書信集 第 1 章 第 11/55 段

And for what was this beating inflicted? That he might persuade Christ's contender to consent to commemorate him as a hierarch.

But oh, the nobility and fortitude of this blessed man (for so it is right to call him) — that even after so many blows and such a flow of holy blood that the soles of the feet of those standing there were reddened, and the purple plaster was, as it were, kneaded into clay for the building up of the Church of God, he lay there already for a while breathless and speechless; and when asked by his tormentors to commemorate — the tyrant, I mean, not the archbishop — 'No,' said the blessed one; thus, almost to the point of death, he did not turn his mind aside, nor deviate in anything from what he had rightly known in orthodoxy.

There is one necessary thing that nearly escaped me — that the temple of God itself became a Pilate's praetorium.

For there, you said — that is, in the sacred house called that of the Archangel — the martyr was beaten;

whom the untamed tormentors left half-dead; but a certain Christ-imitating man took him to his own home, and, applying to his hemorrhaging wounds and lacerated flesh the fleece of a freshly-slaughtered lamb, revived the man; and having gradually and by degrees restored him somewhat, sent him away secretly, in obedience to the summoning commandment — this man who had, as it were, already died, having fled, and who was paradoxically raised up to be a pillar of orthodoxy and a triumph over the ill-believing.

What is more impious than these things? And who among the orthodox has ever done such things to a heretic? But that it may be shown from this too how great is the impiety of those who side with the Moechians, and whose disciple each one is: the one who is beaten and endures is a disciple of Christ, while the hierarch who beats in such a way is a disciple of the devil, wishing thereby to terrify others and to avenge his own cause;

from that man's portion may we be delivered, brother, and may we belong to the portion of the former, together with all the pious.

And behold, O Lord, O Lord, this affliction, and spare your people, granting the peace of orthodoxy to our Church;

for we have nothing else to say regarding present circumstances, except also to bear all things readily for the sake of his name.

But you, O my beloved child, even though you have been transferred to custody elsewhere, as you indicated, rejoice, because more crowns are being woven for you.

And even if Leontius — once a disciple, but now an apostate — should become abbot over those among whom you are confined, do not be astonished;

the present time is a time of God's long-suffering, both so that the approved may be made manifest, and so that 'the son of Tabeel' may rule in Bethlehem.

Concerning the one who confessed and requested his penance, it has been rightly given.

And I agree with what you said to him: if he does not wish to be subjected to penance for killing enemies, let him not refrain from killing either, and we, for our part, shall be clear of judgment.

But if he should choose to submit to the canons of the Church, one of two things is his to choose:

either to accept penance while continuing to kill, or to cease from killing and so remain without need of penance.

And on this account the former is not to be found fault with;

for they are worthy of praise, as the divine father says, but they must also receive the penance.

'seven days outside the camp' — clearly moved by God — saying thus:

'Everyone who has killed a person, and everyone who has touched one who has been slain, shall be purified on the third day and on the seventh day, you and your captives.'

Whence it seems to me that Basil the Great, taking his starting point from this — or rather, being divinely inspired — prescribed the penance of three years, to be administered as the one who imposes it may see fit;

for the imposition of such penances is admissible, and by no means absolutely necessary according to the letter of what is prescribed.

Farewell in the Lord, my beloved son, praying for me the sinner and for my beloved child who joins in greeting you, your brother Gregory.

{To Philip the Deacon} Do not suppose, O sacred man, that I close the gate of repentance (for that is the work of the Novatianists), but rather that I am unwilling to open the door of sin to those who wish it.

Is it not indeed the very case which you disclosed in your earlier letter — that the young woman, having made a vow that if her betrothed should recover she would be wedded to Christ, then, since he did recover, wished instead to be joined to him, setting aside that second vow, and now seeks a remedy for this? We have therefore answered you most excellently, and it is not possible to give any other account, for one who prefers the things of God to the things of men.

