that among instances of economy, some have been made by the fathers for a [limited] time, while others possess permanence.

Permanent, for instance, is such an economy as that of Saint Athanasius toward the Italians, allowing 'persons' to be conceded in place of 'hypostases';

but temporary is such an economy as that of the apostle concerning circumcision, and that of Basil the Great concerning the Holy Spirit — such also is that of the divine Cyril now [under discussion];

such things, done for a certain limited time, involve nothing blameworthy nor anything in some respect discordant and unlawful, yet they are nevertheless a concession, and not altogether precise;

for this is what temporary economy is.

For it is not possible for a physician to rid quickly of disease one who has fallen ill, nor again for anyone to make at once an unbridled horse well-mannered, or a dry, crooked shoot straight, unless the one most experienced in such matters employs, little by little, coaxing sounds and blandishments, soothing words and gentle summons;

so also among the saints in matters of economy, as also was the case with Cyril the Great in this instance;

for he certainly waited a little while for the slowness of the Easterners, or their attachment [to the point] of not taking the truly heretical man to be heretical.

For what else stood in between, when they preached the faith in an orthodox manner, and in doing so anathematized the very man commemorated among them? Since everyone who is orthodox in every respect anathematizes every heretic in effect, even if not in [explicit] word.

Then, when perfect understanding was kindled in them, it was then, presumably, that the saint was united with them in all respects.

Or do we not also appear to do the very same thing? There are times when some who share our views differ from us in some point — where the cause of grief, or the departure from strictness, is not great — and yet we accept communion with them, lest, for the sake of some small matter that could later be set right, we lose the whole;

but this belongs to the unskilled, and not to stewards of the mysteries of God.

Such, then, is the temporary exercise of economy with respect to words and manners, conducted in judgment and truth and law — but never, as a general rule, in lawlessness and falsehood.

Let not the Moechians thrust out their tongues here, nor let them suppose the guide to be one who leads over a precipice, nor the pilot to be one who sinks the ship, nor again the physician to be one who causes disease;

to which very thing they themselves have become like: committing adultery together with the adulterer, joining themselves to the one who yoked the adulterous union, jointly accusing God together with the accuser of God, raging together like dogs against the gospel with the one who dissolves the gospel;

for so it is more fitting to put it.

Are not the accusers of the saints men of darkness? Their lie has neither been heard of before, nor does it accord with nature;

because he lived later in time than the divine Cyril.

How then could the saint himself, who had already obtained his supramundane portion, have received the man who was recognized as a heretic only after the saint's own falling asleep, at the time of the Robber Synod at Ephesus, held after the third and holy synod? Thus do they fabricate falsehoods and weave myths, that they may hunt down souls that walk in simplicity.

For this reason be skilled and be knowing in all things, that you may flee the serpent and those who speak with the serpent's voice, by whom very many indeed have perished, from generation to generation.

Concerning the other questions (whether, if a bishop has not been found among those at the adulterous synod, but calls it a false assembly, yet commemorates his own metropolitan who was found there — this being asked on behalf of a priest whose own bishop holds right doctrine — whether one ought to commune with him), I have already answered, also through other letters, those to Evodius, that yes, for the sake of economy, provided only that he does not concelebrate with heretics.

For it is of no consequence, so long as the bishop being commemorated is himself orthodox, even if out of fear of that man he mentions his own metropolitan, who is a heretic.

When such a priest invites one even to an all-night vigil, one should go; and a church given by him should be accepted; and when he comes to it, he should be allowed to celebrate the liturgy there, or even to commemorate a dead person — provided he be orthodox — this should be permitted; and there is nothing to prevent the one who received the church from celebrating the liturgy in it.

But if he mentions a man who is a heretical bishop, even if he calls him blessed, even if he himself holds right doctrine, one must abstain from the divine communion; but as for the common table, since there he must commemorate him, one may perhaps accept it, even his blessing and his joining in the psalmody, provided he does not concelebrate with the heretic — whether his own bishop or anyone else — nor knowingly administer the sacrament to one who does.

If someone eats indifferently with the man who joined the adulterous union, or with another heretic, one must be on guard not to feast together with such persons, even if they pretend to hold right belief;

for they do not keep the apostle's command concerning such persons, who says, 'not even to eat together with them.'

One need not investigate further, seeking who else feasted with the man who feasted with the heretic, and then again another with this one, and from there dragging the matter out without end and so withdrawing from everyone.

This is a self-willed affair, and not the way of the saints;

for, as it says, 'up to this point you shall stand, and you shall not go beyond.'

Did the fathers, then, not know how to investigate these things and to have them declared to us? By no means.

Wherefore it is not good to remove the boundaries which our fathers set.

