Letters 1 part 9/55

Again, when I ask, 'How is beta?' it is clear that the question is known to concern the archbishop.

Likewise, when I ask again, 'How are those around beta?' it is evident that the question concerns those who are with him.

And so likewise with the rest of the letters.

'What do you hear concerning pi, or concerning rho, or concerning psi?' — the answer is given with respect to each single letter.

Again I ask, 'Who has come from outside?' You must answer according to the letter, saying either that it was eta, or that it was omicron, or one of the others.

Or say that it was not eta or omicron itself that came in, but so many of those around eta or omicron, and that such-and-such a thing happened to so-and-so letter.

So again, when there is a death, say, 'such-and-such a letter has died,' or 'is sick,' or 'is grieved,' and whatever else there may be.

But if someone among those attached to a letter has suffered something, state also the name — for example, in the case of Christophoros, say that he fled from epsilon, which is in fact what happened.

So then, when you receive the letters sent by us, if the recipient is among those under the letters, the letter will certainly bear the heading with that letter.

And when you yourselves likewise send letters to those under the same letters, place the same letter in your own letter.

But if the senders do not know it, you yourselves erase the heading and insert the letter of the one who wrote.

But if the recipient is not among those under the letters, let the heading remain as it is.

Just so also when I write: if the recipient is not among those under the letters, let the heading naming the one to whom the letter is sent remain.

Again, note that on each of my letters to those who are under the letters, the heading will be as follows.

And let the letters sent to me have their heading likewise.

'Alpha to Omega,' or with another of the letters.

This too must be known: since there are also these three characters lying outside the twenty-four letters — stigma, koppa, and sampi — stigma signifies all those brothers of ours who at one time or another renounced the faith, koppa signifies the patriarch, and sampi signifies the ruler.

So whenever there is need, whether for me to ask or for you to inform me concerning one of the three, the indication shall be made by means of the letter.

{To Anna the nun} I thought that my blessed mother had died, but it seems she is still above ground.

For what more could she have done, coming to me, the humble one, with such motherly solicitude? But even though I too am a sinner, still I trust that the Lord will repay you, on account of our unworthiness, with no ordinary grace and with the attainment of what you desire and ask.

Still, what has already been done is enough.

For this I have already explained through my previous letters.

But you, on the contrary, have added still more, spending yourself further in your giving.

And how could we now fail to remember your piety? By the garments, by the sacred offering, by the food and drink, you have overwhelmed us from every side.

Therefore put an end to these gifts as well, and be of good hope concerning the divine recompense.

For he who said that he renders rewards even for a cup of cold water does not lie.

You say that you are grieved by your care for your child, which keeps you from the concern you ought to have for your soul.

Yet God is able both to bring about the good ordering of your good child, and to grant you leisure above all things to attend to what benefits the soul, so that you may stand with a heart made ready for the departure from the body.

As for fasting and undergoing hardship, since your body is sickly, you cannot do these; even so, bear this without grief, bringing to the Lord what you are able, and making up by an increase of humility what is lacking through the lack of ascetic exertion.

You ask to be taught how you ought to pray.

This the Lord himself taught, through the utterance of 'Our Father,' and through teaching us to ask for nothing temporal, but for his kingdom and eternal righteousness.

Only, the fathers have laid down that first comes thanksgiving to God, then the confession of sins to him, and then the petition for their forgiveness and for the attainment of the other means of salvation.

So then, whenever you are about to pray, give thanks to the Lord and Master: that he brought you from non-being into being; that he redeemed you from all error, having called you and deemed you worthy to become a partaker of the knowledge of himself, from pagan error and from heretical error; and further, that after your enjoyment of life in society, he prepared you to enter also the monastic and angelic life — the thought of which is enough to soften the soul to compunction and the shedding of tears.

From these come illumination of the heart, sweetness of spirit, and desire for God.

When this desire is present in the heart, all wickedness is cast away.

When you have thus sent up thanksgiving to God, confess to him, saying: 'You know, Master, how much I have sinned against you, and how much I sin every hour,' reckoning up this sin and that transgression, both those done knowingly and unknowingly — yet not recounting at random the things that, through vivid recollection, would harm the soul.

And from this there will arise in you the grace of humility, together with contrition of heart and fear of God's recompense.

After this, ask, sigh, and entreat your Lord for the forgiveness of these sins and for strength for the future to please him, saying: 'No longer, my Lord, my Lord, will I provoke you; no longer will I love anything besides you, my truly beloved one; and even should I provoke you again, I fall down before your compassion, asking that strength be given me to acquire the habit of pleasing you' — fervently asking as well for whatever other good thing comes to your mind to be accomplished.