For who would even give a penance to one who has not yet sinned, except in wishing? Or what physician applies a dressing before the disease has come, rather than restraining the one who inclines toward it from falling ill? For indeed the aim of medicine is either to preserve the health that exists, or to recall the health that is absent.

But it is unreasonable, forgive me, to treat as already present a disease that is not yet actually present, but only being contemplated;

for this is not the deed of a physician, but of one who trips a man up — dragging into passion the very thing that is still unaffected by it.

Consider the case of the girl to be of this same kind.

And I do not even yet mention that one who has conceived some good intention, but does not bring it to fulfillment, will incur judgment, as the divine Basil determined;

but here, that which was resolved has, as it were, already advanced into deed through the request and the encounter with the divine.

Refrain, then, O beloved ones, from trifling with such things, heeding him who says: it is better not to vow than to vow and not fulfill it.

'While it remained, did it not remain yours?' he says;

'Why is it that you have lied to the Holy Spirit?' — and I pass over what follows, on account of its ill-omened character.

And it is not that I hold the girl in contempt (for I cherish her as the apple of my eye, both for her own sake, since she desires to be tended by my unworthy self, and for the sake of the lady her mother, whom I revere and attend as my own holy mother), but rather I fear the judgment that will confront each one on the day of judgment, both the one who asks and the one who answers;

inasmuch as we cannot escape giving account, even for every idle word we happen to utter, before the impartial Judge.

If, then, the young woman has not yet been joined in marriage, our word remains the same and no other, before God and men, which you too ought to hold in reverent fear.

But if she has already been joined in marriage (alas for my wretchedness!), it must be disclosed, and then we shall assign the penance;

for nothing is incurable for those who wish to be healed.

{To Stephen the Reader and Those with Him} I have received the letter of your godly-zealous love, addressed on its face as from one person, but in substance sent to me from several persons.

Whether, then, from one or from several, having been asked I am obligated to render a worthy answer, so far as is possible for my ignorance.

This, first, I must say — that as regards the things with which I was charmed by your much-praising tongue, I am a stranger to such praises, being a sinner and possessing a life of no achievement.

But if anything good has come to pass, it is the gift of God, granted through the prayer of the father who begot me in the spirit, and to be kept unharmed henceforth through the supplication of you, the lovers of piety.

Secondly, I do not know how I shall make my declaration, since the question has not been put forward with clarity;

but on the whole I have concluded that what is being inquired about turns entirely upon Tarasius, who held the patriarchate.

For my part, then, even long ago I did not treat the matter proposed carelessly, but pondered much within myself and reviewed the outcomes of these affairs.

I hold him in a measure of praise and acceptance, yet not entirely so — as I am about to make clear.

And I do desire to gain such men of like mind (for how could I not?), men so manly and proven in piety — but only together with the true account of the matter, and with whatever power is possible and fitting.

What is it that makes for a difference between you and Tarasius? Is it the faith? Yet, as far as is evident, he was orthodox, having followed the holy synods and been of one mind with the other patriarchs, and having contended especially for the faith on a previous occasion.

Is it the reception of those who have returned from heresy? But this was not an innovation introduced by him;

for it comes from the holy Fathers, who received such persons in three ways: either by rebaptism, as with the Pepouzenoi; or by anointing with chrism, as with the Arians; or by anathematizing their own former opinion, as with the Nestorians.

Is it ordination for money, which necessarily falls under deposition? Yes, this is entirely true;

and indeed at that time shepherds appeared as grievous wolves, altars were torn down, holy relics were dishonored, sacred books were burned;

What more? The very icon of Christ, together with other most sacred icons, was insulted and trampled underfoot.

And who could relate in brief what requires a lengthy history? But what of this — that the one who afterward became president of the Church, having advanced too swiftly from worldly life to the dignity of the hierarchy, proved unable to contend adequately on behalf of the Spirit?

From this arose the scandals; from that, too, the troubles now disturbing us have taken their cause.