And from him with whom we do not eat, not even his gift should be accepted, if, having been taught once and twice, he remains indifferent and does not obey us.

I know of no other course, except that from the guards one may receive things — not as a blessing, but as a necessity, or for the sake of economy;

and as for what comes from others — who nevertheless avoid feasting indifferently with heretics — I know of no objection, except that it may happen, according to circumstance, both to receive something and to feast together also with these.

But to give food and drink to such persons and to the guards should not be a matter of discrimination, since one ought to share with every human being.

But as for the church of the lord Gregoras, our child, I do not dare say that our priest should celebrate the liturgy there, on account of the fact that it was enthroned after the adulterous synod, and was consecrated, through the arch-Moechian, by the man who concelebrates and did concelebrate with the joiner of the adulterous marriage.

{To my child Naukratios} You are fervent, beloved child, in asking and learning what is useful;

and the matter itself is praiseworthy, though I am not competent to resolve your difficulties;

nevertheless, for the common good, I must now also contribute what lies within my power.

Your question concerns those who are twice married:

namely, that it is disputed concerning their union whether they should be crowned as in the case of those once married, or not; and how, if this were done, there could be a union, when they are not joined together by the priest; for a report circulates that from the days of the impious Constantine the custom of crowning a second marriage prevailed, on account of his own third marriage;

since it did not exist in the times before him.

For my part, I do not reject that the report has its credibility from this;

yet matters ought not to be confirmed by whatever report or human custom happens to circulate, but from the divinely inspired Scripture itself and from the patristic and canonical exposition.

Second marriage, then, has clearly been permitted by the holy apostle, and through him by Christ, yet it is not, as Gregory the Theologian says, a law, but a concession;

and a concession could not be made in the case of one who is blameless and without stumbling (for how, and for what reason, would it be?), but in the case of some defeat and a deed exposed to capture;

for this very thing the divine apostle hinted at when he said, 'if they do not have self-control, let them marry.'

For lack of self-control, having lost the strength of manly courage, is the offspring of defeat and of a fall.

Setting out from this, the divine fathers subjected the twice-married to a penance — the fathers of the Synod of Laodicea indefinitely, by saying, 'after a little time has passed, and they have devoted themselves to prayers and fasting, we have determined that communion be restored to them by way of forgiveness'; but the great Basil, definitely;

for he says: 'concerning those thrice married and those often married, the fathers' — clearly — 'have determined the same canon,' which also applies proportionately to those twice married,

one year in the case of the twice-married, but others prescribe two years.

It has therefore been shown from what has been said that second marriage, having fallen under the category of fault, received a penance.

For this reason also the holy fathers of the Synod of Neocaesarea forbade even that a priest should feast at the wedding of one entering a second marriage, saying:

'since the one entering a second marriage seeks repentance, what priest could there be who, by feasting there, gives his consent to the marriage?' What, then, is the necessary conclusion? That the first marriage, being properly a law, has fittingly been crowned by the priesthood as untouched, as unstained, as uncaptured by the passion of fornication, and for this reason crowned as victor over sin;

upon which there follows also the partaking of the holy things, and the feasting, at such a marriage, of the one who performed the crowning together with every other member of the clergy,

just as our Lord and God also saw fit to dine at Cana of Galilee, thereby, through his feasting there, blessing every wedding banquet;

but he himself, beforehand, also set in place the blessing of the crowning union upon our forefather Adam:

how so? 'And God made man;'

'according to the image of God he made him; male and female he made them.'

'And God blessed them, saying:'

'increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have dominion over it.'

This, then, is the blessing of the marital union, from which comes every well-founded approval of a once-married union;

and it must be observed that the invocation of the crowning also took its origin from there, commemorating the formation of the first man and his union with the woman taken from his rib.

But the second marriage, even though it has been permitted, has nevertheless been subjected to penance;

for how could one be worthy of a crowning who has been defeated rather than having conquered? And who indeed will be the priest to crown this man, when he has by patristic ordinance even been forbidden simply to feast at his wedding banquet? And how shall the one who for this very reason is barred from the holy things for one year or two share in the divine communion? And by whom, or of what kind, is the prayer of blessing performed over his union, when there is no other prayer besides the one belonging to the once-married and the first marriage? It has therefore been gathered from all these things, both scripturally and patristically, that second marriage has no share in the crowning, and for this reason is neither joined together by the priest nor indeed transmitted as a rite, but is only admitted once there has been fulfillment of whatever penance has been imposed according to priestly assessment;

after which they will also have the partaking of the divine gifts, being thenceforth blessed as it were as upon a crowning, but in a secondary sense, after concession has been granted;

for at that point the gift becomes a blessing and a sign of union on the priest's part, since from then on he is no longer forbidden to feast together with those who have entered a second marriage, as he would with those once married.

