LETTER 24
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
GREGORY OF NYSSA TO HERAKLlANOS, A HERETIC,
LETTER 24
The salutary doctrine of faith, when men receive in the simplicity of their heart the inspired word of God unto salvation, has its own virtue; it takes no particular ingenuity to seek confirmations upholding the truth since it is self-understandable and evident from the first moment it was delivered; namely, when we received from the Lord the words for baptismal regeneration and the mystery of salvation. For He said: "Go, teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I commanded you!" [Mt
28: 18-20]. Dividing Christian teaching into two parts, namely morals [TO ~elKOV] and formal dogmatics (6:KPl- ~Elav], Christ established, on the one hand, the dogma of salvation on baptism and, on the other hand, He ordered that our life be directed by the distinction of the commandments .... For this reason, we advise those who are to work out their own salvation not to depart from the simplicity of the first principle of the faith, but to receive in their soul the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and not to imagine that these are just three different names for a single subject
[lm:001"aOlC;]. For the Father cannot possibly be his own father, lest the appellation "the Son" begotten of the Father were not held as real; nor may one think that the Spirit is not one among the other two Persons. So he who hears is induced into the knowledge of the Father and the Son by the sole mention of the Spirit. We understand under each of these names the hypostasis properly and exclusively signified by the personal names: when we hear "the Father," we have heard the Cause of All; when we hear "the Son," we have learned the resplendent virtue of the First Cause unto the unification of the All; when we say "the Spirit," we mean the power that brings to completion everything that has been called into existence by the Father and the Son throughout creation. Thus the hypostases, according to the mode that
THE FATHERS SPEAK
we have exposed, exist without confusion or separation [rom each other-I mean the hypostases of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But their Essence [ouota], whatever it may be, since it is unutterable and incomprehensible, is by no means divided into several different natures. Therefore, that which is inscrutable, incomprehensible, not to be understood by reason, is the same in each person of the Trinity, in whom we place our faith. If one asks what the Father is by Essence [ouota], the right and true answer is that it is beyond our understanding. In the same manner the essence of the only-begotten Son cannot possibly be comprehended by the mind, for it is said: "Who shall tell his generation?" [Is 53:8; Ac 8:331. And it is the same for the Holy Spirit which, according to the word of the Lord, is meant when He says: "You hear his voice; but where it comes from and where it goes, you know not" [In 3:81.
Therefore we understand that there is no difference whatever in the incomprehensibility of the three Persons [according to the Essence], for none of them is more incomprehensible, or less, than the other two . . .. And so we are baptized as we were taught, into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit; we believe as we have been baptized, for it is proper that our confession be in unison with the faith; and we give glory as we believe, for no human opinion may conflict with the faith; and as we believe, so we glorify .. . . From the [divine1 operations [EVEpYElal] we learn the indivisibility of the glory: "The Father gives life," as the Gospel says
[In 5:211; the Son gives life, and also the Holy Spirit, ac· cording to the testimony of Him who speaks of "the life· giving Spirit" [In 6:63]. We oUght to know that the power
[to give life] originates in the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit, for we have learned that all things are from God through the Son and subsist in Him, that all are pervaded through the virtue of the Spirit. and that all in all, things act according to His wiIl, as the Apostle says [ef. 1 Co 12:11].
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
BASIL, TO WOMEN LIVING UNDER A RELIGIOUS RULE
(xavovlX01<;), LETTER 52 (375) ... There have been some who said that the Son was brought forth from non-being to being [Arius' basic proposition]. In order to do away with this impious saying, the fathers have added that the Father and the Son are 0110OUOlO<; ["of the same essence"]; the union of the Son and the Father is not bound to the course of time, but is eternal.
Furthermore the words that precede this assertion of the creedal formulae show that such was the thought of these men [the fathers). When they said "Light of Light," or that the Son was begotten "from the essence of the Father," (~K
't~<; QUOlm;J, not made, they added the words "of the same essence," indicating that what is said of the Light with regard to the Father would suit the Son just as well. Between "True
Light" and "True Light" there is no difference whatever, according to the notion of light as such; the Father is light unoriginated, the Son is light begotten; one is light, the other is light also. Therefore the fathers rightly said "of the same essence," in order to show their equal dignity of nature .. . .