As for you, then, how you are disposed toward him, you yourselves know.

But we, since we heard from him regarding those ordained for money that he did not admit them to communion — even though this was not otherwise suspected of him — considered it advantageous, for the sake of the good of peace, to maintain concord with him;

since indeed the Theologian too says: as long as it is possible, one ought to incline toward this peace.

And where what causes distress is merely a suspicion, concession is better than obstinacy.

Neither do we drag you down against your conscience, nor should you yourselves demand of us a judgment that is not clear to us, since person, time, and experience cause those who have not come to the same conclusions in the same way to differ.

But what is the point of this recoil back to the sainted Germanus, and this insistence on tracing ordination back to him in every case? For what of the three heretics in between? Is there anyone not ordained by them, or descended from those they ordained, the succession of ordination passing down the line all the way to Tarasius?

How many have come in the meantime from east and west and north and sea, and have been joined in communion, having been ordained, to our church? And how many were ordained without money in that time, and have themselves ordained others, even though they held heretical opinions? All these things are for God alone to know and not for man to declare with certainty, and therefore it is wrong to suppose that all are deposed.

But since we are men, I beg you, let us look at these matters as men.

For man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart; and let confession by mouth alone be required, so long as it is not manifestly proven false.

It was according to this principle that Tarasius too received his ordination, on the basis of which even the zealots and strict observers of that time both came into communion with Tarasius and shared his view, although soon after the council they fell into disagreement, in their reckoning, over the acceptance of ordination by money and over certain other questions.

If this seems right to you as well, we shall proceed to what follows.

For this will be said to hold from Tarasius down to the present.

And what is the conclusion? That, according to the Theologian and Chrysostom, one may commune from every priest who is beyond reproach.

For the one says: let every priest be trustworthy to you for purification, provided only that he is among those approved, not manifestly condemned, nor a stranger to the faith.

But the other says: inquire carefully, investigate diligently.

For communion without examination is not without danger.

For the danger concerns matters of great importance.

Let us therefore seek out and investigate diligently the one from whom we ought to receive communion.

Whether he confesses the true faith, whether he was not ordained by money, whether none of the other suspicious and harmful things heard about his life are true.

But if the objection is that his ordination is traced back to a certain person, whether a heretic or one ordained for money, while he himself is neither a heretic nor knowingly ordained by a taker of money, that is, a simoniac, and yet he confesses the whole truth, keeping the faith and the canons inviolate, and rejects those who have gone astray in either respect, then we have no reason to abstain from communion with him.

For such a person is beyond condemnation according to the saints already mentioned, and through them, according to all the saints.

Thus, then, we too hold communion, and we counsel you to do likewise, if we may be heard.

For if the matter is examined any further, the precepts of the fathers are, as has been shown, rejected, and the gift of the priesthood — on which our right to be called Christians depends — fails to such a degree that we would fall into pagan worship (which is absurd), so that, applying such strictness, even if we traveled to west and east we would not find what we seek, since everyone would be retroactively deposed through their mutual concelebration.

since it is manifest that the apocrisiarii sent from these churches concelebrated with the president of the Romans in the time of Tarasius, and those others, in turn, perhaps with the churches of the East, so that on this reasoning the priesthood would be utterly undone.

Rejecting this altogether, we resolve instead to stand within the measure already stated, in accordance with the saints.

Because many such transgressions have occurred, and do occur, in the church, which none of the saints is found to have investigated in this manner (since it is not even possible), nor have they handed down any rule for us to observe in such cases.

As for the claim that your objection is of greater urgency to us than our stand against the adultery-sanctioning synod, I was astonished to hear it.

For it is as much more urgent as the Lord's own voice is more weighty than the apostolic voice.

And I have not even yet mentioned that Tarasius did not sanction ordination by money, but on the contrary openly professed that he would not accept such men.