And thus second marriage is set in motion by a law of concession, according to the apostle, knowing that it holds second place after single marriage, and not unreasonably seeking the rights of the first marriage, which it had already enjoyed beforehand.

And how then should they come to the union? By human proprieties — just like those thrice married and often married (for so it is called by the fathers, a marriage after the third) — or else let those too be crowned!

But indeed the excessive dissolution of the canons — or rather of the gospel — has now caused not only the twice- and thrice-married, but even adulterers, to be crowned by priests, this dissolution persecuting and anathematizing as strangers to Christ those who, by steadfast adherence to the divine law, do not go along with it in this matter — those who stand firm for his commandment and truth.

'Be astonished, O heaven, at this!'

Things above are shown to be below, righteousness lawlessness, light darkness — from what the Moechians say and do; this is so for those blind and deaf in soul, and from this they already bear the forerunning signs of the Antichrist.

But perhaps you might also say this:

'if one of the two parties should be a virgin, how is it that some say that this one is crowned on the head, while the one coming from a previous marriage is crowned on the shoulder, when the prayer of crowning is performed?' And to me this appears, besides being absurd, also ridiculous.

And where would the crown even be placed — on the hand, or on the knee? And if the woman being married were a widow, would she receive the crown on the shoulder? These things are absurd.

And who is the one crowning, and how will the undivided prayer be divided — one of the two parties being blessed as spotless and victorious, but not the other? This belongs to the realm of the ridiculous and the impossible.

How could the one share in communion, but not the other, since the latter is under penance? And if this were the case with the husband — the husband being the head of the wife, and the two, having come together, being one body —

will the rest of the body partake, but not the head? Then what has been joined would immediately be cut apart by the very priest who joined it together — even if it has indeed been granted him by concession to do this at all (for the head and end of the union is the holy and unifying body and blood of Christ) — or will he give communion to both? And now let us be rid of such idle talk.

For such a man will manifestly be, not a priest, but a transgressor of the divine ordinances, and for this reason also fallen from the priesthood, seeing that it has not even been permitted him to feast at such a marriage, let alone to transgress the law to such a degree.

'What, then,' you might say, 'does the virginal party lose the victorious crown together with the blessing? And does not the party that was not defeated rather prevail, so as to bless together with, crown together with, and share communion together with, the party defeated through second marriage?' If this were so, it would have been laid down by the patristic canons;

but no such distinction has been made.

And whatever has not been clearly determined and outlined by patristic testimony — to think, say, or do it is to tread on empty air.

But I say this: that the virginal party would reasonably fail to receive the rite belonging to the tradition of single marriage;

For it is possible to enjoy this benefit through one of equal standing, since the pure must be joined to the pure, the virgin to the virgin, and the victor to the victor.

But whoever desires to be joined to one who is not a virgin falls from this, and thereby dishonors the glory of virginity — which perhaps he did not even possess, or, possessing it, cast it down in whatever manner through passionate attachment to one contracting a second marriage.

And by this he will not raise himself up any higher; rather, he will bring himself down to the penance imposed on the party who contracts a second marriage.

These things have, as far as I am able, been found out and stated by me, O good child.

But if it seems to you, or to anyone else, that the truth stands otherwise — only on the basis of a demonstration drawn from Scripture, from the Fathers, and from the canons, accompanied also by one's own reasoned reflection — then I too am ready to be guided, and eager to be illumined by the torch-bearing of others, since I stand in the greatest need of light.

{To the Same} I have experienced three things, O beloved child, in your present letter:

at once I was astonished, and I marveled, and I sang praise — the first on account of the lawless, the second on account of the law-abiding, and the third on account of the God who strengthens those who lean upon his law.

of praises — for those who have contended in a godly and athletic manner, and are still contending.

But now I proceed to the crowning point of my discourse.

What Christian has ever heard of such nearly lawless and monstrous acts as have been committed by those ill-named Moechians, who are called hierarchs but are unhallowed by every apostolic and patristic voice, and this quite apart from their heresy? What man has ever so beaten another — I do not say a Christian hand, but a barbarous one — twice, with a hundred and sixty-six lashes, and then, not long after, twice again with two hundred blows of the ox-sinew whip upon his back, as did that 'noble' archbishop — or rather, meddler in another's see — of Thessalonica; and not upon one of the common herd, but upon a monk, and that monk a most reverent abbot, Euthymius by name, truly bearing the name of good cheer? Heaven was astonished at this, and I, wretched as I am, shuddered — and I think every man would, who possesses natural gentleness and mercy and hears of it.

He who ought to stand as a type of Christ, and, when struck, not strike back, has instead become more savage than the wild beasts, bearing not so much as a trace of Christian character, let alone — I dare say — of hierarchical character.