[Call upon] the holy angels, and the guardian angel appointed over your life, that he may guard and shelter you; the Forerunner, the apostles, all the saints, and those you are accustomed especially to invoke, and the saint commemorated on that day.

These things, then, seem to me to hold the substance of prayer, even though each person prays in different words and not necessarily the same ones.

For not even the one praying always says the same thing to himself, but the substance, I reckon, is one and the same and necessary for all.

May you, then, be kept, praying as you ought, ever improving, and presenting your whole self, through an exact manner of life, as pleasing to the Lord.

{To Joseph, brother and archbishop} Even your first letter, from your holiness both brotherly and fatherly, though small in the number of its syllables, was nevertheless complete in the breadth of its allegorical thought.

And the second was full of all knowledge and humility, having only one thing to fault — the undeserved praises of me, wretched as I am.

I spoke not ironically (God forbid), but in truth, when I said that you have shone forth in our generation, in the dignity of the high-priestly office, in the likeness of the holy fathers.

Nor would I be wrong to have called you a pillar and foundation of the church, my most excellent brother.

For everyone who stands firm for the sake of truth, and suffers for it, proves to be its support and its exaltation.

It was well done that you looked over the quire.

For your reminder — or rather your command — became for us the occasion for attention to, and resolution of, this proposal, which, along with other matters submitted through the reminder of our father, I sent to your holiness in the aforementioned quires, having introduced no opinion of my own into the whole composition (for it is not right to be more lawful than the law, nor more upright than the canon), but only to have joined and woven together — however unskillfully — the teachings and precepts of the divine fathers, to meet the objection that the proposal raises.

And if you would not refuse, on account of the effort, to read it, I know it would be of benefit.

That peace is admittedly good (for I love it, sinner though I am), and that one ought to incline toward it, we have done, as far as it was possible, casting off much of the burden after the example of the divine Cyril: on the one occasion, when they first acquitted the one who joined the adulterous marriage, I being present there, and, as we had agreed, keeping silent — silence being a part of consent —

which those on the opposing side, as you know, seized upon and tried to use to shut us out from our objection; and on the other occasion, when his second acquittal was being carried through by those who had trampled the laws of God, we saying only that he should cease from performing the sacred rites, while still enjoying the honor, according to the canon of Basil the Great — though he had already concelebrated with the patriarch for two years.

This was a fearful thing, and beyond the bounds of economy.

I pass over the false pretexts for his withdrawal from office, and the fact that people received his blessings at banquets as though from a true presbyter, and also the patriarch's commemoration of him.

But nevertheless, even though we were brought so low for the sake of economy, they, on the contrary, were only emboldened in their hardness of sin — God having foreseen something better, that we the humble might not endure our first exile in vain, nor might the adultery dared in the sight of the world be made light of, through excessive economy shown to the one who joined that marriage.

So it is now time for us, beloved, to say that word:

'How long will you go on practicing economy?' And, 'Be eager at last to build up.'

And, according to the divine Basil, to be servants to the strictness of the canons (for the arguments before the war are different from those after the war), and to pass our days in patience, as you have counseled us, and to pray for those who have persecuted us.

Welcome to me, and in full accord with my own mind, are your three precious statements: that on account of one man's fall the church ought not to be split; that one ought not to share in the absolution granted to such a man; and that one may receive communion from every priest who is beyond reproach — the meaning being entirely as follows:

You setting forth this teaching clearly for the common good.

According to the first statement: we do not, on account of one man, cut ourselves off from the church of the north, and of the west, and of the maritime regions — and indeed, clearly, from the church here as well — except from those who sanction the adultery;

for these are not the church of the Lord.

But if they were the church, then we would be cutting ourselves off from the church on account of one man joined to it — I mean, by not accepting the one who joined the adulterous marriage.

But since they are not the church of God, it is they who are truly cutting themselves off from the church of God on account of one man joined to them — resembling those recorded in the chronicle — while we are not being split off from it on account of such a man.

According to the second statement: we clearly do not share in his absolution, since we do not communicate with those who manifestly absolved him.

But if we were to communicate with them, we would be sharing in his absolution.

But since, in a manner befitting God, we do not communicate with those who absolved him, then certainly we do not share in his absolution.

According to the third statement: we receive communion from every priest who is beyond reproach.

For this reason we do not receive communion from Joseph, since he has been publicly denounced.

Yet those who concelebrate with him — deposed as he is — would certainly also be discredited.