But here a decree has been proclaimed synodically — against the Gospel, against the Forerunner, and against the canons — through the acceptance of the one who joined the adulterous union, confirming the transgression as a legitimate dispensation, granting that hierarchs and priests may, whenever they wish, hold authority over the canons, and anathematizing and casting out those who do not share this opinion, as you well know.

This, even if it ranks second to the icon-fighting heresy, is nonetheless no less grave to those who examine it with pious discernment.

May the Lord, through their prayers, remove this evil out of the way and grant peace, as from the beginning, to his church.

Except that, as you have written, the one issue bears upon the other, and the recognition and resolution of the unlawfully joined act are mutually interlinked.

May the Lord keep you in health, together with your whole household, as you pray for our humble self, O foremost of friends and mightiest of zealots.

{To Anna the abbess} Why have you held back from writing and letting us know of your holiness's affairs? But we, for this very reason, shall all the more not cease writing, partly because we have once opened our humble mouth, and partly because of your zeal for God and your fervent piety.

For I hear that you show unceasing kindness toward our brothers, running about here and there, welcoming each one you happen to meet with kindly hospitality, and sending them on their way with words of blessing, as a minister of Christ.

Oh, this most excellent work of yours!

Oh, your holy soul, ever watchful in things divine!

For these are no orphaned deeds, but the offspring of other virtues, that is, the fruits brought forth by your spiritual fruitfulness.

since it is not possible for one who carries spices not to give off a sweet fragrance, nor for the light-bearer not to hold his torch aloft.

From this, then, it is always and in every case made manifest, especially in persecutions endured for Christ's sake, who are the lovers of holiness and blessed of God, and who are the lovers of baseness, devoid of any good, even though in outward form they may feign that all is well within.

kindling sparks and abundant loving affection.

Something of this sort your gracious letter also wrought in us, the humble, multiplying its spiritual friendship and implanting the embers of remembrance in us more vigorously.

Use, then, most God-fearing lady, this remedy of love, and let us know how you fare in health and in good conduct (for we know the evergreen quality of your virtue and its fruitfulness for piety, both from what we have heard and still hear, and from what we ourselves have experienced and continue to experience), whether you borrow another's voice to write or speak with your own tongue.

For we, at any rate, receive such news with a sweet disposition, giving heed not to bare sound alone, but knowing at the same time that nothing depicts the soul so well as the word that proceeds from it, whatever form it may take.

Concerning the lady your daughter, learning that it has come to this, we were grieved.

But what prayer, or what anointing, should we, being sinners, offer? Yet be assured of this: such magical practices have no power at all, unless we ourselves give them room through some negligence.

For just as it is impossible for a place bathed in sunlight to receive the opposing darkness, so too it is impossible for a person who rests upon the divine light — that is, upon understanding and virtue — to suffer anything from wicked and demonic sorceries.

May the girl, then, be healed in the name of the Lord, who heals every disease and every infirmity, and may the hand of God hover about and overshadow her head, driving off every harmful working, so that, restored to health together with her God-fearing mother, she may render her thanksgiving vows to the Lord.

{To Antony, hegoumen of Saint Peter's, and those with him} Having received the letters written to us out of much anguish and affliction of heart by your paternal holiness, how deeply did we groan — what need is there even to say it — moved by brotherly affection, unworthy though we are, both surmising your great distress from our own shared suffering and standing together with you in it? For the pain of a thing cannot be known to others except to those who are held fast by the same sorrows in like manner.

But our sins have so multiplied lawlessness in this present generation, love having grown cold according to the Lord's word, that those whose duty it is to remove stumbling-blocks and obstacles may be seen doing the same things, or perhaps even worse, than those who hold secular authority.

You say that you have endured, and still endure, imprisonments, banishments, reproaches, persecutions, and afflictions at the hands of those who rule over the churches of God.

And this, not because you stood firm merely for a commandment of God — for even if you had been caught in human transgressions, it would in no way have been fitting for you to suffer such things at the hands of shepherds of God — how much less for those who are contending for the truth, to whom praise and blessing are rightly due, and this while adorned besides with the monastic calling.