The Holy Spirit is counted together with the Father and the Son because it is also above the creature, and it ranks third, as we learned when the Lord said in the Gospel: "Go, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" [Mt 28:19]. Therefore he who places the Holy Spirit before the Son or says that it is more ancient than the Father, contradicts the divine order and strays from sound faith because he does not keep the right mode of glorification, but imagines for himself a new way of speaking, in order to please men; for if tbe Spirit is above God, it is not from God, and yet it is written: "The Spirit is (rom
God" [1 Co 2:] 2]. But if it is from God, how can it be more ancient than He from whom it is? What is that folly, to say that there is one Holy Spirit above the only-begotten Son, wben there is only one unbegotten? The Holy Spirit is neither before God's only Son [6 llovoy€V~~] nor something be-
THE FATHERS SPEAK
tween the Son and the Father. But if it is not from God, yet through Christ [EllO: XPlO",[OO}, then it is nothing at all. Such an innovation about the order of the Persons is a negation of the Spirit's very existence, a rejection of the entire faith, and it is equally impious to lower the Holy Spirit to the level of the creature, or to place it above the Son and the Father, be it according to time or to order. These are the points on which, I believe, Your Piety desired some clarification, and if the Lord grants that we may come together, we will speak more of these problems and reach with you a fuller understanding of what we are searching for.
BASIL TO COUNT TERENTIOS, LETTER 214 (375)
... "Hypostasis" and "Essence" [ouota] are not the same thing, and even our brethren from the West, I believe, have suggested it, distrusting the rigidity of their language, when they translated the Greek noun otJa(a, so that if there is some difference in the concepts, this difference ought to be kept by means of a clear and neat distinction of names.
If we must expose our opinion briefly, we will say that "Essence" is to "Hypostasis" as "common" is to "particular."
Each one of us partakes of being by the common notion of "essence," but we are this man or that man by our own individuality. Here also [namely in the Trinity], the concept of Essence is common, as are goodness, divinity, and any attributes, but the Hypostasis regards the proper character of fatherhood, sonship, and sanctifying power. If one says that the persons [1'0: 'IlpoauYn:a] are without Hypostasis, it is a sheer absurdity, but if one agrees that the Persons exist truly in their respective Hypostases, which we profess, he will realize that the principle of "homo-ouseity" [6 1'00
6~ooua(ou] must be maintained in the unity of the divinityand let the pious acknowledgement of the Father, Son, and
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
Holy Spirit be proclaimed in the perfect and integral Hypostasis of each of the Persons who are named.
In the preceding group of letters, we have been watching Basil in his search for a terminology to express the relationship of the divine Essence to the three personal Hypostases and the order of the Hypostases in the Trinity.
This doctrine of the Trinity engages the very catholicity of the Church Universal. The correspondence of our hierarchs shows how a complete accord was realized step by step, so to speak. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus were in general agreement on the substance of the dogma, but did not necessarily see eye to eye on the strategy to be adopted for making it acceptable to their contemporaries. At times it was rough going! Sharp words were exchanged between the two friends, until good will and common sense prevailed.
Gregory of Nazianzus' leiter 58 describes a symposium which started the quarrel. Basil does not seem to have been overfond of "banquet theology."
GREGORY OF NAZlANZUS TO BASIL, LETTER 58
.. . I am going to tell you something that happened recently. There was a symposium attended by quite a few well-known people and by our friends. A fellow carne with them, all wrapped up in the name and habit of piety, a monk!
The drinking had not begun yet and, as may well happen in a symposium, the conversation turned upon us, fau lt of some other topic. They all admired you, extended their admiration to myself, talked about the philosophy we both share, of our friendship, of Athens, of our common aspirations and feelings.
THE FATHERS SPEAK
But our philosopher disapproved mightily: "What are you saying there, you people?" And he exclaimed loudly, like a young fool would do: "Are you all so many liars and toadies? That these men may be approved of above the rest, as you please! I wiiJ not dispute that. But I will not concede the main point: in matters of theology, you are wrong in praising Basil, and wrong in praising Gregory. The one betrays faith by his arguments, the other by his complicity in what he allows to be said."
"Where did you get that from, you fool," I said, "new Dathan and Abiron by yOUf vanity [Nb 16]? Whence do you come to us and Jay down the dogma? How do you make yourself judge of such important questions?"