But if we were to receive communion from such men as though they were beyond reproach, then Joseph too, who concelebrates with them, would be beyond reproach.

Since, however, he is truly discredited and we do not receive communion from him, it is clear that we likewise do not receive it from those who concelebrate with him, since they are equally discredited.

Thus the argument of your holiness stands firm, and in this we are of one mind.

And may our unbreakable bond be ours in the age to come, through our true concord here, my dearest brother, so that we lowly ones too may be counted worthy to carry off some trace of right conduct following our fathers.

As for your city, you have kindled a pillar of piety that shall never be extinguished by man.

One ought not to grieve but rather to rejoice, just as I, wretched as I am, do at the dissolution of my own humble monastery, since that dissolution is for the Lord's sake.

And the great glory lies not in how many stood firm without bending, but even if it were only one.

For better is one who does the will of the Lord than ten thousand who transgress it.

And he himself is not the cause of their dissolution, even though some prattle so, but rather I, the miserable one.

May there be communion between us in both matters, if indeed you will bear with it.

And you yourself shall have as great a reward for the godly dissolution of the brothers as I hope to find for my lawful abandonment, in accordance with God's law, of Thessalonica.

As for my jailer, there is nothing to say, since he is such a man, and of one mind with Joseph.

Do not cease earnestly and mightily praying for my lowliness, my good and most holy brother-father.

Know that Theosostos stood firm in refusing to commune with him who ascended unlawfully to your throne, and was violently driven out of his own monastery for it.

The brothers around Athanasios are still being held there, confined and restricted.

My jailer, going out, brought me back an obeisance from the patriarch, who said, 'God will forgive you for this: that when we had need of you here to help us, you went out and settled there instead' — and, he said, that I envy you.

For there was no need for me to answer, except only this: that if he envies, let him too go out.

He also relaxed my guard, urging me toward rest.

For he also brought me a greeting from Symeon, and word that he wishes to tell the emperor that you have grown weary in prison.

And a humble greeting from Leontios, who said that he acted under compulsion, and, 'May God not separate me from your word.'

And I said that I have no need of these things from him.

And they compelled him to go to the steward, and to Arsenios and John, telling them that lord Tarasios had released him and that 'I have only just now regained my sight.'

And they actually struck him across the face.

He who is with me greets my shepherd on my behalf, with much longing.

...likewise, most honored one; and I, the lowly one, do not cease praying to the King above, the King of all, that through piety you may be a close friend of his own household.

For it is better even to be assigned the lowest, last place with the heavenly King than the very first place with the earthly one.

But I believe, knowing your solicitous care for your salvation, that you suffer no harm to your soul, but rather gain profit from your rank, there being no small number of ways toward advantage.

For it was enough for the poor taxpayer, not only that his taxes be forgiven, but also that the collector of the royal revenues show him a kindly face, a gentle voice, and a friendly word of greeting.

And I do not even yet speak of loosing the bonds of injustice, and the other things which readily follow when a ruler acts well toward the ruled.

Do not neglect, then, my lord, wherever you are able to benefit yourself through kindness to others, but, as a prudent man who knows that we shall soon depart this life carrying nothing with us but our deeds, let us devote ourselves to these and store them up, for they will clearly be our provisions for eternal life and for the enjoyment of ineffable blessings.

Yes, I beseech you, my own flesh and blood, my beloved one, the offshoot of a truly good root — of that Anna who is to me most revered and most beloved of all, and who is praised by all who know her for her dignity — of my truly blessed mother on both sides.

{To Naukratios, my child} {To Anna, the abbess} {To Naukratios, my child} {To Athanasios, my child} I received your letter, beloved brother, with patience, and I was greatly astonished at your sudden change.

I will pass over the earlier matter — that when you conferred with me you agreed that the moechian false doctrine is a heresy, pleading ignorance and association with others as your excuse — but that afterward, having read the Pentalogos, you declared it 'illumined by five lights.'

But now, it seems, you take the opposite view, your whole discourse resembling your former ignorance, or rather breathing even greater hostility toward what my lowliness has said.

And if these were merely my own words, it would be nothing to wonder at, since I am but a man of dim understanding.

But since it has been demonstrated, by the voice of the Lord, of the apostles and prophets, and of the God-bearing fathers as well, that it is a most grievous heresy, let your understanding, and that of anyone who shares your view, take heed of what you are about to collide with.

For your propositions that this is not a heresy — forgive me for saying so — come neither from the voice of the Lord nor from a holy mouth, but, to speak in prophetic terms, from those who speak out of the earth, and from alien laws, and from a crowd that, out of human fear, is permitted to say whatever it likes.