By their works you will know them, said the Lord.

Surely no such thing was ever known among the saints; on the contrary, they themselves were shown rather to be sufferers, taught by the apostolic voice, which says concerning the Lord:

who, when reviled, did not revile in return; when suffering, he did not threaten, but graciously offered his divine cheek even to the one who struck him.

By this the true shepherds of Christ are recognized, and by that, the meddling false overseers.

But what must we suffer because of the wickedness of men that has broken into our humble generation — a wickedness which they make into a boast and take pride in, reckoning the unlawful lawful, and exercising their patronage in opposition to the divine commands? As for them, then, may they reap what they have done and are doing — or rather, may they be forgiven by the incorruptible Judge, who on the day of judgment will overlook nothing whatsoever without examination and without accounting.

And since, as we have already written, by the good pleasure of the all-good God, the man through whom discord arose in our church has been removed from the scene, peace has now been secured through the favor, inclination, and goodwill — I might add also the exhortations — of our most victorious and Christ-loving emperors, with the cooperation and advocacy of our most holy patriarch.

For from now on he must be called by this title.

Let your holiness also accept what has been approved and brought to completion by us, the humble, after much deliberation, investigation, and review of the practices of the fathers and of the ecclesiastical scandals that have at times occurred, so that in your church of Christ likewise the peace of God may govern the hearts of all.

For if we were not to do this, it would not be reckoned as holiness before God, nor would victory be ours; rather, we would perhaps lose even the good we have accomplished through our earlier labors, by seeking our own advantage too much. Receive, then, we entreat you, and accept our most holy patriarch, and be in communion also with your own bishop, in matters where the transgression is not manifest, leaving what lies between to the Lord, the examiner and rewarder of deeds and of words.

To this very end, making our petition, we have also urged our most holy patriarch to write, so that you too might be released from your imprisonments, having made with one another a pledge of peace; and should anything remain in dispute, it might be resolved at once, or, if incurable, its ailments might be healed through your own and the most honored bishop's coming here into the presence of the same ecumenical patriarch, and all things might work together toward the joy of peace and the sincerity of concord.

{A letter of the same author to Plato, his father, concerning the veneration of the venerable icons} We console ourselves by speaking to our sacred head.

For what could be more consoling for a child than to converse with his father — and with such and so great a father, whose virtue many cities, lands, and islands sing?

This is my beloved father — even though the fruit is not like the tree, on account of the uselessness of my lowliness — yet nevertheless, because you stand before us as a rule of piety, we have occasion, not we alone, but all who might choose to live in godliness, to be winged unto courage and to rise up unto swift progress.

Since your holiness, a long time ago, asked me to give an account of how the venerable icon of Christ ought to be venerated — not out of ignorance, but wishing thereby to stir my unreasoning reason — I was unable to answer at that time; but now, having been reminded, I have thought it necessary, so far as possible, with the cooperation of your holy prayers, to fulfill what was enjoined upon me, even though I have perhaps already spoken sufficiently on this very matter elsewhere.

Every crafted image, then, is a likeness of that of which it is an image, and displays in itself, by imitation, the character of its archetype, just as Dionysius, so versed in divine things, says: the true reality is in the likeness, the archetype is in the image, each is in the other, save for the difference in essence.

So that whoever venerates the icon assuredly venerates that which the icon depicts.

For he did not venerate the essence of the icon, but rather the one depicted in it; nor did he sever the icon from its archetype in the identity of the veneration rendered to it.

For the icon is identical to its archetype in likeness.

Thus, then, Basil the Great also says that both the king and the image of the king are called 'king,' and yet there are not two kings.

For neither is his power divided, nor his glory apportioned.

For just as the rule and authority holding sway over us is one, so also our glorification is one and not many, because the honor paid to the image passes over to the prototype.

But if it passes over to the prototype, then it is not one veneration and another, but one and the same honorific veneration, just as that which is venerated is one and the same, even the prototype, in the image as well.