He replied: "r am just arriving from a reunion in honor of Eupsychios the martyr-now that was true-where I heard your famous Basil talking theology. Regarding the Father and the Son, it was excellent, it was perfect; nobody could have said it better. But the Spirit-he filched it away!" And the fellow added some comparison with rivers flowing among rocks and disappearing in the sand. "And why, 0 admirable man," he said, looking straight at me, "why do you assert now that the Spirit is God?" And he told how, speaking on theology in a numerous company, I had applied to the Spirit the well-known maxim of Scripture: "Till when will we hide the lamp under the bushel?" [Mt 5:15]. "Basil," he said,
"gives only a glimpse and a rough sketch of the doctrine; he does not speak the truth openly. He is more political than pious, he saturates our ears and veils his duplicity by the power of his verb."
I answered: "I live rather withdrawn, unknown to many who do not even know what I say nor whether I am speaking, so I can philosophize with impunity. As for Basil, his words are more important, for he is conspicuous by rcason of his personality and of his church. Everything he says in public makes him the object of passionate debates. The heretics lie in wait for some unguarded statement in order to lay their hands on him and chase him from his church, for he is the only spark of truth that is left and the sole power of life, while heresy has gotten hold of everything
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
around. Thus evil would take root in the city [Caesaraea], be spurred on, and would overrun the entire world. It is better for me to expose the truth cautiously and give way somewhat in the present situation, like under a passing cloud, than to let truth go by default, under pretense of proclaiming it loudly. For me there is no harm in saying that the Spirit is God, by using other words conveying this assertion; truth is less in the sound of words than in the intended meaning.
But there is a great loss for the Church if truth is driven away because of a single man."
The company did not accept this caution which they regarded as a bad joke on them. They cried out against me as if I preferred cowardice to doctrine. "It would be much better," they said, "to safeguard our people by truth, than losing them without winning the otbers, by a sbam pm· d I" ence. . . .
As for you, my godly and dear friend [literally dear head, KEcpOA~J , teach us how far we may go in the theology of tbe Spirit, which terms we should use, what should be our measure of caution, so that we may master aU these notions, over against our opponents. I know you better than anybody else, and while we give each other full confidence, I would be the most stupid and the most unfortunate of all men if I failed to do that.
Basil's letter 71 shows that he took amiss the polity of provisional moderation commended by Gregory according to the symposium. The chronology of the three letters, Gregory's
58, Basil's 71, and Gregory's 59, which belong together, flllc· tt/ales somewhat: between 371 (Collrtonne) and 372·373
(Gallay). We shall not enter into the discllssion of Ihese dates, which are only approximate. Gregory hoped to win moderate A dans or wavering Orthodox and bring them to profess the divinity of the Holy Spirit on par with the divinity of the Father and the Son. This had not been explicitly defined by the Fathers of Nicaea; in fact, the original Nicene
THE FATHERS SPEAK
Creed (325), after defining the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and their mutual relationship, "light of light, true God of true God," stops abruptly: "and in the Holy
Spirit." It would be left /0 the {irst Council of Constantinople (381), whose Creed we sing at the divine liturgy, to bring the theology of the Trinity to completion,
BASIL, LETTER 71, TO GREGORY OF NAZlANZUS
I have received the letter of Your Piety through the most excellent brother Hellenios, and the things you have related to us we have heard from him when he told them to us, the naked truth! What has been the disposition of our mind you cannot have the slightest doubt about. However, since we have decided to place our love for you above any disappointment, we have received the news and we pray to Holy God that, for the days or hours that are left to us, we may remain toward each other in the same disposition as formerly, having our conscience clear from any conflict, whether light or serious. That a fellow who not long ago placed his honor in spying upon the life of Christians and believed that by frequenting us he acquired a certain distinction, that such a fellow would construct what he has not heard and expound what he did not understand, is not extraordinary. But what is strange and unexpected is that he can find an audience for those utterances, namely, my most intimate friends among your brethren, and not only auditors but disciples, so it seems .... One cause for it all, and I had begged you to prevent it, is that we never come together.
But out of weariness I hold my tongue! If we spent together a good part of the year, according to our former convention, and because of the solicitude we owe to the Churches, we would not leave the door open to calumniators. Dismiss them unceremoniously, but let me ask from you to pool our efforts
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
in view of the present struggle and march together against that pugnacious fellow. Just show yourself and you will hold back his fury or thwart the conspiracy of those who aim at ruining the state of our country, as soon as you will make clear to them that, through the grace of God, it is you in person who will head our assembly, and so you will close every foul mouth uttering impious statements against God.