You might say that all friends and pious people, both the learned and the laity, are enraged to hear it called a heresy, putting forward this argument: since no one openly opposes and teaches men to commit adultery and to dissolve those unlawfully joined, how shall we call them heretics? For it would be more just to call them transgressors of the Lord's commandments, tramplers of the divine canons, and impious men.

How, then, can one not be astonished, first of all, at your consistency — bringing forward again and again these very same arguments of theirs, and hearing in reply the truths that could persuade even a child, and then again advancing the same arguments, as though you had forgotten what you had heard before, with even more vehement perplexity and attack upon us, as though we spoke of heresy without cause? This, then, is what astonishes me about you.

But concerning our opponents, this is what I say:

Cast out to the hospitality of strangers? For what reason is your honor, together with the brothers, kept under guard in Thessalonica, and Theosostos the abbot driven out together with his disciples from that same city, and another abbot there scourged beyond measure? For what reason are the brothers Naukratios and Arsenios still securely confined until now, and Basil and Gregory likewise? For what reason has Stephen, the virtuous abbot — who had earlier anathematized the moechian synod as having dissolved the Gospel, as the document he sent attests — together with fifty disciples become an exile from his own monastery, along with a hundred and ten more together with a bishop? For what reason is Antony, the most devout abbot, held in confinement at Amorion, he too, like the former, having anathematized the moechian synod together with his own brotherhood? For what reason were those with brother Aemilianos in Bithynia bound and led away by the bishop of Nicomedia, made to suffer scourges and mockery, while those who fell upon them plundered the monastery's possessions as spoils of war? For what reason is Leo, the most God-fearing bishop surnamed Balaleides, persecuted in Cherson, and Antony, the honored abbot, kept under guard together with two others? For what reason are our brothers kept in prison at Lipari, beyond Sicily? For what reason were those around Litoios watched under guard at Cherson, thence sent under guard to the emperor, then imprisoned at Byzantium and kept confined in monasteries? Shall I speak again of what befell the three of us? For what reason were we told at Agathou, through the emperor's guardsmen, that you are anathematized and deposed by the synod? For what reason were we three kept in solitary confinement at Saint Mamas? For what reason did those same guardsmen appear there again, together with three men from the opposing side, bringing a document to be read out once more, pronouncing our deposition and anathematization? And when we stopped our ears even from hearing it, for what reason were we exiled, each to a different place and shut away — the steward and brother Arsenios — while the others were driven from within twelve miles of Constantinople, so that some hid in a cave to minister to us secretly, disguised in lay clothing, while others crept beneath a rock-slab all day and, since they could not appear by day, ran to one another by night? For what reason were those who were caught held by soldiers and imprisoned in the praetorium, then banished from the city? And, to begin from the beginning, for what reason was the monastery of Stoudios suddenly surrounded and guarded by a mob of soldiers, so that we could scarcely breathe, and the bishops of Nicaea and Chrysopolis came there to make us receive the priest who had performed the unlawful union, on the ground that he had been authorized to perform the moechian union by the preceding patriarch? And, they said, 'since he who authorized it is a saint, as Chrysostom was, this is the economy of a saint — accept it.'

For what reason were the four of us removed by night from that place by an official and soldiers, and led away to Symeon — I hardly know how to describe him — and, through him, were we told, on the emperor's behalf, to accept the one who had repented, and to accept that very thing which we have resisted until now, as though an economy had taken place? For what reason were we shut up again at Saint Sergios, and Symeon again sent there by the emperor for this same purpose? For what reason were we brought forward by officials into the crowded synod, with three of the highest dignitaries seated together? For what reason was I, the lowly one, insulted there and surrounded on every side, hearing, 'You do not know what nonsense you are babbling, what you are saying!' — while I cried out, 'The Forerunner is cast down, the Gospel is dissolved, this is no economy!' — and they, for their part, kept repeating, 'It is an economy, and thus did the saints exercise economy, and so did he who went before us among the saints.'

For what reason was the anathema against those who do not accept the economies of the saints proclaimed abroad with such an outcry, while I, together with my father and Kalogeros, was forcibly cut off and cast out from the assembly by an official's hand, yet the archbishop was left in his place — and, merely because he had celebrated the liturgy once at Stoudios at my invitation, was deposed by them as though he were an ordinary priest? For they acquitted the man deposed by Christ himself and by the divine canons — the one who performed the moechian union — declaring him blameless in every respect and their fellow-celebrant, as he had been before, while they subjected to deposition one who by the canons could not be deposed, thereby confirming in deed their own principle: that hierarchs have the authority to make use of the canons as seems good to them.