...hypostatic, as the Son is in relation to the Father (for the hypostasis of the Son is one and that of the Father another, but the nature is clearly one); while the other case is the reverse, having a natural difference but not a hypostatic one, as the image of Christ is in relation to Christ.

For the nature of the material painting is one thing, and that of Christ another, yet the hypostasis is not other; rather it is one and the same hypostasis of Christ, even as depicted in the image — as the same divine Basil again says:

What the image is here by way of imitation, that the Son is there by nature.

And just as in the case of artificial things the likeness is according to form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union is by the communion of divinity.

...that in the case of the natural image and its cause, that is, the Son and the Father, since the nature is one, the veneration too is one according to the sameness of nature, not of hypostasis (since, as we confess one nature, we also confess one veneration and glorification of the Holy Trinity, yet three hypostases, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit); whereas in the case of the imitative image and its archetype, that is, the image of Christ and Christ himself, since the hypostasis of Christ is one, there too the veneration is one, clearly according to the sameness of that one hypostasis, not according to the difference of natures between Christ and the image.

But if we should say that the veneration of the image toward its prototype is one, not only according to the sameness of hypostasis but also according to the sameness of nature, we would no longer recognize any difference between the image and that which is imaged, but there would be, just as one hypostasis, so also one nature of the image of Christ and of Christ himself — and we would fall into Greek polytheism, deifying every material stamped as an image of Christ.

And from this we would open the mouths of the iconoclasts to accuse us — who worship the one God in three hypostases — of worshiping and revering many gods, and not without some plausibility.

But if, on the other hand, someone should say that the veneration of the image toward its archetype is neither according to the sameness of hypostasis nor according to the sameness of nature, it is clear that he has split the sovereignty and divided the glory of the archetype from the image, and thus, in venerating the image of Christ, he openly commits idolatry, introducing not one veneration but two.

This is precisely what the iconoclasts hasten to prove, thereby denying that it is fitting for Christ to be circumscribed in the flesh — thus being convicted of an impiety equal to those who held that God sojourned among those on earth only in seeming and appearance.

But let the impiety of both, equally, be cast away into its own darkness.

But the true faith of Christians, as has been said, just as it confesses one veneration for the Holy Trinity by reason of the communion of divinity, so also confesses one and the same veneration for the image of Christ, according to the identity of the hypostasis of Christ.

For it is the same one who is venerated, even though he be only depicted.

For it would not be an image at all, if it were kept apart by some intermediary and split off in honor from the prototype, but would instead be some self-subsistent thing in its own right.

And thus, accordingly, even in the veneration of the image of Christ, the veneration and glorification of the much-hymned and blessed Trinity remains one.

But someone might also say this:

'Therefore, since veneration is worship, it follows that the image of Christ is co-worshiped together with the Holy Trinity.'

But such a person seems not to know the distinction within veneration.

For we venerate the saints, yet we do not worship them; and we venerate rulers according to the law of God, yet we do not worship them either.

Furthermore, let him learn again that veneration is not directed to the substance of the image (for this would be absurd, and the deed of those who worship the creature rather than the Creator), but to Christ who is venerated in the image, while the material of the image remains altogether without communion with Christ who is venerated in it, save through the likeness.

which likeness belongs properly to the hypostasis of Christ, separate from the material, even though it is seen in it.

And it seems to me to resemble the example of a reflection in a mirror:

for there too the face of the one looking is, as it were, traced out, and the likeness remains outside the material of the mirror.

There it is the image, not the material, that he embraces, since it is not for the material's own sake that he draws near, but for his own likeness depicted in it, on account of which he also clings to the material.

Indeed, when he himself withdraws from the mirror, the reflected image departs together with him at the same time, as having no communion whatever with the material of the mirror; so too in the case of the material of the image, when the likeness seen in it, which is the object of veneration, has disappeared, the material remains unvenerated, as having no communion with the likeness.