The discord did not last long. Remaining faithflll to each other, Basil and Gregory had always kept their freedom of thollght and speech. Gregory felt thac he had unwittingly hurt his friend, and tried to make good for it by writing a note (letter 59 )-rather clumsy-in order to apologize for his taux-pas.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS TO BASIL, LETTER 59
My letter saddened you, neither rightly nor justly, I should say, but certainly beyond measure. You did not admit this sadness, but you could not hide it from me, even if you did it cleverly, as if you covered your sadness bashfully with a mask. If I have behaved deceitfully and maliciously, I should be punished, less on account of your grief than by truth itself. But if I acted from simplicity and in good faith, as is proper, I shall blame my sinfulness, not your state of mind.
Only it would have been better to straighten up things than to be vexed against those who give advice. You shall see for yourself, since you are able to advise the others in these matters. You will find me ready, God willing, to stand by you in combat and to support you to the most of my ability, for who would lose confidence and who would not speak and exact himself at your side for the sake of truth?
THE FATHERS SPEAK
The two friends were SOOll totally reconciled. Basil seems to have invited Gregory, banished from his Church at Sasima, to visit him or perhaps (0 join him at Caesaraea. But Gregory had to decline the invitation, for he had to assist his mother Nanna on her sickbed; she was to die shortly thereafter.
We have already met the disquieting figure 0/ Eustathios of Sebastaea, whose asceticism had at first won the friendship of Basil, until sharp differences on the theology of the Trinity made them irreconcilable enemies. Basil's letter 233, /0 the Westerners (377), branded Eustathios as totally unreliable
(see chapter 3), The following pieces from our file on EliS/Orhios will expose his perpetual see-salVing between Nicene
Orthodoxy and Arianism.
BASIL TO COUNT TERENTIOS, LETTER 99 (372)
Although T have put all my zeal to comply, at least in part, with the imperial ordinance and with the friendly message of Your Merit, confident that all your reasons and your decisions are full of right intentions and sense, my good will was not allowed to pass to the act. ... After we had been invited to meet with our brother bishop Theodotos [of Nicopolis in Lesser Armenia], charity urged us to accept the invitation, lest we would seem to render this reunion unprofitable and useless, and we were eager to enter into conversation with our brother Eustathios [bishop of Sebastaea].
We exposed unto him the accusations regarding faith, which brother Theodotos and his people bring against him, and we asked him, if he followed the right faith, to make it clearly
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
known to us, so that we could be in communion with him; but if he was not sO disposed, he should know for sure that we would not be well disposed toward him either! We talked a lot together and spent the day discussing these questions, and when the evening came we parted without having reached any accord. Again on the following day, in session since the morning, we discussed the same problem; brother
Pimenios, the priest of Sebastaea, had arrived by then, and sustained heatedly a doctrine different from ours. Little by little we disposed of the objections that Eustathios had for· mulated, and we brought these men to agree with us, so that by the grace of God not the slightest variance could be found between us. Now, toward the ninth hour [ca. 3 p.m.], we stood up for the prayers, giving thanks to the Lord who had brought us to think and speak in the same way. After this I still had to obtain from our man [Eustathios] a written agree· ment, in order that his assent be evidence to his adversaries and serve as a sufficient proof of his dispositions to the others. I wanted myself, as I was conversing with the brethren in Theodotos' house, to obtain from them, for more preci. sion, a written statement of faith which we would present to Eustathios. This would serve a double purpose: that he would make a profession of the Orthodox faith, and that they would be satisfied, because they would have no objec· tions any more, once their proposition was accepted .. . .
After which the time came when we had to leave for Greater Armenia. Since I knew the peculiar character of Eustathios,
I wanted to have a trustworthy witness so that I could give my own account of what had been done; in the same time, it might satisfy our man. So I went to Getasa, the domain of the most beloved of God Meletios [a bishop in Lesser
Armenia], where I met with the aforesaid Theodotos; he reproached us for consorting with Eustathios, but then I told how our interview had come out, and how I had made
Eustathios agree with us on everything. Yet Theodotos affirmed that Eustathios had denied it after parting from us, and categorically affinned to his own disciples that he did not agree with us at all regarding the faith. To which I replied-and here consider, 0 you the most admirable of
THE FATHERS SPEAK
men, if my retorts were not very right and undeniable-I replied that I was persuaded, judging from the constancy of the man [Eustathios] about everything else, that he would not so lightly turn round about; if he admitted something now, he would not deny it right away .... But if perchance the reports that you repeat are founded, we must present him with a written statement containing the full exposition of the right faith. If I find that he signs this statement, I shall remain in communion with him, but if I catch him shunning away, I will renounce his communion. My words being approved by Bishop Meletios and by brother Diadoros, our co-presbyter, who was present, the very reverend brother
TheodolOS gave his consent.