This they do continually, unwilling even to consider that, if this is so, then in deposing a hierarch they themselves may be deposed by the very man they depose — thus fulfilling the apostolic saying:

Let this also be ordained for you by us concerning the canons, O bishops:

If you abide by them you shall be saved and shall have peace, but if you disobey you shall be punished and shall have perpetual war with one another, paying the fitting penalty for your disobedience.

For what reason came all that followed the synod: the interrogation of all the brothers by the emperor, who declared that we had been deposed but that the synod was holy, sealed by him as constituting an economy of the saints in the matter of the moechian union, and that the one who had accomplished it was blameless? And, since they would not accept this, the confinement — of one at a time, or two, three, or more together — in monasteries and fortresses, and, for some, scourgings and shackling, matters talked of everywhere on land and sea? For what reason, then, did all this happen, to put it briefly? Was it not because we would not consent to call the transgression of the Gospel an economy — which our opponents have loudly proclaimed, in deed and word, to be salvific and equal in holiness throughout the world, and continue to proclaim, and will continue to proclaim as long as they persist, through this persecution, in so saying and doing? How then can they say, 'since no one opposes and teaches otherwise, how shall we call them heretics'? Are the things stated above fantasy and dreams, or are they true? Since they are true, how do they not teach and proclaim this at every turn, in deed and in word? Or how is it that you, persuaded by them, all but stand together with those who say these things — though even if we ourselves are silent, the ends of the earth cry out the truth — thereby drawing upon yourselves the fearful judgment reserved for silence? For this reason I, the lowly one, am compelled not to remain silent, in writing and by word of mouth, to the extent of my power, with fear and trembling, prepared even for death — even if perhaps some of you think that I do this needlessly, or, I might say, even verbosely.

But let the discourse return to the matter at hand.

You said: since no one openly opposes or teaches men to commit adultery and to dissolve those unlawfully joined, how can we reasonably call them heretics? It is true that they do not teach in words to commit adultery and to dissolve the unlawfully joined, since not even the pagan nations, which have no law, teach men to commit adultery.

Nor have we ourselves ever claimed that they proclaim this openly in so many words; rather, we say that by ratifying the moechian union, and, together with it and through it, the other transgressions of the Gospel along with the dissolution of the divine canons, by decreeing under anathema that this is a salvific economy, and by vindicating it daily through the exiles and imprisonments already mentioned, they have, according to the word of the saints, dissolved the Gospel, and they in effect lay down that an economy can be made for every transgression, thereby altering the unalterable commandments of God and proving them to be mutable.

And how could they not be alterations and mutations, if transgressions are decreed synodically, in deed and word, to be salvific economies? Surely they will not proceed so far in falsehood as to deny that they held a synod, or that they named the moechian union an economy equal to those of the saints, or that they anathematized those who did not accept it.

'Let there be anathema'? For it is plain, unless we have lost our senses, that this proclamation was made because certain persons persisted in refusing to accept it.

And concerning what other matter could this resistance have been, if not the moechian union? It is certain, then, that the anathema was pronounced on its account, as though it were in keeping with the economies of the saints.

And if it is comparable to those, then the economies of the saints are unlawful.

But if the saints are not unlawful — which is true — then it is those who did not accept the moechian union who were anathematized, however much our opponents may, by their crafty sophistries, try to make what is manifest appear obscure.

But it is impossible for what has happened to be concealed.

And that the commandments of the Gospel are unchangeable, hear the Great Basil declare:

'Perhaps the Lord wished to strengthen my soul and make it more watchful for what was to come, so that I should not depend on men but be perfected through the commandments of the Gospel;'

'commandments which change neither with the times nor with the circumstances of human affairs, but themselves remain, enduring forever just as they came forth from that truthful and blessed mouth.'

But those who, on the contrary, proclaimed the moechian union to be a salvific economy — what else have they declared than that the commandments of God are mutable: changing in one respect, yet in another not changing but operating unalterably; and, at certain times and in certain human circumstances (as they themselves said concerning rulers), changing, and not being reckoned as lawlessness — and possessing, moreover, such force that those who do not accept them, that is, those who do not accept the transgressions which, as they claim, are the economies of the saints, are anathematized by the Church? From this, then, nothing else can be concluded than that God is mutable and subject to alteration — the speaker becoming like his own doctrine — and that the Gospel is indeterminate with regard to both salvation and destruction.