BASIL, LETTER 125: COpy OF THE PROFESSION
OF FAITH SUBMITTED BY BASIL AND
SIGNED BY EUSTATHIOS (373)
People who have been deceived by heterodoxy and have decided to revert to the unity of Orthodoxy, and those also who for the first time wish to be taught the doctrine of the Word of Truth must be instructed in the confession that has been written by the blessed Fathers who met at Nicaea.
The same may prove useful also against people suspected to be opposed to the sound doctrine, and who conceal their corrupt theories under deceptive excuses; for them also, the present confession of faith itself will be sufficient. ...
"We believe in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the son of God, the only-begotten [~.lOVOYEV~~J of the Father; that is, of the Essence [~:K 1"~~ 06a(a~J of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial [6/JoOUO'lovJ with the Father; by whom all things were made, those in heaven and
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
those on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate; he was made man [£.vo:vep (U'Tt~ oaVla], has suffered, and was raised on the third day; He went up to heaven; He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." As for those who say that there was [a time] when the Son of God was not, because he was not born of beings that existed not, and for those who say that he is of another hypostasis and another essence, pretending that he was subject to change or alteration, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes these people . ... It is also necessary, with men who are heedless of themselves and do not envisage the inescapable threat with which Our Lord has threatened those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, that we make this motion: Those saying that the Holy Spirit is a creature, are anathema; namely, those who think it, and do not profess that the Holy Spirit is holy by nature [<p6oa], like the Father is holy by nature and the Son is holy by nature, and who ban the Holy Spirit from having part in the divine and blessed nature. The mark of Orthodoxy is that we do not separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son. We must be baptized as we have been taught, we must believe as we are baptized, and we give glory as we have believed, to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy cuts from its communion those who call the Spirit a created thing, for they are manifest blasphemers. A remark more is necessary, on account of calumniators: it remains that the Holy Spirit is unbegotten, for we know only one Unbegotten Principle of all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Spirit also is unbegotten, for we have learned from the Tradition ['Ttapaoooa] that there is only one Monogenes; we have been taught that the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, and we profess that it is of God and uncreated. Anathema also on those who say that the Holy Spirit is a servant, because by this word they reduce it to the order of the creature, since Scripture has delivered unto us that the ministering spirits are creatures, when it says: "All the ministering servants are sent forth to serve" [Heb 1: 14]. And because of those who mix everything and do not keep straight the teaching of the Gospels,
THE FATHERS SPEAK
it is necessary to add this: one must flee those who fight openly against piety by altering the order delivered unto us by the Lord, and by placing the Son before the Father, and the Holy Spirit before the Son. We ought to keep immutable and inviolate the order we have received from the mouth of the Lord when he said: "Go, teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" [Mt 28: 191.
Signature of Eustathios, bishop.
I, Eustathios, having read this that is before YOll, Basil, do acknowledge and approve the above statements together with YOll. I have signed in the presence of the brethren, Ollr
Phrontonos, the chorepiscopos Severus, and several other clerics.
In a leiter written in the latter )'ears of his life, Basil congratulates and encourages the Evaisenians [EuatOllVolC;] who had not been misled by the dogmatic and political vagaries of the time.
BASIL TO THE EVATSENIANS, LETTER 251 (376)
A Church pure and untouched by the harshness of our times is not easily found and from now on rarely to be seen
-a Church that has preserved the apostolic doctrine un· adulterated and inviolate! . . . Beloved brethren, we are small and humble, but we have not accommodated our faith according to changing events. We do not have one faith in Seleucia, another in Constantinople, another in Zelis, an· other in Lampsake, and a different one for Rome. The faith
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
that is professed today is not different from the one that came before; it is the one and same faith. As we have learned from the Lord, so are we baptized; we are baptized as we believe; and as we believe, we glorify God, ... Be firm in the faith; look around the world and realize how small the part is that is diseased. All the rest of the Church, which from one extremity to the other has received the Gospel, abides in sound and undeviating doctrine. We pray that we may not be cut from her communion and that we may have a part with you on the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, the day of Judgment, when He comes to render to each one of us according to his deeds.
Basil, writing to Optimos, a bishop who had consulted him on the meaning of Genesis 4:15, presents us with a sample of his exegesis. The letter makes a total abstraction of the controversies that were raging throughout the Churches of the East. Basil appears here not as the archbishop, but in the more humble role of a fourth-century professor 0/ Old
Testament, who had studied for some time at the schools of Caesaraea on the Sea which had been founded by Origen.
The text to be explained is given, of course, according to the Septuagint. The Hebrew text, followed by the Latin Vulgate and the modern versions, is notably diUerent; it reads: "If anyone slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven· fold" (RSV). Omnis qui occiderit Cain, septupluffi punietur
(Vulg.) As it reads, Basil's letter may serve as a conclusion for our collection of snapshots of the three hierarchs as teachers of the doctrine.
THE FATHERS SPEAK
BASIL, LETTER 260, TO OPTlMOS, BISHOP (377)
... You have inquired about the meaning of this famous saying which is repeated everywhere up and down: "Who~ ever kills Cain shall nullify seven acts of vengeance" [Gn
4: 15, LXX: ET{'ro: £.KfHKOullEva 1tapaAuosl] .... These words can be understood in a simple way according to the obvious sense, but admit also another interpretation. The easy meaning that comes to mind is that Cain must be punished seven times for his crimes. But it is not fitting that a just judge should fix ,retributions merely on the basis of the "this for that": the culprit who has given the example of sin ought rather to repay his debt with usury, if he is to amend himself through the inflicted penalties, and make other men wiser by his example. Since it had been decided that Cain should pay a sevenfold penalty, the man who would slay him, says the Scripture, would nullify the judgment of God on Cain. This is the meaning that comes to mind at a first reading.
But diligent men set their minds to explore things in depth; so they want to know how justice is satisfied by a sevenfold penalty, what the penalties are if the crimes committed are seven in number, and whether there is one crime and seven penalties for it? Scripture always fixes the number seven as the limit for the remission of sins. "How many times," it says, "will my brot!"Jer sin against me and I shall forgive him [Peter speaking to the Lordl; up to seven times?"
And the Lord answered: "I do not say seven times, but to seven times seventy" [Mt 18 :21-22]. The Lord did not change the number but multiplied by seven for fixing the limit of the remission. After seven years, the Hebrew slave was to be freed [Ot 15: 12]. In the old time, seven weeks of years [namely 49 years + 1] made up for the celebration of the Jubilee, during which the earth kept the sabbath; debts were remitted, slaves liberated [Lv 25: 10). It was the beginning of a new life cycle; the former one had found its completion in the number seven. These were the types of our
Priests and Hierarchs: Upholders of Orthodoxy
age which revolve through the seven days of the week, which govern us; in such periods, lighter sins are atoned for according to the indulgent solicitude of our good Lord, lest we be delivered to eternal punishment. The expression "seven times," therefore, was used because of its kinShip with this world, so that secular-minded men should receive a punishment commensurate with their perversity .... As for the punishments, if you speak of the sins committed by Cain, you shall find seven of them; if you mean the penalties determined for him by the Judge, you shall not miss what is meant either. The first of Cain's sinful acts which he dared to commit is his jealousy toward Abel, because Abel had been preferred to him; the second is the knavish way in which he called his brother, saying: "Let us go to the fields!"
[Gn 4:8]; the third is the murder, a more grievous evil; the fourth is that this murder is a fratricide, the worst crime; the fifth is that Cain, the first murderer, has left an example of wickedness to all men; the sixth is that he had plunged his parents into mourning; and the seventh that he lied to God, for when God asked: "Where is Abel thy brother?" he answered "I know no!!" [Gn 4:9]. Thus there were seven motives for punishment with which Cain was charged .
. . . But now we asked whether the torments Cain had to endure were seven in number, and the answer is "Yes." In answer to the question of the Lord-"Where is Abel thy brother?"-it is not that the merciful Master wanted to learn anything; He wished to give Cain an occasion of repentance, and the text makes it plain: "The voice of the blood of thy brother cries unto me" [Gn 4: 10]. ... If Cain had been deprived of God's attention, he would have had a pretext, feeling himself forsaken and deprived of an opportunity to repent. But now the physician appears, so that the patient may have recourse in him. Yet the patient not only hides the wound, but adds another one by joining lies to murder: "I don't know! Am I the guardian of my brother?" [Gn 4:9J.
Now, count the punishments: "The earth is cursed because of thee" [Gn 3: 17J, first punishment. "Till the earth"
[Gn 4: 17], second puniShment. A secret necessity kept Cain under the yoke and forced him to till the ground so that he
THE FATHERS SPEAK
could not possibly have some rest; he would continue to suffer because now the earth is his enemy, whom he has defiled with the blood of his brother. "And the earth will not yield her strength any more" [Go 4:12J. Since the toil is without end and since the earth is sterile, here is the third punishment, namely, the futility of Jabor. To those three penalties God added two new ones: a continuous groaning
[fourth punishment], and a shaking of the body of Cain [fifth punishment], whose members were deprived of their vigor: "Thou shalt be moaning and shaking about the earth"
[Gn 4: 12]. There is still a penalty [the sixth one], which Cain himself reveals, saying; "If thou chasest me now from the earth, I shall hide myself from thy face" [Gn 4: 14]. ...
For the wise, this is ,the most cruel punishment, to be separated from God! "But it will happen," says Cain, "that the first passer-by who finds me will kill me!" And what says the Lord? "Not so!" [Gn 4: 15], and He put a mark on Cain.
This is the seventh punishment, not the hidden one, but proclaimed unto all men as by a herald. Cain is branded with a visible sign as the author of his crimes.
Priests and Hierarchs:
The Arian Persecution In the preceding chapler, we tried to follow our hierarchs' refutation of heretical doctrines and their exposition of catholic dogma, as reflected in their correspondence. We will follow them now in the struggle against heretics and their allies in government circles. The Churches of the Middle
East had been most severely affected under the reign of Emperor Valens (364·378). Valens was personally hostile
/0 Nicene orthodoxy, and his provincial administrators fol. lowed suit. Heterodox and heretics were in the majority. The province had been divided into two eparchies, in itself a mere administrative move, but soon exploited by intrigants. De· mosrhenes, the imperial vicar sent to supervise the situation in Cappadocia, proved himself to be a rabid pro-Arian.
A mong other vexatious measures, he ordered the arrest and deportation of Gregory of Nyssa. Basil's protest in letter 225 sholVS forth his attitude in face of the established powers, the emperor and his agents. There is here a diplomatic approach tOlVard regaining the imperial circles lor the orthodox cause. No matter what the circumstances were, Basil saw in the basileus the representative of God on earth and the "friend of the Logos," in charge of maintaining the right order in Christendom. But at the same time, Basil never omitted to remind the imperial officials of the canonical prerogatives of the episcopate and the duty of bishops to exclude from their communion those who lVere deemed unworthy. We open the series with the following letter of Basil to Demosthenes.
THE FATHERS SPEAK
BASIL TO DEMOSTHENES, LETTER 225 (375)
We have always been grateful to God and to the emperors who care for us, when we see the government of our country entrusted to a man who is first a Christian and also a righteous man, exact guardian of the laws that govern our human destiny. It is especialIy when you arrived that we offered our prayers of thanksgiving to God, for our basilells
"beloved of God" [6eo<plAEl]. Realizing that some enemies of the peace prepared to disturb the decisions of your venerable court concerning us, we did wait to be called by Your
Magnanimity, in order that you be informed of the truth, insofar as you would claim, in your superior wisdom, the prerogative of examining ecclesiastical affairs. But the tribunal has by-passed us, and your authority, deceived as it was by the calumnies of Philocharis, ordered the arrest of our brother and concelebrant Gregory, who submitted to the decision-for how could he do otherwise? ... If the problem to be examined is one of canonical order, and if Your Magnanimity claims for himself the right to hear the argument and pronounce the judgment, the presence of all of us (bishops] is necessary, for if there has been any canonical defect, the consecrators of the accused one [Gregory] are responsible, not he who has been obliged to accept the sacred office. Therefore we beseech you to leave to us the hearing of the argument in this country, not to have it transferred to a foreign land, nor to oblige us to meet with bishops with whom we have not yet reached an agreement concerning ecclesiastical procedure.
The deportation of Gregory of Nyssa was not unexpected.
A synod of Arian bishops meeting at Tyana had inspired it.
Gregory appears to have expressed his apprehension to Gregory of Nazianzus, who answered with rather cheap,